DStv wants illegal streaming websites blocked in South Africa

DStv parent company MultiChoice seeks legal reforms in South Africa to make it compulsory for Internet service providers (ISPs) to block websites illegally streaming its licenced content, even without a court order.

In feedback to MyBroadband, the company acknowledged it has engaged with South African ISPs to request that they block illegal streaming services.

“While the compliance of ISPs in blocking these domains has been inconsistent, we have seen success in instances where infringing IP addresses were reported and subsequently blocked,” the company said.

MultiChoice preferred not to disclose the names of sites it had requested ISPs block, to avoid drawing further attention to them.

The broadcaster also told MyBroadband it has actively advocated for legal reforms by making multiple submissions to relevant government departments and agencies.

“These reforms would require ISPs to block domains and IP addresses identified as infringing upon the rights of content holders,” MultiChoice said.

MyBroadband contacted MultiChoice for comment after a reader suspected that his ISP, UrbanX, was blocking some websites he tried to access at the pay-TV broadcaster’s request.

Due to the websites streaming some of the live sports content licensed exclusively to DStv in South Africa, it raised suspicions that the broadcaster had approached UrbanX.

However, the ISP maintained that it had not blocked the websites nor received any communication from MultiChoice requesting or demanding that it do so.

Another major South African ISP has told MyBroadband it has never received a blocking request from MultiChoice.

It said it would not police the Internet or block sites without a court order and had never received one.

It is precisely this legal procedure MultiChoice would like to see changed.

In a submission on the Draft White Paper on Audio and Audio-Visual Content Services, the DStv operator explained how it would like web service blocking requests to work.

The Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT) requested input from stakeholders about the document in 2020.

The proposed legislation requires ISPs to cooperate with the government to combat online piracy.

When the first draft of the white paper was published, DCDT chief director Collin Mashile specifically named streaming platforms as one of the major culprits in piracy.

“The draft white paper proposes that legislation impose requirements on ISPs to cooperate with rights-holders and government to police illegal file-sharing or streaming websites,” Mashile said.

“Piracy is damaging to the sector, it is a worldwide problem, and with the emergence of online, it has become a very damaging issue.”

“Most of this currently happens online, and the ISPs are governed by the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act (ECTA).”

The government wanted the ECTA to be amended to require collaboration from ISPs to shut down or block access to pirated websites.

MultiChoice called the government’s proposal “excellent” but said its effectiveness would depend on the extent of the cooperation required of ISPs and what was meant by the requirement to “police” illegal content.

“If ISPs are merely required to supply subscriber or other technical information, then this will not be effective,” MultiChoice said.

“If, however, they are required to take positive, technical action towards actually limiting the distribution of illegal content, then that will stand a better chance of being effective.”

MultiChoice argued that ISPs are often the only party in a position to prevent illegal content distribution.

In light of this, MultiChoice proposed that the ECTA be amended to include provisions for a streamlined and fast-tracked process for ISPs to remove, take down, and block sites without the need to approach the courts.

“The process to obtain an interdict can be costly and time-consuming, and often ends up being ‘too little too late,'” MultiChoice said.

The company explained that the ECTA incentivised ISPs to take down content hosted on their own networks, which they could do easily, but did not obligate them to take action.

In cases where the content was not hosted on an ISP’s network, but the network was used to access the content, MultiChoice said site blocking provisions could come into play.

It argued these had become prevalent and well-tested in much of the developed and developing world, including India, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Australia, the entire European Union, and Canada.

The last version of the white paper was opened for public comment in September 2023.

In January 2024, the DCDT said it was still considering submissions and would publish the final policy by the end of March 2024. That didn’t happen.

The Cybercrimes Bill already obligates ISPs to report instances of piracy and to preserve information relating to incidents of illegal online activity that may be useful to authorities.

However, the Internet Service Providers Association of South Africa (ISPA) believes this conflicts with the ECTA.

“It is an explicit provision of the ECTA that ISPs are under no general obligation to monitor electronic communications conveyed over or stored on their networks,” the organisation said.

“They may be liable of a criminal offence if they do,” the organisation said.

ISPA has also argued that policing users’ online activity will require immense resources and add significant operating costs for ISPs. This could significantly impact consumer pricing.