This presentation deals with recent developments in copyright law in Ireland. It begins by considering the litigation between the music industry and the country’s largest Internet service provider, Eircom, in 2009, which was settled with an agreement by the latter to operate a “three strikes and you’re out” policy. It also discusses the subsequent attempts by the Data Protection Commissioner to halt the operation of this protocol. It then discusses the significant decision of the High Court in the EMI v UPC case (2010), which highlighted a gap in the the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000. When the Irish government proposed legislation to fill this gap, it was strongly opposed under the slogan #StopSopaIreland but nonetheless became law. Finally, it examines the ongoing review by the Copyright Review Committee, which has posed eighty-six questions for the Irish copyright industry and public to answer as it tries to formulate proposals for modernizing Irish copyright law.

1. #StopSopaIreland, Keyboard Warriors and 86 Questions:
Updating Irish Copyright Law for the 21st Century
Rónán Kennedy, 3 July 2012
School of Law

2. 2005: Direct actions against individuals
• EMI v. Eircom [2005] IEHC 233
• Music industry sought Norwich Pharmacal orders
• Costs in three cases €680,000
• Received in settlements €80,000
School of Law

3. 2009: IRMA v Eircom
• Settled after 8 days at hearing
• Eircom agreed to “3 strikes” policy
– provided it was in compliance with data protection law
• IRMA to seek similar policy from other Irish ISPs
• IRMA obtains court orders blocking access to Pirate Bay
website
School of Law

4. “Three Strikes” Policy
1. The first warning would be a notification of an infringing
download with a subscriber’s bill.
2. The second warning would be a formal warning letter.
3. The third warning would involve a review of the evidence by
a person (the previous two steps are automatic), which could
end in the issuance of a termination notice, after which the
subscriber would have 14 days to put forward extenuating
circumstances or have their service cut off.
School of Law

5. 2010: Data Protection Commissioner intervenes
• … and is not represented as has no indemnity for costs
• Three issues:
– 1. Are IP addresses “personal data”? No
– 2. Is disconnection a “prejudice to fundamental rights”
(section 2A DPA)? No
– 3. Are P2P IP records “sensitive personal data”? No
School of Law

6. Difficulties
• IP addresses as “traffic data”? “location data”?
• Legality of interception of communications?
• “Theft” of copyrighted material?
• S 8 DPA: Any restrictions in this Act on the processing of
personal data do not apply if the processing is—
– … ( d ) required urgently to prevent injury or other
damage to the health of a person or serious loss of or
damage to property …
School of Law

7. Phonographic Performance Ireland Ltd. v. Cody
[1998] 4 IR 504
• Keane J: “The right of the creator of a literary, dramatic, musical or
artistic work not to have his or her creation stolen or plagiarized is a right
of private property within the meaning of Article 40.3.2° and Article
43.1 of the Constitution of Ireland, 1937, as is the similar right of a
person who has employed his or her technical skills and/or capital in the
sound recording of a musical work. As such, they can hardly be abolished
in their entirety, although it was doubtless within the competence of the
Oireachtas to regulate their exercise in the interests of the common good.
In addition and even in the absence of any statutory machinery, it is the
duty of the organs of the State, including the courts, to ensure, as best
they may, that these rights are protected from unjust attack and, in the
case of injustice done, vindicated.”
School of Law

8. 2010: EMI v UPC
• Section 40 CRRA 2000:
– (3) Subject to subsection (4), the provision of facilities for enabling
the making available to the public of copies of a work shall not of
itself constitute an act of making available to the public of copies of
the work.
– (4) Without prejudice to subsection (3), where a person who provides
facilities referred to in that subsection is notified by the owner of the
copyright in the work concerned that those facilities are being used to
infringe the copyright in that work and that person fails to remove
that infringing material as soon as practicable thereafter that person
shall also be liable for the infringement.
School of Law

9. Difficulties
• Policing network traffic while remaining a “mere conduit”?
• “Stealing” copyrighted content?
• Other human rights: privacy, free expression?
• Legality and reliability of interception
• “Fair dealing” defences?
• Responsibility of UPC to shareholders or stakeholders?
School of Law

10. 2011: Moves to Close the Gap
• April: (Unfounded?) rumours of new statutory instrument
• June: Public consultation on new statutory instrument
• “… there is no change of policy being put forward in the proposed
legislative measure. It is merely a restatement of the position that was
considered to be in place before a High Court judgment of Judge
Charleton in October 2010. Ireland is obliged to provide that rightsholders
are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose
services are used by a third part to infringe a copyright or related right.”
• Minister meets with stakeholders
• December: Music industry sues Ireland
School of Law

11. 2012: The Debate Heats Up
• January: #StopSOPAIreland campaign launches
• 80000+ signatures to petition
• Anonymous attack Irish government websites
• Pledge Day: Voters visit TDs
• Voters call Minister Seán Sherlock
• April: Minister refuses to share podium with
StopSOPAIreland; later relents
School of Law

12. Emergency Dáil Debate (31 January 2012)
• Willie O’Dea TD: “We are abdicating responsibility to the
Judiciary. While I have confidence in judges, I do not know the
extent to which they will be persuaded by the principles of
European law.”
• Martin Ferris TD: “The absence of democratic scrutiny on this
measure has been highlighted by critics, as has the fact that the
statutory instrument, as drafted, gives too much interpretive
powers to the courts.”
• Richard Boyd Barrett TD: “This is a complex issue and it has many
aspects, not all of which I understand fully. However, I have been
acquainting myself with them over the past week or two.”
School of Law

13. Emergency Dáil Debate (31 January 2012)
• Jerry Buttimer TD: “I do not envy the Minister of State his task. I
have never seen so many e-mails coming in. We must differentiate
between the keyboard warriors who, in some cases, border on
anarchism and those who are genuinely creative and passionate about
this. That is important for those who are creative or into gaming.”
• Seán Sherlock TD: “With all due respect to the Members opposite, I
have taken on board the points they have made and addressed them
individually. I respectfully suggest they should defer to their legal
advisers. I will also defer to their legal advisers on this so that we can
have a strategic conversation about how the future of the web operates
in the State, but we are not changing the wording of the statutory
instrument.”
School of Law

14. Inserted into Section 40, CRRA 2000
(5A) (a) The owner of the copyright in a work may, in respect of that work,
apply to the High Court for an injunction against an intermediary to
whom paragraph 3 of Article 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of
certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society
applies.
(b) In considering an application for an injunction under this subsection, the
court shall have due regard to the rights of any person likely to be
affected by virtue of the grant of any such injunction and the court shall
give such directions (including, where appropriate, a direction requiring a
person be notified of the application) as the court considers appropriate
in all of the circumstances.
School of Law

15. Inserted into Section 205, CRRA 2000
(9A) (a) The rightsowner of any right conferred by Parts III and
IV may, in respect of that right, apply to the High Court for an
injunction against an intermediary to whom paragraph 3 of
Article 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 22 May 20011 on the harmonisation of
certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the
information society applies.
School of Law

16. Issues
• “Due regard”?
• “Likely to be affected”?
• Little guidance for courts
• Uncertainty for innovators and ISPs
• Contravenes Scarlet v SABAM/SABAM v Netlog?
• Uses SI to modify primary legislation
• Anti-democratic process
School of Law

17. May 2011: Copyright Review Committee
• Members:
– Dr. Eoin O’Dell of Trinity College, Dublin as chair
– Professor Stephen Hedley of University College Cork
– Ms. Patricia McGovern of DFMG Solicitors
School of Law

18. Terms of Reference
• Examine the present national Copyright legislation and identify any areas that are
perceived to create barriers to innovation
• Identify solutions for removing these barriers and make recommendations as to
how these solutions might be implemented through changes to national legislation.
• Examine the US style fair use doctrine to see if it would be appropriate in an
Irish/EU context.
• If it transpires that national copyright legislation requires to be amended but
cannot be amended, (bearing in mind that Irish copyright legislation is bound by
the European Communities Directives on Copyright and Related Rights and other
international obligations) make recommendations for changes to the EU
Directives that will eliminate the barriers to innovation and optimise the balance
between protecting creativity and promoting and facilitating innovation.
School of Law

19. CRC Public Consultation
• May 2011: Call for Submissions (over 100 received)
• February 2012: Consultation Paper Published
• March 2012: Public Meeting
– Online questionnaire via Survey Monkey
School of Law

20. CRC Consultation Paper
School of Law

21. Significant Questions
• (6) What is the proper balance to be struck between the categories [of copyright users] from
the perspective of encouraging innovation?
• (7) Should a Copyright Council of Ireland be established?
• (13) Should the Council include the establishment of an Irish Digital Copyright Exchange
(Exchange)?
• (24) Is there, in particular, any evidence on how current Irish copyright law in fact
encourages or discourages innovation and on how changes could encourage innovation?
• (45) Is there any good reason why a link to copyright material, of itself and without more,
ought to constitute either a primary or a secondary infringement of that copyright?
• (77) (b) … should the Irish government join with either the UK government or the Dutch
government in lobbying at EU level, either for a new EUCD exception for non-consumptive
uses or more broadly for a fair use doctrine?
School of Law

22. Data Protection Commissioner stops “three
strikes”
• Eircom pushing for “three strikes”
• Dec 2011: Data Protection Commissioner issued enforcement
notice against Eircom halting three strikes policy
• May 2012: Music Industry sues DPC in Commercial Court
School of Law

23. 2012: EMI v Data Protection Commissioner
• “It is obvious that the Data Protection Commissioner, having an
important role by statute, ought to be properly and appropriately
funded to take part in litigation that is central to the functions of his
office. It is wrong that he was not so funded by those responsible.”
• “It is with a degree of concern that the Court immediately notes that
the Data Protection Commissioner does not accept that the mistake
by Eircom in adjusting clocks was then in the past. It is neither
legally right nor fair that an error can give rise to a command
over a year later to cease an activity when that error has long
since been corrected and where there is no indication that it would
ever be repeated.”
School of Law

24. 2012: EMI v Data Protection Commissioner
• “Where questions of the balance of policy in specialist areas, or findings
of fact requiring expert assessment, are concerned, then the courts should
not readily find that findings of fact are irrational or that the balance
struck between competing interests fails to accord with fundamental
commonsense”
• “… the activity of peer-to-peer uploading and downloading of copyright
material was a marketplace transaction which could not be distinguished
from a trader going and standing on the side in Henry Street in Dublin city
centre with a box load of DVDs that were copied illegally and offering
these to anyone who might come along. … An activity of swarm
participation for peer-to-peer downloading does not legitimately
carry the expectation of privacy.”
School of Law

25. 2012: EMI v Data Protection Commissioner
• Case C-70/10 Scarlet v SABAM
• Case C-360/10 SABAM v Netlog
• Dramatico v Sky [2012] EWHC 268 (Ch)
• Twentieth Century Fox v BT [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch)
• Golden Eye v Telefónica UK [2012] EWHC 723 (Ch)
• Roadshow Films v iiNet [2012] HCA 16
School of Law

26. 2012: EMI v Data Protection Commissioner
• “It is clear that the absence of reasons in the Data Protection
Commissioner’s notice vitiates its validity.”
• “During the course of this hearing, no one could definitively say
what the scope of the appeal from the Data Protection
Commissioner to the Circuit Court was. No one could definitively
say what if anything would satisfy the Data Protection
Commissioner in his concerns apart from abandoning the protocol.
Both Eircom and the recording companies have an entitlement to an
adjudication by the Data Protection Commissioner in accordance
with law. This has not occurred. Judicial review is therefore a
proper remedy.”
School of Law

27. 2012: EMI v Data Protection Commissioner
• “The regulation of the internet draws forth diametrically
opposed views. ... Creativity is the engine of the arts industry
which brings us new insight and refreshment of the mind in
the form of cinema and music. Copyright is no less
important than any other intellectual property right.
Protection of creativity is central to the law of any sound
economic system. ... A creative artist desperate for sales of her
recorded songs, or an inventor wishing to protect a patent that
is the result of years of committed research, may not see the
use of the internet as the medium for the breach of their rights
as an automatic answer to appropriate legal regulation.”
School of Law

28. Further Reading
• Kennedy, No Three Strikes for Ireland (Yet): EU Copyright
Law and Individual Liability in Recent Internet File Sharing
Litigation. (2011) 12(10) Journal of Internet Law 15–31.
• Copyright Review Committee Consultation Paper,
http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/crc_consultation_paper.pdf
• Stop SOPA Ireland website, http://stopsopaireland.com
• EMI v Data Protection Commissioner 2012/167JR (High
Court 27 June 2012)
School of Law

29. Questions?
• Email: ronan.m.kennedy@nuigalway.ie
• Twitter: @ronanmkennedy
• Web: rkennedy.ie
School of Law