It was agreed that Eircom customers engaged in file-sharing would be tracked by IRMA and the ISP would take action based on the music group’s recommendations. Letter writing first, then disconnections for those subscribers who continued to share content without permission.

With Eircom publicly penalizing its customer base, IRMA set about forcing other ISPs to follow suit. Its next key target was UPC, Ireland’s second largest provider, but the process didn’t get far. In an October 2010 judgment the High Court said that disconnecting file-sharers in Ireland was not backed up by law.

Since then, however, the legal position in Ireland has changed, something which has given IRMA the enthusiasm to revisit their demands of four years ago. Sony, Universal and Warner (not EMI) are now back with fresh demands that UPC takes action against piracy.

According to the Irish Times, IRMA tracked UPC customers during November 2013 and subsequently reported 7,757 copyright infringements to the ISP. Based on this evidence of apparent large-scale infringement, the labels are demanding that UPC subject its pirating customers to a graduated response scheme.

However, UPC is still refusing to move, stating that any response of that type would raise a “serious question of freedom of expression and public policy and demands fair and impartial procedures in the appropriate balancing of rights” and would need to be backed up by legislation.

Faced with a defiant ISP, IRMA has now initiated fresh legal action with the aim of forcing UPC into compliance.

The case, set to go before the Commercial Court, could turn on whether legislation introduced in Ireland during 2012 will allow a judgment in IRMA’s favor. Already the courts have shown a willingness to clamp down on illegal file-sharing, ordering ISP blockades (1,2) of sites including The Pirate Bay and KickassTorrents.

Presuming IRMA are successful, the big question is whether the strikes model will have the required effect of curbing piracy in any meaningful way. While recent research suggests that the approach does not work, the labels see things differently.

According to IRMA chairman Willie Kavanagh the Eircom three-strikes scheme has been “remarkably effective”, since only 0.2% of warned users have proceeded to the disconnection stage. Whether those users actually stopped downloading, moved to unmonitored sharing mechanisms, or simply hid their downloading activities, will probably remained unanswered.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for April.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Their mission was partially completed when they squeezed a voluntary agreement from ISP Eircom in 2009. Ever since they have continued to push against several others in the hope of victory.

In a fresh process which began months ago EMI, Sony, Warner and Universal demanded that ISPs UPC, Imagine, Vodafone, Digiweb, Hutchison 3G and Telefonica O2 all stop facilitating access to The Pirate Bay.

In court at the end of May the labels argued that as many as 200,000 Irish ISP users access TPB every month, causing losses to the labels of around 20 million euros a year. This situation, they said, required a court order to force the ISPs to take action within 30 days.

The application by IRMA was the first of its kind since Ireland’s signing into law of the European Union (Copyright and Related Rights) Regulations 2012. Described by some as “Ireland’s SOPA“, the legislation was penned to make it easier for rightsholders to have sites such as The Pirate Bay blocked by court order. It appears to have done its job.

Today in the High Court, Mr Justice Brian McGovern granted the order and said he was satisfied that the new legislation permitted an infringing site blockade.

“There is no doubt but that this activity has caused, and continues to cause, substantial financial damage to the plaintiffs,” he said.

In common with similar orders out of the UK High Court, IRMA will not have to return to court for a fresh order should The Pirate Bay move around or change its setup in an attempt to avoid censorship.

Despite being innocent parties, the ISPs will have to swallow the costs of initiating the blockade. In line with IRMA’s demands they have just 30 days to do so, meaning that by mid July the majority of Ireland’s Internet users will have to find a new way to access the site, whether that be via proxies or VPNs.

It remains to be seen whether the ISPs will also block proxy sites as they did in the UK this week, but it is likely that the labels have learned from their past experiences making this a distinct possibility.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

At the moment customers of the Irish ISP Eircom cannot access The Pirate Bay since an uncontested 2009 High Court ruling orders the ISP to block the site. But that’s just one ISP, some people will say, and it’s easy to switch to another. Nice try.

The major recording labels, all members of the Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA), now want that blockade to be extended to other service providers. The progressive wedge the activists warned about is getting thicker already.

To that end IRMA approached other ISPs including UPC, Imagine, Vodafone, Digiweb and Hutchison 3G to agree to a Pirate Bay blockade. As detailed in our earlier report, they all refused and IRMA turned to the courts.

Last month the ISPs confirmed that proceedings had been served on their legal representatives by the big four record labels – EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner Music – and December 17 2012 the case went before the High Court.

The case was adjourned until January 29 but in meantime the parties are required to meet before January 12 and further correspond by January 14 to hammer out some details. It is quite possible that the court will ultimately decide that the Pirate Bay blockade should be extended to these other providers.

“So what, there are other sites to use,” some people will say. Nice try.

What has transpired is that while the case appears focused on removing access to The Pirate Bay, even bigger things are being planned.

The plaintiffs (technically EMI, Ireland) have told the court that they are looking to achieve more than just a blockade of the world’s biggest torrent site. In fact, they have a list of 260 other “objectionable” websites they have identified that they would also like blocked if this attack on The Pirate Bay is a success.

What started out with Eircom agreeing to have The Pirate Bay blocked could now potentially lead to a few other Irish ISPs having to follow suit. In a worst case scenario that could play out to all ISPs having to block 260 other sites on the music industry’s hit-list. Which sites? Only they know.

So, next time you hear the argument that someone “just” wants to block The Pirate Bay, it will be easier to understand why even people who don’t support the site are against it. One thing definitely leads to another in this game, and who knows where we’ll end up.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

As a result, ISPs in the western world tend to refuse informal site-blocking requests unless they’re backed up by a court order. This way they can tell their customers that they had no choice but to comply since as good corporate citizens they always follow instructions from the court. However, there are two ways this eventuality can be reached, and a prime example comes from Ireland.

Customers of the ISP Eircom can’t access The Pirate Bay since Eircom was ‘forced’ to block the site by a 2009 High Court order. But rather than being forced, Eircom actually struck a deal with the major labels of the Irish Recorded Music Association which said that if the labels went to court to ask for a blockade, the ISP would not contest the action.

During the past couple of years other local ISPs, notably UPC, were also asked by IRMA to block The Pirate Bay but all refused. IRMA, however, did not give up and have recently renewed their requests for a blockade. Yet again UPC refused to cooperate and as a result IRMA have turned to the courts.

“UPC declined IRMA’s request in pre-litigation correspondence to voluntarily block The Pirate Bay,” a UPC spokesperson said today.

UPC confirmed that proceedings have been served on its legal representatives by the big four record labels – EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner Music – and that the ISP isn’t on its own.

“UPC understands that similar proceedings have been served on four other ISPs,” the company said.

According to the Irish Times, those other providers are Imagine, Vodafone, Digiweb and Hutchison 3G.

With their action the labels hope to force the ISPs to follow Eircom’s lead and block The Pirate Bay, but this time they won’t have a willing partner.

“UPC can confirm however its position has not changed,” the ISP said in a statement. “As an ISP, our position is that ISPs should not on a voluntary basis decide what can or should be consumed by users. We believe such matters are for the Government or court to decide.”

Hutchison 3G also took a defensive stance.

“Three’s position on the request to block Pirate Bay is neutral – we believe this is a matter for the courts to decide if ISPs should block certain sites for legal reasons,” the company said.

The news that UPC have been asked to block The Pirate Bay again is timely, particularly considering the unusual events we reported in October. Without warning, UPC customers trying to access The Pirate Bay were presented with a page stating that the site had been blocked following a court order. UPC later said the page was just a test.

The new blocking case is due before the High Court on December 17th.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The so-called “graduated response” process would complete after a customer had received three warnings – at this point their Internet would be cut off. But by October 2010 things we starting to go wrong. Due to a mix up, Eircom sent out around 300 warning letters to completely innocent subscribers.

The error meant that Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) got involved in the process. The immediate outcome was bad for the labels. In December the DPC ordered “3 strikes” to be brought to a halt on privacy grounds.

This decision was later challenged by the ‘Big Four’ labels of IRMA – EMI Records, Sony Music, Universal and Warner – who said that the DPC ruling effectively disabled their ‘lawful’ agreement with Eircom.

Yesterday, the labels’ appeals bore fruit. At the Commercial Court, Mr Justice Peter Charleton ordered the Data Protection Commissioner’s decision to be quashed, a ruling which gives IRMA and Eircom the green light to continue with warnings and disconnections.

Justice Charleton said that the DPC notice was invalid due to the Commissioner failing to provide any detailed reasons why it had been issued. The Judge went on to question whether it had any basis in law.

Although privacy issues were the key motivator behind the DPC’s ruling, Justice Charleton said it was not clear how privacy might have been compromised by the detection and punishment of individuals who engage in unlawful Internet file-sharing.

The Irish Recorded Music Association said last night that it would now “press ahead” with its three strike regime. Expect other ISPs to come under pressure soon.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Eircom announced in December 2010 that it would be “proceeding with implementation of the protocol which could result in the suspension and ultimately disconnection of broadband service for those customers who deliberately and persistently infringe copyright,” but by October 2010 things we already going wrong. Due to a mix up, Eircom sent out around 300 warning letters to completely innocent subscribers.

This huge error ushered in the involvement of Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) and a wider investigation into the legality of the entire three strikes system. Now, according to a report, that decision is in and for the music industry it’s the worst possible news. The DPC has ordered a complete halt to the practice on privacy grounds.

“Now both the courts and the official DPC are beginning to realize the fundamental right of people to access the Internet, and not to be monitored while they do so,” says lawyer TJ McIntyre of Digital Rights Ireland.

But before free-flow-of-information proponents get too excited, the news is countered this morning by a sobering report which says that if file-sharers can’t be cut off from the Internet, then file-sharing websites shall be made forcibly unavailable to them.

According to The Irish Times, Minister of State for Enterprise Seán Sherlock will publish an order early 2012 that will allow rightsholders to go to court to prevent the country’s ISPs from supplying their subscribers’ access to infringing site. What actually defines an infringing site remains to be seen.

The action comes in response to threats from recording label EMI, which said it would take legal action against the country if the government there failed to take action. In response the Department of Enterprise, Innovation and Jobs wrote back to EMI confirming the order would be published and entered into law next month.

The move follows legal action by IRMA against ISP UPC, which ended in 2010 with Mr Justice Peter Charleton acknowledging that recording companies were being harmed by Internet piracy but that current law did not provide for blocking injunctions.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The case went to the High Court but although Mr Justice Peter Charleton acknowledged that recording companies were being harmed by Internet piracy, he said that laws to cut off file-sharers were not enforceable in Ireland.

“It is not surprising that the legislative response laid down in our country in the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, at a time when this problem was not perceived to be as threatening to the creative and retail economy as it has become in 2010, has made no proper provision for the blocking, diverting or interrupting of internet communications intent on breaching copyright,” he said in his judgment.

By not having this legislative mechanism in place, Justice Charleton said that Ireland is not in compliance with its obligations under European law. The only thing the courts can force an Internet host to carry out, he said, is the removal of infringing material.

Now, through its ‘Consultation on Amendment to Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000′, the Irish government is taking steps to change legislation to close this apparent loophole.

“It must be emphasised that this proposed amendment is not about the introduction of a statutory regulatory regime in relation to copyright infringement such as the French ‘Hadopi’ system or the ‘Three strikes’ regime set out in the Digital Economy Act in the United Kingdom,” notes the proposal.

Nevertheless, while they do not implement a statutory regime, adoption of the proposals could yield a similar result, a situation welcomed by IRMA.

“We have always been looking for the right to take injunctions against ISPs if they are not dealing with illegality on their networks,” said IRMA chief executive Dick Doyle.

The proposals published yesterday are open for public consultation with a closing date of July 1st, just over a week away. Submissions should be sent to IPU@djei.ie or posted to the Intellectual Property Unit, Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Kildare Street, Dublin 2.

The proposals come on the back of the news that due to an administrative computer error, in October last year Eircom wrongly sent out around 300 “first strike” warning letters to innocent subscribers. The error is now being investigated by the Irish Data Protection Commissioner.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

“Eircom is proceeding with implementation of the protocol which could result in the suspension and ultimately disconnection of broadband service for those customers who deliberately and persistently infringe copyright,” the company said in a December 2010 statement, reiterating their commitment to the scheme.

But little did we know that the fears of “3 strikes” opponents had already come true.

From deep inside the “how the hell did the majority of the media miss this department”, it now becomes clear that by October 2010, Eircom had already sent out around 300 warning letters to completely innocent subscribers.

The company seems to have tried to play down the error saying that computer clocks were incorrectly adjusted to compensate for daylight saving time, some comfort to the unlucky letter recipients.

According to TJ McIntyre at digital rights site EDRI.org, as a result of this failure the Irish Data Protection Commissioner is now investigating the entire Eircom scheme.

“The significance of this case goes well beyond simple technical failings however, as the complaint to the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) has triggered a wider investigation of the legality of the entire three strikes system,” he writes.

The DPC is said to be not only investigating the complaint but also “whether the subject matter gives rise to any questions as to the proportionality of the graduated response system operated by Eircom and the music industry.”

McIntyre says that when the Eircom/IRMA deal was being agreed, the DPC expressed concerns with it, not least over the question of whether or not IP addresses are personal data. However, until someone raised a complaint, that issue was put on the back burner. The delivery of 300 false “first strike” warning letters appears to have met that criteria.

“The complaint in this case has now triggered that action, and it seems likely that the Commissioner will reach a decision reflecting his previous views that using IP addresses to cut off customers’ internet connections is disproportionate and does not constitute ‘fair use’ of personal information,” McIntyre explains.

“If so, the Commissioner has the power and indeed the duty to issue an enforcement notice which would prevent Eircom from using personal data for this purpose – an outcome which would derail the three strikes system unless Eircom successfully challenges that notice before the courts, or unless the music industry were to succeed in its campaign to secure legislation introducing three strikes into Irish law.”

The way this story has flown largely under the mainstream tech news radar will have been a relief to Eircom and IRMA. Something tells us that is about to change.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The deal would see the ISP introduce a 3 strikes system for dealing with subscribers who share songs to which the labels own the copyright. The implementation of the agreement was held up over legal argument, but in April this year the High Court in Dublin gave it the green light.

Part of the private agreement between IRMA and Eircom required that the ISP should not be put at a competitive disadvantage through this 3 strikes set up. That meant that IRMA would have to go after other ISPs to force them to do the same.

Among others, IRMA sought agreement from UPC, but the ISP refused to play ball and the case went to the Irish High Court. Today the result of that action was announced and for the record labels and Eircom, the result was bad news.

In a judgment published today, Mr Justice Peter Charleton acknowledged that recording companies were being harmed by Internet piracy but that laws to cut off file-sharers were not enforceable in Ireland.

“It is not surprising that the legislative response laid down in our country in the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, at a time when this problem was not perceived to be as threatening to the creative and retail economy as it has become in 2010, has made no proper provision for the blocking, diverting or interrupting of internet communications intent on breaching copyright,” began the judgment.

Justice Charleton noted that by not having this legislative mechanism in place, Ireland is not in compliance with its obligations under European law. He added that the only thing the courts can force an Internet host to carry out is the removal of infringing material.

“UPC has repeatedly stressed that it does not condone piracy and has always taken a strong stance against illegal activity on its network,” the company said in a statement.

“It takes all steps required by the law to combat specific infringements which are brought to its attention and will continue to co-operate with rights holders where they have obtained the necessary court orders for alleged copyright infringements.”

“Our whole premise and defence focused on the mere conduit principle which provides that an internet service provider cannot be held liable for content transmitted across its network and today’s decision supports the principle that ISPs are not liable for the actions of internet subscribers.”

The ruling leaves the music industry high and dry in Ireland and Eircom in the unfortunate position of being left at a commercial disadvantage. It will be interesting to see how the record labels and ISP handle this development.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Using data gathered by Danish company DtecNet, IRMA said it would begin supplying Eircom with suspected infringing IP addresses for a 3 month pilot period. Thus far, Eircom has sent around 800 warnings to its customers.

Part of that out-of-court settlement was a promise from IRMA that it would not leave Eircom at a competitive disadvantage. Clearly, once word spread that Eircom is a ‘bad’ ISP for file-sharers, potential customers would see huge benefit in choosing another ISP. To avoid this eventuality, last month IRMA filed papers against mobile operators O2 and 3 for their apparent non-cooperation.

Not everyone is digging their heels in though. Two other mobile ISPs, Vodafone and Eircom subsidiary Meteor, said they were in “advanced negotiations” with the IRMA to bring the graduated response to their networks.

Today there is further news that IRMA is well on its way to soaking up the majority of the Irish market with its “3 strikes” (technically a 4 strikes) scheme, this time by targeting Eircom arch-rival, Vodafone. Market leader Eircom has been in a price war with No 2 player Vodafone for quite a while now, so any action IRMA takes against the ISP will be warmly welcomed by Eircom. It’s even more convenient for them that Vodafone is playing along nicely.

According to a report in the Irish Times quoting IRMA Chairman and EMI Ireland chief executive Willie Kavanagh, “significant progress” had been made with Vodafone in negotiations to bring file-sharing disconnections to the ISP.

In a statement, Vodafone said that file-sharing represents a “serious issue for the Irish music industry” and that it is looking at introducing “appropriate steps” consistent with “applicable legislation and recent judicial decisions”.

The “judicial decision” refers to April’s ruling from Dublin’s High Court which effectively gave the music industry the go ahead to start warning and disconnecting file-sharers.

Getting Vodafone on board would be a significant success for IRMA. Eircom and Vodafone control almost two-thirds of all Ireland’s fixed broadband connections.

Another ISP, UPC, continues its refusal to introduce disconnections for its customers. Tomorrow it will face the start of action in the Commercial Court brought on by the music industry.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.