Irish Govt pushing through 'illegal downloads' changes to copyright law

ei.sdraob

Is there any way to find out which of the politicians are trying to push this thru' in the last minute?

and/or where can I get more detailed information on the changes proposed.

In its final days, the Government is believed to be rushing through a statutory instrument that will amend the existing Copyright Act and which will give judges the power to grant injunctions against ISPs in relation to copyright infringement cases.

The move is believed to stem from October’s court case between the music industry (Warner, Sony, Universal and EMI) and UPC in which the judge pointed to a key gap in Irish copyright laws.

Siliconrepublic.com has learned that the Department of Enterprise Trade and Innovation and the Department of Communications have tabled the legislation which is currently in the hands of the parliamentary draftsman with a view to passing it by Friday.

The legislation is expected to be sanctioned by the present Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation Mary Hanafin TD before Friday.

nesf

Love this bit:

They said that over the course of six years, sales of music CDs in the Irish market went from €146m to €102m in 2007.

Yeah and that wouldn't have anything to do with people moving to digital purchases? Honestly the last time I bought a CD was probably 2001/2002, I've been buying digital albums since. A similar pattern has happened with computer games for me, I've moved almost completely to digital downloads rather than hard copies of games over the past 5 years for similar reasons of convenience and space saving. And now finally in the past 2 years I've been buying very few books and buying everything in e-book format when possible.

Also, finally, things like internet radio and artist specific radio stations like what's on Last.fm have reduced my music purchasing because they're free and provide a perfectly reasonable service and I've already a big enough collection to satisfy my mp3 player needs.

ei.sdraob

You are right @nesf same trend here

* music I just listen to streaming radio
* tv is mostly ****e anyways, sky does job fine
* i go to cinema more since i love Jalapeño peppers :P
* and finally in last year i moved to B&N nook and now reading loads of ebooks


what I want to know now is who is pushing this in the governments dying moments, and more details, last thing we need is to loose more rights

lugha

Perhaps I am missing the point here but I fail to see how one can ethically object to authorities seeking to ensure that the law is not broken?

ei.sdraob

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps I am missing the point here but I fail to see how one can ethically object to authorities seeking to ensure that the law is not broken?

Let me put this into perspective by slightly editing the sentence

In its final days, the Government is believed to be rushing through a statutory instrument that will amend the existing Copyright Act and which will give judges the power to grant injunctions against ISPs city/county councils in relation to copyright infringement cases drug-dealers using their road network.

ISPs in all developed countries are service providers, provided the ISP passes on any complaint to the customer it is not their job to act as a policemen for the entertainment industry.
also note the use of the word "criminal" in relation to copyright infringement via the internet when it is a "civil" matter (not like the courts have nothing better to be doing anyways but chasing kids downloading music)

this is dangerous territory and a slippery slope which pisses in the face of the so called "smart economy",
for example why would the likes of Google (service provider) remain here if they could be made responsible for their users activities?

/

z0oT

I love the fact that this incessent crying and moaning from the entertainment industry of dwindling sales of CDs and DVDs due to "illegal" downloads that has come to fruition over the last few years conveniently has always omitted the fact that a recession has been ongoing.

Also isn't it great that governments have no problem passing laws that suit their corporate overlords but can be quite slow about passing laws that benefit the people of the country they're supposed to represent?

nesf

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps I am missing the point here but I fail to see how one can ethically object to authorities seeking to ensure that the law is not broken?

The problem is that it allows private companies to dictate policies and actions to ISPs. Require them to filter content (in potentially ways that interfere with legitimate uses of the internet etc).

It's complicated.

20Cent

Why didn't they "push through" some laws to enable more investigation of white collar crime and financial iregularities?

Easier to go after the average citizen once again.

whoopdedoo

z0oT wrote: »

I love the fact that this incessent crying and moaning from the entertainment industry of dwindling sales of CDs and DVDs due to "illegal" downloads that has come to fruition over the last few years conveniently has always omitted the fact that a recession has been ongoing.

Also isn't it great that governments have no problem passing laws that suit their corporate overlords but can be quite slow about passing laws that benefit the people of the country they're supposed to represent?

yes when harney was asked to bring in medicinal cannabis she went of to get legal advice and thats taking a very long time, then we put the question to the future leaders and only two who embrace the idea won't get into power!!

good luck to ye all who are staying around to participate in this overwhelming car crash for a country!!!

ei.sdraob

20Cent wrote: »

Why didn't they "push through" some laws to enable more investigation of white collar crime and financial iregularities?

Easier to go after the average citizen once again.

I dont often agree with you on this forum but you are right, while everyone is distracted with elections the existing government is trying to push things thru' at 11th hour. Where were they when IMF where in town or the economy was going down drain, ah yes one of the many loong holidays they had in 2010

lugha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ISPs in all developed countries are service providers, provided the ISP passes on any complaint to the customer it is not their job to act as a policemen for the entertainment industry.
also note the use of the word "criminal" in relation to copyright infringement via the internet when it is a "civil" matter (not like the courts have nothing better to be doing anyways but chasing kids downloading music)

The impression I get when this topic is discussed (in general rather here specifically here) is that the objection is to fact that illegal activity is been inhibited, not the means by which it is done. But yes, it is, or should be considered a civil rather than a criminal matter.


And your analogy is flawed. I don't think any private provider of any kind of infrastructure, be it banking facilities, air or other modes of transportations etc. can morally, or possibly legally, say: “we just provide a service. Nothing to do with us if people use it for illegal activity”, They do have obligations, statutory in some cases, to ensure that the rule of law is not breached.

whoopdedoo

they really are taking the complete piss out of people here! it's a sickener that there hasn't been riots but then what can you do?!? maybe some day what's left of the nation will realise it's not just the guy putting in a dodgy claim that's been fiddling around in your pocket but actually the people running the show have robbed/raped you and spat in your face worse than any criminal!!!

ei.sdraob

lugha wrote: »

The impression I get when this topic is discussed (in general rather here specifically here) is that the objection is to fact that illegal activity is been inhibited, not the means by which it is done. But yes, it is, or should be considered a civil rather than a criminal matter.


And your analogy is flawed. I don't think any private provider of any kind of infrastructure, be it banking facilities, air or other modes of transportations etc. can morally, or possibly legally, say: “we just provide a service. Nothing to do with us if people use it for illegal activity”, They do have obligations, statutory in some cases, to ensure that the rule of law is not breached.

Without going into discussion of how the internet works to use @nesf quote

It's complicated.

OhNoYouDidn't

lugha wrote: »

And your analogy is flawed. I don't think any private provider of any kind of infrastructure, be it banking facilities, air or other modes of transportations etc. can morally, or possibly legally, say: “we just provide a service. Nothing to do with us if people use it for illegal activity”, They do have obligations, statutory in some cases, to ensure that the rule of law is not breached.

Put another way. Its like holding a car manufacturer responsible for drunk driving. What this law means in real terms is ALL torrent sites will be blocked, despite there being perfectly legal uses for them.

If I download music illegally, its a matter between me and the copyright holder. If they decide to pursue me, then they can invoke assistance from the ISP.

lugha

nesf wrote: »

The problem is that it allows private companies to dictate policies and actions to ISPs. Require them to filter content (in potentially ways that interfere with legitimate uses of the internet etc).

I'm not sure what private companies you are referring to.
And unfortunately, such is the nature of monitoring that it does interfere with legitimate use. I certainly could do without all the security grief (which might well be privately provided) when I go through airports but I accept that the benefits outweigh the cost.

expectationlost

http://www.thejournal.ie/minister-hanafins-office-denies-change-to-internet-providers-legislation-is-going-through-tomorrow-2011-02/

minister-hanafins-office-denies-change-to-internet-providers-legislation-is-going-through-tomorrow

she doesn't know where SR got the story

lugha

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Put another way. Its like holding a car manufacturer responsible for drunk driving.

Again, a flawed analogy IMO. You get a service from an ISP. Your analogy is more akin to the seller of your router/modem.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

What this law means in real terms is ALL torrent sites will be blocked, despite there being perfectly legal uses for them.

So the particular form of the law is flawed. The impression I get from some is that they object to any law.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

If I download music illegally, its a matter between me and the copyright holder. If they decide to pursue me, then they can invoke assistance from the ISP.

Could the same argument not be made against ant-laundrying laws in the banks. i.e. remove any requirements for the bank to keep an eye on suspicious activities and let the authorities come looking for help if they need it?

ei.sdraob

lugha wrote: »

I'm not sure what private companies you are referring to.
And unfortunately, such is the nature of monitoring that it does interfere with legitimate use. I certainly could do without all the security grief (which might well be privately provided) when I go through airports but I accept that the benefits outweigh the cost.

You simply dont understand

the benefit (for entertainment industry only) is that entertainment companies passed on their costs onto other businesses

the downside is that Irish internet becomes so restrictive as to make Saudis look good, and the courts are filled up with cases which are not criminal and should not be considered as such.

TJM

@lugha

If you're interested in learning about the issues then this study should be your starting point:
http://www.edri.org/files/EDRI_selfreg_final_20110124.pdf

ei.sdraob

lugha wrote: »

Could the same argument not be made against ant-laundrying laws in the banks. i.e. remove any requirements for the bank to keep an eye on suspicious activities and let the authorities come looking for help if they need it?

you do not understand how the internet work, for this to work deep packet technology would have to be employed with all the data streams being anaysed

1. this is costly and of course the cost wont be borne by entertainment industry

2. this is highly invasive of privacy

3. it gives the country a bad reputation of internet filtering/censorship leading IT/Network companies leaving, so much for smart economy



you keep equating in your last few posts downloading music with criminal offences such being a terrorist or laundering money
for the last time this is not a criminal matter.

anyways real "pirates" would then switch to using encryption, then what? ban all encrypted communications? yeh that would work great for the economy

like i said this whole thing is ridiculous and has the potential to slide into crazy territory.

dermot_sheehan

I's wonder what power would be used for the statutory instrument, section 7 of the copyright act or the european communities act and if made under the european communities act which directive requires us to allow injunctions against non infringing service providers that facilitate infringement.

I also hope coughlan makes an internet is a series of tubes type of speech.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Put another way. Its like holding a car manufacturer responsible for drunk driving. What this law means in real terms is ALL torrent sites will be blocked, despite there being perfectly legal uses for them.

If I download music illegally, its a matter between me and the copyright holder. If they decide to pursue me, then they can invoke assistance from the ISP.

1. Lets us see what the final statutory instrument says before jumping to such conclusions.

2. Offering injunctive relief does not equate to banning anything. Injunctive relief is offered on a case by case basis, with certain guiding legal principles couched in case-law. The facts of each case will determine whether an injunction will be granted.

Tom Young

From Silicon Article:

SABAM V Tiscali (Scarlet) case before European Court of Justice
The chairman of telecoms body ALTO Ronan Lupton said the industry is calling for a full consultation on such legislative measures. “The fact that this is being done in the 11th hour of the current administration raises question marks.”

Internet law expert TJ McIntyre says the legislation is premature in light of the Taoiseach promising a review of Irish copyright for the digital age. He said it is also premature in terms of a case taking place in the European Court of Justice between Belgian publishers group SABAM V Tiscali (Scarlet).

“What’s happening in Europe is similar litigation over the obligation of ISPs to conduct filtering and the question is what does European law require regarding injunctions against ISPs?

“To my mind, you can’t legislate in Ireland until we’ve seen the judgment from Europe.

“There are also procedural issues – normally, if you legislate you have to have completed a regulatory impact assessment beforehand, as well as a public consultation. Also, if there’s a breach found in a law then it would be normal to discuss it with the European Commission,” McIntyre said.

ALTO’s Ronan Lupton agrees the legislation could be premature. “As an industry we are waiting for the European Court of Justice to decide the SABAM Vs Tiscali case.

“Tiscali’s argument echoes UPC’s argument that telecoms firms and ISPs are mere conduits for the information. They provide the pipe and it’s not their role to snoop on their users.

“If you look at the new EU Communications Framework, it is all about citizens’ fundamental rights to services. Crucial legislative changes should go through due process and procedure,” Lupton said.

This relates to Article 40(4) of the Act. Article 7 Provides for the making of Regulations and giving of directions but the infringement provisions had no logical remedies associated with them.

Must note injunctive relief requires serious supervision and failed in the Scarlet case. See above.

Het-Field

Tom Young wrote: »

From Silicon Article:


This relates to Article 40(4) of the Act. Article 7 Provides for the making of Regulations and giving of directions but the infringement provisions had no logical remedies associated with them.

Must note injunctive relief requires serious supervision and failed in the Scarlet case. See above.

IIRC "Equity does nothing in vain". Thus, if relief requires onerous supervision, injunctive relief will not be granted.

Tom Young

Het-Field wrote: »

IIRC "Equity does nothing in vain". Thus, if relief requires onerous supervision, injunctive relief will not be granted.

Thanks, I am of course aware of the principles of Equity. What's your view on the Scarlet case then?

Het-Field

Tom Young wrote: »

Thanks, I am of course aware of the principles of Equity. What's your view on the Scarlet case then?

I dont really have a view.

I was just thinking out loud regarding the maxims !

OhNoYouDidn't

lugha wrote: »

Again, a flawed analogy IMO. You get a service from an ISP. Your analogy is more akin to the seller of your router/modem.

Its not. What we have here is a provider of a service banning all users from part of the service because a minority break the law in its use. Its like Vodafone refusing to sell phones because you MIGHT use them for heavy breathing calls. Fundamentally you can't stop someone doing something legal because others use the same facility for illegality.

lugha wrote: »

Could the same argument not be made against ant-laundrying laws in the banks. i.e. remove any requirements for the bank to keep an eye on suspicious activities and let the authorities come looking for help if they need it?

You have trampled all over your own point. Banks MONITOR for key words and suspicious transactions. They don't refuse to allow certain groups accounts full stop. If you use your account for nefarious purposes, they will (try and) catch you after the fact. They don't ban all money transfers to, say, Holland, because they might be for drugs purchases.

MrPudding

lugha wrote: »

Again, a flawed analogy IMO. You get a service from an ISP. Your analogy is more akin to the seller of your router/modem.

It is kind of flawed. I think a better analogy would be I post a threatening letter to someone and AnPost is held liable because they carried it and then delivered it.

MrP

lugha

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Its not. What we have here is a provider of a service banning all users from part of the service because a minority break the law in its use. Its like Vodafone refusing to sell phones because you MIGHT use them for heavy breathing calls. Fundamentally you can't stop someone doing something legal because others use the same facility for illegality.



You have trampled all over your own point. Banks MONITOR for key words and suspicious transactions. They don't refuse to allow certain groups accounts full stop. If you use your account for nefarious purposes, they will (try and) catch you after the fact. They don't ban all money transfers to, say, Holland, because they might be for drugs purchases.

You are making the argument that the particular way that internet theft might be thwarted is flawed. I am not arguing this point. I am questioning the rational of those that argue that ISPs have no business in assisting authorities, in ANY fashion, in dealing with illegal activity (and the public do have a dog in the fight as lost revenue to the ents. industry is lost vat receipts to us). If it were technically feasible to identify suspicious behaviour on an individual user basis, I think they would still object on grounds of privacy, or inconvenience etc.
Would you object if ISPs could develop a mechanism which properly distinguishes between legal and illegal use?

lugha

MrPudding wrote: »

It is kind of flawed. I think a better analogy would be I post a threatening letter to someone and AnPost is held liable because they carried it and then delivered it.

MrP

Well if An Post had the technology to identify such letters and were legally obliged to report them, then yes they would be liable.
My question is, why would some vehemently oppose An Post being obliged to use such technology?

ei.sdraob

lugha wrote: »

Well if An Post had the technology to identify such letters and were legally obliged to report them, then yes they would be liable.
My question is, why would some vehemently oppose An Post being obliged to use such technology?

Would you oppose An Post opening every single letter in order to find any bomb threat letters?

Like I said this would be gross violation of privacy and would relegate Ireland to an IT backwater.

thebman

lugha wrote: »

You are making the argument that the particular way that internet theft might be thwarted is flawed. I am not arguing this point. I am questioning the rational of those that argue that ISPs have no business in assisting authorities, in ANY fashion, in dealing with illegal activity (and the public do have a dog in the fight as lost revenue to the ents. industry is lost vat receipts to us). If it were technically feasible to identify suspicious behaviour on an individual user basis, I think they would still object on grounds of privacy, or inconvenience etc.
Would you object if ISPs could develop a mechanism which properly distinguishes between legal and illegal use?

ISP's don't have much business doing this TBH. They are the service provider and I should be entitled to my privacy.

They should not be snooping on me just because its easier to hide than if they were in my backyard!!

lugha

thebman wrote: »

ISP's don't have much business doing this TBH. They are the service provider and I should be entitled to my privacy.

They should not be snooping on me just because its easier to hide than if they were in my backyard!!

Fine. But no Rubicon would be crossed if it became the business of ISPs. You are entitled to your privacy when you travel across borders but customs and excise might still have a good root around in your bags. If you are transferring large wads of legtimate money between banks, you might expect on grounds of privacy not to be suspected of, and possibly reported as, a possible money launderer but you could be. And if you present at a hospital with gunshots wounds (possibly others?), innocently received, you might argue that it is not the business of medical professionals to be reporting this to the police, but they would.

If ISPs should just provide their service and leave the policing to the police then cannot the same argument be made for other cases? What, in principle, sets ISPs apart?

nesf

lugha wrote: »

I'm not sure what private companies you are referring to.
And unfortunately, such is the nature of monitoring that it does interfere with legitimate use. I certainly could do without all the security grief (which might well be privately provided) when I go through airports but I accept that the benefits outweigh the cost.

It's this: The ISPs are private businesses. Now another private business wants to force the ISPs to pay money to monitor traffic for infringements against said private businesses. It lumps all responsibility and cost onto the ISPs. That's crap tbh, if the record companies have a problem with it they can very easily pay for groups to monitor bittorrent traffic, join torrents and record IPs and similar.

Secondly the kind of monitoring involved, as described by ei.sdroab is highly invasive due to its nature and involves monitoring all packets going through the system. This is both expensive to do and highly invasive. I don't want my ISP going through all the packets I send out every day.


And finally it's crap. It's extremely easy to avoid this problem using encrypted VPNs and similar if you're an illegal downloader, so it's not even that effective.

MrPudding

lugha wrote: »

Well if An Post had the technology to identify such letters and were legally obliged to report them, then yes they would be liable.
My question is, why would some vehemently oppose An Post being obliged to use such technology?

And this technology comes from where? Who pays for it? And why are they liable just because the technology exists...?

Actually, my AnPost analogy is not that good, nesf makes a very good point which it ignores.

nesf wrote: »

It's this: The ISPs are private businesses. Now another private business wants to force the ISPs to pay money to monitor traffic for infringements against said private businesses.

This is very important.

nesf wrote: »

It lumps all responsibility and cost onto the ISPs. That's crap tbh, if the record companies have a problem with it they can very easily pay for groups to monitor bittorrent traffic, join torrents and record IPs and similar.

Which they already do, apparently.

Oooh, I have another analogy, which might be better, and is slightly topical. Shoplifters. Lets say there is a problem with people shoplifting CDs from a shop in the city centre. Now, imagine those shoplifters got a bus or a taxi home. Would it be fair for the shops to insist that the bus and taxi companies installed equipment on their vehicles to detect shoplifted CDs? I would imagine the technology exists. According to what you are saying, as the technology exists and the bus and taxi companies don't use it, thereby allowing thieves to use their network to transport stolen goods, they are liable. That does not seem right.

MrP

lugha

nesf wrote: »

It's this: The ISPs are private businesses. Now another private business wants to force the ISPs to pay money to monitor traffic for infringements against said private businesses. It lumps all responsibility and cost onto the ISPs. That's crap tbh, if the record companies have a problem with it they can very easily pay for groups to monitor bittorrent traffic, join torrents and record IPs and similar.

Secondly the kind of monitoring involved, as described by ei.sdroab is highly invasive due to its nature and involves monitoring all packets going through the system. This is both expensive to do and highly invasive. I don't want my ISP going through all the packets I send out every day.


And finally it's crap. It's extremely easy to avoid this problem using encrypted VPNs and similar if you're an illegal downloader, so it's not even that effective.

Your second and third point are essentially saying that these particular proposals are not very good ones. I have no argument there although I have addressed in an earlier post the question of compromising privacy in the interests of preserving the rule of law.

As to your first point, the private businesses you refer to are entities trading in the state and as such have the right to be protected under the laws of the state, just like everybody else, be the private individuals or commercial firms. And I am not sure that there is an argument that they should pay. I wouldn't expect to pay extra for policing if I lived in a dodgy area which required a heavy police presence. AFAIK, banks don't, or didn't pay for the convoy costs when their money was transferred under armed escort.
So who should pay? Well despite many attempts, I don't think a particularly good analogy has been found (Mr. P's latest stab falls short IMO because taxis are not the means by which shop lifters engage in their habit).
But if you provide a service, and its possible (and easy) to use that service for illegal carry-on, is it unreasonable that the service provider take steps (at a cost) to try to stop or reduce this? It is not at all obvious to me that the answer should be a resounding yes.

lugha

MrPudding wrote: »

And this technology comes from where? Who pays for it? And why are they liable just because the technology exists...?

The technology is hypothetical. And they would only be liable if a law was enacted making them liable.
As to who pays? Well, TBH, I don't think it is particularly obvious who should be.

MrPudding

lugha wrote: »

As to your first point, the private businesses you refer to are entities trading in the state and as such have the right to be protected under the laws of the state, just like everybody else, be the private individuals or commercial firms. And I am not sure that there is an argument that they should pay.

So, who pays for store detectives and security guards in shops in bad areas or even just in the city centre?

lugha wrote: »

I wouldn't expect to pay extra for policing if I lived in a dodgy area which required a heavy police presence.

Perhaps as an individual, no you wouldn’t that is what your taxes are for. Businesses are, quite rightly, treated differently.

lugha wrote: »

AFAIK, banks don't, or didn't pay for the convoy costs when their money was transferred under armed escort.

I think you will find they do pay. And certainly in the UK at least football clubs have to pay for a police presence.

lugha wrote: »

So who should pay? Well despite many attempts, I don't think a particularly good analogy has been found (Mr. P's latest stab falls short IMO because taxis are not the means by which shop lifters engage in their habit).

I think it is perfectly adequate. You may be thinking too rigidly. It can be hard to transpose online activity to real world activity, but this example is not too bad. For online piracy the theft takes place on s file sharing site. The ISP does not own this site, they merely facilitate access to the site. This is very similar to how a bus or a taxi facilitates a shoplifter’s access to the shop they want to steal from. So, once the item has been stolen, online a download started and offline the item physically lifted, it needs to be transported home. Online the file is downloaded over the ISP’s network and in the real world the shoplifter is transported home by the bus or taxi. Very similar I would say. I certainly don’t think bus or taxi companies should be held liable to transporting stolen goods or thieves.

lugha wrote: »

But if you provide a service, and its possible (and easy) to use that service for illegal carry-on, is it unreasonable that the service provider take steps (at a cost) to try to stop or reduce this? It is not at all obvious to me that the answer should be a resounding yes.

I am afraid I simply can’t see it reasonable to expect them to. There should be a degree of proportionality to the law, something like this does not, IMO, fit the doctrine of proportionality. Forcing a third party, at a fairly high cost, to monitor everyone they provide a service to in order to catch a small minority does not really make sense.

Leaving that aside, I think the government would be silly to spend money legislating for something when there is a case outstanding in Europe. If they get it wrong it will cost money defending and ultimately changing the law if they get it wrong.

lugha wrote: »

The technology is hypothetical. And they would only be liable if a law was enacted making them liable.

And the question is should they be made liable and I think the answer is no.

lugha wrote: »

As to who pays? Well, TBH, I don't think it is particularly obvious who should be.

Sorry, what do you mean here?

MrP