Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: IRMA fail in bid for injunction against UPC

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member evercloserunion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default IRMA fail in bid for injunction against UPC

    IRMA have failed to obtain injunctive relief against UPC forcing the latter to adopt the 2 strikes rue to combat online piracy. Justice Peter Charleton in the High Court appeared to be very much on the side of the plaintiffs, but said that Ireland did not have the necessary legislation in place to deal with the issue and that out of respect for the separation of powers he could not grant injunctive relief.

    From RTÉ:
    The Irish Recording Music Association (IRMA) wanted a High Court injunction so that UPC would have to prevent the theft of their copyright by its subscribers.

    But Justice Charleton ruled that there is no provision for the blocking, diverting or interrupting of internet communications intent on breaching copyright.

    The injunctive relief was declined.

    ...

    UPC has said it does not condone piracy, but today's ruling supports the principal that ISPs are not liable for the actions of their customers.
    RT News: Record companies lose illegal download case

    In the short term, this decision is a positive in that it will force IRMA to think about better ways to handle the problem. The worrying thing though is that this case will most likely provoke some ridiculously draconian and ill-though-out legislation to "deal" with the issue a la headshops.
    Last edited by evercloserunion; 11th October 2010 at 03:17 PM.
    To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member TradCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,992
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Am I right in saying that if it's not illegal now then any law can only apply to future downloads?

    So we are likely to see a bonanza of downloading between now and the introduction of any new legislation. I can see the point about copyright but I don't think we should let record companies have it all their own way either. I think someone should be a fairly serious offender before they can be brought to court.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member Sync's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    27,590
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TradCat View Post
    Am I right in saying that if it's not illegal now then any law can only apply to future downloads?

    So we are likely to see a bonanza of downloading between now and the introduction of any new legislation.
    You might see an increase in activity, but no it's certainly not legal. The judge simply ruled that the internet provider couldn't be forced to take steps to interupt an individual's service at the behest of a private 3rd party.
    I'm living in America, and in America, you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business. Now f***ing pay me.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member truthisfree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    5,582
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    What sort of sniffing technology will be needed if these large companies like Sony and EMI get their way? I have noticed lately that I have been coming across music blogs that offer free direct downloads usually from rapidshare or equivalent, have tried them out and discovered fast downloads, excellent quality (320 vbr) they seem to be almost all based in Russia.

    How on earth is this type of file sharing to be monitored?

    Also I see that Opera now has built in file-sharing as well as a built in bit-torrent client. This means I can access movies and music as well as other files from anywhere which I do on occasion.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member sic transit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    24,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    IRMA's all or nothing approach won it no friends and it reminds me of the quite pathetic "Home taping is killing music" message from the 70s. I welcome the decision as it really is not up to ISPs to solve the music industry's problems. I don't know the answer to this but given the potential delivery platforms the music industry would be better off spending its money on mitigating the effect to an extent. IMO it will never go away as many of have come to believe that some parts of the Internet are "free".

    Where does that now leave the Eircom "deal"?

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member evercloserunion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sync View Post
    You might see an increase in activity, but no it's certainly not legal. The judge simply ruled that the internet provider couldn't be forced to take steps to interupt an individual's service at the behest of a private 3rd party.
    That's not really relevant to his point, which is that any sanctions imposed for piracy in the future could only apply to future downloads.

    But in answer to TradCat's question I would say that would only be the case if there was certainty that any new law would actually be effective at preventing illegal downlaods, which is a big "if".
    To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member truthisfree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    5,582
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sic transit View Post
    IRMA's all or nothing approach won it no friends and it reminds me of the quite pathetic "Home taping is killing music" message from the 70s. I welcome the decision as it really is not up to ISPs to solve the music industry's problems. I don't know the answer to this but given the potential delivery platforms the music industry would be better off spending its money on mitigating the effect to an extent. IMO it will never go away as many of have come to believe that some parts of the Internet are "free".

    Where does that now leave the Eircom "deal"?
    btw, do you know of a single case this was enforced?

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member sic transit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    24,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    No. I am guessing that was an agreement in principle. I doubt if anyone outside Eircom could really prove it. For me it was just IRMA showing it was doing something. Just curious if this decision would affect it.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member truthisfree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    5,582
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sic transit View Post
    No. I am guessing that was an agreement in principle. I doubt if anyone outside Eircom could really prove it. For me it was just IRMA showing it was doing something. Just curious if this decision would affect it.
    I think it means it is not worth the paper it is written on until there are new laws put in place here relating to file-sharing.

    The thing to watch out for is if a ham-fisted approach is used with legislation here we could have draconian laws introduced that allow the powers that be to snoop on our every internet activity.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member evercloserunion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I've been thinking about the Eircom deal. They'll be quite annoyed because they've put themselves at a unique competitive disadvantage. The thing is, whereas if they had resisted IRMA's case in the first place it now appears that they would have been successful, they are now locked in a contract where they have agreed to implement the system. So refusing to implement the system would be a breach of contract and IRMA could probably get specific performance or damages.

    The only way out that Eircom might have is trying to get out of the contract by pleading mistake/misrepresentation, but I doubt they would be very successful. Things are also complicated by the fact that IRMA had agreed, as part of the deal, that it would pursue other ISPs and force them to implement the same system, and now it seems that it is impossible to honour that clause.
    Last edited by evercloserunion; 11th October 2010 at 04:24 PM.
    To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •