The “innovation island” plans to change its law to allow copyright litigators block access to sites they don’t like.
In December, the Irish Times reported that the Irish government was planning to stop “illegal downloading” through a new government order. With half the internet blacked out in protest against SOPA on Wednesday, it’s worth knowing that the self professed “Innovation Island” is about to publish its own law allowing music labels and other copyright holders to ban internet service providers from allowing their customers access to sites that (the copyright holders think) infringe their copyright. We’re about to get our own, local, Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA).
“Minister of State for Enterprise Seán Sherlock is to publish an order early in the new year that is expected to allow music publishers, film producers and other parties to go to court to prevent internet service providers from allowing their customers access to pirate websites.”
What does that mean?
First up, pirate websites doesn’t just mean Pirate Bay. Depending on how the Order is drafted, it will likely mean any site that, in the opinion of any company or copyright holder, has infringed its copyright. So it could potentially include Google Image Search, Facebook (image & text copying), LinkedIn (image and text copying) Youtube, Google News, Flipboard, and any site that aggregates, quotes, mixes up, or creates directories of content. Goodbye Tumblr, Delicio.us, and good luck to any startup that wants to point to, arrange, quote from, or otherwise interact with the content of the internet.
You can be closed down. Just like that. Poof.
Sound dramatic? It is. That’s why the anti-SOPA movement, including Wikipedia, Reddit, Mozilla, Google and others, are so worked up about its US equivalent.
The copyright lobby is looking for this new legal weapon, and there’s no reason to expect that it will be used proportionately. Music labels already have a history of aggressive litigation in wringing everything they can from existing laws. Remember for a moment the last glorious 15 years of RIAA Granny-suing, the 12-year-olds in court, the million dollar judgments against people who didn’t know their kids were downloading. There’s no-one more aggressive than someone backed into a corner, and the essential “value add” (or reason for existence) of music labels – marketing and distribution of “records” – has been overtaken by technology. Musicians can record songs, release them online, achieve fame, and make money without any need to impress a record company. Today EMI & co. cling to copyright laws, and need new weapons in their legal arsenal to keep their revenues up.
The proposed changes in Irish laws would give these desperadoes, and other litigants, a nuclear threat to force the internet to rearrange itself in a way that suits them.
Imagine, for a moment, what the World Wide Web would look like if it was shaped to the will of the music companies and movie studios and old media giants. There’d probably be about 12 (very expensive) websites on the whole thing, streaming live Disney movies, X-Factor songs, and €16.99 uncopyable, single listen digital albums.
Of course, the big boys (like Youtube) will probably work out deals with the labels and copyright litigants. Those deals most likely will not suit you and I. Startups that can’t afford lawyers and are perceived as threats could be easily sued out of existence (quite literally, they would go dark), and we could all move back to the mid 90s.
On Wednesday, a substantial portion of the internet blacked itself out in protest at SOPA, and its passage looks increasingly doubtful. But Ireland is careening in the other direction.
Why has there been so little outcry about this potentially drastic change to the law in Ireland? Broadsheet.ie went dark as part of the international anti-SOPA protests, but the papers and RTE are quiet.
Part of this might be down to the one-sided reporting on the matter. In the Irish Times piece referred to above, the fact that music companies can’t force ISPs to block access to particular sites is referred to by the reporter as “a loophole in Irish law“. By that logic, the fact that the Irish Times can’t get an injunction to stop you sharing a newspaper is a “loophole.” So is your right to share your choc ice. Free internet access is not a “loophole.”
More recently, the Irish Music Rights Association (IMRA, our local RIAA) launched litigation to force the government to pass other laws it wants – basically a “3 Strikes” rule to take away the internet from copyright infringers. Needless to say, the only quotes in the piece were from IMRA chief Willie Kavanagh. He said the “3 Strikes” rule was “working incredibly well.” What does that mean? A lot of people are being booted off the internet and buying CDs?
As law lecturer TJ McIntyre said on his blog, it’s “disappointing to see a story uncritically repeat the claims of one side to litigation without offering either a response from the other side or an independent perspective.”
In its earlier piece, the Times adds that “Official figures show that CD sales in the Republic fell from €146 million in 2006 to €56 million last year.”
CD sales. That’s what it’s all about people! If EMI and IMRA have their way, our booming CD-based economy will rebound by Q3 2012.
Well guys, why don’t we go out and inform journalists and the government about it like the music companies do? You say that the newspaper report is one sided, but has anyone told those journalists any different. Do they know the boundaries of fair-use and the potential downsides to legislation like this? The journalists may appear like they’re in bed with the music industry, but maybe they’re just not informed (unlike the US politicians who just legitimately ignore complains from the people they represent).
Actually, and to give you a reason that you should do it: It could potentially destroy NewsWhip. It’s in your interest as much as it is mine.
Agreed, we have an interest in this – I think anyone who links/aggregates/ranks or otherwise arranges content online does.
Agreed, Ben, we need to make sure the internet’s side of the story gets through. Debate is being framed as music labels v. pirates but it’s much more than that – it’s the whole linking system of the internet. I’ll be after my representatives about it for sure.
Ben, they’re journalists, it’s their job to be informed. If they’re expecting people to pay for the news content they provide, the least they can do is examine the industry claims & give some balanced analysis.
It’s supposed to be the Irish Times, not PR Newswire.
ah! We have almost the same law in France, it’s still a project but it’s in a good way to be voted by our nice representative in Parliement. It’s called Hadopi 3 (an upgrade of Hadopi that already ban you from internet if you download illegal content).
Also the European commision is working on a draft to enable censorship of some websites (sorry french only but I guess you can
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/10&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
I call hyperbole on this one. SOPA/PIPA meant (well,
mean – they’re not dead yet) an IP owner could preemptively get sites
closed down/blocked without going to court. The proposed Irish SI
allows for a court injunction, which can of course be defended – if
there’s a legitimate defence.”In it’s earlier piece, the Times
adds that “Official figures show that CD sales in the Republic fell from
€146 million in 2006 to €56 million last year.” Well, yeah – there are
these things called mp3s now, and I can buy them online on the
Internet, or if I was so inclined (and didn’t have access to a gazillion
online radio stations/personal streaming services) I could pay eircom
€6/month to listen to them on teh Internetz. I hear this Internet thing
has become quite popular in the last five years.
Thanks for the comment Anton, point taken. I disagree re: hyperbole though. The SI is still unpublished. You’re right that it seems to provide a right for copyright holders to get injunctions against ISPs, not a preemptive right. But a court order can be easily obtained by those with means. (“Your honor, here are the list of 100 sites we want banned today.”) And it’s very hard to defend if you’re a random little website. (“Are any of the 100 sites here to defend themselves in court today? No?? Injunction granted.”) *Crack of hammer noise* *Big chunk of internet disappears.* As for CD sales, you’re dead right! I was amused that fact was included in the article. I guess the implication is that piracy is to blame for the drop, and not different consumption habits.
The music industries cried to Eircom and other ISPs about banning people from the internet based on a 3 strike rule, not to the government – mainly because I download whatever music/movies I want without getting banned, all within reason ie, no child porn or anything going against human rights. Eircom was forced to stop their 3 strike rule as far as I know, something to do with internet being a human right or will be?
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/item/21394-calls-to-make-internet-a-hu .
This law I just linked strictly says Europe’s highest-ranking judges to decide against ISPs using content-filtering technology. This law will overtake the banning of websites, human rights win everytime – fact. I find it disgusting that you can ban someone from the internet when the not really “illegal”and not actually “copyright” infringement material was put up for free in the first place, the music/movie/media industries cry over this, when in all actuality, it is their fault for letting it happen. For the longest time I bought my dvds and cds, now I just download them for free or buy them for 2 euro or more through itunes, I mean you can view them online for free through youtube, although you have to watch annoying advertising from big names that are actually fighting for this Irish SOPA/PIPA banning law. Gabe Newell, owner of multi billion dollar gaming corporation Valve, stated that “online piracy is a problem, the way to defeat piracy, is offering a better service than the pirates” for example, Steam, Valves main income of selling video games, is the biggest online digital distribution service of PC video games, prices range from 60 euro to 6 euro, they have steam sales which means big named games like Modern Warfare 3 and Skyrim, drop to 30 euro, and other games drop to 5 euro, not to mention the speed of which games download from their servers is 5 times that of when downloading music/movies from torrenting websites, offering the not actually illegal copyrighted material. Banning websites that are suppose ably copyright infringing is wrong, you cant blatantly state that someone is copyrighting when they are sharing it for free… to what this article states in such simple yet incredibly strong words, I buy a newspaper and share it with everyone, can I be held accountable for copyright infringement? Yes I could, why aren’t I? Because I bought it, its mine, I can do whatever I want with it, I cant sell it on, but wait I can. I buy a car, I can sell it on, but when I buy a dvd, I cant? All of this is all over the place, and we as normal folk should kick the media conglomerates were the sun don’t shine, or make you the government listen to us..
And oh, this is funny
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/item/21394-calls-to-make-internet-a-hu
If the sites including YouTube and Facebook are blocked, you can expect a revolution. Not just an internet one, you can expect the governments in Europe being abolished.
Guess this aint gona happen because of this… law
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/item/21394-calls-to-make-internet-a-hu
one thing i like about it : “However, communications companies should not be held accountable in circumstances where intellectual property rights holders have blatantly failed to move with the times and protect their own business models.