Irish newspapers have some curious views about search engines

The Irish newspaper industry seems to have chosen today for a bout of collective hyperbole about search engines. Here's what the Examiner had to say:

Work generated through effort, skill, imagination, professionalism, and usually considerable capital investment, is pirated by businesses with no connection to the creative process as a means to win revenue without risk or outlay. This process is hardly different to what we more commonly describe as theft. The scale of the piracy is astounding. In 2010, while every media company in the country shed jobs and cut costs to the bone, a single search engine operating in Ireland offered around 150,000 newspaper articles that cost publishers an estimated €46.5m to generate. Last year that site offered more than 350,000 articles at a cost equivalent to more than €110m. And all without paying one cent to those who created those articles.

There's more in the same vein from the Irish Times and the Independent.

Incredible, isn't it, that the newspapers are powerless to defend themselves against this "theft" and "piracy". Oh, wait - they're not. Instead, they've deliberately chosen to allow in search engines and to profit from the traffic which they generate.

Here's a non-technical explanation. You don't have to allow your site to be indexed by search engines. If you don't want your site to appear on Google you can use a simple file, known as robots.txt, which tells search engines what they can and can't do. The Examiner has one, as does the Irish Times and the Independent. So do they tell these "pirates" and "thieves" to keep out? Absolutely not. In fact, all three provide sitemaps for search engines which summarise their sites and make them easier to index, while both the Irish Times and the Independent provide specific instructions for the "Mediapartners-Google" searcher. Why do they do this? Because of a business decision that they benefit from the readership which added visibility in search engines generates.

The tone of the piece in the Examiner is entirely deceptive: far from being the helpless victim of "theft" and "piracy", the newspaper has chosen, for its own commercial advantage, to allow its site to be indexed and to benefit from the resulting visitors. Should the newspaper object, it is free to opt-out at any point. But it is shoddy work to misrepresent the position to its readers in this way.

Eircom admits user disconnection is illegal; wants other Irish ISPs to do it anyway

You couldn't make it up. Eircom, not content with shooting itself in the foot by agreeing to introduce a "three strikes" system which wasn't required by the law, now wants its rivals to do the same. Presumably that would be the same three strikes system which Eircom's head of public policy has admitted is in breach of European law.

More Ryanair litigation against flight resellers - this time with a data protection twist

You might have noticed that Ryanair is busy with litigation against services which screenscrape flight details from its site or act as resellers of its flights. (Previously on this blog 1|2|3|4|5.) Usually those cases have centered on arguments that this activity amounts to a breach of either Ryanair's intellectual property rights in their site or their terms of use. However Ryanair has now added an interesting data protection dimension to its claims in a fresh action against Club Travel. From today's Irish Times:

RYANAIR HAS claimed before the High Court that details about people who book its flights through a package holiday website can be seen by other travellers.

The airline is seeking an injunction stopping Club Travel from selling its flights on the grounds that it amounts to wrongful interference with its copyright and database. Club Travel denies the claims. Because of the way Club sells the flights, customers who book through it have access to information about other travellers’ flights and know when they will be out of the country, Ryanair alleges.

Club customers, it claims, are told not to input their own email address but a specific address which belongs to Club. As a result, Club customers may access details of other passengers who booked flights the same way, Martin Hayden SC, for Ryanair, argued.

This gives access to information about when other people who booked the flight are abroad and when their homes are unoccupied, counsel said.

Ryanair said it was also concerned that, for the cost of changing a name on a flight, a person who has such access can change the name, address and passport details on another traveller’s flight and obtain that person’s boarding card, he said.

These were serious data protection issues which could expose Ryanair to penalties, he said.

#SOPAIreland: where's the legal advice?

The main reason - effectively the only reason - given by Minister Sean Sherlock for pushing ahead with a deeply flawed statutory instrument is that he is acting on the advice of the Attorney General. However, he has not revealed the detail of that advice and we are being asked to take it on trust both that it is correct (a matter which is open to debate) and also that it compels this particular course of action.

Fortunately, I discovered during the week that the Labour Party has an explicit commitment as to what should be done in these circumstances. Here's an excerpt from their 2011 policy document "New Government, Better Government":

Attorney General’s Advice

50. In specific circumstances the Attorney General’s advice to government should be published. If the advice of the Attorney General is publicly relied upon as justifying or necessitating a particular course of action adopted by the Government or by a minister, privilege should not preclude the publication of a summary of the arguments as they relate to:
* the development of a legislative proposal by the government, a minister of the government or a minister of state, or by any other member of the Dáil or Seanad,
* the introduction of a Bill or resolution in either House of the Oireachtas or the passage, defeat or amendment of a Bill or resolution in either House,
* the making, revocation or amendment of a statutory instrument, or
* the development or amendment of a policy or programme of a public body, unless the advice is given in the course of litigation or in relation to pending or contemplated litigation.*
* Appropriate provision would be taken for the protection of commercially sensitive information and information to do with private individuals, national security, the detection and prosecution of crime, and so on.

I couldn't agree more, and look forward to this Labour policy being applied to the current statutory instrument.

---
* A question might be raised as to whether publishing advice might prejudice the pending music industry litigation. It could be argued that advice about Ireland's obligations under the Infosoc Directive should not be released, though the Minister has already rather let the cat out of the bag by stating to the Dáil that the advice is that "the State is at risk of actions against it, which would probably result in substantial damages". However, even granting this point there is no reason not to publish the advice about the distinct issue of how to implement the Directive. For example, why was a SI considered appropriate and not primary legislation? How was the vague wording chosen? Why did the Minister reject the suggestions in the Technical Group's alternative draft SI? There is no possible prejudice in providing more clarity on these points.

"The law should be predictable as to what is mandated and what is forbidden"

One of the strongest arguments against the proposed copyright statutory instrument is that it is so vague as to make it impossible to predict what it might require of internet intermediaries. The proposal is entirely silent in relation to the most basic issues where one might expect clarity. What type of injunction might be granted? Site blocking? Three strikes? Deep packet inspection? Hash value blocking? What types of intermediaries might be affected - ISPs, search engines, hosting providers, cloud computing providers? Who will have to pay the legal costs of applications for injunctions? Who will have to pay the ongoing cost of implementing any injunction?

Crucially, this vagueness is highlighted by comments of Charleton J., the very High Court judge whose ruling in EMI v. UPC has been relied upon by Sean Sherlock as justification for this statutory instrument. However, when examined closely neither his judgment in that case nor his later extrajudicial pronouncements support this claim. In particular, in a recent speech to the Fordham Intellectual Property Conference, he said:

Legislation such as the [UK Digital Economy] Act of 2010, has at least the predictability of express statement as to the objects to be achieved. In respect of each of the possible solutions of diversion, interruption, warning and cut-off, the British have OfCom looking at the appropriate technical machinery with which to achieve these ends. When this machinery is approved, then, in those circumstances, any court faced with these difficult cases will be in a position to fairly, if not precisely, predict what they can use as a technical solution with a view to granting or refusing to grant injunctions.

This strongly accords with the European law principle that the law should be predictable as to what is mandated and what is forbidden and enables a judge to also know what is expected in the judicial sphere in particular circumstances. As I said in another part of the judgment in EMI v. UPC, if any judge were merely to act on the basis of what the Court felt was right, without having a legislative basis, the Court would be putting itself back in the position of judges in the late 19th and 20th century who used the tort of conspiracy and the remedy of an injunction against the trade union movement and thereby caused public controversy, rendered uncertain the concept of the rule of law and undermined their own authority.

It may also be well for the judicial mind to observe that the separation of powers is a definite guiding principle against doing what might seem desirable, but which is not provided for in legislation.

"The law should be predictable as to what is mandated and what is forbidden and enables a judge to also know what is expected in the judicial sphere in particular circumstances". Can the DJEI honestly claim that their proposed statutory instrument meets these criteria?

Irish copyright regulations unnecessary

Senior Counsel John Gordon has a clear explanation as to why Sean Sherlock's proposed copyright regulations are unnecessary in today's Sunday Business Post. I've taken the liberty of reproducing the entire piece here:

Simplistic Internet regulations court trouble

Amendments to copyright law for online infringements should be dealt with through primary legislation, writes John Gordon

There has been much debate in recent weeks about a draft statutory instrument (SI) that minister of state Sean Sherlock is about to bring into Irish law to deal with online copyright infringement. The SI is intended to fulfil Ireland's EU obligations by facilitating in­junctions against internet ser­vice providers (ISPs). This follows the decision of Justice Charleton in 2010 in the unsuc­cessful action taken by Irish recording companies, EMI, Sony, Universal, Warner and Wea against UPC, in which I appeared on behalf of the de­fendant.

These recording companies last month issued proceedings against the state on the basis that it is liable to pay compen­sation for its failure to provide them with a remedy to fight on­line copyright infringement. This raises the question of how the state has failed in its obliga­tions.

In Minister Sherlock's press release on January 26, accom­panying a draft of the proposed SI, it was stated that the obliga­tions contained in the relevant directive were clear.

Article 8(3) of the directive on the harmonisation of cer­tain aspects of copyright and related rights in the informa­tion society, (2001/29/EC), which is referred to in the draft SI, provides that member states shall ensure copyright owners are in a position to apply for in­junctions against intermedi­aries whose services are used by others to infringe copyright. The directive states that the conditions and modalities for such injunctions are at the dis­cretion of member states.

Having taken into account these provisions, the state did in fact legislate to provide a re­medy to rightsholders in re­spect of copyright infringements under the notify and takedown provisions of Section 40(4) of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000. In addition, rightsholders have been granted Norwich Pharmacal Orders under the common law, which obliges an ISP to identify subscribers who are shown to have infringed copyright on the ISPs network so the rightsholders can pursue such infringers directly. Such relief has historically been ob­tained by the recording com­panies that are now suing the state.

However, they consider it too expensive and ineffective. So what is now being sought is not the right to a remedy but an additional remedy under Irish law. There is no clear and un­ambiguous obligation on the state to implement this SI.

In the UPC case the reliefs sought included the possible implementation by ISPs of fil­tering and blocking technology on their network, and of a graduated response system, whereby after three warnings a person's internet subscrip­tion is suspended or termi­nated and/or the blocking of subscriber access by ISPs to certain websites alleged to fa­cilitate copyright infringe­ment.

A recent decision of the Court of Justice of the EU (Case C-70/10 SABAM) has confirmed, since the UPC case, that it is unlawful under EU law for an ISP to be or­dered to implement blocking and filtering technology on its network to seek out copyright infringements.

In addition, Eircom's imple­mentation of the graduated re­sponse, or three strikes, system, which is the subject of specific legislation in certain member states, is currently being challenged by the Data Protection Commissioner be­fore the Irish Courts.

Given the progress of legis­lative and judicial thought in the EU, it is now even more clear that the type of remedy which rightsholders seem to expect as a result of the proposed SI will not be available to them.

As a result, the state cannot be liable to pay compensation for failing to provide these re­medies under Irish law. The generality of the lan­guage in the proposed SI can only lead to confusion as to the precise remedies that can lawfully be obtained in the light of other express provisions of EU law. Such EU law is intended to cut down on the scope of the remedies available against ISPs.

Judges will have to approach any new legislation by refer­ence to EU law and jurispru­dence, which must take precedence over Irish domestic law where there is any incon­sistency between the two.

If this whole debate is a mat­ter of empowering the Irish courts to order the blocking of websites, as many commenta­tors have stated in recent weeks and months, then the legisla­tion should specifically address this and set out the relevant cri­teria in a manner consistent with EU law. The proposed SI introduces unwelcome uncer­tainty and will inevitably lead to further litigation.

Further, it is noteworthy that the Programme for Govern­ment stated that legislation in the area of online copyright infringement needed to be tackled — but went on to say that "the situation can no long­er be tolerated where Irish min­isters enact EU legislation by statutory instrument", where "the checks and balances of parliamentary democracy are bypassed". The proposed SI ignores this statement, in that it seeks, without the benefit of the normal legislative process, to amend the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, which itself was the subject of lengthy debate in both houses of the Oireachtas at the time.

Implementing this alar­mingly simplistic SI will unfor­tunately not solve the problem of striking a fair balance be­tween the interests of all in­volved, be they rightsholders, ISPs or internet users, but rather leave it to be teased out in the courts. Time should be taken to properly consider what changes need to be made to our copyright laws by means of primary legislation. In this context, assistance can be ob­tained from considering simi­lar debates currently taking place in many other jurisdic­tions including the United States of America.

John Gordon is a senior counsel

It's worth noting, although not explicitly stated, that the effect of this opinion is the proposed statutory instrument would be ultra vires the power of the Minister and therefore would be struck down if challenged before the High Court. To date the government talking points have been to the effect that it would be "prudent" to introduce the SI. John Gordon's analysis shows why this is flawed - unless the SI is required by EU law then the Minister has no power to introduce it.

Copyright proposals block innovation and free expression

I have an opinion piece in today's Irish Times arguing against current government proposals which would allow internet blocking and more. Here's an excerpt:

As currently drafted, the statutory instrument provides that the High Court may grant an injunction against an internet intermediary who is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing – but does not specify even the most basic details regarding how this power might be exercised.

What type of injunction might be granted? On what criteria? Against what types of intermediary – internet service providers, discussion forums, search engines, social networking sites, video hosting sites? Who will bear the costs of these injunctions? Who will be responsible if, as often happens, an unrelated website is wrongfully blocked?

This lack of detail makes it impossible to predict how this law might be applied, and means that clarification will come only after repeated and expensive trips to the High Court.

The Internet Service Providers Association of Ireland (whose members include Google) has opposed the legislation, noting the proposal creates “business uncertainty for those running or considering establishing internet services from Ireland” in a way which may have “drastic consequences” for them: in short, it will act as a deterrent to the next generation of Irish internet businesses which may relocate to warmer legal climes. Significantly, the Department of Enterprise has not produced a Regulatory Impact Assessment of the measure.

Full text

Ireland's SOPA to permit three strikes; TDs asked to debate something they haven't seen

It's been a peculiar day in relation to Ireland's SOPA.

First of all, junior minister Sean Sherlock said on lunchtime radio that he intends to hold an emergency Dáil debate on the law - within 24 hours no less! - and is happy to meet with me and other representatives of StopSOPAIreland.com to discuss it. While I'm glad to see that he's softened his position, it's remarkable that he still hasn't published the text of his proposals and doesn't show any signs of doing so. Consequently, I'm not sure what there is to discuss or what he expects the Dáil to debate. Asking TDs to have a debate in the dark about a document they haven't seen doesn't show much respect for Parliament.

But let's leave that aside for the moment. Assume TDs are given the proposal at some point tomorrow. Pretend that despite the short notice they might have sufficient time to digest a complex area of law. Ignore the fact that citizens will be prejudiced by being denied the chance to adequately brief TDs. The point remains - a hurried debate on its own isn't sufficient.

Normally laws are made through a measured process where both the Dáil and the Seanad are given adequate time to scrutinise a Bill, identify weaknesses and pass amendments. It's clear that what Sean Sherlock proposes won't enable them to do that. Instead, TDs will be left impotent with the Dáil being treated as a talking shop, unable to make any changes to a document drafted behind closed doors.

(Incidentally, it also contradicts the minister's own Programme for Government which states that "The situation can no longer be tolerated where Irish Ministers enact EU legislation by statutory instrument. The checks and balances of parliamentary democracy are by-passed." I couldn't agree more.)

The need for greater transparency is obvious from a second remarkable development today. In a briefing note circulated to TDs and senators, Séan Sherlock has confirmed that his proposals go even further than we had thought, and respond to the music industry demands in the EMI v. UPC case:

"to prevent infringement of the record companies’ sound recording copyright, through... internet “peer-to-peer” services, possibly involving a 'three strikes and you’re out' scenario. This is where the ISP sends three warnings of increasing severity and if the infringement continues, discontinues access to the Internet. It is sometimes referred to as a 'graduated response'."

In short, the proposals aren't simply about website blocking, but could also allow courts to require ISPs to introduce three strikes systems. It's surprising and disappointing that this is happening now - after the Data Protection Commissioner has shown the unreliability of these systems by taking proceedings against Eircom for wrongly threatening innocent users with disconnection - and truly remarkable that the department seems content with the possibility for such systems to be introduced at the discretion of judges with no legislative controls.

If you're worried by these proposals and want to see an open and transparent discussion take place then please support the campaign at StopSOPAIreland.com.

Anonymous attacks on Ireland will hurt, not help the case against blocking

My heart sank when I saw this tweet a few minutes ago:

Ireland has angered the hive, we will be reporting all attacks through this account | #OpIreland #OpMegaUpload

— Anonymous (@YourAnonNews) January 24, 2012

Leave aside, for a moment, the inconvenience and disruption this will cause people trying to make use of government sites, the cost of responding and the controversial question whether denial of service attacks are legitimate as a type of civil disobedience. Quite apart from all these points, the action will do nothing to advance the Anonymous goals.

Until now the Irish campaign against internet blocking proposals has been remarkably effective at getting the issue onto the public and political agenda. With the help of the StopSOPAIreland site, the proposed law has shot from almost no public awareness to national prominence in just a few days, and has seen some Irish politicians genuinely engaging with our concerns. It also is giving many Irish netizens a grounding in political advocacy, something that will help as we confront more of these issues in future.

The Anonymous attacks, if they go ahead, will jeopardise this - making it easier for the music industry to spin critics as criminals, and giving unsympathetic politicians an easy, crowd pleasing reason to ignore the campaign. If the headlines shift from "New law threatens civil liberties" to "Hackers attack Irish government websites" then we will be on the back foot, jeopardising what's been achieved to date.

I don't think Anonymous tend to reconsider their targets once chosen. But if they do, now would be a good time to rethink the Irish attack.

Ireland's SOPA: A FAQ

What's this all about?

Long story short: the Irish government plans, before the end of January, to bring in a law which would allow Irish courts to block access to websites accused of infringing copyright (and possibly do other things as well).

Isn't that a short time for parliament to examine it?

The Irish parliament won't have a chance to debate it before it's passed. The law is to be brought in by a statutory instrument, something which requires only the stroke of a minister's pen.

Who's responsible?

The law is the responsibility of the Department for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation where the key person is junior minister Sean Sherlock.

What will the law say?

We don't have a final text yet. But the key part is likely to be similar to a previous draft which said:

3. The Act of 2000 is hereby amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (5) of section 40:

(5A)(a) without prejudice to subsections (3) and (4), the owner of the copyright in the work concerned may apply to the High Court for an injunction against a person who provides facilities referred to in subsection (3) where those facilities are being used by one or more third parties to infringe the copyright in that work. 

(b) In considering an application for an injunction under this subsection, the court shall have due regard to the rights of any third party likely to be affected and the court shall make such directions (including, where appropriate, a direction requiring a third party to be put on notice of the application) as the court may deem necessary or appropriate in all the circumstances.

Can we have that in English please?

Certainly. This will give the Irish courts an open-ended power to grant orders against ISPs and other intermediaries who provide facilities which might be used to infringe copyright. This could include hosting providers, social networks, forums, video hosting sites - potentially most online services.

What will these intermediaries be required to do?

We don't know. At a minimum this will probably allow courts to require ISPs to block access to alleged infringing sites (such as The Pirate Bay). Over and above that it becomes impossible to say - the language is so vague it might, for example, allow a court to require an ISP to introduce a three strikes system or to block certain ports. However, once copyright plaintiffs get hold of this power you can expect it to be pushed to its absolute limit.

So who will pay for this?

We don't know. It is possible, under this draft, that the intermediaries will have to pay for both the legal costs of the court application and also the running costs of whatever they are ordered to do - for example, the staff costs of receiving and administering block lists. In that case, expect costs to be passed on to the end user.

Will the sites to be blocked have a right to be heard?

Maybe. The draft language does say that affected third parties might be given notice of applications to block them. On the other hand, in 2009 an Irish High Court judge was happy to allow Eircom to block The Pirate Bay without any notification or chance to be heard which doesn't bode well for the future.

What sort of standard will be used to decide if a site should be blocked?

Your guess is as good as mine - the draft is completely silent on this point.

Isn't this rather vague?

Yes. By failing to provide any real detail, the proposed law leaves the future of the Irish internet essentially in the discretion of Irish judges.

Could this harm Irish industry?

Yes - including the latest push to establish Ireland as a centre for cloud computing. Here's what tech journalist Adrian Weckler had to say:

With their billions of users, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter inherently find some copyright protected material leaked onto their web services. The new law will give music and movie firms the legal footing to get ISPs blocking. That may not go down too well with Google and Facebook, which are two of Dublin's biggest employers. It probably won't sit easily, either, with the IDA, which may have to alter its pitch to large US social media firms who may have been thinking of setting up in Ireland. (That includes Twitter.)

So where's the Regulatory Impact Assessment? Surely we need more detail about the impact this law will have?

Tumbleweed.

Would this vagueness breach the European Convention on Human Rights?

Quite possibly.

If nothing else will it at least stop illegal downloads and protect Bono's pocketbook?

No. Blocking is easily circumvented. But don't take my word for it - here's what UK regulator Ofcom had to say:

For all blocking methods circumvention by site operators and internet users is technically possible and would be relatively straightforward by determined users.

So why is the government pushing this law now?

In a 2010 decision the High Court held that European law required Ireland to introduce blocking into domestic law, and that Ireland was in breach by failing to provide for court ordered blocking.

Doesn't that decision mean that blocking must be introduced?

Maybe. The law in this area is extremely complex, particularly since the European Court of Justice has given an important decision restricting the use of blocking in the meantime. That decision found that filtering would be impermissible if it undermined freedom of expression and blocked lawful communications - something that is inevitable if this proposal is adopted.

From a practical point of view, the European Commission - which monitors implementation of EU law - doesn't seem to think Ireland is in breach and hasn't taken any action against Ireland for failure to introduce blocking. Irish telecoms group ALTO have also put forward a different view arguing that this law is unnecessary.

However, even if we assume that EU law does require some form of blocking then it should not be introduced in a way which

• short circuits the democratic process and without proper scrutiny by the Irish parliament; and
• introduces intolerable uncertainty for Irish online businesses and fundamental rights.

What can I do about it?

If you live in Ireland and you want to stop this proposal then you should let Sean Sherlock (email) (twitter @seansherlocktd), the senior minister Richard Bruton (email) and your TDs what you think of it. Phone their offices if you can - one phone call will outweigh 20 emails.

StopSOPAIreland.com has more you can do.

If you live outside Ireland, you might still email Richard Bruton and Sean Sherlock to let them know the effect this will have on Ireland's reputation as a place to set up technology businesses.

One more thing - is it really true that the music industry wants the Irish taxpayer to pay for supposedly lost sales?

Yes. I hope you brought your wallet.

"Ireland's SOPA" will be vague and open-ended

[23.01.12 Hello Redditors! Here's a FAQ with more information.]

Adrian Weckler has a worrying piece on government proposals for blocking legislation in today's Sunday Business Post (paywalled). I've taken the liberty of extracting some of the highlights:

Is Ireland about to introduce a law that will allow music companies to order Internet service providers to block access to websites? I rang up the Minister of State at the department of Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation, Sean Sherlock, to find out. "The statutory instrument to be introduced is completely different to Sopa [Stop Online Piracy Act] in America" he told me. "We are simply addressing the High Court judgment handed down by Mr Justice Peter Charleton in relation to copyright law... I will introduce this imminently, by the end of January." That's a yes, then ...

The Irish governments new “statutory instrument” threatens to do some of the same things as Sopa, mainly introducing the power to force ISPs to block websites suspected of having copyrighted material on them.

While that means curtains for the Pirate Bay (which few people here will miss), it also leaves open the possibility for a judge to order ISPs to block YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Why? Because, with their billions of users, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter inherently find some copyright protected material leaked onto their web services. The new law will give music and movie firms the legal footing to get ISPs blocking. That may not go down too well with Google and Facebook, which are two of Dublin's biggest employers. It probably won't sit easily, either, with the IDA, which may have to alter its pitch to large US social media firms who may have been thinking of setting up in Ireland. (That includes Twitter.)

Given the seismic nature of the proposed change to Irish internet access, surely more detailed primary legislation would be in order here? For example, could there be a limit to enforcement of the injunctions? What defences might be available? Could there be exceptions?  "We will probably need a test case to come before the courts before primary legislation such as that could be considered," said Sherlock. In other words: don't look at us, guv. We may be the government, but this kind of law-making is really a matter for judges. We don't really do that kind of thing ...

Politically, this is a no-win scenario. Even with the government about to open the legal doors for the music and movie companies to start directing ISPs' access policies, the content creation industry is frothing and fuming. Ironically, by taking a leave-it-to-m'lud approach, the government is also now attracting the anger of an increasing tranche of the technology and digital community. It is unusual to alienate both sides of a legislative argument ...

So this really is turning out to be a lose-lose episode for the government. Yet the issue wields vast significance for both sides of the debate (the music industry and the digital technology industry). It could also have profound, long-lasting consequences for Irish industry.

The clear implication from that interview with Sean Sherlock is that the proposed measures will be lacking in any real detail, leaving it entirely up to the judges as to what types of blocking might emerge. (Possibly going beyond web blocking to also target hosting and other services.)

This ambiguity - as well as jeopardising fundamental rights - will create intolerable uncertainty for businesses such as Google who might find themselves at risk of business threatening and unpredictable injunctions and will certainly deter others from setting up in Ireland.

Instead, any action should only take place by primary legislation which the Oireachtas would have a chance to scrutinise and debate. As I said previously in a letter on behalf of Digital Rights Ireland:

It is significant that Charleton J. in EMI v. UPC [2010] IEHC 377 referred to any legislative intervention being properly a matter for the Oireachtas. The Opinion of the Advocate General in Scarlet (Extended) v. SABAM (Case C-70/10) similarly referred to a need for legislation in this area to be "democratically legitimised" (at para. 113).

It would be undesirable in any event for a matter dealing with fundamental rights to be disposed of by way of secondary legislation. It is all the more undesirable in this case, however, given the vague and open-ended nature of the powers involved. This is, in effect, a case of delegation heaped on delegation - rather than rules governing blocking and other remedies being made by primary legislation, or even secondary legislation, they are instead effectively being made by delegation to the judiciary.

Although it's the 11th hour, it's not too late for the Irish government to see sense and abandon this proposal. If you agree then you should let Sean Sherlock and your TDs what you think of it.

The (legal) case against an Irish SOPA

The publicity and success of the anti-SOPA campaign in the US has put internet blocking on the agenda worldwide and Paul Quigley's excellent column in the Journal explains how Ireland is moving towards similar types of blocking - only by the stroke of a Ministerial pen and without any legislation by the Oireachtas. There are any number of reasons to oppose this Irish version of SOPA, and I'll blog about some of them later, but for the moment I want to highlight just one: that it is likely that such a law would be ultra vires the Minister and in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I've previously made this case in a letter on behalf of Digital Rights Ireland in relation to the Department's draft statutory instrument:


In addition, the Irish telecoms group ALTO made similar points in their submission which we supported:
It's now six months since we made those submissions. In the meantime the European Court of Justice handed down its landmark judgment in Sabam v. Scarlet where it held that:

the protection of the fundamental right to property, which includes the rights linked to intellectual property, must be balanced against the protection of other fundamental rights...in the context of measures adopted to protect copyright holders, national authorities and courts must strike a fair balance between the protection of copyright and the protection of the fundamental rights of individuals who are affected by such measures.

Specifically, it held that filtering systems were prone to infringe the right to freedom of expression and held against one such system on the basis that it:

could potentially undermine freedom of information since that system might not distinguish adequately between unlawful content and lawful content, with the result that its introduction could lead to the blocking of lawful communications. Indeed, it is not contested that the reply to the question whether a transmission is lawful also depends on the application of statutory exceptions to copyright which vary from one Member State to another. Moreover, in some Member States certain works fall within the public domain or can be posted online free of charge by the authors concerned.

In light of this judgment the case against blocking is all the stronger, making the Department's proposed law all the shakier. The music industry appears to realise this, which may account for its crude attempt to force the Department's hand by demanding that the taxpayer compensate it for its (supposedly) lost sales. Nevertheless, it's not too late for the Irish government to see sense and abandon this proposal and if you agree then you should let your TDs know what you think of it.

More on the music industry case against Ireland

Today's Irish Times confirms that the litigation is intended to put pressure on the government in drafting a statutory instrument to allow blocking. Excerpt:

THE IRISH arm of multinational music group EMI has launched a High Court action against the State as part of its bid to stop the illegal downloading of music...

The Government recently pledged to issue an order to allow copyright holders to compel internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to websites that they consider are engaged in piracy. However, EMI Records (Ireland) remains unhappy with what it perceives to be foot-dragging on the part of the Government in tackling this issue. It is concerned that the matter could be delayed again, and that even if a statutory instrument is issued, its contents may not be satisfactory. Chief executive Willie Kavanagh is adamant that the instrument should give companies such as his the right to seek court injunctions against ISPs that allow access to music piracy websites. Mr Kavanagh said yesterday that EMI asked the Government to show them the forthcoming instrument, but it has not yet received it, “leading me to believe it’s unlikely to satisfy the music industry’s requirement for injunctive relief”.

Incidentally, the coverage is misleading in an important aspect - this is a concerted action brought by all the major music companies (including Sony, Universal, Warner and WEA) not merely EMI. It's also 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.

Previously

Music Industry v. Ireland

The long suffering Irish taxpayer will be delighted to learn that the music industry has joined the queue of those seeking a payout and yesterday issued a summons against the State in the High Court for alleged failure to implement aspects of EU copyright law.

The background to this case lies in the October 2010 judgment of Charleton J. in EMI v. UPC where he held that Irish law did not permit an order to be made against an ISP requiring blocking of websites and went on to say that: "In failing to provide legislative provisions for blocking, diverting and interrupting internet [filesharing] Ireland is not yet fully in compliance with its obligations under European law." Immediately after that decision there was some sabre-rattling from the music industry which threatened to sue the State for damages caused by filesharing, on the theory that if blocking laws were in place then filesharing would go away. (Ignoring research such as that from Ofcom which has found that site blocking is easily evaded.)

Since then, however, the music industry appears to have fallen silent on this threat, presumably on the basis that it would get what it wanted through a statutory instrument which would permit blocking. This statutory instrument isn't yet in place but has been promised by mid January 2012, making the timing of this case all the more interesting - on the face of it, the music industry seems to have jumped the gun by bringing an action before that legislation is in place. Curiously, the normally vocal IRMA have nothing on their website and no press release seems to have been put out - perhaps this was intended as a shot across the bow of the State in case the statutory instrument doesn't meet music industry demands? Or perhaps the music industry feels the need to ramp up the pressure in light of the Data Protection Commissioner's ruling against Eircom's three strikes system?

As to the legal basis for the action, the music industry will presumably be relying on the well-known principle in Francovich v. Italy under which damages are possible against a state for failure to transpose a directive if three conditions are met:

first, that the result prescribed by the directive should entail the grant of rights to individuals; secondly, that it should be possible to identify the content of those rights on the basis of the provisions of the directive; and thirdly, that there should be a causal link between the breach of the State's obligation and the loss and damage suffered by the injured parties.

While I'm not aware of any other action of this sort being brought against a country for failure to implement copyright law, the third element would seem to be problematic for the music industry - establishing a causal link between Irish law and filesharing will be difficult, particularly given the evidence from elsewhere that blocking is ineffective.

Christmas and New Year privacy roundup

Blogging has been light in the run up to Christmas and the New Year but there have been a few recent developments which deserve to be noted. 

Eircom's three strikes system - down but not out?

The week before Christmas brought the significant news that the Data Protection Commissioner had found Eircom's three strikes system to be in breach of data protection law and had ordered Eircom to discontinue the system within 21 days (TheJournal | SiliconRepublic). Without sight of the ruling it's hard to comment, but I wrote about the background to the investigation previously and the statement from the DPC at that stage suggests that the system was viewed as being a disproportionate use of personal data, particularly in light of its impact on the right to access the internet.

Eircom has not accepted the DPC's decision and (according to Mark Tighe in yesterday's paywalled Sunday Times) has now appealed to the Circuit Court. It's hard to see what the troubled Eircom stands to gain from this - though it may be that failure to appeal would jeopardise their deal with the music industry to offer streaming and downloads. In any event, the appeal offers some breathing space - going by past experience, this appeal should take approximately 6 months or so to resolve, enabling Eircom to continue to operate three strikes until then. Incidentally, Mark Tighe also confirms that no Eircom customers have yet been disconnected for four "offences", though a number have had their accounts suspended for seven days.

Ireland's first prosecution for data disclosure

The same week also brought news of what seems to be the first successful prosecution in Ireland for deliberate disclosure of personal information (Irish Times | Independent | Examiner). This case centred on a corrrupt Revenue worker who disclosed information on six separate individuals to her own father (as a "favour to a business associate of his") and to her father in law - a retired garda who was working as a private investigator for Quinn Insurance.

Significantly, this came to light only due to initial fears that the victims were being targeted for criminal attacks - accounting for the garda involvement which led to this prosecution being brought. As I've already blogged, despite the existence of a "culture of snooping" within the Revenue previous cases have not been referred to police. This case isn't exceptional in involving snooping - it is exceptional only in seeing criminal consequences. Had this case not involved particularly sensitive targets (an executive of Brinks Allied security company and a former Revenue official now working against cigarette smuggling in Europe) then it is likely that no prosecution would have been brought.

All three defendants pleaded guilty to data protection offences. Unfortunately, the media coverage doesn't indicate the precise offences involved but it seems likely that each was charged with the offence of disclosing personal information obtained without authority, contrary to section 22 of the Data Protection Act 1988. This presents an interesting issue in the case of the Revenue worker, as the section 22 offence doesn't apply to "a person who is an employee or agent of the data controller or data processor concerned". Consequently, it is hard to see how this charge could have been brought against her unless as a civil servant she was regarded as not being an "employee" for the purposes of that section. [Update - I'm now informed that the charge against the Revenue worker was brought under section 21, which specifically targets employees also. However section 21 is limited to data processors rather than data controllers, which presents a further issue as to whether Revenue should properly be treated as a mere data processor.]

The case also reveals a lack of awareness amongst the Irish judiciary of the importance of data protection. In a worrying comment, the judge stated that "the breaches in this case were not unduly sinister and that they were possibly done without an appreciation of the seriousness of the actions". Remarkably, each offender was given the benefit of the Probation Act and allowed to escape conviction on condition that they donate €1,000 to charity. This can only be viewed as derisory in the context of a serious and repeated breach of trust (on the part of the Revenue worker) and a deliberate attempt to profit from wrongdoing (the private investigator) and if anything highlights the urgent need to introduce custodial sentences and not merely fines for this type of offence. As UK MPs recently noted, these trivial fines mean that "there is no deterrent because the financial gain resulting from the crime far exceeds the possible penalty".

(Yet another) Irish company spying on employees

Unfair dismissal actions have a way of exposing employers with a cavalier attitude to data protection. In November it was Dunnes Stores making secret use of CCTV. December revealed that Galen - a Northern Ireland pharmaceutical company - had covertly fitted GPS trackers to the cars of employees. According to the Employment Appeals Tribunal Galen had "breached the trust of its employees" by doing so, though it didn't address the question of whether this evidence was inadmissible as a result. Incidentally, I see from their website that Galen's motto is "Doing the right thing with the right priorities".

Innovation, Information and the Internet: Modernising Copyright Law

I'm delighted to be chairing a conference on copyright reform this Friday (21st October) and would encourage anyone with an interest in the topic to attend. The event is free and you can register online at http://www.dublincopyrightconference.com/. Full details:

Innovation, Information and the Internet: Modernising Copyright Law

When: Friday 21st October 2011, 1.00pm - 5.00pm (a sandwich lunch will be served at 12.00)

Where: Presidents' Hall, Law Society of Ireland, Blackhall Place, Dublin 7, Ireland

The current review of copyright law in Ireland presents significant challenges for rightsholders, copyright users and the legal profession alike. This conference will consider areas where Irish law is in need of reform and in particular will look at the role of copyright in the digital economy, the development of fair dealing exceptions, the role which fair use plays in the United States, and the experience of reform in the United Kingdom.

Speakers will include prominent national and international experts from private practice, academia and government, including:

Prof Dr Martin Senftleben - Faculty of Law, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Ms. Helen Sheehy, Commercial & Copyright Department, Sheehy Donnelly Solicitors
Prof Lionel Bently - Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge
Mr Stephen Rowan - Deputy Director, Copyright and IP Enforcement Directorate, UK Intellectual Property Office
Prof Peter Jaszi - College of Law, American University Washington
Ms. Linda Scales, Solicitor and co-founder of the Copyright Association of Ireland

Site Blocking: What the UK Government would prefer you not to see

It's well known that internet blocking is easy to circumvent. Ofcom in today's report "Site Blocking" to reduce online copyright infringement admits as much, saying that:

For all blocking methods circumvention by site operators and internet users is technically possible and would be relatively straightforward by determined users. (p.5)

Despite this, however, one branch of the UK Government still appears determined to keep its head in the sand, and according to that report:

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has redacted some parts of this document where it refers to techniques that could be used to circumvent website blocks.

Unfortunately, the technical competence of the DCMS appears to be somewhat limited, and the redaction was (ironically?) also easily circumvented, by measures as simple as copy/paste. Needless to say, a department which is unable to censor a single PDF does not exactly inspire confidence when it proposes to introduce blocking for the entire UK internet, and it is just as well that the UK government has today announced plans to abandon the blocking provisions of the Digital Economy Act.

[Updated - 1.15pm]

The full, unredacted version now appears on Scribd. As can be seen from that document, the material which was redacted was all improperly removed. The tactics discussed to circumvent blocking are all well-known, even to a mere lawyer such as myself, and the redactions appear to be motivated more by considerations of security theatre than anything else.Ofcom Site Blocking Report With Redactions Removed

[Previously]

Here are the individual portions of the report which the DCMS attempted to quash. Text in italics was not redacted but appears for context:

pp.28-29

Robustness

Bypassing IP address blocking is technically straightforward for those who have an incentive to do so.
The blocked site operator may:
• change IP address but stay on the same network (i.e. on the same hosting provider);
• move to an entirely new network (to a previously unobserved IP address);
• offer encrypted network services which obscure the true network address/destination such as Virtual Private Networking;26,27 or
• server operators may institute a Fast Flux network (where users run software on behalf of blocked site which hides the true network address of the blocked site).

There are other methods available to site operators. When moving to a new IP address a site operator may register multiple IP addresses for a given site in order to maintain service in the event that some of those individual IP addresses are blocked. This approach has legitimate purposes also.28 Furthermore, by setting a low “Time to Live” (TTL) Domain Name System (DNS) record value, determining the length of time that the IP address for a particular domain (expressed in seconds) remains in remote name server caches, it is easier for a site operator to move IP addresses without end users losing access. Where a low TTL is expressed the ISP DNS name server resolution cache is purged quickly thereby ensuring that newly assigned site IP addresses are retrieved from the authoritative name server and site accessibility is maintained. Figure 13 below shows that the TTL value for "kickasstorrents" is one hour, demonstrating that any changes to IP address to DNS name are refreshed and propagated within ISP DNS servers in just over an hour.

Figure 13: Kickasstorrents DNS record Time to Live (1 hour) Name TTL Class Record Address
www.kickasstorrents.com. 3600 IN A 95.215.60.37
www.kickasstorrents.com. 3600 IN A 93.114.40.112
www.kickasstorrents.com. 3600 IN A 193.105.134.81
www.kickasstorrents.com. 3600 IN A 95.143.195.138
www.kickasstorrents.com. 3600 IN A 76.76.107.90

26 Ipredator - Surf anonymously with VPN and proxy https://www.ipredator.se/?lang=en
27 UK based VPN services facilitating access to copyright infringed material may be subject to site blocking injunctions. UK VPN operators may institute site blocking at the VPN egress point. NB: we are not aware of any UK based VPN service marketed or positioned for such activity. Such services are likely to be non-UK based.

pp.33-34

DNS blocking robustness

For site operators and end users with a sufficient incentive to engage in circumvention DNS blocking is technically relatively straightforward to bypass:

• the blocked site may offer services such as Virtual Private Networking, which is where encryption and other security measures are deployed to ensure that the data cannot be viewed by third parties (DNS name resolution may occur within the VPN providers network thereby bypassing the ISP based DNS site-blocking);
• the end-user can change their DNS name servers to 3rd party DNS name servers;32,33
• users may use anonymous web proxy or other anonymising services which are not reliant on the ISP DNS servers; or
• name resolution may be performed locally by adding an entry to a hosts file (IP address resolution information can be obtained from websites running a web-enabled equivalent of “nslookup” command).

32 Google Public DNS - http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/
33 OpenDNS Store > Sign up for OpenDNS Basic: - https://store.opendns.com/get/basic/

For end users who want to bypass blocks there are several options. For instance, there are many legitimate alternative DNS providers to ISP DNS registries. Examples include OpenDNS and Google DNS. We consider the changing of DNS servers to alternative providers to require low technical skills, as the providers offer clear instructions using plain English. For instance, switching to Google DNS requires 11 steps for Windows users and only 8 for those using MAC OS.

With a modest understanding of internet technologies it is possible to access a site by entering the site IP address (if multiple websites are hosted at the same IP address the user will be displayed the default web site or page for that web server/IP address). Site operators can draw attention to online web based and alternative sources of DNS name resolution within emails to their user base or via online forums.

Other channels that site operators could use to widely distribute advice on how best to circumvent DNS blocking could include posting to online forums, Really Simple Syndication (RSS) or updates via micro blogging sites such as Twitter ®. The advice could include changing to unblocked DNS name servers, Virtual Private Networks and proxy services or other anonymising systems. Similarly, site operators may quickly mirror or make copies of a blocked site on new top level or country code domains pointing towards new IP addresses e.g. www.blockedsite.cc; www.blockedsite.ru; www.blockedsite.vn; www.blockedsite.net.

p.38

Techniques that may undermine URL blocking include:

• web site operators providing encrypted access to their web sites via Secure Sockets Layer/ Transport Layer Security i.e. https connectivity https://www.example.com/downloads/pirate.zip;
• a site operator may run a website on a network port other than port 80;
• the site operator changing the IP address and bypassing the network routing announcements;
• a site operator registering a new domain name e.g. www.example.net or www.example.org;
• the blocked site offering services such as Virtual Private Networking;
• the use of anonymous web proxy or other anonymising services;
• the site operator reorganising the site structure if the blocking is conducted against specific URLs; and
• the site operator or end user encoding URLs to bypass blocking.

p.40

Packet inspection blocking robustness

Both shallow and deep packet inspection can be bypassed by site operators using the following means:

• changing the IP address but staying on the same network;
• moving to an entirely new network (to a previously unobserved IP address);
• the site may use network encryption techniques such as Virtual Private Networking to render scrutiny of the IP packet‟s payload or real IP address destination impossible, given the technology available today; or
• the site operator may add or remove site IP addresses from a pool of IP addresses.

End users who wish to circumvent packet inspection may opt to use anonymous web proxies or other anonymsing services.

p.41

As with the deployment of any of the single primary techniques, the hybrid approach is also susceptible to circumvention by the use of anonymising tools such as The Onion Router, VPNs or anonymous proxy services.

p.44 (Column marked "Difficulty of circumvention" originally redacted)

p.45 (Column marked "Difficulty of circumvention" originally redacted)

p.52

Technical Glossary

Anonymous Web Proxy Service that allows users to place web requests via an intermediary server. The proxy server makes the connection on behalf of the user thereby hiding originating IP address and bypassing blocking network techniques.

The Onion Router (ToR) Anonymity network originally developed by the United States Navy. Used in many countries to bypass state censorship.

Newzbin2: Did BT shoot itself in the foot - and will Irish ISPs do the same?

Yesterday's decision in Twentieth Century Fox v. BT (PDF) introduces mandatory web blocking for the first time in the UK and unsurprisingly has already received a great deal of attention (BBC|Guardian|IPKat).

Lilian Edwards has provided a comprehensive legal analysis, while Richard Clayton tackles the technical implications of the judgment, so I won't attempt to duplicate their work. But a separate blog post might be useful on one point which has received less attention - the significance of the fact that BT had already voluntarily adopted a system - Cleanfeed - to block child abuse images.

In 2004 - when BT initially adopted Cleanfeed - it was even then obvious that there was a risk of function creep and in particular that copyright holders would seek to use the system. In a briefing to LINX at the time (link now broken), however, BT appeared to believe that it was unlikely to be sued and could mitigate this risk by discontinuing the use of Cleanfeed if scope creep became a reality. According to the then Director of Internet Services for BT Retail: "if the pressure to extend the scope of Cleanfeed became too great [BT] would simply cancel the project" and "BT is unlikely to be the defendent of choice for a copyright holder or other party attempting to hold an ISP legally responsible for Internet traffic".

Yesterday's ruling has shown the limits of this reasoning. Once Cleanfeed provided a proof of concept then function creep was inevitable and the idea that BT could unilaterally turn off the blocking system unrealistic. Instead, it painted a target on its back. According to a representative for the movie industry "BT was chosen because it's the largest and already has the technology in place, through its Cleanfeed system, to block the site".

The use of Cleanfeed also prevented BT from asserting two defences that might otherwise have applied - that there was no clear legal basis for imposing a blocking system and that their obligations would be unclear. Instead, according to the High Court:

the order sought by the Studios is clear and precise; it merely requires BT to implement an existing technical solution which BT already employs for a different purpose; implementing that solution is accepted by BT to be technically feasible; the cost is not suggested by BT to be excessive. (para. 177)

In light of this, therefore, it's hard not to conclude that BT shot itself in the foot by adopting a blocking system which could easily be repurposed for the benefit of Hollywood.

"No good deed goes unpunished" - this case proves the truth of this statement, and will undermine other voluntary initiatives to block child pornography by showing how easily those initiatives can be coopted by the movie industry or music industry. There's also a lesson here for Irish ISPs who are coming under police pressure to introduce similar blocking systems. Will they now do so, knowing that these systems will make them a happy hunting ground for the content companies, defamation plaintiffs, and others who may wish to block access to the web in Ireland?

Data Protection Commissioner investigating Eircom's "three strikes" system

Between the bank holiday weekend and the Sunday Times paywall Mark Tighe's story last week revealing that the Data Protection Commissioner is investigating the Eircom / IRMA three strikes system didn't receive the attention it deserved. However the investigation has the potential to entirely derail the system and needs to be considered further.

First, the background. I'm disappointed but not surprised to find that my 2009 prediction - that Eircom would end up falsely accusing innocent users - has come to pass in relation to 300 users:

THE "three strikes" scheme to prevent music piracy, which is operated by Eircom at the behest of record companies, is being investigated by the data protection commissioner (DPC) after customers said they were sent warning letters in error. The investigation began after an Eircom customer complained that he had wrongly received a "first strike" letter. The company has admitted it incorrectly issued such warnings to a "limited number" of customers.

So why did Eircom falsely accuse users?

This was due to a software failure caused when the clocks went back last October, it said.

Far from being a technical sounding "software failure", this appears to show up ineptitude in relation to a very basic aspect of network management - i.e. making sure that the server clock reflects daylight savings time. As a result, it seems that users found themselves being accused on the basis of what somebody else did from the same IP address either an hour earlier or an hour later. Consequently, the users who were wrongfully accused should consider themselves lucky that this incompetence did not lead to their being accused of a serious crime - for example, being arrested and having their homes searched due to the wrong time being used (as happened to these Indian users).

The significance of this case goes beyond simple technical failings, however, as the complaint to the Data Protection Commissioner has triggered a wider investigation of the legality of the entire three strikes system:

The DPC said it was investigating the complaint "including 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".

This is unsurprising - when the Eircom / IRMA three strikes settlement was being agreed the Data Protection Commissioner identified significant data protection problems with it. These problems remain, notwithstanding the deeply flawed High Court judgment which approved of the system - a judgment which, for example, decided on the question of whether or not IP addresses are personal data without once considering the views of the Article 29 Working Party. It is not surprising that the Data Protection Commissioner was not convinced by that judgment (the judgment was problematic at least in part because the Commissioner was not represented - the only parties before the court had a vested interest in the system being implemented). However, until a concrete complaint arose no further action could be taken.

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. 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 - which would ultimately seem likely to put the matter back before the courts. Watch this space.

ALAI comes to Dublin

There's a very good IPR conference coming up in Dublin shortly as the Association littéraire et artistique internationale will hold its bi-annual Study Days on the 30th June and 1st July, hosted by the Copyright Association of Ireland. Readers of this blog may be particularly interested to see that speakers include the president of HADOPI, solicitor Helen Sheehy (who has represented the Plaintiffs in all Irish filesharing litigation) and Judge Peter Charleton (who heard both the Eircom and UPC filesharing cases). Full details at www.alaidublin2011.org.