Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
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 yesterday, 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 ad” (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.
Yesterday, 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.
Free internet access is not a “loophole”
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.
Paul Quigley is co-founder of Newswhip.com. This opinion piece first appeared on Newswhip’s blog yesterday.
Unless you get on the “Free Legal Aid” gravy train. One of the highest earners in the country is in Clare and most if not all her work is Free Legal Aid. Not free for the taxpayer though.
@Pat Casey: I don’t think you read the article.
Free legal aid is approx €25 for a file in the district court. One barrister might get 2 files a day. That’s €250 a week.
One barrister doing really well doesn’t mean that most aren’t below the poverty lines. The ones that do well have the right contacts, shake the right hands and play the old boys club games. The hard working junior from a working class background, with 2 degrees and working their hole off can’t even afford rent.
That is less money than a taxi fare to the airports.
Those payments are disrespectful and Barristers really should protect themselves a bit better.
@: there is no need for barristers in the district court except in exceptional cases. Twenty years ago you would rarely see a barrister in the district court now they’re wall to wall, getting involved in the most trivial of cases. Doing the work of solicitors most of the time.
@Raysdaisy: That’s a fact for sure.
For the work some of these lawyers do, getting suspended sentences for repeat offenders – they should be CHARGED by victims rather than being paid. The gravy train of repeat offenders never doing prison time is all due to the greedy judges and barristers
@Dublin Insider:
Blame the judges, not the defence lawyers. They’re doing their job and their responsibility by giving the best defence they can.
It’s the judges who are handing out ridiculous sentences that make a mockery of victims.
@David Bourke: they’re all pals so it’s the same thing.
@Dublin Insider: That’s surely the judges fault, defence council provides a zealous defence for their clients, guilty as sin or innocent as a baby.
@David Bourke: their not giving defence, though. They plead out their clients and get them back on the streets quickly. Hence why some have 100+ convictions and no jail time. Disgrace of a country.
What is relevant is what he earns in a year, but nowhere in the article does that get a mention. And I wonder how much he spends on wigs and gowns – a good saving could surely be made there. I expect he is a lot better off than some of those who are on so-called zero hour contracts, on the luxury of being paid the minimum wage but only getting it for 20 hours a week.
@Pat Kelly: 44% higher than the average national standard wage apparently
Maybe the government can look at this issue AFTER they reform the whole legal industry, which was part of the IMF bailout programme but has yet to happen. Of course our learned friends don’t want reform when it will affect their bottom line.
@The next small thing: we’ll said and very true. While the rest of us suffered during last recession Labour caved in to the legal profession and put the legal services bill to one side. Legal profession got their way again
@Raysdaisy: In fairness to Alan Shatter, he did try and begin reforming the sector but then the powers that be started throwing mud in his direction and by the time he had cleared his name they had their ideal minister for justice in place that won’t rock the boat, everyone wins, well apart from joe public that is.
@The next small thing: I agree 100%. I just remember one prominent labour minister saying “ my hands are tied” when it came to cuts for Joe public but handed the legal services bill to the usual suspects in the legal profession to make the necessary changes.
A waste of tax payers money.
@Stanley Savage: far from it, what you are suggesting is that the rich would be the only ones that would be able to afford a defence
We seem to have allot of student leavers heading into the legal careers , often wonder what is attracting them ? Do we have more lawyers / barristers per capita ? Some make allot of money but not all and the personal injury train is starting to slow down
Go into the family courts & see what these parasites are getting paid. You can cry me a river. I defended myself during my divorce and custody battle as solicitors were looking for €100 per hour to give me advice I already had. The legal profession in our country is like our political system. It’s all about getting in the trough. I came up against a €150 an hour barrister on my exes team & handed her her ass exposing her lying in court. Trying to intimidate me & using children as currency. I have no respect for legal professionals. I find them dishonest unethical and over rated. I saved myself about 9k going it alone and would advise anyone do the same. They should be paid less not more.
@Allora: This is not about solicitors?
Eye opener
They complete weird medieval rituals when attending Kings Inns. This adds to their high expectation on potential earnings. If they feel that they are not being paid well enough then find something else to do.
If the money is so bad why don’t they seek alternative employment…? Surely these individuals have a moderate level of intelligence and if they couldn’t investigate pay rates before taking the course,a job in the legal field is not for them…???
I think he should do a Money Diaries article.
Listen to me in fairness you knew the rates of pay before you got into it & the truth is the only barristers that are crying are the ones that don’t have a very good reputation. The solicitors on the legal aid panel will tend to use the same barristers when handing out instructions. Well, known solicitors will use well know barristers simple as that.
A lot of these barristers are up to their own you know what.
Let’s say I get charged with an offense & a solicitor instructs a crappy JC on my behalf I will be having not-so-nice words with him/her. I wish you well if you can get a name for yourself by standing up to the judges you will do very well. If not forget it.
They could save a few quid if they didn’t pay so much for those weird hair cuts that they are sporting.
have your say