The High Court declined to order UPC Communications Ireland Limited to block or otherwise disrupt online copyright infringement on its network, holding that the remedies sought were not available under Irish law. The court said the evidence merited injunctive relief, but that it could not grant it without the necessary legislative power.
EMI Records (Ireland) Limited, Sony Music Entertainment Ireland Limited, Universal Music Ireland Limited, Warner Music Ireland Limited and WEA International Incorporated sought orders against UPC under the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000. They proposed a graduated response: detect alleged infringement, warn subscribers and disconnect them after repeated incidents. Alternatively, they sought measures to block or divert infringing transmissions, including access to The Pirate Bay.
UPC argued that it was a “mere conduit” for users’ communications and that the law did not permit the orders sought. The judgment records that the companies had notified UPC that its network was being used to infringe copyright. The judge found the evidence established widespread infringement over the network and that detection, warnings and disconnection could be proportionate responses. He also rejected the argument that the proposed detection process necessarily breached subscribers’ privacy.
However, the judge concluded that section 40(4) of the 2000 Act permitted action to remove infringing material, not to block, divert or interrupt transient communications passing through an internet service provider’s network. He said the court could not interpret the provision to create powers that its wording did not give it, even in light of European law obligations. The judgment stated that legislative intervention would be required to provide for those remedies.
The court also refused the requested Pirate Bay blocking order. The judge said he would have granted it if the law allowed, but concluded he had no legal power to do so. He further said an earlier 2009 High Court judgment that had found such a blocking order permissible was wrong, having been reached without opposing argument on the issue.
The ruling concerned the companies’ application for injunctive relief against UPC. The court declined that relief; it did not order UPC to implement a graduated response or technical blocking system.