<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;ireland&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:49:19 PST</pubDate>
<title>Next Ridiculous Idea To Stifle Online Speech: Irish Senator Says You Should Have To Pay To Post Online</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130307/03104722238/next-ridiculous-idea-to-stifle-online-speech-irish-senator-says-you-should-have-to-pay-to-post-online.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130307/03104722238/next-ridiculous-idea-to-stifle-online-speech-irish-senator-says-you-should-have-to-pay-to-post-online.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's a lot of hand-wringing and moral panics around "anonymous commenters" online supposedly saying all sorts of nasty stuff.  Of course, as we've discussed, some of the best comments in our own discussions seem to come from anonymous commenters.  Yes, some leave some crazy comments, but anonymity by itself is not the problem so many people think it is.  Still, an Irish Senator, Eamonn Coghlan, thinks that the way to deal with online commenters he doesn't like <a href="https://mashable.com/2013/03/06/pay-to-comment-online/" target="_blank">is to make them all pay to post any commentary online</a>.  Specifically, he apparently suggested that "the issue of anonymity" could be solved by "getting people to pay to post on social media websites or [to] register their passport numbers for IP addresses."  Because I'm sure that will really help build out the internet, when everyone has to think about whether their latest communication to a family member is worth the money.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130307/03104722238/next-ridiculous-idea-to-stifle-online-speech-irish-senator-says-you-should-have-to-pay-to-post-online.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130307/03104722238/next-ridiculous-idea-to-stifle-online-speech-irish-senator-says-you-should-have-to-pay-to-post-online.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130307/03104722238/next-ridiculous-idea-to-stifle-online-speech-irish-senator-says-you-should-have-to-pay-to-post-online.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>where-do-they-find-these-people?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130307/03104722238</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Jan 2013 14:52:20 PST</pubDate>
<title>Irish Newspapers Budge Slightly: Now Say Links Don't Require Payment, But Snippets...</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/09171321594/irish-newspapers-budge-slightly-now-say-links-dont-require-payment-snippets.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/09171321594/irish-newspapers-budge-slightly-now-say-links-dont-require-payment-snippets.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, we wrote about the insane position from the group Newspaper Licensing Ireland (NLI), which represents the major newspapers in Ireland, in demanding that a charity <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/11010619116/irish-charity-told-it-needs-to-pay-license-fee-to-link-to-newspaper-article.shtml">pay them</a> for linking to newspaper stories.  In the last few weeks that story has been getting <a href="http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/newspapers-charges-linking-ireland-740093-Jan2013/?utm_source=shortlink" target="_blank">more and more attention</a> in Ireland, in part because a related, but different organization representing mostly the same Irish newspapers, National Newspapers of Ireland (NNI), made a submission to a government review of copyright arguing that <a href="http://www.nni.ie/v2/broad/portal.php?content=../_includes/prportal.php&#038;date=4th%20Jan%202013&#038;year=2013" target="_blank">linking is infringement</a> if done on any kind of commercial site (so, yeah, they'd probably consider that link to their site infringement).
<blockquote><i>
NNI made a submission to the effect that our view of existing legislation is that <b>the display and transmission of links does constitute an infringement of copyright</b> and our existing copyright law should not be amended in the manner discussed in the Consultation Paper.
</i></blockquote>
Meanwhile, the lawyers representing the charity have noticed that NLI appears to have <a href="http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2013/01/07/irish-newspapers-and-links-a-welcome-evolution-of-position/" target="_blank">backtracked ever so slightly</a> and are now saying that "links alone" are not infringement, but if you include any text, you've gone over the line.  They've put up a new statement reading, in part:
<blockquote><i>
For commercial use: NLI does not require a licence from any organisation which only displays or transmits links to newspaper content. A licence is required when there is other reproduction of the newspaper content, such as display of PDFs or text extracts.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, whether or not they consider reproducing <i>that</i> text as copyright infringement is left as an exercise for the reader.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/09171321594/irish-newspapers-budge-slightly-now-say-links-dont-require-payment-snippets.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/09171321594/irish-newspapers-budge-slightly-now-say-links-dont-require-payment-snippets.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/09171321594/irish-newspapers-budge-slightly-now-say-links-dont-require-payment-snippets.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>keep-digging</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130107/09171321594</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Jan 2013 10:43:45 PST</pubDate>
<title>Web Blocking's Slippery Slope: It's Never 'Just' One Site</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/08460621606/web-blockings-slippery-slope-its-never-just-one-site.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/08460621606/web-blockings-slippery-slope-its-never-just-one-site.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Even against a background of repeated attempts to censor the Net, it's still possible to become a little complacent about some of the actions being taken by the copyright industries.  For example, many people probably feel that blocking a site like The Pirate Bay isn't really a problem because, after all, it's just one site, right?
</p><p>
A post on TorrentFreak explains why <a href="https://torrentfreak.com/music-biz-wants-to-block-pirate-bay-plus-260-additional-sites-130105/">that's a dangerous attitude</a>:

<i><blockquote>Copyright activists often warn that a ruling in one case has the potential to be leveraged elsewhere and the wedge can become thicker frighteningly quickly if issues aren't dealt with early on. It seems that a case currently underway in Ireland involving The Pirate Bay is proving that assessment correct.
<br /><br />
At the moment customers of the Irish ISP Eircom cannot access The Pirate Bay since an uncontested 2009 High Court ruling orders the ISP to block the site. But that's just one ISP, some people will say, and it's easy to switch to another. Nice try.</blockquote></i>

That's because the recording labels want the Web block to be extended to other ISPs.  Again, some might say: well, it's still just one site.  But here's where things start to get serious.  It's not just about one site any more:

<i><blockquote>The plaintiffs (technically EMI, Ireland) have told the court that they are looking to achieve more than just a blockade of the world's biggest torrent site. In fact, they have a list of 260 other "objectionable" websites they have identified that they would also like blocked if this attack on The Pirate Bay is a success.
<br /><br />
What started out with Eircom agreeing to have The Pirate Bay blocked could now potentially lead to a few other Irish ISPs having to follow suit. In a worst case scenario that could play out to all ISPs having to block 260 other sites on the music industry's hit-list. Which sites? Only they know.</blockquote></i>

And of course, if the industry manages to get the court to agree to 260 sites being blocked, you can be sure that it will be back with another few hundred, or a few thousand, at some point in the future.  Because once the court rules that Web blocking is acceptable, it's easier to go back to ask for more censorship, citing that judgement.  That's why it's important to remember it's never 'just' one Web block.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/08460621606/web-blockings-slippery-slope-its-never-just-one-site.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/08460621606/web-blockings-slippery-slope-its-never-just-one-site.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/08460621606/web-blockings-slippery-slope-its-never-just-one-site.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>thin-end-of-the-wedge</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130108/08460621606</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:02:39 PST</pubDate>
<title>Confused Irish Newspaper Editorial Argues That Search Engines Need To Pay Newspapers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121110/00584121003/confused-irish-newspaper-editorial-argues-that-search-engines-need-to-pay-newspapers.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121110/00584121003/confused-irish-newspaper-editorial-argues-that-search-engines-need-to-pay-newspapers.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As a few folks sent in, recently the Irish Examiner newspaper had an editorial arguing that <a href="http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/editorial/copyright-review--a-free-press-must-be-paid-for-content-213440.html#.UJ0kevxgrVo.twitter" target="_blank">copyright law needs to be expanded</a> because, of course, newspapers are suffering.  Though, as you look at the details, whoever wrote the article appears to be quite confused:
<blockquote><i>
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 &euro;46.5m to generate. Last year that site offered more than 350,000 articles at a cost equivalent to more than &euro;110m. And all without paying one cent to those who created those articles.
<br /><br />
This free-for-all has put Ireland&#8217;s 8,600 creative enterprises, the 116,000 jobs involved &#8212; some 7.5% of GDP and 6.5% of total employment &#8212; under a darkening cloud. Multinational corporations, ironically styling themselves champions of free information having stolen it themselves, pretend that they see nothing wrong with hijacking the work of others. They do this to create entities that exist primarily, in a news context, to deliver rather than generate content. To rub salt into the wound these entities are determined to secure advertising revenue on the back of that snatched news content. This is the very revenue that made the gathering of the news possible in the first place. 
</i></blockquote>
First of all, they seem to be claiming that search engines that index content, show a snippet <b>and link people to the original content</b> are "piracy."  That's crazy talk.  Furthermore, while they don't name the "search engine" they claim that it "offered" these articles.  Of course, if it really posted all the articles itself, then there is no need to change copyright laws -- the company could already sue them for infringement.  However, assuming that they're really talking about Google or just about any other search engine, what they really mean is that the search engines aggregated the content and <i>linked</i> people back to the original.  The "cost" to produce those articles is irrelevant to the overall discussion.  Yes, it costs money, but it's the job of a business model to bring in even more money.  If the business geniuses who run your paper are too clueless to figure out how to monetize the traffic from Google, then perhaps you deserve to go out of business.
<br /><br />
In the end, as we've seen elsewhere, this isn't about "piracy" at all.  This is about newspapers who don't know how to adapt, and are staffed by completely technologically illiterate folks, who simply see that Google is making money while they're struggling and assume (totally incorrectly) that Google needs to pay them for sending them traffic.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121110/00584121003/confused-irish-newspaper-editorial-argues-that-search-engines-need-to-pay-newspapers.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121110/00584121003/confused-irish-newspaper-editorial-argues-that-search-engines-need-to-pay-newspapers.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121110/00584121003/confused-irish-newspaper-editorial-argues-that-search-engines-need-to-pay-newspapers.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>time-to-drop-the-irish-examiner</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121110/00584121003</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:28:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Irish Rail Uses Twitter To Help Reunite Lost Dog With Owner</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120705/03125719584/irish-rail-uses-twitter-to-help-reunite-lost-dog-with-owner.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120705/03125719584/irish-rail-uses-twitter-to-help-reunite-lost-dog-with-owner.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One thing I always like about new technology is when it enables something that was effectively impossible before.  So, while this story is really just a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/twitter-to-the-rescue-social-network-helps-irishwoman-find-pet-dog-that-took-train-to-dublin/2012/07/04/gJQAFFyFNW_story.html" target="_blank">cute story about a lost dog</a>, it also is quite amazing when you think about it.  Not so long ago, this kind of thing wasn't really possible.  It's the story of how a Jack Russell terrier near Dublin somehow got away from its owner on Tuesday evening.  Wednesday morning, it wandered onto an Irish Rail train.  After workers realized the owner was not aboard, they took the dog to a particular station and then <a href="https://twitter.com/IrishRail/status/220430141602529281" target="_blank">sent out a "Lost dog!" tweet</a>:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/QKug1"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/QKug1.png"width=400 /></a>
</center>
Soon afterwards, Deirdre Anglin, tweeted <a href="https://twitter.com/DeirdreCA/status/220436966246858754" target="_blank">"that's my dog!"</a>:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/Isz3v"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/Isz3v.png" width=400 /></a>
</center>
Irish Rail announced that they <a href="https://twitter.com/IrishRail/status/220439812413456384" target="_blank">found</a> the owner, <i>just 32 minutes after posting the original</i>:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/RlwA7"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/RlwA7.png" width=400 /></a>
</center>
And then there was the <a href="https://twitter.com/IrishRail/status/220445823689957376/photo/1" target="_blank">reunited</a> post:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/K0wq5"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/K0wq5.png" width=400 /></a>
</center>
And, of course, now <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/patchtraveldog" target="_blank">the dog has its own Twitter feed</a>.
<br /><br />
Oddly, it does seem worth noting that just days before, Deirdre had <a href="https://twitter.com/DeirdreCA/status/219131405119135746" target"_blank">tweeted at the Irish Rail</a> to find out about extra trains for an event.  That appears to be the only time she tweeted at the Irish Rail since her account first appeared about a year ago.  I'm guessing that's just a weird coincidence, though in this day of faux viral stories, it's at least worth noting...
<br /><br />
Either way, assuming the story is accurate, it once again shows some of the unique power of modern communication technology -- even as some still continue to decry things like Twitter as useless.  Prior to that, people could have posted a "lost dog!" message online, but the chances of it ever actually connecting with the owner were much more slim.  But a service like Twitter, that makes it so easy to spread and share such info, creates the perfect conditions to make something like this happen.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120705/03125719584/irish-rail-uses-twitter-to-help-reunite-lost-dog-with-owner.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120705/03125719584/irish-rail-uses-twitter-to-help-reunite-lost-dog-with-owner.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120705/03125719584/irish-rail-uses-twitter-to-help-reunite-lost-dog-with-owner.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>tweet-and-found</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120705/03125719584</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 5 Jul 2012 19:29:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Hackable Irish E-Voting Machines That Cost 54 Million Euros Sold For Scrap: 9 Euros A Piece</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120702/04164119552/hackable-irish-e-voting-machines-that-cost-54-million-euros-sold-scrap-9-euros-piece.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120702/04164119552/hackable-irish-e-voting-machines-that-cost-54-million-euros-sold-scrap-9-euros-piece.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years, we've been pointing out the massive problems of e-voting, and governments' general blindness to the security risks.  Of course, beyond the basic fear of fraud, there should have also been concerns about wasting taxpayer money.  Apparently those concerns didn't amount to much in Ireland.  As <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/06/29/1316239/7000-irish-e-voting-machines-to-be-scrapped?utm_source=slashdot&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">Slashdot</a> highlights, Ireland spent &euro;54 million on 7,500 e-voting machines.  However, after realizing that there was no way to secure them from being hacked, the government has <a href="http://www.independent.ie/national-news/54m-voting-machines-scrapped-for-9-each-3153437.html" target="_blank">sold them off for scrap for a grand total of &euro;70,000</a>, or approximately &euro;9 per machine.  On the bright side, at least they weren't completely worthless...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120702/04164119552/hackable-irish-e-voting-machines-that-cost-54-million-euros-sold-scrap-9-euros-piece.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120702/04164119552/hackable-irish-e-voting-machines-that-cost-54-million-euros-sold-scrap-9-euros-piece.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120702/04164119552/hackable-irish-e-voting-machines-that-cost-54-million-euros-sold-scrap-9-euros-piece.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>buy-high,-sell-low</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120702/04164119552</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 05:19:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>3 Strikes Plan Re-established In Ireland After Court Decides To Ignore Data Protection Commission Ruling</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120628/18040419531/3-strikes-plan-re-established-ireland-after-court-decides-to-ignore-data-protection-commission-ruling.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120628/18040419531/3-strikes-plan-re-established-ireland-after-court-decides-to-ignore-data-protection-commission-ruling.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few years back, IFPI sued Irish ISP Eircom for not waving a magic wand and stopping infringement.  It was part of the legacy entertainment industry's strategy to try to force ISPs into kicking people offline under a 3 strikes regime, even if they couldn't get a law to that effect (the two key places where this was tried were in Ireland and Australia).  Eircom actually folded and agreed to start kicking its own customers offline on a 3 strikes (accusations, not convictions) approach, as long as the legacy recording industry also pressured its competitors to do the same thing.  Of course, once Eircom started, it totally screwed up and sent a bunch of notices to people who were entirely innocent, triggering a governmental review.  The end result was that the Irish Data Protection Commission <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111219/04293517126/three-strikes-approach-rejected-irish-data-protection-commissioner-govt-seeks-censorship-plan-instead.shtml">rejected</a> the 3 strikes system, over significant concerns about how it involved spying on customers.
<br /><br />
The labels fought back... and have now won.  A court <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/irish-record-labels-win-court-reinstates-3-strikes-for-file-sharing-120628/?utm_source=dlvr.it&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">has rejected the findings of the Data Protection Commission (DPC)</a> and argued, amazingly, that there are simply no privacy concerns at all with having ISPs track what you do online.  Well, that's not quite how the court put it.  Instead, it said that there's no privacy questions involved in "the detection and punishment of individuals who engage in unlawful Internet file-sharing."  Er... considering the whole issue that kicked this off was false accusations against those who did not engage in such things, it seems the judge is pretty confused.  Furthermore, the judge seems to think that there's a way to spy on users, but only track their infringing efforts.  The problem -- and the main privacy concern -- is not so much in the tracking of infringing activity, but all of the legitimate activity that gets tracked as well.
<br /><br />
Perhaps Justice Peter Charleton should open up his own log files to the public so that we can see if he's infringing.  There is, according to his version of things, no privacy violations there, because we all promise only to make sure he's not breaking copyright law.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120628/18040419531/3-strikes-plan-re-established-ireland-after-court-decides-to-ignore-data-protection-commission-ruling.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120628/18040419531/3-strikes-plan-re-established-ireland-after-court-decides-to-ignore-data-protection-commission-ruling.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120628/18040419531/3-strikes-plan-re-established-ireland-after-court-decides-to-ignore-data-protection-commission-ruling.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>protect-what-data?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120628/18040419531</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Irish Bloomsday Celebrations Finally Possible Without Threat Of Copyright Claims From James Joyce Estate</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120617/23234919365/irish-bloomsday-celebrations-finally-possible-without-threat-copyright-claims-james-joyce-estate.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120617/23234919365/irish-bloomsday-celebrations-finally-possible-without-threat-copyright-claims-james-joyce-estate.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've written a few times about the works of James Joyce, and how his estate -- mainly at the behest of his grandson, Steven -- was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110314/12084613488/james-joyce-estate-sends-takedown-joyce-quote-dna.shtml">particularly aggressive</a> (even to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090929/0247046346.shtml">egregious levels</a>) in stopping anyone from quoting Joyce's works.  As we stated a year ago, for Europe and much of other parts of the world, starting this year, Joyce's published works have moved into the public domain (70 years after Joyce's death), leading to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110607/21363014601/how-putting-james-joyces-ulysses-into-public-domain-will-breathe-new-life-into-joyces-work.shtml">great excitement</a> about how people can build on them.  
<br /><br />
In the US, the story is a bit more complex, however, as the Joyce Estate claims that <i>Ulysses</i> is <a href="https://joycefoundation.osu.edu/joyce-copyright/fair-use-and-permissions/about-law/public-domain" target="_blank">still under copyright</a>, having not been officially published as a book until 1934.  Others, however, argue that <a href="http://www.newswise.com/articles/ulysses-has-no-us-copyright" target="_blank">the book is in the public domain</a>, for a variety of reasons.  I was a bit surprised, then, to read this PBS article, which seems to <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/blog/2012/06/-portraits-of-james-joyce.html" target="_blank">imply the work is officially public domain</a> in the US.  At best, that's a point of contention.
<br /><br />
Either way, in Ireland, it's clear that <i>Ulysses</i> is in the public domain, and since this past weekend was <i>Bloomsday</i>, the popular celebration of all things Joyce (based on the date on which the book <i>Ulysses</i> takes place) there was, indeed, <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0616/1224318056734.html" target="_blank">renewed excitement around the event</a> (thanks to Joe for sending this and other links).
<br /><br />
Unfortunately, it's not all good news.  That link above talks a bit about how there are still efforts to control Joyce's "unpublished" works -- such as letters and correspondence -- by twisting the law.  The law does cover published and unpublished works differently, but on the assumption that "unpublished works" were works that were intended to be published.  When we're talking about letters and other issues of historical note, which scholars would love to make use of, it's ridiculous to stifle such things in the name of copyright.
<br /><br />
Even worse, as Becky Hogge warns in The Atlantic, regulators who love to extend copyright law brought Joyce's works back in from the public domain in the past <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/06/why-bloomsday-special-year/53620/" target="_blank">and could do so again</a>:
<blockquote><i>
2012 is not the first year Joyce entered the public domain in Ireland; that happened twenty years ago, only for the European Union to retroactively extend so-called authorial copyright from 50 years after the author&#8217;s death to 70.  The extension handed control of Ulysses back to the estate, causing untold legal trouble for scholars already beginning to take advantage of its public domain status to release new editions.
<br /><br />
I&#8217;ve witnessed at close quarters a similar extension granted to copyrights held by performers and record labels in the EU. What I learned then was that politicians extend copyright like most of us write thank-you notes: it&#8217;s the least they can do to show their gratitude for the attentions of an industry they&#8217;d have preferred to join had their looks and talent permitted. In the context of the subsidies granted to farmers or fishermen, extending copyright for the benefit of ageing rock stars is something EU lawmakers do in their lunch break
</i></blockquote>
Hopefully, with a world more aware, thanks to SOPA and ACTA and the like, pushing through such things won't be quite so simple.  But it is something that people need to be vigilant about.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120617/23234919365/irish-bloomsday-celebrations-finally-possible-without-threat-copyright-claims-james-joyce-estate.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120617/23234919365/irish-bloomsday-celebrations-finally-possible-without-threat-copyright-claims-james-joyce-estate.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120617/23234919365/irish-bloomsday-celebrations-finally-possible-without-threat-copyright-claims-james-joyce-estate.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yay-public-domain</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120617/23234919365</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 23:31:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Irish Charity Told It Needs To Pay A License Fee To Link To A Newspaper Article</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/11010619116/irish-charity-told-it-needs-to-pay-license-fee-to-link-to-newspaper-article.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/11010619116/irish-charity-told-it-needs-to-pay-license-fee-to-link-to-newspaper-article.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Via <a href="https://twitter.com/mathewi/statuses/207455477318164480" target="_blank">Mathew Ingram</a> we learn of a ridiculous situation in Ireland, where the organization "Newspaper Licensing Ireland" has sent an email to the Women's Aid charity, telling it that <a href="http://faduda.ie/200-words/charity-asked-to-pay-for-links-to-newspaper-websites" target="_blank">linking to newspaper websites without a license is copyright infringement</a>:
<blockquote><i>
"a licence is required to link directly to an online article even without uploading any of the content directly onto your own website"
</i></blockquote>
The lawyer representing Women's Aid smartly <a href="http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2012/05/10/newspaper-licencing-ireland-ltd-asks-womens-aid-for-money-to-link-to-newspaper-websites/" target="_blank">posted its own reply publicly</a> asking NLI to "specify the statutory basis of this claim."  It also notes the pricelist, including the fact that NLI seems to think that linking to between one and five articles requires &euro;300 annually.  Furthermore, the letter notes the terms of service on various news websites that allow linking -- even though this is really besides the point, since copyright law does not forbid linking in the first place.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/11010619116/irish-charity-told-it-needs-to-pay-license-fee-to-link-to-newspaper-article.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/11010619116/irish-charity-told-it-needs-to-pay-license-fee-to-link-to-newspaper-article.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/11010619116/irish-charity-told-it-needs-to-pay-license-fee-to-link-to-newspaper-article.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>uh,-no</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120529/11010619116</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:08:32 PST</pubDate>
<title>Ireland Signs Controversial 'Irish SOPA' Into Law; Kicks Off New Censorship Regime</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120229/13541517916/ireland-signs-controversial-irish-sopa-into-law-kicks-off-new-censorship-regime.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120229/13541517916/ireland-signs-controversial-irish-sopa-into-law-kicks-off-new-censorship-regime.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember how EMI <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/09203917388/insane-entitlement-emi-sues-irish-govt-not-passing-sopa-like-censorship-law.shtml">sued the Irish government</a> for failing to pass a SOPA-like law that will force ISPs to act as copyright cops and censor and block access to websites that the entertainment industry doesn't like?  Well, apparently, the end result is that <a href="http://www.thejournal.ie/sherlock-confirms-that-%E2%80%98irish-sopa%E2%80%99-has-been-signed-into-law-369634-Feb2012/" target="_blank">the Irish government has now signed the bill into law</a>.  This happened despite <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/sopa-ireland-signed-into-law-120229/?utm_source=dlvr.it&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">widespread protests</a> in Ireland against the bill.  
<br /><br />
The Irish Minister for Research and Innovation, Sean Sherlock, is insisting that the final version of the bill is much more limited than earlier proposals, and that it took guidance from recent EU Court of Justice <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111127/14274716903/european-court-justice-says-isps-cannot-be-forced-to-be-copyright-cops.shtml">rulings</a> that say ISPs shouldn't have to be <i>proactive</i> about blocking.  That still means that copyright holders can petition to force ISPs to block all access to various websites, and as we've seen in other countries in Europe, you can bet that the major record labels and studios will be doing just that very soon (if they haven't already) -- though their <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/17452814731/irish-isp-admits-to-sending-out-hundreds-first-strike-notices-to-innocent-account-holders.shtml">track record</a> on properly calling out infringement isn't very good.
<br /><br />
Sherlock, apparently realizing just how bad this looks to the citizenry, is trying to balance this announcement out by also saying that he's launching the "next stage" of the process to review copyright in Ireland, with the goal of "removing barriers to innovation."  This is an ongoing process that we first wrote about last year, when the country <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110509/10383514212/ireland-looks-to-add-fair-use-to-copyright-law-this-is-seen-as-radical.shtml">realized</a> that existing copyright law was holding back innovation. 
<br /><br />
Of course, the end result is that the government appears to be trying to move in two different directions at once.  On the one hand, it's catering to the legacy entertainment industry interests and <i>hindering</i> the internet as the platform that enables new business models... while at the same time paying lip service to how it has to increase such innovation.  Here's a tip: the first thing towards increasing innovation in business models online is <i>not putting misplaced liability</i> on service providers, not setting up a censorship regime, and not removing the incentives for the entertainment industry to actually embrace innovative business models.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120229/13541517916/ireland-signs-controversial-irish-sopa-into-law-kicks-off-new-censorship-regime.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120229/13541517916/ireland-signs-controversial-irish-sopa-into-law-kicks-off-new-censorship-regime.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120229/13541517916/ireland-signs-controversial-irish-sopa-into-law-kicks-off-new-censorship-regime.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>block-block-block</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120229/13541517916</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:49:05 PST</pubDate>
<title>Insane Entitlement: EMI Sues Irish Gov't For Not Passing SOPA-Like Censorship Law</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/09203917388/insane-entitlement-emi-sues-irish-govt-not-passing-sopa-like-censorship-law.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/09203917388/insane-entitlement-emi-sues-irish-govt-not-passing-sopa-like-censorship-law.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The sense of entitlement exhibited by the legacy players in the entertainment industry is now reaching positively insane levels -- highlighted by the news that major record label EMI (in the process of being acquired by Universal Music to make it the largest record label by far) <a href="http://www.businesspost.ie/?_escaped_fragment_=story/Home/News/Music industry launches new High Court action against state/19410615-5218-4f0d-74f6-ef0c79393950#!story/Home/News/Music industry launches new High Court action against state/19410615-5218-4f0d-74f6-ef0c79393950" target="_blank">is suing the Irish government</a> because it feels the Irish government is taking too long to pass a SOPA-like law that would require ISPs to censor the internet and block access to sites it doesn't like.  I'm not kidding.  Apparently, because the legislative process is too slow, it feels the need to sue.
<br /><br />
In another article on the lawsuit, EMI Ireland's CEO <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0112/1224310141468.html">complains</a> that the length of time it's taking the government to craft such a censorship bill is "leading me to believe it&#8217;s unlikely to satisfy the music industry&#8217;s requirement for injunctive relief."
<br /><br />
Think about that for a second.  The major record labels have such an insane sense of entitlement, they think that any bill they declare that they "require" <i>must</i> become law, or they can sue the government.  More specifically, EMI is effectively confessing here that it's upset that the government isn't sharing the bill ahead of time with EMI or others in the industry.  Again, the massive sense of entitlement of these guys is such that they expect that <i>they</i> get to write the laws, and when they're left out of the process, they get to sue over it.  And yet, on every one of these laws, the people actually impacted by them -- the public -- get no real say or can't see them.  Remember ACTA?  The public was left totally in the dark, while RIAA/MPAA officials and others had pretty detailed access and the ability to help craft the bills.  And yet, when EMI doesn't get to see a draft of a bill, and it makes them think that it won't go the way they want, they <i>sue</i>?  Damn.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/09203917388/insane-entitlement-emi-sues-irish-govt-not-passing-sopa-like-censorship-law.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/09203917388/insane-entitlement-emi-sues-irish-govt-not-passing-sopa-like-censorship-law.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/09203917388/insane-entitlement-emi-sues-irish-govt-not-passing-sopa-like-censorship-law.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wowzers</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120112/09203917388</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:01:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Three Strikes Approach Rejected By Irish Data Protection Commissioner, Gov't Seeks Censorship Plan Instead</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111219/04293517126/three-strikes-approach-rejected-irish-data-protection-commissioner-govt-seeks-censorship-plan-instead.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111219/04293517126/three-strikes-approach-rejected-irish-data-protection-commissioner-govt-seeks-censorship-plan-instead.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>The contentious nature of the "three strikes" response to unauthorized sharing of copyright materials can be seen by the legal battles being fought around it across Europe.  That's particularly the case in Ireland, which has emerged as a key testing ground for the approach and its legality.
</p><p>
Back in 2009, the IFPI sued the ISP Eircom for copyright infringement, and the latter <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090128/1855013560.shtml">settled</a> by agreeing to implement a three strikes policy.  The Irish Recorded Music Association then started sending letters to other Irish ISPs <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090219/0229583833.shtml">demanding</a> they do the same.  One Irish judge <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1209149041.shtml">approved</a> the three strikes approach, but another judge ruled ISPs were under <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101011/12373011371/record-labels-fail-in-attempt-to-force-three-strikes-on-ireland.shtml">no legal obligation</a> to implement it.
</p><p>
And now we have the latest twist in this continuing saga: <a href="http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/massive-blow-to-music-industry-as-eircom-anti-piracy-measures-rejected-307584-Dec2011/?utm_source=shortlink">Eircom has been ordered to halt its three strikes scheme</a> in a ruling by the Irish Data Protection Commissioner because of concerns about users' privacy.  This follows an investigation that was triggered by the earlier <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/17452814731/irish-isp-admits-to-sending-out-hundreds-first-strike-notices-to-innocent-account-holders.shtml">incident</a> in which Eircom sent out first warning letters to innocent account holders.
</p><p>
However, this is by no means the end of the story.  The Irish government is now considering <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1219/1224309259318.html">how to plug perceived gaps in existing laws</a>:

<i><blockquote>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.</blockquote></i>

But as usual, the recording industry's demands are for ever-more extreme powers:

<i><blockquote>EMI Ireland recently warned the Government that it would take legal action against the State if the Government did not address the problem.
<br /><br />
Its chief executive, Willie Kavanagh, is not ruling out going ahead with this if the statutory order does not give companies such as his a clear right to seek court injunctions against internet service providers that allow access to music and video piracy websites.</blockquote></i>
</p><p>
This attempt to pressure a national government into changing the law for the convenience of a group of companies unwilling to move with the times is troubling.  The logical conclusion of this kind of thinking is to turn ISPs into the content industry's private police force, letting the former do the dirty work and get the blame, while the latter sit back and enjoy the benefits of their monopoly pricing.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111219/04293517126/three-strikes-approach-rejected-irish-data-protection-commissioner-govt-seeks-censorship-plan-instead.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111219/04293517126/three-strikes-approach-rejected-irish-data-protection-commissioner-govt-seeks-censorship-plan-instead.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111219/04293517126/three-strikes-approach-rejected-irish-data-protection-commissioner-govt-seeks-censorship-plan-instead.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>where-will-it-end?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111219/04293517126</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:19:34 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Irish ISP Admits To Sending Out Hundreds Of 'First Strike' Notices To Innocent Account Holders</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/17452814731/irish-isp-admits-to-sending-out-hundreds-first-strike-notices-to-innocent-account-holders.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/17452814731/irish-isp-admits-to-sending-out-hundreds-first-strike-notices-to-innocent-account-holders.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With the UN report <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110603/04225614545/un-report-human-rights-condemns-three-strikes-as-civil-rights-violation.shtml">condemning three strikes</a>, we've seen a few governments suggest a bit more caution about such laws, but over in Ireland things are getting strange.  You may recall a few years back the Irish ISP Eircom <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080310/173104496.shtml">got sued</a> for not implementing a three strikes plan.  While it first fought back, it eventually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090128/1855013560.shtml">caved</a> and agreed to implement a three strikes plan.  There was apparently some back room dealing as well, in which Eircom wanted the recording industry to go after other ISPs as well, which <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090622/0136565311.shtml">has happened</a>.  In a trial testing the legitimacy of Eircom's three strikes laws, a judge ruled entirely the flip side of the UN report, claiming that kicking people off the internet was fine because it was actually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1209149041.shtml">copyright</a> that was a human right, not internet access.
<br /><br />
Of course, one of the problems with a three strikes provision is the fact that it's based purely on accusations, rather than convictions.  And that's pretty ridiculous when the data used for the accusations is notoriously inaccurate.  But, it gets even worse when an ISP like Eircom apparently <a href="http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9.12/irish-dpa-investigates-three-strikes" target="_blank">sent hundreds of "first strike" notices to people who were entirely innocent</a>, blaming it on a glitch (found via <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/isp-wrongfully-sent-300-first-strike-letters-to-innocents-110617/" target="_blank">Torrentfreak</a>).  It's now leading to an investigation by the Irish Data Protection Commissioner.  Eircom has tried to brush it off due to a technical error having to do with daylight savings time (seriously?!?), but it highlights the larger problems with these kinds of schemes.  And those problems mean that the Data Protection Commissioner is looking at the entire three strikes plan to see if it's legit:
<blockquote><i>
The significance of this case goes well 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. According to the Sunday Times, "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'."
<br /><br />
This is unsurprising. When the Eircom / music industry 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 judgement which permitted the parties to operate the system - a judgement 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. The Data Protection Commissioner was not convinced by that judgement (it 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.
<br /><br />
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 - an outcome which would derail the three strikes system unless Eircom successfully challenges that notice before the courts, or unless the music industry were to succeed in its campaign to secure legislation introducing three strikes into Irish law. 
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/17452814731/irish-isp-admits-to-sending-out-hundreds-first-strike-notices-to-innocent-account-holders.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/17452814731/irish-isp-admits-to-sending-out-hundreds-first-strike-notices-to-innocent-account-holders.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/17452814731/irish-isp-admits-to-sending-out-hundreds-first-strike-notices-to-innocent-account-holders.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yup,-this-system-works-so-well</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110617/17452814731</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Irish Hotel The Latest To Sue Google Over Autocomplete Suggestions</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110615/20343714711/irish-hotel-latest-to-sue-google-over-autocomplete-suggestions.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110615/20343714711/irish-hotel-latest-to-sue-google-over-autocomplete-suggestions.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Another day, another auto suggest lawsuit for Google. There's apparently no shortage of people, places and things being defamed by an innocent algorithm. Last year, the French courts found against Google's proprietary &quot;Suggest&quot; in several cases. In January of 2010, the Centre National Prive de Formation a Distance (CNFDI) <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0914057731.shtml" target="_blank">was appalled</a> that &quot;Google&quot; would suggest the word &quot;scam&quot; be linked to its initials. This was also the case with Direct Energie, (another) French company, who also felt that &quot;scam&quot; should not be algorithmically appended to searches for its business. Later in the year, the French courts did what they do best: blame Google for its users' actions, finding it guilty of libel for somehow <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100924/03414611148/french-courts-once-again-confused-about-google-suggest-blame-google-for-suggested-searches.shtml" target="_blank">linking</a> the words &quot;rapist,&quot; &quot;satanist&quot; and &quot;convicted&quot; to searches pertaining to a certain convicted sex offender. <br /><br />Then France invited Google to take its suggested (by its users) search terms and stop suggesting them when users searched for music or movies. The courts lost this one, but <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110506/16423014189/google-wins-lawsuit-france-over-censoring-autocomplete-file-sharing-terms-still-does-it-anyway.shtml" target="_blank">Google went ahead and kept on censoring</a>, most likely seeing this as the path of least resistance, especially when it came to the famous French Resistance (Post-Internet Edition).
<br /><br />
And it's not just France. An Italian man <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110405/03003513781/google-found-liable-autocomplete-suggestions-italy.shtml" target="_blank">sued Google (and won)</a> because searches for his name came with bonus features like &quot;con man&quot; and &quot;fraud.&quot;
<br /><br />
Of course, all of this is old news. In fact, people have been suing Google for its suggestions (none of which are its own) since the dawn of time (ca. 2006), when <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060517/1158245.shtml" target="_blank">ServrCheck sued</a> the search engine giant for its willingness to tack on &quot;keygen&quot; and &quot;crack&quot; to searches for its software.
<br /><br />
With all that history behind it, there should be no surprised noises or raised eyebrows from anyone regarding this latest bit of news. Now it's <a href="http://thenextweb.com/google/2011/06/15/irish-hotel-sues-google-over-autocomplete-suggestion" target="_blank">an Irish hotel's turn to step up to the Complaint Box</a> and file a grievance. This suit brings an all-new term to the &quot;Google Suggest Hall O' Libelous Shame&quot;: &quot;receivership.&quot; Apparently, people searching for information on the Ballymascanion Hotel are finding &quot;receivership&quot; high up on the Autocomplete list. Now, it's not the people that have an issue with this. After all, the &quot;people&quot; are the ones who put it there. Rather, it's the hotel itself that's upset about being linked to something as tawdry as &quot;receivership,&quot; but rather than issue a press release or update its Facebook page or whatever, it's decided to drag Google and its terrible Suggestions into the courtroom.
<br /><br />
Now, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110519/09563314341/argentina-orders-google-to-censor-suggested-searches.shtml" target="_blank">it's been said before</a> at Techdirt (and several other places) that this isn't Google's doing. The suggestions that show up in the search field are based on what people are actually searching for. But obviously you can't hold everyone liable for unintentionally disparaging your business while trying to ensure their money doesn't end up in the pockets of &quot;con men,&quot; &quot;scammers&quot; and &quot;frauds.&quot; Google really shouldn't be expected to tweak its algorithm to fit each individual user, much less be forced into laundering someone or something's unsavory reputation by deleting terms the users don't care for. But as long as the courts keep siding with the &quot;victims,&quot; &quot;victims&quot; will keep dragging Google into court for something it isn't doing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110615/20343714711/irish-hotel-latest-to-sue-google-over-autocomplete-suggestions.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110615/20343714711/irish-hotel-latest-to-sue-google-over-autocomplete-suggestions.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110615/20343714711/irish-hotel-latest-to-sue-google-over-autocomplete-suggestions.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>just-replace-'receivership'-with-'asinine-lawsuit'</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110615/20343714711</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 9 Jun 2011 07:12:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How Putting James Joyce's Ulysses Into The Public Domain Will Breathe New Life Into Joyce's Work</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110607/21363014601/how-putting-james-joyces-ulysses-into-public-domain-will-breathe-new-life-into-joyces-work.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110607/21363014601/how-putting-james-joyces-ulysses-into-public-domain-will-breathe-new-life-into-joyces-work.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been hearing copyright maximalists lately talking nonsense about how <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/18070414532/riaa-says-theres-no-value-public-domain.shtml">bad</a> the public domain is, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.  So it may be interesting to see that, over in Ireland, people are expecting a <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0608/1224298573383.html" target="_blank">newfound excitement for the works of James Joyce after <i>Ulysses</i> goes into the public domain</a> there next year (though, not in the US).  The Joyce estate has been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?q=james+joyce&#038;eid=&#038;tid=&#038;aid=&#038;searchin=stories">infamously stingy</a> in terms of letting anyone make use of Ulysses.  Perhaps the most notable effort by grandson Stephen Joyce was to block all public readings of <i>Ulysses</i>, especially at the various "Bloomsday" celebrations, based on the book, which are supposed to be a celebration of Joyce's life, but which have been notoriously limited by the estate, other than a single reading on Bloomsday which happens (of course) at the "James Joyce Centre."  So many Joyce fans are really quite excited about no longer having any such restrictions next year, and are looking forward to being able to <i>properly</i> celebrate Bloomsday.  The end result, of course, will be renewed life breathed into Joyce's work.  What a shame that his own estate has restricted the use of the work for so long.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110607/21363014601/how-putting-james-joyces-ulysses-into-public-domain-will-breathe-new-life-into-joyces-work.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110607/21363014601/how-putting-james-joyces-ulysses-into-public-domain-will-breathe-new-life-into-joyces-work.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110607/21363014601/how-putting-james-joyces-ulysses-into-public-domain-will-breathe-new-life-into-joyces-work.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-public-domain-is-important</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110607/21363014601</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 10:08:36 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Ireland Looks To Add Fair Use To Copyright Law... And This Is Seen As Radical?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110509/10383514212/ireland-looks-to-add-fair-use-to-copyright-law-this-is-seen-as-radical.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110509/10383514212/ireland-looks-to-add-fair-use-to-copyright-law-this-is-seen-as-radical.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Following on the UK's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101105/02161311736/uk-plans-to-review-copyright-laws-yet-again-with-eye-towards-fair-use.shtml">recent review</a> of copyright laws, supposedly to look at ways to add things like US-style fair use exceptions, it looks like Ireland may be considering something similar.  The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Richard Bruton, announced that he's heard from enough businesses that <a href="http://siliconrepublic.com/new-media/item/21695-radical-copyright-law-refor" target="_blank">copyright is holding back some innovative businesses models</a>, and one suggestion he's interested in would be to see fair use in Irish copyright law:
<blockquote><i>
Some companies have indicated that the current copyright legislation does not cater well for the digital environment and actually creates barriers to innovation and to the establishment of new business models. Moving towards a US-style 'fair use' doctrine is one suggestion that has been made.
<br /><br />
I am determined to respond to these suggestions in a comprehensive and timely manner. It is not wise to make changes to this extremely complex area of legislation without first considering the issues in detail.
<br /><br />
Therefore, I have commenced a time-limited review of the law in the area to be conducted by three industry experts. The review will include a full consultation process with all relevant stakeholders, and the entire process will be complete within six months.
</i></blockquote>
This is positioned in the article as being "radical."  Yeah, that kind of shows you the state of copyright laws these days: when a cautious review of copyright laws to see if a minor exception that is already known to be successful in the US might possibly under certain conditions makes sense, it's described as "radical reform."
<br /><br />
Of course, what's really surprising about this is that, following a recent <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1209149041.shtml">court ruling</a> in Ireland that said that ISPs couldn't be forced to terminate accounts of people accused of copyright infringement, the industry had been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101013/14522911416/paul-mcguinness-thinks-recognizing-due-process-is-bad-for-ireland-s-reputation.shtml">pushing in the other direction</a>.
<br /><br />
Of course, I fully expect that this will lead to a similar attack on fair use in Ireland to what we've seen in the UK lately.  Remember, the UK publishers claimed that fair use <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110304/02221813362/uk-publishers-fair-use-would-put-chokehold-innovation.shtml">strangles innovation</a> and others claimed that fair use is bad because it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110502/03120114115/new-content-industry-talking-point-fair-use-is-bad-because-it-leads-to-litigation.shtml">leads to lawsuits</a>.    Both arguments are laughable, but seem to have been effective in the UK, so expect to see the same thing in Ireland.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110509/10383514212/ireland-looks-to-add-fair-use-to-copyright-law-this-is-seen-as-radical.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110509/10383514212/ireland-looks-to-add-fair-use-to-copyright-law-this-is-seen-as-radical.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110509/10383514212/ireland-looks-to-add-fair-use-to-copyright-law-this-is-seen-as-radical.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>fair-use-is-radical?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110509/10383514212</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 08:09:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Irish Gov't Trying To Sneak Through Massive Copyright Law Changes Via Questionable Legal Process</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110223/13482513234/irish-govt-trying-to-sneak-through-massive-copyright-law-changes-via-questionable-legal-process.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110223/13482513234/irish-govt-trying-to-sneak-through-massive-copyright-law-changes-via-questionable-legal-process.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Looks like the lobbyists have gotten to another government.  <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/conorlalor/statuses/40500120571219968" target="_blank">Conor Lalor</a> points us to the news that the Irish government is <a href="http://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/item/20561-copyright-act-amendment" target="_blank">using a really questionable process to rush through massive copyright law changes</a> today.  As you may recall, last fall, a court recognized that Irish copyright law didn't <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101011/12373011371/record-labels-fail-in-attempt-to-force-three-strikes-on-ireland.shtml">mandate three strikes</a>.  This is perfectly sensible.  Three strikes is a really dangerous concept that involves limiting basic due process, and turning ISPs into copyright cops for an entertainment industry that refuses to adapt.
<br /><br />
However, the Irish government has responded to that legal ruing by trying to sneak three strikes into the law with no notice and no public discussion.  Apparently, the current government is in its "final days," and the current group of politicians is pushing to get this done before the government changes over.  Of course, a huge change to copyright law is supposed to involve public discussion and debate and a real vote. But that's not happening here.  I don't fully understand the way the Irish government works, but this sure sounds like trying to sneak a massive copyright law change through a backdoor loophole:
<blockquote><i>
The legislation is expected to be sanctioned by the present Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation Mary Hanafin TD before Friday.
<br /><br />
A statutory instrument is secondary legislation -- only the Oireachtas can pass primary legislation -- and as such is the only way changes can be made to legislation in such a tight timeframe.
</i></blockquote>
Considering how controversial three strikes is, it's rather stunning that elected official in Ireland would sneak through such an anti-consumer change.  It's also going to massively damage the view of Ireland as a "tech hub," since this sort of law is simply a transfer payment type of law, passing off one industry's failures to adapt on the tech industry.   The article also quotes an Irish law expert who notes how this move seems to violate basic procedural rules for establishing new laws in Ireland:
<blockquote><i>
Internet law expert TJ McIntyre says the legislation is premature in light of the Taoiseach promising a review of Irish copyright for the digital age. He said it is also premature in terms of a case taking place in the European Court of Justice between Belgian publishers group SABAM V Tiscali (Scarlet).
<br /><br />
"What's happening in Europe is similar litigation over the obligation of ISPs to conduct filtering and the question is what does European law require regarding injunctions against ISPs?
<br /><br />
"To my mind, you can't legislate in Ireland until we've seen the judgment from Europe.
<br /><br />
"There are also procedural issues -- normally, if you legislate you have to have completed a regulatory impact assessment beforehand, as well as a public consultation. Also, if there's a breach found in a law then it would be normal to discuss it with the European Commission," McIntyre said.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, when it comes to the entertainment industry, they never seem to care about actually following the rules in order to get their favored legislation passed.  In the meantime, could those who usually chime in supporting everything the entertainment industry has to say explain what's wrong with actually going through the normal process to put a law like this in place?  Is the industry really so afraid of allowing public debate on this issue that they have to sneak it through backdoor loopholes?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110223/13482513234/irish-govt-trying-to-sneak-through-massive-copyright-law-changes-via-questionable-legal-process.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110223/13482513234/irish-govt-trying-to-sneak-through-massive-copyright-law-changes-via-questionable-legal-process.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110223/13482513234/irish-govt-trying-to-sneak-through-massive-copyright-law-changes-via-questionable-legal-process.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-won't-look-good</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110223/13482513234</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:29:52 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Paul McGuinness Thinks Recognizing Due Process Is Bad For Ireland's Reputation?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101013/14522911416/paul-mcguinness-thinks-recognizing-due-process-is-bad-for-ireland-s-reputation.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101013/14522911416/paul-mcguinness-thinks-recognizing-due-process-is-bad-for-ireland-s-reputation.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Ah, Paul McGuiness.  U2's manager, who seems to be <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100816/18090210644.shtml">very, very confused</a> in always <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080605/1215171317.shtml">blaming everyone else</a> for not making him even wealthier, has apparently responded to the news we recently wrote about, concerning an Irish court recognizing that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101011/12373011371/record-labels-fail-in-attempt-to-force-three-strikes-on-ireland.shtml">ISPs have no legal obligation</a> to kick file sharers off the internet on a three strikes regime.  Now, this should be common sense based on the fact that there is no "three strikes" law in Ireland.  The record labels were trying to force ISPs to implement three strikes by just claiming it was legally required, but without any actual basis in the law.  Even if you support three strikes laws, you have to admit that the law needs to actually have that provision before ISPs are required to obey the demands of the record labels to kick people offline.  You would think it's hard to argue against that.  
<br><Br>
But, this is Paul McGuinness we're talking about.
<br><br>
<a href="http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91008/u2-boss-defeat-of-three-strikes-makes-ireland-look-bad/" target="_blank">Zeropaid</a> points us to McGuiness's <a href="http://www.hotpress.com/Paul%20McGuinness/news/Paul-McGuinness-adds-his-voice-to-the-growing-concern-among-the-music-community-regarding-illegal-file-sharing/7037053.html" target="_blank">response to the legal ruling</a>, where he basically goes off the deep end, in suggesting that this rather straightforward <i>reading of the law</i> somehow harms Ireland's reputation:
<blockquote><i>
"This is extremely bad for the international reputation of Ireland as a jurisdiction with appropriate legal protection for all kinds of Intellectual Property and copyright generally."
</i></blockquote>
How so?  Seriously.  I'm wondering how anyone in their right mind could <i>possibly</i> believe that a court saying "gee the law doesn't say that, so it's not required" harms Ireland's reputation.  He then insists that Ireland <i>needs</i> to pass a three strikes law to "fix" this awful ruling:
<blockquote><i>
"The government must now as a matter of urgency, do its job properly and implement the required EU legislation without further delay."
</i></blockquote>
Um, except this is flat-out wrong.  There is no "required EU legislation" that mandates three strikes.  In fact, after serious debates in which members of the EU Parliament initially <i>rejected</i> three strikes rules, they eventually reached a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090428/1934594687.shtml">compromise</a> that <i>allows</i> three strikes under some very specific conditions, which are clearly not met by the attempts to automatically enforce three strikes in Ireland.  I mean, at this point, McGuiness is flat-out making stuff up.  It makes you wonder why anyone takes him seriously.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101013/14522911416/paul-mcguinness-thinks-recognizing-due-process-is-bad-for-ireland-s-reputation.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101013/14522911416/paul-mcguinness-thinks-recognizing-due-process-is-bad-for-ireland-s-reputation.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101013/14522911416/paul-mcguinness-thinks-recognizing-due-process-is-bad-for-ireland-s-reputation.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>really-now?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101013/14522911416</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:14:10 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Record Labels Fail In Attempt To Force Three Strikes On Ireland</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101011/12373011371/record-labels-fail-in-attempt-to-force-three-strikes-on-ireland.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101011/12373011371/record-labels-fail-in-attempt-to-force-three-strikes-on-ireland.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Ireland has been sort of a testbed for the recording industry's attempt to force ISPs to implement a three strikes law, despite a lack of legislation making it mandatory.  Back in 2008, a bunch of labels <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080310/173104496.shtml">sued Eircom</a>, the largest Irish ISP for not magically stopping file sharing.  While Eircom fought it for a bit, it finally "settled" by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090128/1855013560.shtml">agreeing</a> to implement a three strikes policy.  Then things got a little strange.  After Eircom agreed, the record labels sent notices to other Irish ISPs insisting that they, too, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090315/2011434125.shtml">were obligated</a> to put in place three strikes rules, because Eircom had done so.  At that point, it was rumored that part of the Eircom settlement was that the labels would try to force other ISPs to also implement three strikes and, in exchange, Eircom would not publicly argue against any attempts by the labels to get three strikes into Irish law.
<br /><br />
Thankfully, the other ISPs recognized they were under no such legal obligation, and fought back.  Earlier this year, a judge ruled that Eircom's decision to implement three strikes <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1209149041.shtml">did not</a> violate privacy laws, but today the Irish High Court ruled <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/11/three-strikes-filesharing-ireland" target="_blank">in favor of one of the Irish ISPs, UPC, in saying that it had no legal obligation</a> to implement three strikes.  Unfortunately, the judge did trot out debunked claims that file sharing was some how destroying the industry, even as more and more evidence has shown the exact opposite.  Still, it's nice to see that the labels are unable to force such rules on ISPs, especially outside of the legislative process.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101011/12373011371/record-labels-fail-in-attempt-to-force-three-strikes-on-ireland.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101011/12373011371/record-labels-fail-in-attempt-to-force-three-strikes-on-ireland.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101011/12373011371/record-labels-fail-in-attempt-to-force-three-strikes-on-ireland.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>struck-out</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101011/12373011371</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:48:44 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Irish Red Cross Sues Google To Silence Anonymous Blogger, Amplifying That Blogger's Message</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100806/04331910526.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100806/04331910526.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.threads-of-aether.net">Claire Ryan</a> wrote in to let us know about the bizarre situation in Ireland, where the Irish Red Cross has <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/daily-mail-london-england-the/mi_8002/is_2010_July_26/red-cross-court-silence-google/ai_n54569534/" target="_blank">sued Google in an attempt to identify and silence</a> an anonymous blogger who has been very critical of the organization.  It's worth noting, by the way, that Google is apparently one of the Red Cross' largest donors.  Apparently, the Irish Red Cross is specifically upset that the blogger claimed that $150,000 that the Irish Red Cross collected  for the Asian tsunami appeal was not actually used for that.  Instead, the blogger claims, it was held in a bank for years, and the money was only moved after there was an audit which discovered the account.
<br /><br />
Of course, it sounds like nearly everything about the Irish Red Cross' decision to go legal is backfiring.  This story, which wasn't getting much attention, is now getting a ton of attention -- and it's not looking good for the Irish Red Cross.  Apparently, because of the publicity over the Irish Red Cross' decision to sue Google, The Sunday Times <a href="http://governancereformatirishredcross.blogspot.com/2010/07/irish-red-crosss-undeclared-150000.html" target="_blank">ran a front page article about the $150,000</a>.
<br /><br />
In other words, by suing to try to silence the blogger over this particular issue, the issue itself has become front page news.  But what's not clear is why the IRC is still going after this blogger.  Now that the news is everywhere, what good does it do to try to silence this guy?  Will they sue The Sunday Times next?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100806/04331910526.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100806/04331910526.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100806/04331910526.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-that-backfired</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100806/04331910526</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 Jun 2010 16:56:59 PDT</pubDate>
<title>As Google Hands Over Collected WiFi Data In Germany, France And Spain, Ireland Tells Google To Destroy It</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100604/1306489695.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100604/1306489695.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We recently covered how the data that Google collected via its Street View WiFi efforts  was caught in this weird <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100527/0300569598.shtml">legal limbo</a>, between privacy laws, data retention laws and rules about destroying evidence.  However, it looks like that's getting settled... but in very different ways in different countries.  Somehow, Google has worked out a way to <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-04/google-to-hand-over-wi-fi-data-to-european-regulators-update2-.html" target="_blank">hand over the data in Germany, France and Spain</a>... but over in Ireland, Google has been <a href="http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/16473/" target="_blank">ordered to destroy the data</a>.  Not quite sure how this squares with the privacy laws in Germany, France and Spain... but hopefully we'll find out that the data collected by this system was mostly meaningless and we can get over the hype surrounding this whole thing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100604/1306489695.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100604/1306489695.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100604/1306489695.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>mixed-messages</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100604/1306489695</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:28:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Irish Collection Society Wants Music Bloggers To Pay Up To Promote Music</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1101409241.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1101409241.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ After recently covering how an Irish performance rights society wanted to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100319/1105388633.shtml">charge hotels</a> for public performance fees because people could listen to music in their rooms, comes the news (sent in by eoinmonty) that a different Irish music organization, the Irish Music Rights Organisation (IMRO), is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/apr/29/irish-music-blogs-under-attack" target="_blank">demanding popular music blogs throughout Ireland pay up</a> to keep promoting music -- even when that music is sent to the bloggers by the record labels and musicians directly for the sake of promotion.  They apparently have already hit up some of the most popular Irish music blogs, even though some of them make no money at all (have no ads) and are done purely for the love of the music.
<br /><br />
The issue, of course, is that IMRO covers the songwriting/composition rights -- like ASCAP or BMI in the US -- rather than the performance/recording rights.  So, in IMRO's short-sighted view, it doesn't even matter if the musicians and labels want the music playing for free on those blogs, it has to collect for the songwriters.  Apparently, no one has stopped to realize that in demanding hundreds of pounds from some popular hobbyist sites that those sites will likely go away, and the songwriters will get significantly less exposure for their music.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1101409241.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1101409241.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1101409241.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>foot,-gun,-aim</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100429/1101409241</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:13:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Irish Judge OKs Three Strikes, Calls Copyright A Human Right</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1209149041.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1209149041.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A judge in Ireland has ruled that plans by ISP Eircom to use a three-strikes system to yank file-sharers' internet connections <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0416/breaking56.html">don't violate the country's privacy laws</a>, and can move forward. Eircom instituted the plan after it was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080310/173104496.shtml">sued</a> by a music industry trade group for not stopping file-sharing from occurring on its network, and the extreme language used by the judge would indicate that the group's efforts <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090622/0136565311.shtml">to force</a> other ISPs to play along have gotten a significant boost. The judge in the case said that copyright was "a fundamental right" under Irish law, and that "The right to be identified with and to reasonably exploit one's own original creative endeavour I regard as a human right." That's a huge hole for record labels to drive their agenda through: now they're fighting for human rights, like people trying to stop genocide, hunger, discrimination and other noble pursuits. U2 manager Paul McGuinness, an outspoken supporter of three-strikes rules, <a href="http://www.hotpress.com/Paul%20McGuinness/news/U2-Manager-Hails-Irish-Court-Decision-On-Filesharing/6418550.html">is understandably thrilled</a>. But he still can't explain how kicking people off the internet -- and pissing off customers -- <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090408/0814024432.shtml">is a viable business model</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1209149041.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1209149041.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1209149041.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>moral-crusaders</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100416/1209149041</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Irish Collection Society Wants Hotels To Pay Performance Fees For Music Played In Guest Rooms</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100319/1105388633.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100319/1105388633.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've seen all sorts of ridiculous claims by performance rights collection societies trying to demand performance rights for things that clearly were not intended as "performances."  There was the woman stocking shelves in a store who was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091021/1134566619.shtml">singing</a> without paying.  There was the owner of a horse stable who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1113014276.shtml">played music to her horses</a>.  There was the attempt to say that your mobile phone ringing with a ringtone <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090620/1836345299.shtml">was a public performance</a>.  Basically, they're willing to claim just about any music playing is a public performance that requires yet another fee.
<br /><br />
Niall.e points us to a legal issue in Europe, where the Irish High Court has asked the European Court of Justice to weigh in on a claim by the Irish collection society Phonographic Performance Ireland Ltd (PPI), which is claiming that <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0319/1224266596757.html" target="_blank">music played in hotel rooms for guests</a> requires a performance fee.  Yes, you read that right.  PPI is claiming that since the hotel provides radios and televisions in the guest rooms, they need to pay a performance right fee on the usage of those devices.
<br /><br />
PPI can't honestly believe this is a public performance that deserves a performance right.  This is just a blatant money grab to try to force someone else to pay up.  What's next?  Auto dealers will have to pay a performance fee for having radios installed in cars?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100319/1105388633.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100319/1105388633.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100319/1105388633.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-come-on-now</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100319/1105388633</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 6 Jan 2010 01:43:40 PST</pubDate>
<title>Slovakian Law Enforcement Secretly Planted Explosives On Travelers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/1720027622.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/1720027622.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While we're on the subject of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/1154497594.shtml">airport security</a>, here's a bizarre story.  Apparently, law enforcement officials in Slovakia chose to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8441891.stm" target="_blank">plant explosives on eight travelers</a> without their knowledge, to see how good airport security was in catching them.  Turns out security only scored 87.5%, as it caught seven of the eight travelers, but the last one made it through, and then traveled back to Ireland unwittingly with the explosives.  On Tuesday Slovakian officials told Irish officials who sent a group of bomb removal experts to the guy's place, where he was arrested, questioned and released.  We've seen "security through obscurity," but I'm not quite sure what to call this.  Security through stupidity?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/1720027622.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/1720027622.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/1720027622.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>security-through-stupidity?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100105/1720027622</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>