IRMA’s Legal Action
November 16th, 2005
IRMA announced, with a media blitz on 15th November, that they intend to send letters to 50 new individuals and companies demanding damages for losses they claim have been caused by these people making files available for download.
We don’t yet know the full details of this, but there are a few issues still outstanding from the last set of such letters, issued by IRMA last April.
A representative of DRI appeared on the Last Word on Today FM, to raise some issues not usually addressed by IRMA. Time was short, so we thought we’d expand a bit on our concerns, for the interested reader.
No Safe Harbour
Firstly, there is the manner in which the individuals’ shared folders on their hard drives were entered and scanned. This was done on IRMA’s behalf by a company called MediaSentry. MediaSentry is a US based company, which does not operate within the ‘safe-harbour’ scheme for Data Protection. This means it has not agreed to handle EU citizens’ data in accordance with the European Data Protection regulations.
Two European countries have now come out against this kind of search of users’ property.
In the Netherlands, in the case of FOR THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY IN THE NETHERLANDS (BREIN) et al v UPC NEDERLAND B.V., and ors the court found that the use of MediaSentry to scan users’ shared folders and process the results was not in accordance with the provisions of European Data Protection Acts. MediaSentry does not confine its scanning to copyrighted music files, but also scans personal files of the computer owner. They therefore found that the application to the court to force ISPs to identify their users could not be granted, as BREIN and the record labels it represents could not rely on evidence gathered unlawfully.
In France, the Commission Nationale de I’Informatique et Libertes (CNIL) spent October 24th announcing that it would not permit the automated monitoring of users of P2P file sharing systems.
The CNIL concluded such monitoring could lead to
“a massive collection of personal data” and allow “exhaustive and continuous surveillance” of P2P sites “beyond that which was necessary for the fight against piracy”
cf Steptoe & Johnson’s E-Commerce Law Week.
IRMA may have a stateable case to answer, therefore, that the way in which they obtained the identities of the individuals to whom they have written could preclude them from relying on that information in court.
When questioned about this yesterday by Matt Cooper on the Last Word, Dick Doyle of IRMA relied on the fact that they had persuaded a High Court judge to grant them an order, as proof of the legitimacy of their plans.
However, it is possible that this fact is not the strength it may seem. If IRMA were aware of these arguments (through their contacts with other record label representative groups or otherwise), and did not inform the court of them, they may have, in legal terminology, not come to the court with ‘clean hands’.
In particular, as the individuals were not represented in court (being unaware of the matter until they received their letters from IRMA) this privacy issue was not addressed before the court, by any legal argument from the parties. In such cases, there is a particularly heavy onus on the plaintiffs to give full and frank disclosure to the court of all the facts at their disposal.
Proportionality of Damages
The other issue not put to IRMA during their whirlwind tour of the media, was the question of the proportionality of the damages claimed to their losses. They have quoted an average settlement figure of €2,500 from their April wave of demanding letters.
In the courts in Ireland, you can only get compensation for losses you can prove you have sustained. To succeed in the court, IRMA would have to prove that their members – the record labels in Ireland – had lost, from the specific individual before the court, a specific sum. We’ll take the €2,500 figure as an example.
As it is only the record labels who are suing their clients here, we can’t simply take the retail price and divide it in, to find the number of claimed lost CD sales that this represents. They can’t claim for the portion of the money that goes to retailers. Or to the distributors, or manufacturers. They can only claim for the profit on each CD that they can prove was not sold as a direct result of a specific individual making files available for sharing.
To date all IRMA have produced by way of justification for their claims of losses, has been to claim a causal link between the rise in file sharing and the fall in profits. However the record industry is a complicated beast – CDs are now available online from abroad more cheaply than those in the shops. CDWOW, only one such retailer, now has 120,000 registered Irish users and is describing its sales as thriving. The record labels’ international representative body, IFPI, said in July that Top 10 album sales were up 14% last year, after a difficult five-year slump. This in the face of what the industry has admitted to be a continuing rise in file sharing. In addition, there are studies that suggest that the people who download the most music from P2P networks are the most likely to spend a higher proportion of their money buying music.
This is not to say that downloading in breach of copyright is legitimate behaviour. But it does call into question whether IRMA’s claimed losses can be laid at the door of file sharing. And therefore, whether they could legitimately attempt to recoup those losses by way of damages from the individuals they sue. The law is not intended to be used to make up for the failures of a business model in a changing environment.
Have IRMA or the record companies they represent actuarial assessments of loss – something which would be required by a conscientious court, before damages at a certain amount could be awarded? If they have, will they publish those tables so that the criteria they use to assess their losses are made public? This is a public campaign of information and education, as they describe it, after all.
Arbitrary Action
Protection of legal rights should not be done in a capricious manner. And yet IRMA, as they admitted on the Last Word, do not believe that it is lawful for the owner of an iPod or other MP3 player to copy music from their own CDs, bought and paid for, onto their own music machine, bought and paid for.
They say that this is a breach of copyright, and therefore – by their emotive language, used in campaigns this year and for many years before – theft.
However they also say they don’t intend to do anything to enforce their rights to prevent this just now. Why should action against uploaders be a vital priority – no matter who they are – when the larger threat, from their point of view, must be the fact that every MP3 player and iPod is an occasion for wholesale theft of IRMA’s claimed property? Or, conversely, why should owners of MP3 players have the threat of potential legal action hanging over them if they haven’t done anything wrong?
We didn’t get an answer to that one on air.
DRI are in favour of civil, legal and human rights being protected in a digital world. That must extend to the legal rights of copyright holders, as much as individuals. However, perceived breach of a legal right would not excuse responding breaches of the civil right to privacy.
Further, if IRMA’s belief that it is illegal to move your legitimately purchased CDs to your own music player is correct, we believe that the law must be changed
Entry Filed under: DRI, IRMA, Intellectual Property, Press
19 Comments Add your own
1. Tuppenceworth.ie blog &ra&hellip | November 16th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
[...] UPDATE: Here are those points now. [...]
2. Copacetic » Blog Ar&hellip | November 18th, 2005 at 8:49 am
[...] Digital Rights Ireland provides a exemplary legal analysis on when IRMA may have exceeded its rights during the recent attempt to sue a number of Irish music downloaders/sharers. [...]
3. celtictigger | November 18th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Ever since the first wave of letters went out, I’ve been of the opinion that while ignorance of the law is no defence, IRMA seem to be making a good fist of it as a form of attack.
Letters couched in legalese sent to people who may or may not even be aware of the technology let alone the activity (parents of teenagers for example) have one key intent, imho, to scare the recipients into ‘compliance’. How many of those who have settled have done so because they felt they couldn’t afford the costs of challenging the letter in court?
The seemingly menacing tone of this campaign by which IRMA is demanding money is disturbing.
Having listened to the Last Word broadcast, I am concerned that Dick Doyle seems to be taking this a little too personally. It isn’t IRMA pursuing people – it is HIM (in his words “I will be suing..”).
The apparent inequity that exists between the targetting of filesharers and users of Ipods and MP3 players is also a cause for discomfort. Is it a case that Mr Doyle can sue some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time? Or is it equally possible that the music industry powerhouses have diversified over the years so Sony (owners of Sony Music) also make very nice MP3 players which have a higher profit margin than a darned CD and as such have a bit of a conflict of interest?
The convenience and selection available on on-line CD stores far exceeds the chart music driven cacophony of the high-street music store. Hence the rise in the sales through CDWOW and similar (play.com is another good example). Perhaps the mechanism for refunding royalities for such sales (which may be registered outside the jurisdiction of IRMA) is outmoded?
The author’s point about proving the actual loss is interesting. I wonder how many of the prosecutions that Mr Doyle is embarking on will result in ‘last minute settlements’ and how many will actually make it into a court-room where the clear quantification of loss will be open for scrutiny.
Ultimately I concur with the legal assessment from DRI and their view that the business model has moved on and rather than do the hard work of challenging the business model and adapting to a new environment.
The actions and attitude of IRMA strike me as being suspiciously akin to one individual’s attempt to retain an outmoded Status Quo (not that the Quo are outmoded).
King Canute how are you!
4. James R | December 5th, 2005 at 1:34 am
Excellent stuff, I was thinking there must have been some sort of right to privacy violation breech with IRMA’s forcing of ISP’s to hand over details of clients.
5. susan slattery | December 6th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
I received letter from solicitors representing IRMA because my sons had downloaded songs.I was very distressed as i wasnt aware it was illegal.When i rang the solicitor they said I would have to pay 3,000 euro.
I eventually had to get my solicitor to deal with it as IRMA had said they would be sending a rep to my house to check my p.c. to verify that we had stopped downloading music.
We eventually settled for 1,000 e
It caused us alot of distress as I had never before rec. a letter
from solicitor, it seems we were one of seventeen,I wonder how the other sixteen fared out?
6. Digital Rights Ireland &r&hellip | January 25th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
[...] The High Court yesterday made an order requiring ISPs to hand over details of 49 alleged filesharers to the music industry. After the first such order, in July 2005, we expressed concern about the procedure which had been adopted. When we learnt about this second application, we wrote to the parties asking them to bring these concerns to the attention of the court. Unfortunately, not all of these points were put before the court and the judgment of Mr. Justice Kelly doesn’t address these issues. [...]
7. Jeffrey roe | April 24th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
it semes to me the whole area,is mess up,why do sony ell there mp3 players and then give out about when people who buy sony music cd put them on there mp3 player .They should put up the price of a cd and then let people put it on there mp3 players
8. The Community At Large &r&hellip | May 12th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
[...] DRI have also tried to act as a voice for people who can’t even know their rights are being stepped on until after the fact. They have presented counter arguments and facts on the airwaves to the record industry’s representations regarding their actions in chasing file sharers. They have also, with limited success, attempted to bring relevant facts and legal precedent to the attention of the courts when the record companies are seeking to have individual’s information divulged to them without the individuals being given an opportunity to respond to the allegations made about them. [...]
9. Pa Elgrande | June 24th, 2006 at 9:44 am
They’re back
Case for mention Monday 11AM 26/06/2006
17. EMI RECORDS & ORS -V- EIRCOM LTD & ANOR;MATHESON ORMSBY PRENTICE (CON 84)
10. Simon McGarr | June 26th, 2006 at 10:27 am
That’s before the Master, for mention.
11. Simon McGarr | June 26th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Sorry, that should have been the Taxing Master.
He’s the guy who decides who gets paid what when people get their costs awarded. So, not likely to be of legal significance.
12. Digital Rights Ireland &r&hellip | October 20th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
[...] As before DRI support copyright holders’ efforts to protect and assert their rights. However the way in which IRMA has done so still leaves a number of questions unanswered. [...]
13. Digital Rights Ireland &r&hellip | June 7th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
[...] We’ve already pointed out that the procedure used to obtain user identities is unfair and the tactics which have been used by the record industry have been found to be illegal in other jurisdictions. Also, the approach taken by the music industry raises concerns about the proportionality of the damages they seek and the reliability of their evidence: * Most home networks are wireless these days, and most of those are unsecured. How can they tie the IP addresses they receive with any particular person? * Claims for lost income must be based on specific evidence of loss. Why have they never released their basis for calculating the claimed damages? [...]
14. Cheap Custom Built Comput&hellip | August 28th, 2007 at 4:59 am
Cheap Custom Built Computers…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…
15. Online High Schools&hellip | August 31st, 2007 at 12:02 am
Online High Schools…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…
16. Best Buy Consumer Reports&hellip | October 7th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Best Buy Consumer Reports…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…
17. Top Internet Business&hellip | October 17th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Top Internet Business…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…
18. Computer Maintenance Tips&hellip | October 22nd, 2007 at 8:59 am
Computer Maintenance Tips…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…
19. Consumer Electronics Revi&hellip | October 24th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Consumer Electronics Reviews…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed