1

The High Court Commercial Judicial Review 2012/167 JR Between EMI Records (Ireland) Limited Sony Music Entertainment Ireland Limited Universal Music (Ireland) Limited and Warner Music Ireland Limited applicants and The ata !rotection Commissioner respondent and Eircom "lc notice party #udgment o$ Mr #ustice Charleton delivered on the %&th day o$ #une %'(% ()' On Sunday 28 arc! 2010 all cloc"s in #reland and around $urope went %orward one !our at 01&00 !ours %or summer time& On Sunday '1 Octo(er 2010 all cloc"s in #reland and $urope went (ac" one !our at 02&00 !ours %or winter time& $ircom plc) t!e notice party and a ma*or telecommunications and internet service company) i+nored t!e winter time c!an+e& ,!at piece o% indolence led to t!is case& ()( -or a(out t!e previous %our mont!s) %rom .u+ust 2010) $ircom !ad (een operatin+ a sc!eme under a settlement in a prior case w!ere(y t!e plainti%%s in t!is case) !erea%ter re%erred to as t!e recordin+ companies) were detectin+ on t!e internet t!ose w!o were uploadin+ t!eir copyri+!t in music and video/ t!ey t!en passed on in%ormation consistin+ only o% copyri+!t title) time and temporary #0 address to $ircom& ,!at company would t!en write to t!eir su(scri(ers and remind t!em t!at under t!e $ircom1su(scri(er contract t!ey !ad a+reed not to use internet access to in%rin+e copyri+!t& .s was well pu(licised a%ter liti+ation to (e s!ortly re%erred to) a%ter t!ree suc! in%rin+ements t!e su(scri(er would lose a wee" o% internet access and) a%ter %our) internet service %rom $ircom would (e wit!drawn alto+et!er& ,!is would not stop a su(scri(er see"in+ service %rom anot!er internet service provider) o% w!ic! t!ere are more t!an a do2en in t!e State& Suc! in%ormation as to w!o mi+!t (e deprived o% internet service (y any internet service provider is not put on any national re+ister nor is t!ere any e3uivalent collective internet service provider data(ase& ()% #nternet 0rotocol 45#067 addresses are %urnis!ed in t!eir millions (y a central a+ency called R8seau9 #0 $urop8ens 45R#0$67) an or+anisation (ased in 0aris) to internet service providers& On su(scri(in+ %or internet service) a customer +ets a router (o9 %rom a provider and t!is !as a uni3ue num(er "nown only to t!e parties to t!at contract& :ay (y day) providers assi+n #0 num(ers to t!eir su(scri(ers and t!ese typically c!an+e every 2; !ours& ,!e Court was told t!at some lar+e companies li"e to !ave a more lastin+ #0 address) (ut t!ere is no evidence o% t!at

2
!ere& <!en a su(scri(er uploads or downloads a trac" wit!out copyri+!t permission on a peer1to1peer swarm o% internet users) a %ile !as! attac!es to eac! piece o% t!e trac" and t!is !as attac!ed to it t!at temporary #0 num(er& #n #reland) t!e recordin+ companies) t!rou+! an a+ency) are on t!e internet *oinin+ swarms and detectin+ any #0 addresses t!at are uploadin+ copyri+!t material assi+ned (y artists to t!em& <!ere an $ircom #0 address appears) t!at a+ency noti%ies $ircom on (e!al% o% t!e recordin+ companies and pursuant to t!e a+reement (etween t!e parties) t!e su(scri(er is identi%ied (y $ircom and is written to& .t no sta+e do t!e recordin+ companies "now to w!om t!at #0 address was assi+ned on any particular day and at no sta+e do t!ey see" to +ain t!at in%ormation %rom $ircom& Rat!er) any step t!at is t!erea%ter ta"en remains con%ined to t!e privacy o% t!e internet service provider and su(scri(er contract& ()* <!en $ircom did not c!an+e its cloc"s %or a period o% mont!s %rom Octo(er to :ecem(er 2010) some '=1 su(scri(ers were noti%ied in t!e wron+ t!at t!ey !ad uploaded copyri+!t material in (reac! o% contract& On = :ecem(er 2010) one particular su(scri(er received a contract (reac! noti%ication incorrectly& On 17 January 2011) t!at su(scri(er wrote to t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner) t!e respondent !erein& Correspondence t!en ensued wit! $ircom& ,!at company ac"nowled+ed t!at a mista"e !ad (een made& ,!e cloc"s were c!an+ed& On (ein+ in%ormed o% t!is) t!e particular made an additional complaint t!at a (reac! o% privacy !ad occurred in t!at no permission !ad (een +iven to t!e recordin+ companies to monitor !is internet activity/ even t!ou+! t!ey !ad not done so in %act since t!at su(scri(er !ad never uploaded copyri+!t material& ,!e su(scri(er complained t!at t!ere was an on+oin+ (reac! o% data protection law and re3uested t!at 5action is ta"en a+ainst $ircom > to t!e %ullest e9tent o% t!e law6& ()+ .ction was indeed ta"en& .s to w!et!er it was law%ul is t!e issue in t!is *udicial review& By a notice dated 11 January 2012) $ircom was directed (y t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner to cease its sc!eme wit! t!e recordin+ companies& Issues %)' ,!ere are t!ree ar+ua(le issues in t!is *udicial review& -irst) is *udicial review availa(le to t!e recordin+ companies notwit!standin+ t!at a statutory appeal is open to $ircom a+ainst t!is decision o% t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner? Second) !ave reasons (een +iven in t!e notice? ,!ird) is t!e notice incorrect in law or is it) instead) issued under an error o% law t!at is in e9cess o% *urisdiction? %)( . complicatin+ issue in t!is *udicial review) w!ic! would ordinarily (e a simpli%yin+ %actor) is t!at t!e su(*ect matter o% t!e notice was dealt wit! in a previous *ud+ment o% t!e Court) namely@ EMI Records (Ireland) ltd v Eircom Ltd A2010B ; #R ';=& ,!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner ma"es a num(er o% points in ar+ument& #n respect o% t!e earlier *ud+ment) !e says t!at !e was not present) and !e was not (ecause !e declined to participate citin+ cost as t!e %actor/ !e says t!at !is a(sence %rom t!e case was not !is %ault/ !e says t!at t!e *ud+ment does not (ind !im/ !e says t!at t!e Court was wron+ in t!e *ud+ment in w!ic! !e dei+ned not to participate/ !e ar+ues t!at t!e law !as c!an+ed since t!at decision was delivered/ !e says !e !as +iven reasons %or !is decision in t!e notice/ !e says t!at i% !e did not) t!e reasons were o(vious/ !e says t!at people s!ould come and tal" to !im/ and !e says t!at !e is not o(li+ed to +ive advice to t!ose w!o mi+!t come and tal" to !im& %)% ,!e Court +ave t!e recordin+ companies) $ircom and t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner t!e option o% statin+ 3uestions in t!is case to t!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean Cnion& .ll declined& ,!is *ud+ment is su(*ect to an appeal to t!e Supreme Court& ,!e Court is entitled to stay any order t!at can (e stayed to allow any party to e9ercise t!e option o% appeal&

History *)' #n 200D) Eelly J +ranted t!e recordin+ companies a num(er o% disclosure orders a+ainst $ircom& ,!ese related to #0 addresses o% t!e in%rin+ers o% t!eir copyri+!t& 0roceedin+s were initiated a+ainst some o% t!ose in%rin+ers& ,!e practice proved to (e %utile in terms o% +eneral impact on t!e level o% in%rin+ement/ since eac! party was entitled to costs as in a t!ird party discovery) t!e level o% costs was completely out o% proportion& ,!e Fi+! Court later so !eld& #n 2008 t!e recordin+ companies too" a case a+ainst $ircom see"in+ in*unctive relie% in part motivated (y concerns as to w!et!er a company could use a tec!nical solution to (loc" or divert or interrupt internet users w!o were actin+ in (reac! o% copyri+!t& :urin+ t!e course o% t!at !earin+ 0ro% Geonard Eleinroc") one o% t!e %ounders o% t!e internet) +ave evidence on (e!al% o% t!e recordin+ companies& .t t!e conclusion o% !is evidence) t!e parties ad*ourned and returned wit! a settlement to t!e Court& ,!at settlement involved w!at !as (een termed t!e +raduated response protocol& ,!at protocol was %iled in Court on 2= January 200=& #t !as since (een altered into t!e %orm previously descri(ed !erein& 0art o% t!e settlement terms was t!at $ircom would not oppose an application to (loc" access to ,!e 0irate Bay we(site t!rou+! w!ic! muc! o% t!e peer1to1peer downloadin+ w!ic! in%rin+ed copyri+!t was %acilitated& ,!at in*unction application occurred (e%ore t!e Court and t!e emp!asis was on $uropean directives w!ic! re3uire a remedy (y way o% in*unction& .n in*unction re3uirin+ $ircom to (loc" access to ,!e 0irate Bay was t!en +ranted on !earin+ only t!e recordin+ companiesH side o% t!e case& #n %act) $uropean law +ave a power to +rant suc! an in*unction (ut t!at power !ad not (een transposed into #ris! law& .not!er part o% t!e settlement was t!at t!e recordin+ companies would pursue t!e ot!er internet service providers %or in*unctive relie%& ,!e recordin+ companies t!erea%ter issued proceedin+s a+ainst ot!er internet service providers& *)( eanw!ile) t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner !ad (ecome involved in discussions wit! $ircom over t!e period 11 ay 200= to 17 :ecem(er 200= speci%ically concernin+ t!e settlement and t!e protocol& Fe was concerned a(out t!ree speci%ic 3uestions& .t !is re3uest) Eelly J re1entered t!e case so t!at data protection issues could (e decided (y t!e Fi+! Court& ,!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner set out a list o% t!e t!ree 3uestions on w!ic! !e !ad concerns& Iota(ly) !e did not set out any ot!er issues includin+ ones w!ic! are now t!e su(*ect o% t!e notice in 3uestion in t!is case and notwit!standin+ t!e %act t!at t!ose issues e9isted in law at t!at time) al(eit under a di%%erent %ormat& On 1D January 2010 t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner wrote a %ormal letter to $ircom as to !is concerns& ,!ese issues were %i9ed (y Eelly J %or !earin+& ,!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner sou+!t an assurance in advance o% t!e !earin+ t!at t!e parties would pay %or !is costs and/or would not see" costs a+ainst !im& <!en t!at assurance was not %ort!comin+ !e declined to appear at t!e !earin+ (ecause) !e said) !e was not %unded appropriately& #t is o(vious t!at t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner) !avin+ an important role (y statute) ou+!t to (e properly and appropriately %unded to ta"e part in liti+ation t!at is central to t!e %unctions o% !is o%%ice& #t is wron+ t!at !e was not so %unded (y t!ose responsi(le& On 16 .pril 2010) !avin+ !eard t!e parties attendin+) t!is Court +ave *ud+ment on t!e data protection issues& #n .u+ust 2010 t!e protocol commenced& eanw!ile) t!e recordin+ companies !ad issued proceedin+s a+ainst C0C) anot!er ma*or internet service provider& ,!at case did not settle (ut was decided& *)% On 11 Octo(er 2010 t!is Court +ave *ud+ment declinin+ to +rant in*unctive relie% to t!e recordin+ companies) see EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd & Ors v UPC Communications Ireland Ltd A2010B #$FC '77& ,!e reasonin+ o% t!e Court was strai+!t%orward& Section ;04;7 o% t!e Copyri+!t and Related Ri+!ts .ct 2000 provides t!at w!ere an owner o% copyri+!t noti%ies a party w!o ma"es availa(le %acilities %or ena(lin+ t!e ma"in+ availa(le to t!e pu(lic o% copies o% a wor" 5t!at

4
t!ose %acilities are (ein+ used to in%rin+e t!e copyri+!t in t!at wor" and t!at person %ails to remove that in$ringing material as soon as practica(le t!erea%ter t!at person s!all also (e lia(le %or t!e in%rin+ement&6 .t t!e time o% t!e passin+ o% t!e Copyri+!t and Related Ri+!ts .ct 2000) :irective 2000/'1/$C o% t!e $uropean 0arliament and o% t!e Council o% 8 June 2000 on certain le+al aspects o% in%ormation society services) in particular electronic commerce in t!e #nternal ar"et 45$1 Commerce :irective67 !ad (een passed& .rticle 22 o% t!at directive +ave t!e State up to 17 January 2002) to implement its terms& ,!e Copyri+!t and Related Ri+!ts .ct 2000 was passed in li+!t o% dra%t le+islation and in anticipation o% w!at would (ecome :irective 2001/2=/$C o% t!e $uropean 0arliament and o% t!e Council o% 22 ay 2011 on t!e !armonisation o% certain aspects o% copyri+!t and related ri+!ts in t!e in%ormation society 45,!e Copyri+!t :irective67& :irective 2002/21/$C o% t!e $uropean 0arliament and o% t!e Council o% 7 arc! 2002 on a common re+ulatory %ramewor" %or electronic communications networ"s and services 45-ramewor" :irective67 was passed on 7 arc! 2002& ,!e Communications Re+ulation .ct 2002) allowin+ %or re+ulation o% internet service providers (y ,!e Commission %or Communications Re+ulation) was passed in t!e year 2002& ,!is was %ollowed (y t!e $uropean Community 4:irective 2000/'1 $C7 Re+ulations 200' 4S&#& Io& 68 o% 200'7& .rticle 1; o% t!e $1Commerce :irective provides) at su(para& ') t!at t!e de%ences descri(ed in t!at article are not to prevent a court) in accordance wit! t!e em(er StateHs le+al systems) %rom re3uirin+ 5t!e service provider to terminate or prevent an in%rin+ement6& . similar wordin+ is contained in ot!er directives& ,!e wordin+ used in t!e $uropean directives re%ers to interruption) diversion and (loc"in+& #n particular) Recital ;6 o% t!e $1Commerce :irective provides t!at@ 5> upon o(tainin+ actual "nowled+e or awareness o% ille+al activities At!e service providerB !as to act e9peditiously to remove or to disa,le access to in$ormation >6 ,!e $1Commerce :irective !as speci%ic re%erence to t!e possi(ility o% an in*unction in Recital ;D@ ,!e limitations o% t!e lia(ility o% intermediary service providers esta(lis!ed in t!is :irective do not a%%ect t!e possi(ility o% in*unctions o% di%%erent "inds/ suc! in*unctions can in particular consist o% orders (y courts or administrative aut!orities re3uirin+ the termination or "revention o$ any in%rin+ement) includin+ t!e removal o% ille+al in%ormation or t!e disa(lin+ o% access to it& *)* .rticle 12) entitled 5 ere Conduit6) imposes t!e %ollowin+ o(li+ation on em(er States@ 1& <!ere an in%ormation society service is provided t!at consists o% t!e transmission in a communication networ" o% in%ormation provided (y a recipient o% t!e service) or t!e provision o% access to a communication networ") em(er States s!all ensure t!at t!e service provider is not lia(le %or t!e in%ormation transmitted) on condition t!at t!e provider@ 4a7 does not initiate t!e transmission/ 4(7 does not select t!e receiver o% t!e transmission/ and 4c7 does not select or modi%y t!e in%ormation contained in t!e transmission& 2& ,!e acts o% transmission and o% provision o% access re%erred to in para+rap! 1 include t!e automatic) intermediate and transient stora+e o% t!e in%ormation transmitted in so %ar as t!is ta"es place %or t!e sole purpose o% carryin+ out t!e transmission in t!e communication networ") and provided t!at t!e in%ormation is not stored %or any period lon+er t!an is reasona(ly necessary %or t!e transmission& 3.,!is .rticle s!all not a%%ect t!e possi(ility %or a court or administrative aut!ority) in accordance wit! em(er StatesJ le+al systems) o% re3uirin+ t!e service provider to terminate or "revent an in$ringement&

5
*)+ ,!e process descri(ed in t!e $uropean le+islation is not t!e same as removing in$ringing material) w!ic! is t!e wordin+ under section ;04;7 o% t!e Copyri+!t and Related Ri+!ts .ct 2000& .n intermediary is not removin+ a music or video trac" (y (loc"in+ or divertin+ it w!en it is s!ootin+ alon+ an electrical connection in tiny pieces %rom many sources& ,o stop copyri+!t in%rin+ement) an intermediary needs to terminate or disa(le or prevent t!e communication& #n turn) t!at depends on t!e relevant tec!nical solution proposed& ,!e $uropean le+islation words are@ remove) disa,le) terminate) "revent& <!en a le+islature uses di%%erent words in le+islation) t!e canons o% statutory construction indicate t!at di%%erent concepts are +enerally re%erenced in respect o% t!e use o% eac! word& .%ter t!at *ud+ment) t!e recordin+ companies issued proceedin+s a+ainst t!e State %or %ailure to implement $uropean law resultin+ in a direct loss to t!em& . re+ulation was passed w!ic! supposedly corrected t!e le+al de%icit& ,!is re+ulation was accompanied (y statements %rom an o%%icial o% t!e relevant department o% Kovernment t!at t!e le+islation did not !ave t!e de%ect identi%ied& ,!is does not matter& . court decision is open to respect%ul criticism under t!e Constitution& ,!e recordin+ companies) !owever) w!ic! !ad a pressin+ imperative to en%orce copyri+!t) did not appeal t!at *ud+ment/ surprisin+ i% t!e *ud+ment was wron+& *)- ,!e t!ree 3uestions as"ed (y t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner in t!e proceedin+s inspired (y !im) (ut in w!ic! !e did not participate) were@ 1& :oes data comprisin+ #0 addresses) in t!e !ands o% t!e plainti%%s or t!eir a+ent4s7) and ta"in+ account o% t!e purpose %or w!ic! t!ey are collected and t!eir intended provision to t!e de%endant) constitute Jpersonal dataJ %or t!e purposes o% t!e :ata 0rotection .cts 1=88 and 200') t!ere(y re3uirin+ t!at t!e collection o% suc! #0 addresses (y t!e plainti%%s or t!eir a+ents must comply wit! t!e speci%ic re3uirements o% eac! o% ss& 2) 2.) 2B) 2C and 2: o% t!e :ata 0rotection .ct 1=88) as amended? 2& Favin+ re+ard to s& 2.417 o% t!e :ata 0rotection .ct 1=88) as amended) and assumin+ %or current purposes t!at t!e processin+ (y t!e de%endant o% 5personal data6 in t!e conte9t o% t!e t!ird o% t!e t!ree steps envisa+ed (y t!e +raduated response sc!eme proposed under t!e terms o% t!is settlement 4i&e& t!e termination o% an internet userJs su(scription7 is 5necessary %or t!e purposes o% t!e le+itimate interests pursued (y t!e de%endant6) does suc! processin+ represent 5unwarranted processin+ (y reasons o% pre*udice to t!e %undamental ri+!ts and %reedoms or le+itimate interests o% t!e data su(*ect6? '& Favin+ re+ard to ss& 2.417 and 2B417 o% t!e :ata 0rotection .ct 1=88) as amended) is it open to t!e plainti%%s and/or t!e de%endant to implement t!e +raduated response process set out in t!e terms o% t!e settlement includin+) in particular) t!e termination o% an internet userJs su(scription under step ' o% t!at process) in circumstances w!ere@1 4a7 in doin+ so t!ey would (e en+a+ed in t!e processin+ o% personal data and/or sensitive personal data 4in so %ar as t!e data can (e considered to relate to t!e commission o% a criminal o%%ence7) includin+ t!e provision o% suc! data %rom one private entity to anot!er private entity/ 4(7 t!e termination o% an internet userJs su(scription (y t!e de%endant would (e predicated on t!e internet user in 3uestion !avin+ committed an o%%ence 4i&e& t!e uploadin+ o% copyri+!t1protected material to a t!ird party (y means o% a peer to peer application7 (ut wit!out any suc! o%%ence !avin+ (een t!e su(*ect o% investi+ation (y an aut!orised (ody/ and) %urt!er) wit!out any determination !avin+ (een made (y a court o% competent *urisdiction) %ollowin+ t!e conduct o% a %air and impartial !earin+) to t!e e%%ect t!at an o%%ence !ad in %act (een committed&

6
*). ,!e answers o% t!e Court +iven in t!e a(sence o% t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner are availa(le at A2010B ; #R ';=) at '611'7'& *)& #n de%ence o% t!is application to 3uas! t!e notice o% 11 January 2012) counsel %or t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner su(mits t!at@ t!e relevant le+islation !as since c!an+ed) t!at is correct (ut !e accepts t!at t!e le+islation was t!ere in similar %orm previously/ t!at matters !ave moved %rom t!e t!eoretical to t!e practical wit! t!e complaint/ t!at t!e $ircom contract wit! its su(scri(ers s!ould !ave (een c!an+ed (ut was not c!an+ed) a matter t!at could previously !ave (een ar+ued (y t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner (ut was not/ t!at privacy law !as (een (reac!ed/ and t!at t!e case law o% t!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean Cnion !as developed so as to ma"e t!e prior *ud+ment o% t!e Court on data protection issues now irrelevant& ,!e case apparently re%erred to in correspondence (y t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner as c!an+in+ t!e entire le+al landscape on copyri+!t protection was Case C170/10 Scarlet Extended S.A. v. Soci t !el"e des auteurs# com$ositeurs et diteurs SCRL (SA%AM). The /otice +)' ,!e notice o% 11 January 2012 (y t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner stated t!at t!e provisions o% data protection le+islation in%rin+ed (y $ircom t!rou+! t!e settlement and protocol were@

1.

2.

'&

4.

D& 6&

7&

Re+ulation D417 o% t!e Re+ulations in t!at eircom !as %acilitated or is %acilitatin+ t!e listenin+) tappin+) stora+e or ot!er "inds o% interception or surveillance o% communications and related tra%%ic data o% users o% eircomHs internet services) (y persons ot!er t!an suc! users) wit!out t!e consent o% t!e users concerned (y means o% implementin+ t!e 0rotocol/ Re+ulation 6 o% t!e Re+ulations in t!at eircom !as %ailed 4or is %ailin+7 to ensure t!at tra%%ic data relatin+ to su(scri(ers and users processed and stored %or t!e purpose o% t!e transmission o% a communication 4includin+) in particular) tra%%ic data comprisin+ #0 addresses assi+ned (y eircom to a su(scri(er at a particular point in time7 is erased or made anonymous w!en it is no lon+er needed %or t!at purpose save to t!e e9tent t!at suc! data may (e retained and processed and/or stored %or a purpose prescri(ed in t!e Re+ulations/ Sections 24174a7 L 2: o% t!e :0 .cts in t!at eircom !as %ailed 4or is %ailin+7 to provide su(scri(ers wit! in%ormation necessary to render t!e o(tainin+ and/or processin+ o% t!eir personal data 5%air6 %or t!e purposes o% said Section 24174a7& Section 24174(7 o% t!e :0 .cts in t!at eircom !as %ailed 4or is %ailin+7 to comply wit! t!e re3uirement t!at personal data o(tained and/or processed (y or on (e!al% o% eircom s!all (e accurate) eircom !avin+ incorrectly identi%ied particular su(scri(ers as persons w!o !ad en+a+ed in ille+al peer to peer %ile s!arin+ usin+ #0 addresses assi+ned to eircom/ Section 24174c74i7 o% t!e :0 .cts in t!at eircom !as o(tained 4or is o(tainin+7 personal data in respect o% su(scri(ers ot!er t!an %or one or more speci%ied) e9plicit and le+itimate purposes/ Section 24174c74ii7 o% t!e :0 .cts in t!at eircom !as %urt!er processed 4or is %urt!er processin+7 personal data in respect o% su(scri(ers in a manner incompati(le wit! t!e purpose %or w!ic! t!at data was o(tained and is retained/ Section 2.417 o% t!e :0 .cts in t!at eircom !as processed 4or is processin+7 personal data o% a su(scri(er wit!out t!e su(scri(erHs consent and/or wit!out meetin+ any one or more o% t!e ot!er conditions speci%ied in t!at Section/

7
8& Section 2B o% t!e :0 .cts in t!at eircom !as processed 4or is processin+7 sensitive personal data) namely data relatin+ to t!e commission or alle+ed commission o% o%%ences %urt!er to Section 1;0 o% t!e Copyri+!t and Related Ri+!ts .ct 2000) wit!out complyin+ wit! t!e re3uirements o% Sections 2 and 2. o% t!e :0 .cts and/or wit!out meetin+ one or more o% t!e conditions speci%ied in Section 2B4174(7 t!ereo%&

+)( ,!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner t!ere%ore ordered) on peril o% t!e commission o% a criminal o%%ence) t!at $ircom (rin+ t!e implementation o% t!e protocol to an end (y ta"in+ t!e %ollowin+ actions@ 4i7 4ii7 ta"e all suc! steps as are necessary to comply wit! t!e provisions o% t!e :0 .cts and Re+ulations concerned) suc! steps to (e ta"en wit!in 60 days o% t!e date o% receipt o% t!is Iotice/ pendin+ suc! steps (ein+ ta"en) to cease %ort!wit! t!e o(tainin+ and/or processin+ o% su(scri(er data in t!e conte9t o% t!e implementation o% t!e 0rotocol) includin+) %or t!e avoidance o% dou(t) t!e receipt o% su(scri(er data %rom) or t!e transmission o% su(scri(er data to) any ot!er party to t!e 0rotocol or t!eir servants or a+ents/ and) ta"e steps to destroy and/or erase any and all su(scri(er data processed (y eircom in t!e conte9t o% t!e implementation o% t!e 0rotocol wit!in 60 days o% receipt o% t!is Iotice&

4iii7

+)% #t is wit! a de+ree o% concern t!at t!e Court immediately notes t!at t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner does not accept t!at t!e mista"e (y $ircom in ad*ustin+ cloc"s was t!en in t!e past& #t is neit!er le+ally ri+!t nor %air t!at an error can +ive rise to a command over a year later to cease an activity w!en t!at error !as lon+ since (een corrected and w!ere t!ere is no indication t!at it would ever (e repeated& Curial de$erence -)' Only in de%ined circumstances is *udicial review o% a decision1ma"in+ process availa(le& ,o e9tend *udicial review outside t!e proper (oundaries o% t!at remedy is to introduce uncertainty into t!e interaction o% *udicial and administrative power/ see E&e v. Minister &or 'ustice# E(ualit) and La* Re&orm A2011B #$FC 21;& ,!ere can (e tri(unals w!ic! o% t!eir nature deal wit! specialist disciplines& <!ere 3uestions o% t!e (alance o% policy in specialist areas) or %indin+s o% %act re3uirin+ e9pert assessment) are concerned) t!en t!e courts s!ould not readily %ind t!at %indin+s o% %act are irrational or t!at t!e (alance struc" (etween competin+ interests %ails to accord wit! %undamental commonsense/ t!is is t!e ordinary reasona(leness test (ut one w!ic! in respect o% a specialist tri(unal a court s!ould s!ow appropriate de%erence& Suc! specialist tri(unals) !owever) remain o(li+ed to stay wit!in t!e *urisdiction w!ic! statute !as con%erred on t!em and are re3uired to ma"e t!eir assessments on considerin+ (ot! sides o% an issue in an appropriate way and to %urnis! t!eir decisions wit! reasons w!en statute or t!e appropriate in%erence %rom statute so re3uires& Curial de%erence does not aid suc! a specialist tri(unal (eyond accordin+ due respect %or its e9pert %actual assessment or decision on t!e (alance o% competin+ interests& Curial de%erence cannot e9tend to sanctionin+ (reac!es o% t!e rules as to *urisdiction or t!e (ypassin+ o% t!e tri(unal o% t!e o(li+ation to incorporate %air procedures& ,o so re+ard some tri(unals would (e to operate a discriminatory system o% *udicial review& #n +ran, -arrin"ton Ltd v An %ord Plean.la A2010B #$FC ;28 at para+rap! 7&1 Fedi+an J is not to (e ta"en as e9tendin+ curial de%erence outside t!e appropriate (oundaries w!en !e said@ <!en *udicially reviewin+ a decision o% an e9pert (ody t!e courts must e9ercise an appropriate measure o% restraint& ,!e nature o% Judicial Review

8
o% e9pert (odies was addressed in -enr) /enn) & Sons (Ireland) Ltd. v. Minister &or Social 0el&are A1==8B 1 #&R& ';& Familton CJ stated t!at@ 5#t would (e desira(le to ta"e t!is opportunity o% e9pressin+ t!e view t!at t!e courts s!ould (e slow to inter%ere wit! t!e decisions o% e9pert administrative tri(unals& <!ere conclusions are (ased upon an identi%ia(le error o% law or an unsustaina(le %indin+ o% %act (y a tri(unal suc! conclusions must (e corrected& Ot!erwise it s!ould (e reco+nised t!at tri(unals w!ic! !ave (een +iven statutory tas"s to per%orm and e9ercise t!eir %unctions) as is now usually t!e case) wit! a !i+! de+ree o% e9pertise and provide co!erent and (alanced *ud+ments on t!e evidence and ar+ument !eard (y t!em it s!ould not (e necessary %or t!e courts to review t!eir decisions (y way o% appeal or *udicial review&6 ,!e need %or restraint !as (een !elp%ully e9plained in t!e %ollowin+ terms@ 5<!ile a court must not lose si+!t o% its uni3ue role in determinin+ t!e le+ality o% a pu(lic decision) t!ere are sound reasons %or t!e e9ercise o% restraint in t!e application o% t!e review principles& #% t!e *ud+es overreac!) t!ey commit t!e error w!ic! review !as (een desi+ned to prevent@ t!ey a(use *urisdiction& .nd in doin+ so) t!ere is a practical dan+er t!at t!ey may end up (ein+ responsi(le %or decisions w!ic! t!ey are not) (y trainin+ or e9perience 3uali%ied to ma"e& Specialist (odies are esta(lis!ed (y le+islation o%ten (ecause t!eir mem(ers will !ave particular "nowled+e o% t!eir %ields o% activity& ,!at "nowled+e may o%ten not necessarily (e imparted to or rest in a *ud+e dealin+ wit! a review application6/ /e %lacam) Judicial Review) Second $dition 4:u(lin 200=7& -)( Curial de%erence is not a new concept and it is not to (e automatically applied even to (odies dealin+ wit! issues o% %act& #n t!e conte9t o% a statutory appeal) in P1iladel$1ia Stora"e %atter) Co. v. Controller o& Industrial and Commercial Pro$ert) A1='DB #R D7D Eennedy CJ said at D='@ ,!e Courts in $n+land !ave) !owever) indicated very stron+ly t!at t!ey will pay +reat attention to t!e decision o% a specialist o%%icer li"e t!e Controller& Io dou(t t!e de+ree o% suc! attention will vary wit! t!e len+t! o% time !e !as !eld !is o%%ice and !is conse3uent e9perience) and t!e 3uali%ications and t!e "nown a(ility o% t!e o%%icer& #% t!e $n+lis! courts went to t!e e9tent o% acceptin+ !is view as t!e e9ercise o% a *udicial discretion (y w!ic! t!e Court s!ould (e (ound) we could not %ollow t!em in t!is country) as t!at would) in my opinion) (e contrary to a constitutional principle w!ic! (inds us) and w!ic! we must (e *ealous to maintain& #n my opinion) t!ere%ore) w!ile we read t!e views o% t!e Controller wit! respect and in t!e present case wit! admiration o% t!e clarity and a(ility o% !is statement o% t!em) we are 3uite %ree to %orm our own opinion untrammelled (y t!em& -)% #t must (e emp!asised t!at curial de%erence cannot arise w!ere (y statue reasons %or a decision are re3uired (ut none are +iven& Ior can curial de%erence ever (e a %actor in *udicial review w!ere a mista"e o% law puts a tri(unal outside t!e *urisdiction con%erred on it (y statute& #n appropriate cases) w!ere errors occur even on t!ose issues t!e +eneral discretion as to *udicial review may (e invo"ed dependin+ on t!e precise circumstances in appropriate cases& ,!e principle o% curial de%erence on issues o% %act and decisions on t!e appropriate (alancin+ o% competin+ interests !as) !owever) not!in+ to do wit! any case suc! as t!is one w!ic! concerns t!e o(li+ation to +ive reasons and t!e proper interpretation o% powers con%erred (y statute on an administrative o%%icial&&

!eer0to0"eer co"ying .)' . (rie% note as to !ow peer1to1peer copyin+ wor"s in t!e in%rin+ement o% copyri+!t is necessary& ,!e parties a+reed durin+ t!e !earin+ t!at t!e evidence o% ic!ael <als! o% t!e #ris! consultancy %irm) Eerna Communications Gtd) reproduced (y .rnold J o% t!e $n+land and <ales Fi+! Court in /ramatico Entertainment Ltd and Ot1ers v %ritis1 S,) %roadcastin" Ltd and Ot1ers A2012B $<FC 268 4C!7 e9plained t!at process concisely and accuratly& ,!is is t!e relevant e9tract %rom para+rap! 1=@ > 020 services eac! di%%er %rom one anot!er in many tec!nical details) (ut t!ey all s!are certain (asic elements@

(a) ,!e user downloads and installs on !is or !er computer a piece o%
so%tware) %or e9ample M,orrent 4also "nown as u,orrent7& ,!is so%tware is easily %ound usin+ an internet searc! en+ine and is downloaded %or %ree wit!out any personal identi%ication re3uired& (b) Once t!e so%tware is installed on a computer) w!enever t!at computer connects to t!e internet it (ecomes part o% a 020 networ" or system consistin+ o% many ot!er computers usin+ t!e same so%tware& 020 so%tware o%ten installs itsel% so t!at it runs in t!e (ac"+round w!enever t!e computer is started& 4c7 . user locates %iles %or download in di%%erent places dependin+ on t!e 020 tec!nolo+y in use& Bittorrent users may use ,!e 0irate Bay (ecause it is simple to searc! and %ind music) video) +ames and so%tware& 4d7 Once a user is a participant in a 020 networ") !e or s!e can download %iles !osted and (ein+ made availa(le (y ot!er users o% t!e 020 networ"& .t t!e same time t!e userHs computer acts as an uploader) ma"in+ t!e %iles t!at it !as locally availa(le to ot!ers& ,!e %iles are not stored or !osted on a central server& #nstead) eac! computer t!at is part o% t!e networ" can act as a mini1server %rom w!ic! ot!er 020 users on t!e networ" can download %iles& (e) 020 tec!nolo+y distri(utes lar+e data %iles (y (rea"in+ t!em up into small pieces 4c!un"s7 and sends t!em over t!e internet to t!e re3uestin+ user& ,!e 020 so%tware may re3uest c!un"s o% t!e %ile %rom di%%erent mem(ers o% t!e 020 networ"& <!en all t!e data is received (y t!e userJs computer) t!e %ile is reassem(led as a w!ole& 4%7 Because o% t!eir or+anisation) w!ere users in a 020 networ" will +enerally act (ot! as a client and a server 4i&e& uploader as well as downloader7) eac! participant provides resources to t!e networ" suc! as (andwidt!) stora+e space and computin+ power) t!ere(y increasin+ capacity as t!e networ" +rows& 020 networ"s scale well as t!ey +row in si2e and are resilient w!ere t!ere is no central component& .)( 0rior to t!e en%orcement notice o% 11 January 2012) only two !ints at any reasons (e!ind t!at decision are contained in t!e :ata 0rotection CommissionerHs correspondence wit! $ircom& #n so %ar as t!e 3uestions t!at may !ave (een concernin+ mi+!t (e construed) t!ese are issues as to privacy and issues as to a *ud+ment o% t!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean Cnion& !rivacy &)' 0rivacy is central to t!e ar+uments made (y counsel %or t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner& Cnder .rticle 8 o% t!e $uropean Convention on Fuman Ri+!ts and -undamental -reedoms) respect %or privacy is +uaranteed& ,!e Constitution o% #reland +uarantees privacy as an unenumerated %undamental ri+!t& .rticle 10 o% t!e Convention also +uarantees t!e ri+!t to communicate& ,!e process o% uploadin+ copyri+!t material involves +oin+ on a swarm as a participant %rom w!om and to

10
w!om copyri+!t material will (e uploaded and downloaded& ,!at activity can o% course (e law%ul/ as in uploadin+ a television pro+ramme %reely availa(le on t!e we(site o% a television company& <!et!er law%ul or in (reac! o% copyri+!t) peer1to1 peer uploadin+ ta"es place openly on t!e internet in circumstances w!ere t!e %ile !as! will (e accompanied (y t!e temporary identi%ication o% t!e #0 address) c!an+in+ day (y day 4provided t!e cloc"s are properly set7& .nyone can *oin suc! a swarm& #n doin+ so %or t!e purpose o% uploadin+ or downloadin+ copyri+!t material) t!at activity will (e accompanied (y an #0 address w!ic! would mean not!in+ to uploaders and downloaders& ,!at would not t!ere%ore identi%y anyone to any participant in t!e swarm& Counsel %or t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner li"ened t!e detection o% an #0 address (y an a+ent o% t!e recordin+ companies participatin+ in a swarm to t!at o% university aut!orities openin+ t!e loc"er o%) searc!in+ t!e !ome o% and monitorin+ t!e mo(ile p!one o% students w!o !ave merely si+ned a contract %or tuition& Suc! participation (y an a+ent o% t!e recordin+ companies in a swarm t!at would not (e %or t!e purpose o% ille+al uploadin+ and downloadin+ (ut %or t!e purpose o% detectin+ t!ose en+a+ed in t!at activity) was to (e e3uated) !e ar+ued) to t!e +ardaN enterin+ !ouses wit!out a searc! warrant merely (ecause t!ey t!in" t!at t!ere mi+!t (e a controlled dru+ t!ere& #t was also to (e e3uated wit! t!e criminal law de%ence o% entrapment) !e ur+ed& Counsel %or t!e recordin+ companies su(mitted t!at everyone could t!in" o% people to w!om t!ey would wis! to anonymously ma"e t!reatenin+ telep!one calls (ut t!at desire did not render suc! activity eit!er et!ical or law%ul& #t is !ard to a+ree wit! eit!er o% t!ese su(missions& Counsel %or $ircom ar+ued t!at t!e activity o% peer1to1peer uploadin+ and downloadin+ o% copyri+!t material was a mar"etplace transaction w!ic! could not (e distin+uis!ed %rom a trader +oin+ and standin+ on t!e side in Fenry Street in :u(lin city centre wit! a (o9 load o% :O:s t!at were copied ille+ally and o%%erin+ t!ese to anyone w!o mi+!t come alon+& ,!at su(mission is a %air c!aracterisation& &)( :esirin+ t!at an activity remain undetected and !avin+ an entitlement to privacy are two entirely di%%erent concepts& Some activities are naturally private accordin+ to t!e notions o% decent t!in"in+& Sometimes t!e a%%airs t!at we s!are wit! ot!ers are private %rom w!at we communicate or t!e circumstances in w!ic! we s!are& 0rivacy may (e descri(ed as t!e (undle o% e9pectations !eld (y reasona(le citi2ens t!at actions w!ic! we le+itimately s!ield %rom ot!ers or communications in con%idence will (e respected t!rou+! not (ein+ en3uired into or disseminated outside t!e sp!ere wit!in w!ic! t!e trust o% ot!ers) arisin+ t!rou+! contract or t!e reposin+ o% t!at trust) is e9pected not to (e (etrayed& Breac! o% privacy is t!us t!e unwelcome intrusion o% ot!ers into aspects o% livin+ t!at are particularly personal to t!e individual or into situation o% in%ormation s!ared in con%idence& #n Scarlet Extended) .dvocate Keneral Cru2 OillalPn appeared to endorse t!e idea t!at anonymity is essential %or t!e preservation o% t!e ri+!t to privacy on t!e internet& #n !is opinion o% 1; .pril 2011 at para+rap! 7' !e said@ #l convient dHe9aminer successivement la mesure sollicit8e en tant 3ue possi(le limitation au droit Q la protection des donn8es personnelles) dHune part) et au droit au respect du secret des communications) dHautre part& :Hune maniRre +8n8rale) comme la Commission lHa par%ois constat8) la possi(ilit8 de rester anonyme est essentielle si lHon veut pr8server les droits %ondamentau9 Q la vie priv8e dans le cy(erespace& Cependant) sHil apparaSt clairement 3ue les directives =D/;6 et 2002/D8 doivent Ttre interpr8t8es au re+ard des articles 7 et 8 de la c!arte) lus le cas 8c!8ant Q la lumiRre de lHarticle 8 de la C$:F) le lien unissant le droit Q la protection des donn8es personnelles 4article 8 de la c!arte7 et le d8ploiement du systRme de %iltra+e et de (loca+e sollicit8 est lui (eaucoup moins clair& &)% #n t!e *ud+ment) t!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean Cnion did not rule on t!is proposition& ,!at seems correct& .n activity o% swarm participation %or peer1to1peer downloadin+ does not le+itimately carry t!e e9pectation o% privacy& #t is %lyin+ in t!e %ace o% commonsense %or t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner to e3uate

11
participation in an open communication wit! all comers on t!e internet %or t!e purpose o% ille+al downloadin+ o% copyri+!t material wit! interception) wit! tappin+ or wit! listenin+& ,!ose concepts are ri+!tly to (e deprecated as ille+al in circumstances o% privacy& ,!at is not t!e situation !ere@ t!ere is no le+itimate reposin+ o% trust pursuant to contract or reasona(le e9pectation t!at w!en a person +oes on t!e internet wit! a view to uploadin+ or downloadin+ w!at does not (elon+ to t!em& ,!at circumstance does not +ive rise to any constitutional entitlement or !uman ri+!t to remain immune %rom a music company also participatin+ in t!at open %orum to discover t!e economic dama+e (ein+ done to it and to creative artists& ,!e interest o% music companies is proper and proportionate& #t is (eyond dou(t t!at w!ile eac! individual act o% copyin+) in itsel%) does little dama+e t!e reproduction o% t!at activity (y millions repeated over time is industrial in scale& ,!e response o% internet service providers o% doin+ not!in+ per!aps re%lects t!e +reater economic stren+t! o% intermediaries as compared to creative people or recordin+ companies& ,!ere is also t!e immeasura(le and disproportionate power o% t!ese peer1to1peer swarms w!ic! are increasin+ly renderin+ t!e entitlement to t!ose on w!om creativity depends to no consideration& &)* Io evidence was o%%ered in t!is case as to t!e application o% privacy in t!ese circumstances& :ue to t!e lac" o% reasons in t!e notice o% 11 January 2012) t!e motivation (e!ind t!e condemnation (y t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner o% any music company participatin+) wit! a view to protectin+ its own interest in copyri+!t) in a peer1to1peer swarm devoted to ille+al uploadin+ and downloadin+ is not clear& Ior is it clear as to !ow privacy mi+!t come into t!e matter at all& ,!is issue was analysed wit! t!e (ene%it o% opposin+ ar+ument and evidence (y t!is Court in EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd & Ors v UPC Communications Ireland Ltd A2010B #$FC '77& # 3uote t!e appropriate para+rap!s %rom t!at *ud+ment@ ..) ,!e e9istence o% a ri+!t to privacy is not in dou(t/ as Familton 0& in 2enned) v. Ireland A1=87B #&R& D87 put it) UAtB!e ri+!t to privacy is not an issue) t!e issue is t!e e9tent o% t!at ri+!t or t!e e9tent o% t!at ri+!t 5to (e le%t alone6& #t !as (een consistently invo"ed in t!e courts over t!e years/ see) %or e9ample) 3 v. +l)nn 4Cnreported) Fi+! Court) Costello J&) 1=t! ay) 1==;7 and Re Article 45 and t1e Em$lo)ment E(ualit) %ill 6775 A1==7B 2 #&R& '21& :espite t!is) privacy as a ri+!t is di%%icult to de%ine ade3uately& ,!e #ris! courts !ave +rappled wit! t!e scope o% t!e ri+!t since it was %irst reco+nised in Mc8ee v. Attorne) 8eneral A1=7;B #&R& 28; as an unenumerated ri+!t) %lowin+ %rom t!e StateHs underta"in+ to de%end and vindicate t!e personal ri+!ts o% every citi2en under .rticle ;0&'&1 o% t!e Constitution& 0rivacy in t!e modern panoptic society must (e %le9i(le enou+! to address new tec!nolo+ies and developments and t!eir privacy implications w!ile at t!e same time certain enou+! as to o%%er +uidance and clarity as a matter o% law& Eeepin+ t!is tension in mind) it is e9tremely di%%icult to arrive at an appropriate de%inition& :escription is t!ere%ore pre%era(le& .&) ,!e ri+!t to privacy !as (een said to encapsulate t!e Uri+!t to (e le%t aloneH 4per 0als1 '. in !is dissentin+ *ud+ment as a *ud+e o% t!e $uropean Court o% Fuman Ri+!ts in /ud"eon v. United 2in"dom 41=817 ; $&F&R&R& 1;=7 or as 5t!e %undamental value o% personal autonomy6 4per Sedley G&J& in /ou"las v. -ello9 A2001B 1 V&B& =67 at para& 1267 W t!e ri+!t o% t!e individual to e9ercise control over in%ormation) possessions and conduct o% a personal nature and) as an o(vious corollary) t!e ri+!t to prevent ot!ers %rom accessin+ t!is in%ormation& On an international level t!is State is a si+natory to various treaties w!ic! clearly enumerate t!e ri+!t to privacy& ,!e most important o% t!ese is contained in .rticle 8 o% t!e $uropean Convention on Fuman Ri+!ts w!ic! provides) inter alia# t!at 5AeBveryone !as t!e ri+!t to respect %or !is private and %amily li%e) !is !ome and !is correspondence6& ,!is ri+!t to U(e le%t aloneH !as spawned a considera(le amount o% data protection le+islation) most noticea(ly at a $uropean level 4See) %or

12
e9ample) 0arliament and Council :irective =D/;6/$C o% 2; Octo(er 1==D on t!e protection o% individuals wit! re+ard to t!e processin+ o% personal data and on t!e %ree movement o% suc! data O&J& G 281 2'&11&1==D A5t!e :ata 0rotection :irective6B7 and on a domestic level) principally t!rou+! t!e :ata 0rotection .ct 1=88) as amended& .1) # %ind it impossi(le to reco+nise as a matter o% constitutional law) t!at t!e protection o% t!e entitlement to (e le%t in t!e sp!ere o% private communications could ever e9tend to conversations) emails) letters) p!onecalls or any ot!er communication desi+ned to %urt!er a criminal enterprise& Criminals leave t!e private sp!ere w!en t!ey in%rin+e t!e ri+!ts o% ot!er) or conspire in t!at respect& Ge+islative intervention may mean detection involves a statutory in%rin+ement@ leavin+ t!e admission o% evidence to (e decided on t!e (alance o% respect %or t!e law and t!e seriousness o% w!at is involved& #n t!e case o% internet %ile s!arin+ to in%rin+e copyri+!t) # am o% t!e view t!at t!ere are no privacy or data protection implications to detectin+ unaut!orised downloads o% copyri+!t material usin+ peer1to1peer tec!nolo+y/ 4see) EMI Records (Ireland) Limited v. Eircom Limited A2010B #$FC 108) 4Cnreported) Fi+! Court) C!arleton J&) 16t! .pril) 20107. #n t!is re+ard) # am ta"in+ into account t!e %act t!at t!e process o% detection t!rou+! :tecIet is essentially anonymous& .s previously emp!asised) a communication (etween t!e recordin+ companies and an internet service provider) !avin+ used t!e %acilities o%%ered (y t!e :tecIet) t!at in a particular mont! a certain one !undred su(scri(ers downloaded an avera+e o% twenty copyri+!t protected trac"s eac!) ille+ally) +ivin+ a date and time and t!e #0 address) discloses no in%ormation pu(licly& ,!e recordin+ companies do not t!ere(y !arvest t!e names and addresses o% in%rin+ers o% copyri+!t %or data purposes) or %or %uture communication or %or evidence in a potential criminal case& ,!ey +et not!in+ apart %rom a set o% num(ers& .s (etween C0C and t!eir customers) any solution to t!is ille+al activity is conducted privately as (etween t!em& ,!ey already "now eac! ot!er) as t!ey are *oined (y a contract& ,!at communication is wit!in t!e ran+e o% matters over w!ic! an internet service provider is entitled to deal wit! its customer& ,!e a(use o% an internet service %or copyri+!t t!e%t is a serious matter %rom t!e point o% view o% t!e +eneral en%orcement o% copyri+!t protection& .n internet service provider is entitled to !ave a policy a+ainst it& #n t!is instance) it is apparent t!at C0C pretends to !ave suc! a policy& ,!e e9istence o% a +enuine anti1piracy policy would en!ance t!e pu(lic standin+ o% any corporation and is a matter in respect o% w!ic! t!ey !ave an interest& $n%orcin+ a private contract) in t!is conte9t) does not !ave privacy implications& .ny %orm o% (loc"in+ on t!at customer and internet service provider (asis does not carry a privacy implication& #% t!e response is a +raduated one) as opposed to a (loc"in+ o% communications merely on a (asis o% identi%yin+ its nature and t!e relevant #0 num(er) no privacy implication arises& .s 0ro%essor Ii9on put it@1 5#% to ac!ieve t!e +oal o% identi%yin+ t!at you !ave to do ot!er t!in+s) li"e store t!e #0 addresses o% w!ere it came %rom and w!ere it went to) and various ot!er t!in+s) and you are spottin+ t!ose %or in%rin+in+ and non in%rin+in+ uses) t!en # would start to worry a(out t!at in%ormation (ein+ stored) and !ow it is (ein+ used) %or w!at purposes> #n a +raduated response) t!ey are not) t!e :tecIet +uys are loo"in+ at every communication t!at +oes t!rou+! t!e C0C networ"& <!at t!ey are doin+ t!ey are *oinin+ a particular stream o% communications t!at is in t!is peer1to1peer networ") w!ic! !as (y de%ault at t!is moment in time) lets say 60X) 70X) =0X o% t!e people w!o are on it are s!arin+ in%rin+in+ material) and you pic" t!ose people and you store t!e in%ormation& Iow # donHt t!in" so 1 # t!in" t!at is reasona(le> no(ody is e9posin+ anyt!in+ in t!ese networ"s) apart %rom t!e %act t!at t!ey !ave an #0 address) some made up user name) and t!e %iles t!at t!ey are in%rin+in+) or t!e %iles t!ey are not

13
in%rin+in+& So) t!at in%ormation is made pu(licly availa(le Aover t!e networ" anywayB so) t!at is %ine&6 .2) r& Se!ested !ad a similar view& Fe said@1 5# mean all o% t!e in%ormation t!at we capture is pu(licly transmitted in%ormation t!at anyone wit! an internet communication and a peer1 to1peer pro+ramme) t!at is %reely downloada(le) would (e a(le to capture& .+ain all t!e %iles t!at we capture !ere are %iles t!at are actively made availa(le (y t!e users> AiBn t!is case speci%ically we are solely loo"in+ %or sound recordin+& So we only loo" %or content t!at is part o% t!at %ile t!at we !ave (een +iven to monitor %or&6 &') ,!at evidence is t!e (asis o% my conclusion t!at t!e ri+!t o% privacy is not en+a+ed (y t!e scrutiny o% %iles pu(licly made availa(le %or copyri+!t t!e%t on t!e internet and nor is it en+a+ed (y deep pac"et inspection %or t!e purpose o% detectin+ and divertin+ or disena(lin+ suc! transmissions& &)+ ,!e "eepin+ o% (illin+ in%ormation is ar+ued (y t!e :ata 0rotection Commission to (e unlaw%ul& Counsel %or $ircom pointed out t!at any commercial company %acin+ a potential (reac! o% contract action) w!ic! !as a limitation period o% si9 years) is entitled to "eep and use (illin+ in%ormation %or t!at period& -urt!ermore (y si+nin+ a contract w!ic! re3uires appropriate and law%ul use o% t!e internet) and speci%ically outlaws (reac! o% copyri+!t) t!e use o% t!at (illin+ in%ormation %or en%orcin+ a contract in t!e ordinary way is not inappropriate and does not constitute a (reac! o% privacy& .part %rom t!e %act t!at t!is issue could !ave (een) (ut was not) raised (y t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner in t!e previous liti+ation) contracts are to (e construed in order to +ive (usiness e%%icacy to t!at w!ic! !as (een a+reed& &)- <!at is ar+ued %or !ere (y t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner is t!at all o% t!e contracts entered into (y $ircom wit! its su(scri(ers s!ould (e disavowed and a new contract circulated %or acceptance or re*ection on t!e (asis o% t!e protocol& Suc! a course would (e unnecessary& ,!e contract already contains t!e relevant clause and wit! it t!e clear implication t!at relia(le in%ormation as to (reac! may (e noti%ied in a reasona(le way to t!e relevant customers& #% t!ese su(scri(ers %ind t!emselves in !avin+ to searc! out anot!er internet service provider) t!at would occur only a%ter %our (reac!es o% t!e copyri+!t o% ot!ers and in t!e conte9t o% !avin+ a %ull opportunity to o%%er an e9planation and in t!e conte9t o% appropriate e9ceptions as to !ealt! and ot!er important %actors& # am not considerin+ !ere any issue as to recourse to a *udicial process (e%ore t!e termination o% internet access (etween one individual su(scri(er and t!at su(scri(erHs t!en internet service provider&

7.6 #n summary) peer1to1peer s!arin+ is no more a (reac! o% privacy t!an any

ot!er %orm o% participation in copyri+!t in%rin+ement (y any o% t!e participants& The Court o$ #ustice o$ the Euro"ean Union 1)' ,!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean Cnion !as not aut!orised t!e unaut!orised downloadin+ o% copyri+!t material %rom t!e internet& ,o do so) t!e Court would !ave to reverse t!e relevant directives& -urt!ermore) any re1arran+ement o% %undamental ri+!ts to place copyri+!t automatically at t!e mercy o% competin+ ri+!ts to communicate) to run a (usiness) to %air procedures or to privacy would) wit!out any le+al *usti%ication) place copyri+!t as a lesser intellectual property entitlement to trade mar" ri+!ts) to patent protection) to industrial secrets and to desi+n protection& Copyri+!t is not to (e ran"ed a(ove t!ose entitlements& Ior) !owever) is t!ere any warrant in $uropean le+islation or case decisions %or any development t!at would place copyri+!t (elow suc! entitlements) never mind outside le+al protection) simply (ecause (reac!es occur on t!e internet& #n case C1 '2;/0= O:Or al v e%a) t!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean Cnion a%%irmed t!at t!e

14
in%rin+ement o% trade mar" ri+!ts online s!ould +ive rise to an entitlement to an e%%ective in*unction a+ainst an intermediary at t!e suit o% t!e !older o% t!ose ri+!ts& #ntellectual property ri+!ts are at t!e !eart o% economic activity in t!e $uropean Cnion& #t was a%%irmed at para+rap! 1;; o% t!e *ud+ment t!at 5t!e t!ird sentence o% .rticle 11 o% A:irective 200;/;8/$C o% t!e $uropean 0arliament and o% t!e Council o% 2= .pril 200; on t!e en%orcement o% intellectual property ri+!tsB must (e interpreted as re3uirin+ t!e em(er States to ensure t!at t!e national courts wit! *urisdiction in relation to t!e protection o% intellectual property ri+!ts are a(le to order t!e operator o% an online mar"etplace to ta"e measures w!ic! contri(ute) not only to (rin+in+ to an end in%rin+ements o% t!ose ri+!ts (y users o% t!at mar"etplace) (ut also to preventin+ %urt!er in%rin+ements o% t!at "ind& ,!ose in*unctions must (e e%%ective) proportionate) dissuasive and must not create (arriers to le+itimate trade&6 ,!e relevant *ud+ments all are to t!e same e%%ect& .ny decision to recast) muc! less to undermine) any %orm o% intellectual property ri+!ts does not lie wit!in t!e *udicial sp!ere o% +overnment under t!e treaties& 1)( #n case C127D/06 Productores de M;sica de Es$aa (Promusicae) v <ele&=nica de Es$aa SAU) 0romusicae) a non1pro%it (ody representin+ t!e interests o% music and video producers and pu(lis!ers) as"ed t!e relevant court in Spain %or ,ele%Pnica to (e ordered to disclose t!e identities and p!ysical address o% certain persons w!om it provided wit! internet access and w!ose #0 addresses and t!e date and time o% t!eir connection were "nown& 0romusicae wanted to tar+et users o% a peer1to1peer %ile e9c!an+e pro+ramme) w!o it said were en+a+in+ in un%air competition and t!e in%rin+ement o% intellectual property ri+!ts& ,!e %irst instance court +ranted t!e order sou+!t& ,!at order was appealed and a 3uestion re%erred to t!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean Cnion %or a preliminary rulin+& ,!e 3uestion re%erred was@ 5does Community law A>B permit em(er States to limit to t!e conte9t o% a criminal investi+ation or to sa%e+uard pu(lic security and national de%ence) t!us e9cludin+ civil proceedin+s) t!e duty o% operators o% electronic communications networ"s and providers o% data stora+e services to retain and ma"e availa(le connection and tra%%ic date +enerated (y t!e communications esta(lis!ed durin+ t!e supply o% an in%ormation society service?6 ,!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean Cnion ruled t!at Community law does not re3uire t!e em(er States to lay down an o(li+ation to communicate personal data in order to ensure e%%ective protection o% copyri+!t in t!e conte9t o% civil proceedin+s& Fowever) it noted t!at) in transposin+ :irectives 2000/'1) 2001/2=) 200;/D8 and 2002/D8) t!e em(er States must ta"e care to rely on an interpretation o% t!em w!ic! allows a %air (alance to (e struc" (etween t!e various %undamental ri+!ts protected (y t!e Community le+al order& -inally) it reiterated t!at) w!en implementin+ t!e measures transposin+ t!ose directives) t!e aut!orities and courts o% t!e em(er States must not only interpret t!eir national law in a manner consistent wit! t!ose directives) (ut must also ensure t!at t!ey do not rely on an interpretation o% t!em w!ic! would (e in con%lict wit! t!ose %undamental ri+!t o% wit! t!e ot!er +eneral principles o% Community law) suc! as t!e principle o% proportionality& ,!is analysis !as not %undamentally c!an+ed and nor does it seem possi(le t!at it could& $ac! case is a(out t!e nature o% t!e order sou+!t to (e imposed) t!e proportionality o% t!at order to t!e (urdens and (ene%its t!at it imposes and t!e (alance to (e struc" (etween competin+ ri+!ts& 1)% ,!e ,reaty on t!e -unctionin+ o% t!e $uropean Cnion 45t!e ,reaty67 ma"es t!ree speci%ic re%erences to intellectual property ri+!ts& .rticle 118 o% t!e ,reaty) w!ic! concerns t!e appro9imation o% laws) provides t!at t!e $uropean 0arliament and t!e Council s!all esta(lis! measures %or t!e uni%orm protection o% intellectual property ri+!ts t!rou+!out t!e Cnion& .rticle 207 o% t!e ,reaty) w!ic! concerns t!e common commercial policy) e9plicitly provides t!at t!e common commercial policy s!all (e (ased on uni%orm principles w!ic! !ave re+ard %or) inter alia) t!e commercial aspects o% intellectual property& -inally) article 262 o% t!e ,reaty) w!ic! concerns t!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean Cnion) provides t!at t!e Court may (e

15
vested wit! t!e *urisdiction to resolve disputes relatin+ to acts adopted under t!e treaties w!ic! create $uropean intellectual property ri+!ts& 1)* #n case C1;61/10 %onnier Audio A% v Per&ect Communication S*eden A% at issue was t!e interpretation o% .rticles ' to D and 11 o% :irective 2006/2;/$C o% t!e $uropean 0arliament and o% t!e Council o% 1D arc! 2006 on t!e retention o% data +enerated or processed in connection wit! t!e provision o% pu(licly availa(le electronic communications services or o% pu(lic communications networ"s and amendin+ :irective 2002/D8/$C) and o% .rticle 8 o% :irective 200;/;8/$C o% t!e $uropean 0arliament and o% t!e Council o% 2= .pril 200; on t!e en%orcement o% intellectual property ri+!ts& ,!is case was directly relevant to t!e issues w!ic! concerned t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner& .t issue was a Swedis! law w!ic! provided %or disclosure o% retained data %rom an intermediary w!ere copyri+!t in%rin+ement was sou+!t to (e pursued and w!ere conditions o% law entitled an aut!or or a successor in title to apply& Suc! an order was not to (e +ranted e9cept under conditions o% (alancin+ t!e 5nuisance or ot!er !arm w!ic! t!e measure entails %or t!e person a%%ected (y it or %or some ot!er con%lictin+ interest6 and prevented disclosure t!at persons 5close to !im6 !ad 5committed a criminal act6& :irectly relevant was article 6 o% :irective 2002/D8/$C o% t!e $uropean 0arliament and o% t!e Council o% 12 July 2002 concernin+ t!e processin+ o% personal data and t!e protection o% privacy in t!e electronic communications sector 4:irective on privacy and electronic communications7& ,!is law was in %orce w!en t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner %irst (ecame involved in discussions on t!e settlement protocol in t!e EMI v Eircom case& ,!is provides@ 1& ,ra%%ic data relatin+ to su(scri(ers and users processed and stored (y t!e provider o% a pu(lic communications networ" or pu(licly availa(le electronic communications service must (e erased or made anonymous w!en it is no lon+er needed %or t!e purpose o% t!e transmission o% a communication wit!out pre*udice to para+rap!s 2) ' and D o% t!is .rticle and .rticle 1D417& 2& ,ra%%ic data necessary %or t!e purposes o% su(scri(er (illin+ and interconnection payments may (e processed& Suc! processin+ is permissi(le only up to t!e end o% t!e period durin+ w!ic! t!e (ill may law%ully (e c!allen+ed or payment pursued& '& -or t!e purpose o% mar"etin+ electronic communications services or %or t!e provision o% value added services) t!e provider o% a pu(licly availa(le electronic communications service may process t!e data re%erred to in para+rap! 1 to t!e e9tent and %or t!e duration necessary %or suc! services or mar"etin+) i% t!e su(scri(er or user to w!om t!e data relate !as +iven !is/!er consent& Csers or su(scri(ers s!all (e +iven t!e possi(ility to wit!draw t!eir consent %or t!e processin+ o% tra%%ic data at any time > D& 0rocessin+ o% tra%%ic data) in accordance wit! para+rap!s 1) 2) ' and ;) must (e restricted to persons actin+ under t!e aut!ority o% providers o% t!e pu(lic communications networ"s and pu(licly availa(le electronic communications services !andlin+ (illin+ or tra%%ic mana+ement) customer en3uiries) %raud detection) mar"etin+ electronic communications services or providin+ a value added service) and must (e restricted to w!at is necessary %or t!e purposes o% suc! activities& 6& 0ara+rap!s 1) 2) ' and D s!all apply wit!out pre*udice to t!e possi(ility %or competent (odies to (e in%ormed o% tra%%ic data in con%ormity wit! applica(le le+islation wit! a view to settlin+ disputes) in particular interconnection or (illin+ disputes& 1)+ ,!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean Cnion !eld t!at t!e relevant Swedis! law con%ormed wit! t!e relevant directives and wit! t!e +eneral principles o% $uropean

16
law and t!at it struc" an appropriate (alance) or rat!er allowed t!e decidin+ *ud+e to stri"e suc! a (alance) (etween competin+ ri+!ts& Since t!ere !as (een so muc! competitive ar+ument on t!is case) t!e clarity o% t!e reasonin+ o% t!e Court provides a clear response@ D1 #n order to +ive a use%ul answer) %irstly) it is necessary to (ear in mind t!at t!e applicants in t!e main proceedin+s see" t!e communication o% t!e name and address o% an internet su(scri(er or user usin+ t!e #0 address %rom w!ic! it is presumed t!at an unlaw%ul e9c!an+e o% %iles containin+ protected wor"s too" place) in order to identi%y t!at person& #t must (e !eld t!at t!e communication sou+!t (y t!e applicants in t!e main proceedin+s constitutes t!e processin+ o% personal data wit!in t!e meanin+ o% t!e %irst para+rap! o% .rticle 2 o% :irective 2002/D8) read in con*unction wit! .rticle 24(7 o% :irective =D/;6& ,!at communication t!ere%ore %alls wit!in t!e scope o% :irective 2002/D8 4see) to t!at e%%ect) Promusicae) para+rap! ;D7& #t must also (e noted t!at) in t!e main proceedin+s) t!e communication o% t!ose data is re3uired in civil proceedin+s %or t!e (ene%it o% a copyri+!t !older or !is successor in title) t!at is to say) a private person) and not %or t!e (ene%it o% a competent national aut!ority& #n t!at re+ard) it must (e stated at t!e outset t!at an application %or communication o% personal data in order to ensure e%%ective protection o% copyri+!t %alls) (y its very o(*ect) wit!in t!e scope o% :irective 200;/;8 4see) to t!at e%%ect) Promusicae) para+rap! D87& ,!e Court !as already !eld t!at .rticle 84'7 o% :irective 200;/;8) read in con*unction wit! .rticle 1D417 o% :irective 2002/D8) does not preclude em(er States %rom imposin+ an o(li+ation to disclose to private persons personal data in order to ena(le t!em to (rin+ civil proceedin+s %or copyri+!t in%rin+ements) (ut nor does it re3uire t!ose em(er States to lay down suc! an o(li+ation 4see Promusicae) para+rap!s D; and DD) and order in LS8>8esellsc1a&t ?ur 0a1rne1mun" von Leistun"ssc1ut?rec1ten) para+rap! 2=7& Fowever) t!e Court pointed out t!at) w!en transposin+) inter alia) :irectives 2002/D8 and 200;/;8 into national law) it is %or t!e em(er States to ensure t!at t!ey rely on an interpretation o% t!ose directives w!ic! allows a %air (alance to (e struc" (etween t!e various %undamental ri+!ts protected (y t!e $uropean Cnion le+al order& -urt!ermore) w!en implementin+ t!e measures transposin+ t!ose directives) t!e aut!orities and courts o% em(er States must not only interpret t!eir national law in a manner consistent wit! t!em) (ut must also ma"e sure t!at t!ey do not rely on an interpretation o% t!em w!ic! would con%lict wit! t!ose %undamental ri+!ts or wit! t!e ot!er +eneral principles o% $uropean Cnion law) suc! as t!e principle o% proportionality 4see) to t!at e%%ect) Promusicae) para+rap! 68) and order in LS8> 8esellsc1a&t ?ur 0a1rne1mun" von Leistun"ssc1ut?rec1ten) para+rap! 287& #n t!e present case) t!e em(er State concerned !as decided to ma"e use o% t!e possi(ility availa(le to it) as descri(ed in para+rap! DD o% t!is *ud+ment) to lay down an o(li+ation to communicate personal data to private persons in civil proceedin+s&

D2

D'

D;

DD

D6

D7

17
D8 #t must (e noted t!at t!e national le+islation in 3uestion re3uires) inter alia) t!at) %or an order %or disclosure o% t!e data in 3uestion to (e made) t!ere (e clear evidence o% an in%rin+ement o% an intellectual property ri+!t) t!at t!e in%ormation can (e re+arded as %acilitatin+ t!e investi+ation into an in%rin+ement o% copyri+!t or impairment o% suc! a ri+!t and t!at t!e reasons %or t!e measure outwei+! t!e nuisance or ot!er !arm w!ic! t!e measure may entail %or t!e person a%%ected (y it or %or some ot!er con%lictin+ interest& ,!us) t!at le+islation ena(les t!e national court seised o% an application %or an order %or disclosure o% personal data) made (y a person w!o is entitled to act) to wei+! t!e con%lictin+ interests involved) on t!e (asis o% t!e %acts o% eac! case and ta"in+ due account o% t!e re3uirements o% t!e principle o% proportionality& #n t!ose circumstances) suc! le+islation must (e re+arded as li"ely) in principle) to ensure a %air (alance (etween t!e protection o% intellectual property ri+!ts en*oyed (y copyri+!t !olders and t!e protection o% personal data en*oyed (y internet su(scri(ers or users& Favin+ re+ard to t!e %ore+oin+) t!e answer to t!e 3uestions re%erred is t!at@ :irective 2006/2; must (e interpreted as not precludin+ t!e application o% national le+islation (ased on .rticle 8 o% :irective 200;/;8 w!ic!) in order to identi%y an internet su(scri(er or user) permits an internet service provider in civil proceedin+s to (e ordered to +ive a copyri+!t !older or its representative in%ormation on t!e su(scri(er to w!om t!e internet service provider provided an #0 address w!ic! was alle+edly used in an in%rin+ement) since t!at le+islation does not %all wit!in t!e material scope o% :irective 2006/2;/ it is irrelevant to t!e main proceedin+s t!at t!e em(er State concerned !as not yet transposed :irective 2006/2;) despite t!e period %or doin+ so !avin+ e9pired/ :irectives 2002/D8 and 200;/;8 must (e interpreted as not precludin+ national le+islation suc! as t!at at issue in t!e main proceedin+s inso%ar as t!at le+islation ena(les t!e national court seised o% an application %or an order %or disclosure o% personal data) made (y a person w!o is entitled to act) to wei+! t!e con%lictin+ interests involved) on t!e (asis o% t!e %acts o% eac! case and ta"in+ due account o% t!e re3uirements o% t!e principle o% proportionality& 1)- #n t!e course o% correspondence) t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner tersely mentioned t!at a recent decision) re%errin+ to Scarlet Extended (y name) !ad c!an+ed t!e le+al landscape and per!aps intended to imply t!at t!ere !ad (een a c!an+e copyri+!t protection on t!e internet& ,!is attitude was descri(ed (y counsel %or $ircom as a startlin+ misreadin+ o% t!at decision& 1). Case C170/10 Scarlet Extended S.A. v. Soci t !el"e des auteurs# com$ositeurs et diteurs SCRL (SA%AM) involved a Bel+ian +roup called S.B. ) representin+ aut!ors) composers and pu(lis!ers) initiatin+ proceedin+s a+ainst an internet service provider called Scarlet& ,!e +roup claimed an entitlement to a (loc"in+ order to (rin+ to an end t!e ille+al downloadin+ o% protected wor"s (y means o% peer1to1peer use o% t!e Scarlet server& ,!e relevant Bel+ian le+islation

D=

60

61

18
provided t!at w!ere a t!ird party uses t!e services o% an intermediary to in%rin+e t!e intellectual property o% anot!er) t!e courts can order t!e intermediary to (rin+ t!e in%rin+ement to an end& #n 200;) t!e 0resident o% t!e court o% %irst instance %ound t!at copyri+!t !ad (een in%rin+ed and appointed an e9pert to assess t!e %easi(ility o% t!e tec!nical solutions proposed (y S.B. & ,!e e9pert identi%ied one possi(le solution) namely CopySense produced (y a %irm called .udi(le a+ic) (ut e9pressed reservations as to its capacity to deal wit! !i+! volumes o% tra%%ic) t!e !i+! ac3uisition and operatin+ costs o% t!e system and its potentially s!ort tec!nical duration o% t!ree years& ,!e Court +ranted an in*unction imposin+ t!at tec!nical solution& On a re%erral o% relevant 3uestions to t!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean Cnion) Scarlet ar+ued t!at t!e in*unction would constitute a +eneral o(li+ation to monitor contrary to .rticle 1D o% t!e $1Commerce :irective) t!at it would (e contrary to t!e mere conduit de%ence in .rticle 12 o% t!e $1Commerce :irective and) %inally) t!at it would violate %undamental ri+!ts in particular t!e ri+!ts to privacy) con%identiality o% correspondence and %reedom o% e9pression& -rom t!e te9t o% t!e *ud+ment) it is clear t!at t!e Court was concerned wit! t!e (readt! o% t!e in*unction w!ic! it considered would impose on Scarlet a +eneral monitorin+ o(li+ation contrary to .rticle 1D o% t!e $1Commerce :irective& -urt!er) t!e Court did not consider t!at t!e order properly (alanced t!e property ri+!ts en*oyed (y t!e copyri+!t owners a+ainst ScarletHs ri+!t to conduct its (usiness& ,!e Court was particularly concerned t!at t!e e9pense o% installin+ t!e tec!nolo+y re3uired would %all solely on Scarlet) contrary to .rticle ' o% t!e $n%orcement :irective) w!ic! re3uires t!at remedies not (e unnecessarily complicated or costly& ,!e Court also considered t!at a %ilterin+ system would in%rin+e t!e ri+!ts o% ScarletHs users since it would involve t!e collection and identi%ication o% usersH #0 addresses contrary to .rticle 8 o% t!e $uropean Convention on Fuman Ri+!ts and could potentially lead to a (loc"in+ o% law%ul communications t!us underminin+ t!e %reedom o% in%ormation contrary to .rticle 11& 1)& Oery similar 3uestions arose in anot!er re%erral %rom t!e courts o% Brussels to t!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean Cnion in Case C1'60/10 %el"isc1e @ereni"in" van Auteurs# Com$onisten en Uit"evers C@%A (SA%AM) v. Aetlo" A@& ,!is time t!e (loc"in+ order was sou+!t a+ainst a social networ"in+ site& ,!e in*unction in 3uestion re3uired t!e installation o% an e9pensive +eneral monitorin+ system& ,!at system seems also not to !ave (een su%%iciently tested& Suc! an order was a serious imposition on t!e !ostin+ service providerHs ri+!t to conduct a (usiness& ,!e Court !eld t!at it in%rin+ed t!e %undamental ri+!ts o% t!e users to protection o% t!eir personal data and t!eir %reedom to impart in%ormation/ in suc! circumstances) t!e ri+!ts o% t!e copyri+!t owners must +ive way& #t is clear) !owever) %rom para+rap!s ;1 to D1 o% t!e *ud+ment t!at it is not at all in t!e instance o% every application %or an order to prevent copyri+!t in%rin+ement t!at competin+ ri+!ts will re3uire t!e re%usal o% an in*unction in support o% copyri+!t@ ,!e protection o% t!e ri+!t to intellectual property is indeed ens!rined in .rticle17427 o% t!e C!arter o% -undamental Ri+!ts o% t!e $uropean Cnion 45t!e C!arter67& ,!ere is) !owever) not!in+ w!atsoever in t!e wordin+ o% t!at provision or in t!e CourtHs case1law to su++est t!at t!at ri+!t is inviola(le and must %or t!at reason (e a(solutely protected &&& .s para+rap!s 62 to 68 o% t!e *ud+ment in Case C127D/06 0romusicae A2008B $CR #1271 ma"e clear) t!e protection o% t!e %undamental ri+!t to property) w!ic! includes t!e ri+!ts lin"ed to intellectual property) must (e (alanced a+ainst t!e protection o% ot!er %undamental ri+!ts& ore speci%ically) it %ollows %rom para+rap! 68 o% t!at *ud+ment t!at) in t!e conte9t o% measures adopted to protect copyri+!t !olders) national aut!orities and courts must stri"e a %air (alance (etween t!e protection o% copyri+!t and t!e protection o% t!e %undamental ri+!ts o% individuals w!o are a%%ected (y suc! measures&

19
.ccordin+ly) in circumstances suc! as t!ose in t!e main proceedin+s) national aut!orities and courts must) in particular) stri"e a %air (alance (etween t!e protection o% t!e intellectual property ri+!t en*oyed (y copyri+!t !olders and t!at o% t!e %reedom to conduct a (usiness en*oyed (y operators suc! as !ostin+ service providers pursuant to .rticle 16 o% t!e C!arter &&& #n t!e main proceedin+s) t!e in*unction re3uirin+ t!e installation o% t!e contested %ilterin+ system involves monitorin+ all or most o% t!e in%ormation stored (y t!e !ostin+ service provider concerned) in t!e interests o% t!ose ri+!t!olders& oreover) t!at monitorin+ !as no limitation in time) is directed at all %uture in%rin+ements and is intended to protect not only e9istin+ wor"s) (ut also wor"s t!at !ave not yet (een created at t!e time w!en t!e system is introduced& .ccordin+ly) suc! an in*unction would result in a serious in%rin+ement o% t!e %reedom o% t!e !ostin+ service provider to conduct its (usiness since it would re3uire t!at !ostin+ service provider to install a complicated) costly) permanent computer system at its own e9pense) w!ic! would also (e contrary to t!e conditions laid down in .rticle '417 o% :irective 200;/;8) w!ic! re3uires t!at measures to ensure t!e respect o% intellectual1property ri+!ts s!ould not (e unnecessarily complicated or costly &&& #n t!ose circumstances) it must (e !eld t!at t!e in*unction to install t!e contested %ilterin+ system is to (e re+arded as not respectin+ t!e re3uirement t!at a %air (alance (e struc" (etween) on t!e one !and) t!e protection o% t!e intellectual1property ri+!t en*oyed (y copyri+!t !olders) and) on t!e ot!er !and) t!at o% t!e %reedom to conduct (usiness en*oyed (y operators suc! as !ostin+ service providers &&& oreover) t!e e%%ects o% t!at in*unction would not (e limited to t!e !ostin+ service provider) as t!e contested %ilterin+ system may also in%rin+e t!e %undamental ri+!ts o% t!at !ostin+ service providerHs service users) namely t!eir ri+!t to protection o% t!eir personal data and t!eir %reedom to receive or impart in%ormation) w!ic! are ri+!ts sa%e+uarded (y .rticles 8 and 11 o% t!e C!arter respectively& #ndeed) t!e in*unction re3uirin+ installation o% t!e contested %ilterin+ system would involve t!e identi%ication) systematic analysis and processin+ o% in%ormation connected wit! t!e pro%iles created on t!e social networ" (y its users& ,!e in%ormation connected wit! t!ose pro%iles is protected personal data (ecause) in principle) it allows t!ose users to (e identi%ied > oreover) t!at in*unction could potentially undermine %reedom o% in%ormation) since t!at system mi+!t not distin+uis! ade3uately (etween unlaw%ul content and law%ul content) wit! t!e result t!at its introduction could lead to t!e (loc"in+ o% law%ul communications& #ndeed) it is not contested t!at t!e reply to t!e 3uestion w!et!er a transmission is law%ul also depends on t!e application o% statutory e9ceptions to copyri+!t w!ic! vary %rom one em(er State to anot!er& #n addition) in some em(er States certain wor"s %all wit!in t!e pu(lic domain or may (e posted online %ree o% c!ar+e (y t!e aut!ors concerned &&& Conse3uently) it must (e !eld t!at) in adoptin+ t!e in*unction re3uirin+ t!e !ostin+ service provider to install t!e contested %ilterin+ system) t!e national court concerned would not (e respectin+ t!e re3uirement t!at a %air (alance (e struc" (etween t!e ri+!t to intellectual property) on t!e one !and) and t!e %reedom to conduct (usiness) t!e ri+!t to protection o%

20
personal data and t!e %reedom to receive or impart in%ormation) on t!e ot!er &&& 1)1 . series o% cases in $n+land and <ales !ave made it clear t!at in*unctive relie% in aid o% copyri+!t protection on t!e internet can (e +ranted in circumstances w!ere t!ere is a clear %ocus to t!e relie% sou+!t) unli"e t!e unlimited order sou+!t in Scarlet Extended) and t!e (alance o% (urdens and costs are proportionate& #n /ramatico Entertainment Ltd and Ot1ers v %ritis1 S,) %roadcastin" Ltd and Ot1ers A2012B $<FC 268 4C!7 .rnold J descri(ed internet copyri+!t in%rin+ement t!rou+! t!e we(site ,!e 0irate Bay) previously re%erenced in t!is *ud+ment) as 5 vast in scale6& <!en its %ounders) earnin+ su(stantial revenues t!rou+! online advertisin+) were convicted in Sweden on c!ar+es o% criminal copyri+!t in%rin+ement) t!ey %led to ot!er countries& .rnold J %ound t!at o% t!e top 7D music al(ums availa(le as o% :ecem(er 2011) 72 were availa(le t!rou+! ,!e 0irate Bay& .ccess to t!at site was in*uncted t!rou+! t!e intermediaries o% t!e main internet service providers in Britain& 0art o% t!e reasonin+ was t!at alt!ou+! t!ey were conduits) aut!orisation o% copyri+!t in%rin+ement can occur w!ere t!e action o% t!e party c!ar+ed +oes (eyond mere ena(lement) assistance or even encoura+ement& 0articipation occurs w!ere t!ere is a +rant) or purported +rant) o% t!e ri+!t to do t!e tort complained o%& ,!is may (e %ound on an analysis o% t!e relations!ip (etween t!e alle+ed aut!oriser and t!e primary in%rin+er/ t!e e3uipment or ot!er material supplied as a means to in%rin+e/ w!et!er it was inevita(le t!at suc! would (e so used/ t!e de+ree o% control w!ic! t!e supplier retained/ and w!et!er t!at supplier !ad ta"en any steps to prevent in%rin+ement@ see Eitc!in J in <*entiet1 Centur) +ox +ilm Cor$oration & Ors v Ae*?!in Ltd A2010B $<FC 608 4C!7 at para+rap!s 8D18=& #n addition) *oint commission o% a tort could occur w!ere t!ere is more t!an mere "nowin+ assistance or %acilitation to t!e de+ree t!at t!e party c!ar+ed (ecame so involved in t!e tort as to ma"e it !is own/ same *ud+ment at para+rap!s 10'1111& .rnold J !eld t!at an in*unction was re3uired s!uttin+ o%% access t!rou+! intermediaries to ,!e 0irate Bay and t!at same was mandated (y $uropean copyri+!t law& ,!at decision) and t!e ot!ers re%erenced !erea%ter) ma"e it clear t!at t!ere is an interest in data protection law terms in internet service providers not only in a(idin+ (y t!eir own contract wit! su(scri(ers (ut also in avoidin+ potential lia(ility %or) or t!e +rant o% an in*unction in respect o%) copyri+!t in%rin+ement& 1)2 ,!e previous year in <*entiet1 Centur) +ox +ilm Cor$oration & Ors v %ritis1 <elecommunications $lc (Ae*?!in 47 A2011B 1=81$<FC 4C!7) .rnold J in*uncted t!e access o% B, internet customers to sites called Iew2(in 1 and Iew2(in 2& ,!ese sites were (ein+ used to in%rin+e cinema and ot!er copyri+!t& ,!ese in*unctions re3uired t!e addition o% tec!nolo+y called Clean%eed onto t!e computer systems o% t!ese %irms/ t!ou+! t!e internet service provider was not re3uired to adopt deep pac"et inspection (ased (loc"in+ utilisin+ detailed analysis& . similar approac! to (alancin+ t!e proportionality o% t!e order sou+!t *ud+ed in t!e conte9t o% t!e misc!ie% at issue and t!e competin+ ri+!ts and t!e (urdens and (ene%its to t!e parties was ta"en (y .rnold J in 8olden E)e (International) Ltd & Ors v <ele&=nica U2 Ltd A2012B $<FC 72' 4C!7 in anot!er) (ut relevant) conte9t& #n .ustralia a di%%erent view was ta"en o% aut!orisation o% (reac! o% copyri+!t in terms o% t!e %acts (ot! at trial and on appeal to t!e Fi+! Court o% .ustralia in Roads1o* +ilms Pt) Ltd v. iiAet Ltd A2012B FC. 16& 1)(' ,o sum up) it is clear t!at t!e state o% t!e law was re+retta(ly misconstrued (y t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner& #n t!at respect) !e is not to (e %aulted as t!e law is comple9& ,!e law does not) !owever) set intellectual property ri+!ts at nou+!t (ecause o% t!e involvement o% t!e internet& #n due course) clarity may (e (rou+!t to t!e law (y a compre!ensive rulin+ w!ere an appropriate case arises (e%ore t!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean Cnion& #n t!e meanw!ile) t!e nature o% t!e in*unction sou+!t/ t!e limitation to and t!e duration o% any monitorin+/ t!e (readt! or narrowness o% scope o% any order/ t!e nature o% t!e e3uipment to (e used/ t!e potential %or t!e inter%erence o% t!at e3uipment wit! t!e proper use o% t!e

21
e9istin+ systems o% t!e intermediary/ t!e (alance o% (urden as to e3uipment and personnel and cost/ t!e intrusiveness o% any remedy into le+itimate privacy and entitlement to communicate/ and any potential data protection impin+ements) to+et!er constitute t!e main %actors in a court determinin+ w!ere t!e proportionality o% a remedy to t!e misc!ie% o% t!e improper use o% intellectual property online is to (e struc" or w!et!er an in*unction application is to (e re%used) despite le+al compliance) on discretionary +rounds&

Criminal conviction (')' Beyond a s!ort additional comment) t!e Court is not re3uired to consider issues as to sensitive personal in%ormation in t!e conte9t o% data processin+& ,!is !as (een %ully dealt wit! in t!e previous decision o% t!is Court& Counsel %or t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner su(mitted t!at an elderly lady receivin+ a letter %rom $ircom statin+ t!at someone in !er !ouse!old !ad uploaded a copyri+!t wor" wit!out aut!orisation would %ear t!at s!e was now a(out to (e prosecuted %or a criminal o%%ence& ,!e in%rin+ement o% copyri+!t) i% done deli(erately wit! "nowled+e o% t!e copyri+!t nature o% a wor" copied) can (e a criminal o%%ence& ,!ere are lots o% criminal o%%ences& any are co1terminus wit! civil lia(ility& any actions re3uire analysis to see i% a crime !as (een committed& #% a man dies o% a !eart attac" on someoneHs doorstep and splits !is scalp on t!e door "no( in collapsin+) t!e discovery o% t!at (ody (y police is not to (e assumed to (e murder& #% a stone %alls %rom t!e parapet o% t!e -our Courts (uildin+ and "ills a pedestrian on t!e pavement (elow) no criminal o%%ence is necessarily committed even t!ou+! at t!e time t!ere was a person on t!e roo% !oistin+ t!e national %la+& ,!e %all o% t!e stone could (e due to t!e (om(ardment o% t!e (uildin+ in t!e civil war o% 1=22 and a series o% severe winters loosenin+ %ra+ile mortar& #% t!e stone %ell due to t!e ne+li+ence o% t!e (uilders restorin+ t!e dome o% t!e -our Courts t!en i% a very serious %orm o% ne+lect amountin+ to criminal ne+li+ence was proved) a criminal case o% manslau+!ter would arise& #% a man pus!ed a stone onto !is enemy (elow) t!at deli(erate act would (e murder i% t!ere(y !e intended to "ill !im or cause !im serious in*ury& #t would (e rec"less endan+erment i% !is intention was merely to +ive !im a s!oc"& (')( ,!e receipt o% a letter (y an $ircom su(scri(er pointin+ out t!at someone !avin+ access to t!e internet !as downloaded a copyri+!t trac" or video is not an alle+ation t!at t!e su(scri(er !as committed a criminal o%%ence& ,!e recordin+ companies !ave no interest in see"in+ out in%ormation %rom $ircom as to w!o t!at su(scri(er mi+!t (e& .ny serious criminal lawyer considerin+ a prosecution would need to "now !ow many persons mi+!t potentially !ave !ad access to computers wit!in t!e !ouse at t!at particular time o% t!e download or upload& .n in%rin+ement o% copyri+!t could (e accidental) could (e initiated (y an employee) remem(erin+ t!at t!ere is no vicarious responsi(ility in criminal law) or (y a c!ild under t!e a+e o% responsi(ility& ,!e particular mental element must (e s!own to (e present (y compellin+ proo%@ ot!erwise t!ere is no criminal o%%ence& ,!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner seems to ta"e a clear view t!at criminal remedies s!ould (e "ept separated %rom civil redress& <!ile t!at view is commenda(le) t!e protocol !as not!in+ to do wit! accusin+ anyone o% a crime& Reasons (()' Section 104;74a7 o% t!e :ata 0rotection .cts 1=881200' provides t!at@ 5.n en%orcement notice s!all > speci%y any provision o% t!is .ct t!at) in t!e opinion o% t!e Commissioner) !as (een or is (ein+ contravened and t!e reasons %or !is !avin+ %ormed t!at opinion >6&

22
(()( #t %ollows t!at counsel %or t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner was put in an impossi(le position in (ein+ re3uired to ar+ue) as inventively !e did) t!at reasons !ad (een +iven wit!in t!e notice o% 11 January 2012& ,!e notice contains no reasons w!atsoever& ,!ere is no warrant %rom t!e relevant le+islation to overturn a series o% decisions o% t!e courts in *udicial review w!ere(y reasons are re3uired %or administrative actions w!ic! settle t!e entitlements o% citi2ens pursuant to a le+islative mandate& #n some instances) reasons are simply re3uired (y le+islation& ,!is is one o% t!ose cases& ,!e courts cannot overturn t!at le+islation (ut are re3uired to implement it& #n ot!er cases) an entitlement to reasons may (e ar+ued to (e a le+al ri+!t (y t!ose w!ose ri+!ts are overturned or +ravely a%%ected (y an administrative or 3uasi1*udicial decision& <!ere a licensin+ aut!ority re%uses to +rant a permit (ut %ails to +ive reasons) t!e applicant %or t!e licence will !ave no means o% "nowin+ w!at it was s!e or !e did wron+ and w!at it mi+!t (e t!at s!e or !e would (e re3uired to do correctly in order to (e permitted) %or e9ample) to open a (usiness le+itimately) to operate a %is!in+ trawler or to ot!erwise pursue permission %or an activity t!at is licensed on meetin+ speci%ied conditions t!at are %or t!e (ene%it o% t!e entire community& Since access to t!e courts is a constitutionally +uaranteed ri+!t) an applicant %or permission) or a party prevented %rom an ot!erwise law%ul activity (y reason o% a decision) is entitled to c!allen+e t!at decision (y *udicial review and !as an entitlement not to (e impeded (y t!e mysterious recitation o% re%erence to le+islation o% a primary or secondary "ind wit!out any real "nowled+e as to w!y a decision was ta"en& (()% Sometimes t!e re3uirement %or reasons can (e met in terse terms& . use%ul test is w!et!er a reasona(le person w!o !as !eard t!e entire o% t!e case) or a person w!o !as read all o% t!e relevant papers) would on !earin+ or readin+ t!e decision or *ud+ment (e apprised o% t!e reasons %or t!e decision& Re+ularly) convictions ta"e place in t!e criminal courts on t!e (asis t!at a *ury accepted t!e prosecution case and re*ected t!at o% t!e accused) i% any& #n t!e :istrict Court) it is per%ectly law%ul %or a *ud+ment to (e +iven in one sentence o% a "ind w!ic! indicates t!at in a civil case t!e evidence o% one driver is muc! more relia(le t!an t!at o% t!e ot!er (ecause !is evidence was more !onest) or in a criminal case t!at t!e evidence o% a particular witness %or t!e de%ence !as made t!e *ud+e reasona(ly dou(t t!e prosecution case& #n some "inds o% administrative procedure) an inspector or ot!er o%%icial would do t!e +roundwor" (e%ore a decision is ta"en& 0lannin+ is an e9ample& . re%erence in a decision to re%usin+ or acceptin+ t!e reasons +iven (y suc! a person clearly mandates t!e underpinnin+ o% t!e decision wit! su%%icient material to ena(le *udicial review and to in%orm t!e citi2en& Reasons are not to (e *ud+ed as inade3uate on t!e terms in w!ic! t!ey are put (ut instead are to (e assessed (y re%erence to w!at a reasona(le person wit! %ull "nowled+e o% t!e (ac"+round would conclude (y readin+ t!e relevant te9t& (()* ,!e aut!orities merely ampli%y t!e propositions *ust set out& ,!is Court !as no intention o% addin+ to w!at are clear principles t!at are up!eld on an invaria(le (asis t!at is %undamental to t!e decision ma"in+ in *udicial review& #n Sister Mar) C1ristian & Ors v /u!lin Cit) Council A2012B #$FC 16') Clar"e J at para+rap!s 8&1D1 8&16 summarised t!e relevant rules in t!is way@ 8&1D #t must (e recalled t!at t!e underlyin+ *urisprudence in respect o% t!e o(li+ation to +ive reasons su++ests t!at t!e (asis %or t!e o(li+ation 4in t!e a(sence o% an e9press statutory re3uirement7 is to ena(le t!e court to e9ercise its le+itimate *udicial review %unction& #n at least some cases i% a court does not "now w!y a decision was ta"en) t!en t!e court may not (e a(le to ascertain w!et!er t!e decision was law%ul %or t!e law%ulness o% t!e decision in 3uestion may depend on w!et!er t!e reasons were valid in t!e li+!t o% t!e appropriate statutory and le+al re+ime applica(le& ,!e rationale (e!ind t!e re3uirement to +ive reasons was articulated (y Eelly J& in Mul1olland v. An %ord Plean.la (Ao. 4) A2006B 1 #&R& ;D') at pp& ;60 et se(.)

23
w!ere) in t!e section !eaded 5t!e purpose o% reasons6 and 3uotin+ %rom earlier case law) !e !eld t!at@ 5#n O:/ono"1ue v. An %ord Plean.la A1==1B #&G&R& & 7D0 urp!y J& said at p& 7D7@1 U#t is clear t!at t!e reason %urnis!ed (y t!e Board 4or any ot!er tri(unal7 must (e su%%icient %irst to ena(le t!e courts to review it and secondly to satis%y t!e persons !avin+ recourse to t!e tri(unal t!at it !as directed its mind ade3uately to t!e issue (e%ore it& #t !as never (een su++ested t!at an administrative (ody is (ound to provide a discursive *ud+ment as a result o% its deli(erations >H Gi"ewise) in State (S*eene)) v. Min. &or t1e Environment A1=7=B #&G&R& & 'D) -inlay 0& stated at p& '7 t!at t!e purpose o% t!e re3uirement %or reasons was@1 U> to +ive > Ato anB applicant suc! in%ormation as may (e necessary and appropriate %or !im) %irstly) to consider w!et!er !e !as +ot a reasona(le c!ance o% succeedin+ in appealin+ a+ainst t!e decision o% t!e plannin+ aut!ority and secondly to ena(le !im to arm !imsel% %or t!e !earin+ o% suc! an appeal&H6 8&16 #t is) o% course) t!e case t!at Eelly J&) in Mul1olland# was concerned wit! reasons re3uired to ena(le a person to consider a statutory appeal wit!in t!e plannin+ system& Fowever) in Meado*s v. Minister &or 'ustice A2010B 2 #&R& 701) at p& 7'2) urray C&J& 4part o% t!e ma*ority in t!at case7 su++ested t!at t!e %ailure o% t!e inister in 3uestion to supply ade3uate reasons meant t!at t!e applicantHs 5constitutional ri+!t o% access to t!e courts to !ave t!e le+ality o% an administrative decision *udicially reviewed could (e rendered eit!er pointless or so circumscri(ed as to (e unaccepta(ly ine%%ective6& <!ile Meado*s was) o% course) a case in t!e immi+ration %ield) t!ere is no reason w!y) at t!e level o% principle) t!e comments o% urray C&J& are not applica(le in an appropriate way in respect o% any ot!er type o% statutory or administrative decision& ,!e underlyin+ rationale o% cases suc! as Meado*s 4in t!at respect7 and Mul1olland is t!at decisions w!ic! a%%ect a personHs ri+!ts and o(li+ations must (e law%ully made& #n order to assess w!et!er a relevant decision is law%ul) a party considerin+ a c!allen+e) and t!e court in t!e event o% a c!allen+e (ein+ (rou+!t) must !ave access to a su%%icient amount o% in%ormation to ena(le an assessment as to law%ulness to (e made& <!at t!at in%ormation may (e) may vary enormously dependin+ on t!e %acts under consideration or t!e nature o% t!e decision under c!allen+e& Fowever) t!e (road and underlyin+ principle is t!at t!e court must !ave access to su%%icient in%ormation to ena(le t!e law%ulness o% t!e relevant measure to (e assessed& (()+ #t is clear t!at t!e a(sence o% reasons in t!e :ata 0rotection CommissionerHs notice vitiates its validity& Curial de%erence cannot (e pleaded so as to provide a way out o% a(idin+ (y (asic administrative law& 3lleged mis0invocation o$ 4urisdiction (%)' #n see"in+ *udicial review %rom t!e Fi+! Court t!ere !as (een no a(use o% t!e remedy o% *udicial review (y t!e recordin+ companies& .n appeal is open to $ircom a+ainst t!e notice o% 11 January 2012& Io suc! appeal is automatically open to t!e recordin+ companies& ,!ey were not party to t!e notice and !ave no automatic entitlement to ma"e su(missions on it& ,!ere is no dou(t a(out t!e entitlement o% an interested party to !ave reasons %or a decision w!ic! directly a%%ects t!eir economic interest in a su(stantial way& #n /avitt v Minister &or 'ustice 4Cnreported decision o% Fi+! Court) Barron J& 8 -e(ruary 1=8=7 and <1e State (C1risto$1er P1il$ott) v <1e Re"istrar o& <itles A1=86B #GR ;== t!e court %ound t!at t!e %ailure to noti%y a%%ected parties o% a potential decision was su%%icient to render t!e later

24
decision invalid as a (reac! o% *ustice& (%)( #t is not impressive t!at t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner) w!en $ircom appealed t!at notice pursuant to statute to t!e Circuit Court) sou+!t to impede t!e *oinder o% t!e recordin+ companies& Fis reasons were a+ain costs) apparently& ,!e appeal) alt!ou+! lod+ed) !as not (een su(stantively pro+ressed (y any o% t!e parties& #n t!e conte9t o% an application (y t!e recordin+ companies to (e *oined) (y a%%idavit dated '1 January 2012) t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner swore@ # say t!at # am concerned t!at &&& t!e position is t!at t!e applicants wis! to ma"e su(missions o% a +eneralised nature concernin+ unlaw%ul %iles!arin+ or downloadin+ and/or t!e e9tent o% t!e law is caused (y suc! activities and/or t!e applicantHs opinion as to t!e proper response re3uired (y re+ulatory (odies in order to address t!ese activities& <!ilst # %ully accept t!at t!ese are very serious issues in w!ic! t!e applicants !ave a le+itimate interest) t!ey are not issues t!at are relevant to t!e determination o% t!e wit!in appeal) not least in circumstances w!ere t!e wit!in appeal will not involve a reconsideration o% t!e merits o% my decision 5de novo6> speci%ic re%erence is made in Aan a%%idavit on (e!al% o% t!e record companiesB two separate proceedin+s issued (y t!e applicants a+ainst t!e State& # say t!at i% t!is is t!e case and i% t!e said companies (ut wis! to ma"e su(missions tar+eted) ultimately) at matters %allin+ outside t!e scope o% t!e wit!in appeal or so as to in%luence t!e %uture development o% t!e law in t!is area t!en t!at is somet!in+ t!at t!ey s!ould do in t!e appropriate %orum at t!eir own e9pense and not a potential e9pense o% t!is o%%ice &&& Clearly i% t!e %our record companies are permitted to participate in t!e appeal it will +reatly adds to its len+t! and to t!e costs t!at will (e incurred (y all parties) my o%%ice included &&& (%)% :urin+ t!e course o% t!is !earin+) no one could de%initively say w!at t!e scope o% t!e appeal %rom t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner to t!e Circuit Court was& Io one could de%initively say w!at i% anyt!in+ would satis%y t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner in !is concerns apart %rom a(andonin+ t!e protocol& Bot! $ircom and t!e recordin+ companies !ave an entitlement to an ad*udication (y t!e :ata 0rotection Commissioner in accordance wit! law& ,!is !as not occurred& Judicial review is t!ere%ore a proper remedy& .s to w!et!er it is appropriate) t!is Court is (ound (y t!e decision in Ste&an v Minister &or 'ustice A2001B ; #R 20' w!ere at 217) spea"in+ %or t!e Supreme Court) :en!am J stated@ Once it is determined t!at an order o% certiorari may (e +ranted) t!e court retains a discretion in all t!e circumstances o% t!e case as to w!et!er an order o% certiorari s!ould issue& #n considerin+ all t!e circumstances) matters includin+ t!e e9istence o% an alternative remedy) t!e conduct o% t!e applicant) t!e merits o% t!e application) t!e conse3uences to t!e applicant i% an order o% certiorari is not +ranted and t!e de+ree o% %airness o% t!e procedures) s!ould (e wei+!ed (y t!e court in determinin+ w!et!er certiorari is t!e appropriate remedy to attain a *ust result& (%)* Similarly) in t!e earlier decision o% Mc8oldric, v An %ord Plean.la A1==7B 1 #R ;=7 at D0= Barron J stated t!at@ ,!e real 3uestion to (e determined w!ere an appeal lies is t!e relative merits o% an appeal as a+ainst +rantin+ relie% (y way o% *udicial review& #t is not *ust a 3uestion w!et!er an alternative remedy e9ists or w!et!er t!e applicant !as ta"en steps to pursue suc! remedy& ,!e true 3uestion is w!ic! is t!e more appropriate remedy considered in t!e conte9t o% common sense) t!e a(ility to deal wit! t!e 3uestions raised and principles o% %airness >

25
(%)+ ,!is Court is convinced t!at in all t!e circumstances o% t!e case t!at *udicial review was properly and appropriately invo"ed& ,!e Court !as a discretion& ,!e Court e9ercises t!at discretion (y statin+ t!at t!e c!oice o% *udicial review was not misplaced) (ut was clearly re3uired on t!e %acts) and t!at le+al +uidance was properly sou+!t in and %rom t!e Fi+! Court& 5""osing vie6s (*)' ,!e re+ulation o% t!e internet draws %ort! diametrically opposed views& ,!e use o% electronic communication in t!e democratic revolutions o% recent years testi%ies to t!e importance o% %reedom o% communication and t!at t!is may (e undermined (y any %orm o% inter%erence in internet communications& Creativity is t!e en+ine o% t!e arts industry w!ic! (rin+s us new insi+!t and re%res!ment o% t!e mind in t!e %orm o% cinema and music& Copyri+!t is no less important t!an any ot!er intellectual property ri+!t& 0rotection o% creativity is central to t!e law o% any sound economic system& Some) as t!e ori+inal complainant in t!is case) will ta"e a view o% privacy similar to t!at apparently ta"en (y .dvocate Keneral Cru2 OillalPn in Scarlet Extended& . creative artist desperate %or sales o% !er recorded son+s) or an inventor wis!in+ to protect a patent t!at is t!e result o% years o% committed researc!) may not see t!e use o% t!e internet as t!e medium %or t!e (reac! o% t!eir ri+!ts as an automatic answer to appropriate le+al re+ulation& (*)( ,!ere is undou(tedly a tension (etween le+itimate e9pectations o% %reedom and t!e entitlement not to !ave overturned t!e ri+!t to reasona(le remuneration %or creative endeavor& Fowever) intellectual property ri+!ts t!at !ave (een part o% t!e le+al landscape in t!is *urisdiction since 1710) and t!at tension can only (e resolved (y considered political action& Suc! le+islation as currently (inds t!e citi2ens o% t!is State) and t!e (alance w!ic! !as so %ar (een struc" (etween copyri+!t and ot!er competin+ ri+!ts) is a matter %or administrative and *udicial implementation& ,!e duty o% t!e courts is to apply t!at law in t!e manner in w!ic! it is %ound& #n terms o% pu(lic administration t!rou+! 3uasi1*udicial decision1ma"in+ and t!e promul+ation o% appropriate administrative rulin+s) t!e tas" %aced is identical and t!e re3uirement %or le+al certainty demands strict compliance& Result (+)' #n t!e result) t!e en%orcement notice o% 11 January 2012 is invalid in %ailin+ to +ive reasons& Suc! reasons as appear to underpin it) to t!e e9tent t!at t!ese can (e at all ascertained) involve a misconstruction o% t!e relevant law& ,!e en%orcement notice is t!ere%ore 3uas!ed& Suc! +uidance as is appropriate is +iven in t!is *ud+ment in t!e !ope o% providin+ some clari%ication& (+)( # will !ear su(missions as to a stay to %acilitate an appeal to t!e Supreme Court and as to costs and as to t!e measurement t!ereo%&

26