Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

No. I draw attention to the circumstances that would obtain if we were not a party to the EMI and others v. UPC case. It could be stated that, under the Copyright Act 2000, the right to seek an injunction over an infringement already existed. We are merely restating that position.

The reason for much of the controversy on this stems from the fact that this issue has been arising for well over a year, bearing in mind the Charleton judgment was in 2010. The new Government instigated a review and engaged in consultation. People are accusing us of not consulting but we had a consultation period. I made it clear to people that I was open to discussions with all stakeholders on this issue. As late as last Thursday, I met the Irish Internet Association and had further discussions with it.

We are not trying to impose something. If we were to legislate from a primary perspective in regard to the Internet, we would have to be very careful about how we would do that given there are so many disparate communities within the web space as well as the copyright holders. My preferred option, given the EU is now looking at the copyright or e-commerce directive, is that the community would start talking across the various and disparate groupings, such as the hosters, the ISPs, the software developers, the copyright holders and so on. It is important that this community starts to consult with the various stakeholders within the community to begin the process of coming up with a strategic view as to how we can either legislate primarily or put in place voluntary agreements.

My preferred option is for voluntary agreements because assuming all stakeholders come to the table honestly and openly, this ensures that if primary legislation is implemented it does not become outmoded or outdated as soon as it is enacted by virtue of further innovations within the web. What we are doing here is merely restating a position which we hold to have already existed, namely, upholding the right of the copyright holder while having regard to the balance of rights in that respect.

I do not believe primary legislation is required at this stage. The Technical Group has put forward a proposal for a statutory instrument. If time allows and bearing in mind there are more questions to follow, I would like to answer the individual points the Technical Group has made given it has put forward an honest and open solution to this issue. While I have only had a brief few hours to analyse it, since it was submitted today at 12.45 p.m., there are some issues within it which I would like to address because I consider it an honest effort to address the issues at hand.

See this speech in context