DEPUTY Tom Barry has urged serious caution in relation to proposals to introduce a Statutory Instrument to allow the courts

to block access to websites suspected of infringing copyright. While I have not seen the specific text of this proposed order yet; I would like to put on record my considerable concerns at any threat to restrict personal freedom in relation to freedom of expression or access to information on the Internet. In addition, I also think the proposal raises serious concerns about protection for Internet users. In the case that has led to this proposal, Mr. Justice Charleton said that existing legislation constrained the judiciary from granting injunctions to prevent infringement of copyright against Information Service Providers. However, I feel we should be reluctant to preempt criminal activity. We already have sufficient law to allow prosecution for copyright infringement if and when it does occur. I am fearful of the consequences of introducing preventative legislation that may impact on personal freedoms. If we are to tackle the suggested flaws in the existing Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 we must examine in detail the potential implications of handing control of the monitoring of Information Service Providers over to the judiciary. There are some extremely large corporations who would welcome this legislation or something like it; but there are even more organisations - upon whom we depend for a great deal of employment and potential future growth - who are vehemently opposed. We must consider the stringent opposition to this kind of restrictive and legislative Internet control from companies like Google, Facebook, Yahoo, EBay, Linkedin, AOL and Twitter amongst others who represent so much promise for Irish employment and innovation into the future. The very nature of the Internet means that inadvertent copyright breaches are almost inevitable but we already have legislation to deal with these breaches after they happen. Allowing for the blocking of any website where infringements occur seems like an extreme and counter-productive response. Another serious consideration relates to the recent decision by the European Court of Justice ruling that Internet access is a human right and that EU law precludes injunctions being taken against ISPs. The position of the European Court of Justice is very clear the matter can be taken to the courts after the holders of intellectual-property rights have had their rights infringed. But the Court categorically underlined the prohibition of the monitoring of information transmitted on ISP networks. The key word in Mr. Justice Charletons judgement is prevent. I do not, at this stage, believe that it is possible to prevent the offending activity without putting personal freedoms and human rights, as clarified now at EU level, in danger. I await the final wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument but the Internet Industry must be protected. I believe it is vital to our future and that the core principle of the Internet - the principle of freedom of access to information - must be protected. ENDS