FAQ

The Official Irish Charts are compiled by the Official Charts Company on behalf of IRMA, using physical and digital sales plus audio streams from major retailers and streaming services.

The chart week runs Friday to Thursday. New charts are published every Friday afternoon.

The Homegrown chart features only artists born or based in Ireland.

The Irish Charts were first broadcast on RTÉ on October 1st 1962.

We looked at the idea of publishing a book and decided that the only way it would be economically feasible would be if it was heavily supported by advertising and even then the retail price would have been too high.

So we decided to make all our archives available for free on this website.

This does not mean that a book will never be published, just not for the foreseeable future.

Sales figures are private and confidential and only disclosed to IRMA members.

Furthermore, sales for a Top 10 place will vary from week to week, depending on that week’s releases.

Larry Gogan’s book covers the Singles Charts for the period 1962 to 1983 and has been out of print for some time.

Well, although we have tried to ensure that all data was accurate, we do realise that errors may occur. Should you come across an error and your alternative is verifiable, we will be happy to amend our records.

There are 20 illegal music downloads for every legal track sold worldwide – a far more dramatic ratio than in the physical world where one in three CDs is estimated to be illegal. Internet piracy has had a devastating effect on the music industry, leading to job losses, less money to invest in new artists and fewer opportunities for existing acts to further their careers.

While 95 per cent of music downloads worldwide are illegally made from unlicensed services, research suggests this volume of downloads is concentrated among a certain part of the online population, with, for example, a steady proportion of around 18 per cent of internet users in Europe and the US regularly file-sharing. If the industry did not take enforcement action, it is likely that this ‘containment’ at around 18 per cent of internet users would not continue. But the industry’s enforcement actions are not enough; ISP cooperation is needed if we are to find a comprehensive solution to mass online piracy.

The online distribution of copyright infringing music tracks is hurting the music industry. This is not a question of people making one or two copies of a track at home; this is a question of people uploading hundreds or thousands of music files for millions of people to download.

There is no comparison to the scale of home taping in the 1970s and 1980s. The music that was taped was of inferior quality to the original and could not be distributed to millions of people in the way a copyright infringing music file can.

Many of the new business models that are being created involve access to a library of millions of tracks. This should ensure that the most avid music fan with eclectic tastes can satisfy their desire to try new music using legal services.

Record labels have in the past signed commercial agreements with file-sharing services. It is extremely difficult however to monetise file-sharing services in such a way that attracts users, while paying artists, composers and producers for their work. Labels are also often reluctant to license services that distributed their work illegally for years before seeking a commercial agreement.

Mass online copyright infringement is a threat to all the creative industries. Increased broadband speeds and storage capacity mean that the film, television and even book publishing industries are now being hit hard by piracy.

Record companies are investing considerable effort and resources into protecting the legal digital music market. The industry’s anti-piracy effort is led by IFPI’s internet anti-piracy unit, IAPU, a specialist team that works to combat infringements of its members’ rights online.

The team works with member record companies and IFPI’s National Groups, like IRMA, to tackle problems such as pre-release piracy and the spread of copyright infringing music on peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks. It also manages the industry’s high volume notice/takedown programme under which hundreds of thousands of warnings are issued each year, resulting in the shutdown of infringing sites and operations.

The IAPU also tackles other forms of copyright infringement, such as the distribution of unauthorised music via blogs, hosting on cyberlockers and other locations on the internet. It has a proven track record of getting ISPs, site operators and those posting the infringing material to remove it.

IFPI’s anti-piracy team identifies infringers by logging on to networks in exactly the same way as any member of the public can do. It traces the unique IP addresses of illegal uploaders using the various P2P file-sharing networks, where they make copyright infringing music available. There are two ways the IAPU can do this:

Manually:
IAPU investigators access a P2P file-sharing network as any other user would. They then download copyright infringing material that has been uploaded by other users, to be used as evidence at a later date.

Automatically:
Automated devices can be used to replicate the manual process at a much faster rate, enabling IAPU to identify greater numbers of serious persistent copyright infringers. Stepping-up the use of such automated tools has enabled the IAPU to dramatically improve its productivity.

Various pieces of evidence can be legally obtained about persistent copyright infringers. They include the number and a list of files being used, and the precise content being shared. This information is available to anyone who logs on to P2P services.

The IAPU team searches for a particular artist, album or individual track on a P2P service such as Limewire or Ares. It does this by entering the term in the P2P file-sharing client’s search box. Once the search term is entered, a list of results is displayed in the P2P client’s results screen.

A more advanced form of P2P network is BitTorrent, where different parts of a file, particularly large film files, are downloaded from multiple sources and can be distributed quickly and efficiently. Users access “torrent” files which are distributed to other users via a “swarm”. Users downloading files via BitTorrent automatically become uploaders for the duration of their download. In the case of BitTorrent this searching stage is typically done through an index site, such as The Pirate Bay, and/or forum.

IFPI’s anti-piracy team can secure evidence about the individual’s music uploading activity. This is done by downloading the list of copyright infringing files being offered, or the files themselves. The activities of BitTorrent users can be traced on the index site.

Yes, this evidence has been accepted by courts worldwide. The anti-piracy team uses software to monitor the communication between its computers and the uploader’s computer on P2P networks. This is commonly known as ‘packet trace’ software and it works on all P2P networks, including services such as BitTorrent .The packet trace software captures all transaction information relating to the download of the copyrighted infringing music and interaction with the target IP address. Each ‘packet’ is uniquely “time–stamped” by the computer, which means that it is possible for the IP address registrant to know which user was using an IP address at any given time.

The IAPU has had considerable success, particularly in its work protecting pre-release material. Pre-release leaks are highly damaging to record labels as, on average, albums sell 56 per cent of their copies in their first four weeks of sale and the availability of the music online before the release date can dent these vital sales. The IAPU removed 16 million infringing links in 2012. In 2014 100 million notices to Google were cited from “the global recorded industry”

As long as it remains possible to build a business on the basis of infringing other’s rights, people will continue to do so. We do not expect to be able to eliminate piracy, but we do hope that with modernised intellectual property laws and efficient enforcement, we should be able to curb the level of online piracy sufficiently to allow legitimate models to evolve and thrive.

IFPI estimates that peer-to-peer networks account for around 80 per cent of online copyright infringement so that is why it is of particular concern. While ISPs generally cooperate with our requests regarding hosted content, most ISPs currently do nothing about P2P piracy, even when put on notice of it. That is why we are so keen to bring ISPs into the music value chain. Non-P2P infringement, such as the posting of infringing links on blogs, is being dealt with by the IAPU through a notice and takedown procedure, which is normally effective, and also through a programme of litigation.

We are asking ISPs to take concrete steps to address the piracy on their networks. A graduated response approach envisages a policy of warnings leading to sanctions against those who refuse to stop infringing.

The graduated response approach to tackling mass online piracy aims to migrate users from illegal to legal music services. Research suggests that a notice, education and warning approach, backed by real sanctions, can change people’s behaviour. People would only face the suspension of their internet account if they ignored repeated warnings against breaking the law. There are plenty of other ways to connect to the internet, such as visiting an internet cafe.

No, it’s a sensible way of apportioning responsibility. The terms and conditions of ISP customer contracts make it clear that it is the bill payer that bears responsibility for the internet connection, so they should check that their computer is not being used for illegal purposes. Such a notice system also gives the bill payer the opportunity to find out if others are abusing their connection and get them to stop their activity or to implement appropriate security.

The push for graduated response is gaining worldwide traction, but it is incumbent on individual national governments to shape the policy for their countries. ISPs operate and are regulated at national level and any approach must take into account the specific legal environment.

ISP customer terms and conditions explicitly state that users who abuse their connection to violate the law, including breaching copyright, risk being disconnected. All we are doing is asking ISPs to honour those terms and conditions. In those circumstances they should be at no risk of being sued by users.

Not at all. We are not asking ISPs to monitor people’s e-mails but to respond to illegal behaviour of which they are notified. ISPS will be reacting to information legally obtained by copyright holders who have accessed P2P networks where it is publically available. No one will be reading private emails.

We think suspension is a proportionate penalty which will act as a significant deterrent to piracy. Users will find it inconvenient to sign-up to another service with another address and this process could leave them without a connection for some time. Persistent infringers would face suspension from their subsequent services as well and there are only a finite number of services available.