A High Court judge has ordered Eircom and two other internet service providers to give several music companies details of 49 subscribers whom the companies propose to sue for allegedly illegally uploading thousands of music tracks on to file sharing networks.

In only the second case of its kind to date in the Irish courts, Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday ordered the internet service providers to disclose the names,addresses and telephone numbers of the 49 holders of the Internet Protocol numbers identified by the music companies.

The judge said that illegal uploading of music from the internet was "simply thieving". It may be a modern form of thieving done in one's own house but it was nevertheless thieving, he said.

There was evidence that what was going on was "on a very substantial scale over a lengthy period of time". It was clear there was "serial" activity going on involving the uploading of a minimum of 500 to a maximum of 5,000 songs over a period of days, the judge said. This was wrongful activity not only in the civil but also in the criminal sense.

At the Commercial Court, Mr Justice Kelly ordered that Eircom, BT Communications Ireland Ltd and Irish Broadband Internet Services Ltd disclose to four record companies the names, addresses and phone numbers of the 49 persons who are subscribers to the companies' services. He noted an undertaking by the record companies that the information would be used only for the purpose of seeking redress for alleged infringement of the copyright of sound recordings and he granted the orders on that basis.

The orders were sought by EMI Records Ireland Ltd, Sony BMG Music Entertainment Ireland Ltd, Universal Music Ireland Ltd and Warner Music Ireland Ltd, all members of the Irish Recorded Music Association (Irma), which between them claim to supply some 78 per cent of the pop music CDs sold to Irish consumers.

Mr Justice Kelly stressed there was no suggestion of wrongdoing by Eircom, BT Communications or Irish Broadband in the matter. They had not opposed the making of the orders but had sought undertakings, which the record companies gave, that the identities of the 49 persons would not be publicly disclosed except in the context of any legal proceedings which may be taken subsequently.

The judge said that the plaintiff companies had no other way of getting the information on the identities of the 49 persons except by court order. While the internet service providers had rights of privacy and confidentiality, those rights must be balanced against wrongful activity of others, not the defendant companies. It would be impossible for the providers to police the internet to ensure that no abuse of copyright took place, he said.

The judge also noted that, after he had made a similar order last July against 17 persons, a good deal of information was obtained by the music companies and an affidavit from Willie Kavanagh, managing director of EMI records, had stated that they were able to challenge the individuals concerned and get appropriate redress.