Ireland, as a member of the EU is granted "mere conduit" status by the EU.
COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (2007). Council directive of 21st June 2007 on Electronic Commerce (Terrorism Act 2006). (07/1550/EEC). Section 5 Paragraphs 1 & 2 read,
"(1) A service provider is not capable of being guilty of a relevant offence in respect of anything done in the course of providing so much of an information society service as consists in--
(a) the provision of access to a communication network; or
(b) the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service,
if the transmission condition is satisfied.
(2) The transmission condition is that the service provider does not--
(a) initiate the transmission;
(b) select the recipient of the transmission; or
(c) select or modify the information contained in the transmission."
Therefore as long as the ISPs stick to their guns and do not filter content on their networks then they will be ok, as they are protected by law as far as terrorism goes. However it would seem that this could be deemed to apply to other offences too, or at least thats my understanding of it, I should add that IANAL, so I may have misread what the EEC were getting at when they wrote that law.
In the COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (2000). Council directive of 9th June 2005 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) (2005/1529/EEC) Part IV Art 18. Paragrahs 2 & 3 read,
(2) A person acts as a mere conduit for a communication if--
(a) he communicates it in the course of an activity carried on by him, the principal purpose of which is transmitting or receiving material provided to him by others;
(b) the content of the communication is wholly devised by another person; and
(c) the nature of the service provided by him in relation to the communication is such that he does not select, modify or otherwise exercise control over its content prior to its transmission or receipt.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) a person does not select, modify or otherwise exercise control over the content of a communication merely by removing or having the power to remove material--
(a) which is, or is alleged to be, illegal, defamatory or in breach of copyright;
(b) in response to a request to a body which is empowered by or under any enactment to make such a request; or
(c) when otherwise required to do so by law.
This again would seem set out in law the fact that just because someone can alter the content of a communication doesn't mean they have to, and that even if they do remove content they don't have to exercise control over the content. This would pretty well seem to protect ISPs from whatever lawsuit may be brought against them by the IFPI.