An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

thebman · 26-01-2012 11:19pm

Prime Time tonight showing why RTE should be done away with.

ibFoxer · 26-01-2012 11:22pm

CMpunked wrote: »

Its funny how they brought in an "Expert in the field" but didnt really go into expert territory.

Not entirely sure how much of an "expert" he can claim to be though? One would have to have a very good understanding of legalese to get any information from the published docs.

hellboy99 · 26-01-2012 11:23pm

CMpunked wrote: »

Its funny how they brought in an "Expert in the field" but didnt really go into expert territory.

RTE wouldn't let him do that, not when it concerns something that a government in power are doing, now if it was something an opposition party were looking to bring in it would of been reported to death at this stage.

Gremlinfeetz · 26-01-2012 11:24pm

signed and shared

Meteoric · 26-01-2012 11:26pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Now that is a different argument, but to be honest the current government as the past governments have being SI's for such action for 40 years. In relation to directives, it would be nigh impossible to incorporate all of them by way of a bill.

Last year upward of 700 SI's where signed into effect, many of them doing way more to people's freedoms than this one, and remember that is an average of 2 a day.

So because we have been doing it wrong means we should keep on doing it wrong? If this furore highlights that we have been enacting bad law for years then that to me is a good thing but no reason to keep doing it.
Where I work when we apply a new law (SOP) we consider what other laws (SOPs), say what we have changed and what impact it might have on existing rules and change them where needed and document that we have done so, saying which ones we have looked at so if we miss one we can then if it is found change that too.
Is it too much to ask legislators to do the same?

26-01-2012 11:27pm

foxerv1 wrote: »

Not entirely sure how much of an "expert" he can claim to be though? One would have to have a very good understanding of legalese to get any information from the published docs.

I'm not a lawyer, but I understand the Order and the effect of the proposed amendments. You don't have to have a good understanding of legal jargon - you just have to read the Order and read Section 40 of the Act. I've done that, and I think there isn't a problem.

What's the problem?

DeVore · 26-01-2012 11:29pm

I just got off the phone after a long and sincere conversation with Minister Sherlock.

A lot was said, some of which I agreed with and some I dont.

The one thing we are both happy to say in public is this:

This Statutory Instrument will not be signed into force before a full debate in the dail

There was a great deal of other conversation as I said but in order for us both to be frank with each other, we both agreed it would remain confidential and there was nothing said which I felt deserves that confidence being broken.

This is at least a clarification that there will be more than the 10 minutes in the dail today before anything further is done.

I'll take that for now and go to my bed, its been a long day.

CMpunked · 26-01-2012 11:30pm

foxerv1 wrote: »

Not entirely sure how much of an "expert" he can claim to be though? One would have to have a very good understanding of legalese to get any information from the published docs.

Neither do i, i was just keeping an eye on the telly while on this and seen that Miriam remarked that he was an expert in the field.

d'Oracle · 26-01-2012 11:32pm

DeVore wrote: »

I just got off the phone after a long and sincere conversation with Minister Sherlock.

A lot was said, some of which I agreed with and some I dont.

The one thing we are both happy to say in public is this:

This Statutory Instrument will not be signed into force before a full debate in the dail

There was a great deal of other conversation as I said but in order for us both to be frank with each other, we both agreed it would remain confidential and there was nothing said which I felt deserves that confidence being broken.

This is at least a clarification that there will be more than the 10 minutes in the dail today before anything further is done.

I'll take that for now and go to my bed, its been a long day.

Excellent.

ibFoxer · 26-01-2012 11:34pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer, but I understand the Order and the effect of the proposed amendments. You don't have to have a good understanding of legal jargon - you just have to read the Order and read Section 40 of the Act. I've done that, and I think there isn't a problem.

What's the problem?

There's no real transparency. I'm certainly no lawyer, and i also understand the implications of the ammendments, but i can assure you my 63 year old father does not. And my 60 year old mother does not either.

My point is, perhaps the ammendment is not as cut and dry as some suggest, and as such i don't see how anyone can be touted as an expert, given that there is no definitive answer to what exactly section 40 entails:

(b) In considering an application for an injunction under this subsection, the court shall have due regard to the rights of any person likely to be affected by virtue of the grant of any such injunction

Like i say, just to my mind, and in my opinion, the above highlighted in bold, is not exactly transparent.

But again, it's just one man's opinion.

Steba · 26-01-2012 11:35pm

Excuse the crudeness to this image, but I think it describes pretty well how ambiguios and ridiculous this new bill will end up being if its passed
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/399700_367096859973624_269358643080780_1707732_648638814_n.jpg

Ken. · 26-01-2012 11:37pm

thebman wrote: »

Prime Time tonight showing why RTE should be done away with.

R.T.E can f*cking whistle for their licence fee. Let emi pay it.

ibFoxer · 26-01-2012 11:38pm

DeVore wrote: »

I just got off the phone after a long and sincere conversation with Minister Sherlock.

A lot was said, some of which I agreed with and some I dont.

The one thing we are both happy to say in public is this:

This Statutory Instrument will not be signed into force before a full debate in the dail

I sincerely hope that doesn't imply that it will be signed into force irrespective of what way a debate goes?

Meteoric · 26-01-2012 11:38pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm jumping in with this question without reading the whole thread - and if this question has already been dealt with then sorry.

Has anyone actually read the proposed Order in conjunction with the legislation that is to be amended, and does anyone know exactly what it proposes to do?

I'm asking because I've read both and I don't see the problem - certainly not for an operation like boards.ie. In fact, I reckon boards is as close as possible to being bulletproof as far as this goes.

Even if there is a risk from vexatious or nuisance injunction applications, the courts are well capable of sweeping that off the table. And if we fear that the courts won't do that, then I suspect that a simple amendment to the proposed Order would sort that out.

To me this is the point, people who work trying to obey the law have said they don't think they can as the current wording is, so just slow down and get something Irish businesses can comply with. They have read it and need guidance from government on how they can comply and also stay in business

26-01-2012 11:38pm

foxerv1 wrote: »

There's no real transparency. I'm certainly no lawyer, and i also understand the implications of the ammendments, but i can assure you my 63 year old father does not. And my 60 year old mother does not either.

My point is, perhaps the ammendment is not as cut and dry as some suggest, and as such i don't see how anyone can be touted as an expert, given that there is no definitive answer to what exactly section 40 entails:

(b) In considering an application for an injunction under this subsection, the court shall have due regard to the rights of any person likely to be affected by virtue of the grant of any such injunction

Like i say, just to my mind, and in my opinion, the above highlighted in bold, is not exactly transparent.

But again, it's just one man's opinion.

Have you read the rest of Section 40 of the Act, particularly subsections (3) and (4)?

oscarBravo · 26-01-2012 11:38pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

...[if] the copyright holder also sought ISP to block only that content, again if ignored, they would be entitled to seek injunctions in relation to that copyright material.

I'd like to bring an ISP's perspective to this (I run one).

If a copyright owner goes to the High Court to seek an injunction against my business in order to block access to specific content, will the High Court give due consideration to the cost and difficulty involved for me in doing so, as well as the potential for collateral damage in the attempt?

The example of Dropbox was given. If I block access to the entire Dropbox website, I'm denying all its users the right to a tool that can be (and is) used for legitimate purposes - I use it all the time for business and personal reasons, and not for copyright infringement. There's no technological means that I know of to block access to specific content on such a site - so what will the Court order me to do?

The alternative is that a copyright owner seeks an injunction to require me to disconnect a customer from my network. If I comply with this request, I will not only be denying that customer Internet access without due process of law, I will be denying my business the income I was making from that customer. Will the copyright owner compensate me for the loss of income?

As a small business, I can't afford to darken the door of the High Court, which means that if I am served with an injunction, I have no choice but to obey it. I'm not going to pay a barrister to argue against a large media corporation, which means that, in effect, any injunctions they issue will go unchallenged, right or wrong.

These are just some of my concerns.

stagolee · 26-01-2012 11:38pm

I posted this on Sean Sherlocks contact page
"Mr. Sherlock,
I would like to ask you to please reconsider your plan to put in place the “S.I. No. of 2011 European Communities (Copyright and Related Rights) Regulations 2011″. I believe this measure may be misused by unscrupulous multinational media corporations in such a way that it will harm our hard won good reputation as a forward thinking technologically aware nation, and so may cause us to become a less inviting environment to big companies like google and facebook and also discourage other smaller internet based companies from starting up in or moving to Ireland. I believe the long term damage to our economy caused by this will far outweigh any benefits. I also believe that a decision that may have such far reaching implications on our economic growth should be given balanced consideration by all the appropriate elected representatives of our people.
Thank you,"

After being so polite i was quite amused when the catchpa letters were FKNG , its like they knew what i really wanted to say.. "you FKNG ejit"

26-01-2012 11:41pm

Meteoric wrote: »

They have read it and need guidance from government on how they can comply and also stay in business

Yet I don't see anyone on this thread actually explaining in direct and comprehensible terms how the amended legislation will present a problem. If everyone has read this and sees something that I've missed, could they please explain what that is?

ResearchWill · 26-01-2012 11:43pm

Meteoric wrote: »

To me this is the point, people who work trying to obey the law have said they don't think they can as the current wording is, so just slow down and get something Irish businesses can comply with. They have read it and need guidance from government on how they can comply and also stay in business

Yes I have heard a number of people say I don't understand how I will work with this law.

Can anyone point at the statements of a good qualified lawyer working in the area who says the law is bad. I have backed up my legal opinion, with a promise to get a legal team including my self if this law is used unfairly against boards. I have sent a email to Tom, with my details.

So again I ask for a lawyer who knows what they are talking about to say this law is bad. If a good argument is given I will sign the petition.

ibFoxer · 26-01-2012 11:44pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you read the rest of Section 40 of the Act, particularly subsections (3) and (4)?

I read the full text that Sean Sherlock published online, where is the rest?

EDIT:

I assume you mean these?

(3) Subject to subsection (4), the provision of facilities for enabling the making available to the public of copies of a work shall not of itself constitute an act of making available to the public of copies of the work.

(4) Without prejudice to subsection (3), where a person who provides facilities referred to in that subsection is notified by the owner of the copyright in the work concerned that those facilities are being used to infringe the copyright in that work and that person fails to remove that infringing material as soon as practicable thereafter that person shall also be liable for the infringement.

TeresaDarling · 26-01-2012 11:45pm

I was happy to sign the petition but could you know please stop blacking out my private messages? and could I access boards.ie without having to go in the back door?

DeVore · 26-01-2012 11:46pm

foxerv1 wrote: »

I sincerely hope that doesn't imply that it will be signed into force irrespective of what way a debate goes?

There is absolutely no way I can forsee the future. That may well happen... I do know that "Debate" > "No Debate".

Slowly slowly....

26-01-2012 11:46pm

foxerv1 wrote: »

I read the full text that Sean Sherlock published online, where is the rest?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0028/sec0040.html#sec40

DeVore · 26-01-2012 11:47pm

I was happy to sign the petition but could you know please stop blacking out my private messages? and could I access boards.ie without having to go in the back door?

Just X the letter and you will never see it again... (top right of the letter itself)

alphaadam · 26-01-2012 11:48pm

I sent TD Sherlock a letter in which I suggested he watch this very insightful and truthful you tube video about the real truth behind SOPA in the USA and consequently elsewhere in the world.

I would strongly recommend that all the board users look at this video too. If only to discover the deceit, lies, manipulation, false power and greed of the people behind these laws

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea-j499o5dc&feature=youtu.be

Now you know the truth

Do something else about it. I hope TD Sean Sherlock enjoys watching the video.

Kind regards

People of Ireland

DeVore · 26-01-2012 11:49pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Yes I have heard a number of people say I don't understand how I will work with this law.

Can anyone point at the statements of a good qualified lawyer working in the area who says the law is bad. I have backed up my legal opinion, with a promise to get a legal team including my self if this law is used unfairly against boards. I have sent a email to Tom, with my details.

So again I ask for a lawyer who knows what they are talking about to say this law is bad. If a good argument is given I will sign the petition.

Sure... http://www.tjmcintyre.com/ one of the top men for internet law in the country.

ibFoxer · 26-01-2012 11:50pm

DeVore wrote: »

There is absolutely no way I can forsee the future. That may well happen... I do know that "Debate" > "No Debate".

Slowly slowly....

Thanks Dev, that was kind of a rhetorical question though

ibFoxer · 26-01-2012 11:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0028/sec0040.html#sec40

Yep, went to it after. Forgive me, i'm not entirely sure what your saying though

ResearchWill · 26-01-2012 11:52pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd like to bring an ISP's perspective to this (I run one).

If a copyright owner goes to the High Court to seek an injunction against my business in order to block access to specific content, will the High Court give due consideration to the cost and difficulty involved for me in doing so, as well as the potential for collateral damage in the attempt?

The example of Dropbox was given. If I block access to the entire Dropbox website, I'm denying all its users the right to a tool that can be (and is) used for legitimate purposes - I use it all the time for business and personal reasons, and not for copyright infringement. There's no technological means that I know of to block access to specific content on such a site - so what will the Court order me to do?

The alternative is that a copyright owner seeks an injunction to require me to disconnect a customer from my network. If I comply with this request, I will not only be denying that customer Internet access without due process of law, I will be denying my business the income I was making from that customer. Will the copyright owner compensate me for the loss of income?

As a small business, I can't afford to darken the door of the High Court, which means that if I am served with an injunction, I have no choice but to obey it. I'm not going to pay a barrister to argue against a large media corporation, which means that, in effect, any injunctions they issue will go unchallenged, right or wrong.

These are just some of my concerns.

There is nothing stopping you going to the High Court and representing yourself. There is nothing stopping you showing that it is impossible to do what is requested. In any injunction the court must weigh up competing rights. They do it all the time, say in family law proceedings the couple are separating, one party gets a windfall and wins a million in the lotto, but she is moving the money out of Ireland, well then the other party may seek an injunction to stop that. Now that person must give an undertaking as to damages.

The court can not order the impossible, judges are getting more savy about the Internet, I can assure you if this law is abused, if each person who signed the petition only gave a few euro you would be able to fight the injunction.

Morag · 26-01-2012 11:52pm

So none of the governments could find the time to put legislation in place after the X case ruling 20 years ago but they have managed this in a handful of months? Unfúckingbelivable.

An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

Comments