An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

ACTA and what Sherlock brought in are two different things.

KyussBishop wrote: »

The 'three strikes' policy, so contentious it was removed from ACTA itself, is now active here in Ireland once again:
Irish Record Labels Win, Court Reinstates “3 Strikes” For File-Sharing

KyussBishop wrote: »

Indeed as you say, this is how Three Strikes worked out the first time:
ISP Wrongfully Sent 300 “First Strike” Letters To Innocents
https://torrentfreak.com/isp-wrongfully-sent-300-first-strike-letters-to-innocents-110617/

Then the Irish data protection watchdog blocked Eircom's three strikes rules:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/21/irish_isp_told_to_stop_using_3_strikes/

Now they are back again, and it looks like the record labels are going to start going after other ISP's again now.

Internet users who illegally download music, movies and e-books will be sent warning letters in a crackdown that could lead to court action for copyright theft.


A new regime to tackle online piracy will in effect treat individuals as ‘guilty until proven innocent’.


Those wrongly accused of illegal downloading will have to pay a £20 fee to appeal in a move that has angered consumer groups.

The controls on internet piracy, due to come into effect in early 2014, were outlined yesterday by the broadcasting regulator Ofcom under the Digital Economy Act 2010.

The same Act includes punishments that could, in future, see accused families having their internet service slowed down, capped or even cut off.


An industry code will require large internet service providers (ISPs) such as BT, Virgin, Sky and TalkTalk to send warning letters to families suspected by entertainment firms of illegally downloading or uploading copyright material.


If a customer gets three letters or more within a year, copyright holders such as movie and music companies will have a right to ask for details of the material involved.

These companies will then be able to apply for a court order requiring the ISP to reveal the customer’s name and address.


The information would be used to pursue the person involved through the civil courts for damages.

However, there are concerns that innocent internet users, for example those whose wireless connections are hijacked by a neighbour or criminal, will be caught up in the new regime.


Those sent a warning letter will be assumed guilty unless they can prove their innocence after paying a £20 fee to appeal to an Ofcom body.


Mike O’Connor, of the customer body Consumer Focus, said: ‘Copyright infringement is not to be condoned, but people who are innocent should not have to pay a fee to challenge accusations. It could deter those living on low incomes from challenging unfair allegations.’
If the new system does not stop piracy, ministers will be able to go back to Parliament to enact rules in the Digital Economy Act that could see households having their internet service cut off.
‘The ability to appeal is therefore critical to ensure consumers who have done nothing wrong are not deprived of internet access further down the line,’ said Mr O’Connor.


Creative industries minister Ed Vaizey said entertainment firms had to be able to ‘protect their investment’, adding: ‘The Digital Economy Act is an important part of protecting our creative industries against unlawful activity.’


Ofcom’s Claudio Pollack said: ‘Ofcom will oversee a fair appeals process, and also ensure that rights holders’ investigations under the code are rigorous and transparent.

briany wrote: »

The way the labels, the studios and publishers are going about this is just so wrong and ill advised. Firstly, it's a ridiculously long process to identify and prosecute infringers open to god knows how much grey area. Most users after getting their first warning letter would go VPN, filter IPs or just rip songs, movies, books from Youtube, video hosting sites and cyberlockers etc. Will they be able to spy on that type of activity?

View wrote: »

Just a note of caution here.

The EP vote means that ACTA was rejected at the First Reading of the bill.

The Council will independently have its own First Reading of it and - imo - is likely to be more sympathetic to it (given the member states approved the Commission agreeing the terms of ACTA).

It then goes back to the EP for a Second Reading where the EP can either: a) reject (and kill) the agreement or b) more likely imo, the EP and the Council hammer out a compromise - probably largely based on the ECJ ruling - which seek to address some or all of the Civil Liberty issues that prompted the EP's vote yesterday.

There still remains a possibility that the ECJ ruling might prove completely fatal to the agreement but more likely we are looking at a "New improved" version of the agreement at some future date.

Once part of SOPA, Rep. Lamar Smith's "Intellectual Property Attache Act" seeks to further spread U.S. copyright protections around the world.


U.S. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), notorious on the Web for authoring the widely despised Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), unveiled a new bill this week that seeks to further spread U.S. intellectual property regulations around the world.


Entitled the “Intellectual Property Attache Act” (IPAA), the bill would move the IP attache program, which is currently part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to the Commerce Department. IPAA would also expand the IP attache program by making it a full agency, as well as creating a new position, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property.


IPAA was originally a part of SOPA, under Section 205, but was sidelined along with the rest of SOPA after the contentious anti-piracy bill was all but killed following mass online protests against the legislation.


Formally established in 2006, the USPTO’s Overseas Intellectual Property Rights Attache program has one mission: “to promote high standards of IP protection and enforcement internationally for the benefit of U.S. economic and political interests abroad,” according to the official description. In other words, IP attaches are U.S. government “diplomats” who push for other countries to adopt similar intellectual property protections as those in the U.S., and make sure other countries aren’t establishing policies that allow for the infringement of U.S. copyrights. Or, as IPAA describes it, IP attaches would work “to advance the intellectual property rights of United States persons and their licensees…”


TechDirt’s Mike Masnick, a strong and outspoken opponent of U.S. intellectual property regulation, sees IPAA and the IP attache program in general as nothing more than the U.S. government forcing the will of Hollywood on the rest of the world. IP attaches, say Masnick, are effectively “Hollywood’s global police force.”


“[IP attaches] do not have the best interests of the public or the country in mind,” writes Masnick. “Their job is solely to push the copyright maximalist views of the legacy entertainment industry around the globe, and position it as the will of the U.S. government.”


Masnick also takes issue with the fact that IPAA was basically a “secret” from the public, and is being fast-tracked through the House, with the House Judiciary Committee set to hold a markup on the bill today. (At the time of this writing, the committee had not yet covered IPAA.)


So, should the average Internet user worry about IPAA? That depends on how broken you believe U.S. intellectual property protections are. If you oppose expanding the interests of U.S. copyright holders, then you should probably oppose IPAA. If, however, you are more trusting of the current system, then IPAA probably won’t rub you the wrong way. We must also add that one of the co-sponsors of IPAA is Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who fiercely opposed SOPA and just this week became the first congressman to sign the Declaration of Internet Freedom, a petition that seeks to further the goal of an open Web.


Regardless, you can be sure that this is one bill we’ll be keeping our eyes on. Stay tuned.