Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

14950515254

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Interesting, cheers.


  • Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    They only have to get lucky once... :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    DeVore wrote: »
    They only have to get lucky once... :)

    The same could be said for the plan to build a motorway across Dublin Bay - it's the nature of the beast. Opposition to any official plan requires sustained attention.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,455 ✭✭✭RUCKING FETARD


    Look at this and it's IN.

    Russia's New Censorship Law Diminishes the Entire Internet
    On Wednesday, the Russian parliament's lower house approved legislation that would block Web pages selectively. The proposed law reportedly lets officials filter out specific domain names and IP addresses. Law enforcement agencies could add URLs to the blacklist without a court order. Hosting services would need to remove banned materials within 72 hours or risk being shut down.
    Another bill currently in the Russian parliament would increase penalties for defamation, while yet another would compel nongovernmental organizations that accept foreign financing to register as foreign agents.

    No climbing back up that slide:(




    Internet content blocking travels downstream, affects unwary users


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,739 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    foi'd by user FreudianSlippers and scanned by matrim, most of the submissions to the original SI for the CRRA

    https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B6AEiinGYynOOWpOWS1XX2dobTg/edit

    blame the department for the rigmarol of having to foi, print and rescan em.

    why this couldn't be released at the time to add to the discussion, i don't know, it could only have helped them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,515 ✭✭✭matrim


    foi'd by user RangeR and/or matrim scanned by matrim, most of the submissions to the original SI for the CRRA

    https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B6AEiinGYynOOWpOWS1XX2dobTg/edit

    blame the department for the rigmarol of having to foi, print and rescan em.

    why this couldn't be released at the time to add to the discussion, i don't know, it could only have helped them.

    Just a quick note. I requested them and it was FreudianSlippers who scanned them.

    I haven't actually had a chance to read them yet. Hopefully I'll get around to it later this week.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Nice, will skim through them; odd that they needed to be FOI'd, it's exactly the kind of stuff that should be publicly available on a website to start with.

    It is different I guess, to the submissions that were previously published, on the CRC website?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,739 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Nice, will skim through them; odd that they needed to be FOI'd, it's exactly the kind of stuff that should be publicly available on a website to start with.

    It is different I guess, to the submissions that were previously published, on the CRC website?

    these are not related to the CRC these are the submissions sent during the summer consultation, so sherlock lauded his consulative abilties but none of us knew what they said as he planned to implement the SI


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    I've skimmed through it all, and here's a brief summary of it: (most of the arguments for/against are fairly much the same)

    Companies/groups/people expressing concern about the SI:
    Google
    Telecommunications and Internet Federation: Worth reading the full submission; page 36 onwards of Scan 001.
    Eircom (expressed concerns at length about the SI, and specifically about why it is not a part of CRC review)
    Ronan Sheehan (John Philpot Curran Foundation)
    IDA Ireland
    Telefonica/O2
    Alternative Operators in the Communications Market
    Digital Rights Ireland
    3G Ireland
    Computer and Communications Industry Association (makes the very good point, that where infringers can be pursued in court directly, injunctions should not be allowed against their websites)
    International Service Providers Association of Ireland
    UPC

    Companies/groups/people in support of SI: (it's notable, that just about none of these go into detail or express concerns on needed limitations of the SI, but all endorse it wholesale)
    Mechanical Copyright Protection Society Ireland
    Irish Association of Songwriters, Composers and Authors
    William Ryan (lawyer representing some record labels in Ireland)
    Interactive Software Federation of Europe
    Viacom/MTV
    Warner Bros: Also proposes removal of the following from the SI (about the only limitation it places on the injunctions):
    "(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 and the court shall give such directions (including, where appropriate, a direction requiring a person be notified of the application) as the court considers appropriate in all of the circumstances."
    Motion Picture Association (also supports removal of above)
    Irish National Federation Against Copyright Theft
    Recorded Artists Actors Performers
    Music Managers Forum (also recommends 'graduated response' i.e. three strikes, and argues against legislating 'fair use' laws)


    So, there was not just widespread public opposition to this, but widespread industry opposition as well; all the more incomprehensible, as to why this was forced through with a SI.

    It seems the SI had been in the pipe for more than a year as well, before finally being implemented (with the government first flip-flopping in Feb 2011, deciding not to implement it based on concerns of balance).
    So again, plenty of room for discussion and management of a more balanced piece of legislation (an entire year it seems), even the 2011 copyright reform committee passed as an opportunity to work it out, yet it got implemented as-is with no modifications this year?

    One very notable part of the concerns expressed in the submissions, is various groups (Eircom in particular) don't understand why consultation about the SI is separate to the general Copyright Review Committee consultation; there is no satisfactory (or offered) explanation for this, which makes me all the more cynical as to the reasons for that.


    It's noted throughout the submissions, that it's not a requirement to transpose the EU law directly into our own law, but that it's supposed to be considered in the context of wider considerations first (to see it does not impact on other areas and rights); this is usually done through a Regulatory Impact Assessment, and the government completely failed to do that here.

    Moreso, the government previously explicitly spoke out against implementing laws through secondary legislation, like they have done here.
    So, this SI was unnecessary, not urgent in any way, did not have sufficient regulatory assessment, was not properly negotiated, was not democratically debated and put forward as primary legislation, and consultations submitted by industry were 100% ignored, and government has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation regarding concerns put forward; this makes me extremely cynical, and makes me think there were copyright/entertainment industry interests behind the scenes, who undemocratically influenced the government into pushing this through.


    I would imagine we will find out the next step with all of this (if any), when the 2012 copyright review committee process finishes up; submissions are long closed now, any word on government reactions (and potential reforms) in light of that consultation? (discussion of the SI was not excluded from this consultation as well I take it)

    That said, the fact that the concerns put forward in this previous (SI-specific) consultation process in 2011 were entirely ignored, seem to indicate that any concerns put forward during this years consultation will be ignored too. We'll see anyway, but I don't have my hopes up; I reckon the consultation this year was (judging by last years) just to fob people off.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    matrim wrote: »
    Just a quick note. I requested them and it was FreudianSlippers who scanned them.

    I haven't actually had a chance to read them yet. Hopefully I'll get around to it later this week.
    Sorry it took so long. Work has been crazy and I have been in and out of the country like mad.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭blubloblu


    Not sure if people have been following the news, the Data Protection Commissioner has lodged a Supreme Court appeal following Justice Peter Charleton's quashing of its order against three-strikes.

    They've also asked the Supreme Court to refer some issues to the European Court of Justice, which could get interesting.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0803/1224321373384.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,739 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    the submissions to the CRC were published a few weeks ago http://www.djei.ie/press/2012/20120730.htm

    again if these were automatically published why were the SI submissions not


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,455 ✭✭✭RUCKING FETARD


    http://www.pcworld.com/article/20160...-internet.html

    Control of the Internet must be stopped from falling into the hands of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the European Parliament has warned.

    The European Union’s elected representatives loudly called for negotiators to block attempts by the ITU to gain ultimate control over the Internet at a conference in Dubai next month.

    The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) will attempt to revise international telecommunication regulations, which have not been updated since 1988. A resolution approved by an overwhelming majority of Members of the European Parliament on Thursday warned that some of the proposals presented ahead of WCIT could result in the ITU itself becoming “the ruling power of the Internet,” something the parliament is determined to prevent.

    “The ITU, or any other single international institution, is not the appropriate body to assert regulatory authority over the Internet,” said the resolution, drawn up by Dutch parliamentarian Marietje Schaake.

    The Parliament also said that it is concerned that some of the ITU reform proposals would set up charging mechanisms, which could seriously threaten the open and competitive nature of the Internet by driving up prices and hurting innovation.

    Meanwhile search giant Google has invited users to “pledge your support for the free and open Internet,” warning that governments working behind closed doors in Dubai should not direct its future.
    A free and open world depends on a free and open web.


    http://techpp.com/2012/11/21/google-take-action/
    Underneath the surface, it seems that some governments from the 42 attending want to take advantage of this situation and discuss, why not enforce, some censorship rules in their countries and to all those that comply. While censorship illegal downloads for the hottest movie is an adequate move, Google advises that terrible things may be questioned here, ones that may affect innovation itself.
    WCIT-12: Conference Overview


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,739 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    why is the ITU controlling it worse then anyone else?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    In my (very brief) understanding, it basically puts regulation of the Internet under control of an international UN-type group with most countries as members, where a very sizable number of influential countries in that group have domestic policies which censor or otherwise restrict the Internet, and with this they'd then be in a position to (potentially) collaboratively screw up the entire Internet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,739 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    In my (very brief) understanding, it basically puts regulation of the Internet under control of an international UN-type group with most countries as members, where a very sizable number of influential countries in that group have domestic policies which censor or otherwise restrict the Internet, and with this they'd then be in a position to (potentially) collaboratively screw up the entire Internet.

    how is that worse then the present situation, where as i understand it various US agencies control it, but can the same things not happen.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    It's kind of "the evil we know" type of situation; as bad as the US is, they're not nearly as bad as an international agency, stuffed with countries that engage in widespread censorship and privacy invasions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,455 ✭✭✭RUCKING FETARD


    http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/who-owns-internet2.htm
    There are several organizations that oversee the Internet's infrastructure and protocols. They are:
    • The Internet Society: A nonprofit organization that develops Internet standards, policies and education.
    • The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF): An international organization with an open membership policy that has several working groups. Each working group concentrates on a specific topic, such as Internet security. Collectively, these working groups try to maintain the Internet's architecture and stability.
    • The Internet Architecture Board (IAB): An IETF committee, the IAB's mission is to oversee the design of Internet protocols and standards.
    • The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN): A private nonprofit corporation, ICANN manages the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). ICANN is responsible for making sure that every domain name links to the correct IP address.
    This explains it bit better.

    China, Russia, Iran and Arab countries want to able to eavesdrop on whats coming in/out, routed through their countries and from where and block as they see fit.

    EU telcos defend UN Internet takeover plans
    A trade association of 41 European telephone companies (ETNO) responded last week to mounting concerns over its controversial proposal to turn Internet traffic management over to the International Telecommunications Union, a regulatory body of the United Nations.

    Under settlement-free peering, networks do not meter or charge each other for exchanged traffic. According to the Internet Society (PDF), settlement-free peering remains the most common type of interconnection among networks.


    Instead, ETNO's proposal would require the governments of 193 signatory countries to establish and enforce a new "sending party network pays" (SPNP) model for Internet traffic. That approach would effectively tax high-volume Internet content providers -- most of which are non-EU companies -- to respond to information requests from local customers.
    implementing the ETNO proposal would likely discourage content providers from responding to information requests from users in developing nations, who may not generate sufficient revenue through ads and other sources to offset the new tax.
    If it was expensive enough you could see American sites refuse access to european users even, maybe.


    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552769-38/russians-back-down-from-leaked-u.n-internet-proposal/


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    how is that worse then the present situation, where as i understand it various US agencies control it, but can the same things not happen.
    "Various US agencies" don't control the Internet. It's controlled by the IETF, which is a largely ad-hoc organisation, as well as the Internet Society.

    When you ask the question "what's wrong with the ITU controlling the Internet?", you should translate it into locally relevant terms: "how would I feel about the Irish government (specifically the Department of Communications) and Comreg controlling the Internet in Ireland?"

    If that question doesn't send a shiver down your spine, then you don't understand what's at stake.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,739 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    "Various US agencies" don't control the Internet. It's controlled by the IETF, which is a largely ad-hoc organisation, as well as the Internet Society.

    When you ask the question "what's wrong with the ITU controlling the Internet?", you should translate it into locally relevant terms: "how would I feel about the Irish government (specifically the Department of Communications) and Comreg controlling the Internet in Ireland?"

    If that question doesn't send a shiver down your spine, then you don't understand what's at stake.

    ietf
    All participants and managers are volunteers, though their work is usually funded by their employers or sponsors; for instance, the current chairperson is funded by VeriSign and the U.S. government's National Security Agency

    the US engages in widespread censorship and privacy invasions.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ietf
    All participants and managers are volunteers, though their work is usually funded by their employers or sponsors; for instance, the current chairperson is funded by VeriSign and the U.S. government's National Security Agency

    the US engages in widespread censorship and privacy invasions.
    ...which doesn't mean the IETF does so. If you consider the IETF to be no different from the ITU in this regard, please explain why you think so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,739 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    UN Internet Meeting About Who Pays, Not Who Rules
    http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6709/135/


  • Registered Users Posts: 74 ✭✭BENDERS LINKS


    Record labels sue Digiweb, UPC, Imagine, Vodafone and 3 to block The Pirate Bay
    Irish-based ISPs UPC, Digiweb, Imagine, Vodafone and 3 have been hit with a new legal action by big four record labels EMI, Sony, Warner and Universal it emerged this afternoon.
    In a case that will be held on 17 December the labels are seeking an injunction compelling the ISPs to block controversial torrent sharing site The Pirate Bay.


  • Registered Users Posts: 74 ✭✭BENDERS LINKS


    Russia backtracks on internet governance proposals
    Russian-backed proposals calling for 193 countries to be given "equal rights to manage the internet" have been pulled at a UN conference in Dubai.

    The US had threatened to block the suggested additions to an international communications treaty.

    It wants the treaty to make minimal reference to the internet, warning to do otherwise risks state interference.

    Russia and its partners are now redrafting their document and are expected to submit it later.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,244 ✭✭✭AntiRip



    Why are they wasting their time on this,seriously. It's doesn't matter at all if they block tpb with tpb own proxy and all the workarounds. I nearly wish they would do it and shut up and let us get on with it.

    Heard there was an Australian ISP iiNet that walked out of court and told the studios it was their own fault for not fixing their model of distribution. People want to get their shows when released in the states not 6 months later. They had a very good point really.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,339 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    AntiRip wrote: »
    Heard there was an Australian ISP iiNet that walked out of court and told the studios it was their own fault for not fixing their model of distribution. People want to get their shows when released in the states not 6 months later. They had a very good point really.

    Off Topic but the main reason for this, in their eyes, is that foreign markets will pay more for the shows once they have shown to be a success in America, obv. doesn't matter once they get to season 2 unless the network involved get a deal for a certain price regardless of popularity. Foreign stations will pay for them as filler without proof of popularity but they won't leave/put them in the good slots (which would lead to increased popularity, DVD sales, merchandise) without this proof. I realise they do early screenings to obtain demographics but smaller stations in smaller countries want the proof that people will watch it, not the stats from a focus group/pilot screening.

    Could be wrong though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,438 ✭✭✭✭briany


    AntiRip wrote: »
    Why are they wasting their time on this,seriously. It's doesn't matter at all if they block tpb with tpb own proxy and all the workarounds. I nearly wish they would do it and shut up and let us get on with it.

    I worry that the whole business of getting TPB is simply a way of getting the foot in the door, set legal precedents, establish protocol and while users feel clever being able to circumvent feeble restrictions currently in place, there may come a time when it allows a blanket block of not only sites, but proxies and other known workarounds. Not just to TPB but other sites and not necessarily infringing ones either so discussion of how stupid such blocks are could prove chillingly incorrect in the future and the internet would become a worse place for it overall.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,739 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    the important bit of info from the court case via simon mcgarr who sat in court It was mentioned that the
    Plaintiffs had a list of 260 websites they had identified as being objectionable.
    http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2012/12/17/emi-records-ireland-and-ors-v-upc-and-ors-court-report/


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ Cynthia Straight Pope


    the important bit of info from the court case via simon mcgarr who sat in court It was mentioned that the http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2012/12/17/emi-records-ireland-and-ors-v-upc-and-ors-court-report/
    260 websites!? WTF?

    Would love to see the list.


Advertisement