Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
08-03-2012, 21:19   #31
Steve
Life is hard, deal with it.
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the rocky road
Posts: 16,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hightower1 View Post
That wont circumvent the rule at all. If a site is in breach of legislation and refuse to remove content the copyright holder now has authority to approach the courts and if the court finds they are correct they can order all Irish ISPs to block any requests from Irl based IP addresses to that site url and IP so no matter where the site is hosted geographically it doesnt matter as the site itself may not be able to be forced to remove the content but all IRL users may be blocked from seeing it.
Correct, and seems a perfectly reasonable approach to sites hosting copyrighted material without permission.

Quote:
This was exactly the case with pirate bay, they refused many times to remove content from their site so IRMA took legal action and had the courts contact Eircom to stop directing their IP addresses to PB url / IP address. Eircom didnt fight it and agreed hence Eircom customers couldnt access PB while others could. IRMA attempted the same action with UPC but they fought and won as the judge had no legislation in place at the time to force them to block or redirect traffic.... now there is.
*takes mod hat off*
I disagree, Eircom pussied out there and bent over in front of the media bigwigs.
I speculate that they were only willing to comply in return for a sweetener - who can tell.
Maybe it's just a strange coincidence that they are now able to offer their overpaying and bandwidth limited customers access to 'unlimited free' copyright material in their 'eircommusichub' offering.

As far as PB is concerned, this is where it gets really fuzzy - PB does not, and never has, hosted any copyright material on their servers. They only host virtual signposts as to where you can possibly get it. It's up to the user after that to decide if they want to risk breaking the law by using what they host.
To hypothetically put this in Airsoft terms, you can go into an Airsoft retailer and purchase a realistic imitation Glock 9mm pistol or AK47 or whatever. If you then choose to go and rob a bank with your RIF, the new law is saying that the retailer should be punished (by blocking any future visitors to his shop) rather than the robber who they don't seem to be too concerned about.

To expand further, if PB gets blocked because they 'facilitate' downloading copyright material without permission by providing links to it then it sets a pretty nasty precedent. Where does that leave Google / Yahoo / other search engines who happen to return a hit to a dodgy site?? Under our common law system, the same precedent would need to be applied to them and therefore the same order issued to the ISP's to block them.

You mentioned 'a fair usage clause' in a previous post - that sort of rational thinking seems to be beyond the comprehension of our muppet lawmakers in this case.

*Sorry for ranting lads, I'm as peed off as you all are at this.
Steve is offline  
Advertisement
09-03-2012, 08:11   #32
sliabh
Registered User
 
sliabh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: en route to Rionegro
Posts: 1,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
You mentioned 'a fair usage clause' in a previous post - that sort of rational thinking seems to be beyond the comprehension of our muppet lawmakers in this case.
This is a key thing. The copyright holders (music/film industry) have been setting the agenda here. They have been going to the politicians and demanding legislation to protect their interests. They would be fools not to. We the consumers of that content have not done enough to go out and demand our rights are looked after as well. Instead we react late, and ineffectively when new restrictive legislation is proposed. At that point in time the politicians see 2 sides, craft a compromise, and that then means we have lost a lit bit more of what we had before.

Now Shelorck for all his sins has said he is opening a consultation process on new legislation (possibly because he knows the current situation of blocking websites is legally shaky, it has been struck down once already, and may be again).

So rather than ranting here or any other internet forum, get of your arses and start contacting the minister looking for things like:
* formal recognition of fair use rights - including the right to circumvent DRM to make backups, provide references, take the piss.
* an end to region coding of media which is a restriction on the free trade of goods and services, and exists only to protect pricing.
* establishing the right of first sale - if you purchase content you should be able to sell/transfer the rights of use to another person (eBooks are almost impossible to transfer legally, the second hand games business is under attack)
* establish a pan European rights licensing framework - If content media is licensed on one EU country it should be available in all (no more hearing about services like Spotify being launched in Sweden, but not available in Ireland).

It's not much to ask -allow us to legally access and use digital content in the same way we can analog stuff.

Nice and politely, write to your TDs or MEPs (they may have a lot of clout on this one) or call to their constituencey clinics asking for them to do something for the public instead of the rights holders for a change.

Stop whining here, and go out and do something that stands a chance of getting a result.
sliabh is offline  
09-03-2012, 11:01   #33
hightower1
Registered User
 
hightower1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jsmurff View Post
What about the likes of the mobile dongles?

From my limited understanding of them they're feckn great because A. It's pay as you go which means no billing address meaning no need for registration and as far as Iam aware your IP address can only be tracked back as far as the nearest server in your connection which oddly enough for me has always been in Dublin

I can't help but feel that this is censorship plain and simple piracy or no a government cannot dictate to private company's what the public is or isn't allowed to view on the web, I mean where are we ??? China!?!?!?!?
Any ISP be it mid band dongles , dls, sat or cable all have to have a full accountable list of IP addresses allocated to their subscribers. If the high courts say to block or redirect access to a given site to them they all would legally have to do so... no matter how you get online in IRL you would be redirected / blocked from the source of your connection(yuor ISP)
hightower1 is offline  
Thanks from:
09-03-2012, 11:05   #34
hightower1
Registered User
 
hightower1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrowadat View Post
The thing is though, that in all these cases, all this does is make the technological solutions to this more ubiquitous.

Case in point, the time when all eircom wifi SSIDs got broken. It was a fairly technical exploit, but there was an iphone app within days.

If this law sees widespread use, I can see a UK-based anonymising proxy and/or VPN service taking off. Worked for China :-)

There are already any amount of proxy sites (some better than others) that work for getting one through to geo locked content by spoofing IP addresses the problem being with a lot of them is bandwidth. Your VPN'ing essentially from your connection to a proxy based god knows where and then from there on in its their connection / bandwidth your using which can in some cases be drasticaly slow.

There are always ways around these things but the law makers and lobbiers know this, they simply want to take copyright enfringment out of the hands of the average man. Going after 100% of web users is futile but you can easily hit the 90% who wont be the wiser.
hightower1 is offline  
09-03-2012, 11:08   #35
hightower1
Registered User
 
hightower1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Correct, and seems a perfectly reasonable approach to sites hosting copyrighted material without permission.


*takes mod hat off*
I disagree, Eircom pussied out there and bent over in front of the media bigwigs.
I speculate that they were only willing to comply in return for a sweetener - who can tell.
Maybe it's just a strange coincidence that they are now able to offer their overpaying and bandwidth limited customers access to 'unlimited free' copyright material in their 'eircommusichub' offering.

As far as PB is concerned, this is where it gets really fuzzy - PB does not, and never has, hosted any copyright material on their servers. They only host virtual signposts as to where you can possibly get it. It's up to the user after that to decide if they want to risk breaking the law by using what they host.
To hypothetically put this in Airsoft terms, you can go into an Airsoft retailer and purchase a realistic imitation Glock 9mm pistol or AK47 or whatever. If you then choose to go and rob a bank with your RIF, the new law is saying that the retailer should be punished (by blocking any future visitors to his shop) rather than the robber who they don't seem to be too concerned about.

To expand further, if PB gets blocked because they 'facilitate' downloading copyright material without permission by providing links to it then it sets a pretty nasty precedent. Where does that leave Google / Yahoo / other search engines who happen to return a hit to a dodgy site?? Under our common law system, the same precedent would need to be applied to them and therefore the same order issued to the ISP's to block them.

You mentioned 'a fair usage clause' in a previous post - that sort of rational thinking seems to be beyond the comprehension of our muppet lawmakers in this case.

*Sorry for ranting lads, I'm as peed off as you all are at this.
You could very well be right about eircom / irma dealing in the back room but we'll never know I suspect. Also right about teh grey zones of "does your site show where to get content or show the content direct" , It leaves search engines in the firing line.

I suppose it depends on how hardcore the lawmakers want their view to be, do you want to target direct hosters of content or direct hosters and facilitators?
hightower1 is offline  
Advertisement
13-04-2012, 09:43   #36
whydave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dublin Embassy , Co. Meath
Posts: 3,785
one Question !

Yes or no !
Can I start posting pictures again ?

David
whydave is offline  
(2) thanks from:
13-04-2012, 13:40   #37
TheDoc
Registered User
 
TheDoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dublin
Posts: 14,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by whydave View Post
Yes or no !
Can I start posting pictures again ?

David
Technically no, it was written into law some time ago, as well as the European ACTA signed.

So there is the possibility that the owner of the content you post, could go through a legal proceeding against Boards.ie to have it removed.

Which is no different to what anyone would do previously, before the law was written in.

Boards has always had a pre emptive undertone, so the probable answer is no, you can't.

Until about 6 months time, when people realise where this law actually affects and is effective, and everything goes back to normal....
TheDoc is offline  
13-04-2012, 15:56   #38
gerrowadat
Registered User
 
gerrowadat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Kildare
Posts: 2,541
Yeah, boards ain't done flapping their gums.

Most of the 'content' in the military photo thread was just copy pasted from blogs and web searches anyway.
gerrowadat is offline  
14-04-2012, 10:10   #39
whydave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dublin Embassy , Co. Meath
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by whydave View Post
Yes or no !
Can I start posting pictures again ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc View Post
Technically no
Tanks for your insight !
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrowadat View Post
Most of the 'content' in the military photo thread was just copy pasted from blogs and web searches anyway.
your welcome !
whydave is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
16-04-2012, 00:18   #40
Steve
Life is hard, deal with it.
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the rocky road
Posts: 16,738
Re-posting stuff that's freely available on the web would constitute 'fair use' in common sense terms. Sadly, there is no allowance for that in the legislation.

In short, I haven't a clue where we stand Dave but as soon as I hear something from on high, I'll post it.
Steve is offline  
Thanks from:
20-04-2012, 11:01   #41
whydave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dublin Embassy , Co. Meath
Posts: 3,785
Studios lose landmark anti-piracy suit in Australia (BBC.co.uk/news)

Major film and television studios have lost a landmark case over illegal video downloads in Australia.
The High Court upheld a previous ruling that internet service provider (ISP) iiNet did not authorise copyright infringement among its customers.
more here
whydave is offline  
18-05-2012, 01:02   #42
Steve
Life is hard, deal with it.
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the rocky road
Posts: 16,738
From this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056642582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dav View Post
Well, it's a press release, so the implication is that you share the information with as many people as possible. I can't imagine a world where someone's getting sued over the copyright of a press release unless of course it was intended to have a limited audience and not for public consumption. However, technically speaking, they are indeed someone's intellectual property and so could be subjected to copyright law, but if they tried suing of it's use, it'd be the last time *anyone* would take a press release from that company every again

tl;dr - press releases intended for everyone are ok to post in full.
A glimmer of hope wrt the news thread?
Steve is offline  
(5) thanks from:
05-07-2012, 22:31   #43
Steve
Life is hard, deal with it.
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the rocky road
Posts: 16,738
The threads concerned are re-opened so I'm un-sticky-ing this for now.

Hopefully we are safe enough with the links only approach.
Steve is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet