Sherlock confirms that ‘Irish SOPA’ has been signed into law

yoyo · 03-03-2012 8:24pm

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

Absolutely. Lorg Inglip himself protects them all :pac:

Not to mention the Admin "password" to access the household charge signed up users data is likely to be 1234, password or something along those lines. As shocking as this may sound those details were actually used on a department website which got hacked via SQL Injection (not to mention the probability of the passwords not having being encrypted before being stored in the db :eek::pac:)

Nick

Overheal · 03-03-2012 8:38pm

omerin wrote: »

What will happen to the copyrighted avatars on this site (and the posters who uploaded copyrighted pics on SS facebook page, must they live the rest of their lives in fear of being arrested?)

I think because of the lack of info there is a lot of hyperbole. Give it a few weeks and this will have blown over. In any case, who will enforce this law and where will they get their budget?

If Capcom wants to get in touch with me they can do it right behind the tens of thousands of other websites where people engage in message board activities donning various avatars, signatures, and even entire derivative works of art. Of their stuff.

Or I'll just leave the santa hat on year round. Fcuk it. Then they can't say sh*t. And if they do, they can take it up with me on Deviantart, not here.

conor.hogan.2 · 03-03-2012 9:13pm

Have any of the big companies based here made any official announcements about this?

Cantona's Collars · 03-03-2012 9:25pm

yoyo wrote: »

Not to mention the Admin "password" to access the household charge signed up users data is likely to be 1234, password or something along those lines. As shocking as this may sound those details were actually used on a department website which got hacked via SQL Injection (not to mention the probability of the passwords not having being encrypted before being stored in the db :eek::pac:)

Nick

No need for anyone to hack that,so few have paid:pac:

Besides,some eejit who gets paid way too much will probably leave a laptop with the info on it in a taxi or on the Luas.

warlikedave · 03-03-2012 10:05pm

Diabhal Beag wrote: »

Can somebody link me to the new laws specifically regarding illegal downloads please?

The original law is the 2000 Copyright Act - a government website has that (i dont have the link on this laptop of mine) and its too bulky to post here but below is the added SI to that 2000 Copyright Act that Sherlock brought in

QUOTE

ACTUAL TEXT OF LEGISLATION: 26-01-2012

Update 26/1/2012 – Minister publishes draft legislation regarding copyright law Draft :
R E G U L A T I O N S entitled European Union (Copyright and Related Rights) Regulations 2012

To be made by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation

I, _____________, Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 (No. 27 of 1972) and for the purpose of giving further effect to Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 O.J. No. L. 167, 22.6.2001, p.10., hereby make the following regulations:

1. These Regulations may be cited as the European Union (Copyright and Related Rights) Regulations 2012.

2. The Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 (No. 28 of 2000) is amended –

(a) in section 40, by inserting the following subsection after subsection (5):

“(5A) (a) The owner of the copyright in a work may, in respect of that work, apply to the High Court for an injunction against an intermediary to whom paragraph 3 of Article 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 200111 O.J. No. L. 167, 22.6.2001, p.10. on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society applies.

(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.”, and

(b) in section 205, by inserting the following subsection after subsection (9):

“(9A) (a) The rightsowner of any right conferred by Parts III and IV may, in respect of that right, apply to the High Court for an injunction against an intermediary to whom paragraph 3 of Article 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 200111 O.J. No. L. 167, 22.6.2001, p.10. on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society applies.

(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 grant such directions (including, where appropriate, a direction requiring a person to be notified of the application) as the court considers appropriate in all the circumstances.”.

GIVEN under my Official Seal, ____ ________ 2012. _________________________ Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.

END QUOTE

Since this is vague enough and because of the fact that it on several occasions refers to the original legislation of the 2000 copyright act ( so one may have to refer to the actual 2000 act for futher clarification) - it leave us with a very vary vague picture on the effect of this Statutory Instrument.

A new act should have been started, sent out for public consultation and written - not using a SI to patch it up so that be fall into line with a previous Eu directive in a vague manner :mad:

For gods sake the act they are amending is already 10 years out of date

wonderfulname · 03-03-2012 10:08pm

Standman wrote: »

Can someone tell me why Google and Facebook, amongst some of the biggest employers in Dublin, have been completely quiet regarding this issue?

Who said they have been?

ISPAI wrote:

We believe the law is so broad as to have severe implications for the suitability of Ireland as a location for digital businesses.

Check out the ISPAIs press releases on the matter, and their membership, which includes Google.

Assumptions are bad, the media has almost completely ignored this issue so you actually have to search out information before you can comment on it's existence.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Have any of the big companies based here made any official announcements about this?

See above.

GombeanMan · 03-03-2012 10:20pm

yoyo wrote: »

Piracy is not a criminal offence, once the DVDs are not for sale or distribution you would be ok. Piracy is a civil matter so not a matter of interest to the Gardai

It may not be a criminal offence, but make no mistake, it's not something to make light of either. At least under these new rules. If this statute leads to statutory damages being introduced into common law systems, you can expect to be sued for 150,000 euro upwards for each item of infingement. 5 songs copied? That will be 750,000 euro in damages for the plaintiff. Serious penalities for civil matters are on the way as a result of this. Expect to see more cases along the following lines: https://torrentfreak.com/student-hit-with-fine-in-riaa-case-090731/

BlueSmoker · 03-03-2012 10:43pm

omerin wrote: »

What will happen to the copyrighted avatars on this site (and the posters who uploaded copyrighted pics on SS facebook page, must they live the rest of their lives in fear of being arrested?)

I think because of the lack of info there is a lot of hyperbole. Give it a few weeks and this will have blown over. In any case, who will enforce this law and where will they get their budget?

You will be told by the admin to take such things down, then they won't have a case against boards.ie.

The problem we have here is that most artists are happy with the internet being a distribution channel for them, I'm one and most people I know are.

One thing we aren't happy about is the old guys (EMI, Universal, and Sony) telling us how we should be able to share are art, I create things so that I can celebrate it and share it.

Basically these guys are looking for me to pay them a fee too use the road to get to the local market, they are doomed in their thinking, cause the only own the roads (distrubition rights) not the content.

Please be sure this is what they are fighting for (distribution rights) they big boys actually own very little content.

BlueSmoker · 03-03-2012 11:05pm

BTW there is a clause of "Fair Usage" which how the news opperate, mostly within copyright law.

Basically it states you can use "copyright" material for current affairs, education or critical analysis, so that means if in boards.ie you post a youtube/quote with a sentence explaining why you did, you aren't breaking copyright law.

basically the big boys, are having a little problem with their roads (distributions rights) which is fine cause the content will find another way, through the fields even they won't be able to stop the product, they are just scared they don't own any of it

GombeanMan · 03-03-2012 11:08pm

BlueSmoker wrote: »

BTW there is a clause of "Fair Usage" which how the news opperate, mostly within copyright law.

Basically it states you can use "copyright" material for current affairs, education or critical analysis, so that means if in boards.ie you post a youtube/quote with a sentence explaining why you did, you aren't breaking copyright law.

basically the big boys, are having a little problem with their roads (distributions rights) which is fine cause the content will find another way, through the fields even they won't be able to stop the product, they are just scared they don't own any of it

Fair Use is not applicable under Irish Common Law. There is no legal provision for it. This information is incorrect.

BlueSmoker · 03-03-2012 11:36pm

GombeanMan wrote: »

Fair Use is not applicable under Irish Common Law. There is no legal provision for it. This information is incorrect.

Really the alot of people should be suing for infringement of copyright, cause 90% of the time we seem to infringe copyright, including RTE news and most of their chat shows, eg most of RTE's, TV 3 and TnG programing.

Also your right I don't know of anyone that has sued for copy infringement in this country on the grounds of what I suggested, but there is certainly a European provision for it.

GombeanMan · 03-03-2012 11:41pm

BlueSmoker wrote: »

Really the alot of people should be suing for infringement of copyright, cause 90% of the time we seem to infringe copyright, including RTE news and most of their chat shows, eg most of RTE's, TV 3 and TnG programing.

Also your right I don't know of anyone that has sued for copy infringement in this country on the grounds of what I suggested, but there is certainly a European provision for it.

I agree. Just because you "break' it on a daily basis and it does not end up in court, does not mean the act isn't commited. You can only take somebody to court over copyright in this country if you actually profit from the infringement, once you take court costs into account.

Statutory damages on the other hand, which if introduced, will not factor damage calculations into the equation, therefore even a simple link to a website could cost you 150,000 euro. ACTA and other treaties will most likely include these draconian provisions, which undermine the very fundamentals of common law.

yoyo · 03-03-2012 11:41pm

zerks wrote: »

No need for anyone to hack that,so few have paid:pac:

Besides,some eejit who gets paid way too much will probably leave a laptop with the info on it in a taxi or on the Luas.

All stored in an Excel spreadsheet no less :pac::pac:

It may not be a criminal offence, but make no mistake, it's not something to make light of either. At least under these new rules. If this statute leads to statutory damages being introduced into common law systems, you can expect to be sued for 150,000 euro upwards for each item of infingement. 5 songs copied? That will be 750,000 euro in damages for the plaintiff. Serious penalities for civil matters are on the way as a result of this.

Thats true. The thing is though for an ISP to share personal details with Sony et al. of infringers breaches data protection legislation unless getting a court order, i.e: it should turn out worse for the studios in terms of legal issues than the file sharer. To take someone to court for copyright infringement it is not a garda matter but the copyright holders one, and to act on that the copyright holder will likely have to break laws to find the person or should I say bill payer of the infringing connection in question.

Nick

BlueSmoker · 03-03-2012 11:50pm

GombeanMan wrote: »

I agree. Just because you "break' it on a daily basis and it does not end up in court, does not mean the act isn't commited. You can only take somebody to court over copyright in this country if you actually profit from the infringement, once you take court costs into account.

Statutory damages on the other hand, which if introduced, will not factor damage calculations into the equation, therefore even a simple link to a website could cost you 150,000 euro. ACTA and other treaties will most likely include these draconian provisions, which undermine the very fundamentals of common law.

Well then I stand corrected, I'm now curious in how they are going to implement this law, outside of the grounds of "fair use". I was only think of it from an artists point of view. But this is certainly the wasp caught in the honey trap. Sherlock really is a Twat. :rolleyes:

GombeanMan · 04-03-2012 12:11am

BlueSmoker wrote: »

Well then I stand corrected, I'm now curious in how they are going to implement this law, outside of the grounds of "fair use". I was only think of it from an artists point of view. But this is certainly the wasp caught in the honey trap. Sherlock really is a Twat. :rolleyes:

It's really up to the lawmakers. Most USA states allow these very high fines, but some states like New Hampshire outlaw them. It's really down to the people who draft these laws. I still think there is a chance, but not a huge one. Belgium and the USA are really the only two countries where these crazy fines come into action. Most countries actually consider them evil, as civil law isn't designed to punish outright, only to settle disputes. Statutory damages probably won't fly here, that is my best guess.

Media999 · 04-03-2012 12:48am

For better or for worse, this is now known at home and abroad as “Ireland’s SOPA”. SOPA was despised among big tech multinationals in the US, who are Ireland’s main hope for inward investment at the moment. Last night, the chief executive of Google, which employs over 2,000 people in Dublin, described moves such as the US version of Sopa as "worrying". "We need to act now to avoid the rise of this digital caste system," said Eric Schmidt at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.

BlueSmoker · 04-03-2012 12:55am

Then we should hit them were it hurts, basically if they have no content, they can't actually distribute anything, If we set up a group including artists and markeeters of the internet. EMI, Unvirsal and Sony can't actually touch us, these groups have be trying for the last 100 years to get their hands on content, they don't even have a creative bone among them.

I write a song, film a movie, speak a quote, I actually own the copyright to it, and 9/10 I would give the license to display it for free, why cause I'm an artist and I want to share my work, (I also work with alot of artists and they would agree with me) Then EMI and Sony come along and think they can sell my art, they can't sell my art, unless I give them a license to sell my art, I still own my art, I've just given them the right to sell it, so the license is for them to distribute my art.

So if I don't sign a contract or break a contract with EMI and Sony, they won't have anything to distribute;)

KyussBishop · 04-03-2012 1:56am

BlueSmoker wrote: »

Then we should hit them were it hurts, basically if they have no content, they can't actually distribute anything, If we set up a group including artists and markeeters of the internet. EMI, Unvirsal and Sony can't actually touch us, these groups have be trying for the last 100 years to get their hands on content, they don't even have a creative bone among them.

I write a song, film a movie, speak a quote, I actually own the copyright to it, and 9/10 I would give the license to display it for free, why cause I'm an artist and I want to share my work, (I also work with alot of artists and they would agree with me) Then EMI and Sony come along and think they can sell my art, they can't sell my art, unless I give them a license to sell my art, I still own my art, I've just given them the right to sell it, so the license is for them to distribute my art.

So if I don't sign a contract or break a contract with EMI and Sony, they won't have anything to distribute;)

The trouble is, 'Big Content' have an effective monopoly on marketing and (particularly with music) gigs; if you don't sign up with a big publisher, it is hard to break into the market and to get good gigs (which is where the most money for artists come from I think).

Don't know if that is the case here in Ireland, but that is (I am told) the main obstacle to doing away with these remaining monolithic corporations and just distributing stuff yourself online.

RedXIV · 04-03-2012 2:20am

Surely the issue here is how to get the media to get more involved. This is a time where if you know anyone with a blog, a website or better again, a publishing journalist, get them to write up the story, show the outrage that people are feeling and if nothing else, slam the smarmy git until even your technophobe great grandmother realises "he screwed up"

cartell_best · 04-03-2012 2:20am

I'm not being smart but i haven't the faintest clue who Sean Sherlock is

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 04-03-2012 2:21am

cartell_best wrote: »

I'm not being smart but i haven't the faintest clue who Sean Sherlock is

Nice to know we have a talented and self-aware population on the cusp of the political spectrum.

wonderfulname · 04-03-2012 2:23am

Seriously, it's getting a little ridiculous at this point, anyone with half a brain has already dealt with this through official channels, spamming twitter/facebook is just an awareness exercise.

krudler · 04-03-2012 2:23am

cartell_best wrote: »

I'm not being smart but i haven't the faintest clue who Sean Sherlock is

if you like using the internet you should find out.

Fart · 04-03-2012 2:24am

Website doesn't seem to work atm.

04-03-2012 2:26am

cartell_best wrote: »

I'm not being smart but i haven't the faintest clue who Sean Sherlock is

SIR !!!

PUT DOWN THE INTERNET !

NOW SLOWLY STEP AWAY !

eth0 · 04-03-2012 2:37am

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Btw the labour web site is down at the moment

Wonder why :pac:

RobbingBandit · 04-03-2012 2:40am

Go into a pet shop buy an exotic snake and throw it at him on Monday. Little bollix proberly has a nice job lined up in EMI for when his time in the Dail goes down the drain.

Fart · 04-03-2012 2:54am

Has anyone noticed that on the http://contact.ie/contact website there is a section to rate your Politicians and when you click on Labour TDs and scroll down to that prick Sean Sherlock? Where you can click on the stars to vote for him, the page just flickers and you can't really click on it. Really pathetic and is obviously done on purpose... but I managed to just give him one star.

If anything, I wouldn't give him anything but a kick up the hole.

_AVALANCHE_ · 04-03-2012 2:55am

Does Boards no longer recieve take down requests (Is it straight to court now if copyright material is found?) or why are we no longer able to talk about certain things?

Amirani · 04-03-2012 2:58am

GombeanMan wrote: »

It may not be a criminal offence, but make no mistake, it's not something to make light of either. At least under these new rules. If this statute leads to statutory damages being introduced into common law systems, you can expect to be sued for 150,000 euro upwards for each item of infingement. 5 songs copied? That will be 750,000 euro in damages for the plaintiff. Serious penalities for civil matters are on the way as a result of this. Expect to see more cases along the following lines: https://torrentfreak.com/student-hit-with-fine-in-riaa-case-090731/

Is it possible to declare bankruptcy straight after legal proceedings and effectively never have to pay those fines?

Sherlock confirms that ‘Irish SOPA’ has been signed into law

Comments