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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

Options
1…6791112…55

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Boards.ie: Paddy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭Boards.ie: Paddy


    collier wrote: »
    No its not did you try www.justice.ie ... they haven't got the wildcard set up on their DNS, just shows how much the government actually know about technology

    It's down and it's down hard.

    Sigh, all I can think about when I see that sort of 'activism' is that somewhere a fellow tech is getting harassed by annoying text messages.


  • Options
    #243
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    great stuff putting the information up on boards.ie. I have just signed the petition and sent it along to many others to do the same.


  • Options
    #244
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Again I say, I have heard nothing from google, which is operating in Ireland. This law already exists in the rest of the EU, can you point to any country that is saying it wrecked its economy.

    As I have already said the laws on injunctions is clear, unless an emergency injunction is required, any person seeking one must warn the other person otherwise they risk not getting any costs in their application. The SI also says that the Judge if he believes it is in the interest of justice must notify the other person.

    Unlike everyone else here I have sought injunctions in the high court, injunctions to stop deportations, injunctions to stop criminal cases, injunctions to stop people taking another's property. The High Court don't easily give them, it often gives a interm injunction and requires the other party to be notified and allowed to be represented. Also any person seeking a injunction ex parts must give an undertaking as to damages.

    I know of a lot of lawyers including myself, who would happily act for any company or person who is being unfairly treated by this law, and do do free of charge. I for one believe strongly in the idea of pro bono, other than medicine I don't know of many other business people who will happily give their services for free, for a good cause.

    I am not entirely convinced by a lot of the palaver I am seeing.
    If this action is only concerned with allowing companies to pursue injunctions then I have no problem with it.
    And I want to thank you for weighing in on the debate and giving the expert view.

    My problem, as this is the politics forum, is that enacting legal changes by SI without debate is in contradiction to Labour Party Policy....


  • Options
    #245
    wiseguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 370 ✭✭wiseguy


    Wait until Mrs Y gets disconnected from the internet because her kids download a Justin Beiber CD or something,

    how will Mrs Y avail of government services then which are now moving into the "cloud", how will she visit her representatives sites or local council site??


  • Options
    #246
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,059 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    justice.ie seems to have been taken offline

    Did anyone notice this on Sherlock's site?
    Faolchu wrote: »
    signed teh petition yesterday

    also recieved this today via email not sure how true it is

    uHcVs.png

    The image infringements were brought to his attention and replaced with yet more copyrighted images.
    Spacedog wrote: »
    zAuB1.jpghttp://www.powerplan.de/

    MSRBg.jpghttp://www.fiesta-sa.org/

    VjRw7.jpghttp://aql.com/

    qy22E.jpghttp://jbitdoon.blogspot.com

    HL1mT.jpghttps://www.serebraconnect.com


    What a bunch of inept gobshites


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    wiseguy wrote: »
    Exactly

    what if I startup a company to sell encrypted VPN/Proxy services to customers in Middle East, China etc who need these tools to get around censorship etc.
    What if boardsies start buying my service (encrypted pipes) in some of the start using it for downloading pirated content, remember the pipes are encrypted so neither me nor my employees would know what they are being used for.

    What happens when EMI sues our new little startup, claiming that its aiding copyright infringement and the service is frozen while we have to find money somewhere for a lawcase, what happens to all those customers that have legally used the service? what if no copyright infringement occurred and our little startup now has to close after being bankrupted by money grabbing solicitors and the name/brand destroyed?


    The named brand has to in an affidavit promise to pay any damages it's injunction causes. Again we all saw a person last week can't remember his name, seek injunctions against a number of Internet ites and newspapers in less than a week, by decision on a Sunday a high court judge threw the whole thing out, now that guy faces damages and costs.

    I can give examples here lawyers have taken up cases where laws have been abused to keep small business in business. The recent bingo case in cork is a perfect example.


  • Options
    #248
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    wiseguy wrote: »
    Wait until Mrs Y gets disconnected from the internet because her kids download a Justin Beiber CD or something,

    how will Mrs Y avail of government services then which are now moving into the "cloud", how will she visit her representatives sites or local council site??

    I'm pretty sure that this is not what is going on here.


  • Options
    #249
    wiseguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 370 ✭✭wiseguy


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that this is not what is going on here.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/in-full-sean-sherlocks-full-briefing-note-on-copyright-protection-337367-Jan2012/?utm_source=shortlink
    As far as can be ascertained from the judgment (the State was not a party to the case), the type of injunction sought was to require UPC to prevent infringement of the record companies’ sound recording copyright, through its internet “peer-to-peer” services, possibly involving a “three strikes and you’re out” scenario. This is where the ISP sends three warnings of increasing severity and if the infringement continues, discontinues access to the Internet. It is sometimes referred to as a “graduated response”. I understand that blocking access to infringing online sites may also have been sought.

    why should any citizen be cut off from the internet in the 21st century? at a time when more and more state services are moving onto the internet and will continue to do so to save money


  • Options
    #250
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    Would you care to tell us what exactly this will entail? I'll use Dropbox as an example, since though it's a legit service, it's obviously at risk of being used for not-so-legit purposes. EMI or whoever discovers that some Dropbox users are using it to share copyrighted MP3s.

    Now, I would have thought that what should happen in this case is that EMI could take an injunction out against Dropbox and have them remove the infringing material. Instead, it seems they're being given the right to seek an injunction against the ISP. If this is already covered under existing Irish law, then what exactly can the court order the ISP to do? Block Dropbox?

    If Dropbox sounds a bit too Napster-ish for your tastes, then replace with Google or any other above-board business that enables copyright infringement.

    This is a genuine question, by the way. I'll admit, I'm not especially competent when it comes to reading and interpreting legalese, but I think you're the first person I've seen argue that the scope of this legislation is satisfactorily spelled out. And since Sherlock himself hasn't seen fit to give any clarification on the matter, it would be nice if someone could.

    To be honest if a high court judge gave that injunction, it would very quickly be over turned. If say google docs was being used to share copyright books. Then the owner of copyright would have to show the court that they sought through letters that google would stop their support of this action. Then if google ignored these letters, and 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.


  • Options
    #251
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    wiseguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 370 ✭✭wiseguy


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that this is not what is going on here.

    Read this too

    http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2010/H377.html


  • Options
    #253
    Meteoric
    Registered Users Posts: 196 ✭✭Meteoric


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    The named brand has to in an affidavit promise to pay any damages it's injunction causes. Again we all saw a person last week can't remember his name, seek injunctions against a number of Internet ites and newspapers in less than a week, by decision on a Sunday a high court judge threw the whole thing out, now that guy faces damages and costs.

    I can give examples here lawyers have taken up cases where laws have been abused to keep small business in business. The recent bingo case in cork is a perfect example.
    Again fair enough, actually well don.e, But the prospect of court cases will discourage investment in this jurisdiction by it's nature and not knowing what the punishment will be. So again what would be the downside of having a consultation period and putting good legislation in place?


  • Options
    #254
    collier
    Registered Users Posts: 230 ✭✭collier


    Boards.ie: Paddy wrote: »
    It's down and it's down hard.

    Sigh, all I can think about when I see that sort of 'activism' is that somewhere a fellow tech is getting harassed by annoying text messages.

    Still up here on a UPC connection.


  • Options
    #255
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    I am not entirely convinced by a lot of the palaver I am seeing.
    If this action is only concerned with allowing companies to pursue injunctions then I have no problem with it.
    And I want to thank you for weighing in on the debate and giving the expert view.

    My problem, as this is the politics forum, is that enacting legal changes by SI without debate is in contradiction to Labour Party Policy....

    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.


  • Options
    #256
    riggerman
    Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭riggerman


    Down here in Cobh and spoke to a few of the lads about this tonight . Half never hear of Sean Sherlock and none knew of this new incoming law .We have agreed to call into to see the lad in the local constituency office on his next day off.Anyone have questions we should ask him Face to Face ?


  • Options
    #257
    isaos
    Registered Users Posts: 193 ✭✭isaos


    DeVore wrote: »
    There is also www.stopsopaireland.com if you wish to sign their protest petition.

    Or you can contact your td(s) here http://contact.ie/contact

    53699 + me.


  • Options
    #258
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Meteoric wrote: »
    Again fair enough, actually well don.e, But the prospect of court cases will discourage investment in this jurisdiction by it's nature and not knowing what the punishment will be. So again what would be the downside of having a consultation period and putting good legislation in place?

    I agree totally bad law is bad law, I am still asking anyone to show a good argument why this law is bad. In light of all the jurisprudence in injunction law in Ireland, in light of the directive, in light of the Charlton judgement, in relation to as far as I am aware this law exists though out the union. Again I am what is bad in the law as drafted, which allows injunctions, and also states that the court must insider if it should inform the other party if justice requires.


  • Options
    #259
    LostBoy101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,369 ✭✭✭LostBoy101


    My name is URL wrote: »
    What a bunch of inept gobshites
    Scumbag! :eek:


  • Options
    #260
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,187 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    Signed and sent to my local TDs.


  • Options
    #261
    BlueSmoker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 328 ✭✭BlueSmoker


    This is my letter to Minister Sherlock

    To Minister Sherlock,

    I would like to show my concern about the copyright legistation you are about to sign off on. As a Documentary Producer, Editor and Director (therefore an Artist) I really would like to hear my concerns.

    I sincerely hope you listen to people who know how this will effect the now weakened economical climate from firms that are based here (boards.ie, google, facebook, paypal ect...) and also how it effects mine and many others as an artist and the work we do.

    As a documentary maker, or as some would say a current affairs observer, I have used the "fair deal" clause with copyright law

    "What is “fair dealing”?
    You may copy under “fair dealing” in the interests of:
    Research or private study.
    Criticism or review (with acknowledgement).
    Reporting current events (with acknowledgement).
    Fair dealing applies to almost all works, including electronic resources. Photographs are excluded from the concept of fair dealing."

    But I have already have had some content that I have placed on youtube block, without any call as we have abided by every copyright law. This has infringed on us from distributing our work. Hence damaging the creativity of content.

    Don't get me wrong I disagree completely with piracy of any content, but I also disagree with a group trying to limit my only form of distrubition or communicating my content, because I choose not to use that group,

    By you signing this without discussion with the relevant groups who it effects, will be in affectivly the same as you asking me to stop creating content, to behave myself and sit down and shut up, witch as I'm sure you know is quite undemocratic.

    Any way I would like discuss the implication of this further and more indepth with your good self in how this decision may effect more industries, than you may be trying to protect

    Yours Sincerely

    xxx xxxkx (mind you I'm just helping the mods here by deleting my name, I would gladly leave it in but then it would be an infringement of copyright, Why because it could be a consider a direct quote, from an email I sent personally but then decided to make public (cause I wrote it, I own the copyright on it) I put the k in so that would be prove I posted it, I now give full authorisation for anyone to quote this post, in any form, directly or indirectly, so long as credit is given to its originates)

    That is basically how much it can effect you and me, this isn't a law about protecting content (artists work) it's more of a right of who owns the distribution rights (very much like how empires where built on who owned the way to ship goods and spices from the other side of the world)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    CMpunked
    Registered Users Posts: 14,600 ✭✭✭✭CMpunked


    Its being brought up on Primetime now.


  • Options
    #263
    Citizen_Kane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 68 ✭✭Citizen_Kane


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    How is it to broad, it allows Copyright owners to seek an injunction against a service provider who is allowing his work to be stolen.

    The Directive says "Member States shall ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right."

    It was thought in Ireland that copyright holders had this right, untill Charleton said nope, so all this SI needs to do is say that these people have a right that we all thought they had, and which they have in the rest of the EU.

    Any injunction must comply with the current law on injunctions, if the SI had said what applied and did not then such injunctions would have had to operate within the four walls of the SI, as it is any injunction must satisfy the current law on injunctions.
    Clearly you are well informed in the mechanics of the law. More than likely you are technically correct.

    The people who are well informed in the mechanics of the internet are warning that the possibility of legal interference in the 100%, unquestioned, free flow of information through any infrastructional components (ISP's, DNS, Certification authorities etc.) of the internet will have serious, unforseen consequences. Any law with the faintest bearing on this must thus recieve due dilligence.

    As illustrated earlier in this thread. https://sites.google.com/site/seansherlocktdsopa/ shows how how Sean Sherlock has inadvertantly violated at least 2 instances of copyright on his site. With due legal procedure under his revised legislation, this will probably easily be resolved. Now repeat this over the billions of other sites which are inadvertantly in breach and the only people making money are lawyers.

    What once was a free place now becomes a minefield, and only those who can afford representation feel safe. I can't even post up the video where my 6 year old sings Happy Birthday for fear that Time Warner may invoke proceedings against me due to their legal rights on the song. I don't have money to cover this, and besides my €10 monthly Youtube subscription doesn't cover violation insurance.

    My recent independant political career has been shut down because an opposition party reported my video blog linking to commercial news footage of police brutality at a demonstration. They were 100% legally correct. I was in violation of the rightsholders rights. Now no other ISP will host my site in fear of their legal responsibilities........

    I hope you get the point. It is not as simple as the rightness of the law and people getting paid for their creative work.


  • Options
    #264
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    wiseguy wrote: »
    http://www.thejournal.ie/in-full-sean-sherlocks-full-briefing-note-on-copyright-protection-337367-Jan2012/?utm_source=shortlink



    why should any citizen be cut off from the internet in the 21st century? at a time when more and more state services are moving onto the internet and will continue to do so to save money

    That is from a statement, which I have already read, where Sherlock is explaining some background. He is in the quoted passage ascertaining some information from the judgement. It does in no way suggest that citizens will be cut off from the internet, anymore than they can already be cut off from the internet by their ISP's for non-payment or (read your t&c's) Copyright infringement.


  • Options
    #265
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    I agree totally bad law is bad law, I am still asking anyone to show a good argument why this law is bad.

    I'm asking something similar - though my question will probably get lost in the blizzard of "signed" responses.


  • Options
    #266
    CMpunked
    Registered Users Posts: 14,600 ✭✭✭✭CMpunked


    Well.. That was vague!


  • Options
    #267
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    Two minutes on Prime Time. Ridiculous.


  • Options
    #268
    hellboy99
    Registered Users Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭hellboy99


    CMpunked wrote: »
    Well.. That was vague!
    I was just about to say the same :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #269
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,293 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    [-0-] wrote: »
    Two minutes on Prime Time. Ridiculous.

    At least it is getting attention.
    How many TD's were there in the chamber? More or less than 5??
    What are we paying them for exactly? It is Thursday afternoon. They surely can't have headed off for the weekend already!

    Nearly 54000 signatures now


  • Options
    #270
    CMpunked
    Registered Users Posts: 14,600 ✭✭✭✭CMpunked


    [-0-] wrote: »
    Two minutes on Prime Time. Ridiculous.
    hellboy99 wrote: »
    I was just about to say the same :rolleyes:

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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Citizen_Kane wrote: »
    Clearly you are well informed in the mechanics of the law. More than likely you are technically correct.

    The people who are well informed in the mechanics of the internet are warning that the possibility of legal interference in the 100%, unquestioned, free flow of information through any infrastructional components (ISP's, DNS, Certification authorities etc.) of the internet will have serious, unforseen consequences. Any law with the faintest bearing on this must thus recieve due dilligence.

    As illustrated earlier in this thread. https://sites.google.com/site/seansherlocktdsopa/ shows how how Sean Sherlock has inadvertantly violated at least 2 instances of copyright on his site. With due legal procedure under his revised legislation, this will probably easily be resolved. Now repeat this over the billions of other sites which are inadvertantly in breach and the only people making money are lawyers.

    What once was a free place now becomes a minefield, and only those who can afford representation feel safe. I can't even post up the video where my 6 year old sings Happy Birthday for fear that Time Warner may invoke proceedings against me due to their legal rights on the song. I don't have money to cover this, and besides my €10 monthly Youtube subscription doesn't cover violation insurance.

    My recent independant political career has been shut down because an opposition party reported my video blog linking to commercial news footage of police brutality at a demonstration. They were 100% legally correct. I was in violation of the rightsholders rights. Now no other ISP will host my site in fear of their legal responsibilities........

    I hope you get the point. It is not as simple as the rightness of the law and people getting paid for their creative work.

    I agree it's not just about the law, it is about the supposed abuse of the law. The recent copyright troll in the US got well and truly burned and will go bankrupt as well as losing his profession as a lawyer.

    Again in case anyone thinks I blindly support this law I don't, I just ask for good argument against the law. The possible abuse of the law is not a good argument. I can request any number of injunctions on any number of issues, which will put the person on the other side to great worry and expences to fight, but that is not a good reason to stop the right to injunctions.

    The requirement to pay damages should stop any blatant abuse of the process.


Advertisement