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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

*** March 2012 - Important stuff, please read this ***

  • 02-03-2012 8:46pm
    #1
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭


    Ladies and gentlemen, as you may or may not have heard, our gracious leaders have, despite a petition from 80,000 people, signed a farcical copyright protection instrument into law.

    The implications of this vague and poorly worded legislation are as yet unclear.

    Dav, the community manager has posted an announcement in feedback which you can read here:
    Changes to Policy regarding Copyrighted Material on Boards.ie

    There is more being discussed in the mod forum about WTF we are going to have to do about this but, for now, we must wait till the admins get more info from their legal advisors.

    The unfortunate thing for us about this is that the news thread and military photo thread have to be closed until we (mods) get word on what is ok to post.

    Personally, (in a non official capacity) I would forsee that in the future, the photo thread can only be used to post photos you personally take, posting stuff you see elsewhere on the internet will probably be forbidden unless you can provige proof that the copyright owner has given permission.
    Similarly, the news thread is, well, pointless if we're not going to be allowed post news that was not authored by the person posting (unless you can get the authors permission).

    I know this sucks, please bear with me until I hear more from on-high.

    Thanks and best regards to Minister Sean Sherlock for causing this, I'm sure we'll all vote for him next time. :)

    If you wish to vent your frustration, feel free to do so here but please refrain from any profanities or name-calling as theses comments will be removed.

    Thanks for reading, Happy Friday.


Comments

  • #2
    Zomg Okay
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭Zomg Okay


    Steve wrote: »
    If you wish to vent your frustration, feel free to do so here but please refrain from any profanities or name-calling as theses comments will be removed.

    That's no fun, Steve. :rolleyes:


  • #3
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Tell me about it.

    I'm seriously hacked off over this. :mad:


  • #4
    dinko4gr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 426 ✭✭dinko4gr


    this is as ridiculous as income tax ... ( paraphrasing Einstein..)

    Steve please ask the legal advisors if i can post here a pic of mine and then claim i didnt authorise me to do so and sue you for 7 gazilion Legend of Zelda ruppies.. :D


  • #5
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    dinko4gr wrote: »
    Steve please ask the legal advisors if i can post here a pic of mine and then claim i didnt authorise me to do so and sue you for 7 gazilion Legend of Zelda ruppies.. :D
    I'm no legal expert here but:

    If you own the pic (in a legal sense) then by posting it here you grant boards a license to publish it. That's in the terms of use you said yes to when you signed up.
    By 'publish' there, I mean display it to the public on a web page - i.e. whatever thread you posted it in.
    The problem here is that if you don't own the rights in the first place - i.e. you re-post it it from another site then we don't know what the hell this means under the new law.

    Nobody knows. I'm just waiting to see what'll happen to facebook and their 'share this' button. :rolleyes:


  • #6
    se conman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 981 ✭✭✭se conman


    That means there will also be issues with posting pictures in adverts of "just like this"


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    MerryDespot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,397 ✭✭✭MerryDespot


    Thank you once again Dail Eireann for proving that no matter how much I believe that the depths of ineptitude, stupidity and servile ridiculousness have been reached, you always manage to plumb new depths in low.

    Yet another political party proves themselves unworthy of my vote - at this rate I await the arrival of the Monster Raving Looney party for a new voting option...


  • #8
    whydave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,062 ✭✭✭whydave


    Would it be advisable to contact the retailers (Irish and foreigne) for their permission to post 'news' from their web sites ?
    David
    Steve wrote: »
    Thanks and best regards to Minister Sean Sherlock for causing this, I'm sure we'll all vote for him next time. :)
    PLUS 1 !!!
    Sparks wrote: »
    Depends on the video, the terms and so on. Posting from youtube is fine; the licencing terms put the onus on youtube not to host stuff that you can't look at. I've had some formal training in copyright stuff (mostly the bits that apply to software) - it's not exactly cut and dried (hell, it makes the firearms act look simple), so I'm just going by what the boards.ie legal team tell me. A man's got to know his limitations :D


  • #9
    horgan_p
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 2,608 Mod ✭✭✭✭horgan_p


    Just for pig iron , could I post a pic (taken by me) of me looking at some airsoft news ?


  • #10
    hightower1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,207 ✭✭✭hightower1


    Hey Steve, the legislation wont allow for removal and re posting of IP content to another location such as pictures movies or music however it does allow for linking to the authorized source of the content. So while we cannot quote articles images or video from sites we can describe it in our own words and post a link to the authorized source.


  • #11
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    whydave wrote: »
    Would it be advisable to contact the retailers (Irish and foreigne) for their permission to post 'news' from their web sites ?
    David
    Absolutely yes, this would cover us and I can't see any reason they would refuse permission.
    I'm confident the boards admins will come up with a mechanism for this but for now though, if any retailers are happy to allow their news to be re-posted here then please contact us and say so, it would make life a lot easier :)
    horgan_p wrote: »
    Just for pig iron , could I post a pic (taken by me) of me looking at some airsoft news ?
    As long as you blurred out the news bit.. :o


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    hightower1 wrote: »
    Hey Steve, the legislation wont allow for removal and re posting of IP content to another location such as pictures movies or music however it does allow for linking to the authorized source of the content. So while we cannot quote articles images or video from sites we can describe it in our own words and post a link to the authorized source.
    I *believe* you are correct there.
    As long as you don't actually quote any context from the source, you can link to it and discuss it as you see fit.

    It's a load of crap though, before, the news thread would contain:

    "Midcaps banned from xyzskirmish!!!"
    Big long article
    I think this sux etc..

    Now it'll be:
    <random link>
    I disagree, what do you think...?

    :rolleyes:


  • #13
    hightower1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,207 ✭✭✭hightower1


    Sounds like it could be messy alright, people can paste in a URL link to their news then add their own description that boards isnt liable as no content was displayed here but it takes a lot of user friendly 'ness out of threads as folks will have to be clicking on links to see the actual news. As a side issue as people will be forced to describe the linked content in their own words there could be mis information and more of a tendency for chat on the news thread too.

    Questions could also be raised about linking youtube vids also seeing as copyrighted content is uploaded there a lot and could be potentially linked here not only meaning youtube could be at fault but also boards.ie as the content is also visible on this site. Youtube admin are good at removing copyright content but not always the speediest and some stuff does slip by based on the sheer volume of content uploaded alone.... a scary prospect for boards then as if embedding is left on here boards leaves itself reliant on youtubes admin to be on the ball and make sure any possible linked vids are not copyrighted.


    On a side note it doesnt help much that Sean Sherlock looks like a bullied frail 2nd year school student, makes me wanna smash his face in even more.
    Anyways....off I go to start linking any copyrighted content I can find to any .gov sites that will show comments and force them to enact their own laws on themselves!Hi ho silver....AWAY!

    EDIT: think its bad here....imagine the nightmare the mods on YLYL face!!! eeeek


  • #14
    spooky donkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,042 ✭✭✭spooky donkey


    What Party is the sherlock muppet a member of?
    Will make a point of never giving them a vote preference ever again?


  • #15
    T4RGET
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,901 ✭✭✭T4RGET


    went onto the airosft news to have alittle look and it was locked with a link to this, didn't think it would effect airsoft news!! This is just so poor like. Thanks for the explanation and info Steve


  • #16
    Jsmurff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,621 ✭✭✭Jsmurff


    Well this renders my iPhone flipping useless :mad:

    I can just about manage to load boards on a good day now I have to follow links to what could be data heavy websites that's just f*cn great :(

    Baby Jesus continues to cry .........


  • #17
    Puding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,261 ✭✭✭Puding


    can not help but take this personally, its all my threads being closed :rolleyes:


  • #18
    MonkeyGuy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 863 ✭✭✭MonkeyGuy


    1.Justin Bieber Sean Sherlock


  • #19
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Will this effect avatars and sigs at all
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #20
    hightower1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,207 ✭✭✭hightower1


    Hey Steve, any news on the news thread being re-opened under new guidelines?


  • #21
    TheDoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,137 ✭✭✭✭TheDoc


    Bye bye Internet


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    hightower1 wrote: »
    Hey Steve, any news on the news thread being re-opened under new guidelines?
    The guys in HQ are still working on it, I'll let you know as soon as there are any developments. I'm as anxious as anyone here to get things back to normal. :)


  • #23
    TheDoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,137 ✭✭✭✭TheDoc


    Puding wrote: »
    can not help but take this personally, its all my threads being closed :rolleyes:

    AFAIK, speaking some my short experience writing etc. You could copy and paste from news websites and reference it properly, this typically negates any potential copyright as the author has been given credit, once the site and author is linked.

    This SOPA bollox isn't rewriting existing copyright, its kinda just enforcing it
    Here is a random news piece

    Ref. Joe Blogs http://www.site.com

    The above for example should suffice.

    Perhaps a streamlined Reference tag can be made forum/site wide

    But you dont have to request permission to use content from a news website, it needs only to be referenced. So I was told after enquiring some years ago inquiring after another website stole a piece of mine, might be wrong though


  • #24
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    TheDoc wrote: »
    AFAIK, speaking some my short experience writing etc. You could copy and paste from news websites and reference it properly, this typically negates any potential copyright as the author has been given credit, once the site and author is linked.
    The issue at hand now is just this - it seems that referencing / linking is ok but re-posting (copy-pasta) anything from the original article without explicit permission is crossing the streams.
    But you dont have to request permission to use content from a news website, it needs only to be referenced. So I was told after enquiring some years ago inquiring after another website stole a piece of mine, might be wrong though
    See above, that used to be the case before the no-shít-sherlock law.


  • #25
    The_ChiefDUB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 365 ✭✭The_ChiefDUB


    While the Military Photos thread is definitely a grey area (though I doubt the possibility of many of the copyright holders having a problem with the use of their images here - and especially since many images of US personnel are owned by the US government and they allow free usage so long as they do not present the US military is a bad light) - the News thread would be considered to be covered by Fair Use doctrine. There is no official doctrine of Fair Use in this country as of yet but since there is in the countries where the content has been created it's not something to worry about. There is also the fact that you might consider the creators of the content in the News thread actually want their content to be republished as it is almost 100% advertising copy which is appearing there.
    I know that Boards is worried about the new legislation - and we should all be extremely annoyed over it - but there is nothing to worry about here and I believe the threads should be unlocked.


  • #26
    gerrowadat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,363 ✭✭✭gerrowadat


    Yeah, same here. The three strikes rule appears to have been only applied to ISP->user and not ISP->content providers.

    I'm assuming boards are making a big deal out of how Blacknight could in theory cut them off for piracy/copyright stuff. tbh it's probably just boards tying to be internet heroes.

    This shouldn't take away from the seriousness/stupidness of what's happened, but it's jumping the gun a bit. Let's not lie, this is EMI going on about music and movie downloads, and this is Ireland where selective enforcement is pretty much the norm.


  • #27
    gerrowadat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,363 ✭✭✭gerrowadat


    The theory of course is that if boards wanted to 'make a point' about the new law, they'd just switch to a provider outside Ireland. No stupid law applies, and an Irish business takes a hit.


  • #28
    hightower1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,207 ✭✭✭hightower1


    gerrowadat wrote: »
    The theory of course is that if boards wanted to 'make a point' about the new law, they'd just switch to a provider outside Ireland. No stupid law applies, and an Irish business takes a hit.


    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.

    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.

    Of coarse there are ways around that which shouldnt be disclosed but for the average Joe it essentially means end game.


  • #29
    Jsmurff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,621 ✭✭✭Jsmurff


    hightower1 wrote: »
    gerrowadat wrote: »
    The theory of course is that if boards wanted to 'make a point' about the new law, they'd just switch to a provider outside Ireland. No stupid law applies, and an Irish business takes a hit.


    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.

    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.

    Of coarse there are ways around that which shouldnt be disclosed but for the average Joe it essentially means end game.

    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 :confused:

    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!?!?!?!? :mad:


  • #30
    gerrowadat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,363 ✭✭✭gerrowadat


    hightower1 wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    Of coarse there are ways around that which shouldnt be disclosed but for the average Joe it essentially means end game.

    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 :-)


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    hightower1 wrote: »
    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.
    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. :eek:

    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.


  • #32
    sliabh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭sliabh


    Steve wrote: »
    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.


  • #33
    hightower1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,207 ✭✭✭hightower1


    Jsmurff wrote: »
    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 :confused:

    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!?!?!?!? :mad:

    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)


  • #34
    hightower1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,207 ✭✭✭hightower1


    gerrowadat wrote: »
    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.


  • #35
    hightower1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,207 ✭✭✭hightower1


    Steve wrote: »
    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. :eek:

    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?


  • #36
    whydave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,062 ✭✭✭whydave


    Yes or no !
    Can I start posting pictures again ?

    David


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    TheDoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,137 ✭✭✭✭TheDoc


    whydave wrote: »
    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....


  • #38
    gerrowadat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,363 ✭✭✭gerrowadat


    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.


  • #39
    whydave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,062 ✭✭✭whydave


    whydave wrote: »
    Yes or no !
    Can I start posting pictures again ?
    :rolleyes:
    TheDoc wrote: »
    Technically no
    Tanks for your insight !:)
    gerrowadat wrote: »
    Most of the 'content' in the military photo thread was just copy pasted from blogs and web searches anyway.
    your welcome ! ;)


  • #40
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    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. :)


  • #41
    whydave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,062 ✭✭✭whydave


    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


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    From this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056642582
    Dav wrote: »
    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? :)


  • #43
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    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.


Advertisement