An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

Kiith · 26-01-2012 11:55pm

Signed earlier in the week, and just emailed both Minister Sherlock and Fine Gael. Also sent an email to Primetime complaining about their pathetic coverage of this issue.

MOH · 26-01-2012 11:56pm

I forgot about Prime Time. Am I going blind, or is it not available on RTE Player?

Pro. F · 26-01-2012 11:56pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Can anyone point at the statements of a good qualified lawyer working in the area who says the law is bad. I have backed up my legal opinion, with a promise to get a legal team including my self if this law is used unfairly against boards. I have sent a email to Tom, with my details.

So again I ask for a lawyer who knows what they are talking about to say this law is bad. If a good argument is given I will sign the petition.

http://www.tjmcintyre.com/2012/01/legal-case-against-irish-sopa.html

This guy seems to me to make a strong case.

Have you mentioned him yet in this thread?

ResearchWill · 26-01-2012 11:57pm

Sharrow wrote: »

So none of the governments could find the time to put legislation in place after the X case ruling 20 years ago but they have managed this in a handful of months? Unfúckingbelivable.

Now that I agree with you about. It is still a shame that our politicians can't every take on a difficult issue.

BlueSmoker · 27-01-2012 12:01am

This has never being about creative content, to create something of value it needs to be shared open and freely where ideas come from, eg like this discussen (did you know that most of you by quoting each other are in breach of copyright, only saved probably by the terms and conditions to join this site)

But you still actually own the copyright to your posts, so if you want to post exactly the same post on another site you can, but for someone else to quote you on that post isn't it in breach of the copyright that boards has on your content, well no, because you have licensed boards to use your content (your words by signing up to here same way you have licensed the other site) they are still your words and you own them.

What I'm trying to say is that creative content always is with the supply of that creative content, the person who created it (unless they where employed to produce something, then the company who employed them owns it, alot of the time thats quite difficult to prove)

Most of what we are talking about in these laws is distribution rights, or who can get it to the market quicker, or communication of the idea, Like the ye old naval battles for the sea and shipping rights Distrubition. If they own the way to ship the content, they can dictate the market for it.

It really is as simple as that, they are only trying to tell you the artists are struggling or loosing out, they aren't. the talented newbies are still struggling, will the achieved artists are recieving millions to appear in a movie, record an album, by the way that on lend by the companies who own the rights to distributed the music or album.

Lets call it what it is shall we

Pro. F · 27-01-2012 12:02am

Spent about four hours researching this after I saw it on boards. Signed the petition and looking forward to phoning some TDs tomorrow. About to email friends to try and convince them to take action too.

Well done boards for bringing it to our attention. It was very effective and useful.

Just to point out, when I accessed the site on my phone (which I did first today) I didn't get the splash page. I wasn't accessing the mobile site so I don't know why boards.ie displayed differently.

Citizen_Kane · 27-01-2012 12:03am

ResearchWill wrote: »

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.

The potential abuse of the law is THE key argument.

Let me illustrate:

Gutenberg did not invent the printing press. He navigated the politics of the time by getting the German church to fund his moveable type innovation he stole from the Chinese. In return the church got to economically distribute the bible to the masses and woo them away from the mystical bonds which held them to their medieval masters.

By the time the European powers of the time had caught up with what is happening many 'pirate' presses were not printing bibles, but till then handwritten, proprietary works of knowledge which had until then only been accessible to the monied at a hefty fee. These were located on the German border, outside the juristiction of the church which had a patent interest on this moveable type thing they had invested in.

An organised, pan european, violent crackdown then began - and failed. Enter the enlightenment.

No disrepect, but looking at this through legal eyes and respect for centuries old copyright law principles which now protect corporations more than creators is to miss the point that we live in revolutionary times and the internet is an instrument of progress, freedom and enlightenment.

Don't **** with it.

ResearchWill · 27-01-2012 12:05am

Pro. F wrote: »

http://www.tjmcintyre.com/2012/01/legal-case-against-irish-sopa.html

This guy seems to me to make a strong case.

Have you mentioned him yet in this thread?

At last an argument. The problem is that his argument is self defeating. He states that this law may block legal content on the Internet. OK good argument, then he mentions recent ECJ case which backs him up. All very good so far, but wait, the Irish High Court must follow the ECJ. If the copyright holder is aware that his injunction will or may block legal content he is obliged to inform the court of this and bring to the attention of the High Court the legal case that says that content must be protected.

By giving this injunction power to only the High Court, we are all assured that judges will on receiving all the information make a decision, within the constitution, and the European convention on human rights.

Meteoric · 27-01-2012 12:07am

ResearchWill wrote: »

Yes I have heard a number of people say I don't understand how I will work with this law.

Can anyone point at the statements of a good qualified lawyer working in the area who says the law iact thats bad. I have backed up my legal opinion, with a promise to get a legal team including my self if this law is used unfairly against boards. I have sent a email to Tom, with my details.

So again I ask for a lawyer who knows what they are talking about to say this law is bad. If a good argument is given I will sign the petition.

I again ask you, apart from quoting what I have said without addressing the question, what can be gained from rushing an SI through without any consideration will do apart from create bad law? You have not presented any argument to explain how the law that is about to be enacted will not cause the problems that have been outlined by people that work in the field. My sense is that the people who run boards want to enforce copyright have been doing so but the law as written will cause them major difficulty. Why not talk to the stake holders work out something that might work and enact that?
Avoid all the lawsuits and all, because the sites like boards who try to do the right thing will be the ones being injuncted not the pirates because they do try to respect copyright but cant monitor every post

Pro. F · 27-01-2012 12:09am

ResearchWill wrote: »

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.

Are you talking about the guy who was suing hundreds of people at a time in huge joint cases for pirate downloads of pornography?

27-01-2012 12:09am

foxerv1 wrote: »

I read the full text that Sean Sherlock published online, where is the rest?

EDIT:

I assume you mean these?

(3) Subject to subsection (4), the provision of facilities for enabling the making available to the public of copies of a work shall not of itself constitute an act of making available to the public of copies of the work.

(4) Without prejudice to subsection (3), where a person who provides facilities referred to in that subsection is notified by the owner of the copyright in the work concerned that those facilities are being used to infringe the copyright in that work and that person fails to remove that infringing material as soon as practicable thereafter that person shall also be liable for the infringement.

Think about the impact of those subsections on an operation like boards.ie for a minute.

boards.ie provides a facility (this message board) that enables people (us) to make available to the public (anyone reading) copies of a work. But subsection 3 says that this does not mean that boards.ie is making copies of the work available to the public. So boards.ie is not breaking the rules by running the board.

Someone posts something on boards that is a breach of copyright. Under subsection 4, the owner of the work has the right to notify boards.ie that this has happened. If boards.ie don't remove the copyright material as soon as practicable, they'll be liable for the breach. Now it doesn't say this, but by definition it means that if boards.ie do remove the copyright material, they won't be liable for the breach.

Why are these subsections relevant? Because if I own a copyright, my right to seek an injunction against boards.ie (or anyone else) is without prejudice to those subsections. If I want my injunction, I can't get it just by saying that people can put copyright stuff on boards.ie - because subsection 3 doesn't allow for that. I have to show that people actually did put copyright stuff on boards.ie, that I asked for it to be removed, and that it wasn't.

What's wrong with that?

DeVore · 27-01-2012 12:12am

ResearchWill wrote: »

At last an argument. The problem is that his argument is self defeating. He states that this law may block legal content on the Internet. OK good argument, then he mentions recent ECJ case which backs him up. All very good so far, but wait, the Irish High Court must follow the ECJ. If the copyright holder is aware that his injunction will or may block legal content he is obliged to inform the court of this and bring to the attention of the High Court the legal case that says that content must be protected.

By giving this injunction power to only the High Court, we are all assured that judges will on receiving all the information make a decision, within the constitution, and the European convention on human rights.

Every time you say "High Court" or "Judge" or "Case" I hear "10-30,000 euro". (I'm glad you are paying our bills on this from now on

)

But seriously, we were dragged into a legal battle in the North this year and an hour of Senior Counsels time was 5,000 euro. One hour, 5 grand.

that was for ONE post in the mixed martial arts forum. We cant afford this. No one can.

Dodd · 27-01-2012 12:12am

alphaadam wrote: »

I sent TD Sherlock a letter in which I suggested he watch this very insightful and truthful you tube video about the real truth behind SOPA in the USA and consequently elsewhere in the world.

I would strongly recommend that all the board users look at this video too. If only to discover the deceit, lies, manipulation, false power and greed of the people behind these laws

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea-j499o5dc&feature=youtu.be

Now you know the truth

Do something else about it. I hope TD Sean Sherlock enjoys watching the video.

Kind regards

People of Ireland

What he says might be true but he comes across as a raving loony.

ResearchWill · 27-01-2012 12:12am

Citizen_Kane wrote: »

The potential abuse of the law is THE key argument.

Let me illustrate:

Gutenberg did not invent the printing press. He navigated the politics of the time by getting the German church to fund his moveable type innovation he stole from the Chinese. In return the church got to economically distribute the bible to the masses and woo them away from the mystical bonds which held them to their medieval masters.

By the time the European powers of the time had caught up with what is happening many 'pirate' presses were not printing bibles, but till then handwritten, proprietary works of knowledge which had until then only been accessible to the monied at a hefty fee. These were located on the German border, outside the juristiction of the church which had a patent interest on this moveable type thing they had invested in.

An organised, pan european, violent crackdown then began - and failed. Enter the enlightenment.

No disrepect, but looking at this through legal eyes and respect for centuries old copyright law principles which now protect corporations more than creators is to miss the point that we live in revolutionary times and the internet is an instrument of progress, freedom and enlightenment.

Don't **** with it.

If you read one of my earlier posts, I make the very point you do in relation to IP, I used the example of the world wide web, e-mail and unix as examples of the principles of open free exchange of knowledge. If I did not make it clear I will now my own view is that strict copyright can cause stagnation. But that is not what this is about this is, in relation to this SI, in light of the jurisprudence of the Irish Courts in relation to injunctions, in light of the EU law in the directive, is this law a bad law. I have seen no valid argument to say it is.

Now if you want a iscussion about IP that's a different issue.

stagolee · 27-01-2012 12:13am

Meteoric wrote: »

I again ask you, apart from quoting what I have said without addressing the question, what can be gained from rushing an SI through without any consideration will do apart from create bad law? You have not presented any argument to explain how the law that is about to be enacted will not cause the problems that have been outlined by people that work in the field. My sense is that the people who run boards want to enforce copyright have been doing so but the law as written will cause them major difficulty. Why not talk to the stake holders work out something that might work and enact that?
Avoid all the lawsuits and all, because the sites like boards who try to do the right thing will be the ones being injuncted not the pirates because they do try to respect copyright but cant monitor every post

I agree with this, i'm hardly a legal expert in any way and my impression on reading about the proposed law (that it is a very bad thing) may be wrong.
However the important thing which i think we should all agree on is that the law IS very significant and will affect some businesses based in this country. Should it not then be given proper consideration instead of quickly bundled in the back door so to speak?

Niall0001 · 27-01-2012 12:13am

alphaadam wrote: »

I sent TD Sherlock a letter in which I suggested he watch this very insightful and truthful you tube video about the real truth behind SOPA in the USA and consequently elsewhere in the world.

I would strongly recommend that all the board users look at this video too. If only to discover the deceit, lies, manipulation, false power and greed of the people behind these laws

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea-j499o5dc&feature=youtu.be

Now you know the truth

Do something else about it. I hope TD Sean Sherlock enjoys watching the video.

Kind regards

People of Ireland

Unbelievable & shocking it only has 74 views. Anyone with even the slightest interest in the topic of this thread should watch this. Scumbags.

DeVore · 27-01-2012 12:14am

Deleted User wrote: »

Think about the impact of those subsections on an operation like boards.ie for a minute.

boards.ie provides a facility (this message board) that enables people (us) to make available to the public (anyone reading) copies of a work. But subsection 3 says that this does not mean that boards.ie is making copies of the work available to the public. So boards.ie is not breaking the rules by running the board.

Someone posts something on boards that is a breach of copyright. Under subsection 4, the owner of the work has the right to notify boards.ie that this has happened. If boards.ie don't remove the copyright material as soon as practicable, they'll be liable for the breach. Now it doesn't say this, but by definition it means that if boards.ie do remove the copyright material, they won't be liable for the breach.

Why are these subsections relevant? Because if I own a copyright, my right to seek an injunction against boards.ie (or anyone else) is without prejudice to those subsections. If I want my injunction, I can't get it just by saying that people can put copyright stuff on boards.ie - because subsection 3 doesn't allow for that. I have to show that people actually did put copyright stuff on boards.ie, that I asked for it to be removed, and that it wasn't.

What's wrong with that?

If thats what this law enshrined. I'd sign up to it. Its what we do for defamation at the moment anyway.

Our advice is that its very unclear what it says and it doesnt seem to be that.

I'm going to bed, I've had an unsurprisingly knackering day.

oscarBravo · 27-01-2012 12:16am

ResearchWill wrote: »

There is nothing stopping you going to the High Court and representing yourself.

I'm a business owner. I'm a software developer. I'm a hacker and a nerd and a pretty bright guy in many respects.

What I'm not is a barrister, and - with the greatest of respect - if I represent myself in the High Court against a highly-paid and learned Senior Council, I'm going to lose, and I'm probably going to be lumped with the legal costs of the person bringing the injunction.

Or maybe I won't - but there's a chance I might, and being hit with the costs of just one such case would put me permanently out of business. I can't afford the risk of losing a High Court challenge, so I'm not going to challenge one.

Which leaves me in a difficult position if I'm served with an injunction that is next to impossible, or at least difficult and time-consuming. I have to weigh up the cost of complying with it - including the potential for loss of business - against the possible cost of challenging the injunction in court. It's a lose-lose situation for me.

There is nothing stopping you showing that it is impossible to do what is requested.

...and nothing stopping opposing council from claiming that it's possible. If the judge agrees with them, I'm faced with what I still consider an impossible task, and quite likely legal costs as well.

In any injunction the court must weigh up competing rights. They do it all the time, say in family law proceedings the couple are separating, one party gets a windfall and wins a million in the lotto, but she is moving the money out of Ireland, well then the other party may seek an injunction to stop that. Now that person must give an undertaking as to damages.

It's not a comparable case. As the party served with the injunction, I don't stand to gain a million euros by winning. I have nothing whatsoever to gain; just various different possibilities of losing.

The court can not order the impossible, judges are getting more savy about the Internet, I can assure you if this law is abused, if each person who signed the petition only gave a few euro you would be able to fight the injunction.

I don't want to have to fight the injunction. I don't want there to be an injunction.

The existing Act spells out quite clearly that an injunction may be sought against someone who is making copyrighted material available to the public without the owner's permission, requiring that it be removed. The remedy is clear: remove the material from public availability.

This is straightforward. EMI tell YouTube that a video on their website breaches their copyright; YouTube remove the video.

By contrast, the proposed amendment sets no parameters - none whatsoever - on the injunctive relief that a copyright owner can seek against me. They can demand that I block a website from all my customers; that I prevent specific customers from using my services; that I block certain types of content. This is the nub of the complaint - unlike the existing law, there is no limit to what a copyright owner can ask of me.

It's all very well to claim that I can fight the injunction in court, but if I have to travel to the High Court, I've already lost - and I didn't even do anything wrong.

KERSPLAT! · 27-01-2012 12:19am

No. 55003
Signed and will pass on the word

ResearchWill · 27-01-2012 12:19am

DeVore wrote: »

Every time you say "High Court" or "Judge" or "Case" I hear "10-30,000 euro". (I'm glad you are paying our bills on this from now on )

But seriously, we were dragged into a legal battle in the North this year and an hour of Senior Counsels time was 5,000 euro. One hour, 5 grand.

that was for ONE post in the mixed martial arts forum. We cant afford this. No one can.

I know the highest paid SC's in the republic and none of them get 5k an hour or anything near it. The most expensive solicitors firm charges 750 an hour, in my opinion a rip off but if a person wants to pay it well fairs do.

I can promise you, if any large company over steps the mark a line of lawyers will form on a no fould no fee basis to take the case, as in light of previous cases and the ECJ they will win and I would like nothing better than EMI paying my bill in that case.

Sponge Bob · 27-01-2012 12:21am

Sledgehammers and nuts come to mind. There should be an arbitration/takedown escrow process first and with legals to follow if that is unsatisfactory.

It could be done with a simple website. The Megacontent Corp requests that Drumsnot Community Council take down that Shrek clip on their website sort of stuff.

If Drumsnot Community Council are non compliant then perhaps High Court.

meglome · 27-01-2012 12:24am

ResearchWill wrote: »

I can promise you, if any large company over steps the mark a line of lawyers will form on a no fould no fee basis to take the case, as in light of previous cases and the ECJ they will win and I would like nothing better than EMI paying my bill in that case.

Can I have that in writing?

Meteoric · 27-01-2012 12:27am

ResearchWill wrote: »

I know the highest paid SC's in the republic and none of them get 5k an hour or anything near it. The most expensive solicitors firm charges 750 an hour, in my opinion a rip off but if a person wants to pay it well fairs do.

I can promise you, if any large company over steps the mark a line of lawyers will form on a no fould no fee basis to take the case, as in light of previous cases and the ECJ they will win and I would like nothing better than EMI paying my bill in that case.

Have court cases? Why not just make good law that will probably still be challenged but by fewer people at less cost? Can Sean Sherlock show us his wording is based on legislation that is effective in other European countries and has held up in court there?

27-01-2012 12:29am

DeVore wrote: »

If thats what this law enshrined. I'd sign up to it. Its what we do for defamation at the moment anyway.

Our advice is that its very unclear what it says and it doesnt seem to be that.

I'm going to bed, I've had an unsurprisingly knackering day.

I have to say (speaking as a layman) that it does look as if that's what the Order is doing - or at least trying to do.

But if it isn't clear, then that can be fixed by making it more obvious that the new subsection 5A is without prejudice to the existing subsections 3 and 4, and by making it clear that the injunction sought must be:-

(i) for the removal of the copyrighted material;

and

(ii) subject to the copyright owner having followed the notice procedures provided for in subsection 4.

My reading is that the courts will do this anyway, but if there's any fear that they won't then the above change would make sure that they have to - and that would pretty much put the kibosh on anyone who thought they could chance their corporate arm with threats of nuisance injunction applications.

ResearchWill · 27-01-2012 12:31am

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm a business owner. I'm a software developer. I'm a hacker and a nerd and a pretty bright guy in many respects.

What I'm not is a barrister, and - with the greatest of respect - if I represent myself in the High Court against a highly-paid and learned Senior Council, I'm going to lose, and I'm probably going to be lumped with the legal costs of the person bringing the injunction.

Or maybe I won't - but there's a chance I might, and being hit with the costs of just one such case would put me permanently out of business. I can't afford the risk of losing a High Court challenge, so I'm not going to challenge one.

Which leaves me in a difficult position if I'm served with an injunction that is next to impossible, or at least difficult and time-consuming. I have to weigh up the cost of complying with it - including the potential for loss of business - against the possible cost of challenging the injunction in court. It's a lose-lose situation for me. ...and nothing stopping opposing council from claiming that it's possible. If the judge agrees with them, I'm faced with what I still consider an impossible task, and quite likely legal costs as well. It's not a comparable case. As the party served with the injunction, I don't stand to gain a million euros by winning. I have nothing whatsoever to gain; just various different possibilities of losing. I don't want to have to fight the injunction. I don't want there to be an injunction.

The existing Act spells out quite clearly that an injunction may be sought against someone who is making copyrighted material available to the public without the owner's permission, requiring that it be removed. The remedy is clear: remove the material from public availability.

This is straightforward. EMI tell YouTube that a video on their website breaches their copyright; YouTube remove the video.

By contrast, the proposed amendment sets no parameters - none whatsoever - on the injunctive relief that a copyright owner can seek against me. They can demand that I block a website from all my customers; that I prevent specific customers from using my services; that I block certain types of content. This is the nub of the complaint - unlike the existing law, there is no limit to what a copyright owner can ask of me.

It's all very well to claim that I can fight the injunction in court, but if I have to travel to the High Court, I've already lost - and I didn't even do anything wrong.

While the SI sets no limits, other than the court considering informing the person if they think it is necessary. The law around injunctions does set limits. I know that you like others are scared of the law. Just like a lot of lawyers are scared of technology. But fear of the unknown does not always mean the unknown is bad. If my computer starts going funny, and you tell me it's ok I know all about that will have it fixed in a jiffy, I will trust you. You can't promise my computer won't delete all my data, you can't promise my iPhone won't crash at the worst possible time but you can promise that you will do all in your power to fix it. Now I am asking you to put your trust in the High Court, will copyright holders try to abuse this law, ya maybe, as they have tried to abuse many laws in the past, but if we look at cases like the copyright trolls in the US we see how they usually come to a sticky end.

I know injunctions, I move them all the time and some of them very serious, I know how judges hate giving blanket power to one party ex parts, again I just mention the recent case of the guy last week who took multiple injunctions. It's funny over the last 40 year tech and the law have had a funny relationship, but you know they are working it out.

bigdaddyliamo · 27-01-2012 12:31am

Petition signed, 55200+ so far...

ResearchWill · 27-01-2012 12:33am

meglome wrote: »

Can I have that in writing?

I have already sent my contact details to boards, with the promise, that not only will I act for them if they are unfairly targeted, but I will get a solicitor and SC to do same.

Citizen_Kane · 27-01-2012 12:33am

ResearchWill wrote: »

If you read one of my earlier posts, I make the very point you do in relation to IP, I used the example of the world wide web, e-mail and unix as examples of the principles of open free exchange of knowledge. If I did not make it clear I will now my own view is that strict copyright can cause stagnation. But that is not what this is about this is, in relation to this SI, in light of the jurisprudence of the Irish Courts in relation to injunctions, in light of the EU law in the directive, is this law a bad law. I have seen no valid argument to say it is.

Now if you want a iscussion about IP that's a different issue.

Intellectual property is a diversion that you have now flirted with. To end my discussion with you (ResearchWill) I will submit my closing:

To believe that Sean Sherlock is 100% sure of the completely positive implications of this action is to still believe, as we were told, that there is no bailout.

I hope that you are as sure about the soundness of it as your resilience in arguing the legal validity. I am convinced of it's legal validity.

Just because it is legally valid does not make it prudent, wise or necesary. The only entity to stand to benefit by it is the entertainment industry. The interests of the Irish People needs representation too. This is due democratic process - not legal process.

As they say - the law is an ass.

Goodnight

oscarBravo · 27-01-2012 12:34am

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to say (speaking as a layman) that it does look as if that's what the Order is doing - or at least trying to do.

But if it isn't clear, then that can be fixed by making it more obvious that the new subsection 5A is without prejudice to the existing subsections 3 and 4, and by making it clear that the injunction sought must be:-

(i) for the removal of the copyrighted material; ...

The amendment deals explicitly with intermediaries; in other words, ISPs.

As an ISP, I can't remove copyrighted material. I don't have it to remove. It's not on my equipment.

It passes through my equipment on the way from the party hosting it to the party downloading it. This amendment allows for an injunction against me... but what effect will that injunction have? The SI doesn't say, which means the copyright holder gets to decide, uncircumscribed by law. That's my problem.

skelliser · 27-01-2012 12:38am

a solicitor is represented in the high court by a barrister.
so thats not only the solicitors fee but the barristers fee which is substantially more then a solicitors.
Hence the figure of 30,000 euro to challenge the injunction.

An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

Comments