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

ACTA - International SOPA, Ireland & EU signed 26th Jan

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    RichardAnd wrote: »
    People like you are never listened to, not until it's too late. :(

    Posted two years ago in Digital Rights. It only got one response.
    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Illegal downloaders will be sent a warning e-mail, then a letter if they continue, and finally must appear before a judge if they offend again.

    The judge can impose a fine, or suspend their access to the internet.

    This will inevitably spread throughout the rest of the EU through ATCA.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8436745.stm

    Also.
    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    I could possibly see that being appealed as it is full of holes and could be a possible attack on our freedom of speech and expression.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63743393


  • Options
    #153
    Tolerz
    Registered Users Posts: 21 ✭Tolerz


    i was wondering can you be prosecuted for privous downloads, my friend downloads sometime illegally but not all the time , im concerned for him, thanks


  • Options
    #154
    Ciaran500
    Registered Users Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Posted two years ago in Digital Rights. It only got one response.

    But you also posted stuff like this two years ago: Pakistan flooding and Moscow Droughts: Deliberate or not?


  • Options
    #155
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Here is an interesting story that shows you can't trust these companies with massive influence to just throw accusations around.

    http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/01/28/universal-music-group-youtube-copyright-enforcement-gone-wrong/


  • Options
    #156
    nacho66
    Registered Users Posts: 175 ✭✭nacho66


    why do you people write about "Ireland's SOPA" if it's a document called ACTA that affects EU countries. And it's ACTA that was signed last Thursday. SOPA was a treaty that applied to US


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    The 'Irish SOPA' is a law specific to Ireland that Sean Sherlock is attempting to bring into force, which will allow copyright holders to seek injunctions against ISPs to block websites hosting or linking to copyrighted material.

    It indeed has nothing to do with SOPA in US, it has just been dubbed the 'Irish SOPA' because that is a useful way to put across it's importance (as it is analogous to the US SOPA, in some of its negative implications on the Internet).


  • Options
    #158
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    The 'Irish SOPA' is a law specific to Ireland that Sean Sherlock is attempting to bring into force, which will allow copyright holders to seek injunctions against ISPs to block websites hosting or linking to copyrighted material.

    Sean Sherlock is seeking to bring in a regulation to ensure that a law already democratically decided on is given correct legal effect.


  • Options
    #159
    timbyr
    Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭timbyr


    View wrote: »
    Sean Sherlock is seeking to bring in a regulation to ensure that a law already democratically decided on is given correct legal effect.

    Which law has already been democratically decided on?


  • Options
    #160
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    View wrote: »
    Sean Sherlock is seeking to bring in a regulation to ensure that a law already democratically decided on is given correct legal effect.
    The law he is saying requires him to bring in this 'regulation' (which btw, will open up blocking of websites, which is not possible now), is one which was voted in by the EU parliament, and which (I believe) member countries have their own discretion on how to implement it.

    As far as I know, no (or very few) member states have implemented it in quite the way Sherlock is about to; website blocking and similar laws are a hot topic all over Europe, as far as controversy goes.
    EDIT: Plus, I wouldn't call attempting to introduce this law without debate (which he is only easing to lessen the harm on his reputation and give the appearance of fairness), a sign of democracy.

    Also, back to the topic at hand, ACTA: Sherlock has been representing Ireland in the ACTA negotiations, and ACTA has been negotiated in absolute secrecy with no public debate at all, and they signed it last Thursday without consulting anyone; that's democracy for you.


  • Options
    #161
    timbyr
    Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭timbyr


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    The law he is saying requires him to bring in this 'regulation' (which btw, will open up blocking of websites, which is not possible now), is one which was voted in by the EU parliament, and which (I believe) member countries have their own discretion on how to implement it.

    As far as I know, no (or very few) member states have implemented it in quite the way Sherlock is about to; website blocking and similar laws are a hot topic all over Europe, as far as controversy goes.
    EDIT: Plus, I wouldn't call attempting to introduce this law without debate (which he is only easing to lessen the harm on his reputation and give the appearance of fairness), a sign of democracy.

    Also, back to the topic at hand, ACTA: Sherlock has been representing Ireland in the ACTA negotiations, and ACTA has been negotiated in absolute secrecy with no public debate at all, and they signed it last Thursday without consulting anyone; that's democracy for you.

    I should have been clearer.
    I was asking what directive he was referring to specifically as Sean Sherlocks proposed amendments to the current legislation could contravene Article 43 of DIRECTIVE 2000/31/EC where:
    A service provider can benefit from the exemptions for of electronic contracts is to be implemented in conformity ‘mere conduit’ and for ‘caching’ when he is in no way with legal requirements for contracts enshrined in Com- involved with the information transmitted; this requires munity law. among other things that he does not modify the information that he transmits; this requirement does not cover manipulations of a technical nature which take place in the course of the transmission as they do not alter the integrity of the information contained in the transmission

    I have yet to see sufficient argument showing that the current draft will protect providers and users from frivolous injunctions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    timbyr wrote: »
    Which law has already been democratically decided on?

    Well, in this particular case, it is the "Copyright Directive" or - to give it its formal title "DIRECTIVE 2001/29/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society".

    That was supposed to have been fully transposed into domestic law as of the end of 2002 but a recent High Court case pointed the Oireachtas had essentially assumed part of it was rather than explicitly spelling it out.

    Hence the reason why Sean Sherlock is bringing in the regulation to fix this oversight.

    Relevant part of the directive reads:
    Sanctions and remedies

    ...

    3. 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.

    And intermediaries do include ISPs.

    There is also another directive - the "eCommerce Directive" (2000/31/EC) -which gives ISPs some defence but even that allows for injunctions also and in the High Court case the judge was very unimpressed with the defendant's - UPC - efforts in the case concerned.


  • Options
    #163
    timbyr
    Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭timbyr


    View wrote: »
    Well, in this particular case, it is the "Copyright Directive" or - to give it its formal title "DIRECTIVE 2001/29/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society".

    That was supposed to have been fully transposed into domestic law as of the end of 2002 but a recent High Court case pointed the Oireachtas had essentially assumed part of it was rather than explicitly spelling it out.

    Hence the reason why Sean Sherlock is bringing in the regulation to fix this oversight.

    Relevant part of the directive reads:



    And intermediaries do include ISPs.

    There is also another directive - the "eCommerce Directive" (2000/31/EC) -which gives ISPs some defence but even that allows for injunctions also and in the High Court case the judge was very unimpressed with the defendant's - UPC - efforts in the case concerned.

    You seem to be missing the point. I did not say that legislation did not need to be brought up to date but that the proposed amendments do not strike a fair balance between ISP liabilities, users privacy and IP holders rights.

    Also the High Court ruling is something I have a lot of issue with.
    I believe that Judge Charleton was very much out of his depth on the matter and proposed solutions were contrary to existing EU directives, and ran almost counter to the findings and decisions by the ECJ, who upheld that a very similar injunction was not proportionate to restrict the ISPs right to business and users privacy in such a manner.


  • Options
    #164
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    timbyr wrote: »
    You seem to be missing the point. I did not say that legislation did not need to be brought up to date but that the proposed amendments do not strike a fair balance between ISP liabilities, users privacy and IP holders rights.

    The important point is that the Minister is presumably seeking to implement the law as - based on legal advice - he understands it should be implemented.
    timbyr wrote: »
    Also the High Court ruling is something I have a lot of issue with.
    I believe that Judge Charleton was very much out of his depth on the matter and proposed solutions were contrary to existing EU directives, and ran almost counter to the findings and decisions by the ECJ, who upheld that a very similar injunction was not proportionate to restrict the ISPs right to business and users privacy in such a manner.

    No doubt there will be many more court judgments before the respective rights are clarified and as the laws change in light of these judgments and/or prevailing political opinion at the time. The fact that we agree or disagree with a particular judgment should not be used as a basis to disparage the presumably sincere efforts of a judge to carry out his duty.


  • Options
    #165
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Crosspost:
    Brilliant article, which highlights the bigger picture dangers of these copyright laws/treaties; particularly ACTA:
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/01/guest-post-acta-%E2%80%9Cwould-usurp-congressional-authority%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%9Cthreatens-numerous-public-interests%E2%80%9D-a-%E2%80%9Cbackroom-special-interest-deal%E2%80%9D-a-%E2%80%9Cmasquera.html

    It focuses on the US, but what happens in the US is the same as what eventually happens in Europe and the rest of the world as well; that is a must-read, as it portrays the broader issues behind these laws/treaties very well (in fact, it's one of the first articles I've read which do so in such a thorough way).


  • Options
    #166
    Spacedog
    Registered Users Posts: 1,775 ✭✭✭Spacedog


    I got me an e-mail from Jim Higgins MEP

    Many thanks for your email in relation to ACTA.



    I was involved in the debate on ACTA. I am fully aware of the importance of the digital economy to Ireland, however, I believe there are a number of misunderstandings in relation the impact ACTA will have on it.



    ACTA will not change EU law. It is about enforcing the existing rules and giving the holders of intellectual property rights the tools to pursue their right should they be confronted with large-scale counterfeits. Everybody who holds an intellectual property (IP) right, from the wine producer to the owner of entertainment software, will be able to count on common rules regarding the way they can complain with the authorities and how a complaint is dealt with. However, ACTA does not push the balance of rights towards IP right-holders. It fully respects free Internet and safeguards the role of service providers, as well as of the European system of copyright exceptions. The European regime of conditional exemption of liability for Internet operators, but also the European exceptions like private or educational use, will remain valid and unchanged. Respect for fundamental rights such as, privacy, freedom of expression and data protection is enshrined as a basic principle of the agreement and provisions in this regard are clearly stated in the text.



    There also seems to be a misunderstanding in relation to how the ACTA agreement was negotiated. The text of ACTA is publicly available to all. The negotiations were not different from negotiations on any other international agreement. It is a fact that such agreements are not negotiated in public, but with the Lisbon Agreement and the revised Framework Agreement there are clear rules on how the Parliament should be informed of such trade negotiations. These have been followed. The European Commissioner for Trade (Karl De Gucht) participated in three Parliament debates, and replied to several written and oral questions, as well to two Resolutions and one Declaration of the Parliament, whilst Commission services have provided several dedicated briefings to MEPs during the negotiations.



    In relation to how ACTA may affect access to affordable medicines in the developing world, there are no provisions in ACTA that could directly or indirectly affect the trade in generic medicines or global public health. The Commission has consulted on a number of occasions in the course of the last two years with public health stake-holders and NGOs, as well as with companies and associations producing generics and even with representatives of countries like Brazil and India, to ensure that ACTA would not impact on the access to affordable medicines for developing countries.



    I hope this reply is of assistance to you.



    Regards,

    Jim Higgins MEP and Quaestor
    European Parliament
    ASP 13 E 102, Rue Wiertz,
    B - 1047 Bruxelles
    Tel: +32.2.28.37.84.3
    Fax: +32.2.28.49.84.3

    Frankly I'm lost for words. May as well be talking to the wall with these pricks.


  • Options
    #167
    Spacedog
    Registered Users Posts: 1,775 ✭✭✭Spacedog


    My reply, think I'll get an answer that's not a copy/paste from a lobbyists handbook? ...me neither.
    Hi Joe,


    Can you clear up my misunderstanding further please...


    Can you tell me where ACTA protects the re-sale of intellectual property.


    For example, if I buy a book or a video game, or a song on CD/DVD/paper, or a real item, like a car or television.

    I can use the property, and then sell it on the free market, second hand, or I can give it to a friend, if I choose to do so.


    In the case of intellectual property, after I buy a track on itunes, or a book on kindle, or a game on Steam/xbox live.

    I don't own it, I merely have license to use it. it has essentially has no resale value. The idea that IP have more rights

    than physical property seems bizarre to me. Maybe I'm old fashioned though.

    Was this line of thinking considered during your involvement in the negotiation of ACTA, and if so, what provisions for the

    consumer rights of the legal, paying, consumer of IP products and services are enshrined in the treaty?


  • Options
    #168
    BogMonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭BogMonkey


    I'm feeling crippled here, I'm a chemistry student and know absolutely nothing about politics or the legal system. I want to do my part to oppose ACTA and the scum behind it. I'm in north Dublin, I've heard I should contact my "local representative" but how do I find out who my local representative is?


  • Options
    #169
    Vunderground
    Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭Vunderground


    I wonder how this will be monitored. When will they start keeping an eye on what people are downloading? Or will they simply block some of the better know sites?


  • Options
    #170
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Highly recommend people check this information I discovered on US influence over other countries copyright laws:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76879109


  • Options
    #171
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Apparently, this person sent in a request for documents, where the EU requested legal advice on ACTA, and got the results back the other day:
    ACTA-spring_is_over-225x300.jpg
    http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1137

    What makes this even more silly, is the documents were already publicly released.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Serephucus
    Registered Users Posts: 7,179 ✭✭✭Serephucus


    Just read through a good chunk of this thread. I'd have to agree with nesf's points in particular. For me, it's not a money thing, so much as a convenience thing. I buy all of my games on Steam because it's easy, it's where I go for to play my games anyway, and when the sales come around, it's cheap. If there was a TV version (that was actually good) I'd be all over it.


  • Options
    #173
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Current delays on signing (Friday 10th):
    Germany has halted signing a controversial anti-piracy accord, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Acta), after the justice ministry voiced concerns.

    A foreign ministry spokesperson told AFP that the delay was to "give us time to carry out further discussions".

    Latvia put off ratification on Friday. Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have already delayed the process.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #174
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    Looks like Bulgaria aren't going to sign it.

    Does it need to be ratified by all member states for it to take effect?


  • Options
    #175
    BogMonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭BogMonkey


    Doesn't look like the Netherlands doesn't want to ratify it either:
    http://gamepolitics.com/2012/02/15/dutch-parliament-refuses-ratify-acta
    This is all pretty clear evidence protests really do have an impact. I used to think these kind of protests were pointless but I see now I was wrong.


  • Options
    #176
    me-skywalker
    Registered Users Posts: 3,339 ✭✭✭me-skywalker


    Did this get signed last night?


  • Options
    #177
    Spacedog
    Registered Users Posts: 1,775 ✭✭✭Spacedog


    me-skywalker wrote: »
    Did this get signed last night?

    No, the Copyright SI was signed this week by Sean Sherlock.

    ACTA was signed also by Sean Sherlock on behalf of Ireland in Tokyo, Japan on Thursday 26th January.

    Edit: This was actually signed by the Irish Ambassador to Japan, Mr. John Neary, not Sean Sherlock.


  • Options
    #178
    European Parliament
    Registered Users Posts: 3 ✭European Parliament


    Friday, 15 June at 3.00p.m.
    About the Speech:
    In this meeting jointly organised by the IIEA and the European Parliament Office in Ireland, Scottish MEP David Martin will be outlining the nature of the debate within the European Parliament on the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), an international trade agreement aimed at tackling violations of Intellectual Property Rights. David Martin is the European Parliament's rapporteur on ACTA, on which it will be voting in July. Several EP committees have already recommended its rejection and, if the Parliament as a whole does not give its consent, the entire EU would have to stay out of the agreement.
    Please note the later than usual time of this event.
    About the Speaker:
    David Martin is a member of the European Parliament Committee on International Trade, as well as a member of the Committee on Human Rights and a substitute member on the Constitutional Affairs Committtee. He was also Vice Chairman of the Socialist Group in 1987, Vice President of the European Parliament for five years, from 1989, and subsequently Senior Vice President of the European Parliament with special responsibility for relations with national parliaments and parliaments of constitutional regional committees.
    Location: Institute of European and International Affairs, 8 North Great Georges Street, Dublin 1
    Tel +353-1-8746756 Fax +353-1-8786880
    To register, please reply by email to reception@iiea.com, stating you wish to attend the [Martin] event.


  • Options
    #179
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    Are we for or against this I am not big into Intellectuals they are often boring and can argue for and against the same subect with equal versity and Property has a bad name in Ireland with out giving it rights as well.

    As a MEP he is on the gravey train as well maybe.

    In other words what the f##k is it about.





  • Options
    #180
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    ACTA is pretty much dead in the water in European terms... this speech is about 3 months too late unless they're trying to reinvigorate it.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement