Irish Government is set to censor the internet

RATM

Seems like the Irish government is going to issue an order that allows the internet to be censored, at the behest of the music industry. This is only the beginning of online censorship by government, it will be interesting to see how this latest attempt plays out and even more interesting to see the resourceful ways that people will find around it.

Full Article http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1219/1224309259318.html

THE GOVERNMENT is set to tackle illegal downloading of music and films in January by plugging a gap in the Republic’s laws that allows internet users access to sites that “pirate” this material.

Minister of State for Enterprise Seán Sherlock is to publish an order early in the new year that is expected to allow music publishers, film producers and other parties to go to court to prevent internet service providers from allowing their customers access to pirate websites.

The Department of Enterprise, Innovation and Jobs has written to music publisher EMI Ireland confirming the order will be published and incorporated into existing legislation in January. Mr Sherlock also said in a written answer to a parliamentary question that the order, or statutory instrument, would be published next month.

EMI Ireland recently warned the Government that it would take legal action against the State if the Government did not address the problem.

Its chief executive, Willie Kavanagh, is not ruling out going ahead with this if the statutory order does not give companies such as his a clear right to seek court injunctions against internet service providers that allow access to music and video piracy websites.

His company was involved in the High Court case that originally highlighted the loophole in Irish law in October last year.

EMI sought an injunction against UPC, ordering it to block access to websites that allowed illegal downloading. While the court found that EMI’s rights were breached, Mr Justice Peter Charleton pointed out that he could not grant the injunction as the Copyright Act did not provide for this remedy.

And this is the Labour TD who is going to make it happen with a government order in January
http://seansherlock.ie/

D1stant

Oh nooooo!

Enda is going to 'stand down' the Internet

smash

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056488459

FatherLen

so get downloading now people.

later12

Seán Sherlock is to publish an order early in the new year that is expected to allow music publishers, film producers and other parties to go to court to prevent internet service providers from allowing their customers access to pirate websites.

Sounds reasonable.

As much as lots of people enjoy free downloads, a company ought to be perfectly entitled to protect their sales.

Not quite censoring the internet, the government are simply putting a procedure in motion that will allow the courts to decide what is legal and what is not.

magicianz

Tbh I'm hoping Anonymous will see this and get their feathers all a-ruffled about the censorship :P Its not like its going to be hard to get into Irish networks :L

Fishooks12

Not so much censorship as anti-theft

Yet another Government related thread with a highly misleading inflammatory title



Although I will miss my Dvdrips!

Kojak

Fúck off Irish Government.

Seems like thye are going to follow the line of China and North Korea....

Seachmall

Law can't pass. ISPs will tell the courts to Fuck Off.

Brussels, 24 November 2011

The European Internet Services Providers Association

(EuroISPA) welcomes the Court of Justice’s ruling that network providers cannot be required to engage in large scale filtering of all users’ communications.

EuroISPA and its members welcome the Court of Justice’s clarification in the Scarlet extended case that existing EU law preclude network providers from implementing systems for large scale filtering and blocking of users’ electronic communications. This ruling guarantees the protection under EU law of fundamental rights and the freedom of a network provider to conduct its business. Intellectual property rights should be respected but are not inviolable, and disproportionate technical enforcement that infringes on the rights of others is contrary to EU law.

The court ruled that a requiring Internet Service Providers to conduct general filtering of Internet traffic for to prevent copyright infringement is incompatible with the Electronic Commerce Directive and with fundamental rights. Requiring an ISP to install such a complicated, costly computer system at its own expense is a serious infringement of the freedom to conduct business. What is more, such systematic analysis of all content passing through the network undermines both the customers’ right to protection of their personal data and their right to receive and impart information.

The ruling from the Court of Justice of the EU will have serious implications for content blocking systems imposed on ISPs in other Member States, especially where these are also maintained at the ISP’s expense.

“The Internet industry plays a crucial part in connecting European citizens and businesses
to information, news, entertainment, social media, cultural content and other public interest content. This ruling is therefore of fundamental importance for the future of the Internet and the development of a strong Digital Single Market,” said Malcolm Hutty, President of EuroISPA “Considering the major contribution that the Internet industry can make to the economic recovery, it was indeed not the time to put the innovation of the Internet at risk, and it is of fundamental importance for the future of the Internet that the principles reaffirmed in the ruling are respected”, he continued.

- ISPAI

paddyandy

That is about Intellectual Copyright a different matter A l t o g e t h t e r .!!!!!

number10a

This being Ireland, it won't be designed properly anyway so it won't work unless you go to http://www.download-pirate-illegal-music.com/ or such similar blatantly obvious websites.

Chuck Stone

later10 wrote: »

Sounds reasonable.

I believe the death of the concept of intellectual property is inevitable.

The sooner the better imo.

The Internet Explorer

Aaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr !

hooradiation

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I believe the death of the concept of intellectual property is inevitable.

The sooner the better imo.

Yeah, I mean the notion of being able to own and profit from the works you create? Madness, amirite?
I mean, seriously, fuck those guys, making things and expecting to be paid for it.......

Dartz

Jaysus, we're going to need to build a bigger wall so to line all these bastards up against.

Auvers

the horse has long since bolted, this is just silly.

There are way to many places from \newgroups\dropboxes\seedboxes\blogs\etc and other methods of getting illegal data that this sort of probation is just not going to work, its just going to cost the record companies cash in the long run

DB21

Thankfully, THAT METHOD is legal. PB says y'arr.

Chuck Stone

hooradiation wrote: »

Yeah, I mean the notion of being able to own and profit from the works you create? Madness, amirite?
I mean, seriously, fuck those guys, making things and expecting to be paid for it.......

Most people don't partake in something that gives them joy for profit.

Creativity is unlikely to fade with the ending of copyright.

Indeed the internet has allowed talent to flourish while traditional sources are bombarding us with rubbishy boy bands and x-factor manufactured shite.

Roll on the revolution. (it will not be televised).

Liam Byrne

Chronically misleading thread title!

Censoring involves limiting what you say or do.......stopping you breaking the law is - here in the real world - a different topic entirely.

Cathaoirleach

Spineless Eircom have already censored thepiratebay.org

One down, thousands to go. Fn idiots. :rolleyes:

Voodoo_rasher

"And this is the Labour TD who is going to make it happen with a government order in January
http://seansherlock.ie/"

No Sh#t Sherlock!

hooradiation

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Most people don't partake in something that gives them joy for profit.

So?
What does this actually mean, that people who create content ought not to be able to profit from it because you think that they should do it for "the love of it?"
Is that it? Please tell me it's not and you're just not explaining yourself well.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Creativity is unlikely to fade with the ending of copyright.

Didn't say it would, no idea why you'd think to say this.
Doesn't seem to address the question of why you think the concept of intellectual property needs to be "done away with"
Why don't people who make 'creative' things deserve to profit from it?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Indeed the internet has allowed talent to flourish while traditional sources are bombarding us with rubbishy boy bands and x-factor manufactured shite.

Once again, Why do you think this has to do with anything?
I am fucking puzzled as to why you think this is relevant.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Roll on the revolution. (it will not be televised).

What "revolution"?

kincsem

I see the OP is RATM

These people?
Critics have noted Rage Against the Machine for its "fiercely polemical music, which brewed sloganeering leftist rants against corporate America, cultural imperialism, and government oppression into a Molotov cocktail of punk, hip hop, and thrash."
As of 2010, they have sold over 16 million records worldwide.

Nice earner for those guys. They have the faux-activism, tours, break-ups, reunions, projects, farewell tours thing going well.

Enough of this scaremongering already.

AnonoBoy

Remember in the 80's when all those bomb threats were being phoned in to different locations in the North?

Remember how the government successfully stamped them out by suing the phone companies for allowing their service to be used for illegal activity?

The same smart thinking is totally going to solve the problem of online piracy.

charlemont

Ireland...The arse-licking country.:mad:

TheZohanS

It's good that the Government are focusing on the big problems like illegal downloads...god forbid those cretins tackled something like unemployment.

Useless bunch of fùckers.

Chuck Stone

hooradiation wrote: »

So?What does this actually mean, that people who create content ought not to be able to profit from it because you think that they should do it for "the love of it?"

They can profit from it by doing gigs, selling paraphernalia like t-shirts and collectibles. They can request that people pay if they like their work. They can also seek payment on the assurance that more composition will follow.

Copying music is not like stealing in the traditional sense because nothing is being taken. If a TV or Radio program use a song to promote itself then the composer should be remunerated.

Didn't say it would, no idea why you'd think to say this.
Doesn't seem to address the question of why you think the concept of intellectual property needs to be "done away with"
Why don't people who make 'creative' things deserve to profit from it?

In it's current guise intellectual property is stifling creativity and innovation. Look at Microsoft. It has a total stranglehold on the computer software market due to it's state granted privilege in the form of copyright. They've been in court in the US and EU for anti-trust transgressions.

What "revolution"?

The unrestricted transfer of information and media. The internet revolution.

Recently wrinkly millionaire Cliff Richard had copyright laws pushed out from 50 to 75 years (I think) against the wishes of entire countries in the EU.

So effectively you and I pay to protect his privilege.

I'm against privilege.

dlofnep

Torrent sites are not used purely for illegal content. They are also used for genuine content like ISOs for open source operating systems, free games, open source software, etc.. It is a futile exercise - you block one tracker, another will popup. And you certainly can't block a protocol like bittorrent.

Stupid move.

nimrod86

number10a wrote: »

This being Ireland, it won't be designed properly anyway so it won't work unless you go to http://www.download-pirate-illegal-music.com/ or such similar blatantly obvious websites.

it's already begun!!! that sites down!!! the Bástárds!

Kasabian

The liberal use of mis-leading thread titles in AH should be censored.

Giving people the power to protect their product is not censorship.

Seachmall

Kasabian wrote: »

Giving people the power to protect their product is not censorship.

This may be what the law intends but it's not what it will accomplish.

It'll filter websites (whatever websites the entertainment industries decides need to be filtered) which in essence prevents websites publishing their content to an Irish audience, which is censorship.

But, once again, it won't pass. If it does ISPs will simply take it to the European Courts and they'll simply take the same stance they have done in the past; i.e. no internet filtering.

COYW

dlofnep wrote: »

Torrent sites are not used purely for illegal content. They are also used for genuine content like ISOs for open source operating systems, free games, open source software, etc.. It is a futile exercise - you block one tracker, another will popup. And you certainly can't block a protocol like bittorrent.

Stupid move.

Complete agree. Perfectly safe and legal content available for download on those sites. Typical knee jerk nonsense from the powers that be. Someone high up in the music industry must be pally with FG or Labour.

I doubt that it will take too much time to find a way around whatever genial :rolleyes: measures they put in place.

hooradiation

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They can profit from it by doing gigs, selling paraphernalia like t-shirts and collectibles. They can request that people pay if they like their work. They can also seek payment on the assurance that more composition will follow.
Copying music is not like stealing in the traditional sense because nothing is being taken. If a TV or Radio program use a song to promote itself then the composer should be remunerated.

But seeing as you want the concept of intellectual property done away with what onus is there on people to do any of this?
If there is no legal protection for the people who create content, why would anyone pay? The proliferation of pirated material is ample evidence that when offered the opportunity people will simply take what they want and justify it afterwards.
Am I to believe that you expect people to stop that because deep down they're all making a woefully ignorant protest on the concept of intellectual copyright?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In it's current guise intellectual property is stifling creativity and innovation. Look at Microsoft. It has a total stranglehold on the computer software market due to it's state granted privilege in the form of copyright. They've been in court in the US and EU for anti-trust transgressions.

Yeah, you're not going to get anywhere with this argument. It's predicated on a massive lie that Microsoft have some magical stranglehold on the computer software market.
And yet, here I am on a machine with a highly varied mix of programs from various developers, and surrounded by machines running a variety of robust OS's. If it's a stranglehold they have it's a pretty weak one.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The unrestricted transfer of information and media. The internet revolution.

Oh, that.
Here's me thinking you were serious.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Recently wrinkly millionaire Cliff Richard had copyright laws pushed out from 50 to 75 years (I think) against the wishes of entire countries in the EU.

So effectively you and I pay to protect his privilege.

I'm against privilege.

So the solution to you disagreeing with the current setup of copyright laws, presumably based on the idea that wrinkly people ought not to be trusted, is to throw the whole idea out?
What about reforming the laws or is it too much like hard work to think of a solution that might be workable rather than simply castigating the entire system and using that as a cloak of morality to justify theft?

Seachmall

hooradiation wrote: »

It's predicated on a massive lie that Microsoft have some magical stranglehold on the computer software market.[...] If it's a stranglehold they have it's a pretty weak one.

The EU courts disagree.

The hold Microsoft have on the industry may not be as strong as some imagine but it's still a massive one.

hooradiation

Seachmall wrote: »

The EU courts disagree.

The hold Microsoft have on the industry may not be as strong as some imagine but it's still a massive one.

That's the "they bundled WMP with windows" thing, isn't it.

I'm not saying they're fucking saints or anything, but the idea that they've "stifled creativity" as chuck was claiming is a false one - the horrible practice of inflicting windows media player on people not with standing.

Though that decision has lead to the 'N' variants of all microsoft OS's - which cost the same as the regular versions and you almost always end up installing WMP anyway in order to get a hold of certain codecs.... so, yay for the consumer.... I guess?

eilo1

Should probably ban libraries too. . .

eoferrall

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Most people don't partake in something that gives them joy for profit.

Creativity is unlikely to fade with the ending of copyright.

Indeed the internet has allowed talent to flourish while traditional sources are bombarding us with rubbishy boy bands and x-factor manufactured shite.

Roll on the revolution. (it will not be televised).

Same wonderful internet that produced justin beiber? if that is the revolution then count me out - rubbish music is rubbish no matter where it comes from.

Record companies should embrace the web and have the song available for download on a trial basis - if you like you pay, if not you delete. must be a way of doing that easily without too much 'spying' on your computer. like the trail file can only be played 10 times.

This is how I use online music, if i like I buy the actual album (in a sale or something). and I buy more than I used to, paying 20+ for an album and hearing one song of it was too risky in the 'old days' so never bothered as too often I bought album and the single was the only good song.

reward the good artists and no money to crap artists. works for me.

Chuck Stone

hooradiation wrote: »

But seeing as you want the concept of intellectual property done away with what onus is there on people to do any of this?

In it's current guise yes. Read this excerpt by Joseph Stiglitz.

In 1995 the Uruguay round trade negotiations concluded in the establishment of the World Trade Organization, which imposed US style intellectual property rights around the world. These rights were intended to reduce access to generic medicines and they succeeded. As generic medicines cost a fraction of their brand name counterparts, billions could no longer afford the drugs they needed. For example, a year's treatment with a generic cocktail of AIDS drugs might cost $130 (£65; €170) compared with $10 000 for the brand name version.1 Billions of people living on $2-3 a day cannot afford $10 000, though they might be able to scrape together enough for the generic drugs. And matters are getting worse. New drug regimens recommended by the World Health Organization and second line defences that need to be used as resistance to standard treatments develops can cost much more.

http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7582/1279.full

Clearly IP in this situation is immoral and hurting people.

If there is no legal protection for the people who create content, why would anyone pay? The proliferation of pirated material is ample evidence that when offered the opportunity people will simply take what they want and justify it afterwards.

Just about anyone if they try could get their music free but they choose not to. We're still creating millionaire music stars like Lady Gaga and Rihanna in spite of illegal downloading so I don't see how your argument that replacing IP with some other system will result in poverty stricken performers.

So the solution to you disagreeing with the current setup of copyright laws, presumably based on the idea that wrinkly people ought not to be trusted, is to throw the whole idea out?

Alternatives should be explored. IP and Copyright is a state granted privilege.
As I said I'm against privilege.

Eric Cartman

considering id rather wait till a movie was on film4 and record it than pay for a fckin dvd Im technically not costing the industry anything since I was never a customer.


yet another great idea by labour , or green party 2.0 as their known

Sgt. Bilko 09

there so stupid they'll try censor a typewriter

only fine labour are allowed download illegal songs.

Fighting Irish

later10 wrote: »

Sounds reasonable.

As much as lots of people enjoy free downloads, a company ought to be perfectly entitled to protect their sales.

Not quite censoring the internet, the government are simply putting a procedure in motion that will allow the courts to decide what is legal and what is not.

Wait til the list grows over time and you end up like you're living in China

Fighting Irish

hooradiation wrote: »

Yeah, I mean the notion of being able to own and profit from the works you create? Madness, amirite?
I mean, seriously, fuck those guys, making things and expecting to be paid for it.......

Thats fine, i'm not uploading anything to the net that doesn't belong to me, but don't prevent me from access to certain sites

My music budget for the year is now going to the household charge. We have bigger things to worry about then music.

hooradiation

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In it's current guise yes. Read this excerpt by Joseph Stiglitz.
Clearly IP in this situation is immoral and hurting people.

I am interested in how an argument about internet piracy has now moved to an appeal to emotion involving medicine.
How much further do you plan on moving those goalposts?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Just about anyone if they try could get their music free but they choose not to. We're still creating millionaire music stars like Lady Gaga and Rihanna in spite of illegal downloading so I don't see how your argument that replacing IP with some other system will result in poverty stricken performers.

This is, unsurprisingly a non-sequitur. You are advocating, in case you've forgotten, that the very concept of intellectual property should be done away with, not "replacing it with some other system" the complete removal of the very concept of intellectual property
Now, if we enact this plan, what is there to entice people to purchasing content? Or to stop any content they might produce being taken and then mass produced by a third party, effectively cutting the original artist out entirely.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Alternatives should be explored. IP and Copyright is a state granted privilege.
As I said I'm against privilege.

Oh for fucks sake - you're not a damned libertarian, are you?

Chuck Stone

hooradiation wrote: »

Oh for fucks sake - you're not a damned libertarian, are you?

Nope. I like some of their ideas and would like to see more free market principles applied (starting with the top of society rather than the bottom).

As I said I'm anti-privilege.

I have a nasty hangover so I'll come back to this later because at the moment I couldn't be bothered trawling for sources that criticize IP and offer alternatives.

hooradiation

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Nope. I like some of their ideas and would like to see more free market principles applied (starting with the top of society rather than the bottom).

As I said I'm anti-privilege.

I have a nasty hangover so I'll come back to this later because at the moment I couldn't be bothered trawling for sources that criticize IP and offer alternatives.

Take your time, there's no rush.

Chuck Stone

hooradiation wrote: »

Take your time

I will.

bleg

Yup prohibition works so well in all other areas of life, it's obvious that it will work on the internet.

Millicent

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I believe the death of the concept of intellectual property is inevitable.

The sooner the better imo.

Sorry, Chuck but I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you here. I'm a writer and I have had my intellectual property stolen before. I am not privileged in any way. I bust my (proverbial!) balls trying to earn a living off what I enjoy. It sucks massively to have someone then take that work, that is my intellectual property, that I have stressed over, researched, poured a massive amount of energy into, and basically say "nyoink! That's mine now."

Whether someone is earning massively from their creative pursuits or earning a tiny amount is irrelevant; the point is it's theirs to earn on. It's not "privilege" to demand those rights be protected.

You made a point in another post that creative people will still create, even if they are not profiting on it--they won't, at least not if they can't afford to feed themselves because they are having to support themselves with some crap job to finance their passion. What will happen there is that those who don't have the money to be able to afford time to create will stop, and the balance of power will tip creatively to the "haves" and the "have nots" will suffer. People like the boy bands and X Factor pop artists who you despise, will actually be the only ones who will be funded enough to stay creative. Poorer artists, singers, writers etc. be damned.

You wouldn't nick an ornate table or bookshelf from a carpenter and then tell him to sell photos of it if he wants to make a profit, would you? That's basically what you're advising musicians to do in your second post on the matter.

pragmatic1

hooradiation wrote: »

Yeah, I mean the notion of being able to own and profit from the works you create? Madness, amirite?
I mean, seriously, fuck those guys, making things and expecting to be paid for it.......

Musicians make their money through touring, not album sales.

Liam Byrne

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

there so stupid they'll try censor a typewriter

Cues up Alanis Morrisette CD......