An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

VinLieger

skelliser wrote: »

Polish MP's in a debate today on ACTA.



http://blogs.wsj.com/photojournal/2012/01/26/photos-of-the-day-jan-26-2/?mod=google_news_blog

I would be so proud to be polish from this picture even if they werent wearing the masks it shows they are competant enough to understans the issue at hand and actually bother attaend a metting.
When did it become acceptible in Irish politics to just not bother attending sittings of the dail when its your job to do so?

ResearchWill

Jev/N wrote: »

Directives aren't required to be enacted word for word and give Members States some leeway in customising it within the bounds of the Directive. They are not enacted by way of SI, usually or at all AFAIK.

European Regulations are different and this may be what you have experienced. They are brought in word for word and by means of an implementing SI - however, all that does is say that the Regulation applies here.

In this instance, the CRRA 2000 existed before the various European Directives and was thought to be in line with them when the Directives were issued. There were further amending Acts in '04 and '07.

Directives are implemented by SI, example the free movement directive was brought in by SI, then another SI to amend it due to Ireland implementing it incorrectly as decided in the metock case.

SI here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/si/0656.html

Jev/N

Deleted User wrote: »

It does rather look as if he is taking the lazy option, doesn't it?

He sure is.

As I slightly alluded to above, Directives by their very nature are vague so as to allow the Member State to fill in the gaps in what way they want to interpret the Directive.

In this case, the Minister is taking Art 8.3 and pasting into the Act with little or no innovation on his part which, as we know, leaves us with the uncertainty of the impact this legislation could have depending on the judge who hears the injunctive proceedings.

BlueSmoker

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?

Which is very true but you are quote already enforced laws and if I gave credit to the oringal work it would also be under the "fair deal" clause. So why do we need new laws or should I say a more enpowering law to the ones who have the funds to see through the onsult of legal battles a head.

The weakest will fall, which means bloggers, small forums, any source of information. Did you know most emails you receive from your friends are within copyright infringment and if you forward them on so are you????

Lets take a look at why this is happening, shall we, lets look at music

About 70 (1940's) years ago recording artists became commerical, Pop was invented, (music that appealed to the masses (like ford created the car for the masses) The beat generation

About 60 years ago (1950's) technology became cheaper, and innovators used it to mix race music (rock n roll) also jazz and blues became more apprieciated

About 50 years ago (1960's) technology and communication started to go in free fall, due to the introduction in many house holds of the television, Prog Rock and Heavy Rock became the norm

About 40 years ago (1970's) due to television, part of the culture of music was fashion, Punk, Disco and Glam Rock where the infusion, also the introduction of the cassette record allowed people to intimatly share their love of music

About 30 years ago (1980's) Punk rock died, Manufactured POP was huge, cassettes where used as a form to communicate music ideals, CD was invented

About 20 years ago (1990's) Artists started to produce stuff on a regional bases, but also on the stuff they had being listening to for years eg Manchester scene, House music, even the Irish scene saw it in 1991 A&R men all over the shop, CD and Vinyl sold in equal amouts, cassettes where still they way most musician expressed ideas. Internets worth was noticed big time

About 10 years ago (2000's) Music became anything, no one cared about genre, artists experimented at home in creating their own music with the techology, CD killed Vinyl, Mp3 technolgy replaced cassettes, music was still shared. You tube came about, as did my space, facebook, bebo, twitter and many other social formuns, people started sharing their favoutie songs
through social networking sites. Internet download legally begins big time

About 2 years ago (2010's) the major entertainment, lay state to claim of figures they only produce that CD have lost sales, they are finding no new talent, and the market has gone crazy lets clamp down on with we know best Distribution rights and they only thing they actually really own. Artist are still creating but are distributing it their own way, they are make a good living alot that I know from using the internet and setting up their own label and using the internet to distribute themselves that way.

No wonder the big boys are pissed off, they aren't needed anymore.

This is about Distribution rights not as it says on the tin "Creative content Protection" which it claims to be, as others have pointed out artists aren't for this Big companies who own "Conent distribution rights are" Media content companies

Fionn

this may be somewhat selfish on my behalf,

but what might happen if these people from the record/movie industries move against my ISP? and my ISP decides to just pull out of the internet business in Ireland because it's costing way too much in court cases etc. and all that. Where does that leave me?

probably with a list of usless sub-standard providers and an internet that has the potential of lots of control from within government/EU I do really think that we've already handed over way too much control to faceless puppet masters in the EU already.

where would Boards or any other popular site here in Ireland, stand??? probably eventually be forced to close or curtail so much as to be usless!

this is a potentially huge backward step, the austerity is bad enough but the silence that might result from this would be deafening!!!

I certainly don't like the prospect of major corporations (some of them with a bigger turnover than our little country) making allegations, perhaps even from countries that do not have this sort of law, using unsubstantiated and maybe inadmissible and illegally gained evidence to seek an injunction against an ISP which in the long run may degrade the service to a degree that it might not be useful any longer to be on the world wide web.

someone mentioned Ireland as an e-commerce IT computing HUB more like a Hubcap thats fallen off!!!

:rolleyes:

Jev/N

ResearchWill wrote: »

Directives are implemented by SI, example the free movement directive was brought in by SI, then another SI to amend it due to Ireland implementing it incorrectly as decided in the metock case.

SI here [url][/url]

Apologies, my knowledge of EU law seems to have evaded me this time!

ocallagh

Trying to prevent the spread of copyright infringement (once it is online) is like patching a tsunami with a bandaid. You can block as many sites as you want, but it's the user that spreads the content, not the websites that facilitate it. To try and get at the user by taking down entire websites/communities is just plain ridiculous, and very very lazy.

The real issue should be dealt with properly. The users should be targetted, not the medium. I'd be delighted if ISPs shared IPs of users who download and shared content which was copyrighted.

Yakult

Whats so different from burning GB's of music onto a DVDR's and giving it to all your friends or putting it on a hard drive etc. They might as well ban all those means of sharing while they are on their little power trip...

I can bet that even if they do block websites or what ever they are trying to do, it wont make a damn difference to their gammy sales.

Sherlock is a prick and I hope this back fires on him nicely along with those greedy industries. This whole charade just proves how out of touch and stupid they are.

questionmark?

Signed as a free man with a current right to free speech.

MOH

ResearchWill wrote: »

Now that section currently exists, so your example the person can be sued for damages if your interpertation is right. But the important bit is fails to remove infringing material as soon as practicable thereafter. Remember the above is not a new section, it has been on the books since 2000. The new section 5 (a) adds the ability to the other remedies, already in being, to be able to get injunctive relief. The basic rules in injunctions, the balance lies with the granting the relief, and damages are not an adequate remedy.

What if the same infringing material is repeatedly posted, even after being removed 'reasonably' quickly each time, so that it's effectively almost continually present?
Can this continue indefinitely, or is there a point where the website owner is expected to take additional action to prevent the continual presence of the material?

kris71

VinLieger wrote: »

I would be so proud to be polish from this picture even if they werent wearing the masks it shows they are competant enough to understans the issue at hand and actually bother attaend a metting.
When did it become acceptible in Irish politics to just not bother attending sittings of the dail when its your job to do so?

Trust me non of us is being proud for our government none of them would do a bloody thing if not thousandths of people on the streets of every major city (and a good bit of those smaller ones too) for the last couple of days

here is what our people did to stop them and they still did it anyway, very few will be reelected trust me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8eVOMw50hU

isaos

Site has crashed.

TheZohanS

isaos wrote: »

Site has crashed.

Which site?

BlueSmoker

The only other thing I can add to this is artists generally have an ego the size of most churches, I know I have, most artists will find away around this loop whole, they we share the art or get it seen, heard sometimes even smelt.

and the confidence of a church mouse,

But once moved we are like a very slow heard of bufflo, we graze and watch alright, we just no we aren't that tasty once hunted ( their is a risen for acting differently


I was a paying customer of megaupload, I used it as a safe way to upload videos I took, here in Bray, so that the edit/director could place them in the documentary film we our doing on Bray History, nothing more we are filming in HD and that the best way to communicate the information with each other. Well I guess we will just find another way.

As I said artists will find away to communicate, and it will be completely against EMI and the other media content groups that our inforceing this, you can never tell the general public what to like.

I can broadcast this here because, we own part of the copyright to it, also I have signatures from the other owners to allow me to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiclnzF42cA

It's not that difficult right now within the laws to ensure that any production/song ect is within copyright, most people are on the internet they just forgot to fill out the paper work/email.

ResearchWill

MOH wrote: »

What if the same infringing material is repeatedly posted, even after being removed 'reasonably' quickly each time, so that it's effectively almost continually present?
Can this continue indefinitely, or is there a point where the website owner is expected to take additional action to prevent the continual presence of the material?

The section I quoted is the current law, it is what has existed for the last 12 years. So I ask you has any copyright holder got damages in Ireland against a ISP or forum or other site who has removed material within a reasonable time. I know of none, so if anyone can point at any, then its not this SI we should be fighting but the original Act, which I repeat again is currently on the books and has been since 2000.

Morag

I don't think any of this is Sherlocks own notions, I think he's a paid off patsy.
Really who knew about him before all this?
He'll take one for the party which ever way it falls, he will take the fame and notoriety and what ever else comes on the chin and then a few years later he'll be looked after.
Isn't polly thicks grand?

bobbytables

ResearchWill wrote: »

Remember it was Charlton J. who put a stop to EMI, yes I know parts of the judgement was a bit out there but to be honest lawyers are trying to catch up. Well some anyway.

Indeed many are trying & apologies if I sounded like I was generalizing. The key issue in my eyes is tthat there has always been a broad variety of understanding & perception of the complex nature of the web & its evolution. it appears to be different things to different people & is certainly influenced by levels of exposure & domain knowledge.

What is terrible though is that the power to destroy what has been achieved along with future potential is largely in the hands of individuals that would never be able to contribute themselves in any real way. To them the potential of what is in their hands could never be realized independently, & we'll have to see despite the rampant offers to hand-hold will it even make a difference.

KyussBishop

ResearchWill wrote: »

The section I quoted is the current law, it is what has existed for the last 12 years. So I ask you has any copyright holder got damages in Ireland against a ISP or forum or other site who has removed material within a reasonable time. I know of none, so if anyone can point at any, then its not this SI we should be fighting but the original Act, which I repeat again is currently on the books and has been since 2000.

You put forward a very good argument, which I've been spinning around my head for hours now tonight; my view is, that if such a law were implemented fairly, and treaty fairly in the courts, and was not open to abuse, it may just well be (and I say this pretty grudgingly) a reasonable solution.

From what I can see, it would require these conditions (plus more probably, that I can't think of offhand), to prevent (most) abuse:
1: Blocking websites must be made illegal without injunction, otherwise the threat of an injunction can be used to pressure ISP's into censoring websites

2: The website owners must be given a chance to represent themselves in court against the injunction (due process); it could still go ahead if they refuse though

3: The list of websites must be fully public knowledge, or there is the risk of a secret blacklist being maintained; it must be illegal for any websites to be blocked, without the list being publically published

4: Any costs of implementing the website blocking must be paid for by the copyright holder seeking the injunction (including court fees), to prevent financial difficulties for the ISP

5: The costs of blocking legitimate content must be adequately weighed against the infringing content; tbh, no idea how this would work.


However, for that to work, and not be a threat to free speech, it requires a gigantically unrealistic amount of good faith, and lack of cynicism, in the political/legislative process
(especially in light of the many, much worse, laws trying to be underhandedly brought in all over the world).
Once this law is in place, it is trivial to expand it towards censorship; any future laws looking to censor online content, only need point to this law and the injunctions.

This law would still be the first (and most difficult) step on the slippery slope to greater censorship, after this it's as easy as:
"We block The Pirate Bay but not child porn! We need new laws to blacklist that as well"
Then:
"People can get around the blocks; the public blacklist shows where the child porn is! We need a secret blacklist."

After that, you have a secret blacklist and no control over it, and anything can be silently censored; there is precedent for such a secret blacklist, in Australia a few years ago.

AlmightyCushion

Over 56,000 people have signed the petition. That's more than 1% of the population of the country. That is impressive.

shannon_tek

Has anyone contacted Joe? We could use him. Pity Gerry is not here he would get a story rolling.

Pro. F

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.

That is not nearly a complete or fair representation of the argument that they have put forward.

ResearchWill wrote: »

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.

Well that's great then. The judges and the lawyers will take care of this with some test cases and some press coverage...

Except it isn't great. This amendment is unnecessary and confusing and that is a bad thing. There is no logical need for this to be introduced now. There is no logical need for it to be rushed through, like it is, without proper consultation. There is no legal requirement for the state to choose this method of complying with the EU directive. An unnecessary amendment to law which brings confusion, fear and real risk (to small online businesses and innovation in general and to rights of privacy online) is a bad thing.

The fully functioning internet is massively important to our economy and our rights of freedom. The international perception of how we shape our use of the internet in this country is similarly important. The government is doing it in a cack-handed and lazy way by leaving it wholly up to the courts to transpose the EU directives into Irish law. This is a matter far too important to be left to some judges to decide by interpreting a purposefully vague law.

You may say that it is legally sound. I don't care, legality is merely a tiny part of the issue. You may say that the lawyers will do the right thing and ensure that it is enacted the right way. I don't trust you and I don't trust the lawyers. When it comes to deciding how we are going to use the internet in this country (and how we are going to be perceived, internationally, to do so) I want our elected representatives to be involved in the decision making and interpretations of EU directives and laws. And I want those representatives to listen very closely to what the public have to say on the matter.

Pro. F

Boards.ie: Danny wrote: »

Could be any number of reasons, the blackout notice doesn't appear on touch or mobile (m.boards.ie) or if you have javascript disabled. I checked the full site on my HTC after it went live and while it wasn't the prettiest on a tiny screen it did the job

Ah yes, javascript is probably the issue. I don't go to the m.boards.ie site on my phone so it definitely wasn't that. But I think javascript doesn't work properly on my phone now that you mention it.

CabanSail

Apologies if this has already been raised. I have only read the OP and not the other 26 pages so far.

One thing which annoys me is the hypocrisy of the Recording Industry which drives these sanctions. I am of an age where I bought a LOT of my music when young on Vinyl LP's. Then some items I also bought again on Cassette Tapes to play in the car. Then later some of these titles were again purchased on CD. In the case of Movies originally they were Betamax Tapes and then VHS Tapes before DVD's and now BluRay.

At each of these purchases I have paid for the Licence to play this material and the Royalties. Really the Recording Industry should have had a mechanism to transfer the licence from one format to another and only charge the consumer for the Medium. But no, they quite happily charged us multiple times for the same thing.

Furp

sign and email sent.

skipz

Media999 wrote: »

Idiots at it again

buckfast and cough medicine = the Irish ecomony!

Anyways signed and sent email to the dipsh1t sherlock, shercock or what ever he is called.

He has put a lot of thought into this new law of his, ppppfffftttt!!:rolleyes:

Spudmonkey

CabanSail wrote: »

Apologies if this has already been raised. I have only read the OP and not the other 26 pages so far.

One thing which annoys me is the hypocrisy of the Recording Industry which drives these sanctions. I am of an age where I bought a LOT of my music when young on Vinyl LP's. Then some items I also bought again on Cassette Tapes to play in the car. Then later some of these titles were again purchased on CD. In the case of Movies originally they were Betamax Tapes and then VHS Tapes before DVD's and now BluRay.

At each of these purchases I have paid for the Licence to play this material and the Royalties. Really the Recording Industry should have had a mechanism to transfer the licence from one format to another and only charge the consumer for the Medium. But no, they quite happily charged us multiple times for the same thing.

That is a brilliant point!!

SniperPaddy

Sharrow wrote: »

I don't think any of this is Sherlocks own notions, I think he's a paid off patsy.
Really who knew about him before all this?
He'll take one for the party which ever way it falls, he will take the fame and notoriety and what ever else comes on the chin and then a few years later he'll be looked after.
Isn't polly thicks grand?

Looking at SOPA, PIRA, ACTA etc, if you think there is an unreasonable disconnect going on, consider the money trail:

(1) Telecoms industries want to class & monetise your type of usage
(2) The recording industry is using a clumsy hammer to maintain an outdated business model.
(3) Democratically disproportionate lobby power from the above two.
(4) Governments are using all of this to evolve national borders on your internet access for political & taxation reasons.

Suddenly it all makes sense and when we block one approacht, they try another. We will eventually lose out unless the whole issue is legislated cleanly, once and for all.

Steba

Apologies if this has been posted already, but just got an email in regards to the Governments position on the Bill:

Latest is that your lobbying and political pressure on Sherlock has forced him to have a mini debate on this next Thursday. That is inadequate as it is merely window dressing and we will continue to press for the whole issue to be properly debated and voted on and that the Ministerial order not go ahead pending that and pending proper legislation, with full input from people interested in the issue; to protect intellectual freedom, access to information and sensible measures to protect copyright holders where there is blatant commercial exploitation rather than this hamfisted and potentially dangerous measure as it stands.


Ferris calls for full debate and vote on internet legislation





The Sinn Féin Spokesperson on Communications, Martin Ferris TD has called on the Government to have a full debate in the Dáil on measures governing access to the internet. He was responding to an interview with the Minister responsible Seán Sherlock yesterday which Deputy Ferris said leaves many questions to be answered regarding the implications of the legislation.


Deputy Ferris said: “While the Minister is claiming that he needs to act in order to reflect both a recent Court judgement and two EU directives, he appears to be pretty vague regarding the implications of what he is proposing. Experts in the field are taking a diametrically opposed view to that of the Minister.

“There is understandable fear among both commercial and private users of the internet that this will leave the door open to actions that would severely restrict access to information if copyright holders can secure orders preventing it being made available.

“That would not only represent a significant attack on individual freedom but also a threat to a healthy sector of the Irish economy which has attracted major international players to locate here.

“In the interests of teasing all of this out I am calling on the Government to facilitate a debate and to present legislation that will require approval by the Oireachtas prior to any enactment. That would allow a full debate with meaningful inputs from all interested parties.”

fenris

Decisions are made by people in response to their environment. Sean Sherlock and his cronies did this because because the lobbyists were able to exert more pressure than the citizens of this country. He rightly figures that he will not have to face the country for a period of time sufficient to allow some populist stroke before the next election.

People on this site voted for Sean Sherlock, they say hello to him in the street, they go to the pub with the lobbyists from IRMA etc. Maybe people should consider if they want to subsidise the business interests of these people or even associate with these people on a personal level?

I am not talking about protests outside peoples houses etc. or other such amateur dramatics. Instead act as an individual who has a choice of where you spend what is left of your money, where you spend your time, who you associate with. Leave them to their Nuremberg defense of "I was only following orders"

Go to the next shop, garage, creches etc., unfriend them, unlike them and instead choose to associate with people who are not involved in stroke politics and backdoor deals, the country is not so small that you need to associate with such persons without an active choice on your part.

No hysteria, no drama, just politely turn away, leave them to each other as they obviously value each other more that they do the citizens of this country.

JJDoherty

Hi all, just off the phone to minister of state Sean Sherlock's office, where I registered my concerns regarding the proposed changes to the copyright legislation. I was also assured that I would receive a phone call back from the Labour TD.

I would highly recommend that everyone who is also concerned with the proposed changes to the legislation should do the same to ensure that the gravity of the situation is clearly understood. Contact details here http://www.labour.ie/seansherlock.

Thanks all