An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

Irishdreamer · 01-03-2012 08:09PM

Hi all! I have a quick question. Now that SI has been signed, does it mean that I can no longer download TV shows from torrents? I try to keep up to date with the US storylines. Thanks in advance!

KyussBishop · 01-03-2012 08:18PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

It doesn't cost much to block and occasionally check that the block is still for the correct website.

It doesn't cost much to block and occasionally check that the block is still for the ten correct websites.

It doesn't cost much to block and occasionally check that the block is still for the thousand correct websites... does it?

At what point is it acknowledged that the copyright industry is transferring the entire burden of policing websites onto ISPs?

That's leaving aside the intangible cost that is involved in an ISP breaking the Internet. If a customer sends a packet to an IP address and my router is configured to drop that packet, it's doing something other than its job as a router. It's not routing the packet to its destination; it's routing it to a socio-political goal. There's no RFC for that.

And that's still leaving aside the aesthetic and technical objections to stuffing routers' RIBs with bogus routes.

The whole thing stinks.

On a per-website basis it doesn't cost much, but yes, with a lot of website it does cost a lot more; it's unfair that this burden is put on ISP's, at the very least, the cost should be passed on to rights holders seeking injunctions.

Anyway, my argument in the beginning is not that it's right or fair, I think the blocking is inherently wrong etc.; I am just pointing out that this kind of website blocking is not covered by recent EU court cases, and that it is not as impractical as it is made out to be.

KyussBishop · 01-03-2012 08:20PM

Irishdreamer wrote: »

Hi all! I have a quick question. Now that SI has been signed, does it mean that I can no longer download TV shows from torrents? I try to keep up to date with the US storylines. Thanks in advance!

There's a high enough chance that multiple ISP's will be injuncted, to block The Pirate Bay; other torrent sites may follow.

KyussBishop · 01-03-2012 08:59PM

Emailed Sherlock earlier about the potential of a chilling effect, via ISP's voluntarily blocking websites instead of going through court; got a reply within a few hours surprisingly.
He said "they can't do that", and I should read through the consultation document (presumably this):
http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/crc_statement.htm

I am confused though, I have read through that and there doesn't seem to be any restriction on ISP's voluntarily blocking websites.

Found this list of submissions while at it (going back a year), which contains points made by many organizations, which hit on key issues with current law (some quite informative):
http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/crc_submissions.htm

expectationlost · 01-03-2012 10:21PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Emailed Sherlock earlier about the potential of a chilling effect, via ISP's voluntarily blocking websites instead of going through court; got a reply within a few hours surprisingly.
He said "they can't do that", and I should read through the consultation document (presumably this):
http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/crc_statement.htm

I am confused though, I have read through that and there doesn't seem to be any restriction on ISP's voluntarily blocking websites.

Found this list of submissions while at it (going back a year), which contains points made by many organizations, which hit on key issues with current law (some quite informative):
http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/crc_submissions.htm

but in his dail speech he said voluntary agreements were his preferred solution.

KyussBishop · 01-03-2012 10:32PM

Hmm, maybe the context of what he said to me has a different meaning. Is there a transcript of that Dail speech someplace?

expectationlost · 01-03-2012 10:54PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Hmm, maybe the context of what he said to me has a different meaning. Is there a transcript of that Dail speech someplace?

http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2012-01-31.384.0&s=speaker%3A256#g387.0

he says he want voluntary agreements a number of times.

but he;s just giving the music industry a hammer for those agreements

expectationlost · 01-03-2012 11:07PM

gizmo555 · 02-03-2012 12:20AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Emailed Sherlock earlier about the potential of a chilling effect, via ISP's voluntarily blocking websites instead of going through court; got a reply within a few hours surprisingly.
He said "they can't do that", and I should read through the consultation document (presumably this):
http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/crc_statement.htm

I wonder has he read the same consultation paper himself and if so how he reconciles this passage from page six with his statutory instrument:

As a matter of principle, it is crucial that there be clarity in the basic legislative provisions. We therefore set out here some of the very basic principles of Irish copyright law, in part to provide for our readers a common framework to which we will refer at various points later in this Paper.

If copyright law were unclear, or if there were widespread misunderstanding about its scope, then this would certainly create barriers to innovation.

FreudianSlippers · 02-03-2012 08:18AM

Irishdreamer wrote: »

Hi all! I have a quick question. Now that SI has been signed, does it mean that I can no longer download TV shows from torrents? I try to keep up to date with the US storylines. Thanks in advance!

You could never legally do that ever.

KyussBishop · 02-03-2012 09:56AM

I seem to be getting some decent dialog in my email exchange; admittedly though, I'm focusing on a very narrow issue: the possible chilling effect of the SI, which may cause unaccountable website blocking through out of court settlements or voluntary blocking.

Sean says ISP's can't block websites like that, but I've been reading up on it a ton tonight and can't determine any safeguards against that.

It's also confusing, in the context of Eircom's block on The Pirate Bay (which has existed both before and after the SI), which I mailed about:

Is Eircom's ongoing blocking of The Pirate Bay now covered by the SI?

If so, before this SI was introduced, what was the legal status of Eircom's blocking of The Pirate Bay? (was it not improper or illegal, in absence of the SI?)

If it was not improper or illegal before the SI, does that not mean an ISP is able to legally block a website, in absence of any law requiring it to do so?

Another thing I'm curious about in general, separate to these emails, is that the law that was introduced is an EU law, which is in force in much of Europe (there are some exceptions still though, unusually; e.g. Germany does not have the law in place that was just brought in here).

I haven't closely followed previous court cases in the EU regarding website blocking, but how come this injunction hasn't been used all over Europe? Is Ireland a test case to set a precedent?

It's confusing, because if this injunction is an effective way to block infringing websites, and is in place in much of the EU, then why have the content industries not been going mental with injunctions all over the EU?

expectationlost · 02-03-2012 11:00AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

I seem to be getting some decent dialog in my email exchange; admittedly though, I'm focusing on a very narrow issue: the possible chilling effect of the SI, which may cause unaccountable website blocking through out of court settlements or voluntary blocking.

Sean says ISP's can't block websites like that, but I've been reading up on it a ton tonight and can't determine any safeguards against that.

It's also confusing, in the context of Eircom's block on The Pirate Bay (which has existed both before and after the SI), which I mailed about:

Another thing I'm curious about in general, separate to these emails, is that the law that was introduced is an EU law, which is in force in much of Europe (there are some exceptions still though, unusually; e.g. Germany does not have the law in place that was just brought in here).

I haven't closely followed previous court cases in the EU regarding website blocking, but how come this injunction hasn't been used all over Europe? Is Ireland a test case to set a precedent?

It's confusing, because if this injunction is an effective way to block infringing websites, and is in place in much of the EU, then why have the content industries not been going mental with injunctions all over the EU?

you're right, we'd all like to know what he's thinking, none of us understand it, him keep saying "they can't do that"; read this, without actually specifically explaining is just pathetic, pity he could have continued this discussion after the debate rather then going silent for weeks and then signing the thing, oh he loves consultation now!

Lord TSC · 02-03-2012 05:37PM

Over on the YLYL topic on Cool Images board, I spotted this...

And it got me thinking; if thousands of people signed a petition vowing to definitely vote no if Sherlock's decisions aren't overturned, do you think it would make a difference? Would it get a reaction?

Our man in Havana · 02-03-2012 06:15PM

Would it get a reaction?

Too right it would. If this treaty goes down the people who are really running the country (our German overlords) will not be happy. 80,000 votes would have the whole thing in the balance.

ottostreet · 02-03-2012 06:21PM

Like the page lads and ladies.

Let's try to go down fighting.

Shad0r · 02-03-2012 06:41PM

Sean Sherlock is a moron. I really hope he doesn't get a single vote next time he goes to get elected. We need politicians in this country who have brains and balls and no how to find both. Basically anti-Sherlocks..

DavidCollins · 02-03-2012 07:13PM

For your interest, and exchange with Sean after it was signed. (I'm responding to something he said earlier.)

Dear Sean Sherlock,

Scarlet v Sabam restricted injunctions on only one area: preventing ISPs from filtering content.

There are still countless injunctions that could be made under this SI: Inunctions for ISPs to block websites, injunctions against Paypal to prevent payment from being processed for a specific website, injunctions against social networking sites for posting even just links to copyrighted contents. You're argument has always been that the charters and directives will put restrictions on this but the problem has always been vagueness and lack of clarity in a complex system and ultimately judges will use their own interpretation.

Sherlock, you've taken full responsiblity for a SI that can have a huge amount of possible consequences. Injunctions can now be launched against high potential Irish start up companies and international companies that such great efforts have been taken to bring to Ireland. Even those declared void by judges would have already caused huge legal expense. If there were more restrictions in the SI, even the ones suggested to you directly in the Dáil debate, there may be less to fear about how spurious or varied these injunctions. As it stands though... we'll see.

However bad these possible consequences of the SI may be, it has now been signed and we have to deal with the actual consequences. Many level-headed, informed and insightful comments have been made regarding the SI, and we will now see exactly how accurate they will be.

Regards,
David Collins

If the SI restores us to a position that we held prior to Charlton then why haven't the scenarios that you articulated come to pass. In shaping an SI you have to be mindful of that which you don't prescribe for, which might then arise.

Dear Sean Sherlock,

"If the SI restores us to a position that we held prior to Charlton then why haven't the scenarios that you articulated come to pass."

If you're trying to construct an argument that because this hasn't happened in the past it won't happen in the future, I respond by saying that the internet has been rapidly evolving and 10 years is hardly enough time to grasp all possible actions that companies might take against internet companies. In the US, Fox threatened legal action against a website that "embedded" videos of copyright content (QuickSilverScreen) but never hosted it. They've recently shut down from legal pressure they've faced. You should also know of English student Richard O'Dwyer who had a website that also only embedded copyright content and he has recently lost a court case to have him extradited to the USA on charges relating to copyright infringement.

You had an opportunity to define exactly where Ireland stood on this issue, yet you delgated it to the courts.

Regards,
David Collins

gizmo555 · 02-03-2012 07:27PM

FYP

DavidCollins wrote: »

You had an opportunity a duty to define exactly where Ireland stood on this issue, yet you delgated abdicated it to the courts.

fitz · 02-03-2012 07:33PM

fitz wrote: »

Just a thought....
As a rights-holder myself (songwriter, recording copyright holder), is an injunction by a record label to have a torrent site blocked not an infringement on my right to legitimately use that distribution avenue for my own music, if I wanted to do so, as has been done by some high profile acts such as Nine Inch Nails?
Surely these injunctions can't actually be upheld?

I'm just bringing this up again.
Surely it will only take one rights holder to say challenge a site being blocked by an injunction on the grounds that it prevents them using the site to distribute their content for this all to fall down.

Whatever judge it comes before will surely rule that injunctions cannot be sought against sites where the injunction would prevent other rights-holders from making a choice to use the site to deliver their content.

Am I missing something here?

Hellrazer · 02-03-2012 07:33PM

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Over on the YLYL topic on Cool Images board, I spotted this...

Not quoting the pic--But Ive just emailed that to the 3 muppets in my area.

Im like a dog with a bone with this one.Im calling into their respective clinics this week at some stage.
Since they wont even return my emails maybe they`ll discuss it in person.

AntiRip · 02-03-2012 08:21PM

I see boards are already starting to close threads that might get them into trouble, i.e films-netflix geo restrictions. How sad. Why don't boards have a bit more balls than this. If you can get into trouble about something as silly as discussing changing your dns settings you might as well throw the towel. Not saying you should but once you start down this road we've already lost.

Sorry if I'm out of line, really don't mean to. Just very disappointed about this whole thing.

02-03-2012 08:27PM

AntiRip wrote: »

I see boards are already starting to close threads that might get them into trouble, i.e films-netflix geo restrictions. How sad. Why don't boards have a bit more balls than this. If you can get into trouble about something as silly as discussing changing your dns settings you might as well throw the towel. Not saying you should but once you start down this road we've already lost.

I read that it would cost 30,000+ euro per case if Boards are brought to court. Do you honestly think Boards could afford many cases at 30 grand a pop. The have to remove it, over what that muppet Sherlock did!

AntiRip · 02-03-2012 08:38PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I read that it would cost 30,000+ euro per case if Boards are brought to court. Do you honestly think Boards could afford many cases at 30 grand a pop. The have to remove it, over what that muppet Sherlock did!

You're not wrong there. But where do you draw the line? What about the threads that discusses US shows that hasn't been shown in Ireland yet? God, what a bullsh1t law that idiot has signed. No words...

latenia · 02-03-2012 09:14PM

Why not move your servers abroad somewhere?

Our man in Havana · 02-03-2012 09:19PM

latenia wrote: »

Why not move your servers abroad somewhere?

That don't work if the owners are in Ireland.

latenia · 02-03-2012 09:26PM

Our man in Havana wrote: »

That don't work if the owners are in Ireland.

Ok then what about a complicated web of companies of opaque ownership spread through various jurisdictions? Like anything connected to computers and the internet or indeed law itself there will be thousands of ways around this.

AlmightyCushion · 02-03-2012 09:34PM

latenia wrote: »

Why not move your servers abroad somewhere?

Any site can be blocked, it doesn't matter where it is located or where the owners originate.

PogMoThoin · 02-03-2012 10:18PM

We're trying to get #resignseansherlock trending on Twitter, need more retweeters
http://monitter.com/?%20#resignseansherlock

OhMSGlive · 02-03-2012 10:31PM

Disgraceful. Labour have lost my support now.

PogMoThoin · 02-03-2012 10:41PM

OhMSGlive wrote: »

Disgraceful. FG have lost my support now.

He's Labour

An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

Comments