An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

oscarBravo

Why would an ISP block a site if it is a legal site?

What's a legal site? What, for that matter, is an illegal site? Isn't that the sort of thing that should be defined in, I dunno, a law or something?

dmw07

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's a legal site? What, for that matter, is an illegal site? Isn't that the sort of thing that should be defined in, I dunno, a law or something?

SSher

Obviously you have not read my stock reply :pac:

FreudianSlippers

Linking sites which contain links primarily to unlicensed copyright material would be "illegal", however, sites that contain genuine links to links to download licensed material would be "legal". Hosting sites are different... they can be hammered for any material that they host which is illegal.

PogMoThoin

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Linking sites which contain links primarily to unlicensed copyright material would be "illegal", however, sites that contain genuine links to links to download licensed material would be "legal". Hosting sites are different... they can be hammered for any material that they host which is illegal.

Where is that defined?

FreudianSlippers

Case law. I have posted it before but I can do it again... just not today

dmw07

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Case law. I have posted it before but I can do it again... just not today

Please do. I'd be interested to see if there is a proper and just definition between a "hosting" site, and an "index" site.

KyussBishop

dmw07 wrote: »

Please do. I'd be interested to see if there is a proper and just definition between a "hosting" site, and an "index" site.

Well, The Pirate Bay is currently blocked by Eircom, and that was done using an injunction; that said, it is confusing under what exact law that was done (especially seeing as the SI was not in place then).

The Pirate Bay doesn't host content, so is basically just a link/index site; that strongly hints that links are covered under this injunction law.


I do wonder though, what the story is with Eircom; they were blocking The Pirate Bay before the SI was put in place, so under what legal basis was that done?

If it was done voluntarily (which I assume it was), and that is not illegal, it pretty much means this injunction law has an automatic chilling effect and definitely can be used for unaccountable censorship.

DeVore

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Linking sites which contain links primarily to unlicensed copyright material would be "illegal", however, sites that contain genuine links to links to download licensed material would be "legal". Hosting sites are different... they can be hammered for any material that they host which is illegal.

Define "primarily"

RangeR

KyussBishop wrote: »

I do wonder though, what the story is with Eircom; they were blocking The Pirate Bay before the SI was put in place, so under what legal basis was that done?

I don't think it was done on a legal basis, per say. Eircom folded at the sniff of a court battle because they don't have the money to defend themselves. I believe it really is as simple as that. ****, EM! could have told Eircom to lick it's ****ty arse, or else. Eircom would have done it without question.

They didn't have a viable choice. If they went to court, EVEN if they won the case [as UPC did] they would have eaten up all the reserves that they didn't have.

Really, they ARE that broke. I'm surprised they are still in business.

FreudianSlippers

dmw07 wrote: »

Please do. I'd be interested to see if there is a proper and just definition between a "hosting" site, and an "index" site.

DeVore wrote: »

Define "primarily"

I'd be more than happy to outline this as best I can tomorrow.

RangeR wrote: »

I don't think it was done on a legal basis, per say. Eircom folded at the sniff of a court battle because they don't have the money to defend themselves. I believe it really is as simple as that. ****, EM! could have told Eircom to lick it's ****ty arse, or else. Eircom would have done it without question.

They didn't have a viable choice. If they went to court, EVEN if they won the case [as UPC did] they would have eaten up all the reserves that they didn't have.

Really, they ARE that broke. I'm surprised they are still in business.

Eircom settled their case with EMI & Others. There is a legal basis for which EMI could have sought the injunction - they did so with UPC and Eircom. UPC being the bigger multi-national are the ones who decided to defend it and rightly so.

matrim

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Linking sites which contain links primarily to unlicensed copyright material would be "illegal", however, sites that contain genuine links to links to download licensed material would be "legal". Hosting sites are different... they can be hammered for any material that they host which is illegal.

It would be interesting if you could post your case law on this when you get a chance.

I noticed in the CRC it seems to imply that linking is not illegal and is actually asking on submissions on whether that should legality should be prescribed in the law

6.3 Linking
On a webpage, a link is an image or text coded to refer to and connect with
either another place in the same webpage or another webpage. Linking is
therefore essential to the architecture of the web, for all users, not just for
intermediaries. Courts are divided on the question of whether a link on one
webpage to copyright material on another webpage is a primary or
secondary infringment of copyright in that material, though they are
increasingly concluding that a link, by itself, should never be seen as
publication, reproduction or communication of the content to which it
refers, even where that content is an infringement of copyright. These cases
take the view that links simply convey that something exists; but they do
not, by themselves, publish, reproduce or communicate its content. A
further act on the part of the user – such as clicking on the link – is
necessary before that user can gain access to the content. The fact that
links make access to that content straightforward does not change the
reality that a link, by itself, is content neutral. It is the user who clicks on
the link and publishes, reproduces or communicates the content who is the
copyright infringer, and not the provider of the link.
Against this backgroud, we invite submissions as to whether CRRA ought to
be amended to provide that a link to copyright material, of itself and
without more, should not constitute either a primary or a secondary
infringement of that copyright, perhaps by inserting a new sub-section (3) in
section 87, as follows:
(3) For the avoidance of doubt, it is not an infringement of the
rights conferred by this Part to provide a link on a page on the
internet which connects with a work elsewhere on the
internet.
[(4) Existing subsection (2)].
If so, a similar amendment would then be necessary to section 244, as
follows:
(3) For the avoidance of doubt, it is not an infringement of the
rights conferred by this Part to provide a link on a page on the
internet which connects with a performance elsewhere on the
internet.
[(4) Existing subsection (2)].
Of course, this is simply a copyright question. We make no comment on
whether such linking can give rise to other legal issues, such as passing off.

fitz

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'd be more than happy to outline this as best I can tomorrow.

Eircom settled their case with EMI & Others. There is a legal basis for which EMI could have sought the injunction - they did so with UPC and Eircom. UPC being the bigger multi-national are the ones who decided to defend it and rightly so.

It'd be great if you could also outline how the legal system reconciles an injunction that stops me distributing my content, as a rights holder, the way I want because others can use the same technology to distribute unlicensed content?

expectationlost

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ya the CRC was setup before the SI was put in place; needs to be updated now that the SI has passed.

If he replies to you saying to "look at the CRC", mention to him that the CRC specifically says it does not discuss the SI.

where does it say that link and quote please

matrim wrote: »

E.g. the link on the DJEI website to the CRC paper is
"Consultation on Amendment to Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 in relation to injunctions against third parties (intermediaries)"

Which seems to read that it is related to the SI on injunctions.

thats strange i think they just used the same name. copyrightconsultation.html for the new page as the old one for last year, its a left over from that, when you got into the rss feed under publications in the side bar it has the right name http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/crc_index.htm http://www.djei.ie/publications/rss/ but its still a problem look at him boasting about how consultative on this and we can still find little public evidence of consulting on the SI, these sites should be archived properly.

But if you actually read the CRC it states that it is not related to the SI. While it may touch on similar stuff it is separate and much broader in scope

see my previous post where both minister sherlock and crc chairman say that it can include the SI http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77438894&postcount=1428

PogMoThoin

Funny how this makes headlines but no mention of campaign against the SI http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2012/0305/media-3218619.html
Spin and truth manipulation at it's finest

expectationlost

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'd be more than happy to outline this as best I can tomorrow.



Eircom settled their case with EMI & Others. There is a legal basis for which EMI could have sought the injunction - they did so with UPC and Eircom. UPC being the bigger multi-national are the ones who decided to defend it and rightly so.

yes this is point maybe someone could expand on this, the eircom was a court directed settlement? is there such as thing as that and a out of court settlement, these are the voluntary agreements sherlock was talking about?, and made more likley now, what rules do they have to follow? relatively none if not challenged?

i mean the data protection commissioner eventually challenged eircom 3 strikes but took then over a year to do it

RangeR

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Funny how this makes headlines but no mention of campaign against the SI http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2012/0305/media-3218619.html
Spin and truth manipulation at it's finest

Mainstream media doesn't take web protests seriously. And, generally, they are right. Most of the time, web protests disperse into nothing.

Hopefully enough of us can take action in Dublin this Friday.

hardCopy

This consultation document is bloody massive. I'd say the size and complexity of it is aimed at shutting a lot of people up.

StupidLikeAFox

hardCopy wrote: »

This consultation document is bloody massive. I'd say the size and complexity of it is aimed at shutting a lot of people up.

Its not too bad of a read. Its broken down into manageable sections and doesnt use language thats too complicated.


Is there anyway (best case scenario) that the SI is only a temporary measure to stave off the music labels, until proper legislation is drafted?

Also have many people actually completed the submission? If it they got 80,000 responses it would be hard to ignore

KyussBishop

expectationlost wrote: »

where does it say that link and quote please

Here, in the consultation document:

Finally, we note that Irish law does not yet provide a means by which a rights-holder can get an injunction against an ISP whose customers are infringing copyright. However, there is a parallel consultation about this
issue, and we will not address it further in the present Review.

http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/crc_consultation_paper.pdf
http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/crc_statement.htm

expectationlost

KyussBishop wrote: »

Here, in the consultation document:

http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/crc_consultation_paper.pdf
http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/crc_statement.htm

ok right but that other review is over now and sice then they've said this
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77456035&postcount=1454

this is what willie o'dea has to say on behalf of fianna fail http://www.fiannafail.ie/news/entry/8126/ Copyright Consultation Process anything more than PR Exercise? - O’Dea



don't think he's too impressed with ths issue splitting, reminds me of the project splitting so a whole planning issue won't be address

matrim

There is probably scope in the next part (note next part it's a follow on not a completly different review) of the crc to challenge the SI saying that it inhibits innovation, but that doesn't mean we can't still continue the protest against the SI as well as making submissions to the second part of the crc.

I have to agree with O'Dea that passing the SI then on the same day announcing the crc is trying to confuse the issues. Especially when Sherlock is telling protestors to read the current crc.

Citizen_Kane

Opinion sought:

Is it worthwhile investing more time reading and crafting a response to this 'consultation document' - or is it just an elaborate charade cloaking a done deal?

Anyway - going to wait for the rage in my head and ache in my stomache to subside before deciding. Hopefully before April.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'd be more than happy to outline this as best I can tomorrow.

Just an update: this isn't going to happen today either, swamped with work at the moment but I will definitely sort this out tomorrow.

Amirani

Is it not the case that the proposed Copyright Bill will clear up the ambiguities present in the statutory instrument? Should our efforts now be directed towards lobbying for such changes?

Scuid Mhór

lads, obviously emailing this guy ain't fair game so i propose we switch tactics to something a little more... confrontational :cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjTii5yTHps

DeVore

NiallSparky wrote: »

Is it not the case that the proposed Copyright Bill will clear up the ambiguities present in the statutory instrument? Should our efforts now be directed towards lobbying for such changes?

Yes, realistically the best course now is to get stuck into that but I fear that nothing thats said or done will really impact. Especially considering the head of the IIA is a FG counsellor. Still, its the only route available to us.

All the same, never forget how they treated us all with disdain. We kicked FF out last time, next time its FG/Lab's turn imho.

Hellrazer

DeVore wrote: »

All the same, never forget how they treated us all with disdain. We kicked FF out last time, next time its FG/Lab's turn imho.

Couldnt have said it better.FG/Lab--Bye bye come next election.

I thought I was getting somewhere when Mr Gilmores office replied with the content of my last post but it was too good to be true--He still hasnt replied when I pointed out that this Copyright Consultation Process has absolutely nothing to do with Idiot Sherlocks SI.

So yep--Time to make a Green Party out of Labour and fook FG back to the opposition benches.

But wheres the alternative??Sinn Fein?Fianna Fail (again)---I dont think there is an alternative--Most of them are as bad as each other.
The Dail needs younger members that actually understand the technology thats been legislated against--not some old fools who would probably be lost with a calculator <<<maybe a bit OTT but thats the way I read it--ffs my local FG TD couldnt even send me back an email--He posted me a letter with a stamp on it--Talk about amazed.Havent had a letter posted to me in years unless it had the words "Final Demand" stamped across it in red :D

Says it all really.

DeVore

Have asked Eoin O'Dell who is chair of the CRC to do a Q&A here about it and he has agreed. Eoin is a legal lecturer in TCD among other things and a good guy. Will sort out the details when on the same side of the planet as ye

expectationlost

DeVore wrote: »

Have asked Elin O'Dell who is chair of the CRC to do a Q&A here about it and he has agreed. Eoin is a legal lecturer in TCD among other things and a good guy. Will sort out the details when on the same side of the planet as ye

there nothing new under the sun get an insider pretend the consulation will be listened to and then to deliver the bad news, he's powerless.

minidazzler

I finally recieved a response from a TD I emailed, I emailed all in Cork South Central and only got a response from Michael McGrath who had asked a question in the Dail. Here is the question and response, my apologies if it was posted before but this is a very long thread.

Michael McGrath wrote:

304. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the steps he is taking to address the concerns that have been expressed regarding the proposed statutory instrument on copyright law. [9323/12]

The Hollow Man wrote:

Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Sean Sherlock): The proposed Statutory Instrument is intended to ensure the return to the legal position that was considered to pertain, in relation to injunctions against intermediaries, prior to a High Court judgment in October 2010. This judgment also stated that Ireland was not in compliance with its obligations under EU law.

Several concerns were expressed after the judgment by interested parties. Accordingly a public consultation was held on the wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument. This consultation was widely publicised at the time and more than 50 submissions were received. I am extremely grateful to those interested parties, groups and individuals who responded. Their submissions have proved very valuable in providing a comprehensive understanding of the differing views on the many issues involved. There was also liaison with the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

The submissions were carefully considered and legal opinion contained therein was referred to the Office of the Attorney General. I also met with several organisations with specific interests. The matter was debated in the Dáil on 31st January 2012. I made it clear then that any injunction under the proposed amendment of the Copyright Act 2000 would have to be considered in the context of the pronouncements of the Court of Justice of the European Union in judgments connected with this area.

These judgments (particularly Sabam v Scarlet and Sabam v Netlog) held that the protection of the fundamental right to intellectual property must be balanced against the protection of the fundamental rights of others who would be affected by the granting of an injunction. These rights include the right to conduct a business, to privacy, to freedom to receive and impart information. In addition, any measures proposed should not be unnecessarily complicated or costly.

Since the Lisbon Treaty, any legislation upholding EU law is bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

As the nature of injunctions which may be sought is infinitely varied, I consider that the best protection for balancing all the rights involved will be obtained by a careful scrutiny on a case-by-case basis of the competing interests by means of judicial process.