An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

tryde

Indeed, this is a complete economical suicide, recession wasn't enough ? Honestly I can't believe how could such an *********************** get into power.

[-0-]

MOH wrote: »

Sherlock's site now back up, with the "offending" elements removed.

Wouldn't be surprised if the new icons also turned out to be lifted from somewhere else, given the level of sense he's shown so far.

Maybe someone should send a screenshot of the old version of his site to the relevant copyright holders.

Discodog

DeVore wrote: »

We're going to need to be more focused then just blasting a form-email to all TDs' (dont get me wrong, thats good!!!) but you get a TD's attention by writing a personal email to your constituent TD pledging to work for/against him on this issue...

It is also really important that you word any conversation or correspondence in polite terms. Do not resort to sarcasm, bad language, threats etc. Keep it short, succinct & polite. Don't make it easy for them to dismiss your comments.

vicwatson

Ministerial orders = undemocratic

Not even a chance for it to be debated in the Dail.

Flumps the whole lot of them :mad::mad:

Spiritofthekop

MOH wrote: »

Sherlock's site now back up, with the "offending" elements removed.

Wouldn't be surprised if the new icons also turned out to be lifted from somewhere else, given the level of sense he's shown so far.

Maybe someone should send a screenshot of the old version of his site to the relevant copyright holders.

He adds your ip address in now after you contact him to try "SCARE" people away from his site

orangebud

we have to rebel against this government, we can not wait for the next elections there will be nothing left

Jev/N

MagicMarker wrote: »

Out of curiosity, how long has all of this been known about? The first time I heard about it was yesterday. Why is it only getting widespread attention now?

It's roughly been known about since the judgment in EMI and Others v UPC in 2010.

The government of the day said it needed addressing and if you remember there were rumours they were going to rush it through the Dail in the final weeks before the General Election '11.

Since the new government has come into power, it has been on their agenda. It was briefly mentioned in their program for government, IIRC.

This has recently picked up steam due to papers being lodged with the courts whereby EMI and Others were initiating proceedings against the State for failure to fully implement the EU Directive 2001/29/EC, specifically Art 8.3

However, this sudden and extreme acceleration of the process only occurred in the past week to ten days and hence all the fuss and debate. As has been stated already, Sherlock seems adamant he is going to sign this SI regardless of the concerned which have been, and continue to be, voiced.

Fromthetrees

I signed the petition and sent Sean Sherlock an email.

ResearchWill

OK, just a few facts, by way of a Directive from the EU Ireland like all other EU countries was required to allow these injunctions. The directive is, Directive 2001/29/EC, found here http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:167:0010:0019:EN:PDF see Article 8 section 3.

Under the European Communties Act 1972, a minister is permitted to implement such EU law, by SI, even to amend Irish Acts.

This only came about, because the High Court said they did not have the power.

gandalf

Has Sean Sherlock rung you yet Tom?

I posted the original petition on my FB on Monday. Just posted this thread as well. Well done to the Boards.ie crew in highlighting this. This Government state that jobs are their priority yet with this poorly thought out and flawed instrument they could damage one of the only sectors of our economy that is creating wealth and growth.

It makes you really wonder if any of these politicians have a clue at all.

Chucky the tree

Here's my email

Dear Sean,

This new SOPA thingy will make it harder for me to download movies and music illegally. Please stop.

thanks

sdanseo

An exceptionally well-composed OP, DeVore.

There's protecting copyright, and then there's destoying the internet. Just because a middleground is hard to find does not mean it should be passed over.

Further expression of my sentiment would pretty much just be echoing what you said, so just a simple +1 from me.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Here's my email

You've basically just given him a reason to sign it.

Purge your outbox if it's not sent yet!

MOH

ResearchWill wrote: »

OK, just a few facts, by way of a Directive from the EU Ireland like all other EU countries was required to allow these injunctions. The directive is, Directive 2001/29/EC, found here http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:167:0010:0019:EN:PDF see Article 8 section 3.

Under the European Communties Act 1972, a minister is permitted to implement such EU law, by SI, even to amend Irish Acts.

This only came about, because the High Court said they did not have the power.

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with making such a change, even if by SI (though I'm not mad about it) - the problem is that:
1) this particular amendment is so vaguely worded that it's massively open to interpretation;
2) the matter hasn't been properly discussed at all.

If Sherlock had sought input from all the relevant affected parties - copyright holders, ISPs, major social networking sites - and hammered out some sort of workable compromise, phrased unambiguously, with clear guidelines and limitations, then fine.
But this is clearly just a knee-jerk reaction to the EMI suit, which is going to cost us a lot more than that ever would have.

pirelli

Crosáidí wrote: »

Send this e-mail to noirishsopa@live.com and copy and paste all TDs & MEPs addresses into the BCC field

I made a few changes for my letter, What do you think.

I ask, with all due respect, please do not let this legislation pass without considering measures that would safeguard against unfair or political censorship, and protect against otherwise frivioulous claims becoming tools to shut down important social media hubs.

Yours sincerely,

Concerned Citizen.

ykt0di9url7bc3

I signed the petition, emailed the TDs, and messaged via Sean Sherlock's website.

It'll go as far as we let them, Smart Economy my arse

JabbaTheHut

Just signed. More than 51000 now. I just wish I had a little more faith in it working . But if you don't try you'll never get what you want.

Chucky the tree

sdeire wrote: »

An exceptionally well-composed OP, DeVore.

There's protecting copyright, and then there's destoying the internet. Just because a middleground is hard to find does not mean it should be passed over.

Further expression of my sentiment would pretty much just be echoing what you said, so just a simple +1 from me.


You've basically just given him a reason to sign it.

Purge your outbox if it's not sent yet!

Why not be honest about it? We demand honesty from our politicians and rightly get annoyed when they lie yet with issues like this plenty won't be honest at all. Very hypocritical.

Meteoric

I'm not an expert on SIs or anything but the experience I have of them in my work is that they enact, word for word, the European Legislation. All ramifications have been extensively examined and debated and consultation with industry and interested parties has been carried out. To steal from an email I just sent my TD:

Thank you for your reply, fundamental to my concern however is the fact that this is undemocratic and an excellent way of enacting bad law. The SI is an excellent way of introducing European Legislation in Ireland with the minimum of fuss and expense. In these cases there has been debate and consultation at the European Level, the proposed text is published and stake-holders have the opportunity to make representations, consider implications in practice and have changes incorporated before the final wording is published. Concerns from Industry and the public are also published and addressed before implementation. I see no evidence of such consultation.

The argument seems to be that we need to do something quickly so, because the minister can, he is going to enact his own little law with no opportunity for those people who deal with such issues in practice to suggest how and why the proposed wording or constraints could actually function in the real world. Is the proposed legislation word-for-word the same as in those other European countries? If not the wording and the provisions may (as some fear) not be the same as in those other countries and using them as an example that we have nothing to worry about is disingenuous. I also am not sure why we require this degree of haste.

It is undemocratic because this is now being decided by one minister and whatever Judge any case comes in front of. In my opinion the proposed legislation is far too open to interpretation for anyone to be able to predict the potential interpretation that will be taken in the real life, rather than best case scenarios. If legislation such as this was introduced in my Industry (Pharmaceuticals) I'd be terrified.

bleg

I emailed my Labour representatives and told them I'll never vote for them again.

ResearchWill

MOH wrote: »

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with making such a change, even if by SI (though I'm not mad about it) - the problem is that:
1) this particular amendment is so vaguely worded that it's massively open to interpretation;
2) the matter hasn't been properly discussed at all.

If Sherlock had sought input from all the relevant affected parties - copyright holders, ISPs, major social networking sites - and hammered out some sort of workable compromise, phrased unambiguously, with clear guidelines and limitations, then fine.
But this is clearly just a knee-jerk reaction to the EMI suit, which is going to cost us a lot more than that ever would have.

The directive is even more vague, it is not a knee jerk reaction the Charlton judgment is around a year old. The law relating to injunctions is very settled. Including the tests to be applied, and the right of the effected party if granted ex parte to request the court to remove the injunction. The person seeking the injunction must also give an undertaking in relation to any damages the injunction causes. Also as has been recently seen an injunction that is finally refused can lead to huge costs against the person who sought it.

So can you point out how the SI does any more than the directive, and how in light of the law in the area of injunctions it is vague.

El Guapo!

Signed and added a link to my Facebook page. Next thing is to send off an email or two.
Great work putting this up on Boards.

ResearchWill

Meteoric wrote: »

I'm not an expert on SIs or anything but the experience I have of them in my work is that they enact, word for word, the European Legislation. All ramifications have been extensively examined and debated and consultation with industry and interested parties has been carried out. To steal from an email I just sent my TD:

Thank you for your reply, fundamental to my concern however is the fact that this is undemocratic and an excellent way of enacting bad law. The SI is an excellent way of introducing European Legislation in Ireland with the minimum of fuss and expense. In these cases there has been debate and consultation at the European Level, the proposed text is published and stake-holders have the opportunity to make representations, consider implications in practice and have changes incorporated before the final wording is published. Concerns from Industry and the public are also published and addressed before implementation. I see no evidence of such consultation.

The argument seems to be that we need to do something quickly so, because the minister can, he is going to enact his own little law with no opportunity for those people who deal with such issues in practice to suggest how and why the proposed wording or constraints could actually function in the real world. Is the proposed legislation word-for-word the same as in those other European countries? If not the wording and the provisions may (as some fear) not be the same as in those other countries and using them as an example that we have nothing to worry about is disingenuous. I also am not sure why we require this degree of haste.

It is undemocratic because this is now being decided by one minister and whatever Judge any case comes in front of. In my opinion the proposed legislation is far too open to interpretation for anyone to be able to predict the potential interpretation that will be taken in the real life, rather than best case scenarios. If legislation such as this was introduced in my Industry (Pharmaceuticals) I'd be terrified.

First off they do not have to enact word for word. Secondly there is rarely any consultation. Thirdly have you read the directive article 8 3, of you have can you explain why the Irish SI does not reflect it.

pirelli

ResearchWill wrote: »

The directive is even more vague, it is not a knee jerk reaction the Charlton judgment is around a year old. The law relating to injunctions is very settled. Including the tests to be applied, and the right of the effected party if granted ex parte to request the court to remove the injunction. The person seeking the injunction must also give an undertaking in relation to any damages the injunction causes. Also as has been recently seen an injunction that is finally refused can lead to huge costs against the person who sought it.

So can you point out how the SI does any more than the directive, and how in light of the law in the area of injunctions it is vague.

Thanks for this insight Researchwill. Perhaps case law would smooth out the interpretation over time.

Redriddick

Signed and have had enough of the eu telling us what to do.This country has gone from worse to worse and needs people to stand up and be counted like we are doing here.
Bravo to all.

Spacedog

MOH wrote: »

Sherlock's site now back up, with the "offending" elements removed.

Wouldn't be surprised if the new icons also turned out to be lifted from somewhere else, given the level of sense he's shown so far.

Maybe someone should send a screenshot of the old version of his site to the relevant copyright holders.

http://www.powerplan.de/

http://www.fiesta-sa.org/

http://aql.com/

http://jbitdoon.blogspot.com

https://www.serebraconnect.com

ResearchWill

pirelli wrote: »

Thanks for this insight Researchwill. Perhaps case law would smooth out the interpretation over time.

The case law on injunctions is very settled, especially ex parte injunctions. The Campus Oil case sets out the tests. I can assure you if any company approached the High Court, looking for an injunction against any company with a good reputation, without first seeking that the company stopped access to the copyright material, the high court would tell them to go take a long jump. How do I know this, I have made applications for loads of injunctions in the High Court.

Just as an aside to all in the US who go on about free speech, the protection of artists and inventors IP was in the US constitution before the right to free speech which was the first amendment.

amen

I signed. But perhaps we should play them at their own game.

From looking at the Labour and FineGael websites they have privacy statements but do not appear to be registered with the data protection commissioner. Do they have to ? If so why not file a complaint with the dpc?



As for Minister Sherlocks website he appears to collect information, has no privacy statement and does not appear to be registered with the data protection commissioner.

Maybe a systemic review of all political websites to ensure they are complying with Irish Law?

As for Semi states they are basically companies held in public trust. By law all Irish companies must list their CRO number and directors. Several semi states don't. Could these be chased ?

How about looking at all icons, stylesheets etc and see if they are copyrighted ? Would be worth compiling a list of those who are using copyrighted material and ask them for a copy of the waiver and publish the list ?

How about examining the cookies and ensuring the data stored matches with that specified in the privacy statement ?

I should say I don't support piracy but this SI is stupid. If I owned the copyright to something I could just create a new boards account, post a link to it then go to court and get boards shut down.

Voy

Have any of the big internet companies weighed in on this? I'm sure a quick statement from Google or Facebook would be nice and effective. May be worth emailing them too.

ResearchWill

Redriddick wrote: »

Signed and have had enough of the eu telling us what to do.This country has gone from worse to worse and needs people to stand up and be counted like we are doing here.
Bravo to all.

I agree with you, the right of married women to work, blasted EU, the right of people to not be fired because they are gay. I could go on with those stupid EU laws.

Meteoric

ResearchWill wrote: »

First off they do not have to enact word for word. Secondly there is rarely any consultation. Thirdly have you read the directive article 8 3, of you have can you explain why the Irish SI does not reflect it.

Like I said I'm not an expert, I only know the SIs relevant to my job but I do look at the SIs that impact my work and read them. In my case they are word-for-word, I never said they had to be and in this case it could not be. I read the consultation documents sent out by the EU and I read the industry and other responses. I see how wording is changed, either by making it more or less specific in response to questions or observations raised by the people who will have to live with the legislation, that to me is good practice.
Article 8 3 is very non specific, simply that the country must have a mechanism for injunction, leaving it up to individual countries how they do that. So each country has to come up with their own way, fair enough and an example of something well written as it allows each country to take their own situation and existing laws into account.
The SI as published does meet the requirement, yes, but that is simply that there be a mechanism. As others who will be impacted by this have said the proposed wording of the Irish SI is so vague that it could be used to make their business unworkable. That there is bad legislation in my opinion. And when the industry points out that it does allow something like nuisance suits the response should not be "A sure, no one will do that"