My response to FG/Lab's form letter on Copyright.

DeVore

FG/Lab have been sending out a form letter response to our mailing campaign. Ok, allow me to go through it point by point if you would.

I've taken Joe Carey's TD's version because it seems the most complete and because he is assistant Government Chief Whip.

---

First, I’d like to clarify that Minister of State, Sean Sherlock TD, has emphasised that he has not put forward any proposals to enact a US type SOPA or Stop Online Piracy Type Law.

Firstly, I've never referred it it as SOPA as such. In fact I've been calling it "Sherlock's Folly" myself but lets look at your point:
Minister Sherlock has put forward a law which holds the conduits of information responsible for what they innocently carry. It provides a means for those rights holders to injunct ISPs, Websites and hosts without necessitating ANY contact with them.

So, yeah, nothing like SOPA.

A rose by any other name is just as bad law.

There does exist a need to legislate, which arises from a finding of the High Court in October 2010 that Ireland was not in compliance with its EU obligations under Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC. The High Court found itself unable, under existing primary legislation, to grant an injunction against an intermediary in relation to transient communications.

There does indeed exist a need to legislate but the EU does not insist we do it in this vague, half cocked, idiotic lazy manner.

There is an alternative SI put forward by TD's Steve Donnelly and Catherine Murphy which fulfils this legislative requirement in a much better fashion. You're argument is as illogical as saying "We must do something. This is something, therefore we must do this."

You needn't legislate it this way, so this is a false argument. It doesnt address our concerns with THIS manner of legislating it.

As you will appreciate, failing to be in compliance with our obligations under EU law can and does have serious consequences for us. The current issue of registration of septic tanks or turf cutting come to mind in that we potentially leave ourselves open to ongoing fines if we do nothing. (I realise there is a disparity with the specific analogies drawn Internet-Septic Tank-Turf Cutting, I use them to illustrate the point of our responsibilities under EU legislation)

Failing to be in compliance with the X case for 20 years doesn't seem to have bothered this government or previous governments!

There is no pressure on us to enshrine stupid law and no requirement to use an underhand, anti democractic Statutory Instrument to do so.

In fact EU Courts have been reversing themselves out of what they regard as a "mistake" recently.

This is another false argument which does not speak to the point at hand. This SI is bad, vague, lazy and sloppy. No one is pushing us to sign it except FG/Lab.

There is no policy change in the Statutory Instrument. It had been the intention of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 to provide civil remedies such as injunctions and it was assumed that the Act did, in fact, provide for such remedies until the High Court found otherwise in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010. Accordingly, the wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument has been framed in a manner which merely gives effect to the wording of the EU Copyright Directive (i.e. Article 8(3) of 2001/29/EC) rather than extending any scope beyond that of intermediaries.

No one is asking for a policy change. We're asking for a policy CLARIFICATION.
What you intend to pass amounts to "Ah sure, whatever you feel yourself on the day Justice!".

Judges should not MAKE law, they should enforce clearly worded law, enacted by the Dail not the whim of a single man. This is a gross dereliction of duty.

Why can Minister Sherlock not clearly state what is a breach of copyright and what is not. Why must he use the approach of "aahhh, it'll all work itself out in the courts shure!"

The intended purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but, rather, it seeks merely to restate the position that was thought to exist in the Copyright legislation prior to Mr. Justice Charleton’s judgement in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010.

Any chance you could restate it with a little more clarity?

For example, we are aware that uploading, lets say, a movie, is in breach of copyright.

But which of the following is also a breach:

1. embedding the movie here from youtube?

2. linking to the movie over on youtube?

3. Linking to a site which embeds the movie from another site?

4. Describing how to find the movie on youtube in prose?

5. Describing how to go about finding copywritten material in general?

6. Describing how to go about finding descriptions of how to find copywritten material?


How are we to determine the file even breaches copyright? Where can we look that stuff up?! If its the latest James Bond movie, fine, but what if its someone's home video playing a Sony owned song??

These arent imaginary "what if"s ... we're faced with these exact situations a dozen times a day. We need our government to advise us more clearly what is an offence.

For God's sake, how can we abide by a law which isnt even written down??

What are we to do... find out that we've broken a law when a judge decides what the law is, right before he finds us guilty?!

Last July Minister Sherlock held a public consultation in relation to the wording of a proposed Statutory Instrument amending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. More than 50 submissions were received from interested parties, providing an excellent overview of all the issues and concerned involved. Minister Sherlock has engaged extensively with interested parties in respect of their views and concerns.

Great, can we see these submissions please? Because no one has been willing to release them. Certainly we were unaware of any call for submissions and as the largest publically accessible group of websites in the state by approximately a factor of 10, you'd think we would be informed.

Was Minister Sherlocks extensive engagement similar to his "debate" in the Dail where he admitted at the end that he never intended changing his mind and had said so before the dail debate already??

That, sir, is not engagement nor debate. Its disgraceful lipservice and an affront to democracy.

The legislative measure is expected to be introduced shortly as per the clarification issued by the Minister this week, a copy of which I attach below.

I hope this clarifies matters.

It clarifies absolutely nothing. Thats the problem. We're being told "the judges might protect you, at least thats what we've told them to do". This isnt acceptible. It costs far too much to access a court in this country and small internet startups just cant do it. Additionally we can be dragged into court over and over again at their whim. So can Google. So can Facebook. So can Twitter. Amazon. Anyone who accepts user generated content.



So in the face of serious concerns expressed by entrepreneurs, businessmen, lawyers, tecnologists, foreign commentators, opposition politicians and partners in government not to mention tens of thousands of voters, you are still going to press ahead and legislate an industry every single one of the government ministers involved admits publicly they dont understand...

Rightyho, just so we're clear...



Tom Murphy
tom at boards.ie

Kind Regards

Yours Sincerely

Joe Carey
_____________________________________
Joe Carey TD
Assistant Government Chief Whip & Clare Fine Gael TD,
Dáil Éireann, Leinster House, Kildare Street, Dublin 2
Constituency Office, Francis Street, Ennis, Co. Clare
Phone: 065 6891199 , 01 6183337
Fax: 065 6891205 & 01 6184520
Email: joe.carey@oireachtas.ie
Web: www.joecarey.ie

Otacon

Can we all copy your post and send it to them [with some minor amendments]?

See how they like it!?

DeVore

Be my guest, or just link them here if you find that easier. Ironically I relinquish copyright on this...

Manach

I agree with the OP's original sentiment, but a very minor OT nitpick is that the X case did not involve EU law, it was a supreme court issue?

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

I agree with the OP's original sentiment, but a very minor OT nitpick is that the X case did not involve EU law, it was a supreme court issue?

A case regarding it went to the EU in the last year or so. Verdict reminded Ireland about the whole Supreme court thing, Ireland says 'O....right....yeah' and sticks head back up where it was yet again.....topic for another thread at some stage.

View

Nodin wrote: »

A case regarding it went to the EU in the last year or so. Verdict reminded Ireland about the whole Supreme court thing, Ireland says 'O....right....yeah' and sticks head back up where it was yet again.....topic for another thread at some stage.

The case went to the ECtHR which is the court of the Council of Europe. It is a different (and larger) organisation than the EU.

Hence the ruling is not related to either the EU or EU directives.

View

OP, SIs are a standard part of our legislative process and have been for centuries (i.e. pre- as well as post-independence).

Going on about them "anti-democratic" isn't going to help your case.

Dermo

I received the same stock response in Meath East from Shane McEntee(FG) and no response from Regina Doherty(FG).
But I was pleasantly surprised with the response I received from Dominic Hannigan(Lab). He wrote a short response detailing how he has raised issues with Sean Sherlock "that he could do more to reach out to all sides in relation to this issue, and I asked him to do so"

Anybody else get a non-stock response from someone in government?

Ledger

Dermo wrote: »

I received the same stock response in Meath East from Shane McEntee(FG) and no response from Regina Doherty(FG).
But I was pleasantly surprised with the response I received from Dominic Hannigan(Lab). He wrote a short response detailing how he has raised issues with Sean Sherlock "that he could do more to reach out to all sides in relation to this issue, and I asked him to do so"

Anybody else get a non-stock response from someone in government?

I just got a very patronising stock response from Brendan Howlin, no answer from anyone else.

DeVore

View wrote: »

OP, SIs are a standard part of our legislative process and have been for centuries (i.e. pre- as well as post-independence).

Going on about them "anti-democratic" isn't going to help your case.

There has never previously, in the history of the state, been an SI which was brought before a dail "debate" ( and I use the word "debate" quite incorrectly).

This is a matter for full primary legislation voted on by free vote in the Dail. But I'll have a Ferrari and Mila Jovovic while yer at it...

It's anti democratic because, like so much lately, the government is hell bent on a course against the wishes of the people it purports to represent.

I'm not a fancy big city lawyer (*puts thumbs into his bracers*) but I know Fair when I see it. This ain't it.

matrim

DeVore wrote: »

Great, can we see these submissions please? Because no one has been willing to release them. Certainly we were unaware of any call for submissions and as the largest publically accessible group of websites in the state by approximately a factor of 10, you'd think we would be informed.

Just on this I sent a request Sean Sherlock requesting these and have also sent a request to the djei asking have they published them as they stated they would on their website

http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/copyright_review_2011.htm

Publication of Submissions

Please note that it is intended to post all submissions on the Copyright Review website for the purposes of encouraging engagement, unless confidentiality is specifically requested.

In the request to the djei I have stated that if they are not published yet to consider my email an FOI request for the submissions.

View

DeVore wrote: »

There has never previously, in the history of the state, been an SI which was brought before a dail "debate" ( and I use the word "debate" quite incorrectly).

This is a matter for full primary legislation voted on by free vote in the Dail.

In your opinion perhaps but presumably not in the opinion of the AG whose advice the government is acting upon.

Certainly, the response from many of the Oireachtas members seem to indicate they intended this issue to have been dealt with in previously passed legislation and that the SI is "merely" rectifying an oversight in that legislation.

DeVore wrote: »

It's anti democratic because, like so much lately, the government is hell bent on a course against the wishes of the people it purports to represent.

I wasn't aware that a majority of the people had expressed an opinion on the topic either way so claims about measures being "anti democratic" undermine your case.

DeVore wrote: »

I'm not a fancy big city lawyer (*puts thumbs into his bracers*) but I know Fair when I see it. This ain't it.

Neither am I but I should point out that we are not the only EU member state to introduce this measure via SI. Here is the relevant UK SI for instance which may or not be better depending on your point of view (The UK SI would seem to be a bit more "procedural" whereas our comparable SI is more open in that regard).

Overheal

Ah it makes me all sorts of things, to see boards having political sway. Democratic sway, at that. You really are involved in history: where else has this yet happened?

expectationlost

matrim wrote: »

Just on this I sent a request Sean Sherlock requesting these and have also sent a request to the djei asking have they published them as they stated they would on their website

http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/copyright_review_2011.htm



In the request to the djei I have stated that if they are not published yet to consider my email an FOI request for the submissions.

thats a different consultation. that doesn't include the copyright SI

matrim

expectationlost wrote: »

thats a different consultation. that doesn't include the copyright SI

Are you sure?

It's the only call for submissions I can see on the djei website relating to copyright. There is a current one on orphan works but that is different.

It is from the same time as referenced by the stock email responses from TDs and relating to the same act

Last July Minister Sherlock held a public consultation in relation to the wording of a proposed Statutory Instrument amending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. More than 50 submissions were received from interested parties, providing an excellent overview of all the issues and concerned involved. Minister Sherlock has engaged extensively with interested parties in respect of their views and concerns.

StupidLikeAFox

Ya know, in a lot of bank robberies criminals use a getaway car to flee the scene. Common sense would dictate that we catch the criminals. Sean Sherlock would invest his time in trying to ban cars

mistermouse

We need someone to collate who is saying what or more so a campaign that will show who is actively going to support and vote along with this type of issue.

I'm sure by now, TDs must have started to realise the power of the internet. Have we not seen the power of the Presidential Tweet.

Could some one post a list of what TDs are willing to make a public stance against this and keep it updated through all social media right through til the next election

This government are hoping their majority will stand the test of time, so must the campaign about this, so they know we may only get to vote on an odd ocassion but we will not forget easily on this one

I am against copyright theft completely, but I am also against teachers/publicans/solicitors etc running the country without a clue, its up there with the gombeen men as to a who is who should not be put in charge of anything

I trust Boards will play its part in the next election, which cannot come soon enough, especially in the IT age

Orion

I received the same stock response from Emmet Stagg. I'd replied myself but I'll send another response quoting some of your post DeV.

Scofflaw

DeVore wrote:

Failing to be in compliance with the X case for 20 years doesn't seem to have bothered this government or previous governments!

Nor indeed does regular and flagrant disregard for any EU legislation likely to upset farmers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MysticalRain

mistermouse wrote: »

I'm sure by now, TDs must have started to realise the power of the internet. Have we not seen the power of the Presidential Tweet.

I suspect a large proportion of them still think the internet is a "passing fad". They are going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century whether they like it or not.

Orion

After today's announcement regarding selling off state assets - particularly Coillte - I think I'll snailmail Stagg the response to the above and enclose my Labour membership card - he can have it back. I don't know where the Labour party have gone but Howlin and Sherlock ain't it.

Ledger

Orion wrote: »

After today's announcement regarding selling off state assets - particularly Coillte - I think I'll snailmail Stagg the response to the above and enclose my Labour membership card - he can have it back. I don't know where the Labour party have gone but Howlin and Sherlock ain't it.

As far as I can see, there is no difference between parties or TDs any more. I have just lost so much faith in the politics in this country it's just become a blur of suits talking absolute rubbish in the Dail day in, day out.

People will say "you should change your voting pattern in the nest election if that's how you feel". But what's the point? They will all promise you anything you want but when they get their seat secured, that's it. They do what they want, no matter what party they are part of.

Labour are fast becoming like the green party last time round, just agreeing to whatever FG (or FF in the case of the greens) say or do, just to stay in power.


Rant Over.

bealtine

Ledger wrote: »

As far as I can see, there is no difference between parties or TDs any more. I have just lost so much faith in the politics in this country it's just become a blur of suits talking absolute rubbish in the Dail day in, day out.

.

Ever notice how FG/Labour have morphed into FF, pursuing the same failed policies?

I believe the civil service are the real power in the country and the Ministers just rabbit (Pat Rabitte) out the policies dreamed up in the various departments without actually understanding anything about them.
Rabbitte answers written questions with exactly the same policy statements, word for word, as Ryan used to do. So there is no difference in policy under Rabbitte as there was under Ryan. So the only conclusion I can come to is that the civil servants are dictating policy to him, not the other way around.

So the question really is who runs the country, the government or the civil service?

Ledger

bealtine wrote: »

Ledger wrote: »

As far as I can see, there is no difference between parties or TDs any more. I have just lost so much faith in the politics in this country it's just become a blur of suits talking absolute rubbish in the Dail day in, day out.

.

Ever notice how FG/Labour have morphed into FF, pursuing the same failed policies?

I believe the civil service are the real power in the country and the Ministers just rabbit (Pat Rabitte) out the policies dreamed up in the various departments without actually understanding anything about them.
Rabbitte answers written questions with exactly the same policy statements, word for word, as Ryan used to do. So there is no difference in policy under Rabbitte as there was under Ryan. So the only conclusion I can come to is that the civil servants are dictating policy to him, not the other way around.

So the question really is who runs the country, the government or the civil service?

Its a scary thought tbh. The people who are elected to run the country seem to be just yes men for department workers

expectationlost

matrim wrote: »

Are you sure?

It's the only call for submissions I can see on the djei website relating to copyright. There is a current one on orphan works but that is different.

It is from the same time as referenced by the stock email responses from TDs and relating to the same act

nope i tripped over this aswell

From Eoin O'Dell one of the people on the consultation you linked to https://twitter.com/#!/cearta/status/160082955866349569

There are 2 separate + distinct processes: a ltd one on injunctions, and our more general one on copyright and innovation

matrim

expectationlost wrote: »

nope i tripped over this aswell

From Eoin O'Dell one of the people on the consultation you linked to https://twitter.com/#!/cearta/status/160082955866349569

Interesting. I don't suppose he gave any details on the other consultation?

expectationlost

matrim wrote: »

Interesting. I don't suppose he gave any details on the other consultation?

he couldn't distance himself from it further, there is no record of the SI consultation left on the djei site. a link title that refers to it was found on the internet archive but the page it directs you has no info on the it even in web cachehttp://web.archive.org/web/20110723024930/http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/

there is some here, the original draft wording etc.
http://knowfuture.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/proposed-amendment-to-irish-copyright-law/

matrim

expectationlost wrote: »

he couldn't distance himself from it further, there is no record of the SI consultation left on the djei site.

there is some here, the original draft wording etc.
http://knowfuture.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/proposed-amendment-to-irish-copyright-law/

Thanks. I've emailed Eoghan Murphy and Sean Sherlock with your information and asked for clarification on which consultation I should be requesting the submissions for.

Even if the one I requested is the wrong one, it will still be interesting to see what submissions they received for it, so I will follow up on getting it.

Victor

If I photocopy a book and send it by post, can the copyright holder injunct An Post?

RangeR

Ledger wrote: »

As far as I can see, there is no difference between parties or TDs any more. I have just lost so much faith in the politics in this country it's just become a blur of suits talking absolute rubbish in the Dail day in, day out.

People will say "you should change your voting pattern in the nest election if that's how you feel". But what's the point? They will all promise you anything you want but when they get their seat secured, that's it. They do what they want, no matter what party they are part of.

Labour are fast becoming like the green party last time round, just agreeing to whatever FG (or FF in the case of the greens) say or do, just to stay in power.


Rant Over.

bealtine wrote: »

Ever notice how FG/Labour have morphed into FF, pursuing the same failed policies?

I believe the civil service are the real power in the country and the Ministers just rabbit (Pat Rabitte) out the policies dreamed up in the various departments without actually understanding anything about them.
Rabbitte answers written questions with exactly the same policy statements, word for word, as Ryan used to do. So there is no difference in policy under Rabbitte as there was under Ryan. So the only conclusion I can come to is that the civil servants are dictating policy to him, not the other way around.

So the question really is who runs the country, the government or the civil service?

I say this in all seriousness, can we, boards.ie, not band together and setup our own political party? What would it take? One or two of us in each constituency? Individually, we can help change our local area. Together, we can help make OUR country a better place.

I too have become disillusioned without our politico overlords. For years, I have seen elections come and go, promises come and go but never materialise. They all do it [well, 99% of them]. None of them stick up for the people, apparently.

How hard can it be? Apart from me ****ting myself at the thought of it

The J Stands for Jay

From: Alan Shatter <Alan.Shatter@oireachtas.ie>
To: ,snip.
Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012, 10:05
Subject: Re: Sean Sherlock's proposed new copyright law




Dear <snip>,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about this issue.

The background to this debate is that the State has been found wanting in failing to transpose the right under EU directives for a copyright holder to seek an injunction from the Courts to protect his or her rights.

Any change that will be made will not go beyond granting the rights that are available in any other EU state. Any case taken to the court seeking an injunction will be judged against the need to respect the rights of others and the requirement of proportionality.

EU law in this area is designed to ensure that those engaged in the music industry, including song writers, composers and singers receive income to which they are entitled for their work and it is not stolen from them. The concept of freedom includes the freedom to work and to be remunerated for work done and not to be ripped off.

I hope this explains the position and deals with any concerns you may have in relation to internet freedom.

Best wishes,

Alan

Alan Shatter TD
Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence

I thought this was about more than just music?

themadhair

McGaggs wrote: »

The background to this debate is that the State has been found wanting in failing to transpose the right under EU directives for a copyright holder to seek an injunction from the Courts to protect his or her rights.

Can someone explain this to me? Afaiui the UPC case barred the use of filtering as an injunction measure. The recent Sabam case completely buried filtering as an injunctive measure too. The UPC case didn’t bar any of the other injunctive measures that already exist, and indeed have already been used by various copyright holders.

Given this, WTF is Alan on about??? I expanded on this here:
http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2012-01-31.385.0

DeVore

Who knows what they are on about. Its like talking to a wall.

Ledger

DeVore wrote: »

Who knows what they are on about. Its like talking to a wall.

Hey! Don't be insulting walls DeV.

rodento

Guess this will test the water

A TOP law firm has launched an investigation into a bogus memo that claims to have come from the company advising the public on paying the household charge.
Dublin-based McCann Fitzgerald has informed people who received the memo via email and leaflet drops that it has nothing to do with the firm. The fake advice relates to the Government's €100 household tax, which was rolled out at the start of the year.


Begs the question, will they go after the websites that helped the letter go viral and what will be the knock on effect

View

themadhair wrote: »

Can someone explain this to me? Afaiui the UPC case barred the use of filtering as an injunction measure. The recent Sabam case completely buried filtering as an injunctive measure too. The UPC case didn’t bar any of the other injunctive measures that already exist, and indeed have already been used by various copyright holders.

Given this, WTF is Alan on about??? I expanded on this here:
http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2012-01-31.385.0

The following point from your link is probably fairly important:

Ireland is obliged to provide that rightsholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right.

It should also be noted that legal proceedings against the State have been issued by the plaintiffs in the UPC case and damages arising from a successful challenge could be substantial.

In other words, Ireland is being sued for failing to implement the directive correctly and the plantiff - EMI - probably has a strong case given the judgment in its case.

EMI, after all, can claim that, not only the failure to implement the directive correctly hurt it in its case against UPC, but the continuing failure (to implement the directive) is continuing to hurt it on a daily basis.

As such the state is probably going for a policy of properly implementing the directive as fast as possible in order to minimise the damages it may have to pay to EMI.

Red Alert

McGaggs wrote: »

I thought this was about more than just music?

I got the exact same response as you from Alan Shatter. Very disappointed - I pointed out in my mail that I was in fact a content creator, by virtue of being an app developer for the iPhone. Don't know if it's even worth sending him another mail about it.

RangeR

RangeR wrote: »

I say this in all seriousness, can we, boards.ie, not band together and setup our own political party? What would it take? One or two of us in each constituency? Individually, we can help change our local area. Together, we can help make OUR country a better place.

I too have become disillusioned without our politico overlords. For years, I have seen elections come and go, promises come and go but never materialise. They all do it [well, 99% of them]. None of them stick up for the people, apparently.

How hard can it be? Apart from me ****ting myself at the thought of it

So are we going to do this?
Is anyone interested in representing their constituency for the better good?
Is anyone interested in representing their country for the better good?
Individually, we can make a difference.
Together, we can make a huge difference.

AwayWithFaries

RangeR wrote: »

I say this in all seriousness, can we, boards.ie, not band together and setup our own political party? What would it take? One or two of us in each constituency? Individually, we can help change our local area. Together, we can help make OUR country a better place.

I too have become disillusioned without our politico overlords. For years, I have seen elections come and go, promises come and go but never materialise. They all do it [well, 99% of them]. None of them stick up for the people, apparently.

How hard can it be? Apart from me ****ting myself at the thought of it

There is enough people on boards to make this happen, so long as you can keep the posters from the political forum away from the it, it would work.

bealtine

AwayWithFaries wrote: »

There is enough people on boards to make this happen, so long as you can keep the posters from the political forum away from the it, it would work.

Join the Pirate Party movement?

AwayWithFaries

bealtine wrote: »

Join the Pirate Party movement?

There used to be one on Ireland but it's after winding down. Well according to Wikipedia anyway.

RangeR

AwayWithFaries wrote: »

There used to be one on Ireland but it's after winding down. Well according to Wikipedia anyway.

I believe he may have been being disingenuous...
Apologies if I got that wrong.

themadhair

View wrote: »

In other words, Ireland is being sued for failing to implement the directive correctly and the plantiff - EMI - probably has a strong case given the judgment in its case.

I’m confused. The injunctive measure that the UPC case said wasn’t available (filtering) would still not be available under EU law due to the recent Sabam judgement.

Are you saying that EMI have a strong case against the Irish government for failing to provide a legal remedy that is banned under existing EU law? Because that seems insane. And it also ignores the litany of other remedies that continue to be available.

bealtine

themadhair wrote: »

I’m confused. The injunctive measure that the UPC case said wasn’t available (filtering) would still not be available under EU law due to the recent Sabam judgement.

Are you saying that EMI have a strong case against the Irish government for failing to provide a legal remedy that is banned under existing EU law? Because that seems insane. And it also ignores the litany of other remedies that continue to be available.

Exactly the content industry want to block all sites they don't like and to control what we can watch and listen to. They've lost control of the physical means of distribution due to the internet and want those days back. Is it any wonder such a harebrained scheme could only come from a bunch of old guys hankering for times past.

Today I saw that the content industry have copyrighted bird song and claimed royalties on any video that includes the perfectly natural sound of birds singing. The copyright industry is simply out of control. In fact a better solution to all this would be to bring the copyright industry to court for fixing prices and acting as an illegal monopoly cartel.

The content industry want to examine every packet leaving your computer in case you might do something they consider wrong. The EU blocked that.
They want to block random websites in case you might do something wrong.

The solution to "piracy" on the internet is for the content industry to grow up and join us in the 21st century. Give consumers what they want and stop all the nonsense of DRM and like Sony snooping on peoples PC content. If I buy a track I want to listen to it on my phone and on my PC. Give me what I want, that is the first maxim of customer service.

[Jackass]

DeVore wrote: »

FG/Lab have been sending out a form letter response to our mailing campaign. Ok, allow me to go through it point by point if you would.

I've taken Joe Carey's TD's version because it seems the most complete and because he is assistant Government Chief Whip.

---

Firstly, I've never referred it it as SOPA as such. In fact I've been calling it "Sherlock's Folly" myself but lets look at your point:
Minister Sherlock has put forward a law which holds the conduits of information responsible for what they innocently carry. It provides a means for those rights holders to injunct ISPs, Websites and hosts without necessitating ANY contact with them.

So, yeah, nothing like SOPA.

A rose by any other name is just as bad law.




There does indeed exist a need to legislate but the EU does not insist we do it in this vague, half cocked, idiotic lazy manner.

There is an alternative SI put forward by TD's Steve Donnelly and Catherine Murphy which fulfils this legislative requirement in a much better fashion. You're argument is as illogical as saying "We must do something. This is something, therefore we must do this."

You needn't legislate it this way, so this is a false argument. It doesnt address our concerns with THIS manner of legislating it.




Failing to be in compliance with the X case for 20 years doesn't seem to have bothered this government or previous governments!

There is no pressure on us to enshrine stupid law and no requirement to use an underhand, anti democractic Statutory Instrument to do so.

In fact EU Courts have been reversing themselves out of what they regard as a "mistake" recently.

This is another false argument which does not speak to the point at hand. This SI is bad, vague, lazy and sloppy. No one is pushing us to sign it except FG/Lab.



No one is asking for a policy change. We're asking for a policy CLARIFICATION.
What you intend to pass amounts to "Ah sure, whatever you feel yourself on the day Justice!".

Judges should not MAKE law, they should enforce clearly worded law, enacted by the Dail not the whim of a single man. This is a gross dereliction of duty.

Why can Minister Sherlock not clearly state what is a breach of copyright and what is not. Why must he use the approach of "aahhh, it'll all work itself out in the courts shure!"



Any chance you could restate it with a little more clarity?

For example, we are aware that uploading, lets say, a movie, is in breach of copyright.

But which of the following is also a breach:

1. embedding the movie here from youtube?

2. linking to the movie over on youtube?

3. Linking to a site which embeds the movie from another site?

4. Describing how to find the movie on youtube in prose?

5. Describing how to go about finding copywritten material in general?

6. Describing how to go about finding descriptions of how to find copywritten material?


How are we to determine the file even breaches copyright? Where can we look that stuff up?! If its the latest James Bond movie, fine, but what if its someone's home video playing a Sony owned song??

These arent imaginary "what if"s ... we're faced with these exact situations a dozen times a day. We need our government to advise us more clearly what is an offence.

For God's sake, how can we abide by a law which isnt even written down??

What are we to do... find out that we've broken a law when a judge decides what the law is, right before he finds us guilty?!




Great, can we see these submissions please? Because no one has been willing to release them. Certainly we were unaware of any call for submissions and as the largest publically accessible group of websites in the state by approximately a factor of 10, you'd think we would be informed.

Was Minister Sherlocks extensive engagement similar to his "debate" in the Dail where he admitted at the end that he never intended changing his mind and had said so before the dail debate already??

That, sir, is not engagement nor debate. Its disgraceful lipservice and an affront to democracy.




It clarifies absolutely nothing. Thats the problem. We're being told "the judges might protect you, at least thats what we've told them to do". This isnt acceptible. It costs far too much to access a court in this country and small internet startups just cant do it. Additionally we can be dragged into court over and over again at their whim. So can Google. So can Facebook. So can Twitter. Amazon. Anyone who accepts user generated content.



So in the face of serious concerns expressed by entrepreneurs, businessmen, lawyers, tecnologists, foreign commentators, opposition politicians and partners in government not to mention tens of thousands of voters, you are still going to press ahead and legislate an industry every single one of the government ministers involved admits publicly they dont understand...

Rightyho, just so we're clear...



Tom Murphy
tom at boards.ie

So, can you quote the specific text of the legislation that you find so misleading / dangerous / offensive?

I just ask because this seems like a one man crusade / vendetta to obstruct a standard piece of legislation worded and drafted at European level to protect the rightful protection of copyright, and used (as with most laws) to the discretion of the judiciary and by set precedent, and not a carte blanche for nazism in copyright cases, possibly motivated by past run ins with EMI and trying to rally an obstruction by reeling in all the sheep / groupies to try and be the thorn in the side of an old foe, rather than thinly veiled noble crusade to protect civil liberties?

Just to play devils advocate...

Hellrazer

RangeR wrote: »

I say this in all seriousness, can we, boards.ie, not band together and setup our own political party? What would it take? One or two of us in each constituency? Individually, we can help change our local area. Together, we can help make OUR country a better place.

I too have become disillusioned without our politico overlords. For years, I have seen elections come and go, promises come and go but never materialise. They all do it [well, 99% of them]. None of them stick up for the people, apparently.

How hard can it be? Apart from me ****ting myself at the thought of it

Id gladly run against the three muppets that I linked to in the other thread ie North Kildare TD`s.Even if you hadnt a chance of winning a seat you`d at least piss them off enough to maybe sit up and listen.

Boards.ie-Now ye`re Pollin`--ready made slogan and all

Victor

[Jackass] wrote: »

So, can you quote the specific text of the legislation that you find so misleading / dangerous / offensive?

I just ask because this seems like a one man crusade / vendetta to obstruct a standard piece of legislation worded and drafted at European level to protect the rightful protection of copyright, and used (as with most laws) to the discretion of the judiciary and by set precedent, and not a carte blanche for nazism in copyright cases, possibly motivated by past run ins with EMI and trying to rally an obstruction by reeling in all the sheep / groupies to try and be the thorn in the side of an old foe, rather than thinly veiled noble crusade to protect civil liberties?

Just to play devils advocate...

The is a long established principal that common carriers can't be held responsible for the actions of others. So, if I defame you via post, you can't hold An post responsible. EU law extended the concept to internet intermediaries. boards.ie is an internet intermediary. The various proposals are to hold innocent internet intermediaries responsible for (a) the actions of those who breach copyright (b) the inaction of the lackadaisical media industry.

Are you confusing EMI and MCD?

DeVore

Firstly, I have no beef with EMI whatsoever. You may be mixing them up with MCD but even in that case I have no beef against them and indeed they have a verified rep on boards around here somewhere since they were bought out by Live Nation.

Secondly and more importantly this is far from a one man bandwagon. I can name 10 CEOs off the top of my head who have written in condemnation of this law. Three of Ireland's foremost online IP lawyers (TJ Mcintyre, Simon Mc Garr and Eoin O'Dell) have spoken out against it and been instrumental in the drafting of the alternative SI. Many TDs have come out against it. Michelle Nelon and the ISPAI have spoken out vociferously against it with the support of Google. Technologists at home and abroad have written about it negatively, not to mention the StopSopaIreland crew who were fast off the mark.

I'd be horribly remiss if I allowed people to think I'm taking the credit for this. Far from it.

This is sloppy law and could easily be done properly. All I'm asking for is properly written primary legislation and not this half ass slap dash approach.

I note your devils advocate approach doesn't address my many, specific approaches and adopts a more Ad Hominem style.