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

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.