Sherlock confirms that ‘Irish SOPA’ has been signed into law

Seachmall

Viral Vector wrote: »

A terrible day for Irish politics, any way this can be revoked (without the involvement of the EU)?

I believe there is 30 days after the signing for it to be revoked by the Dail.

But don't quote me on that.

RachaelVO

Seachmall wrote: »

I believe there is 30 days after the signing for it to be revoked by the Dail.

But don't quote me on that.

Ah no, you've said it now, you're held accountable for misinformation!

Wonder is that part of Sherlocks law? We'll get ya yet

PogMoThoin

He's made an appeal to call of the dogs
http://www.thejournal.ie/sherlock-appeals-to-opponents-of-copyright-law-to-calls-off-the-dogs-369921-Mar2012/

Sorry Sean, Its too late for that, 80000 people signed a petition for you not to sign that but you went against everyone and signed it anyway

Edit; its just been slashdotted
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/03/01/0154237/irish-sopa-signed-into-law-despite-resistance

RachaelVO

PogMoThoin wrote: »

He's made an appeal to call of the dogs
http://www.thejournal.ie/sherlock-appeals-to-opponents-of-copyright-law-to-calls-off-the-dogs-369921-Mar2012/

Sorry Sean, Its too late for that, 80000 people signed a petition for you not to sign that but you went against everyone and signed it anyway

Edit; its just been slashdotted
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/03/01/0154237/irish-sopa-signed-into-law-despite-resistance

Just read that meself, what a total eejit! He doesn't listen to what the people have to say, and when they get p1ssed off he says it can be overwritten only if the pressure on him eases...

Horse, gate, bolted springs to mind!

THE JUNIOR MINISTER responsible for the introduction of a new law dubbed the ‘Irish SOPA’ has said a public consultation launched yesterday could lead to new laws which would supersede the current law – but only if “everybody calls off the dogs”.
Speaking exclusively to TheJournal.ie yesterday, Labour minister Seán Sherlock said the public consultation which was launched by his Department yesterday – alongside the introduction of a statutory instrument allowing copyright holders to seek injunctions blocking access to copyright-infringing material – paved the way for a potentially radical overhaul of copyright laws in Ireland.
The statutory instrument – officially named the European Union (Copyright and Related Rights) Regulations 2012 – had prompted a wave of public outcry, including a number of protests and an online petition which attracted over 80,000 signatures, but was nonetheless signed into Irish law yesterday.
“It’s vitally important that those people who were exercised by the statutory instrument will now engage in the very nature of copyright, [and] will engage on the issues within the consultation paper,” Sherlock said, describing the latter as a “very comprehensive and extensive document”.
If everybody calls off the dogs, as it were – if everybody engages constructively on it – then I think we can reach compromises around the challenges between ISPs, the content holders, the copyright holders.
Sherlock said the outcome of the consultation, if agreed with by the government, could also mean the potential introduction of further statutory instruments on online copyright law, or alternatively conclude that the current legal framework is sufficient.
‘Not SOPA’

Sherlock moved to once again dispel fears that the legislation could lead to the blocking of major websites like YouTube or Facebook, which could potentially be subject to injunctions if copyrighted material was posted to them by other parties.
“The very people who are lobbying against the SI [statutory instrument] called it ‘SOPA’ – so language is all important,” the Cork East TD for Labour said.
It was not SOPA. And already on Twitter people are using the SOPAIreland hashtag, which is a complete nonsense. It has nothing to do with SOPA.
“So the concerns were based on an interpretation of this SI as a mechanism for driving SOPA-type legislation, but that was not the case. So the arguments were flawed in that sense.”
When presented with an example where a judge could issue an injunction to block a site like YouTube, Sherlock said the example “presumes that a judge will make a flawed judgement”.
“We feel strongly that the SABAM v Scarlet decision – the ECJ decisions – now provide a guidance for any judge in Irish law,” the minister said, referring to the ruling where the ECJ ruled it illegal for courts to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to filter content in order to enforce copyright protection.
Consultation

Although the statutory instrument was formally approved by the Cabinet three weeks ago, Sherlock said it was not signed into law until yesterday because the government wanted the consultation paper on copyright review to be published alongside it.
Dr Eoin O’Dell, who co-authored the consultation paper being used as a basis for the copyright review, wrote in a blog post yesterday that the review should be seen as being “separate and distinct” from the statutory instrument.
Sherlock said he hoped that “the online community, through the Irish Internet Association (IIA), will engage in a moderated debate or consultation, online” on the review paper.
IIA chief executive Joan Mulvihill told TheJournal.ie she had approached Sherlock offering to facilitate IIA members in offering feedback to the consultation paper, and that it would collate the thoughts submitted to it for presentation to the minister.
“We are an industry representative body, and our job is to represent the views of our members as a priority,” Mulvihill said. ”But that’s not to say I’m deaf to the thoughts of others.”
The exact mechanics of how the IIA’s consultation would work, she added, had not yet been agreed.

Spunge

cocoshovel wrote: »

I find it cringeworthy when I look at his facefriend page and see nothing but 16 year old kids with their guy falks masks thinking they're hilarious with their "meme" generators.
Half of them dont even make sense and are nothing but irrelevant text on some colouredy background with a face. They dont even know the meaning of memes, let alone have the right to vote. /rant

but we are legion ecks dee so randum

matrim

Spoonman75 wrote: »

Yeah it should be interesting to you. Consider Ireland as the litmus test for this law. It's here. Watch this space and see how this all pans out. Learn from it and tell as many of your fellow Americans that this is what happens when these types of laws are enacted in a particular country.

Facebook was founded in 2004. YouTube was founded in 2005.

If this law was enacted in those years would you consider making an Irish version of either websites?

I'd spend my time wondering the point of it.

Actually Belgium was the litmus test for this law, given that the ECJ has already had to rule on 3 cases based on a similar injunction type law based on the same EU Directive.

In all cases the ECJ has said that the injunctions which sought blocking, filtering and 3 strikes style laws are not valid and contravene other EU laws

wonderfulname

talkinyite wrote: »

It was bound to happen really. Web 2.0 is already here.

What exactly is your understanding of web 2.0?

For those giving out about traditional media's bias, the SBP has had this online since last night, and had a fairly constant commentary on the issue over the past while. Must start buying that paper...

smash

wonderfulname wrote: »

What exactly is your understanding of web 2.0?

My understanding of his comment was that because web 2.0 is now how people use the internet the most, it was bound to happen that this law would be introduced.

AeoNGriM

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

So, I'd just like to get one this straight. Will it still be alright to watch porn without the government finding out?

THEY ALREADY KNOW :eek:

LumpyGravy

I wish someone would do a 'Santorum' on this guy.

Anyone wanna come up with a 'seansherlock' neologism?

Seachmall

Sh·er·lock

verb

1. To assume a position of arrogant ignorance.
2. To use devious means by which to avoid controversy or objection.

Ex: He sherlocked the whole country.

matrim

People should also note that while it was Sean Sherlock who drafted the S.I. it was Richard Bruton who actually signed this into law.

smash

matrim wrote: »

People should also note that while it was Sean Sherlock who drafted the S.I. it was Richard Bruton who actually signed this into law.

Ok, lets go http://www.facebook.com/richardbrutontd

jasonc5432

I find it fascinating that a large corporation (Google) is passing new rules allowing it to basically SHARE personal private information about individual members (including Irish people) ... that is PERSONAL INFORMATION about REAL PEOPLE. Yet, the Irish government is more interested in trying to prosecute people for sharing gif files or short clips of father ted. We know where this government's priorities are!!!!!!!

Seachmall

jasonc5432 wrote: »

I find it fascinating that a large corporation (Google) is passing new rules allowing it to basically SHARE personal private information about individual members (including Irish people) ... that is PERSONAL INFORMATION about REAL PEOPLE. Yet, the Irish government is more interested in trying to prosecute people for sharing gif files or short clips of father ted. We know where this government's priorities are!!!!!!!

Google's privacy rules are opt in.

You have to explicitly allow them to record your personal information and to use it for marketing purposes.

Wetbench4

jasonc5432 wrote: »

I find it fascinating that a large corporation (Google) is passing new rules allowing it to basically SHARE personal private information about individual members (including Irish people) ... that is PERSONAL INFORMATION about REAL PEOPLE. Yet, the Irish government is more interested in trying to prosecute people for sharing gif files or short clips of father ted. We know where this government's priorities are!!!!!!!

Mod edit. Removed name.

smash

jasonc5432 wrote: »

I find it fascinating that a large corporation (Google) is passing new rules allowing it to basically SHARE personal private information about individual members (including Irish people) ... that is PERSONAL INFORMATION about REAL PEOPLE.

No it's not. It's using the information for targeted advertising on it's own servers and it's opt in.

Micky Dolenz

Wetbench4 wrote: »

Mod edit. Removed name.

Ps: only joking, you posted the same post on sherlocks fb page, and then logged in as your gf and posted again.

Mod

Don't publish real names please.

smash

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Mod

Don't publish real names please.

Wait... you're not the real Micky Dolenz. That's copyright! :pac:

Micky Dolenz

smash wrote: »

Wait... you're not the real Micky Dolenz. That's copyright! :pac:

You can publish your own name if you wish but outing other posters is a bannable offence.

Doc Ruby

ottostreet wrote: »

Not that the RTE demographic would really give a **** what happens to the Internet.

Thats the point though, they do most of the voting. Why would Sherlock care what a group notorious for not voting except in online polls think?

wonderfulname wrote: »

Anybody feel like setting up a political party with me? We could do with a working one...

But sure what, anytime someone tries it the same people weeping about this law will be the first to try and tear them down. Because politicians are teh evul.

If ye don't engage in the political process because you think politicians are all arseholes lads, you will be ruled by arseholes.

This isn't a problem with democracy, its a problem with regulatory capture. Thats what happens when an industry writes the laws and politicians pass them, corruption basically, because politicians know all they have to do to get re-elected is keep fixing small problems for big families in their constituency. Even people like Ian Paisley sorted out issues for Catholic families in his constituency, think about that for a minute. We have criminals and gangsters elected for the same reason.

So write "regulatory" on the back of your left hand and "capture" on the back of your right hand so you never forget those words.

This attitude that politics is crap needs to change. Get involved and take an active hand in guiding your country, off the internet.

Balls. Trust this to happen the week I finally get broadband installed in my rented accommodation.

campo

ok might be a stupid question but what is so bad about this I presume it only stops people from illegaly downloading or streaming copyrighted material

campo

campo wrote: »

ok might be a stupid question but what is so bad about this I presume it only stops people from illegaly downloading or streaming copyrighted material

Nope, if I remember right - even the fact you're using that image of Mick Foley, without the permission of either Mick Foley or the photographer/the agency means that you're in breach of SOPA.

Though, I could have that wrong?

mikom

campo wrote: »

ok might be a stupid question but what is so bad about this I presume it only stops people from illegaly downloading or streaming copyrighted material

You see your sig with the wrestling dude giving the thumbs up.
That's more than likely a copyrighted image.
The company or individual that owns that copyright can apply to a court to have the ISP block boards.ie because they displayed this image.

An extreme example.

campo

mikom wrote: »

You see your sig with the wrestling dude giving the thumbs up.
That's more than likely a copyrighted image.
The company or individual that owns that copyright can apply to a court to have the ISP block boards.ie because they displayed this image.

An extreme example.

Better remove sig then before boards is taken down

Auvers

campo wrote: »

ok might be a stupid question but what is so bad about this I presume it only stops people from illegaly downloading or streaming copyrighted material

nah their is way to many ways to get your mits on copyrighted material for this sort of draconian measure to work on pirates

that horse has long since bolted irma

danniemcq

I am so f*cking angry right now its not funny.

I'm assuming this isn't the exact same as ACTA so it can be changed.

The fact that it was pretty much sorted 3 weeks ago and then sat on it while they done up the other report to launch together WHILE THE WHOLE F*CKING INTERNET complained, bitched, moaned and signed the petition they completly ignored it.

Fingers crossed this will go the same way as the Blasphamy law and get quickly destroyed.

Is there anypoint in going to other TDs in your area to complain? Me wayyyyy up here in Donegal

eth0

utopianruins wrote: »

hedgehog coming out backwards

haha brilliant

Downlinz

Auvers wrote: »

nah their is way to many ways to get your mits on copyrighted material for this sort of draconian measure to work on pirates

that horse has long since bolted irma

For people in the know, yes. For the casual youtube/facebook user I'd imagine it'd be pretty easy to restrict what they can view.