So I've been blocked by Sean Sherlock for asking about EMI vs UPC...

Seachmall

How does one force a TD out of office? Is the guillotine the only option?


Because I totally have a guillotine!

monkeybutter

listermint wrote: »

Not sad, Its the line of successive governments. Ducking and diving active discussion its par of the course for incompetent and incoherrent politicians.

This is the type of response you can expect from someone so incompetent especially when you have his party leader actively telling the media they tell lies and give false promises. And the leader of the government cant engage in rational discussion without famous lines like 'where are the bodies gerry' 'where are the bodies'.

This is the type of tom foolery we have to deal with, they have brass necks and dont give two hoots about the country. Its all a gravy train until they grab their pension. There are no white nights in this country except for enterprise. Thats where the intelligence is and frankly i think thats where the patriotism is too.

In fairness, ducking and diving is a politicians bread and butter, it is the name of the game. His mistake here was not ducking the original debate so that now he can be shown up for being wrong.

He'll no doubt learn from this and avoid any debate or questions in the future and do a great job for the labour partae.

Tigger

DeVore wrote: »

Nope, we're not. For a start my name is Tom Murphy and I've been happy to stand on stage and debate this point

Secondly Boards is not a hive mind... we're a community of people with every opinion under the sun. I can TOTALLY live with that. I love differing opinion and robust arguments and debates. That only every brings out good ideas (trolling and abuse, not good, never confuse the two). So, if you have a contrary opinion, or just want to add to the discussion... thats great. That was kinda the idea behind Boards anyway!

What I'm opposed to is the "stick-head-in-sand" approach which capitulates to foreign companies and blocks home-grown entrepreneurs like they are "bothersome". Its the political attitude which has us paying bankers bad gambles for example.

This is another example of it here (albeit considerably less country-wrecking ).

it was a joke dude, after hours remember?

if you wanted serious only then /pol politics would be better
i get that you are the god of boards but if you've posted in ah its for one of two reasons
1, to get more attention which is against the rules
2, to mobilise the crazy s; hence the anon jest

I'm going to play devil's advocate here a little.....

Could his blocking you be after you asking him questions at a bad time, and/or asking them again after he gives you an answer that he sees as adequate but you don't? Could this be more like the reaction chuggers get from people than a "I disagree with you & I'm trying to do what the other guy wants, so I'm blocking you & you can get bent."?

Still though, do stick it into 'im. If he gets cosy with the moneyrights scum, then we need to vote him out.

Paddy Cow

DeVore wrote: »

1. EMI went ahead used Sherlocks SI to sue many Irish ISP's, primaraily UPC to stop access to The Pirate Bay.

When are music execs going to learn that it's pointless going after people for illegeally downloading music. They could shut down every torrent site and it would be an expensive waste of time unless they manage to get YouTube taken off line as well. Such douchery only encourages people to illegally download more out of spite.

If they want to make money, then they need to change their business model and move with the times. They can no longer charge €20 for a cd with a couple of good songs and a load of filler. With the internet, even people who pay for music can listen to the album first and decide to only buy the one or two good tracks. They can blame illegal downloads for declining sales all they want but people have been stealing music since long before the internet. I remember shouting at the dj to shut the hell up and stop ruining the song I was taping with his mindless chatter :pac:

Paddy Cow

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm going to play devil's advocate here a little.....

Could his blocking you be after you asking him questions at a bad time, and/or asking them again after he gives you an answer that he sees as adequate but you don't? Could this be more like the reaction chiggers get from people than a "I disagree with you & I'm trying to do what the other guy wants, so I'm blocking you & you can get bent."?

Still though, do stick it into 'im. If he gets cosy with the moneyrights scum, then we need to vote him out.

I'd say he was blocked so that Sherlock could keep his head in the sand and remain convinced that he is right.

Grayson

For a start, all the links on crank are blocked here by work. I take it they show photo's of deVore in some dodgy predicament.

And that photo in thailand? looks like it was taken in my kitchen. When were you in my kitchen.....

Cody Pomeray

Interesting video posted earlier. Clearly Sherlock had no authority to claim, or imply, that there would be no suit taken.

But has Sherlock been vindicated, in another respect?

One thing that Sherlock said is that the copyright SI just gives effect to European Law, seems to have been vindicated by the written judgement of Mr Justice Kelly in the Commercial Court:

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/352fd12d66fa458b80257b7500497fe1?OpenDocument

Kelly J wrote:

But that [Copyright SI] does no more than give effect to Article 8.3 of the Copyright Directive of 2001 in respect of which there is now a body of case law both in the European Court of Justice, the United Kingdom Courts and to a limited extent, the Irish courts.

That body of case law that Judge Kelly referenced includes, most notably, Scarlet v Sabam which says that "an Internet service provider (ISP) can not be ordered to install a system of filtering of all electronic communications and blocking certain content in order to protect intellectual property rights."

So certainly a suit can be taken, and Sherlock was wrong, but it seems that too much may have been made of the EMI v UPC (2010 ) judgement and that NOW, the courts agree with Sherlock's version of events with regard to the significance of the Copyright SI, which seems to have withered to nothing.

Tigger

we were told that din jacks would be the end of the record industry
then double decks
then cd tape combos
and now its the internet

industry should just be proactive rather than reactive
whats gonna happen when we are all wearing cheap Chinese copies of Google glass and streaming everything to each other and we look at a tv or listen to a radio?

DeVore

Grayson wrote: »

For a start, all the links on crank are blocked here by work. I take it they show photo's of deVore in some dodgy predicament.

And that photo in thailand? looks like it was taken in my kitchen. When were you in my kitchen.....

Last night.





...*psycho music*....

Shiminay

I'll just leave this here...

Newaglish

I know the thread is specifically about Sean Sherlock but... what's actually wrong with blocking access to the pirate bay? It is basically a vehicle for copyright theft.

Royal Irish

Quick, where is that boardsie with the cool Sean Sherlock avatar? He is needed here.

Cody Pomeray

Newaglish wrote: »

I know the thread is specifically about Sean Sherlock but... what's actually wrong with blocking access to the pirate bay? It is basically a vehicle for copyright theft.

I can't speak for anyone else, but perhaps the issue is not necessarily with copyright theft, but with compelling intermediaries to take responsibility for limiting individual freedoms to do and say stupid things... just like we do here all the time.

returnNull

Paddy Cow wrote: »

They can blame illegal downloads for declining sales all they want but people have been stealing music since long before the internet.

The dead kennedys(famous punk band for those that dont know)sold music tapes with one side left blank so that people could record pirated music on to it

http://highway81revisited.squarespace.com/storage/DKs%20embed.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1366600569400

DeVore

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I can't speak for anyone else, but perhaps the issue is not necessarily with copyright theft, but with compelling intermediaries to take responsibility for limiting individual freedoms to do and say stupid things... just like we do here all the time.

Bingo.

I am a semi-amateur actor in my spare time. I've done professional level work and would be annoyed if people ripped it off. What I'm NOT looking for is for the "tube" to be held responsible for what it conduits.

Its like holding National Toll Roads responsible for joyriders.

(Plus, I hate the smug political attitude of "we dont need to respond to the questions of the 'little people'". Bugs me.)

Doctor DooM

Newaglish wrote: »

I know the thread is specifically about Sean Sherlock but... what's actually wrong with blocking access to the pirate bay? It is basically a vehicle for copyright theft.

Because it is not the job of anyone to censor what information I have access to. I especially do not want censorship demanded of me by a corporate entity. How dare they, in fact.

If they've a problem with Piratebay, go after Piratebay.

expectationlost

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But has Sherlock been vindicated, in another respect?

One thing that Sherlock said is that the copyright SI just gives effect to European Law, seems to have been vindicated by the written judgement of Mr Justice Kelly in the Commercial Court:

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/352fd12d66fa458b80257b7500497fe1?OpenDocument


That body of case law that Judge Kelly referenced includes, most notably, Scarlet v Sabam which says that "an Internet service provider (ISP) can not be ordered to install a system of filtering of all electronic communications and blocking certain content in order to protect intellectual property rights."

So certainly a suit can be taken, and Sherlock was wrong, but it seems that too much may have been made of the EMI v UPC (2010 ) judgement and that NOW, the courts agree with Sherlock's version of events with regard to the significance of the Copyright SI, which seems to have withered to nothing.

so why he sign it? that was asked at the time
the law is stick to make upc settle, settling probably means filtering

Tigger

Newaglish wrote: »

I know the thread is specifically about Sean Sherlock but... what's actually wrong with blocking access to the pirate bay? It is basically a vehicle for copyright theft.

pirates prevent global warming

http://foxes.wordpress.com/2007/06/08/graph-of-how-pirates-prevent-global-warming/


we live on an island; do you want to have to swim to work

stevenmu

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm going to play devil's advocate here a little.....

Could his blocking you be after you asking him questions at a bad time, and/or asking them again after he gives you an answer that he sees as adequate but you don't? Could this be more like the reaction chiggers get from people than a "I disagree with you & I'm trying to do what the other guy wants, so I'm blocking you & you can get bent."?

Still though, do stick it into 'im. If he gets cosy with the moneyrights scum, then we need to vote him out.

The issue is that politicians want Twitter (and social media in general) to be another soapbox that they can use to stand on and use to push their "message" out. They want a one way system where they get to say what they want, but no one ever questions them in return.

They fail to understand, or perhaps just refuse to accept, that the whole point of social media is to have a two-way (or n-way) conversation, and letting opposing viewpoints meet. Hence they block/ban people who ask questions on Twitter/Facebook etc.

If they thought they could get away with banning individual reporters from press conferences I bet they'd do that too.

Cody Pomeray

expectationlost wrote: »

the law is stick to make upc settle, settle probably means filtering

If UPC settle it won't change the law; UPC seem to have a very strong case in light of Kelly's comments that Copyright SI is, basically, irrelevant, and his citation of EU case law which is clearly on UPC's side here. It seems as though UPC would be crazy to settle.

I just hope EMI get stung for costs, badly.

ibFoxer

Having watched those videos i can't help but feel the Minister Sherlock is, or at least comes across as, incredibly arrogant??

Also, not pandering to the powers that be but you came across really on top of your game DeVore/Tom and i think you asked all the right questions.

hullaballoo

I only log into twitter every few months. Last time it was KPOMG and yesterday it was this!

Why can't I be this lucky IRL?

expectationlost

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

If UPC settle it won't change the law; UPC seem to have a very strong case in light of Kelly's comments that Copyright SI is, basically, irrelevant, and his citation of EU case law which is clearly on UPC's side here. It seems as though UPC would be crazy to settle.

I just hope EMI get stung for costs, badly.

no it not about law its about industry agreement = filtering

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

.....(Plus, I hate the smug political attitude of "we dont need to respond to the questions of the 'little people'". Bugs me.)

Thanks for answering my question on this thread, Dev.

120_Minutes

Newaglish wrote: »

I know the thread is specifically about Sean Sherlock but... what's actually wrong with blocking access to the pirate bay? It is basically a vehicle for copyright theft.

To paraphrase an old saying:

"First they came for the pirate bay, but I did not speak up because I didn't use the pirate bay......"

ibFoxer

Seachmall wrote: »

I've heard him described as quite the prick.

I'm not suggesting that he is a prick, simply that I've heard him describe as one...

There's a certain level of "George Clooney Oscar Speech" to him alright.

I have to be honest though, at least he is, for good or bad, talking about it. My local minister, who i would be friendly enough with, point blank refused to talk about or listen to anything related to the SI/SOPA/ACTA/CISPA.

There is a massive level of ignorance and head burying within the government when it comes to all things that aren't rotary dial telephones and glenroe. It just seems that for an issue with such potential impact there really is nobody that understands the entire thing in power, or near power.

mikom

Newaglish wrote: »

I know the thread is specifically about Sean Sherlock but... what's actually wrong with blocking access to the pirate bay? It is basically a vehicle for copyright theft.

I know the thread is specifically about Sean Sherlock but... what's actually wrong with blocking access to youtube? It is basically a vehicle for copyright theft.

and so on............ and so on...............

Seachmall

foxerv1 wrote: »

I have to be honest though, at least he is, for good or bad, talking about it.

I'd agree if he had stuck to talking about it, at least that way he would have a chance to try and understand the implications of what he did.

Instead he jumped headfirst into a subject he knew nothing about and arrogantly ignored the onslaught of criticisms he received from both those who he is supposed to represent and professionals on the matter.

He is not qualified to be a representative nor is he qualified to have any impact on technology-based legislation.

He is a prick with an unfortunate title and nothing more.

IM0

eh they are missing the fundamental point of the net, anything goes, tough **** if you lose revenue :rolleyes: