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

Cody Pomeray

expectationlost wrote: »

no it not about law its about industry agreement = filtering

Well industry agreement is another issue, indeed, I was responding to the legal basis.

Irish ISPs are free to engage, within the law, in any agreement with other parties. That's not really something we can expect to control, except by voting as consumers to move to alternative providers, should any exist.

You can't really blame the Minister for that.

The reason the Minister is saying nothing right now, it seems to me, is (i) he was wrong in respect of a suit being taken but (ii) he believes the Courts are about to vindicate what he said about the copyright SI.

I think he's probably right on the latter point, even if he is only right 'by accident'.

DeVore

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Well industry agreement is another issue, indeed, I was responding to the legal basis.

Irish ISPs are free to engage, within the law, in any agreement with other parties. That's not really something we can expect to control, except by voting as consumers to move to alternative providers, should any exist.

You can't really blame the Minister for that.

The reason the Minister is saying nothing right now, it seems to me, is (i) he was wrong in respect of a suit being taken but (ii) he believes the Courts are about to vindicate what he said about the copyright SI.

I think he's probably right on the latter point, even if he is only right 'by accident'.

The SI is the basis on which this case is being taken. The problem we have with his SI is that whether UPC are forced to filter or not... they were forced into court and every other intermediary (of which we are one!) can be dragged into court by anyone who doesnt like what they are "facilitating".

We dont have that sort of cash. No one does! This leads to an AWFUL situation for the likes of Google, Twitter, Facebook etc... and just bad law all round.

Seachmall

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

(ii) he believes the Courts are about to vindicate what he said about the copyright SI.

Regardless of the courts decisions his position will not be vindicated.

The criticisms surrounding the SI were about the vagueness of the wording and it's potential to be abused.

This court case, regardless of outcome, has demonstrated that he was wrong and that the criticisms were accurate.

If he were an honest man he would admit his mistake and invite experts to assist in rewording the legislation to prevent this sort of thing happening in the future.

Dyr

Someone once told me that he looks like Snap, Crackle and Pop all at once, can't say I noticed


Even if that was true it wouldn't necessarily follow that he's a prize winning poxbag

Cody Pomeray

DeVore wrote: »

The SI is the basis on which this case is being taken.

Yes it is the basis for this case, but the Irish High Court, ruling a few weeks ago, has found that the Copyright SI only gives effect to an Article of the Copyright Directive of 2001 which had previously been transposed incorrectly,(as you know improper transposition was why the Courts could not previously consider the case between EMI v UPC back in 2010)

Therefore it appears that the Minister has only done what was asked to do - to give effect to EU law - but that the Minister's SI "does no more" than that - these are the words of Judge Peter Kelly in the High Court, not my words.

If that is the case, then the EU case law which Kelly referenced in his recent ruling should be more than enough to prevent EMI's application for relief. In that situation, Sherlock can turn around and say "I told you it didn't do any more than what EU law permits" and we still might think he's a douchebag, but hey, at least the SI won't have done any more than what EU Law already permits... which is not very much from the point of view of intermediaries.

DeVore wrote: »

whether UPC are forced to filter or not... they were forced into court and every other intermediary (of which we are one!) can be dragged into court by anyone who doesnt like what they are "facilitating".

But that has always been the case. There is nothing to stop Joe Bloggs going down to the High court and suing boards.ie for blasphemy and moral licentiousness - thankfully, no Judge would be likely to entertain their claims because they would have no legal basis for it.

There seems to be scarce basis for EMI and Sony's case here either.

Cody Pomeray

Seachmall wrote: »

Regardless of the courts decisions his position will not be vindicated.

But he may be accidentally correct I would suspect, or maybe he is gifted with an extraordinarily insightful Attorney General. Who knows.

But you can be sure of one thing, its a grey enough area that he will claim vindication.

bluemachaveli

Doctor DooM wrote: »

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.

The have tried and failed. See here

This is the next stage of the master plan!

wil

Where will it all stop. Can somebody please think of the calves.

The copy"right"(TM) war has raged milennia sans conclusion, resulting in armistice rules that generally favour power and money over fair and write.
But who facilitates copyleft?, the nib seller, the ink manufacturer, the vellum supplier, the farce?

Why stop at ISPs, why not electricity suppliers without whom the servers couldnt run and make all the rampant piracy possible. And while we are at it, Bic(TM) biros, Maxell(TM) Tapes, shure why not the National Roads authority for facilitating theit conduit for getaway cars.
But dont mention the income from IP that lives in virtual countries rendering it untaxable.

But careful now, however regal that Dev photo may suggest a more than tentative link to the Niall Noígíallach gene pool, remember, even almighty monks fall foul of misquotes, pagan dudes and MacDei-iellian politics. Choose your 3000 boardsies for the cause carefully.

History teaches us - "le gach tarbh a cacamas"
"And to each bull, it's crap" © wil c2013

Doctor DooM

bluemachaveli wrote: »

The have tried and failed. See here

This is the next stage of the master plan!

That doesn't make the idea of controlling our access to the internet ok...

TheDoc

EMI are going toe to toe with an ISP which to my knowledge has been taking to court countless times over the same issue and has never had a succesfull case held against them.

I think people quickly forget that the music and movie industry were during ISPs and individuals long before Sean Sherlock came around.

If he ignores his citizens then ignore him and his party. I have little sympathy for the horrendous actions and decisions taking by a government coalition that showed absolutely zero evidence during the elections they would be competant.

The whole bill was a little fiasco last year and tbh I hsvnt heard a peep about bit again until today. It has had very little impact truth be known as opposed to what a lot of people would have had you believe.

I appreciate that you want answers from Sherlock. But as to why you want a junior minister to comment on one private entity sueing another is strange. Bar the obvious that its stirring up more attention for the bill that he brought in....that has so far....not affected anything I do or anyone I know in regards to the internet.

Cody Pomeray

TheDoc wrote: »

I think people quickly forget that the music and movie industry were during ISPs and individuals long before Sean Sherlock came around.

The issue is this is the first time Sherlock's law has come before the courts as a legal argument in its own right. It's a legitimate topic of concern.

The whole bill was a little fiasco last year and tbh I hsvnt heard a peep about bit again until today.

That's because the issue only came back before the courts recently and is now coming to trial. Arguments have to be prepared by counsels and and stand in line.

I appreciate that you want answers from Sherlock. But as to why you want a junior minister to comment on one private entity sueing another is strange.

The Minister expressed disbelief that his SI would give rise to a suit coming before the High Court. That may have been a fair opinion, but for whatever reason, it has not stood the test of time because the matter has come back to the Courts, citing Sherlock's Law.

YES, the defendants are likely to win, NO, Sherlock's Law is not, in fact, likely to grant the applicants injunctive relief against ISPs - but I suppose there must be some scarce sort of perceived likelihood or else no application would be made. I don't know what EMI's/ Sony's argument is, but if they can afford talented Senior Counsel like Michael McDowell to act on their behalf, you can be sure that all avenues will be explored.

DeVore

I want to burn him (politically) so badly that his successor will be pyrophobic.

Its the only way they learn.

hoodwinked

DeVore wrote: »

I want to burn him (politically) so badly that his successor will be pyrophobic.

Its the only way they learn.

it wouldn't be so bad if they weren't too proud and stubborn to admit they know nothing of this mythical internet creature and actually ask some professionals who you know maybe work with it day in day out for some advice on these matters...

or at least listened to those affected by this ridiculous legislation...

humbert

What is the best thing people can do to put him under pressure?

PopePalpatine

humbert wrote: »

What is the best thing people can do to put him under pressure?

Keep bringing it up, of course. Build up momentum against Sherblock and the bloodsucking record labels. If stuff like this remains under the radar, then soon enough we might see the likes of YouTube blocked.

oppenheimer1

Dravokivich wrote: »

I always find it baffling that companies such as EMI tend to publicly focus this issue driving traffic to the sites they want to take down, instead of trying to endorse and promote a service, they want people to use.

I also don't get why they are going after the ISPs too. Does a bank harass a manufacturer if their car is used as a getaway for a bank robbery?

They go after the ISP's because they would be easier to control than thousands of individual users.

Going after the ISP makes more sense than going after the individual tbf.

WIZE

DeVore wrote: »

I want to burn him (politically) so badly that his successor will be pyrophobic.

Its the only way they learn.

This is Stupid

You have your own rule on boards " Attack the post, not the poster"

Your Quote makes out that you have a vendetta against Sherlock rather than the Copyright SI

You are now giving him a reason to Block you. I suggest you delete it as your argument becomes invalid

expectationlost

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Well industry agreement is another issue, indeed, I was responding to the legal basis.

Irish ISPs are free to engage, within the law, in any agreement with other parties. That's not really something we can expect to control, except by voting as consumers to move to alternative providers, should any exist.

You can't really blame the Minister for that.

The reason the Minister is saying nothing right now, it seems to me, is (i) he was wrong in respect of a suit being taken but (ii) he believes the Courts are about to vindicate what he said about the copyright SI.

I think he's probably right on the latter point, even if he is only right 'by accident'.

the law will be used to force industry agreement, he and we knew that back then

Cody Pomeray

expectationlost wrote: »

the law will be used to force industry agreement, he and we knew that back then

How? EU Case law (Scarlet v. Sabam) says the opposite, and the stated view of the Irish courts is that Sherlock's Law "does no more" than give effect to EU Law.

expectationlost

DeVore wrote: »

I want to burn him (politically) so badly that his successor will be pyrophobic.

Its the only way they learn.

he'll win his seat again the people who voted for his daddy will vote for him.

returnNull

humbert wrote: »

What is the best thing people can do to put him under pressure?

you can get his email and office address and sign him up for every freebie you can find on the interwebz...2 free nappies,free satchets of handwash etc

kowloon

Royal Irish wrote: »

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

I think that might be Scumlord.

du Maurier

I'm not sure why your deep-seated, showy crusade continues on AH.

PopePalpatine

returnNull wrote: »

you can get his email and office address and sign him up for every freebie you can find on the interwebz...2 free nappies,free satchets of handwash etc

YouPorn? RedTube?

emo72

The things I'm going to do, I could never utter them. Let them do their worse. I'm right here.

_rebelkid

expectationlost wrote: »

he'll win his seat again the people who voted for his daddy will vote for him.

I'm in his constituency. Specifically, I live in the town monopolised by the Sherlocks, and I have deterred everyone in my LC year of voting age not to vote for him.

He's often in my school, but I've never had the chance to quiz him. But I have often walked past him talking about how he WAS a good politician, but now he isn't. And he HAS heard me.

If I see him again, I am definitely bringing the case up, cause he won't walk away from a young. impressionable voter like my self. :cool:

Pat Mustard

humbert wrote: »

What is the best thing people can do to put him under pressure?

Well for a start, he could be made to answer Tom Murphy's question by means of a Dáil question.

A willing T.D. would have to be found, but surely there is at least one.

Dara Calleary is the current FF spokesman on Enterprise.

Strawberry Milkshake

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Dev, If I am honest, I have no idea what this is all about. Would you mind a doing a brief synopsis, in a "for dummies" type of way please?

As I have limited data, I am unable to click your links. But I have added you and sherlock to my follow list on twitter.

Ta very much

DeVore wrote: »

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.)

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Thanks for answering my question on this thread, Dev.

I took an interest in your thread, Devore, and you asked would we follow yourself and Sherlockr on twitter, which I did. You also asked if we would pose questions to him, in our own words as he had blocked you. I was happy to help in any way I could. So, in order to do so I asked you a question (see first post above). I am sorry to say that I am disheartened with your lack of response towards me.

I would never class myself as the sharpest tool in the box but I do know my weaknesses and strengths. My weakness in this case was my lack of knowledge of the topic at hand. My strength is my thirst for knowledge. How could I possibly help you without some research? At that time this afternoon, I asked you for that help. As yet, you haven't replied to me.

If I am honest, I feel like one of the "little people" you mention above. Obviously, I am not smart enough for your campaign. In my mind, that puts you in the same league as Mr Sherlock as he has chosen to ignore you too.

_rebelkid

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I would never class myself as the sharpest tool in the box but I do know my weaknesses and strengths. My weakness in this case was my lack of knowledge of the topic at hand. My strength is my thirst for knowledge. How could I possibly help you without some research? At that time this afternoon, I asked you for that help. As yet, you haven't replied to me.

If I am honest, I feel like one of the "little people" you mention above. Obviously, I am not smart enough for your campaign. In my mind, that puts you in the same league as Mr Shatter as he has chosen to ignore you too.

When the light is grey, that means he is offline...

If I may make a suggestion, read the 2 krank.ie articles. I myself did not know much about the situation, but the internet is a place full of news and info, so a little googling normally helps.

This is why people aren't happy with him.

And this is where he ignores people.

Hank Scorpio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZOZKtODtkk

Is this legit?