Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

Options
1…4546485051…55

Comments

  • Options
    #1412
    Socialist_Pig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 321 ✭✭Socialist_Pig


    DeVore wrote: »
    Something is making him act in a seemingly irrational manner but it's not the lawyers IMHO.

    Its the free nappy's he's been recieving the last few days.


  • Options
    #1413
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    DeVore wrote: »
    Something is making him act in a seemingly irrational manner but it's not the lawyers IMHO.
    It's probably the crazy amount of abuse he is getting, both before and now; I was getting some good replies from him when I brought up some of the chilling effect implications of the law, and he seemed receptive (whilst still disagreeing), but don't think he fully understood.

    Now it is all abuse he is getting, with Anonymous probably barraging his email address now starting today, so probably has cut off any remaining chance at positive discourse.

    It's a pity more of the people sending abuse, do not instead read up on the law and its exact implications, try to understand that, and try to (politely) put that across to him.


  • Options
    #1414
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    It's a pity more of the people sending abuse, do not instead read up on the law and its exact implications, try to understand that, and try to (politely) put that across to him.

    Is this not the problem with the law in the first place?


  • Options
    #1415
    PHIDIAS
    Registered Users Posts: 120 ✭✭PHIDIAS


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    It's probably the crazy amount of abuse he is getting, both before and now; I was getting some good replies from him when I brought up some of the chilling effect implications of the law, and he seemed receptive (whilst still disagreeing), but don't think he fully understood.

    Now it is all abuse he is getting, with Anonymous probably barraging his email address now starting today, so probably has cut off any remaining chance at positive discourse.

    It's a pity more of the people sending abuse, do not instead read up on the law and its exact implications, try to understand that, and try to (politely) put that across to him.

    You really can not blame people for being outraged at Mr Sherlock & co's complete and utter dismissal of their concerns.
    He had some of the top tech experts questioning this S.I and still he refused to listen or halt its go ahead.
    People may not be voicing their opinions appropriately but i can certainly understand why they are angry. Treating over 80,000 citizens as insignificantly as he has, well i'm not sure what he/they expected.
    I agree with DeVore on the whole irrationality of this, it did not pass in the U.S so why is it being passed there. It does not add up.


  • Options
    #1416
    Droileen
    Registered Users Posts: 15 ✭Droileen


    The World is going forward but our leader`s attitude is backward....They say that we get the representatives that we deserve ? e,g. the rise of the Shinners etc. We are bad Europeans...begging bowl mentality but unwilling to be responsible citizens e,g. poor water quality, as a result of out badly maintained public water systems (group water schemes), poorly maintained private septic tanks etc.

    We want a "nanny state" that will make all the decisions for us, be they good or bad. It`s time we stopped whinging & took positive steps to be responsible for our individual & collective lives.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1417
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,092 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I like to keep it succinct. The OP is hardly worthy of raising some serious issues. It is also essentially a thinly veiled accusation that somehow lawyers have convinced the minister to act in an improper manner to somehow create more work for solicitors and/or barristers.

    No real causal link explained or thought out.
    indeed. If anything the legal profession would be just as pissed off at this as anyone, because the law is so vague the responsibility for focusing it will fall to them. It's not their job to "fix" bad legislation and a right headache for them to boot. I'd love to know how much input the head legal eagles had with this, because I'd be surprised if even a first year legal student would be OK with it.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #1418
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,767 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    It's probably the crazy amount of abuse he is getting, both before and now; I was getting some good replies from him when I brought up some of the chilling effect implications of the law, and he seemed receptive (whilst still disagreeing), but don't think he fully understood.

    Now it is all abuse he is getting, with Anonymous probably barraging his email address now starting today, so probably has cut off any remaining chance at positive discourse.

    It's a pity more of the people sending abuse, do not instead read up on the law and its exact implications, try to understand that, and try to (politely) put that across to him.
    would like to see him seeming receptive, i havnt see him acknowledge the concerns yet. he announced he was going to implement the SI weeks and weeks ago, his never considered changing policy since then, so the conent of communications didn't effect it.

    can anyone remember how this all restarted post xmas 2011, was a pres release from the djei, a news article?


  • Options
    #1419
    RiseToTheTop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 956 ✭✭✭RiseToTheTop


    I've a nagging feeling he has received a suitcase from an executive from any of the top media companies.


  • Options
    #1420
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    An article today in the Irish Times on the S.I. with an honourable mention for boards.ie


  • Options
    #1421
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Also from the Breaking News section of the IT website:

    Minister for Research and Innovation Sean Sherlock this morning announced consultations for the work of the Copyright Review Committee, which is examining the current legislation to identify areas that might be deemed to be barriers to innovation . . .

    Mr Sherlock said he was encouraging a wide participation in the consultation.

    "I am committed to reviewing and updating the copyright legislation currently in place in order to strike the correct balance between encouraging innovation and protecting creativity, and the work of the committee is very important in this regard,” he said . . .

    He could start his review of "copyright legislation currently in place" with the dog's dinner of a statutory instrument he's just introduced!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1422
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    So, what am I missing as I'm a little confused.

    The minister signed in the SI last week saying he held public consultation. NOW he's having another public consultation, after the fact and retroactively update the law?


  • Options
    #1423
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,767 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    RangeR wrote: »
    So, what am I missing as I'm a little confused.

    The minister signed in the SI last week saying he held public consultation. NOW he's having another public consultation, after the fact and retroactively update the law?

    they say there holding this consulation to create a copyright bill 2012 but it'll probably be 2013, if not later, before its enacted, of course the state government could have moved on this sooner, having said they wanted to review copyright laws years ago. the SI was a short term measure but also creates a new normal which that very unlikley to reversed in this new review


  • Options
    #1424
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,774 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    The SI and the consultation announced today are both about copyright. However, that's where the commonality ends.

    The consultation has nothing to do with the SI or the matters dealt with in the SI.

    You'd wonder what the point is in doing a consultation, however, when Sean Sherlock just ignored the outcome of the last consultation on copyright.


  • Options
    #1425
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,767 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    The SI and the consultation announced today are both about copyright. However, that's where the commonality ends.

    The consultation has nothing to do with the SI or the matters dealt with in the SI.

    You'd wonder what the point is in doing a consultation, however, when Sean Sherlock just ignored the outcome of the last consultation on copyright.

    they really have nothing to do with each other? "seperate processes" but nothing do to with each other really? they are both about copyright and amemdements to the copyright and related acts are they not.


  • Options
    #1426
    Hellrazer
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,590 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hellrazer


    Got this back from Eamon Gilmores office this morning after I emailed him yesterday.Apologies if its been posted already.



    Dear Richard,
    Thank you for your email. Please see below update from Minister Sherlock on
    this issue.
    You may wish to make a written submission on this issue to the Minister -
    details contained in the press statement below.
    Regards,

    Lorraine Larkin
    Tánaiste’s Office



    5th March 2012

    Minister Sherlock Announces Online Consultations for the Copyright Review
    Committee’s Consultation Paper

    The Minister for Research and Innovation, Mr. Sean Sherlock, TD, has today
    (Monday) announced online consultations for the work of the Copyright
    Review Committee, and their wide-ranging Consultation Paper [
    http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/crc_consultation_paper.pdf ] (PDF, 1.4MB)
    which examines the current Copyright legislative framework to identify any
    areas of the legislation that might be deemed to create barriers to
    innovation.

    The Minister said:
    “I welcome the Consultation Paper which I was delighted to launch on the
    29th February last, and I encourage the widest possible participation in
    the consultation process. I am committed to reviewing and updating the
    Copyright legislation currently in place in order to strike the correct
    balance between encouraging innovation and protecting creativity, and the
    work of the Committee is very important in this regard.”

    The Committee now has a dedicated website at
    http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/crc.htm
    and it will be directly linked from the Department’s homepage until the
    Review process is complete. The Committee’s site provides various ways to
    participate in the consultation process. As well as by post and email, the
    Committee has prepared an online questionnaire [
    https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CRC12] to reply to the questions they pose
    in the Consultation Paper. It is available from the Committee’s website.

    “I hope that interested parties will find this innovative option to be
    helpful” the Minister added.

    “I am also grateful to the Irish Internet Association for providing an
    online mechanism to collate its members’ views and to gather the views of
    others on the Paper. Moreover, I would also welcome any similar initiatives
    undertaken by other online representative groups. The wider the
    consultation on the Committee’s work is, the better the outcome will be.

    The Committee hopes to provide draft heads of a Copyright and Related
    Rights (Innovation) (Amendment) Bill, 2012, to implement its
    recommendations, and one of the questions which they pose in the Paper is
    whether all of the amendments to the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000
    which are still in force should be consolidated into that proposed Bill. I
    welcome this suggestion, and its implementation would provide an
    opportunity in due course to update the provisions of the various
    Regulations in force (including the European Union (Copyright and Related
    Rights) Regulations 2012 (S.I. No. 59 of 2012)) if and when they are being
    incorporated into that Bill.”

    The Chairman of the Committee, Dr Eoin O’Dell, welcomed the Minister’s
    remarks, and said:
    “I particularly welcome the Minister’s view that the various Regulations
    now in force might be updated at a later stage. In the meantime, I hope
    that discussions will engage with the issues in our Consultation Paper, and
    that those who are interested in doing so via the internet will participate
    in our online questionnaire.”

    Submissions on the Consultation Paper can be made via the “online
    questionnaire” on the Committee’s website, or directly to the Department.
    In either case, submissions should be received by close of business on
    Friday 13 April 2012. There will also be a public meeting from 10:00am
    until 12:00 noon, on Saturday 24 March 2012, in the Robert Emmet Lecture
    Theatre, Room 2037 Arts Block, Trinity College Dublin. Attendance is free
    and open to anyone interested in the work of the Committee, but
    registration is necessary.

    To make a written submission, or to register for the public meeting, please
    email the Review at copyrightreview@djei.ie or write to Copyright Review,
    Room 517, Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Kildare Street,
    Dublin 2.

    ENDS


  • Options
    #1427
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,774 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    They are both about copyright, but they are about very different aspects of copyright.

    Below is a statement from the chairman of the committee.

    http://www.cearta.ie/2012/02/why-crc12-is-not-sopaireland/


  • Options
    #1428
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,767 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    They are both about copyright, but they are about very different aspects of copyright.

    Below is a statement from the chairman of the committee.

    http://www.cearta.ie/2012/02/why-crc12-is-not-sopaireland/

    crc chairman says SI is under remit of crc now.
    http://www.cearta.ie/2012/02/why-crc12-is-not-sopaireland/ Moreover, one of the questions which we pose in the Paper is whether all of the amendments to the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (also here) which are still in force should be consolidated into that proposed Bill. If that is done, then the SI would be incorporated into the Bill, and there would be scope at that stage to revisit the issue. In particular, if there were matters that could not be addressed in the SI, due to the relatively limited scope allowed to SIs in amending principal Acts for EU reasons, there would be no reason why these matters could not be discussed for inclusion in that Bill.

    and i think sherlock said something similar, does anyone have that quote, ah here it is http://www.thejournal.ie/sherlock-appeals-to-opponents-of-copyright-law-to-calls-off-the-dogs-369921-Mar2012/
    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.

    so the crc12 one has the title of innovation on it, so it will do nothing but foster innovation. right.

    i can't blame people for confusing the two issues as sherlock deliberaly conflated them by announcing his two actions in the same press release. and he is using the copyright review consultation to justify the SI.


  • Options
    #1429
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Hellrazer wrote: »
    Got this back from Eamon Gilmores office this morning

    Got back something similar meself. Whats next? In terms of consultation I wouldn't have a clue. Just seems to me the wrong man is in the job. That too basic?


  • Options
    #1430
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,767 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    mark tighe of the sunday times has put up a blogpost about some of the lobbying of sean sherlock last september and december http://irishjournalist.blogspot.com/ and 3 strikes scheme and similar would breach another EU directive


  • Options
    #1431
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    squod wrote: »
    Got back something similar meself. Whats next? In terms of consultation I wouldn't have a clue. Just seems to me the wrong man is in the job. That too basic?
    The wrong *men* are in the job.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1432
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,911 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Seems there's a DDOS attack on the labour.ie site at the moment.

    ⛥ ̸̱̼̞͛̀̓̈́͘#C̶̼̭͕̎̿͝R̶̦̮̜̃̓͌O̶̬͙̓͝W̸̜̥͈̐̾͐Ṋ̵̲͔̫̽̎̚͠ͅT̸͓͒͐H̵͔͠È̶̖̳̘͍͓̂W̴̢̋̈͒͛̋I̶͕͑͠T̵̻͈̜͂̇Č̵̤̟̑̾̂̽H̸̰̺̏̓ ̴̜̗̝̱̹͛́̊̒͝⛥



  • Options
    #1433
    SirDelboy18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭SirDelboy18


    I sent a short e-mail where I basically called him a knob for signing in the act and its negative implications. He seems to be up for a bit of a scrap.

    Reply:


    "Why not write back to me when you have read the crc doc (djei). Try saying something intelligent and engaging that brain of yours. "


  • Options
    #1434
    _AVALANCHE_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,620 ✭✭✭_AVALANCHE_


    SirDelboy18 wrote: »
    I sent a short e-mail where I basically called him a knob for signing in the act and its negative implications. He seems to be up for a bit of a scrap.

    Reply:


    "Why not write back to me when you have read the crc doc (djei). Try saying something intelligent and engaging that brain of yours. "
    Reply back with

    "I'm signing it anyway"

    with a pic of baby beside it that you took from google image search and ask is that breaking his new SI.


  • Options
    #1435
    dahamsta
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,659 ✭✭✭✭dahamsta


    Is he still using copyrighted media on his own site?


  • Options
    #1436
    matrim
    Registered Users Posts: 7,517 ✭✭✭matrim


    expectationlost wrote: »
    crc chairman says SI is under remit of crc now.



    and i think sherlock said something similar, does anyone have that quote, ah here it is http://www.thejournal.ie/sherlock-appeals-to-opponents-of-copyright-law-to-calls-off-the-dogs-369921-Mar2012/

    so the crc12 one has the title of innovation on it, so it will do nothing but foster innovation. right.

    i can't blame people for confusing the two issues as sherlock deliberaly conflated them by announcing his two actions in the same press release. and he is using the copyright review consultation to justify the SI.

    Of course people are confused about this. To me this seems to be a deliberate tactic from Sherlock and the DJEI to make people think the CRC is related to the SI on injunctions. The tactic seems to be to always mention the CRC in response to questions on the SI, releasing them on the same day and also creating confusing links on their website

    E.g. the link on the DJEI website to the CRC paper is
    "Consultation on Amendment to Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 in relation to injunctions against third parties (intermediaries)"

    Which seems to read that it is related to the SI on injunctions.

    But if you actually read the CRC it states that it is not related to the SI. While it may touch on similar stuff it is separate and much broader in scope


  • Options
    #1437
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Ya the CRC was setup before the SI was put in place; needs to be updated now that the SI has passed.

    If he replies to you saying to "look at the CRC", mention to him that the CRC specifically says it does not discuss the SI.


  • Options
    #1438
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I saw this on Facebook, not sure of its provenance.
    Mr Kavanagh [of EMI and IRMA] said that the wording of the SI as published is ideal from their perspective...


  • Options
    #1439
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Meh, I take back what I said about getting a 'receptive' response from Sherlock; emailed him again, to try and get a reply on my points on how the SI is not covered in the CRC paper, how ISP's can opt to block a site instead of going to court, and what the legal status of Eircom's block on The Pirate Bay is (both before and after SI).

    The reply?
    Will you just read the copyright review doc and engage on that basis. This is my third reply to you from thousands of emails on this issue. Read the ecommerce directive. Read the copyright act. Read the ecj ruling and the charter of fundamental rights which guarantee in law the rights of ISPs and citizens freedoms. All of which give guarantees. Why would an ISP block a site if it is a legal site? Any judge has to have regard to the proportionality of the response. This is my last response for now john. I look forward to your submission on the copyright review.
    I explained, in the email he's replying to, that I've read the fecking copyright review, and explained circumstances where an ISP may block a legal site (opting to block rather than go to court).

    It seems, when he says "read the copyright review", he means "stop emailing me and make a submission on the copyright review"; i.e. he's just fobbing people off.


  • Options
    #1440
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    #WeSaidNoSherlock

    At least you got a response. I'm still being ignored by him.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1441
    matrim
    Registered Users Posts: 7,517 ✭✭✭matrim


    RangeR wrote: »
    At least you got a response. I'm still being ignored by him.

    Me too. It seems that once his response cannot be "read the crc", he isn't bothered to respond.


Advertisement