ACTA - International SOPA, Ireland & EU signed 26th Jan

AdamD

JustinDee wrote: »

It is not a constitutional matter so Joe Soap has no veto whatsoever. Nothing unusual about that.
The clue is in the name. What the ACTA is is a trade agreement and as is managed by the relevant govt department(s) which is made up of democratically elected officials designated the relevant roles.

They really aren't designated 'relevant roles', certainly not in Ireland anyway.

Also; with regards to your youtube post, every minute there is over 24 hours worth of video uploaded on the website, it isn't possible to monitor all of that, therefore there is no 'obvious solution' which would help youtube and websites like it stay online. This will affect you if it passes, stop being naive and thinking that just because you don't use torrents that this is fine.

tryde

Actually torrents gonna be the ones least affected by this, as if someone got even slight clue about technology, it won't be possible for them to detect you actually download anything without breaking into your houses and checking your pc.

This isn't anti-piracy, it's anti-freedom of speech.

KyussBishop

JustinDee wrote: »

Just using YouTube as an example, as someone mentioned, users on YouTube uploading copywritten material. To stop them doing this, the obvious measure is to stop the outlet from allowing such material being downloadable. The answer as to how to stop them doing this is obvious. The website have to police it as they are the hosts or face closure. I know how they do this at the moment ie. do nothing until an threat fro copyright holder arises.
If you host or propagate the hosting of video material taken from the IRFU's website covering Club Sevens via a sharing website, blog or social media account, as another example, you are in breach. A law should be applicable in stopping you doing this.

Fair enough, this is inded what YouTube does already; what about The Pirate Bay? TPB does not actually host any of the content, they host torrent files which (simplistically put) just provide information on where to get all the different pieces of the file.

Should hosting .torrent files of copyrighted content be illegal?

Since there is effectively not that much difference between a .torrent and a http link, should providing a link to a copyrighted file be illegal?

What about linking to a web page that links to a copyrighted file? etc. etc.; where do you draw the line?

Google is the biggest provider of links to copyrighted material in the world (such that it is practically impossible for them to police their content); should that be illegal? Should Google be blocked?

JustinDee wrote: »

This is the question I actually asked in one of my first posts ie. what can be done to prevent unauthorised access and/or breach of copyright.

A 'sook', by the way, is not a coward.

As I said, it is practically impossible to prevent sharing of copyrighted material on the internet, due to how the internet works; it is not possible to prevent it without impacting upon free speech.

What's most interesting about it, and what makes it such a fundamental issue for the content industries, is that there is absolutely no possible middle ground or compromise:
There is no known way to block sharing of copyrighted content, without harming free speech; the two are mutually exclusive.

JustinDee

AdamD wrote: »

They really aren't designated 'relevant roles', certainly not in Ireland anyway

A minister in charge of any of Communications, Trade or Industry departments is designated the relevant role as is anyone who is dealing with this is.

AdamD wrote: »

Also; with regards to your youtube post, every minute there is over 24 hours worth of video uploaded on the website, it isn't possible to monitor all of that, therefore there is no 'obvious solution' which would help youtube and websites like it stay online. This will affect you if it passes, stop being naive and thinking that just because you don't use torrents that this is fine.

What you are suggesting is just sit back and let it all happen then.
Nothing to do with naivete...

tryde

For anyone who wants actual insight of how piracy should be countered, this article will be a great read:
http://www.industrygamers.com/news/valves-newell-steam-makes-piracy-a-non-issue/

This company got proper attitude and makes tons of money thanks to that.

That's proper way of countering piracy, not trying to shut down websites, only way u could eliminate piracy would be completely blocking internet and just allowing 1 way information flow as it is in television.

AdamD

JustinDee wrote: »

A minister in charge of any of Communications, Trade or Industry departments is designated the relevant role as is anyone who is dealing with this is.


What you are suggesting is just sit back and let it all happen then.
Nothing to do with naivete...

When did I say that? Don't put words in my mouth.

JustinDee

KyussBishop wrote: »

Fair enough, this is inded what YouTube does already; what about The Pirate Bay? TPB does not actually host any of the content, they host torrent files which (simplistically put) just provide information on where to get all the different pieces of the file.

Should hosting .torrent files of copyrighted content be illegal?

Since there is effectively not that much difference between a .torrent and a http link, should providing a link to a copyrighted file be illegal?

What about linking to a web page that links to a copyrighted file? etc. etc.; where do you draw the line?

Google is the biggest provider of links to copyrighted material in the world (such that it is practically impossible for them to police their content); should that be illegal? Should Google be blocked?

You're answering your own questions here.
Of course its illegal. Put yourself in the position of someone holding copyright to intellectual property. If some anonymous little internetty is downloading their material for free without permission to do so, someone is culpable. Who? Its up to the downloader and provider to prove innocence, not the other way round.
Who says that Google as a search engine is culpable along the line?

KyussBishop wrote: »

As I said, it is practically impossible to prevent sharing of copyrighted material on the internet, due to how the internet works; it is not possible to prevent it without impacting upon free speech

Therefore just let the illegal downloading continue as is. Great.

tryde

You don't realize they have all the law necessary to pursue pirate website already, do you?
They shut down Megaupload, which generated 4% of total internet traffic, without anything included in this law.
They can shut down websites and send people to prison, problem is this take effort from their side, so they decided to force this law onto countries, ISPs, people. They want ISPs do the work for them, by putting leash on our necks and monitoring 24/7 what we do.

I never download illegal content, yet I'm going to be monitored as if I'm some criminal? Some asshole from my ISP or other company gonna read through my mails just because he's bored ? This is what this ACTA thing will allow to happen and no way in hell I will stand by as it happens.

Jonny7

Sorry to be lazy but is there anywhere with a decent break-down of the act without all the melodramatics

Nate--IRL--

JustinDee wrote: »

Therefore just let the illegal downloading continue as is. Great.

Total Censorship or Illegal downloading - Control of information, or freedom of information (1's and 0's in this case) that is the choice ultimately. Which would you feel more comfortable with?

Nate

wes

ACTA arrives (still bad, but a tiny bit better)

Some info on ACTA from a year ago from Ars Technica (also good stuff on SOPA and PIPA on there as well).

The fact that this treat was largely done in secret, is imho an affront to democracy. Also, I think the action against Megaupload, shows how these extra laws are not needed in anyway shape or form. Existing laws are more than enough. IMHO, some of them need to be rolled back, as I feel a lot of fair user rights have been lost in recent years.

tryde

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
Just read the bit until contents table if you don't want to get into details.


Sadly if ACTA goes through, even wiki-tan might end up in a graveyard. ;<

View

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Total Censorship or Illegal downloading - Control of information, or freedom of information (1's and 0's in this case) that is the choice ultimately. Which would you feel more comfortable with?

Nate

Is this like how a person can only be either a Facist or a Communist as there are no shades of political opinion between those two extremes?

KyussBishop

JustinDee wrote: »

You're answering your own questions here.
Of course its illegal. Put yourself in the position of someone holding copyright to intellectual property. If some anonymous little internetty is downloading their material for free without permission to do so, someone is culpable. Who? Its up to the downloader and provider to prove innocence, not the other way round.
Who says that Google as a search engine is culpable along the line?

No I didn't answer any of those questions. Someone may be culpable for downloading or hosting the illegal content in the end, but the law must be written in a clear and comprehensive way to describe exactly what it is that is illegal.

So, out of all my questions there:

Should hosting .torrent files of copyrighted content be illegal?

Since there is effectively not that much difference between a .torrent and a http link, should providing a link to a copyrighted file be illegal?

What about linking to a web page that links to a copyrighted file? etc. etc.; where do you draw the line?

Google is the biggest provider of links to copyrighted material in the world (such that it is practically impossible for them to police their content); should that be illegal? Should Google be blocked?

Which of these should be illegal, and which not? Should they all be illegal? This is what the law needs to explicitly define.

If you think that it should be illegal to link to web pages that contain copyrighted material, then Google must be culpable.

JustinDee wrote: »

Therefore just let the illegal downloading continue as is. Great.

Again we return to the "something must be done" argument, as I said in my last post on this (which you did not answer):

Your previous post implies, in relation to piracy, that you think "something must be done"; if that's accurate, what exactly do you think should be done? (and will that solution actually stop piracy? will it also harm free speech or threaten censorship in some way?)

KyussBishop

Jonny7 wrote: »

Sorry to be lazy but is there anywhere with a decent break-down of the act without all the melodramatics

This is a decent breakdown of it:
https://www.eff.org/issues/acta

View

Jonny7 wrote: »

Sorry to be lazy but is there anywhere with a decent break-down of the act without all the melodramatics

The European Commission page on ACTA is here and it includes a copy of the final text of the agreement on it.

Scofflaw

wes wrote: »

ACTA arrives (still bad, but a tiny bit better)

Some info on ACTA from a year ago from Ars Technica (also good stuff on SOPA and PIPA on there as well).

The fact that this treat was largely done in secret, is imho an affront to democracy. Also, I think the action against Megaupload, shows how these extra laws are not needed in anyway shape or form. Existing laws are more than enough. IMHO, some of them need to be rolled back, as I feel a lot of fair user rights have been lost in recent years.

That's probably the most useful of the three most recently mentioned sources. The EFF one is pretty out of date, and the Commission one is at least partly written in response to the EFF one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KyussBishop

Ya, it is probably worth updating the first post with the most up to date links (thanks for doing that for me yesterday btw); I will try to find the time to collect together a bunch of up to date links from through the thread, and a bit of a news update, for addition to the first post, when I have time in a bit.

Sabre0001

It would be very interesting if Seán Sherlock and The Labour Party didn't have the rights to use the YouTube footage on his page - http://www.seansherlock.ie/blog/

hatrickpatrick

JustinDee wrote: »

Its up to the downloader and provider to prove innocence, not the other way round.

What.
The.
F*CK?!

Burden of proof is on the accused? Democracy, alive and well in 2012 I see :eek:

Fluorescence

Jonny7 wrote: »

If I don't pirate anything, camcord films, have illegally downloaded files on me, etc, etc ... how will ACTA affect me?

Some posters already addressed this but I'll add some more examples.

Are you on facebook? Ever write out song lyrics, post a video, share a funny website or picture with some friends? If ACTA comes in, you will be a criminal for doing all these things. Even if it's not in public. Even if you just send your friend a link by private mail or even regular email. That will be a crime.

Sites like StumbleUpon won't be able to exist. Hell, even Google might not be able to exist.

Has something ever broken in your house, and you turned to Youtube or Google to find out what's wrong with it/how to repair it? You won't be able to do that anymore.

This law will do nothing to prevent piracy, but it will do everything possible to criminalise free speech. If that's not 1984 in internet form, then hell I don't know what is.

Voltaire once said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Of course, even quoting him in order to make a point could see me branded a criminal.

The free flow of information and exchange of knowledge scares the hell out of people in power. People today are more knowledgeable than ever before, and with the internet at our fingertips almost anything is possible to achieve.

It must be protected.

nacho66

JustinDee wrote: »

Its up to the downloader and provider to prove innocence, not the other way round.

I say you are an idiot... prove you are not

meglome

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Total Censorship or Illegal downloading - Control of information, or freedom of information (1's and 0's in this case) that is the choice ultimately. Which would you feel more comfortable with?

Nate

There has always been illegal copies of movies and tv shows. The only difference now is anyone at anytime can get access to them. But I have little sympathy for the movie and tv companies as they sought to keep an iron fisted control of their product. The problem was the technology had moved on and they couldn't keep the control they once had. The obvious move at that point was to embrace the technology to their advantage but instead they still sought control. The idea that all these downloads are lost revenue to them is laughable. I think we all know a lot of people who download and stream extensively but we also know they would not actually watch the majority of these downloads if they were paying for them. Well outside a netflix type model anyway.

We have netflix in Ireland for a few weeks but years ago we could and should have had access to reasonably priced paid for services, no reason there couldn't have been dozens of these companies by now.

The horse has bolted from their stable and they are trying to lock down the entire county and make everyone suffer restrictions due to their poor choices. There is a middle ground to be had here but these draconian measures need to be stopped to allow that to happen.

hatrickpatrick

BTW, if megaupload and megavideo can turn hundreds of millions in ad and subscription revenue every year, it's pretty obvious that movie companies could make the same by streaming stuff for free just like megavideo did, no?

Nate--IRL--

View wrote: »

Is this like how a person can only be either a Facist or a Communist as there are no shades of political opinion between those two extremes?

I was trying to highlight the absurdity of Justin's viewpoint. You will never get rid of Piracy online.

Nate

Sabre0001

Here is a video regarding why you shouldn't fear ACTA and a reddit link...Curious to see people's opinions.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/or8ag/ive_read_the_final_version_of_acta_heres_what_you/

RandomName2

I'm really divided about this anti-piracy legislation.

On one hand I think that copyright infringement is an inherently 'bad thing';but incursions into privacy, net neutrality, freedom of speech and the potential of collateral damage to innocent organisations is something to be taken seriously, however.

It doesn't sit well with me though when anti-ACTA protesters say "it's not theft; just copying!".

Personally I think that something like Youtube has a good balance right now: recent high-budget movies are just not available for illegal download, but low-budget stuff from ages ago is easily available (try finding Avatar versus the Evil Dead 2 as a good comparison). I.e. things that have a high value are policed but valueless things well... aren't.

WAndyz

Not sure if this has been posted but should be...

If you oppose any of the recent copyright laws, please follow what it says on this thread.

http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/ot6o7/irish_people_who_can_we_contact_about_acta_ie_meps/

nacho66

There was an interview with a popular polish musician. He said, he never knew about ACTA until 2 days ago. There was no consultations, discussion or even notification from his label regarding this. This is a prove that the only entities that would have any benefits are media corporations (labels, publishers, lawyers), not artists. He also said that even tho average pay of popular musician is naturally higher than average pay in a given country, it's still less than 15% of the income from the product

Mollywolly

I am trying to earn a living online because of the scarcity of jobs here and, if this is pushed through, then it's not going to help me one bit.

I'm not a political activist in any shape or form - far from it - but this and the recent SOPA affair in the US has shifted my a$$ into gear. Last week I wrote to our boys in the Dail asking what their views were on SOPA, and got no reply - no surprise there then!

This week it's the turn of my MEP's and what they think about ACTA. Let's see if I hear anything from them before Thursday comes around.

Lilithis

It is not only about internet but the freedom of speach. According to ACTA if you buy a book and you like it a lot and you give that book to your friend for him to read it is a crime. If you quote any neewspaper or anyone famus without buying a rights to quote it is a crime. If you post on fb your fav song it is a crime, if you quote your fav song in public it is a crime.If you post a picture on internet and if the background is any poster it is a crime.
That is why there is so much going on in Poland to stop guvernement.
And yes the webpages where takne down all along weekend and monday.

And that is what happend in Denmark https://forum.suprbay.org/showthread.php?tid=111703

nesf

RandomName2 wrote: »

It doesn't sit well with me though when anti-ACTA protesters say "it's not theft; just copying!".

Well a key part of the problem is that content providers are not providing the services people want. I mean, look at Spotify. Brilliant idea, cuts a whole lot of piracy out because it gives free (or cheap) access to music. The problem? It's not global, it's country specific (unless you use VPN and other workarounds). This means, I as an Irish person look at friends of mine in the UK and see them getting free ad supported access to whatever music they want and ask why the hell should I have to pay for it? Don't mention Youtube, the audio quality is shocking. Ditto digital downloads. It is more expensive for me to buy classical music from download sites than it is for me to buy the CDs from Amazon or whatever. This makes zero economic sense and is inconvenient for me on top of this. The latter makes me less happy about buying music because I feel like I'm being ripped off when I do (except with classical CDs because you can get such good bargains from some labels, but I digress).

Ditto films/TV, we just got Netflix and it's pretty crap. I mean, I can get a lot of films and TV through UPC and save it to my DVR for a pittance compared to the cost of streaming/buying even one TV series off iTunes. I mean, I'm sorry but I refuse to pay €30 extra for something just because I want to view it in a non-standard way. Meanwhile I can pay 12 Euro a month to see every concert live from the Berliner Philharmonic online and have access to over 140 concerts in their archive. All streamed at 320kbs AAC and HD video quality at best with lower quality for people with poorer internet. Guess whose concerts you don't find up for download very often even though it'd be relatively trivial to copy and distribute them? Ditto bands up on bandcamp where you can buy an album in any format for $6, preview tracks in full before buying! and the money goes directly (for the most part) to the artist.



Piracy is created precisely because the services people want aren't provided. Give good Netflix/Spotify style coverage in a country and your average person will stop downloading stuff illegally. Don't give it and don't be surprised if everyone is downloading. Laws like this one are idiotic, they a) don't work and b) miss the point. We're slowly seeing a movement towards reasonable services being provided but it's very, very slow. The core issue is, there will always be ways around this, people will learn them and new even more draconian laws will have to be enacted. Or they can just provide people content in a way that's convenient and cheap and get back all those sales. Piracy is not the issue in computer games that it is in music and films, why? Steam (the digital delivery platform). Regular sales, you can pick up games very cheap during seasonal sales, online catalogue of all your games, play your games on any PC anywhere etc. I never pirate computer games because the industry has given me everything I wanted and it is the same for an awful lot of people, though you will still always get people pirating if it's possible.

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

BTW, if megaupload and megavideo can turn hundreds of millions in ad and subscription revenue every year, it's pretty obvious that movie companies could make the same by streaming stuff for free just like megavideo did, no?

Myself and Nesf have said something similar. Companies are making many millions from file downloads which you cannot get at a reasonable price from the actual media companies. If I had access to the shows I watch from a good online source I would happily pay for a netflix type service, never-mind get it for nothing. Downloading illegally often means watching poor quality content and having slow connections. I just don't see what is so difficult for them to understand.

JustinDee

nesf wrote: »

Piracy is created precisely because the services people want aren't provided. Give good Netflix/Spotify style coverage in a country and your average person will stop downloading stuff illegally. Don't give it and don't be surprised if everyone is downloading. Laws like this one are idiotic, they a) don't work and b) miss the point. We're slowly seeing a movement towards reasonable services being provided but it's very, very slow. The core issue is, there will always be ways around this, people will learn them and new even more draconian laws will have to be enacted. Or they can just provide people content in a way that's convenient and cheap and get back all those sales. Piracy is not the issue in computer games that it is in music and films, why? Steam (the digital delivery platform). Regular sales, you can pick up games very cheap during seasonal sales, online catalogue of all your games, play your games on any PC anywhere etc. I never pirate computer games because the industry has given me everything I wanted and it is the same for an awful lot of people, though you will still always get people pirating if it's possible.

So basically piracy is the fault of the distributor rather than the tightarse stealing stuff they don't want to pay for?
Price is only a part of the equation. As long as one region releases a series or movie on DVD earlier than another or issues a different CD version to another, there will always be theft.
Its all their fault in the end.

nacho66

http://stopsopaireland.com

Why did they call it SOPA Ireland? That's not the name of the document. It's misleading. Also petitions will do s***. ACTA subject must make national headlines

Fluorescence

Sabre0001 wrote: »

Here is a video regarding why you shouldn't fear ACTA and a reddit link...Curious to see people's opinions.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/or8ag/ive_read_the_final_version_of_acta_heres_what_you/

This video kind of misses the point though. Besides the whole fact that this was drafted in near secrecy and debated without input from the public (which leaves a very sour taste in my mouth), there's also the rather worrying loosely worded nature of ACTA. If it ends up meaning that we're all going to start implementing our own severe SOPAs then it's a very bad thing.

nesf

JustinDee wrote: »

So basically piracy is the fault of the distributor rather than the tightarse stealing stuff they don't want to pay for?
Price is only a part of the equation. As long as one region releases a series or movie on DVD earlier than another or issues a different CD version to another, there will always be theft.
Its all their fault in the end.

You'll always get tightarses refusing to buy stuff. But a lot of it comes down to convenience and reasonable pricing. So long as we have massively different prices and services for different geographical regions we will have a lot of piracy. They're trying to segment a market that no longer has serious boundaries any more.

e.g. look at iTunes, even though it's not cheap it stopped a fair amount of privacy because it's convenient and the quality of the files is good. It's not about money a lot of the time but convenience for people.#

Edit: I'm talking about causal factors and ways to fix this rather than whose fault it is. The genie is out of the bottle and we've been "pirating" for generations, I mean, do you have any idea how much music I had copied on cassette tapes as a teenager? It's just an awful lot easier to do now and doesn't require your mate to own the CD.

nacho66

nacho66 wrote: »

http://stopsopaireland.com

Why did they call it SOPA Ireland? That's not the name of the document. It's misleading. Also petitions will do s***. ACTA subject must make national headlines

agreed

AdamD

JustinDee wrote: »

So basically piracy is the fault of the distributor rather than the tightarse stealing stuff they don't want to pay for?
Price is only a part of the equation. As long as one region releases a series or movie on DVD earlier than another or issues a different CD version to another, there will always be theft.
Its all their fault in the end.

I could steal Football Manager 12, but Steam makes it so convenient for me to buy it/play it/update it etc etc, I buy it off them. The same can't be said for music right now.

I could also illegally download shows like skins, but 4oD is so handy to use because you get high quality streams with only a couple of ads that I would say Channel 4/E4's shows aren't even affected by illegal downloads. The companies who claim to be affected need to turn around and take a look at their archaic business strategies.

nacho66

AdamD wrote: »

I could steal Football Manager 12, but Steam makes it so convenient for me to buy it/play it/update it etc etc, I buy it off them. The same can't be said for music right now.

I could also illegally download shows like skins, but 4oD is so handy to use because you get high quality streams with only a couple of ads that I would say Channel 4/E4's shows aren't even affected by illegal downloads. The companies who claim to be affected need to turn around and take a look at their archaic business strategies.

True. true. Steam made me go away from downloading games in the past. It even made me go away from buying boxed versions in stores, unless it requires registration on steam (or is not available on steam at all). However problem of not having demo versions of games still encourages to download in order to test before purchase

JustinDee

AdamD wrote: »

I could also illegally download shows like skins, but 4oD is so handy to use because you get high quality streams with only a couple of ads that I would say Channel 4/E4's shows aren't even affected by illegal downloads. The companies who claim to be affected need to turn around and take a look at their archaic business strategies.

We see Channel 4's shows at the same times as they're broadcast in the UK. They are not premiered in advance as a HBO or Showtime show would be in the States. Slightly different scenario.
Will change when Channel 4's player archives are limited to its source market though (ie. the UK) in the not-too-distant future. The illegal downloading will then take off for material from that particular network.

karma_

JustinDee wrote: »

We see Channel 4's shows at the same times as they're broadcast in the UK. They are not premiered in advance as a HBO or Showtime show would be in the States. Slightly different scenario.
Will change when Channel 4's player archives are limited to its source market though (ie. the UK) in the not-too-distant future. The illegal downloading will then take off for material from that particular network.

You've just proved teh point other posters have been arguing, and that you have been arguing against.

It's a service problem, and piracy only becomes a bigger factor when good, legal and convenient avenues of access are restricted.

JustinDee

karma_ wrote: »

You've just proved teh point other posters have been arguing, and that you have been arguing against.

It's a service problem, and piracy only becomes a bigger factor when good, legal and convenient avenues of access are restricted.

Wrong, you're attempting to absolve a thief of stealing with the excuse that it is somebody else's fault (when nobody else is responsible for their actions).
If it isn't available yet, then you can't have it until it comes out. If it costs too much for you, then you can't have it until you can afford it. If it doesn't come out in your region, you can't have it.
Sånn er livet.

AdamD

JustinDee wrote: »

Wrong, you're attempting to absolve a thief of stealing with the excuse that it is somebody else's fault (when nobody else is responsible for their actions).
If it isn't available yet, then you can't have it until it comes out. If it costs too much for you, then you can't have it until you can afford it. If it doesn't come out in your region, you can't have it.
Sånn er livet.

No no no no no, this act has essentially nothing to do with 'stealing' (which it isn't btw), it will stop free speech and probably stop some of the piracy. It will probably stop people using youtube downloaders and crappy programs like that. The people who illegally download large quantities of movies/tv shows/music will still be able to do it.

Companies changing their business strategies would have a far greater affect on piracy than this law. That's what we're trying to say and we've given you several examples of successful business' who have lowered the piracy levels on their products.

You seem to be looking at this like 'zomg stealing is bad, lets pass this act', which would be fine if the benefits of the act (stopping stealing) were actually big, and outweighed the drawbacks of the act (free speech, guilty until proven innocent), which frankly they don't even come close to.

BlueJohn

http://stopsopaireland.com/

Hello i dont know if any one here has seen this yet but if you could please sign the petition.

"Sean Sherlock, Minister for Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation, has announced he intends to enact a radical new law curtailing access to websites in Ireland, without a vote in the Oireachtas. Your civil rights and free access to the internet are under threat. Stop Minister Sherlock."

also contact him directly http://www.seansherlock.ie/contact-me/

karma_

JustinDee wrote: »

Wrong, you're attempting to absolve a thief of stealing with the excuse that it is somebody else's fault (when nobody else is responsible for their actions).
If it isn't available yet, then you can't have it until it comes out. If it costs too much for you, then you can't have it until you can afford it. If it doesn't come out in your region, you can't have it.
Sånn er livet.

Even with all the logic and sound arguments presented to you, you still flat out refuse to concede anything at all. Even when your own words run contrary to what you believe.

The main problem is, that it is people like yourself, who have limited understanding of the problems at all who are concocting these idiotic pieces of legislation. How cheaply you would sell your rights and freedoms.

Justin Dee for minister for finarse.!!!

JustinDee

karma_ wrote: »

The main problem is, that it is people like yourself, who have limited understanding of the problems at all who are concocting these idiotic pieces of legislation. How cheaply you would sell your rights and freedoms.

Arguing that "piracy will always be there" is actually not enough to force a point across. An opinion on what drives people to download illegally is just that, an opinion. Not proof in the slightest nor some constructable and steerable select poll, online or otherwise.
Melodramatic skrieking about 'freedoms' and 'rights' from people already advocating the allowing of copyright breach therefore ignoring 'rights' in the first place, is mainly what is happening right now.

If somebody wants to protest this, they should get up off their heineys and protest at Leinster Hse. Sitting on one's keyster, tapping at a computer will achieve sod all. If its that big a deal to your "freedoms and rights", get out there and do something about it.

nesf

JustinDee wrote: »

If somebody wants to protest this, they should get up off their heineys and protest at Leinster Hse. Sitting on one's keyster, tapping at a computer will achieve sod all. If its that big a deal to your "freedoms and rights", get out there and do something about it.

Play the ball not the man please.

KyussBishop

JustinDee wrote: »

Arguing that "piracy will always be there" is actually not enough to force a point across. An opinion on what drives people to download illegally is just that, an opinion. Not proof in the slightest nor some constructable and steerable select poll, online or otherwise.
Melodramatic skrieking about 'freedoms' and 'rights' from people already advocating the allowing of copyright breach therefore ignoring 'rights' in the first place, is mainly what is happening right now.

If somebody wants to protest this, they should get up off their heineys and protest at Leinster Hse. Sitting on one's keyster, tapping at a computer will achieve sod all. If its that big a deal to your "freedoms and rights", get out there and do something about it.

People have put plenty of valid, well-reasoned arguments to you (myself included) that you have just ignored, or have evaded the key points, only to repeat the same stuff you have already said thus far in the thread, accusing people of being "melodramatic" and "shrieking" in the process.

You also portray people who are against these laws as "advocating the allowing of copyright breach" which is just a plain dishonest argument, ignoring the valid points put forward to you, and you know that.