Possible Irish SOPA Law? :/

Seachmall

gavmcg92 wrote: »

According to Willie Kavanagh, Youtube and embedded youtube links does not come under this copyright legislation due to the fact that youtube pays for the material on it's site

Simply put, if a right holder has the right to file a request of removal (which they do all the time to YouTube) they will now have the right to request an injunction to have that site blocked.

That's what this legislation does, it extends their right to a ridiculous extent so as to threaten any website that allows it's users to upload anything.

Assuming Kavanagh isn't blatantly lyng I assume he's either referring to the material that the music industry themselves upload (which Youtube pays per view) or videos that Youtube removes and pays a compensatory fee (which I don't know if they do, but it sounds logical).

However his statement that "YouTube will never be taken down." is either disingenuous and avoids whether or not YouTube could be taken down or not or based on the false notion that all material YouTube hosts is payed for.

TanG411

Achilles wrote: »

Here ya go lads,

Just about to publish this to Twitter and his FB page :P

http://imgur.com/JZkjX

I tweeted it to @AnonyOps.

They've retweeted it to their 126,000 followers.

MrVestek

ThinksAmoral wrote: »

I tweeted it to @AnonyOps.

They've retweeted it to their 126,000 followers.

Good man, couldn't Tweet it myself just yet as work tend to keep an eye on my Twitter account. ;-)

MajesticDonkey

ThinksAmoral wrote: »

I tweeted it to @AnonyOps.

They've retweeted it to their 126,000 followers.

They've also just tweeted the letter from boards.

I hope that pric­k has had fun playing a TD. The only thing he has a chance of being elected to, is a human sacrifice to our glorious overlord MERKOZY. Peace be upon it.

Duggy747

Full 15 minute video of the talk in the Daìl, today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0AurDVrIgw

MajesticDonkey

Duggy747 wrote: »

Full 15 minute video of the talk in the Daìl, today:

<!-- video -->

Why does it take him 15 minutes to finish each sentence?

gavmcg92

Decryptor wrote: »

Why does it take him 15 minutes to finish each sentence?

He's getting info fed to him through an ear piece! :eek:

MajesticDonkey

gavmcg92 wrote: »

He's getting info fed to him through an ear piece! :eek:

Like this fella.

Morlar

We know the Labour and Fine Gael take on this but does anyone know what is the SF or FF position on this ?

Seachmall

Morlar wrote: »

We know the Labour and Fine Gael take on this but does anyone know what is the SF or FF position on this ?

SF are anti afaik.

PseudoFamous

Morlar wrote: »

We know the Labour and Fine Gael take on this but does anyone know what is the SF or FF position on this ?

As they're trying to look good for the public, FF are probably "opposed" to this. "opposed" in the same way Fine Gael were "opposed" to paying bondholders.

gavmcg92

I think justice.ie is down

@anonops @AnonOpsSweden @AnonyOps @AnonymousIRC Everybody take down finance.gov.ie justice.ie registration.dlink.com.tw/loic.html #ACTA

My name is URL

How many TD's turned up for the debate on the topic? So depressing to think that 90% + of elected reps don't see this as important enough to give their time to.. even though it's being discussed all over the world. What a useless shower of utter ****.

Howlin1

Will taking down a website really help?

Morlar

My name is URL wrote: »

How many TD's turned up for the debate on the topic? So depressing to think that 90% + of elected reps don't see this as important enough to give their time to.. even though it's being discussed all over the world. What a useless shower of utter ****.

That was an announcement not a debate. There has been no debate on this. Let alone consultation or discussion.

gavmcg92

Reasonably happy that 2 out of my 5 representatives were there today ... Shame the dail wasn't packed to the brim.

I believe Stephen Donnelly brought it up during PM questions. Would have been more around for it then!

bradlente

Nothing on the news about it.

One of the pieces I read today indicated that it seems like a legal quagmire and that each case would solely depend on the judges discretion.

What gets me paranoid when I see that is how the referendum just passed where the government cut the pay increases of the judges.Is there a conflict of interest here now?I know they can't cut judges pay but how much say does the dail now have in controlling the cap on each individual judge?

I can imagine it down the line-Big corps like google where there are jobs at stake getting thrown out but maybe lesser known firms or easier targets suffering because of this.

Its not just this bill though.Nothing is ever drafted that makes sense anymore,It always gives it that sinister overtone for me.

Capt'n Midnight

ED E wrote: »

This is gonna just slip through isnt it...

Like the way we signed ACTA1 in today ?

[edit] already posted.

One of the big problems with this law is that you've to go to the High Court.
All the other side would have to do is lawyer up on the basis you can't afford to pay costs if you loose.


The only good news is that under other new laws you'd only be bankrupt for 3 years instead of 12.

This law will affect the pirates as they may have to register a new domain name.
This might cost as much as a fiver, if they cba using a free one like on something like dyndns.org
They could be off line for Irish customers for up to a day, till DNS caches clear and they googlebomb themselves back into the search results.

Reamer Fanny

batistuta9 wrote: »

nacho libre wrote: »

I wouldn't be confident in saying it's any less draconian.
Take a look at this video, if you haven't already. It explains the potential implications of ACTA being passed.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Xg_C2YmG0&feature=g-like&context=G2bee4e3ALTx3OdAAAAA

surely the ISP's wont agree to it if what is said in that video is true, monitor everything on their servers and check every packet - is that practically possible?

SolarNexus wrote: »

There is scant details, so we must assume the worst until proven otherwise.

With what we already know, it is conceivable that a copyright holder could complain that a video on YouTube infringes on their rights and demands that YouTube be blocked.

The problem with legislation like this is that its ripe for abuse. The DCMCA in America has been used many times to censor critics.

We should be very wary of any law that has the potential to censor the Internet.

I agree with this statement but cannot see a law with anything like sopa being passed it's too ridiculous even to be passed in the states, and as i said above ISP's surely cannot be going to take it either

It would be impractical to scrutinise every single packet of information they would probably filter out certain protocols paying close attention to connections to blacklisted sites and ip addresses

Javan

As the minister said in the Dail chamber today, this is a case where the community has to come together.

I said earlier in this thread that if he persisted in working on a bad law I'd be at the front of the line protesting it. I'll stand by that.

There are two protests being organised, one at noon tomorrow (Friday) and another at noon Saturday. Meet at the spire at march to Kildare street. I can't make it tomorrow as I can't get off work at such short notice, but I'll be there on Saturday.

To everyone who was arguing for #OpIreland and other direct action earlier this week: I expect to see you all on Saturday at the spire.


http://www.facebook.com/events/168063729963049/
http://www.facebook.com/events/322868877751259/

Capt'n Midnight

What's the chances that Akamai have quite a bit of dodgy content ?

And what would be the effect of blocking their servers on ecommerce and computer security in this country ?

Seachmall

Javan wrote: »

To everyone who was arguing for #OpIreland and other direct action earlier this week: I expect to see you all on Saturday at the spire.

I'm glad you bolded that part.

Tell me, will you be galloping in on your horse or is it just for show?

And before you ask, no. I won't be there.

Eugers

Anyone who is really strongly against this please join this event on your facebook page! http://www.facebook.com/events/164108710366423/ It's called Black March. The page explains everything!

Javan

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm glad you bolded that part.

Tell me, will you be galloping in on your horse or is it just for show?

And before you ask, no. I won't be there.

So what? You think this is important enough to fire up a copy of LOIC on your machine at home, but not to take the time to try and engage with those in power or to take a few hours out of your weekend?

To people like Sherlock a DDOS attack confirms his impression that the Internet is full of selfish anarchists who want everything without spending any of their own time or money getting it.

If he is to be convinced that he is wrong then first he needs to be convinced that this matters to a large group of people who are willing to engage in a constructive debate, and willing to spend their own time and money defending their position.

He wouldn't listen to the constructive debate so far, so now we have to show that we will not be ignored.

That means I'm now arguing for direct action, just like you were earlier. The only difference is the direct action I'm going to be involved in means getting out from behind the keyboard. Also just like you I'm saying the more people that get involved the better.

141089

Eugers wrote: »

Anyone who is really strongly against this please join this event on your facebook page! http://www.facebook.com/events/164108710366423/ It's called Black March. The page explains everything!

You should mention the saturday event on your site/page https://www.facebook.com/events/168063729963049/

Seachmall

Javan wrote: »

So what? You think this is important enough to fire up a copy of LOIC on your machine at home, but not to take the time to try and engage with those in power or to take a few hours out of your weekend?

A) When did I say that I think DDoS is more important?
Who said I "fired up a copy of LOIC"?
C) Who said I don't have other things to be doing?


And I'm not questioning the validity of the protest, but the bolded part was a bit obnoxious and I felt was most likely for my benefit.

Logical Fallacy

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but Mr Sherlock has actually violated copyright twice on his own website.

As such...I am unsure how he can profess to have the knowledge to deal with such a sticky issue as internet copyright and upholding and enforcing laws.

https://sites.google.com/site/seansherlocktdsopa/

Javan

Seachmall wrote: »

And I'm not questioning the validity of the protest, but the bolded part was a bit obnoxious and I felt was most likely for my benefit.

That was not intended as a personal attack on you or anyone else. I'm sorry if you took it that way, I am genuinely just interested in getting everyone mobilised.

Seachmall

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but Mr Sherlock has actually violated copyright twice on his own website.

As such...I am unsure how he can profess to have the knowledge to deal with such a sticky issue as internet copyright and upholding and enforcing laws.

https://sites.google.com/site/seansherlocktdsopa/

Haha, I like it.

There's an image floating around of other copyright infringements he has made (although since corrected).

Would any paper be interested in pointing out the hypocrisy and irony of the situation? Sun/Star/Mirror?

If the protests go well I'm sure there'll be some newspaper coverage, it'd be nice for even a small mention of this.