Possible Irish SOPA Law? :/

sensibleken · 27-01-2012 12:43pm

Sabre0001 wrote: »

Gotta do what we can. SOPA was expected to pass in the states with the amount of money and congress people behind it - and then the backlash was felt...

I've emailed TDs in the past and a relatively small number of people can stop politicians in Ireland.

even look at those Ireland stand up crackpots for your latest example.

TDs are mostly idiots who prefer having their opinions handed to them. There is a good chance that a great number dont know anything about this as they seem more concerned with septic tanks

sensibleken · 27-01-2012 1:04pm

In fact Martin Ferris has just responded to me

Latest is that your lobbying and political pressure on Sherlock has forced him to have a mini debate on this next Thursday. That is inadequate as it is merely window dressing and we will continue to press for the whole issue to be properly debated and voted on and that the Ministerial order not go ahead pending that and pending proper legislation, with full input from people interested in the issue; to protect intellectual freedom, access to information and sensible measures to protect copyright holders where there is blatant commercial exploitation rather than this hamfisted and potentially dangerous measure as it stands

so neh!

gavmcg92 · 27-01-2012 1:06pm

Decryptor wrote: »

Lads, if ye're trying to join Anonymous ye're going about it the wrong way in fairness.

If it wasn't for Anonymous, and in particular Anonymous Sweden, we wouldn't be in as strong as a postion as we are now.

Anonymous is not going to "hack" until the cows come home... i have been talking to the guys behind the innitial DDoS and they agree that the government needs their time to discuss the issue and take off where the guys left it.

We need to be tough with the government and if that means a bit of civil disobediance then so be it! We have their attention and that is the most important thing.

Anonymous are "white hat hacktivists" and as such they have a moral fibre. They believe in democracy and as a result they will allow democracy to do its job now.

Seachmall · 27-01-2012 1:09pm

gavmcg92 wrote: »

Anonymous are "white collar hacktivists" and as such they have a moral fibre.

I believe the term is "grey hat".

And I think Anonymous' involvement is becoming overstated.

Hells Belle · 27-01-2012 1:17pm

This is what is running the country....

Thank you for your e-mail regarding copyright protection and the Internet. Please find below the text of the draft Statutory Instrument and a statement from Minister Sean Sherlock that should provide some clarification on the matter.

It should be noted that the proposed Statutory Instrument does not implement a new EU Directive, but is being put in place as the High Court had ruled that Ireland had not fully transposed the relevant EU Directive(s) as part of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000. It should also be noted that this Statutory Instrument is not related to the Anticounterfeiting and Trade Agreement (ACTA) and that Ireland and the EU are not signatories to this agreement.

Yours sincerely,

Joe

Joe Costello TD
Minister for Trade & Development
Telephone: (01) 6183896
Email: joe.costello@oir.ie
Web: www.labour.ie/joecostello
Facebook: www.facebook.com/joecostellotd
Twitter: www.twitter.com/joecostellotd

Included was the waffle from Sherlock, I can't be arsed posting it but if anyone needs to see it again let me know.

And this a little while later:

Further to my earlier e-mail, Ireland did, of course, sign ACTA today; however, the treaty has yet to be ratified. As stated earlier, ACTA is not related to the proposed Statutory Instrument.

I am sorry for the earlier unintentional inaccuracy and for any confusion.

Your sincerely,

Joe

So basically Joe hasn't a fcukin clue.

MajesticDonkey · 27-01-2012 1:21pm

gavmcg92 wrote: »

If it wasn't for Anonymous, and in particular Anonymous Sweden, we wouldn't be in as strong as a postion as we are now.

Anonymous is not going to "hack" until the cows come home... i have been talking to the guys behind the innitial DDoS and they agree that the government needs their time to discuss the issue and take off where the guys left it.

We need to be tough with the government and if that means a bit of civil disobediance then so be it! We have their attention and that is the most important thing.

Anonymous are "white hat hacktivists" and as such they have a moral fibre. They believe in democracy and as a result they will allow democracy to do its job now.

I know

Seachmall · 27-01-2012 1:23pm

gavmcg92 wrote: »

Anonymous are "white hat hacktivists" and as such they have a moral fibre

Anon are most definitely not white hat.

Grey hat is where it's at.

Jesus Shaves · 27-01-2012 1:23pm

Hells Belle wrote: »

This is what is running the country....

Thank you for your e-mail regarding copyright protection and the Internet. Please find below the text of the draft Statutory Instrument and a statement from Minister Sean Sherlock that should provide some clarification on the matter.

It should be noted that the proposed Statutory Instrument does not implement a new EU Directive, but is being put in place as the High Court had ruled that Ireland had not fully transposed the relevant EU Directive(s) as part of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000. It should also be noted that this Statutory Instrument is not related to the Anticounterfeiting and Trade Agreement (ACTA) and that Ireland and the EU are not signatories to this agreement.

Yours sincerely,

Joe

Joe Costello TD
Minister for Trade & Development
Telephone: (01) 6183896
Email: joe.costello@oir.ie
Web: www.labour.ie/joecostello
Facebook: www.facebook.com/joecostellotd
Twitter: www.twitter.com/joecostellotd

Included was the waffle from Sherlock, I can't be arsed posting it but if anyone needs to see it again let me know.

And this a little while later:

Further to my earlier e-mail, Ireland did, of course, sign ACTA today; however, the treaty has yet to be ratified. As stated earlier, ACTA is not related to the proposed Statutory Instrument.

I am sorry for the earlier unintentional inaccuracy and for any confusion.

Your sincerely,

Joe

So basically Joe hasn't a fcukin clue.

ha thats because i emailed him yesterday evening to inform him that ireland had signed up to ACTA, he sent me 4 emails since apologising, tool

conor.hogan.2 · 27-01-2012 1:25pm

ACTA is already signed by us, if that passes it will be as bad if not worse than this proposed law as ACTA is international.

gavmcg92 · 27-01-2012 1:54pm

Seachmall wrote: »

Anon are most definitely not white hat.

Grey hat is where it's at.

I would tend to disagree with that.

conor.hogan.2 · 27-01-2012 2:07pm

Sean Kenny wrote: »

Hi there,

Thank you for your e-mail. There has been a lot of correspondence received on this issue, which I have been following very closely and which I will continue to do.
I have asked a Parliamentary Question this week seeking detailed information from Minister Sherlock's department on the issue, which should be answered in the coming days.

Minister Sherlock has issued a statement (see below my signature and contact information) about the issue to clarify what he is trying to do.

The wording of the Statutory Instrument that was released yesterday also states that -

"In considering an application for an injunction under this subsection, the court shall have due regard to the rights of any person likely to be affected by virtue of the grant of any such injunction and the court shall grant such directions (including, where appropriate, a direction requiring a person to be notified of the application) as the court considers appropriate in all the circumstances.".

The full Statutory Instrument can be seen here - http://www.djei.ie/press/2012/20120126a.htm

You can be certain that I will continue to observe the issues surrounding digital copyright carefully.

Seán Kenny qouting Sean Sherlock:

Sean Sherlock wrote: »

We all subscribe to the freedoms, the opportunities and the access to information that the Internet provides us with. Ireland is home to some of the world’s most innovative internet companies and we are determined to grow our reputation as a location where smart people and these smart companies can continue to innovate in this fast moving arena.
The last thing innovators need is a culture where the outputs of their creative endeavours have to be locked away or kept secret for the fear of theft. Ireland is very proud of the fact that we have a modern suite of intellectual property laws that by their very nature balance a range of competing interests and rights in a manner that is seen, right across the globe, as reasonable and proportionate.
Going right back to 22 December , 2002, the date by which every EU Member State had to have implemented Directive 2001/29/EC, every EU country has had to “ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to infringe a copyright or related right”. Having that provision enshrined in EU law and the laws of Member States for a decade has not restricted the development of the Internet or innovative internet companies. On the contrary, the Internet has flourished.
It may be useful to explain the background against which the requirement for the amendment to the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 has arisen. In the EMI & others versus UPC High Court judgment of 11 October 2010, Mr Justice Charleton decided that he was constrained by the wording of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 and thus could not grant an injunction to prevent infringement of copyright against an information service provider (ISP) in the circumstances of “mere conduit” (transient communications). In doing so, he stated that Ireland had not fully transposed the relevant EU Directive(s). As you will appreciate, non-compliance with EU law is a very serious matter.
The “Mere conduit” principle provides that if an ISP does not initiate a transmission, or modify the material contained in a transmission and does not select the receiver of the transmission, it is granted a “safe harbour” against liability, by virtue of the e-Commerce Directive [2000/31/EC]. However, according to the same directive, this freedom from liability does not affect the power of the courts to require service providers to terminate or prevent copyright infringements.

Two EU directives (the Copyright Directive 2001 and the Enforcement Directive 2004) require that the holders of copyright - authors, music composers, lyricists, record producers etc. - are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right.

The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation had considered that injunctions were available under Section 40 (4) of the Copyright Act and the inherent power of the courts to grant injunctions, which are equitable and discretionary remedies, granted according to settled principles, developed by the courts. However, this was not Mr Justice Charleton’s view.

The Attorney General’s Office has advised that the obligation contained in the Directive is clear and unambiguous. Rightholders must have a mechanism available to them to apply for an injunction against intermediaries where their intellectual property rights are being breached. Separately the Office advised that the prudent course was to introduce a Regulation to ensure compliance.

The Department launched a public consultation on the text of the proposed Statutory Instrument. The consultation attracted over 50 submissions from interested parties. Rightsholders were in favour of the proposal with some claiming it did not go far enough. Telecom companies, in general, argued that it was not necessary and some argued that the findings in the EMI v UPC case were incorrect, that Judge Charlton, in stating that Ireland was not in compliance with the Directive, was mis-informed. Others argued that fundamental human rights could be at risk. Having considered all these submissions and for the avoidance of doubt, it is intended to introduce a Statutory Instrument to restate the position that was considered to exist prior to this judgment.

Concerns have been expressed that the proposed Statutory Instrument mirrors the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the United States. These concerns are not based on fact. The purpose of the Statutory Instrument is simply to provide explicitly that injunctions may be sought, as obligated by the two EU Directives cited above. It should also be noted that such injunctions are available in all other Member States of the European Union by virtue of the two Directives already referred to and have been required since at least December 2002 and since that time the internet has flourished. Europe is quite unlike the United States. In granting any injunctions an Irish court must take account of Court of Justice of the European Union judgements. The court must consider the rights of any person (including businesses) likely to be affected.

EU law has held that copyright is not an absolute right but must be balanced with other rights protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

No national authority or court can require an ISP to carry out general monitoring of the information that it transmits on its network. This means an ISP cannot be asked to monitor all of the data of each of its customers in order to prevent any future infringement of intellectual property rights.

National courts must strike a fair balance between the protection of copyright and the protection of the fundamental rights of individuals who are affected by such measures.

National courts must strike a fair balance between the protection of the intellectual property right enjoyed by copyright holders and that of the freedom to conduct a business enjoyed by operators such as ISPs.

Neither can the courts grant an injunction that would infringe the fundamental rights of that ISP’s customers, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive and impart information.

The Court of Justice of the European Union, on 24 November 2011, clearly laid out these principles that will guide all national courts in future (Case C-70/10- SABAM). It also found in that case that requiring an ISP to install a contested filtering system would not be respecting the requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information.

In proposing to amend the legislation, I am particularly conscious of the importance of online content and digital businesses in the Irish context and, accordingly, am simply seeking to ensure Ireland’s continued compliance with its obligations under the relevant EU Directives following the decision of the High Court in the aforementioned UPC case. It is very clear from the rulings of European Court that any remedy applied will have to be proportionate and we can be confident that this approach protects rightsholders by allowing them the access to the courts that we must provide while protecting the fundamental rights of third parties.

I trust that this information will clarify the issue.

"These concerns are not based on fact." - Jesus he missed the point of those concerns entirely.

sensibleken · 27-01-2012 2:40pm

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Seán Kenny qouting Sean Sherlock:

"These concerns are not based on fact." - Jesus he missed the point of those concerns entirely.

Got the same response, and from 2 others.

Its clear Sherlock doesnt know what the internet is.

feckin morons the lot of them

conor.hogan.2 · 27-01-2012 2:47pm

I emailed him saying he missed the point entirely and was he aware that google and wikipedia backed those protests and that google is a huge employer here.

joshrogan · 27-01-2012 3:29pm

gavmcg92 wrote: »

I would tend to disagree with that.

You can disagree all you want but they're not white hat hackers nor have they ever been. They alternate between grey hat and black hat hacking

LighterGuy · 27-01-2012 3:59pm

darokane wrote: »

I really couldn't be bothered with someone who has an attitude like that
good luck in life

Attitude? .. Dont confuse a 'realistic' attitude with a 'bad' one

- remember the nice treaty?
- remember the vote we had on the house hold charge? oh wait.
- etc.

"Good Luck in life"? .. ok

Seachmall · 27-01-2012 4:07pm

gavmcg92 wrote: »

Seachmall wrote: »

Anon are most definitely not white hat.

Grey hat is where it's at.

I would tend to disagree with that.

Well given that a "White hat" is, by definition, a professional pen tester hired to test the security of a company's network, web portals, etc. you'd be wrong.

MajesticDonkey · 27-01-2012 5:10pm

Seachmall wrote: »

Well given that a "White hat" is, by definition, a professional pen tester hired to test the security of a company's network, web portals, etc. you'd be wrong.

Well, that's essentially what they did with the CBS.com website. They showed CBS' security department how asleep they've been as regards their website's security.

gavmcg92 · 27-01-2012 6:54pm

As far as I am concerned their hacks are based on a moral fabric that definitely excludes them from the title of "black hat" hackers

MrVestek · 27-01-2012 6:56pm

Decryptor wrote: »

Well, that's essentially what they did with the CBS.com website. They showed CBS' security department how asleep they've been as regards their website's security.

They weren't working on behalf of CBS though so they're not white hat hackers.

Can we stop arguing semantics now?

MajesticDonkey · 27-01-2012 10:42pm

Achilles wrote: »

They weren't working on behalf of CBS though so they're not white hat hackers.

Can we stop arguing semantics now?

Actually, the ":D" indicated a slight sense of sarcasm, you mightn't have picked up on it. :cool:

gavmcg92 · 28-01-2012 1:01am

Anyone have the time for the debate in the dail on Tuesday?

Dara Robinson · 28-01-2012 1:25am

This coming Tuesday?

Javan · 28-01-2012 2:15am

Dara Robinson wrote: »

This coming Tuesday?

Yes, it looks like there is a debate in the order of business for Tuesday 31st Jan at 5:54 pm.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=20148&&CatID=60

Jesus Shaves · 28-01-2012 2:21am

Javan wrote: »

Yes, it looks like there is a debate in the order of business for Tuesday 31st Jan at 5:54 pm.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=20148&&CatID=60

Is there a protest planned?

Dara Robinson · 28-01-2012 3:48am

I'm now sad, cant be there

gavmcg92 · 28-01-2012 10:43pm

Would love to be outside of the dail when the debate is on but this is one that I need to watch carefully on the TV when it happens.

freeze4real · 29-01-2012 12:20am

we need to fight this stupid law.

United as one or divided we fall.

Dara Robinson · 29-01-2012 1:23am

There was a march in Dublin, Anti-SOPA/ACTA. Some decent shots were gotten.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dararobinson/sets/72157629072844013/

PS: If you spot them on Facebook and see the Disclaimer below just ignore it. I dont upload pics to FB but if others upload them and FB use them I still retain the rights

Disclaimer:
I want to advise that I "Officially" do not give my permission for anyone to upload any of my pictures to Facebook. I do not upload them here because when I (meaning me and not someone else) upload pictures here I loose all IP and commercial rights to these photographs.
On the other hand I am not too concerned if someone else does it as they are mine and they would be doing it without my permission so "technically" Facebook would not have my permission and basically would also not have my IP or commercial rights :P
Take from that what you will

Gigiwagga · 29-01-2012 1:30am

This just in

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/11014317553/european-parliament-official-charge-acta-quits-denounces-masquerade-behind-acta.shtml?fb_ref=article&fb_source=home_oneline

Overview: Kader Arif, the "rapporteur" for ACTA, has quit that role in disgust over the process behind getting the EU to sign onto ACTA.

gavmcg92 · 29-01-2012 12:47pm

Gigiwagga wrote: »

This just in

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/11014317553/european-parliament-official-charge-acta-quits-denounces-masquerade-behind-acta.shtml?fb_ref=article&fb_source=home_oneline

Overview: Kader Arif, the "rapporteur" for ACTA, has quit that role in disgust over the process behind getting the EU to sign onto ACTA.

Possible Irish SOPA Law? :/

Comments