An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

MOH

ResearchWill wrote: »

Yes I totally agree with you, if this SI is being used to attack the whole system that is a good thing. But then make that the issue, understand that issue fully, come up with good ideas for reform, work with copyright holders to put in place systems that work for everyone. But if you are going to argue against the SI make sure those arguments stack up.

But to do that, you need people aboard who understand that this is the real issue. So, you ready to sign that petition now?

ResearchWill

MOH wrote: »

But to do that, you need people aboard who understand that this is the real issue. So, you ready to sign that petition now?

I kept my promise, all I asked was a good clear argument against the SI and someone did just that. But it did take 24 hours.

oscarBravo

The more I research this, the more I realise that the entire European legal framework on which this is built has been bought and paid for by the copyright industry.

From Directive 2000/31/EC:

Article 12
"Mere conduit"
1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider:
(a) does not initiate the transmission;
(b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and
(c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.
2. The acts of transmission and of provision of access referred to in paragraph 1 include the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted in so far as this takes place for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the communication network, and provided that the information is not stored for any period longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.
3. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.

What the hell is up with section 3? It's basically saying that a service provider isn't responsible for what third parties do on his network, unless a copyright owner says he is!

Seriously?

Pro. F

ResearchWill wrote: »

You say you don't trust lawyers that's fine, you say the matter is too important for judges to decide. So then who will decide.

The Oireachtas should introduce the law. Is that such an unusual idea?
My understanding is that the EU directives are allowed to be transposed into Irish law with government legislation which interprets their application and gives guidance to the judiciary.

I see no reason why we should solely rely on guidance from the EU directives and the messy, unpredictable and threatening (to business, innovation and the international perception of the Irish economy) processes of judges interpreting those directives in new areas with no guidance from the government when this is a matter of such importantance to the state.

ResearchWill wrote: »

Now in relation to making the law clearer, my only problem with that is that if the law on injunctions is drafted to consider every possibility, then it will only create problems. All that is required is an amendment to section 40 and section 205 to allow injunctions.

How are laws ever drafted if this considering of every possibility is such a problem?

There is still room for the government to give guidance and not rely on all of our protection coming from the EU directives.

ResearchWill wrote: »

I am assuming you argued that a person who holds copyright can protect his or her property.

Now let's look at how that property can be protected, well Ireland enacted the copyright and related rights Act 2000, that act came into force in 2001. So Ireland has a framework to protect copyright that is a legal frame work, which means lawyers. Now the EC produced a Directive in 2001 called 2001/29/EC, this gave copyright holders the right to seek injunctions against persons who interfere with or allow others to interfere with their property.

Now it was believed that our Act of 2000 allowed copyright holders to seek injunctions. Because of that EMI sued UPC in 2009, and the Judgement was given on the 11th October 2001. The Judge said that section 40 did not give the right to injunctions. So guess what one of them dam pesky lawyers and a Judge protected the rights of UPC under the law at the time.

The fact that one judge at one time acted in a way which happens to be in the best interests of the Irish economy and freedoms of expression for Irish people does not mean that all judges will at all times in future. This is an important matter and they should receive guidance from the Oireachtas in the form of Irish law. We should not leave this to their interpretations of the EU directives and the litigation process, which of its natural action will threaten innovation in the online economy even by the process of trying to establish balance with test cases.

As the Advocate General in the Scarlet v SABAM case said, there is a need for legislation in the area to be ''democratically legitimised.''

ResearchWill wrote: »

Now in relation to the law as it maybe. Who instead of judges do you propose gives the injunctions that copyright holders are entitled by EU law.

I am not suggesting that anybody act instead of judges in giving injunctions. I am suggesting that the Oireachtas should form that law first with a view to balancing the interests of the Irish economy and citizens' freedoms of expression against copyright holders interests, with reference to the appropriate EU directives.

ResearchWill wrote: »

The Irish law on injunctions is very clear, you have to seek that the person consents first, you have to show that the balance lies with granting the injunction and you have to prove damages are not an adequate remedy.

And it is very clear that even the threat of these injunctions can be harmful to small businesses and innovation in the online economy. You have already offered pro bono legal representation to a small business ISP on here when he showed you how the injunction system could harm his company under this supposed restatement of the law. Are you going to offer that to all small businesses who will find this unnecessarily unpredictable legal operation threatening?

Even if you would do that, we should not be solely reliant on your charity to protect our interests and our economy. The government should also be involved in doing that for us. They should certainly not be abrogating all responsibility to the EU and the judiciary.

[-0-]

I emailed everyone in government the other day. Here is Martin Ferris' reply 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.


Ferris calls for full debate and vote on internet legislation





The Sinn Féin Spokesperson on Communications, Martin Ferris TD has called on the Government to have a full debate in the Dáil on measures governing access to the internet. He was responding to an interview with the Minister responsible Seán Sherlock yesterday which Deputy Ferris said leaves many questions to be answered regarding the implications of the legislation.


Deputy Ferris said: “While the Minister is claiming that he needs to act in order to reflect both a recent Court judgement and two EU directives, he appears to be pretty vague regarding the implications of what he is proposing. Experts in the field are taking a diametrically opposed view to that of the Minister.

“There is understandable fear among both commercial and private users of the internet that this will leave the door open to actions that would severely restrict access to information if copyright holders can secure orders preventing it being made available.

“That would not only represent a significant attack on individual freedom but also a threat to a healthy sector of the Irish economy which has attracted major international players to locate here.

“In the interests of teasing all of this out I am calling on the Government to facilitate a debate and to present legislation that will require approval by the Oireachtas prior to any enactment. That would allow a full debate with meaningful inputs from all interested parties.”





ENDS

[-0-]

Here's Liam Aylward's response.

Dear Mr [-0-],


Thank you for your email outlining your opposition this S.I.in Ireland. I will bring the points and concerns you have raised to the attention of Mr Aylward.



As you may be aware the European Commission has asked the European Council to authorise the signature for ACTA (Anti Counterfeiting Trade agreement), which covers similar issues and then the European Parliament will be officially asked for consent. As ACTA is a mixed agreement - partly competence of the Member States - ratifications by national parliaments, including Ireland, will be required as well.



The European Parliament Committees that are responsible for this file - DEVE, INTA (Internal Market) and JURI (Legal Affairs) have already began preparatory work and have asked the Parliament legal service for opinion. We have been informed that the JURI Committee is currently checking the compatibility of ACTA with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.



The was concern among MEPs regarding the secrecy of the negotiations surrounding ACTA and there have been several Parliamentary questions on this issue, mostly calling for publication of the documents from negotiations.

Mr Aylward is not a member of the committees responsible for ACTA but his ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats) colleagues in these Committees have been to the forefront in asking for increased transparency and called for the European Commission to present all discussion documents, relevant studies and impact assessments on ACTA.



At present, clarification is still needed on the compatibility of ACTA with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights before a final position is taken. The MEPs are awaiting this and the feedback of their colleagues working directly on this file. Mr Aylward has received several emails from constituents concerned about the impact of this agreement on their livelihoods and access to information and will take these views into consideration ahead of full Plenary vote.



I trust this information will be of interest to you.

[-0-]

Tom Barry responded with his press release.

DEPUTY Tom Barry has urged serious caution in relation to proposals to introduce a Statutory Instrument to allow the courts to block access to websites suspected of infringing copyright.
“While I have not seen the specific text of this proposed order yet; I would like to put on record my considerable concerns at any threat to restrict personal freedom in relation to freedom of expression or access to information on the Internet. In addition, I also think the proposal raises serious concerns about protection for Internet users.
“In the case that has led to this proposal, Mr. Justice Charleton said that existing legislation constrained the judiciary from granting injunctions to prevent infringement of copyright against Information Service Providers. However, I feel we should be reluctant to pre-empt criminal activity. We already have sufficient law to allow prosecution for copyright infringement if and when it does occur. I am fearful of the consequences of introducing preventative legislation that may impact on personal freedoms.
“If we are to tackle the suggested flaws in the existing Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 we must examine in detail the potential implications of handing control of the monitoring of Information Service Providers over to the judiciary. There are some extremely large corporations who would welcome this legislation or something like it; but there are even more organisations - upon whom we depend for a great deal of employment and potential future growth - who are vehemently opposed.
“We must consider the stringent opposition to this kind of restrictive and legislative Internet control from companies like Google, Facebook, Yahoo, EBay, Linkedin, AOL and Twitter – amongst others – who represent so much promise for Irish employment and innovation into the future. The very nature of the Internet means that inadvertent copyright breaches are almost inevitable – but we already have legislation to deal with these breaches after they happen. Allowing for the blocking of any website where infringements occur seems like an extreme and counter-productive response.
“Another serious consideration relates to the recent decision by the European Court of Justice ruling that Internet access is a human right. The position of the European Court of Justice is very clear – the matter can be taken to the courts after the holders of intellectual-property rights have had their rights infringed. But the Court categorically underlined the prohibition of the monitoring of information transmitted on ISP networks.
“The key word in Mr. Justice Charleton’s judgement is ‘prevent’. I do not, at this stage, believe that it is possible to ‘prevent’ the offending activity without putting personal freedoms and human rights, as clarified now at EU level, in danger. I await the final wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument but the Internet Industry must be protected. I believe it is vital to our future and that the core principle of the Internet - the principle of freedom of access to information - must be protected.”

[-0-]

Lastly Sean Kenny gave the following:

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.

Gilmore and Kenny are both out of office. In fact, you would be surprised at the amount of out of office replies I received when I emailed everyone, but it does NOT account for only having 5 people in the house yesterday.

wiseguy

Aside some comments

Minister Sherlocks responses have been along the lines of

* "Something has to be done" (in response to EMI vs UPC and that job offer from music industry he got for his next gig :P ahem)
* "The net must innovate" :rolleyes:
* "The EU made us do it" (after 10 years why now?)


Some questions for minister, and for yee to ponder about:


Why do we need a government if all they will do is rubber-stamp EU directives? This coalition so far has made an art out of blaming the previous administration and the EU for everything they do, enough is enough.

Who runs this country the judges or the media companies or our elected representatives?

Who was elected to make laws?

wiseguy

Pro. F wrote: »

The fact that one judge at one time acted in a way which happens to be in the best interests of the Irish economy and freedoms of expression for Irish people does not mean that all judges will at all times in future.

Have you actually read this case ? > http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2010/H377.html

Charleton proposed solutions (Straight out of media industry playbook) which are scary in how invasive they are and piss all over privacy and data protection.

Do read it.

oscarBravo

wiseguy wrote: »

Have you actually read this case ? > http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2010/H377.html

Interesting language in the injunction sought:

An injunction, pursuant to s. 37 and s. 40(4) of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, restraining the defendant internet service provider from infringing the copyright in sound recordings owned by, or exclusively licensed to, the plaintiffs by making available to the public copies of those sound recording without the plaintiffs’ consent using its internet service facilities.

They were accusing the ISP of infringing on their copyright. The scary part is that the judge seems to have accepted this accusation at face value.

The copyright owners are blatantly looking for the low-hanging fruit here. They want ISPs to police copyright violations for them, in order not to have to pursue the copyright violators through the courts themselves. It's a flagrant abuse of the legal process.

If the minister wants to introduce law to allow me to disclose the identity of the person who was using an IP address at a given time so that the copyright holder can take legal action against that user - we can talk about that. That's due process; that's fair.

Pro. F

wiseguy wrote: »

Have you actually read this case ? > http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2010/H377.html

Charleton proposed solutions (Straight out of media industry playbook) which are scary in how invasive they are and piss all over privacy and data protection.

Do read it.

Yes thanks for pointing that out. I've just now seen your previous post on it and it is very disturbing.

ResearchWill's point that a Judge protected UPC's rights in this regard is completely spurious anyway as this is the very bit of the law that is proposed to be changed.

squonk

Boards.ie: Paddy wrote: »

It's down and it's down hard.

Sigh, all I can think about when I see that sort of 'activism' is that somewhere a fellow tech is getting harassed by annoying text messages.

Agreed! I had cause to have a look at FG's website yesterday evening in order to collect contact details for my local TD's. The site was down. I don't know if it was Anonymous action or a genuine service outage but the situation caused problems in allowing me to act in a democratic fashion regarding a legitimate issue I have, the Irish SOPA as it turned out. Ironic!

These Anonymous people are acting like a pack of children. It's not cool or even useful. Frankly it doesn't take much for those with an agenda or who are just lazy to lump the legitimate concerns of the StopSOPA Ireland campaign in with the childish, unproductive antics of groups like Anonymous and that makes the SOPA group's job harder as it erodes credibility.

Others with little or no interest in our particular campaign but with legitimate other business that is important to them are no doubt being impacted by the actions of Anonymous et al. I fail to see how antagonising others is of any benefit. I'm a techie myself and it's not good enough ruining the hard-earned social time of techs whose only function is to keep these government sites running. Infact they may not even be civil servants and may be outside contractors. I don't know really but throwing toys out of a pram and acting like jerks doesn't give me much faith in Anonymous.

SweetCaliber

I love how Sean Sherlock, the fool that wants this in, was using copyrighted icons on his own website! Insanity!

Then of course when word got out, he changed those icons!

I really think a 5 year old would be able to run a government better then those who run it today.

wiseguy

Pro. F wrote: »

Yes thanks for pointing that out. I've just now seen your previous post on it and it is very disturbing.

ResearchWill's point that a Judge protected UPC's rights in this regard is completely spurious anyway as this is the very bit of the law that is proposed to be changed.

I still cant get over the judges argument that because UPC already use traffic shaping hardware to limit p2p traffic it shouldnt be much trouble to install expensive Cisco deep packet inspection gear.

An I am amused as to how he dismisses that people might use encrypted proxies etc to circumvent with a "that problem can be dealt with down the road" type of sentence.

Actually he himself states that real pirates use encryption, so why then force an ISP to inspect all data flowing?

KyussBishop

ResearchWill wrote: »

Now in relation to the Mega upload situation I totally agree with you it is something that makes my blood boil to be honest. But I can not see how this amendment will allow that situation to happen here. The current law may allow it, but this SI won't. That's my issue, attacking this SI is no more than trying to close the gate after the horse has bolted. The rest of the law has been in place for years.

How is attacking the SI "trying to close to gate after the horse has bolted"? This proposed adjustment to it can still be opposed now.

ResearchWill wrote: »

The new SI gives him an added weapon, which he has of right in the rest of the EU, and it could be argued after the recent ECJ case he has the right anyway to apply.

That is just false. Most countries in the EU do not allow injunctions which are analogous to website blocking.

ResearchWill wrote: »

You are rightly scared about damages, but with or with out this amendment they can sue you for damages anyway. This just adds injunctions no more.

This amendment does not seek to make you a party to any illegal action your users partake in, again that horse bolted in 2000, you can already be liable please this SI does not add that it's already there.

The consent is yes you, if you ignore a request to remove content etc. then under the SI they can seek an injunction, remember this does not add they can sue you for damages that's already there, sorry to tell you this fight is 11 years to late.

If that is the case, I would like to see that pass a test in the courts. Not a chance that would be let stand, the uproar would be even bigger than the proposed law now, as there mere threat of suing for damages can be used for unaccountable censorship.

It seems to me, even if the laws as they stand already encroach on net neutrality or 'mere conduit' principles for ISPs, there is no way to apply those laws that do not infringe on other rights, and they would almost certainly be rejected in cases against ISPs.

So, this is a massive argument for opposing the laws Sherlock is trying to bring in; I don't give a toss what the European law originally stated, we can still oppose the implementation of that law, or implement an interpretation our country sees as fair.

ResearchWill wrote: »

OK as no one else has given a good argument against the SI,

You skipped over my post:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76751784&postcount=379

It's not legalese, but contains plenty of valid points against the SI (the conditions that would be required to implement it fairly, which covers what you posted, and a bigger picture argument).

dyer

The bottom line is that this law is not here to protect individuals.. its being forcibly enacted in the sole the interest of the entertainment industry, specifically the music industry and record labels.

They are grasping at straws here attempting to gain control over a medium they obviously don't seem to understand. Is it right that the freedom we have on the internet as a whole should suffer simply because of the particular interests of a corporation?

Any self respecting website already has measures in place to remove material which infringes on copyright, but this law isn't about that, it's about being able to punish indiscriminately to recover the supposed loss of 'intellectual property' and revenue.. with measures that are completely absurd.

The entertainment industry is struggling. We are living in the digital revolution and most of them have done nothing but try to stifle this progress by pouring money into useless court cases instead of addressing real world problems and innovation by providing new technology which benefits consumers, rather than alienate them. Figures show that while the economic growth of music sales might have slowed down, they are still at record numbers, especially with regard to digital sales, but then you have to take other factors into account.. eg; not everyone purchases whole albums anymore, they might just buy one or two tracks instead of an EP or full album because they only like those tracks. Studies have actually shown pirates to be their best customers : http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the-music-industrys-most-valuable-customers-100122/ / http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music

They seem to think that every album or track downloaded illegally, is lost revenue, as if everyone who downloaded that material WOULD have payed for it in the real world otherwise.. that's complete and utter nonsense. Piracy and filesharing has had an immensely positive effect on the world of music as much as a supposed negative one. In many respects it has taken the power away from labels and given it back to the musician.

Musicians are free to distribute their music without the consent of labels or contracts, free from the marketing expense and restrictions they impose. They can host their music on platforms such as bandcamp and receive nearly all of the money that a customer payed for it, not merely a fraction of it. Their music reaches a much wider audience and this exposure increases revenue from ticket sales and merchandise etc.

Let's not forget the role of the computer itself in all of this, because most computers can practically function as a recording studio these days with the right equipment without the huge expense of a record contract.. especially with regards to electronic music.

The recording industry itself has literally and continues to steal from the artists it supposedly represents and protects..

see: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/

That case was settled recently, but for a much smaller margin than what was actually owed, but you really don't have to dig too deep to discover their intentions are not exactly honest or legitimate, or the vast over estimations that they make regarding the loss of revenue. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars

Nor do you hear them talking about the positive economic benefits of piracy, or the stimulation and artistic expression creative common licenses allow.

Regardless of how any of this legislation is worded.. its just completely immoral and wrong and should not be allowed to happen because of the precedent it would set in restricting the internet as a whole, in a way that simply is not feasibly possible.

They need to wake up and reinvent their business model or get left behind and stop attacking people instead of crying over the 'virtual money' they lost.

/2 cents

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the minister wants to introduce law to allow me to disclose the identity of the person who was using an IP address at a given time so that the copyright holder can take legal action against that user - we can talk about that. That's due process; that's fair.

Apologies for talking to myself, but I'm continuing to read through the UPC judgement.

Charleton J. has done a neat end-run around that possibility:

The judgment of Kelly J. and the judgment of Sexton J. uphold the basic principle established in the Norwich Pharmacal case that where a person, perhaps without fault, get entangled in the tortious acts of others in a way that facilitates their wrong-doing, while no personal liability may be incurred, a duty is establish to assist the person wronged by disclosure of relevant information and of the identity of the wrong-doer. Norwich Pharmacal orders are therefore clearly established as an alternative to this injunctive relief. The evidence establishes, however that this process is burdensome and, ultimately, futile as a potential solution to the problem of internet piracy.

We can't have a process that's burdensome on the poor record companies, can we? No, indeed. Let's come up with a process that's burdensome on the ISPs instead.

Pro. F

wiseguy wrote: »

I still cant get over the judges argument that because UPC already use traffic shaping hardware to limit p2p traffic it shouldnt be much trouble to install expensive Cisco deep packet inspection gear.

Hmph! I missed that bit. OT: So that is concrete evidence to the contrary of UPC's official claim on boards that they do not throttle P2P.

wiseguy wrote: »

An I am amused as to how he dismisses that people might use encrypted proxies etc to circumvent with a "that problem can be dealt with down the road" type of sentence.

Actually he himself states that real pirates use encryption, so why then force an ISP to inspect all data flowing?

Doesn't he say that encryption currently used by pirates in P2P won't be an issue because they will be monitoring the flow acting as normal users. The keys are freely available to read what is encrypted if you monitor from the end points. That's how I understood it anyway.

The use of proxies that he kicks down the road, like you point out, seems to be the critical failing to me. (Aside from the obvious gross unfairness and impracticality in general of getting ISPs to police the internet.)

DonalK1981

Name: donalk1981
Email********
Subject: This idiotic new law
Comments:
You are fast tracking a law which has seen worldwide criticism, and will cost this country jobs. There is no call for this and it is not the business of the Irish Government to be helping private business to make more money. Although you seem to be making a habit of it, selling the people and country for the benefit of private companies. If the copyright holder wants to make an issue of it then they have civil law remedies to use, they hardly need help from you.
Other information

Date of Submission: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:37:44 +0100
Domain: www.seansherlock.ie
Your IP address: ***********

FreudianSlippers

I'm not quite sure how the minister feels this stands up against the ECJ ruling in C-70/10 - Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) which fairly unambiguously states that national courts cannot force ISPs to use filter systems, installed at ISPs' own expense and used for an unlimited period, to monitor all its customers' electronic communications to prevent illegal file-sharing. It said that such an order would breach ISPs' rights to freely conduct business and individuals' rights to privacy, free speech and the protection of their personal data.

[The laws] ... read together and construed in the light of the requirements stemming from the protection of the applicable fundamental rights, must be interpreted as precluding an injunction made against an internet service provider which requires it to install a system for filtering; all electronic communications passing via its services, in particular those involving the use of peer-to-peer software; which applies indiscriminately to all its customers; as a preventive measure; exclusively at its expense; and for an unlimited period, which is capable of identifying on that provider’s network the movement of electronic files containing a musical, cinematographic or audio-visual work in respect of which the applicant claims to hold intellectual-property rights, with a view to blocking the transfer of files the sharing of which infringes copyright,

KyussBishop

Another part of the bigger picture here: These copyright laws, and new proposed antipiracy laws, show the need for new laws protecting and enforcing existing rights for ISPs and internet users.

The argument that emerged after SOPA in the US, is that if people are forever on the defensive against overbearing copyright laws, then we will always be on the losing side, pushing back against these laws.
We need new laws which bring our rights up to date with the popularization of the Internet, and which put many of the principles behind the founding and structure of the internet into law (this is actually reasonable, unlike most new copyright/antipiracy laws).


To put forward some things, which must be explicitly declared in law, not assumed to extend from other rights (overbearing copyright laws show how weak that is):
* All people should have an unrestricted right to access the Internet (it is just about essential for modern life, and not having access to it puts people at severe disadvantage in many ways)

* No content on the internet must be filtered or blocked, the principles of net neutrality (i.e. treating all internet content equally) must be put into law and enforced upon ISPs (with exceptions for network performance type practicalities)

* The 'mere conduit' principles for ISPs must be reinforced (i.e. get rid of that idiotic exception for injunctions, which oscarBravo pointed out)

* Consumer rights must be reinforced and brought up to date with the Internet, fine companies for EULA's in breach of Irish law, people must have 100% complete control and ownership over hardware they buy, outlaw Digital Rights Management where it infringes on that control

* As an extension of the above point, peoples privacy rights must be bolstered, and it must be illegal for internet services to share peoples private information without an explicit opt-in (which is not part of a EULA), and access to the services must be provided where such an opt-in is refused

* Users must have 100% complete control over their private information online, and must explicitly be able to demand its complete deletion, including from any website backups

* Data retention (storing of users internet activity) must be made illegal, to protect ISP customers privacy, and monitoring of users internet traffic must require a warrant (if it does not already specifically do this)

* Extending from the above, it must be explicitly put into law that online services are allowed to offer complete 100% anonymity for users, and no law should be put in place requiring storing of identifying information for users (a massive issue for whistleblower websites in particular, e.g. www.whistleblowerconfidential.ie)

* Where services storing private user information, are subpoenaed for private information on a user, they must explicitly notify the user of the subpoena and the user must have opportunity to contest this in court

Plus rather a lot more I can't think of offhand.


We should push for the Dáil to implement laws like that, taking precedent over existing laws (and amending later where needed). With laws like this, almost all overbearing copyright laws can be preempted altogether, when it comes to the internet.

Is there a way to seriously get such laws written up and actually put into action? I would really like to see a new/separate discussion on this, particularly as there are people here who can have a political influence on this.

oscarBravo

I've finished reading the UPC judgement.

Probably the single most glaring indictment of the proposed statutory instrument is that, despite the fact that it is claimed to be addressing the shortcomings outlined by Charleton J. in that judgement, it completely fails to do so.

Don't get me wrong: something like the UK's Digital Economy Act wouldn't make me too happy either, but if you're going to claim that you're introducing legislation because you're required to do so by a court judgement, shouldn't that legislation at least address the shortcomings identified in that judgement?



Any which way, I'm on a loser. It seems to be an accepted principle in European law that ISPs are required to police the Internet on behalf of copyright owners. It's utterly depressing.

Oblomov

Too many individual members of parliament, Senates, etc are seeing the Internet as a legitimate target to gain a reputation and seek to enhance the chosen parties litigation skills.

In answer tothe aggressive attitude by the Americans and the Music industry a politcal movement has been founded. The Pirate Party, the fastest growing party across the globe has arisen. Already with seats in the European Parliment and a presence hin German politics the choice to join and to found your own national unit is both feasible and available.

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/

The aims and objective are legally sustainable. The aim of transparency, of accountability and run on open lines to make avaiable the abilityb for individuals to be heard.

The "Sherlock" contrivance is nothing more than a political ego tripping but with after effects that could create on line devastation.
The option to quote the simplest of quotes, or formula, of political manifesto would become fraught and possibly with draconian consequence.

The free entreprise of groups wishing to use the net to publicise and promote music would become an invidous and risky operation.

Instead of an online protest ensure that Mr Sherlock's seat is under threat and his dictatorial aims will not be tolerated.

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've finished reading the UPC judgement.

Probably the single most glaring indictment of the proposed statutory instrument is that, despite the fact that it is claimed to be addressing the shortcomings outlined by Charleton J. in that judgement, it completely fails to do so.

Don't get me wrong: something like the UK's Digital Economy Act wouldn't make me too happy either, but if you're going to claim that you're introducing legislation because you're required to do so by a court judgement, shouldn't that legislation at least address the shortcomings identified in that judgement?



Any which way, I'm on a loser. It seems to be an accepted principle in European law that ISPs are required to police the Internet on behalf of copyright owners. It's utterly depressing.

I don't think EMI v UPC holds up in the wake of Scarlet Extended. I need to really look into this next week; but I am not sure how SOPA or even ACTA for that matter will stand up in light of the decision of the ECJ.

ResearchWill

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't think EMI v UPC holds up in the wake of Scarlet Extended. I need to really look into this next week; but I am not sure how SOPA or even ACTA for that matter will stand up in light of the decision of the ECJ.

While I have not read Scarlet other than a summary yet, I think your right, it seems to me, and this statement is made without reading Scarlet, that while Governments enact laws to give copyright holders more power, the courts are curtailing that power, at least in Europe anyway. From what I have seen in the ECJ ruling the right of copyright holders, can be a lower right to a persons right to information.

Citizen_Kane

It seems to me that the analogy could read as follows:

A publishing house (Acme) suffers financial loss because an Irish commercial press (Foo) is printing an independent newspaper which has repeatedly used some of it's copyrighted content in a column.

Acme seeks an injuncture against the ESB to turn off the electricity to Foo, claiming Billions in lost revenue. The Irish court rules that Acme has been wronged, but no statutory mechanism exists whereby the ESB can be held accountable.

Acme now threatens to sue the Irish government because the EU has a legal framework in place that says that electricity may not be used to infringe on copyright.

Sean Sherlock has had a unending run of bad days in the office since that election thing. He just wants to move this EU harmonisation yolk off his desk and go home to the wifey and a nice hot toddy before he downloads the latest episode of Glee.

Unquestioningly he, now under duress of a huge lawsuit against the state, insists that the law is nothing new - has always been there, and he is just doing his job.

oscarBravo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't think EMI v UPC holds up in the wake of Scarlet Extended. I need to really look into this next week; but I am not sure how SOPA or even ACTA for that matter will stand up in light of the decision of the ECJ.

The ECJ decision is quite narrow. It doesn't allow for broad-based, permanent filtering. It is silent on the subject of graduated response, or "three-strikes" injunctions.

wiseguy

Pro. F wrote: »

Doesn't he say that encryption currently used by pirates in P2P won't be an issue because they will be monitoring the flow acting as normal users. The keys are freely available to read what is encrypted if you monitor from the end points. That's how I understood it anyway.

The use of proxies that he kicks down the road, like you point out, seems to be the critical failing to me. (Aside from the obvious gross unfairness and impracticality in general of getting ISPs to police the internet.)

Which just shows how little he understands, that might be the case in a bit torrent type situation where the monitoring agent joins the swarm (and itself commits copyright infringement in order to obtain ips)
But what about people downloading directly from an encrypted https or ftps server(s)? Take rapidshare.com for example who use SSL and who host almost exclusively pirated material it seems.

wiseguy

oscarBravo wrote: »

The ECJ decision is quite narrow. It doesn't allow for broad-based, permanent filtering. It is silent on the subject of graduated response, or "three-strikes" injunctions.

And as we know three strikes is a reality for citizens of France.