An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

Citizen_Kane

We need to argue all sides, so here goes:

'Piracy' is good.

It is an essential component of democratic social revolution. 'Illegal' downloading opens up the full spectrum of the worlds cultural wealth to the whole world. Cultural media such as music and film which may be banned or just not commercially available in your region is, for the first time in history, available to the masses.

Commercial gatekeepers of culture, such as EMI, are no longer relevant. Yes, they still regulate income to many artists, but more and more artists are using the free distribution network of the internet to share their work with the public for free. They make money through commercial, creative commons, licensing and the loyalty of fans who attend concerts, buy merchandise and donate.

Culture is booming. Artists are creating content of artistic and cultural merit. A more educated, broader, inquisitive public is eating it up with new ears, new eyes and new ideas.

If the likes of EMI are allowed to succeed, the internet will become something akin to what we already have - radio and television.

Do I 'Illegally' download content? - YES
Could I get this content 'legally' - Sometimes
Is this content accessible and reasonably priced through commercial channels? - NO
Does a representative share of money spent go to the artists - I doubt it.

Read EMI vs UPC and you will note that €10 million was spent on marketing Cold Play's Viva la something or other. There are PLENTY of local artists with more cultural merit who just want to get their music heard, but don't have €10 million, only the internet and filesharing.

ocallagh

At the same time as governments are working (in the interest of corporate bodies) to restrict the information the public can use and share, corporate bodies are working to vastly increase the amount of personal data they can legally collect and share!

From March 1st, Google's new privacy policy. They will collect every little bit of data about you (including email, name, home address, location data, phone numbers etc) and make this data accessible to any google service whether you have signed up to it or not. They'll even gather data about how you interact with 3rd party sites through analytics and google ads. Google is too big to be classed as one company. Data protection should reside with the service, not with a company that owns half the planet!

Both sides are taking things too far. As others have said, it can't be solved by technology. By forcing people into a corner they're just going to make this problem worse.

DeVore

If this law is passed, I'm seriously considering filing for an injunction against Google. We'll lose, but thats ok.

ResearchWill, you up for that??

Citizen_Kane

ocallagh wrote: »

At the same time as governments are working (in the interest of corporate bodies) to restrict the information the public can use and share, corporate bodies are working to vastly increase the amount of personal data they can legally collect and share!

From March 1st, Google's new privacy policy. They will collect every little bit of data about you (including email, name, home address, location data, phone numbers etc) and make this data accessible to any google service whether you have signed up to it or not. They'll even gather data about how you interact with 3rd party sites through analytics and google ads. Google is too big to be classed as one company. Data protection should reside with the service, not with a company that owns half the planet!

Both sides are taking things too far. As others have said, it can't be solved by technology. By forcing people into a corner they're just going to make this problem worse.

Irish SOPA, SOPA, PIPA ACTA are a storm in a teacup compared to the issues you are now raising. Here is an link to an article you may appreciate:
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/01/the-importance-of-anonymity-on-the-web/

For the benefit of a 'Future Shocked', alarmed, general public this thread should probably not try to explore these larger issues at this time.

WistfulSoul

The Irish Times political commentator Noel Whelan, has a rather prominent ( and one sided ) piece supporting Minister Sherlock's
well intentioned fumblings in today's paper.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0128/1224310864388.html

While the offline comment about Sherlock’s plans has been more restrained, it has not been helped by the fact that many of those contributing are either technologically or legally illiterate as to what he is proposing, while many of those more expert in the area are advocates for almost unbridled freedom on the web

Given Mr.Whelan's usual musings revolve around constitutency boundaries, electoral systems and the Dáil chamber proceedings, his timing
( and article location beside the main Editorial ) is curious.

In contrast a much more nuanced piece by technology witer Karlin Lillington in Friday's paper, languished in the technology section of
the business supplement.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0127/1224310799439.html

Mr.Whelan's main inference seems to be that people objecting to this extra-democratic legislative 'correction' are either:

1. Ignorant
or
2. Informed but objecting due to some political agenda

This opinion piece is, in my view, a generally unhelpful and imbalanced one which due to its writers 'credibility' may have
a disproportionate effect on our technophobic body politic.

Arfan

Hi everyone. This is a pretty dense thread so I'll be brief.

I was recently in contact with my local representative and am trying to provide them with as much advice on this issue as possible so they can see why there needs to be a wider debate.

I would welcome any information, questions, or feelings from businesses and people with a technical or legal background that I can present to them. Feel free to PM me anything you feel a TD should know about Minister Sherlock's proposal.

Also I didn't see this anywhere. A transcript of the Topical Issue Debate where Catherine Murphy and Derek Keating raised the issue of the proposal with Minister Sherlock.

MOH

WistfulSoul wrote: »

The Irish Times political commentator Noel Whelan, has a rather prominent ( and one sided ) piece supporting Minister Sherlock's
well intentioned fumblings in today's paper.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0128/1224310864388.html

Given Mr.Whelan's usual musings revolve around constitutency boundaries, electoral systems and the Dáil chamber proceedings, his timing
( and article location beside the main Editorial ) is curious.

In contrast a much more nuanced piece by technology witer Karlin Lillington in Friday's paper, languished in the technology section of
the business supplement.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0127/1224310799439.html

Mr.Whelan's main inference seems to be that people objecting to this extra-democratic legislative 'correction' are either:

1. Ignorant
or
2. Informed but objecting due to some political agenda

This opinion piece is, in my view, a generally unhelpful and imbalanced one which due to its writers 'credibility' may have
a disproportionate effect on our technophobic body politic.

That is an unbelievable article. The fact that he reduces himself to sniping such as "RTÉ reported that only a handful of those opposed to Sherlock’s draft regulation disturbed themselves enough to turn up for a Kildare Street rally on Thursday" says it all. This really only started gaining traction on Thursday, and a lot of people have real jobs which would preclude them attending.

I'd suggest that if the IT opened the article up to comments, they could verify for themselves the number of unique Irish-based IP addresses that the resulting complaints came from.

nyarlothothep

Citizen_Kane wrote: »

Irish SOPA, SOPA, PIPA ACTA are a storm in a teacup compared to the issues you are now raising. Here is an link to an article you may appreciate:
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/01/the-importance-of-anonymity-on-the-web/

For the benefit of a 'Future Shocked', alarmed, general public this thread should probably not try to explore these larger issues at this time.

I read that article and found it disturbing. I wonder why there is such a strong authoritarian drag on human societies? I've heard the phrase power corrupts often enough times but I find the answer unsatisfactory, as it doesn't account for the types of personalities that populate the halls of power and which may influence it. Or is it that only a certain type of person gets to such positions of influence through a filtering system so that we always end up with the same domineering assholes who want to impose their political/social beliefs on everyone else? Or is it just greed and protecting your own interests or an emergent effect whereby you have to please your shareholders/backers/supporters at any cost to maintain your position in life? What is this human need to control other humans? I find it quite primitive.

Citizen_Kane

WistfulSoul wrote: »

The Irish Times political commentator Noel Whelan, has a rather prominent ( and one sided ) piece supporting Minister Sherlock's
well intentioned fumblings in today's paper.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0128/1224310864388.html

Given Mr.Whelan's usual musings revolve around constitutency boundaries, electoral systems and the Dáil chamber proceedings, his timing
( and article location beside the main Editorial ) is curious.

In contrast a much more nuanced piece by technology witer Karlin Lillington in Friday's paper, languished in the technology section of
the business supplement.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0127/1224310799439.html

Mr.Whelan's main inference seems to be that people objecting to this extra-democratic legislative 'correction' are either:

1. Ignorant
or
2. Informed but objecting due to some political agenda

This opinion piece is, in my view, a generally unhelpful and imbalanced one which due to its writers 'credibility' may have
a disproportionate effect on our technophobic body politic.

Here is my letter to the editor of the Irish Times:

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the Irish Times's two sided coverage of this matter.
Reference:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0128/1224310864388.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0127/1224310799439.html

Our world is changing at a very rapid pace. The initial basis of this SI was in 2009 when EMI sought injuncture against UPC to allow them broader legal reign to protect their copyrights. Sean Sherlock's SI is directly related to this case, which he claims is the Irish Governments duty under EU legislation to enact.

Since 2009 many things have happened.

EU courts have subsequently

made decisions which protect the rights of ISP's, such as UPC, from being responsible for monitoring data which moves through their infrastructure.

SOPA and PIPA in the US which sought similar controls through different mechanisms were halted by democratic, online action.

ACTA, which seeks similar measures as the SI, was signed by Ireland and others in Japan. It awaits European parliament debate and approval.

French MEP and ACTA rapporteur, Kadir Arif ,

resigns in protest and disgust regarding the lack of transparency and undemocratic proceedings surrounding the signing of ACTA.

The social, cultural and legal debate surrounding the issue of copyright and freedom of communication is burning red-hot at the moment globally. The last time the relevancy of information laws and freedom were under so much question was at the enlightenment.

Sean Sherlock's SI is like an ignorant child king blundering into a conversation and making an unilateral decision which can leave Ireland in the digital stone age once the global dust has settled.

Regards,

********

If enough people get the attention of the editor, maybe this thing can get mainstream press attention.

freeze4real

In regards to watching movies on the internet from sites other than youtube/google bideo could someone clarify this.

Citizen_Kane wrote: »

Presently, you as an average internet user, have nothing to be concerned about if you are not actively seeking out pirated material and distributing it as a business. The problem is that by the very nature of the internet, much of the content you use or share infringes on somebodys copyright. For example if you post a youtube link of a RTE news item on your facebook page - you are infringing copyright.

Sean Sherlocks SI, if passed, will allow copyright holders to not only take you to court, but also allow them to take your ISP (eg. UPC, Eircom, etc) to court and have them disconnect your internet.

You have no reason to be afraid now. The internet is still free, but please sign the petition and contact your TD's regarding the upcoming legislation.

I dont know that gullible one can be to sign this LAW, this is shocking the mere fact that he's a young lad makes it disgusting.

We have to stop this nonsense, this ludicrous, stupid ACT IMHO, have they thought about the costs involved in doing so.


Whats funny is that the whole infringement began with the likes the American tv networks promoting it on the Internets CBS and so through Cnet.

freeze4real

Has sean sherlock signed it or not ?

meglome

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. Even with sophisticated and expensive DPI equipment, we can't see into encrypted transmissions, whether they be SSL websites or encrypted torrents.

This is a socio-legal problem. Trying to fix it with technological solutions can't and won't work.

Exactly right. In the main when I fileshare/download I try to use encrypted connections so they won't be throttled etc.

I was delighted to see Netflix available in Ireland until I saw the poor choice of content. I cannot comprehend why we don't have access to several of these services by now (other than the obvious idiocy of the media companies).

I appreciate politicians will have to do unpopular things but this is just wrong. Sean Sherlock should remember the difference unpopular and just plain wrong when he's seeking re-election. I for one won't forget when the time comes.

johnnydenims

filesharing was always going to be a pandoras box, instead of making technology the culprit we need to have reasonable alternatives from within the music, movie, gaming and software industries why should the ISP,s bear the bulk of the burden for illegal filesharing and copyright infringement

GarIT

freeze4real wrote: »

Has sean sherlock signed it or not ?

No, shortly after a 10 minute debate with Cathrine Murphy and another Fine Gael TD Sean Sherlock agreed to put off signing it untill after Tuesday to allow for a full debate of the issue on Tuesday.

The Sparrow

WistfulSoul wrote: »

The Irish Times political commentator Noel Whelan, has a rather prominent ( and one sided ) piece supporting Minister Sherlock's
well intentioned fumblings in today's paper.

Hell of a day for the Irish Times today. This article suggests that the majority of people against this new law are ignorant of the legal matters surrounding as if you have to be a member of Mensa to understand legal arguments made by the pro lobby.

And I saw another editorial from today's Irish Times arguing that Enda Kenny was right and that the people did in fact cause the current economic crisis. So to summarise, according to The Irish Times today, people against this law are too stupid to understand it and, by the way just for good measure, the economic crisis is actually all our fault.

I'm glad that I haven't bought The Irish Times since the Kate Fitzgerald fiasco before Christmas.

infowars.com

check this video out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq1MB9CGdHs i posted it on facebook but they took it down

freeze4real

infowars.com wrote: »

check this video out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq1MB9CGdHs i posted it on facebook but they took it down

ACTA is illuminati in disguise.

Ciaran500

freeze4real wrote: »

ACTA is illuminati in disguise.

A draconian IP law is a secret all powerful government in disguise? Lets not drag the conspiracy theories in here, it will drag the discussion completely away from anything important.

stephen97

DeVore wrote: »

Boards.ie and Copyright
Since our inception, Boards has had a policy against copyright breaching Bittorrent links. We've been here for 12 years now and that's been our policy long before anyone came and made us adopt it.

We do not support piracy.

We also do not support bad law.

More than 2 Million different people use Boards every month. We reach a lot of people and a lot of people use us to communicate with each other.

We employ two full-time staff to respond to take down notices. That is a cost we bear to protect other people's copyright. A cost we do not see recouped from the rights holders.

We are not slack about this issue.



Proposed New Law
Minister Seán Sherlock has proposed a new law which is best explained here: http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/reader-irelands-sopa-a-faq/
It will be enacted by a single stroke of his pen.


Why are we opposed to this law?
1. It is vague in the extreme. There are no details of what is considered a transgression. It isn't clear if the site targeted will even be informed of the proceedings.

2. The mere threat that allowing a user to post content could land the service in court will ensure that no service allows it. The implications are no more social media for Ireland, who the hell is going to take that risk?? This scares us greatly but will TERRIFY the likes of Google, Twitter, Facebook. Of course we have to stay here and live with it. They and their thousands of jobs, don't.

3. Its not fair. This is akin to letting Bank of Ireland take proceedings against the National Toll Roads Ltd when a getaway-driver uses the M50. Pretty soon, no one will want to build roads.

4. It kills innovation and scares away foreign investment. Boards might have the clout and money to fight some of these injunctions. Smaller operators simply won’t.

5. This wont even work. This will take the pirates 10 minutes to circumvent and I can demonstrate that easily if anyone wants to see.



Bad Law
This is the very definition of bad law. It punishes those who are trying to do what is right while doing nothing to stop the criminals. It seems to follow the headless chicken logic of "Something must be done!!! This is something, therefore we must do this!!"

Why is this being pushed through on the signature of one man without proper consultation with the industry and with the people of Ireland (over 45,000 of whom have already signed a petition against this)?

It won’t work, its vastly over powered and punishes the wrong people. It’s bad law and I'm asking Minister Sherlock to reconsider it.

If you wish to contact Minister Sherlock yourself, you can do so via his website: http://www.seansherlock.ie/contact-me/

Tom Murphy
Founder. Director.
tom .at. boards.ie
@devore

In china the govenment controls what people can and cannot access, if this new law is passed, very soon ireland will become the new china

Wibbs

No it won't become the "New China" which is hyperbole for it's own sake I reckon. This sorta stuff is more subtle than that, which IMH makes it worse in many ways. It won't be so obvious so the vast majority of non technical web users out there likely won't notice their freedoms being curtailed. It'll just become acceptable background noise and that's the danger. No conspiracy required either. Again it doesn't need one. It's so loosely defined and up to the courts to resolve into something approaching clarity that it's ripe for abuse. It doesn't even need to be applied, the fear of it's application will likely worry people(portals/providers) enough to over police themselves. Especially small sites or startups. Even more so if one site or IP testcase is brought to court and loses. Concerning alright.

Dyr

So how many people who are blaming sherlock for this sorry state of affairs are the same people who were in favour of giving the EU the power to dictate legislation to this country? I think some people might need to take a long hard look at their posting history before they get on their high horses here.

Spacedog

infowars.com wrote: »

check this video out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq1MB9CGdHs i posted it on facebook but they took it down

great vid, I'm not on facebook, but it sounds like censorship is well and truely implemented already if they remove a creative commons licensed video.

Ciaran500

Spacedog wrote: »

great vid, I'm not on facebook, but it sounds like censorship is well and truely implemented already if they remove a creative commons licensed video.

Its a private service provided by a private company, they can remove what ever they want, its what you agree to when you sign up. But TBH I have a very hard time believing they removed that video just cause of its content.

quietsailor

DeVore wrote: »

If this law is passed, I'm seriously considering filing for an injunction against Google. We'll lose, but thats ok.

ResearchWill, you up for that??

I can't offer much but are you going to be looking for contributions - I'd be glad to help

Quiet you

Right so, I signed the petition a few days ago and have finally finished emailing the relevant ministers and such.

I even threatened them with voting for FF in the next election.

DeVore

For the people saying Big Content will be reasonable...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/26/google-bing-illegal-music?newsfeed=true

Think what they will do with this new law...

timesnap

This idea is insane and against all the reasons the internet became popular.

not meaning to be flippant at all but would it be a good idea to stop using google as a search engine in protest?

i know it is best for results but it has gotten way too big for its boots imo.

googles European HQ is based in Ireland,would it scare the minister away from signing if he was left the name of being the man who drove google out of Ireland?

worth thinking about to boycott google,Earth,gmail etc for a week to drive the message home that it we will not accept it.

DeVore

Google are no more in favour of this then we are. They stand to suffer too.. the problem here is the lack of control on getting injunctions which gives the copyright lobbyist a huge stick to beat everyone with...

freeze4real

This ACTA is depressing and disgusting. Totally lack of privacy.


Will be going to the debate of tuesday. I'd love to have a go at him to see how this benefits Ireland.


Youtube/google wont be affected that much they have the best of the best lawyers in the world to battle any lawsuits.

If this ridiculous law gets passed can anyone imagine how using the internet would be like as of someone is watching you back.

Daftendirekt

These articles were shamelessly stolen from the ACTA thread (copyright infringement :eek:), but I think they're worth a read:

Swiss government reaches some interesting conclusions about file sharing. Includes a link to the study, but it isn't in English.

Dutch government reach similar conclusions.

And an alternative perspective on the problem of piracy.

I'm not a piracy advocate by any means, but I'm really get tired of all the hysteria over it. Some legislation is necessary, sure, but it should be based on good, sound, ethical principles rather being shaped arbitrarily by the short-sightedness of lobbyists and politicians.

To quote the third article:

Julian Sanchez wrote:

As a rough analogy, since antipiracy crusaders are fond of equating filesharing with shoplifting: suppose the CEO of Wal-Mart came to Congress demanding a $50 million program to deploy FBI agents to frisk suspicious-looking teens in towns near Wal-Marts. A lawmaker might, without for one instant doubting that shoplifiting is a bad thing, question whether this is really the optimal use of federal law enforcement resources. The CEO indignantly points out that shoplifting kills one million adorable towheaded orphans each year. The proof is right here in this study by the Wal-Mart Institute for Anti-Shoplifting Studies. The study sources this dramatic claim to a newspaper article, which quotes the CEO of Wal-Mart asserting (on the basis of private data you can't see) that shoplifting kills hundreds of orphans annually. And as a footnote explains, it seemed prudent to round up to a million. I wish this were just a joke, but as readers of my previous post will recognize, that's literally about the level of evidence we're dealing with here.