An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

thebman

Citizen_Kane wrote: »

Sean Sherlock on Pat Kenny's show states that there is a culture emerging where people feel entitled to download and use things for free.

He is right.

This is a wonderful thing which is driving a cultural renaissance.

Here is an example of a musical enterprise that allow their fans to download their stuff and even encourages other musicians to re-use their stuff - as long as they are credited.

http://afterthesmoke.tumblr.com/tagged/after+the+smoke

When you start imposing an old copyright, restrictive culture onto a new , sharing copyleft culture the whole thing stops. They are mutually incompatible in a mainstream cultural ideology.

Mr Sherlock may be attune to legal and corporate innovation, but I don't think he begins to understand the concept of cultural innovation.

There are already new copyleft, creative commons licenses which protect and provide income for artists without the need for middlemen like EMI and the likes.

The truth I fear is political lobbying and threats from the companies that die if the new way of doing things catches on.

So he doesn't care what the people think or what is in the public interest IMO, it about who is bringing the Euros to the parties coffers.

FF were doing something similar just before they left office, introducing copyright legislation on last day of government I believe, rushed through too.

Personally I think the main parties are all being heavily lobbied and probably getting political donations from these media companies to try to save their old way of doing things.

Below is a great free book on the culture we have now from the old way of doing things which isn't all that old but has become accepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_(book)

miec

Glad to see this issue raised and came straight to the thread when I saw it, I have not read all the responses so if someone else has covered this point my apologies in advance.

In response to Sherlock, whom I had complained to before but got no response, his latest escapade does not surprise me, however, considering that Ireland is fast becoming the silicone valley of Europe and the IDA/government are courting the computer / IT / social media industry, introducing this statutory instrument is going to harm this fast growing but still fledging industry.

Multinationals can pull out extremely quickly as I have seen this with the financial services industry.

Lets hope sense prevails and this SI is not pushed through.

Citizen_Kane

thebman wrote: »

The truth I fear is political lobbying and threats from the companies that die if the new way of doing things catches on.

So he doesn't care what the people think or what is in the public interest IMO, it about who is bringing the Euros to the parties coffers.

FF were doing something similar just before they left office, introducing copyright legislation on last day of government I believe, rushed through too.

Personally I think the main parties are all being heavily lobbied and probably getting political donations from these media companies to try to save their old way of doing things.

Below is a great free book on the culture we have now from the old way of doing things which isn't all that old but has become accepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_(book)

The book looks interesting - will set aside some time for a good read.

This is, at heart, a cultural and civil liberties issues but it is very difficult to get mainstream public understanding of this when they are already saturated with so many fears and 'cultural' distractions. I feel that this should be the main focus of argument towards blocking this SI and revision of copyright laws.

Even if in this battle it will be likely fail, it will set the groundwork for a far more sophisticated revolution.

infowars.com

have a read of this http://www.prisonplanet.com/acta-is-worse-than-sopa-heres-what-you-need-to-know.html

thebman

Oh here is an interesting article that shows the extent of the manipulation and lobbying the media industry is up to in the background here:
http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Agenda/Music/Music+industry+launches+new+High+Court+action+against+state/id/19410615-5218-4f0d-74f6-ef0c79393950

Occono

thebman wrote: »

Oh here is an interesting article that shows the extent of the manipulation and lobbying the media industry is up to in the background here:
http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Agenda/Music/Music+industry+launches+new+High+Court+action+against+state/id/19410615-5218-4f0d-74f6-ef0c79393950

Redirects to the homepage.

Citizen_Kane

And in case there is any doubt about copyright organisation being reasonable in the enforcement of law , remember that as far back as 1996 ASCAP tried to get royalties out of Girl Scouts for the songs they sang around camp fires!

I kid you not.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/nyregion/ascap-asks-royalties-from-girl-scouts-and-regrets-it.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://jamesvdelong.com/articles/ip/best-things.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Composers,_Authors_and_Publishers

blubloblu

Citizen_Kane wrote: »

Sean Sherlock on Pat Kenny's show states that there is a culture emerging where people feel entitled to download and use things for free.

He is right.

This is a wonderful thing which is driving a cultural renaissance.

Here is an example of a musical enterprise that allow their fans to download their stuff and even encourages other musicians to re-use their stuff - as long as they are credited.

http://afterthesmoke.tumblr.com/tagged/after+the+smoke

When you start imposing an old copyright, restrictive culture onto a new , sharing copyleft culture the whole thing stops. They are mutually incompatible in a mainstream cultural ideology.

Mr Sherlock may be attune to legal and corporate innovation, but I don't think he begins to understand the concept of cultural innovation.

There are already new copyleft, creative commons licenses which protect and provide income for artists without the need for middlemen like EMI and the likes.

Do you think people are entitled to download artists' works for free, even against their wishes?
How do you propose that artists make a living?
Creative Commons is great, but it relies on copyright law to work.

thebman

Occono wrote: »

Redirects to the homepage.

Thanks, click this google search
http://www.google.ie/search?q=sunday+business+post

then click synopsis:
Music industry launches new High Court action against state

KyussBishop

I created a separate topic relating to this, regarding a different kind of response I think it is important everyone take against these new laws:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056533263

Would appreciate people adding to that discussion, to get it going more.

Spacedog wrote: »

Under this SI, If Wikileaks posts a document or video that a company claims copyright on, can that company compel Irish ISPs to block wikileaks by way of injunction?

Yes, absolutely; the diplomatic cables? They were copyrighted if I remember correctly.

Way before that even: WikiLeaks published Scientology manuals before achieving mainstream notoriety, and the Church of Scientology sent copyright threats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_published_by_WikiLeaks#Scientology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_Internet

If these laws existed 5-6 years ago, WikiLeaks would have been blocked and made less accessible long before they made their most important leaks.

AntiRip

Very interesting read all about ACTA

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/london/how-acta-would-affect-you-faq/2773

oxo_

Al Jazeera (English) are running a story on this tomorrow (Monday) via their social media led #ajstream show. You can give your points directly via Twitter @ajstream or via short video's via http://t.co/tabuZ4Uo

I've no links at all with them other than enjoying their shows but it could be a chance for some here to voice their concerns at a wider audience.

I'll send them a link to this thread on boards also in a few minutes as I think the opening post captures the crux of it all quiet well.

Citizen_Kane

blubloblu wrote: »

Do you think people are entitled to download artists' works for free, even against their wishes?
How do you propose that artists make a living?
Creative Commons is great, but it relies on copyright law to work.

Do you think people are entitled to download artists' works for free, even against their wishes?
No - the law clearly prohibits this entitlement and I am sure that this is against many artists wishes. Many progressive artists however offer this entitlement and it is their wish that as many people as possible see and hear their work. In the dynamic culture of the internet, controlling and differentiating between the two is logistically impossible. Heavy handed laws to protect the former will destroy the latter.

How do you propose that artists make a living?
By using the free distribution which is the internet to promote and publish their work. There is oppertunity for more artists to make a fairer living when all our popular culture does not have to be channeled through a corporate middle-man. Commercial airtime can also provide direct income to artists instead of percentages of commissions. Fans will still go to concerts, buy merchandise and even donate to production. Hell- independent film may even go mainstream and be shown in well located independent movie houses instead of suburban tici tac boxes where you can't even go for a pint after.

Creative Commons is great, but it relies on copyright law to work.
Yes it is great isn't it! It replaces copyright law - it does not rely on it to work. It is up to us, as a society, to decide if we want to change direction. CC is designed to protect the rights of creators to make a living and to preserve a lively and vibrant culture. Copyright was designed with the same intent hundreds of years ago under similar circumstances as we are in today. Today it has mutated to serve the the interests of an industry. As Bob Dylan sang, The times they are a [censored to protect copyright]

Doubt.It

I thought the open letter was very well put. Well done.

CiaranC

blubloblu wrote: »

How do you propose that artists make a living

Artists, like everyone else, will have to provide a product or service that people will spend money on. Seems simple enough to me.

Victor

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0128/1224310864388.html?via=mr

He accepted evidence, for example, that 22,000 separate illegal downloads had been made of tracks from Aslan’s last album.

Wasn't this due to the number of downloads claimed by a certain site was calculated using a random number generator?

In order to suggest the extent of popular outrage at Sherlock’s proposal the mainstream media have reported that almost 60,000 people have signed an online petition opposing it. On the petition website those signing the petition are asked to tick whether they are prepared to have their support for it made public. Notwithstanding this there is no published list of these supporters which makes it impossible for anyone but the site administrators to validate the individual entries, to see whether they are based in Ireland or not, or to see whether any of them “signed” the petition more than once. When I asked one of the campaign organisers yesterday for a breakdown of those publicly prepared to be on the petition I was curiously referred to the Minister’s office with my query.

Duh! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqU8tX-26C6RdF94UGtZc2k5RS1teHZEY1cwQkMxV1E#gid=0

timesnap

Sorry to reproduce a complete post by AVALANCH but when Cliff Richard was looking for an extension to copyright laws Tony and Cherie Blair were using his exotic house's as their holiday homes.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76791491&postcount=557

Boards and Dev have made it clear that it never supported piracy but this proposal will leave site owners walking on eggshells as to what it can safely carry.
also it could be used by a spiteful minister to seek revenge on a site that allowed criticism towards them.
the boards argument if read properly is against the law being so vague,not the spirit of the law.

how many times i have heard people say listening to songs online helped them discover an artist they really liked.
this provoked them to buy the CD/DVD of the artist.

another thing to remember is that on the last survey almost one third of Irish homes do not have a bank account to pay for downloads but instead buy the albums in the shops.

i do not know if the virtual credit cards are accepted by most sites,i do know under Irish law no more than e350 can be spent at once on the virtual CC's.
so if you want to avail of a song for 99c or a $1000 laptop from Dell you cannot.

meglome

Victor wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0128/1224310864388.html?via=mr

Sorry I actually read this trash.

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.

OR we are advocating that the media companies make their content available to us at a reasonable cost. (Or even in a lot of cases just available to us full stop). If I had a (decent) netflix type service I would happily pay for it. The media companies current model is dead and instead of embracing change they have failed miserably to block that change.

He accepted evidence, for example, that 22,000 separate illegal downloads had been made of tracks from Aslan’s last album.

No idea how they reached this figure but I can look at my own downloading. Over 90% of it is either... TV shows which are being shown in a particular 'region' which isn't mine, which I now don't have to wait for on local TV. Old copies of TV shows which I would never purchase or movies I would never pay for. I'm only watching a lot of it because I don't have to pay for it.
But as I said I would happily pay for a fairly priced service so I could choose what to watch and when, from a large library. I would happily watch ads to cover the cost as well. I would actually prefer to pay but all we have is one poor (netflix) service so I can't actually pay for what I want to watch.

The media companies need to drop this region bullcrap and start making all their content available through paid for services at the same time and they'll soon notice their revenues rising. They can charge different rates in different areas like Sony do on the Playstation, but make it all available. I really don't see what's so difficult to get about this.

Wibbs

meglome wrote: »

The media companies current model is dead and instead of embracing change they have failed miserably to block that change.

Bingo. Typical middle management beige thinking. You would think they might have learned from how the music industry had to change in the face of napster and the like. But no they fiddled while Rome burned and their record labels struggled and their shops closed.

blubloblu

CiaranC wrote: »

Artists, like everyone else, will have to provide a product or service that people will spend money on. Seems simple enough to me.

They do. They shouldn't be the ones held responsible for their copyright being infringed.

Citizen_Kane

blubloblu wrote: »

They do. They shouldn't be the ones held responsible for their copyright being infringed.

You have been answered with well articulated points from numerous members in this and another threads:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76800164&postcount=584
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76802646&postcount=12
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76801225&postcount=10
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76801895&postcount=586

Please progress the discussion or articulate yourself more fully.

PJTierney

Sent out an email to all the TDs last week (the one from this thread with all the email addresses) and got a bunch of responses (some automated) over the weekend.

Good news is that not everybody in the Dáil is behind the proposal, and quite a few are aware of the implications of it all.

We'll see what happens, but at least they're listening to us

Citizen_Kane

With spurious copyright claims by Microsoft and the likes directed at Free and Open Source projects such as Linux, this instrument would also open up to attack the software and update mechanisms that the majority of ISP's use globally.

This could bully ISP's and hosting businesses into using Microsoft products, which would increase their running costs and reduce the transparency of what the internet is doing in the background.

ryker1

Copyright holders only have to claim ownership.
They don't have to prove anything until it comes to court. They get a lifetime +70 years of protection. So this is mine cos I say it's mine.

I repeat. This text is mine. I created it. Anybody who copies it will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Change a single letter and you'll be contacted and removed from the internet.

I've also created this word ldidssidgh. This is also mine do not reproduce it in any manner whatsoever

bastados

Yeah but what is the likelyhood that this rubbish will actually be brought into law in one shape or form?

KyussBishop

bastados wrote: »

Yeah but what is the likelyhood that this rubbish will actually be brought into law in one shape or form?

Sherlock has the power to sign it into law without consulting anyone if he wants to; he is just trying to avert (further) political suicide atm I think, so there will be a debate on it this week, however he still seems intent on signing it.

Irish Aris

Hi everybody,
I started reading the whole thread, but by page 20 I was totally lost/confused and stopped.
Probably what I am about to ask is naive and/or already answered, but I would like to understand in plain English the limitations of the new legislation, so here it is:
-Famous pop artist is on tour promoting new album. Lots of people film videos during the concerts and upload them to youtube. I like one of the videos and post it to my facebook account. Am I in violation of the law? Or the person that originally uploaded the video on youtube? Or do youtube and facebook need to delete the posts and everything will be fine?
-Same pop concert. I am not one to film videos but I am taking pictures-mostly for private use, but every now and then I will share some of these pictures in my facebook account. Is that allowed under the new legislation?

Again, I understand it is possible that nothing substantial will change. But I don't think most people really understand the implications that the new law might have. I wouldn't like to be drawn to court, even if I eventually win the case, so I would like to play it safe.
Yes, to most of us the new law is vague (as it is often the case with new or amended laws)

JJDoherty

I spoke to Mr Sherlock on Friday evening when he returned my call which I had made earlier that day, spending at least 20 minutes making my point and arguing the various points back and forth. He clearly believes in his position and is very articulate in relaying it.

I would again suggest that anyone who does have concerns regarding this SI should ring Mr Sherlocks and ask to speak to him. It is important that he is made aware that people understand the issues and potential pitfalls if the SI is enacted.

rOBeRt frETt

Oh No! a LAW ..........but...my liberty...ohhh the humanity.

if the law that is currently governing copyright cannot be enforced and is widely ignored why should anyone care about yet another law?
you can still get your illegal materials peer-to-peer over an encrypted tunnel.

It made me laugh when the 'Anonymous' group where called to battle the injustices of the internet by instigating a very unsophisticated denial of service attack on 10 US government websites- what called them into action? the feds closed Megaupload and it's sisters sites - this was conceived as 'anti-freedom' and a huge injustice etc.....coming to the aid of millionaires getting RICH by hosting copyrighted material by a bunch of juvenile do-gooders- is this a joke?

The freedom of the internet is, freedom of speech, freedom to learn- and not freedom to download copyrighted material.
of course I download copyrighted material, and of course people will always share copyrighted material- but lets be honest folks- while you may not pay for it- these websites a certainly making money out of it.
I do not support the bill, nor sopa and pipa but obviously something needs to be done.

johnnydenims

http://news.ie.msn.com/world/dutch-to-target-file-sharing-isps