An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

dr strangelove

Just sent the mail to my four TDs, as well as Sean Sherlock - be interesting to see if adding my address will make them reply this time.

No. 1512

trooney

One response back so far.

Dear trooney,
Many thanks for getting in touch on what is a critically important issue for our country.
A lot of people have been in contact with me about this and so apologies for the general nature of this reply.
During the week I spoke with Minister Sherlock on a number of occasions about this. The matter was then raised in the Dáil as a topical issue on Thursday. Unfortunately, under the rules of the House, I was not permitted to speak at the time. However, following the short debate a few of us met privately with Minister Sherlock to discuss further engagement on the issue.
More recently I have spoken with the Government Chief Whip and I am hoping that a delegation will meet with the Minister in the coming days. The order has not yet been signed and there will be further discussion on the issue.
Thanks again for your interest,
Eoghan
Eoghan Murphy TD
Fine Gael, Dublin South East

matrim

trooney wrote: »

One response back so far.

I received the exact same response from Eoghan Murphy. I plan to write back to him asking do Fine Gael have an official policy on this and what changes he will be looking to make to the SI as part of his discussions

mathie

Helix wrote: »

Response I received below:

Same here.
Exact same reply.

M.J.M.C

Can someone confirm this for me,

Brendan Ryan wasn't even in the dail for the debate on ACTA the other week?

Jimmy Bottlehead

Contacted the Dublin North-West TD's last night.

No replies yet, but it's only fair to give 'em time

trooney

Looks like Luncinda Creighton already has a mail filtering process in place

Dear trooney,

Acknowledging your email, thank you for getting in touch. I will bring your message to Lucinda's attention at the earliest opportunity.

Kind regards,

Julie

on behalf of
Lucinda Creighton TD

Elbow

Emailed the 3 Local TD's yesterday evening and Michael McCarthy was the first to reply:

Dear Elbow,

Many thanks for your email. I understand this is an issue of great concern for many people and this is the reason Minister Sherlock decided to hold a Dáil debate on it recently.

I have passed your points on to Minister Sherlock's office and will revert to you as soon as I get a response.

Regards,

Michael

Pretty standard reply, wonder will he "revert to you as soon as I get a response" :rolleyes:

allanb49

I'm in Dublin South,

Would anyone here be on for organising a meeting/forum with the local TDs regarding this?

Reply from Louth's Gerald Nash;

Dear Shane,

Thank you very much for your email.

I will be discussing the matter directly with the Minister and I will bring your concerns and those expressed to me by other constituents to him directly.

I know that this proposed measure is a cause for concern amongst many people across the country and I will be engaging directly with the Minister on the issue in the coming days.

Yours sincerely,

Gerald Nash TD

Mr Freeze

A reply from the Taoiseach.

Thank you for your recent email regarding the proposed new copyright law.

I have noted the points you make and the concerns you have raised. I have forwarded your correspondence to Minister of State, Sean Sherlock T.D. for his consideration.

I will be in touch with you again on the matter as soon as I have some further news.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Enda Kenny T.D.
Taoiseach

allanb49

From Peter Matthews

Dear Allan,

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the proposed internet legislation.

I contacted the Minister regarding this issue by means of Parliamentary Question. Please find attached the response I received. The Minister has outlined his position regarding this legislation . He has stated that the legislation is to ensure that right holders 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. It is not a matter of believe or suspecting piracy or simply hosting copyright material. It must be shown that the services in question are used to infringe copyright.

I will continue to address this issue with the Minister and my colleagues in Government.


Regards


Peter
Peter Mathews TD
Dublin South Constituency



DAIL QUESTION

NO. 281 & 291




To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his views on a matter (details supplied) regarding legislation on internet piracy; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

- Peter Mathews.

* For WRITTEN answer


The introduction of legislation to allow copyright holders to compel internet service providers to block access to websites that they believe are engaged in piracy or are hosting copy right materials and the effect that this legislation will have on the technology industry in Ireland.

Ref No: 5009/12


R E P L Y


Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Mr Sherlock)

In relation to the scenario the Deputy has outlined, it is important to mention that copyright holders will not have power to compel the intermediary as stated. The copyright owner will have the right to apply to the High Court for an injunction against an intermediary in respect of works in which he holds the copyright.

The proposed Statutory Instrument allows for the possibility of applying for an injunction only in respect of a particular works. This would have to be considered by a court in its deliberations on the granting of an injunction against an intermediary. Furthermore, all remedies contemplated must be proportionate, as required by the Copyright Directive, and take into account the various judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this area. It is important to note that following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applies to the court when implementing EU law. This means that in considering the grant of an injunction, a court must balance the intellectual property right with the other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, including: Protection of personal data, Freedom of expression and Information, Freedom to conduct a business and right to property.

It is important to note that the requirement being legislated for is to ensure that right holders 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. It is not a matter of believing or suspecting piracy or simply hosting copyright material. It must be shown that the services in question are used to infringe copyright.

The legislation proposed is a restatement of the situation that was thought to pertain prior to the EMI & ors v UPC judgment in October 2010. It is required in order to clarify Ireland’s compliance with Art 8(3) of the Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC.

Blured

Response from Richard Bruton

Dear xxxxx,

Many thanks for your email.

The background to this debate is that the State has been found wanting in failing to transpose the right under EU directives for a copyright holder to seek an injunction from the Courts to protect his or her rights. This power is given, under Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29 and the third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48. It should also be noted that legal proceedings against the State have been issued by the Plaintiffs in the UPC case and damages against the state arising from a successful challenge could be substantial. The European Commission has also requested information (on 22 December, 2011) on Ireland’s compliance with the Copyright Directive.

Any change that will be made will not go beyond granting the rights that are available in any other EU state. Any case taken to the court seeking an injunction will be judged against the need to respect the rights of others and the requirement of proportionality. In the Scarlet case the ECJ said there was a EU requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information, on the other. In that instance, the ECJ precluded the national court from granting an injunction made against an ISP as it had not struck a fair balance.

I attach Minister Sherlock's speech on the matter.

Kind regards
RICHARD BRUTON TD
Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation

Cianos

Blured wrote: »

Response from Richard Bruton

Quote:
Dear xxxxx,

Many thanks for your email.

The background to this debate is that the State has been found wanting in failing to transpose the right under EU directives for a copyright holder to seek an injunction from the Courts to protect his or her rights. This power is given, under Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29 and the third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48. It should also be noted that legal proceedings against the State have been issued by the Plaintiffs in the UPC case and damages against the state arising from a successful challenge could be substantial. The European Commission has also requested information (on 22 December, 2011) on Ireland’s compliance with the Copyright Directive.

Any change that will be made will not go beyond granting the rights that are available in any other EU state. Any case taken to the court seeking an injunction will be judged against the need to respect the rights of others and the requirement of proportionality. In the Scarlet case the ECJ said there was a EU requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information, on the other. In that instance, the ECJ precluded the national court from granting an injunction made against an ISP as it had not struck a fair balance.

I attach Minister Sherlock's speech on the matter.

Kind regards
RICHARD BRUTON TD
Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation

This kinda makes sense to me - what is the argument against it?

celticbest

Signed, awaiting replies......

tommycahir

Reply from Carlow\Kilkennys Pat Deering

Dear Tommy,

Thank you for getting in touch with me expressing your concern about proposed legislation in the area of copyright law.

First, I’d like to clarify that Minister of State, Sean Sherlock TD, has emphasised that he has not put forward any proposals to enact a Stop Online Piracy Type Law.

Second, I’d like to emphasise that the need to legislate arises from a finding of the High Court in October 2010 that Ireland was not in compliance with its EU obligations under Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC as the High Court found itself unable, under existing primary legislation, to grant an injunction against an intermediary in relation to transient communications. As you will appreciate, failing to be in compliance with our obligations under EU law is a very serious matter.

Third, I believe it is important to emphasise that no policy change is proposed in the Statutory Instrument. It had been the intention of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 to provide civil remedies such as injunctions and it was assumed that the Act did, in fact, provide for such remedies until the High Court found otherwise in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010. Accordingly, the wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument has been framed in a manner which merely gives effect to the wording of the EU Copyright Directive (i.e. Article 8(3) of 2001/29/EC) rather than extending its scope beyond that of intermediaries.

The intended purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but, rather, it seeks merely to restate the position that was though to exist in the Copyright legislation prior to Mr. Justice Charleton’s judgement in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010.

Last July Minister Sherlock held a public consultation in relation to the wording of a proposed Statutory Instrument amending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. More than 50 submissions were received from interested parties, providing an excellent overview of all the issues and concerned involved. Minister Sherlock has engaged extensively with interested parties in respect of their views and concerns.

The legislative measure is expected to be introduced shortly.

I hope this clarifies matters.

Regards,

Pat Deering TD.

Seems like an autoresponse to me from the way that I read it!

gizmo555

Cianos wrote: »

This kinda makes sense to me - what is the argument against it?

IMO, the principal argument against it is the point I made in my version of the email to my local TDs:

I am not in any way opposed to copyright holders being given appropriate means in law to vindicate their property rights. Indeed, my profession of software engineering relies on proper protection being provided for intellectual property rights.

However, I am particularly concerned that Mr Sherlock appears deliberately to have drafted the proposed statutory instrument in an extremely vague and open-ended way, instead of doing his job as a legislator and providing clarity and certainty as to how the law will affect both individual citizens and business.

expectationlost

Cianos wrote: »

This kinda makes sense to me - what is the argument against it?

one of the ISP will lose and be forced to make a deal at court which doesn't necessarily have all those protections of rights and due process they promise.

tommycahir

Just sent back the below response to Pat Deering

thanks to Dev and the Stop SOPA Ireland site for the wording to use in the response.

Dear Pat

Thank you very much for your quick response but I think that there are some fundamental flaws in the new copyright law as it stands today

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. This legislation is bad for the Irish economy. It jeopardises the fundamental operation of our largest tech employers and stifles our technology start ups.

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. some ISPs might have the clout and money to fight some of these injunctions. Smaller operators simply won’t.

5. A small website could just drop off the irish ISP's DNS's and would be slapped with an injunction without them even being notified.Site owners faced with one of Minister Sherlock’s injunctions will have no legal recourse without a €30,000+ legal warchest. The new law mandates no warning process, no mediation and no appeals process outside the High Court. Smaller sites including individual blogs, podcasts and independent news sources who don’t have the money to mount the costly legal campaign needed to defend themselves will automatically lose out to corporate interests with deep pockets.

6. If this is passed, sites like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and other popular sites may be blocked in Ireland. These sites depend on user-created content. With one injunction based on one bad link from one person, all of Ireland could lose access to a news site, social network, video sharing or any other kind of site.


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.

expectationlost

i dunno if you handing politicians your name address and phone number so they can drown you in leaflets and txts come election time.

source

Reply from Willie O'Dea and the only one I got despite emailing 5 TDs for Limerick.

Dear Eoin

It might be of interest to you to read the transcript below of the debate that took place on January 31st 2012 in which I outlined my thinking in regard to the proposals by Junior Minister Sean Sherlock.

If I can clarify anything further please do not hesitate to contact me.


Yours sincerely
Willie O'Dea T.D.

I appreciate the Government’s decision to organise a debate on the subject but this is not the way to deal with the subject of this magnitude. We need a more considered debate, along the lines proposed by Deputy Martin, such as a select sub-committee of the Dáil to examine this area of major importance. I am one of the few people who raised this issue in the Dáil on Question Time with the Minister of State. I do not have a vested interest but I was approached by someone who represents copyright owners to find out what was happening and how the Government was going to respond to the EMI case. I thank the Minister of State for the courtesy with which he received my representations. He was very helpful.

The copyright directives of 1980 and 1984 intended that an injunction could be granted against Internet service providers. That was the clear intention and we all assumed it was the law. The matter was tested before the courts and the court took the view that the legislation transposing the directive could not allow for injunctions. Therefore, the directive was not properly transposed into Irish law and Mr. Justice Charleton said that he would have loved to grant an injunction but the drafting of the law did not allow him to do so. It is clear that we are under an obligation to comply with EU directives and to transpose EU directives properly. The Minister of State mentioned damages but this is part of our international obligations. We accepted the EU directive and legislation was passed to transpose it so we must bring it into effect. Every other country in Europe has brought it into effect properly. The Minister of State referred to European law and the Sabam case, the principles of which will be relied upon in the courts when deciding on how to implement this.

In a fast evolving situation such as this, there is an argument that it is preferable for judicial discretion and judicial law-making to deal with this situation. However, in a matter of this importance, the fundamental principles should be laid down by the Irish Parliament. The Minister of State said recently that it was not the Government’s intention that Internet sites be closed down but if that is not his intention, why not put his intention in legislative form? That is the least required. We are abdicating responsibility to the Judiciary. While I have confidence in judges, I do not know the extent to which they will be persuaded by the principles of European law. I am familiar with the terms of the e-commerce directive but this is a matter for Parliament, not the Judiciary. We should set down the broad principles in this House. We all deplore piracy and we recognise the rights of copyright owners, which must be balanced against the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy of end users and the absolute necessity for this country to have a robust and trading Internet. The representatives of the people in Parliament should be deciding this, not the Judiciary.

There is a bigger picture and perhaps it is time to revisit the EU directive, which is more than ten years old. The situation has evolved considerably in the meantime. In the United States, piracy has reduced substantially because there are 800 systems through which this material can be legally distributed on payment of a modest fee. The precedent for that in this country is the agreement between the Eircom and IRMA, which led to MusicHub, where people can download music on payment of a modest fee. The empirical evidence shows that if such a system is in place, people will opt for the legal system. There will always be some people who opt for the illegal system. That is the direction in which we should move.

For the full transcript please follow this link: http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/01/31/00022.asp

Yours sincerely
Willie O'Dea T.D.

Draco

tommycahir wrote: »

Reply from Carlow\Kilkennys Pat Deering



Seems like an autoresponse to me from the way that I read it!

I suspect so, this is what I got:

Dear [draco],

Thank you for getting in touch with me expressing your concern about proposed legislation in the area of copyright law.

First, I’d to clarify that Minister of State, Sean Sherlock TD, has emphasised that he has not put forward any proposals to enact a Stop Online Piracy Type Law.

Second, I’d like to emphasise that the need to legislate arises from a finding of the High Court in October 2010 that Ireland was not in compliance with its EU obligations under Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC as the High Court found itself unable, under existing primary legislation, to grant an injunction against an intermediary in relation to transient communications. As you will appreciate, failing to be in compliance with our obligations under EU law is a very serious matter.

Third, I believe it is important to emphasise that no policy change is proposed in the Statutory Instrument. It had been the intention of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 to provide civil remedies such as injunctions and it was assumed that the Act did, in fact, provide for such remedies until the High Court found otherwise in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010. Accordingly, the wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument has been framed in a manner which merely gives effect to the wording of the EU Copyright Directive (i.e. Article 8(3) of 2001/29/EC) rather than extending its scope beyond that of intermediaries.

The intended purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but, rather, it seeks merely to restate the position that was though to exist in the Copyright legislation prior to Mr. Justice Charleton’s judgement in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010.

Last July Minister Sherlock held a public consultation in relation to the wording of a proposed Statutory Instrument amending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. More than 50 submissions were received from interested parties, providing an excellent overview of all the issues and concerned involved. Minister Sherlock has engaged extensively with interested parties in respect of their views and concerns.

The legislative measure is expected to be introduced shortly.

I hope this clarifies matters.

Kind regards,
Catherine Byrne TD

dmw07

From Meath West, Ray Butler TD FG

Anthony

Thank you for getting in touch with me expressing your concern about proposed legislation in the area of copyright law.

First, I’d to clarify that Minister of State, Sean Sherlock TD, has emphasised that he has not put forward any proposals to enact a Stop Online Piracy Type Law.

Second, I’d like to emphasise that the need to legislate arises from a finding of the High Court in October 2010 that Ireland was not in compliance with its EU obligations under Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC as the High Court found itself unable, under existing primary legislation, to grant an injunction against an intermediary in relation to transient communications. As you will appreciate, failing to be in compliance with our obligations under EU law is a very serious matter.

Third, I believe it is important to emphasise that no policy change is proposed in the Statutory Instrument. It had been the intention of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 to provide civil remedies such as injunctions and it was assumed that the Act did, in fact, provide for such remedies until the High Court found otherwise in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010. Accordingly, the wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument has been framed in a manner which merely gives effect to the wording of the EU Copyright Directive (i.e. Article 8(3) of 2001/29/EC) rather than extending its scope beyond that of intermediaries.

The intended purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but, rather, it seeks merely to restate the position that was though to exist in the Copyright legislation prior to Mr. Justice Charleton’s judgement in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010.

Last July Minister Sherlock held a public consultation in relation to the wording of a proposed Statutory Instrument amending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. More than 50 submissions were received from interested parties, providing an excellent overview of all the issues and concerned involved. Minister Sherlock has engaged extensively with interested parties in respect of their views and concerns.

The legislative measure is expected to be introduced shortly.

I hope this clarifies matters and thank you for contacting me.

Kind regards,
Ray Butler TD

dmw07

Hey tommycahir,

Any chance we can exchange e-mail address', forward each others mails to our TD's, and then ask them to actually reply to us?

smash

Reply from Simon Harris

Thank you for taking the time to email me on this matter, which is one I have closely followed this issue in the media, online and in Dail discussions.

On foot of your representations, I have once again written to Minister Sherlock outlining the concerns which have been expressed to me by constituents.

I understand that the Minister is duty bound to address this issue due to a Court ruling – but I agree that it is important that balance is found. As somebody who relies heavily on the internet, I appreciate the importance of ensuring that internet freedom is protected and that we do all that we can to enhance this country’s reputation as a hub for IT and technology.

As you may be aware, this measure by Minister Sherlock does not require a Dail vote as it is being introduced by way of Statutory Instrument. Nonetheless, please be assured that I will continue to pursue this matter. I will also request that the Minister meet with the industry experts based in Ireland and attempt to work out a way to address their concerns.

Please be assured of my very best efforts and keep in touch.

Kind Regards,

Simon

Sounds positive.

smash

Reply from Anne Ferris

Thank you for your email. I have received many emails in regards to this issue and I have pursued the matter with Minister Sean Sherlock. Indeed I tabled a Parliamentary Question on the matter which I have copied below for your information.

Kind regards,

Anne

285. Deputy Anne Ferris asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will address concerns that have arisen in regards to the proposed statutory instrument that will provide for injunctions for copyright owners in certain circumstances; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4783/12]

Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Sean Sherlock): A consultation was held by my Department last July in relation to the wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument. More than 50 submissions were received. Some were from rights holders such as songwriters, authors and their representatives. Others were from telecom companies and businesses that carry out intermediary activities on the internet and still more were from bodies concerned with freedom of expression and data protection issues.

I am most grateful to all who contributed to this consultation. It provided me with an excellent overview of all the issues and concerns involved. Legal advice, which was received with some submissions, was forwarded to the Office of the Attorney General for consideration. Following this, and taking all matters into account, including the opinion and advice of the Attorney General, it is felt necessary that there should be a restatement of the situation which was considered to pertain in Irish law in relation to injunctions against intermediaries prior to the judgment in the EMI & ors v UPC case. This is required in order to clarify Ireland’s compliance with Art 8(3) of the Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC.

It is important to note that following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applies to court deliberations when implementing EU law. This means that in considering the grant of an injunction, a court must balance the intellectual property right with the other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, including: Protection of personal data, Freedom of expression and Information, Freedom to conduct a business and the right to property. Any remedy must also be proportionate and follow the principles in this area laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union.


Anne Ferris TD

TestTransmission

source wrote: »

Reply from Willie O'Dea and the only one I got despite emailing 5 TDs for Limerick.

Got the same reply

tommycahir

dmw07 wrote: »

Hey tommycahir,

Any chance we can exchange e-mail address', forward each others mails to our TD's, and then ask them to actually reply to us?

sending a PM to you now with my email address

Liamario

Dear Liam

Thank you for getting in touch with me expressing your concern about proposed legislation in the area of copyright law.

First, I’d to clarify that Minister of State, Sean Sherlock TD, has emphasised that he has not put forward any proposals to enact a Stop Online Piracy Type Law.

Second, I’d like to emphasise that the need to legislate arises from a finding of the High Court in October 2010 that Ireland was not in compliance with its EU obligations under Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC as the High Court found itself unable, under existing primary legislation, to grant an injunction against an intermediary in relation to transient communications. As you will appreciate, failing to be in compliance with our obligations under EU law is a very serious matter.

Third, I believe it is important to emphasise that no policy change is proposed in the Statutory Instrument. It had been the intention of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 to provide civil remedies such as injunctions and it was assumed that the Act did, in fact, provide for such remedies until the High Court found otherwise in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010. Accordingly, the wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument has been framed in a manner which merely gives effect to the wording of the EU Copyright Directive (i.e. Article 8(3) of 2001/29/EC) rather than extending its scope beyond that of intermediaries.

The intended purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but, rather, it seeks merely to restate the position that was though to exist in the Copyright legislation prior to Mr. Justice Charleton’s judgement in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010.

Last July Minister Sherlock held a public consultation in relation to the wording of a proposed Statutory Instrument amending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. More than 50 submissions were received from interested parties, providing an excellent overview of all the issues and concerned involved. Minister Sherlock has engaged extensively with interested parties in respect of their views and concerns.

The legislative measure is expected to be introduced shortly.

I hope this clarifies matters.


Kind regards

James

Definitely stock response, which is absolutely disgusting.

antoinolachtnai

If you have written, and whether or not you have gotten a response, it would be a good idea to drop in to see your government TDs.

If it is a stock response, don't be surprised, these guys are getting a lot of email.

However, nothing makes TDs take things seriously like real people showing up.

You don't need to spend very long with TD, just five minutes. Most of them are actually pleasant enough people if you actually go and talk to them. They are relying on meeting and helping ordinary people to get reelected, so they will be glad to see you, even if you disagree with them about something.

You can get some suggestions on what to expect and what to say at

http://stopsopaireland.com/#2

You might like to print out and bring along a copy of the ISP association's statement on the matter

http://www.ispai.ie/docs/copyright-si-realprobs.pdf

and a copy of the alternative SI that the Stop SOPA campaign has proposed.

http://issuu.com/catherinemurphytd/docs/draft_alternative_copyright_statutory_instrument

It is a bit of trouble to go to, but it will make a bigger difference than anything else.