An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

baztard

Anthony Lawlor TD wrote: »

Dear B

Many thanks for your email in relation to the above.

With regard to the points your raised regarding copyright law, it is important to be aware that Minister of State, Sean Sherlock TD, has not put forward any proposals to enact a Stop Online Piracy Type Law. Rather the need to now introduce legislation 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 non-compliance with EU Law is a very serious matter you can understand the need to address the matter.

I should make you aware of the fact that no policy change is proposed in the Statutory Instrument. Instead the intended purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but merely to restate the position that was thought 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. As a result of this court ruling, the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 needed to be revised in order to provide civil remedies such as injunctions.

As a result of your interest in this matter, I am sure you are aware how 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 concerns involved. I am wondering if you were in a position to forward a submission to the Minister at the time outlining your views? If so, perhaps you could send me a copy of same and I can again raise your concerns with the Minister.

In any case, I have taken on board you views in this regard and will bear them in mind in future discussions on this matter.

I hope this clarifies matters.

Kind regards

Anthony Lawlor TD

56 South Main Street
Naas
Co. Kildare
Tel: 045 888488

Another stock answer. I would imagine the Fine Gael TD's have recieved so many similar boards style emails, that they are not taking the people who sent them too seriously. My guess is they think most people will just send them the stock boards generated email and then forget about it. So a follow up response to your TD is very important to let them know that you are genuinely concerned and are not going to be appeased so easily.

I've a couple of free hours tomorrow evening that I'll use to write back to Anthony Lawlor, once again outlining in simple basics points what my concerns are.

Crackle

Got a reply from Aine Collins (Cork NW). Would you believe it's a stock reply :rolleyes:

Dear ***,

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,

Áine Collins TD

Fine Gael, Cork North West

Still no reply from Michael Moynihan.

antoinolachtnai

Really, the best thing is to go and visit the TD, if you can at all, you should go and see Anthony Lawlor on Monday. This will be the most effective thing.

http://anthonylawlor.ie/contact/

antoinolachtnai

expectationlost wrote: »

if you don't engage them on the issue they can continue to pretend to not know with the issue is, with regard to passing the buck to the courts

Not really, you just have to make it clear to the TD that this is an important matter and that you support the line that Digital Rights Ireland and boards.ie have been taking on this.

If you know enough stuff to discuss it in more depth, that is fine. The important thing is to show up and make your point.

The reality is that most TDs cannot know everything about all the legislation that goes through the Dail. And no matter how much they know, TDs are very unlikely to vote against their own government. The most important thing is to make clear how important this issue is to you.

expectationlost

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Not really, you just have to make it clear to the TD that this is an important matter and that you support the line that Digital Rights Ireland and boards.ie have been taking on this.

If you know enough stuff to discuss it in more depth, that is fine. The important thing is to show up and make your point.

The reality is that most TDs cannot know everything about all the legislation that goes through the Dail. And no matter how much they know, TDs are very unlikely to vote against their own government. The most important thing is to make clear how important this issue is to you.

don't let them play dumb and don't presume other people are either.

politicians like to use the phone/in person so it won't be recorded, don't want to be nailed down on anything

obviously i don't know as much as you or DRI do on the specifics, but i don't think you should advising people to play their game, that everything should be sorted by a few people they invite into a room. (And diminishing named, addressed and targeted written emails.)

going into private meetings and saying, oh how they listened and engaged and they them turning round and doing what you asked them not to

antoinolachtnai

You can't force them to do anything. The TDs you meet are not the direct decision makers. They have to bring the message back.

If you feel you can argue things out in depth, and you think it is beneficial, by all means do. But it is not necessary to do this. All you have to do is visit your TD, and explain why it is important to you.

It only has to take five minutes.

The more people who do this, the bigger a difference it will make. It is all about numbers. The more people visit, the more chance we have of turning this issue around.

expectationlost

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You can't force them to do anything. The TDs you meet are not the direct decision makers. They have to bring the message back.

didn't say anything about force, i said don't treat them as dumb, even if the system sees as dumb aswell, that's playing their game.

antoinolachtnai

What I really meant to say is that sheer force of argument will not sway them, but force of numbers might.

We need as many people as possible to turn out.

BluesBerry

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Really, the best thing is to go and visit the TD, if you can at all, you should go and see Anthony Lawlor on Monday. This will be the most effective thing.

http://anthonylawlor.ie/contact/

I mailed him this is the reply I got from him

Dear xxxxx

Many thanks for your email in relation to the above.

With regard to the points your raised regarding copyright law, it is important to be aware that Minister of State, Sean Sherlock TD, has not put forward any proposals to enact a Stop Online Piracy Type Law. Rather the need to now introduce legislation 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 non-compliance with EU Law is a very serious matter you can understand the need to address the matter.

I should make you aware of the fact that no policy change is proposed in the Statutory Instrument. Instead the intended purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but merely to restate the position that was thought 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. As a result of this court ruling, the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 needed to be revised in order to provide civil remedies such as injunctions.

As a result of your interest in this matter, I am sure you are aware how 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 concerns involved. I am wondering if you were in a position to forward a submission to the Minister at the time outlining your views? If so, perhaps you could send me a copy of same and I can again raise your concerns with the Minister.

In any case, I have taken on board you views in this regard and will bear them in mind in future discussions on this matter.

I hope this clarifies matters.

Kind regards

Anthony Lawlor TD

expectationlost

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What I really meant to say is that sheer force of argument will not sway them, but force of numbers might.

We need as many people as possible to turn out.

antoinolachtnai doesn't put any weight on written argument. I see.

no point in even getting them to acknowledge our viewpoint. none of the replies have, theres only about 6 half decent replies out of all the tds

again they're dumb drones, we're dumb drones, to be used by handful people in a room, I do get what your saying antoinolachtnai, i just don't agree that you should treat people like that.

antoinolachtnai

I see what you mean and I completely agree that it is important to argue things out and try to bring them to a rational conclusion.

If you feel comfortable discussing the issue in-depth and your TD wants to, you should, by all means.

Not everyone will be comfortable doing that. Every person who goes to see their TD will make a big difference, whether they stay for a minute or an hour. It is just as good to make a short visit.

The reason I am suggesting visiting is that it is the most effective use of someone's time to actually make a difference on this issue.

Getting people out has been very effective so far. DRI has been engaged in argument with the Department for over eight months, but it has absolutely no effect until people started contacting their TDs about it. Now this issue has been delayed and put on the Cabinet agenda.

Vicxas

Got a reply from my local TD

"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 "

eruanna

I got the exact same reply from my local Fine Gael TD.

Villain

Umm interesting ruling http://www.laquadrature.net/en/online-copyright-eu-court-of-justice-rules-out-private-and-automatic-censorship

denballs

this might seem a bit extreme..........but its totally legal.......why dont we get 500 people to constantly follow him around........stand outside his home.....follow him to work......sit beside him in starbucks..........nobody is to be aggresive or angry........just 50 nice friendly inquisitive people who constantly debate the issue with him 24/7/...........even while he sleeps.........

What he can do........im not up to date on the current flash mob/mass loitering laws..........but im sure we,ll be moved away a couple dozen times.....but 500+ non violent people can really only be asked to move by the gardai.........

he could get a restraining order against 500 people.........id beamazed..........but imagine the press his career would be the biggest political joke in history.......

oscarBravo

denballs wrote: »

this might seem a bit extreme..........but its totally legal.......why dont we get 500 people to constantly follow him around........stand outside his home.....follow him to work......sit beside him in starbucks..........nobody is to be aggresive or angry........just 50 nice friendly inquisitive people who constantly debate the issue with him 24/7/...........even while he sleeps.........

What he can do........im not up to date on the current flash mob/mass loitering laws..........but im sure we,ll be moved away a couple dozen times.....but 500+ non violent people can really only be asked to move by the gardai.........

he could get a restraining order against 500 people.........id beamazed..........but imagine the press his career would be the biggest political joke in history.......

That's a really, really bad idea.

dmw07

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a really, really bad idea.

True.

It would not be nice to take away peoples freedom like that.



denballs, do you mean by doing to him what in effect he is doing to other people, it may actually open his eyes to how wrong it is???

It doesn't seem to work on a large percentage of 83% of Irish people(2006 census), so i wouldn't hold my breath if i were you. Also I'm sure Justice* minister Alan Shatner would have a couple of hundred garda to arrest any "criminals" sticking up for themselves.




* I say that with tongue and cheek. Paying to act as security for Shell corporation, arresting people who's land was compulsory purchased for a foreign non tax paying third party entity tells me what kind of justice some twunts on this island stand for.

Gaw_

I've received a new reply from one of my local T.D's, this time it was from Timmy Dooley, a Fianna Fáil man. Well.. it was sent on behalf of him actually, I believe by a relative; going by the email header.

Sent on behalf of Timmy Dooley, T.D.

Just a short note to acknowledge your email on the matter of internet freedom and the new law introduced by the Fine Gael/ Labour Government.

This Government have failed to give enough opportunity for debate on the matter. The debate in the Dáil was scheduled in a rushed way, and gave us just 5 minutes to outline our objections to the law. It was a clumsy way to handle this matter. The need to have copyright holders' rights upheld cannot come at the expense of individuals' rights to privacy and the need to ensure that the internet remains a dynamic, innovative resource.

We believe that SOPA in the US failed to strike this balance, and we agree with those who have made the point that there is a danger that similar legislation could be introduced here. Minister Sherlock has failed to quash suggestions that this could happen, and the law he introduced does not give courts sufficient guidance on the matter.

The whole affair has been mishandled appallingly by Fine Gael and Labour, especially given the message they allowed to be sent out about Ireland.

We do not believe that the Government should be in any way ordering ISPs to police the internet. We believe that they must produce a comprehensive framework on internet management which balances the rights of copyholders, the privacy of end users, and the need to maintain and protect a dynamic internet.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Timmy Dooley, T.D.

bluefinger

I also got the generic reply from my local fine gael td, featured in above posts. It really irritated me that they clarified for me that they are not introducing Sopa legislation, something that was not mentioned in the initial email. does anyone have any suggestions for following email up?

anishboi

I am appalled by the fact that I have not received even one response from any of the Sligo TDs. Shows how much they care about us out here.

Anyone else from the Sligo area get a response?

neilk32

Generic Fine Gael response from Noel Coonan and none from the others in the area yet.

RoryW

Reply from Roisin Shortall

Thank you for your email and for raising your concerns regarding the proposed Statutory Instrument which is intended to fully transpose the EU Copyright Directive.

This matter was debated in the Dáil on the 31st January last. In that debate, Minister Sherlock outlined the reasons why this SI is necessary. First, it is necessary to ensure that we are compliant with EU law by providing for the full transposition of the above Directive. In the UPC case last year, the High Court found that Ireland had not fully transposed the directive as there was no mechanism allowing for an injunction to prevent copyright infringements.

The second important point made by Minister Sherlock was that the SI simply confirms that position in Irish law prior to the UPC case. It had been the view of the Irish Government that we did not need a statutory provision for an injunction in the circumstances of an alleged copyright breach because of the inherent jurisdiction of the Superior Courts to grant injunctions. The High Court did not agree with this view, thereby requiring the Government to introduce this SI to restore the status quo.

The third point relates to the criteria to be applied in future applications by parties in relation to alleged copyright infringement. ECJ case law, including the recent SABAM case, provides that a court must apply a proportionality test, balancing the rights of a copyright holder against those of freedom of expression and freedom to conduct business. In the SABAM case, the Court upheld the latter set of rights in finding that ISPs may not be required to filter content for copyright enforcement purposes.

On a daily basis, Irish courts apply proportionality tests to all applications before them for injunctions. This approach will also apply to injunctions sought under this SI and will be based on the relevant ECJ case law.

I hope that this addresses the concerns raised in your email and I understand that Minister Sherlock is liaising with interested parties on developments in this field.

Regards,

Róisín Shortall, TD
Minister of State at the Department of Health

Jimmy Bottlehead

RoryW wrote: »

Reply from Roisin Shortall

Thank you for your email and for raising your concerns regarding the proposed Statutory Instrument which is intended to fully transpose the EU Copyright Directive.

This matter was debated in the Dáil on the 31st January last. In that debate, Minister Sherlock outlined the reasons why this SI is necessary. First, it is necessary to ensure that we are compliant with EU law by providing for the full transposition of the above Directive. In the UPC case last year, the High Court found that Ireland had not fully transposed the directive as there was no mechanism allowing for an injunction to prevent copyright infringements.

The second important point made by Minister Sherlock was that the SI simply confirms that position in Irish law prior to the UPC case. It had been the view of the Irish Government that we did not need a statutory provision for an injunction in the circumstances of an alleged copyright breach because of the inherent jurisdiction of the Superior Courts to grant injunctions. The High Court did not agree with this view, thereby requiring the Government to introduce this SI to restore the status quo.

The third point relates to the criteria to be applied in future applications by parties in relation to alleged copyright infringement. ECJ case law, including the recent SABAM case, provides that a court must apply a proportionality test, balancing the rights of a copyright holder against those of freedom of expression and freedom to conduct business. In the SABAM case, the Court upheld the latter set of rights in finding that ISPs may not be required to filter content for copyright enforcement purposes.

On a daily basis, Irish courts apply proportionality tests to all applications before them for injunctions. This approach will also apply to injunctions sought under this SI and will be based on the relevant ECJ case law.

I hope that this addresses the concerns raised in your email and I understand that Minister Sherlock is liaising with interested parties on developments in this field.

Regards,

Róisín Shortall, TD
Minister of State at the Department of Health

Got the exact same reply just there.

I despair.

dyer

More info on the SABAM case here.. and here : http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-02/cp120011en.pdf

mikom

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Got the exact same reply just there.

I despair.

It would drive you to drink. ........ isn't that right Roisin.

meglome

Got a stock response from Róisín Shortall (must have been the day for it)

Dear Gary,

Thank you for your email and for raising your concerns regarding the proposed Statutory Instrument which is intended to fully transpose the EU Copyright Directive.

This matter was debated in the Dáil on the 31st January last. In that debate, Minister Sherlock outlined the reasons why this SI is necessary. First, it is necessary to ensure that we are compliant with EU law by providing for the full transposition of the above Directive. In the UPC case last year, the High Court found that Ireland had not fully transposed the directive as there was no mechanism allowing for an injunction to prevent copyright infringements.

The second important point made by Minister Sherlock was that the SI simply confirms that position in Irish law prior to the UPC case. It was the view of the Irish Government that we did not need a statutory provision for an injunction in the circumstances of an alleged copyright breach because of the inherent jurisdiction of the Superior Courts to grant injunctions. The High Court did not agree with this view, thereby requiring the Government to introduce this SI to restore the status quo.

The third point relates to the criteria to be applied in future applications by parties in relation to alleged copyright infringement. ECJ case law, including the recent SABAM case, provides that a court must apply a proportionality test, balancing the rights of a copyright holder against those of freedom of expression and freedom to conduct business. In the SABAM case, the Court upheld the latter set of rights in finding that ISPs may not be required to filter content for copyright enforcement purposes.

On a daily basis, Irish courts apply proportionality tests to all applications before them for injunctions. This approach will also apply to injunctions sought under this SI and will be based on the relevant ECJ case law. I was surprised to see the following quotation in the article you attached from Karlin Lillington where she said that the SI “placed too much assumption on judges being familiar with existing case law.” This is a quite extraordinary statement and does not reflect how copyright infringement has been discussed in Irish courts so far.

I hope that this addresses the concerns raised in your email and I understand that Minister Sherlock is liaising with interested parties on developments in this field.

Regards,

Róisín Shortall, TD
Minister of State at the Department of Health

This is what I just sent back.

Hi Róisín (or should I be saying Dear Minister)

I appreciate the reply even if it is a stock reply which I was specifically not looking for. Though since I did send you pretty much a stock message I'll get over that.

The issue here isn't that we need to fix the law, I fully understand we did. The issue is the ambiguous nature of the new statutory instrument itself. I would draw your attention to the points raised by TJ McIntyre (lecturer in the UCD school of law, solicitor, and chairman of Digital Rights Ireland) here... http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0201/1224311045064.html

"As currently drafted, the statutory instrument provides that the High Court may grant an injunction against an internet intermediary who is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing – but does not specify even the most basic details regarding how this power might be exercised.
What type of injunction might be granted? On what criteria? Against what types of intermediary – internet service providers, discussion forums, search engines, social networking sites, video hosting sites? Who will bear the costs of these injunctions? Who will be responsible if, as often happens, an unrelated website is wrongfully blocked?
This lack of detail makes it impossible to predict how this law might be applied, and means that clarification will come only after repeated and expensive trips to the High Court.
The Internet Service Providers Association of Ireland (whose members include Google) has opposed the legislation, noting the proposal creates “business uncertainty for those running or considering establishing internet services from Ireland” in a way which may have “drastic consequences” for them: in short, it will act as a deterrent to the next generation of Irish internet businesses which may relocate to warmer legal climes. Significantly, the Department of Enterprise has not produced a Regulatory Impact Assessment of the measure."

The advice of the Attorney General has not been made public on this matter. So I would also like to remind you of Labours 2011 policy document "New Government, Better Government":

"Attorney General’s Advice
50. In specific circumstances the Attorney General’s advice to government should be published. If the advice of the Attorney General is publicly relied upon as justifying or necessitating a particular course of action adopted by the Government or by a minister, privilege should not preclude the publication of a summary of the arguments as they relate to:
* the development of a legislative proposal by the government, a minister of the government or a minister of state, or by any other member of the Dáil or Seanad,
* the introduction of a Bill or resolution in either House of the Oireachtas or the passage, defeat or amendment of a Bill or resolution in either House,
* the making, revocation or amendment of a statutory instrument , or
* the development or amendment of a policy or programme of a public body, unless the advice is given in the course of litigation or in relation to pending or contemplated litigation.*
* Appropriate provision would be taken for the protection of commercially sensitive information and information to do with private individuals, national security, the detection and prosecution of crime, and so on."

Now that I have made my position clearer I hope that you'll come back to me with further information (non-stock) on what you and the Labour party will be doing to address this.

Thanks

Gary.

trooney

I queried the FG stance on this SI and also the issue of filtering mails in a response to a mail (which I might add, was not a stock response) from Eoghan Murphy -

Thanks trooney,

The kind of spam we receive on certain issue is shutting down TD's emails systems. On the issue of fur farming for example we have received thousands of emails - all identical - and all from abroad - and it means that genuine emails from constituents are being missed. I think we need to do something to address this.

As for an official Fine Gael position, there isn't one as distinct form the Government's position though my colleagues seem to be on the same page as me.

Eoghan

Eoghan Murphy TD

Outside of a reply from Lucinda Creighton's assistant I have had nada from the other two TDs who supposedly represent me at the seat of power - Kevin Humpries and Ruairi Quinn.

oscarBravo

...thousands of emails - all identical - and all from abroad - and it means that genuine emails from constituents are being missed.

To be fair, that's a very valid point.

trooney

oscarBravo wrote: »

To be fair, that's a very valid point.

True. Although if the mails are all identical they become easy enough to filter at many levels. Negating the need to filter out all constituents mails. Unless its just all smoke and mirrors and they want to filter out your and my queries... ?

thunderthing

Got this from Paul Kehoe of Fine Gael in Wexford

I share the same view as Minister Sherlock on this matter as our legislative position needs to be resolved.

There is a large divide between copyright protection and censorship and any suggestion of censorship is mere scaremongering, as the directive has been in place in the EU since 2002 and has not infringed freedom of speech.

In fact the Directive states that an injunction can't infringe rights of an ISP's customers, in particular their freedom to receive and impart information.

Comparison of this Statutory Instrument to the SOPA laws that are being proposed in the USA is an exaggeration.

My primary concern is that the work of any artist is protected from theft by Irish law. Personally I'm not comfortable with the rights of authors, musicians, photographers, graphic artists etc. being infringed. There has to be something in place to protect every citizen from IP theft.

The Government has been assured by the Attorney General's office has indicated that the EU Directive, that has been in place across Europe for almost ten years, is 'clear and unambiguous'.

This Government would never introduce any legislation that would jeopardise our Digital Economy, this SI has been carefully considered and drafted by the Department and will serve to protect intellectual property in Ireland in the coming years.

Regards

Paul

Minister Paul Kehoe TD
Government Chief Whip & Minister of State

And this from John Browne of Fianna Fail:

Thank you for your e-mail and I note the concerns you have raised and be assured I will be raising the issue with Minister Sherlock and I will ask him to take your concerns into consideration.


Kindest regards

John Browne

Paul Kehoe raises a point I ment to ask yesterday actually - from what I understand, the law was meant to be the application in this country of EU law that has been in force in the EU since 2002. There don't really appear to have been any effects from this law if this is the case. What's the story here exactly?