An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

GAAman

I have not gotten any reply from the 5 TD's I emailed through this. Although a thought occurred to me, the email address I used to sign up to boards was not my personal email address. It could look kind of spammy as it is a nickname of mine.

Could the option be added to the form to edit the email field? Obviously not for myself as it is already sent but I would guess there are plenty of people who do not us their personal email accounts for their boards one and it would be a shame to have it ignored on the TD end because the email address might not be prim and proper.

Just a thought.

Edit: Actually out of curiousity has anyone else in Dublin South Central gotten a reply?

mathepac

meglome wrote: »

... This is what I just sent back.

Can I have permission to use your excellent response to Roisin to send a reply to John Paul Phelan, my only respondent so far out of 5?

meglome

mathepac wrote: »

Can I have permission to use your excellent response to Roisin to send a reply to John Paul Phelan, my only respondent so far out of 5?

Yeah I stole if from others basically anyway

KazDub

Can anyone have a shot at what it says?? :rolleyes:

On 16 February 2012, Minister Varadkar Constituency <MinisterConstituency@dttas.ie> wrote:

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,

__________________
Leo Varadkar T.D.
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport

Am in the process of asking him who the 50 interested parties were and what exactly was contained in their submissions as well as whether he personally has seen them. What else should we be asking? I'm kinda useless at this but hate stock emails.

southsiderosie

Folks, let's keep it civil please, whether you agree with how TDs are (or are not) responding or not.

SSR

edanto

You could request a copy of all of the submissions to the public consultation via FOI

http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/copyright_review_2011.htm

Having said that, if Sherlock and Bruton treated the public submissions with the same lack of respect as the objections from our TDs during the sham oireachtas 'debate', then I can't imagine there was any inherent value in the public consultation.

mathepac

With thanks to meglome (and others who contributed) I sent this to John Paul Phelan as my (our ?) response to his bog-standard response :-

Dear John Paul,

I appreciate your reply even if it is, in my view, just a standard reply fabricated by a special consultant somewhere. This is specifically what I did not want and was not looking for. My hopes for less "Fianna Fail" type thinking from the new Government are disappointed.

*** as per other responses here ***

I hope I have made my position clearer and that you'll get back to me with further information (free of PR speak) on what you, your party and your partners in Government will be doing to address this vitally important, but poorly thought out, change to our copyright protection framework.

Thanks

mathepac

oscarBravo

trooney wrote: »

True. Although if the mails are all identical they become easy enough to filter at many levels.

Exactly. Let's keep that in mind before we get too huffy about TDs talking about having to filter emails.

Allyall

I got another reply, Less auto-response feel to it, but still..

Bren Ryan Bren.Ryan@oireachtas.ie
8:16 AM (9 hours ago)




to me


Dear **********,

Thank you for your email. I share your concerns regarding importance of this issue and the practical difficulties in combatting internet piracy. However, I would add that the Minister's statutory instrument does not reflect a change in policy or a legislative change. The Minister's order essentially restates and reaffirms a position that was thought to have existed until the High Court judgement in EMI & others vs UPC case. The only change is that the authority of the courts to place injunctions to protect copyright holders has been reaffirmed following the High Court ruling that placed this in doubt. This authority is required by EU directives which have been in place since 2001 and 2004 and are in operation across the EU. It was assumed, up until the High Court ruling, that Ireland was no exception to this. The same EU directives also require national courts to strike a reasonable balance between the rights of copyright holders with the rights of individuals to exchange information, the freedom of business and the protection of personal data. So for example, my understanding is that no website will be shut down without recourse to the courts.

I have attached the latest press release from Minister Sherlock on this issue.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions on this, or any other, matter.



Regards
Deputy Brendan Ryan

[URL="tel:%2801%29%206183421"](01) 6183421[/URL]
bren.ryan@oireachtas.ie

Here is the Attached Press Release (PasteBin)

http://pastebin.com/xTf8N8DB

Seachmall

Timmy Dooley, FF

Dear <blank>,

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.

Joe Carey, FG

Dear <blank>,

Thank you for getting in touch with me expressing your concern about proposed legislation in the area of copyright law and how it pertains on the Internet.

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 US type SOPA or Stop Online Piracy Type Law.

There does exist a need to legislate, which 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. 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 can and does have serious consequences for us. The current issue of registration of septic tanks or turf cutting come to mind in that we potentially leave ourselves open to ongoing fines if we do nothing. (I realise there is a disparity with the specific analogies drawn Internet-Septic Tank-Turf Cutting, I use them to illustrate the point of our responsibilities under EU legislation)

There is no policy change 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 any 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 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.

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

Yours Sincerely

Joe Carey

No Response from Pat Breen (FG) as of yet.

ItHurtsWhenIP

Well I sent 5 e-mails 3 weeks ago. One to Sherlock, one to his boss and one each to the three North Tipp TDs.

The only response I got was from one of Lowry's assistants who responded the following day saying he was out of the country and she would pass on my mail when he got back.

Nothing but tumbleweed in my in-box since.

gpjordanf1

I got a reply from Darra Callery by e-mail, and an e-mail and a written letter from the office of the Taoiseach today. Not a bad result.

thebman

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

I got a reply from Darra Callery by e-mail, and an e-mail and a written letter from the office of the Taoiseach today. Not a bad result.

What did they say though, was it just that Sherlock is doing a stand up job??

DeVore

trooney wrote: »

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... ?

This is exactly why we created this system. You are contacting YOUR representatives. Not some TD in Carlow who has no connection with you.

We arent blast mailing everyone, we're targetting the people that represent you and asking people to write a specific mail if possible.


Personally, I sent a very specific mail introducing myself and explaining my position in boards and connection to all of this.

Not a single response.

When I'm home (I'm on hols atm!) I'm going to ask them to meet me cos at this point, I'm seriously thinking about running against them. Between this and the banks and the rest of the crap they ignore us over, I think Boards is more responsive to user complaint than our actual representative democracy lol...
It would be funny if it wasnt tragic.

matrim

trooney wrote: »

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 -




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.

I've had pretty much the same result as you. Eoghan Murphy has replied to my second mail asking about Fine Gael's position as well as clarification on what changes to the SI he was looking to make.

There isn't a Fine Gael position as distinct from the Government's position. My sense though is that my colleagues are on the same page as me.

I don't think it's fair to say that the Minster disregarded alternative proposals or didn't engage, he's actually been excellent on this in terms of meeting with a number of interested parties, campaigners and TDs.

I'm not bringing an alternative proposal to Sean on the SI but I am seeking further debate with a view to possibly introducing primary legislation in the area. I believe that the Minister is looking to start with some form of stakeholders forum.

dahamsta

I sent the standard message but I added a paragraph of my own, basically agreeing with the Boards text but explaining that as a web host and large site operator it also affected me professionally. Still 0 for 4 in Cork East. I'll call them Monday to slag them over it and tell them they're losing a vote, but it demonstrates why I found it so hard to vote last time around: they're ALL useless **** in Cork East.

Jimmy Bottlehead

DeVore wrote: »

This is exactly why we created this system. You are contacting YOUR representatives. Not some TD in Carlow who has no connection with you.

We arent blast mailing everyone, we're targetting the people that represent you and asking people to write a specific mail if possible.


Personally, I sent a very specific mail introducing myself and explaining my position in boards and connection to all of this.

Not a single response.

When I'm home (I'm on hols atm!) I'm going to ask them to meet me cos at this point, I'm seriously thinking about running against them. Between this and the banks and the rest of the crap they ignore us over, I think Boards is more responsive to user complaint than our actual representative democracy lol...
It would be funny if it wasnt tragic.

If you're in my constituency, you'd have my vote. Honestly.

I'm sick to death of the faux-democracy we have here. For the most part, our only choice is which old boys club to vote in - the end result always seems the same.

dmw07

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

If you're in my constituency, you'd have my vote. Honestly.

I'm sick to death of the faux-democracy we have here. For the most part, our only choice is which old boys club to vote in - the end result always seems the same.

DeVore, you can fight the bin charges!!

The elected officials, who signed that contract with greyhound should be named and shamed.

edanto

DeVore wrote: »

I'm seriously thinking about running against them. Between this and the banks and the rest of the crap they ignore us over, I think Boards is more responsive to user complaint than our actual representative democracy lol...
It would be funny if it wasnt tragic.

DeV, you'd have my vote and complete support. A boards-like model for a political party would be just perfect, to my mind. A community of people that have diverse political views that are able to communicate them and win/lose supporters by posting.

A modern system of democracy where the party can properly consult it's members very quickly with a poll, reasonably insulated from duplicate accounts. And in the case of an impasse, an established system for nominating benevolent dictators. All we have to work on is the system to overthrow those dictators if they become corrupted, and we're there!

Anyways - if you're in I'm with you. And even if you're not in, I'm behind that other bloke we support anyways! But people keep saying how they wish there were more like him in other constituencies to vote for. Why not?!

Scofflaw

I admit I'd love to put together a map showing rates of response here, together with some idea of whether a standard reply was received.

cordially,
Scofflaw

denballs

dmw07 wrote: »

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.

I was thinking more along the lines of giveing a visual aid .....let him know that there are people behind the letters,......he cant just put them through the shredder and think nothing more of it.....you cannot just say ...i dont like this dont do it to people in a position of power.....you need to show them that the opposing side of the argument is also big and powerful....only then wil they begin to back down.......

Dont mistake it...this is a war....not a martial war but a war all the same....we must fight through diplomacy.....and to win a war through diplomacy the other side must believe itself weaker then you....even if they will not show it they must fear what will happen if the war continues.

Tristram

Bernard Durkan responded to me via An Post yesterday. That makes 2 TDs from Kildare North so far.

Scofflaw

I liked this quote in reaction to the SABAM case:

Michael Gardner, head of the intellectual property practice at London law firm Wedlake Bell, called the ruling a further blow to copyright owners because it appears to rule out forcing operators of social network sites and Internet service providers — at their own expense — to impose blanket monitoring and filtering aimed at stopping infringements.

Neatly puts how excessive some of what the media industry is looking for at the moment is - with ISPs and social network sites to act at their own expense as police for the copyright owners.

The only possible support for such an arrangement would be if the main draw of the internet was copyrighted material produced by the media industry - that this is something copyright owners would look for tells you that they probably think exactly along those lines.

And that, in turn, tells you a lot about older media - they're still intellectually wedded to a paradigm in which they are the producers, and everyone else is the audience.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

I admit I'd love to put together a map showing rates of response here, together with some idea of whether a standard reply was received.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Would be very interesting. Róisín Shortall is well represented on that score in the last few pages.

Bondvillain

Gaw_ wrote: »

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.

Looks like Fianna Fáil have an official "party line" then, given the similarities between the response discussed above and the one I received this morning from the office of Kildare South rep Sean O Fearghail.

To his credit, at least his office responded, unlike the offices of Jack Wall (Lab) and Martin Heydon (FG), who have yet to acknowledge receipt of Monday nights email to them.

A chara,

Thank you for your email to Sean O Fearghail T.D. on the matter of internet freedom and the new law introduced by the Fine Gael/ Labour Government.

Deputy O Fearghail believes that they 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.

Deputy O Fearghail believes that this 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.

Deputy O Fearghail believes 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.

Deputy O Fearghail does not believe that the Government should be in any way ordering ISPs to police the internet. He believes 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 Deputy Sean O Fearghail T.D. on this matter.

nicklauski

Bondvillain wrote: »

Looks like Fianna Fáil have an official "party line" then, given the similarities between the response discussed above and the one I received this morning from the office of Kildare South rep Sean O Fearghail.

To his credit, at least his office responded, unlike the offices of Jack Wall (Lab) and Martin Heydon (FG), who have yet to acknowledge receipt of Monday nights email to them.

Got the same response from O Fearghails office too.

horgan_p

No reply here from Cork East either , including Mr. Sherlock.
It's funny given that he inherited his dads seat, you'd think he'd be making an effort to respond to email.
Gombeen politics alive and well I guess.

Utterly , utterly pathetic.

antoinolachtnai

Today is a good day to find out where your TD has a clinic over the weekend, and to get down and see them. Even if you've written already and gotten a response, showing up and saying why you are so concerned about this is the best way to persuade your TD and the government to take this issue seriously and do the right thing.

This has nothing to do with pornography or piracy or anything else. It's about making sure that the Courts cannot be abused to cut off the Internet access of innocent people. Human rights have to be taken into account.

Especially if you are a bit disillusioned about the whole thing, it is worth getting down to meet your local TD to see for yourself how the whole thing works.

mathepac

A second reply from Deputy John Paul Phelan to my second email to him. At least this guy seems to be trying.

"Dear mathepac,

I have spoken to the Minister again on the matter and raised the issues you and others have made to me. The Minister told me that the issue and all aspects of it were discussed at a recent cabinet meeting. I know he is well aware of all the comments that are being made and is actively engaging with all stakeholders as there are a wide range of views in relation to this issue and I know he is continuing to engage.
I know the Minister is operating with the best available advice and support across what is a very wide field and is listening as I have already said to all comments that are being made.
He has also informed me that the regulations have not, to date, been signed into legislation; however it is expected that an announcement will be made shortly.

I have brought the issues and concerns that I have received to his attention on a number of occasions now and hope that the aspects concerning your issues will be addressed. Outside of this I am not sure what can be done as the Minister is well aware of all your concerns.

Regards,

Deputy John Paul Phelan TD"

This answer came in with the text all coloured blue. Is this significant or just a poke at my "Fianna Fail type" comment?

Still no word of a response of any kind from the 4 other Carlow/Kilkenny deputies or the Minister of State.

angelfire9

I emailed (well Boards emailed on my behalf) my 3 government TD's Joe Carey FG, Pat Breen FG and Michael McNamara Lab
As predicted only Joe Carey responded
(I have emailed Deputies Breen & McNamara previously in relation to other issues and never heard a word back from them)
I never bothered emailing Timmy Dooley FF as I felt that this was more of a government issue to be honest

Anyway...

Reply from Joe Carey FG TD for Clare:

Dear *****,

Thank you for getting in touch with me expressing your concern about proposed legislation in the area of copyright law and how it pertains on the Internet.

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 US type SOPA or Stop Online Piracy Type Law.

There does exist a need to legislate, which 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. 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 can and does have serious consequences for us. The current issue of registration of septic tanks or turf cutting come to mind in that we potentially leave ourselves open to ongoing fines if we do nothing. (I realise there is a disparity with the specific analogies drawn Internet-Septic Tank-Turf Cutting, I use them to illustrate the point of our responsibilities under EU legislation)

There is no policy change 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 any 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 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.

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 as per the clarification issued by the Minister this week, a copy of which I attach below.

I hope this clarifies matters.

Kind Regards

Yours Sincerely

Joe Carey
_____________________________________
Joe Carey TD
Assistant Government Chief Whip & Clare Fine Gael TD,
Dáil Éireann, Leinster House, Kildare Street, Dublin 2
Constituency Office, Francis Street, Ennis, Co. Clare
Phone: 065 6891199 , 01 6183337
Fax: 065 6891205 & 01 6184520
Email: joe.carey@oireachtas.ie
Web: www.joecarey.ie

Dear all,

I understand many of you have been receiving correspondence from constituents in relation to the proposed Statutory Instrument on Copyright. Below is the current position in relation to the Statutory Instrument:

The proposed Statutory Instrument on Copyright (i.e. the European Union (Copyright and Related Rights) Regulations 2012) was brought to the attention of Government at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, 7 February, 2012. The Regulations have not, to date, been signed into legislation; however it is expected that an announcement will be made shortly.

The Minister for Research and Innovation, Mr Seán Sherlock TD, has actively engaged with stakeholders with a wide range of views in relation to the introduction of the proposed Statutory Instrument and continues to do so.

Regards,

Seán Sherlock
Minister for Research and Innovation