An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

I haven't received any reply from any of my 4 TDs for Dublin West.

karlh

From Lucinda Creighton :rolleyes:

Dear Karl

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. 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. The wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument has been framed in a way which gives effect to the wording of the EU Copyright Directive rather than extending its scope.

The intended purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but, rather to restate the position that was though to exist in the Copyright legislation prior to the EMI Ireland case.

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.

anishboi

Could you all please take a moment to sign this petition? Thanks.

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-irish-government-stop-irelands-sopa-seansherlocktd-stop-acta

Parawind

I was pleasantly surprised to get what appears to be a non stock response from one of the 3 TD's in my constituency.

Dominic Hannigan TD(Labour):

Hi xxxxxx,

Many thanks for your email.

Thanks for raising this issue with me.

I have spoken to Sean privately, and I have raised the issue with him at our parliamentary meeting last week. I believe that he could do more to reach out to all sides in relation to this issue, and I asked him to do so.

Ultimately, Sean as the responsible Minister will make his decision. He is, though, in no doubt as to my views on the issue.

I have included the latest update I have from Sean's office below.

With best wishes
Dominic

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.

At the very least he appears to believe that more discussion on the topic is needed. I am just pleased to see at least one of my representatives doing his job, regardless of where he stands on the matter.

It does appear however that at the end of the day, Sherlock's decision will be final and that other TD's can have little influence. How did this clown get to be Minister for Research & Innovation? Do they just draw names out of a hat?

Stark

Joanna Tuffy and Robert Dowds both got back to me:

Dear x,

Thank you for your email and I note your concerns about the proposed legislation on copyright law and I have made representations to my colleague Minister Sean Sherlock regarding the issues raised by you and immediately I receive his response, I will contact you.

In the meantime, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me about this or indeed any other matter in the future.

Regards
Joanna Tuffy, T.D.

Dear x,

Many thanks for your email.

I have received a lot of correspondence on this issue, which I have been following very closely and will continue to do so. There has been much concern raised about this among Labour TDs and senators, both in relation to the content of the Statutory Instrument and the way in which it has been presented. Minister Sherlock knows that there are unanswered questions about the Statutory Instrument among Labour deputies. He also knows that this is a very important area to get right in terms of legislation.

In case you have not already seen it, I have attached a briefing document which Minister Sherlock sent to all Labour TDs on 25 January. Since various things have changed from one version to the next, and they are not all additions, I am sending you both versions of the briefing document - both were sent on the same date. Also attached is an email I just received from Sean Sherlock, although there is no new information in this. If I receive anything else from the Minister on this matter, I will be sure to share it with you.

I will pass your concerns on to Minister Sherlock. If you wish to get back to me about this once you have read the briefing document, please do not hesitate to do so.


Yours sincerely,
Robert Dowds

No response from either Fine Gael TD in my constituency.

MungBean

Just got a reply from Mick Wallace.

Thank you for your email detailing your concerns around the statutory instrument regarding copyright. I can assure you that I will be voting against these measures in the Dáil and you have my support in your concerns.

Kind Regards,

Mick

anishboi

MungBean wrote: »

Just got a reply from Mick Wallace.

At least somewhat of a reassuring reply.

Boards.ie: Paddy

GAAman wrote: »

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.

We debated this back and forth when we were designing the petition system. The way it is now won out in the end because it allows us to ensure that the email address being used to send the message is valid without having to build in a validation process which would raise barriers to people completing the petition. We were really conscious that this sort of a campaign doesn't work at all if the messages are perceived as spammy and we think the way we've implemented it mitigates that as best we can.

Johro

MungBean wrote: »

Just got a reply from Mick Wallace.

Yeah, got the same reply, also got a reply from Paul Kehoe, his just showed that he's not actually read any of our concerns. It's probably been posted already but here it is anyway:

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.

roosh

I want to share this with friends on facebook who probably aren't boards members; will they be able to use the sytsem to send the email or will they have to register?

Also, where can I share it from? I clicked the link I shared previously but when I open it, it says that the email has already been sent; if a non-boards member clicks the link will they see something different?

DeVore

ATM it allows for one set of mails to be sent per boards account to avoid the accusation of simply stuffing mails into every TDs inbox and allowing them to dismiss it as a bunch of "vandals" and "keyboard warriors".... Both terms having been used by our dear representatives recently.

And I use the term "representatives" quite incorrectly.


Later we may consider reviewing that policy...

matrim

Stark wrote: »

Joanna Tuffy and Robert Dowds both got back to me:





No response from either Fine Gael TD in my constituency.

Would you be able to post up the briefing documents that Robert Dowd sent you?

On the email front, I received the standard FG response from Lucinda Creighton

DeVore

I got a response from Deputy Sean Kenny, its actually fair enough!

---

Dear Tom

Thank you for the e-mail.

Deputy Kenny has asked that I reply to you on his behalf.

There has been a lot of correspondence received on this issue, which
Deputy Kenny has been following very closely and will continue to do.
Deputy Kenny does not support the Statutory Instrument that Minister
Sherlock is proposing. He believes it is too vague and that the wording
needs to be changed in order to avoid unintended legal consequences for
websites and hosting providers.

Minister Sherlock has been made aware that Deputy Kenny and other Labour
deputies disagree with his approach, and he has been asked by Deputy Kenny
and other Labour deputies on several occastions to clarify what his
intentions are in terms of proposing an alternative. I have to tell you
that while the Labour Parliamentary Party cannot stop the Minister from
proceeding, the Minister is well aware that would not have the agreement
of the majority his Labour Party colleagues.

I hope that this e-mail illustrates what Deputy Kenny has been doing on
the digital copyright issue.

Regards,
Tom
--
Thomas Cosgrave
Parliamentary Assistant to Sean Kenny TD

Hellrazer

Anyone else feel that ALL Fine Gael TD`s have been give the exact same stock response.

Just reading back a few pages and I notice that nearly all of the FG TD`s response match my response from my local FG Td to the letter.

Have none of them got an independant voice--can none of them speak up for themselves.


Hate to say that Ive voted FG all my life and they got my 1 and 2 in the last election.

Never ever again will this shower ever get a vote from me.

dmw07

Hellrazer wrote: »

Never ever again will this shower ever get a vote from me.

Tell me about it!

Next time round, the small guy is getting my vote. At least give someone else a bit of my money. Share the wealth like. :pac:

expectationlost

MungBean wrote: »

Just got a reply from Mick Wallace.

Thank you for your email detailing your concerns around the statutory instrument regarding copyright. I can assure you that I will be voting against these measures in the Dáil and you have my support in your concerns.

Kind Regards,

Mick

he hasn't been paying attention he won't get to vote.

50 published replies from TD's so far not an intelligent reply from anyone 1 of them https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqAEiinGYynOdEJtbk55a0pOd2VUWUd0NzRnQU9oQ1E#gid=0
only o'dea, sherlock, shatter, bruton, s donnelly,c murphy and tom barry have shown any capability of engaging with the subject.

antoinolachtnai

It is not surprising that FG and Labour are taking a single position. What is important is to let them know that you think the Parties' policy is unreasonable and that they should reconsider to make sure fundamental rights are protected in Irish law.

This is to ensure Ireland is in line with recent decisions in the European Court of Justice.

expectationlost

DeVore wrote: »

I got a response from Deputy Sean Kenny, its actually fair enough!

---

Dear Tom

Thank you for the e-mail.

Deputy Kenny has asked that I reply to you on his behalf.

There has been a lot of correspondence received on this issue, which
Deputy Kenny has been following very closely and will continue to do.
Deputy Kenny does not support the Statutory Instrument that Minister
Sherlock is proposing. He believes it is too vague and that the wording
needs to be changed in order to avoid unintended legal consequences for
websites and hosting providers.

Minister Sherlock has been made aware that Deputy Kenny and other Labour
deputies disagree with his approach, and he has been asked by Deputy Kenny
and other Labour deputies on several occastions to clarify what his
intentions are in terms of proposing an alternative. I have to tell you
that while the Labour Parliamentary Party cannot stop the Minister from
proceeding, the Minister is well aware that would not have the agreement
of the majority his Labour Party colleagues.

I hope that this e-mail illustrates what Deputy Kenny has been doing on
the digital copyright issue.

Regards,
Tom
--
Thomas Cosgrave
Parliamentary Assistant to Sean Kenny TD

night and day sean kenny and his parliamentary assistant

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76746518&postcount=212

and not interested in what his PA knows.

Stark

matrim wrote: »

Would you be able to post up the briefing documents that Robert Dowd sent you?

On the email front, I received the standard FG response from Lucinda Creighton

Here you go:

expectationlost

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It is not surprising that FG and Labour are taking a single position. What is important is to let them know that you think the Parties' policy is unreasonable and that they should reconsider to make sure fundamental rights are protected in Irish law.

This is to ensure Ireland is in line with recent decisions in the European Court of Justice.

I will continue to expect better of people even if you don't.

Creighton calls the consultation an "excellent overview" http://www.twitlonger.com/show/fvkbua

has she seen them? no.

Bannasidhe

Just saw this

Protest in Cork city against internet copyright treaty
Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 04:50 PM

A protest was taking place in Cork city this afternoon against the anti-copyright infringement agreement.

The protest at Daunt Square was organised by 16-year old student Evin Doyle, who believes that the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) challenges civil liberties and the right to privacy.

The treaty - which Ireland signed up to last month - has triggered a series of protests in Dublin and across Europe.

It aims to establish an international legal framework for targeting counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet.

Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/protest-in-cork-city-against-internet-copyright-treaty-540330.html#ixzz1mkypzxrJ

[-0-]

Same story is on breakingnews.ie

Shockingly bad reporting.

The country is fecked, ted.

anishboi

All of these TDs are saying that the law must be passed, because the government was being threatened by the EU so that we comply with legislation.

But aren't Poland, Slovakia and the Netherlands also in the EU? How come the Polish managed to riot their streets and get rid of their signature, and the EU didn't do anything to make sure that signature stays put? How come the Dutch and Slovaks are not being threatened by the EU to be kicked out like we supposedly were?

Double standards much?

View

anishboi wrote: »

All of these TDs are saying that the law must be passed, because the government was being threatened by the EU so that we comply with legislation.

The government isn't being "threatened" by the EU over the SI. There are two separate issues going on here.

To explain, from memory:

1) Back in 2002(?) or so, the EU - specifically the EP & the Council of Ministers - passed the so-called "Copyright directive".

2) This - as with all EU directives - has to be transposed into law here. The Oireachtas did this a number of years back with an act of the Oireachtas.

3) A subsequent court ruling on this found that while the directive allowed for injunctions against ISPs who facilitated breech of copyright (if I remember the exact grounds correctly), the act of the Oireachtas had failed to explicitly spell out that these were allowed - it seems the assumption was the act allowed for them implicitly.

4) To fix the act of the Oireachtas so it complies with the directive, the Minister is now planning to use a SI. This - I believe - requires a Ministerial signature and I'd presume official publication to take effect.

5) Should the SI be used, Ireland will have correctly implemented the EU directive as indeed the Oireachtas believed to be the case when they passed the relevant act here.

anishboi wrote: »

But aren't Poland, Slovakia and the Netherlands also in the EU? How come the Polish managed to riot their streets and get rid of their signature, and the EU didn't do anything to make sure that signature stays put? How come the Dutch and Slovaks are not being threatened by the EU to be kicked out like we supposedly were?

Double standards much?

The demonstrations in these other member states are not related to our act of the Oireachtas!

Rather they are related to ACTA - a proposed international agreement. This agreement is not in force yet and requires most signatories to ratify it before it does so. Until that happens this agreement is merely a proposal, albeit an intended final proposal.

The claim - as I understand it - by our government ministers is that the contents of ACTA are sufficiently "non-controversial", that they believe it will not require additional legislation above and beyond what we already have (and/or are supposed to have) in place.

I presume this is not just a wild claim on their part but obviously others seem to disagree with their assessment of that point.


PS Just to clarify one other issue, SOPA which has been bandied around here is/was a proposed US law. It has only served to confuse the issues as US copyright law differs from EU copyright law.

K-9

expectationlost wrote: »

night and day sean kenny and his parliamentary assistant

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76746518&postcount=212

and not interested in what his PA knows.

That was over 3 weeks ago. Looks like he did indeed observe the issues further!

I know it's the in thing to give out about politicians but even when they stick to their word?

anishboi

View wrote: »

The government isn't being "threatened" by the EU over the SI. There are two separate issues going on here.

To explain, from memory:

1) Back in 2002(?) or so, the EU - specifically the EP & the Council of Ministers - passed the so-called "Copyright directive".

2) This - as with all EU directives - has to be transposed into law here. The Oireachtas did this a number of years back with an act of the Oireachtas.

3) A subsequent court ruling on this found that while the directive allowed for injunctions against ISPs who facilitated breech of copyright (if I remember the exact grounds correctly), the act of the Oireachtas had failed to explicitly spell out that these were allowed - it seems the assumption was the act allowed for them implicitly.

4) To fix the act of the Oireachtas so it complies with the directive, the Minister is now planning to use a SI. This - I believe - requires a Ministerial signature and I'd presume official publication to take effect.

5) Should the SI be used, Ireland will have correctly implemented the EU directive as indeed the Oireachtas believed to be the case when they passed the relevant act here.




The demonstrations in these other member states are not related to our act of the Oireachtas!

Rather they are related to ACTA - a proposed international agreement. This agreement is not in force yet and requires most signatories to ratify it before it does so. Until that happens this agreement is merely a proposal, albeit an intended final proposal.

The claim - as I understand it - by our government ministers is that the contents of ACTA are sufficiently "non-controversial", that they believe it will not require additional legislation above and beyond what we already have (and/or are supposed to have) in place.

I presume this is not just a wild claim on their part but obviously others seem to disagree with their assessment of that point.


PS Just to clarify one other issue, SOPA which has been bandied around here is/was a proposed US law. It has only served to confuse the issues as US copyright law differs from EU copyright law.

Well, maybe I'm ill-informed, but I always seemed to associate this statutory copyright instrument with the ACTA treaty. Aren't they related in any way at all, or two completely separate matters?

privacyconcern

Anybody know if the proposed ACTA law implements USA style punative damages for Copyright Infringement? Will this mean a media company can sue somebody for 150,000 euro for downloading an mp3? If so, this place has lost it's way. May as well start booking a ticket to somewhere else.

matrim

Stark wrote: »

Here you go:

It's interesting how in the first statement he seems to imply that the SI is to allow a court to force an ISP to have a 3 strike rule and block content, however, in the update he references the SABAM case stating that these aren't possible because it doesn't strike a fair balance.

matrim

I've also sent Sean Sherlock a request for copies on the 50 submissions that he has received during his consultation on this issue.

Podge_irl

I got this e-mail from Richard Bruton

Dear Padraig,

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

I have, however, decided to reply to him in an attempt to elicit a further response.

Mr. Bruton,

I would like to reply to your e-mail if I may.

I understand that you are probably inundated with e-mails on this matter and thus do not expect a hasty response but I feel it incumbent upon me to clarify some points.

My issue is not with addressing the issue of copyright infringement on the internet, which we both agree is a serious matter. My issue is with the vague terms in which the current statutory instrument is framed. The minister claims that sites such as boards.ie will be exempt as it is an intermediary yet it does not clarify as to what sites qualify as an intermediary. Thus start up sites that accept user generated content may be susceptible to action under this instrument. While sites such as Boards have a host of moderators who give up their spare time to adjudicate the content on the site (and it should be noted that this adjudication is still not even close to immediate), many smaller sites do not enjoy this oversight. The entire approach to this affair is worrying. After concerted efforts the issue was given a debate in the Dáil that was sparsely attended and in which the minister said that no matter what he was signing the instrument anyway. The issue with the "community" at large was not that such a bill would be brought in front of the Dáil, but rather the exact wordings of said bill and the general approach to it. That our concerns would be dismissed so readily was quite disheartening. A site such as boards.ie can afford, with their massive user base, to police the content on their site. However, a new site (some of which I have been involved in) have no such ability. Many, many sites are the subjects of "spam bots" who post illicit material on whatever site then can avail of - I would hate to see such sites in trouble on the basis on this current law if they don't delete such material immediately (which is entirely possibly considering they are run by individuals who do police their sites every day).

I am a fan of your general work and that of your government. I was good friends with your son **** at ***** ****** and have voted for you at every opportunity since. I don't wish this to be misconstrued as anger at the government's work in general, which I feel has been excellent. However, the abstract nature of this bill (a bill which I agree is necessary in some form) is what has me concerned.

I would be most encouraged, not even by a removal of this bill, but rather by a proper discussion of it amongst the Dáil.

Regards,

Pádraig

I don't expect this to go anywhere, but I thought it important to bring up the real reasons I had issues with the original instrument. I'm kind of sick of stock answers.