An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

Lord TSC

With the exception of Ged Nash who replied within the hour, I've still not got a reply from the other Louth TDs. Going to follow up with another email today, telling them how frustrating it is they complain youth don't vote yet ignore our primary methods of comunications and concerns, as well as how I plan to give my vote to Ged Nash in the future based on the fact he had the common decency to at least respond to my query.

I fail to see why they can't even have someone send a stock response back...

seraphimvc

guys we need EVERYONE to send this email/s. based on my experience, people always ignore this kinda stuffs and then proceed to whine/regret big time after we get screwed. we can do this to prevent that to happen!!!!

tell your friends on boards (and if they havent do sign up already tell them to do so!:D)

expectationlost

K-9 wrote: »

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?

did the email came from the PA's address yes?

there is tech savvy PA and then there's Sean Kenny. I wan't to know what Sean Kenny thinks.

K-9

expectationlost wrote: »

did the email came from the PA address yes?

there is tech savvy PA and then there's Sean Kenny. I wan't to know what Sean Kenny thinks.

The PA is replying on his behalf. Not really seeing the issue.

krankykitty

karlh wrote: »

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.

I got the exact same reply from Catherine Byrne
It clarifies matters for me all right :rolleyes:

expectationlost

K-9 wrote: »

The PA is replying on his behalf. Not really seeing the issue.

there a higher level of expectation if he was really engaged and curious he be looking for the consultations to be published.

RangeR

Just received a written response from Bernard Durkan [Kildare North] saying that he will bring up my points with the minister and report back if he gets a reply.

allanb49

Shane Ross Shane.Ross@oireachtas.ie
11:36 (59 minutes ago)

to me
Allan,

Many thanks for taking the time to contact me on this issue. Like you, I am hugely concerned about the implications of the Government’s Copyright Bill, which was effectively railroaded through the Dáil with no vote permitted.

The situation at present is that we are waiting for the Statutory Instrument to come before us, signed into law, as Minister Sherlock told us would be happening when he spoke on the matter a number of weeks ago. As yet, this has not happened, due in large part, I suspect, to the strong opposition voiced by individuals like yourself and also from large tech companies.

Rest assured, I will continue to oppose this bill and to put pressure on the government to make sure that it is not signed into law in its current form.

Best wishes,

Shane

Shane Ross,
Independent TD,
Dáil Eireann,
Leinster House,
Kildare Street,
Dublin 2.
Tel: +353 1 618 3014
Fax: +353 1 618 4192
Web: www.shane-ross.ie

From Shane Ross

Mr Bloat

Crackle wrote: »

Got a response from Michael Creed today (Cork North West)

I got the same response from Creed, word for word, except he didn't try to ring me.

stereo_steve

I just got the same email from Shane Ross.


"Rest assured, I will continue to oppose this bill and to put pressure on the government to make sure that it is not signed into law in its current form. "

Don't care if its a stock answer once its what I want to hear.

DeVore

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.

So... I really hate being lip serviced so I wrote back this:


I appreciate the answer to my email below, you were the only one of my representatives to do so.

I wrote on boards.ie saying that at least Deputy Kenny had responded (via your good self) and seemed engaged with the issue and aware of the concerns.

It was pointed out to me that Deputy Kenny himself had previously been seen to support the SI (source: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76746518&postcount=212 )

Now I am confused. That source is 3 weeks old to me there seems to be two possibilities.

1. Deputy Kenny has changed position given the intervening time and the awareness raised.

2. You are telling me what you think will placate me

I choose to believe the best in people, so I wanted to give you an opportunity to confirm a change in position or to explain the discrepancy between that source and your mail to me.

(Also I feel it's only fair to tell you I will most likely post the response on the thread on my site where we are collating responses from all deputies contacted).

Thank you for your time, I'm sure you are a busy person.

Tom Murphy.

---

And got this response, which to be fair, seems reasonable and believable and obviously specifically written.

Thanks for the mail.
The situation is that Deputy Kenny had reservations about the SI when the
first e-mail was written. The point of that e-mail was to inform people
what Minister Sherlock was doing, but without indicating support himself.
I would point out that nowhere did that first message contain any
indication of support from Deputy Kenny himself - it said he was watching
the issue.

By the time the second e-mail was written, he had become opposed to the SI
in the present form and had met with Simon McGarr who gave him a briefing
on the issues surrounding the SI, as well as hearing more from Minister
Sherlock.

There is nothing that Deputy Kenny can do beyond voicing his objections to
the Minister, but his objections have been noted.

Regards,
Tom
--
Thomas Cosgrave
Parliamentary Assistant to Sean Kenny TD
E-mail:Thomas.Cosgrave AT oireachtas.ie

expectationlost

DeVore wrote: »

There is nothing that Deputy Kenny can do beyond voicing his objections to
the Minister, but his objections have been noted.

Regards,
Tom
--
Thomas Cosgrave
Parliamentary Assistant to Sean Kenny TD
E-mail:Thomas.Cosgrave AT oireachtas.ie[/I]

your still talking to his PA!

there a higher level of expectation if he was really engaged and curious he be looking for the consultations to be published. deputy kenny and his PA are still playing catchup

devore you like to see the best in people i just expect more, actually i don't think what I'm looking for is that big of an ask. I already emailed sean kenny asking him to ask for the submissions to be published, his objections won't make a difference, I think publishing submissions to the consultation will atleast give us more info.

he pm'd me too making his excuses, i was just looking at the dail calendar to see an opportunity to ask a PQ, he suggested he had prepared some, they might come in written answers, that's if he asked a question that will get an answer. neither enterprise minister is answering questions this week , i don't know if its rights to try and bring it up in topical questions again this week, if he gets an opportunity to ask, he should, and he should ask Sherlock himself, (indeed he should have asked already if he has not) _and_ put out a statement saying they should be published.

on the 26th Jan or before http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76746518&postcount=212 dave heff got a reply from Sean Kenny, saying

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76746518&postcount=212 I have asked a Parliamentary Question this week seeking detailed information from Minister Sherlock's department on the issue, which should be answered in the coming days.

so we're still waiting for the answers. its now the 20th feb!

matrim

I have to at least partly agree with expectationlost on this. As DeVore is one of the main people in setting up this protest against the SI I would expect at least a response from the man himself. Although he may not necessarily have realised this from the first email

Although in saying that a considered response from his PA is still much better than a stock response that he sends "himself".

Gran Hermano

I am another who has just received the standard reply from Shane Ross as posted above.

That's only two replies from all the TDs in South Dublin - Ross & Shatter.

BrenCooney

Sent it to the TDs here in Wexford.
Got stock answer from John Brown, and Brendan Howlin.
Nothing from the Fine Gael TDs.

Doodee

got the same reply from Lucinda Creighton.

MungBean

Got a reply from Brendan Howlin.

Dear ******,

Thank you for your recent email in relation to the Statutory Instrument on copyright.

The proposed SI was brought to the attention of government on Tuesday 7th 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 & Innovation, Mr. Sean Sherlock, T.D., has actively engaged with a wide range of views on the introduction of the proposed SI, and continues to do so.

Regards,

Brendan

Sounds like this is going ahead and discussion is all but finished on the matter. From the response I got from Paul Kehoe backing the SI in its current form I'm not optimistic that changes will be made before its put before the house.

Mech1

Dear ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,



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.

---

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,

Olivia
__________________________________________________________
Olivia Mitchell TD (Dublin South)
Leinster House
Kildare Street
Dublin 2
Tel: (01) 6183088 - Fax: (01) 6184579
Email: olivia.mitchell@oir.ie
Website: www.oliviamitchell.finegael.ie
twitter.com/omitchellTD
facebook.com/oliviamitchellTD

---

Many thanks for taking the time to contact me on this issue. Like you, I am hugely concerned about the implications of the Government’s Copyright Bill, which was effectively railroaded through the Dáil with no vote permitted.

The situation at present is that we are waiting for the Statutory Instrument to come before us, signed into law, as Minister Sherlock told us would be happening when he spoke on the matter a number of weeks ago. As yet, this has not happened, due in large part, I suspect, to the strong opposition voiced by individuals like yourself and also from large tech companies.

Rest assured, I will continue to oppose this bill and to put pressure on the government to make sure that it is not signed into law in its current form.

Best wishes,

Shane

Shane Ross,
Independent TD,
Dáil Eireann,
Leinster House,
Kildare Street,
Dublin 2.
Tel: +353 1 618 3014
Fax: +353 1 618 4192
Web: www.shane-ross.ie

K-9

expectationlost wrote: »

your still talking to his PA!

there a higher level of expectation if he was really engaged and curious he be looking for the consultations to be published. deputy kenny and his PA are still playing catchup

devore you like to see the best in people i just expect more, actually i don't think what I'm looking for is that big of an ask. I already emailed sean kenny asking him to ask for the submissions to be published, his objections won't make a difference, I think publishing submissions to the consultation will atleast give us more info.

he pm'd me too making his excuses, i was just looking at the dail calendar to see an opportunity to ask a PQ, he suggested he had prepared some, they might come in written answers, that's if he asked a question that will get an answer. neither enterprise minister is answering questions this week , i don't know if its rights to try and bring it up in topical questions again this week, if he gets an opportunity to ask, he should, and he should ask Sherlock himself, (indeed he should have asked already if he has not) _and_ put out a statement saying they should be published.

on the 26th Jan or before http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76746518&postcount=212 dave heff got a reply from Sean Kenny, saying
so we're still waiting for the answers. its now the 20th feb!

The only thing I would say on this is, probably nearly all the stock email replies that people are getting are probably prepared by the PA and sent on as being from the TD's. At least Kenny seems to have actually taken time to look into it and not give stock, unconsidered, party line responses.

expectationlost

K-9 wrote: »

The only thing I would say on this is, probably nearly all the stock email replies that people are getting are probably prepared by the PA and sent on as being from the TD's. At least Kenny seems to have actually taken time to look into it and not give stock, unconsidered, party line responses.

well his PA did.

though yes we're lucky to be in the same constituency as Simon McGarr to make the issue clear, apart from anyone else who visited him, even though the SI is likely to signed anyway.

K-9

expectationlost wrote: »

well his PA did.

On his behalf. I'd say the PA asked him to okay the response and on an aside, good to see a PA giving value for the taxpayer!

Anyway, better leave it there as I don't want to sidetrack the thread.

thebman

Completely ignored by every elected representative in Laois-Offaly.

It is fine, independent votes only from now on you usually ar**s.

matrim

I sent a reply to Lucinda Creighton last night, so now to see what else she will come back with.

And still no response from either of the Labour TDs in Dublin South-East.

meglome

thebman wrote: »

Completely ignored by every elected representative in Laois-Offaly.

It is fine, independent votes only from now on you usually ar**s.

So far I've gotten one stock response from Roísín Shortall (Lab) and that's it. Nothing from Dessie Ellis (SF) or John Lyons (Lab) in Dublin North-West or Sherlock for that matter.

Anyone gotten any replies from Ellis or Lyons on the issue?

OhMSGlive

FINALLY got a reply from Ciaran Cannon of Galway East...... and it's the stock reply. Typical. :rolleyes:

No response from the others yet. Will keep you all posted.

Cianos

After about a week, still no reply from ANY of the Dun Laoghaire TDs

My name is URL

I received a response from Gerry Adams today

A chara,

Thank you for your recent mail regarding the proposed statutory instrument regarding copyright.

Sinn Féin has called on Minister Seán Sherlock to withdraw a draft Statutory Instrument which would give large corporations extensive rights to secure injunctions against internet sites on the grounds of copyright breach.

During a recent mini-debate in the Dáil that was forced on the Government by the level of opposition, including a petition of 80,000 names, to the move, my colleague Deputy Martin Ferris made the point, on behalf of SF that if there is to be a genuine debate on this area then Minister Sherlock needs to suspend the order, publish primary draft legislation and have it proceed in the normal manner under public scrutiny.

There are issues around copyright, but there are also issues of freedom of information and the exchange of information. That requires proper domestic legislation and debate rather than the issuance of diktats on the back of EU directives and court judgements.

Deputy Ferris reiterated his call on the MInister to withdraw the draft order and treat it in the normal manner, rather than blindly legislating in the interests of the entertainment corporations.

I trust you find this information helpful and thank again for taking the time to contact me.

Is mise le meas,

Gerry Adams TD
Sinn Féin President
Kildare St
Dublin 2

zootshooter

Got two replies from Fine Gael Galway West TDS. Seem like stock responses, any ideas from anyone if it's worth responding to them and what should be said? Still nothing from anybody from labour, what a complete bunch of charlatans, they're most certainly the lib dems of Ireland, utter whipping boys. As much as I also dislike Fine Gael at least they've had the decency to make a reply, misguided as it may be.


Hi Feargal,

Thanks for contacting me in relation to this issue which is a very complicated area and certainly not one in which I'm an expert. Like other concerned citizens I have sought out information, read the research and have formed an opinion. The background as to why the SI was necessary is important to comprehend.

For nearly a decade now Ireland and its EU partners have had a Directive in place to “ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to infringe a copyright or related right”. Furthermore, in Ireland we have national legislation which in effect gives life to the EU Directives in this area – a Directive needs national legislation in Ireland to come into force. The primary act in this area is the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 and it is a legal interpretation of this Act which has uncovered issues which need to be addressed by way of a new amendment – the amendment that Minister Sherlock will be introducing.

The need for the amendment has arisen out of a legal case, ‘EMI and others v UPC’ on which Mr Justice Charleton delivered his judgment in October 2010. In the judgment Mr Justice Charleton found that he could not use the Copyright Act of 2000 to prevent infringement of copyright against an Internet Service Provider in the circumstances of ‘mere conduit’ (transient communications) and, very significantly, stated that Ireland had not transposed fully the EU Directives in this area.

Two EU directives (the Copyright Directive 2001 and the Enforcement Directive 2004) require that the holders of copyright - authors, music composers, lyricists, record producers etc. - 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.

The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation had considered that injunctions were available under Section 40 (4) of the Copyright Act and the inherent power of the courts to grant injunctions, which are equitable and discretionary remedies, granted according to settled principles, developed by the courts. However, this was not Mr Justice Charleton’s view.

The Attorney General’s Office has advised that the obligation contained in the Directive is clear and unambiguous. Rightholders must have a mechanism available to them to apply for an injunction against intermediaries where their intellectual property rights are being breached. Separately the Office advised that the prudent course was to introduce a Regulation to ensure compliance. The concerns that this ministerial regulation will be somehow similar to the US ‘Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) are groundless. The Government is not introducing requirements that Internet providers monitor information or content or the activity of its customers.

I am certain that people can be reassured that this secondary legislation is to ensure that the rights of creators, authors, artists, singers and so forth are protected and not to do with censorship of any kind.

I'd also like to highlight a very recent (last week) judgement from the European Court which states that ISPs and web hosting companies cannot be ordered to install filtering software to monitor potentially copyright infringing material because to do this would would threaten the balance between the ability or rights holders to protect their copyright, and the right to entrepreneurship. The Court held further "that an injunction could potentially undermine freedom of information, since that system might not distinguish adequately between unlawful content and lawful content, with the result that its introduction could lead to the blocking of lawful communications" ... and also that any national court which allowed for such filters “would not be respecting the 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”.
So it is quite clear that the secondary legislation here in Ireland will have to comply with this ruling which will hopefully demonstrate that the intention of the Government is not only to protect the rights of content creators but also that of the right to information.
Best regards,
Seán.

Seán Kyne TD

Fine Gael - Galway West


Dear Feargal,

Thanks for taking the time to get in touch regarding the Copyright Statutory Instrument.

Last July, Minister Sherlock held a public consultation in relation to the proposed Statutory Instrument and received more than 50 submissions from interested parties. This consultation helped to inform the final wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument, and cognisance would have been taken of any concerns expressed at that point.

I think it is important to emphasise that no policy change is proposed under the Statutory Instrument. It had been the intention of the the Copyright and Related Rights Acts 2000 to provide for civil remedies such as injunctions. It was assumed that the Act did provide for such remedies until the High Court found otherwise in the case of EMI Ireland et al v UPC in October 2010. Accordingly, the wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument has been framed to give effect to the wording of the EU Copyright Directive rather than extending its scope beyond that of intermediaries.

Its purpose is not to enact new EU legislation, but merely to restate the position that was thought to exist in the Copyright legislation prior to the aforementioned High Court judgment.

As you will be aware, it is necessary for EU Member States to ensure that their laws are compliant with, or adequately transpose, those set out in EU Directives. One such Directive was the EU Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC, which provided that rights holders must be in a position to apply for injunctions against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right.

The High Court judgment held that, by reasons of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, an injunction is not available in cases of transient communications and suggested that Ireland did not comply with EU law. For this reason, Minister of State Sean Sherlock decided to introduce a Statutory Instrument to restate the position that was considered to pertain prior to the High Court judgment.

In granting such injunctions, the courts must take account of various judgments of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). These require that a fair balance be struck between the various fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order and the principle of proportionality. That would include, inter alia, the protection of the fundamental rights of individuals who are affected by such measures, the freedom to conduct a business enjoyed by operators such as Internet Service Providers, the protection of private data and right of freedom of expression and information.

I hope that this goes some way towards addressing your query and thanks again for raising this important matter.

Kind regards,

Brian Walsh TD
Fine Gael, Galway West

hellboy99

My name is URL wrote: »

I received a response from Gerry Adams today

I also received the same reply this morning.

Spacedog

The only FG/Lab TD responses are copy/pasting Sherlocks statement almost word for word while not addressing a single question raised, or acknowledging the proposed alternate wording that clearly defines the scope of injunctions possible.

The only way to handle this it to book a meeting with your TDs and explain to them in person, as getting a copy/past response from a secretary, indicates they havn't bothered reading a word.

With ACTA ratification on the table, our representatives need to be educated on this stuff fast.