An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

Lord TSC

hellboy99 wrote: »

I also received the same reply this morning.

And me.
Although it took a while, at least it's a decent reply.

DeVore

If any of you want to use my response to this form letter, please feel free.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056555587

Atomic Pineapple

DeVore wrote: »

If any of you want to use my response to this form letter, please feel free.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056555587

Have used that as a template in a conversation I'm having with one of my local TD's so far, the other two failed to even acknowledge my complaint with a generic response. :mad:

Steve

Got a stock response from Shane Ross, same as was already posted here.

Sorry, being a realist here, are we merely an annoyance / another mass spam to these people, or is there any chance they will listen to us. If so, how?

I know DeV is saying we should call them or meet them - I'll be honest here and say that I don't possess the wordsmithery or presence that DeV does in a 1 to 1 situation. Anyone that has been for a pint with Tom will know what I mean.

The objective here is surely to make them come to us. We all (mostly) have a vote so in theory it should be possible - we just need a way to make our community heard in a credible manner.

antoinolachtnai

Word smithery isn't what is needed. Politicians don't hold clinics to engage in policy debates or oratorical contests.

They meet ordinary people because everybody has a vote. You just have to tell your TD what you think.

Meeting your TD in person is the best way to let him/her know how strongly And honestly you feel on the issue.

stereo_steve

Just received a response from Alex White ...

Stephen

Many thanks for your email. Firstly, may I assure you that the government is determined to continue to improve and enhance this country's reputation as a location where people and companies can continue to innovate in this fast moving arena. I fully acknowledge that this is a very sensitive issue. The minister is seeking to strike a balance between creators and users and intermediaries in regard to online services and businesses, which are of great importance to Ireland’s economy. I understand that extensive negotiations took place with the Attorney General and interested parties in regard to this new SI. The regulation follows the wording of the copyright directive so that we are in compliance with EU law, and the SI includes a very important proviso that the courts shall have due regard to the rights of any person likely to be affected. This includes, where appropriate, a direction requiring a person to be notified of the application.

There is no change of policy being put forward in the proposed legislative measure. It is merely a restatement of the position that was considered to be in place before a High Court judgment of Mr. Justice Charleton in October 2010.

My colleagues, Minister Sherlock and I are fully aware that concerns have been expressed that the proposed statutory instrument mirrors the Stop Online Piracy Act in the United States. However, these concerns are not based on fact. The most worrying aspects of the US proposals would involve blocking access to websites internationally; taking down entire websites for one infringing item; blocking access to websites by the US state enforcement without notice; targeting companies between the site and end-user, without notice — for example, service providers, search engines, payment network providers and advertising networks; imposing a monitoring of content requirement on Internet companies and, in effect, forcing them to self-censor; extension of criminal liability; the by-passing of safe-harbour provisions in copyright law; lack of due process; disregard for fundamental human rights; and the involvement of government in civil infringement areas, etc.

Such a regime could not be introduced in the EU, where the safe-harbour provisions are protected in the e-commerce directive and where, in implementing EU law, the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights must be applied. This includes the right to conduct a business, protection of data, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information with the right to intellectual property.

However, may I say that I appreciate your point of view and I will convey this to Minister Sherlock when I get the opportunity.

Many thanks for taking the time to write to me on this.

Regards
Alex W

Monife

Reply from Sean Kenny, TD, who does not support Sean Sherlock.

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

unkymo

I got the same stock FG response from Jimmy Deenihan.

Nothing yet from any other TD in North Kerry.

Susannahmia

I got this reply from Sean Fleming....

Dear *******,

Please find attached a copy of the parliamentary question and the answer
I put to Minister for State Sean Sherlock in connection with Copyright Law Legislation.


Regards,

Sean Fleming T.D.
Castletown
Portlaoise
Co. Laois

Tel: 057-8732692
e-mail: sean.fleming@oireachtas.ie
DAIL QUESTION



NO. 282



To ask the Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will outline proposals in relation to amending legislation regarding copyright holders to compel internet service providers to block access to websites that they believe are engaged in piracy or hosting copyrighted material; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

- Sean Fleming.


* For WRITTEN answer on Tuesday, 31st January, 2012.

Ref No: 5131/12


R E P L Y


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

An issue arose following a High Court judgment in October 2010 where it was stated that Ireland was not in compliance with its EU obligations under the Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC. It was held that the court could not grant an injunction against an intermediary in relation to internet transient communications. Until this judgment, it had been considered that Ireland was fully compliant with Art 8(3) of the relevant directive and that injunctions were available both under Section 40(4) of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 and by reason of the inherent power of the court in relation to equitable remedies. Following consultation with the Office of the Attorney General it was considered that as the High Court decision was not appealed, it was necessary for Ireland, for the avoidance of doubt, to restate its previous understanding of its compliance with EU law.

Under the proposed legislative measure, an order may be sought by copyright holders only in relation to their own works. Any order against an intermediary will be subject to a judicial process. This must involve due consideration of the rights of other persons likely to be affected, such as internet service providers and consumers. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which has the same status as a Treaty when implementing EU law, must be considered. The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that this must be interpreted in a way which allows a fair balance to be struck between the various fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order and the principle of proportionality. These rights include the right to intellectual property, the important and fundamental human right of protection of private data, the equally important human right of freedom of expression and information and also the right to conduct a business.

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.

expectationlost

Monife wrote: »

Reply from Sean Kenny, TD, who does not support Sean Sherlock.

when was this meeting with the labour people?

http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2012/02/22/sopa-ireland-irish-state-is-jumping-to-record-labels-tune/

are labour just trying to wait it out. its 20 days since I asked the hero of the resistance Sean Kenny TD to ask the DJEI to publish the consultation submissions, I've heard nothing.

Duff Man Jr.

Got the standard reply from Partrick O'Donavan,

Dear xxxx,
Thank you for your e-mail. We all subscribe to the freedoms, the opportunities and the access to information that the Internet provides us with. Ireland is home to some of the world’s most innovative internet companies and we are determined to grow our reputation as a location where smart people and these smart companies can continue to innovate in this fast moving arena.

The last thing innovators need is a culture where the outputs of their creative endeavours have to be locked away or kept secret for the fear of theft. Ireland is very proud of the fact that we have a modern suite of intellectual property laws that by their very nature balance a range of competing interests and rights in a manner that is seen, right across the globe, as reasonable and proportionate.

Going right back to 22 December , 2002, the date by which every EU Member State had to have implemented Directive 2001/29/EC, every EU country has had 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”. Having that provision enshrined in EU law and the laws of Member States for a decade has not restricted the development of the Internet or innovative internet companies. On the contrary, the Internet has flourished.

It may be useful to explain the background against which the requirement for the amendment to the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 has arisen. In the EMI & others versus UPC High Court judgment of 11 October 2010, Mr Justice Charleton decided that he was constrained by the wording of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 and thus could not grant an injunction to prevent infringement of copyright against an information service provider (ISP) in the circumstances of “mere conduit” (transient communications). In doing so, he stated that Ireland had not fully transposed the relevant EU Directive(s). As you will appreciate, non-compliance with EU law is a very serious matter.

The “Mere conduit” principle provides that if an ISP does not initiate a transmission, or modify the material contained in a transmission and does not select the receiver of the transmission, it is granted a “safe harbour” against liability, by virtue of the e-Commerce Directive [2000/31/EC]. However, according to the same directive, this freedom from liability does not affect the power of the courts to require service providers to terminate or prevent copyright infringements.

As far as can be ascertained from the judgment (the State was not a party to the case), the type of injunction sought was to require UPC to prevent infringement of the record companies’ sound recording copyright, through its internet “peer-to-peer” services, possibly involving a “three strikes and you’re out” scenario. This is where the ISP sends three warnings of increasing severity and if the infringement continues, discontinues access to the Internet. It is sometimes referred to as a “graduated response”. I understand that blocking access to infringing online sites may also have been sought.

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 record companies did not appeal the High Court decision and, consequently, the State has not had an opportunity to put forward its views on the legal principles involved nor on the construal of the relevant sub-sections of the Act, which we feel were not fully explored in the judgment.

The Attorney General’s Office was then asked (both by this Department and Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources) for its advice as to the implications of the High Court judgement. The prudent course, he advised, would be to introduce a Regulation to ensure compliance. After consultations with the Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, this Department launched a public consultation on the text of the proposed Statutory Instrument. The consultation attracted over 50 submissions from interested parties. For the avoidance of doubt, the Government has decided to introduce a Statutory Instrument to restate the position that was considered to exist prior to this judgment.

Concerns have been expressed that the proposed Statutory Instrument mirrors the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the United States. These concerns are not based on fact. The purpose of the Statutory Instrument is simply to provide explicitly that injunctions may be sought, as obligated by the two EU Directives cited above. It should also be noted that such injunctions are available in all other Member States of the European Union by virtue of the two Directives already referred to. In granting such injunctions the courts must take account of Court of Justice of the European Union judgements. 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.

In proposing to amend the legislation, Minister Sherlock is particularly conscious of the importance of online content and digital businesses in the Irish context and, accordingly, he is simply seeking to ensure Ireland’s continued compliance with its obligations under the relevant EU Directives, following the decision of the High Court in the aforementioned UPC case.

I trust that this information will clarify the issue.

Regards,

Patrick O'Donovan TD

24 Maiden Street,
Newcastle West,
Co. Limerick,
069-77998

Main Street,
Cappamore,
Co. Limerick.
061-381868

www.patrickodonovan.ie

Sent him this (credit to Dev for certain parts)

Dear Mr O'Donovan,

Thank you for the reply, you were the only one of my local TDs to do so.

But it just seems to be a nearly word for word copy of Sean Sherlocks statement, which all the FG/Labour TDs are sending out. I know its impossible to give a personal reply to each email, however some independent thought on the issue would have been appreciated.

Also I'm not sure you should be putting your name to a email obviously prepared by ***name from email header - probable assistant*** but thats your prerogative.

It seems unlikely that you even proof read this email or the first thing that you would have spotted is that ISP stands for internet service provider not information service provider. Or perhaps you didn't know this, either way I find it very disappointing.

This law is very vague, it tackles copyright in a lazy, half cocked, idiotic manner.

Laws are ment to be enacted by the Dail not on the whim of a single man, especially one which the citizens of the country have massive objections to.

I'm disappointed that you support this and by the manner with which my original email was dealt with.

Regards,

Mellor

One of my TDs reply last week saying she had contacted Sherlock, and then today she forward his email reply to her.

Dear Joanna,
 
I wish to refer to your recent representations on behalf of your constituents who have expressed concern 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.

I have actively engaged with stakeholders with a wide range of views in relation to the introduction of the proposed Statutory Instrument and continue to do so.

Regards,

Seán Sherlock TD

Minister for Research and Innovation

allanb49

Mister Alan Shatter

Dear Allan,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about this issue.

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.

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.

EU law in this area is designed to ensure that those engaged in the music industry, including song writers, composers and singers receive income to which they are entitled for their work and it is not stolen from them. The concept of freedom includes the freedom to work and to be remunerated for work done and not to be ripped off.

I hope this explains the position and deals with any concerns you may have in relation to internet freedom.

Best wishes,

Alan

Alan Shatter TD
Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence

DeVore

. <

---

Alan Shatter, TD Minister for Justice

The point

---

> .

homerun_homer

I thought I'd post the replies I got from my local TDs in Clare.

FG

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

FG Chairman of Oireachtas commitee on Office of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Going right back to 22 December , 2002, the date by which every EU Member State had to have implemented Directive 2001/29/EC, every EU country has had 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”. Having that provision enshrined in EU law and the laws of Member States for a decade has not restricted the development of the Internet or innovative internet companies. On the contrary, the Internet has flourished.

It may be useful to explain the background against which the requirement for the amendment to the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 has arisen. In the EMI & others versus UPC High Court judgment of 11 October 2010, Mr Justice Charleton decided that he was constrained by the wording of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 and thus could not grant an injunction to prevent infringement of copyright against an information service provider (ISP) in the circumstances of “mere conduit” (transient communications). In doing so, he stated that Ireland had not fully transposed the relevant EU Directive(s). As you will appreciate, non-compliance with EU law is a very serious matter.

The “Mere conduit” principle provides that if an ISP does not initiate a transmission, or modify the material contained in a transmission and does not select the receiver of the transmission, it is granted a “safe harbour” against liability, by virtue of the e-Commerce Directive [2000/31/EC]. However, according to the same directive, this freedom from liability does not affect the power of the courts to require service providers to terminate or prevent copyright infringements.

As far as can be ascertained from the judgment (the State was not a party to the case), the type of injunction sought was to require UPC to prevent infringement of the record companies’ sound recording copyright, through its internet “peer-to-peer” services, possibly involving a “three strikes and you’re out” scenario. This is where the ISP sends three warnings of increasing severity and if the infringement continues, discontinues access to the Internet. It is sometimes referred to as a “graduated response”. I understand that blocking access to infringing online sites may also have been sought.

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 record companies did not appeal the High Court decision and, consequently, the State has not had an opportunity to put forward its views on the legal principles involved nor on the construal of the relevant sub-sections of the Act, which we feel were not fully explored in the judgment.

The Attorney General’s Office was then asked (both by this Department and Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources) for its advice as to the implications of the High Court judgement. The prudent course, he advised, would be to introduce a Regulation to ensure compliance. After consultations with the Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, this Department launched a public consultation on the text of the proposed Statutory Instrument. The consultation attracted over 50 submissions from interested parties. For the avoidance of doubt, the Government has decided to introduce a Statutory Instrument to restate the position that was considered to exist prior to this judgment.

Concerns have been expressed that the proposed Statutory Instrument mirrors the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the United States. These concerns are not based on fact. The purpose of the Statutory Instrument is simply to provide explicitly that injunctions may be sought, as obligated by the two EU Directives cited above. It should also be noted that such injunctions are available in all other Member States of the European Union by virtue of the two Directives already referred to. In granting such injunctions the courts must take account of Court of Justice of the European Union judgements. 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.

When I sought clarification from Minister Sherlock in relation to this matter he advised that in proposing to amend the legislation, that he is particularly conscious of the importance of online content and digital businesses in the Irish context and, accordingly, is simply seeking to ensure Ireland’s continued compliance with its obligations under the relevant EU Directives following the decision of the High Court in the aforementioned UPC case.

I trust that this has clarified the situation for you and if I can be of any further assistance to you on this or any other matter at any time, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Labour

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.

Stark

Update from Joanna Tuffy (Labour Mid-west):

Dear x,

You were in contact with me recently about proposed legislation on copyright law and I made representations to my colleague Minister Sean Sherlock about this matter and I am attaching, for your attention the Minister’s response which I received by email.

I will keep you informed of any developments and in the meantime, if I can be of further assistance to you with regard to this or indeed with regard to any other matter, in the future, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me.

Regards
Joanna Tuffy, T.D.
Tel: 6183822

---

Forwarded by Joanna Tuffy/Oireachtas on 22/02/2012 14:51

---

Sean Sherlock/Oireachtas

22/02/2012 11:12

To
Joanna Tuffy/Oireachtas@HOUSES
cc

Subject
Update on Copyright SI






Dear Joanna,

I wish to refer to your recent representations on behalf of your constituents who have expressed concern 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.

I have actively engaged with stakeholders with a wide range of views in relation to the introduction of the proposed Statutory Instrument and continue to do so.

Regards,

Seán Sherlock TD

Minister for Research and Innovation

Elbow

In fairness the TD that said he'd get back to me has, unfortunately it was with the same stock answer from Seán Sherlock,

Dear Elbow,

Following my representation on your behalf, I have received the latest position from Minister Sean Sherlock on the proposed new copyright law.

I post below for your information. Please be assured of my best efforts.

Regards,
Michael



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

DavidCollins

I've been talking with Olivia Mitchell's representative on the phone and thought I'd share some insights.

Firstly, Olivia tried to phone me directly after she said she would in an email exchange we had. She missed me because I was in class but her representative called me during the break.

They genuinely wanted my view and problems on the issue. I'd raised points in the email (one of which was a bit emotional, so I sent a follow up one apologising and addressing my points in a more mature manner). I was impressed by this, as if I was a TD I'd hardly know everything about every important issue, but I'd still want to learn about important issues when given the chance, which is what Olivia was doing.

I learned a few things from the phone call.
One was the admittance that a lot of TDs are out of the loop when it comes to this issue. They simply don't use the internet that much or are "too old". I dropped a wry comment about how not knowing about an issue is a good reason not to support something in relation to it, but overall I understood that this whole thing is blindsiding a lot of TD and something that seemed reasonable a few weeks ago is now causing a whole lot of trouble they didn't even imagine or fully understand.

Next, Sean Sherlock is clearly convincing a lot of politicians to his point of view. That email ciruclars we've been seing so much of? Without a clear, well argued and logical counterpoint, many TDs are taking Sherlock's word at face value. The idea that this is only a minor change, that the restrictions on injunctions exist in the original legislation and that it only gives force to something people had already assumed; these are all points that TDs are liable to accept unless proven otherwise. The idea that we're only opposing this because of SOPA is another argument (as I said, the best way to rebut this is through reasoned arguments).

Olivia, and many other TDs, have been receiving hundreds of emails about this. Funnily enough, her representative said that while this thing still seems to be going ahead, he said it had been delayed and that we should keep responding to our TDs so that they are in a stronger position to say that they can't support this SI.
It was kinda weird being told by a TD represenatative that we should continue to express our opinions to TDs, but I took it at face value that we are having an effect here and we simply have to keep at it. It seems that the government position (whatever that means) is to support the SI and that in order to oppose it, they have to demonstrate that their constituents are actively opposing it.


Overall, I'm encouraged. We don't live in a perfect world, but our TDs may be supporting this SI due to lack of knowledge and inertia, and the fact that this is raising enough attention to stall (at the very least) this SI shows that we have power that this issue is not going to go away. Hopefuly with time and information, we can have better informed TDs who realise that this is a serious issue.

So in short, thanks everyone and lets keep going.

DeVore

I whole heartedly agree, which is why I wrote a comprehensive rebuttal of every point made in their stock answer.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056555587

Please all, feel free to make use of it.

DavidCollins

DeVore wrote: »

I whole heartedly agree, which is why I wrote a comprehensive rebuttal of every point made in their stock answer.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056555587

Please all, feel free to make use of it.

A little bit emotive for my tastes, but still very good points.

With regards to the "public consultation" we've heard so much about, apparently Olivia tried to get her hands on it, but wasn't able to. Apparently access to it is restricted somehow. I don't know enough to know whether this is normal for public consultations or not.

Another two points to add to your argument.

• The term "intermediary" is not definined anywhere in the SI, Act, Directive of elsewhere. This means that intermediary could be defined as ISP, web host, website, payment processor, etc. Anything you could make an argument for. Recently Paypal provided 1,000 jobs to Ireland (in addition to what Realex provides) and yet both of them can be defined as intermediaries.
• What Sherlock is proposing is to have the law be developed through courts. This means that countless injunctions will be launched towards tech companies over the course of several years as Judges decide on various issues. As a natural consequence, several completely innocent tech companies will receive legal injunctions and several more will have their growth stunted through fear of whether a given feature will put them against the law. Sherlock is actively advocating a way of developing the law that will have a hugely detrimental effect on Ireland's tech industry.

I think those are my two key points in the issue, the the SI is vague and that it could have a hugely negative effect on the Irish economy (and digital rights for that matter since it allows sites to be blocked).

RangeR

DavidCollins wrote: »

With regards to the "public consultation" we've heard so much about, apparently Olivia tried to get her hands on it, but wasn't able to. Apparently access to it is restricted somehow. I don't know enough to know whether this is normal for public consultations or not.

Can we not make an FOI request on it?

RangeR

To be clear is this SI on the back of the EU ACTA URL="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/on-eve-of-protests-germany-backs-away-from-acta.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss"]that Germany backed away from?[/URL

matrim

RangeR wrote: »

Can we not make an FOI request on it?

I'm currently trying to do that and have sent emails to a couple of TDs regarding it and to the DJEI. So far I haven't received a response but if you look at the exchange between my self and lostexpectation in this thread, it seems that there might be no information about the SI consultation on the DJEI website.

A separate consultation that happened in July last year and is on their website seems to be unrelated to the SI and therefore I am waiting for clarification on what exactly I have to request.

RangeR

matrim wrote: »

I'm currently trying to do that and have sent emails to a couple of TDs regarding it and to the DJEI. So far I haven't received a response but if you look at the exchange between my self and lostexpectation in this thread, it seems that there might be no information about the SI consultation on the DJEI website.

A separate consultation that happened in July last year and is on their website seems to be unrelated to the SI and therefore I am waiting for clarification on what exactly I have to request.

I believe an FOI request must be written and posted to the relevant department, not via email, with the relevant FEE!!!

Elbow

Received a stock response earlier so replied with the following:

Dear Michael


I appreciate you taking the time to respond my original email and following up this morning,
however I must express my disappointment with the ministers stock response, it is as vague as the legislation he is proposing,

“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.”

Simply saying that nothing has been done yet but we’ll let you know soon isn’t good enough.

While my understanding of the proposed Statutory Instrument on Copyright in its current state may be quite basic, it is plain to see that it will result in censorship for the end user.

I would like to hear your personal thoughts on this issue and not just a stock government response.

Regards
Elbow

Thor

This is the reply i just got from Alan Shatter.

Dear Craig,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about this issue.

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.

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.

EU law in this area is designed to ensure that those engaged in the music industry, including song writers, composers and singers receive income to which they are entitled for their work and it is not stolen from them. The concept of freedom includes the freedom to work and to be remunerated for work done and not to be ripped off.

I hope this explains the position and deals with any concerns you may have in relation to internet freedom.

Best wishes,

Alan

Alan Shatter TD
Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence

Yeah, That deals with my concerns perfectly!! Well.... Not really!!

To be honest, I have no idea what he's smoking! Does he actually thinks this will stop pirating and we should sacrifice our freedom on the internet just so people in the music industry don't get ripped off.

matrim

RangeR wrote: »

I believe an FOI request must be written and posted to the relevant department, not via email, with the relevant FEE!!!

I'm not really sure and that's part of what I'm trying to find out.

The FOI website states that an application must be made in writing and the appropriate fee paid.

Does "in writing" include an email?

It appears the fee is €15 for non personal information. I have requested information on what payment methods I can use.

Unfortunately I'm out of the country at the moment so if I have to send a letter by post or cannot pay by bank transfer or CC then I'll have to see if I can get someone to do the request for me.

As well as the above the department has 4 weeks to respond. So they could just leave it 4 weeks and hope that it's died down by then.

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

Can we not make an FOI request on it?

never volunteer to get involved in the slow FOI bureacy, its not an FOI issue, the submissions should be published according to the governments own best practice https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TNDVrY9rPCIJ:www.betterregulation.ie/eng/Publications/Consultation_Guidelines.doc+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgYoHRtOQTRoQb0kAlT-Dy83gLzZiMNopLmi220-mSgcGncSuP_UsnMGZuQiTObHQJijoFJfV9sJB-U4KpHQoeuQ1U3EJUGXznxtEUDPn_es2KyDyyIB0ht4PSNnRX97YizsHvX&sig=AHIEtbQkfWe00EoBSryfPqoql9BWUqL9og&pli=1 cached Section 3/pg 20

thanks to lexferenda for pointing to that document http://www.lexferenda.com/01022012/copyrightdebateinireland/

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

never volunteer to get involved in the slow FOI bureacy, its not an FOI issue, the submissions should be published according to the governments own best practice https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TNDVrY9rPCIJ:www.betterregulation.ie/eng/Publications/Consultation_Guidelines.doc+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgYoHRtOQTRoQb0kAlT-Dy83gLzZiMNopLmi220-mSgcGncSuP_UsnMGZuQiTObHQJijoFJfV9sJB-U4KpHQoeuQ1U3EJUGXznxtEUDPn_es2KyDyyIB0ht4PSNnRX97YizsHvX&sig=AHIEtbQkfWe00EoBSryfPqoql9BWUqL9og&pli=1 cached Section 3/pg 20

Like the SI, your response is quite vague. What the government SHOULD do and ACTUALLY does, EVENTUALLY, is not the point. We need the information NOW, not after the SI passes.

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

Like the SI, your response is quite vague. What the government SHOULD do and ACTUALLY does, EVENTUALLY, is not the point. We need the information NOW, not after the SI passes.

you think youll get through the FOI process before the SI is passed?, I doubt it.