An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

you think youll get through the FOI process before the SI is passed?, I don't

Sorry, I never said that. But I'm not going to just sit down and take it. If you have something constructive to present, then please do. Otherwise keep it to yourself.

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

Sorry, I never said that. But I'm not going to just sit down and take it. If you have something constructive to present, then please do. Otherwise keep it to yourself.

I wasn't being unconstructive I just said I didn't think it was an FOI issue. I pointed to a document which backed that up, I was just giving more information, I'd say that was constructive.

Terry

My first and second preferences were voted in at the last GE.

I can remember the first time I voted.
I walked to the school with my Father and asked him who I should vote for, and who he was voting for.
He told me to vote for the person I thought was the best for the job, and that I shouldn't base my vote on who he was going to vote for. After a few pints it turned out that we had both voted for Emmet Stagg.

In the e-mail, I left a note for Stagg with a longer version of that story and told him that he would no longer get my first preference if he helps vote in this law.
I have known him and my second preference for most of my life. They're good politicians, but I will never vote for them again if they help vote this law in.

They will also lose the vote from about 50 friends and family members who always come to me for advice before elections.

I'll admit to knowing little about national politics, but I know everything about my local representatives and what they do for my community.

anishboi

Ya, to be honest I don't see us winning this battle
The government will continue to do things the way they want.

Hellrazer

Ive finally given up.
Not one of the TDs that responded came back to me when I asked for their opinion on the SI and not their parties one.
None of them would even comment on my asking them to give me a real answer and not a stock one.
So I sent Bernard Durkin,Anthony Lawlor and Emmet Stagg this email
Ive edited out my address and number etc.

Dear all,

Since none of you can be bothered to debate this issue with me and are sending me a stock response which every single TD has obviously been provided with by their parties I am here and now stating that not one of you three will get my vote in any local or general elections that may happen in the future.

I have given all three of you a chance to respond with your OWN views on this Statutory Instrument and not one of you has the nerve to give your own view on the issue.I have also provided my mobile number in case any of you wished to discuss this with me by telephone or in person.


Instead you back this idiot who hasnt a clue and IS going to cost this country jobs.

I voted for you lot to represent me in MY constituency and as far as Im concerned not one of you has done so.

I would like to point you lot towards a discussion on this issue and a public response to your stock answers.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056530490

and the response to your stock answers.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77206044&postcount=1

Every person on that thread is posting their TDs responses and as you can see if you wish to read the thread what everyone is complaining about--Your stock responses especially from FG and Labour TD`s


So dont bother knocking on my door looking for votes in the future.

I will be giving it to independants who at least have the courtesy to give a genuine response to constituents queries and not a stock response.

Just so that you remember the address
Its
xxxxxxxxxx
Regards

DeVore

In a sense we have already won the NEXT fight... There has been such a response that no minister is going to want to put his head where Sherlock has...givening a bully a bloody nose even if you lose the fight makes him think twice about picking on you again.
Plus we haven't lost this by any means... Td's are getting mails from their local constituents and that's having an effect. Of course they won't get a chance to *vote* on it (how do you like your representative democracy now...) but they can bring pressure via their parliamentary parties.

expectationlost

even the cso Inflation index doesn't think cds are relevant anymore http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0223/inflation-business.html

denballs

I have finally come to a solution.....boards takes over the country.....yes i literally mean that.....boards puts forward candidates and we all vote for them.......just not the mods that dislike me......

Devore for taoiseach.....dev for president!! :):D

mathepac

denballs wrote: »

.....dev for president!! :):D ...

Either I've travelled back in time or I need to see a psych about the flashbacks. :eek:

fitz

Just a thought....
As a rights-holder myself (songwriter, recording copyright holder), is an injunction by a record label to have a torrent site blocked not an infringement on my right to legitimately use that distribution avenue for my own music, if I wanted to do so, as has been done by some high profile acts such as Nine Inch Nails?
Surely these injunctions can't actually be upheld?

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

I wasn't being unconstructive I just said I didn't think it was an FOI issue. I pointed to a document which backed that up, I was just giving more information, I'd say that was constructive.

I just received a reply to an email to Anthony Lawlor yesterday, where I pushed him to explain his stock response.

Now, who can tell me what the FOI process is and what I have to do? The FOI website is slightly vague [oh the irony] on how to proceed.

On 24 February 2012 13:17, Anthony Lawlor <Anthony.Lawlor at oireachtas d0t ie> wrote:
Dear Keith

Many thanks for your latest.

I can assure you that I have had a number of discussions with both my constituents and parliamentary colleagues about the Statutory Instrument and the possible effect it may have when introduced. Despite the fact that I may not be necessarily technically minded, during these discussions I have made it my business to become more aware of the issues involved. I will continue to raise your concerns with the Minister.

In terms of the submissions, I have made enquiries myself about accessing same. I have been informed that although they are not freely available to the General Public, they are available through Freedom of Information.

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

Anthony Lawlor TD

Our man in Havana

You need to put pen to paper (detailing exactly what you want with no wriggle room) and send them some money.

RangeR

Our man in Havana wrote: »

You need to put pen to paper (detailing exactly what you want with no wriggle room) and send them some money.

Who? Sherlock's department?
And how much? It says that there is a charge per hour of searching time. I won't know what that is until they look on his desk

EDIT : And might get them to pop them onto a CD for me, while they're at it.

Our man in Havana

Yep. Send it to his department with the €15 fee. They will get back to you with an initial acknowledgement straight away with a decision within 20 working days.

You can use this form to make the request.

They will get back to you if there will be further charges.

3.7 Dealing with an FOI Request – Time Limits

Acknowledge receipt of request within 10 working days. A working day excludes a Saturday, a Sunday, or a public holiday as defined in the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. (section 7(2))
Issue acknowledgement setting out the rights of the requester in the event of the request not being dealt with within the specified time limits. (under section 41 non-reply to a request is deemed to be a refusal thereby allowing the requester to proceed to internal review at no charge).
Decide whether to grant or refuse to grant the request within 20 working days (section 8(1))
If decision is to grant the request, determine the manner in which access will be offered
Cause notification in writing of the decision and determination to be given to the requester

3.8 Extension of Time Limit (section 9)

The head of the public body may extend the time limit for dealing with a request by up to 20 working days, if the request, or related requests, concern such a large number of records that compliance within the initial 20 working day period is not possible

http://foi.gov.ie/short-guide-to-the-foi-acts/ is a good guide to the processes involved.

DavidCollins

I've got a meeting with Shane Ross (Dublin South constituency), next Monday at 10am in Leinster House where I plan to talk with him about the SI. He's already shown himself to be opposed, but I think meeting him will give him both more support and a better idea of some of the issues involved (after all, he's busy with other stuff like Greyhound, he can't know everything).

I think having more people to demonstrate how a lot of people take this seriously and have a wider pool of knowledge to draw on, is a good idea. Allan tried to come but couldn't get off work. If anyone want's to join, PM me (or post to this thread) and include your full real name so I can let Shane's assistant know who is comming so she can give the names to security (presumably to let us in). It's probably best of you're a Dublin South constitutent to begin with.

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

I just received a reply to an email to Anthony Lawlor yesterday, where I pushed him to explain his stock response.

ask why there not available to the general public the minster could publish them at any time. convenient delaying tactic for anthony lawlor too

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

ask why there not available to the general public the minster could publish them at any time. convenient delaying tactic for anthony lawlor too

Done.

I don't have a pot to piss in at the moment but will send the FOI request off on Tuesday / Wednesday, once payday rolls around.

RangeR

In the meantime, I've sent an email to Minister Sherlock. I am not hopeful but took the chance.

On 24 February 2012 16:51, Keith Burke wrote:
Minister Sherlock,

It has been stated to myself and others, by many TD's, that there have been more than 50 submissions to the Statutory Instrument amending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 in relation to the European Union (Copyright and Related Rights) Regulations 2012, following it's public consultation process.

Where may I obtain a copy of these submissions for review?




Regards
Keith Burke

johnmcdnl

Joe O'Reilly from Cavan/Monaghan

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 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 concerns involved.

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.

I hope this clarifies matters.

Joe O'Reilly, TD
Leinster House
Dublin 2.

po0k

Compliance with EU Directives me hole.

So it's ok to try to slyboots this nonsense hackery past us when certain interests can't adapt to changing market conditions, but when it comes to ensuring (formerly-) our national communications infrastructure is reasonably competitive, it's a slow crawl?

Through gritted teeth and blood raged eyes "Feckin gombeen men" :mad:

FreudianSlippers

No joke, the replies from this thread... from our elected representatives... it has been the last straw for me. Combined with the children's hospital decision last week and all the general shíte that is spouted by small minded pricks in this country... I can't do it anymore!

Literally taking up the first job I get in London and fecking off.

DavidCollins

Allan and I met with Shane Ross this morning. We voiced our concerns and covered many areas in this issue regarding Sean Sherlock's Statutory Instrument and a few related issues.

Overall, I'm very happy with the meeting we had and encouraged for the future. I was also impressed with Shane himself and his response and stance in the issue.

I would recommend many others here to make the best effort they can to meet with their representatives. The difference between exchanging emails and meeting them in person is immesurable. Far greater freedom to discuss various issues and... just better overall.

View

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No joke, the replies from this thread... from our elected representatives... it has been the last straw for me. Combined with the children's hospital decision last week and all the general shíte that is spouted by small minded pricks in this country... I can't do it anymore!

Literally taking up the first job I get in London and fecking off.

Fair enough but you do realise that the UK has had this measure on its statue books since 2003 (if I recall correctly) and that it was introduced there by use of a SI (i.e. the method that Sean Sherlock is proposing to use)?

FreudianSlippers

View wrote: »

Fair enough but you do realise that the UK has had this measure on its statue books since 2003 (if I recall correctly) and that it was introduced there by use of a SI (i.e. the method that Sean Sherlock is proposing to use)?

It's not the SI, it's the reaction. England introducing the measure in line with the Directive isn't a problem for me; my problem is that the introduction of this SI at the moment is moot. Recent caselaw has rendered the SI pointless.

DavidCollins

Freud, I don't want to get in a political argument, but do you really think that politics in the UK is much better?

Here you're one voice in 4 million, over there you'll be one in 62 million. Do you think Allan and I would have managed today's meeting with a TD as easily if we were in the UK? (not just population, but also because we have a fair few independent TDs)

Our protests have delayed the SI by over a month and forced it to be taken seriously. You may consider some of the TD responses disappointing, but it is a genuinely busy job and most of them have never enountered this issue before and so were unprepared (I'm not excusing them). Even though Olivial Mitchell sent the form letter to me, she still wanted to hear my opinion, thoughts and concerns on the issue and a phone call ensued. There have been other TDs who object to this issue and deserve recognition.

No matter where you go, you'll deal with some sort of power structure above your head that'll influence thing in your environment, many of which you'll probably not agree with. You can either accept it; complain and keep living your life; or take some action against it. Do you really expect everything you want in life to be magically given to you? Most good things we have in life are because someone fought hard and worked to get them. Sometimes, we have to be that person.

This was never going to be a simple battle. We're dealing with cultural change, a generation gap, many political issues and inticracies, huge multinational companies and goodness knows what international influences. We're also dealing with a system of politics and government that many of us may not have enganged with before but now have to learn about fast if we're going to grow our influence.

So yeah, go to England if you want. Leave this battle we're having find a place where you don't have to bother with this stuff. But I ask you: When English politicians screw things up and create another situation you can't stand, where are you going to go then?

FreudianSlippers

It's a lot of things. There is a small minded and simplistic mentality in this country. I'm aware of power structures and environmental influence in politics. My problem is the parish pump issues in Ireland which, while exist in a sense everywhere, are a million times worse in this country.

The issues with Liberty Hall and the Mater pile on top of Metro North and general economic/political issues here. People are stupid everywhere, the stupid people are just the most influential here.

View

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's not the SI, it's the reaction. England introducing the measure in line with the Directive isn't a problem for me; my problem is that the introduction of this SI at the moment is moot. Recent caselaw has rendered the SI pointless.

The recent cases haven't nullified the legal obligation on the state to have the (contents of the) SI in place. Failure to have it in place leaves the state open to legal action (and indeed that seems to already have started).

Obviously though how willing the courts will be to use the measure contained in the SI will depend on the evolving situation with caselaw as the courts weigh up the various legal rights that different parties have and attempt to strike a fair balance based on the cases that come before them.

smash

Out of the replies I have received so far, this is the one that annoys me the most... Seems other have gotten the same reply from other TD's

A Chara,

Thank you for getting in touch with me expressing your concern about proposed legislation in the area of copyright law.

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 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.

Regards,
Andrew Doyle T.D.

DoesNotCompute

Signed the petition, and within hours, got the following reply from Anthony Lawlor, TD:

Dear xxxxxxxxx

Many thanks for your email in relation to the above.

With regard to the points your raised concerning copyright law, it is important to be aware that Minister of State, Sean Sherlock TD, has not put forward any proposals to enact a Stop Online Piracy Type Law. Rather the need to now introduce legislation arises from a finding of the High Court in October 2010 that Ireland was not in compliance with its EU obligations under Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC. As non-compliance with EU Law is a very serious matter you can understand the need to address the matter.

I should make you aware of the fact that no policy change is proposed in the Statutory Instrument. Instead the intended purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but merely to restate the position that was thought to exist in the Copyright legislation prior to Mr. Justice Charleton’s judgement in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010. As a result of this court ruling, the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 needed to be revised in order to provide civil remedies such as injunctions.

As a result of your interest in this matter, I am sure you are aware how last July Minister Sherlock held a public consultation in relation to the wording of a proposed Statutory Instrument amending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. More than 50 submissions were received from interested parties, providing an excellent overview of all the issues and concerns involved. I am wondering if you were in a position to forward a submission to the Minister at the time outlining your views? If so, perhaps you could send me a copy of same and I can again raise your concerns with the Minister.

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

I hope this clarifies matters.

Kind regards

Anthony Lawlor TD

vrackt

I sent an email to Minister Sean Sherlock. Neither he nor his office had the good manners to even acknowledge my correspondence. So much for elected representatives of the people.