"Irish SOPA" Signed Into Law Despite Resistance

First time accepted submitter cupantae writes "Despite the protests of over 80,000 Irish people, Junior Minister Seán Sherlock has confirmed that the controversial statutory instrument that reinforces online copyright laws in Ireland has been signed into law. The statutory instrument will make it possible for copyright holders to seek court injunctions against companies such as internet service providers or social networks whose systems are hosting copyright-infringing material. This comes in the wake of the music industry bullying the Irish government."

Comments

80,000 is not enough

[metrix007]

Ireland has a population of about 5 million.

If only 80,000 protested then that means the majority is either OK are at least apathetic towards the legislation.

In that case, there is nothing wrong with it going ahead. The problem lies with the rest of the population who didn't do their part to protest, not the government passing a law.

Yet another strike against democracy.

Black March

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called Black March. I think a better awareness campaign would have made it more popular but essentially, it's about not buying or downloading any media content for the month of March in order to make a dent in the entertainment industries profits. Check it out!

Economics 101 fail

[Kupfernigk]

You don't get it, do you? If the people are poor, there isn't much tax revenue to raise. The idea is to get Governments into debt because they have a source of tax revenue and can continue to pay the interest. Therefore, the country as a whole needs to make plenty of money to pay the taxes. Since the rich avoid or evade taxes, that in reality means a prosperous middle class.

Rothschilds actually got going by realising this and placing the sons of the founder in the capitals of countries that were rapidly becoming rich. They had headquarters in places like Vienna, not Nebraska. They lent the British Government the money to buy the Suez Canal, which was a conduit for trade, thus (a) profiting from the loan and (b) profiting by lending to promote trade.

This is what is fundamentally wrong with Walmartonomics. Walmart pays as little as possible. But, to succeed, it must have plenty of people to spend money in its stores. In effect, it wants a shit economy so it can get a cheap workforce, but really it wants a high wage economy to maximise its income. This kind of works if for "Walmart" we substitute China, and for "High wage economy" we substitute "The West". But what happens when all countries have been dragged into the mire? No markets, that's what.

Ireland, Italy and Greece are in trouble because the Governments borrowed and the taxes weren't paid, either through evasion (Italy and Greece), through "avoidance" schemes (Ireland) or because also the Governments had lied about the actual GNP (Greece). This actually wasn't the fault of the bankers, but of greedy and corrupt politicians.

As I say, if Rothschilds really ran Ireland, they would do it on the principle that the best way to produce milk is to start off with well fed cows, not to start off with starving cows and demand more output for less grass. In national economics, the Old Testament is actually a much better guide than an MBA course.