Charity begins at the tax office

In the Uk papers today there's a report that compares the charitable giving habits of people of different religions.  Moslems come out top with a bit over 300 pounds a year and atheists come out 'meanest' with only £100 a year.  Thumbs up for the believers you could say....  but what it desn't say is what do we mean by charity - what's included? The whole concept of the welfare state is to give a share of your income to supprt those in need - whether the sick, the young, the old or the jobless.  The amount we pay in taxes far exceeds the small sums the survey is talking about for charitable giving.  Apart from salving your moral (and spiritual) compass do the sums mentioned in the survey really make a difference? 

Well yes, if you are one of the charities that relies on generosity over and above your tax duty for a cause the government doesn't feel responsible for - from hospices to cmpaigners for or collective rights.  Things are tight for many people all the more reason to ig deeper into your pockets.....

Digital choice the copyright way

Found on a comment list http://dlvr.it/

"See, by only providing content through locked down, time limited, location restricted methods, the studios are actually giving us a lot more choices in how we consume our content.

Dirty pirates can only consume their content in one way: no encryption, HD, and worldwide. But the studios give us an unending stream of different choices that provide real value to their content. Maybe you want DRM that requires a constant connection to the internet. They have that. Maybe you want content that's purposefully degraded. They have that. Maybe you want to be able to watch content only in the US. They have that. Canada? They have that too.

Content that expires after 48 hours? No problem. Maybe you want to have to watch it in the theater? They got you covered. The depth and breadth of choices that the studios provide is something that the evil pirates just cannot cover. The other day I asked someone at the pirate bay for an encrypted copy of The Grey that would only play on my computer for a week and they couldn't do it!"

But why Diggers?I

History is a mirror for the present. In it's silent reflection we can learn lessons and see parallels in the world we live in today.

In England in the middle of the 17th century parliament had just fought a bloody war freeing the people from monarchy and rule by divine right. But as in a prequel to Orwell's Animal Farm. for the common man it was soon clear that nothing much had changed. The rich and noble still held sway, and enclosure of common land into private ownership was rife, a triumph of vested interest over common good.

It's against this background that Gerard Winstanley and the Diggers took over an area of common land to farm collectively. Winstanley wrote pamphlets arguing on moral and religious grounds against the exploitation of the poor and preached a new Commonwealth where the commons would 'be a treasury for all'

They're sometimes described as the first communists but today you can see them in a different light. Then as now

they are the 99%. Then as now they stood up against greed and the exploitation and monopolization of the commons.

Over the centuries people have always struggled against the inequality of power and money - the Diggers are just one chapter in that story. But as relevant today as it was in 1649.

Falklands . Whose rock is it anyway?

The Falklands are back in the news again. More than 25 years have gone since Margaret Thatcher saved her government with a gungho war in the South Atlantic.

Now, once again Argentina are pursuing their claim to sovereignty. Nationalism is being stoked again to lay claim to a few small islands that for twenty years or so were part of the young Argentina.

That they want them back, and that Britain wants to keep them is no surprise.  With the islands come undersea oil, and a claim to a slice of Antarctica.

Who did what 180 years ago seems a bit irrelevant... particularly as I hold that primitive view of land that it's really the people that belong to the land rather than the opposite.  The islanders are for better or worse the people that should decide.   ... And two nations greed for resources really shouldn't be a factor in making a choice. Should it?

Sharing is caring, Ideas are divine

I guess you may have seen that kopimism (Copy me ism) is now a recognised religion here in Sweden. 

The basic tenet seems to be that to share knowledge is sacred, and no surprise then that the church's 3000+ members see file sharing as a good thing. Now you may think that sharing knowledge is a strange thing to revere, but is it?  Is it more strange than believing in an all-seeing non-corporeal immortal that sits on a cloud casting thunderbolts?

If you want to think of something intangible and invisible that can live for ever and have huge influence over our lives what have you got?

An idea.

While you can debate the existence of god the idea of god clearly exists and has clearly had huge influence on mankind over innumerable centuries. Immortal. All powerful.

Ideas

On the bus

The new year finds me with a new phone and I've finally got the knack of working multiple windows on it so now just maybe I have what I need to blog on the go. Like now... on the bus

Good times?

"How can a world be good in which Money is the moving power, and Self-interest the guiding star? The wonder is not that it is so bad, but that there should be any good left in it."

H. Rider Haggard, 1887

The bard and copyright

The New York Times have a well twittered piece on the value of copyright - that has a central tenet the role that closed theatres had in Shakespears time in stimulating creativity.

The argument is curious as a basis for supporting copyright...  there was no copyright back then ... and the monopoly held by the Stationer's company is probably not a shining example of a system designed to stimulate creativity.  On the other hand you could point out that it was performance not writing that was the source of revenue and draw useful parallels to the situation today where live performance is proving increasingly important for artists as a source of revenue - including of course in the cinema where showings remain strong.

And as for their closing remarks on the fate of Shakespears Globe - pulled down by authorities in the 17th century to stem the flow of unsettling ideas reaching it's audiences?  Doesn't that sound more like a warning about defending an uncensored internet than a call to constrain it in the name of monopoly?

Gaiman on copyright piracy

I saw this clip on BoingBoing and couldn't resist copying it here.... Neil Gaiman explains why letting people take his work has been good for business.

Joining the Twitterati

Since #Cablegate hit the news I've been dipping into Twitter to catch the latest news.  At the same time I've been wondering about my blogging.  It seems harder these days to find the time to sit down and write - but at the same time there is lots of good stuff going on that I want to share.....

So now I can.  As from yesterday you can find me on Twitter ... @DiggersAll.

Wikileaks: What the good book says

“There is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, nothing hidden that will not be made known. Everything you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight; what you have whispered in locked rooms will be proclaimed from the rooftops.”  – Luke 12:2-3

The Bible is not really my cup of tea but this quote is spot on..   so too is the article where I found it -on Daniel Ellsberg's blog, citing a press release by the 'Institue for Public Accuracy' about Wikileaks and the American government's problem with integrity, justice and accountability. 

It was Ellsberg that leaked the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War - and the press release is signed by list of heavy weights all familiar with the predicament Julian Assange & Private Manning now find themselves in.

All power to their elbow...  Go read!

Climate change - ostriches and a train crash

[image: NOAA]

"For January–October 2010, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.4°F) and tied with 1998 as the warmest January–October period on record."

"Sitting here shivering at the end of the coldest late November in living memory (well, in this living memory at any rate) it's somewhat surreal to contemplate the assembled panjandrams of the climate alarmism industry sunning themselves in Cancun while delivering apocalyptic pronouncements of the doom that will befall us should a sufficiently draconian regime of carbon control be imposed upon the world."

Under the title 'Rhetoric and Reality on Climate Change' the Heresiarch kicks off a discussion on whether it would be better to give up any attempt to limit man's climate impact and just start learning to live with the consequences.

"Advocates of action to forestall global warming" are we learn in a "state of desperation". 

It's strikes a disappointingly sceptic tone, but is an interesting read - not least for stating the obvious, that politically we globally don't have our act together.  We are all on board the same train.. and we are heading full speed at the buffers.

Now the little guy at the back of the carriage has tried.. "er, excuse me, but maybe we should slow down?" (many times)..  and the train drivers union has called a meeting to discuss what to do..   And now it's too late to stop the train... we are going to crash.  And the little guy is standing on his chair shouting.  "Use the f****** brakes". 

Hitting the buffers slowly will always be better than charging at them full speed.  Learning to live with the consequences is clearly a something we need to do...  but what we have to live with depends very much on how hard we manage to brake the train. 

Full speed ahead is not the right answer...

Wikileaks: the messenger and the hydra's teeth

You can understand that it is uncomfortable for some to find their dirty washing hanging out in public.  I am all for privacy...

But whose privacy? Do we want privacy for government and surveillance of the individual?  Or the opposite.  Transparency in government and privacy for the individual?

Governments, senior politicians and powerbrokers everywhere are leaning hard to close down Wikileaks...   their DNS servers, their Paypal account.  One is struck by the effort going into closing down the source of the leak - rather than admit to or address the issues raised.. 

But why shoot the messenger?  Whistleblowing is a recognised and protected principle.  Journalistic sources are protected  - for instance in the Swedish constitútion - and in many countries including the US, there are laws protecting individuals rights to blow the whistle on misdoings and get protection for it...   In Britain for instance the Public Interest Disclosure Act covers dicslosure of

• a criminal offence;
• the breach of a legal obligation;
• a miscarriage of justice;
• a danger to the health or safety of any individual;
• damage to the environment; or
• deliberate covering up of information tending to show any of the above five matters

Do the cablegate leaks count?  Well judging by the international coverage of them I'd say the case for public interest is proven.... 

So do we want THEM to put the genie back in the bottle?  To go back to feeding us a massaged variant of the truth?  Well... mixing my metaphors a little - it looks like it is not going to happen.  Wikileak mirrors are springing up all over to carry the torch.  Cut off a head and another grows in its place.

The truth will out... inconvenient or not...

For information on Wikileaks mirrors check here...

Britannia in chains....

"Rule Brittannia, Britannia rules the waves,
Britons never, never shall be made to slaves"

"It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as

• the Protection from Harassment Act (1997),
• the Crime and Disorder Act (1998),
• the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000),
• the Terrorism Act (2000),
• the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001),
• the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001),
• the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002),
• the Criminal Justice Act (2003),
• the Extradition Act (2003),
• the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003),
• the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004),
• the Civil Contingencies Act (2004),
• the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005),
• the Inquiries Act (2005),
• the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005),

not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. "  after Philip Pullman

Just a reminder... 
Not mentioning it doesn't make it go away

Kinsella: Intellectual property hampers capitalism

Author and patent attorney Stephan Kinsella talks on the incompatibility between intellectual property and capitalism.. or put another way - why patents and copyright are bad for business....

Stoneage copyright?

You might think that if there is something that is out of copyright this is it...  Stonehenge.   Erected more than 4000 years before copyright was even thought of it's hard to think of anything that is more in the public domain.

So it's strange to hear that English Heritage are stomping their way round online photo image libraries to tell them that "all commercial interest to sell images (of Stonehenge) must be directed to English Heritage."

Now it may be that the law gives some support to their claim.. presumably because they own the land it stands on, and photographers were on their property at the time...   If it does though, I can only sat that the law is an Ass.

Aristotle on ideas...

"It is not once nor twice but times without number that the same ideas make their appearance in the world."

Patents enslave my creativity....

Seven or point seven? Pirate voting...

Well... that was the election, that was.  The Swedish parliamentary election I mean.... 

And for Piratpartiet it was a generally disappointing 0,7% of the national vote.  Nowhere in the realms of the 7% that the party took in the EU elections.  And so, both in the press and in the party there is some reflection ongoing on what happened and what it means for the future....

Not to be left out,  I'm here to draw my straw to the stack.. with of course the clear benefit of hindsight.

So what is different?

Firstly a lot of the burning issues that were on the table at the EU election are now done deals.

• the FRA legislation is on the statute book and the state can (and we assume does) routinely monitor calls, mails and surfing across the national border. 
• IPRED also made it onto the statute book...  ignoring privacy of communications & allowing copyright groups to get personal details on IP addresses suspected of copyright enfringement.
• The Pirate Bay trial reached a conviction for those in the dock - apparently signalling that linking to copyright material is a no no in the eyes of the law.

Yesterday's news.  Done deals don't make for good press, so without something of current interest it's hard to get airtime to re-open the questions.  More than that though... the lack of clear targets to oppose leaves PP campaigning on principles rather than issues - and that is both harder to get across, and also harder to generate motivation around internally.

Out in the news though it did seem that PP core issues were left on the sidelines.   Piratpartiet did get exposure on topics like child pornography being used as the thin end of the wedge for net censorship but that is such a sensitive topic that it's hard to think that you could ever expect to win votes with it. 

My perception was that the party's image in the press was too closely linked to downloading and copyright, and not enough to privacy and integrity issues. It's an impression reinfoced by the party's choice of issues...  Hosting servers for the Pirate Bay may sound cool, but has zero relevance for most voters.  Likewise hosting Wikileaks...  people are choosing a government not a new data park.

And of course, EU elections are different to national elections.  National questions are  perceived as much more about things that affect our daily life - schools, healthcare, and the money in our pocket at the end of the month.  It was always going to be a challenge to attract voters on the same scale as for the EU election.  Still, for me the party didn't get across how far the threat to our privacy has come - and why it matters enough to put all your vote on that topic. 

0,7% is pretty close to the party's result in 2006 - and a good way from the 4% needed to get in to parliament.  Does a party have a role that can't break past the post? 

The EU election showed that it does... when a significant minority of people put their vote behind the PPs principles.  Those people are still out there - perhaps with different priorities for a national election -but still out there to be reached.  And more to the point the other parties have seen how the issues can affect their result.  This time both blocs chose to keep integrity off the agenda -  but at the same time perhaps some parties have taken on board copyright, integrity and patent issues in a way not seen before. 

The green parties have been influentual in making the environment a part of mainstream politics - no one can chance not having a policy on it.  Piratpartiet - even without breaking into parliament - has the same role for privacy, integrity and the information society.  Everyone needs to be ready to talk about it..  and maybe that's a first step to getting a recognition that things need to change...

Meanwhile, from the outside at least,  Piratpartiet is proving it's worth in Brussels.  Great credentials to bring to the next fight....   In four years it's both EU and national elections.  Seven or point 7.  Which is going to be?

We are now entering the Live Age: P2P and the music industry

Matthew David of Brunel University takes an erudite look at Peer to Peer and the Music Industry - the history of the distribution monopoly and the legal, technical, cultural and economic options going forward - both for artists and the recording industry.
From March 2010



Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party -  Working for copyright reform

ACTA: Treaty without a cause?

The latest leaks on the ACTA treaty show that negotiations have gone a long way to resolving outstanding issues with some ground given by the US.. but some of the worst of the treaty still stubbornly in place. ACTA watchers are not impressed that three strikes still seems to be on the agenda, and that US led pro-DRM measures are included that go beyond the WIPO treaty and even existing US law. 
(More details from Michael Geist and Boing Boing.)

But do we really need an anti-counterfeiting treaty at all?  

Well perhaps not.  The Telegraph reports on a study that shows that the impact of counterfeiting on luxury brands isn't the disaster that it's made out to be... most consumers buying counterfeits aren't being ripped off- they know it's a fake, and they would never have bought an original.... meaning that fashion houses are not losing those sales to counterfeiting.  Counterfeiting is big business -but if it's not done to defraud who is it hurting?

The article is cited in many places... but the original report seems to be more elusive.  You can find it though at the British Journal of Criminology - with the pithy title of:
Jailhouse Frocks: Locating the Public Interest in Policing Counterfeit Luxury Fashion Goods
by David Wall & Joanna Large

Amongst other things it looks at the links between counterfeiting and organised crime ...and has an interesting section on the 'aspirational hierarchy' that binds together both the fashion houses and the counterfeiters.

Read it..  and see if you can find the public interest in ACTA....

Piratpartiet :  Building the information society.  Vote Pirate!