In a moment of prescience I mentioned last week the difficulty in providing an adequate standard of evidence to find people guilty of copyright infringement on the web – something that makes the concept of guilty until proven innocent particularly distasteful.
Now the Danish Anti-Pirate group have officially given up. After seven years they conclude that the chance of getting a conviction without a confession are too low to continue working to prosecute infringers.
But it's still OK to cut off peoples internet on the basis of an accusation... isn't it?
Piratpartiet and The Pirate Party - Working for copyright reform.
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Monday, 9 November 2009
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Lily Allen: Different views, different voices
Lily Allen has been vocal in pointing the finger at piracy and file sharing for times being tough for new artists... And she's had criticism for being a hypocrite in copying material to her blog without being clear that it's not her work.
...and now she has grabbed front page headlines by deciding to close her blog - citing too many abusive comments as a pricipal reason. I think it's a pity.
Shouting down the other side in the debate isn't winning the argument. Moreover, the role of non-commercial file sharing in the economics of the media industry is a matter of politics and economics. Unfounded personal attacks and name calling do nothing to take the debate forward and only serve to alienate.
Artists and songwriters have legitmate concerns over where the music industry is going. A channel to make their voice heard is a valuable contribution to the debate - and one that deserved to be met by reason, not rabble.
...and now she has grabbed front page headlines by deciding to close her blog - citing too many abusive comments as a pricipal reason. I think it's a pity.
Shouting down the other side in the debate isn't winning the argument. Moreover, the role of non-commercial file sharing in the economics of the media industry is a matter of politics and economics. Unfounded personal attacks and name calling do nothing to take the debate forward and only serve to alienate.
Artists and songwriters have legitmate concerns over where the music industry is going. A channel to make their voice heard is a valuable contribution to the debate - and one that deserved to be met by reason, not rabble.
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Privacy, what privacy? Spies on your desktop.
The EFF blog has a thought provoking piece on online tracking and how information on your surfing ends up in the hands of a wide range of players in what at best you could describe as a less than transparent process. There is quite clearly a whole industry that collects and correlates inforrmation to build up in depth dossiers on people.
Key points of concern are:
- The scale and scope of information gathering
- new 'super cookies' hidden from and out of the control of your browser
- lack of respect for users privacy, e.g. recreating cookies after they're deleted.
- Datamining social networks and analysing usage to identify you. (Violating your anonymity)
Monitoring and tracking your online activity amounts to electronic surveillance - it can lay bare your social and business networks, your interests, your political affiliations and your religiouus beliefs. Surveillance on this scale - actively, and with the intention to use the information - would be a gross abuse if it was run by the state... and to have this going on in unregulated private hands is simply scary.
The article gives tips on how to shield your privacy - but at the end concludes that it is extremely hard today to not be a victim of this systematic invasion of your privacy. The right to privacy needs to be protected - and that means this type of intrusion needs to be regulated with clear, easy and legally binding opt outs.
Piratpartiet and the Pirate Party - putting privacy first:
Key points of concern are:
- The scale and scope of information gathering
- new 'super cookies' hidden from and out of the control of your browser
- lack of respect for users privacy, e.g. recreating cookies after they're deleted.
- Datamining social networks and analysing usage to identify you. (Violating your anonymity)
Monitoring and tracking your online activity amounts to electronic surveillance - it can lay bare your social and business networks, your interests, your political affiliations and your religiouus beliefs. Surveillance on this scale - actively, and with the intention to use the information - would be a gross abuse if it was run by the state... and to have this going on in unregulated private hands is simply scary.
The article gives tips on how to shield your privacy - but at the end concludes that it is extremely hard today to not be a victim of this systematic invasion of your privacy. The right to privacy needs to be protected - and that means this type of intrusion needs to be regulated with clear, easy and legally binding opt outs.
Piratpartiet and the Pirate Party - putting privacy first:
Friday, 4 September 2009
The light dawns. Artists speak out.
There's a really interesting piece in the Guardian today that's picked up by both HAX and Michael Geist. It covers vocal opposition by artists groups in the UK to recent government proposals to retable 'three strikes' and internet bans for persistent filesharers.
The article is interesting on a number of levels...
Firstly it's welcome to see artists coming down on the side of their public and opposing the demonising of non-commercial sharing - and the equally welcome conclusion that sterner legislation is not the answer.
Secondly, it highlights the changing balance of power between artists and distributors (the record companies) which it attributes to the falling value of recorded music - You could see it another way too... with reproduction and distribution on the Internet being so cheap (free...?) the value of a distributor disappears - not just the value of the product.
Thirdly, it highlights evidence that tour revenues are up significantly - showing that there is healthy interest in seeing live music and real sources of income for bands in doing what musicians do - make music.
The recording industry meanwhile are cast in their traditional role.... in full support of the government proposals... while trying to lock in their artists to '360 degree' deals to take their slice of artists income from tours and other promotions. No one likes losing control.....
Last but not least of course, its great to see the insights of the mainstream press beginning to see the music industry in the same light as The Pirate Party and Piratpartiet. The internet makes it all but free to distribute all forms of 'digital' culture. Businesses need to adapt to that new reality. You can't put the genie back in the bottle - and legislating to protect outmoded ways of doing business is not the answer - not least when it means private policing and infringing peoples rights to privacy in the process.
The article is interesting on a number of levels...
Firstly it's welcome to see artists coming down on the side of their public and opposing the demonising of non-commercial sharing - and the equally welcome conclusion that sterner legislation is not the answer.
Secondly, it highlights the changing balance of power between artists and distributors (the record companies) which it attributes to the falling value of recorded music - You could see it another way too... with reproduction and distribution on the Internet being so cheap (free...?) the value of a distributor disappears - not just the value of the product.
Thirdly, it highlights evidence that tour revenues are up significantly - showing that there is healthy interest in seeing live music and real sources of income for bands in doing what musicians do - make music.
The recording industry meanwhile are cast in their traditional role.... in full support of the government proposals... while trying to lock in their artists to '360 degree' deals to take their slice of artists income from tours and other promotions. No one likes losing control.....
Last but not least of course, its great to see the insights of the mainstream press beginning to see the music industry in the same light as The Pirate Party and Piratpartiet. The internet makes it all but free to distribute all forms of 'digital' culture. Businesses need to adapt to that new reality. You can't put the genie back in the bottle - and legislating to protect outmoded ways of doing business is not the answer - not least when it means private policing and infringing peoples rights to privacy in the process.
Who wins by restricting choice?
I was thinking..... A dangerous habit, but it happens from time to time. ...Thinking about online music, and 'personalised radio' in particular. That's sites that stream music to you based on the sort of music you like . It was prompted by a piece at the Digital Audio Insider on revenues from Lastfm - an interesting artists eye view of getting paid for putting music online.
Now on sites like Lastfm royalties get paid for each streamed play... Which means that if I like an artist it's in their interests that I can choose to play just that artist, and in the songwriters interests that I can play just that song. But what happens in practice is that what I get is a different artist playing a different song.. And the revenue I might have generated for an artist I like goes instead to someone I never really asked to listen to.
So who wins by not letting me choose?
Answers on a postcard please
Now on sites like Lastfm royalties get paid for each streamed play... Which means that if I like an artist it's in their interests that I can choose to play just that artist, and in the songwriters interests that I can play just that song. But what happens in practice is that what I get is a different artist playing a different song.. And the revenue I might have generated for an artist I like goes instead to someone I never really asked to listen to.
So who wins by not letting me choose?
Answers on a postcard please
Friday, 24 July 2009
Unjust business practices
The private copyright police are busy in Hull in the UK. Karoo, the local operator, are acting as judge and jury in enforcing alleged copyright infringement.
As reported by the Open Rights Group,
"None of this takes place through a court. The ‘evidence’ is not examined and cannot be disputed. Users have to accept responsibility for the alleged infringements in order to be reconnected."
What is taking place is a form of 'three strikes' policy - with a disturbing lack of judicial oversight. Three strikes proposals in France that were based on a government agency making assesssments have been struck down as unconstitutional and breach of individuls rights -yet here we have a private company taking on the responsibility to police copyright with no mandate or judicial revue whatsoever. Forcing people to sign confessions to get reconnected to the service is something the mafia would be proud of...
Contrast this with the how Swedish ISP Ephone is in court to defend the interests of it's subscribers. One of the issues there is the quality and validity of the 'evidence' provided by media companies of illegal activity. How are Karoo making their judgements?
Bear in mind that the subscription holder may not be the offender - and that this policy impacts everyone in a household not just an alleged offender - and you can see that this is just not a defensible policy.
Cease and desist!!
The Pirate Party & Piratpartiet are working for copyright reform, and an individuals rights to privacy.
As reported by the Open Rights Group,
"None of this takes place through a court. The ‘evidence’ is not examined and cannot be disputed. Users have to accept responsibility for the alleged infringements in order to be reconnected."
What is taking place is a form of 'three strikes' policy - with a disturbing lack of judicial oversight. Three strikes proposals in France that were based on a government agency making assesssments have been struck down as unconstitutional and breach of individuls rights -yet here we have a private company taking on the responsibility to police copyright with no mandate or judicial revue whatsoever. Forcing people to sign confessions to get reconnected to the service is something the mafia would be proud of...
Contrast this with the how Swedish ISP Ephone is in court to defend the interests of it's subscribers. One of the issues there is the quality and validity of the 'evidence' provided by media companies of illegal activity. How are Karoo making their judgements?
Bear in mind that the subscription holder may not be the offender - and that this policy impacts everyone in a household not just an alleged offender - and you can see that this is just not a defensible policy.
Cease and desist!!
The Pirate Party & Piratpartiet are working for copyright reform, and an individuals rights to privacy.
Sauce for the goose: What we do, they do.
When it comes to privacy, state surveillance and the Internet I have a simple rule of thumb when it comes to judging whether legislation is reasonable, proportional and democratically defensible.
What would I think of these measures if I lived under a dictatorship - or some other less enlightened form of government? There is a risk that circumstances can change at home, and powers brought in in good faith could be misused in the future. More than that though there is a good chance that other countries around the world will use our behaviour as a justification for introducing powers that might not be so benignly employed.
The latest example of this was Iran's decision to introduce something equivalent to the EU's Telecom directive - which will allow them to monitor, amongst other things, where people surf to. The law will allow them to tackle 'cyber crime', but what else might it be used for?
Fundamentally, the rights of free speech and privacy are not served by governments keeping track on what we see, think or do. Technological advances are making it possible to monitor every aspect of our lives - but just because we can doesn't mean we should.
Western society, with high ideals on human rights needs to set a shining example... and remember that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. .
The Pirate Party & Piratpartiet - Putting privacy first.
What would I think of these measures if I lived under a dictatorship - or some other less enlightened form of government? There is a risk that circumstances can change at home, and powers brought in in good faith could be misused in the future. More than that though there is a good chance that other countries around the world will use our behaviour as a justification for introducing powers that might not be so benignly employed.
The latest example of this was Iran's decision to introduce something equivalent to the EU's Telecom directive - which will allow them to monitor, amongst other things, where people surf to. The law will allow them to tackle 'cyber crime', but what else might it be used for?
Fundamentally, the rights of free speech and privacy are not served by governments keeping track on what we see, think or do. Technological advances are making it possible to monitor every aspect of our lives - but just because we can doesn't mean we should.
Western society, with high ideals on human rights needs to set a shining example... and remember that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. .
The Pirate Party & Piratpartiet - Putting privacy first.
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Net Neutrality hearings in Canada - what's that all about?
In Canada they have just completed hearings on Net Neutrality - hearing evidence from operators, ISPs, consumer groups and media groups on whether and how the network should discriminate between different types of traffic. The Internet is a busy place, and at times lines get full to capacity - either on the link down to your house, in the network itself or in the links to the web servers you are accessing.
Operators commonly use a 'shaping' or 'throttling' to cut down the amount of traffic - basically putting caps on the rate at which data can be sent or received by users (or wholesalers). There are different ways to do this - you can limit everyone a bit, limit the highest users a lot, or limit certain types of traffic. Often it is the latter that is done. Operators use a technique called 'Deep Packet Inspection' - looking inside the data being carried - to find out what type of traffic t is and then selectively restrict what they see as bandwidth eaters - which usually means peer to peer traffic.
The problem for them is that a few users generate a high volume of traffic and that means less capacity to share amongst the rest - but for the consumer it means both that you don't always get the high speed connection you think you are paying for - and someone is looking inside your traffic to see what sort of things you are doing. Usually they don't keep records of who does what - but the potential exists....
You may think it is reasonable for the operators to cut back heavy users to ensure all their customers get a reasonable service even in busy times... (even thogh they thought they paid for a full rate service) but the evidence presented shows that some are throttling peer to peer traffic all the time, or between certain times of day, regardless how busy the network actually is. In other words the operators are deliberately degrading service to customers even when they don't need to.
It costs money to build network capacity - which is a cost that we consumers share. The thing is though that that capacity can also be used to provide fee paying services like IP-TV linked to the operator or ISP. These are often time critical services that need to have bandwidth available to deliver glitch free performance... and the service providers expect the operator to provide them with enough capacity for there to be no problems.
The public internet can also provide similar services downloaded from independent suppliers out on the web. They also want good access to bandwidth to get their service over - but there's no revenue in it for the operator - apart from the fact that you've already paid for your internet access.
So the point is... is your traffic being throttled to free up capacity for someone else's service? Are operators prioritising their opportunities to make money over providing an impartial service? The hearing make interesting reading on what the different players say they are up to.
You can find reporting on the seven day hearing on Michael Geist's blog... and more on net neutrality here.
Operators commonly use a 'shaping' or 'throttling' to cut down the amount of traffic - basically putting caps on the rate at which data can be sent or received by users (or wholesalers). There are different ways to do this - you can limit everyone a bit, limit the highest users a lot, or limit certain types of traffic. Often it is the latter that is done. Operators use a technique called 'Deep Packet Inspection' - looking inside the data being carried - to find out what type of traffic t is and then selectively restrict what they see as bandwidth eaters - which usually means peer to peer traffic.
The problem for them is that a few users generate a high volume of traffic and that means less capacity to share amongst the rest - but for the consumer it means both that you don't always get the high speed connection you think you are paying for - and someone is looking inside your traffic to see what sort of things you are doing. Usually they don't keep records of who does what - but the potential exists....
You may think it is reasonable for the operators to cut back heavy users to ensure all their customers get a reasonable service even in busy times... (even thogh they thought they paid for a full rate service) but the evidence presented shows that some are throttling peer to peer traffic all the time, or between certain times of day, regardless how busy the network actually is. In other words the operators are deliberately degrading service to customers even when they don't need to.
It costs money to build network capacity - which is a cost that we consumers share. The thing is though that that capacity can also be used to provide fee paying services like IP-TV linked to the operator or ISP. These are often time critical services that need to have bandwidth available to deliver glitch free performance... and the service providers expect the operator to provide them with enough capacity for there to be no problems.
The public internet can also provide similar services downloaded from independent suppliers out on the web. They also want good access to bandwidth to get their service over - but there's no revenue in it for the operator - apart from the fact that you've already paid for your internet access.
So the point is... is your traffic being throttled to free up capacity for someone else's service? Are operators prioritising their opportunities to make money over providing an impartial service? The hearing make interesting reading on what the different players say they are up to.
You can find reporting on the seven day hearing on Michael Geist's blog... and more on net neutrality here.
Ephone & IPRED: the customer is always right
Swedish ISP Ephone has announced that it will appeal the decision that it must release IP address details for alleged illegal filesharing using their service. The case is the first introduced under controversial IPRED legislation allowing the industry access to information about filesharers.
Ephone have argued that the evidence presented is insufficient to say a crime has been committed. This case is doubly interesting as the alleged offence took place on a password protected server (i.e. a site with limited access) and it's not clear how the publishers have gained access to gain evidence - unauthorised access to the server as I understand it would in itself be an offence.
Before deciding to appeal Ephone set up a webpoll asking visitors to their website to vote on whether they should or sould not appeal the original verdict. 99% side "Yes".
The story continues.....
Ephone have argued that the evidence presented is insufficient to say a crime has been committed. This case is doubly interesting as the alleged offence took place on a password protected server (i.e. a site with limited access) and it's not clear how the publishers have gained access to gain evidence - unauthorised access to the server as I understand it would in itself be an offence.
Before deciding to appeal Ephone set up a webpoll asking visitors to their website to vote on whether they should or sould not appeal the original verdict. 99% side "Yes".
The story continues.....
Monday, 13 July 2009
Tell it how it is - bankers on the web
The Guardian reports today under the title 'Twitter is not for teens' on a report by Morgan Stanley on internet usage by teens. What makes it diferent is the report is witten by a 15 year old 'intern' at the bank.
The report:
The report:
- dismisses Twitter
- says online advertising is pointless
- teenagers are using more and more media, but are not willing to pay for it
- most teenagers have signed up for Twitter, but aren't going to use it -'they realise that no-one is viewing their profile so their tweets are pointless'.
- no teenager reads newspapers regularly
- and they are put off by intrusive advertising so they prefer listening to advert-free music on websites such as Last.fm ..
- advertising is seen as extremely annoying and pointless.
- most teens have never bought a CD
And so it goes on.
I guess at the bottom this is anecdotal evidence from a small sub-sector of the teen generation - but it is clear that how young people see the online world is not how most politicians and industry leaders would like to have the world. It is perhaps a sign of the times that investment bankers are now telling their clients that things ain't like they used to be....
But really this shouldn't be a suprise.. this is exactly what the Piratpartiet has been saying for some time.
Links: The Pirate Party, Piratpartiet
Monday, 6 July 2009
Who owns the word of God?
E-books are the next big thing - and are even coming to Sweden..... as noted by Dagens Nyheter last week (..and highlighted by HAX).
Generally that's a good thing - lots of works easily accessible online, simple to find and simple to buy (or download for free from sites like the excellent Project Gutenberg). There is one small fly in the ointment though. Conversion to e-format means a whole new copyright on existing works that are already in the public domain.... so although we, the public, own them - someone else gets to set their monopoly on them and sell it back to us. Isn't that slightly strange?
This is highlighted by today's news that the Codex Sinaiticus- an early christian bible from the 4th century, & one of the world's greatest literary treasures - is now available on-line. Great!
But - if you think you might like to translate a few stanzas for your next sermon on the mount, (or church fundraiser) - do read the small print.
"The original item itself is in the public domain in most jurisdictions and therefore not protected by copyright under applicable laws. However rights in the electronic copy and certain associated metadata are owned by the holding institutions. If you wish to make use of this electronic copy or its metadata other than for non-commercial personal or educational use, you must first obtain the written permission of the relevant institution."
It does seem a bit anachronistic you must admit... (although having created translations in multiple languages I understand that there is a lot of work behind making this available.) Full marks though for making this unique resource available for non-commercial and educational use...
Bit of a shame the church is a commercial organisation though ;-)
Generally that's a good thing - lots of works easily accessible online, simple to find and simple to buy (or download for free from sites like the excellent Project Gutenberg). There is one small fly in the ointment though. Conversion to e-format means a whole new copyright on existing works that are already in the public domain.... so although we, the public, own them - someone else gets to set their monopoly on them and sell it back to us. Isn't that slightly strange?
This is highlighted by today's news that the Codex Sinaiticus- an early christian bible from the 4th century, & one of the world's greatest literary treasures - is now available on-line. Great!
But - if you think you might like to translate a few stanzas for your next sermon on the mount, (or church fundraiser) - do read the small print.
"The original item itself is in the public domain in most jurisdictions and therefore not protected by copyright under applicable laws. However rights in the electronic copy and certain associated metadata are owned by the holding institutions. If you wish to make use of this electronic copy or its metadata other than for non-commercial personal or educational use, you must first obtain the written permission of the relevant institution."
It does seem a bit anachronistic you must admit... (although having created translations in multiple languages I understand that there is a lot of work behind making this available.) Full marks though for making this unique resource available for non-commercial and educational use...
Bit of a shame the church is a commercial organisation though ;-)
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Piracy on the UK airwaves
Well almost.
The Pirate Party is a newly formed, as yet unregistered, political party in the UK. They support the same political platform as Piratpartiet here in Sweden - protection of citizens rights for privacy, and reform of copyright and patent legislation to bring these back into balance and stimulate innovation in the digital economy.
In the wake of the recent UK's Digital Britain report Johnathan Phan of the the UKPP was interviewed by Channel Four and tells them why information sharing is fundamental to our cultural heritage. It's a media first for UKPP -even if in the end it was not broadcast. Good on yer Johnathan.
I'd embed the clip, but they want you to go there and view it.....
The Pirate Party is a newly formed, as yet unregistered, political party in the UK. They support the same political platform as Piratpartiet here in Sweden - protection of citizens rights for privacy, and reform of copyright and patent legislation to bring these back into balance and stimulate innovation in the digital economy.
In the wake of the recent UK's Digital Britain report Johnathan Phan of the the UKPP was interviewed by Channel Four and tells them why information sharing is fundamental to our cultural heritage. It's a media first for UKPP -even if in the end it was not broadcast. Good on yer Johnathan.
I'd embed the clip, but they want you to go there and view it.....
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Hadopi castrated
The Open rights group report that the French Constitutional Council have ruled on the contraversial Hadopi laws in France - finding that the presumption of innocence is more important than protection of copyright. All sanctional powers to disconnect users from the Internet are reportedly removed from the act.
Couldn't the french government have asked some lawyers first and saved themselves the aggravation?!
Couldn't the french government have asked some lawyers first and saved themselves the aggravation?!
Monday, 1 June 2009
Steal with pride - the Canadian way
The Conference Board of Canada - a Canadian think-tank - is withdrawing a report on the Digital Economy saying it didn't live up to their high quality research standards.
The report, funded by tax-payers, included sections plagiarised from US copyright lobbyists, the International Intellectual Property Alliance - and discarded contradictory evidence material from their own analysts....
Jeeez.. it's so unfair when you get caught out like that!
This blog entry on the other hand is plagiarised from Boingboing....
...just so you know
The report, funded by tax-payers, included sections plagiarised from US copyright lobbyists, the International Intellectual Property Alliance - and discarded contradictory evidence material from their own analysts....
Jeeez.. it's so unfair when you get caught out like that!
This blog entry on the other hand is plagiarised from Boingboing....
...just so you know
Thursday, 28 May 2009
Among the captains of industry.
Quite by accident I saw yesterday that Anna Troberg, vice chairman in Piratpartiet, was on the closing discussion panel at Bredbandsdagarna here in Stockholm. If I'd seen it sooner I would have made an effort to go and see how the debate went.
Bredbandsdagarna is an event that draws together operators, vendors and analysts in the broadband industry to discuss a wide range of topics both technical and business. In the run up to the EU elections it might seem like a low profile place to be but looking in the longer term it's absolutely the place to carry the debate - and with only one other politician on the speakers list it shows how important the PPs voice is on this issue. Sweden is at the forefront of international debate on the future of the internet, the right to privacy and the need for copyright reform - and Piratpartiet is clearly the voice bringing new ideas and fresh vision to the issue.
It's clear that business opinion carries weight in the debate. Money talks... It's what lobbying is all about. But it's by no means clear that it talks with a single voice. Internet solutions that put costs with operators for policing and income and profit in the media industry don't win any favours with the operators - even if they are effectively hostaged to the media industry to get content for new services. You only have to look at operators reluctance to cough up customer's details under IPRED to see that different players can have very different views...
In the wider scene the media industry is not big business.. telecoms is ... and it's an industry much more accustomed to changing how they do business in step with changing technology - so opinion here can clearly have influence in the wider debate.
New ideas take time to take root, but in any case, first you have to sow the seed. Great job Anna!
Bredbandsdagarna is an event that draws together operators, vendors and analysts in the broadband industry to discuss a wide range of topics both technical and business. In the run up to the EU elections it might seem like a low profile place to be but looking in the longer term it's absolutely the place to carry the debate - and with only one other politician on the speakers list it shows how important the PPs voice is on this issue. Sweden is at the forefront of international debate on the future of the internet, the right to privacy and the need for copyright reform - and Piratpartiet is clearly the voice bringing new ideas and fresh vision to the issue.
It's clear that business opinion carries weight in the debate. Money talks... It's what lobbying is all about. But it's by no means clear that it talks with a single voice. Internet solutions that put costs with operators for policing and income and profit in the media industry don't win any favours with the operators - even if they are effectively hostaged to the media industry to get content for new services. You only have to look at operators reluctance to cough up customer's details under IPRED to see that different players can have very different views...
In the wider scene the media industry is not big business.. telecoms is ... and it's an industry much more accustomed to changing how they do business in step with changing technology - so opinion here can clearly have influence in the wider debate.
New ideas take time to take root, but in any case, first you have to sow the seed. Great job Anna!
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Ducking the issue
Last night was the first candidates debate on SVT Agenda - a chance for the party leaders to trade blows on the issues in advance of the EU election. I didn't see it but by all accounts (and disregarding what was said) it was a strange affair.
Even before it went on air Piratpartiet were vocally decrying that they had no invite... This despite now being the third largest party - in terms of membership - and having had several poll results showing they have enough support to get a seat. Not only that but privacy, personal integrity and state intervention in the internet have been big news for the last year - and all have a European dimension.
It could be deliberate attempt to deny the Pirates a voice - but it smacks a little of stage management since the debate didn't in fact focus on EU issues at all ...something that ststsministern Fredrik Reinfeldt was none too pleaased of either.
The issues that the Pirate party campaign on - personal integrity, copyright and patent reform are important enough for the electorate to win them 5% of voter support on just that issue. Many other voters must think it important too but will choose to vote for a party that has a broader platform that they campaign on. A not insignificant slice of the electorate then...
Piratpartiet has the country's biggest youth party - bigger than any other two put together and draws disproportionate support among the young - which includes first time voters in this election - so excluding PP is in a sense alienating young voters at a time when people complain of voter apathy.
Political parties are a bit like banks... We pick one and stick with it.... so it is bad news for the established parties to duck the debate with Piratpartiet. ..and surprising for the programmers as well to miss the chance to have them there. Having PP on the show would sharpen the debate - and give parties a chance to show whether Piratpartiens abstinence on other issues was significant or not...
So, by my reckoning, the pirates missed out, the other parties missed out, and the voters missed out. So who was it for...??? And why run a debate on domestic politics when we are about to vote on representation in Europe?!?
Even before it went on air Piratpartiet were vocally decrying that they had no invite... This despite now being the third largest party - in terms of membership - and having had several poll results showing they have enough support to get a seat. Not only that but privacy, personal integrity and state intervention in the internet have been big news for the last year - and all have a European dimension.
It could be deliberate attempt to deny the Pirates a voice - but it smacks a little of stage management since the debate didn't in fact focus on EU issues at all ...something that ststsministern Fredrik Reinfeldt was none too pleaased of either.
The issues that the Pirate party campaign on - personal integrity, copyright and patent reform are important enough for the electorate to win them 5% of voter support on just that issue. Many other voters must think it important too but will choose to vote for a party that has a broader platform that they campaign on. A not insignificant slice of the electorate then...
Piratpartiet has the country's biggest youth party - bigger than any other two put together and draws disproportionate support among the young - which includes first time voters in this election - so excluding PP is in a sense alienating young voters at a time when people complain of voter apathy.
Political parties are a bit like banks... We pick one and stick with it.... so it is bad news for the established parties to duck the debate with Piratpartiet. ..and surprising for the programmers as well to miss the chance to have them there. Having PP on the show would sharpen the debate - and give parties a chance to show whether Piratpartiens abstinence on other issues was significant or not...
So, by my reckoning, the pirates missed out, the other parties missed out, and the voters missed out. So who was it for...??? And why run a debate on domestic politics when we are about to vote on representation in Europe?!?
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
The scent of sanity in Paris
If I ring my mates to organise a bank raid no one really expects my phone company to end up in court... ..and if I decide my finances need a boost and send out a bunch of fake invoices to a few unsuspecting companies it's not the post office that finds itself in the dock. So why is it that in intellectual property crime the rights holders seem to think the operators and application service providers are fair game for lawsuits and other bullying?
In verdict that has that scent of sanity eBay have just won a case in France against L'Oreal over sales of counterfeit perfumes - basically saying they are not responsible for whether or not goods advertised on their site are genuine or not. More pragmatically, I think the verdict actually means that the court was satisfied that eBay are doing enough to fulfil any duty to protect the public and rights holders from fraudulent advertising.
Of course if we adopted the media industry principle we could see people seeking damages from billboard companies that allowed advertising for cigarettes, and car showrooms up in court for aiding and abetting reckless driving... we could even see consumers being sued because they're sending firms bankrupt by not buying their products.
In verdict that has that scent of sanity eBay have just won a case in France against L'Oreal over sales of counterfeit perfumes - basically saying they are not responsible for whether or not goods advertised on their site are genuine or not. More pragmatically, I think the verdict actually means that the court was satisfied that eBay are doing enough to fulfil any duty to protect the public and rights holders from fraudulent advertising.
Of course if we adopted the media industry principle we could see people seeking damages from billboard companies that allowed advertising for cigarettes, and car showrooms up in court for aiding and abetting reckless driving... we could even see consumers being sued because they're sending firms bankrupt by not buying their products.
Sunday, 10 May 2009
Money for nothing?
I came across a link at 'The Brand Man' to an interesting report by Handelshøyskolen BI in Norway on downloading of music and CD sales - a consumer survey comparing CD purchases, paid and free downloads from May to November 2008.
What it shows is that young people (15-20yrs) are twice as likely to download music as the rest of us - whether free or paid for. But the really interesting statistic is that young people that donload free music use paid downloads around ten times as much as their peers that don't download.
Less marked, but still of interest is that in the rest of the population people using free downloads are buying around 10% more CDs than those that don't download. (People of all ages paying for downloaded music also buy more CDs)
People that go looking for music are interested in music.... not really rocket science. But it does highlight that by targetting people downloading music for free the music industry is most probably attacking their best customers......
What it shows is that young people (15-20yrs) are twice as likely to download music as the rest of us - whether free or paid for. But the really interesting statistic is that young people that donload free music use paid downloads around ten times as much as their peers that don't download.
Less marked, but still of interest is that in the rest of the population people using free downloads are buying around 10% more CDs than those that don't download. (People of all ages paying for downloaded music also buy more CDs)
People that go looking for music are interested in music.... not really rocket science. But it does highlight that by targetting people downloading music for free the music industry is most probably attacking their best customers......
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Ethical justice?
In a new twist in the Pirate Bay trial a Swedish radio report has questioned the impartiality of the judge handling the trial. He is apparently a both member of the 'Swedish Society for Copyright' (Svenska föreningen för upphovsrätt) and a board member for the 'Swedish Society for the protection of Industrial Rights' (Svenska föreningen för industriellt rättsskydd).
But he doesn't think this affects his impartiality in the case...
But he doesn't think this affects his impartiality in the case...
Thursday, 16 April 2009
Privacy on the frontline
The verdict on The Pirate Bay trial is due tomorrow - and will surely get a lot of coverage in the press. But since the trial ended the legal landscape here has changed with the introduction of IPRED - legislation allowing copyright owners to gain access to the identities behind an IP address.
So before tomorows hype, how is it going with IPRED?
So far it seems three applications have been made to the courts, and all three raise issues of one sort or another.
The first related to someone allegedly making lots of Swedish literature freely available as e-books on the web. It sounded fairly clearcut until it came out that the site is not an open site but an FTP server with secure access - raising significant concerns about just how the Antipiratbyrån got access to the site without breaking legislation on data security.
The second case is interesting. A company is seeking information on an IP address that gained unauthorised access to their company systems (including copyrighted information). The evidence presented reportedly doesn't include evidence of any copied work so it's hard to see it getting approved - but it highlights how this legislation is open to scope-creep... Using other legislation would man a police investigation, and this way you can investigate yourself (with greater powers than the police).
The third case is a Pirate party member seeking information on who is downloading their songs. This is meant mostly to test the system - can anyone armed with a screen dump or two go to the courts - and do rights owners really have the same support under the new law that corporate media interests do? Interesting to watch that one...
More recently it's reported that Internet Service Provider Bahnhof (who offer 'integrity-marked' broadband) don't, and aren't going, to save records of who used which IP address when. They point to existing laws that require operators to anonymise traffic records 'when they are no longer needed'. A survey in Göteborgs-Posten shows despite this that all the broadband operators questioned do in fact keep copies of IP Address records.
Deleting IP details like this has been discussed in the press as a loophole - but it is a pre-existing legal requirement and ought to be an existing part of all operators processes. IPRED doesn't require operators to store information - only to give out the information they have when ordered by the court. "We don't have that information" ought then to be the most legitimate answer they can give...
..at least until they change the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
