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?
Showing posts with label informationspolitik. Show all posts
Showing posts with label informationspolitik. Show all posts
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
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.
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
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!
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!
Sunday, 5 December 2010
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
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...
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
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...
Saturday, 23 October 2010
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....
Tuesday, 7 September 2010
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
From March 2010
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Working for copyright reform
Monday, 6 September 2010
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!
(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!
Friday, 23 July 2010
New technology threatens democracy: European commission reports
"The new technologies inherently tend to shift the balance of power away from the individual towards those who hold data on them: the terms “data subject” and “controller” are gaining deeper, more sinister meaning. Some technologies can sometimes be used to counter some of this - but they are much weaker and often inherently less effective than claimed or believed. Unless we tame the new technologies, their unimpeded use will undermine democratic society itself. And the tool to tame the machine in this respect is data protection."
When a European Commission report talks about impending changes undermining democratic society itself then it's definitely time to sit up and take notice...
Over at The Lift I found a reference to a recent report commissioned by the European Commission on the coming challenges for Data Protection (and by implication privacy). The report is well balanced and erudite and makes interesting reading... looking at issues like authorities sharing data across international boundaries, data mining and profiling, privacy concerns with social networking, and securing data protection when your web activity itself is not limited to national boundaries. Or more simply put... how the law needs to evolve to protect your rights to privacy.
The report 'has been kept short' and is only 57 pages... Good bedtime reading
When a European Commission report talks about impending changes undermining democratic society itself then it's definitely time to sit up and take notice...
Over at The Lift I found a reference to a recent report commissioned by the European Commission on the coming challenges for Data Protection (and by implication privacy). The report is well balanced and erudite and makes interesting reading... looking at issues like authorities sharing data across international boundaries, data mining and profiling, privacy concerns with social networking, and securing data protection when your web activity itself is not limited to national boundaries. Or more simply put... how the law needs to evolve to protect your rights to privacy.
The report 'has been kept short' and is only 57 pages... Good bedtime reading
Thursday, 22 July 2010
Let's play privacy invaders: EU, ACTA and the Digital Economy Act
When I think of privacy I think of going about my business unhindered and unmonitored by the state.. or anyone else for that matter. It's a right.. and curiously I expect the law to not only respect that right but also to protect it. But expectations and reality don't always match up.
This week though these are some positive signs that privacy concerns are starting to be taken more seriously.
First off, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that EU data protection officials have been looking into the EUs Data Retention Directive and how it has been applied in the member states. Their findings are depressing reading ...
"The provisions of the data retention directive are not respected and the lack of available sensible statistics hinders the assessment of whether the directive has achieved its objectives."
The good news is that it's not until abuses are visible that you can do something about it. The timing here is also good as the directive is up for review and this can contribute to revision or repeal of the directive which, in my view, inherently is a gross violation of people's privacy.
Meanwhile, the same Article 29 committee has also raised concerns about the privacy implications of the ACTA agreement (see Michael Geist for excellent coverage on ACTA).
"WP29 emphasizes that any form of large scale monitoring or systematic recording of data of EU citizens would be contrary to the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC since that would affect millions of individuals, regardless of whether or not they are under any suspicion."
After a critical look at other provisions - including making service providers hand over personal data to copyright holders they conclude:
"Copyright infringement needs to be dealt with on a global scale and requires international cooperation. However the way things stand now, several of the proposed measures are in the end bound to interfere with the private life of many citizens.
In the EU, any such interference is subject to EU fundamental rights and must be proportional. Given the aspects of ACTA currently under negotiation and outlined above, the WP29 remains to be convinced that this will be the case."
The third piece of good news is really a consequence of the above... or at least a supporting document from the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) giving a full analysis of objections to the three strikes principle. The Open Rights Group highlight that this expert opinion should have implications for the UK governments Digital Economy Act - at least the parts dealing with combating copyright infringement .
In the words of the EDPS:
"...the monitoring of Internet user's behaviour and further collection of their IP addresses amounts to an interference with their rights to respect for their private life and their correspondence; in other words, there is an interference with their right to private life. This view is in line with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. "
The bottom line seems to be that letting copyright holders loose as private police with powers to request private details on anyone they choose is likely to end up the wrong side of EU rights legislation.... which would be a welcome victory for our collective privacy.
Piratpartiet and The Pirate Party - Putting privacy first.
This week though these are some positive signs that privacy concerns are starting to be taken more seriously.
First off, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that EU data protection officials have been looking into the EUs Data Retention Directive and how it has been applied in the member states. Their findings are depressing reading ...
- Service providers retain and hand over data in ways they shouldn't.
- data retention often exceeds the maximum allowed under the directive - in some case by as much as eight years!
- More data is being held than the directive allows - including in some cases message content and not just traffic data.
- Callers locations are being monitored continuously under a call - contravening the directives provisions
"The provisions of the data retention directive are not respected and the lack of available sensible statistics hinders the assessment of whether the directive has achieved its objectives."
The good news is that it's not until abuses are visible that you can do something about it. The timing here is also good as the directive is up for review and this can contribute to revision or repeal of the directive which, in my view, inherently is a gross violation of people's privacy.
Meanwhile, the same Article 29 committee has also raised concerns about the privacy implications of the ACTA agreement (see Michael Geist for excellent coverage on ACTA).
"WP29 emphasizes that any form of large scale monitoring or systematic recording of data of EU citizens would be contrary to the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC since that would affect millions of individuals, regardless of whether or not they are under any suspicion."
After a critical look at other provisions - including making service providers hand over personal data to copyright holders they conclude:
"Copyright infringement needs to be dealt with on a global scale and requires international cooperation. However the way things stand now, several of the proposed measures are in the end bound to interfere with the private life of many citizens.
In the EU, any such interference is subject to EU fundamental rights and must be proportional. Given the aspects of ACTA currently under negotiation and outlined above, the WP29 remains to be convinced that this will be the case."
The third piece of good news is really a consequence of the above... or at least a supporting document from the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) giving a full analysis of objections to the three strikes principle. The Open Rights Group highlight that this expert opinion should have implications for the UK governments Digital Economy Act - at least the parts dealing with combating copyright infringement .
In the words of the EDPS:
"...the monitoring of Internet user's behaviour and further collection of their IP addresses amounts to an interference with their rights to respect for their private life and their correspondence; in other words, there is an interference with their right to private life. This view is in line with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. "
The bottom line seems to be that letting copyright holders loose as private police with powers to request private details on anyone they choose is likely to end up the wrong side of EU rights legislation.... which would be a welcome victory for our collective privacy.
Piratpartiet and The Pirate Party - Putting privacy first.
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
Copyright: How long is long enough?
Last week there was a ruling in Australia on what Men At Work get to pay out for having copied a riff from an Australian folk tune published over 70 years ago... It's actually a folk tune that I learned i school when I was a kid and I have to say I've never even thought about the similarity to 'Down Under'.
It's an interesting reminder though of what it means to have copyright terms that stretch long after an author or artists lifetime. The band clearly made a fair bit of money from their hit - and now have to take a 5% cut from their royalties to pay... well who exactly?
The value for society in copyright lies in the ability to stimulate creativity by giving limited monopoly rights to creators. But here we see that the active creators, the band, are penalised to the benefit of a publishing house who are milking the benefits of someone else's creativity (Marion Sinclair- who died 22 years ago).
Are long copyright terms really serving society's interests? Even within a songwriter or artist's lifetime there is a clear disincentive to create new material if existing material continues to enjoy protection for the rest of their life. The more talented and successful the creator the less incentive they have to work again. Aren't they just the people that society wants to be most active?
Shorter copyright terms increase incentives to bring out and market new innovative material - and will hugely increase the free availability of older materal to be used in new creative ways. It should mean a richer world for all of us... though we might hear some complaints from beyond the veil....
It's an interesting reminder though of what it means to have copyright terms that stretch long after an author or artists lifetime. The band clearly made a fair bit of money from their hit - and now have to take a 5% cut from their royalties to pay... well who exactly?
The value for society in copyright lies in the ability to stimulate creativity by giving limited monopoly rights to creators. But here we see that the active creators, the band, are penalised to the benefit of a publishing house who are milking the benefits of someone else's creativity (Marion Sinclair- who died 22 years ago).
Are long copyright terms really serving society's interests? Even within a songwriter or artist's lifetime there is a clear disincentive to create new material if existing material continues to enjoy protection for the rest of their life. The more talented and successful the creator the less incentive they have to work again. Aren't they just the people that society wants to be most active?
Shorter copyright terms increase incentives to bring out and market new innovative material - and will hugely increase the free availability of older materal to be used in new creative ways. It should mean a richer world for all of us... though we might hear some complaints from beyond the veil....
Friday, 11 June 2010
Thinking 'After Intellectual Property'
I know. I'm behind the times... but wisdom doesn't age. If you've not seen Steal This Film, do. A great perspective on the intellectual property debate...
"These are strange times indeed. While they continue to command so much attention in the mainstream media, the 'battles' between old and new modes of distribution, between the pirate and the institution of copyright, seem to many of us already lost and won. We know who the victors are. Why then say any more?
Because waves of repression continue to come: lawsuits are still levied against innocent people; arrests are still made on flimsy pretexts, in order to terrify and confuse; harsh laws are still enacted against filesharing, taking their place in the gradual erosion of our privacy and the bolstering of the surveillance state. All of this is intended to destroy or delay inexorable changes in what it means to create and exchange our creations. If STEAL THIS FILM II proves at all useful in bringing new people into the leagues of those now" prepared to think 'after intellectual property', think creatively about the future of distribution, production and creativity, we have achieved our main goal."
"These are strange times indeed. While they continue to command so much attention in the mainstream media, the 'battles' between old and new modes of distribution, between the pirate and the institution of copyright, seem to many of us already lost and won. We know who the victors are. Why then say any more?
Because waves of repression continue to come: lawsuits are still levied against innocent people; arrests are still made on flimsy pretexts, in order to terrify and confuse; harsh laws are still enacted against filesharing, taking their place in the gradual erosion of our privacy and the bolstering of the surveillance state. All of this is intended to destroy or delay inexorable changes in what it means to create and exchange our creations. If STEAL THIS FILM II proves at all useful in bringing new people into the leagues of those now" prepared to think 'after intellectual property', think creatively about the future of distribution, production and creativity, we have achieved our main goal."
Thursday, 10 June 2010
India goes in to bat against ACTA
Trade is a two way street... and if you decide to make a private club to rewrite the rules it's maybe not surprising that the people you choose to leave out don't have the same rosy view of your club as you do. At the latest meeting of the World trade Organisation India has been speaking out about ACTA.
"ACTA could short-change legal process, impede legitimate competition and shift the escalated costs of enforcing private commercial rights to governments, consumers and taxpayers. They also represent a systemic threat to the rights of legitimate traders and producers of goods, and fundamental rights of due process of individuals."
Right on the wicket..... More on India's objections to ACTA over at Michael Geist.
"ACTA could short-change legal process, impede legitimate competition and shift the escalated costs of enforcing private commercial rights to governments, consumers and taxpayers. They also represent a systemic threat to the rights of legitimate traders and producers of goods, and fundamental rights of due process of individuals."
Right on the wicket..... More on India's objections to ACTA over at Michael Geist.
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Britannia regains her pride...
The LibDems report on the proposed programme for the new coalition government.
Under Civil Liberties
"The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.
Can we get Habeus Corpus back too....?
Under Civil Liberties
"The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.
This will include:
- A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.
- The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
- Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
- The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
- Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
- The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
- The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.
- The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
- Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
- Further regulation of CCTV.
- Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
- A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences."
Can we get Habeus Corpus back too....?
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Big boost in online income for UK Music
(resurrected from my drafts folder...)
PRS for Music - the UK Performing Rights Society has reported on their income for 2009. It's timely as UK MPs prepare to vote on Digital Britain's future to see what dire warnings it gives about the state of music today... what with all that piracy and all....
So what do we find?
Napster was a decade ago... Did it have to take this long?
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Make your voice heard.
PRS for Music - the UK Performing Rights Society has reported on their income for 2009. It's timely as UK MPs prepare to vote on Digital Britain's future to see what dire warnings it gives about the state of music today... what with all that piracy and all....
So what do we find?
- income from digital music downloads is up by over 70%
- income from performances is up by 2,5%
- income from overseas is up 19%
- income from recorded media is down 8,7%
- the rise in income from downloads exceeds the drop in CD sales for the first time.
Napster was a decade ago... Did it have to take this long?
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Make your voice heard.
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Digital Britain down the drain...
The Digital Economy.. that needs openness and innovation to thrive and grow today lies fettered by the Digital Economy Bill... a bill drafted to serve the interests of vested media industry interests, not to provide vehicle to stimulate and nurture all that the web could provide. It's a bill that sets economics above rights and political machination above open democratic debate. It's a bad bill.. and a bad day seeing it on the statute books.
"I've heard arguments that I should be responsible for the Internet connection I pay for, just as a business is responsible for its network activities. Please! Let's put this into perspective - I'm a working mother of four children aged between 14 and 21. I'm not a network administrator, and pardon me if I'm too busy being a mother to commit my time to monitoring the home Internet connection. Also, even if I somehow managed to look over all four of their shoulders whenever they were online, I wouldn't know what I'm looking at..." Vanessa.. Mother of four
...taken from the comments on an article in the Daily Record where the Scottich Law Society comment the bill...
"This in our view raises serious concerns with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law." Law Society of Scotland
The possibilities for injustice are legend.
I hope our MPs are proud?
"As a twice ex-Whip, I am rather embarrassed by the fact that the Bill is being railroaded through in the wash-up. Frankly, there has been a squalid deal between the three Front Benches, and they should be ashamed of themselves. The people who care about this Bill -and there are many out there -will see that for what it is." Tom Watson MP
Of course... politicians are ultimately answerable to us the electorate.... so you might be interested to know which of our representatives had the spine and the vision to vote against the whips in the interests of our digital future... The full list here
No compromise on Digital Rights..
It's time to vote Pirate!
Piratpartiet &; The Pirate Party - Make your voice heard.
"I've heard arguments that I should be responsible for the Internet connection I pay for, just as a business is responsible for its network activities. Please! Let's put this into perspective - I'm a working mother of four children aged between 14 and 21. I'm not a network administrator, and pardon me if I'm too busy being a mother to commit my time to monitoring the home Internet connection. Also, even if I somehow managed to look over all four of their shoulders whenever they were online, I wouldn't know what I'm looking at..." Vanessa.. Mother of four
...taken from the comments on an article in the Daily Record where the Scottich Law Society comment the bill...
"This in our view raises serious concerns with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law." Law Society of Scotland
The possibilities for injustice are legend.
I hope our MPs are proud?
"As a twice ex-Whip, I am rather embarrassed by the fact that the Bill is being railroaded through in the wash-up. Frankly, there has been a squalid deal between the three Front Benches, and they should be ashamed of themselves. The people who care about this Bill -and there are many out there -will see that for what it is." Tom Watson MP
Of course... politicians are ultimately answerable to us the electorate.... so you might be interested to know which of our representatives had the spine and the vision to vote against the whips in the interests of our digital future... The full list here
No compromise on Digital Rights..
It's time to vote Pirate!
Piratpartiet &; The Pirate Party - Make your voice heard.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Vote Pirate!: Pirate Party UK issues it's manifesto
The Pirate Party have now launched their manifesto for the forthcoming UK elections. There are LOTS of good stuff on the list - including tackling many of the UKs biggest shortfalls in building a free and fair society for the digital age.... in the areas of privacy, surveillance, data protection and intellectual property. It's a manifesto aimed at protecing and strengthening the rights of the individual.
Here is the shortform version..
"We will give the public the following new rights:
Here is the shortform version..
"We will give the public the following new rights:
- The right to share files provided no money changes hands.
- The right to format shift and time shift data.
- The right of access to government funded data.
- The right to compensation for government data loss.
- The right to safely encrypt private data.
- The right to apply to a court for compensation where data protection laws have been broken.
- The right for constituents to force a by-election.
- The right to pay only for the fraction of the claimed broadband speed that an ISP actually delivers.
- The right to be a whistleblower.
- The right for photographers and filmmakers to go about their business without persecution under anti-terror laws.
- The right for disabled people to demand an unrestricted version of DRM protected content where that is necessary to allow them to access it.
- We will abolish drug patents, replacing them with subsidies.
- We will reduce the length of copyright to 10 years.
- We will provide exemptions to patent law for non-commercial use, personal study and academic research.
- We will introduce system of compulsory patent licensing
- We will reform libel law.
- We will prohibit the abuse of RIPA powers.
- We will remove loopholes in copyright and patent law.
- We will forbid third parties from intercepting or monitoring communication traffic
- We will introduce a mandatory warning label on products that include DRM.
- We will introduce laws on the acceptable use of CCTV and DNA samples.
- We will legislate in favour of net neutrality.
- We will introduce stronger data protection laws
- We will not allow government censorship of the internet
- We will put into action the government's Open Source Action Plan.
- We will require the BBC to release all their content under a Creative Commons licence.
- We will prevent the BBC from using DRM technology.
- We will ensure better computing education in schools."
Saturday, 20 March 2010
Seeing what you want to see. The ICC Digital Economy report.
Thirty two billion euros and six hundred thousand jobs by 2015. Those are the losses due to piracy projected by the ICC report "Building a Digital Economy". Scary stuff...
The report is interesting reading but not totally convincing. If it were a climate report it's the type of publication that would have climate sceptics baying for blood. I'll give some comment here and if you want more analysis read on at Technollamna, Tumbled Logic, and Open.... Overall the authors I think have done a good job of setting out what they have done, and importantly what they have assumed - and in that sense it's a valuable input to the debate that bears study.
My first and biggest problem with the report is that it sets out to evaluate the damage done by piracy - and as such finds the result it is looking for. It isn't a holistic view of the economy and doesn't consider balancing factors - like increased bandwidth usage from non-commercial sharing stimulating the telecoms sector.
The basic premise of the report is that the creative industries and supporting sectors are a major part of the economy and are at serious risk from piracy. They then present figures that show that piracy as they evaluate it amounts to around a 2% of creative industry value. Noticeable but not at a level that supports the premise that piracy is killing creativity. Moreover, they include in their assessments non core industry sectors like paper production (and production of physical recording media) which are much more at risk from the rise of the digital economy than they are from piracy.
They then evaluate piracy losses based on two scenarios - one based on forecast growth of file sharing traffic (+18% p.a) - and the other based on overall growth of consumer IP traffic (+24% p.a). This second scenario, professionally speaking, I consider pure fantasy as consumer IP traffic is likely to be driven by legitimate online and IP-TV rather than an explosive growth in piracy.
Both scenarios miss an important element in a holistic view - which is the consumer's ability to pay. Predictions of traffic growth are based on significant reductions in cost per bit. There is no assumption that consumers are prepared to pay 18-24% per year more for bandwidth - and there clearly is no rationale to think that the value of pirated content conversion to legitimate sales would rise at those rates either.
Put another way - the study assumes a constant percentage of pirated content is lost revenues. Households don't have limitless pockets though, so realistically if content piracy increases the hypothetical conversion is likely to fall. Without some validation of what consumer spending trends are for entertainment content the numbers given are just wishful thinking.
In fact, Tumbled Logic suggests why current trends on Torrent downloading could mean conversion of downloads to sales could be as low as 0,5% - which would cut the estimates in this study by a huge 95%. Assumptions are crucial in reaching a trustworthy result.....
Next we hear how piracy is having huge impacts on the music industry and that reductions in physícal disc sales have collapsed and that piracy must be to blame. This is supposition not supported by the evidence... There is clear evidence that revenues from live performances have substantially increased and that the total music industry revenues including these are stable - and further evidence that shows that there is a switch in buying behaviour from music and other passive media to games - a sector that shows significant growth. Less piracy may have inhibited that shift to live performance and games, but where's the evidence that less piracy would grow the overall available market?
Again, unless a study can substantiate a growth in consumer spending on media over and above existing levels (with for instance cinema attendances at record levels) how can you project huge losses? Here in lies the rub.... as a consumer if I spend more on music, or TV or video, then I spend less on something else. So just where is the economy going to be hit if consumers are buying all their content instead of taking a share online?
Lastly, in this whistlestop critique, is the figures for lost jobs quoted... the hypothesis is that if we increase sales on video 'X' we have more money to employ more people and to create more content. But is that a realistic view? Media companies want to maximise their profits, not maximise their output - and at the end of the day consumers have a finite budget and a finite amount of time to consume content. Is it a given that higher sales will generate employment? Better sales per production could even have the opposite effect... we don't need to create as many films/songs to generate our sales (and profit) targets - so why dilute the market by creating more content?
Seek.. and you shall find. But don't believe everything you read!
Piratpartiet &; The Pirate Party - Make your voice heard.
The report is interesting reading but not totally convincing. If it were a climate report it's the type of publication that would have climate sceptics baying for blood. I'll give some comment here and if you want more analysis read on at Technollamna, Tumbled Logic, and Open.... Overall the authors I think have done a good job of setting out what they have done, and importantly what they have assumed - and in that sense it's a valuable input to the debate that bears study.
My first and biggest problem with the report is that it sets out to evaluate the damage done by piracy - and as such finds the result it is looking for. It isn't a holistic view of the economy and doesn't consider balancing factors - like increased bandwidth usage from non-commercial sharing stimulating the telecoms sector.
The basic premise of the report is that the creative industries and supporting sectors are a major part of the economy and are at serious risk from piracy. They then present figures that show that piracy as they evaluate it amounts to around a 2% of creative industry value. Noticeable but not at a level that supports the premise that piracy is killing creativity. Moreover, they include in their assessments non core industry sectors like paper production (and production of physical recording media) which are much more at risk from the rise of the digital economy than they are from piracy.
They then evaluate piracy losses based on two scenarios - one based on forecast growth of file sharing traffic (+18% p.a) - and the other based on overall growth of consumer IP traffic (+24% p.a). This second scenario, professionally speaking, I consider pure fantasy as consumer IP traffic is likely to be driven by legitimate online and IP-TV rather than an explosive growth in piracy.
Both scenarios miss an important element in a holistic view - which is the consumer's ability to pay. Predictions of traffic growth are based on significant reductions in cost per bit. There is no assumption that consumers are prepared to pay 18-24% per year more for bandwidth - and there clearly is no rationale to think that the value of pirated content conversion to legitimate sales would rise at those rates either.
Put another way - the study assumes a constant percentage of pirated content is lost revenues. Households don't have limitless pockets though, so realistically if content piracy increases the hypothetical conversion is likely to fall. Without some validation of what consumer spending trends are for entertainment content the numbers given are just wishful thinking.
In fact, Tumbled Logic suggests why current trends on Torrent downloading could mean conversion of downloads to sales could be as low as 0,5% - which would cut the estimates in this study by a huge 95%. Assumptions are crucial in reaching a trustworthy result.....
Next we hear how piracy is having huge impacts on the music industry and that reductions in physícal disc sales have collapsed and that piracy must be to blame. This is supposition not supported by the evidence... There is clear evidence that revenues from live performances have substantially increased and that the total music industry revenues including these are stable - and further evidence that shows that there is a switch in buying behaviour from music and other passive media to games - a sector that shows significant growth. Less piracy may have inhibited that shift to live performance and games, but where's the evidence that less piracy would grow the overall available market?
Again, unless a study can substantiate a growth in consumer spending on media over and above existing levels (with for instance cinema attendances at record levels) how can you project huge losses? Here in lies the rub.... as a consumer if I spend more on music, or TV or video, then I spend less on something else. So just where is the economy going to be hit if consumers are buying all their content instead of taking a share online?
Lastly, in this whistlestop critique, is the figures for lost jobs quoted... the hypothesis is that if we increase sales on video 'X' we have more money to employ more people and to create more content. But is that a realistic view? Media companies want to maximise their profits, not maximise their output - and at the end of the day consumers have a finite budget and a finite amount of time to consume content. Is it a given that higher sales will generate employment? Better sales per production could even have the opposite effect... we don't need to create as many films/songs to generate our sales (and profit) targets - so why dilute the market by creating more content?
Seek.. and you shall find. But don't believe everything you read!
Piratpartiet &; The Pirate Party - Make your voice heard.
Monday, 15 February 2010
Pullmans malevolent voices: Freedom is too hard for you
"And the new laws whisper:
We do not want to hear you talking about truth
Truth is a friend of yours, not a friend of ours "
The quote above, and below, are from "Malevolent voices that despise our freedoms" by Philip Pullman, on Times Online. Written for last years Convention on Modern Liberty, it is the best thing I've read all year... This is just a snippet ... I encourage you. Go read it all...
(My friend in serendipity was Charles Pooter, at Little Man, What Now?...)
"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.
Inconceivable.
And those laws say:
Sleep, you stinking cowards
Sweating as you dream of rights and freedoms
Freedom is too hard for you
We shall decide what freedom is
Sleep, you vermin
Sleep, you scum. "
But let's say you are not asleep? What are you going to do about it???
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Make your voice heard.
We do not want to hear you talking about truth
Truth is a friend of yours, not a friend of ours "
The quote above, and below, are from "Malevolent voices that despise our freedoms" by Philip Pullman, on Times Online. Written for last years Convention on Modern Liberty, it is the best thing I've read all year... This is just a snippet ... I encourage you. Go read it all...
(My friend in serendipity was Charles Pooter, at Little Man, What Now?...)
"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.
Inconceivable.
And those laws say:
Sleep, you stinking cowards
Sweating as you dream of rights and freedoms
Freedom is too hard for you
We shall decide what freedom is
Sleep, you vermin
Sleep, you scum. "
But let's say you are not asleep? What are you going to do about it???
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Make your voice heard.
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Privacy in public places... and for whom?
There's been an interesting piece in the news here recently .. and to be honest I'd missed it until Rick Falkvinge mentioned it on his blog. It's about a guy, Jesper Nilsson, that sees two men coming on strong to two teenagers in the underground and decides to take pictures of it. The men, as he suspects, are plain clothes policemen, and - in a move that perhaps is strangely familiar to brits reading this -they don't take kindly to having their pictures taken (not least when they hear that the guy in question - Jesper Nilsson - runs an on-line newspage.)
Jesper reports the whole thing in length on his blog - and I have to say it's only his version of events that is fully reported. What Jesper goes on to tell is how he is put between a rock and a hard place - delete the pictures or get taken in on suspicion of being under the influence of drugs (or a breach of the peace -"ofredande"). In the end he gives in and deletes the pictures.... and a video film that's been recordig while the 'discussion' has been going on.
But.. being a resourceful chap - when he gets home Jesper manages to recover the image files from the phones memory - and even to get a (slightly garbled) section of the the film after sending the damaged file off for repair.
These all posted on his blog. He has reported the policemen and enquiry has been started - and, meanwhile, he policemen have reported him for breach of Swedens PUL - data protection legislation that limits the publishing of individuals personal details (including photos).
The story raises all sorts of interesting questions about public life and privacy.
Are you allowed to photograph policemen doing their job in a public place?
In Sweden at least the answer to this seems to be implicitly yes.. In Sweden you may photograph anyone anywhere, as long as you are in a public place or are not forbidden by the owners of whereever you find yourself.
But is the underground a public place?
Stockholms underground is a public sector utility, run on a day to day basis by a private contractor. Despite being used by hundreds of thousands of people everyday I suspect it doesn't count though as a public place - there are for instance guidelines on when you need to ask permission to take pictures or film.. but for non-commercial private use you don't need permission. (Bear in mind that in a recent IPRED case a password protected server was considered not to be private because it could be accessed by around 20 000 people)
So Mr Nilsson may take pictures as long as he doesn't intend to use them commercially.. or publish them (which begs the question of what happens if you change your mind after you've taken a picture?)
But it seems he thought of publishing them from the start, and has in fact now done so...
So, if he wasn't allowed to photograph, can a policeman tell him not to?
Assuming they understood the details of the photography policy, shouldn't it still be an employee of the underground that objects to them taking the photo?
Mr Nilsson now has pictures in his phone that he perhaps had no permission to take. Can a policeman order him to delete them? Well clearly they can - but in Sweden at least they have no right to.... uncomfortable as it may be to be caught on film in the course of duty, they can't ask you to delete them.
Now the next part is interesting... because the rules for PUL are different if you are a journalist publishing in the news than if you are an individual posting to an unofficial news channel like a blog. So..
You've had a bad day and decide to write about it on your blog. Do you have to censor it to protect the privacy of individuals that have the main role in the events? On his blog Mr Nilsson risks running fóul of data protection rules - whereas on his online paper he wouldn't. Nor do all the mainstreams that have since reported the case - including the names of the policement concerned. Should there be different rights to publish what very much seems to be a topic of real public interest if you choose an unofficial channel?
Now interestingly Mr Nilsson never names the policemen concerned - in fact he complains that they never showed him any identification to show they were in fact policemen. So - in the context of a public official carrying out their duties in a public place - is there an issue in reporting on their behaviour? What's the balance between accountability of public officials and their right to privacy ? - when that right is being invoked as a threat intended to censor? While it may be right for a spokeperson for the state to remain anonymous - because it is their official position not their private life that's in the public view -in this case it is just that their alleged behaviour doesn't match up to the expected standard of behaviour that makes publishing the event of public interest.. and even in the state's interest. Faith in the police depends on just and fair dealing with ALL the public.
And of course... most importantly, what sort of world are we coming to if policemen are using intimidating threats against a member of the public just because they don't like what they are doing?
Which is not to say that this is common behaviour in the police - but if what's alleged is true it's an horrific abuse of power.
.......................................................
Lastly.. by way of a footnote.. reading the conditions for taking film and pictures in the underground I spotted that it's not allowed to take commercial pictures of graffiti, people jumping the turnstiles and a range of other things that might show the underground in a negative light.
"Det är heller inte tillåtet att filma eller fotografera vandalisering eller graffiti, så kallad plankning, våld mot resenärer eller personal, rökning eller användande av illegala droger eller personer som vistas i SL-trafiken utan giltig biljett."
Doesn't that smack a little of censorship???
Piratpartiet and The Pirate Party - Putting privacy first.
Jesper reports the whole thing in length on his blog - and I have to say it's only his version of events that is fully reported. What Jesper goes on to tell is how he is put between a rock and a hard place - delete the pictures or get taken in on suspicion of being under the influence of drugs (or a breach of the peace -"ofredande"). In the end he gives in and deletes the pictures.... and a video film that's been recordig while the 'discussion' has been going on.
But.. being a resourceful chap - when he gets home Jesper manages to recover the image files from the phones memory - and even to get a (slightly garbled) section of the the film after sending the damaged file off for repair.
These all posted on his blog. He has reported the policemen and enquiry has been started - and, meanwhile, he policemen have reported him for breach of Swedens PUL - data protection legislation that limits the publishing of individuals personal details (including photos).
The story raises all sorts of interesting questions about public life and privacy.
Are you allowed to photograph policemen doing their job in a public place?
In Sweden at least the answer to this seems to be implicitly yes.. In Sweden you may photograph anyone anywhere, as long as you are in a public place or are not forbidden by the owners of whereever you find yourself.
But is the underground a public place?
Stockholms underground is a public sector utility, run on a day to day basis by a private contractor. Despite being used by hundreds of thousands of people everyday I suspect it doesn't count though as a public place - there are for instance guidelines on when you need to ask permission to take pictures or film.. but for non-commercial private use you don't need permission. (Bear in mind that in a recent IPRED case a password protected server was considered not to be private because it could be accessed by around 20 000 people)
So Mr Nilsson may take pictures as long as he doesn't intend to use them commercially.. or publish them (which begs the question of what happens if you change your mind after you've taken a picture?)
But it seems he thought of publishing them from the start, and has in fact now done so...
So, if he wasn't allowed to photograph, can a policeman tell him not to?
Assuming they understood the details of the photography policy, shouldn't it still be an employee of the underground that objects to them taking the photo?
Mr Nilsson now has pictures in his phone that he perhaps had no permission to take. Can a policeman order him to delete them? Well clearly they can - but in Sweden at least they have no right to.... uncomfortable as it may be to be caught on film in the course of duty, they can't ask you to delete them.
Now the next part is interesting... because the rules for PUL are different if you are a journalist publishing in the news than if you are an individual posting to an unofficial news channel like a blog. So..
You've had a bad day and decide to write about it on your blog. Do you have to censor it to protect the privacy of individuals that have the main role in the events? On his blog Mr Nilsson risks running fóul of data protection rules - whereas on his online paper he wouldn't. Nor do all the mainstreams that have since reported the case - including the names of the policement concerned. Should there be different rights to publish what very much seems to be a topic of real public interest if you choose an unofficial channel?
Now interestingly Mr Nilsson never names the policemen concerned - in fact he complains that they never showed him any identification to show they were in fact policemen. So - in the context of a public official carrying out their duties in a public place - is there an issue in reporting on their behaviour? What's the balance between accountability of public officials and their right to privacy ? - when that right is being invoked as a threat intended to censor? While it may be right for a spokeperson for the state to remain anonymous - because it is their official position not their private life that's in the public view -in this case it is just that their alleged behaviour doesn't match up to the expected standard of behaviour that makes publishing the event of public interest.. and even in the state's interest. Faith in the police depends on just and fair dealing with ALL the public.
And of course... most importantly, what sort of world are we coming to if policemen are using intimidating threats against a member of the public just because they don't like what they are doing?
Which is not to say that this is common behaviour in the police - but if what's alleged is true it's an horrific abuse of power.
.......................................................
Lastly.. by way of a footnote.. reading the conditions for taking film and pictures in the underground I spotted that it's not allowed to take commercial pictures of graffiti, people jumping the turnstiles and a range of other things that might show the underground in a negative light.
"Det är heller inte tillåtet att filma eller fotografera vandalisering eller graffiti, så kallad plankning, våld mot resenärer eller personal, rökning eller användande av illegala droger eller personer som vistas i SL-trafiken utan giltig biljett."
Doesn't that smack a little of censorship???
Piratpartiet and The Pirate Party - Putting privacy first.
Friday, 12 February 2010
Privacy, Copyright & Integrity: Steps in the right direction..
I've been a bit busy recently - but things are happening out there in the big wide world...
You no doubt saw that in Australia they've ruled that an ISP shouldn't be held to account for the content carried... a revalidation of the 'pure carrier' doctrine with it's analogy in "don't shoot the messenger". A great commentary on the judgement by Technolama
In the UK, the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights were not at all happy with the provisions of the governments proposed Digital Economy Bill - which is hardly surprising but reasuring to hear. Meanwile the EU parliament think the privacy of their citizens merits protection and have said no to the Swift agreement that gives the USA bulk access to european banking data. Thanks you guys (& gals)!
The EFF today reports on a victory in the US courts that confirms the 'first rights' principle that if you buy something it's yours to enjoy, share and sell as you like - no matter what small print a company may add on the box. You bought it, you own it.
..and Cory Doctorow explains how if you look into the issues with IP, copyright and innovation you come to very different conclusions than if you crib your research from lobbyists... (from the tireless Michel Geist).
And of course Christian Engström, Piratpartiet's MEP, celebrated making it to the big 50. Congratulations Christian - keep up the good work!
You no doubt saw that in Australia they've ruled that an ISP shouldn't be held to account for the content carried... a revalidation of the 'pure carrier' doctrine with it's analogy in "don't shoot the messenger". A great commentary on the judgement by Technolama
In the UK, the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights were not at all happy with the provisions of the governments proposed Digital Economy Bill - which is hardly surprising but reasuring to hear. Meanwile the EU parliament think the privacy of their citizens merits protection and have said no to the Swift agreement that gives the USA bulk access to european banking data. Thanks you guys (& gals)!
The EFF today reports on a victory in the US courts that confirms the 'first rights' principle that if you buy something it's yours to enjoy, share and sell as you like - no matter what small print a company may add on the box. You bought it, you own it.
..and Cory Doctorow explains how if you look into the issues with IP, copyright and innovation you come to very different conclusions than if you crib your research from lobbyists... (from the tireless Michel Geist).
And of course Christian Engström, Piratpartiet's MEP, celebrated making it to the big 50. Congratulations Christian - keep up the good work!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
