MAC281 slides for the session on citizen journalism

These are extended versions of the slides I used in the MAC281 lecture this week.

MAC309: The cost of 'free'

This week's MAC309 session looked at the ideas presented by Chris Anderson in his recent book, Free. You can find the slides below. We also looked at the various costs attached to free services like webmail and search, such as our attention and our privacy



You can also hear Chris Anderson talking about his ideas here (and even download the podcast as an mp3) and watch a video here:



You can find a critique of Anderson's argument here by Cory Doctorow

Next week we will look at another kind of free, when we consider the ideas of Matt Mason and The Pirates Dilemma

Tracking musical expenditure: February

Half way there! This is the sixth monthly instalment so we should get a clear indication as to how the project might pan out. In case you haven't been reading this series of posts (shame on you!), I've been running a year long project to monitor the amount of cash I have spent on music and music-related activities, inspired by a DEMOS report which stated that file-sharers typically spent more money (£77 per year) on music than non-filesharers (£33).

February was a big month for me, not least because I had to pay the remaining balance of my Glastonbury ticket, but also because there were a few albums I was looking forward to by Massive Attack and Yeasayer (which I already had wink wink before their release). Let's take a look at the figures...

The total monthly spend on music in February was £231.91! There were a few a couple of concert tickets in there which inflated the figure. Spending on traditional albums and singles were modest by comparison at £31.96, but that's still more than a typical month. I did win a little money on a bet so I bought a couple of extra CDs when I was feeling flush.

As for the overall total, it's standing at £1194.01. In terms of cash spent overall on what would be classified as singles or albums (as the wording in the DEMOS report goes), the figure comes in at £112.20 - that's nearly 4 times the figure quoted for the average non-filesharer. What does that tell ya?

As ever, you can see my my progress to date by clicking this link or take a little look at the spreadsheet below.

The Digital Economy Bill #debill summary to date

Late yesterday afternoon amendments made to the Digital Economy Bill (Twitter hashtag #debill) were heard in the House of Lords. This is a controversial bill for a number of reasons, not least the threat of disconnection for illegal filesharers without due legal recourse, but also for the sweeping powers the Bill seems to give to Ofcom to regulate 'broadcast' content (ie the content that a partial newspaper or press publisher can host on their website), thus jeopardising press freedom. Writing in the Guardian last November, Lillian Edwards, a professor of internet law warned how the Bill would jeopardise open wi-fi spaces. Universities and libraries have also complained about the Bill's impact.

For the uninitiated text from the original Bill can be found here and the amendments can be found here.

Responses

There has been a great deal of interest in this Bill from people interested in copyright and what it might mean to them in the future. Indeed, the Open Rights Group have been actively lobbying to raise public awareness, and several of their members provided excellent Twitter commentary whilst the debate was taking place (notably Glyn Wintle @glynwintle and Florain Leppla @florian107).

In the blogosphere photographer, Philip Dunn, wrote one of the most compelling and lucid criticisms of the Digital Economy Bill. I'll have to link to the Google cached page hosting the piece as his host received so much attention the server was closed. [Edit: Paul Bradshaw @paulbradshaw is hosting the article via the Online Journalism Blog]. His main bone of contention was with what the Bill describes as 'orphan works' under Clause 42 - these are typically works where it's difficult or impossible to contact the copyright holder. This situation can arise for many reasons, not least that the author may never been publicly known because the work was published anonymously or the work may have never been traditionally published at all. The concern in this context is that the bill may mean that photographers might lose ownership

You can find excerpts of his argument below:

Photographers to lose copyright protection of their work

This startling and outrageous proposal will become UK law if The Digital Economy Bill currently being pushed through Parliament is passed. This Bill is sponsored by the unelected Government Minister, Lord Mandelson [sic].

[...]

The idea that the author of a photograph has total rights over his or her own work – as laid out in International Law and The Copyright Act of 1988 – will be utterly ignored. If [sic] future, if you wish to retain any control over your work, you will have to register that work (and each version of it) with a new agency yet to be set up.

[...]

International Law, through the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, recognises the ownership rights of the creator of the ‘property’. This enables image owners to control how their work is used, and whether it is used at all.

International Law will be ignored by the British Government and this new Act will overturn more than 150 years of UK copyright law.

If that wasn't enough reason to be concerned, there are even more problematic implications:

Photographers are to lose all effective rights to take photographs in public places.

Not content with taking away photographer’s copyright, another section of this Government is proposing sweeping changes to your freedom to take pictures in public places.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has deemed that a photograph taken in a public place may now be considered to contain ‘private data’

This means that if you take a picture in the street and there is a member of the public in the shot, that person has the right to demand either payment – if you wish to publish the image – or that you do not publish it. In fact, according to the ICO. There does not actually have to be an objection, it is up to the photographer to ‘judge’ whether the subject might object.

You can find more posts by Philip Dunn over on www.photoactive.co.uk

Philip goes on to question the sense of such a decision when the average Briton is captured on surveillance camera as much as 300 times per day! It also calls into whether or not a photographer can be prosecuted for uploading an image featuring members of the general public to a photo sharing site like Flickr or Facebook.

Exactly how this can be policed or enforced remains to be seen, especially when the services listed may be outside the national jurisdiction of the UK. Already, Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act has deemed it illegal to take photographs of police officers - something that would render the recording of Ian Tomlinson's death following police intervention during the G20 protests a crime. Critics fear this may lead to people being unable to record or photograph legitimate public protests which frequently feature the police.

Back to the Bill

Another area of concern was addressed by Conservative front bencher Baroness Buscombe (Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission), a point I alluded to briefly in the introduction. She pointed out that the phrasing of the Bill seemed to give Ofcom the power to regulate what was described as "broadcast material". The concern here lay at how that term was interpreted. Currently Ofcom regulates broadcast television content whilst the PCC deals with matters involving the press. In the context of news this is very important and the rules governing "due impartiality" are applicable to broadcast content, but not to the press which is permitted to be partial (ie the oft-quoted 'freedom of the press').

Lord Puttnam supported Baroness Buscombe in this matter by expressing his concern over what can be described as "broadcast" in a converged multiplatform media environment by citing the example of material rejected by a Public Service Broadcaster which then goes on to be picked up by a partial press publisher and is subsequently hosted on their website. Does Ofcom or the PCC regulate in such matters? Lord Davies' response was less than precise in that he described broadcasting as that pertaining to be the type of content appearing on television. The way in which audio and video content is remediated in the digital age poses more questions of this Bill than can be answered by its proponents, so it seems.

Anger

Lord Puttnam (a former Chancellor of the institution in which I work) expressed some anger at the fact the Bill was not going to be referred to the Information Commissioner, responsible for dealing with privacy issues. Lord Young (who is co-sponsoring the Bill with Lord Mandelson) indicated that such a deferment would delay the Bill from being passed. It seems the government would rather pass a Bill that is deliberatively vague, poorly written and ill conceived which would need to be rewritten rather than make the appropriate amendments first!

Lord Puttnam accused Lord Young of attempting to rush a Bill though the House "that none of us is particularly proud of" and which hasn't been discussed appropriately. He also expressed concern at the "extraordinary degree of lobbying" that those involved in drafting the amendments had come up against from the creative industries. Lord Whitty expressed concerns that the Open Rights Group have been actively campaigning against: that the consumer accused of infringement will not be able to defend themselves in a court of law.

Make no mistake, this is a Bill which seeks to favour the rights of the content industries over the rights of individuals who will be labelled as guilty until proven innocent. They will be pit against the strong arm of the content industries and their financial powers, with the burden of evidence placed at their feet to prove their innocence.

ISP TalkTalk has already expressed their concern at this Bill:

"The Digital Economy Bill will give rights holders the power to act as a judge and jury, allowing them to demand that ISPs disconnect their customers without having to prove their case in a court of law. TalkTalk is the only major ISP that has said it will simply refuse to do this and will fight its case in every court in the land and in Europe if it has to."

It's still not too late to get involved and have your concerns voices. Visit the Open Rights Group's website today and find out what you can do to be heard.

---

nb: apparently #debill is an appropriately hashtag - in Polish it means 'moron'. Thanks to Falkowata for that.

"When is ‘disconnection’ not disconnection? When it is ‘account suspension’, of course."

A day or two ago, the news that campaigners against the Digital Economy Bill (or at the very least, Clause 17) wanted to hear was announced. Or so it would seem. The Guardian technology pages led with somewhat optimistic headline: "Plans to cut off internet connections of illegal filesharers dumped"

Background

First, a little context may be useful. This is drawn on what has commonly been referred to as the "3 strikes" rule, whereby people accused of copyright infringement via the internet will be given three warnings before disconnection (like the unpopular HADOPI law in France, which seems like the inspiration for Clause 17 of the Digital Economy Bill). The role of peer-to-peer technology is central to this argument.

The Guardian story came off the back of a relatively small petition on the Number 1 website which highlighted the problems of the phrasing in the Bill, a point that will be picked up on again later in this post. The petition states:

The use of P2P is neither illegal nor exclusive to copyright theft. Many free software providers use this form of distribution, as does the BBC’s iPlayer. If citizens are innocent until proven guilty, ISP’s would be forced to monitor internet usage to ensure that no copyrighted material is being transferred. This flagrant disregard for privacy is comparable to forcing the Post Office to search through parcels for photocopied documents or mixtape cassettes. Such requirements would place enormous strain on ISP’s whilst failing to prevent the distribution of copyrighted material through hidden IP’s, http or ftp.”

Previous concerns have stated that the Internet is increasingly central to everyday life and that the act of identifying who was actually guilty of using peer-to-peer software to infringe copyright was difficult and ill-conceived, especially in shared households or on public 'cloud' based services. This is a point that is also addressed later in the same petition.

All of this is with the aim of cutting illegal peer-to-peer filesharing by 70% - something the Government, led by Lord Mandleson, is determined to do in order to appease the copyright industries. The Digital Economy Bill proposed a series of 'technical measures' including traffic shaping and disconnection for those the offending IP addresses the copyright industry identifies as being guilty of a crime. The major concern here is, of course, the lack of judicial process or the ability for the accused to defend themselves. The onus will be on the accused to prove they are innocent - people who may not have the technical knowledge or skills required to sift through router logs to be able to prove they were not responsible for the 'crime' they may be accused of.

What's changed (if anything)?

With the context established, let's consider the Number 10 response to the petition which got The Guardian and critics of the Bill excited (if somewhat momentarily):

[T]he Bill provides a reserve power obliging an ISP to apply ‘technical measures’ to a customer’s internet account to restrict or prevent illegal sharing. Technical measures might be a band width restriction, a daily downloading limit or, as a last resort, temporary account suspension. A proper independent appeal would be available against application of technical measures.

The key phrase here is 'temporary account suspension' as opposed to disconnection. It sounds much less punitive and more temporary than permanent. Jim Killock, the Executive Director of non-profit human rights group ORG, was quick to point out to several people via Twitter (myself included) that the phrasing was misleading 'government-speak'. To the Guardian's credit, they updated their news story with reference to Killock and the ORG's blog.

It's worth citing some of the blog post at length:

When is ‘disconnection’ not disconnection? When it is ‘account suspension’, of course.

The government therefore felt justified in a response to a petition on Friday in claiming that they were not intending to ‘disconnect’ families from the net after accusations of copyright infringement. If you think they mean that their internet cabling will still be plugged in at the wall, then that’s true.

If you think they mean that these families will be able to connect to the internet, well, no they won’t. Their connection will be switched off.

Please do not be confused by the government’s semantics. BIS and DCMS decided in the summer that they would not refer to ‘disconnecting’ users, because that sounds harsh and over the top. ‘Temporary account suspension’ sounds much more reasonable.

Language matters. What journalist is going to run a story on ‘temporary account suspension’ (yawn)? This is why the government has chosen these disingenuous terms: it‘s just more spin.

What we still don’t know is how long a family’s internet might be disconnected for.

A month? Three? A year? There is nothing in the Bill or any of the notes that we are aware of that might give us a clue.

‘Temporary account suspensions’ sound like the government would to suspend accounts for a few hours, or at most a day, to fit most people’s idea of ‘temporary’ and ‘suspension’. We doubt ‘suspensions’ would be so brief. We can assume what the government means to you and me is ‘disconnection’.

The issue here is what Killock referred to as 'government speak'. The phrasing of the response by the Number 10 website seems to hint at a compromise when the Open Rights Group suggest this semantic distinction is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. A classic case of New Labour spin.

What is more alarming is that the power to determine the length of the suspension will be granted to the Secretary of State, based on recommendations from Ofcom (something I blogged about late last year). This is highlighted in a subsequent story in the Guardian yesterday when a Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS) spokesperson was quoted as saying:

"If government decides to use technical measures the Secretary of State would be required to consider an independent report from Ofcom on whether they should be imposed, and on the most effective and proportionate measures."

Mandelson would then decide the upper limit for a "temporary" suspension – which the DBIS indicated would be at least a few days. Parliament needs to be consulted in order to establish the duration of any suspensions towards the upper limit of the punishment scale. The worrying issue here is laid bare in the article:

"an Order cannot be amended by parliament; it can only be accepted or rejected. Any government with a working majority will be able to get an order passed – and so would be able to implement a "temporary" suspension of indeterminate length without any legislative review."

The Government has all the balls in its court with this one, and on the current form, seem determined to push through their plans despite opposition. Only time will tell if they are able to do so before the General Election is called in May.

Take Action

The ORG are encouraging people concerned by this Bill to take action. If you are encouraged to resist this problematic Bill then write to your MP and write to your local newspaper demanding that they get your local MPs to reveal their support for these proposals. You can find convenient templates over on their wiki page here. Get involved

The Digital Economy Bill, Clause 17

About a week or so ago the Digital Economy Bill made it's second pass through the House of Lords. Lord Lucas has been one of the most vocal critics of the Bill, especially the controversial Clause 17 which gives the First Secretary of State (currently Lord Mandleson) the power to enforce sweeping copyright reforms without public consultation in the face of future technological developments. Briefly, this section of the Bill would grant the government the power to make changes it sees appropriate to help enforce the copyright held by the content industries (eg the music industry). These powers are so broad they can be applied to adapt any future changes in technology without consultation (emphasis needed!). The Bill also proposes to disconnect illegal filesharers from the Internet after three warnings - commonly referred to as the "3 strikes" ruling. If you want a quick overview of how serious this is, check out the video below:



Back in December '09 PC Pro reported on how Lord Lucas expressed some doubts as to whether the Government's plans to disconnect users, claiming that the entertainment industry hadn't done enough to encourage people to pursue legal methods:

"We need to bear in mind that the problems now facing the industry are, to quite a large extent, of their own creation ... The industry has been extremely slow to listen to the demands of its customers, and has had something of an abusive relationship with them, seeking to punish them before thinking of how to serve them better."

"It has taken a decade for the industry to produce sensible alternatives to illegal file-sharing, and the fact that a generation of people have become used to an illegality comes down to the industry’s sluggishness. It is still slow."

He also raised some concerns that the methods being proposed to pinpoint who was actually responsible for downloading illegal content was inaccurate - the harvesting of an IP address doesn't always guarantee that the person responsible for paying the bill is the person engaging in filesharing activity, especially in households where several people have shared access. The same could be said of the hospitality sector in which hoteliers, bars, cafes and conference venues offer free wireless access to patrons.

Educators have complained that the bill also endangers their businesses and internet provision to the general public (via city-wide cloud-based services) is also under threat because of the insistence that organisations providing net access should be liable for the actions of their customers. The British Library with its public Wi-Fi access would be in jeopardy.

In January 2010 Lord Lucas suggested a number of amendments to the Bill including adding a remedy to help prevent false claims from being made against the innocent by giving them legal recourse to pursue counter actions against the accuser. He also tried to add an amendment that would require copyright holders to detail actual damages done by file sharing in their reports to ISPs notifying them of infringement. There were a total of 299 amendments suggested by the House of Lords. Lords Razzall and Clement Jones proposed one amendment (no. 34) to Clause 4 that stands out, mainly due to its evocation of the Human Rights Act:

Compliance with fundamental rights

In drafting or amending any code, laying any statutory instrument, or taking any other action under sections 124A to 124L of the Communications Act 2003 or under section 302A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the Secretary of State must demonstrate before such action is implemented that he has considered whether such action—

• a) is necessary and proportionate to the goal of protecting and enforcing copyright, and
• b) appropriately balances the interest of rights holders and the interests of the public in due process, privacy, freedom of expression and other fundamental human rights guaranteed by inter alia the European Convention of Human Rights and the EC Charter of Rights."

The safety and privacy of the general public must not be disregarded in lieu of the demands of the content industry.

Earlier this month the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights also claimed that sections of the Digital Economy Bill needed clarification. The technical measures and the powers that are to be given to government were not "sufficiently specified". The fear here is that they might result in sweeping powers which restrict the freedom of expression and the privacy of individual users. Andrew Dismore MP and chair of the Commitee stated:

"The concern we have with this Bill is that it lacks detail ... It has been difficult, even in the narrow area we have focussed on, to get a clear picture of the scope and impact of the provisions."

One of the real concerns is with the lack of "due judicial process" to people accused of illicit filesharing. There is a real fear that the burden of proof will lie at the feet of Internet users who may be unable to prove they are innocent as they may not have the knowledge or skills to do so, nor the space to react to accusations accordingly.

Get involved and find out more by clicking the banner below:

Tracking musical expenditure: January

This is the fifth monthly installment in a yearlong project to monitor the amount of cash I have spent on music and music-related activities. In case this is the first time you've stumbled across this blog then the inspiration behind this series of posts was a report (.ppt) published by the UK-based think tank, Demos, which stated that file-sharers typically spent more money (£77 per year) on music than non-filesharers (£33). The suggestion here is that pirates are the best customers, or at the very least are the ones willing to part with the most cash.

January was a busy month for me. It was filled with quite a few purchases of 'old' music media (ie CDs) - well a few by my standards at least - and a few live concert ticket purchases. In total £119.66 was spent on music and music-related activities. The latter category includes any money that was spent on the back of music purchases, like concert merchandise and/or refreshments that would not otherwise have been purchased were it not for the musical event. This brings the running total to date up to £962.10.

Going back to the music purchases, out of that £119.66 only £36.81 was spent on music (ie singles, albums, etc). The bulk of the money was spent on live concerts and tickets. Also, some of the music purchases included non-traditional music media such as video game downloads for the Guitar Hero series. If I strip down the sales to money spent on what we would classify as chart eligible singles and album the monthly expenditure comes down to a more meager £25.96 - all of which was spent on buying both the Vampire Weekend albums twice (to give as gifts). That brings the money spent on albums and singles (the measure in the Demos report) in at £80.24

I have to admit that I did not expect to reach and surpass the figure that Demos placed as the average spent by pirates after only 5 months. There's still a long way to go in this experiment, but one thing seems to be sure and that is this music lover still contributes to the musical economy.

And did I fail to mention that Massive Attack have an album out in February? There's at least one purchase for next month.

As usual, you can see a detailed breakdown of expenditure here.