A controversial fatwa issued by a prominent Muslim cleric sanctioning violence against anti-Muslim Brotherhood activists planning demonstrations in Cairo on 24 August, has sent shockwaves throughout Egyptian society, triggering public outcry and angry denunciations by political activists and rights groups. The fatwa comes at a time of increasing fears of an Islamist crackdown on freedom of expression as well as reports of physical assaults against journalists critical of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been granted political asylum in Ecuador. The Australian national, who has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for two months after breaching his bail conditions in the UK, is wanted in Sweden, where allegations of sexual assault have been made against him. The Ecuadorian foreign ministry said it was not confident that Assange would not be extradited to the United States should he return to Sweden. Assange has been heavily criticised in the US for publishing secret diplomatic cables, but as yet no charge has been brought against him.
Private Bradley Manning, alleged to be the source of the cable leak, has been in the US since July 2010, where he faces several charges including “aiding the enemy”.
Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa has previously appeared as a guest on Julian Assange’s Russia Today interview programme. The South American country has faced criticism for its record on free speech.
UPDATE: The British Foreign Office has released this statement
We are disappointed by the statement from Ecuador’s Foreign Minister that Ecuador has offered political asylum to Julian Assange.
Under our law, with Mr Assange having exhausted all options of appeal, the British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden. We shall carry out that obligation. The Ecuadorian Government’s decision this afternoon does not change that.
We remain committed to a negotiated solution that allows us to carry out our obligations under the Extradition Act.
The sentencing of Anton Vickerman, the 38-year-old founder of Surfthechannel.com for conspiracy to defraud has opened up the debate on copyright once again – and it’s a debate that’s not going to go away any time soon. The question at the core seems to be one that goes to the heart of how we communicate online: the web depends on people being allowed to move back and forth, link and share. Paying for content seems to be anathema to this.
But, the counterargument goes, someone, somewhere, has to pay for all this stuff. The films and music into which people put huge amounts of effort cannot simply be endlessly shared and viewed without any return given to the creators.
This is not the universal view of creative people. Back in 2010, Simon Indelicate of independent label Corporate Records, told Index:
“The Record Industry has always exploited the expense involved in recording, promoting and distributing music to offer terrible, bankrupting deals to all but a vanishingly tiny minority of musicians. The Internet has nuked their business model by making these once scarce resources abundant – artists should be celebrating the opportunity this offers…[F]ilesharing has directly benefited me as a promotional tool.”
It could be argued that music is an exception in this model: people often “follow” bands in the same way they follow football clubs, displaying their loyalty by paying to download the records, buying the t-shirts and going to gigs. The film and TV industries do not really experience the same devotion.
We are left with a lot of questions: Are “traditional” creative industry models sustainable? Is posting links, even for profit, genuinely a breach of copyright? If so, what is the correct sanction? And what about those who download files? Is it desirable, or even realistic, to pursue every single downloader? There are free speech arguments on all sides of this debate, and Index will be exploring them in the coming weeks.
