16 Aug 12 | Uncategorized
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.
09 Aug 12 | Digital Freedom, Uncategorized
The nice people at the New Statesman asked me to take part in a debate on web filtering with Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom this week. You can read the whole thing here. It’s certainly worth reading Leadsom’s arguments, as she does represent a significant body of opinion.
What I find interesting about the viewpoint of Leadsom and others is a curious faith in technology. It’s an odd take on cyber-utopianism. While they clearly do not believe that technology is the ultimate liberating force, they still seem to believe that the best way to counter the great wash of “inappropriate” [Leadsom’s word] content on the web is more technology. It’s as if they’re engaged in a pornographer versus guardian arms race, and have long lost sight of the actual aim.
Contrast this with what our China correspondent Dinah Gardner writes today on how the Communist Party, which is far more serious about censorship than Andrea Leadsom, handles the issue. While they do employ technology, they also employ thousands of people to monitor and delete content. They’ve realised that algorithms can only achieve so much.
Humans in the main resent authoritarian regimes because they treat us like we’re children: but when we are talking about actual children, then the debate changes slightly. We’ve pretty much accepted that we can put some limits on the rights of children — particularly on what information they can access. But the most developed filtering program in the world is no replacement for an interested adult taking care of a child’s education and entertainment.
27 Jul 12 | United Kingdom
Index on Censorship welcomes today’s decision in the high court to overturn the conviction of Paul Chambers in what has become known as the Twitter Joke Trial.
“Today’s judgment is an advance in the justice system’s handling of free speech on the web,” said Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. “As more and more of us use social media, it is important that the law understands how people communicate online. This ruling is a step in the right direction.”
Chambers was convicted in 2010 for sending a “menacing communication” after joking on Twitter that he would blow Doncaster’s Robin Hood Airport “sky high” if it closed due to weather conditions. He had been due to fly from the airport to Belfast to meet his now-fiancée Sarah Tonner.
27 Jul 12 | Index Index, minipost, United Kingdom
Paul Chambers, the man at the centre of the Twitter Joke Trial who was found guilty in 2010 of sending a “menacing” tweet, has won his appeal against his conviction. At the Royal Courts of Justice this morning the appeal was allowed “on the basis that this tweet did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character.” Speaking to Index on Censorship, Chambers said he felt relieved and vindicated by the decision, adding that the case “should never have got this far”. Chambers’s solicitor David Allen Green said: “This shameful prosecution should never have been brought.”
Comic Al Murray, who has been a vocal supporter of Chambers, was part of a large supportive crowd at the handing down of the judgment. Conservative MP Louise Mensch and science writer and free speech campaigner Simon Singh were also in attendance.
Murray told Index he though the judgment was “a victory for common sense and proportion”.
“If terrorism is such a threat, then surely it demands being dealt with coolly, rather than clamping down on mere mentions of it in a joke,” said Murray. “Paul’s tweet was not a credible threat, and the courts’ reaction up until now has made them look incredible.”
