So, last night, the Digital Economy Bill – or #debill, as it’s known on twitter – passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons and goes to (in this case, back to) the House of Lord before becoming all Official. And I sit here not-so-quietly fuming. There are so many reasons to dislike this bill: it’s ill-thought out; in thrall to traditional music industries and lobbyists; fails to understand the difference between copyright abuse for finciancial gain and copyright ‘abuse’ for creativity that doesn’t make financial gain, and is consequently open to abuse by copyright holders and could stifle creativity; assumes that all digitial downloading is illegal, copyright abusing digitial downloading, thus making it harder for creatives to give away freebies online to give tasters to new fans/audiences/consumers; is likely to criminalise the young (who don’t have credit cards to use on iTunes, etc) and those who aren’t digitally adept but fail to really hit those who make serious money out of digitial piracy (hells bells, if the Secret Intelligence Services are concerned about the bill driving pirates/criminals to use greater encryption that is harder for SIS to break quickly enough you know there’s a problem, right?); will not try and convict those alleged to have broken the law but punish them first and then make them pay to appeal; will hold the account-holder accountable for the activity of anyone (known or unknown) using their internet connection, and threaten to disconnect whole households if *one* member of it is caught illegally downloading (imagine if your whole household was banned from going to WHSmiths because one member of it shoplifted a CD single, and then imagine that you ran business/filled tax returns/paid TV licences, council tax and other bills/carried out banking/kept in contact with relatives and many other things through WHSmiths to really think about the insanity of this), and finally – as a consequence of this, poses a very real threat to businesses and establishments that offer wifi connections to their customers and users (re. this, please see Fiona Campbell-Howes’ Open Letter posted to Network Cornwall).
Tag: debate
BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson’s latest blog post is interesting. Turns out even politicians and party members don’t show up to listen to a roll of speeches at conventions. Colour me surprised. Even at academic conventions the best part of panels is often the Q & A session.
But here’s the problem – if even the above mentioned hacks aren’t engaged with the main substance of these conferences, why the hell would anyone else be? If, even when you join a party you’re not getting to discuss or debate the issues, because the leadership are too scared of being seen to be uncertain or disorganised, what is the point of joining at all?
If decisions are made by those who show up, and the number of people showing up is getting ever smaller, what happens to the quality of decision-making?
The BBC and other media cover all the conferences, so you get some sense of the broader debate between the parties, and in parliament, thank heavens, they all still yell at each other a lot. But how do the parties come to their decisions? Well, right now it seems like two or three guys in a room with a lot of polling data. Which is a pretty crappy way to decide anything, even with the wonders of modern statistical analysis and polling. Plus, what about the things they don’t poll on? John Zaller once asked, “If the public had an opinion and there was no pollster around to measure it, would public opinion exist?”(1) It might not as an entity, but it would as individual opinions; but would these actually ever get reflected in policy-making? Almost certainly not. And is that really representative democracy?
The frustration of many over the inability of the US debates monitors to actually guide and focus the debates has been fairly clear for the last month.
Last night, the BBC’s American editor got a leeeetle over excited:
“2117: Yippee! Schieffer actually interrupted Obama to point out that he had to answer the question – not sure he did answer it but it was a brave effort. He did it again with McCain. He’s already earned his 1000000000 billion dollar salary.”
He’s been yearning to unleash Paxman or Humphrys on the candidates for weeks…
Maybe if the BBC insists on cutting the wages of some of its journalists, the likes of Paxman, Humphrys and Marr could start an interviewing school for other nations who lack the benefit of their skillz.





