Digital Economy Bill, Liberals and Pirates

As you may remember, there once was a lunch in Corfu between Lord Mandelson and David Geffen, one Hollywood mogul and record company exec.

After that meeting, Mandy came out with his new copyright bill, the Digital Economy Bill, which among other things, gives the government the right to force your ISP to spy on you and cut you off if you're accused (without trial mind) of unlicensed sharing copyright infringement, and not-incidentally also gives the Secretary of State, that is him, Mandy, the power to create new penalties for online infringements whenever he wanted without interference from the Commons, the Lords or even the Queen.

That bill is currently being read in the Lords (if you haven't written to your MP then you likely should have. I did, and I got a reply).

Some Liberal Democrat Lords have proposed an amendment which frankly just makes things worse.

I mean I dunno what they're thinking. Someone's convinced 'em that it's a good idea to allow courts to order all of Britain's ISPs to shut off access to specific sites if these sites were found to be involved with copyright infringement. Which would be all of the 'web storage' and 'backup' places on the entire net, basically.

I fired off a tweet to my local Liberal Democrat representative asking what the hell was going on? I mean, this ain't a freedom-loving amendment.

Rather than taking two months to reply, she responded initially within hours and then she blogged about what a bad idea it was and coordinated an open letter asking her colleagues to reconsider. Keeping me in the loop through twitter the whole time.

Which is pretty good I reckon. Hurray for Bridget Fox. Hope she gets to be my MP some day.

The amendment will hopefully be dropped, and the whole bill will hopefully fail to be pushed through before the election but it really seems to be the aim of the top Labour folks to get it through before they have to stand down and the Tories are offering their usual token resistance while clearly secretly thinking "Woah! I can't believe our luck! That's exactly what I'd do." so I dunno how much hope there is that it'll fail.

Incidentally, this is the same bill which will allow professional organisations to use your images freely, just so long as they fail in their "adequate search" to find out who they should pay while also ensuring they can shut off your ISP access if you repost one of theirs.

Fucks sake! This will all be law in six weeks or so.

Even if it does fail, the Tories will no doubt make something similar should they get in and there's literal secret conspiracies at top international political levels to try and do much the same.

This stuff is about the very thing which makes us human: our culture. Learning from and copying each other, about the free flow of ideas, about corporations being determined to steal our culture from us and force us to pay to get it back. It's about political corruption and bribery. Yet people barely seem to care. it sounds like the Pirate Party will barely have enough cash to run a handful of candidates at the elections, the only upside of which I can see is at least it won't leave me torn between voting for Bridget or some local Pirate.

*sigh*

And some folks think it's about "Stealing" music.

Do Dream Sheep Bleat? - My Army Of Penguins

New Novella

My new novella, entitled "Do Dream Sheep Bleat?" has been released this weekend. It's a short story about magic and mind, about consciousness, cognizance and conjuring. Also, there's a penguin whose picture is on the front cover.

You can read it online, for free, either in your browser or by downloading a pdf. You can also order a nicely bound print copy to be shipped directly to your door. As you can see from the pictures on this page, it's a handy pocket-sized mini-book. Nice and portable, easily transportable, weighing in at just 80 pages or so. The print copy costs just four UK pounds, but if you're to cheep to pay it, by all means just download.

What's it about?

The book follows a few days in the life and dreams of one John Shamrock, quoted on the back of the book as saying "Incredible, this book has completely changed the way I live my life. It's taught me my aims, my goals, how to achieve my dreams. Now I'm rich!"

John is, of course, a fictional character whose life is turned around over those few days by a book which he somehow acquires on a drunken night out. This book is a short novella with a picture of a penguin on the front called "Do Dream Sheep Bleat?", and appears to be a book about itself.

Over the few days reading that book, John meets a four foot tall, fat, squinty eyed penguin who teaches him about magic.

Magic

The penguin, it turns out, is a magical symbol infused with consciousness. It teaches John about "Sidual Magic," an archaic method to infuse symbols with the ability to have actual, physical, effects on the world.

A magical system which, of course, created the penguin itself, which gave him life.

As John slowly learns from the penguin, and the book, his understanding of his own consciousness, his world view, and as a result his whole life, is turned upside down.

Copyright Agreement

The book's unusual copyright agreement, termed "Copy-Far-Left," requires no payment, and allows anybody at all to copy the text with only one restriction: That they make another copy and send it to someone else.

If you do not make a copy and pass it on then you are a pirate and a thief, stealing my livelihood and worse, draining the penguin of the force which gives it power, consciousness and life.

Hope you enjoy reading the novella as much as I enjoyed writing it, please let me know what you think and even more importantly, don't forget to send it on to someone else too! Help increase the size and might of the army of penguins I've sent out into the world to do my bidding.

Click here to read or buy the book.

Reply From my MP about Pirate Party stuff

Before Xmas I got a reply from my MP about The letter I wrote her earlier. Been too busy/lazy to update on that. The best bits follow.

The Government has a difficult balance to reach between protecting the creative industry from potentially huge losses incurred through illegal file sharing, and respecting individuals' rights to unrestricted and private use of the internet. The Creative Industries are currently undermined by illegal file sharing and measures to address it are due.

However, I understand your concern regarding the proportionality of proposed measures on peer to peer file sharing. A number of questions need to be answered including where due precess fits into a penalty enforceable by the Internet Service Providers. Furthermore, fears about the security and privacy of our private data and internet activity need to be addressed. I have written to the Secretary Of State for Business Innovation and Skills to raise these concerns[...].

In my view the industry should be putting it's energies into developing new business solutions and greater compromises may need to be made in order to develop these new business models.

I have written to Jack Straw to ask for more information on the next steps for reform of law in the area and I will write again when I receive a response.

She seems to be under the impression that file-sharing reduces sales. Despite the fact that the most shared things also sell the most, which is a common enough mistake I guess. Understandable, if mistaken. It's not clear from her reply if these "greater compromises" are copyrightists having to allow sharing, or file-sharers having to give up their privacy and freedom. Probably both I guess, that's the nature of compromise.

Anyway, I bring that up because she has indeed written again now that she has a response.

The Minister reiterates the importance of legislating to address online copyright infringement and explains briefly the process by which those identified as infringing copyright will receive warning from their ISPs and may be subject to a court action if the ISP is required to identify them to the rights holder as a result of a court order by the rights holder.

The further powers granted to the Secretary Of State by the Digital Economy Bill allow him/her to introduce technical powers through secondary legislation. As the Minister explains, these technical measures could include a restriction on bandwidth, or temporary suspension. The working of the independent appeals procedure which would be overseen by Ofcom are less clearly set out. The Bill is currently being scrutinised by the House of Lords and I am sure the Government will be pressed further on these powers. I will be following the passage of the Bill carefully.

At least it sounds like she can see giving the secondary powers is wrong, though it also appears she'll merely stand by and give her consent to such a thing should her party demand it.

She encloses the reply sent ot her from Stephen Timms:

Dear Emily,

The Government wants as many people as possible top enjoy all the benefits that broadband internet can bring. New technology has changed the way people wnat to use and access media content, in some cases faster than products and services commercially on offer have developed. We are also clear that the benefits of the internet must include economic benefits for our creative industries and artists. We therefore take extremely seriously the problem of on-line copyright infringement, and have been working closely with rights holders, media companies and internet fiorms to develop practical solutions to reduce and prevent this

Note: Big companies. They're talking to big companies, and no file sharers. No independent artists. No small struggling bands. Nobody with an actual myspace page. Likely no actual constituents. None of the people they're actually paid to represent. This is fairly typical.

He continues...

Whilst all parties would prefer a voluntary solution, rather than regulatory, it is clear that such a commercial solution is very difficult to achieve We recognise that one problem is the need for a level playing field and therefore acknowledge the need for a regulatory baseline.

The digital economy bill, published 20th November, sets out in detail our proposed legislation to tackle on-line copyright infringement, including unlawful peer to peer file-sharing. The Bill will impliment many of the key recommendations in the Government's Digital Britain Report.

The Bill would require ISPs to write to their customers whose accounts had been identified by a right holder as having been used for illegal down loading of their material. In the cases of the most serious infringers, if a right holder obtains a court order, the ISP would have to provide information so that the rights holder can take targeted court action.

We hope these arrangement on their own will secure the 70% reduction in illegal peer to peer file sharing which is our aim. If that proves not to be the case, the 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.

More widely we also include a reserve power to amend the Copyright Design and Paten Act. This will allow us to tackle quickly any misuse of emerging technologies for copyright infringement and provive an element of future proofing. These measures were adopted following two consultations on file-sharing and extensive meeting with all stakeholders.

ALL stakeholders? ALL of them? I wonder if Richard Stallman was there? I wonder how much attention they paid to Cory Doctorow? Or to ME, come to that. I wonder if those "stakeholders" were actually their constituents at all?

We also recognise the need to ensure proper education of consumers, for new attractive legal sources of content as well as a system of notifications. Notifications will play a significant part in that education role, but it is vital that there are attractive legal offers available so that unlawful behaviour is no longer the "default" for many seeking content on-line. Rights holders need business models which work in the new digital environment. That is why we welcomed the announcements such as the Virgin Media and Universal agreement, the development of Spotify and the music offers announced by Vodafone and Sky. These are the types of agreement which will play a critical role in moving the great majority of people away from piracy.

The agreements to which he refers, of course, are the agreements which are designed to ensure the big companies retain their stranglehold over our culture, that they remain the gate-keepers, able to determine which data is pushed at you through their 'legal' channels and blocking out all those who don't play their corporate game.

It's also interesting that these laws are being written by someone who still says "on-line" rather than online, who still says "down loading" rather than downloading, "band width" rather than bandwidth. Clearly people invested in net culture.

There's only one party which actually understands the issues here, which isn't in the pockets of the media giants.

Join the Pirate Party today.

Reply from my MP about Prof Nutt & Cannabis

Reply to the letter I previously sent to my MP arrived today:

Thank you for your email about Professor Nutt. I apologise for not replying sooner. I was interested to hear your view on this important matter but I am afraid that we disagree on this issue.

Professor Nutt's abilities as a scientist and his qualification to offer advice on drugs policy are not in doubt but as the principle advisor to the Home Office, his role was to give advice and not to comment on Government policy. Scientific advice offered to Government is published for all to see and it is clear that Professor Nutt's views differed from the Government. However, the media interviews conducted by Professor Nutt amounted to a campaign against Government policy and clearly made his position untenable.

In my view it is right that the final decision on policy, whilst being informed by the advice, should lie with politicians. It is politicians who are accountable to the electorate not scientists. Furthermore, I think it is wrong to characterise Professor Nutt's research as the unquestioned truth. Scientific opinion on the danger of drugs is not united as Professor Robin Murray has made clear.

Many seek to argue that drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy should be considered in the same was (sic.) as alcohol and tobacco which are also are also (sic.) very harmful. I find these arguments disingenuous. There are cultural and historic reasons why alcohol and tobacco are not illegal drugs although restrictions have been placed on their use. The comparison belies the problems cannabis and ecstacy cause in our communities.

Cannabis use in Islington, particularly amongst young people, is largely tolerated these days - and I am concerned that this usage is creating sub-cultures of exclusion. Whilst alcohol use can also be damaging, there are social constraints on its use. I actually think that the semi-legalisation of cannabis gets the worst of both worlds - its use increases but without the benefits and constraints of socialisation, that might occour under full legalisation.

For this reason - based more on the social implications than the medical - I am not opposed to the upgrading of cannabis from class C to B.

I am sorry that we are not able to agree on this matter but I hope you can understand my reasoning. Please do not hesitate to get in touch with me in the future, on this matter, or any other.

Best wishes

Emily Thornberry MP

So there you have it. The use of cannabis is creating sub-cultures of exclusion and so obviously we have to maintain the legal system which excludes in order to, um, reduce the social problems associated with exclusion? Or something.

It is indeed politicans who are accountable to the electorate. I suspect I'll find it difficult to vote for one with reasoning like that.

More pestering my MP - The Digital Economy Bill

After The War On Drugs - Blueprint For Regulation

via tdpf.org.uk

The Transform Drug Policy Foundation has published it's new book "After The War On Drugs, Blueprint For Regulation", more than 200 pages of specific and useful suggestions for achieving some regulatory control over our chaotic and gangster-run drug markets.

Broadly, it's an attempt to answer prohibitionist questioning of exactly what a post-drug-war world would look like. They expect and fear chaos, streets full of violent drug-crazed kids, usage of drugs sky-rocketing with hospitals full of addicted vegetables.

Of course, we already have chaotic markets run by gangsters and mobsters, Blueprint sets out a more realistic picture of a drugs market controlled and sanitised by government rather than gangsters. Ways to regulate and contain drug use without forcing the worlds largest market into the hands of uncontrolled criminals.

Principle Benefits
The major benefits to the world's health and well being from legislating to control the use of and market in the currently illegal drugs are pointed out.

Standardising doses means more consumer knowledge and so a substantial reduction in accidental overdoses. More than this, consumers rationally tend to chose safer, less extreme drugs. People prefer beer over vodka. Likewise, in a regulated market, they're more likely to choose weaker strains of cannabis, raw opiates over heroin, energy drinks over snorted cocaine or smoked crack.

A legal market allows government to implement price controls, to raise revenue by taxing the sale of the drugs. Price controls can be set to discourage over-consumption yet low enough to discourage black markets and the criminal activity of supplying those markets or funding drug habits through acquisitive crime.

Legally sold drugs can be contained within legally mandated packaging. Tamper-proof so that doses are known. Child-proof to keep the things out of toddler's hands. The packaging can contain health warnings, instructions for harm-reduction, help and advice for quitting use. Packaging legislation can also require no branding, no marketing from the shelf, no fashion-markets.

Another benefit of a legal controlled market rather than the chaos of the current system is a set of legally mandated controls on vendors. No more street-dealers hovering outside the school gates, only knowledgeable, responsible, sellers who risk losing their licence for inappropriate marketing, pushing, cajoling or selling to overly intoxicated users. Vendors can be examined, forced to pass a test before they can operate, proving they are responsible and knowledgeable about the dangers of the products they retail.

Legal markets can also use advertising controls. These controls can be extended to, or modeled on, controls on advertising of the currently legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco.

Legal control allows government and communities to specify the location of outlets, licensing shops, clubs or pharmacies to operate only where they will cause the least damage to communities.

Legal controls allow the state and communities to control of volume of purchase, allowing only restricted amounts of a drug to be sold at any given time, as we currently do with aspirin for example. Again, this reduces the chances of accidental overdose, of drunken impulse purchase, it reduces not increases the chaos in our society, in these markets.

Proper age controls can be mandated, actually protecting the children rather than allowing unethical criminals to sell to anyone with a ten pound note.

Transform suggest a different range of controls would be suitable for different drugs, including the currently legal Alcohol and Tobacco.

Cannabis
A coffeshop model, similar to alcohol distribution through pubs, seems best suited to cannabis. The sale of alcohol on the same site could be strictly controlled or even banned. Promotional activities tightly regulated. Health warnings and experienced medical help mandated on site.

Stimulants
For stimulants like Cocaine and Amphetamines they suggest a licensed specialised pharmacy model. Users may even be registered and rationed. Drugs can be 'watermarked' to prevent third party sales. Opening hours, location, and volume of sales can all be tightly controlled.

Less strict controls on coca based drinks may move people away from the more dangerous powder cocaine towards an 'energy drink' concoction such as the original coca-cola.

Ecstasy
MDMA could be sold for consumption in licensed members-only clubs. Without alcohol on premises, and with expert help and medical attention available at all time. Each member only entitled to a certain amount of their drug of choice.

MDMA has also been used in therapeutic settings. This could be encouraged too, and could bring the medical benefits of the drug to help our society.

Psychedelics
Again, these would likely be best licensed to be consumed on-site at properly controlled member clubs. Clubs could be mandated to offer non-using 'sitters' who's duty is to ensure safe use, to use their professional training to ensure no psychologically damaging "bad trips" are likely.

Opiates
By regulating the use of Heroin and Morphine more tightly than raw opium and "poppy tea" it is expected that users could be pushed slowly towards less damaging use of the opiate drugs. The former sold in specialist pharmacies, the latter perhaps in a more membership-club based setting.

Summary
The book sets out and explains in detail exactly how a post-war drugs market could be expected to work, how it's less chaotic and dangerous to users and to the wider society than the current mess of criminal activity and police corruption which it's well known a prohibited market contributes to.

I hope every politician reads it carefully, it's a mature and sensible contribution the drug debate, something often sadly lacking.

My New Song - Pirate Party Call To Arms

Open Letter to my MP on David Nutt's sacking etc.

An open letter to my MP on the David Nutt Sack affair.

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

via bbc.co.uk

George Orwell wrote the subject line. It seems that, as I tweeted yesterday, telling the truth has kicked up controversy.

That Nutt has been fired is surprising mostly in that it's come so late, I really expected him to be fired for his previous comments that Horse Riding and Ecstasy could even be compared in their risk, let alone compared leaving E as the least risky.

The truth is, of course, that the truth is unspeakable. The home office is entrenched and insists that there is a line between "policy" and "science advice".

I suggest that where such a line exists, the "policy" is at fault.

I hope y'all at the very least join the facebook group to support Nutt, ideally also blog, tweet, post and point out that it appears that official government policy is by admission at odds with the scientific advice.

Really. Honestly.

The government thinks that they know better than the science.

You'd have trouble believing a sci-fi story where the government were openly admitting that their policy was contrary to scientific advice and so, rather than changing policy, they sacked the advisors.

Course, it's what happens over and over again in the insane drugs policy of this government, and every other government we've had for the last fifty years at least.

Alan Johnson is an idiot. The whole government is killing people with their instance in seeing the world how they'd like it to be rather than how it actually is.

I wish the madness away, but I've learned that my wishes are contrary to the evidence. So, unlike the national, even global, powers, I change my view of the world rather than deny the evidence.

It'll mean nothing. They'll continue to be idiots.

Prove me wrong!

I'm A Pirate. Arrrr.

So it seems that Three Strikes Laws are to hit Britain. Downloaders to get their internet all cut off.

No judicial oversight, no trial. Upon accusation by the big media companies, you're guilty until proven innocent.

More: Group punishment. Daddy downloads, wife and kids get cut off too. Marvellous.

Prompted me to join The UK Pirate Party. See if we can't wind back some of the database state, some of the surveillance society, some of the insanity of over-extended copyright monopolies.

Can't hurt to try, can it?