yeah, I hadn't thought of the idea of the control of our overall access to the internet. I mean, it's obviously in there but I still naively believe that we'll have freedoms from restriction. Although, this comes from a man who is stopped by police and followed by security guards around supermarkets just because of the way I look! So I should know better by now.
On 8 April 2010 15:14, marc garrett <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Hi Mark, > > The main thing to understand, is that there are bigger things at risk > than, copyright infringements and poor old Robbie William's bank > account. More fundamental issues that go way further than mp3's being > downloaded for free or illegally. > > It about personal liberties vs corporate profit... > > The mp3 thing is more of a diversion, an easy strap-line, a good > marketing and lobbying ploy. Behind all this is a much more sinister > thing going on which is about lessening our freedoms and free use on the > Internet. > > Not only that, we have witnessed the power of corporations to lobby on > their own terms and no-ones elses. They have managed to hijack the > government who are pretty much, out of touch and caught in their own > insitutional blind allies to even begin to comprehend the consequnce of > such a bill being put in place. > > It's about who controls the gaze of the public, who influences and > diverts the gaze - our mediation? > > We could soon be experiencing an Internet via products alone, just like > television - the Internet has not 'thankfully' been based on this form > of mono-ciltural behaviour and control - YET. > > Wishing you well. > > marc > > > Hi, > > > > There's a lot in the Bill and I'm trying to get my head around many of > > the finer points of it, but at the moment I'm working through the idea > > that it will restrict young creatives who are hunting out resources to > > help them form ideas, opinions and their own creative practice. But > > also I can see the cracks inbetween the different points of view, but > > only dimly for now. For example: of course everyone wants to make > > money from their creative work, it's bloody hard work sometimes. But > > the share economy must also come into play, mustn't it? Also, how > > would you stand up in court and argue that you only downloaded that > > new album by Kode 9 (or Robbie Williams!) for development of your own > > creative practice? > > > > As I say, I'm not the most informed on the debate or the bill, but I > > hope everyone keeps posting links and thoughts to the list. > > > > Cheers > > > > Mark > > > > On 8 April 2010 14:07, marc garrett <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > I am not sure that many people really understand the full > > consequence of > > what has just happened. This adds to the rise of an already dominant > > panoptican state, cctv cameras, ID Cards, and now this bill. "The > > Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming protested that this could mean the > > blocking of the whistleblower site Wikileaks, which carries only > > copyrighted work. Stephen Timms for the government said that it would > > not want to see the clause used to restrict freedom of speech – > > but gave > > no assurance that sites like Wikileaks would not be blocked." > > > > "in trying to support artists’ copyright and tackle illegal > > file-sharing, is about to produce a new culture – in which ISPs and > > bewildered householders are deluged with threatening legal letters > > from > > the entertainment industry." > > > > Make no mistake, this is a good day for corporations, such as those > > disgusting Murdoch owned newspapers like the Sun and of course - the > > greedy record companies, gaining further control over content and its > > freedom of distribution on the Internet. It is not just about young > > people downloading free mp3's, way beyond that - amongst the bill > > was a > > whole load of other measures, protocols, restrictions which will hit > > many of us in the future. > > > > As you say... > > >This effectively means the UK government has the power to control > > >who can link to who on the web. This is an assault on the primary > > >architecture of the web, the functionality of the hyperlink and the > > >capability to link any location to another. This is complementary > > >action to News International raising pay-walls around its online > > resources. > > > > The effect this will have on grass roots culture and its > > stranglulation > > of creative cultures using the Internet, will take effect soon. > > > > "Don Foster, the Liberal Democrats' spokesman for culture, media and > > sport, protested that the clause was too wide-ranging: "it could > apply > > to Google," he complained, adding that its inclusion of the phrase > > about > > "likely to be used" meant that a site could be blocked on its assumed > > intentions rather than its actions." > > > > "The govt. can tell Ofcom whether it should order ISPs to sanction > > speed > > blocks, bandwidth shaping, site blocking, account suspension or other > > limits against an ISP customer. First, Ofcom must do consultation and > > consider whether these measures would work." > > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/apr/08/digital-economy-bill-quick-guide-45-measures > > > > Anyway... > > > > marc > > > An implicit but important part of this bill is that the > > government now > > > has the power, without judicial oversight, to block links to web > > sites > > > and pages it deems to be in breach of the Digital Economy act. This > > > effectively means the UK government has the power to control who > can > > > link to who on the web. This is an assault on the primary > > architecture > > > of the web, the functionality of the hyperlink and the capability > to > > > link any location to another. This is complementary action to News > > > International raising pay-walls around its online resources. > > > > > > The UK has no constitution and citizens are subjects of the > > crown, not > > > independent citizens. They have no constitutional rights protecting > > > things like free speech. The UK’s archaic legal and constitutional > > > systems have allowed a reactionary and illiberal law to be > > > undemocratically brought into force and it will function to > > constrain > > > the development of networked and digital media in the UK. Australia > > > has also done this, implementing systems similar to those used in > > > China. Very bad days for the internet. > > > > > > Best > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > Simon Biggs > > > > > > s.biggs@ eca .ac.uk <http://ac.uk> [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> Skype: simonbiggsuk > > > http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ > > > Research Professor edinburgh college of art http://www. eca > > .ac.uk/ <http://ac.uk/> > > > *C* reative *I* nterdisciplinary *R* esearch into *C* o *L* > > laborative > > > *E* nvironments http://www. eca .ac.uk/circle/ > > <http://ac.uk/circle/> > > > *E* lectronic *L* iterature as a *M* odel of *C* reativity and *I* > > > nnovation in *P* ractice http://www.elmcip.net/ > > > > > > > > > *From: *marc garrett <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > *Reply-To: *NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > > > <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > *Date: *Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:32:56 +0100 > > > *To: *NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > > > <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > *Subject: *[NetBehaviour] UK passes Digital Economy Bill. > > > > > > UK passes Digital Economy Bill. > > > > > > British parliament has passed the Digital Economy Bill by a vote > > of 189 > > > to 47. > > > > > > The bill covers issues such as online copyright infringement, > > internet > > > piracy, regulation of TV and radio, the classification of video > > games > > > and regulations over internet services providers. A new clause > > allows > > > the secretary of state for business to block websites that have > > violated > > > copyright. > > > > > > It has been criticised by digital groups who say it has not been > > > discussed for a suitable amoung of time. The bill was passed in a > > > "wash-up" process, which translates to a limited debate on the > bill. > > > Popular microblogging site Twitter has already registered protests > > > against it. > > > > > > > > > http://www.newstatesman.com/digital/2010/04/digital-economy-bill-british > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > > [email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]> > > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > > > Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in > > Scotland, number SC009201 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > > [email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]> > > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
