Kees Dorst | Interpreting Design Thinking – Long version from Business 21C on Vimeo.

One thing I love about “new media” (please excuse the use of a buzz word) and “Social Media” is its ability to involve the user in the process of selling them something. There’s many examples of this out there. Skittle’s were one of the first to open up their doors to UGC and social media with their uncensored Twitter interface on their own home page. “Skittles, making pedophiles fat”, was among some of the other inevitable abuse. But it worked. The Skittles site had never had that kind of attention and at least it got people talking. No such thing as bad publicity and all that…

Now, Tippex, the somewhat outdated (in my humble opinion) method for the correction of typos has released their own attempt to involve the user, generate that viral “love” and inevitably, get people buying. It’s playful, entertaining and it has achieved a purpose… I’ve been forwarded the link twice today and now, I’m sharing it too. At the time of writing, there were 11 million video views… and the comments, for the most part are all positive. I think it’s a job well done.

The video is here: NSFW. A hunter shoots a bear!

I remember when I was a kid growing up in the really rather green and leafy suburbs of Auckland (New Zealand). There was always this lure of wonder and secrecy offered by the walled gardens of some of the local residents. I imagined a wonderful array of magical fruits ready to be plucked from the branches owned by some eccentric recluse. Not to mention the stock piles of tennis, cricket and rugby balls that I had personally seen/aided in flying over into the never regions of this strange barricaded land…

But I wonder, if I had known what lay beyond, that what was hidden by those tall hedgerows, that the gardens had nothing more to offer than the very open and playground endowed park no more than fifty meters away, would I still have been interested?

At the end of last week, The Times Online (owned by media Baron Rupert Murdoch) decided to implement phase two of the introduction of their pay wall. Phase two is where they actually ask you to front up for your news consumption. Phase One, well that was a few weeks prior and involved a pay wall, without the pay bit. All you had to do was register. The change in traffic/eyes on pages from phase one? a drop of 60%. The predicted drop after readers have to pay (phase two)? A further 10%. That leaves a potential/predicted/hoped for user base of 30%. The Times Online says if they can maintain a 10% online, paid for readership (only a third of what they predict) then they will be quids in. I’m not so sure.

In Chris Anderson’s “Free” he talks about the “Freemium” model where the 5% of those willing to pay for extra content or added features support the 95% of those who are not. But does this work when you reverse the current standard practice? Giving it away for free and changing to a model where people are charged for no real (subjective opinion, granted) added benefit to the viewer. Not to mention, that with the exception of but a few (The FT springs to mind), this content is still widely available, for free and online.

One thing to note though, this is not actually a “freemium” model… There is no teaser, there is a home page with some titles and some images. But that’s all you get on the back of your free perusal. This is now just a premium model. Something that I think might struggle to gain traction on an internet rife with free alternatives. Even the FT allows a certain number of free views. Dangle the worm and you have potential to catch a fish. Dangle the hook and…?

I would also question, with the now limited eyes on “paper”, is The Times Online still offering the same level of exposure to advertisers that their free counterparts can and are? Will the (potential) 30% supplement the potential loss of big money advertisers? What would be the use of posters on the inside of the walled gardens?

I am by no means suggesting that the Times should merely give away their content. I am all for making money. With the modern media consumption rapidly moving away from paper (Murdoch vs. Jobs(iPad)/Schmidt(Google)) they can no longer support free online content on the back of paper offline content sales. But here in lies my gripe. Why not link the two? As it stands, the Times have no link between paper, online or phone application. You pay for one, you don’t get the other. In my humble opinion, you link the above and you make for a much stronger case for paid-for-content. Why can’t I buy a paper on the way into work read the front page, sport and a few of the comic strips, and then be allowed access to cheekily read online content during work…?

My overall opinion on the whole is that I just wouldn’t like to be first. When people realise that what’s in the walled garden is pretty similar to whats in the public park and that public park is supported by many a free folly, maybe they’ll move on. But you never know. I have been wrong before and to be fair, I’m not offering much of an alternative.

The rumour mill surrounding Apple is a miraculous thing. In recent years Apple has developed a reputation for keeping the ship leak free and creating a media frenzy without so much as a whiff of a press conference. This year however, things went a little off script.

Now call me cynical but for a company that is renowned for tight security leading up to a product launch, this time around hasn’t gone so swimmingly. Not one, not two, not even three new iPhone “4G” prototypes have gone “walkabouts” in bars and the like, but four have. Which is odd for a company rumoured to take their security so seriously that they make their product teams work with the new “toys” under black sheets. We now, within limits, pretty much know what is coming our way from 1 Infinite Loop (Apple’s home). 5MP Camera, Dual cameras, increased speed, etc etc. But is this perhaps a new marketing ploy? Is there a chance that with the release of the new HTC “Desire” (among others) Apple felt the need to let people know what was on its way. Maybe, with the now raging, and slightly odd battle between Apple and Adobe, Apple just wanted to reaffirm the allegiance of its army of evangelical users. Or, maybe they truly did just go missing… Any which way, in the next few days we’ll know exactly what’s coming, and from the master magician of sales him self, Steve Jobs.

So what happens to the current band of merry iPhones? They still go toe-to-toe with many of the current smart phones. There are millions of apps, millions of users and as an iPhone user myself, I think life would be a little less full without the world at my finger tips in that glossy way that only Apple seems to deliver… But as with all current smart phones, the thing that limits the user base to a select few (ok so few might be the wrong term but in the grand scheme of things it’s true) is the pricing range. The luxury of owning an iPhone, N95 (or whatever the number is these days), Blackberry or even the more open Android based cohort of phones, still comes with a hefty price tag. They ain’t cheap. Could the release of the new iPhone signal the establishment of a stepped range in Apple’s hand-held communication range?

Apple has done it with the iPod. Remember when the iPod mini was released in 2005? It was marketed to those that couldn’t afford the iPod (now iPod Classic) and became so successful it is now in it’s umpteenth iteration. The iPod, with the ability to market to the masses and the elite alike (not to mention a beautiful blending of form and function) spelled the end for the Walkman (admit it Sony, you lost that battle). So what happens if the entry price level for Apple’s smart phone family comes down to the level of 2G phones? The kind of phones that are just that, phones.

Admittedly the example of Apple dominating the digital personal music players market differs from their mobile phone market. Why? Well because with the ever increasing cheapness of storage, Apple’s profit margins can remain the same even with a lowering of cost to the end user. Not so with the large touch screen displays of the iPhone family. They are coming down in cost, but nowhere near the same rate as that of storage. So for the price point to significantly drop, Apple would be forced to lower their profit margin… Not something they’ve made a habit of doing in the past.

There is also the question of Apple’s reluctance to “cheapen” the brand. If you make something obtainable and everybody has one… It loses its desirability. When I now think of the iPod, I think of it as being almost ubiquitous. I would bank on nearly every household on my street having at least one locked behind their doors. Nobody really cares about them anymore. They have almost become the dreaded “commodity”.

So what happens if Apple do decide to diversify? Well the likes of Nokia need not worry about the coming 4G offering, the thing that would keep me up at night would be that which is already among us. Something that most are familiar with and most have thought about getting… The iPad will, and is succeeding over other tablet devices because the user base was already there. There is a stepped involvement suitable to a diverse range of budgets and people generally want that thing that every everyone else wants and owning it makes us feel like we’re members of an exclusive clique. Roll on the iPhone “family” and I would suggest, Nokia, Apple may be about to attack your core market.

“Playbour” is one of those new hybrid words that bored creatives and techno-supremo’s keep brandishing around when talking about all things digital. The catch on and then we’re stuck with them. This one however tells the story of the current emerging superpower of Social Media. A tool that people are only really beginning to understand how to use and exploit.

So, what is “Playbour”? Well, take a pinch of play, throw in a dash of labour and hey presto, you have yourself a nice little oxymoron and the word “Playbour”. These are two polar opposite words. Play by definition means “not work”, work quite obviously means “not play”. But when mixed together, they generate new meaning. A bit like “Military Intelligence” or “Girly Man”. “Playbour” itself refers to a new paradigm in how companies, individuals, organisations and networks can achieve goals and tasks. Think Mechanical Turk, but you don’t have to pay the workers.

As an avid iPhone app downloader, with apps ranging from sports to an autism calculator, from Twitter to banking, yesterday, I came across a new app named Waze. Waze has been billed as a “Social GPS” where users, over time, will score points in return for mapping out roads and traffic. FourSquare meets TomTom. Users can “steamroller” new roads, map road directions, and collect “goodies” along the way in a pac man-like chomp. It’s constantly updating, and, as with other forms of social media, it complies to your usual core Network Theory rules. The more people that use it, the more value it holds.

But why would people engage? Well, because there is an element of play, a dabble in the realms of fun and most importantly, there is a competitive edge to it. Well, there can be, if your that way inclined…

When we begin to delve into it a little, there are plenty of examples of the power of play. A fortnight ago, Google turned the homepage of the worlds most famous search engine into a simple Pac-man environment. You could chomp your little way through the “G”’s and “O”’s of Google and and avoid those pesky little ghosts of 1980’s fame. I spent perhaps five, maybe 6 minutes playing it. The rest of the world? Well they spent 4.8 million hours, of work time. Don’t take this the wrong way, but I dare say that is somewhat more work than your office gets done, ever. Imagine if you could harness that power.

Imagine if the millions of users and hours involved in Farmville could be used to actually plow fields, plan cities or at the very least, power Wales. The power of Play is immense. Points and Prestige are rapidly becoming the new Pounds and Pence. So, sack all your staff, make the work a game and pay them in “highscorer” bonuses. Who knows, might even work for British Airways.

Yesterday marked the end of my Future Everything 2010 experience. It was a full on affair with inspiration to be found in almost every corner. Although I do have to admit, there were moments I was checking my email. But hey, I’ve never protested to have a large or even adequate attention span. Fitting I thought that my last interaction/experience of the conference was watching a mad scientist and his “creation” (or short man wearing sunglasses standing to attention) freestyle words we gave him. Kudos to my colleague Natasha Carolan for trying to bamboozle the poor fellow with “Serendipity” after my feeble attempt with “Ambiguity”. In hindsight, I should have gone for “purple” – it’s un-rhyme-able. Try it.

So, on to the conference itself. One of the highlights for me was the “Doing it Together” presentations and the follow-up panel discussion given by Alison Powell (@Postdocal), Mushon Zer-Aviv (NYU – @Mushon) and Alexandra Deshcamp-Sonsino (Tinker – @TinkerLondon). Now I’m not just saying that because HighWire got a mention… But it helped.

Alison Powell from the Oxford Internet Institute began her talk by introducing Habermas’s ideal public sphere, a renaissance evolution that sought to bring rational, critical debate on public affairs into the public arena. She highlighted cafes as a good example of the establishment of public spheres. Here people would congregate (generally men) and discuss local issues with their peers. Add to this the introduction of mass media through newspapers and the “bottom” rungs of society were able to deliberate on what was going on at the “top”.

The next thing Powell went on to speak about was counterpublics. Counterpublics are alternative media, underground magazines and other non-state-sanctioned or “underground” media. The things the cool kids read. The Public Sphere Guide describes counterpublics as “dissident networks of communication excluded by the dominant public sphere”. The purpose of counterpublics, according to Alison is as a resistance or “push-back” against the structure of idealised public sphere and politics.

Then along came The Network. I have personally never read H.G. Wells’ collection of essays titled World Brain: The Idea of a Permanent World Encyclopedia but Wikipedia tells me it is very good and it is now on the list. Alison Powell goes on in the talks to liken todays internet to H.G. Wells’ writing. I wont lie to you, when she first mentioned Wells I momentarily switched-off assuming it was just another reference to 1984 and how the internet was surrendering our privacy. But thankfully it wasn’t. Powell explains that although there are similarities to Wells’ “brain”, the internet is much more distributed and accessible to all.

Unlike the cafes and mass printed media, the precursors to the internet, the technology can now be a form of mobilising/motivating the public.

Next was Social Media Models (SMM). Powell sees SMM as “a set of functions that can work in different ways and not as specific applications”. SMM are not always as radical as alternative media, but they can be. I’m sure that if you really think about it, you have probably come across some sort of grungy underground movement or anti-establishment group on Facebook. My personal favourite, well, the favourite I am willing to write here is The National Sarcasm Society…

According to Powell there are three parts to SMM: Filter, Feed and Funnel.

In terms of information intake these days, we have moved from scarcity to abundance. Not only are we using more media sources than ever before but those sources are increasingly saturated with undesirable “noise” and there is an ever present need to censor what we let in. That’s where the Filter comes in to play. No longer do we have to wait for someone else to curate our information and feed it to us. We follow the people we want to follow, we befriend those we want to befriend and we watch what we want to watch and as such we are now responsible for our own media and information intake.

Enabling us to filter is the Feed. Often we think of the feed as pulling data in but we are also being swamped by others’ opinions. Your friends that you follow, they are stressing their opinions and whether you like it or not, you are probably swayed by what they have to say. Powell argues however, that the feed is more elite than the “cafe” as we are now in a position to be selective about who we connect with and allow into that feed. It’s not always as easy to remove someone from a cafe setting. However hard you push.

As part of the SMM, Powell also discussed the Funnel. Now, using the funnel, messages and motivations can be amplified empowering the bottom up approach to social commentary. So now, when we have Open Data being sent from the top down, we increase the voice from the bottom up. Not to mention that data generated by the end citizen can now be funneled upwards to the likes of local councils and even country-wide government. A good example of this is fixmystreet.com allowing you to see and report on issues local to you. Powell believes that the Logic is the transformative bit, not necessarily the applications.

There are downsides to the internet and its ability to empower social spheres. All of those citizens that now have an “audible” voice have the power to detract from a single cause. This is known as the Echo Chambers. Imagine two different groups are campaigning for the same cause but do not focus their followings at the same point. It has the potential to divide and detract from a common goal. Pretty much along the same lines as Labour’s pleas to not “split the vote” between Labour and the Lib. Dems. in the recent elections. But I am trying to write a blog post without some sort of political commentary so I’ll stop that analogy right there. Powell’s point was that while deliberation is now easier with the prevalence of the internet, the step from deliberation to action can now be even more difficult.

Another issue with SMM is that we are all now becoming what Powell describes as Data Serfs. Now, with our increasing activity on the internet and digital social networks, we are creating more and more data for others. I for one am pretty well sure I have now reached the point where Google knows more about my past, checkered and un-checkered. A few years ago I read somewhere that Tesco, with the information they scrape from your Club Card, can now not only tell when it is your time of the month (obviously this probably only applies to half of you reading this), but also they can now ascertain when you are pregnant before you yourself can, just by the change in purchasing habits. Most likely just rumour but it does highlight what I’m saying. By innocently participating in services we are creating data that can be used both for us and against us. We now have to be more careful than ever with what information we now allow others to see.

The last points Powell made in her presentation were on Platforms, Infrastructure, Practices and Democracy but at that point, my notes run dry.

Part 2, with Mushon and Alex coming soon…

Yesterday marked the first of a series of workshops being run by the team here at HighWire and despite some early morning apprehension and what could generally be aligned to last minute “jitters” the day was a resounding success. From our end at least. The aim of the day, which is now much clearer in hindsight, was to explore how academics, students and industrial partners viewed and interacted with their data. In a word, physicality. For this workshop we split the subject into three sections: Data, Transformation and Physicality.

In the context of this workshop, Data is the raw information in the “loop”. It is a name, a bus route or the length your hair has grown since you last had it cut. It can both define and be defined by a physical embodiment. Imagine it in the context of Twitter and Data would be the “Tweet”.

For us, in geek speak, Transformation is the “middleware”. It’s the bit in between Physicality and Data that enables interaction between the two. It is the Arduino’s, the API’s, the PHP script and the “Code Monkey” bashing feverishly away at the keyboard to make it all work. Take Twitter again and the Transformation would be Twitter itself. For us, Physicality is about Data being physically represented in a sometimes playful and emotive manner. There are many great example of physical objects being controlled, adjusted or made interactive by using them in conjunction with data. A notable couple would be Tinker’s “Rewind” project and Mathieu Lehanneur’s “Therapeutic Objects”. Once again using the example of Twitter, Physicality could be a man, woman, or even a machine (I often have a tendency to default to technology), physically writing out each Tweet.

In each of these areas we then asked the participants to identify things that they were either doing, wanted to do or perhaps thought were impossible. This was done with trusted Post-It notes and appropriately titled boards.Next we asked the participants, over lunch (we’ve learnt that it is treacherous ground to ask academics anything on empty stomachs), to identify ideas posted on the boards that they felt particularly fell into one of five key areas. Those areas were: “Count Me In” – enabling us to identify potential points of collaboration and/or expertise. “Impossible” – looking for inspiration, we wanted to find the areas that the participants believed were impossible. After all, we do like a challenge. “Done to Death” – Where did the participants believe their was a sense of “overkill”, that the technology or society had moved on or that there were simply more exciting things to be doing. “Reference” – Where participants had prior knowledge of idea and thoughts we wanted them to share references that we could then follow up and Finally we wanted the participants to annotate anything that they believed was “Bright and Exciting”, that one is fairly self explanatory really. After lunch a series of activities designed to entice creativity and divergent, “unstagnated” thinking aimed to build on the playfulness of the day and potentially inspire us with a project direction we had not thought of. But that is another blog post all together.

So that brings me full circle, back to the title of this post – Physicality and the “Done to Death” Pile. At the end of the workshop we began to muse over what we had discussed, discovered and played with during the day. The “Done to Death”’s, a “pile” we had used during the workshop to help us remove the mundane, overused buzzwords from the list of potential key areas. One in which we had payed little attention or interest to, it was highlighted as an unexpected area of interest. So, here they are, listed below:

NB: It is important to note that the following list is subjective and only really based on interest levels

Data

• Search
• Social Networks
• Heart Beat

Transformation

• Google
• Walls for Graffiti

Physicality

• RFID
• GPS Tracking
• Wearable Sensors
• Sensor Tech
• Fridge that shouts at you
• Computer Vision
• Robots

Although, granted, each of the above points have interesting aspects or offshoots well worth exploring, the collective consensus of the workshop group, ruled them out. For me, this highlights the difference between academia and the commercial world and perhaps where they fail to communicate sufficiently. What commercial enterprises find interesting or perhaps a solution to a problem, may already be “old hat” in academic institutes. This is precisely where HighWire is supposed to fit in. Breaking down the ivory towers of academia and dispersing what we learn into industry and doing it quickly. To quote one academic at the workshop, “just get something out there”.

So, twenty hours after the polls closed, Gordon Brown is “squatting” in Number 10, Clegg is apparently siding with the Conservatives and in some constituencies they are still counting. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters all over the country were unable to vote and the first-past-the-post system has again left a nasty taste in the mouth of the British public. A reported cost of £40million and the potential for a re-vote… Well that didn’t go so well did it.

Maybe it’s because I grew up on the leading-edge of generation web (by that I don’t mean that I was at the forefront, I just mean that I grew up at the same time the web did), but it still baffles me that to date there is no online voting system. I appreciate there are flaws in a digital system, but no more so than voters being turned away, in the pouring rain because of a lack of ballot forms at a major metropolitan polling station.

So why can’t we have an online, click-my-face-to-vote-for-me system? Is it security? Is it because we can’t guarantee digital inclusion? Is it because of a fear of tampering? Because I for one think these are now very much so, flawed arguments.

Lets start with security. Two weeks ago I received, along with millions of others, my glimmering white polling card. On my polling card was my name, my address and the details of how I was to vote. All presented on an uncovered postcard like card. This “postcard” had come to me through the postal system, uncovered for all to see, and into a post box that is shared by, from my estimation, at least fifty people. So on rolls May 6th, or as I like to call it, yesterday. It was a day like any other, I got up as normal, left my house and went straight to the local polling station, polling card in hand. I walked through the front doors, handed over my polling card to the lady who had the look of someone who knew that they were in for a long day. She checked a list of names, I got my ballot paper, and I voted. There was no ID check, no fingerprint scan, and the bit that upset me the most, there was no frisking. So let me ask you, where is the security in that? What is there that stops me from voting for someone else, with their card? Or perhaps imagine that one of the people that share my post box was a foreign national and as such unable to vote. What if they were to take my card and use my right to vote? It is well within the British technological capabilities to implement a system that equals, if not betters this level of faux security.

Why not send sealed envelopes with unique pin codes similar to what banks do with debit card pin numbers. Voters could log on to a site, enter their pin, make their vote and return to watching the telly before the ads return to Coronation Street. Even better, integrate the whole thing with the BBC’s red button. “Digital viewers push the red button to decide the future of your country for the next five years”. Has a nice ring to it doesn’t it.

Another point I’d like to make is that by using a Digital voting system we can make it as transparent or opaque as it needs to be. Make it transparent, increase the integrity of the vote. Something goes wrong, we can track it the whole way back. The vote become spoiled? Lets roll it back a few hours to when we know it wasn’t and then email those who need to re-vote.

So, next on my hit-list was digital inclusion. To this, I have two answers. Firstly, augment the existing polling stations with online voting, don’t replace it. Use it to ease the footfall through polling stations and town halls the country over. Allow the digitally adept to make use of the tools they find at their finger tips nearly every waking moment. At the risk of sounding vulgar, it rather appeals to me to vote for certain candidates while using my iPhone on the toilet. Online voting even has the potential to increase the vote turnout. Those citizens that grew up and live their lives with what is rapidly becoming ubiquitous technology could argue that it is now they who are being excluded. The generation web-ers can’t participate in a way that is natural to them and is that not the same argument that is used the other way around? Secondly, I believe that the web, social networks and mobile technology are growing up. In March last year I read an article about how Facebook was growing up. In the article it states that the fastest growing age group on Facebook was now women over 55. My Grandmother, now well into her late 70’s (possibly into her early 80’s but don’t judge me for not knowing exactly) is a prolific user of the internet and social media. Her partner at the moment, she met him online, through a social network. This is not a limited case either. There are cases of Online Social Networks being used to reduce the feeling of isolation in the elderly living alone. So I would perhaps venture, hopefully not out of place, that the gap between young and old and how well they are digitally represented is closing. God forbid my Grandmother reaches the stage where she is immobile, but if she does would a click-and-vote system not be easier and more cost effective for all those involved?

So how would taking the vote online help the world that exist offline? Well the first thing that springs to mind is that we could have an immediate outcome. The polling stations could close, a few buttons pressed, cogs turned and badda bing we have a winner. Or not as today has shown. Need a recount? Push the button and turn the cogs again. Hey presto. I am being flippant about it but it’s true, digitised data is easy to collate, manipulate and present. Digitising the data also reduces the costs involved, polling stations could be reduced. Costs of printing, staffing or even the dreaded millions to be spent on a re-vote could all be avoided or at least reduced.

So where do I think this leaves us? Well perhaps a little electoral innovation would help the country go a long way. Perhaps Mandelson’s vision of a Digital Britain leading the world as a Digital Economy superstar should have a fully working click-to-vote system as the jewel in its crown. But don’t get me wrong, that is not an endorsement for Mandelson or the Digital Economy Bill.

Stemming from Lord Carters Digital Britain report during summer 2009 the Digital Economies Bill (DEBill) put forward by Lord Mandelson has dabbled in controversy from conception to its completed passing through the house of commons last month. In the beginning only the technorati and digitally adept raised protest. But now with the use of the technologies the bill has the potential to stifle, the concern has spread to the average Joe of Digital Britain.

After three readings and a rather uninvolved, forced through “wash-up” debate opposed only by a few, namely Tom Watson and the Liberal Democrats, the Digital Economies Bill is now the Digital Economies Act. 189 votes to 47. But what implications, if any does the Digital Economies Bill have on innovation and creativity?

In a 2005 paper written by Brian Uzzi and Jarret Spiro on Creativity and Collaboration, they state that “Creativity is spurned when diverse ideas are united or when creative material in one domain inspires or forces fresh thinking in another” (Uzzi and Spiro 2005). A uniting of creative ideas can spark innovation and in the case of Digital Britain, aid in the growth of Digital Economy. Today I read an article in The Guardian about the Downfall of the remix culture. The article refers to the mostly youTube found Downfall parodies. For those of you not familiar with the series of spoofs, the short clips are taken from the movie depicting Hitler’s last days during the war, housed in his underground lair. Each parody is then based around current events with subtitles to suit. Although morally questionable, the parodies have developed a cult-like following, with parodies depicting Hitler’s displeasure at events from the death of Michael Jackson, to not receiving an iPad in the initial release phase of the Apple device. The original Downfall’s producers have now complained to Google (owners of youTube) and asked for the clips to be removed. By the decreasing video count, it would appear that Google is already complying. To me this is an obvious mistake by the producers. They are removing what is obviously a huge marketable following. A viral campaign created for free, by others. They have achieved the Holy Grail of new media advertising, and they didn’t have to lift a finger, well other than the fingers they lifted to produce the movie in the first place, obviously. I would venture that more have witnessed a Downfall Parody, than Downfall itself. However, with this aside, the compliance of Google and the very willingness of the movies copyright owners to have the content removed, shows the very closing of the creative door posed by the DEBill. Could we be seeing the beginning of the end for the remix parody creative platform? Unlikely. It will just move underground, occasionally popping it’s head up above the parapet, but it is possible.

“Over regulations wastes the extraordinary opportunity for democratic creativity that digital technology enables” (Lessig 2004).

I once read a paper on Design and Design Thinking. In this paper the writer toyed with the idea that there were no longer any truly original ideas. She believed that we had reached a stage in human knowledge and tacit understanding whereby ideas were just adaptations of previous ideas. Whether you agree with that or not, it does pose an interesting question about the effects of a an “economy spurring”, “innovation starting” bill that would beat “new media” with the same stick it used to keep “old media” in check.

Mandelson presented the bill as having the main purpose of tackling online copyright infringement, bringing connectivity to the masses and stimulating the economy so that Britain can “compete and lead in the digital economy” (Adults 2009). Wide ranging technology reforms and super-fast broadband are both necessary for the next steps in a fully fledged digital economy. Digitally urbanising the sometimes isolated rural communities around Britain. Connectivity and human interaction (even digital) are key to collaboration. There is in turn, links between collaboration and creativity and subsequently creativity and innovation. So as a digital creative, these are exciting and most promising prospects. However in execution, the reality may be somewhat different. Mandelson has said that he intends to “bring legal order to the internet” (Porter 2010) which is by no means an enviable task. But what does legal order mean? Well, essentially, post bill, it is the digital equivalent of those policemen you sometimes see in Times Square, the ones with the white gloves, directing traffic, stopping cars and sometimes issuing tickets. Now imagine those same policemen standing on the M25 during rush hour and you can start to see where this becomes a problem.

The bill contained a number of clauses that were, depending on your stand point, either good or bad. Good if you’re on the side of the BPI (the governing body for the British Record Industry and new found friends of Lord Mandelson) and bad, if you’re anybody else. There has been much comment from bloggers, journalists and those politicians opposed to the bill and most tend to agree that, while good in parts, the bill tries to do too much. With little expert opinion or research taken into account, it is evident that the DEBill is suffering from lack of quality over quantity. It does too much and a lot of what it does do, it does badly.

A good example where the DEBill falls short in the task at hand, is its failure to take existing systems into account in the clauses which it refers to its blanket rules for choking and subsequent banning of internet traffic. For years, universities the length and breadth of the country have relied on a system named JANET, ‘The UK’s Education and Research Network’. All universities in Britain are connected to the JANET backbone and through JANET they are connected to the world. If JANET detects that a user of a network is infringing on a piece of work covered by copyright, then ‘she’ informs that institution. That institution then compares JANET’s report to their own log records and the individual ‘infringer’ is warned. An institution of 10,000 users can expect one warning per week. Not a bate rate. I use a JANET connected university service upwards of thirty hours a week. Now imagine that so do the other 9,999 users on my ‘average’ university network. That’s 300,000 hours of network traffic a week. One wayward surfer doesn’t seem so bad to me. Not when you consider the possible beneficial nature and outcomes on learning, creativity and innovation of the other 299,970 hours. Admittedly my example (and probably maths) is flawed, but it does illustrate a point. To date, this system has generally worked quite well. A quick slap on the wrist, a “don’t do it again”, and everybody is happy. There is even acknowledgment that the power of this warning through word-of-mouth has greater influence than the warning itself. I like to call this the diffusion of a bollocking.

Universities and their cohorts of students, lecturers and staff are privileged with access to information and works that the average digital consumers are not. This is why a blanket ruling in this situation would not work. In the example above, imagine the implications if actions of one affected the many (9,999). In an open letter from the web giants Google, Facebook, eBay and Yahoo, Mandelson was urged to drop the now infamous, and now retracted, “Clause 18”. This clause would have enabled the Government, or more namely the Secretary of State, to shutdown any site that enabled users to “infringe”. Potential candidates for shutdown? Google, eBay or even the university network I’m currently using to research this piece. Twitter is definitely a law breaker. The Secretary of State would also have new powers over copyright law. They would now be able to make changes at his or her discretion. Where is the democracy the western world chases in that?

Here-in lies the problem as I see it. The DEBill is seeking to impose old copyright sanctions designed for print (atoms) on new media (bits)(Anderson 2009). Whereby before, it was possible to create all encompassing rules and governance to limit the unlawful copying and distribution of works covered by copyright, there are now so many niche’s and medium, it is no longer possible or effective. Learning is the act of taking shared knowledge and digesting it in a way that makes sense to the learner. Mandelson’s new ‘toy’ has the potential to limit that process at the very first step. With the retraction of “Clause 18” came “Clause 17” and amendments to “Clause 8” effectively invoking the same powers. The new and revised clauses detail that the Secretary of State can take down any site that has infringed, is infringing or is about to infringe if sanctioned by a court. Which on one level equates to punishment of intentions, not actions. To me theses clauses are more inline with Orwell’s 1984 than a modern digital, innovative community rising from the ashes of a recession. They have the potential to impeach your civil liberties and stifle the connectivity that the Digital Economy Bill itself holds as ideals.

In The Lawyer Magazine Lord Mandelson is quoted as saying that he wants to “give teeth to the statutory provisions” and increase their effectiveness (Porter 2010).  But the now passed bill has the potential to pull those teeth from the leading edge of Digital Britain’s economy, leaving digital creatives and innovators reaching for their digital dentures. With the proposed changes brought by Mandelson’s clauses, only the BPI really has anything to gain. They sure up a sinking ship of a business model, for a while at least. In Sweden recently, similar changes were made to their digital economy governing laws. Internet traffic dropped, sharply. It came back. It even rose to heights much higher than before. This time however, the majority of the traffic was encrypted or nestled safely behind VPN’s. The DEBill risk the same eventuality. Push the piracy underground, then make it harder to trace. Perhaps it is time for a rethink in business strategy.

Last year I was watching a documentary on the BBC about a young lady who was producing music from a room in her small flat. The music wasn’t exactly to my tastes, a little bit like a swung-cat-hitting-a-still-drum if you ask me. Then again, I have heard worse. Her marketing ploy was simple but really rather ingenious. She was printing copies of her music and taking it to the street venders around Rio (the ones that normally flog the pirated slightly dodgy sounding tat) and gave it to them for free. The venders kept all the profit, and she gets her name out and into the Rio music scene. She would then go on to make her money from gigs and performances. A little like how musicians used to make their money back in the hay days of Radio. Would effort and funding be better directed at business model innovation in the music industry?

As part of the DEBill’s first clause OfCom’s remit was to increase from television and radio, to “all media services”. The intention was to allow OfCom to facilitate investment in high speed broadband up and down the country. However, this clause was retracted by Stephen Timms on behalf of the government during the third reading. Apparently to appease Conservative members voting on the bill. A proposed landline tax was ear marked for the finance bill in the same period which was likely to tax £8 per landline, per year and was to be used to fund the installation of a high speed broadband network. I would theorise that an increase of any tax preceding an election does not make for good politics, which perhaps explains its exclusion.

For some reason, it would seem that the smaller, less business involved parties such as the Green Party and to some extent the Liberal Democrats are more opposed to the bill than the Red and Blue of Labour and the Conservatives. “The Green Party considers this piece of legislation to be illiberal, unworkable and ill-advised. We would have opposed its introduction had we been represented in the Parliament and remain opposed to its implementation.” A response to a letter sent from the Open Righta Group’s “E-Mail your candidate” campaign

So where does this animosity towards peer-to-peer file sharing and deep seated hatred of digital copyright infringement stem from? Why are the government taking the side of the big corporates and chastising the innocent for the actions of a few? Well, perhaps unfairly, Mandelson’s whereabouts and acquaintances immediately preceding the writing of the bill, have been called into question. In The Guardian’s article “Mandelson web cutoff plan ‘potentially illegal”, it was suggested that there was perhaps some link between Mandelson’s “secret meetings” with music and film executives. Mandelson is believed to have had a series of meetings with Lucian Grainge before and after Grainge’s consultations with Lord Carter on his Digital Britain Report. Grainge, the head of Universal Music and an influential, vocal anti-file-sharer is believed (by some conspiracy theorists) to be the catalyst for the Governments about face on the findings and recommendation of the Digital Britain Report. Then at the beginning of August, Mandelson was also said to have holidayed with David Geffen, a Hollywood “power player” and also an anti-file-sharer. Soon after, and in the face of the governments own Digital Britain Report, Mandelson released plans for the Digital Economy Bill. But to be fair to Mandelson, he did say he didn’t do it… In an open memo to The Guardian in response to their article regarding his cutoff plans and interaction with the two Hollywood big shots, Mandelson states that during his meeting with Geffen “internet piracy was not covered” and that Grainge was merely part of a plethora of individuals consulted. I myself am not so convinced. It seems odd to me that the government would commission a report, define guidelines and then meetings with those who stand to lose the most should be merely coincidental before a governmental change of heart. But then again, I do love a good conspiracy.

So what does the DEBill mean for new media? Well, to start with, “Clause 22” states that Channel 4 must now support the people “making innovative content” as well as increasing their focus on children and young persons programming and news. This is a step in the right direction. It forces a broader view of where the channel sources their content from. User Generated Content (UGC) is all the rage on the internet and has been for sometime. It’s only a natural progression that this should now spread to main stream television.

While on the point of UGC, it is an important side note to add that while in favor of a tightening of the copyright ‘purse string’ and a strengthening of the enforcement of the law, the BPI are not in favor of greater protection for the small creators of UGC. Britain’s industrial prowess was developed from a men-in-sheds mentality many years ago. UGC is just the modern equivalent. Other areas of new media to be dabbled with by the DEBill are; Video Games which under “Clause 41” now fall under the Video Recordings Act 1984, effectively invoking powers to ban game title if they are deemed too inappropriate for us little folk to play; and Radio, the government now has the power to specify a digital switch over.

Interestingly, released shortly after the DEBill became the DEAct, the BPI announced an increase in profits despite piracy. This raises further questions about the use of the ‘wash-up’ phase.

Privacy is the next big issue to leave a gritty taste in the mouth of most of the digital society. Under the new rules, ISP’s will be asked to monitor ALL traffic in and out of your house. TalkTalk has named this as ‘an infringement on our human rights’ and even questions the legality of the DEBill. TalkTalk are also concerned about the increased chance of hackers, hijacking the internet connections of the general public to avoid copyright choke hold. Stephen Fry, an avid Twitterer is outraged at the impositions of the DEBill titling it “ill conceived” and “epically foolish”. Fry also goes on to lend his ‘internet pull’ to TalkTalks anti-DEBill campaign ‘Don’t Disconnect US’, a campaign informing the general public of the changes they face. As a result of the campaign the government was handed a 20,000 signature strong petition with 7,000 people actually writing to their MP’s. 38 Degrees also raised money, through donations, to place anti-DEBill advertisements in newspapers.

So with summer tantalisingly close, wouldn’t it be lovely to sit in a open air cafe working on a report, or emailing a friend? Well, free WiFi, that’s likely to go. Under “Clause 10” businesses that supply free WiFi are then also responsible for the content their patrons (and free-loaders) access, effectively making them ISP’s. As these are ad hoc Internet Service Providers, they are therefore liable for the £250,000 fine name in “Clause 15” if they do not choke and then ban those ‘infringing’.

So now, at the time of writing, Gordon Brown is still Prime Minister and will be for at least one more week. Today Gordon (or “Gordy as I like to call him over a glass of Whiskey”) has been quoted as saying to Tim Dobson, Pirate Party Candidate for Manchester that he will “look into repealing the Digital Economies Bill”. Sadly I do get the feeling that this may just be a stab at conscripting those with the keys to Digital Britain to side with the same party that wrote the bill in the first instance. Not to mention what a tremendous waste of time and money it has all been.

As a ‘digital creative’ of Britain you face a number of changes that you now have to cope with. You now not only have the same privacy and choking issues that everybody else faces, but you also have restrictions over what media you can access, remix or adapt. No more Downfall parodies for you my friend. There is a plus side though. The government was forced to withdraw “Clause 43”, its orphaned works policy. This basically said that any work under copyright, was no longer under copyright, if the holder of the copyright could not be found. This was protested most vehemently by photographers and artists alike and withdrawn by the speaker.

http://duckrabbit.info/blog/2010/03/stop-section-43-or-else-this/

I can’t help but think that the now increasing costs of serving the internet to British households and businesses faced by ISP’s such as Virgin, TalkTalk and BT, may be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps on the development of super-fast broadband? After all, we are, on average one of the slowest connected countries in the developed world. Korea accesses the World Wide Web at over ten times the speeds we achieve in the UK. So you might say, we in Britain, are currently not the standard barer for a Digital Economy in full flight.

I have obviously chosen to omit comment on parts of the DEBill. For example I have not explored the implications on health and mental health. For example in a modern digital society with an increased rate of reliance on the internet, what are the implications of internet disconnection? But I’ll save those little gems for future posts. I might even make a little series of them.

So, like hundreds of other disgruntled Digital Britain Citizen I’ve been poking and prodding around the issue of the Digital Economy Bill. The more I read, the more I dislike.

While trawling through the “tinternet” I found Open Right Group‘s “Email you candidates“. This contact form, complete with suitable “I’m not so happy with your behavior right now…” letter enables you to email your local area candidates and give them a little bit of a grilling to find out where they stand. So I did. To my surprise, and some might even venture shock, I had an email from a candidate within an hour and way past the watershed too. This is the reply I received. Short, but still a reply.

Dear Richard

Thank you for your email.

This is an issue that has been raised with me many times and it is a real cause for concern.  As you say there was little debate and the consequences of the DE Act could lead to swingeing repercussions for web-users.  Had I had the opportunity I would have supported Tom Watson MP, who campaigned against the DE Act, and I am more than happy to commit to attending a meeting organised by Eric Joyce on this issue.

Standing by my principles is important to me also.

I hope that this is helpful?

Kind regards

Clive Grunshaw

Call me skeptical but I do wonder how quick the reply would have been if we were not in the week leading up to a General Election? It is however appreciated.

Clive is the Lancaster and Fleetwood Labour candidate for the coming election. In the interest of fairness, when/if I get replies from the other candidates I’ll post them too.