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.

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.

I just read an article on The Guardian website about the Pirate Bay. For those of you who don’t know it’s a torrent site. Agree with them or not, their out there and it would seem as though they are here to stay.

To sum the article up, or to sum up the bits that are relevant here any way, The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry has ordered Norway’s largest internet provider Telenor to block Pirate Bay. Now I personally think this is the wrong move for three reasons:

1. If they want it bad enough, they’ll go elsewhere
2. What about all the legal content changing hands?
3. Isn’t that verging on a big brother / nanny state?

When (the now apparently missing) Steve Jobs and Apple introduced the world to the iTunes music store they revolutionized the music industry and gave the record companies an out in terms of the downward spiraling record sales. But instead of opening up and embracing the changing scope of delivering music from the studio to your ears, they sat back and did very little but complain. I bet now with hindsight they are wishing they rapidly made changes to outdated business models and re-thought their traditional distribution processes.

Here is something for you to think about. I saw a documentary a couple of weeks ago, I think it was on the BBC. It was about this young lady who was producing music from a room in a small flat. The music wasn’t exactly to my liking, but then again, I’ve 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 crap) and gave it to them for free. The venders keep all profit, but she gets her name out there.

Obviously this is not an easily upscalable model but it does show that the traditional way of doing things can and sometimes has to change.

So, what I’m getting at is this: Stop fighting technology, embrace it. Change the way you do business. Adapt to the market place that you now find yourself in. It may not be through choice that you find yourself having to change, but it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Television did not kill radio. The internet has not killed television. Piracy will not kill music. If you learn to use this to your advantage.