Digital Economy Bill: The Reply

After waiting five days for a reply to my last email, I forwarded it to Stewart Hosie's main email address, as well as the SNP HQ email address.

Within a couple of hours, I'd recieved this reply from Kevin, the same assistant who'd replied to my previous missives. The yellow highighting around "PEGI" is his, not mine; I'm still not 100% sure why it's there.

Dear Paul

Further to our recent correspondence, Stewart has advised that, whilst he agrees there was a lack of scrutiny to the bill, he believed that the need for PEGI to become the classification system for video games overcame his concerns regarding scrutiny and the other sections of the bill.

He appreciates that you may be personally disappointed but his decision was one he did give careful consideration to.

Yours

Kevin

This rang hollow to me; after all, the BBFC and PEGI already rate pretty much every game released in the UK, and rushing through a bill with the kind of security and civil rights implications of the #debill just to formalise that situation seems extreme to me, so I sent this short message back - and have yet to recieve a reply.

Kevin,

Thanks for the reply - I was just hoping to get a little bit more information from you about Stewart's decision.

Given that video games are already certified by the BBFC in some cases and PEGI in all others, what benefit does rushing through the Digital Economy Bill have? I don't see how waiting a couple of months with the system we have - which is perfectly functional and enforcable - is such a terrible prospect that the civil liberties of voters need to be put at risk from legislation that has not been given proper scrutiny and consideration.

I don't understand how the serious concerns about the bill expressed by internet companies, security agencies and your constituents are deemed less important by Stewart than the rushed official implementation of a ratings system that is actually already more or less in place.

I'm looking forward to your reply.

Thanks,

-Paul

Hopefully I'll get a reply, but honestly I'm not expecting much.

The Digital Economy Bill

Last night, the House of Commons passed the controversial Digital Economy Bill. For more information on why this bill is a useless piece of garbage, see here and a million other places online.

Immediately after the debate, shortly before midnight, I sent an email to my MP, the SNP's Stewart Hosie, asking how he'd voted. I got a reply from one of his assistants this morning saying they'd look into it and get back to me.

I found the answer myself, before they got back to me, so I sent this to them as well.

Hi Kevin,

I already know, thanks to Hansard (link), that Mr. Hosie voted in favour of the Digital Economy bill, which only really leaves one question outstanding:

Is it the official policy of the SNP to disregard the impact of wide-reaching and unscrutinized legislation on your constituents' civil liberties, in order to appease corporate lobbyists, or is that only the case for this bill? Did Mr. Hosie not read or understand the bill and its implications for free speech and communication, or did he simply not care? He obviously didn't feel strongly enough about the bill's contents to participate in the debate beforehand, despite being in the House of Commons for the finance debate that took place immediately before it.

Dundee prides itself on its thriving digital businesses; games companies like Denki, Realtime Worlds, Tag Games, Ruffian and Proper Games; Abertay and Dundee University's focus on computing and new media courses; the city's participation in the Fibre City Project, and of course the massive publishing and content creator that is DC Thomson. How can Mr. Hosie, who claims to represent many of the people who work for these companies and institutions, justify not standing up to say a single word during the Digital Economy Bill's debate?

Given the controversy surrounding this bill, and the massive impact it could - and very likely will have - on the future of communication in this country, it was essential that the whole House be allowed to scrutinize the whole bill before it was passed. Instead, the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat front benches colluded to have the bill forced through in the wash-up, bypassing the democratic process and cheating their constituents out of their rights. I am horrified that my MP and the rest of the SNP went along with this cheap sham.

Leaving aside the grave implications this bill has for the health of Britain's digital economy, the freedom of speech and the sharing of information, this is a severe precedent set for the future of democracy in the UK.

Yours,

Paul Cosgrove

...

I don't know how to express how the news from Northern Ireland over the last few days makes me feel. The cynic in me wants to roll my eyes and think "it was only a matter of time", but Goddamn it I thought we were past all this shit.

What exactly does this accomplish for anybody?

Excuse me while I despair for my country and the people still living there.

On the mortgage crisis

This whole "default swaps" situation has us all fucked into a cocked hat to a much worse degree than I ever thought possible...

Q. What are the risks posed by credit-default swaps?

A. The first risk is their sheer size. Writing in Sunday's New York Times, Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, estimated there were $55 trillion in credit-default swaps outstanding, which is larger than the combined gross domestic product of every country on Earth.

(Emphasis mine)

How does this shit happen? Did nobody think they were maybe going too far?

The quote is taken from this Seattle Times article.

Zero?

During his furious post-"Zero" blinking session, I can almost hear the old Amiga disk drive churning away.

Rolling Stone profiles McCain

On the off-chance anybody hasn't seen this already, I strongly suggest you give it a read.

Make-Believe Maverick

I've been going through it slowly the last couple of days (it's ten pages long), and while RS are undoubtedly more left-leaning than centrist, if even half this stuff is on the mark I just got a lot more worried about the prospect of a John McCain presidency.

Jon Stewart reacts to the $700bn bill failure

I don't know if his outburst at the end of this (~6.45 in) is scripted or ad-libbed, but he certainly seems genuinely angry.

I <3 John Oliver

Is there anything this man won't do or say to get a laugh? I think he's even ballsier than Colbert.

John Oliver: Political Wingman

According to the latest installment of The Bugle, John Oliver actually met Tony Blair after the show; apparently it was a bit frosty.

Tony Blair on The Daily Show

I have tremendous admiration for Jon Stewart's interview technique - especially when he's up against politicians and the like. I could watch him interviewing Blair for hours; it seems so rare for someone (at least in American television - and even in the UK, Paxman isn't as personable as Stewart is and always puts people on the defensive) keep asking the same queston until they get an answer, instead of just rolling over at the first soundbite. It's just a shame that the Daily Show only has five to ten minutes for these interviews.

McCain on Spain

This whole story seems like an over-reaction. I've listened to the interview (the bit about Spain is ~2:58 in), and I don't blame McCain for getting confused. I'd read the transcript beforehand, and even then some of the presenter's pronunciation, especially across a phone line that fuzzy, could have been indistinct. If it had been a face-to-face interview in the studio, I seriously doubt there would have been a problem.

I can't believe how aggressively some bloggers are attacking McCain over this; rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt until an annoucement comes from his campaign, they're dogpiling him.

It's not a simple case of "he doesn't know where Spain is" versus "he thinks Spain are terrorists" - there's also the possibility that he simply misheard her and wasn't familiar with the Spanish PM's name - he's hardly the only American guilty of that.

Hell, I'm in Europe and I couldn't tell you the names of half the leaders in the continent. I didn't even know who the Northern Irish First Minister is right now before checking Wikipedia.

gov.palin@yahoo.com

Anonymous has allegedly hacked Sarah Palin's personal email account. Screenshots and other evidence is available at WikiLeaks.

The suggestions now are that she used this account, gov.palin@yahoo.com, for official state business; emails to and from various government departments and drafts of letters to other governors were apparently found in the account.

There are also suggestions on some blogs that she used the account for the unsavory aspects of her job, such as emails regarding Troopergate, so that a subpoena of her state email account wouldn't reveal any damaging connections.

But even regardless of that, which doesn't seem to have any real evidence to support it as yet, does it strike anybody else as massively irresponsible, not to mention a dangerous breach of security, to keep information relating to her state government in the cloud?

This is a bit old...

...but John Oliver Olivier's Political Theatre review, of the recent Senate all-night debate over the Iraq War withdrawal, is still hilarious.

2142

I just came across this place - Freeway Blogger is essentially a list of photos of anti-war protest slogans that have been put up by members of the public on freeway overpasses.

Some of them are a little funny, but most of them are deadly serious, and more than a couple are incredibly sobering.

While it isn't the best word to describe it, this one is my "favourite".


As Bob Geiger points out, it's been more than 2,142 days since George W. Bush told the world that Osama bin Laden would be taken, dead or alive.

No appropriate headline will fit.

I cannot possibly encapsulate this story in a headline short enough to get across all of the pertinent information without it being almost a paragraph by itself.

A consultant psychiatrist yesterday argued that a "delusionary insane" Tory donor had been "rational and logical" to leave millions of pounds to the Conservatives to fight "satanic monsters" and "dark forces" around the world.

[...]Branislav Kostic, Zoran Kostic's father, had been "delusionary insane" since 1985 when he divorced, broke off relations with his son and sister and claimed there was an international conspiracy of more than 100 people masterminded by sexually perverted pharmaceutical company executives to destroy "freedom, democracy and human purity".

Alberto Gonzales: A Guide

By Mike Luckovich.

(Full disclosure: I love the AG's name. "Alberto Gonzales" is just so much fun to say.)

Common sense beats "Chastity Ring"

Some brief background: A 16-year-old girl, Lydia Playfoot, took her school to court after they told her she wasn't allowed to wear a "Chastity Ring" to classes. The ring is inscribed with "1 Thess 4:3-4", which is a bible passage about keeping yourself pure of sexual sin.

Playfoot's argument was that it was an expression of her religious beliefs, and since Muslim and Sikh pupils were allowed to wear headscarves and bangles then it would be discrimination to prevent her from wearing her ring.

That seems like a disingenuous argument to me, since Ms. Playfoot's ring is not a part of her religion, the way a crucifix would be. It's an expression of her personal beliefs and opinion, not a religious symbol.

It's possibly also important to note that Ms. Playfoot's parents are run the UK branch of the chastity ring group "Silver Ring Thing" from their church in Horsham; it originated in the United States (surprise!).

Anyway, she lost her court case, and in pessimistic fashion declares that this ruling signifies "that slowly, over time, people such as school governors, employers, political organisations and others will be allowed to stop Christians from publicly expressing and practising their faith".

Now, far be it from me to applaud someone's freedom of expression being limited, but I'm very glad to see her lose this case.

I'm utterly, utterly fed up with Christians crying foul and playing the underdog every time they think their religion is being trampled - even in cases like this, where it's clearly not.

I'm sure Ms. Playfoot wouldn't be so supportive of a Satanist pupil trying to express their spiritual beliefs in a similar manner, so to portray this as a religious dispute is a feeble and misleading attempt at drumming up sympathy for Christians - a religion that's gotten to a position of world dominance, in one denomination or another, by conquering the world and trampling over "primitive" belief systems.

So, lighten up, Lydia. Your religious rights are secure, and no amount of legal posturing is going to create a believable tale of Christianity Under Siege - not in a country with a Christian majority, at any rate.

David Cameron can fuck off

This speech is nothing but lies, half-truths and PR spin.

If we increase the copyright term, so the incentive is there for you working in the industry to digitise both older and niche repertoire which more people can enjoy at no extra cost.

That's why, as we move on forward into the new digital age of the 21st century, I am pleased to announce today that it is Conservative Party policy to support the extension of the copyright term for sound recordings from 50 to 70 years.

How, exactly, would extending copyright to 70 years be better for the music industry?

For a start, we've got to look at why copyright exists in the first place.

The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to contribute artistic/literal/musical works by promising them a financial reward if their work is a success. However, the current copyright model means that, in addition to providing a reward for creation for the entire lifetime of the artist, the artist's family (or in practice, their publisher/record company) can also benefit from the work.

If a person has a successful enough work, they never have to contribute again, which it could be argued actually reduces the incentive to continue creating music or writing books or what have you.

It's utterly misleading of Cameron - or anyone else, for that matter - to suggest that increasing the duration of copyright would assist living musicians or writers more than it already does. And extension of copyright would do nothing but pay record label executives for the next 70 years.

I don't want to abolish copyright, but there's ways to make money by giving your stuff away for free, especially in this age of the internet. A musician can put an album online and distribute it worldwide for next to nothing (compared to CD shipping, at least). An author can publish online and have thousands of people read their work; if it's good enough, then enough people will pay for it to make you a profit.

Exposure is priceless, and copyright tries to limit the number of people who can read/listen to your stuff until they can pay for it. It should really be the other way around.

More on Scooter Libby

Countdown's Keith Olbermann says it better than I ever could.

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental compact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens — the ones who did not cast votes for you.

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States.

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President… of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party.

I can't tell, yet, how this decision is resonating with the American public. I'm sure Fox News Faux Noise will manage to gloss over the facts and try to sweep the significance of this act under the carpet, but I hope to God that this will wake people up.

"The Iranian government has declared war on us"

Sen. Joe Lieberman is calling for the United States to confront Iran with military force.

Iran is allegedly training Shi'ite fighters who then go to Iraq to attack American troops.

"These revelations should be a wake-up call to the United States about the threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as a reminder why Iraq is, in fact, the central front of the global war on terror," said Mr. Lieberman, a hawkish former Democrat who lost his party's 2006 primary because of opposition from antiwar groups, but then ran as an independent and kept his seat anyway.

"Although no one desires a conflict with Iran, the fact is that the Iranian government by its actions has declared war on us," said Mr. Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic nominee for vice president.

Regardless of the validity of those reports, it's painfully clear that the US military is stretched too much already with Afghanistan and Iraq - and it's difficult to see what there would be to gain from stretching it further.

Iran's probably itching for America to make that kind of move, too - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would love the justification to go directly after America, not to mention the PR opportunities it'd give him.

If the United States ever wanted to get away with attacking Iran, they'd have to do a hell of a lot to rebuild their foreign relations perception, which Dubya has left in tatters over the course of his administration. Without serious backup from across the world - diplomatically as well as militarily - the US would quickly find itself standing alone.

And while "patriots" (read: nationalists) like Lieberman would probably see no problem with that, it would be suicide orders to anybody moved to the front.