Net Censorship – The Thin Wedge

As opposed to Chris Anderson’s long tail theory, the Australian Government is attempting to have the public accept a “thin wedge” in the form of enforced censorship.
This thinly disguised attempt to justify control of internet content is masked under the terms of protection of its citizens and for the common good by allowing the government to set up mandatory internet filtering to stop access to child pornography sites, filters which are already available and easily implemented to any netizen who wishes to use them.
Blind Freddy can see that it is an attempt at social control of the internet. If a law like this is passed it gives the bureaucracy permission to block any content they wish, a massive violation of freedom of speech.
There would be no way that any member of the public could monitor the implementation of such a filter – how could one challenge the blocking of internet content when it is blocked and therefore unavailable to be viewed?
There is no doubt that this is an attempt at social control and I am ashamed to hear it come from a government official (or department) in this country which supposedly prides itself on its so-called freedom.
A cynic may look a little deeper into this; it may be the use of a political publicity tool to take the attention away from something else that is being brewed up. Time will tell.
It is very difficult to imagine any intelligent person putting forward such a proposal of introducing something by law into a nation on an issue that is of a global nature and that can easily be dealt with on a personal level. There is very little that can be done about these sites unless they originate in Australia.
And who is to say that even this post could not be “banned” because it may upset the sensitivities of our fine political representatives.
A waste of time and effort in this proposal. The people responsible for this idea deserve public admonition in the waste and pure hypocrisy of assuming control over our personal freedoms. A quick scan of the ISP Level Content Filtering Final Report does nothing to change this point of view.
I am in no way condoning those that are involved in internet child pornography. Federal laws are in place to deal with those partaking in internet child pornography in Australia. I feel it is sufficient.
Results of the Feasibility Study on ISP Level Content Filtering (Feb. 08) can be accessed from this link as well as the results of closed environment testing.
See also this related article on this subject from The Australian.

Long Tail Theory Challenged

This article by Patrick Foster appearing in The Australian on line newspaper on Dec 23 ) attempts to provide proof that Chris Anderson’s “long tail’ theory is flawed. (This link briefly explains the theory).
The article leads with:

“The internet was supposed to bring vast choice for customers, access to obscure and forgotten products and a fortune for sellers who focused on niche markets.
But a study of digital music sales has posed the first big challenge to this "long tail" theory: more than 10 million of the 13 million tracks available on the internet failed to find a single buyer last year.”
I have no problem in agreeing with the data presented but in the presentation of this there is further unpacking that can be done. The reference here is to “sales” on line in reference to a capitalist market system of supply and demand, the creation and use of markets and the availability of the product to consumers.
I am wondering how many of these tracks that are available for sale on the internet have been downloaded for free, against international or local copyright laws and regarded as a sin by the producers of such material whether they be the authors (intellectual owners) or the sellers.
Briefly, the open sourced nature of the internet, whereby anybody can publish or download digital material is causing conflict with the very basis of capitalism. Similarities between a “real world” marketplace and the internet apply with tangible goods and services. It is when we deal with intangibles such as intellectual property (or more broadly defined as anything that is communicable in a digital form) that we run into problems.
As said previously, the open source nature of the internet creates problems in the ownership/control of digital output. Once it lands in cyberspace, there is really only the cultural concept of this ownership and payment for transfer of intellectual property standing in the way of a user (culturally a consumer) gaining access and use of it.
The article assumes that if you want to have use of this music you must pay for it. This is the idea of those that place it there in the first place in expectation of the internet working under the same principles as a real life market place. Bzzzt, the internet is different.
Anderson’s long tail theory still applies in the way that access to obscure and/or niche markets are available. The BIG difference is that the terms of RL market do not apply. Assumptions include people who want the music can and will pay for it (production/consumption). Also that consumers who like the music are happy to operate in cyberspace under real world economic and property rules, rules which can easily be circumvented in the digital space.
Much tension exists in the entertainment industry over piracy arguably because the industry has become a victim of its own elitism. The rules of entertainment engagement are changing and those who have previously become wealthy through real world marketplace commerce are challenged by the digital escape or loss of the economic fruits of their labour (exploitation) of the abstract terms of ownership of copyright and intellectual property.
In other words, the internet is challenging ownership of intellectual property and by extension copyright. I have no problem with praising and admiring those who can produce such wonders of modern entertainment but I do have a problem with the obscene profits made by the few. Perhaps the internet through digitilisation is in the process of forcing a change in cultural values of intellectual property and copyright.
To close and to put it very simply, the internet by its very construction is not owned by any single person, it is communal property, therefore anything on the internet put on by anybody in digital format basically waives their rights of ownership of that digital production, passing ownership of it to the owners of the internet. i.e. the global internet community (netizens).
Get used to it – it’s going to happen. Chris Anderson’s long tail theory stands – but not for those who wish for personal gain. The profit lies in the increased agency of the internet population through epistemological development hopefully producing a better world bereft of those elite who have gained so much at the expense of so many.
Then again, it is evident the Australian government is making plans to control the long tail under the guise of internet censorship for the protection of its citizens. From the long tail to the thin end of the wedge. Netizens beware!!

Freemanspeak: Climate Change II – Garnaut’s Data Quandary

Please note that I have respect for Professor Ross Garnaut and his position.
In the compilation of the Garnaut Climate Change Review, Prof. Garnaut had to make a very important decision before compiling the economic side of the paper. That decision was what sort of scientific data to use as a basis for the Garnaut Review. It seems evident that Prof. Garnaut was advised by scientists from the CSIRO who seem to have adopted the findings of the International Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report.
In a nutshell, the IPCC concluded that it is “very likely” man influences climate through the production of carbon dioxide.
The IPCC assessment is itself clouded in controversy scientifically as well as politically.
A consensus theory perspective may argue that society has a need and a right to know if man is stuffing up the climate of this climate and that the IPCC was convened to give the world the right answers to the best of their ability.
A Marxist may suggest that the IPCC was formed to negotiate or manipulate scientific evidence to result in findings that would strike fear into the population of the world using rhetoric of future disaster and catastrophe if the planet as a whole does not do something to change things (i.e. reduce carbon pollution).
Whichever analytical methodology applied, Prof. Garnaut chose to use the IPCC as a basis for data for the Garnaut Review. Delving a little deeper, Prof. Garnaut’s choice of using IPCC data was a good one politically. It satisfies the government that commissioned him to do the report as the acceptance of certain anthropogenic causes of climate change as FACT enables the creation of a paper which can justify future economic policy making by the Australian Federal Government.
In fairness to Prof. Garnaut, he does state that there is scientific uncertainty surrounding climate change evidence but uses rhetoric of consensus in mentioning that it is the majority scientific judgement that man has influence over climate change, a general statement not backed up with any source reference. It could be inferred that Prof. Garnaut is relating to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
A major problem exists in the selection of the basic data. If the IPCC Fourth Assessment is proven over time to be correct then the Garnaut Report’s use of the IPCC basic data is justified, a whiggish assessment.
However, the IPCC recommendations are not considered one hundred percent scientific fact. Therefore, the very basis of the Garnaut Report could be based on interpretation of the facts, with these interpretations containing data that could possibly prove to be false. In turn, the report then becomes one of selective interpretation which has been accepted by the current Australian Government and used to create policy which will affect every single person living in Australia.

Freemanspeak: Climate Change I - Introduction

I feel a need to publish some thoughts on Climate Change. Climate change has developed socially into an extremely complex issue.
I will take a stand immediately by saying that I am cynical of climate change caused by man which will lead to a catastrophic future for all of us. Perhaps instead of cynical it may be preferable for me to say I am yet to be convinced.
This little set of articles will hopefully enable me to out my thoughts on the climate change subject somewhere so that in the future I can look back and see how my analytical process is proceeding.
My preferences lie in analysis through scholarship of Sociology and Science and Technology (concentrating on Scientific Controversies). To stop me writing a huge single post on the subject I am going to divide it up. There is no plan as to how I am going to analyse this subject as I am one in favour of the organic growth of thought in relation to new media and social analysis. I will simply put a heading of the general subject I am looking at.
I can see arguments for the whole climate change issue containing many opportunities to re-inforce capitalism and profit from something new. Fair enough, science is doing a lot of research on climate change and passing this information on to anybody that is interested. A problem lies in that scientists are healthily debating causes of climate change within their particular scientific communities but when the issue is taken out of the scientific domain and placed into the hands of policy makers things change.
The issues of climate change are impacting upon societies and with globalisation and modern communication means the impacts are world wide. I am going to try to make some sort of sense of it through this small series of posts.