Christian Engstrom, one of the Pirate Party's elected officials in the EU Parliament, has a straightforward, but completely worthwhile read, about how copyright law today simply doesn't fit with what technology has enabled. He worries that the laws are making nearly everyone a criminal -- and worse, that the direction of change has to make it even worse, not better.

It is impossible to enforce the ban against non-commercial file sharing without infringing fundamental rights. As long as there are ways for citizens to communicate in private, they will be used to share copyrighted materials. The only way to even try to limit file sharing, is to remove the right to private communication. In the last decade, this is the direction that copyright enforcement legislation has moved in, under pressure from big business lobbyists who see their monopolies under threat. We need to reverse this trend, in order to safeguard the fundamental rights.

Furthermore, he notes that when you look at the actual details, it certainly does not show an industry in trouble. Perhaps parts of the industry -- the parts betting on distribution over plastic discs -- have had some trouble. But the rest looks pretty damn good:

In the economic statistics, we can see that household spending on culture and entertainment is slowly increasing year by year. If we spend less money on buying CD records, we spend more on something else, like for instance going to live concerts. This is great news for the artists. An artist will typically get 5-7% of the revenues from a CD record, but 50% of the revenues from a concert. The record companies lose out, but this is only because they are no longer adding any value.

It may well be that it will become more difficult to make money within some parts of the cultural sector, but if so, it will become easier in some other — including new ones, that we have not even imagined so far. But as long as the total household spending on culture continues to be on the same level or rising, nobody can claim that the artists as a group will have anything to lose from a reformed copyright.

Finally, he compares the way the entertainment industry today reacts to file sharing to the way book publishers reacted to public libraries:

When public libraries were introduced in Europe 150 years ago, the book publishers were very much opposed to this. The argument they used was the same one that is being used today in the file sharing debate: If people could get access to books for free, authors would not be able to make a living, and no new books would be written.

We now know that the arguments against public libraries were wrong. It quite obviously did not lead to a situation where no new books were written, and it did not make it impossible for authors to earn money from writing. On the contrary, free access to culture proved to be not only a boon to society at large, but also turned out to be beneficial to authors.

But rather than learning from history, the industry still seeks to deny it.

Butcherer79 points us to the latest voice in the Twitter-is-poisoning-our-children-or-something chorus: the eminent neurophysiologist Baroness Susan Greenfield, who has come out with a firm yeah-it-totally-is-I-bet stance. If there's a more suitable name for an arrogant Luddite than "Baroness Greenfield" I haven't heard it, and that combined with her overly condescending proclamations makes it hard to take her thoughts on Twitter seriously:

"What concerns me is the banality of so much that goes out on Twitter. Why should someone be interested in what someone else has had for breakfast? ... It reminds me of a small child (saying): 'Look at me Mummy, I'm doing this', 'Look at me Mummy I'm doing that' ... It's almost as if they're in some kind of identity crisis. In a sense it’s keeping the brain in a sort of time warp."

It seems like every time we think the "what you had for breakfast" hydra is slain, it rears another head. Anyone who still thinks such "banality" defines Twitter is clearly making their assessment based on bitter third-hand descriptions passed around the water cooler or, in this case, the House of Lords. The statement is reminiscent of one she made last year after noting that video games and "fast-paced TV shows" were also a factor:

'We know how small babies need constant reassurance that they exist,' she told the Mail yesterday. 'My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment.'

That's what the Baroness really takes issue with: the way modern technology is "rewiring" our brains and altering fundamental cognitive patterns. She's not alone, of course: Techdirt recently covered another set of claims about our "rewired" brains, and the media love these stories.

While it is undoubtedly true that our brains adapt to the way we communicate (use of the word "rewire" is misleading at best), the flaw in all these arguments is the assumption that this is somehow bad or even unusual. The entire history of progress has involved changing emphases on various skills. The Baroness made this point extremely well herself, though she seemed to think she was supporting her own position:

'I often wonder whether real conversation in real time may eventually give way to these sanitised and easier screen dialogues, in much the same way as killing, skinning and butchering an animal to eat has been replaced by the convenience of packages of meat on the supermarket shelf.'

I think from this we can begin to understand her a little better. In her world, digital communication is a distraction from real life—you know, just like supermarkets. One wonders if she avoids working by electric light and shits out the window, too. And you know what? There may well be a valid psychological or perhaps even neurological argument for humans getting back in touch with their roots—but while I'm sure it's lots of fun to entertain those arguments, most of us don't have that luxury.

Of course, Baroness Greenfield is no stranger to exaggeration. She made headlines last September when, in a stunning display of ironically wrongheaded hyperbole, she compared Stephen Hawking to the Taliban for denying the existence of God (don't bother trying to figure out how that makes sense). Meanwhile, her crusade against the-kids-these-days has been going on for years—in 2006 she signed an open letter to the Telegraph on the subject penned by fellow techno-panicker Sue Palmer, and also decided to examine the issue with an all-party group in the House of Lords. It consisted of herself and "three former education secretaries, Baroness Williams, Baroness Shephard and Baroness Morris"—a roster that would sound more encouraging for a fetish party than for a group dedicated to exploring new technologies.

The Baroness is no doubt a skilled neurophysiologist, but she seems to be drawing bold and broad sociological conclusions based more on instinct than evidence. Worse still, she apparently takes it as granted that any changes are bad, as if the dynamic nature of our identity and our relationship with our environment is not the very essence of being alive. I'm getting philosophical, I know, but perhaps a little fresh philosophy is exactly what Baroness Greenfield needs—she seems to be stuck in the past.

While Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez was recently in Cuba to undergo cancer treatment, several media outlets reported on Chavez using Twitter to run Venezuela. Tweets included an approval of a million dollar garbage collection program and the announcement of a new park in Caracas. As fantastic as the headlines dealing with this news sound, a little nuance is probably needed. Any of the actual decision-making was obviously done in more than 140 characters, and only the actual announcements of decisions were made by Chavez on Twitter. Instead of using it to 'run Venezuela', it would be more accurate to say that Twitter has allowed Chavez to retain a strong image in the run up to upcoming presidential elections. Probably a better strategy than censoring the internet.

There's really not much for us to say on the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, since that's really not a topic for this blog... and, of course, it's being covered quite ably pretty much everywhere else. However, I do find this one minor side story, highlighted by Mike Butcher at TechCrunch, quite fascinating as an indication of the type of world we live in today. Apparently, while the helicopter raid was going on, an IT consultant in Abbottabad, Pakistan named Sohaib Athar, happened to be up and hear the helicopters and went to Twitter to talk about it on his account @ReallyVirtual (which is a great Twitter handle, by the way). You can read his tweets (and some of his retweets and responses) below. Start from the bottom to get them in order: He seems a bit in shock from his sudden internet fame, which is certainly understandable. However, what gets me is that something like this is even possible today. Just a few years ago, almost no one have ever thought that the world would be connected to such a level. One can hope that the sort of connections and humanization that come about due to such technological advances might one day lead to a world where we don't have to deal with bombings and terrorists to chase down...

A few different people have sent over this fascinating story of how Libyans have been using a popular muslim dating site to communicate about the protests in that country. It's been widely covered how various protesters around the middle east have been using tools like Facebook and Twitter to organize and communicate, and governments have been responding to that fact, often shutting off access to those sites, or at least monitoring them very, very closely. In order to avoid that, apparently some of the conversations in Libya have migrated to this dating site. The article at ABC News includes plenty of details about how people are communicating on the site, and it's worth a read. Here's a snippet:

The phrase "May your day be full of Jasmine," for example, is a coded reference to what's been called the Jasmine Revolution sweeping the region, Mahmoudi told ABC News.

He said the response, "And the same to you. I hope you will call me" meant they were ready to begin.

If the undercover "lovers" wrote "I want love," it meant "I want liberty," Mahmoudi said.

They also communicated in code the number of their comrades supporting the revolution. The five Ls in the phrase "I LLLLLove you," for example, meant they had five people with them.

Yet another reminder that no matter how hard governments try to suppress certain forms of communication, people always seek out alternative means.

Technology can certainly make for some interesting clashes with regulatory regimes. Social networking, for example, starts to bring up all sorts of questions about the fine line between certain regulated areas of advertising, and basic free speech communication issues. Eric Goldman points us to the news that the FDA is warning pharma giant Novartis (pdf) over its use of a "Facebook Share" widget on its site promoting the drug Tasigna (a leukemia drug). The specific complaint is that the "share" feature includes promotional material about Tasigna, but not all of the associated risks (and, as with so many drugs, there's quite a list of risks). Because of the limited amount of space often used in "sharing" content, the FDA feels that some of the sharing options are misleading, not correctly noting that the drug is only approved for some users.

The shared content is misleading because it makes representations about the efficacy of Tasigna but fails to communicate any risk information associated with the use of this drug. In addition, the shared content inadequately communicates Tasigna’s FDA-approved indication and implies superiority over other products. Thus, the shared content for Tasigna misbrands the drug in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and FDA implementing regulations.

The FDA even picks on the specific word choices in some of the sharing features, such as calling the drug a "next-generation" drug, which apparently implies it's better than other drugs in the space when that might not be the case. Advertising and marketing for pharmaceuticals has always been a contentious area, and I believe that many countries ban it, while the US allows it. But with the internet and social networking, the line between advertising and communication can start to blur. Yes, it may be problematic if Novartis is suggesting people "share" misleading or incomplete info about the drug, but what if people just start sharing that info on their own? Where do you draw the line?

When I was in high school, it was customary every year or so for there to be some sort of injustice that the students were upset about concerning the administration of the school. If it escalated enough, the kids would decide to stage some sort of protest -- which at least once involved skipping out on school for the day. Obviously, often enough, such efforts are really just a way for kids to have an excuse to skip out on classes for a day, but this sort of thing seemed pretty common even back when I was in high school. However, now, with things like Facebook... suddenly it's Facebook's fault that the same thing is happening?

Reader Osno alerts us to the news of a legal battle down in Argentina where a judge has ordered Facebook to block any group advocating student protests that involved skipping classes (that link is a Google translation of the original article).

Apparently, the back story, is that a large group of students in Mendoza, Argentina had organized a day to skip out on school via Facebook. The media in Argentina played up the story, and it resulted in other students around the country planning similar "skip school" days. Rather than recognize that this is what kids do, the whole thing has gone to court, with a judge claiming that this is somehow Facebook's fault, and it must start blocking any such groups. According to the translation:

"We did a little research on the basis of the allegations and found that the company was in breach of certain laws, as is of danger to health or integrity of its users...."

That seems like a pretty severe twisting of laws concerning requirements to protect the health of users. According to Osno, politicians are backing the judge, warning of what other groups Facebook might be used to create next -- such as the "great smokeout to smoke dope." Apparently, these folks are unaware that the same thing has happened for ages, using pretty much any communication method available -- whether it was email, telephone, paper or (*gasp*) talking in person. Blaming the communications medium isn't going to change any of that.

Back in January, we wrote about the story of a guy in the UK who was arrested and banned from his local airport after making a (bad) joke on Twitter about blowing the place up. His tweet was:

"Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

As we said at the time, it was a really dumb statement, and I have no problem with police checking it out, but once they realized it was just a dumb joke, it seems reasonable to leave the guy alone. However, some more details are now coming to light that make the story even more questionable, and raise some issues that could impact pretty much anyone who makes a bad joke on Twitter, should someone in power want to cause them serious trouble.

Andrew sent over a few more articles about the story, that highlight that the guy wasn't actually charged for making a fake bomb threat. There actually is a law for that... but the authorities didn't charge him with that because they knew that his joke would never actually be seen as a bomb threat. Charging him under that law would require evidence that he intended to make people actually think he was intending to blow the airport up -- but no reasonable person would think that.

Instead, it appears that the police used a little-known part of the UK's Communications Act that outlaws sending a "message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character." Sound broad enough? Yeah. Suddenly, you realize he wasn't charged with making a bomb threat. He was charged with making a bad joke, that someone misinterpreted as being "menacing." The link above to TheLawyer.com goes through all this in great detail, including a pretty scary discussion with the officials who decided which law to charge the guy with, where they basically dance around the issue, even though it's pointed out to them that they're clearly stretching the meaning of that particular law well beyond what it's supposed to cover, while ignoring the actual law concerning bomb threats.

No matter, it appears that the guy has now been officially found guilty and fined £385 plus £600 costs (though, Stephen Fry has offered to pay). The fine isn't huge, but the guy now has a criminal conviction on his record for making a bad joke (not for making a bomb threat). That doesn't seem reasonable no matter how you look at it.

Jim Lillicotch points us to a post by MediaPost blogger Steve Smith, who was surprised by his 18-year-old daughter's immediate dismissal of the iPad. It may be, as he speculates, an omen of the device's future in general, but he also makes some points specifically related to the publishing industry that are worth highlighting.

"I need a keyboard. Even my phone has that." It is really all about input for her, and her focus on interactivity underscores a glaring limitation of the iPad. It is primarily a media consumption device, not an interactive device. Publishers think of digital merely as a delivery vehicle, but users think of digital as a communications and interactive platform. After a life of leaning in, why would she want to lean back and consume content just to make media companies' business models work for them?

Smith lists several drawbacks to touch-screen tablet input that probably haven't occurred to those who, like me, have never gotten the chance to use one. I still think that with the right interface and after some design iterations, iPads (and other tablets) will be excellent interactive devices, but Smith is dead right in his assessment of how publishers view them. The iPad magazine demos that some have shown off are compelling and cool, but they are mostly one-way media. This is exacerbated by the obsession with native apps, which Smith notes are much less likely to explode on the iPad the way they did on the iPhone:

Unlike the iPhone, where an app can clearly trump a mobile Web site experience, the iPad makes full Web browsing much more viable. Early audience research I have seen suggests that for even those interested in the iPad, Web browsing and email are rated far above app downloads as the device's main attraction. And so, publisher apps will be competing with their own Web sites.

This is a point we've made before: everything in these fancy magazine apps can be replicated in the browser (there is one small problem to do with scrolling that remains, but even that has nearly been solved). Publishers should be working to ensure that their product—whether it's books, magazines or newspapers—is available on every platform with minimum hassle, instead of building closed apps that frustratingly trap the user. Nobody is loyal to one publication anymore, and nobody wants a dozen different news and magazine apps littering their tablet or smartphone—they want to browse the web the way they always have. It's time for publishers to stop trying to alter user behaviour, and start learning from it.

Realizing that better communications tools would probably help spread important ideas and efforts against totalitarian regimes, the US has finally eased sanctions against providing communications software in Cuba, Iran and Sudan. In the past, economic sanctions against those countries were supposed to create pressure for the regimes to change -- but in practice that's been a pretty big failure. Now, it appears, folks in the administration are finally realizing that more open communication allows for much greater efforts and organization, as well as more information from elsewhere. This is a good move -- just many years too late.