As a result, the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has been trying to gather evidence in order to help politicians draw up new policies that correspond to the data, not just dogma. Not surprisingly, perhaps, those that have done well under the previous evidence-free approach have been mounting a rearguard action against the changes.

One of the people unhappy about both the Hargreaves Review and the IPO's response is the UK MP Peter Wishart, who made the following comments about them in Parliament earlier this year:

Ian Hargreaves was notionally in charge of that process [of looking at digital copyright], but having observed evidence being taken, and the report and recommendations be delivered, I suggest that the hand of the Intellectual Property Office was all over it. I believe that Ian Hargreaves was perhaps a figurehead, because the IPO seems to have driven the agenda. We will discuss some of the exceptions to copyright that the IPO proposed as part of its consultation, but it has been steering the process all the way through.

What is that predicated on? It is predicated on the belief that economic evidence should be at the heart of every initiative and everything that we do concerning intellectual property law. Ian Hargreaves has been perhaps a little cavalier when it comes to intellectual property, and we could say that he has made heroic assumptions about the value of some of the proposed recommendations and exceptions.

The group's philosophy is made plain early on in the document:

The fact that IP attracts so much interest reflects its increasing importance in our economy. Clearly IP on its own does not generate economic activity, but as a property right, it enables innovators, creators, manufacturers and designers to protect their innovation and monetise their work.

The idea that stakeholders might have to give something back to the public in the form of minimal exceptions may be unheard of, but it's hardly unreasonable. Arguably, we need to run the ratchet back much further in order to obtain anything like a fair balance between the rights of stakeholders, and the rights of the public.

But the latter are rarely considered. Indeed, it's significant that the world "public" isn't mentioned once in the Parliamentary group's new report. The nearest thing we get is "consumers", notably in the following paragraph, which betrays a typical lack of understanding about how formerly passive consumers are morphing into active co-creators:

When the officials from the IPO gave evidence, they were very clear that they saw their role as providing balance -- they see this balance as ensuring consumers can have access to content. We believe the IPO should look more carefully at how the IP framework stimulates the creation and development of new content, services, designs and other IP rich innovation as much as how existing content can be accessed. Only if they do this, will consumers of the future continue to have access to the content, products and services they enjoy.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

However, the world of government is beginning to change, largely under the impact of movements promoting openness of various kinds. In particular, efforts to promote open data and open government have major implications for transparency. The latest manifestation of that push for openness is OpeningParliament.org, "a forum intended to help connect the world's civic organizations engaged in monitoring, supporting and opening up their countries' parliaments and legislative institutions."

Here's more about its aims:

Parliamentary monitoring organizations (PMOs) are working to create strong, open and accountable parliaments, through enhancing citizen participation in the legislative process and bringing parliaments closer to the people they represent. OpeningParliament.org provides a forum for international collaboration on efforts to improve access to parliamentary information and share experiences and good practices among PMOs. It also serves as the home of the Declaration on Parliamentary Openness, a set of shared principles on the openness, transparency and accessibility of parliaments being developed by the international PMO community.

That may be true, but openness in the form of open source, open data, open standards and open government are certainly making themselves felt to varying degrees in countries around the world. What the Declaration on Parliamentary Openness makes explicit is how these are part of a larger move towards transparency and citizen engagement. At the very least, it's yet another set of voices calling for much more of both. One day, governments might even listen.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Assange had an electoral learning process of his own which played out live on Twitter yesterday morning, with a first message from the Wikileaks feed announcing only that the organisation would be “fielding a candidate to run against Julia Gillard in her home seat of Laylor (sic)”. Very shortly afterwards, a second tweet declared: “We have discovered that it is possible for Julian Assange to run for the Australian Senate while detained. Julian has decided to run.” The spelling error in the initial tweet betrayed a curious ignorance of Australian history, given that the electorate in question is named after Peter Lalor, who led the famous Eureka Rebellion at the Ballarat goldfields in 1854. One would have thought that Lalor, a radical activist who saw his efforts crudely suppressed by the authorities before going on to a distinguished career as a parliamentarian, might have been better known to Assange – if not to the extent that he would have spelt his name correctly, then at least so far that he might have misspelled it in a phonetically correct manner (“Lawlor”). But I digress.

So what can we do to stop ACTA?

If you are concerned about ACTA, you can convince the EP to vote against ACTA. In November 2010 we proposed an alternative resolution on ACTA, which intended to take away the main concerns. It was voted down by a very slight majority, please see here (the red section represents MEPs voting against our resolution). As you can see, the difference is only 16 votes, out of 736 (or 754 as it stands now). Another text was then voted in favour, which said the Commission should carry on its negotiations.

If you are concerned about ACTA, contact MEPs (from your country of political party), especially targeting the ones who are in the committees who will vote on ACTA in the coming months. You can find their email addresses on the EP website. Perhaps it won't have to come to a blackout!

TL;DR: Important dates for ACTA in the European Parliament:
- 29 February/1 March: Discussion in international trade committee,
- April or May: Vote in international trade committee,
- 12, 13 or 14 June: Final vote in plenary (most important vote).
(Please note, all dates may be changed)

"This law could bring the gears of government to a grinding halt because the holder of the account — Parliamentary Services — provides internet access to hundreds of users any one of whom could cause infringement notices to be sent."

"We're not looking to make any kind of return from this content. For us it's more important to open up the information and see what people can do with it."

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented -- for the first time in memory -- from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.