It's been quite some time, 2 years in fact, since I last posted on this site, and maybe it seemed that this was one of the forgotten blogs of the Internet, to be consigned to the black hole of online obscurity...
However, I reawakened by dormant interest in this page recently when I realised it was still linked to other parts of my online, social network presence (and amusingly, information on it used to try to insult me in a very childish fashion!).
Anyway, since I last wrote, I have mostly been focused on my PhD, getting quite a bit of writing done for it (which can be found on my SSRN page and academia.edu profile), on topics related to Internet law and regulation. Recently I've also branched out into writing for other blogs, such as medialaws.eu.
So, since I now have a fair amount of material to disseminate, the plan from now on is to post links and/or summaries of my academic work on here, as well as general commentary about life in general..!
Thursday, 17 November 2011
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
Revolutions in the air or on the ground
I came across this article in the Economist's business travel section today, on passengers revolting over delayed and incompetent air travel. I've felt close to doing the same thing myself (although perhaps I have more of a predisposition to not doing what I'm told than others); moreover, I find the experience of travelling by air not particularly pleasant in general, whether it's anti-terrorist measures, planes sinking almost without trace in the ocean, or just the disappointment in looking at your fellow passengers and realising you're not in particularly good company if the metal encasement ends up becoming your tomb or if, as is more normal, you have to endure a few hours in close proximity with these people.
For all of the above reasons, as well as the fact that airports are generally far from where you actually want to end up, and the environmental guilt of plane travel (especially after two medium-haul returns flights to Saudi Arabia earlier this year), I resolved to travel by non-plane methods as much as possible. This has usually comprised taking the train for long distances (I usually walk or cycle or take the bus for short distances). I was living in London until the end of August, and travelled via Brussels to Cologne to attend a friend's wedding at the beginning of that month: the train journey took about five hours in total, and was very pleasant, with an hour's stopover in Gare du Midi/Zuid, enough time to sip a Chimay, and good scenery throughout (with the evident exception of the Channel Tunnel). Also, the journey was not vastly expensive, costing under 100 pounds return, while friends who had booked flights actually ended up paying more).
At the end of August, I moved to Florence, Italy, to begin a PhD at the European University Institute, and booked tickets on Rail Europe (the place to go for rail journies from the UK to the general "abroad") to travel by train to Florence, this time via Paris. The journey takes about 15 hours in total, with the Paris to Florence leg being a sleeper train. After a busy period leading up to my departure, I was relieved to have that time to myself, to comtemplate my move, and see the scenery change gradually around me as we sped through rural France, as night was falling, then through Switzerland during the night, waking up in the bel paese the next morning. The journey was not particularly cheap, but then I booked it only a week or ten days' in advance, and if you book with more time, the tickets can be very reasonable.
Continuing this trend, and to conclude the year, I booked the most epic journey, from Florence to my parents' house in Glasgow (to be fair, the final leg of the journey, in a snow-covered city, from Central Station to my parents' was conducted on my dad's car), involving stops in Paris and London. Equipped with a half-bottle of vino rosso and some honey and hazelnut Italian biscuits, I had a relaxing and comfortable journey to Paris, where I saw my first snow of the year and had the less relaxing and comfortable task of lugging my luggage across the city from Bercy to Gare du Nord. I had enough time for a cafe creme at one of the less awful establishments outside the station where at the next table were two highly stereotypical American writers in Paris, wearing black and talking pretentiously. I boarded a Eurostar for another enjoyable journey to London, the very day before the Eurostar imploded and stranded thousands of people on both sides of the Channel. After a few days spent in London, where it also snowed, I took a train up the West Coast Main Line to Glasgow, and arrived with about an hour of delay, catching a glimpse of the countryside outside of London before night fell, the fields and trees looking like perfect Christmas card scenes.
I'm planning to travel back to Florence in ten days' time in the New Year via the same route, this time stopping off in Paris for longer (and strongly hoping that there are no more problems with the Eurostar). My experience of international train travel over the last six months has been consistently good: unlike flying, you get a taste of each of the countries you travel through, and the cities where you stop off, making the journey a more gradual transition from one context to the next, rather than the more abrupt change of scenery brought by flying. Train travel does take more time than the plane, but then you are usually going from the centre of one city to the centre of another, cutting out the time taken to research sterile airports, and the time spent checking-in, going through security and generally waiting around. The train can be more costly than air travel, but that is not always the case, especially if you book as far in advance as possible (train operators usually open booking three months before actual travel, when the best prices can be had).
A good friend of mine has also started hanging the plane and taking the train wherever possible, including a visit via train to me in Florence from his current residence in London at the beginning of December, and a trip to Dublin prior to that, which involved a ferry crossing as well, a form of transport I'm yet to take following my rejection of planes (although perhaps less comfortable, given I'm not the best sailor).
For all of the above reasons, as well as the fact that airports are generally far from where you actually want to end up, and the environmental guilt of plane travel (especially after two medium-haul returns flights to Saudi Arabia earlier this year), I resolved to travel by non-plane methods as much as possible. This has usually comprised taking the train for long distances (I usually walk or cycle or take the bus for short distances). I was living in London until the end of August, and travelled via Brussels to Cologne to attend a friend's wedding at the beginning of that month: the train journey took about five hours in total, and was very pleasant, with an hour's stopover in Gare du Midi/Zuid, enough time to sip a Chimay, and good scenery throughout (with the evident exception of the Channel Tunnel). Also, the journey was not vastly expensive, costing under 100 pounds return, while friends who had booked flights actually ended up paying more).
At the end of August, I moved to Florence, Italy, to begin a PhD at the European University Institute, and booked tickets on Rail Europe (the place to go for rail journies from the UK to the general "abroad") to travel by train to Florence, this time via Paris. The journey takes about 15 hours in total, with the Paris to Florence leg being a sleeper train. After a busy period leading up to my departure, I was relieved to have that time to myself, to comtemplate my move, and see the scenery change gradually around me as we sped through rural France, as night was falling, then through Switzerland during the night, waking up in the bel paese the next morning. The journey was not particularly cheap, but then I booked it only a week or ten days' in advance, and if you book with more time, the tickets can be very reasonable.
Continuing this trend, and to conclude the year, I booked the most epic journey, from Florence to my parents' house in Glasgow (to be fair, the final leg of the journey, in a snow-covered city, from Central Station to my parents' was conducted on my dad's car), involving stops in Paris and London. Equipped with a half-bottle of vino rosso and some honey and hazelnut Italian biscuits, I had a relaxing and comfortable journey to Paris, where I saw my first snow of the year and had the less relaxing and comfortable task of lugging my luggage across the city from Bercy to Gare du Nord. I had enough time for a cafe creme at one of the less awful establishments outside the station where at the next table were two highly stereotypical American writers in Paris, wearing black and talking pretentiously. I boarded a Eurostar for another enjoyable journey to London, the very day before the Eurostar imploded and stranded thousands of people on both sides of the Channel. After a few days spent in London, where it also snowed, I took a train up the West Coast Main Line to Glasgow, and arrived with about an hour of delay, catching a glimpse of the countryside outside of London before night fell, the fields and trees looking like perfect Christmas card scenes.
I'm planning to travel back to Florence in ten days' time in the New Year via the same route, this time stopping off in Paris for longer (and strongly hoping that there are no more problems with the Eurostar). My experience of international train travel over the last six months has been consistently good: unlike flying, you get a taste of each of the countries you travel through, and the cities where you stop off, making the journey a more gradual transition from one context to the next, rather than the more abrupt change of scenery brought by flying. Train travel does take more time than the plane, but then you are usually going from the centre of one city to the centre of another, cutting out the time taken to research sterile airports, and the time spent checking-in, going through security and generally waiting around. The train can be more costly than air travel, but that is not always the case, especially if you book as far in advance as possible (train operators usually open booking three months before actual travel, when the best prices can be had).
A good friend of mine has also started hanging the plane and taking the train wherever possible, including a visit via train to me in Florence from his current residence in London at the beginning of December, and a trip to Dublin prior to that, which involved a ferry crossing as well, a form of transport I'm yet to take following my rejection of planes (although perhaps less comfortable, given I'm not the best sailor).
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Tolpuddle
Last weekend I ventured into darkest Dorset for the annual Tolpuddle Martyrs' Festival. The festival takes place in the village of Tolpuddle, near Dorchester, and celebrates the Tolpuddle Martyrs, a group of farm labourers who are considered to be the founders of the modern trade union movement in the UK.
The festival takes place over the course of a weekend, and is a mixture of local music, political debate and the Great Outdoors. This year, socialist stalwart Billy Bragg headlined the musical aspect of the festivities. For more information about the music, please see my comrade's blogpost here.
The political element of the festival encompasses the presence of British trade union activists (and some German comrades too thi
s year) as well as adherents from all splinters of the Left, from Class War to the Revolutionary Communist Party (Marxist/Leninist) to the Labour Party itself (which was keeping something of a low profile). Remarkably, there was little bickering among these factions, but then there was less debate and discussion over the weekend than I was expecting, so perhaps not the opportunity.
s year) as well as adherents from all splinters of the Left, from Class War to the Revolutionary Communist Party (Marxist/Leninist) to the Labour Party itself (which was keeping something of a low profile). Remarkably, there was little bickering among these factions, but then there was less debate and discussion over the weekend than I was expecting, so perhaps not the opportunity. 
Sunday is the busiest day of the festival, with many more activists from around the country descending on Tolpuddle for the procession through the village, where you can see some beautiful and rousing banners, followed by the main musical acts.In this time of economic crisis with the resulting job losses, it is good to see such a display of the strength of trade unions and working people.
After the attempts to crush unions in the 1980s, and the continued privatisations, both overtly (such as the attempt to privatise Royal Mail) and more covertly (such as the privatisation of prisons), it is great to see the energy and dedication of activists at Tolpuddle. I come away from this festival feeling engaged and inspired.
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Sarko: Saviour of Women
Earlier this week, the “Sun President” of France, Nicholas Sarkozy, addressed both House of the French Parliament at Versailles, the first time in 161 years that a French president has done so. One prominent pronouncement was his condemnation of the burqa, terming it a “problem of liberty and women’s dignity”, a “sign of subservience and debasement” and “unwelcome in France”. Consequently, Sarkozy is setting up a 32-member commission to examine the wearing of burqas, whose suggestions could lead to a French law banning the burqa from public places.
The burqa is a full body covering, including a veil completely covering the head with a mesh portion of material over the face. Muslim women (apparently a small minority in France) who wear this dress do so to fulfill their understanding of requirements in the Koran for people (including men) to dress modestly.
Personally, I do not agree with wearing burqas, and from my understanding of Sharia law principles, I do not think the Koran necessarily requires them. Nevertheless, my own thoughts on the matter are an entirely different issue to whether the State should take a stance on them.
Sarkozy voiced his views on the burqa in the name of advancing gender equality. He appears to believe that women who wear the burqa are being forced to do so by their male relatives or religious communities at large. Thus, if there is a ban on the burqa in public places, either these women will suddenly be liberated and/or women in burqas will still wear them yet no longer appear in public places.
In the first instance, this conclusion fails to take into account the possibility, however remote, that women wear burqas because they want to wear them, because in doing so they are dressing modestly according to the religious requirement, and perhaps also because they do not want to be sexually objectified and judged on their looks as is the case for women in “mainstream” Western society. There is no way for the State to know for certain whether women “truly” choose to wear the burqa. By banning it, this element of choice is removed. Ludicrously, this situation can be seen as the mirror image of women’s position in Afghanistan during Taliban rule, where their autonomy was similarly removed in being forced to wear the burqa in public places. In both cases, women are still being told what they can and cannot wear by the State.
Furthermore, even if women are being forced to wear the burqa against their will, banning it will not help their unequal position: unless whoever is forcing them to wear it becomes miraculously enlightened and desists from continuing to do this, these women will be withdrawn from engagement with the public sphere. If these women are considered to be vulnerable, oppressed and marginalised, such as isolation from the rest of society as a measure of “forced” equality cannot ameliorate their position.
This would be a more justifiable move if French society was a bastion of gender equality in general, which is not the case. Sarkozy is employing a culturally imperialistic view of what gender equality is (i.e. the French model), without acknowledging deficits in this idea of equality in practice. If Sarkozy truly wishes to improve the lives of French Muslim women, he would do well to consider more pressing reasons for their inequality (a marginalised socio-economic position, lack of opportunity, routine discrimination in French society), and seek to solve them to progress the cause of equality.
The burqa is a full body covering, including a veil completely covering the head with a mesh portion of material over the face. Muslim women (apparently a small minority in France) who wear this dress do so to fulfill their understanding of requirements in the Koran for people (including men) to dress modestly.
Personally, I do not agree with wearing burqas, and from my understanding of Sharia law principles, I do not think the Koran necessarily requires them. Nevertheless, my own thoughts on the matter are an entirely different issue to whether the State should take a stance on them.
Sarkozy voiced his views on the burqa in the name of advancing gender equality. He appears to believe that women who wear the burqa are being forced to do so by their male relatives or religious communities at large. Thus, if there is a ban on the burqa in public places, either these women will suddenly be liberated and/or women in burqas will still wear them yet no longer appear in public places.
In the first instance, this conclusion fails to take into account the possibility, however remote, that women wear burqas because they want to wear them, because in doing so they are dressing modestly according to the religious requirement, and perhaps also because they do not want to be sexually objectified and judged on their looks as is the case for women in “mainstream” Western society. There is no way for the State to know for certain whether women “truly” choose to wear the burqa. By banning it, this element of choice is removed. Ludicrously, this situation can be seen as the mirror image of women’s position in Afghanistan during Taliban rule, where their autonomy was similarly removed in being forced to wear the burqa in public places. In both cases, women are still being told what they can and cannot wear by the State.
Furthermore, even if women are being forced to wear the burqa against their will, banning it will not help their unequal position: unless whoever is forcing them to wear it becomes miraculously enlightened and desists from continuing to do this, these women will be withdrawn from engagement with the public sphere. If these women are considered to be vulnerable, oppressed and marginalised, such as isolation from the rest of society as a measure of “forced” equality cannot ameliorate their position.
This would be a more justifiable move if French society was a bastion of gender equality in general, which is not the case. Sarkozy is employing a culturally imperialistic view of what gender equality is (i.e. the French model), without acknowledging deficits in this idea of equality in practice. If Sarkozy truly wishes to improve the lives of French Muslim women, he would do well to consider more pressing reasons for their inequality (a marginalised socio-economic position, lack of opportunity, routine discrimination in French society), and seek to solve them to progress the cause of equality.
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Copywrong?
Yesterday the British government published its “Digital Britain” report on the future of communications in the UK. One of the many outcomes of the report is to improve enforcement procedures against internet piracy. This recommendation comes in the context of action by other European governments against internet copyright violators, most notably the French Hadopi law. The Hadopi law was suspended by the Conseil Constitutionnel earlier this month, which judged that the penalty of suspending an individual’s internet connection if they repeatedly downloaded unlicensed copyrighted material contravened constitutional rights.
The issue of copyright and the internet came to the fore in the European elections earlier this month, when the Swedish Pirate Party won a seat in the European Parliament. This happened in the wake of The Pirate Bay court case, when a Swedish court sentenced the owners of this peer-to-peer filesharing website to a year in jail as well as to paying £2.5m of damages. The Pirate Party campaigns for a free internet, encompassing reform to intellectual property law, and claims more than 45,000 members now in Sweden, mostly among young people. The Pirate Party in Germany won about 1% of the vote there in the European elections, and affiliated Pirate Parties have been set up in various other countries.
Digital Britain announces that the British government considers the piracy of intellectual property as theft, and outlines the government strategy in dealing with this issue. It advocates an education campaign to inform the public about the lawfulness of their actions and the use of the civil law by rights-holders and internet service providers (“ISPs”) against internet users who “wilfully continue unlawful activity”. The report also proposes a new duty for Ofcom, the communications regulator, to notify holders of internet accounts that their account appears to have been used to infringe copyright, and to maintain and make available (according to a court order being obtained) data to allow the identification of “serious repeat infringers”. There are also more punitive measures outlined for ISPs to take if these measures fail to solve the problem.
The recently-formed Pirate Party of the United Kingdom (“PPUK”) today issued its response to the Digital Britain report, criticising the government’s understanding of digital media issues. On the issue of copyright, the PPUK implied that the proposals were being driven by the interests and lobbying-budgets of “rights-holder industries”, and showed a “basic misunderstanding of the fundamentals of copyright”, adding “the concerns and voices of ordinary citizens are ignored”.
In their response, the PPUK were correct to mention the origins and purpose of copyright law: the purpose of copyright law ought to centre on compensating creative individuals for their endeavours, especially when this would not otherwise occur, and not propping up industries with business models struggling in the new technological climate. Furthermore, the distinction the PPUK’s response draws out between “authors” and “rights-holders” is key: many copyrights are not owned by the creators of the work, but by other persons, and creators often do not control the rights to their work. Instead, the rights-holder, often a corporation, is enriched through the enforcement of the copyright, seemingly not furthering the interests of creators. The PPUK points out a lack of evidence of the losses caused by file-sharing: the only statistics quoted by the Digital Britain report come from the BPI (which claimed that file-sharing costs the British film industry £180m per year) and IPSOS (which claimed a loss in the UK for TV and films or £152m). These are two industry groups, with an evident interest in seeing the tighter enforcement of copyrights, and there is no independent analysis or verification of these statistics. Moreover, it seems that there has been little input into this report from citizens and consumer rights advocates: another proposal is for an industry body known as the “rights authority” to draft a code of practice for Ofcom to approve, with the government encouraging the participation of rights-holders and ISPs to play a role in this, with no mention of any citizen/consumer groups.
The whole area and purpose of copyright law must be re-examined in the contemporary context. New technology has allowed creators more direct access to their audiences than before, as well as allowing a vast amount more information to be available freely, easily and in the public domain. To ensure that we continue to benefit from the fruits of creativity in our capitalist economy, it is essential that creators are compensated for their work. However, stricter enforcement of the current copyright regime will not further this goal. We should be aware of whom the true beneficiaries of measures such as those outlined in Digital Britain are, and of the implications: in this case, shoring up big business in the creative “industries”. The popular politicisation of this issue, as seen in the European elections, is a welcome development.
The issue of copyright and the internet came to the fore in the European elections earlier this month, when the Swedish Pirate Party won a seat in the European Parliament. This happened in the wake of The Pirate Bay court case, when a Swedish court sentenced the owners of this peer-to-peer filesharing website to a year in jail as well as to paying £2.5m of damages. The Pirate Party campaigns for a free internet, encompassing reform to intellectual property law, and claims more than 45,000 members now in Sweden, mostly among young people. The Pirate Party in Germany won about 1% of the vote there in the European elections, and affiliated Pirate Parties have been set up in various other countries.
Digital Britain announces that the British government considers the piracy of intellectual property as theft, and outlines the government strategy in dealing with this issue. It advocates an education campaign to inform the public about the lawfulness of their actions and the use of the civil law by rights-holders and internet service providers (“ISPs”) against internet users who “wilfully continue unlawful activity”. The report also proposes a new duty for Ofcom, the communications regulator, to notify holders of internet accounts that their account appears to have been used to infringe copyright, and to maintain and make available (according to a court order being obtained) data to allow the identification of “serious repeat infringers”. There are also more punitive measures outlined for ISPs to take if these measures fail to solve the problem.
The recently-formed Pirate Party of the United Kingdom (“PPUK”) today issued its response to the Digital Britain report, criticising the government’s understanding of digital media issues. On the issue of copyright, the PPUK implied that the proposals were being driven by the interests and lobbying-budgets of “rights-holder industries”, and showed a “basic misunderstanding of the fundamentals of copyright”, adding “the concerns and voices of ordinary citizens are ignored”.
In their response, the PPUK were correct to mention the origins and purpose of copyright law: the purpose of copyright law ought to centre on compensating creative individuals for their endeavours, especially when this would not otherwise occur, and not propping up industries with business models struggling in the new technological climate. Furthermore, the distinction the PPUK’s response draws out between “authors” and “rights-holders” is key: many copyrights are not owned by the creators of the work, but by other persons, and creators often do not control the rights to their work. Instead, the rights-holder, often a corporation, is enriched through the enforcement of the copyright, seemingly not furthering the interests of creators. The PPUK points out a lack of evidence of the losses caused by file-sharing: the only statistics quoted by the Digital Britain report come from the BPI (which claimed that file-sharing costs the British film industry £180m per year) and IPSOS (which claimed a loss in the UK for TV and films or £152m). These are two industry groups, with an evident interest in seeing the tighter enforcement of copyrights, and there is no independent analysis or verification of these statistics. Moreover, it seems that there has been little input into this report from citizens and consumer rights advocates: another proposal is for an industry body known as the “rights authority” to draft a code of practice for Ofcom to approve, with the government encouraging the participation of rights-holders and ISPs to play a role in this, with no mention of any citizen/consumer groups.
The whole area and purpose of copyright law must be re-examined in the contemporary context. New technology has allowed creators more direct access to their audiences than before, as well as allowing a vast amount more information to be available freely, easily and in the public domain. To ensure that we continue to benefit from the fruits of creativity in our capitalist economy, it is essential that creators are compensated for their work. However, stricter enforcement of the current copyright regime will not further this goal. We should be aware of whom the true beneficiaries of measures such as those outlined in Digital Britain are, and of the implications: in this case, shoring up big business in the creative “industries”. The popular politicisation of this issue, as seen in the European elections, is a welcome development.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Museum funding
Glaswegians have been grumbling about the under- and unfair funding of museums and art galleries in Scotland for as long as I can remember, yet this Herald article offers hope for change. Glasgow's fine collection of art galleries and museums, boasting world-famous paintings and exhibits are funded by the City Council, with no central money. Edinburgh, where the National Galleries of Scotland are located with their excellent collections, receives annual government funding to the tune of £40m. Glasgow's museums receive more 200,000 more visitors per year than those in Edinburgh. Furthermore, Glasgow City Council has less money to play with overall than Edinburgh: the city receives less income in council tax due to a higher rate of poverty; and affluent suburbs such as Bearsden and Newton Mearns remaining stubbornly outside the city boundaries (despite their residents enjoying Glasgow's free facilities). Glasgow's art galleries and museums are free to enter, which has resulted in their enjoyment by those of all means for many years.
This summit between the Culture Minister and museum leaders is to be welcomed, with the hope that Glasgow's collection will receive the funding it deserves.
This summit between the Culture Minister and museum leaders is to be welcomed, with the hope that Glasgow's collection will receive the funding it deserves.
Tuesday, 30 December 2008
Winter wonderland
So the weather changed here, and it's now bitterly cold, with the daytime temperature today in Glasgow below zero degrees. I was struck by the beauty of the freeze while walking through the Botanic Gardens this afternoon. The light is so clear without clouds, and brings with it a sharpened edge. Unlike the wet winter days, people are wrapping up in many layers, and taking to the outside to enjoy strolling in the short daytime. The dark winter is far more bearable with clement days. I remember as a child strongly hating the winter due to the weather and darkness, so I'm not sure my new-found appreciation would endure if I was living in Glasgow full-time again, or was back at work and incarcerated for the hours of light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)