Lex Ferenda

Italian publisher Polimetrica has published a book (link is to downloadable PDF) on open access issues, especially in relation to public policy. It’s worth a read. Appropriately, the book itself has a good licence:

“Polimetrica License B” gives anyone the possibility to distribute the contents of the work, provided that the authors of the work and the publisher are always recognised and mentioned. It does not allow use of the contents of the work for commercial purposes or for profit. Polimetrica Publisher has the exclusive right to publish and sell the contents of the work in paper and electronic format and by any other means of publication. Additional rights on the contents of the work are the author’s property.

Via Maman Poulet (who I haven’t seen in years, and am delighted to see is a much better and more reliable blogger than I) comes good news of a campaign, under the leadership of support network BelongTo and the Equality Authority. “Homophobic Bullying Is Not Acceptable In Our School” is the message; the headline is one of four (one for she, one for he, and the same again in Irish) as follows:

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how many schools put up the poster, and how many object - or worse still, object on ‘moral’ grounds (bullying presumably being better than polluting the impressionable minds of confused youth). And whether the schools that display the poster lose a little of their sillyness over things like Debs events and the general assumption that 100% of their pupils are 100% hetero. But it’s a positive move (when I showed someone the campaign, their response was ‘it will never work in Ireland’, assuming that something like this was obviously a British campaign!), and helped along the way by a launch from Síle de Valera (on the way out the door, but still a Junior Minister!).

(Edited with thanks to tipster, below)

Reuters reported last week on an agreement reached between Lander premiers in Germany on a licence fee (in similar terms to existing radio and TV licence fees; Ireland and the UK only have the TV version though!) for “computers and mobile phones that can access television and radio programmes via the Internet”.

There’s some chatter and reasonably useful Slashdot discussion on this, including various hypotheticals on firewalled computers and so on. There’s a little bit of information on the collection authority (GEZ)’s website. An important point is that a computer counts as a (warning: interesting and amusing German word on the way) “Zweitgerätefreiheit” - the entitlement that a second or subsequent piece of equipment is covered under the existing licence fee (around five euro a month for radio or 17 for radio/TV). So the biggest ‘hit’ will be offices and others that don’t have an existing licence.

The conceptual issues (as well as the practical ones, which are more popular with others, it seems), are interesting. The GEZ’s FAQ (through my bad German, a dictionary, and auto-translation) argues in defence of the new system (which has been in the pipeline for some time) won’t have a major impact on private households, as the penetration of radio is as close to 100% as makes no significant difference. And follows that with the argument that radio is radio is radio and the method of distribution doesn’t affect the need for public broadcasters to be well funded. What they are saying - without saying it - is that it’s not really an equipment levy, but a flat-rate general tax (with a now-enhanced heavier burden on artificial persons) to support public ‘media’ (the revenue is all flowing to broadcasters and content generators, not locked away for Internet development or broadband rollout or whatever). Therefore it’s not a case of ‘licensing the Internet’, but a modification on the (very European) notion of finding a clever way to pay for public broadcasting (note the Swedish sin of failing to pay the broadcast licence - not as silly as it sounds given that the politician was a) being appointed as Culture Minister and b) a former employee of public radio!).

From my medium-is-important perspective, I see problems with how the scheme is drawn, and potentially huge obstacles on definition and collection. The concept of ‘Internet users’ (whether in their capacity as such or as members of a social democratic society) having an obligation - perhaps even an enhanced one given the fragmentation of audiences - to pay for public broadcasting/media/content/platforms/even mediums-media-whatever - is not so easily dismissed as an application of old ideas to new media, though. The German approach may be more logical, perhaps, than the UK’s notion that watching simulcast TV on your computer creates a licence obligation, but ‘watching back’ or downloading doesn’t. I don’t think that is sustainable, and just causes amusement and abuse. Germany will focus on devices “zum Empfang bereithalten” (ready to receive broadcasts), which is quite common even in UK and Irish history on TVs.

Damien Mulley finds that his excellent letter/coverage of spamming from Thinkhouse PR has mysteriously disappeared from Google. And suggests that reposting the original might not a bad idea. So here it is. They don’t deserve a link but it’s thinkhousepr dot com, if you’re interested.

Open Letter to Thinkhouse PR - As promised

Hi everyone in Thinkhouse PR! As promised, here is my formal complaint to the Data Protection Commissioner for being repeatedly spammed by you on behalf of your clients. Just so you know I’ve also, as promised, contacted Three, Imagine and Ben and Jerry’s Ireland and asked them to investigate why I am getting spams about their products from you.

I’m writing to make a formal complaint against Thinkhouse PR for continually sending unsolicited emails to one of my email accounts despite being asked not to. The email account in question is info [at] irelandoffline.org a part-time non-commercial voluntary group.

Enclosed are 5 sets of documents. Thinkhouse contacted info@irelandoffline.org (which is shared with a colleague John Timmons) initially on behalf of their client Imagine who were releasing a new broadband product. We did not ask to be put on further email distributions for Imagine or for anyone else.

Despite this, on Fri August 4th Jane McDonald from Thinkhouse sent an email promoting an initiative from Ben and Jerry’s. (See document No. 2) Ben and Jerry’s are a client of Thinkhouse. My reply to this unsolicited email is at the end of the document.

Jane McDonald replied to this (see document No. 3) and gave the excuse that there was some kind of slip and my email address was put into a personal circular. I would not consider it was a personal mail. Jane seems to suggest that Thinkhouse are aware of spamming laws.

On August 18th Thinkhouse PR sent me another mail, a press release for the mobile phone operator “3”. (See document no. 4. This document is the back and forth communication between myself and Thinkhouse PR.) At the top of the document is a communication from Jane McDonald telling me once again I’m off everyone’s list after I again requested it. Jane also admits to using my email address without permission to add me to their mailing lists.

On August 22nd (see document No. 5) Andrea Horan from Thinkhouse PR again sent me a PR, this time for another of their clients. This one for Moviestar.ie.

I wish for the Data Protection Commissioner to investigate this and carry out a prosecution if needs be. I am willing to travel to Dublin, I am willing to make a written statement and I am willing to testify in Court if the need arises. Thinkhouse PR is contravening the Irish Spam Legislation and it is totally disregarding my repeated requests to stop being sent information. I have also asked for my contact details to be removed from their systems and this has been disregarded too.

Please contact me on receipt of this complaint. Contact details are above.
Regards,
Damien Mulley

Update 1: Blurred Keys has a good list of the blogs that copied Damien’s post.
Update 2: The poor soul from Thinkhouse sent out to defend the company (complete with SLoppy TYpng and spElling, hardly inspiring confidence in PR skills?) said the following in comments (at Eirepreneur regarding the DPC (which is rechristened as the yet-unknown Data Protection Agency) :
22.10.2006 - “They also apologied for having to follow the complaint up.”
23.10.2006 - “I would like to clarify a point. The Data Protection Commissioner’s Office, in response to a complaint made to it about Thinkhouse, did not apologise for having to follow the complaint up.”
Update 3: Damien gets a response from the DPC. Not a great result, but useful nonetheless.

The new academic year is well underway. After a false start in September, I’m back blogging as well (and marking the occasion with a new theme, which may or may not last).

Currently I’m preparing what will turn out to be a lengthy, well-structured and world-beating amazingly-good research plan. Of course. In addition, I’m gearing up for a stint as one of the lecturers on a new European Media Regulation course for the LL.M. (masters) degree at Trinity College Dublin. One of the functions of Lex Ferenda this year will be to track the progress of the design and teaching of this course. Indeed, students on the course will also be blogging their way through it. One of my co-conspirators has also taken up the digital pen over at Idiot Box And Others.