I have the good fortune to have a number of interesting clients who are often writing about bleeding edge topics, especially in the realms of digital media, marketing and communication.

Alan Moore, a mobile and engagement marketing expert is currently writing a new book, “No Straight Lines”. I’ve been privileged to have a read of one his drafts. There were a number of points he raised in his writing that I found very topical with regards to recent media stories.

“In Audience Atomization Overcome Rosen writes In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other. And now that authority is eroding.

This ability to connect, to go round, over, under and through what were for years barriers to information are the means by which we challenge the authority of mainstream media.”

But the push is on to stop this, as Opennet.net sets out to show by listing all of the available internet filtering techniques and which countries are currently using them. It would appear the trend is on the rise.

Australia is currently the test case, and all other “democratic” Western countries are watching with interest. Governments have a tendency to copy each others legislation, especially if one sets a precedent.

…election rigging? No, finding out about it.

The above CensorDyne advert from GetUp!, a non-partisan lobby group, was created with the intent that it would be aired where possible in Australia to try to get their message across to Australian legislators. One of the aims of the CensorDyne campaign was to have the advertisement aired on every Qantas flight. However this week Qantas refused to run the CensorDyne ad claiming they have a policy of not airing political material. However this response has been called into doubt as the airline has perviously air political satire. But most telling of all, David Epstein, a Qantas executive with close links to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has dismissed suggestions that he personally barred an anti-internet censorship advertisement from airing on flights to Canberra.

These same “democratic” governments who have long been critical of the likes of Chinese Net censorship, are the very same governments who are looking at the very same technology for their own use, and in some instances, purchasing that same technology (software).

It is true what you say. This new networked world is very empowering, and that is precisely what the “establishment” do not want – a very public forum of discussion, debate, criticism, parody and outing is not welcome.

And that establishment is the corporates who pull the strings of government.

“Funny that, and of course we had the whole ‘cash for questions’ issue in the UK, and then recently four Lords again using their influence, so it is claimed, to change legislation to the benefit of companies in exchange for large amounts of cash.”

What we face is similar to the great American land rush of the 1800’s. People streamed Westwards to claim their bit of turf, at the expense of those already there (digital natives) and set up their own little “utopias”, hence the Wild West. And indeed many times I have read the internet equated with this.

But it was not too long before “authority” and regulation caught up with everyone, and that being because big business interests moved in – Ranchers, Railroads, Mining.

Question is, will WE manage to establish some sort of Digital Constitution, or Bill of Rights to our own data before we are filtered or locked out?

Or rather the question is, will WE take the time to properly inform and educate ourselves about this technology that we use?

While perhaps we despise malware authors and others out to steal our bank account details, defraud us and cause general selfish havoc, and provide the “establishment” further excuses to lock the Net (mobile or static), these malicious persons are actually forcing people not to take their data for granted.

But there remains that question. Will people be lazy, and not take personal responsibility and run to the open arms of the “establishment” for protection from the internet nasties, or will make the effort to become better educated?

The famous and infamous Pirate Bay has recently lost its legal battle in which the site’s owners are accused of aiding and abetting copyright infringement. However Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundström who were found guilty and sentenced to one year in prison and payment of a fine of 30 million SEK (app. $3,620,000 USD), after a trial of 9 days, will appeal against the verdict. The website to date has been unaffected and remains online.

The Pirate Bay verdict appears to be achieving the opposite to the outcome intended by the copyright advocates with support for the site and its political offshoot, the Pirate Party reportedly going from strength to strength.

Future victories for copyright holders are looking increasingly shaky as Bittorrent tracking sites such as The Pirate Bay are about to be replaced by applications such as the Tribler which uses no centralized server, making it harder for authorities to track and prosecutions be braught against any one body of focus. Anonymous VPS services such as iPredator, will also offers file sharers protection. So its an ongoing arms race.

Piracy

You know its strange how some people think that the internet, with all of its interactivity, user colabration and social networking, is the place more of the same old, pump and dump.

The Smarthouse post, “Banned Freeview Video Reappears On New Web Sites”, explains how Freeview requested YouTube to pull a parody video of their advertisement. Freeview are promoting an internet TV service, where you can watch, as the parody puts it, more of the same old stuff that you can see on the standard free to air TV stations, but wait for this, you still can’t skip the ads.

And so now in true internet justice the same banned ad is now appearing again on many more sites on the internet. It reminds me of 2Clix’s attempts to stiffle public opinion. Some people just don’t have a clue.

Here’s the clip.

Just when I’d thought most ill conceived internet censorship laws, New Zealand tops them with this one.

Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act forces the removal of material from websites following any accusation of breach of copyright, even if it was not proven. However, it is up to the ISPs to play proxy policeman.

It is a growing trend of governments worldwide to force ISPs to do their dirty work in censoring online discussion and to pay lip service to large corporations. Something I predicted over a year ago.

But the question that remains to be answered, is whose side will the ISPs take?

Our politians (law makers, a good joke) are lacking any real understanding or education when it comes digital society which shows in the headline grabbing polices they tout and hair brained legislation they are ever so quick to ram through their assemblies without any informed community consultation.

Much of these numb skull ideas seem to be pushed by the major media outles. I have increasingly seen “journalists” complaining on their media websites about the blogsphere appropriating their content. I agree it is only fair that original source be cited. However, these same whining journos say nothing of the fact that modern journalism is increasingly turning to and drawing from the same digital pool that bleat about their content disappearing into.

“Airline passenger tweets about jet crash landing“, “Facebook community protests change in TOS”, all make it into the mainstream media these days.

More on the situation and community action can be read in this article… if it hasn’t been removed in breach of copyright that is.

NZ blogs in copyright law blackout demo

2Clix has withdrawn from a legal case against the founder broadband discussion forum Whirlpool. But it is not necessarily all is well that ends well. The legal question still hangs over Australian public forums as to who takes the legal responsibility for publically posted comments. This grey area still exists in the Australian laws.

Ever since news of 2Clix's legal action against Whirlpool founder Simon Wright first broke, the general opinion has been that it was, at best, a massive miscalculation. 2Clix's suit, which sought to have two threads discussing the effectiveness of its products removed from the site, instead resulted in global publicity of those threads. Those threads still currently dominate the top five search results for '2Clix' on Google, hardly a good outcome if you're seeking to minimise bad publicity. 

Companies that engage in such legal action against negative discussions need to also think about the flip side of the coin. If they can demand that negative comments should be taken down, then what if all of the positive comments go with them.

A furore has erupted over the latest internet censorship attempt. I brought the issue to the attention of Adrian Lukas because she spends most of her time educating people about communication. This case was certainly not about letting people discuss things.

Software company 2Clix is suing Whirlpool forum founder, Simon Wright for allowing two threads on his forum that criticize their software. Now the situation would be laughable were it not that Whirlpool, sometimes affectionately referred to as "Whingepool" amongst those who visit and post to the site, is run on a non-profit, voluntary basis.

2Clix develops low-end business accounting software fulfilling similar roles to more widely known products such as Quickbooks and MYOB. They are seeking damages of $150,000 plus costs for "Injurous Falsehood" and a demand to remove two threads "2Clix or Not 2Clix?" and "Anyone used 2Clix?" from the Whirlpool forums website.

The company in its statement of claim that it has suffered "irreparable damage to its trade and business" from the existing two threads.

2Clix's case is that because the people criticizing and complaining about their software, can not be identified as certifiable users, and maybe malicious competitors, that Simon Wright should take the threads down. Now what 2Clix and their legal advisors have not taken into account, is that some of these people might be genuinely by aggrieved customers.

Their heavy handed legal tactic looks set to blow up in their face. This is not the intended outcome they were seeking. Word spread fast amongst online communities, with 2Clix taking on the role of villan. Many people are pledging to support Simon with financial assistance should the case go to court.

Legal experts have made comment on the case and suggest that 2Clix's case is very shaky, as evidenced in the article, "Will the Whirlpool case wash?".

A win for 2Clix would set disastrous precedent for publishers and online communities, with no online critcizims of anyone or anything being permissible. End of discussion.