Hi Tessa, Me Again!

Maybe I should make that the title of this blog, rather than just the post, since that's mostly what I seem to write about here. Here's my latest (with acknowledgement to the Open Rights Group for the third paragraph only, since I plagiarised their work wholesale).

Dear Tessa Jowell,

I wrote to you almost exactly a year ago urging that the Digital Economy Bill (now Act) should be given full parliamentary debate rather than being truncated by the wash-up procedure at the end of the last parliament. Following the truncated debate that took place, the Act appears to be being undermined by legal challenges.

In this case, I genuinely do hate to say I told you so, because this has had the unfortunate consequence of the Act's most vocal proponents lobbying for more draconian measures to achieve the Act's intent, using the even cruder method of website blocking.  Website blocking, like cutting off people from the Internet, isn't the answer to combatting copyright infringement.

Music and film companies can already apply to courts to block specific instances of copyright infringement. They can also take the sites to court, and frequently do. They can even take individuals to court, and do.

Web blocking sounds like a simple idea: but the reality is that copyright infringement is complicated and needs proving properly before a company is dealt with through a legal process. And what's more, such powers already exist, so we can safely assume whatever is being suggested will be easier for copyright holders and harder for innocent people to avoid harm.

And it won’t work. Website blocking can be easily circumvented by anyone remotely determined, but would be very likely to create means for competitors to harm each other and for companies to repress unwanted speech.

Please forward my concerns to the ministers responsible, Ed Vaizey and Jeremy Hunt.

On folk songs

For most of this interview, Alasdair Roberts seems a little nonplussed by the questions. Then, in the middle, look what he unleashes:

Q. What is it about traditional folk music that gets-you-going?

Alasdair: It's a realm of magical equivalencies. Consider the modes: why does the Dorian mode evoke a fox, or a full moon or a pine tree, and why does the Mixolydian mode evoke a swan and the rays of the rising sun or a yew tree? More functionally, it's a form of currency, so I probably like it for the same reason that as a boy I used to collect coins. I liked the way that the further away from Rome a Roman coin is minted, the more abstracted becomes the Emperor's face. No matter how psychedelicised Caesar's face becomes, a denarius is still a denarius. Songs change in the same way. Also consider the etymology of the Indo-European languages. Songs change the same way as words, but they all derive from the same proto-utterance. But one crucial difference -- to me the very old songs, the ones about mothers, fathers, brothers and so on, the ones which evoke (or invoke) Fox and Swan, are more than just Symbol -- they are numinous things-in-themselves, becoming what they seem to represent, and enabling the singer, however fleetingly, to become what they represent too.

Follow-up letter to Tessa Jowell MP

Dear Tessa Jowell,

We corresponded last month about the Digital Economy Bill (now Act).
The one thing I asked if you could support was ensuring that the Bill
got the normal amount of debate in parliament, rather than being
truncated by the wash-up procedure.

Would I be right to infer -- from the fact that you didn't take part in
the truncated debate, but nevertheless voted for the Bill -- that you
disagreed with me? I can't tell for sure, as you didn't address my
request in any of the three replies I received from you. Neither can I
be sure of your reasons, if that were the case.

I understand that Eric Joyce MP has set up an all-party group to
discuss what to do about some of the contentious clauses in the Act,
which the Liberal Democrats pledged to repeal. I hope you will support
the formation and work of this group, or clarify why you do not think
they deserve full debate.

Yours sincerely,
David Jennings

My letter to my MP about the Digital Economy Bill

Dear Tessa Jowell,

I am concerned by reports that the Digital Economy Bill is "expected to be rushed through the Commons before the general election" (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8569750.stm ) without proper debate by MPs. I hope you will help ensure that this debate takes place.

My particular point of concern about the Bill is its potential impact on the availability of public wi-fi "hotspots" that enable citizens to use the Internet in pubs, cafes, hotels, public squares and so on. This service is a "public good", supporting the digital inclusion agenda and attracting people to these public spaces. As an independent consultant in the knowledge/creative sector, I and my peers increasingly depend on such services to enable the mobility and flexibility that makes our work viable.

I worry that the Bill threatens public wi-fi provision in two or three ways. People who participate in illegal filesharing may increasingly do this via public wi-fi connections to avoid having their own private connections suspended. If so, the high bandwidth usage of filesharing would quickly clog the public connections, making them unusable for other, legitimate purposes. Secondly, the managers of the public wi-fi services may either have their service suspended on account of filesharing behaviours that they cannot easily control; or they may opt to shut down their service to pre-empt its use for filesharing and the aggravation this would cause them.

I am no defender of illegal filesharing. I am a defender of, evangelist for, and dependent on, legitimate uses of the Internet for work, learning, leisure and transactions with government. Please don't let the Digital Economy Bill threaten the latter through ill-considered measures against the former.

Yours sincerely,

David Jennings

Recursive differential theory of happiness

Message from a friend:

Yes I'm well thanks, and happy I suppose - well not unhappy - though how does one actually know??

From my reply:

p.s. How does one know if one is happy? If one has to ask, one is not! However, hindsight may subsequently suggest that one was, after all, happy then - or at least happier than one is in the moment that affords the hindsight. Hope that's cleared that up.

p.p.s The converse does not apply: if one does not have to ask whether one is happy or not, that does not mean that one is. Certainty about one's level of happiness is more commonly an indicator of its absence

Happiness is in fact recursively related to its own differential. The awareness of one's own increasing happiness is what makes one happy. The moment one notices that one's happiness has stopped increasing, one becomes sad. And vice-versa.

Pat Kane at School of Everything

Event details 2009-10-06

Shifting from thinking about play instrumentally to play intrinsically.Started thinking about it as a counter to New Labour's work ethic. Also influenced by Castells' Network Society (1986) What's the grand narrative of this new flexible, dynamic, rapidly changing society.

Discourse about creativity has been big in business for a decade or more, but needs...

Anxiety that if product lives are becoming more precarious, risky, what institutions are going to support them? Is it a 35-hour week, School of Everything, unions?

Vinay: are you allowed to be happy and unemployed?

Birth rate in France went up with 35-hour week, and it's going up in Iceland now.

Vinay: open source as a new kind of institution, generating $11bn (same as UN budget), without any formal power.

Pat: not downshifting, but shapeshifting, has got out of the property market

Size of sports market is indicative of a repressed desire for play.

Things are in play. Taking reality lightly.

Festivals (of learning, innovation, housing) are the coming institutions.

Steve Lawson at School of Everything

Event details 2009-09-30

Steve noticed he missed teaching when performing more than he missed performing when teaching.

Most people stop learning an instrument when they're 17, and that seemed to be an amazing statistic since they continue with other effortful activities (gaming, reading). Too much music teaching was about disciplines of control, based on orchestra and restrictions about the purpose of learning an instrument. In parallel there was the folk tradition. Children are encouraged to learn violin, when it would be better for them to learn mandolin or ukulele which can be tuned the same way.

The idea that there should be a repertoire for popular music is absurd.

"I have no right to chastise a student for not practising; it's my job to inspire them enough that they will drop other things to make time for practising"

"I refuse to teach towards exams"

Miriam Margolyes' use of spoken language is very musical.

I frame everything I teach under either 'awareness' or 'control'.

Playfulness, it's not necessary to be serious about playing your intstrument, don't be afraid of getting things wrong.

Dougald: there's a tendency to see feeling as getting in the way of thinking.

Also relevant: Lucy Green's book on How Popular Musicians Learn