The backlash against the backlash against Zuckerberg has started. In an interview with Wired he said
…one thing that is personally a bit disheartening…. It bums me out that people immediately go to “You must be doing this to make money.” Because that’s just so different from the ethos of the company. It is so different from how we actually think about stuff that you feel so misunderstood.
Mark Zuckerberg: I Donated to Open Source, Facebook Competitor
UK readers will immediately remember the tears of misunderstood heartache welling up in the eyes of Brown and Campbell, on screen, in the weeks prior to the election; and will sympathise. Sure they will.
If he was interested in money, he would have sold. However that’s not what motivates Mark Zuckerberg. As he tells Wired Magazine, “The thing I really care about is the mission, making the world open.” Facebook has fundamentally changed human behavior and to a certain extent it helped make people more transparent. Individuals share things with others with much more ease than ever before, and often times with people they normally wouldn’t have shared with.
Nick O’Neill, in All Facebook (Yes, Facebook’s Privacy Changes Were Not About Money, 28 May 2010 23:55, although it now seems to have been removed from the site)
OK, I have two questions to ask. One. If Facebook is so altruistic, how come sharing isn’t opt-in rather than opt-out. If all the arguments are correct, that people really do want to share everything about themselves, then they will surely opt-in at the earliest opportunity.
Two. It’s the mission. To make the world more open. Well that sounds a bit like social engineering on a grand scale – more like society engineering. Zuckerberg wants to make the world more open. I’m sorry, but that’s not his call. If society wishes to be more open, society will be more open. Wishing to change society into what you want smacks of megalomania; it’s what despotic politicians try to do.
So, I may be wrong. Zuckerberg might indeed be the misunderstood altruist. I remain doubtful. I may yet rejoin Facebook. But certainly not yet.
Robert Cimino was sentenced to 18 months in prison by U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga in the Eastern District of Virginia for his sales of more than $250,000 worth of pirated software.
On Feb. 25, 2010, Cimino pleaded guilty to a single count of criminal copyright infringement for manufacturing and distributing pirated copies of popular business, engineering and graphic design copies of software titles by Adobe, Autodesk, Intuit, Quark and others over a more than three-year period. According to court documents, Cimino operated under the business name “SoftwareSuite” and advertised the sale of discounted popular software programs on a variety of Internet-based advertising forums, including http://www.buysellcommunity.com, http://www.adpost.com and http://www.sell.com. Customers would contact Cimino by email and would typically pay for the products by PayPal. Cimino would then mail pirated copies of the programs he had burned to CD or DVD to the customers, including customers in the Eastern District of Virginia. From February 2006 to September 2009, Cimino received at least $270,035 in gross proceeds from his sales of pirated software products.
The BBC summarised the announcement of the Great Repeal Bill in the Queen’s Speech thus:
Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill
Will limit the amount of time that DNA profiles of innocent people can be held on national database. Will tighten regulation on the use of CCTV cameras, remove limits on right to peaceful protest. The storage of DNA is a power devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Bill would adopt the Scottish model.
Queen’s Speech 2010: Bill by bill
The one that’s missing is the Digital Economy Act: draconian, unworkable, unfair, undemocratic and unjust.
There’s something else that’s missing from the Coalition’s hit list. Before the election, the one quango that all the pundits expected to go was Ofcom. Since the election this dead cert has disappeared from view. It doesn’t seem likely now that it will be abolished.
These two things are related, because it is Ofcom that is charged with much of the donkey work in enforcing the DEA. So if the DEA stays, then Ofcom must also.
Today we have confirmation of sorts. Ofcom has released its Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010, Draft Initial Obligations Code; and is asking for comments by 30 July 2010.
The DEA imposed new obligations on Internet Service providers (“ISPs”) to send notifications to their subscribers following receipt of reports of copyright infringement from Copyright Owners. ISPs must also record the number of reports made against their subscribers and provide Copyright Owners on request with an anonymised list which enables the Copyright Owner to see which of the reports it has made are linked to the same subscriber – also known as the ‘copyright infringement list’.
The DEA gave Ofcom duties to draw up and enforce a code of practice (“the Code”). The DEA is very clear on how Ofcom should implement many elements of the measures, but where there is discretion the interests of citizens and consumers are central to Ofcom’s approach. We propose a system of quality assurance reporting to ensure that where allegations are made against subscribers they are based upon credible evidence, gathered in a robust manner. We also propose that the independent appeals body, which Ofcom is required to establish, should adopt specific measures to protect subscribers during the hearing of appeals, including a right to anonymity.
…We welcome responses to this consultation by 30th July 2010.
Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010
The Draft also includes sample templates for the three strikes letters:
If you have an interest in how the DEA will operate, then it is worth reading this document. If you think you can influence the Obligations Code, then send in your comments by the end of July. But the truth is, no amount of tinkering with either the Act or Obligations Code will do much good. Pigs and lipstick come to mind. The only thing to do with this Act is dump it completely and come up with something better and more reasonable.