I've still not written up my notes from the meeting last weekend with Mrs Gilroy, but I have just received the following email which includes at least taking note of one of the specific issues I raised in that meeting, the problem of benchmarking the success of the act in reducing copyright infringement since the figures used for existing levels are based on poor evidence and are more propaganda than seriously useful.
So, at least one of the issues may get a more specific reply at some stage.
Anyhow, below is the email and we'll have to see what happens on May 6th I suppose to see what happens next:
=======
Thanks for coming to meet with me last Sunday.
Luke kept a note of the concerns we discussed and I have kept this for future reference. Should I continue to be the elector's choice on the 6 May I will keep in touch with you about the processes which flow, or may flow, from this Act.
I have asked the Secretary of State to comment on the point raised by Nick on the base line for measuring progress on reducing illegal copyright infringement. I will contact you when I have his reply.
Do copy me into any representations you make on the consultation about the notification process in reducing copyright infringement.
Best wishes
Linda Gilroy
Labour & Cooperative Candidate for Plymouth Sutton & Devonport
Website:www.lindagilroy.org.uk
Twitter: www.twitter.com/lindagilroy
Facebook: www.facebook.com/lindagilroy
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/LindaGilroyPlymouth
Promoted by J. Furzeman on behalf of Linda Gilroy, both at 21 Durnford Street, Plymouth, PL1 3QF
======
-- Posted from my phone
2010/04/18
Applying the Apple 'Hype Cycle' in HEi IT?
After following the incredibly successful hype cycle of Apple with the iPad (including the 'shortages' delaying the launch in Europe - which may or may not be deliberate), I was struck with the thought of why many IT system changes in HEIs tend to meet resistance rather than being eagerly seized upon.
We don't manage the hype well enough.
Hype is not just about singing a product or services praises. It's not just marketing and press releases or even demos and briefings.
To get the hype cycle right involves subtle psychology, careful timing, attention to detail, leveraging social networks and of course under promising and over delivering. (and probably 1,001 other things)
I could make reference to the 'popularity' of VLEs in HEI, or almost any other product and I'm sure there are (rare?) examples of institutions getting the hype cycle right - sometimes, but we (in IT) need to at least be aware of our roles in the perception of our services and how important that is in the success or otherwise of projects probably even more so than getting the technology itself 100% right.
If the hype cycle is right, and the product isn't fundamentally flawed, people will put up with 'foibles' because they have a relationship with the product, a vested interest in in working because they already wish it to work.
Get it wrong and even the slightest problem will have people giving up and seeking alternatives or complaining.
OK - all obvious stuff to anyone in marketing I know, but I wonder how many of my collegues in all branches of IT really think in such terms, and even if they do, if it's treated with enough importance in project plans and resource allocation?
-- Posted from my phone
We don't manage the hype well enough.
Hype is not just about singing a product or services praises. It's not just marketing and press releases or even demos and briefings.
To get the hype cycle right involves subtle psychology, careful timing, attention to detail, leveraging social networks and of course under promising and over delivering. (and probably 1,001 other things)
I could make reference to the 'popularity' of VLEs in HEI, or almost any other product and I'm sure there are (rare?) examples of institutions getting the hype cycle right - sometimes, but we (in IT) need to at least be aware of our roles in the perception of our services and how important that is in the success or otherwise of projects probably even more so than getting the technology itself 100% right.
If the hype cycle is right, and the product isn't fundamentally flawed, people will put up with 'foibles' because they have a relationship with the product, a vested interest in in working because they already wish it to work.
Get it wrong and even the slightest problem will have people giving up and seeking alternatives or complaining.
OK - all obvious stuff to anyone in marketing I know, but I wonder how many of my collegues in all branches of IT really think in such terms, and even if they do, if it's treated with enough importance in project plans and resource allocation?
-- Posted from my phone
2010/04/14
Reply to invite from @lindagilroy to meet to discuss #debill #deact
I have yet to receive a reply to my open letter to @lindagilroy MP regarding her decision to vote in favour of the Digital Ecconomy bill (now act). I have however recieved the generic email below which I have also responded to. See my reply and the initial email here:
------
I plan to attend on Sunday, although also awaiting an answer to the open letter on the same subject.
I do note that the email below says:
'I know a lot about these other subjects (so my ommision very little about this one) and yet despite that I still felt it appropriate to vote for this bill ignoring the expert advice on its flaws, concerns about the lack of die process and the almost unchallenged views expressed by many other MPs including fellow labour MPs that the bill is fundamentally flawed'
It ignores the fact that the government chose not to give this bill further time for debate despite parliament ending early on many days prior to the calling of the general election.
It also ignores the fact that the Lords also expressed grave concern that such a technical bill required significant further debate and refinement.
The worst kinds of law are those which can not be implemented or which have obvious unwanted side effects and this bill fails on both counts.
It also ignores the fact that the vested interests expressing a need for such a law (lobbying) have demonstrably falsified their case in the limited scrutiny to date and those flawed figures have subsequently continued to be repeated and further exagerated by the government.
So we now have a poorly drafted and worded act, impotent without the further work which should have preceeded agreeing to make it law, based on flawed exagerated justifications lobbied for by an anacronistic industry that pre-dates the digital age and is failing at every opportunity to adapt and benefit from the very digital ecconomy the act purports to try to nurture.
I will look forward to your responses to these points in person on Sunday however.
Sent from my phone, so please forgive brevity and any spelling errors
On 14 Apr 2010, at 15:14, Linda Gilroy wrote:
Thank you for contacting me about Parliamentary scrutiny of the Digital Economy Bill.
I understand your concerns that the bill was rushed through just before the election. The Bill started its way through parliament in the Lords where it did receive extensive scrutiny during its passage and over 700 amendments were debated. Most Bills start in the Commons of course – but highly technical bills are often started in the Lords so that they can be explored through substantial debate before they get to the House of Commons – and with the input of experts who are often present in greater numbers in the Lords. This also happened with the Climate Change Bill and the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. I served with some 16 other MPs on the detailed committee stage of both these Bills where the subject matter is something I am comparatively knowledgeable about.
The debate in the Lords took a lot of the time consuming spade-work out of what we needed to further revise.
The Digital Economy Bill was also considered by a number of Parliamentary Committees before it even got to the Lords.
It has of course now been debated in and passed by the House of Commons. Very strong views were expressed on both sides of the public discussion about unlawful online copyright infringement.
I agree with you that it is undeniable that full Commons scrutiny as well as Lords scrutiny would have been preferable. Unfortunately, the announcement of the General Election meant that all stages of the Commons process were completed during the “wash-up”. This is the process through which the government agrees with the opposition as to how to conclude business before Parliament is dissolved. The “wash up” process requires legislation to be supported by a very broad consensus in the House of Commons. The Commons scrutiny of the Digital Economy Bill concluded in the “wash up” last week with 189 votes in favour of the bill to 47 against.
Votes in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords have reflected a clear view across Parliament that unlawful online copyright infringement is a serious problem affecting our creative industries and individual artists, which the law needs to tackle. This is an issue that businesses in Plymouth, especially in the creative arts, have told me about time and time again over the last ten years. However, Parliament has also recognised the difficulties in tackling unlawful copyright infringements effectively. Much of the debate across both Houses rightly focused upon this.
During the Commons stages of the Bill last week, further amendments were made. As the Act now stands, further regulations will be required before technical measures can be applied in cases of copyright infringements via peer-to-peer file sharing, or before a copyright owner can apply for a court order to block an infringing website. These further amendments tabled in the Commons debates require public consultation and a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny – the so-called super affirmative procedure – before the regulations can be introduced. There will, therefore, be further opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny (and amendment of the provisions) before any sanctions for these breaches will be agreed or applied. During the Commons debates, Clause 43, which covered orphan licences, was dropped from the Bill.
I absolutely agree with you that the digital economy and the internet play an important and increasing role in the lives and livelihoods of many people in this country, which is why it was important to ensure the passage of the Digital Economy Bill during the ‘wash-up’ procedure. Things are changing so fast that to wait another 6-12 months – if this could be prioritised in a new parliament - just did not seem right.
As you can see from my website (I was one of the first 50 MPs to have one back in 1990s – and use of Facebook and Twitter) I do value this form of communication and try my best to use it!
I am also acutely aware of how important both the Digital Economy and the cultural industries – and how they can come together - are to Plymouth. I work with Alison Seabeck in Devonport to advance the case for Plymouth to get high speed broadband access and a hub connecting to the transatlantic cable together with the siting of a secure centre at Mount Wise. This could really put Plymouth on the Digital economy map of the UK.
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to let me know your concerns on this issue.
Given the importance of this issue I would welcome the chance to talk to you about this. As a number of people have written to me I am holding a special meeting at the T&G offices, New Union House, 2 Harbour Avenue, Sutton Harbour at 2-3pm on Sunday 18 April for people especially concerned about this issue to come and talk to me about this Bill. I hope to meet you in person on Sunday. If you do come please be aware that the nearest parking is at Staples. When you arrive at New Union House you will need to press the bottom buzzer for entrance. It would be helpful if you could give me an indication of whether you plan to attend by emailing votegilroy@hotmail.co.uk
Yours sincerely,
Linda Gilroy
Labour & Cooperative Candidate for Plymouth Sutton & Devonport
Website:www.lindagilroy.org.uk
Twitter: www.twitter.com/lindagilroy
Facebook: www.facebook.com/lindagilroy
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/LindaGilroyPlymouth
Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail – Free. Sign-up now.
------
I plan to attend on Sunday, although also awaiting an answer to the open letter on the same subject.
I do note that the email below says:
'I know a lot about these other subjects (so my ommision very little about this one) and yet despite that I still felt it appropriate to vote for this bill ignoring the expert advice on its flaws, concerns about the lack of die process and the almost unchallenged views expressed by many other MPs including fellow labour MPs that the bill is fundamentally flawed'
It ignores the fact that the government chose not to give this bill further time for debate despite parliament ending early on many days prior to the calling of the general election.
It also ignores the fact that the Lords also expressed grave concern that such a technical bill required significant further debate and refinement.
The worst kinds of law are those which can not be implemented or which have obvious unwanted side effects and this bill fails on both counts.
It also ignores the fact that the vested interests expressing a need for such a law (lobbying) have demonstrably falsified their case in the limited scrutiny to date and those flawed figures have subsequently continued to be repeated and further exagerated by the government.
So we now have a poorly drafted and worded act, impotent without the further work which should have preceeded agreeing to make it law, based on flawed exagerated justifications lobbied for by an anacronistic industry that pre-dates the digital age and is failing at every opportunity to adapt and benefit from the very digital ecconomy the act purports to try to nurture.
I will look forward to your responses to these points in person on Sunday however.
Sent from my phone, so please forgive brevity and any spelling errors
On 14 Apr 2010, at 15:14, Linda Gilroy
Thank you for contacting me about Parliamentary scrutiny of the Digital Economy Bill.
I understand your concerns that the bill was rushed through just before the election. The Bill started its way through parliament in the Lords where it did receive extensive scrutiny during its passage and over 700 amendments were debated. Most Bills start in the Commons of course – but highly technical bills are often started in the Lords so that they can be explored through substantial debate before they get to the House of Commons – and with the input of experts who are often present in greater numbers in the Lords. This also happened with the Climate Change Bill and the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. I served with some 16 other MPs on the detailed committee stage of both these Bills where the subject matter is something I am comparatively knowledgeable about.
The debate in the Lords took a lot of the time consuming spade-work out of what we needed to further revise.
The Digital Economy Bill was also considered by a number of Parliamentary Committees before it even got to the Lords.
It has of course now been debated in and passed by the House of Commons. Very strong views were expressed on both sides of the public discussion about unlawful online copyright infringement.
I agree with you that it is undeniable that full Commons scrutiny as well as Lords scrutiny would have been preferable. Unfortunately, the announcement of the General Election meant that all stages of the Commons process were completed during the “wash-up”. This is the process through which the government agrees with the opposition as to how to conclude business before Parliament is dissolved. The “wash up” process requires legislation to be supported by a very broad consensus in the House of Commons. The Commons scrutiny of the Digital Economy Bill concluded in the “wash up” last week with 189 votes in favour of the bill to 47 against.
Votes in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords have reflected a clear view across Parliament that unlawful online copyright infringement is a serious problem affecting our creative industries and individual artists, which the law needs to tackle. This is an issue that businesses in Plymouth, especially in the creative arts, have told me about time and time again over the last ten years. However, Parliament has also recognised the difficulties in tackling unlawful copyright infringements effectively. Much of the debate across both Houses rightly focused upon this.
During the Commons stages of the Bill last week, further amendments were made. As the Act now stands, further regulations will be required before technical measures can be applied in cases of copyright infringements via peer-to-peer file sharing, or before a copyright owner can apply for a court order to block an infringing website. These further amendments tabled in the Commons debates require public consultation and a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny – the so-called super affirmative procedure – before the regulations can be introduced. There will, therefore, be further opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny (and amendment of the provisions) before any sanctions for these breaches will be agreed or applied. During the Commons debates, Clause 43, which covered orphan licences, was dropped from the Bill.
I absolutely agree with you that the digital economy and the internet play an important and increasing role in the lives and livelihoods of many people in this country, which is why it was important to ensure the passage of the Digital Economy Bill during the ‘wash-up’ procedure. Things are changing so fast that to wait another 6-12 months – if this could be prioritised in a new parliament - just did not seem right.
As you can see from my website (I was one of the first 50 MPs to have one back in 1990s – and use of Facebook and Twitter) I do value this form of communication and try my best to use it!
I am also acutely aware of how important both the Digital Economy and the cultural industries – and how they can come together - are to Plymouth. I work with Alison Seabeck in Devonport to advance the case for Plymouth to get high speed broadband access and a hub connecting to the transatlantic cable together with the siting of a secure centre at Mount Wise. This could really put Plymouth on the Digital economy map of the UK.
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to let me know your concerns on this issue.
Given the importance of this issue I would welcome the chance to talk to you about this. As a number of people have written to me I am holding a special meeting at the T&G offices, New Union House, 2 Harbour Avenue, Sutton Harbour at 2-3pm on Sunday 18 April for people especially concerned about this issue to come and talk to me about this Bill. I hope to meet you in person on Sunday. If you do come please be aware that the nearest parking is at Staples. When you arrive at New Union House you will need to press the bottom buzzer for entrance. It would be helpful if you could give me an indication of whether you plan to attend by emailing votegilroy@hotmail.co.uk
Yours sincerely,
Linda Gilroy
Labour & Cooperative Candidate for Plymouth Sutton & Devonport
Website:www.lindagilroy.org.uk
Twitter: www.twitter.com/lindagilroy
Facebook: www.facebook.com/lindagilroy
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/LindaGilroyPlymouth
Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail – Free. Sign-up now.
2010/04/12
VLE / PLE / undead presentation
I hadn't realised this video had been put online until yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiv8FWg7KMc
From the VLE is undead presentation before Christmas as a revisit to the VLE is dead debate from ALT-C 2009.
Reflecting on my presentation, it was clumsy (someone told me my presentation at ALT-C needed more passion so I tried not to over rehearse my arguments and analogies - but it needed more work), and I think I emphasise the analogy too much without explaining how it relates to the topic. It all seemed obvious to me at the time, but watching it again now I wonder if anyone can follow quite what I meant by the different points.
Anyhow, one lives and learns and I think the point that PLE/PTN are not new practices, just mediated and amplified with technology holds, and that the VLE is about efficiency and ecconomy and that there is a valid place for those aspirations in education facing funding pressures and learners who need their educational journey mediating by 'subject experts' to allow them to progress in a timely way.
Not wishing to re-visit the "is it dead" or VLE v PLE artificial division, but thought I'd link to the video at least for historical reference of my thinking at the time :)
-- Posted from my phone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiv8FWg7KMc
From the VLE is undead presentation before Christmas as a revisit to the VLE is dead debate from ALT-C 2009.
Reflecting on my presentation, it was clumsy (someone told me my presentation at ALT-C needed more passion so I tried not to over rehearse my arguments and analogies - but it needed more work), and I think I emphasise the analogy too much without explaining how it relates to the topic. It all seemed obvious to me at the time, but watching it again now I wonder if anyone can follow quite what I meant by the different points.
Anyhow, one lives and learns and I think the point that PLE/PTN are not new practices, just mediated and amplified with technology holds, and that the VLE is about efficiency and ecconomy and that there is a valid place for those aspirations in education facing funding pressures and learners who need their educational journey mediating by 'subject experts' to allow them to progress in a timely way.
Not wishing to re-visit the "is it dead" or VLE v PLE artificial division, but thought I'd link to the video at least for historical reference of my thinking at the time :)
-- Posted from my phone
2010/04/09
Open letter to @lindagilroy MP re:#debill
I notice from the list of MPs who voted through the fundamentally technically flawed and ill concieved Digital Ecconomy Bill that you saw fit to support this through it's third reading in the house.
Since you did so, as a constituant concidering my vote in the impending election carefully, I would appreciate your answers to a few pertinant questions.
Firstly, since you supported this bill, can you clarify if you did so because you believe it to be a well formed bill worthy of passing into law, befitting of the long tradition of democracy in this country?
Secondly, if you do not feel this bill to be well formed, did you therefore vote for it simply due to pressure of the whip?
I should clarify that in the first instance, if you believe this to be 'good law' having received due process and diligence (despite advice from proffesional bodies such a the British Computing Society to the contrary) I would see this as evidence of either poor judgement or incompetance.
Secondly, if you feel this is a bad law and still voted for it due to the pressure of the whip, I would see that as evidence of a weak willed MP unable to stand up for what they believe in despite huge evidence and expert advice, and clear evidence of someone unfit or office to represent this constituency.
Certainly, almost every MP who spoke on the bill in the house (with a couple of notable exceptions) made it clear that they felt this bill was flawed and should not be passed but felt unable to oppose it due to all 3 front benches supporting it.
While not unusual in our flawed democratic system, this was exacerbated by pushing this through in washup despite ample opportunity for due process earlier in this parliament which this government declined to go through - something which makes it stink worse than most other similar examples.
While the amendments for a super affirmative are supposed to mitigate passing a fundamentally flawed/counter productive bill, it still means the house (including you) supported passing this as it stands taking the risk that someone will clean up the mess at some later stage. If this were your reason for supporting the bill, it would again appear to me as evidence of being unfit for the responsibilities of such public office.
So, did you vote for this bill through incompetance or lack of backbone? ...or have I missed another alternative which might convince me to change my current intention to return a spoilt ballot as my only remaining option in the coming election?
Yours,
Nick Sharratt
-- Posted from my phone
Since you did so, as a constituant concidering my vote in the impending election carefully, I would appreciate your answers to a few pertinant questions.
Firstly, since you supported this bill, can you clarify if you did so because you believe it to be a well formed bill worthy of passing into law, befitting of the long tradition of democracy in this country?
Secondly, if you do not feel this bill to be well formed, did you therefore vote for it simply due to pressure of the whip?
I should clarify that in the first instance, if you believe this to be 'good law' having received due process and diligence (despite advice from proffesional bodies such a the British Computing Society to the contrary) I would see this as evidence of either poor judgement or incompetance.
Secondly, if you feel this is a bad law and still voted for it due to the pressure of the whip, I would see that as evidence of a weak willed MP unable to stand up for what they believe in despite huge evidence and expert advice, and clear evidence of someone unfit or office to represent this constituency.
Certainly, almost every MP who spoke on the bill in the house (with a couple of notable exceptions) made it clear that they felt this bill was flawed and should not be passed but felt unable to oppose it due to all 3 front benches supporting it.
While not unusual in our flawed democratic system, this was exacerbated by pushing this through in washup despite ample opportunity for due process earlier in this parliament which this government declined to go through - something which makes it stink worse than most other similar examples.
While the amendments for a super affirmative are supposed to mitigate passing a fundamentally flawed/counter productive bill, it still means the house (including you) supported passing this as it stands taking the risk that someone will clean up the mess at some later stage. If this were your reason for supporting the bill, it would again appear to me as evidence of being unfit for the responsibilities of such public office.
So, did you vote for this bill through incompetance or lack of backbone? ...or have I missed another alternative which might convince me to change my current intention to return a spoilt ballot as my only remaining option in the coming election?
Yours,
Nick Sharratt
-- Posted from my phone
Location:Plymouth, UK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)