Laurence Kaye (above, left), known as Loz Kaye, is the leader of the Pirate Party, which strives to reform copyright and patent laws and drive state transparency and open rights. Laurence Kaye (above, right), known as Laurie Kaye, is a lawyer specialising in digital law and intellectual property. Wired.co.uk took the opportunity to get both Laurence Kayes into a room to talk about the Digital Economy Act, copyright reform, site-blocking and the Digital Copyright Exchange.
Wired.co.uk: Are hackers being radicalised by government policy?Loz: I think it's important to recognise that with DEA, SOPA, ACTA, Hadopi and the rest of the alphabet soup, I think many people who actually care about what the internet is frankly feel under siege at the moment. There is a lot of anger out there. If you look at the UK's Cyber Security Strategy 2011hacktivism is specifically mentioned, but none of the actions say what's going to be done about it. Then if you look at the Prevent terrorism strategy, hacktivism isn't specifically mentioned, but it does have the chilling sentence "Internet filtering across the public estate is essential". It's precisely that sort of statement that's causing alarm and fear and anger.
Laurie: I still think we lack some norms that apply online [as they] apply offline. But actually netizens are often self-policing; If people don't acknowledge attribution, others will complain. There's a desire in the online world to act responsibly. There are instances online where that sense of responsibility isn't being exercised. Let's consider the Newzbin case. BT had knowledge that the site was allowing access to movie studio protected content. The court said it was right to take it down. There are instances where it is right. But then we've had other cases such as SABAM which were very broad orders to ISPs to filter everything the court said no. We are still trying to find the points of balance.
Is site blocking ever an appropriate tool?
Loz: Site-blocking from our perspective is an unacceptable tool, whatever the court ruled. It is not effective. Newzbin has already made a get-round, and we are also seeing a possibility of a legal whack-a-mole situation. This case isn't about Newzbin, it's actually about BT and what they do. For a communications company like BT, it's like Linda McCartney being forced to open an abattoir. Technically it's difficult for them but in terms of brand and business philosophy it's hugely damaging.
Loz: Site-blocking from our perspective is an unacceptable tool, whatever the court ruled. It is not effective. Newzbin has already made a get-round, and we are also seeing a possibility of a legal whack-a-mole situation. This case isn't about Newzbin, it's actually about BT and what they do. For a communications company like BT, it's like Linda McCartney being forced to open an abattoir. Technically it's difficult for them but in terms of brand and business philosophy it's hugely damaging.
Earlier this year Vince Cable announced that the section of the DEA to do with site-blocking wasn't going to be enacted and everyone went "hooray". But that's now utterly superseded so we are in an extraordinary situation where Hollywood is dictating our digital policy and not our government.
Laurie: We can't escape the fact though that we are still in the early stages with the DEA, you've still got other legislation coming up to the copyright directive -- a rights owner can ask an ISP to take down a service in specific circumstances. Like it or not, the intermediary (be it ISPs, social networking sites, auction sites) can't avoid the fact that because they are in the middle of this ecosystem, they have certain responsibilities. That will always be there. We need to grow the number of digital citizens who accept we have rights and responsibility, must respect people's privacy and their own rights. When you establish those norms you get a shrinking problem.
What are your views about government intervention in social media, be it through screening or blocking? On one hand William Hague is praising the role of the internet in the Arab Spring, but at the same time the riots provoked the government to talk about blocking Twitter.Laurie: Twitter is a publishing platform and has provided an important role in freedom of expression. But that's not an untrammelled right -- there's a balance between freedom of expression and privacy. The internet first emerged in the early 1990s and we talked about cyberspace as if it was a parallel universe. That gave rise to some of the issues we are dealing with, namely information wants to be free (aka content wants to be free), freedom of expression without qualification etcetera. But as we develop we realise that internet, cyberspace, it's the world. Digital media is media. Whilst we recognise certain unique attributes online, fundamentally if we believe there has to be a balance between rights and responsibilities in certain areas then it applies online as well. How we police it is another matter.
Can we civilise the internet?
Loz: I reject this narrative of civilising the internet. We are just dealing with media full stop. I can't see the role for governments in this in any kind of heavy handed way. Laurie's right about the self-policing role. Often the wrong people are outside the big tent events. As long as it feels like it's directed by the same stiff institutions, the very same players that need to be involved will feel alienated from it.
Loz: I reject this narrative of civilising the internet. We are just dealing with media full stop. I can't see the role for governments in this in any kind of heavy handed way. Laurie's right about the self-policing role. Often the wrong people are outside the big tent events. As long as it feels like it's directed by the same stiff institutions, the very same players that need to be involved will feel alienated from it.
Laurie: I agree. This is all of us. I wouldn't use the phrase civilising the internet. But developing the norms requires everyone. There definitely is a role for regulation, whether it's at the level of the governance of the internet around issues relating to net neutrality of the domain name system, or whether it's at the level of content. But it's also about education. I would have part of the curriculum about what it means to be a digital citizen. The web gives you huge power for good, but it can also be used in the wrong way. Just because technology makes something possible doesn't mean you can have what you want. You can't have everything for free otherwise there wouldn't be any content.
It's Creative Commons' 10th anniversary. What are your views on this sort of licensing structure?
Loz: I'd like to wish Creative Commons happy birthday. I think it's quite an inevitable reaction to the idea that intellectual property is one size fits all. It's a welcome player in that area. For artists and those of us who create content it's one of the moves for gaining back control. Many of us are beginning to feel that [intellectual property] -- instead of helping us -- is becoming a method of control in the era of 360 degrees. It's really good to see the effect Creative Commons has had with art scenes like Jamendo -- it's had a really positive cultural effect.
Loz: I'd like to wish Creative Commons happy birthday. I think it's quite an inevitable reaction to the idea that intellectual property is one size fits all. It's a welcome player in that area. For artists and those of us who create content it's one of the moves for gaining back control. Many of us are beginning to feel that [intellectual property] -- instead of helping us -- is becoming a method of control in the era of 360 degrees. It's really good to see the effect Creative Commons has had with art scenes like Jamendo -- it's had a really positive cultural effect.
Laurie: It's really important to clarify what it is. Sometimes there's a false dichotomy that copyright and creative commons are different. Creative Commons is a series of licenses which gives a tool to somebody that creates a work protected by copyright -- be they a musician, artists etc -- to express to people...what you can and can't do with it. Everyone in the creative industries share the desire to make it easier to find works, know what they can do with it, and pay for it. We have the biggest creative industries in Europe, it's one of the areas we can get ourselves out of a mess economically. Creative Commons is great in a sector where artists want to share and create mash ups but if you want to be a commercial author, you might think twice about it. I hope we get into a world where there are a series of different licenses, especially ones that can be read by machines. We have a long way to go until search engines can decide what you can and can't do with stuff.
It seems to be that you have Creative Commons for people who don't mind giving their content away, but if you want a license that entitles you to be paid you need to get a lawyer. There is nothing in between that is web-readable and easy-to-use that lets you get paid.Loz: I'm not sure that is the case. We are seeing a cultural shift in the way that content creators think about monetisation. Sites like BandCamp for example, is a way to create direct relationships between creators and buyers. The way we see the trend going is decorporatisation, splitting up into much smaller entities from a business and cultural perspective.
Laurie: We've also got licences from Apple and Amazon. Publishers themselves are offering platforms where you can buy direct. Creative Commons has created a tool that is good for the individual creator, academic and not-for-profit sector. I think we're going to see other licenses emerging. So we have a world where if you want to find a piece of music, photo or app you can search, click and pay and the money goes back to the artist and anyone who has added value along the way. Source