Eye Tea

Word to the wise – who owns the copyright in the translated version(s) of your website?  Easy to get stung, easy to get it right as well.

If you’ve been reading Computing recently you’ll be aware that there is lots of interest in open standards in the public sector.  I like to see sharing and efficiency so this caught my eye.  This immediately came to mind when I was recently prompted to do some thinking about the Government’s Total Place and Frontline First initiatives.  These are all about efficiency and joint working across central and local Government.

Naturally there’s more to redesigning the Government machine than agreeing a pile of open data standards.  Before you can even contemplate routine sharing of data between different organisations, whatever their sector, you have to navigate information laws.  There are some significant issues, to which the Government is alive.

What struck me is that the issues are mainly about mindset.  There is tendency for organisations (not just in the public sector) either to totally overlook information law issues in certain contexts, or to adopt an overly rigid and cautious approach, sometimes in contexts where it really doesn’t matter.  Data protection ends up being a barrier to efficient sharing, or a major risk area due to non-compliance.  Major opportunities to farm intellectual property and confidential information to generate income are overlooked, whilst blood, sweat and tears are expended on gain share or risk reward deals with ICT providers which never generate income at all.  The success of Frontline First and Total Place depends on re-setting the balance in these areas.

Doing this well requires support from the top, and in large or complex organisations it requires well co-ordinated effort.  But it is achievable, and significant improvements in compliance can be achieved relatively quickly and easily.  It requires good quality training and careful review of internal policies and procedures.  There is a significant challenge for professional advisers who are perhaps often guilty of focusing on one project at a time instead of maintaining a ‘whole organisation’ approach to advising their clients on data protection.  If our client has committed to a balanced approach to information management, we absolutely must support that through our advice and methodologies.

I think the starting point for Government organisations has to be training and policy review on these issues.  It’s only when your internal systems are geared to “getting to yes” in relation to information sharing that the Total Place initiative has much hope of success.  Start with the tweak in attitudes, however, and the stage is set for some very effective information sharing and partnerings. 

Links

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psr_total_place.htm

http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/analysis/2252846/open-initiative-gathers-4890350

Monday this week brought me an email from the marketing manager at the firm where I work, giving me a link to an illegal file sharing news item on the BBC website.  The link’s at the bottom of this post.

I popped up to see him.  I don’t know how to play this one, I said.  Blog it, he said.  Fair enough.

First things first.  At our firm we often call ourselves ACS.  We don’t trade as ACS:Law – that’s someone else.  No connection.

Moving quickly on.  The BBC article raises interesting questions about how you deal with copyright piracy on the internet.  The thing is, if ACS:Law’s clients see some strategic value in sending letters to every illegal file sharer under the sun, that’s the service that they want from their lawyers.  If we were convinced of the strategic value, frankly we’d do the same.

I’d like to see a debate and it’s a shame that the BBC article doesn’t invite comments, and that the views reported in the article are polemic. 

I  see mixed strategic value in using big mail shots in these cases.  It depends how good the evidence is against the pirates.  The BBC article quotes that point being made, but the implications aren’t explained and they’re key.  Internet piracy is increasingly conducted through social networks.  They don’t bother to set up big websites for law enforcers to shoot at.  If all you’ve got to go on to provide piracy is an IP address, a big mailshot could make the problem worse.  Copyright pirates often have some spirit and nerve.  They might be intimidated by being pursued.  But they’ll probably also wait for the threats to develop.  The implications: no evidence = empty threat = bolder pirate.

You can however understand copyright owners’ frustration.  It’s a costly road to go down if you want enough evidence to really nail illegal file sharers.  You can easily make yourself anonymous on the web, and under current UK law it costs a small fortune through the courts to get names from the ISPs.  If you’re a copyright owner you’re pretty comfortable with the proposition that some alleged infringers will pay to make the problem go away, not because they did it.  If you’re a music copyright owner who has responded to Napster etc by offering cheap MP3 downloads as an alternative to full price CDs, you’ve got some moral high ground to stand on.  And after all, the UK TV licensing authority behaves in substantially the same way.

In the BBC article the BPI is quoted as saying its policy is to concentrate on the big infringers.  On balance I agree that probably is the more responsible approach.  But I think what’s really needed is a change in the law so that it’s easier and cheaper to identify pirates and collect evidence to pursue them.

BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8483482.stm