A Small Step for Internet Censorship

Earlier in the year, the internet came under attack from American government bills, with the infamous SOPA act to attempt to block and take down a number of sites believed to be infringing copyright laws. The result was a resounding victory for the public, who rallied support in order to save their most trusted and most visited websites.

Whilst a number of hosting services fell victim to pre-emptive attack on these streaming hosts, largely, the number of sites taken down was minimal and new domains have sprung up to plug the gaps left.

However, yesterday saw a new invasion into the internet’s freedom of ownership, speech and usage. High Courts in the UK ruled that major internet service providers had to block their subscribers from accessing file-sharing site The Pirate Bay. 

The Swedish based website has come under attack several times in the past, as it is currently one of the most recognised and most visited sites for sharing copyrighted medias. Indeed, back in 2009, Swedish courts ruled that the four founding members of the sites were guilty of helping people to circumvent copyright laws.

Despite this, the site has continued to thrive. Whilst the original founders are found responsible as being the powder-keg for this peer-to-peer service, the onus now rests with public demand.

Under the new laws, Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site. BT, meanwhile, has been asked for a further period in which to consider its position. Instantly, there is already fragmentation in how this act is to be carried out and monitored on a nationwide scale. Should even just one major provider fail to support the ban, then consumers with little conscious guilt about avoiding purchasing their music and video will simply switch provider.

Additionally, the idea of attacking The Pirate Bay alone is such a limited and naïve outlook from the British Courts. A wide network of these sites are active and removing the most popular offender will only provide the opportunity for another site to rise to prevalence. Consider the closure of the Limewire service, a group that were at one point synonymous with illegal file sharing.

Whilst I empathise with a wide selection of music and film industry persons who are losing money thanks to such services, there needs to be a greater understanding of the consumer demands. 99p for a single song on ITunes or Amazon does not provide great value for money. CD albums and movie releases, which have dropped in price considerably since the mid-90s as consequence of the sharing phenomenon, still need to be introduced to the consumer public at a cheaper price. Although such a suggestion may appear to damage these industries, if it would encourage and stimulate further legal purchases, then the overall effect could be to galvanise a higher gross income and reduce the popularity of these illegal services.

Yet, my own issue with the new court ruling is that which incited many to action back in February: the beginning of internet censorship could lead to a mass cull of websites and information deemed to be illegal or in need of restriction. Wikipedia, for example, is an online encyclopaedia database, where just a decade ago, people would have had to go to a library or purchase an almanac for such detailed results. Or even high street chains, put out of business by online giants such as Amazon. The array of services that could be deemed damaging to different groups are almost infinite.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, called the move "pointless and dangerous". "It will fuel calls for further, wider and even more drastic calls for internet censorship of many kinds, from pornography to extremism," he said.

The popularity of the internet is based on its public orientation, built to offer information and services at the lowest price in the easiest way. File-sharing sites blocked in this haphazard fashion are only piecemeal solutions and at best, short-sighted. Where the demand and software is available, new services will entice the public with offers of free media.

With the advent of free services such as Youtube and Spotify for music, and free film channels on TV, the problem of piracy is none too clean cut. These were seen as things that may kill off their respective industries, but instead provided another outlet to reach an increased demographic. Some may want to watch or listen to material to be sure they want to buy it; others wouldn’t buy the product even without pirate sites. The pros and cons of these institutions are diverse, and whilst it is certainly morally indecent to essentially steal a film or song, perhaps it is also wrong to force the hands of the public in a free state, utilising a free domain.

No Day of Rest.

Over the weekend, Osborne introduced new Sunday trading laws for the duration of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.

Under the rulings, there will be no major restrictions on Sunday trading as is the norm in the UK.

The Chancellor stated that with so many hundreds of thousands of people coming to the country to enjoy the games, it would only be sensible to extend opening hours so as these people could enjoy the retail experience too.

Suspension of the Sunday trading laws is due to run for eight weekends from the 22^nd of July.

George Osborne explained his decision in a television interview, stating that “It would be a great shame - particularly when some of the big Olympic events are on Sunday - if the country had a closed for business sign on it.”

Mixed responses have followed the news, with some believing it a celebration of British retail as defined by Westfield shopping complex, whereas others bemoan the legislation as detracting from the small, unique and diverse independent shops that London has to offer.

Relaxing the Sunday trading law is something to be concerned about, however. Mr Osborne also described the scheme as an ‘experiment’ from which the government ‘could learn things about trading’. There is growing belief, with rumours from inside parliament, that should the Olympic trading prove successful, then the laws could be scrapped completely.

Whilst this offers extra hours of retail for large companies, it does not vastly improve lifestyles for those in the UK.

Increased trading hours means that more people will have to be contracted to work Sundays. This will restrict relaxation time available in the weekend, both on personal and familial levels. With more people expected to be in work, there could be in fact a general reduction of shoppers, with people not wanting to spend extra time away from families and other activities, but the Olympics would mask this due to it being an anomaly event.

With no consultation on the matter, longer hours are bound to cause some disruption, but are already being assessed as a long-term plan by the government.

Comparing with European counterpart France, people are either lucky or in suburban Paris should their supermarkets and chains open more than 12 hours in a day; Sunday trading is even rarer. This thought is poignant as the 2012 Olympic bid finalists were London and Paris. France would not relax its laws for the Olympics, especially when they are cultural and religious. The nation just across the channel rests on nationalism and a sense of a day of rest for all.

The UK, however, has lost this perspective and continues to back longer hours and less respite time. Concerns have shifted from the personal and wellbeing, to material and capitalist gains. Only in reversing this trend can we see an increased national satisfaction. Happiness doesn’t come from shops, but in our time spent together.

The True Value of the Student.

One may assume that the economy and education have little in common: on the surface, the first is a matter of national wealth affecting all areas of population life, while the latter is the trivial concern of youngsters.  Whilst the economy is a consistent worry of the majority, education is a problematic feature that many ignore.

However, whilst the economy shrunk, university intake continued its seemingly exponential increase in applicants. The popularity of the universities, still surrounded by a plethora of promises for better employment prospects and lessons in life, led to an increasingly diverse pool of peoples who could systematically be exploited to support the failing economy. The two spheres thus became irrevocably intertwined last year amidst a contentious bill to increase the student fees to 9k. 

Due to the level of controversy over the cuts, it was somewhat impossible to be ignorant of the demonstrations and protests that were organised nationwide and specifically in London. As images of defaced monuments and attacked royal cars emerged, there was a great social disapproval of what appeared an unruly group. Contrary to depicting the injustice of government proposals, the unfolding occurrences marred support. 

As the measures come into force then, many questions are unresolved. How will the student be able to adjust to such a staggering increase in cost? How will this ensure education is available to all those who wish to pursue it? Will this not impinge upon University expansion and research?

Nine thousand pounds per annum makes Britain’s university systems one of the most expensive around the globe. In fact, the changes come as Britain has begun a decline down the tables of World University ratings. As such, there could be argument that the increases ensure that one is paying more for an inferior service. There is no other industry where such a correlation between price and provision would be openly tolerated.

Part of the problem is that students have been afforded an image that only breeds discontent and impassivity from important members of the social circle by consequence of the actions of a minority. However, in the economic recovery, we are expected to reimburse the state with an enormous sum after graduation. This is in addition to the fact that our active participation in University generates sufficient amounts of income for the state via research output and the involvement in the local community. These are not exhaustive examples by any means. Furthermore, students support the teaching profession itself and by consequence of further education output, there are more qualified peoples to ensure expansion of diverse enterprises. Thus the student already provides a key crux in economic stability without having to carry token burdens. 

“Governments want to use universities to upgrade their workforce and develop hi-tech industries” says Philip Altbach, director of the Centre for International Higher Education Universities, proving that the government has just as much invested in the success of the University scheme as the students themselves. He reaffirms that “in the rich countries, Universities are making big bucks”. This is something that is readdressed by the UK's universities minister, David Willetts, who continued to advocate that "developed economies are already highly dependent on universities and if anything that reliance will increase.” We should focus on the word ‘dependent’ here. How should this dependency rise?

Recently, a BBC article suggested that the way in which we judged a country’s power and influence was under a flux of change. Whilst one hundred years ago, it may have been Empire, two hundred past it would have been developing industrialisation, it is now fast becoming the student themselves. Hardly surprising, the student is the centre of research activity, of professional output, of cultural change. In undertaking degrees in what has become a globalised scheme, the adults are able to gain knowledge, experience new influences and take note of other world systems that all mix together in a melting pot to fuel social revolution. Consequently, the student is at the forefront of discovery, of modern social mobility and continued economic growth.

‘Dependant’ as a term to describe the economy in relation to the student is quite a powerful chip to possess. To say that the county and the world as a whole is largely dependent on the student domain is to infer that the untapped potential of the teenage sphere could create a great tumult if it were to approach the fee changes in a much more cerebral manner.

Considering the level of support the student already provides, imagine the extent of potential damage should the demand for education dry up in response to the unnecessary exploitation of this social group. Hypothetically, if students for 2012 entry were to withdraw applications so that the university system collapsed, a viable market would be closed. For these students who would sacrifice their education, no doubt will there be great unease. However, with fewer graduates, employers would face no other alternative than to encourage these youngsters into the workplace to compensate for demand. If they refused, economic decline would only further ensue.

The result of such defiance? With a reduced market, the government not only has lost valuable income, but the reputation of English research would be put in jeopardy. Through this, the student will have proven their integral part of the economic recovery without having coloured people against their plight. Government officials would be obliged to reconsider their unjustified increase in fees in order to sustain economic recovery.

Currently, it is estimated that LSE spends about £0.5billion each year. Oxbridge is said to be slightly more, top Russell group establishments slightly less. This is only the disposable income of each institution: they actually sit upon funds much more numerous than that. Just more than 480,000 students are expected to start as freshers in the academic calendar 2011/2012. If we take this figure for the following year, the first year students alone would provide £4,320,000,000 in tuition fees alone. Imagine that figure trebled in three years. By no means can this be justified. Withdrawing our applications would see hundreds of billions of pounds stop circulating – from the education department, to local businesses, to research output. Stagnating such a gross figure would cut deep into the spending plans of government and reveal the true potential of the student class.

Combined pressures from exams, loans and often job burdens have seen students addressed as one of the most vulnerable groups in society. It is concerning that the government should therefore only add to the inevitable woe of the scholars in order to achieve a quicker, more haphazard, recovery. Students should be encouraged of a much more drastic approach in order to have their opinion counted: if the country is to withhold status on an international scale, the value of its (under)graduates should not be undermined or doubted to any extent. 

More general information on the globalisation of universities and generated wealth can be read here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12597811