At the end of November 2008, the world of which I am a part, became riveted by the events in Mumbai. A series of attacks occurred in South Mumbai – in the famous Chhatrapati Shivaji Rail Terminal, in two hotels – the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower, and the Oberoi Trident, in a Jewish centre – Nariman House, the Cama hospital and in the Leopold Café, among others. But it is the ongoing nature of the attack on the plush Taj Tower that captivated the media. The visual spectacle of the destruction of a Victorian building, where many foreign tourists lived and where many of the world’s famous designer outlets were located, evoked a world of past and present wealth, in threat, under attack.

The stories of Mumbai were widely covered by the world press. And there have been a range of commentators on various aspects of the coverage of the attacks, especially, the media focus on Taj, rather than the many other sites where ordinary people lost their lives. As Arundhati Roy remarked, the lives of some seemed to matter more than that of others.

However, what I want to remark on here is the way in which the pictures of 26/11 and the analysis then circulated through the media. One evening an Indian friend sent me a link to a set of television programmes on a Pakistani TV channel that claimed that 26/11 was indeed India’s 9/11.

The programmes said that just as the US had perpetrated the attacks on the World Trade Centre in order to justify attacking Iraq and Afghanistan, so too had India masterminded the attacks in Mumbai in order to kill the chief of the anti-terrorism squad, Hemant Karkare, who was due to pronounce that a Hindu-led political group was behind one of the bomb blasts earlier in India. However, the anchor and the guests on this channel claimed, the Indians were unable to conduct this home-made terrorism with the panache that the Americans had conducted 9/11.

I was not the only recipient of this link – it circulated widely on a range of email groups, was shown on Indian television and became a frequently discussed topic within the diasporic community. The large number of hits on its youtube page bear witness to its circulation.

It also provoked a range of responses from those who read it, particularly a degree of disbelief and anger at the stand taken in the programme. It led to familiar calls to stop the appeasement of Muslims in India, and of Pakistan more generally. A few people argued, as Roy has, that terrorism has its routes in past injustices, and economic deprivation, not (only?) religion or regional affiliation.

Yet, it also provoked in me questions of how to deal with this text that I was sent – do I delete the link, share it with our Pakistani friends, share it with our Indian friends, ignore it? The hour-long programme was clearly inflammatory, defamatory, but also thought-provoking about the possibilities of alliances, different interpretations, viewpoints. These questions of communication and of our responsibilities about what to say, when and to whom continue to haunt me as the airwaves abound with sympathy and solidarity with those who were killed in the attacks and more problematically with critique and counter-critique which masquerades as analysis of the attacks. These questions of mediation, of the multiple roles that the media play, what gets reported, how these reports then take on their own life, are re-reported, analysed and become the material for new rounds of angst is the stuff of our lives. This blog is another, and hopefully, a reflexive part of that stuff.

About the author

Parvati Raghuram is Lecturer in Geography at the Open University. Her research interests focus on the ways in which the mobility, of individuals, goods and of ideas is reshaping the world.

Subscribe to Parvati Raghuram's posts

 

Who would have thought? The three big Detroit automakers (General Motors, Ford and Chrysler) and European carmakers are on the brink and need billions of dollars and euros to stay afloat. The debate in America and Europe is massive and divisive. There are as many people who think these companies should be rescued as those who think it is a bad idea to bail them out. The numbers mobilized for or against these arguments are so big that they (numbers) are barely comprehensible. The number of workers who would be made redundant is talked about in millions (of people). The money that would be required to keep them afloat is talked about in billions (of dollars). Yet, the automobile is so entrenched in global culture that it is impossible to measure the impact of what’s happening in quantitative terms alone.

Photographed by me'nthedogs' (flickr) and made available under Creative Commons licence

Between the time when Henry Ford introduced the Model T in 1908 and Jack Kerouac wrote his classic On the Road in 1951 (published in 1957) the automobile became the most ubiquitous technology that affected every aspect of American and European cultures in the twentieth century. While the computer and Internet generation may not see it that way, the automobile is the technology that had the biggest impact on the twentieth century. (Perhaps nuclear fission and the moving image are the other two.) Again, the numbers that one can cite about this impact are mind numbing: annual road deaths (thousands), average commute times (hours), carbon dioxide emissions (tonnes), suburban sprawl (acres), oil dependency (barrels), and social isolation (priceless). The automobile has altered the character of the city in the twentieth century like no other technology and like no other time. The walkable city has now either disappeared or is consigned to the central areas of a few cities with outrageous house prices (since there is so little left of it) that persist despite the credit crunch. As both Steffen Böhm and Brian Ladd argue in their recently published books even for those who’d rather not drive to work there is very little choice left. Has this all been worth it?

I think not. The automobile has been amongst the most destructive technologies deployed to remake the modern city and its countryside. There was nothing inexorable about the rise of the automobile and the way in which it destroyed the city. Automakers aggressively pushed train companies out the market and bullied governments into building roads rather than investing in green public transportation systems. Generations of people have been saying these things since at least the 1920s with much more eloquence and knowledge than I can here. But automakers (just like tobacco companies) have invested billions of dollars in marketing and advertising to seduce people into thinking that the automobile and driving are ‘cool’ and ‘fun’. By changing the city and countryside so radically the automakers made the automobile necessary — at an enourmous cost.

Perhaps we should shed no tears for automakers (at least no more than we shed for bankers) if not for the workers and their families. Could we not find a way to employ all those workers in productive (rather than destructive) industries? Can we not invest all those bailout billions in rebuilding cities and creating new public transportation systems? It is conceivable that one day automakers (if they survive) will be treated like tobacco companies. If there is a clever lawyer out there who wants to get the ball rolling with a class-action lawsuit against all automakers (for all the destruction they have caused), I am sure there are people who are ready to sign up. Given that oil production has reached its peak, the break in oil prices is only fleeting and is estimated to dramatically increase. Will we then see the automobile off the road?

Find out More

• Against Automobility. By Steffen Böhm. Published by Blackwell.
• Autophobia: Love and Hate in the Automotive Age. By Brian Ladd. Published by University of Chicago Press.
• Republic of Drivers: A Cultural History of Automobility in America. By Cotton Seiler. Published by University of Chicago Press.
• Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us). By Tom Vanderbilt. Published by Alfred A. Knopf.

About the author

Engin F Isin is professor in politics and international studies and director of the Centre for Citizenship, Identities and Governance at the Open University.

Subscribe to Engin Isin's posts

 

Apple used to promote their products with the slogan ‘It just works’; except for thousands of owners of Apple’s latest laptops, it doesn’t work at all. Excited buyers of Apple’s latest MacBook and MacBook Pro computers have been complaining that if they plug their laptops into existing monitors – including Apple’s own CinemaDisplay range, they see an error when trying to play high definition movies.

Photographed by gomi (flickr) and made available under Creative Commons licence

Mac users were bitten by High Definition Content Protection (HDCP); an industry-standard Digital Rights Management (DRM) system designed to prevent the piracy of high definition movies. Under HDCP, the player of a movie scrambles the content before transmitting it down the cable to the television set or monitor. At the other end, the display device unscrambles the signal so that it can be displayed correctly. HDCP requires that both the player and the display contain specialised circuitry perform the complex encryption / decryption process, and this is where the new Macs have had problems. Although the latest Macs all contain HDCP chips, none of Apple’s monitors (with one exception introduced last month) have them.

Apple’s solution is for users to replace almost-new monitors with those coming with HDCP. At the same time, Apple is publicising just how green the company is with low-emission displays, less packaging and reduced pollution. Clearly something doesn’t add up. HDCP is becoming increasingly common on computers; so many more people are going to be affected by this problem in the near future. Consumers are going to have to either accept restrictions on their use of their computers or pay out for even more hardware.

HDCP only exists because of something I’ve mentioned a couple of times before; copyright. To briefly recap; copyright is an 18th Century legal concept that protects an inventor or artist by giving them the exclusive right to reproduce their work for a limited period of time. At the end of the copyright period, the work passes into the public domain where it can be reproduced by anyone. Copyright was designed to balance the interests of creators and consumers alike; the creator benefits by being the only person authorised to sell their creation, society benefits because works in the public domain can be used by anyone no matter how rich or poor.

The 1710 UK law that created the concept of copyright dictated that works would be protected for 14 years from the date of publication; after which the author could apply for a copyright extension for a further 14 years. However, in no circumstances could the copyright term extend beyond 28 years. Since then, there has been an almost inexorable increase in the length of copyright. Copyright terms in the United Kingdom are almost uniquely complicated. Rather than adopt a single period of copyright, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) lays down a series of copyright terms for different media, depending on the type of media, the date of publication and the country of origin. Broadly, they are as follows:

• for printed materials, the term is 25 years from the date of publication;
• broadcast material (such as television or radio programmes) created in the UK are protected for 50 years from the date of first broadcast;
• audio materials are copyright for 50 years from the time they were first recorded;
• copyright for the composition of dramatic works such as movies, novels, music, literature, art or plays lasts for 70 years after the death of the author or director. If more than one person was responsible, the 70 year period extends from the time of the death of the last creator.

However, copyright terms outside the UK may differ; some works that are still under copyright in the UK are no longer copyright in the United States. This produces some interesting legal questions; Project Gutenberg is an endeavour to release out-of-copyright books in electronic formats. Based in the United States it includes many titles that are still copyright in the UK – but which can be downloaded for free by British users!

Conversely, one area where the United States has much longer copyright terms is in the field of sound and vision – reflecting American predominance of music, television and video. The most recent change in American copyright was the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 which gave corporations the ability to protect their works for 120 years after the date they were created or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier. The law is known to its opponents as The Mickey Mouse Protection Act because it is the second time American law has changed just as the first cartoons featuring Disney’s most famous character were about to become public property.

Mickey Mouse was made public in 1928 (although the cartoonist Hugh Harman drew some sketches as far back as 1925) and originally protected by a 56 year copyright period. In 1976, a few years before the term on these early animations expired, a new copyright act was introduced, increasing American corporate copyright to 75 years – effectively pushing Mickey’s protection into the 21st Century. Then, just as Mickey’s extended term was about to expire, the CTEA was passed ensuring the original Mickey Mouse cartoons would not enter the public domain before 2020 at the very earliest.

Mickey Mouse is almost unique in copyright history in that the character is still a significant revenue earner for Disney. The vast majority of copyrighted works make almost all of their income in the first few years after publication. However, we should not be misled into thinking that it is only copyright that protects Mickey Mouse; Disney have registered their mascot as a trademark, a legal concept which lasts forever provided it is used. Even if the early Mickey Mouse cartoons were to enter the public domain, the character itself is protected – no one apart from Disney would be able to create new Mickey Mouse cartoons.

The same applies to music; much of the pressure for copyright extension in the UK has come from artists such as Cliff Richard and Sir Paul McCartney whose biggest hits were in the 1950s and 1960s. The copyright that is about to expire on these artists is the recording copyright; not the copyright they hold as the creator of a particular piece of music. Sir Paul McCartney will hold the rights to his composition up to and beyond his death and he and his estate will continue to benefit from 'Yellow Submarine' for decades to come. It’s very hard to see any benefits for consumers in the extension of copyright; but it is clear that large publishing companies can make considerable amounts of money by protecting relatively ancient works; if only to stifle competition.

Sadly there is now pressure inside the UK to follow the American copyright extension and increase the copyright term on sound recordings. This is something of a reversal for the British government. Between 2005 and 2006, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, commissioned Sir Andrew Gowers to review the state of copyright in the United Kingdom. Somewhat against expectations, the so-called Gowers Report proved to be extremely radical. As well as proposing that British consumers should have a legal right to make recordings of purchased music (such as ripping an MP3 from a CD).

Firstly, it reported that the lower copyright term in the UK compared to that in the US did not appear to disadvantage British artists. Almost without exception, the vast majority of a title’s income was made in the first years after publication; revenues quickly tailed off into insignificance, and in time, might actually be worth less than a company spent protecting its rights. The Gowers Report estimated that the average CD makes two-thirds of its income in the first six years of its life – well within the existing term;

Secondly, the Gower’s report argued that copyright should not be altered retrospectively – that is, if copyright were to be extended, the new term should only apply to works created after the date the new law took effect.

The day after the Gowers Report was published, the music industry protested vigorously in a Financial Times advertisement signed by 4,000 performers – or at least apparently signed by 4,000 performers; several of the signatories, including Lonnie Donegan and Freddie Garrity had inconveniently died long before the Gowers report was commissioned, let alone published.

Sadly, it appears the government is back-peddling on the enlightened view of the Gowers Report and favours a future much more beneficial to the music and video industry. In part this is because of pressure from the European Union to harmonise copyright terms across the Union and in line with the American term of 95 years. The EU proposals are being opposed by some consumer groups and online advocacy groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Open Rights Group who are arguing that any further extension of copyright will affect consumers' rights and all of our rights to freedom of expression. A pan-European petition and lobbying process is targetting Members of the European Parliament in the hope of persuading them to block any increase in EU copyright terms. But even if that battle is won, it looks almost certain that the British government will try to increase copyright in this country. In a recent speech, Culture Secretary Andy Burnham told an audience of music professionals:

'There is a moral case for performers benefiting from their work throughout their entire lifetime.

'That is why I have been working with John Denham, my opposite number in the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, to consider the arguments for an extension of copyright term for performers from the current 50 years.  An extension to match more closely a performer’s expected lifetime, perhaps something like 70 years, for example, given that most people make their best work in their 20s and 30s.'

Andrew Gowers replied in an acid column in the Financial Times: 'As political speeches go, this is pretty silly. A moral case? You might just as well say sportspeople have a moral case to a pension at 30.'

It seems clear that the government has already decided that British law must be made to accommodate the views of the music industry. Certainly people in the business were delighted by Burnham’s speech. The head of UK Music, Feargal Sharkey said, ‘At this critical time of change, the creative industries have never been more vital to this nation's future prosperity. Today's announcement regarding term extension is a clear sign that Government, like everyone in our industry, is committed to ensuring that UK music retains its status as the very best in the world.’

The head of the British Phonographic Institute, Geoff Taylor said: 'Copyright is the lifeblood of our creative economy and we are delighted that the government is recognising this by supporting an extension of copyright term for British musicians and labels. Copyright stimulates investment in musical talent and encourages innovation. Thousands of recording artists, hundreds of music companies and all British music fans will benefit from fairer copyright term'.

The use of the word ‘fairer’ is very interesting. There is no way that extending copyright is fair to the customer. When pressed about copyright extension, one music industry executive said that any increase in length of protection would be matched by the companies opening up their archives and reissuing old material. It sounds good, until you realize that if copyright was left unchanged the companies would be forced to release it into the public domain where it would be free for everyone!

Mr. Taylor seems to have forgotten that copyright is a balance between the rights of the individual and wider society. Consumers can reasonably be expected to obey copyright law provided they see it as fair; but when users are faced with high prices, limited distribution, platform lock-in and crippling DRM software, who can honestly be surprised when they turn to piracy?

More from Open2

Listen to Ethics Bites on the rights and wrongs of copyright

About the author

Mike Richards joined the Open University in 1996 to help trial teaching over the Internet. Since then he has taught courses ranging from an introduction to robots to the engineering works of Leonardo da Vinci; but has spent most of his time writing about security - everything from the Enigma machines to e-shopping. He is currently working on a new course exploring the world of ubiquitous computers; imagine a world where computers so small and cheap they can be put in everyday objects - smartphones today, smartclothes tomorrow.

Subscribe to Mike Richards's posts