From Digital Economy Act Info

---

Signing talk posts

To sign your posts on talk pages, you can use four tildes, which produces a result like this: Jimrhiz 23:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC). The wiki pages themselves are collectively developed, and usually not signed.

How to annotate the act

• How about http://writetoreply.org/ ? - jimrhiz 21:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• The concerns I voiced about Crown Copyright may not be a problem. Having now read [1] I believe we have the right to use it. Wether writetoreply.org gives a better/easier interface than we could is still a consideration. 94.5.231.49 09:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the Parliament site you link says "All Parliamentary copyrights are reserved. The material listed may be reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study and for criticism, review and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed." I think we can safely say we are doing "criticism".

Some discussion I've had on Twitter suggests people feel Write to Reply on Digital Britain didn't have much or any effect on political opinion. Do you have an alternative interface for convenient parallel annotation by multiple people in mind? If not, Write to Reply might still be useful for collecting our own thoughts and understanding on the Act, even if it doesn't have polemic value. -- Jimrhiz 09:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think writetoreply lack of impact was possibly more down to awareness than technical limitations. The software is pretty much what I'd envisaged. Even if the "final cut" ins't using there stuff, it's probably as good a place as any to do the work. I've contacted Joss@WTR asking if he'd be interested in being involved. Glenn 15:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

WTR are happy to host the bill to allow it to be annotated. It should be up in the next few days. http://writetoreply.org/deact Glenn 09:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Community discussion started by Saul Cozens

Hey,

Just wanted to document my thoughts somewhere that they can be shared and amended/added to. All of the below are just opinions and actions are so much more important that opinions, so don't let them stop you actually _doing_ something.

• While a wiki is a great way to collaborate on the the content of an information site like this, I'm not sure it's the right way to present it. The idea is to provide accurate, balanced and fair information to people who receive cut-off notices. Many of these people are unlikely to respond to well to a wiki style view. They will be worried and confused and the site should be constructed to alleviate both of these.
  • You may be right, Saul, but even if so, the wiki is a great way to collaborate on collecting information and quickly setting up a prototype. If there's consensus and the labour is available, it can all move to a more polished form on a different site a bit down the track. -- Jimrhiz 23:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, a wiki is a great was of get the community to quickly add info whilst this is still a hot topic. But I propose that once we have enough content to make this worthwile, we present it in a simpler form. -- Glenn 09:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• What information structure would support the above - certainly not reams of diatribe on how the BPI are all money grabbing bastards and everyone should get a VPN just to piss them off, but perhaps something more like a series of questions that are likely to be going through an average user's mind when they get the scary letter from the BPI^H^H^H their ISP.
  • What does this letter mean?
  • Am I going to get cut off?
  • IS it illegal to download music?
  • Is it wrong to download music?
  • What can I do to stop my kids from downloading music?
  • I want to carry on downloading, how can I avoid being caught?
  • But I didn't download anything. I'm completely innocent. What can I do?
  • This seems wrong, who should I complain to?

-- Saulcozens 23:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• • • These suggestions are great Saul! Hopefully you and others will add pages or subsections on these topics. -- Jimrhiz 23:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • In the words of Wikipedia, be bold. Add them and see where they lead (thats all I did with the initial questions). -- Glenn 09:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I also think given the target audience, short snappy answers win over long detailed ones (break the question down if needed). -- Glenn 09:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Other skills needed for the site

• What other skills knowledge do we need to get involved in this site in order to make sure it works?
  • designers (I can;t draw for toffee)
    • I'm hoping to get somebody on board for this, but I'm also hoping this will snowball and the skills available to us will grow naturally -- Glenn 09:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • SEO experts - what words are likely to be searched for after someone gets a threatening letter
  • lawyers - is telling someone how to avoid getting caught breaking the law an offense in itself?
    • It is not an offence to help people not break the law. -- Jimrhiz 23:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • After the analysis I did on clause 18 for the "I run a website ..." question, that merely mentioning technologies people can use is safe enough. However I intentionally linked to sites like wikipedia (rather that pro file-sharing ones for example) to illustrate the technologies themselves do not promote copyright infringement. -- Glenn 09:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Pirate Party

• As were aiming for political neutrality (or at least, I hope we are) I'm not that comfortable with having a Pirate Party link on the front page (although I do acknowledge that they are more relevant than other parties), so I'm moving it to the Blogs etc page for now. Anyone strongly disagree ? Glenn 16:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Created a Political Movements & Campaign groups section on the blogs page and move both PPUK and ORG to it. Glenn 16:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)