This is a computer-literate society, and as the BBC reported this morning on the Today programme, the demographics of those who have taken their dissent out on the streets who how to make their voice heard on the web too. Among the keenest protesters are well-educated and westernised young people who have active on the internet for years now.

What the web has provided is a means to provide near real-time and unfiltered information to pour out of Iran. Twitter in particular has been a focus for those want the absolute latest news. After an initial fight amongst users about what Twitter feed people should follow for the latest on Iran, most are now using the #iranelection tag to send in their tweets.

Some have clearly being using the micro-blogging service to try and organise protests. “After yesterday million-large protests, continue your peaceful protests today in Tehran at Valiasr Street 5pm TELL EVERYONE,” wrote one Twitter user this morning.

Initially, reports from Tehran straight after the election suggested the authorities had tried to interfere or had disabled access to some sites, like Twitter and Facebook, and even blocked SMS text messages, a preferred medium of communication amongst young Iranian. Reporters Without Borders said that ten or so pro-opposition websites were censored in the aftermath of the election results being announced. Under such conditions, Iranian hackers reportedly help to keep channels to access the web open and even took down Mr. Ahmadinejad's website in an act of sabotage.

In this context, it is easier to understand some of the debates that are raging on social media sites. Some Twitter users complained that the #iranelection feed was being watched, filtered and censored by the Iranian regime. As that rumour began to spread, others said this was a deliberate misinformation trying to make people wary about using Twitter.

Despite all of this, the #iranelection feed has been amongst the most popular Twitter feed for the past days. Seeing this unprecedented surge of interest, Twitter announced yesterday that it will change the times that it would take down the site for maintenance. Twitter moved the downtime to the middle of the night Iran time, with founder Biz Stone explaining that they were recognising “the role Twitter is currently playing as an important communication tool in Iran.”

The revolution may not be televised in Iran, but it may well be tweeted.

[via Times Online]  . . read more

We are now in an age where we have mp3 players allowing us to choose songs at the press of a button. Apple recently posted a quarterly profit of 47% boasting that even in the weak economy, consumers are still buying.

Digital radios have the ability to pause and rewind to their advantage, as well as extra channels. However, I am hesitant as to whether this new listening experience will appeal to listeners. When driving in the car, I feel the listening experience is maximised when listening to an iPod allowing the consumer to choose exactly when they want to listen to their song or podcast.

Hundreds of podcasts are flooding the internet and a lack of radio programs available by podcast is hardly a concern. On the flip side, dedicated news and sports channels can be provided and thus appeal to niche markets. This development would have been well used and suited to consumers lifestyles a decade ago, when iPods were starting to enter the market.

This new development in radio is ahead of countries like Germany, Italy and China. I guess we’ll have to wait to see if Australians adapt to this new form of radio and digital media.  . . read more

According to the data available from Whirlpool, 57.7% of Australians share files using P2P.

The Australian government originally owned the majority of Telstra's shares and has been selling off chunks since 1997.

Telstra claims they have 5,507,000 subscribers of Australia's 7,228,000 internet users.

Therefore it follows that Telstra is the Carriage Service Provider (CSP) that enables the highest level of P2P file sharing.

According to a government assessment of the ownership of Telstra:

ABS ASSESSMENT
In considering the issue as to whether and when Telstra moved from a public sector unit to a private sector unit the ABS notes the following: the T3 sale has effectively reduced the Australian Government's shareholding in Telstra to 17% - this is not sufficient to give it control in terms of determining general corporate policy through the appointment of the majority of directors; the installment nature of the T3 sale means that while investors will have beneficial ownership of the shares in terms of rights to dividend and instructing the trustee how to vote at meetings of shareholders, the shares will be held in trust until payment of the final installment in May 2008; from a statistical perspective the ABS has concluded that the trust is a private sector unit, reflecting the trustees' obligation to act in the beneficiaries' interests; for statistical purposes the trustee, Telstra Sale Company Ltd, is a Commonwealth owned company and should be classified for ABS statistical purposes as a public financial corporation; until the Australian Government transfers the balance of its Telstra shares to the Future Fund it retains some element of control through its legislative powers.
[Source]

In other words, the government owns 17% of a corporation that last year posted revenues of $2,441,287,000 where a substantial amount of that sum must be directly attributable to payments from persons acting in a manner contrary to the Copyright Act under the auspices of the government's own enacted Safe Harbour Provisions.

But who's going to notice a lousy (US$) 2 and a half billion?

Well, here's the conundrum. If a court of law actually found Telstra guilty of breaking the law by being on the wrong side of the Safe-Harbour Provisions of the Act, and demanded that its self-incubated start-up had to comply with industry take-down notices, in accordance with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, it would have to forfeit all the loot from the Future Fund and bank it into  the Victims of Crime Fund!

 So nothing really achieved because basically, both funds are used mainly for paying public servant salaries.

 Damn. For a moment, I though I was onto something there ...

 Actually, I wonder if I can start a government? Seems like a good wicket.

You pass legislation making something illegal; satisfy the lobbyists and the WIPO treaty co-signatories; then ignore what's happening in your back yard by selling off big chunks of the law-breaking asset to the public and hope no-one will notice you're making money from breaking the law you created in the first place!

 Pity the poor ISP that's stuck with fighting for his very existence right now in a law suit brought by AFACTS.

 IInet has been chosen as the lucky representative of the Australian ISP Industry that AFACTS has identified as the initial ‘Target of Precedent Creating Law' to enforce compliance with the provisions of the Safe Harbour amendments of the Copyright Act..

Why IInet? Well, AFACTS can't sue Telstra, can it? That would be like suing the government and it'd be bad form to sue the government.

But there is a solution. The government could admit P2P is now practised by the ‘moral majority' and therefore remove all compliance obligations from the safe harbour provisions of the act.

It could also inform the copyright industries they're on their own in this battle.

After all, the government is never wrong. It's the Government, voted for by the moral majority - of whom 57% are file sharers.

Tom Koltai is an economist in Sydney Australia. He's been online for 26 years, has run several ISPs and, "lobbied governments in four countries to prevent Internet restrictive usage legislation from being enacted". He says he's a strong believer in P2P, "as being a technological requirement to fully exploit the convergence of telephony with computers and remove the last barriers to human communication and interaction". . . read more