Nobody here can be surprised that a movie called “The Curse of The Buxom Strumpet” caught my attention. Even less so if you have a look at the synopsis:

Upper Trollop, 1713. An illness takes hold of the villagers turning them into unfeeling creatures who eat anything they can get there hands on. Lord Fortitude must lead the small band of survivors and escape to France.

18th century! Zombies! Sir Ian McKellen! Gillian Anderson! And – drumroll, fanfares and confetti – the very lovely Andrew Buchan!

That’s all I need to know. I’m sold! Ticket bought! Huzzah!

OFFICIAL WEBSITE

I haven’t downloaded a blockbuster movie or a computergame in my life. I usually pay for what I use, and I agree that just taking what you want is not ok. Is it always morally wrong, though? More about that later. Also, I’m not a lawyer and haven’t studied international copyright agreements. I’m just your average internet user. As an author, I’ve been a victim of piracy several times, and I’d still like to kick the backsides of those twits who illegally downloaded “I Do”, the anthology in support of marriage equality that I’ve contributed to of which all proceedings went to charity.

Megaupload very likely did things that even we as netizens would consider criminal. I’m definitely not a fan Kim Dotcom. Lifting Megaupload to the status of an internet martyr for freedom of speech is counterproductive and doesn’t represent the facts. But just because Kim Dotcom isn’t Robin Hood, we don’t have to smooch up with the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Anonymous has shown in the past that they are capable of being amazing as well as awful. They are a bit like radioactivity, really. The fact that so many people are now cheering them on should make the alarm bells of authorities around the globe ring – the peasants are revolting, Sire! While I don’t agree with all of Anonymous’ activities and modus operandi, I think they are an important force. The internet is a new battlefield, and maybe this is the kind of warriors we need.

1. Is every movie download a loss for the movie industry?

Let’s take “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” as an example. Please meet Annie Fandom:

A friend sent her a link to an illegal download site, and now she’s leeching PotC: OST. According to the movie industry, Annie is now actively threatening jobs in the USA and damaging the economy. But is that true? Let’s have a look at the possibilities:

Annie downloads the movie…

a) but she can’t watch it in 3D on her laptop, and the special effects are not as effective on a small screen, so she’ll later go with her friend to the cinema to watch the real thing. No loss.

b) has seen the previous POC movies, and isn’t certain yet whether she’ll like that one. So she “samples” the movie, decides that it’s rubbish and won’t go to the cinema. Loss.

c) has seen the previous POC movies, and isn’t certain yet whether she’ll like that one. So she “samples” the movie, decides that it’s great and will watch it at the cinema. No loss.

d) would love to go to the cinema, but tickets just don’t fit into her budget. No loss.

e) isn’t that much into POC and just wants to know what the buzz is all about. She might have bought a ticket for the cinema, she might haven’t. No Loss.

f) burns the movie on dvds and sells them. Loss.

Conclusion: 1 download does not equal 1 lost sale. Common sense will tell you that legal action only makes sense in case of f).

2. Does sharing TV shows ruin televison?

Annie lives in the UK. There’s a new TV series on the BBC, let’s say “Sherlock”, “Garrow’s Law” or “Being Human”. Annie loves the show and takes to the internet to tell everybody how fantastic it is. She’d love to chat about the latest episode with her friends in the global community, but unfortunately

a) those outside of the UK can’t watch the show on the BBC’s iPlayer

b) the folks in the USA will only get to see the first series a year later

c) some people live in countries where the show will never be aired at all

So Annie decides to upload the episodes to a place like, well, Megaupload, and her friends download and watch it. Now, the industry will tell you that they’ll lose millions and millions because of the Annies of this world, but in reality, Annie Fandom

a) does effective, targeted promotion with the core audience of the show – and all that worldwide and for free

b) will very likely still buy the dvd set of the show once it’s finished if she really likes it, and encourage others to buy the dvd as well

c) helps creating an established fanbase in a foreign country which will be there on the first airing of the show a year from now

d) keeps interest alive in-between long breaks between the individual series

e) gives somebody in the US the material they need to burn an illegal dvd and sell it

Conclusion: as serious as case e) is – the benefits of sharing the episodes of TV with fellow friends by far surpass the losses.

The ways and speed at which people consume entertainment today have changed, and it’s up to the producers to catch up with it. In the age of the internet, it’s absolutely idiotic to air shows in different countries years apart. That’s not working anymore. People want to discuss shows the moment they are on the smalls creen. If licence law or agreements are in the way of speedier action, then the procedures must be revised and replaced by a more effective and consumer-friendly process. Example: allowing us friggin’ foreigners to watch shows on BBC iPlayer for a reasonable charge. We’d pay for it – no, really, we would!

3. Is all copyright infringement a thing of the devil?

Annie Fandom is a customer. She buys dvds, merchandise, she participates in fandom, she supports her favourite movies, shows and stars. Yet she’s also a heinous criminal in the books of the entertainment industry, because she commits copyright and trademark infringement all the time by

a) creating icons without the permission of the copyright holders

b) posting pictures without paying licence fees

c) running a fansite with content she hasn’t asked permission or paid licence fees for

c) scanning and uploading interviews

d) writing fanfic and making fanvids (note: I’m aware of the transformative-work-discussion and that you could argue that fanfic and fanvids are not a copyright infringement)

e) sharing episodes

f) offering screencaps for download

g) linking to illegal sites

h) not using ® when she mentions a brandname

i) talking about “photoshopping” rather than telling people that “the image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software” (I wish I was joking – the reason why I don’t use Photoshop, by the way. See – that’s how to piss off potential customers!)

The question is – should Annie be fined or locked up for her crimes?

Conclusion: media companies and law makers will have to decide sooner or later if these activities, from my point of view crimes without victims and damages, which are in fact promoting the work of the copyright holders, can and should be governed by anti-piracy laws. There are worlds of difference between posting a picture on LJ and selling pirated dvds. Anybody in charge who can’t see that difference is not fit for the job.

4. Is it still piracy if nothing was stolen?

Annie Fandom is a history geek. She’s very interested in the 18th century, the Royal Navy and men looking dashing in breeches. Now there’s a documentary on TV about the art of painting chamber pots in the 18th century. Neat!

Unfortunately, the documentary will never be released on dvd, as it covers a niche interest and there would never be enough people to warrant the production of a dvd. Also, Annie’s friends across the pond or those who had already been in bed the night the programme was aired (as such programmes are usually aired at 1am) have no way of getting to see the documentary legally. So, should Annie be fined if she shares a copy of “When Chambers Went Potty?”

Conclusion: I’m of the firm opinion that it shouldn’t be possible to fine somebody for the theft of a non-existing product. The production company of “When Chambers Went Potty” doesn’t lose any money through Annie’s actions, on the contrary: Annie’s praise of the programme might increase interest and this might lead to a repeat showing of the programme.

Again, this problem could be solved by offering either paid streaming or paid downloading, not only for “big” shows but also for niche productions.

5. Is illegal downloading always morally wrong?

Honestly? I can’t answer that. I’m in the privileged position that I have the means to pay for my entertainment. And the entertainment I can’t afford? I can live without it. But I definitely won’t sit here and say “hey you, kid over there, you’ll have to do without any movies and games and music because you’re poor. Hey you, person in a developing country, bad luck if you can’t afford the entertainment industry’s ridiculous prices!” Yeah, it’s illegal for an unemployed person to download music from the internet. But is there a monetary loss, considering that said person couldn’t afford to buy the stuff? And is it morally wrong?

Conclusion: in my country, you have a certain amount of money available which social services will pay you for things like sending your kids to music or sports lessons or paying for school trips etc. I think that’s a very good thing, and maybe “entertainment” could be added to the list. If you’re poor, you still have the right to live, not just exist.

6. What to do now?

Piracy is a problem, a big one. No doubt about it. And the whole “stealsies from rich people is ok” concept doesn’t fly with me. But I feel that the organised sale of counterfeited dvds is a much bigger problem than Annie Fandom sharing the last episode of “Sherlock” online. And when it comes to piracy of movies, I really have to ask: where do all those movies leak? Who does the leaking? Somehow I doubt that the blurry filmed-off-screen copy of a blockbuster is as much a threat to economy as the HD copy available online. And that HD copy online in stellar quality can only come from somebody within the industry. Maybe it’s time to have a look at your security, MPAA?

And under no circumstances may laws which (rightly) try to curb serious piracy affect freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the free exchange on the internet. Those laws may not, under any circumstances, be abused to meddle with the laws of other countries. We might agree that Kim Dotcom is a slimy git, but the fact is that he is not an US citizen, that he lived in New Zealand, that his company was located in Hong Kong and that only two servers of Megaupload’s huge server park were located in the USA. Why not let Hong Kong deal with it? Or New Zealand? The Netherlands? That, and the “fuck you internet, we do what we want, anyway” timing right after Blackout Day are more than the actual disappearance of Megaupload what worries me.

And if you think we have no reason to worry: just look at the case of Richard O’Dwyer, the guy who used to run tvshack.

TVShack’s student founder can be extradited to US, court rules

Please let this sink in: the guy might be extradited to the USA for providing a website linking to illegal content. Linking. Not providing on his server, just linking to it! Something which is completely legal in the country he’s a citizen off! An UK court rules that it’s ok to extradite a citizens of the UK to the USA for a crime which isn’t a crime in the UK? What’s next? Can you imagine the implications for all of us if this goes through?

Petition to protest the extradition of Richard O’Dwyer

German authorities were involved with the blow up of Megaupload. Which is interesting as Mrs. Merkel, after her government bought a dvd with data stolen in Switzerland declared that this was not theft, but copying. D’oh!

We must be alert, and we can’t afford the blasé “oh, it’s not of any concern to me” attitude. And now I hope somebody will convince Roman Polanski to start a file sharing service – who knows, maybe then there would be justice.

“according to a recent statement from the BBC, the “jury’s still out”.

Well then, let’s get the jury back in, on our side and a fourth series coming!

You can either make yourself heard on the BBC’s POV messageboard or to email them: pov@bbc.co.uk

If you, like me and millions of fans around the globe, would love a fourth series, now’s the time to let the BBC know. Please, make poor William smile again and drop the BBC a mail today!

BBC – please take note what TV show people were most interested in!

Here’s an excerpt:

The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 75,000 times in 2011. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 3 days for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Oh well, if you ask so nicely….

“I’ll ring a peal in your ears if you shouldn’t stop staring at my apple dumpling shop, you bracket-faced, beetle-browed ensign bearer!”

Ahhh… how poetic! Beats “I’ll tell ye where to stick it if ye don’ stop staring at me boobs, ye ugly tosser with bushy eyebrows, ye!” anytime.

How poor our language has become, especially in the swearing department. Today it’s all about body parts and variations of the term “intercourse”, sometimes with additional animal names. How boring, how uninspiring!

So it’s with great joy that I inform you that Mr Francis Grose’s “A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue”, published in 1785, has been turned into a delightful little book which I can only recommend for purchase.

LOBCOCKS AND FARTLEBERRIES
18th Century Insulsts to Confound your Foes
by Francis Grose
with illustrations by David Procter
ISBN: 9781849531016
Published by Summersdale

Social interaction is so much easier if you can hold your disputes in the language of the 18th century. That colleague who’s been annoying you for years? Tell him that his garrett is unfurnished, and he’ll head for IKEA rather than being upset because you called him an empty-headed idiot.

Reality shows would be more appealing if they’d be called “The Only Way is Gilfurt” or “Keeping Up with the Hopper-Arses”, and why not call football players the gollumpuses they are? While we’re at it, “Gigg” means nose, a hog’s snout, a high one-horse chaise and a woman’s privities. Who’d have thought?

I petition for a copy of this book to be sent to all politicians involved in the next elections. They could profit from brushing up their vocabulary, totty-headed, rusty-gutted muckworms that they are. Imagine the possibilities – “Question Time” would never be the same again!

“Lobcocks and Fartleberries” is an interesting and amusing journey through our lingual heritage. Colourful words you’ve never heard of, terms which have changed their meaning during the centuries (maybe we should stop calling Madonna “Madge”), and little gems of vulgar wit make it a fascinating read. Bonus points for David Procter’s spot-on drawings.

This is a portrait of the formidable Mr. Grose. His father was a Swiss immigrant, a fact which fills me with great personal glee.

A trip to IKEA is in order for all aficionados of the Age of Sail, though, because a new fabric has been introduced to IKEA shops worldwide!

My best friend’s parents gifted me this Christmas with curtains made from “Benzy Skepp”, and so my office is now sporting the most fantabulous curtains ever. The colour is a rather neutral, beige/coffee, and so it can be combined with even the most colourful of furniture. Now I can really write my Age of Sail books in style!

“Benzy Skepp” means “Benzy Ship”, and the fabric shows 18th century sailing ships. Swedish ones, I suppose; at least I’ve never heard of the HMS Benzy…

“Benzy Skepp” is made from 55% linen, 45% cotton and I can attest it’s good quality. Do make sure you wash the fabric before you turn it into curtains, throws or bloomers, though – there’s some shrinkage.

You can’t order the fabric online, but you can look up size, price and availability here:

IKEA UK

IKEA USA

IKEA Germany

Other country’s websites, please look for “fabrics and sewing”, that’s where “Benzy Skepp” should be listed.

Happy sewing!

This year’s Charity of Molly’s Choice:

The Trust’s primary objective is to respect and preserve the treasured relationship between owners and their pets. To this end it works in partnership with owners to overcome any difficulties that might arise. A national network of over 15,000 community service volunteers has been established to provide practical help when any aspect of day to day care poses a problem – for example, walking the dog for a housebound owner.

A national fostering service is provided for pets whose owners face a spell in hospital – volunteers take pets into their own homes and supply love and care in abundance until owner and pet can be reunited.

The Cinnamon Trust also provides long term care for pets whose owners have died or moved to residential accommodation which will not accept pets. Arrangements are made between owners and the Trust well in advance, so owners do have peace of mind in the knowledge that their beloved companion will have a safe and happy future.

Any support is very welcome!

No responsible cat owner would hold such an accident against the animal, though; after all a cat is a cat and not an art expert, and we don’t expect a feline to show respect and appreciation for cultural heritages of any kind. Also, cats are cute.

Those involved in Wedgwood-Gate aren’t cats, though, and Judge Charles Purle QC knew exactly the consequences when he ruled that

the Wedgwood’s Museum’s unique collection can be sold to help plug a £134 million pension fund deficit

just like the administrators from Begbies Traynor knew what they did when they sought the ruling to determine the future of the collection.

Now if only everybody else involved in this mess had known what they were doing before this debacle happened, we’d all be much happier!

Tempting as it is, let’s not blame judges and administrators, though. This ruling has a long prehistory, and holding the museum responsible and sell off its invaluable collection to satisfy the creditors of the Wedgwood company which went boom! in 2009 is legally correct. To quote Judge Charles Purle QC:

“This is sad for those who would wish to preserve a collection of what everyone recognises is enormous national importance, but is the result of insolvency legislation combined with the very comprehensive pension protection that the state now provides.”

Sad? Sad? “Titanic” is sad, this is bloody tragic! Seriously, what sort of country would allow the loss of such an important collection? What kind of politician would back this? What’s next? Putting Nelson on his column up for auction on ebay to fund the Olympics?!

Do you really want to see the Wedgwood collection auctioned off and spread all over the planet? And do you really think that, with such a precendent, other museums may not be at risk of being dissolved and their collections ending up on some high-profile garage sale?

The administrators said they’d explore other options to raise money to keep the collection in situ (Heritage Lottery Fund, the V&A Museum, members of the Wedgwood family etc.)

Good.

They also said that the Pension Protection Fund, the main creditor, had indicated they they were prepared to allow time for fundraising.

They better.

It’s our turn now: we have to ask ourselves if Britain’s legacy for future generations really should consist of nothing but Tesco car parks. Get active, write to your representatives and urge them to take a stand.

I’m running out of sel volatile here; it’s time for a mutiny, my friends. We can’t allow this to happen.

Save Wedgwood!

Save Wedgwood blog

Wedgwood Museum @ Twitter

Save Wedgwood @ Twitter

Tristram Hunt MP

Many knew the answer, but it was Kerstin from Germany whose number was drawn by Buttons the cat. Congratulations! Your Very Austen Yuletide Parcel will soon be on its way.

In other news, I’ve hanged Mr. Silvester. I couldn’t help it; I just couldn’t resist to make him the centrepiece of my Yuletide decoration, and you must admit that he’s making a very fetching Christmas ornament. The BBC could make a ton of money with Garrow’s Law ornaments – Mr. Garrow baubles! Lady Sarah garlands! And imagine Judge Buller on top of your Christmas tree!

This year’s decoration work was carried out by Buttons & Lorchen. They are specialised in colourful pawbles.

“Pray tell, what may we win?”

The following!

This lovely little book will take you right back to your childhood. Gorgeous gowns for Elizabeth and gentlemanly suits for Mr. Darcy! Never again boring moments under the Christmas tree!

It must be Mr. Bingley’s cheeky smile why this is a favourite of mine (though “Pride and Prejudice” is not my favourite Austen-novel. That would be “Persuasion”, for obvious reasons!)

But wait, that’s not all! For the naval geeks among you, there is

Jane Austen and the Navy, based upon family papers and naval records, shows the novelist as a historian of Nelson’s Navy – not the Navy of great victories at sea but the Navy at home, and of sailors amongst their families and friends – but it is set against the background of war, with Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, fought across the globe between 1793 and 1815.

And that’s STILL not all! Because what would Christmas be without

A SELECTION OF THE BEST CHOCOLATE IN THE WORLD

Real chocolate. Not the tasteless factory stuff – chocolate-chocolate. Milk, dark, white, nuts, orange – your choice.

And what do you have to do to win this parcel full of Yuletide joy?

Just send an email to

joyful_molly  at yahoo.co.uk

and answer the following question:

“What is Molly Joyful’s favourite Austen novel?”

A) Emma

B) Pride and Prejudice

C) Persuasion

IMPORTANT: Please put “Contest” in the subject line.

Deadline: 12th December, 2011, noon GMT.

Please read the following rules before you send off your mail.

RULES:

1. By participating in this contest, you confirm that you have read, understood and accepted the rules.

2. You have to be at least 16 years old to participate.

3. Please be fair: only send in one mail per person.

4. No cash pay-out of your prize.

5. No correspondence will be held over the outcome of the contest.

6. If you are the winner, you’ll have to provide us with your name and address.

7. We’ll send your prize out asap, but have no influence on postal services.

8. Should, for any reason beyond our control, one of the prizes not be available, we’ll replace it with a different prize of the same value.

9. We accept entries from all over the world. If, however, your country does not allow the import of chocolate, you’ll “only” get the books (sorry about that).

Good luck!