I remember having a blazing row high-spirited discussion with someone about the way I thought about society. In a fit of rage an attempt to provide clarity, I tried using a metaphor:

"Didn't your mother ever tell you to share your toys?" I asked.

He looked at me, baffled.

"No..." he said, cautiously. "We each had enough toys."

That is the strawman crux of the issue. Those of us who grew up with limited resources know that sharing is caring. We've been taught from an early age that the only way to fulfilment is to share our possessions.

We were raised on a diet of Stone Soup. But other people were not so lucky.

To them, lending a toy just means losing a toy. There is nothing the borrower could reciprocally lend you that you don't already have. There is literally no advantage to sharing. If you really want something, just buy it.

At school, you probably went through the fad of collecting stickers, Pogs, cards, or some other merchandise. The playground was full of swappers. Everyone engaging in the social activity of trade. That's another fertile training ground for understanding the limits of friendship the pleasure of working together for a common goal.

Except for that one kid whose dad just bought them a full set.

How do we embed the positive value of sharing at all levels of society?

There's sometimes a pernicious fear that lending a toy might result in someone else profiting from it.

That's the question at the heart of the Open Data debate. What if someone finds a way to monetise our data - and doesn't share the revenue?

I think - and it's only a think - that's the wrong way to approach things. Most data sits locked away in a vault. It isn't used to generate insights and it certainly isn't making money. It's the same with our toys. Most are at the bottom of the toybox, generating pleasure for no one.

When we open up data - or share our toys - we create opportunities for someone else to derive use from something we have no use for. We give up exclusivity and, in return, discover new ways that we can all have more fun.

Here's some basic code for an Android app which will post the URL of your app to Twitter. Stick it in a button or menu item for easy sharing.

String twitterUri = "http://m.twitter.com/?status=";
String marketUri = Uri.encode("http://example.com/?q=app&title=test");
Intent shareOnTwitterIntent = new Intent(Intent.ACTION_VIEW, Uri.parse(twitterUri + marketUri));
startActivity(shareOnTwitterIntent);

Some important things to note.

1. This is set to post to the mobile version of Twitter.  Your user is on a phone - don't direct them to a site that won't work on their device.
2. The second string is URI encoded.
3. Consider if you want to post a "market://" link.  I would advise against it.  Twitter won't render it as a link and, even if it did, 90% of users won't be able to click on it.  Make it a link that will direct desktop users to your website, mobile users to a mobile friendly site and Android users direct to the market.

Facebook also has an API for this sort of sharing.

http://m.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=example.com&t=test

Again, it points to the mobile site and needs to be URL encoded.

Happy sharing!

They've released a document entitled GOVERNMENT STATEMENT ON THE PROPOSED P2P FILE-SHARING LEGISLATION.  It's only 5 pages long, I really suggest you read it.

Being part of a democracy means you're allowed to talk to the decision makers, so I called the number at the end of the document and had a very interesting call with Adrian Brazier.

These notes are taken off the hoof - I didn't record the call.

I asked a range of questions.

Q1) What are the punishments for copyright holders who make false claims about an Internet user (whether malicious or not

A1) None. Yet.  A good point that they hadn't thought of.

Q2) What standard of proof will a Copyright Holder have to provide an ISP?

A2) This will be worked out by Ofcom.  It will (probably) be of a similar level of proof as required by law. The standard of proof has not yet been published because it is up to Ofcom to formulate.

Q3) I pointed out that if a Copyright Holder had the standard of proof required for court, why wouldn't they just go to court?

A3) Save everyone the cost and trauma.  Going to court is an expensive and protracted business for all involved, if a simple letter will stop someone breaking the law, that's probably better for all involved.

Q4) ISPs are not lawyers and judges - how can they tell if a claim is valid. If the claim is invalid - does their customer have the right to sue them (or the Copyright Holder)?

A4) A good point not yet addressed.  If a user is falsely accused, they should have the power of redress.

I was highly impressed with the thought given to the answers - even if I disagree with their conclusions.  Full credit to Adrian for taking the time to listen to my points.  The above is my interpretation of his answers - any mistakes are mine and mine alone.

Please - if you care about Digital Britain, respond to the consultation. An simple email to adrian.brazier@bis.gsi.gov.uk or mike.klym@bis.gsi.gov.uk will do, you can telephone them on : 020 7215 1295/4165.  If you're feeling old-skool, write to Communications & Content Industries Unit, BIS, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET.

It only takes a few minutes of your time to ensure that the Government don't make a massive mistake.  If you are going to phone or email - please remain polite.

Share this logo with your friends

But what does "Sharing Is Caring" mean?  When I was growing up, my parents alway told me it was nice to share. If I had a toy - I should let my brother play with it too.  If I had an ice-cream, it was nice to offer a lick to my friends. It's fun to share - and the more people you share with, the more fun you have.

Last night, I went to Global Cool Swish organised by Vikki Chowney. This was a twist on the idea that "Home Sewing Is Killing Fashion".

The idea is simple. You bring along some clothes that you never wear - you get a token for every item you bring. You get an hour to browse through everyone's contributions, then it's a mad dash to get clothes that you want.  At the end, everyone leaves with some new togs and - who knows - maybe some new friends.  The only downside, in this case, was the lack of men. Were I a transvestite, I'd have been awash in goodies. Perhaps I need to organise a similar sort of event just for men. Called something manly like "Fight Clothes"....

The event was great fun - and it got me thinking...

Most people have a lot of stuff. It's understandable that they want to keep some - or most - of it. But do we need "more". Can we maintain an equilibrium? One in, one out?

Your economy needs you!

I'm reminded of a "Book Swap" event I went to at The Horse Hospital. The entry fee was one book - minimum.  Any book you brought along was swapped for a token and then placed on a shelf. You were then free to browse any of the books that other people had used as their entry fee.  Once you'd found something you liked, you purchased it with your token.  (You also had the oppurtunity to purchase books with money. £1 each. All proceeds to charity.)

I liked both events. I liked the thrill of not knowing what was on offer until I got there. I liked giving away something that was useless to me.  I liked discovering hidden gems that someone loved enough to give away. I liked not buying. In short - I liked sharing. I want to share the fun that I've had. I think it may be time for me to organise a DVD swap. A book swap. A crappy-electrical-gadget-I've-been-haning-on-to-for-no-good-reason swap.  What do you think - what do you want to swap today?

Sharing is caring.