GeekPAC does sound like the sort of name too many people won't want to be associated with. A
bit "sad". A bit "nerdy". Too much like something for basement dwellers with no lives. A name
that shouts "ignore me" to mainstream culture.
Information Rights sounds a better note, but there need to be instantly understandable
descriptions, instantly-attractive memes, clearly-relevant hooks to show people why
information rights matter to them! It's not dumbing down - it's being concise (the details can
come later).
What about Media Rights? Perhaps it's ambiguous - we're not talking media generators' rights
(at least not ONLY media generator's rights), but about OUR rights to our media - what we buy,
rent, or consume.
Maybe we should exploit the term "fair use" a bit more?
Innovation Rights might be about fighting the innovation tax that today's abused patent system
often imposes.
Privacy Rights could cover a range of issues from warrantless wiretaps and border search and
seizure of iPods and Laptops to use of encryption when personal data is being interchanged
(think of the numerous recent UK "data lost in the post" scandals).
Identity rights could cover identity theft and protection for people's online identities, in
ways that (a) work, and (b) don't have huge civil liberties or vendor lockin implications. It
could look at passports with RFID tags which broadcast their owners' data. It could look at
the snooping possibilties of RFID deployments.
Voter rights or Democratic rights might deal with secure, open, and verifiable voting systems,
which are not easily manipulated, and which protect voters from intimidation and
vote-stealing.
Internet rights might look at governance of the Internet in ways that serve the interests of
users, not domain cartels, or big media.
But this is not just about the US Congress. Lots of bad technical law comes from lobbying at
international treaty organisations like the WIPO (the EU even, for some non-US types).
Proposals to search iPods at borders, and force ISPs to snoop on their customers, for
instance.
And while we're at it, maybe we should rename DRM "Digitally Restricted Media"? It's more
descriptive, and pretty much fits where you'd use the term.
Frame that debate, guys!
Posted Aug 14, 2008 16:53 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)
[Link]
"Innovation Rights Council?"
The other problem with "geek" is that it doesn't necessarily imply technical skill or creativity. Many computer users in the USA who just put infringing copies of mainstream TV shows on Bittorrent, and don't make anything of their own, would count as "geeks", subspecies "fanboy."
What's in a name
Posted Aug 14, 2008 17:23 UTC (Thu) by johnmark (guest, #47025)
[Link]
I'll buy the notion that "geek" can imply someone who consumes a vast amount of (trivial?)
information or perhaps as a synonym for connoisseur.
But the flipside is that it's easy to bite off and chew, as opposed to some of the other
proposed terms. And frankly, I just don't see the negative connotations that you and others
associate with it.
If you guys are right, I'll be highly disappointed and will burn myself in effigy.
-John Mark
GeekPAC Founder
http://www.geek-pac.org/
What's in a name
Posted Aug 14, 2008 17:35 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
Given the historical meaning of "geek," I'm not sure that "bite off and chew" is the phrasing I would have used...:)
What's in a name
Posted Aug 14, 2008 18:35 UTC (Thu) by johnmark (guest, #47025)
[Link]
Oh dear, that was completely unintentional.
"A carnival performer whose show consists of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live
chicken."
http://www.bartleby.com/61/0/G0070000.html
-JM
What's in a name
Posted Aug 14, 2008 19:12 UTC (Thu) by njs (guest, #40338)
[Link]
>And frankly, I just don't see the negative connotations that you and others associate with
it.
I am confused by your confusion, given your quote from the article:
> "One of the problems is that we insist on using terms like 'digital rights,' the usage of
which basically leaves out a large percentage of the population. Most people don't know what
that means, and they assume that digital doesn't include them, because they don't work in the
tech industry and have little contact with people who do."
I don't think people have such a negative opinion of geeks that they'll hear the name and
think "geeks, huh, if they're for it then I'm against it". But I would worry that they'll
think "geeks, huh, dunno what that has to do with me but it's probably too complicated, I'm
just an (artist/movie buff/media reform activist/investigative journalist/someone with an
iPod...)". I know these memes sink down deep inside us where they're hard to uproot, but
isn't the whole *point* of what you're doing that this *isn't* about geeks?
Plus, as Don points out, never mind the word "geek" in particular, "GeekPAC" is the kind of
name that says "we are here to represent the interests of one sub-group of people against
competing sub-groups", just like the "Dairy Farmers Council" or "AARP" or something. But you
want to come across as the other sort of political organization, the sort that is organized
not around a group of people, but a group of principles -- those have names like "Americans
for Social Justice" or "Club for Growth", that involve abstract goods and claims to represent
all people. (Sometimes they're lying, but that's a separate issue.) So your name seems to
misrepresent your organization in that way too.
What's in a name
Posted Aug 14, 2008 20:54 UTC (Thu) by johnmark (guest, #47025)
[Link]
*sigh* your post was too logical. I may have to concede this point at some indeterminate time
in the future.
-John Mark
Founder, GeekPAC
What's in a name
Posted Aug 14, 2008 20:56 UTC (Thu) by johnmark (guest, #47025)
[Link]
Oh... and having promised to burn myself in effigy should I change the name, I *will* do it,
should a name change come to pass. Should make for some fine Youtube material :)
-John Mark
Founder, GeekPAC
http://www.geek-pac.org/
Document Freedom
Posted Aug 19, 2008 21:27 UTC (Tue) by salimma (subscriber, #34460)
[Link]
A new name that ties in with FSF Europe's Document Freedom campaign would be wonderful. That name is a bit misleading as well, as people don't normally think of their music/video files as documents, but it's a start.
Campaign/Council for Document and Media Rights, perhaps?
What's in a name
Posted Aug 14, 2008 17:16 UTC (Thu) by johnmark (guest, #47025)
[Link]
These are all great points.
One of the things that didn't make the article was my rant on "rental society". Because of the
EULA's attached to consumable media, we don't actually own the content and thus have no rights
to it, even though we paid for it.
I think the framework that you've just posted actually works quite well. "Information Rights"
could be the umbrella framework which we use to define media rights, privacy rights, voter
rights, et al.
I'd like to investigate that meme a little bit and push it to its logical conclusion. Are you
interested in working together on this?
-John Mark
GeekPAC Founder
What's in a name
Posted Aug 14, 2008 19:41 UTC (Thu) by BackSeat (subscriber, #1886)
[Link]
I hope you're able to change the name. When I see a headline about equestrians, I don't pay attention because it doesn't apply to me. I can easily imagine a headline mentioning geeks that a lot of people would ignore for the same reason, espeically about an advocate group that appears to support geeks. Incidentally, I dislike being referred to as a "geek", so you're also alienating some supporters.
You have to talk to your audience in their language, not (y)ours.
What's in a name
Posted Aug 14, 2008 23:21 UTC (Thu) by pdundas (subscriber, #15203)
[Link]
Sure - let's discuss the issues. I registered on the GeekPAC wiki, so you can reach me through
that.
Paul
Rental society
Posted Aug 15, 2008 15:18 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
[Link]
Because of the
EULA's attached to consumable media, we don't actually own the content and thus have no rights
to it, even though we paid for it.
This is self-contradictory. According to the beginning of the sentence, we didn't pay for the content; the end says we did. The statement makes it sound like we're getting less than we paid for, but doesn't provide any support for that.
The confused wording obscures the point. Is the point that people shouldn't have the right to "rent" the content (because it creates unwanted competition for other consumers) or that consumers are being misled and paying more/getting less than they intend?
Rental society
Posted Aug 15, 2008 19:26 UTC (Fri) by johnmark (guest, #47025)
[Link]
The point is that we should have the protected right to access whatever information we've
legally obtained - via our method of choice. You may agree or disagree with that, but that's
one of our key points.
The follow-on to that is calculating the opportunity and innovation cost of *not* granting the
rights outlined above. This is impossible to calculate with any accuracy, unfortunately, which
hampers our ability to put this argument into terms like "impacts x% of GDP growth." Instead,
we have to appeal to people's sense of decency and back-of-the-napkin calculations. I like
appealing to people's sense of decency, but I would love to put together a more substantial
argument.
-John Mark
http://www.geek-pac.org/
Rental society
Posted Aug 16, 2008 17:40 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
[Link]
The point is that we should have the protected right to access whatever information we've
legally obtained - via our method of choice. You may agree or disagree with that, but that's
one of our key points.
Well, I haven't agreed or disagreed because I still don't know what your point is. Originally, you had a self-contradiction, and now you have a tautology. It seems to me to say, "we should have the right to access whatever we have the right to access."
But you do add the thing about our method of choice. Is the point that we should be able to buy the right to access a piece of information either by every method or not at all? I.e. like existing product standard laws: you don't have to buy a television set, but if you do, it has to have all the channels, closed captioning, parental controls, etc.
What's in a name
Posted Aug 15, 2008 20:20 UTC (Fri) by oak (subscriber, #2786)
[Link]
Would something like this work as the protest "song" lyrics:
I see RED. Lawyers from RIAA and other representatives for Corporate
Communism are running all over the Capital Hill proclaiming legislations
stating that the people aren't owning their media, the songs and videos
they buy. Company owns the them. Company owns media.
Vote NO to Corporate Communism.