Engage with government - or ignore it? [LWN.net]

There is no doubt that much of what is going on in legislative systems worldwide is hostile to both free software and the larger principles of fair use of ideas and copyrighted works. Laws like the DMCA or the upcoming UK copyright law ban the writing of programs which provide "unauthorized" access to legitimately purchased materials. Proposed laws like the CBDTPA (seen defined as "Consume, But Don't Try Programming Anything") could outlaw broad classes of free software outright. There is clearly cause to worry. But what should we do about these threats?

Columnist Dan Gillmor tells us to get involved and pressure government for better laws:

But I'm convinced that we can preserve our rights, if we can only persuade Congress that they're worth preserving. There's little or no constituency for fair use and other rights, partly because lawmakers are only hearing one side. But if the community of readers, listeners, viewers, scholars, researchers and others who don't ``own'' copyrights doesn't at least challenge the terms of the debate, it will surely lose.

Mr. Gillmor tells us that we need to "reeducate" Congress and press technology companies to be more assertive about the rights and needs of its customers, rather than those of big media. With enough political pressure, our rights can be preserved.

Before going off to pressure Congress (or Parliament, or whatever), though, it is worth taking a look at another view. Declan McCullagh, who has covered Congress and technology for years, has recently posted a column questioning the value of the political path:

Here's the bitter truth: These efforts are mostly a waste of time. Sure, they may make you feel better, but they're not the way to win.

His suggestion, instead, is to take the classic cypherpunk approach: write code.

Put another way, who made a bigger difference: Yet another letter-scribbling activist or Phil Zimmermann, who wrote the Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) encryption software? How about Shawn Fanning, the man who created Napster? Or the veterans of the Internet Engineering Task Force, which oversees the fundamental protocols of the Internet?

He has a point: had Phillip Zimmermann not written PGP when he did, the battle for the right to use strong encryption may well have been lost a decade ago.

In general, the wide diffusion of technology makes it harder to outlaw or control that technology. In 1990, it might just have been possible to pass a CBDTPA-like law which would have made the distribution of free operating systems impossible. In 2002, Linux and *BSD are everywhere, serving many critical functions; outlawing them is not a practical possiblity. Hackers should, indeed, be creating and distributing code. Getting that code out where it can not be recalled is an important activity for the defense of our freedom.

But wouldn't it be a nicer world if free software hackers did not need to fear arrest and incarceration for releasing the wrong code? Wouldn't it be better if copyright law were to swing back toward the longstanding values of fair use, first sale, and compromise between control and the free exchange of ideas? To claim that the only worthwhile work is writing code is to see the future as a sort of guerilla war against an entrenched copyright regime. This does not sound like a fun future, and it should not be seen as inevitable.

Sustained political effort can yield results. But success requires engaging and interest and support of a large number of people. Governmental representatives can easily ignore the noise from a small group of concerned programmers; they need to hear from a wider constituency before they will pay attention. Somehow we need to get Aunt Tillie worried about copyright law. That is going to be a difficult task, but it's an important one.

(Log in to post comments)

Engage with government - or ignore it?

Posted Aug 15, 2002 8:14 UTC (Thu) by miketa (guest, #1660) [Link]

Am I missing something here? Although the two views on how to proceed differ, I can't really see any problem with following both approaches at once. I guess the only confict could be the pressure-the-government protagonists arguing that write-the-code people antagonise further the proponents of the DCMA and its ilk - but that's the case already. Lobbying should have some effect, even if it is only a bit, and might get mainstream publicity - in the last resort it probably works as a delaying tactic. Meanwhile, get that code written and in place, and hope that enough people realise the costs that will hit them as and when any legislation goes through.

Engage with government - or ignore it?

Posted Aug 15, 2002 12:27 UTC (Thu) by orange (guest, #3275) [Link]

Perfect reply - there should be no reason why we can't do both. My coding ability sucks (at least in the low level languages and systems environments where Open Source rocks), but I've spent some time in Parliament and I have an inkling of how things work there, so my time could be valuable for the Free Software Movement if I try things there.

By the same token, if I can't show them the software already working, then I sound like a radical with pie in the sky ideas and ideals.

We need both sides to win the war...

--Orange

PS. can't wait to subscribe!

They serve different purposes

Posted Aug 15, 2002 11:13 UTC (Thu) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]

I can't remember where I saw it, but someone mentioned they the law does not work for quick solutions. Lawsuits takes years and lots of money, nothing is ever solved quickly.

While the only long-term solution in via the political, I can't happen quick enough to make a difference. Thus we must do what we can *now* to make it more likely for the political solution to come to pass.

Another example: someone mentioned a suit involving the credit card company to solve LWNs problems. They may win, but by the time its sorted, it will no longer matter.

Declan sides with Big Business

Posted Aug 15, 2002 14:27 UTC (Thu) by HalfMoon (guest, #3211) [Link]

...but not Big Government.

The intellectual hypocrisy of the whole Cato crowd (he loves his contacts there) is that they only acknowledge the danger of one type of unrestrained power. They think that for some reason it's OK if such power is held in private and unaccountable hands (corporations), while it's not OK when it's held in hands that are at least marginally accountable (government).

So while Declan masquerades, on occasion, as someone who actually values the principles of independance on which the US, and much "hacker" culture, is founded ... he is often intentionally blind to the fact that the assaults on liberty today come more often from corporate sources than from governmental ones. The DMCA and its ilk were created for corporate lobbyists, after all.

In short, be extremely skeptical of advice from Declan. His purposeful blindness might make sense in a world where corporations had the same type and degree of constraints that "mere individuals" have ... but sadly, that's not the world in which his advice is issued.

I like the "do both" conclusion better. There's no way governments can do their job when only corporatations (or otherwise wealthy people/organizations) are able to influence them. Or when the world evolves only along the lines those corporations wanted in the first place.

Pentagon sides with Big Business

Posted Aug 16, 2002 14:32 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

"... it's OK if such power is held in private and unaccountable
hands (corporations), while it's not OK when it's held in hands
that are at least marginally accountable (government)"

Excellent point and excellently worded! But it's not actually
true that government power isn't responsible for "assaults
on liberty". Sure, that power is wielded in favour of and
on behalf of corporate interests, but the government "monopoly
of force" continues to be the primary instrument of oppression.

Global capital is able to bend multiple governments to its will
but this is only really possible because the WTO and IMF have
the guns of the worlds most powerful military establishments
right behind the threat of "trade sanctions". Essentially all
internationally important decisions right now are made by the
incumbents and lobbyists of the US and UK governments -- even
the other G8 members are increasingly marginalised.

It is therefore vital for the citizens of these two supposedly
democratic countries to make as much noise as possible and to
hold their governments to account, before more lives are lost
to the demands of the trusts and corporations to keep the poor
terrorised and hungry, and the merely wealthy scared and
compliant.

Engage with government - or ignore it?

Posted Aug 15, 2002 15:26 UTC (Thu) by rgoates (guest, #3280) [Link]

Yes, we need to do both. But the political side of the effort needs to be improved dramatically. I've written to my state senators and representative about this issue and received only clueless responses. They and their staff don't seem to understand software related issues, and they are not alone. The great majority of citizens don't either. Just try mentioning the term "software patents" at your next party and observe the ensuing silence, blank looks, and changing of subject.

Education of the public is going to have to come first. And doing that is going to be a real challenge. We'll have to get past the initial "it's a geek thing" yawn before we can generate any kind of understanding in the average citizen. We need some high quality public relations help, in other words. Some kind of compaign that will explain the issues in understandable terms while convincing people that they have a stake in the outcome. This will take a coordinated group effort by the Open Source community.

After we have the ability to communicate effectively to the public, a few mass marches might do some good. The sight of lots of people in a public rally seems to get the media's attention more than anything else does, and media attention generates attention from politicians. But the message of such demonstrations must be easily understandable to reporters and the general public.

An organization that is making a difference

Posted Aug 16, 2002 22:03 UTC (Fri) by crouchet (guest, #1084) [Link]

>>It's the US Internet Industry Association. They have had more impact on legislative[sp] issues than any other organization, to include EFF, FSF and all others.<<

I am not sure "impact" is measurable as such so I'll leave such comparisons aside as rhetorical.

While the concerns of this organization do seem generally to parallel those interested in OSS and of the personal concerns of internet users, that cannot be taken as a rule. Keep in mind that this is a trade association who's purpose is to protect and advance the interest of Internet Service Providers. That leaves plenty of room for issues that may be important to the majority of LWN readers but would not be of significant concern to the USIIA. Indeed, it is not inconceivable that they may occasionally form up on the opposite side of some issues.

While I imagine the USIIA are good allies on most issues, I think that the basic goals of the EFF and FSF are likely more in line with the particular concerns of the majority of readers here.

Which brings me to my suggestion. I agree that political activism and technical advancement are both helpful but I would also add: donate. More than a few of the readers here make very nice salaries and live well above the poverty line. A little of that money can make a big difference in the treasury of the EFF or other organizations fighting for your rights. In a way, even helping LWN survive helps preserve our freedoms because it gives us access to the information we need to recognize the threats.

Engage with government - or ignore it?

Posted Aug 18, 2002 0:00 UTC (Sun) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]

> Linux and *BSD are everywhere, serving many critical functions; outlawing them is not a practical possiblity.

Not that this will *stop* the governments from doing it anyway... at which point the only useful response is a white mutiny:

*turn off* those essential machines.

Getting this done will require that CEO's and Boards are convinced that they're actually violating criminal law by leaving them on, and they will be prosecuted.

It will be interesting to see how that goes...

Engage with government - or ignore it?

Posted Aug 18, 2002 23:07 UTC (Sun) by riptalon (guest, #3327) [Link]

> Sustained political effort can yield results.

This is a very bold statement for which I do not see a lot of supporting evidence. People raise examples such as the NRA in these situations but none of these examples involve massive vested interests by all the people who matter (corporations, mass media etc.). Even if you go to a whole other level and talk about the black civil rights movement there was little in the way of vested interests in the status quo from the establishment. The US economy no longer depended on salvery and what was being protested about was a hang over from that time, who's removal did not hurt anyone in power.

Since I cannot imagine a similar level of protest can be generated on this issue as the civil rights movement and the opposition is orders of magnitude stronger, since it is made up of corporate CEO's not southern rednecks, the outlook appears very bleak. While it is possible to influence the government one way or another on issues where the powers that be have little interest, it does not follow that the same tatics will have any effect when you are trying to force them to act against their best interests.

All this also assumes that the majority of action will take place in the political arena. However corporations, especially when they work together, have at least as much power as the govenment to affect change. Implementing TPCA/Palladium using the wintel monopoly avoids any possiblity of interference by the public. The CBDTPA may well just be chest beating by the "content" industry in order to hurry Microsoft along. They can always use legislation to force to smaller players (e.g. free software) into line or out of business once it is already the defacto standard.

In the end this is a battle between the "content" industry and the tech industry and the question isn't whether pervasive DRM is implemented but only who gets to decide how it is done. Everyone who matters will benefit in various ways from these proposals including the govenment which will get greater control of online information (i.e. censorship, spying) and the big players in the tech industry who will enjoy greater barriers to entry for competitors and greater control of their customers. Of course the public are going to be screwed by this but it would be extremely naive to think this will have any effect on the outcome.That is what politics is all about.