GeekPAC to fight for information rights
There's little question that plenty of people are annoyed at how difficult it is to rip movies from legally purchased DVDs into formats readable by handheld devices or media players. The lack of consistency in document formats is an ongoing headache for anyone who receives files that are only readable with certain software. Information rights management has become enough of a frustration that a group has formed specifically to deal with the problem head on. GeekPAC is a political action committee made up of volunteers who are taking their complaints straight to Capitol Hill.
Last year California Assemblyman Mark Leno authored AB 1668, a bill designed to encourage the state to adopt the Open Document Format as the standard format for government documents. Not surprisingly, Microsoft came out against the bill and it was eventually struck down in committee. CollabNet Community Manager and longtime FOSS supporter John Mark Walker was angry. Realizing that the open source community had no voice during the hearings and no way to fight back against the opposition's lobbyists, Walker decided to mobilize support from within the ranks of the FOSS community and let them do what they do best — rally behind a cause and prove once again that there's strength in numbers. So he founded GeekPAC.
GeekPAC's goal is to pull together enough funding — a mere $2,200 — to file the necessary paperwork to be formally recognized by the Federal Elections Committee as a Political Action Committee (PAC). Then the group will locate politicians or candidates in the House and Senate who support hot-button technology issues like copyright reform and net neutrality. Once identified, GeekPAC will help support their campaigns and lobby together for change.
"If all we do is fund some campaigns, create a few attack ads, and do the occasional lobbying, I'll be pretty disappointed," says Walker. "The real goal here is to educate people as to why they should care. Frankly, those of us who care about our rights in the information age have done a really poor job of communicating the importance or relevance."
Indeed, Walker suggests that ambiguous verbiage and a lack of communication with people outside the tech industry has been the biggest hindrance to effecting large-scale change. "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. So lots of digerati swing around their proverbial phalli and talk 'digital rights' this and 'DRM' that, and it becomes a kind of high-tech circle jerk that is constraining and ultimately self-limiting."
A better approach, he says, would be to frame these important issues as "information rights." Once people realize that the bills politicians are voting on aren't about obscure concepts but rather affect human rights at a basic level, Walker is confident GeekPAC will make great strides toward changing minds at the national level.
"It's really about the free flow of information and letting free markets do their job. Once you start there, it's a quick hop and a skip down the path of the founding principles of this great country," explains Walker. He goes on to note that these issues affect people at every socio-economic level, from patents that limit free market trade, to "information restrictions that affect our ability to adequately educate the public."
Walker asserts that without a total overhaul of the United States patent and copyright laws, the information divide will never narrow, and ultimately lead to larger problems down the road. "It's really about education, innovation, and reducing the bar to entry so that America can remain competitive in the 21st century."
One of the overriding reasons Walker chose to launch GeekPAC now is because this is an important election year and political issues are on the minds of many. Though he acknowledges people have been discussing these topics for years, talking just isn't enough.
"In the 10 years that have passed since the DMCA, we still haven't been able to mount a credible reform effort, and countless horrible things have taken place on our watch that co-opt our so-called inalienable rights. We must do more, and I can't think of a better time to do more than an election year," he says.
GeekPAC is taking a multi-faceted approach to locating politicians to support. The group's supporters and volunteers are encouraged to recommend candidates who they know believe in GeekPAC's goals and direction. Politicians can also contact the group directly and asked to be considered for backing from GeekPAC. Once chosen, candidates are asked to sign a simple pledge promising to "protect my constituents' fair use rights to information [and] support the use of open standards in government for the storage and archiving of public data."
Walker says GeekPAC is most interested in helping candidates who take a strong stance on open standards and open access, copyright reform, patent reform, and net neutrality. "Obviously, we'll be most enthusiastic about candidates who support all of those, but we will help campaign for candidates who support at least one of those items."
The name GeekPAC may ring a bell for those who have been around the FOSS community for a while. A similar group was formed more than five years ago but never quite got off the ground. Though the two organizations don't share any common members, they do have the same goals — and an affection for the domain name. Before GeekPAC morphed into its current state, it was known as BytesFree — a similar group, but without the political slant. Walker says he originally planned to stay with that name, until he learned that the geek-pac.org domain was available, and then everything fell into place.
Walker formally launched GeekPAC at last week's LinuxWorld Expo by hosting a Birds of a Feather get-together at the end of a long day of sessions. While current and would-be volunteers strategized and planned, Walker took a few minutes to share the group's vision with notable columnist and FOSS supporter Doc Searls.
Though GeekPAC's premise is strong, not everyone is convinced of its viability. LinuxWorld community blogger Don Marti says the idea is likely to fail, in part, because of a poor choice of names. He claims the inclusion of the term "geek" is insulting and suggests it doesn't relay the true goals of the group.
"Creative Commons is a great name. Electronic Frontier Foundation is pretty good," Marti suggests. "You have to get in some words that imply that the people in the organization actually make something useful and that the organization's goals are public goods. Network Growth and Productivity Council?"
Marti also notes that GeekPAC should include singers, podcasters, and other sub-groups affected by information rights. Though the underlying commonality among the members of GeekPAC is an understanding of how these issues impact the FOSS community, Marti says that's not enough of a reason to form a splinter group of nothing but techies.
"There's a community that already exists around these issues — why split off the subset of EFF supporters who happen to be into free software?" asks Marti. "Of course EFF itself can't be involved because they're tax-exempt, but the target is clearly the same people, and their friends and colleagues. A 'free software users for DMCA reform' group would be like 'cat owners for a balanced budget'."
At the end of the day, it won't be the group's name or membership demographic that decides GeekPAC's success. Walker says it will be "When politicians and candidates start referencing us by name because our influence is large enough to matter."
Index entries for this article | |
---|---|
GuestArticles | Hoover, Lisa |
Posted Aug 14, 2008 10:32 UTC (Thu)
by phip (guest, #1715)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Aug 14, 2008 13:03 UTC (Thu)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
Posted Aug 14, 2008 15:04 UTC (Thu)
by johnmark (guest, #47025)
[Link]
Posted Aug 14, 2008 11:08 UTC (Thu)
by yodermk (subscriber, #3803)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 14, 2008 15:03 UTC (Thu)
by johnmark (guest, #47025)
[Link]
Posted Aug 14, 2008 16:18 UTC (Thu)
by pdundas (guest, #15203)
[Link] (15 responses)
Posted Aug 14, 2008 16:53 UTC (Thu)
by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)
[Link] (7 responses)
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."
Posted Aug 14, 2008 17:23 UTC (Thu)
by johnmark (guest, #47025)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Aug 14, 2008 17:35 UTC (Thu)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 14, 2008 18:35 UTC (Thu)
by johnmark (guest, #47025)
[Link]
Posted Aug 14, 2008 19:12 UTC (Thu)
by njs (subscriber, #40338)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Aug 14, 2008 20:54 UTC (Thu)
by johnmark (guest, #47025)
[Link]
Posted Aug 14, 2008 20:56 UTC (Thu)
by johnmark (guest, #47025)
[Link] (1 responses)
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?
Posted Aug 14, 2008 17:16 UTC (Thu)
by johnmark (guest, #47025)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Aug 14, 2008 19:41 UTC (Thu)
by BackSeat (guest, #1886)
[Link]
You have to talk to your audience in their language, not (y)ours.
Posted Aug 14, 2008 23:21 UTC (Thu)
by pdundas (guest, #15203)
[Link]
Posted Aug 15, 2008 15:18 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (2 responses)
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?
Posted Aug 15, 2008 19:26 UTC (Fri)
by johnmark (guest, #47025)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 16, 2008 17:40 UTC (Sat)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
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.
Posted Aug 15, 2008 20:20 UTC (Fri)
by oak (guest, #2786)
[Link]
Posted Aug 16, 2008 4:42 UTC (Sat)
by Wiseburn (guest, #49432)
[Link]
Posted Aug 16, 2008 13:15 UTC (Sat)
by N0NB (guest, #3407)
[Link]
Posted Aug 22, 2008 20:28 UTC (Fri)
by whydoubt (guest, #53523)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 26, 2008 17:58 UTC (Tue)
by lisah (guest, #52402)
[Link]
GeekPAC to fight for information rights
Thanks Jon & co for all the hard work that goes into making LWN
the excellent publication that it is.
I hate to complain, but I was rather disappointed to see the following
crude metaphor:
> So lots of digerati swing around their proverbial phalli and talk
> 'digital rights' this and 'DRM' that, and it becomes a kind of
> high-tech circle jerk that is constraining and ultimately self-limiting.
This point could have been made just as easily without being vulgar
and detracting from an otherwise good article.
Best Regards,
Phil
It's a quote - not something our author wrote - but I agree, we didn't need that. Somehow I missed it when I read through the article.
GeekPAC to fight for information rights
GeekPAC to fight for information rights
A little vulgarity goes a long way :)
-John Mark
GeekPAC to fight for information rights
Fully agree that the GeekPAC name is a terrible choice. Realized that well before the quote
from Don Marti. We need to be reaching out to *everyone* to convince them that these ideas
are worth fighting for. Few people identify with the word "geek".
GeekPAC to fight for information rights
My feeling on this is that geek has morphed into something far different from its original
meaning. The term "geek" can now apply to any number of fields of work, eg. film, music,
cooking, etc., so I'm not sure that it's a term people won't rally around.
However, if the term does limit the group's appeal, no one will be more disappointed than me.
-John Mark Walker
Founder, GeekPAC
What's in a name
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!
"Innovation Rights Council?"
What's in a name
What's in a name
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/
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
What's in a name
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
>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
*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
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
What's in a name
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
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.
What's in a name
What's in a name
Sure - let's discuss the issues. I registered on the GeekPAC wiki, so you can reach me through
that.
Paul
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.
Rental society
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
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.
What's in a name
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.
IPAC
Linux Journal reported on a similar effort, IPac in 2005.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8115
GeekPAC to fight for information rights
Lovely. Just what we need, another special interest group on Capitol Hill adding to the
noise. Unfortunately, since those who would and do restrict information access already have
their own lobbies, a special interest group focusing on information freedom is a necessary
evil. Sigh.
I'm not opposed to the premise and I hope success is realized. Unfortunately, Of the People
has been replaced by Of the Special Interest Group far too much the past 40 to 50 years as it
seems as those in power respond less to the wishes of their constituents and more toward those
who can grease their palms. It's an unsavory situation.
On to the name. While GeekPAC isn't necessarily off-putting to me, I do agree that if the
support of the general public is desired, then there needs to be some way to jar the thought
process toward their daily life. While closed file formats and copy protections are ornerous
for developers and IT staff, right now the biggest audience for the PAC is the person who
simply would like to time shift HD video content using the DVR of their choice.
Unfortunately, cable and satellite TV providers are locking their customers into their own
proprietary DVRs some of which seem quite inferior to others.
Also, beyond just being a PAC, the group should look into allegations of providers ignoring
FCC rules regarding Firewire activation (as posted to Slashdot yesterday:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/15/1842259 ) and pressure congress into
pressuring the FCC into enforcement of their own rules. Another thing this group can do is
become a leading voice against enactment of the broadcast flag. Becoming an advocate for the
public's fair use rights with regard to HD content will garner the PAC the largest base of
support from the general public. So, I think the PAC's name must be attractive and
descriptive to this large segment of the public for the widest possible base of support.
GeekPAC 2002
I have to wonder if there is any association with the GeekPAC from 2002.
http://www.linux.com/feature/22325
GeekPAC 2002