The Lobbyist’s Recipe
Not a day goes by when we are not asked to make your voice heard about this terrible law and that terrible restriction of freedom. Jono Bacon and Stuart ‘Aq’ Langridge talk about the common approach digital rights and other lobbyists groups use to raise awareness of an issue an whether it actually works when contrasted to how the opposition approach these issues. Is it time to change the approach?
Of course, we are the very start of the discussion! What do you think? Do you think digital rights and other lobbyist groups are effective? Do you think their contributions are effective? Do you think we need to propose positive legislation or always be on the retaliatory and defensive about oppressive legislation and laws? Share your comments in the shot comments below…
65 Comments to “The Lobbyist’s Recipe”
Leave a Reply
sorin7486 (83)
Derek (72)
marxjohnson (61)
Flamekebab (50)
b1ackcr0w (49)
Hessiess (42)
James Duncan (42)
mg (42)
tola (40)
Shane Fagan (39)
In fairness, I contacted my MP and asked him to oppose a Bill. He then agreed to oppose it, and wrote me a detailed letter about why he did so. I cannot complain too much about this.
This is roughly what ORG would ask me to do, no?
Oh, and the BPI get to point at a successful industry and say it’s going to die…and they get to do so during the drafting before the ORG even knows what is going on. This is a specific threat.
The ORG has to claim that the status quo of restriction and control by record companies is a bad thing, and that allowing the internet to cause large scale change to a successful export industry is warranted. I personally believe that it is, but I can see why MPs who know nothing about the net and free culture arguments find it easier to be persuaded by a status quo they can see rather than the opportunity cost they can’t.
Tom Watson is at the forefront of the “positive” campaign in UK politics. He’s proposed a list of “Digital Pledges”[1] outlining how he intends to campaign in favour if digital rights. We need to encourage more behavior like this amongst politicians. If they want our votes, they should have policies on this too, not just on crime/education/healthcare.
The problem is that while the BPI and ORG may not share the same culture, the BPI and the current government do. With more MPs like Tom Watson who listen to grassroots campaigns (and who know what they’re talking about in the first place) groups like ORG are far more likely to succeed in not only fighting bad legislation, but proposing good legislation too.
Forgot the link: [1] http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/
And what good did Tom Watson do, eh? None. Most of the House of Commons weren’t even there to hear his remarks, and those that were were not swayed by them,
Tom Watson organized a labour rebellion against a 3-line whip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_%28politics%29#United_Kingdom); he put his membership of the Labour party (and thus his re-election and his job) totally on the line by voting against the bill as did every other Labour MP that voted against it.
OK, it didn’t succeed because of sheer numbers but that guy did more than most under intense pressure.
Wow. I wasn’t aware it was a three line whip. I’m kind of awed.
I’m not, in any way, disputing Watson’s devotion to the cause, and I have nothing but respect for him for it. This shot is about how it ever got that far in the first place. We can’t rely on elected representatives, in almost any country, to prioritise digital rights, unless they’re effectively lobbied. (Or they’re natively in favour of digital rights, which Watson, commendably, is.) So…where’s the effective lobbying? Who’s doing it? Industry groups seem to be effective lobbyists; why are digital rights campaigners not?
“Industry groups seem to be effective lobbyists; why are digital rights campaigners not?”
Being offered a job as an unpaid lobbyist for the ORG after you retire from politics is not quite as attractive as being offered a well paid job as a lobbyist for the BPI (or whomever).
However, I do agree that we should be going on the offensive, and let the BPI (and RIAA) have to lobby against us. They seem to have adopted an entirely new tactic with ACTA, which is to conduct all the lobbying and negotiations in secret in order to subvert the democratic process. If they are successful with that, then I expect to see that tactic used much more in future.
My point is more that the reason that ORG campaigns and the like seem to fall on deaf ears is that Tom Watson’s “cluefulness” and conviction are in the vast minority.
You said you didn’t think that anyone was cynical enough to suggest that corporations and consortiums can just write cheques to change laws, but I think it’s been made pretty clear over the past couple of years that money has had quite a lot of sway in British politics. Even if it’s not a straight case of writing a cheque, it seems clear to me that the people with money are the people who get listened to. The only way to change that is to change the type of people doing the listening.
I wrote to my MP, Ben Wallace, about the DEB 3 times. The first time he was wishy-washily in support of it, the second time he was wishy-washily against bits of it and the third time he was just generally wishy-washy, but promised to vote against it if his party (the Tories) thought it was a good idea to do so (which they didn’t).
He then didn’t even turn up to vote (after accusing me of being unfair about complaining about his lack of attendance at the 2nd reading).
What’s interesting to me is that the Stop 43 campaign by photographers worked brilliantly (section 43 of the bill introduced an “orphan works” policy that would basically make it very easy for people to violate your copyright by claiming they didn’t know who the copyright holder was).
Now, I think Stop 43 succeeded because the Stop 43 people managed to point out the flaws in the orphan works section really well. In fact, come to think about it, they had well-established industry groups (The British Journal of Photography, the SPPA and so on) with them, whereas the ORG isn’t an industry group – it’s an against-the-industry group.
I don’t think it helped that the BPI lobbyists were (anecdotally) referring to the ORG and similar groups as “freetards” when talking about the DEB on Twitter, etc. Making your opponent look stupid is actually surprisingly easy when the vast majority of people you’re contacting are ignorant of the bigger issues.
Yep. This was Jono’s point — that digital rights groups like the ORG are not representatives of a meaningful demographic. If that’s the case then the problem isn’t the ORG’s skill or lack of it at lobbying, it’s that they’re lobbying on behalf of a group of people that the government just doesn’t care about. If that’s the case then we might as well stop complaining, or find a way to grow the demographic.
In lobbying, the one who successfully defines what the centre is wins because they frame the Overton window. Media has a lot of firepower in that respect, even setting aside the political pressure that people like Murdoch can bring to the table (he has a large financial stake in this through Sky) in newspaper and other media support.
Compared to how many people that can sway, ORG is a minority group both in numbers and in political benefits that can be provided.
Stop 43 is a pro-copyright control movement, and one that benefited from the movement towards control being pushed by the BPI. I don’t think it can really be viewed in isolation in the context of the overall lobbying picture.
What’s the point of contacting any MP? They are democratically elected representatives of the party they stand for. They will cast their lot in with whatever the party whip tells them to do, not their constituents.
Agreed. That, though, is not something to be bemoaned; it is the point of party politics. One does not elect a Congressman or MP or TD or other government person merely to be a mouthpiece for the constituency; if you did that, you wouldn’t need elections in constituencies.
I’m not sure that your comment makes sense.
‘One does not elect a Congressman or MP or TD or other government person merely to be a mouthpiece for the constituency; if you did that, you wouldn’t need elections in constituencies.’
Constitutionally the duly elected member of parliament for a constituency is the representative of the people who elect that member to office. Party politics post-date the parliamentary process (they certainly do in England anyway). The machinations of corporate party politics underlined genuine democracy. The true political voice of the people is unheard, or rather ignored as the politically ambitious seek to build their careers. This is why, for instance, the British public is so blazay over political matters.
Don’t be daft. If you go back before party politics in England, MPs weren’t the remotest bit representative; you didn’t get representation if you were anything other than a white wealthy male landowner. The “genuine democracy” you speak of, where the “elected” MP merely does a poll of all of his constituents on every issue, and every issue is therefore effectively a referendum of the whole country, has never existed. You think people are blasé about politics now? Imagine how they’d be if they had to vote twenty times a day on things they know nothing about?
I’m not being daft. Arguably, from your standpoint, if matters are taken to a logical conclusion then why vote at all? All that is offered is a false choice. Choose to vote to who you fancy irrespective of views of the people. Unless, of course, you prefer democracy a-la Zimbabwe? If choice is based upon whim, fancy or outmoded notions of class loyalty, then we have pseudo democracy.Saying that an MP would be concerned with every issue is an absurd argument.The English electoral system is in urgent need of reform.
wjg – at the moment I feel that we are already at that point. There is little point in voting as one of the two homogeneous parties gets in every time.
Reform is direly needed.
The guys on the other side don’t just have money… they also have economic pressure to which governments have to listen because a good economy makes their voters happy. For example a CEO talks for his entire company not just for himself. RIAA represents the biggest companies in the music industry so whatever they say politicians are bound to listen. So no it’s not like just writing a check, although that also happens rather frequently. Just look up Revolving door (politics) if you don’t believe me.
On the other hand any group fighting for human rights only has political power: the opinion of the people supporting them. And if they can’t show that there’s people supporting them they don’t really matter do they ?
Governments everywhere want to see economic growth so the BPI presented a case for negative growth if the DEB is not passed and positive growth if it is and all backed up with pretty power point presentations that MPs understand.
The ORG can not present a case demonstrating economic growth because the business model that will succeed in the digital age has yet to emerge. Couple that with fact that, in the eyes of MPs, “Rights” only ever generate negative income growth.
I was disgusted how few MPs bothered to show up for the third reading of the DEB, but also tired. I am sick of the British government passing law after law arbitrarily.
It might sound silly, but it’s getting to the point where there’s barely any point in protesting because our government is entirely uninterested in what we think. Given that they are elected to represent us, that does not seem like a healthy state of affairs.
I wrote to my MP, which was utterly futile. Perhaps I should write to whichever idiot gets elected next and establish a line of communication from the get-go. I’m sick of not being represented by my representative.
I’m not particularly anti-capitalist, but it does seem that those with the money get the laws they want passed, regardless of how draconian or oppressive they are.
One problem I’ve noticed with groups like ORG and the FSF — and it’s one that was touched on at the end of the shot — is that they’re always coming out against this thing or that. Any time Apple comes out with a new device or somebody puts out a product with lots of DRMmy evilness these groups send out emails and stage protests.
I would love to see these groups come out in favor of something. Whether it’s a new product or a piece of legislation. Instead of constantly harping on products because they use some “evil” technology or some new law that restricts our freedoms (neither of which seem very compelling to the general public) I want to see them going on the offensive. Create a new product that uses Free culture to its advantage and get the word out to people who will want it. Or draft a law that codifies our rights in the digital realm or strengthens fair use or whatever and build grassroots support behind it.
At the end of the day I just want to see a positive message coming from the EFF, FSF, ORG, etc. I think it’s easier to get the general public behind a message of “This is good! This will make your life better and there are no strings attached!” than “avoid that shiny object because you’ll be terribly inconvenienced if the manufacturer goes out of business!”
I agree completely. I suspect that the problem is not so much thinking up new proposals, but more our digital rights groups not knowing how to put those proposals in a place where they’ll be heard.
Well maybe it’s because they’re fighting a new thing that companies are trying to introduce in order to stop the market from evolving. I mean what do you expect exactly ?.. laws to ban DRM .. or proposals not to incriminate teenagers for downloading a song ?
The pirate party in Sweden for example is pushing for a reduction of copyright to 5 years. I’d love to see that happen but frankly I doubt it could even make it to the floor.. I mean unless they actually get a seat in parliament. Another example is net neutrality. That’s been pushed for quite a few years in the states.
YES! That is exactly what I want. Someone out there trying to codify my rights instead of restrictions on them. Who cares if it won’t be passed this year or this decade? Keep trying! Get these ideas in people’s heads!
It took my country decades to pass even shite healthcare reform, but it got done. Sometimes you just have to wear the “enemy” down.
Well you’re probably right but the problem is when you get down to it things get really complicated. I mean it’s not about our rights it’s about the boundary between different rights. Companies have a right to protect their profit for example so the question is where and how do you do you draw the line.
The healthcare reform was a rather simple thing to put into words that everyone could understand. And it’s the same with net neutrality. But when it comes to freedom of sharing information things get a little bit harder.
The thing for me, is I’m 21, I don’t know a thing about politics, I don’t pretend that I do, so I’ve never voted.
And to be honest I’ve never really felt the need to, you know I have a roof over my head and have done all my life, soo the government and voters have been doing the right thing surely?
But the Digital Economy Bill is the only thing I’ve actually cared about and it’s gone through anyway.
The only problem I have with this, is that the kind of community and people that have requested that this bill didn’t go through, are the kind of people who know it’s a ridiculous law.
The standard user doesn’t know it’s gone through, let alone what it is.
I watched the live broadcast of some of the discussion on the digital bill, and alot of the discussion evolved around the banning of websites. Yet banning thepiratebay.com won’t stop anything, we know that a new website takes minutes to set up (Check out videos to create an amazon cloud service)and then the p2p technology has legitimate uses.
In my mind this bill is to fight piracy, and I respect and support suitable measures. But not this bill, I see the end of public wifi, and the beginning of a new era of piracy.
People will either hack wifi networks, to download without detection, new techniques to avoid detection spark up (Which will be hidden from a standard user) and new methods for copying music and videos from services like spotify and lovefilm.
Then while this new piracy market gets set up, a lot of parents will be fined for their children’s actions (of which many will not know of the repercussions) and a back lash from average users will commence.
This bill has passed because the people with the money who want the bill, have gotten to the right people and gotten it through. And it seems as though our voice doesn’t count, the people who actually know that these measures are wrong.
Ramblings of a guy with little knowledge of the situation in the UK
Lets make sure that the Digital Liberty issues feature in this election. I red Simon Phipps piece to get as many questions as possible submitted to the Prime Ministers debate on these issues. Lets see if the SoJ crowd can add a few thousand questions. http://webmink.com/2010/04/13/election/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8589502.stm
Here is a quote from dot.Rory at the BBC In 24 hours, the hashtag #debill appeared 14,400 times on Twitter, as compared to 1,470 tweets using the election hashtag #ge2010. So, does that mean the mainstream media, with its concentration on campaign news, is ignoring the really big story? Or is this a particularly well-focussed campaign by a relatively small group of activists?
Well, there’s a bloke who works for the BBC who’s talking about it. He’s in a better position to know what’ll get in on the six o’clock news than we are, no?
I would love to fast-forward to see the composition of non-executive directorships in the music industry in, say, 5 years’ time. “After the election you’re going to have some time on your hands and we could do with a man of your experience…”. Perhaps I’ve watched too much Yes Minister!
Rather depressingly, at the root of this whole issue is the £5k a day taxi service. In government, money is influence.
The problem has different answers:
The simple answer is that money does play a role. While Stuart is right that lobbyists don’t usually push over an envelope to a congressman or MP, they do exercise other pressures. When Munich started the “LIMUX” project (switching all public administration to Free Software), Microsoft was very quick to remind the city how many people they employ in Munich. The same happens in a larger scale with countries / constituencies of MPs. In the end that’s nothing else than blackmailing.
The complex answer is that the other side is defining the rules of the game. For the majority of the people on the street, copyrights are the only way to ensure technological success. That’s the logic people are used to and the logic that our societies teach them. People might want free music / movies etc, but are still convinced that they are part of a problem when doing so.
Plain populism is another problem. The discourse on the latest digital right bills in Germany was always with the undertone of “So, you are supporting child pornography then?”, and the British Phonographic whatever is constantly arguing that illegal downloads make artists end up on the street.
What can we do about it? It will take a lot of time to overcome the power of the industries and the way our societies are indoctrinated, but we can certainly work on the 3rd problem. What we really need are alternative solutions!
What can governments do against things like child pornography on the internet and how do we ensure that artists can make a living in a world of free copies? Before we can give good answers to those questions our lobbyists will always end up talking to walls.
My comment ended up somewhere in the middle as well, so in good old open source tradition I would like to report a bug…
Well im in a political party and internally we can just give a representative a phone call and have a chat. Well at least in my party. I wouldnt know how other people do it but my way is good.
I got word back from a few offices about their views about patents and other tech policy and in Ireland most parties dont have any policies in this area.
Thanks for this episode, it touched on some areas which have been on my mind recently.
As a founder member of ORG, but not involved in its operation, I perceive a change in its focus. It used to be a lobbying organisation – Becky Hogge would talk in interviews about their lawyers and lobbyists meeting with MPs, MEPs and the like. There were requests to contact MPs directly, but the focus seemed to be on the “behind the scenes” stuff. That seems to have shifted over the last year, with the campaigning side of ORG growing.
The shift from being a lobbying organisation to a campaigning organisation is a bit disconcerting, for me at least. I was happy paying my £5 per month and letting ORG look after my digital rights. Maybe the scale of the problem has changed, but ORG helped defeat software patents in Europe, so I don’t think it can have done.
I hope that the Digital Economy Bill has switched on this community to the problem of politics and technology. It was clear from the comments on twitter during the debates that we are politically very niave, about what can be expected from MPs and how the political process worked. (Would a debate with all 600+ MPs present have had any real discursive merit or made any difference? I don’t think so.)
If every LibDem MP had been present and voted against the Bill, it would have been a tied vote. Except it wouldn’t. The Labour whips would have just made another 100 Labour MPs stay in Westminster to be shepherd through the lobbies when the time came for a vote. Realistically this Bill was always going to pass, the best we could have hoped for would be a delay to the next parliamentary session. Haranguing MPs for not showing up is cathartic but ultimately fruitless.
There are I suggest three problems for those who oppose the Digital Economy Act: 1) The provisions of the act 2) The parliamentary process which allows major legislation to be rushed through with only a few hours debate 3) The Labour majority in the commons
If the Digital Economy Act has been an eye-opening experience for you, then I suggest you consider the positions of all the parties on the Act and on parliamentary reform when it comes to vote in the election.
And do any of the parties have a good position on the Act? Not as far as I can tell.
I’m deliberately avoiding sounding like a party political broadcast, but of the big 3, labour are for, Conservatives are on the fence* and LibDems voted against it.
My name’s been invoked so I feel duty bound to reply. First off, a POI: although many of the founding members of ORG were involved in the fight against SW patents, ORG wasn’t founded until after SW patents were defeated in EU. In fact, the motivation for founding ORG was in some sense driven by that success – we saw what organising could do so we organised.
From a personal perspective, I think any change in focus you’ve perceived around ORG’s activities will have more to do with timing than with who’s the ED of ORG. When a bill is going through Parliament, then getting constituents to write to their MP is a good strategy. So, when the term extension Bill was going through the European Parliament, ORG asked its supporters to email their MEPs with concerns. But outside of a legislative cycle like this, ORG will be involved in all sorts of other activities to promote digital rights among legislators.
From my time at ORG, I can’t remember any “secret handshakey lunches”. What I do remember is being invited to endless policy roundtables where I was usually the only person not representing industry in some form or another. One incident remains uppermost in my mind. The topic was child internet safety, and I found myself around the table with every major social networking platform you can think of, and various other web service providers and industry bigwigs. One of these representatives actually raised my presence there as an issue – could they speak freely knowing that a “blogger” (they meant me) was in the room? I was appalled. But that’s how government policy was – and probably still is – getting made. Industry and government working together to sort things out in their own interests.
It’s unfortunate, but we must continue to remind politicians that they are employed to work in the interests of citizens. Outside of the legislative cycle, it was enough for me to say “guess what, guys, I get paid to be at this briefing because 1,000 (more now, of course) UK citizens thought it was worth their while to stump up £5 a month to get a citizen-orientated voice inside the policy-making process.” At crucial times like the passing of the DEBill, more is needed, and that’s when ORG asks its supporters to act.
I agree that endless requests to email your MP can get dull. Other interventions are possible (ORG’s volunteer e-voting and e-counting election monitoring campaign, for example, or our “freedom not fear” protest in Parliament Square). I went to the DEB Protest, and apart from anything else, it was a hell of a lot of fun.
I would counsel those who are disappointed with the DEBill outcome not to lose heart. In fact, if you take into consideration the democratic sleight of hand the Labour frontbench had to pull to pass the bloody thing, you might reconsider how effective mass campaigns of the sort launched against the bill actually are. Wash-up simply isn’t the place for a law like the DEBill. It was put their deliberately to insulate it from the organised and vocal public outcry the frontbench knew it would incite. They can’t do that every time. They can’t run from us forever, and we’re getting stronger every day.
Thanks for the comment Becky, just to clarify I wasn’t suggesting that ORG had changed direction because you were no longer ED. It’s just that I remember you talking about some of the “behind the scenes” activities, which I haven’t heard about more recently.
Thanks for clarifying the timescales around the founding of ORG though!
I think that ORG should use all it’s money to hire Joanna Lumley to lobby for us. Problem solved.
I’ll certainly admit that I haven’t had time to read the comments yet, but I’m afraid it sounds like you guys are complaining about having to be a part of an active democracy. I agree that it’s very wearing to receive all these calls for action (and we get them in Australia too – anyone on GetUp’s mailing list, GetUp who do fantastic work, btw!), but the only way to have your MPs represent your opinion is to tell them what it is.
I certainly agree that a number of these big business lobby groups are strongly influencing laws that feel draconian, but obviously they have sufficiently good reasons that they’re able to convince politicians who are the one who actually have to vote them in. If the ORG and other similar lobby groups have better arguments, then they should win. Perhaps the arguments are not sufficiently strong, and I wonder why that is. Is the majority of the public not sufficiently interested/educated about the rights they enjoy today to make these kinds of bills important political issues? Do they take it all for granted, and don’t feel they can do anything about it when some of those rights are given up for thinly veiled commercial or other narrow interests? I get the impression that the level of education in the community is much higher than, say, 50 years ago, but that we’re a lot less aware of the importance of some things, especially civil rights (look at how long the US Govt refused habeus corpus for Australian David Hicks, and how the Australian Govt was quite happy to accept that).
Anyhoo, rant, rant, rant.
You’ve inspired me to write to my MP and a few others about our internet filter idea down here – at least the Opposition doesn’t have a policy yet, so they might be open to influence, unlike the in-power Labor party who refuse to consider any alternatives or even tweaking feedback after they announce a policy.
Not got around to listening to this particular shot yet.
But, may I please ask where the photo is from? EG The flickr page it came from maybe? I ask because I am 99% sure I used to know someone in the photo, and wanted to have a closer look etc.
Thanks. = )
Not got around to listening to this particular shot yet.
But, may I please ask where the photo is from? EG The flickr page it came from maybe? I ask because I am 99% sure I used to know someone in the photo, and wanted to have a closer look etc.
Thanks. = )
This sort of thing is precisely why something like an internet bill of rights is needed. It seems we are always on defense against bad legislation. When it comes to technology the Linux community is always really good at rejecting the de facto way of doing things in lieu of something better. This is how we should be protecting our legal rights as well. We say to the politicos that some lobbyist has no idea about how the internet should work and offer up something better than ACTA or the bill that just passed in England. We need to find a way to beat them at their own game.
Aq: In this shot, you said that we aren’t living in the world of the Neuromancer yet. I maintain that we are not as far as you are giving credit, because the entire reason that we have to keep putting up with these bills is money. Thrown at legislators by the RIAA, the MPAA, and their ilk. I speak mainly for the US, though I cannot believe the UK and European counterparts would use much different tactics.
I give you a case in point, and that would be Senator Ernest “Fritz” Hollings (D-SC). “Although he represents South Carolina, Hollings is sometimes known as the “Senator from Disney” because of his eagerness to support the interests of the motion picture and record industries and their lobbying arms, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Record Industry Association of America.” He was about any pro-MPAA/pro-RIAA legislation that came down the pike, and he was clearly on Disney’s payroll.
As for the repeated bills like ACTOR, and all of these, the anti-freedom groups get their heads handed to them, so they try a different tack to try to get the restrictions through.
Just remember, all that has to happen for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
–vr
Nah, you’re not quite following my point, although perhaps you are and Hollings is particularly venial. I do not believe, in the UK, that the BPI have explicitly said to a bunch of MPs, “we will pay you X amount of money if you create a law which favours us”. For one thing, it’d be illegal. Now, I don’t know the details of American politics; perhaps that’s OK and accepted there? But it isn’t in the UK.
Is American politics really that explicitly corrupt? I can quite literally buy a law and no-one minds?
I don’t know that there is the obvious money changing hands, but I’m sure there is some amount of lobbyists’ “Hey, how about a junket for you and your family to our Sandals Resort in Jamaica?” I’ve seen some statistics about the kind of crap that congresscritters in the US have done. For instance on a “fact finding” tour to Israel, they had to spend several hundred dollars on kosher alcohol for the trip…Which was in a Gulfstream G5.
I don’t necessarily think that they are taking money on either side of the Atlantic. I think that both sides are getting “perks” that they can, in their own minds, say “I’m not taking a bribe.” but they are still getting “perks of office.” Maybe I’ve been made cynical by the abuses that we have seen over the last several years in the American government, which IMHO is way out of control, but I think that the people at the top feel entitled because of their positions.
I definitely agree that we need to create positive legislation. Cause legislation gets passed through all the time. Thats what the big corporate media lobbyists use. Reacting doesn’t do much, except maybe get something dropped.
So the problem comes down to we “the community” have the time, people and money resources to hire great lawyers, lobbyists and others to pester politicians into accepting our positive legislation proposals. Deep pockets and motivated people are needed for this unfortunately. And I’m not sure we are in a position to do this.
I agree. Essentially, there, what you’re saying is that the ORG just flat out aren’t any good at lobbying, because all the people who know about lobbying go somewhere where you get paid to do it. That’s quite possibly the truth. You need to come right out and say it, though, if that’s what you think, because if we all think that then we can start thinking about how to solve it — maybe we don’t have digital rights groups because they don’t work, or we need a more narrowly focused digital rights group specifically about copyright which can afford to employ one good lobbyist, or something else.
So the wider question is what sort of society do we want. One based on collective decisions or one based on money and influence. This is essentially the fight that Lawrence Lessing has now taken up in the US.
If it boils down to getting the most money in order to employ the best lobbyists, aren’t we always going to lose?
No that’s not what he’s saying…. read again. He was talking about corruption basically.
this was supposed to go here:
“No that’s not what he’s saying…. read again. He was talking about corruption basically.”
That depends, firstly on what you lobby on, secondly on who agrees with you, and thirdly on the only motivation for all lobbyists being money. The open source movement relies, critically, on the idea that people will work without high pay, and that large companies that can afford to pay will see some benefit in code being open. Are there companies who see some benefit in copyright being relaxed?
sorry for the double post but I think there might be a problem with the comments cuz mine didn’t go where I expected …
I don’t want a society based on “collective decisions”. I want to choose a representative who thinks roughly like I do and then trust them to get on with it. If I wanted to vote fifty times a day on what the offshore fishing requirements in the North Sea should be, I’d have become an MP. The root of my complaint about the ORG is that, although they represent my views, they’re not very successful. If that’s because they need to be more skilled in that representation, then let’s talk about that. If it’s because my views are such a minority that they’re not really worth representing successfully, then OK — it’ll be a bitter pill to swallow, but I’d rather know that than continually fight valiant rearguard actions which get stamped into the dirt.
Actually you might have that wrong. I don’t think you’re supposed to cast your vote and then live in a cave for the next 4 or 5 years until the next elections. The world is complicated, that’s true, and that’s all the more reason for people to be involved as much as possible.
As for the ORG I’m sorry to disappoint you but rallying supporters is about the only leverage they have. So if you expect somebody to fight for your rights on your behalf without bothering you then no, that’s never going to happen. I mean if your thinking about elected representatives would work then the politicians should fill that role… but they don’t.. well not all the time at least.
oh and btw.. DEBill means crazy in romanian
Why? What leverage do the BPI have that the ORG do not? Sure, the record companies can say: we will stop selling records in the UK. That will cost N jobs and X damage to the British economy. At that point, are they realistically representative of their community? Do you think that artists would be comfortable with that?
They don’t have to go to that extreme. The fact that they represent billions of dollars of business is quite enough. All they have to do is show how much more money they could make if this law is passed to have a really good argument. Because money means taxes and jobs both of which are good for politicians. Now if 10 or 50 or even 100 geeky fellows that are volunteering for some NGO go to those politicians and try to make a point about why that law is bad their word won’t have any weight by comparison. That’s because their votes don’t make a big difference. I mean you could count on politicians just doing the right thing but that’s naive. So unless the activists can show that a great deal of people care about this nobody will even listen to them. It’s all about the greater good.. if you believe that. Or about the dozens of other reasons we’re not even considering. Everything from campaign donations or a fat paying job to manipulation of the media. Don’t forget, it’s not corruption if it’s regulated.
The UK economy is in do-do. So is an even bigger economy. Think global.
There’s an elephant in the room, mate, or is it an 800lb gorilla.
If you think that none of the potential candidates in your constituency represent you even slightly, then one of two things is the case:
I wasn’t talking about me and my community. I was talking about ORG or any other organization and how hard is for them to do anything without the support of their community.