[DMCA-Activists] Re: Declan on Activism (fwd)

[Serge Wroclawski]

I don't think Declan's response got posted so I've forwarded it.

( a few comments on it )

Declan's point is well made- I don't disagree either that software writers
should write software and try not to let the draconian laws which are in
place/comming forward stop them.

I was thinking a few days ago how bad things had gotten for us...

I mean it's got to be really bad if the geek are getting out from under
thier under-lit basements and out of thier chairs, away from thier
computers even (for a little while) to do things like go to meetings,
protest and whatnot. That's how you know it's really bad, when the geeks
go outside. ;)

Seriously though, Declan's right- it's our right and duty to put forth
these efforts and to help them continue if we can.

I just don't want any of us to be discouraged by the current situation,
and we must find some way to organize if we want to sucessfully have our
side heard.

I think a better angle on Declan's story might be, let's find effective
means of getting our message out and to the right people, rather than
spending a lot of {time|energy|goodwill|money} on means which won't get us
where we need to be.

- Serge Wroclawski

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:01:45 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <address@hidden>
To: Serge Wroclawski <address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Declan on Activism

Serge,

Thanks for the response. I'm not on dmca-activists; if it's a
restricted-posting list, feel free to forward this note.

Yes, for the record, I agree that the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions
are a bad idea. I'd get rid of those and the other two parts of the
copyright-expansionist troika: the NET act and the copyright term extension
act.

And also, I should say that my column was designed to get my readers to
think about the real-world effects of online activism. Do I believe that we
should give up on all non-coding activism? Of course not. But what has been
missing is a careful appreciation of the costs and the benefits of it.
Would you rather see Ian Clarke start a certain-to-be-ignored postcard
campaign instead of inventing such a disruptive technology as Freenet?

-Declan

PS: Zimmermann never was prosecuted, or even indicted.


At 06:54 AM 8/13/2002 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>I'm sure others read the Declan McCullugh story either in Politech or /.
>http://news.com.com/2010-1071-949275.html?tag=politech
>
>This is an interesting article... I've known Declan for a while, and I
>think he's on our side against these laws and the situation we're in now.
>
>I simply can't agree with him that we should not involve ourselves
>directly with these political activities for the following reasons:
>
>1) We can't afford to
>    Even if we believe that Declan is right- that we can nullify laws by
>practical means, that does not solve the problem. Thw law will not go
>away. I do not see a technical means for making the DMCA go away other
>than by using technologies which would hide our work and identities,
>further emphasizing the connection in some people's mind that "hackers"
>are criminals.
>
>2) It doesn't help non-geeks
>    The VCR case against Sony in 1984 helped more than just Sony- it helped
>the entire population gain explicit rights that were threatened.
>Similarly, if we make technologies which help only us- those technologies
>will never reach a large audience. For some, this may be acceptable
>(having the "good life" for oneself), but for us in the Free Software
>community, this should not be acceptable. I see our vision as to spread
>freedom to all people, not just the select.
>
>3) We may not be able to keep this up forever
>    We can currenly fight the big powers with skill. We can find a way to
>break the DVD encryption code, or something else, without a great deal of
>difficulty. But how long can we keep it up? I have doubts that the
>opposition will stay "dumb" for the next 20-30 years.
>
>4) Lobbying by professionals
>    Declan is right in one thing- we're not necessarily the best at
>lobying. But neither, necessarily, are other people in other industries.
>They're smart about it. They choose individuals within thier organization
>which are, or they hire professionals. We may find that it's necessary to
>self-censor- that is not always trying to represent our point, in
>recognition that sometimes, the ones who are the most passionate aren't
>always the best ones to speak (this is a very difficult lesson). And when
>we give money to other organizations like the FSF, EFF, Public Knowledge
>and so on, we may want to encourage them to do more professional lobying
>for us.
>
>5) Get involved with local community
>    If we can help get a foothold in local government (town governments) or
>at least help be an asset to the community by offering
>training/education/computer resources, then we'll be a lot better off by
>having a strong user base. The more that regular people hear about us and
>our work , then we will be able to get a base of people on our side- some
>of which may be useful as lobyists or contributors (code, education,
>volunteer time, money).
>
>
>
>I agree that we need to continue working with the tools we have to further
>our Freedom, but doing this and working with the legal aspects are not
>mutually exclusive.
>
>He gives the example of PGP, but leaves out the government sued Zimmerman,
>and that it was Eben Moglen who defended Zimmerman and got the
>cryptography export laws changed.
>
>We must continue to fight on all fronts if we want to win.
>
>- Serge Wroclawski