One Woman's Fight to Save P2P

jalefkowit writes "I'm a writer for the Online Community Report, and in our last issue we ran a story I wrote that might be of interest to the Slashdot readership. Slashdot has already mentioned the campaign of Tara Sue Grubb to unseat Howard Coble in North Carolina's 6th congressional district. We thought this story merited some deeper analysis, so I put together a piece entitled "Tara Sue Takes Aim" that ran in the latest issue of OCR. I'd love to hear the community's opinion of our take on the significance of her campaign."

Comments

Optimistic? Very. Interesting read nonetheless.

[GreyDuck]

My take on it? Snowball's chance in hell. Not her fault, or Dave Winer's, just how it's going to play out. The piece is worth reading anyway, both for some choice rhetoric and a few bits of background info for those of us who aren't Radioland devotees or political pundits.

All of those nationwide supporters aren't going to help unless they all have close friends and relatives in the district of contention, now are they? Combine that with the widespread voter apathy in this country and... feh.

(Side note: The recent mail-in elections here in Oregon barely stirred the needle above "Total Apathy," even with parents who had very vested interests in the school funding measures! "Oh, the measures won't pass anyway, so I didn't bother." You said WHAT?!? Grrrr.)

Re:Optimistic? Very. Interesting read nonetheless.

[testadicazzo]

All of those nationwide supporters aren't going to help unless they all have close friends and relatives in the district of contention, now are they? Combine that with the widespread voter apathy in this country and... feh.

Well, I agree with you on the first point. But the second point: well, because of the widespread voter apathy in this country, you only have to get a small populatin of the people to actually give enough of a shit about an issue to get a victory. It makes it easier. So if you give a damn, vote!

Re:Optimistic? Very. Interesting read nonetheless.

[seven89]

My take on it? Snowball's chance in hell. Not her fault, or Dave Winer's, just how it's going to play out.
. . .
All of those nationwide supporters aren't going to help unless they all have close friends and relatives in the district of contention, now are they?

It isn't necessary to win an election in order to win one specific issue. If the funding and other support Grubb gets from bloggers is enough to enable her to capture, say, 20% of the votes, then Coble might decide that further services to the entertainment industry would be a political liabiliy.

A "losing" campaign can also accomplish a great deal in terms of organizing -- getting people involved and enthusiatic and working together and learning about issues. This could lead to more powerful challenges in subsequent campaigns and perhaps, ultimately, victory at the polls.

These days, most political campaigns are based on "big money" which is spent on TV ads, etc. But a true "grass roots" campaign can do enough on-the-ground, door-to-door work to make up for low levels of funding.

If outside support merely buys some miniscule amount of local advertising, then it won't make much difference. If it used to support local organizing, e.g., to pay for flyers that campaign staff go door to door handing out, etc., then it might make a lot of difference.

You know, you'd think with all the bitching we do

[raehl]

We'd have a Political Action Committee. We're geeks, we're well paid, and there's about 250k of us who read this website daily. Even if we only averaged a $100 contribution each per year, that's still 25 million dollars annually. We could buy ourselves a good handful of key legislators with 25 million dollars, outlaw MS in government, protect business models that compete against RIAA and MPAA, and keep that bloody spam out of my mailbox.

The NRA has huge amounts of political clout, and I'd like to think that geeks are at least as numerous, wealthy, intelligent and organized as gun owners. Maybe it's time we stopped bitching and got off our asses and did something about it?

Precedent for future campaigns...

[Shalome]

All P2P issues aside, it's fascinating to think about what this form of campaigning means to the American public. Ponder for a second the legions of disaffected Americans who sit at their computers daily, reading blog after blog. Wouldn't you like to read a blog written by, say, your elected official? Not some slick press-release from the public relations branch of said official's staff, but an actual blog -- real thoughts and opinions. Would you be more inclined to vote? I hope to see more of this in the future. Most Americans don't vote because they feel so distanced from the political process, and from the politicians themselves. Most of us don't even really know the views of the people on the ballot (since we're all too smart and hip to buy into the media mudslinging and muckracking that campaigning has turned into.. right? RIGHT?) If more officials did something as courageous as putting their thoughts and opinions out there in the ether like Ms. Grub, can you imagine how the political process might change? Geeks might vote! Intelligent people might get elected, not just ones who can afford a good PR department! And wouldn't that make the world a better place?

A cultural revolution is happening

[ites]

In "Ender's Game", Orson Scott Card depicted a world in which a few individuals could influence society simply through the power of their words, via the Net.
Something like this is starting to take place. The online word is almost powerful enough to counter traditional political forces: the backroom politics arranged over a handshake and a drink.
This fight is attracting those with an interest in P2P and the Net. Tomorrow's fights will be more broad based.
But, please, someone find a better term than "Blogging"!

Has everyone written the Rep?

[HerrGlock]

Has everyone who is part of Tara Sue's campaign written, on paper, with envelope, Howard Coble to complain about the idea of MPAA or RIAA being able to hack at will?

Congress tends to blow off email, like it or not, and pay a lot more attention to written letters and more even to handwritten letters outlining the person's stance on whatever issue.

A quote that stuck with me from a Congress person's interview, "People don't contact their congressmen anymore. Hardly anyone writes letters, or even calls. As little as 12 letters has directly influenced the way I handle issues and represent the people... I can only assume if those dozen people care enough to write, there are thousands of people I am representing that care just as much, but never took the time to write."

Write, write, write. Email, and call as well, but write. If the Rep then ignores the letters, then by all means set up an alternative for voting, but while the election is there, write as well.

DanH

It's not about music, it's our PRIVACY stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a REPUBLIC my friends. My rights end where your rights begin.

On P2P, Privacy rights far outweigh copyrights. There is always an alternative. Coble and Berman want to portray us as pirates because they know the average individual is smart enough to see this bill for what it is. Who's gonna listen to a pirate, right?

I'm no pirate. I've never stolen anybody's eight cents. I'm protecting our right to privacy. I'm doing Mr. Coble's and Mr. Berman's job---pro bono! These boys need to head back to law school. They just don't get it.

The Coble/Berman camp thinks Libertarians should support this bill. There are many issues surrounding P2P other than privacy and IP. If it passes, this bill will set a dangerous precedent for the future of our privacy. Show me a law that hasn't been abused by a lawyer and his client somewhere.

There is another important point champions for free markets support. There are several extremely successful business models that have demonstrated the advantages in file sharing. Phish and the Grateful Dead are the two largest "cult" bands in history. They encourage their audience to share their music. They have record sales and performances. They have a real touch on what it means to participate in a free society.

The goal of a free market is to weed out the weak. It's ridiculous for industries to yell "foul!" when a new industry hits the scene. It is not government's place to ensure any particular entity's market. That priviledge belongs to the consumer. In this case the consumer is telling the industry what it wants. Berman & Coble are saying they don't have to listen.

The manner in which the entertainment industry has chosen to compensate for its weakness is beyond deplorable. I myself was the recent victim of a virus or hacker. These are very bad, but if you contribute to the Coble/Berman campaign, it's ok. These double standards are outrageous.

Another issue is the trade off of privacy for protection. The author of "Let Hollywood Hack" (one of the articles on Mike's blog) James D. Miller, says:

"While we should regret any loss of privacy, fighting crime often requires reducing the privacy rights of innocents. For example, our privacy is violated when we walk through a metal detector or are searched by airport security Indeed, NASA may soon even scan the brains of airline passengers in efforts to detect terrorists. Surely, scanning hard drives is far less objectionable than scanning brains."

I am almost reluctant to respond to sophmoric arguments such as these. I am not convinced that the need to fight this crime outweighs our right to privacy. And I don't see that it ever could. Miller compares this issue to airport security, which of course is beyond ludicrous. First, lives are not at stake in P2P. Secondly, scanning a citizen's personal computer is far more intrusive than walking through a metal detector. Allowing Hollywood to arbitrarily hack into a PC, not knowing the user and actual perpetrator is unjustified. And third, comparing the scanning of hard drives to the future of privacy violations is senseless. Of course scanning hard drives is less objectionable than scanning brains, but that is not happening. A reasoned argument does not throw out some unrealized, futuristic possibility to shock and amaze in order to lessen the gravity of our situation.

In addition to all of this, sacrificing privacy has not ensured one ounce of protection, it has merely provided the illusion of its existence. As we know, metal detectors don't stop terrorism. The P2P bill won't stop file sharing. In fact, it will increase any perceived loss and add to consumer contempt. This because two men hadn't the nerve nor the wit to protect the constitution and encourage good business. That is the real casualty.

Libertarians aren't sell outs. That's why it takes so much of YOUR effort to put them into office and that's why I don't support this bill. It reaks of corporate favortism at Liberty's expense. And every person I talk to understands this.