Lessig's Challenge: Are You Up To It?

Eloquence writes "At the 2002 Open Source Conference, law professor and cyberactivist Larry Lessig, last prominently featured here because of the Eldred case, asked some poignant questions: 'How many people have given to [the] EFF more money than they have given to their local telecom to give them shitty DSL service? How many people have given more money to [the] EFF than they give each year to support the monopoly--to support the other side?' Luke Francl has interpreted these questions as a challenge, and decided to chronicle both his donations to good causes and his less voluntary payments to 'the media oligarchy' on this page: Lessig's Challenge. This is a good idea if others imitate it: If these pages become interlinked with each other, not only can they motivate us and let us track our progress, they may also help us to keep each other up to date about 'good causes' -- there's more than the EFF, after all. With Harry Potter in theatres and Lord of the Rings before us, should 'nerds' also be thinking about supporting those who fight for our rights to, say, play DVDs on an open-source OS?"

Comments

Exploding Dog?

[dietz]

Uhm, this is sorta weird.

He bought a print of a small artist and counted that? He donated to a radio station and counted that? I buy lots of things from small companies. But small companies don't lobby. They don't actively undo the damage that giving to your local telecom does. That's why Lessig mentioned the EFF.

I mean, I'm a hypocrite by posting this I guess, since I have never given to the EFF, but if I just get to count purchasing things from small companies/artists, I'll clobber my telecom bill every month, guaranteed.

Re:Exploding Dog?

[wunderhorn1]

I believe the idea is that it's not enough to simply boycott the Entertainment Cartel, because most of us couldn't go without movies/music forever. We need to support friendly independent entertainment sources so that there will be alternatives to the media conglomerates.

Also, assuming you spend a fixed amount of money per month on entertainment, each dollar given to independent sources of entertainment is a dollar not given to the media conglomerates.

In this way we work to take down the media cartel and put up a friendlier system in its place.

The problem with this, though...

[InterruptDescriptorT]

...is that while the EFF does good works, and I am a member in good standard having given nearly $500 in the past year, the problem is one of motivation.

While regular folks and even a lot of techies realize that not paying their DSL/cable modem/satellite Internet bills is going to get their service cut off, the same cannot be said for the EFF. Yes, I totally agree that there may very well come a day where we cannot do anything due to companies strong-arming governments to pass legislation to reduce what we can do with the Internet, but unless and until the majority of folks get this message and understand its severity and urgency, Lessig's challenge will be unsuccessful.

I would also like to point out that many people take issue at some of the causes that the EFF fights. Please don't let one or two court challenges that the EFF helps with deter you from becoming a member if you already haven't. The fact is that the majority of the EFF's aid is of critical importance to my and your free speech rights and they need every cent of help we can offer.

Re:money

[Hellkitten]

OSS will lose its appeal the the mass if they end up having to pay for opensource software as well

There is the difference between having to pay and choosing to pay

Also of course if you are a programmer you could give something back to the community by helping develop OSS. If you're not you could help with ideas, bug reports, etc. And if you're a lazy unskilled idealist you could donate

Not just nerds should fight, but all people

[StandardCell]

The problem here is how to bring that message to folks. An uncontrolled medium such as the Internet is very easy to at least publish and, to a lesser extent, promote. The sad part is the very media that would reach the masses are controlled by the other side - namely, television and radio. It's the lowest common denominator, yet how do you penetrate it when it is on the opposite side of the fence?

This needs to start with us, every day. With our secretaries, our neighbors, our grandmothers, everyone in every way. Word of mouth is powerful. But it can't just stop there, and I fear that it won't be enough in the end. With digital tv and DVD Audio just around the corner, and more severe copyright controls, you can bet that this problem will be even worse, and this message will sadly be further quelled. Nevertheless, it all starts with us...

post-rationalization?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you *really* believe that these companies are doing wrong you shouldn't be spending your money on them in the first place. Believe it or not, you'll be able to live without seeing hobbits on the big screen or having 1.5Mbps into your bedroom. Giving money to the opposition after the fact may make you feel better, but doesn't change the fact that you've already compromised your morals!

Re:post-rationalization?

[mosch]

the world is not so black and white, my friend.

for many people a fast internet connection allows them to work from home, thus extending the life of their car and decreasing their oil consumption. So then you must decide whether it is more hurtful to support their telecom/cable company, or to support the auto and oil industries.

the world is full of tradeoffs, to pretend otherwise is foolish and naive.

Do we get our money's worth with the EFF?

[91degrees]

Lets be honest - just how much success have they had? They've managed to get the word out about open source, but they failed to stop the DMCA, and none of their legal fights against it have been particularly succesful.

And lets be honest - it was RedHat's lobbying that reduced the effect of UCITA. The only thing that stopped the CBDTPA and that P2P protection bill was the noise made by people on discussion forums writing in protest.

Re:Do we get our money's worth with the EFF?

[Beautyon]

they failed to stop the DMCA

Maybe its because they didnt have enough lobbying cash? You cant expect them to work miracles whilst being underfunded.

it was RedHat's lobbying that reduced the effect of UCITA

RedHat has money to do this good work. Perhaps people should buy a 7.3 box to say "thanks".

Either way, its a fascinating idea; match dollar for dollar the money you spen on the monopoly, on people trying to protect us from it.

An example of great thinking...

Re:Do we get our money's worth with the EFF?

[Eloquence]

I don't know if the EFF is the answer either. Generally speaking, the ACLU seems to be more effective, but they cover a larger scope and not everyone agrees with their politics. I hated the EFF's "Tinsel Town Club" cartoon -- it may sound like a good idea to produce a cartoon to convey complex ideas, but it was a Flash video, not even a particularly good one, which makes it unsuitable for anything but web use. They probably spent big bucks on hiring designers to do these cartoons -- bucks that came from the people who donated to them. I would have preferred it if they had asked their membership before doing this.

I also think the EFF should have built a more weblog/community style website long ago. Their current site still looks very 1997-ish to me, without much potential for interaction. People aren't really given many incentives to visit eff.org regularly, which makes it less effective to issue calls for action. That's what they should spend money on. Projects like Indymedia, love them or hate them, need good software to run on, and this software would be developed faster with some help, while benefitting EFF's own site at the same time. And then they could also have spent money to fund interesting peer-to-peer-projects that are related to free speech.

Generally speaking, too few people at the EFF have a real clue about how to use the Internet to coordinate grassroots activity, and they are definitely not spending their money as effectively as they could. They're acting more like a traditional lobbying organization, with their impact more or less proportional to the amount of money behind them. The RIAA and MPAA, of course, will always be able to outspend them, so better strategies are needed.

I don't know any alternatives, though. I always thought Slashdot would be in the best position to organize effective grassroots protests (a real Slashdot effect, not just a server-related one), but the editors seem more concerned about movies and anime -- no offense intended.

Not sure...

[pubjames]

I'm not sure if I can totally approve of this type of activism, because it mirrors exactly what is wrong with the USA today. It shouldn't be just about "how much money". If you really care about something, get off your butt and do something about it. Get vocal - organise grassroots movements, write letters, explain the problems you see to your friends, family and community. But don't just expect to buy influence with money - that's what is currently ruining the democratic fabric of the USA.

Registered Charity?

[oliverthered]

if the EFF registered as a charity in the UK then the Government would topup any contributions I made.
Is the EFF a charity?

Internationality

[gorf]

I'd happily make donations to the EFF if I knew that they'd act for issues I'm faced with too (I live in England).

The last time I checked, I couldn't find any information about whether they would do this (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Of course, the rest of the world (Europe especially) do seem intent on matching American laws, so making American law sane would indirectly affect me, but that seems a very roundabout way to make my money effective.

Re:Other side?

[Eloquence]

Open source developers would love to do just that. But if you're trying to play a DVD under Linux, you'll run into problems: To play the DVD, you need to decrypt it. This is impossible to do legally with an open source application, as it violates the American Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which prohibits circumvention of copy prevention mechanisms. (Even creating a legal, closed-source player requires payment of licensing fees for the keys, which is impossible for a Linux distribution that can be downloaded and distributed freely.) There may eventually be a commercial closed source player, but that is obviously incompatible with the whole open source idea.

The DMCA will be implemented in different variants world-wide. This is a real issue: To play DVDs on Linux, you need to break the law, in America and soon elsewhere as well. That's why it's important to change the law instead of just passively ignoring what's going on and hoping that the problems will go away. If you do that, what's currently the case with DVDs will soon be the case with all commercial media, thereby defeating the whole point of open source.

Note that the copyright cartels have already successfully gone after people who distributed the DVD decryption software, and even those who linked to the tool that allows doing so. They love the additional control over content use that the DMCA gives them, and they'll fight to keep it and to extend it even further (which brings us to Microsoft's Palladium).

Re:What about actual work?

[Eloquence]

I agree, there are definitely different ways to contribute. In the end, it's about finding the right balance. If you contribute some content to the public domain, but still consume most of the blockbuster movies produced by Hollywood, you may end up helping the oligarchy more than hurting it. The question is not "What's better" but "What's the sum of my actions".

It's also about capability: Some people can only contribute money, others can only contribute code, others can do both. That's why it's so stupid to tell people who complain about open source to fix the problems they report -- some people can't code, but they may help by donating or by reporting problems. Everyone who doesn't have to spend most of their time struggling for survival (which is, unfortunately, true for a large part of the world population) can contribute to open source and open content.

Re:Please

[serps]

Spare me your pet causes. You do what you wish with your duckets, whatever makes you feel better. I will do as I please with mine.

I believe you are confused.

Ducat n.

1. Any of various gold coins formerly used in certain European countries.
2. Slang.
   A piece of money.

vs.

Ducket n.

1. A container for storing ducks.

You can do what you please with your ducats, but please be careful with your duckets. Ducklings can break.

Re:money

[bwalling]

And if you're a lazy unskilled idealist you could donate

If you're a "lazy unskilled idealist" you probably have no money.

Show your support - quit arguing.

[QuietRiot]

You can show your support for one of the best electronic freedoms lobbying groups here. Accepted methods of payment include

1)Send Me a bill
2)Credit Card
3)EGold/EDinar
4)Network for Good
5)PayPal
6)Stock

6-12 Months of Anonymizer Private Surfing is included with a minimum of $25 donation. Your gift is 100% tax-deductable.

A visit to the Action Center at the EFF would be useful as well. Do your part or watch your rights slip away! Direct others to help you in the fight.

EFF and the Combined Federal Campaign

[superid]

In a startling coincidence, I read this article as I was filling out my yearly Combined Federal Campaign donation.

It had never occured to me in the past that EFF might be on their big list but they are! So this year, my donation has gone to the EFF conveniently via payroll deduction and the CFC

For those of you wishing to do the same, the CFC code is 2229

Re: Counter-Challenge to Prof. Lessig

[raresilk]

I am so 100% with you, quistas, on the spam thing. Supporting spammers allows the forces of evil to paint EFF as knee-jerk opposed to any form of internet regulation, rather than standing for a sensible, even-handed and realistic vision of the digital commons. Which is what I thought Prof. Lessig was advocating. So I have a counter-challenge for him:

Professor, I understand that you urge people to donate to the EFF an amount equal to what they spend on products from the MPAA, RIAA, and other cartels pushing for abusive laws and DRM schemes to further their Mafia-like control over information and culture. But the EFF has demonstrated that it will spend donations, not only for that purpose, but also on unconscionable lobbying against well-respected legislative and community tools to control spammers -- the hands-down worst abusers in the internet culture. I have read your book "The Future of Ideas" and was impressed by what you had to say. But I cannot for the life of me imagine how the ubiquitous spamming of unwilling net users could be regarded as a positive component of the "digital commons" you described.

So this is my challenge to you, Dr. Lessing:
Respond to this post with a persuasive defense of the EFF's pro-spam lobbying, which convinces me that my freedom as an internet user is enhanced by forcing me to continue being bombarded with emails for porn, fraud, and garbage products. If you persuade me, I will immediately donate $500 (the estimated amount I spent this year on cartel-controlled media) to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.