

Would the actions of the Digital Economy Bill be tolerated “offline”? - bensummers
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/03/18/would-the-actions-of-the-digital-economy-bill-be-tolerated-offline/

======
m0nty
If you're in the UK and were thinking of writing to your MP, use this form to
do so:

<http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/extremeinternetl>

You don't even need to be particularly detailed or articulate. I used to work
for a political campaign and the mantra from our lobbyist was "Politicians do
not read their mailbags. They weigh them."

~~~
bensummers
However, our lovely UK politicians have a history of counting all the many
responses from a campaign as "one response" from a single organisation, then
disregarding it as a minority view.

Lobbyists are so much easier to listen to than constituents. I'm wondering if
there's merit in hiring some to represent the interests of the wider
population? Perhaps we could call them MPs.

~~~
m0nty
That's right. Better to not write, not participate, not change anything.
Nothing can be done, after all, so don't do anything.

~~~
bensummers
Where did I say anything about not contributing to the bulging postbag?

It's not that I don't believe in expressing views to those who are supposed to
represent me, it's just that I have very little faith that my view counts for
anything.

When the system rejects rationality and evidence, and is perfectly happy to
explicitly state that this is what they do (eg Prof David Nutt's experience),
should I expect millions of voices to make a difference?

I am not apathetic or disengaged, I just suspect that I don't have enough
money for my view to count for anything. I am depressed about continually
getting HTTP 402 response codes from my MP.

Should I have a more positive outlook?

~~~
m0nty
"Should I have a more positive outlook?"

Yes, I believe you should and I apologise if I came off a bit snippy. The
campaign I was involved with (the PCG, opposing IR35) was ultimately
unsuccessful in parliament but won some victories on a case-by-case basis and
ultimately made a significant difference to people's lives. In my own case,
the Inland Revenue tried to over-tax me but were forced to drop the case
because of what the PCG did. Did I feel pleased about that? I think so, yes.

I also wrote letters about the RIP Act when that was going through parliament.
I wrote to (and met with) my MP, Mark Oaten, who seemed like a thoroughly
decent and intelligent man who grokked the issues immediately. I also wrote to
Jack Straw, Tony Blair and (because she was saying the right things) Anne
Widdecombe, even though I suspect she is in all other respects quite barmy. Of
course, they ignored me, afaik.

What I think did make a difference was a casual conversation with an
acquaintance who turned out to be the Conservative front-bench spokesman in
the Lords for Trade and Industry (Francis Lord Northbrook if you're
interested). He asked me to write a briefing paper, which I did -- a couple of
sides of A4 saying what was wrong with the legislation. He used it as a basis
for his response to the RIP Bill, as it was at that time. OK, it shouldn't
come down to personal acquaintance but it sometimes does, and if I hadn't
written all those futile letters we would never have had the conversation
which prompted his request to me.

Now to my point: if the situation is really that desperate why even post the
article? Just STFU and continue to let them rip you, me and everyone else off.
Or you could, you know, _engage_ with the flawed people in this flawed
situation and possibly, I don't know, do something to make a difference. Win
or lose, I'd rather participate than sit and whine about things.

"What did you do during the Internet Wars daddy?"

~~~
bensummers
I believe I can say that I have done my bit in the Internet Wars so far, and
will continue to do so by engaging with the flawed people in this flawed
situation. As you point out, posting the article suggests more than a passing
interest in the situation.

But I see the system as flawed and part of the problem, and have a huge amount
of frustration stored up as a result of trying to talk to my elected
representatives. Please excuse my whining; it is a symptom of desiring
positive change and trying to do something to get there.

------
axod
It's taken months for them to get it through the Lords.

If they manage to get it through the Commons in 10 days flat that would be a
ridiculously impressive feat. Can't see it happening myself...

[http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.h...](http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html)

~~~
bensummers
They're proposing to use a special "end of government" process where the whips
agree amongst themselves it should pass without debate.

------
euroclydon
I wish some creative person could subvert the meaning of the word "internet"
by establishing different protocols that exist on top of existing
communications infrastructure.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
If you mean you want to alter the scope of the DEB by redefining the internet
then that won't work.

UK Judges commonly look at the intention of law when considering judgements
and when the normal language [at the time] is not sufficient to define the
word then definitions are included (made up example: "for the purposes of S4
the meaning of xylophone excludes instruments constructed primarily of
metal"). Also there are laws on harmonising with European law and so when a
law is drafted and intended to harmonise with European law the interpretation
in the European courts can also be taken into consideration.

Perhaps this <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers> is the sort
of thing you meant?

------
moron4hire
The "home sewing" comparison is false because you pay for the non-exclusive
use of a pattern and the materials to produce your own clothing. People who
pirate music aren't paying for any use license and aren't creating their own
music.

~~~
bensummers
Hopefully that was just clipart, rather than any serious suggestion. It's not
mentioned in the article text.

~~~
seertaak
Home-taping, however, _is_ mentioned; a comparison only slightly less
egregious.

