Your Cynicism About Lobbyists Only Helps The Lobbyists Win
from the too-much-cynicism dept
Last month, I posted the letter I helped put together from a bunch of entrepreneurs to the US's Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, as a part of the open comment period on the most effective forms of copyright enforcement. One of the most frustrating responses I heard was "it doesn't matter, the law is bought and paid for already." I can understand why many people feel that way, and it's absolutely undeniable that the entrenched entertainment industry interests have a very successful lobbying program that has a long history of success in getting the laws they want. But such things are not set in stone, and can absolutely be overcome.Earlier this year, when This American Life did an hourlong episode on lobbying, there was one message that has really stuck with me: yes, lobbying has tremendous power in terms of its impact on Congress and the White House, but votes will trump lobbying every single time. I can't remember which politician said it during the episode, but it was made clear: in the absence of the public speaking out on an issue, yes, the lobbyists will likely win. But if the public is interested, no matter how much money is spent, the public will win, because the votes matter more than the lobbyists. Always.
I'd been meaning to write about this in response to the defeatism I saw after that letter, but Public Knowledge's Sherwin Siy beat me to it (and did it much better, since he's got a hell of a lot more experience on this front), pointing out that the best way to fight big money politics is to speak out and take part. Yes, it may seem like the deck is stacked, and yes, the lobbyists have plenty of power -- but that power only works if the voting public stays quiet.
In other words: your cynicism only helps the lobbyists.
Trust me, I understand where that cynicism comes from, and there are significant problems with the way money works in politics today and just how corrupt the system often appears. But, as Siy notes, all that money is a means to an end, and the end is to get re-elected (or elected in the first place). And that means that votes -- and the people behind the votes -- can trump money in politics. The larger problem is that we can't do that for any and every issue. But saying that you shouldn't even bother to speak out at all is self-defeating. It's automatically handing victory to the lobbyists.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: activism, cynicism, lobbyists, money in politics, politics, speaking up, votes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How long has TD been doing stories on copyright/patent issues? No matter how much work TD tries to do to help people change their minds, the majority of voters, also known as "artists", will ensure their welfare system keeps giving them pennies (while their publishers take the cream from the top).
To them, they can't see beyond the welfare system. To them, everyone's a "thief", only out to take things for free. These are the same voters who'll back the lobbyists because they allow the cream to be taken for their "survival".
SOPA didn't fail because the public voted. SOPA failed because a few select organizations blocked out their pages and forced the voters to make phone calls. I'm sure they saw this as some form of extortion, especially since most of the blackout messages were of the wrong issues regarding SOPA.
What's worse is these organizations have the power to stop these laws. Stop and think for a second if Google put a banner on its page which read "We are no longer complying with the DMCA because the law is flawed. Please contact Victoria Espinal, and your Senators, to have these laws removed."
But, in 2012, we don't have such banners on websites powerful enough to get people to understand.
Therefore, my cynicism for change will not be seen in my lifetime. It was 1997 when the DMCA was passed, and it's been well over 10 years to show it's a system of abuse, not protection, and yet it still remains on the books.
As well as the ridiculous copyright changes perpetuating all these issues which were done in 1976.
When the voters stand up and realize they have the power to amend the Constitution to remove/alter Section 1, Article 8, then we can talk.
Until then, I'll just sit idly by as people vote for government bodies who allow people like Victoria to get her job in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hear you loud and clear Meso, ignorance can be quite disconcerting. However consider that sentence a little more. The public did in fact vote, even if they were "forced" by stark messages showing up where their favorite Internet services should have been.
Look at it this way, if no one made an effort to get the word out about SOPA, and speak their opinions to the government, it would have passed.
Likewise, if it weren't for the 'early few' who have been researching and sounding alarms about copyright laws for years, what are the chances so many senior management teams at tech companies would even have been paying attention and been cogent to the possible effects of SOPA-style legislation on their businesses?
Filling in holes of ignorance is very much whack-a-mole-like in gameplay, only less rewarding as chances of hitting that mole are pretty low. It's probably the kind of game most people can't play all day every day... certainly not me.
Like everything new, every change in politics requires a catalyst, a sacrifice and the force (support) to drive it to manifestation. Nothing at all ever happens in their absence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In Soviet Russia the people's will was drained by endless standing in queues for whatever everyday item happened to be in "short supply" this week. (eg, toilet paper, razor blades, etc)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think the majority of the people who called or wrote or spoke to their congressmen about SOPA were artists. (And why the scare quotes?)
>> SOPA didn't fail because the public voted.
I agree. SOPA failed because people got off their butts and spoke out--which is, I think, Mike's point. In our representative democracy, voters have abdicated direct responsibility to elected legislators--for better or for worse--and usually don't speak up--for better or for worse. So, when a few thousand voters from a given congressman's district call or write about a single issue, they get noticed because that is a huge response and (assuming they don't come across as crackpots) will be assumed to multiple many hundreds of times over.
>> if Google put a banner on its page which read "We are no longer complying with the DMCA because the law is flawed. Please contact Victoria Espinal, and your Senators, to have these laws removed."
ICS would confiscate all their servers--and then destroy them because they didn't have space to store them. :)
But, seriously, there is a difference between violating a law (what you proposed) and opposing a proposed law (the SOPA blackout, which broke no laws). There is also a difference between individual civil disobedience (sitting in the wrong-race section of a bus, etc.) and corporate disobedience. One is a matter of individual conscience, the other is a matter of corporate suicide. It's also worth noting that, while corporations are virtual people, they have no conscience
>> When the voters stand up and realize they have the power
How will that happen if we don't educate them? How will that happen if we don't LEGALLY (so we can't be silenced) and PUBLICLY (so we get their attention) raise their awareness, stir them up to act, and incite that realization and change?
RIAA and MPAA certainly are too busy producing lame anti-piracy adutainment comedy.
Who is going to show artists effective ways to be successful without the big labels and the collection agencies? Because until there are enough examples for them to follow, enough evidence to support those examples, and enough data to demonstrate that those methods are more profitable in the end even if they do require more work up front, most artists are going to take the easy way out. (Because they're human, and artists, and don't understand all that business crap anyway. Which is why they probably won't be successful in the long run even with a label.)
Sony, Warner, EMI, and the like certainly aren't going to bother. They're too busy looking for the next one-hit-wonder who can make them a bundle--because they're in the business of making hits, not art (to quote a music exec in recent article here).
So, while I understand your cynicism, and even share some of it, you are the evil in Mike's article because, if everyone sits idly by, nothing will change. SOPA is a prime example of what happens when we STOP sitting idly by and speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And people only got off their butts because Facebook and Google went down. Any other time they wouldn't give a damn what law passed, picking their friends crops on Farmville and/or watching porn is too important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I doubt anyone wants to open a Constitutional convention. Because you cannot limit it to a specific provision, everything is on the table, like
Abortion, gay rights, gun control, due process, religion, taxes, etc, etc. It would be utter pandemonium and everyone knows it- that's why it will never happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This here^ a million times.
Most artists are selfish, greedy, egotistical, chicken shit imbeciles who would cry into their pillow at night if they didn't have some law to hold their hand.
They whine and they simper about how the MAFIAA oppresses them yet they give them all the power. People offer to help and are turned down as "trying to freeload or steal from them". Stupid stupid stupid.
I don't think I hate the MAFIAA nearly as much as I hate other ARTISTS.
The MAFIAA didn't insult and harass me because I made fan art which I offered as a GIFT to the person I was making fan art of without permission. ARTISTS did.
They wank and they cry and they bitch and they moan. At the end of the day they are their own worse enemy, even more so than any entertainment industry ... which is made up of .. well, THEM. That says A LOT.
If MAFIAA, and probably, copyright disappeared tomorrow artists would still be up their usual business of RESTRICTING, REMOVING, SHAMING. All out of some perverted, corrupt idea of 'respect'. Because they want to tell you what to do. They can't get over the little high having control gives them. It's like a goddamn DRUG.
Spoiled children. All of them. What I wouldn't give to see everyone of them bend over, whipped on the ass with a belt and made to sit in the corner wearing a dunce hat.
The root of the copyright problem is ARTISTS. And the ONLY way anything is going to be changed to find some way to either override/overpower their influence or convert them or take their power away. I need my midol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Until that changes, the status quo will remain and the money men will always get their way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But in politics today, I'm not sure there are any good candidates to vote for (at least, not in my neck of the woods), so I usually have to pick the least bad or not vote. (Usually least bad.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I truly feel sorry for Americans that are tired of 2-party politics... where there is no 3rd choice. In the UK at least there is a 3rd choice and a few fringe parties... but even then fringe parties tend to be derided - not by the main party politicians - by the voting public itself.
When the UK Pirate Party started running, a lot of ill-informed people consider it to be another Monster Raving Loony Party - just a joke. This is but one of the perceptions to overcome.
But there is a bigger perception to overcome in order to see the 'power of the people' channeled correctly and that is the cognitive dissonance displayed towards 'intellectual property' in general.
Just checkout this YouTube video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4ioBjbPliU
Then read this review-
http://www.slashfilm.com/lol-thai-rip-off-of-disneys-beauty-and-the-beast/
Disregarding the quality of the movie. Stop someone in the street and ask them what they think of GM Toons animated Thai "Beauty and the Beast" movie, most of them will respond along the lines of "Oh it's a poor rip off of Disneys movie - despicable".
Then ask them what they think of modern media conglomerates like Disney using public domain works such as "La Belle et la B�te" by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve and using them to create animated movies... the response will usually be an opposite one of approval - they may even justify it as a good thing that the work is being adapted for a modern audience.
In order to get copyright issues into a mainstream issue - you have to overcome this kind of mindset. I can tell you it's like try to force the equal poles of 2 magnets together.
I'm reminded of a lesson from history, both Bach and Beethoven were considered by the church at the time to be "devils music" and only played by those godless liberals.
Perhaps it's really down to a disdain for older works. The older the work gets, the more disdain - but somehow a derivative work (by a major brand) earns a level of respect the original will never again see. Anyone wanting to do something similar with the original work somehow then gets the stigma of being a poor imitation if catering to a similar audience (in the example above: children).
But I digress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a website were made that updated with every issue in Congress, who was responsible for it, and allowed users to identify their county of residence and voice their opinions, that would be progress. The Representatives and Senators could then see who would specifically vote them out of office come next election for every bad decision they made. That would represent some significant hurt to lobbying efforts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are a *lot* of sites like that...
http://www.govtrack.us/
http://www.opencongress.org/
https://www.popvox.com/
http://ww w.washingtonwatch.com/
https://www.votizen.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And, ultimately, taking the time to actually call in and speak to someone for 30 seconds to register your opinion, carries far more weight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases
�RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases� by Nate Anderson, Ars Technica, Mar 28, 2011
When the copyright lobbyists run the courts, then maybe the lobbyists have won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases
http://www.uscourts.gov/Common/FAQS.aspx
Federal judges are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate--both of which are elected bodies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"A byproduct of these fake debates is the need to disregard facts or science or common sense." -- Thomas Boswell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Pull your hand out of the box and look at it, young Human."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The public spoke up when it came to internet regulations, but it just keeps getting pushed. If they truly cared about the votes, they would step up and stop any more BS before it got started. Maybe even try to pass laws that go the other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, do you really believe that Lucy van Pelt will yank the football away from Charlie Brown every single time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As Mike said, the lobbyists are banking on your cynicism. It's reasonable cynicism, which is why they're banking on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
SOPA/PIPA went so well because large internet companies put the word out and actually let people know the issues at stake, if not I doubt that any notice would have been taking by major broadcast networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because voters haven't spoken up enough on *those* issues. They spoke up on SOPA and that worked, but the lobbyists will try again and people need to speak up again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Must be nice...
Then it hit me - aah, it was not an euphemism, he probably means real legal lobbying... like when a politician can only use the money for the political campaign and not buying yachts and houses at Bahamas. It must be nice to live in a country where you just assume that lobbying is mostly legal and politicians (and therefore laws) cannot just be bought.
I know how it looks... but I am not cynical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A book to read...
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/04/160541977/mickey-edwards-on-democracys-cancer
I don't necessarily agree with the author on some of the minor details - but the overall point is spot on.
Both of the political parties in the country are equally and egregiously guilty of rigging the game to 'beat' the other team - not do what is right or even needed for the district or state they represent. The end result is two amped up teams, playing with our country's future like it's Monday Night Football(tm).
The two party system has to go, or at least allow more accountability to the voters. The ogliarchs here in the US will continue to buy both sides, and rig the system in their favor no matter who pretends to steer the ship...
bleah... even ranting like this makes me feel unclean - I need to go shower to escape the filth that is our political system.
But I will definitely find this book to learn more...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why aren't you telling people to stop illegally downloading material and do not buy the product and tell the company why you aren't buying the product, but above all stop stealing it, because it lets them win??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I thought piracy was doing harm!? And now you tell me that pirates are actually letting "them" win!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you didn't choke yourself so much on industry phallus you might have realised this, googlypants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA
That's all it takes really, pressure, and time.
That, and a big goddamn poster. (and open wallets.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pirate sites such as dajaz1 or Rojadirecta?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dear Mr. Thread Jacker,
"Any attempts" kind of glosses over the fact that there's been only one remedy theme tried over and over in Congress to address the "problem" of piracy... censorship without recourse or due process.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Now that I've written that through and thought about it, I'm going to stop writing to an insane person now, because that's just crazy.
Regards,
AC
P.S make better movies and appreciate the paying customers you haven't lost.. whoops... coo coo, coo coo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
SOPA was entirely consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and afforded targeted websites the same rights as any other civil litigant.
Now you get industry agreements like search engine demotion and payment processors severing ties without any judicial oversight. If you think you are better off as a result of SOPA's defeat, that's fine by me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Knowledge is a lobbyist...
I find it hilarious to see the so-called public interest non-profits claim that they're fighting for our digital rights. In many of their cases, they're just fighting for the rights of a small section of the population and pretending that it helps everyone.
Are these groups fighting for my copyrights? Nope. Are they fighting to come up with rationalizations and excuses for why other people can ignore my copyrights? You betcha.
Everyone forgets that there are companies that make a big profit when digital rights like copyright are destroyed or weakened. These companies also contribute heavily the so-called public interest firms to try to weaken or destroy digital rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Knowledge is a lobbyist...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Knowledge is a lobbyist...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how?
The letters and the calls do help -- but obviously it only works when lots of people write and call. The form letter responses are frustrating, but in aggregate these things do make a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voter Reform
"Politician" as a career choice needs to end.
So far it seems Switzerland is the best example the world has ever seen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Voter Reform
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Electoral votes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Electoral votes?
Although, it's possible your state has already joined the compact, so check into that first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Electoral votes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Electoral votes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Electoral votes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Electoral votes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Example: War on Drugs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did we not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did we not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a two-party state ...
No wonder the US has such a low voter turn-out.
Maybe you guys should try this thing called "democracy", along with another thing called "rule of law". You may be surprised at the results :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American Plutocracy
Have you never told someone "THE NSA, WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE MAJOR TELECOS IS CAPTURING ALL YOUR PHONE CALLS, THEY'RE MONITORING ALL YOUR DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS, THEY HAVE EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE KNOWN ABOUT YOU, THEY EVEN HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THE CCTV CAMERAS FOR FACIAL RECOGNITION AND TRACKING OF YOU, IN VIOLATION OF YOUR PRIVACY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ITS BEING KEPT SECRET FROM YOU. THEY WILL NOT SAY WHY OR WHAT THEY NEED THAT INFO FOR" ???? I _have_ and guess what? BLANK STARE then back to some stupid sheeple, self important shit that isn't at all concerned for the greater good. Because unless Google, or CNN or some other douchey major corporate entity tells them to be concerned, they don't fucking care. These are the same sort of people who judged Socrates deserved death, and they are the majority of Americans.
America is doomed: Innovation is on the decline, same as science, education, the arts, especially critical thinking. It sucks but that is the reality. You can lead a horse dying of dehydration to water all you want, but if that horse wants to just stare at it like an idiot instead of drinking, you can't make it drink, not unless you want to become a dictator and force its head into that water, which frankly, you probably ought to for its own damn good. Too bad that horse will fight back, because it's been taught to think that dehydration is normal, good and acceptable by the government and media brainwashing.
Look no further than the popularity contest our elections are. They aren't about electing the person best fit for the task, nope its who is more popular. The fact we have a whopping TWO CHOICES doesn't bother anyone, at all. The fact that those two choices equate to a Douche or a Turd Sandwich, Every Fucking Election, nope nothing to see here. That one of the choices will seek to turn the government into a private police force for copyright and the other choice will seek to censor sex and legislate womens bodies like a backward, fearful of knowledge & progress idiot, doesn't even give them pause. Why? Because the majority of Americans are stupid, willfully, embracingly stupid. Instead of thinking about the actual issues, they say "I'm a one issue voter" as in "I hate taxes and even though I'm told taxes pay for things I expect as a baseline standard, I'm gonna vote republican because fuck anyone who needs assistance, those lazy scumbags just need to get a job" (bootstrap myth) or "I'm a moron who thinks that because one person shot up a movie theater, and I think I'm super important, I will definitely get shot *anywhere* I go and if I died, the world would Totally notice and be worse off and so I'm voting Democrat so they can take away guns, then I can leave the house again." Doesn't matter that there are more complex problems than these, that would take too much minimal effort to think about and develop an opinion of such problem.
We live in damn Plutocracy but heaven forbid we bother to acknowledge that. No, that would take EFFORT. We love, LOVE to say that people can have the "American Dream" where if "you just work hard enough, you can pull yourself up by the bootstraps and become successful". Nope, sorry, but that is a myth. The 'bootstrap' myth, specifically. The system is designed to keep you down and not allow you to join the entrenched ranks of the wealthy and successful. We're here to drive the economy so they have continuous wealth and people to provide service to them.
We do not live in a righteous or just world. We live in a world of cruelty, unfairness and privilege, where the privileged few rule the rest. It's pure fantasy to believe otherwise. There is no hope, get used to it, or get used to being ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: American Plutocracy
Remember, the public was told about SOPA/PIPA, and then informed itself about ACTA. All three were defeated through sheer public outcry.
Most people may not care, but enough do. After all, you're a person too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: American Plutocracy
�ACTA�s Defeat in Europe and What Lies Ahead� by Maira Sutton, EFF Deeplinks, July 12, 2012:
(Internal hyperlink omitted.)
When the spokeswoman for the U.S. trade representative says, �ACTA�s membership may initially be more Pacific-oriented...�, well, that's not completely defeated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I always vote
I am also worried about voter ID campaigns which are set up to prevent certain groups of people from voting. I hope these don't succeed because if they do the system may be gamed so that only voters who support the status quo will be allowed to vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wish we could do something like this as well. Politics now is too much based on candidate personalities, backgrounds, and party affiliation. The issues themselves don't get as much coverage. And I think if voters were presented with issues without knowing the people associated with them, they might actually vote according to what they want to see happen rather than a kneejerk reaction to the politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]