How do you petition congress when the company your going against has more power than you?

Question

I wouould like congress to pass a new version of the copyright law that basicly abolisheis the DCMA and replaces it with something like the the early 1980s version of copyright, with the slight tweak that all new software or digital media must be true open source with gnu pricipals 1 and 3 enforced. (meaning use is user directed not corprate directed.) Trouble is, most media companys have loby power. How do we defeat them. I am looking for actual stratagies, not mearly sentiments.

Answer 1

to actually win this battle you will need to find someone who can write the law, then you will have to find a senator and a representative that will sponsor it. if that happens the usual mode of operation will be undertaken and in about two years you may actually see some kind of action. 3 to 5 years from the time the process starts you may see votes in appropriate committees and soon after votes by both houses. depending on who is in the white house at that time if it ever was passed it may well be vetoed. a lot of "wheels" to be "greased" along the way but it is POSSIBLE just without strong financial and political support highly unlikely.

Answer 2

Realistically, you are an ant on an elephant.

But everybody except the RIAA and the Copyright owners hate the new law. You could start a web site with the intention of creating a movement.

Write: Press Releases

Find out which legislators are on the committees that deal with the issues and start dogging them

Consult with legal experts to draft proposed legislation.

You need to get numbers of people on your side.

Your position reminds me of an old story told by George Washington Plunket. He stated that you don't succeed in politics by going to college. He said you go to your uncle and ask him if he would vote for you. If he says, "Yes." then you can go to the politicians and say, "I've got two votes."

Answer 3

This is really complex, but your core question is you petition the same way as you always do. You contact your congresspeople.

How you get a bill passed is another matter.

While I am sympathetic to your position (I blog on the issue, and have been involve din the early stages with one of the top 2 or 3 open source software company ipo and also one of the top closed source software IPO of the dot com era), your rhetoric is not really well thought out.

E.g.....

IP law is fundamentally based on the "promotion of arts and sciences" as embedded in the Constitution itself, and while yo may not realize it, you are describing a change in a regime that is embedded in worldwide treaties as IP law is normalized.

So, if you want to change that, you need a Constitutional amendment and worldwide agreement to redo the sovereign treaties.

That is a might tough row to hoe...


So, if you want a new regime, you are going to need a new approach.

One way is to simply get your congresspeople to recognize that the dmca damages the "promotion of arts and sciences" clause of the Constitution. That seems more feasible.

Another is to find or create a new way to license sw - gnu is revolutionary that way, and creative commons is a even newer, carefully thought out approach from one of the leading constitutional scholars of our day.

But I can tell you that no one, even the staunchest gnu supporters such as RMS suggest that imposing costs on developers is the way to go, for lots of very well thought out reasons.

If you are solidly convinced otherwise, then you ought to pursue your own education and career to that end as folks like Stallman and Lessig have done...


see fsf.org, eff.org, creativecommons.org, and chillingeffects.org for more....

Answer 4

You are old fashion.

The copyright law must go along with technology.

Are you working in a company? In a company, the computer and those software installed are the property and responsibility of the company.

If a company know the violation of copyright with its software and computer, that company will be counted responsible to those violation.

Simple idea: it is more easy to persecute a company instead of tracing individual. It is also do-able because they got money to subcontract those prevention to security company.