Fixing IP Law Extension at the Source: Boycott

Posted 24 May 2002 at 18:12 UTC by lilo Share This

This is a serious problem. Will legislation, such as is described in this article, pass? Hard to say. But the source of the problem is clear. The way to proceed is to boycott the members of the RIAA and MPAA.

These are the people creating the problem. They are the members of the RIAA and the major members of the MPAA, including:

The Walt Disney Company
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
<Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.
Paramount Pictures Corporation
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
Universal Studios, Inc.
Warner Bros.

Whatever is done to prevent the laws they propose, they will keep on proposing such legislation until they get what they want. These are the people who paid to have the DMCA passed. These the people you need to start boycotting. Don't wait for them to succeed. When you buy from these people, you are supporting ongoing attacks against fair use and free software.


harder than it sounds..., posted 24 May 2002 at 19:43 UTC by bstpierre » (Journeyer)

Even if you only wanted to boycott the seven companies you mentioned, you're going to have a harder time than you might think. Let's just look at Walt Disney, which owns:

  • publishing - books (Disney, Hyperion, Miramax)

  • publishing - magazines (Automotive Industries, Biography, Discover, Disney, ECN News, ESPN, Family Fun, Institutional Investor, Jane, JCK, Kentucky Prairie Farmer, Todin, Top Famille (fr), US Weekly/50%, Video Business, Quality)

  • cable channels (ABC, Disney, soapnet, the ESPN family/80%, A&E, History, Lifetime, E!, and others internationally)

  • TV distribution (Beuna Vista, Touchstone, Disney)

  • TV and radio stations in 10 and 9 markets, respectively. (Note: multiple radio stations in every market they're in), plus syndicated Disney and ESPN programming

  • Movie production (Disney, Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures, Caravan, Miramax, Buena Vista Home Video/BV Home Ent/BV Intl)

  • The Disney store

  • interest in a petrol/natGas production company

  • internet (ABC.com, abcnews.com, oscar.com, Mr Showbiz, disney.com, family.com, ESPN, soccernet.com, nfl.com, nba.com, nascar.com, skillgames, wall of sound, the go network, toysmart.com)

  • music (Buena Vista music group, Hollywood records -- soundtracks, Lyric Street Records, Mammoth Records, Disney records)

  • theatrical productions

  • sports teams (Anaheim Sports, Inc., Mighty Ducks, Angels)

  • parks (all the stuff you know about)

  • partial investment in TiVo

And from that set, let's just look at one movie studio -- Miramax. Don't go see Amelie, Full Frontal, Prozac Nation, Undisputed, or any of their other movies. And don't rent Bridget Jone's Diary, Bounce, Chocolat, Cider House Rules, or dozens of other movies.

As far as I can tell, avoiding their records won't be hard... looks like mostly crap to me. Although I haven't bought new cd's for a couple of years. But if you look at one of the other companies (AOL TW, for example), you might have a harder time avoiding their labels, depending on your musical tastes.

Don't take this post the wrong way -- I more or less agree with your assessment of the problem, I just think there might be more effective alternative solutions. These companies are so large, and fairly well diversified such that a boycott can't be very effective. See the "CJR: Who Owns What" page (http://www.cjr.org/owners/) for info on the rest of your boycott targets, so you know what to avoid. Best of luck.

re: harder than it sounds...., posted 24 May 2002 at 20:08 UTC by lilo » (Master)

As a parent of a three-year-old, I can certainly agree that this is difficult. But it's easy enough to start with their high profit margin stuff. In the case of a movie company, don't go see the movies in the theater; wait for them to show up on the small screen. Borrow what you can from the local library. Watch them on broadcast if you must. Borrow a copy someone else has recorded or watch with them.

In the case of a recording company, well, don't buy their CD's. Listen to someone else's. Eventually, though, all these avenues will become fully and completely illegal, so let's start thinking in terms of how to wean ourselves a bit more from "popular" culture....

Making these people go broke is probably impractical. Making them hurt may not be so difficult.

Addendum, posted 24 May 2002 at 20:51 UTC by lilo » (Master)

bstpierre wrote:

And from that set, let's just look at one movie studio -- Miramax. Don't go see Amelie, Full Frontal, Prozac Nation, Undisputed, or any of their other movies. And don't rent Bridget Jone's Diary, Bounce, Chocolat, Cider House Rules, or dozens of other movies.

They're great movies, the casts and directors are very professional. A lot of work goes into them. But when we support the companies that release those movies, we support some very antisocial activity. Is it really worth it?

Don't take this post the wrong way -- I more or less agree with your assessment of the problem, I just think there might be more effective alternative solutions. These companies are so large, and fairly well diversified such that a boycott can't be very effective. See the "CJR: Who Owns What" page (http://www.cjr.org/owners/) for info on the rest of your boycott targets, so you know what to avoid. Best of luck.

Bear in mind that this is not a vendetta against large, diversified multinational corporations. Each division of these organizations has to justify its existence on the continuing sales of its products. All we need to do in order to be effective is to help make a dent in those sales.

Political action seems necessary in these cases (which is something of an admission coming from anarchist). But its effectiveness is not guaranteed, and if we disapprove of the behavior of these organizations, it hardly seems prudent to continue to fund it by buying their front-line IP products.

Similar to reasons for using Free Software, posted 24 May 2002 at 21:04 UTC by scandal » (Master)

I have a similar viewpoint to lilo wrt being selective about where I spend my money. I know in the grand scheme of things that my own "boycott" will have very little impact, but it makes me feel empowered. It makes me feel good about the purchases I do make. On the rare occasion that I do go to the movies, I can't remember the last time I paid for full-price admission--I always go to a matinee showing (usually less crowded and cheaper). I only buy used CDs because some places will let you listen before you buy, or you have a better idea that you might actually like more than the two tracks that are played on the radio. Lately I've been more into listening to the local eclectic radio stations, or finding local bands on mp3.com and patronizing them. After awhile you become less concerned with skipping the latest fads.

This is, of course, all very subjective to your own opinion. It's just important to realize you have Freedom of Choice.

Your local library, the net, and rms, posted 24 May 2002 at 22:02 UTC by mlinksva » (Journeyer)

Your public|institutional|private library is your friend. All the content you could want for yourself and your family at no marginal financial cost to you.

If there is something your library doesn't have, that something probably sucks or is too marginal for MPAA and RIAA members to touch. Try downloading from the net or your independent record/video/book store.

rms had a milder suggestion: if boycotting all movies is too hard, just boycott the bad ones. You'll find yourself spending far less on movies.

Everyone has a vice, posted 24 May 2002 at 22:59 UTC by piman » (Journeyer)

3 years ago none of my friends were going to buy DVD players. Now they all have them, except for me. Now, I can sit here smug, happy in my knowledge that I'm not supporting big multinational, antisocial organizations, right?

Sure. Except for my RPG habit, which funds one of the largest copyright abusers ever (c.f. Antimonopoly and the no longer available D&D "Internet Usage" policies, or the new "Open" [a mockery of the word] license). Oh, not to mention my toys, same company.

My point is, sure, you can give up Fox, and NBC, and various media conglomerates. Good for you. But invariably end up supporting some company (which may even be one you thought was against copyright controls) that does something antisocial. The only way you'll avoid big media companies is if you avoid media altogether. Even most of the websites you visit will be substantially funded by Disney or AOL, and you're probably using a browser from them, too.

Unless you throw out your computer, don't own a TV, and don't buy newspapers (actually, don't read anything), you're going to end up supporting them. And even if you don't do any of that, what about all the companies that perform equal or worse antisocial activities, not in the realm of copyright? I mean, you know where your coffee comes from, right?

Failed boycotts backfire, posted 25 May 2002 at 00:03 UTC by jbuck » (Master)

If you announce a boycott and almost no one participates, the studios will just laugh at you. To boycott the guilty parties would be to give up almost all media: no movies, no radio, no TV, no books, right down the list. Those of you who are as committed and ascetic as, say, RMS, might be able to pull it off, but the general public won't be. So don't even try. The Christian right tried to boycott Disney, and they were a lot more organized than hackers ever will be. Disney just laughed at them.

I suspect that, given the post 9/11 climate, fears about physical security would be a better bet. Imagine terrorists whose images don't appear on security cameras because said cameras shut down when they see something that looks like a copy protection watermark.

Since it is corporations that rule the country, you just have to convince the heads of corparations other than media that the media copyright police state will destroy the economy and their industry, and they will get the poodles in line. So instead of lobbying congress, maybe we should be lobbying corporate leaders.

No asceticism involved, posted 25 May 2002 at 02:50 UTC by mlinksva » (Journeyer)

The wonderful thing about intangible goods is that you can boycott paying for them while still indulging to your heart's content. See my previous post.

Intangible goods and libraries, posted 25 May 2002 at 03:15 UTC by piman » (Journeyer)

mlinksva, such only works for books (most libraries have a very poor video and music collection if any), and even then, the selection is highly dependant on your location and your library. It's only not asceticism if you're really really lucky. As an example, I have a fairly large collection of Martin Gardner's books, which aren't obscure or hard to buy books, but the Appleton Public Library was lacking in them when I was there, and for a town the size of Appleton, it's a huge library. I haven't been to any where I live now, in Omaha, but my guess is the situation is much the same.

One must also take care to avoid supporting copyright insitutions indirectly - the Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company has close corporate ties to AOL/TW, ILM, and Hasbro, just off the top of my head. So if you're serious about the boycott, make sure to drop the Pepsi and Mountain Dew, too, or at least the boxes of them with ads on the back. Libraries can do nothing about this "passive" support.

I think in many cases a used bookstore is better than a library, but that just might be because my tastes are closer to the kinds of books most people don't want anymore. That, and the propsensity of the males in my family to buy books almost obsessively. :P

Again, in short, the idea of boycotting these companies is laughable - they're far too commonplace. Better to consistently (but quietly, so as not to be laughed at) cut as much out of your life as you can.

yes, let's, posted 25 May 2002 at 10:35 UTC by demoncrat » (Master)

I've been boycotting Disney for some time now and think it's a fine idea. I may have missed a few sources of disneyana, but you don't need 100% coverage to make your point.

Again, let's not try for 100%, posted 25 May 2002 at 15:05 UTC by lilo » (Master)

Remember, even if a boycott is wildly successful, it is not going to put a Disney or a Sony out of business. That's not the point. The point is to develop a relaxed but vocal culture of avoiding buying front-line IP products from these people, and linking it to their behavior.

I'm certainly not going to stop using Mozilla, piman, because AOL helped produce it. On the contrary, they should be praised for their involvement in the project. Your comments seem to indicate that you think boycotts are about somehow avoiding a 'stain' from businesses that misbehave. It's a rare business that does not misbehave. Boycott is not about vendetta and it is not about being somehow contaminated by evil businesses. It's about linking behavior to outcome. Do I care if someone laughs at me? Not at all. Let 'em laugh. I'll keep noting why I'm doing what I'm doing and why it's a good idea for other people to do so as well. The more people do so, the more credibility my viewpoint will have with the people I talk with about it from day to day, and the more damage these people will take for their specific policies. Which is what it's about: linking behavior to consequences.

It's a long-term investment of effort, but isn't freedom worth a long-term investment?

Re: Failed boycotts backfire, posted 25 May 2002 at 15:34 UTC by lilo » (Master)

jbuck wrote:
If you announce a boycott and almost no one participates, the studios will just laugh at you. To boycott the guilty parties would be to give up almost all media: no movies, no radio, no TV, no books, right down the list. Those of you who are as committed and ascetic as, say, RMS, might be able to pull it off, but the general public won't be. So don't even try. The Christian right tried to boycott Disney, and they were a lot more organized than hackers ever will be. Disney just laughed at them.

Jbuck, "announcing a boycott" is something I do everytime I mention my behavior to someone. I don't care what the studios think of that or how laughable they might think I am. I'm not a target, I'm just some guy. Who talks to people. Every day. They're the target, not me.

If I keep buying the products they want most to sell, I will be expressing the viewpoint that a little relief from boredom or the opportunity to experience a director's viewpoint is more important to me than my freedom. Why would I want to do that?

I suspect that, given the post 9/11 climate, fears about physical security would be a better bet. Imagine terrorists whose images don't appear on security cameras because said cameras shut down when they see something that looks like a copy protection watermark.

That's not a bad point to raise. Raise it to your congressperson. Nonetheless, I still don't enjoy supporting the behavior that leads to laws like this. And as long as I'm not supporting it, I might as well tell people why.

Since it is corporations that rule the country, you just have to convince the heads of corparations other than media that the media copyright police state will destroy the economy and their industry, and they will get the poodles in line. So instead of lobbying congress, maybe we should be lobbying corporate leaders.

Hmmm, maybe we have different religions. Sure, corporations have a lot of influence. But nobody is making me buy movies, and the last time I noticed, the IP Police weren't preventing me from speaking up with a dissenting voice.

Corporations are not people. They don't have motivations in the same way human beings do. Corporations are not even the people who work for them. Maybe their leaders will be willing to listen, maybe they won't. If you have the urge to talk to these people, go to it. It never hurts to try.

But corporations are bureaucratic institutions with special government franchises, and they behave like what they are. They are only like human beings in that they respond to the consequences of their own actions. If enough people decide that nothing can be done about antisocial corporate behavior, it's likely nothing will be done. But, when enough people decide as individuals to link antisocial behavior with consequences, the problems will get solved.

And until those problems get solved, people like Fritz Hollings (D-Disney) will keep proposing really bad law and we'll all have to react defensively each time. So I guess that we can all sit on our hands, or we can take small, positive, long-term steps to solve the problem.

When they misbehave, don't buy their best stuff. Let other people know why.

Re: Again, let's not try for 100%, posted 25 May 2002 at 18:15 UTC by piman » (Journeyer)

lilo, Remember, even if a boycott is wildly successful, it is not going to put a Disney or a Sony out of business. That's not the point. The point is to develop a relaxed but vocal culture of avoiding buying front-line IP products from these people, and linking it to their behavior.

To me, that's not a boycott. Is it useful? Definitely. Can it make a big impact? Yes. I don't deny that, and that's the reason why I don't support those companies front-line products.

However, most people (including most dictionaries) consider a boycott to be "a group or individual's refusal to have dealings with some organization in protest against its policies." There's a lack of qualifiers on "dealings" there - not "front line dealings" or "most profitable dealings", just "dealings".

I don't care if people laugh at me because the actions I take are hopeless, because I feel in the end I will have proof I'm correct (when their profits go down, or when their policies change). I do care if people laugh at me for being hypocritical, which is what will happen when we call for a boycott and instead practice a watered-down sort of "selective consumerism". Being laughed at for being wrong doesn't undermine my position, because those people are probably unwilling to listen anyway (and most people like supporting the underdog anyway). But being laughed at for being hypocritical is a strike against you already when you're trying to make your point, regardless of who you're talking to.

I don't consider what I do boycotting these media companies, and I refuse to call it boycotting. I may grant that I "boycott" specific products - for example, Microsoft's consumer software - but I highly doubt I'm managing to boycott Microsoft itself. I can't say I boycott AOL/TW, because I use Mozilla. I think Mozilla is good, and yes, I think AOL should be commended on their involvement. But the fact that I'm using it means it's no longer a true boycott, but another less extreme form of activism.

Re: Again, let's not try for 100%, posted 26 May 2002 at 00:30 UTC by lilo » (Master)

piman wrote:
However, most people (including most dictionaries) consider a boycott to be "a group or individual's refusal to have dealings with some organization in protest against its policies." There's a lack of qualifiers on "dealings" there - not "front line dealings" or "most profitable dealings", just "dealings".

So, am I to understand that your only objection is that you feel that improper attention is being paid to the dictionary definition of boycott? Fair enough. I've described the actions I think would be effective, hopefully any liberties I've taken with the dictionary of your choice should be forgivable.

I do care if people laugh at me for being hypocritical, which is what will happen when we call for a boycott and instead practice a watered-down sort of "selective consumerism".

I'm willing to bet that an informal campaign of not purchasing certain products will not cause the RIAA to launch an ad campaign asserting that improper use of the word boycott is equivalent to hypocrisy. The few people I know of who might make that leap are in this community. Inside and outside the community, most people I know would find such an assertion humorous.

The less you buy the more they will look for DRM, posted 26 May 2002 at 13:45 UTC by tjansen » (Journeyer)

The problem is: if you just stop buying from RIAA and MPAA members, they will not know why their revenues dropped. They need a reason for the public though, and the answer will be: piracy. They will just assume that you stopped buying because you get their stuff for free.
The ironic bottom line is: the more you buy from them the less likely is the introduction of new DRM methods. Legislators will be hard to convince to give IP holders more rights while their profits are rising. But if they fail they will look for ways to help them.

Re: The less you buy the more they will look for DRM, posted 26 May 2002 at 16:42 UTC by lilo » (Master)

tjansen wrote:
The problem is: if you just stop buying from RIAA and MPAA members, they will not know why their revenues dropped. They need a reason for the public though, and the answer will be: piracy. They will just assume that you stopped buying because you get their stuff for free.

This is why, ultimately, no one solution is going to work. Political interaction seems necessary but citizen groups find it difficult to compete with groups like MPAA and RIAA which can essentially purchase legislators. Boycotts (or whatever you want to call long-term economic action) can help reduce the income of these groups from front-line IP sales, but the effects will not happen overnight.

We're left needing something else; we need to encourage the growth of non-DRM media. Unsigned artists, new methods of patronage. New ways to improve the economics of making art a career (which the music industry has never really helped with in any significant way). And new ways to create economic constituencies that can compete for the attention of politicians.

Regardless, I can't help thinking that buying front-line IP products from these people is a bad idea. It contributes economically to the problem and it sends the wrong message.

The ironic bottom line is: the more you buy from them the less likely is the introduction of new DRM methods. Legislators will be hard to convince to give IP holders more rights while their profits are rising. But if they fail they will look for ways to help them.

A policy of "buying off" the IP industry is not going to work very well. Year in, year out, regardless of the specific level of their profits, these organizations have continued, and will continue, to try to extend the term of copyright and reduce the availability of uncontrolled media. If you run a profitable industry that depends on a government franchise for its very existence, as does copyright, your most effective strategy is to use your profits to buy legislation that will extend that franchise as far as possible.

Our community and the artistic communities desperately need solutions. I think, too often, people characterize the situation as hopeless to avoid the responsibility of doing things that involve some pain but that might, in the long term, have a positive effect.

library collections, revenue streams, posted 26 May 2002 at 19:17 UTC by mlinksva » (Journeyer)

piman, both the Omaha and Appleton public libraries have a couple dozen or so Martin Gardner books. I would've linked to the relevant queries, but the query URLs are temporary. Most libraries I've seen (and I try to check out a library in every city I visit) have really beefed up their video collections in recent years.

tjansen, OTOH, declining revenue streams are less valuable and less worth protecting. I suspect that the more profitable the industry is, the harder they'll work to pass and enforce vile laws.

Call it a boycott or not, but stop paying for intangible goods sold by evildoers. At the very least moderate your spending as suggested by rms by not shelling out for bad movies and other content that obviously sucks.

Political action, posted 26 May 2002 at 21:56 UTC by yakk » (Master)

The way to deal with this issues is to become politically active. Half a dozen hackers staging a boycott isn't the solution. Join a political party. Run for office. Get involved. It works.

Re: political action, posted 27 May 2002 at 00:25 UTC by lilo » (Master)

yakk wrote:
The way to deal with this issues is to become politically active. Half a dozen hackers staging a boycott isn't the solution. Join a political party. Run for office. Get involved. It works.

If politics worked, we wouldn't be in this situation. Politicians are easily suborned by special interests. Politics is a longshot.

On the other hand, a mere 10,000 people can sometimes have a disproportionate effect when they all speak up at once. So pick the worst of the major political parties and join it. Vote against corrupt politicians and speak up when legislators are about to pass really bad law. It can't hurt.

But when you do, remember, however many instances of bad law you help prevent, people like the RIAA and MPAA are waiting in the wings to make more. So, please, don't buy the front line products of organizations that do business in an antisocial way. Spending your money to help them do the wrong thing is not a good move.

Re: , posted 27 May 2002 at 10:38 UTC by donky » (Apprentice)

Lilo wrote: On the other hand, a mere 10,000 people can sometimes have a disproportionate effect when they all speak up at once. So pick the worst of the major political parties and join it. Vote against corrupt politicians and speak up when legislators are about to pass really bad law. It can't hurt.

Along the even a small mass activity can have a disproportionate effect train of thought, I think it would be interesting to see what a popular nerd news site like Slashdot could achieve along these lines if they treated issues like the IP one as more than just transient stories.

Keep current concerns/issues as sticky things on the front page. Allow people to specify their state/representative, organise a hierarchy to mobilise people on the issues they indicate they are willing to do something about. Organise help in proofing the relevance and quality of letters to representatives. And it wouldn't have to stop at just targeting representatives on given issues. If a reporter/writer for a paper wrote an article based on incorrect facts, mobilise the local cell to bombard them with significantly unique/relevant phone calls/emails to set them straight and to make sure they publish corrections.. etc. If articles are published about the cost to corporations of piracy (sums with no basis in reality) or the link between copying of music and revenues.. same deal, set them straight and inquire why they haven't told the whole story. Activities/actions would want to be well thought out and planned so as to be compelling for the targeted parties.

It would be an interesting experiment at least. Whether lethargy would prevent enough of the readers from taking part. Whether Slashdot would even be interested in having the issues it features so often being more than transient commentary areas that fall out of view - or in taking part in actually doing something about them. How targeted parties would respond.

Re: Re: , posted 27 May 2002 at 15:45 UTC by lilo » (Master)

donky wrote:
Along the even a small mass activity can have a disproportionate effect train of thought, I think it would be interesting to see what a popular nerd news site like Slashdot could achieve along these lines if they treated issues like the IP one as more than just transient stories.

Whatever one may think of Slashdot (I've seen a lot of derisive comments in this community; I don't especially have an opinion to convey on the subject), they seem to have been quite effective in mobilizing outcry in a hurry on things like the w3.org RAND discussion and US Senate hearings on copyright-related law.

Setting terminology aside..., posted 28 May 2002 at 06:30 UTC by piman » (Journeyer)

There are a lot of people who agree that not buying these products can make a definite impact, and I think it's important to then discuss how to avoid such products (like using libraries and used book stores, or budget theaters). Throwing discussions like this around on Advogato is really preaching to the choir, and even trying to work on local levels only gets so far because interested and dedicated people are spread out so much.

Is there sufficient interest to create some sort of "Independent Media" (hesistant to use that phrase, because it calls up images of IndyMedia) portal, with resources ranging from the standard free software links/HOWTOs, to a searchable list of used bookstores and libraries across the country, articles and news on media/copyright-related issues, and so on? To some extent I think it would be like Lessig's Creative Commons, but expanded to include media that isn't explicitly under one of those licenses, but simply not controlled by the big names. (and also, should it be a resource for media controlled by the big names but available freely, or not?)

My guess is almost everyone here of Journeyer or better can throw together a portal system like this (and even better, there's almost certainly one already written people can hack on), so the problem is really coming up with enough "seed" knowledge to get other parties interested and involved in collecting more information for the site.

True Change, posted 3 Jun 2002 at 02:14 UTC by njohnso » (Observer)

Slightly off topic, but then again, also slightly on.

It seems to me that for opposition to the RIAA and MPAA to actually happen, two things are going to need to happen. The first is fairly easy...the second, not so easy.

The first and simplest way to oppose these groups would be to stop pirating material. I know that sounds insane, but by doing so you clear your own slate. And you make your cause seem legitimate. You're no longer a person who steals regularly and wants it to be legalized, but rather a law abiding citizen who feels that the law is unjust. And I know that none of us agree with having to buy a cd before listing to just one track, or any of the other things that the RIAA wants to do, but how can we make a valiant effort to oppose it if our records are stained with what is defined as lawbreaking and theft. So basically, I guess this whole point could be summed up in one phrase. Get a good understanding of what the law says concerning these issues, including fair-use policy, and then follow it, no matter what the inconvenience. This would end the whole idea that everyone is stealing from the RIAA and the MPAA and that they are the victims.

Now, the second and truly difficult thing that must happen to create an environment for solid opposition to the groups. Solid Opposition. And that doesn't mean people out picketing. It means artists actually doing what we all agree is right. It means artists sitting down and really caring about their art, rather than the almighty dollar, and putting their music up on the web, free for download. It means artists trying to be really innovative and care about their fans rather than money. It also means fans who are really innovative and listen to and care about their artists and send them money, maybe for a cd recording of the music, or maybe just as plain old support. Doing this could keep food on the artists tables and really make a difference in the industry. Artists who make good music and care about their fans, and fans who care about their artists and make for good supporters. Sounds like utopia.

I know this is a little off from what everyone was talking about, but all of the talk of boycotts and other things brought to my mind the simple fact that for a movement to truly be just that, a movement, it must have dedicated followers willing to change and willing to actually go through some bit of suffering, be it dying for the cause of ending tyranny or simply not downloading mp3's anymore to end insane copyright laws. If a community would rise up with that cause in mind, and actually work for the cause, then something will happen. It's bound to.

re: True Change, posted 3 Jun 2002 at 16:06 UTC by lilo » (Master)

njohnso,

I see your points, but I'm not sure a mass movement, per se, is what's needed here. It's already been pointed out to me, quite correctly, that my use of the term boycott is incorrect. It's also been pointed out that it would be very difficult to stop doing business with the companies involved, since their interests are so diverse. I'm simply proposing that people who want to make a true, long-term difference in the situation ought to avoid buying the most profitable products of the companies exhibiting this antisocial behavior, particularly those products which are most clearly involved with said behavior. We should create and propagate a meme, if you will, that makes it more expensive to behave this way. Calm, vocal opposition, and linking problem behavior with sanctions in obvious ways, will make an impact in the long term.

As regards pirated material, I'm not much interested in using it or fighting it. Withholding business from IP corporations is not a political and legal statement, it's an economic and social statement. It's good to reduce our dependency on mass media if that helps ensure there is a direct cost to the corporations involved. But I don't think an anti-piracy campaign will help create such a cost. Let someone else spend time on it.

re: re: True Change, posted 5 Jun 2002 at 14:18 UTC by njohnso » (Observer)

lilo,

I see your points completely. I was mainly focusing upon the idea that we should desire to see a more open market for media overall, not just one that holds the current market in check. It seems that promoting a more open market in which artists are able to be independent would be a good way to do that. It would also help to put a stop to ideas of copy protection when the things being copied are things that the artists want to be copied. But, then again, just the rants of a dumb kid. I'll probably understand more when I'm older.

re: True Change, posted 5 Jun 2002 at 21:56 UTC by lilo » (Master)

njohnso, agreed that something needs to be done long-term to replace the current system.

Boycott or Parody, posted 18 Jun 2002 at 02:43 UTC by aicra » (Journeyer)

Recently, I've found that humor is the only way to keep somewhat sane in this insane atmosphere. For the future, I'm going for parody.

If anyone would like boycottdisney.org, please feel free to contact me because I don't have the time or the drive to pursue development of the site.

thanks, marcia

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!

X
Share this page