Re: [dvd-discuss] Going on the offense.

[Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Bryan Taylor wrote:
> The best method for doing this is in states that have ballot
> propositions. In some states, you can completely circumvent the
> legislature. California has a good system for this. Texas has it, but
> you have to have the legislature put it on the ballot. Anybody know
> about other states?

Oregon has a very liberal "ballot initiative" system.  Voter's can submit
a referendum after collecting a designated number of signatures of
registered voters in the state.  Such iniatives bypass the legislature and
can even amend the State Constitution.

> I think an anti-clickwrap, pro-reverse engineering proposition would
> be easy to get on the ballot and would probably win and hold up. Since
> these issues are state contract matters, this type of thing might hold
> up.

We're seriously considering putting together a ballot initiative in Oregon
that would require state funded agencies to acquire source code for all
the software they deploy as well as the right to modify that source code
and deploy modified code for their own use.  I think of it as a
"Information Infrastructure Independence Act".  The argument is that this
would prevent public agencies from becoming dependent or beholden to
software companies and get locked into forced upgrades or paying more for
simple-to-implement feature.  A second part of the act would require state
funded agencies to share their source code modifications with the public
wherever legal (so if it's a modified mySQL, they have to post
patches.  If it's a modified DB2, they don't have to post anything because
IBM wouldn't allow it.).

While commercial software source would almost certainly be licensed under
an NDA, it would still be usable by state funded agencies.

But a real possibility arises wherein commercial software becomes
prohibitively expensive and government will turn to Free Software.  The
changes made by government agencies will propogate to the people.

More jobs for hackers, better software for mankind, lower operating costs
for government, less corporate influence on state operations.

Brazil has a similar law.

> Besides something like that, we've basically got to go into the
> lobbying business if we want to change federal law. This shouldn't be
> the case, but it IS he case and it isn't likely to change soon.

No, it shouldn't be the case.

In fact, no grassroots organization that doesn't address campaign finance
reform is going to get anywhere without corporate backing.

> I actually think that the *potential* is there for the tech community
> to be VERY affective at lobbying, basically because we have our own
> communication channels, and we're generally moderately affluent. We
> need to turn the EFF from just a litigation organization into a
> lobbying organization.

The problem here is that the EFF tends to lean toward the Libertarian
angle.  There is a general failure to recognize that corporate power is as
oppressive as state power with or without the force of state behind it.

Understand that most of the evils of the Telecommunications Act were
Deregulation and Privatization.

J.
--
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme@brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org