Democracy Disrupted

A couple of posts ago, I reported that the organization Fight for the Future had facilitated enough comments sent to the Copyright Office regarding Section 512 of the DMCA that they “crashed” the servers.  In a follow-up email brimming with pride, the organization said this to those who contributed:

“Wow! In a matter of days you and nearly 100,000 other people told the U.S. Copyright Office about the urgent need for better Fair Use and free speech protections in the DMCA.”

I didn’t receive one of these emails, but my friend David Lowery did. And not because he said anything to the Copyright Office about the “urgent need for better Fair Use and free speech protections,” but because he and his colleagues tested the FFTF web form email blaster and published their findings on The Trichordist blog.  They found that the automated system did not verify email addresses or confirm that IP addresses were within the US; it also allowed multiple comments from the same source and as stated in the post, “we managed to post rapid-fire comments (less than three seconds between comments).”

As indicated in my other post, I really do believe you’d have to search long and hard to find 100,000 citizens who could properly explain the DMCA, let alone fair use doctrine; but to compound this nonsense, some astroturf organization floods a government server with automated messages that may represent anything from bots to foreign citizens to minors to the typically pavlovian American, who just clicks stuff that sounds really serious but that he doesn’t understand.  Democracy in action indeed.

I’ve made this point many times, but it’s one worth making often.  This type of automated “political action,” which in this case is funded by a very large industry, should be among the real digital-age phenomena that scares the hell out of people, regardless of the stated issue du jour.  Forget the DMCA for a moment and imagine it’s the pharmaceutical industry or petroleum or Koch Industries using the same exact tools to rally virtual citizens, sock puppets, non citizens, and literally anyone capable of believing a lie and clicking a mouse to flood the EPA or HHS on some matter that disfavors the public interest in the service of one industry’s bottom line. That’s not even coming close to the reason the first amendment affirms the rights of speech and the petition of government. And, yes, there is a history of obfuscation by big business since long before the internet, but automation seems uniquely suited to fostering the illusion that the people are the ones doing the speaking.

In The Trichordist post, Lowery indicates that if FFTF used the type of automation described above to flood government servers, it might have been illegal but was at least a well-funded monopolization of a system meant to allow all parties to comment on an issue. Hence the “crashing” that this organization is so proud of is tantamount to—you got it—chilling free speech.  One could of course say this about any online petition in theory, but isn’t it interesting that the last time we heard about crashing systems like this was over SOPA?  So, does this really happen because there are so many well-informed citizens who care more about “digital rights” than any number of more pressing issues? Or might it have something to do with the fact that the corporate interests in these cases also happen to be the world’s experts in automation and aggregation?  Maybe not.  Maybe there really are more Americans worried about whether or not some YouTube video is a “fair use” than are concerned with the economy, violent crime, security, real civil rights violations, etc.  And if that’s the case, then  there’s truly nothing left of the Republic worth fighting for, is there?

On the positive side, I suspect a lot of this digital reactivism is wasted and that the internet industry may eventually discover that not everything is a numbers game.  For all the megabytes of outrage, what exactly does anyone think the Copyright Office is supposed to do with most of it? Responsibly vetted petitions have an important role to play in public policy.  But in a moment like this, it is the Register of Copyright’s job to consider the views of various stakeholders; and the comments that should be most influential will come from representatives of all sides who submit fairly long and well-reasoned statements based on actual knowledge of the law.

Ultimately, the Copyright Office recommendations to Congress on Section 512 may be 100 pages worth of analysis based on legal precedent going back to the beginning of the country. So, any petition to this particular office only carries so much weight in the first place; but how much attention does Fight for the Future imagine copyright experts will give to some boilerplate whinging about a doctrine they have grossly misrepresented to the signers of said petition?  And even 100,000 verified signatures would be small potatoes in a age when people will click on just about anything.  It probably wouldn’t be that hard to automate 100,000 “signatures” to lobby the White House to appoint Sponge Bob Square Pants as Ambassador to Fiji, but so what?  (Come to think of it, that petition would probably do quite well.)

There are an estimated 5.5 million jobs in the U.S. that directly depend upon the protection of copyrights. Meanwhile, every independent rights holder I have thus far encountered has effectively given up on the DMCA as a tool for protecting creative works online.  That’s a tangible problem, and one that does affect everyone because 5.5 million jobs supports a hell of lot more jobs than that in the overall market.  We could take this reality seriously, or we could keep finding ways to imagine that free speech is under siege and continue to allow the largest companies in the world to manipulate the political process with a little code and a lot of noise.

Follow IOM on social media:


  • Man oh man, sorry for not being polite but there are quite a few issues here:
    The “5.5 million jobs in the U.S. that directly depend upon the protection of copyright” have existed well since before the DMCA was adopted in 1998.
    But let’s say the “safe harbor” provision was gone (this IS what you want, no?) what do you think would happen ?
    Let’s look at what happened in Europe. The judges told Google to pay up or get out. Google got out. A month later content creators were begging Google to come back.

    The “safe harbor” provision exists only to spare people of having to sign different contracts with each and every content creator they might ever interact with.

    As for piracy? Yeah it’d be nice if it went away but it would change little in the long run.
    There was short (~80 years) time in US history when piracy was simply impractical and therefore incredibly low.
    Guess what happened? Nothing!
    The average family had a collection of ~20 vinyls.
    The industry was pretty much just as profitable as today, only in different ways.
    Most artists were still paid a pittance or not at all.
    The big artists had most of the same problems (sometimes even worse, because of the Mafia’s involvement) as today.

    Actually Inflation and the various liberation movements had more of a negative effects on the industry’s profits than piracy & the internet ever did.

    Here’s the thing I have family & friends working as musicians & entertainers. I myself somewhat depend on the entertainment industry.

    Here’s their collective opinion: The current system is bonkers and doesn’t help anyone who isn’t Disney-sized.
    A 95 or 120 year long copyright won’t change a thing! Hell even perpetual copyright won’t change a thing (it might even make it worse)!

    • David Newhoff

      Well, you read a lot into this post, including an inference that I propose ending safe harbors and am advocating longer copyright terms. Also, that’s not why safe harbors exist, but it’s a long topic. Suffice to say, the DMCA exists because the OSPs wanted safe harbors. Beyond that, I’m happy to approve your comment and let others respond. (And for what it’s worth, you’re not being impolite, especially by internet standards. Thanks.)

    • “Google got out.”

      Not far enough in my book. Anyway we are about 15 months on and Spain hasn’t come to a halt.

  • Some 10 years ago a petition on the UK government site garnered 50,000+ signatures against proposed legislation to ban photography in parks and the streets. There was no such legislation proposed. Additional a petition for the Prime Minister to “pop round and help install” someone’s new kitchen got 100,000+ signatures but that was just a bit of fun.

  • Pingback: Zephyr Teachout: Musicians Action Alert | Musicians Action

  • Pingback: Librarian Wants to Crowdsource Search for Register? - The Illusion of MoreThe Illusion of More

  • Pingback: EFF Petition Language Used in Fake Emails to the FCC - The Illusion of MoreThe Illusion of More

Join the discussion.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.