The brown paper and white card photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/suw/sets/1533191/

The update:
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2005/12/09/slowly-the-pieces-of-the-jigsaw-fall-into-place/

The wiki:
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/orgwiki/index.php/Main_Page

I’ve already had copies of letters sent to me where MPs have been alerted to the copyright extension plans and more-or-less verbatim said "no, this looks ridiculous. I’ll see what i can do to stop it."

Now, one Road-to-Damascus transformation does not a roll-back make, but this kindo f incrementalism does have an effect. An important step that I want to pursue more (and I hope ORG can help out with this), is to enourage more young IP lawyers to consider these issues. The IP legal world is, by default, pro-IP extension, but it doesn’t have to be that way. One of the key roles people like Eben and Lessig have played is to present role models to smart, up-and-coming lawyers that show them that they intelligent critques of IP can take place within the legal system.

But do remember that ORG isn’t necessarily the place to do all or any of these. ORG isn’t supposed to be *the* digital rights organisation. It’s initial function is to act in a support role for all the other rights organisations. There are broad questions of strategy (which was what the meeting was about), but for ORG perhaps the question shouldn’t be "what should a digital rights group do" but "what should a digital rights group funded by 1000 people do."? That provides certain freedoms, and certain constraints.

Oh, and Mrs Trellis - don’t view the noise as the signal. Nick has a fine line in good-points-dressed-up-in-personal-abuse, and I flame as good as I can get, but more quietly, I’ve been talking to him on email about more substantive issues. You mustn’t let strong words of people on open comment forums get you all offended. If you and Martin would like to talk to me more about the stuff you bring up, I’m on danny@spesh.com (I’ll mail you a phone number too). I can’t really respond every time you cut and paste your comments onto slashdot or the main blog, but I’m happy to talk about things in a less dramatical style.

3) would give it a structure, something to work towards. The Commission recently published its work-plan for 2006, ORG should think about structuring its own work programme around that; picking out issues that could negatively impact upon ‘digital rights’ etc. It should look at other digital rights groups and learn from them - EDRi’s biweekly newsletter is a superb news resource and Im sure that presenting 60,000 signatures to MEPs on data retention will have at least some impact, Statewatch’s links into the EU are beyond belief sometimes, obtaining Council+Commission documents that are normally jealously guarded by small-minded civil servants. The vague mission statement is pretty reflective of the organisation itself - if it is receiving ?5000/month then it really needs a level of proffesionalism to reflect its income!
2) is horribly complicated and its all about relationships. MPs/MEPs receive 100s of pieces of material everyday from all sorts of people and organisations. ORG needs a specific angle to be able to stand out slightly from the rest. It also needs to make itself known among these people. people questioned earlier what influence MPs might have over legislation - perhaps a good example is the current data retention debate where our UK MPs (and civil servants) are prodding the EP into doing exactly what they want. MEPs do have more say now, particularly with co-decision - ORG needs to plan what committees will be looking at what Directives, who the shadow rapporteurs will be and which MEPs might be regarded as being ‘allies’ to such an organisation.
1) is the worst (imo), because its bloody knackering however its all about profile raising, knowledge sharing and actually producing some outputs. Targetted towards a specific issue, perhaps now something related to the APIG DRM enquiry or the Chancellor’s IP review?

My two cents…

To me, ORG is a good idea in the embryonic stage. Since the meeting was apparently organised to discuss strategy rather than tell everyone what strategy had already been decided, it was perfectly reasonable for Mailer, Coxall and Levine to make their suggestions. What was not acceptable was the response they received - polite indifference shading to outright hostility.

As for press releases as a campaign method: well, it might work for Amnesty but not for ORG. Most journalists don’t know much about tech issues and will avoid them at all costs - even geek-literate hacks tend to avoid any topic which they cannot explain simply for “the unhosed masses”. The same problem blights popular science journalism.

Someone might be able to download music and burn a DVD, but they may not be able to appreciate complex legal issues surrounding copyright or the technology that underpins DRM. These are the people ORG needs to reach. The same applies to MPs - they’re ordinary people too, and famously illiterate when it comes to IT.

And don’t get me started on the elderly blog masquerading as a campaign website. I will not take ORG seriously until I see a serious website.

I do actually agree with you - it would be good to see more imagination in how ORG gets its point across, and even the Cream boys with their Turner Prize leftist politics may have something to offer. But don’t under-estimate the power of the usual lobbying channels. My MP knows little about digital technology, but he does read the Guardian, listens to think tanks and speaks to campaign groups such as ORG.

To caricature all MPs as feeble and venal is unfair and lazy. After all, just last month, in the face of huge lobbying, tabloid frenzy and public opinion, MPs from across all parties defeated the government over its terrorist internment policy. No corporation paid them to do this, but the impulse to protect civil and personal liberties is a strong one across all spectrums of political opinion. I think can ORG can usefully tap into this.

Given the history of New Labour and its leadership’s susceptibility to big media influence (Murdoch et al), I remain sceptical that British MPs can or will mobilise to affect radical change in the current situation pertaining to DRM and digital rights in the face of fierce US-led corporate opposition.

I am just trying to be practical about the mission of ORG - i.e. how do we effect change? Arguably there is nothing the Disneys and Sonys would like more than a vocal but incrementalist lobby group (ideally led by people with funny hair or clothes) to argue with over minutae and then concede inconsequential compromises, whilst all the while protecting their current system.

Anyway, what’s wrong with ORG showing a bit of imagination? Is there some kind of unwritten rule that new interest groups must all adopt a fixed set of tactics that we all know rarely work? I just think we should think about it….

Also, why do you presume that anybody wants to bring down capitalism? This debate is about digital rights, not an attack on the market per se. Are you determined to label me a commie?

That’s all well and good, and I take your point that MPs can and have been forces for change for the good. I’m not denying that.

What I am suspicious of is your claim that when ranged in a controversy between us and the big media conglomerates, any MP would see value in siding with us over the Big Money.

If it were a seat-losing issue, perhaps. But we all know it’s not.

Forced to choose between us and them, MPs will choose them.

I think you’re being too pessimistic. Lots of the examples I cited above are post-1997 and there are plenty more. Just to begin with there’s been: freedom of information act, free access to museums/libraries, BBC’s creative archive, ending of hereditary peerages, democratic government in London and nationalities, new laws around corporate governance and transparent reporting, myriad schemes around encouraging internet access and bridging the ‘digital divide’.

None of these are the kinds of issues that electorates are thought to get vexed about. Yes, many of these could have gone further, but they did happen, and are having an impact. I know most MPs live in a bubble of lobbyists, corporate hospitality and think tanks, but if ORG can penetrate that bubble, I think they can make a difference. Will they bring down capitalism? No, but I don’t really see anyone doing that, or even trying in a meaningful sense.