You don't even need to be particularly detailed or articulate. I used to work for a political campaign and the mantra from our lobbyist was "Politicians do not read their mailbags. They weigh them."
However, our lovely UK politicians have a history of counting all the many responses from a campaign as "one response" from a single organisation, then disregarding it as a minority view.
Lobbyists are so much easier to listen to than constituents. I'm wondering if there's merit in hiring some to represent the interests of the wider population? Perhaps we could call them MPs.
Where did I say anything about not contributing to the bulging postbag?
It's not that I don't believe in expressing views to those who are supposed to represent me, it's just that I have very little faith that my view counts for anything.
When the system rejects rationality and evidence, and is perfectly happy to explicitly state that this is what they do (eg Prof David Nutt's experience), should I expect millions of voices to make a difference?
I am not apathetic or disengaged, I just suspect that I don't have enough money for my view to count for anything. I am depressed about continually getting HTTP 402 response codes from my MP.
Yes, I believe you should and I apologise if I came off a bit snippy. The campaign I was involved with (the PCG, opposing IR35) was ultimately unsuccessful in parliament but won some victories on a case-by-case basis and ultimately made a significant difference to people's lives. In my own case, the Inland Revenue tried to over-tax me but were forced to drop the case because of what the PCG did. Did I feel pleased about that? I think so, yes.
I also wrote letters about the RIP Act when that was going through parliament. I wrote to (and met with) my MP, Mark Oaten, who seemed like a thoroughly decent and intelligent man who grokked the issues immediately. I also wrote to Jack Straw, Tony Blair and (because she was saying the right things) Anne Widdecombe, even though I suspect she is in all other respects quite barmy. Of course, they ignored me, afaik.
What I think did make a difference was a casual conversation with an acquaintance who turned out to be the Conservative front-bench spokesman in the Lords for Trade and Industry (Francis Lord Northbrook if you're interested). He asked me to write a briefing paper, which I did -- a couple of sides of A4 saying what was wrong with the legislation. He used it as a basis for his response to the RIP Bill, as it was at that time. OK, it shouldn't come down to personal acquaintance but it sometimes does, and if I hadn't written all those futile letters we would never have had the conversation which prompted his request to me.
Now to my point: if the situation is really that desperate why even post the article? Just STFU and continue to let them rip you, me and everyone else off. Or you could, you know, engage with the flawed people in this flawed situation and possibly, I don't know, do something to make a difference. Win or lose, I'd rather participate than sit and whine about things.
I believe I can say that I have done my bit in the Internet Wars so far, and will continue to do so by engaging with the flawed people in this flawed situation. As you point out, posting the article suggests more than a passing interest in the situation.
But I see the system as flawed and part of the problem, and have a huge amount of frustration stored up as a result of trying to talk to my elected representatives. Please excuse my whining; it is a symptom of desiring positive change and trying to do something to get there.
I used the 38degrees pro forma and got a personal response from my MP the next day. FWIW. He also asked if my specific objection concerned the 3 strikes and I gave him a rather long response which I'm sure his research assistance will enjoy!
I wish some creative person could subvert the meaning of the word "internet" by establishing different protocols that exist on top of existing communications infrastructure.
If you mean you want to alter the scope of the DEB by redefining the internet then that won't work.
UK Judges commonly look at the intention of law when considering judgements and when the normal language [at the time] is not sufficient to define the word then definitions are included (made up example: "for the purposes of S4 the meaning of xylophone excludes instruments constructed primarily of metal"). Also there are laws on harmonising with European law and so when a law is drafted and intended to harmonise with European law the interpretation in the European courts can also be taken into consideration.
The "home sewing" comparison is false because you pay for the non-exclusive use of a pattern and the materials to produce your own clothing. People who pirate music aren't paying for any use license and aren't creating their own music.
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/extremeinternetl
You don't even need to be particularly detailed or articulate. I used to work for a political campaign and the mantra from our lobbyist was "Politicians do not read their mailbags. They weigh them."