I think this was an effective revision. But surely you are aware that you are now just under 1500 words, and must cut by a third. You solved your problems without taking a hard look at the sentences and the paragraphs to remove waste. About a quarter will come out easily. The remainder will require a little more willingness to sacrifice.

STATUS: Ready for review.

The work of civil society organizations (CSOs) in advocating causes was traditionally linked to the resources it had at its avail. Large, resource-rich organizations could afford to have press and public relations offices staffed by professional journalists and they use their contacts to gain access to mainstream media. The Internet has changed the dynamics of international social movements and civil society advocacy. Now, virtually anyone with internet access is able to promote a cause. The emergence of this “virtual” constellation of CSOs that do most of their work through the internet has sharpened the concerns for the checks on the accountability of CSOs. Where it becomes easy to participate in the symphony of voices calling for change, it becomes difficult to set apart the groups that are genuinely advocating change and those groups that simply seek to obtain donor funds and not truly pursue their avowed objectives. This problem of demanding meaningful accountability from CSOs is especially difficult because of the lack of any effective mechanisms to check their efforts. However, the tools with which to investigate the legitimacy and demand accountability from CSOs may lie in internet-based tools as well. I seek to show that even if prominence of a CSO through the internet is traditionally considered desirable, whether for increased donor access or public awareness of its cause, this may not be beneficial to certain NGOs who wish to conceal certain matters from public knowledge, and the penalizing effect of this lessened access due to lack of prominence in the internet helps to assure that only the more legitimate and accountable CSOs have access to donors and public awareness.

Whereas NGOs can embrace all of the opportunities available to them to be noticed, from blogging, podcasts and social networking sites to creating their own online news platforms, other bodies, including the communities supported by the NGOs, the donors and other supporters of the NGOs, and the competitors, opponents or detractors of NGOs, have these very same tools at their disposal, with which to build up, or ruin, the reputations of these NGOs.

The value of this ability to evaluate and criticize civil society activity is two-fold. First, these news items from the critics’ own blog or website are picked up by donor organizations as they conduct due diligence on the civil society groups that they enter into support agreements with. Highly negative press will caution potential donors on the effectiveness and accountability of the potential CSO partner. It is simple matter, for instance, to run the name of a potential donee CSO and the word “fraud” or “scam” through a search engine, to police the past behavior of a CSO. For instance, if a potential donor performs this search on Coeur Joyeux (cached copy of their site, but at present leading to this site), a non-governmental organization operating in Rwanda, the potential donor will be alerted to reports of this NGO being alleged to have scammed Rwandan orphans of their savings based on promises of scholarships to private universities.

Second, civil society groups and their critics are not under commercial pressure as with mainstream media and can utilize blogging, podcasting and other internet tools to obsess on issues, and to focus and get serious on otherwise non-commercially appealing topics. If a particular blogger writes a particularly interesting story, more and more bloggers link to that story. And as interest in the matter increases through the aggregation of interest through blogs and news portals, the story can be picked up and break into mainstream media, releasing information on the effectiveness or malfeasance of a CSO to a broader audience. An example of this is the Dynamic Teen Company, a CSO based in the Philippines where groups of volunteers bring a "pushcart classroom" to children in slum areas to teach English, conduct feeding programs and first aid treatment of scabies and wounds. This CSO was nominated in the 2009 CNN Hero of the Year Award. To win this award, the CSO had to obtain votes in the CNN website. Various individuals and groups then engaged in an internet campaign including Facebook groups, Youtube video tributes, mass-Tweeting, and blog tributes to campaign for votes in the CNN poll. This explosion of support in the internet contributed to the increased public awareness of the CSO, the naming of the founder of the CSO as CNN Hero of the Year for 2009, $100,00 to continue his work, and increased legitimacy for the organization.

The ability to use internet tools to monitor CSO behavior may lead to CSOs engaging in "self-censorship" in terms of their internet promotion. For instance, in the case of CSOs working for the cause of refugees in Kosovo, a network of advocacy groups (the "Groups") filed third party claims for "personal injury or death" against the UN alleging that the UN settled refugees from the Kosovo-Serbian conflict in camps that the groups allege the UN knows are contaminated by lead. These claims seek damages of $50,000 for each of the refugees who are living in the camps. The Groups are in a difficult battle -- the Convention on Privileges and Immunities entitles the UN to dismiss the claims -- this is an instance where an information campaign can shame the UN into action; if not into paying damages to the refugees, then into evacuating the refugees from the lead camps.

The Groups have engaged in an internet information campaign. Their websites describe the plight of the refugees, they have write-ups on the work of one of the lawyers working on the case, they have features of the circumstances of the Kosovo refugees in BBC, Australian Dateline and the Guardian, and they have led an e-mail writing campaigns to various persons in the UN.

But the Groups do not fully utilize all available internet tools. Not surprisingly, given the failure of the Groups to use all the internet tools available, this campaign has not been able to move the UN into action. The UN has not evacuated the refugees or made any payments. Information on the cause has not fully spread.

However, the Groups have not availed of these tools not because of a lack of zealousness in pursuing their cause but precisely because they recognize that opening their entire case to the world through the internet opens them to evaluation, audit, and criticism. Why is the claim a third party claim for physical injuries or death, for instance? The very appellation of the complaint shows that the lawyers are not clear on the facts on which they base the complaint. Why is the claim one for damages, rather than for the immediate evacuation of the refugees from the lead camps? What is the portion that the lawyers stand to gain from the damages that may be awarded to the refugees? Further, spreading this information could possibly attract even more lawyers to the pool of defendants. The refugees on whose behalf the claims have been filed represent a small fraction of the refugees in the camps. The Groups may be waiting for the outcome of this claim before proceeding with a claim on behalf of the other refugees. Given all these factors, the Groups chose to wage a less than optimal internet campaign for the cause they are advocating. As a result, the Groups do not receive the support that they could possibly be receiving. This self-censorship may work to the advantage of other CSOs that wish to aid the cause of the Kosovo refugees: it frees up the virtual conversation for CSOs who may have a better approach to aiding Kosovo refugees, and it would be these CSOs who will obtain attention and aid for their cause.

Efforts to enhance CSO accountability has led to media investigations into CSO campaigns, analysis by academics and independent think tanks, parliamentary hearings that check the effectiveness, governance and integrity of influential CSOs. The results of these investigations, when available online, helps to solve the problem created by the proliferation of CSOs that have arisen in the internet. This information could become even more powerful when aggregated in websites that present information on CSO accountability, which could be used by private institutions, international organizations and governments when deciding whether or not to support a particular CSO activity. The example of the Groups working for Kosovo refugees shows us that CSOs seek to avoid web-based censure or shaming, and thus would keep less savory activities off internet coverage, in turn channeling less attention and less support to their cause, in effect penalizing their behavior. Web-based information can thus help ferret out situations of inefficiency or even fraud, and this could help determine the CSOs that are worth supporting and those that are not. Therefore, the internet could itself provide the very tools in solving the problems of legitimacy and accountability that are created with the ability of virtually any CSOs to take their cause to the internet.

This was a very interesting piece, and it is nice to see the new possibilities of the internet being put to good use. One question I had, however, was how or whether internet strategies are being used by refugees themselves, rather than by advocacy groups. You discuss the potential of blogging, but it seems like the blogging may be even more effective if refugees themselves were to contribute. Perhaps you could discuss how other technological advances, such as affordable netbooks, or increased internet/mobile phone distribution (if such distribution has occurred) has helped or could help disseminate public knowledge about various causes.

-- BradleyMullins - 01 Dec 2009

Thanks for your comments Bradley. I was not able to discuss this in the paper, and it may be a good idea for me to do so, but the refugees are living in very poor conditions and the infrastructure is very poor, so they can't quite contribute to the effort of making their cause known. I will look for how I can incorporate this fact in the paper. Thanks again!

-- AllanOng - 03 Dec 2009

A friend of mine works for Human Rights Watch and I kept receiving its news article, however, I did not have an image of how they make influence in saving refugee before reading your paper. It was a good guidance for me to understand how those advocacy group tries to work using the power of the Internet.

-- AndoY - 17 Dec 2009

• I agree that this is informative about a current situation. But I don't see the analytical payoff from the exploration, particularly for us. The problem presented to all civil society organizations in the past was how to get their issues before the public given their resource limitations. That problem has changed conclusively with the advent of the forms of communication we have talked about. The particular facts in Kosovo don't seem to me to have any effect analytically: you are speaking generically. Nor do the international relations aspects of the situation have anything in particular for us: we are simply observing that "on the Internet no one knows you're an ..." in the context of NGOs and state actors.

• If the example has something more than a generic point to make, we need to see what it is. If the generic aspect of the situation is under discussion we need an idea that goes beyond where we have been already. If you try rewriting the essay so that the new idea you have about the situation goes right up front, and is stated in the first paragraph, I think you will be off to the best possible start in revision.

Everyone, thanks for your comments. I have revised the paper as of 23 Jan 2010, so the comments above may no longer address the current version.

-- AllanOng - 23 Jan 2010

<--/commentPlugin-->

STATUS: Not yet ready.

The Changing Concept of Property in the Internet Society – Why Downloading is Not Stealing

-- By AllanOng - 14 Nov 2009

We don’t go to a Virgin Record store, take a CD and walk out without having paid for it because we know that it’s stealing. Traditional intellectual property law would have us think to download a song or a movie using a peer to peer file sharing system such as Limewire amounts to stealing just the same. This would be true if the object that was taken, in the first case a CD and in the second case, data, were governed by the same rules, the same laws. Copyright law would say that indeed, both acts constitute the taking of property that belongs to another without the consent of the owner, and with the intent to deprive the owner of the value of the thing taken. But once the songs recorded in the CD are ripped and placed in the internet, it becomes pure data – no longer “property” as we understand it in the legal or the ordinary sense – and as such, should no longer be governed by the ordinary rules of property.

To begin with, intellectual property has never been considered the same as physical property in terms of the level of protection granted to it. While protection given to physical property is such that no person may be deprived of it without due process and when taken by the government can only be done with just compensation, the exclusive right to wrings and discoveries by authors and inventors are secured for them only for limited times – in order to promote the progress of science and useful arts. For authors and inventors to demand the same level of protection that is given to physical property is contrary to the intent even of the Constitution.

Physical property is protected against taking by another, primarily because it is a limited resource. Once the CD is taken, Virgin will have one less CD to sell. The store may have an inventory of 1 million CDs, but once you take one without paying for it, that is one less CD that it can sell. But the songs, as stored in the form of bitstreams in my laptop, do not become less when I share it with my friend – or with 1 million of my friends over in Limewire. Each “taking” done in Limewire does not diminish the bitstreams that I have. I remain fully able to exploit it for myself.

The law considers property to consist of a bundle of rights – the right to control the use of the property, to transfer or sell the property, to exclude others from the property, and to benefit from the property. But the nature of property has always been that one’s claim in the property is limited to the extent that one can control it. Possession is “nine-tenths of the law.” It provides evidence of ownership, and when a thing is possessed long enough, possession can transform into ownership. Conversely, when property has been reduced to mere bitstream, traditional rules of ownership cannot and should not apply to what has become mere bitstream. The party claiming ownership to the bitstream has lost all possession and control over it. Bitstreams can therefore not be subject to the same control as a plastic wrapped CD.

Still, it might offend our sense of propriety if we think that the persons who produced the piece of music may have allowed me to buy the CD and to store the content on my CD, and maybe to share it with a few friends, but maybe not 1 million of my friends. The problem with this argument is that human nature has always been against exclusivity of ideas. Sharing is, and has always been, an “activity deeply cherished in any free society.” In academic and professional institutions, substantial efforts are made in order for there to be sharing of institutional knowledge – from mentorship programs to the networking of computers to make work product searchable and copy-able. The development of a family and of a nation has always been the passing on of an identity and a body of knowledge, whether of the Western canon or a recipe for chicken adobo, from one generation to another. The development of technology, from betamax players to peer to peer file sharing programs to Wikipedia, has always moved towards enabling others to benefit from one’s efforts. What is more, the object of this sharing is not a finite resource but a resource that cannot be exhausted. What is criminal is not the sharing of this resource but in the keeping of this resource locked up by commercial institutions.

The right of attribution should remain protected. But it is interesting to note that Copyright did not always exist – the concept originated with the Statute of Anne in Great Britian in 1710 – before this time, a person could create a character, say Don Quixote de la Mancha, and write a novel about his adventures and another person could write a sequel, as Alonso did for the work of Cervantes. And yet it is the sequel written by Cervantes that is immortal, not because of strong copyright protection but because of its sheer genius.

The change in the concept of property brought about by the transformation of works into bitstreams will profoundly change the way that we live and work. Increasingly, it is to the free sources of ideas, cultural products and discoveries that individuals are turning to. As the Internet reaches more people in the globe, it will be the individuals who are used to the business model of exclusion and exclusivity of access of cultural products who will be in the minority, because as the Internet spreads, it takes with it the culture of sharing and of a world where property in ideas and discoveries, as we understood it, has no more meaning.

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AllanOng