Université libre de Bruxelles
Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres
“Hacking the Law”:
An Analysis of Internet-based Campaigning
on Digital Rights in the European Union
Yana BREINDL
Thèse présentée en vue de l’obtention du
grade académique de
Docteur en Information et communication,
sous la direction de Monsieur
François HEINDERYCKX.
1
Abstract
Similarly to previous technologies, the emergence of the internet in the 1990s
triggered high hopes and expectations about its empowering potentialities,
especially for integrating marginalised and resource-poor voices into the
political process. Evidence suggests that the internet’s affordances support
the emergence of new political actors, while traditional elites reassert their
power in the digital realm. The shape that protest actions take depends
on how the internet’s affordances are leveraged in a broader context of
socio-technical and political transformations.
The dissertation investigates the emergent field of digital rights activism,
to examine internet use as a tool, object and platform for protest, with
a view to protecting civil liberties in digital environments. Digital rights
activism constitutes an exemplary case of how the internet’s affordances
can be mobilised to engender political change. Two original case studies
of internet-based campaigning at the European level (the “No Software
Patents” and the “Telecoms package” campaigns) provide in-depth insight
into the campaigning processes and their impact upon parliamentary
polit-ics. It is argued that the values and principles stemming from the hacker
imaginaire, and free and open source software practices, underpin digital
rights activism, which is recursive, specialised and networked. The analysis
centres on how digital rights activists use and adapt the political affordances
of the internet to intervene in European Union policy-making, by engaging
in three interrelated campaigning practices: networking, information
man-agement and direct action. The case studies highlight the complementarity
of online and offline collective action, by examining processes of open
collab-oration, information disclosure and internet-assisted lobbying. The success
of the “Telecoms package” campaign is then assessed, by providing the
perspective of the targets: members and staff of the European Parliament.
2
3
Acknowledgements
To have spent four years on this dissertation has been a privilege. It would
not have been possible without the help of a great number of people. First
of all, I would like to thank my two supervisors: François Heinderyckx, for
his support, trust and advise throughout this research journey, as well as
allowing me to attend many conferences and meet outstanding people from
all over the world; Pascal Francq, for convincing me to embark on this
endeavour, for critical comments, advise, LYX support, insights into the free
software movement and many comments on drafts.
Special and very warm thanks to the participants in this research, the many
people who have accepted to meet and tell me their side of the campaigning
story. Thank you for everything you taught me about internet campaigning,
digital rights and the European Union. Your passion and ideals have been
overwhelming.
I would like to thank all the members of the Information and communication
Department at the ULB for the good vibe, discussions, fun and precious
help that have been a highlight of my four years with you. In particular,
I’d like to thank the girls from office 146: Julie, thank you for having been
an inspiration and research companion for the last years (and many more
to come); Margaux, for many shared moments and your help in avoiding
distractions in the office, especially in the last year and; Juliette, for many
precious comments and a shared enthusiasm for internet research!
4
most importantly in the last week of writing. Finishing a dissertation is like
a marathon: when you think you cannot go further, help from those who
are closest to you does miracles.
Finally, I would like to thank the great schGibsonolars I have met, reviewers
and discussants who contributed to my research by giving critical remarks at
conferences, summer schools and through anonymous reviews. In particular,
I would like to thank François Briatte, Nils Gustafsson and Tessa Houghton
for excellent collaborations; Peter Dahlgren, Tobias Olsson, Andrew
Chad-wick, Sabine Saurugger, Peter Van Aelst and Stéphanie Wojcik for your
discerning feedback on my research; as well as, anonymous reviewers from
Contents
Glossary 15
Introduction 19
1 Internet use for political change 29
1.1 An information society? . . . 34
1.1.1 Socio, technical and political transformations . . . 35
1.1.2 The media environment . . . 38
1.1.3 The internet, ICTs and new media . . . 44
1.2 Internet campaigning . . . 51
1.2.1 Networking . . . 58
1.2.2 Information . . . 72
1.2.3 Direct action . . . 81
2 From hacking to digital rights 91 2.1 The hacker culture . . . 93
2.1.1 Development of the internet . . . 95
2.1.2 Computers turn mainstream . . . 98
CONTENTS
6
2.2 Free and Open Source Software . . . 100
2.2.1 The development of open source . . . 103
2.2.2 Values, principles and significance . . . 107
2.3 Hacktivism . . . 116
2.4 Digital rights activism . . . 122
2.4.1 The internet’s openness . . . 133
2.4.2 The politics of intellectual property . . . 137
3 The EU policy-process 145 3.1 Institutionalisation of civil society interests . . . 150
3.1.1 Strategies for integrating civil society . . . 153
3.1.2 The role of ICTs . . . 157
3.1.3 Channels of integration . . . 159
3.2 Influence strategies . . . 165
3.2.1 Networks of influence . . . 166
3.2.2 Information . . . 168
3.2.3 Lobbying . . . 171
3.3 Assessing the success of campaigns . . . 173
3.3.1 EU intellectual property lawmaking . . . 173
7
CONTENTS
4 A case study approach 181
4.1 The research design . . . 181
4.1.1 The case study design . . . 185
4.1.2 Setting boundaries in internet research . . . 188
4.2 Data collection . . . 193 4.2.1 In-depth interviews . . . 194 4.2.2 Observations . . . 203 4.2.3 Documents . . . 213 4.2.4 Limitations . . . 217 4.2.5 Informal observations . . . 217
4.3 Analysis and interpretation . . . 219
4.3.1 Qualitative data analysis software . . . 219
4.3.2 Thematic analysis . . . 221
5 The “No Software Patents” campaign 225 5.1 The directive on computer-implemented inventions . . . 228
5.1.1 The European Union context . . . 230
5.1.2 Pro-CII vs. No-Swpats . . . 231
5.2 The “No Software Patents” network . . . 234
5.2.1 Broad, diverse and transnational . . . 235
5.2.2 No campaign without the internet . . . 238
5.2.3 Multiple leadership . . . 249
5.2.4 Beyond the internet . . . 250
CONTENTS
8
5.3.1 Collective vigilance . . . 256 5.3.2 Constructing meaning . . . 260 5.3.3 Information transmission . . . 270 5.4 Pressure decision-makers . . . 275 5.4.1 Indirect lobbying . . . 276 5.4.2 Direct lobbying . . . 2895.5 After the historic battle . . . 292
6 The “Telecoms package” campaign 297 6.1 A controversial reform . . . 300
6.1.1 Graduated response . . . 301
6.1.2 Net neutrality . . . 305
6.2 The civil society network . . . 308
6.2.1 A diversity of groups . . . 311
6.2.2 Distributed internet campaigning . . . 323
6.2.3 Institutional allies . . . 342
6.3 Inform citizens and decision-makers . . . 354
6.3.1 Monitoring and collection . . . 355
6.3.2 Elaboration of political information . . . 359
6.3.3 Transmission and diffusion . . . 369
6.4 Intervention in the package . . . 372
6.4.1 Citizen mobilisation . . . 373
6.4.2 Raise media awareness . . . 382
9
CONTENTS
7 Perception of the campaign by MEPs 393
7.1 Comparison of both campaigns . . . 395
7.2 Awareness . . . 398
7.2.1 Reaching out to citizens . . . 400
7.2.2 MEPs as targets of the campaign . . . 408
7.3 Credibility . . . 419
7.3.1 Integration as civil society actors . . . 419
7.3.2 Electoral pressure . . . 422
7.3.3 Persuasive presentation of claims . . . 426
7.3.4 Codes of lobbying . . . 430
7.3.5 Discredit . . . 434
7.4 Change . . . 437
7.4.1 Influence on the behaviour of MEPs . . . 438
7.4.2 Policy outcomes . . . 444
7.4.3 EU awareness . . . 453
8 Significance of digital rights activism 461 8.1 Networking . . . 462
8.1.1 Horizontal and equal? . . . 463
8.1.2 Transnational activism . . . 467
8.1.3 Sustainable campaign networks? . . . 469
8.2 Information . . . 470
8.2.1 Open collaboration . . . 471
CONTENTS
10
8.2.3 Disclosure . . . 474
8.3 Direct action and influence . . . 475
8.3.1 Openness as an action repertoire . . . 476
8.3.2 Online and offline . . . 477
8.3.3 Hybridisation . . . 479
8.4 Concluding remarks . . . 481
Bibliography 484 A Appendix 513 A.1 “No Software Patents” campaign . . . 514
A.1.1 Interviews with “No Software Patents” campaigners . . . . 514
A.1.2 Websites observed . . . 515
A.1.3 “No Software Patents” campaign documents quoted . . . 515
A.1.4 FFII press releases . . . 515
A.2 Wordings of amendment 138 . . . 517
A.3 “Telecoms package” campaign . . . 519
A.3.1 Telecoms package interviews . . . 519
A.3.2 Websites observed . . . 520
A.3.3 Press releases . . . 521
A.3.4 “Telecoms package” campaign documents quoted . . . 521
List of Figures
1 Structure of the dissertation . . . 24
1.1 The internet’s affordances . . . 34
2.1 Hacking modulations . . . 92
3.1 EU co-decision procedure . . . 147
3.2 The process of influence . . . 176
4.1 Data collection . . . 194
5.1 Timeline of the CII directive . . . 229
5.2 FFII Myths and Truths . . . 261
5.3 FFII press releases . . . 271
5.4 FFII Logic patent news feeds . . . 271
5.5 FFII Patent News Feed . . . 272
5.6 “Software patents” searches . . . 273
5.7 Testimonies against software patents . . . 278
5.8 MySQL testimony against software patents . . . 279
5.9 Website redirect . . . 281
LIST OF FIGURES
12
5.10 “No Software Patents” activities . . . 282
5.11 FFII demonstration, LinuxTag . . . 284
5.12 “No Software Patents” caricature . . . 288
6.1 Telecoms package and Hadopi bill timelines . . . 299
6.2 LawTracks excerpt . . . 361
6.3 Copyright dogmatism caricature . . . 368
6.4 QdN’s press releases . . . 370
List of Tables
1.1 Examples of media use for protest . . . 43
2.1 Major FLOSS events . . . 104
2.2 Free Software and Open Source . . . 106
2.3 Hacking and FLOSS values and principles . . . 110
2.4 Hacking generations and purposes . . . 117
2.5 Selected digital rights activities and issues covered . . . 126
2.6 Selected digital rights groups and achievements . . . 130
4.1 Summary of all direct observations . . . 209
4.2 Mailing and discussion lists followed . . . 212
4.3 Collected documents . . . 214
5.1 Actors involved in the CII debate . . . 232
5.2 Main frames . . . 263
6.1 Stakeholders . . . 300
6.2 Groups involved in the campaign . . . 311
LIST OF TABLES
14
7.1 Objectives and their results . . . 444
A.1 “No Software patents” interviews . . . 514
A.2 FFII press releases . . . 516
A.3 Logic patent news . . . 516
A.4 FFII patent news feed (2004) . . . 517
A.5 FFII patent news feed (2005) . . . 517
A.6 Interviews with “Telecoms package” campaigners . . . 519
A.7 Interviews with parliamentarians . . . 520
