Slashdot Mirror

There is no technology on earth that could fix this mess http://europa.eu/index_en.htm

God thanks I'm unemployed and not wasting any precious money on this by paying taxes.

I'd go onto the street. But staying unemployed and just not paying taxes has become much more efficient these days.

This is a really neat research project using crickets as the ghosts in Pacman. Considering that crickets can tell the temperature and that they have the most sensitive mechano-sensors known in the animal kingdom, this is a creature that demonstrates many geeky qualities.

It is simply "Gates law": Win installation == 50% less performance every 18 month.

If you believe some unfair tricks are played by Microsoft, bad Eula etc. and you have some factual evidence just report it to your Competition authority. Europeans please take this form. Competition authorities have to be triggered and do not work without triggering. They are curious to know consumer complaints.

They make trouble for you. You make trouble for them.

How Al Capone got jailed? "Capone's downfall occurred in 1931 when he was indicted and convicted by the federal government for income tax evasion."

It's all very well these hucksters peddling the semantic web to funding bodies who don't know any better, as long as they don't start pretending it's anything other than the new FIPA - a collection of committees generating specifications that the world will continue to ignore.

even if it's rather the US who depend on China for imports than China who depends on the US for exports.

Europe does not depend on the US, to begin with, not for exports and not for imports.

In fact, Microsoft succeeded in imposing on the EU DG Comp an encrypted-DVD ROM format which I understand runs only on Windows. In addition, it seems MS required a clickthrough EULA which thoroughly annoyed the Commission officers and the Monitoring Trustee. As Microsoft's game is to delay as much as possible (see EU statement at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?refe rence=MEMO/06/445&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&g uiLanguage=en ), the time spent negotiating the "security" of the pile of electronic "documents" has served them well (the fines aside) while awaiting the Court of First Instance appeal decision awaited between now and April.

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/cas es/index/by_nr_76.html#i38_381

I'd be interested to know why you say that. The EU's own English style guide uses it as a prefix (check out e.g. page 90)...

Competition: update on Microsoft's compliance with March 2004 Decision (23 Nov 2006)

IDA Open Source Migration Guidelines (PDF) EnglishPDF[828 Kb]

I'm intrigued that there's so little objection to the gradual reversal of the first principle of law: innocent until proven guilty. In this case it starts on the wholly false premise that the images used on driver licenses are of a sufficient quality to make a proper match without a high false positives rate (you can find the EU specs for biometric passports here - I know that it has turned making a passport picture into something like an art form, and out of reach of your average 'picture me' box). Result: based on very bad source data you now have to prove your innocence if you somehow resemble a criminal. Nobody has heard of such facilities to be 'tools' (i.e. ASSISTING in the decision process, not actually replacing it). Groan..

Other examples of having to prove your innocence are any broad RIAA 'john doe' suit, being labelled a terrorist (in some cases you can't even prove your innocence there because you're quickly shipped outside the internationally agreed legal framework at Guantanamo Bay), Microsofts' WGA, oh, and forgetting your college card which apparently is good enough to allow police officers to submit you to unwarranted violence which in other nations would lead to such officers facing jail. On that topic, I vaguely recall that the other argument for Iraq was the police brutality the citizens were subjected to. Well, it appears a few lessons were learned there - just not the right ones..

Let me ask you something: does Washington actually have any politicians left with a spine or have they all been bought? Does anyone actually CARE about human rights there other than to harass other nations with and as a pretext to start the odd war when it's politically convenient?

The US is not 'on' the slippery slope - it's damn well sliding fast if citizens don't start making Washingtom behave like most citizens want (I'm making the distinction here because most Americans I know don't seem to agree with what's happening in Washington - proven by the latest election results). It'll be interesting to see if that 'bloody nose' Bush received in the elections will make a difference.

Given the amount of money involved, I somehow don't think so.

/rant..

Margot Wallström is a good example. She is EU Commissioner for communication and runs a weblog. But as she fails to properly communicate with citizens, properly use her weblog. Citizens get upset plus a lot of eurosceptics use her weblog as a garbage can.

Now Margot even considers to put a ban on email and internet communication.

Margot Wallström is a good example. She is EU Commissioner for communication and runs a weblog. But as she fails to properly communicate with citizens, properly use her weblog. Citizens get upset plus a lot of eurosceptics use her weblog as a garbage can.

Now Margot even considers to put a ban on email and internet communication.

The other Microsoft related headline is that Europe is trying to force Microsoft to share information about Windows protocols with open-source projects like Samba, to allow and improve interoperability with other operating systems. Microsoft's initial response was to only offer that information to other businesses at a high price. Europe persisted, and Microsoft has adopted this new strategy; still insisting they be paid for compliance with government regulation.

I made the same mistake, earlier in this thread I wrote about the EU's fines against MS and how the EU wanted MS to open up Windows APIs and such for interoperatibility with software and other OS's. However someone else corrected me on it. According to the EU's (pdf) decision MS was required only to open up with "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms".

IF MS doesn't allow Samba and interoperability then they aren't opening their APIs.

What if they allow it, but only if you pay a licensing fee? The EU decision requires only "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms", and explicitly speaks of "any remuneration that Microsoft might charge for supply"; perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see anything there that requires Microsoft to allow you to give away SMB server software for free. (See section "6.1.1 Remedy concerning refusal to supply", and its two subsections "6.1.1.1 Order to disclose interoperability information for the development of interoperable products" and "6.1.1.2 Reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, timeliness of the disclosures".)

Perhaps Microsoft's strategy can be summed up here as "Don't forget to pay your $32 to $760 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers." :-)

Now, we have various competitors that are locked out of a market because the State decided to give preferential treatment to certain companies (in this case, Microsoft). Copyright, patents, trademarks can all be used to keep other people out of a given market long enough for a company to grow to a size that makes it hard to defeat.

1. Neither copyright nor patents nor trademark had anything to do with the MS anti-trust lawsuits, nor with the predatory practices it was accused of. Neither Novell nor Netscape nor Sun nor all the other companies were attacked by MS via copyright (none of them were selling copies of Windows), nor trademark (none of them called their own product "MS Windows" or "MS Office"), nor patents.

2. MS was _not_ even tried for being a monopoly as such, but for abusing that position to break other trade laws. You _can't_ be tried for just having a big slice of the market. E.g., see Coca-Cola. Noone brings that one before a court of law. Do you understand? The issue isn't just that MS is too big to defeat, but that it abused that position to engage in predatory practices that ultimately hurt the consumer.

I.e., what you've been arguing for half that message is at best a complete non-sequitur. All that rhethoric about becoming too big to defeat is completely irrelevant to the issues that led to that huge fine. It's just not tried for being too big.

Sure, some will say that they violated anti-trust laws, but those laws have enough loopholes to let any big company get around them.

So then why didn't MS get around those? So your argument is... what? "The law has enough loopholes, so let's ignore that someone outright broke it instead of using the loopholes"? Or what?

At any rate, the fact that they broke the law _and_ then proceeded to show utter contempt to the court (both by non-compliance for over 2 years and the whole media war against the EU) is the _whole_ point there, not some secondary issue that can be summarily hand-waved out.

Let's look at reality here. The State wants these fines to pad their own accounts -- they same laws will exist, and the same problem will repeat itself. This is basically a legal form of asking for bribes, and Microsoft will be happy to comply.

Yes, let's look at reality here, and this time the real one:

1. What the "State" asked wasn't fine. It asked MS to offer everyone the documentation needed for interoperability. I.e., what it tries to do is break that monopoly. The original judgment against MS didn't ask for a single cent. So on WTF bullshit do you base such idiotic statements as "The State wants these fines to pad their own accounts"?

2. The fines are just punishment for refusing to comply with the court order, after it had been given ample time to. And even then MS has been given more than 2 years to comply with it, in which case it would have to pay no fine. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

3. MS had more than 2 years to comply, and it didn't. In fact, that's how the fine got so big: it's a daily fine until they comply. And ignoring it for more than 2 years eventually starts being big money. So on what _do_ you base such bullshit statements as "Microsoft will be happy to comply"? Because so far it showed no intention to comply. It just engaged in some smoke-and-mirrors media war against the EU instead of doing what it was asked to.

Any changes Microsoft makes will only be enough to make the State happy, and the next run against them will be strictly for income for those making new laws. That income helps provide for more loopholes and better preferential treatment for the companies that can afford it.

1. Being fined up to 30% of your yearly _sales_ (see, here) is hardly buying preferential treatment. It's something that would put most companies in

free at the time of service

That logic is about the same as saying that your purchase is free at the time you leave the checkout.

are we fixing the price on police and the operation of a court system? Also, do you believe things are better now that we no longer "fix" the price on electricity?

Yes, we are fixing the price on police and operation of a court system. In fact, we are still fixing the price on electricity (just not explicitly). Electricity has not been truly deregulated. We have silly things like "price to beat" and buying electricity from people who do not produce electricity but they rather just purchase in bulk from the once state monopoly company.

Why are you still being so vague about your ideas? What, no comments about the relationship Gold Standard? No comments about Smoot-Hawley?

Some argue that interest rates should be set by the market, not some fed chairman. The free market is like the water in a swimming pool. Control of the interest rates is like trying to dampen the waves. This can be a good thing if done right, but it can be disastrous if done wrong. More often than not it will be done wrong.

I am being vague only because in the end it all comes down to tampering with a natural system. Your video card is worth what people are willing to pay for it, regardless of a gold standard or whatever. Supply and demand.

So-called "progressive" economic policies and social programs that reduce economic inequality and create social mobility are actually the very essence of free market competition - because without mobility, again, where's your competition?

You cannot reduce economic inequality and still have a viable economic system any more than you can reduce diversity and still have a viable gene pool. Fear of where your next meal will come from is a great motivator to work. Living on the dole is a great motivator to not work. Earning your own way is dignified, living off of other people's income is not.

Income inequality is a fact of life. If we did not have it, we would not have had the great artists and musicians that we have had, etc. While I agree that there should be some safety net to get you back on your feet, it should be just that. There is not a fixed supply of wealth. Wealth can be created. Google is a great example of this.

I've heard these Libertarian slogans before. "Tyranny of the majority." Perhaps you prefer the alternative? You sound a bit soft on democracy, but I'll let that pass.

I am not a libertarian, but I do share a lot of libertarian ideals. We live in a republic, not a democracy. The constitution was written to protect individual liberties from the state. Sure, the majority gets to decide a lot of things, but everyone is a minority in some way or another and our founders realized this.

People who live in the U.S. and don't travel much (and have thus never seen how the rest of the first world does it)

Yes, their grandfathers died on Europe's soil so that the "first world" could have a 9% unemployment rate:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?refe rence=MEMO/06/404&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&g uiLanguage=en

"However, despite this positive trend, the EU is far behind the US."

Have you ever been to the post office? Socialism at its finest.

Yes, I've stood in line at the post office (for a long time). I've never had to stand in line at FedEx though.

In 2004 twenty tons of computer equipment was sent from Oslo in Norway to Eritrea. This is the largest shipment of computer technology from Norway to a developing country ever to have taken place. The software chosen to accompany the computers was Skolelinux, a Linux distribution initially developed for, and successfully deployed in, hundreds of Norwegian schools. This was annonced at the EUs Open Source Observatory 12 October, 2004:

http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/3355/469

FAIR is an international non-profit NGO with its headquarters in Norway, aiding developing countries by supplying resources within ICT, such as hardware, software, training, information and support. By combining brand new hardware with first-class second-hand computers and the latest software upgrades applicable, FAIR aims to become a premier ICT supplier providing world leadership in cost effective computer networks and communication solutions.

http://www.fairinternational.org/

The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research has founded a report about free software in schools. It covers planning and deployment of Skolelinux/DebianEdu that currently includes 234 Norwegian schools, 33,000 client machines, and 101,000 pupils and teachers. It cover technical issues, economical and organisational issues. There are also feedback on how teachers uses free software in teaching.

The report basicly says that Skolelinux/DebianEdu has 30-40 percent less Total Cost of Ownership compared with proprietary solutions. This is based on experiences with free and propretary software at many schools operated centrally.

http://developer.skolelinux.no/artikler/2006-04-02 -debconf6.pdf

I wonder if there is a parallel to be drawn between accessibility concerns and perhaps multi-language sites? If your country of origin (and of hosting?) has bilingualism laws are they a template to establish the same/similar laws for accessibility?

Poor you. Welcome to the EU, where there's something like twenty different languages!

Until recently, good old ISO-8859-15 was just about good enough in terms of character encoding, but now with all the new member states and their weird-and-wonderful accented letters, full-blown Unicode is necessary. Recent programming I've done has had to be fully UTF-8 clean - and it's really satisfying when a fully-automated email system manages to send someone's name with all accents intact.

So... Two languages, you say? ;-)

Uncontrolled capitalism is what we are discussing - but that is an economic system, not a governing philosophy. What I am trying to show is the difference in the application of a governing philosophy (such a socialism or conservatism) in the controls applied to capitalism. (And pointing out that the US isn't doing as well as it should be, IMHO)

fundamental components of the fascist doctrine, which creates the best possible environment for monopolies to establish and grow.

This is actually a very good point, though a little far from anything that was being discussed prior. The basic design of fascism concentrates power and typically uses the corporate structure almost exclusively as a monopoly. This could probably be used to rate a countries "proximity to fascism", if you will. The best indicators I know of for the tendancy towards monopolies (hidden and apparent) are 1) complex regulations concerning industry - typically referred to as safety regulations/controls, and 2) suppression of startups (since monopolies must quash startups eventually people stop making them). This way you can measure the hidden monopolies caused by pyramid corporations, etc.

More information on startup friendly countries.
More information on Government regulation. (Not as good as the first one, unfortunately)

Q: Will existing software, which is currently released under GPLv2 automatically be released under GPLv3 when it is published?

A: Under the re-versioning clause contained in section 9 of GPLv2, once GPLv3 is formally published for use, new releases of modified or unmodified GPL programs not designated 'GPLv2 only' can occur under GPLv3.

The FSF will release all the software in its care under the new licence, and we expect that other projects under GPL will make the shift, too with their next release. If the projects themselves do not, under GPLv2 section 9, any person possessing a copy of the program can make a release under 'any later version' of the licence, so re-licensing, though not precisely automatic, will be swift. For programs designated 'GPLv2 only,' re-licensing requires a decision by the copyright holder or holders, or others contractually or otherwise invested with the power to make licensing decisions.

I was about to post if anyone had a link to the actual draft directive, instead of that obviously alarmist rubbish, but there it is. Thank you!

I cite another article, adding emphasis:

(13) The definition of audiovisual media services covers all audiovisual mass-media services, whether scheduled or on-demand. However, its scope is limited to services as defined by the Treaty and therefore covers any form of economic activity, including that of public service enterprises, but does not cover non-economic activities, such as purely private websites.

So, this is yet another example of typical British anti-EU hysteria and the predictable Slashbot kneejerking. Nothing to see here, please move along.

(I do wish the UK would go ahead and leave the EU already.)

(12) No provision of this Directive should require or encourage Member States to impose new systems of licensing or administrative authorisation on any type of media.

One aim is to relax the current rules on advertising. Another is to draw a distinction between "linear" services (conventional television, Internet, mobile telephony) and "non-linear" services (on-demand television and information). The proposed approach would involve the introduction of obligations on two levels: * fundamental obligations (particularly the protection of minors and human dignity) applicable to all audiovisual content services; * "linear" audiovisual services would be subject to second-level obligations similar to those set out in the TVWF Directive, but simplified and updated.

This report is somewhat exagerated, although there is still lots to worry about. There will be no need for licensing, and a simple video blog looks set to be taken out of the scope of the Directive. Regulation kicks in at the same time as tax - when a blog is so succesful with advertising that the profits attract the tax man then along will also come the content regulator (the curse of success).

However, nerds should be concerned. Consider a site that provides videos about building (or dismantling) computers (or the rugby website cited in the original article). There are two obligations that you need to watch out for:
- it would be inappropriate to mention the makers of the computer components (refer to "graphics card" rather to an "nVidia FX12345" as that might be perceived as undue prefernece or even product placement). Of course that defeats the object but trying telling that to the Commission.
- you may find that you have to pay a tax to help support film makers in your country.

There is of course no link between a neds computing website and film-making but the principle being extended is that TV used to reserve half its output for Europe works and now all audiovisual websites wil have to do their bit too, albeit in a differnet way.

The Directive is not yet adopted and things could change - clearly the amounts of money that YouTube have attracted will increase the lobby saying that Google seems to be very rich so they should also help to pay for film making.

Then we would have the bizarre situation that new talent would effectively be subsidising those that have made a name for themselves and are now on the inside track for subsidies. That seems a recipe for long term cultural decline.

Contact your MEPs: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert.do

Its probably a better time to start a debate about how we here in Europe can stop the Americans from erroding our existing privacy laws to suit themselves.

The discussion has already been going on for a while. Consider, for example, the recent airline information leak issue. The very basic improvement of going from a "pull" model to a "push" model was a step in the right direction.

To note, I e-mailed my EU parliament rep about this issue while the talks were ongoing. She responded back the next day with a very thoughtful reply, and somehow a few days later my "at least" scenario came to be. It gave at least a nice illusion of working democracy.

Minor details like feasibility and civil rights don't really come into it. It's about who can come up with neat sounding proposals in order to get the penpushers to give you a hand-out from things like the 14bn 6th Framework fund. But don't hold your breath if you're expecting a real-world working system anytime soon.

the US / NSA has been proven to use echelon for industrial espionage in other countries eg. on Enercon in Germany: www.europarl.eutopa.eu, search for "Enercon" . It's quite difficult to find anything in English on this, but there's a lot of stuff in German about this case.

k2r

Some Open Source headways in Europe, indeed, can clearly be seen in EU site.

Quite heartening indeed! Maybe the big conservative companies will finaly notice this trend. I am sure Microsoft did.

Some Open Source headways in Europe, indeed, can clearly be seen in EU site.

Quite heartening indeed! Maybe the big conservative companies will finaly notice this trend. I am sure Microsoft did.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee_index.h tm

- The various EU countries have varying levels of actual compliance with this directive, but the parent post is essentially correct. If you're wondering why some electrical items (ones that are for both the USA and EU on one production line, say) have random stuff like "RoHS Compliant" and "WEEE " stamped on them, well, now you know.

This link goes there.

This link goes projects home.

It also uses nanotubes, and we all know how cool they are. :)

This link goes there.

This link goes projects home.

It also uses nanotubes, and we all know how cool they are. :)

Member state:
The countries that belong to an international organisation are its 'member states'. The term is also often used to mean the governments of those countries.
From 1 May 2004, the member states of the European Union are Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. For the years when they joined the EU, see 'enlargement' (above).

It makes me wonder what incentive Europeans would have to pre-order it, then. VAT is cheaper than 21% in 18 of the 25 (PDF) member states.

Finland is 130,558 square miles (and certainly not 305,470 square miles!) The EU is 1,535,286 square miles. The average gas price in EU is roughly 1.3 EUR per litre, i.e about the same $6 per gallon as in Finland.

It appears that your proportional-area math is not proportional on this side of the ocean.

With the 30 September deadline imposed by the European Court of Justice for the EU to end passenger data transfers to the US rapidly approaching, Parliament adopted a report calling on the US to ensure that it offers adequate protection of European passenger data and that sufficient safeguards are in place. It is asking the Council to negotiate an interim agreement, valid until November 2007 only, with MEPs observing the negotiations.

I don't know where you have heard that, but it's definitely not true. Granted, by 2003 the EU15 only managed to achieve 1.7% out of the pledged 8% by 2010, but major economies like Germany are on their way (18.5% out of 21%) or already have met their goal like the UK (13.3% out of 12.5%). In the same timeframe, the US gained 13.3%.
Source here.

Having moved from the UK to Spain I have some sympathy with this however I suspect this is more the case with ASDL lines than with cable. One DSL provider in particular is offering 20MB (DSL2+) down + 1MB up for about 35/month. Which sounds great (or sounded great in my case) until you have a problem. The company has so much demand for it services it cannot cope with new activations or problems with new activations. From what I had heard all their internal systems are not linked so when you call their service center any tickets/issues raised to get an engineer out to test your line never make it to the engineers. To add to that Telefonica (the national equivalent of British Telecom or AT&T (or what ever they are called)) is being investigated for anti-trust business practices in their provision of broadband.

Saying that since I moved here I have been with Ono the largest (if not only now) cable provider and have had on the whole a fault-less service. Not as fast as the ADSL2+ offerings but it works which is what I need for working from home. More than I can say for Jazztel

Unfortunately even if they wanted to choose not to store the data, they may be compelled to by law.

Several governments either have laws, or are introducing laws that require Telcos, ISPs and the like to retain data usually under the guise of protecting us from terrorism.

Ladies & Gentlemen, set your tinfoil hats to stun.

Why not move to Europe? Just for a year of two.

I mean politicians are ignorant anywhere. And what policymakers do is often too conservative but civil society really makes inroads. The EU institutioons will soon standardise on ODF, just a matter of time. One or two EU Commissioners even run a weblog. Microsoft lobbying alienates policians here as does Us foreign policy.

The United States are strong in Social Software, the next big thing. Economic growth still looks good. And despite agrobusiness they are an important exporter of intellectual property. Unfortunately also an exporter of bad IP resulation: DMCA, DRM, ...

The European Union currently conduct a consultation on rfid. I really would like to know what the role of governments should be. Governments are lobbied like hell on rfid. Some civil rights groups call them spychips. And lobbyists approach governments. And the question is why? Shouldn't markets decide?

Anyway, I suggest you to fill out the questionaire.

Other intresting consultation links can be found here and here. It is important to get more people involved in these political procedures and legislature who actually know what they are talking about. And I would like to spam politicians with the request for 'better interoperability'. Here the regulator has to take measures. I found it very nice that the EU already considered it. "Interoperability, standardization, governance, and Intellectual Property Rights (1 June)"

So maybe it makes sense to report cases like these to the authorities to avoid madness. I guess they do not read Slashdot.

The European Union currently conduct a consultation on rfid. I really would like to know what the role of governments should be. Governments are lobbied like hell on rfid. Some civil rights groups call them spychips. And lobbyists approach governments. And the question is why? Shouldn't markets decide?

Anyway, I suggest you to fill out the questionaire.

Other intresting consultation links can be found here and here. It is important to get more people involved in these political procedures and legislature who actually know what they are talking about. And I would like to spam politicians with the request for 'better interoperability'. Here the regulator has to take measures. I found it very nice that the EU already considered it. "Interoperability, standardization, governance, and Intellectual Property Rights (1 June)"

So maybe it makes sense to report cases like these to the authorities to avoid madness. I guess they do not read Slashdot.

"States from Connecticut to California have tried to step in with enough funding to keep the labs going and slow the exodus of U.S. talent to countries like Singapore, Britain and Taiwan."

Are there so many American researchers? Usually US research means 80% foreigners. Nobody knows whether stem cell research will lead to results. Nations like Singapore and Taiwan are industry whores. They do it because business wants it and does not care about ethics.

It is important to have a critical view of new technology. Be it RFID, DRM or stem cells. Nations from asia are often technoradical. Mao cooked steel in villages... Some of them had success. Many asian politicians are engineers.

I am technoliberal. We have to care about civil liberties and push technology forward. Technology a means to a more prosperous life in an open society. It could well be the other way around. Western values have to be defended against these nations. Trade sanctions are an option.

Hype? I never heard of E3 before. E3 as an shortcut of EEE whatever that stands for?

And I don't know ESA. Ehmm, wrong. European Space Agency == ESA. And Microsoft created the European Software Alliance (ESA) in order to look more European in lobbying, yet another hat for consultations.

So it is rather surprising to me. 'The End of E3', sorry. Does it make a difference? Will I have to miss E3 I just learned about? Will my children ask me about the good old days of E3?

Digital Rights Management systems (DRMs) involve technologies that identify and
describe digital content protected by intellectual property rights. While DRMs are
essentially technologies which provide for the management of rights and payments, they
also help to prevent unauthorised use.

25. Do you use Digital Rights Management systems (DRMs) or intend to do so? If you do
not use any, why not? Do you consider DRMs an appropriate means to manage and
secure the distribution of copyrighted material in the online environment?

26. Do you have access to robust DRM systems providing what you consider to be an
appropriate level of protection? If not, what is the reason for that? What are the
consequences for you of not having access to a robust DRM system?

27. In the sector and in the country or countries you operate in, are DRMs widely used?
Are these systems sufficiently transparent to creators and consumers? Are the systems
used user-friendly?

28. Do you use copy protection measures? To what extent is such copy protection
accepted by others in the sector and in the country or countries you operate in?

29. Are there any other issues concerning DRMs you would like to raise, such as
governance, trust models and compliance, interoperability?

Digital Rights Management systems (DRMs) involve technologies that identify and
describe digital content protected by intellectual property rights. While DRMs are
essentially technologies which provide for the management of rights and payments, they
also help to prevent unauthorised use.

25. Do you use Digital Rights Management systems (DRMs) or intend to do so? If you do
not use any, why not? Do you consider DRMs an appropriate means to manage and
secure the distribution of copyrighted material in the online environment?

26. Do you have access to robust DRM systems providing what you consider to be an
appropriate level of protection? If not, what is the reason for that? What are the
consequences for you of not having access to a robust DRM system?

27. In the sector and in the country or countries you operate in, are DRMs widely used?
Are these systems sufficiently transparent to creators and consumers? Are the systems
used user-friendly?

28. Do you use copy protection measures? To what extent is such copy protection
accepted by others in the sector and in the country or countries you operate in?

29. Are there any other issues concerning DRMs you would like to raise, such as
governance, trust models and compliance, interoperability?

Digital Rights Management systems (DRMs) involve technologies that identify and
describe digital content protected by intellectual property rights. While DRMs are
essentially technologies which provide for the management of rights and payments, they
also help to prevent unauthorised use.

25. Do you use Digital Rights Management systems (DRMs) or intend to do so? If you do
not use any, why not? Do you consider DRMs an appropriate means to manage and
secure the distribution of copyrighted material in the online environment?

26. Do you have access to robust DRM systems providing what you consider to be an
appropriate level of protection? If not, what is the reason for that? What are the
consequences for you of not having access to a robust DRM system?

27. In the sector and in the country or countries you operate in, are DRMs widely used?
Are these systems sufficiently transparent to creators and consumers? Are the systems
used user-friendly?

28. Do you use copy protection measures? To what extent is such copy protection
accepted by others in the sector and in the country or countries you operate in?

29. Are there any other issues concerning DRMs you would like to raise, such as
governance, trust models and compliance, interoperability?

Digital Rights Management systems (DRMs) involve technologies that identify and
describe digital content protected by intellectual property rights. While DRMs are
essentially technologies which provide for the management of rights and payments, they
also help to prevent unauthorised use.

25. Do you use Digital Rights Management systems (DRMs) or intend to do so? If you do
not use any, why not? Do you consider DRMs an appropriate means to manage and
secure the distribution of copyrighted material in the online environment?

26. Do you have access to robust DRM systems providing what you consider to be an
appropriate level of protection? If not, what is the reason for that? What are the
consequences for you of not having access to a robust DRM system?

27. In the sector and in the country or countries you operate in, are DRMs widely used?
Are these systems sufficiently transparent to creators and consumers? Are the systems
used user-friendly?

28. Do you use copy protection measures? To what extent is such copy protection
accepted by others in the sector and in the country or countries you operate in?

29. Are there any other issues concerning DRMs you would like to raise, such as
governance, trust models and compliance, interoperability?