Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Technology Bill of Rights?
thrilliams writes "The WSJ's Walt Mossberg has a story about DigitalConsumer.org, a new lobbying group that's pressing for a Consumer Technology Bill of Rights. It would aim to protect the right to time shift and space shift media, make backups, allow for platform independence and translation between formats. Given the current DCMA/SSSCA climate, even these basic rights seem ambitious, but check them out and do what you can to support this nascent effort." There's also an NYT article on the SSSCA debate, with an unintentionally humorous quote from the head of News Corporation (which owns 20th Century Fox): "without copyright protection we will change our business models".
Ooh, can we lobby for the right to bear portscanners?
The speed of time is one second per second.
All this bill of rights needs is some support from artists. If you get top name musicians and movie makers to support this then it's all good.
But there is one problem this still doesn't fix. For years and years the music industry has purposely not put out high quality recordings. CD quality is damn good, yes, but remember DAT? Know about DVD Audio? what's gonna be?
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Think about all the public alerts that have been passed around the net that still cause headaches for government agencies, like the "FCC banning religious programs due to Madilyn O'hare" or the infamous modem tax issue or the $2,500 area code 809 phone calls.
Someone with a lot of literary skills needs to come up with some sort of alert that claims that those bastard liberal media companies and those liberals in Congress (I said sensationalist) are trying to take a way your right to record your TV shows by mandating that all future electronic devices contain copy protections to allow people who make shows to disable your ability to record them without paying for them. Include refs to digitalconsumer.org too. Then put the ole "We need to stop this right away, send this to all of your friends" line, details about the bill, and urge people to contact their congressman.
Make this issue so poisoned that no elected official will get near it. Remember, the public are sheep and the reason corporations give so much money to candidates and the reason that is so influential is that people are elected by the strength of their campaign ads. But in the end, it's people who vote, not companies. So if enough people get up in arms about this, the elected (and elected-wannabees) will stand up and take notice.
"We may be stupid but we're not idiotic." - Peter Chernin, president of the News Corporation.
Step 1, Admit that you have a problem.
From the story...
/. community seems to be, it is insignificant to the people pushing and passing the new laws. Everyone needs to know, everyone needs to complain. We are the ones who know, we are the ones who need to shout from the rooftops.
If you want to preserve both the music and movies we enjoy, and your rights to use them freely, there are several things you can do. First, stop stealing music online, and stop condoning the practice. Second, boycott copy-protected CDs. Third, start paying attention to the coming fight over copy-protection, and speak up for your rights as a consumer.
These are all well and good but the fact is, a vast majority of consumers aren't even aware of the problem or the proposed solutions working their way through Congress. They won't know a thing about this until the mad rush is on to purchase the last few non-DRM protected PC's.
So, I would add - Fourth, Tell everyone else about these three steps! Tell your parents, your siblings, your cow-orkers, the people in line next to you at the store, and so on. Put blurbs on your web pages and yak it up the other customers at the video/music stores.
As large as the
Bill of Rights, as found at http://www.digitalconsumer.org/bill.html
1. Users have the right to "time-shift" content that they have legally acquired.
This gives you the right to record video or audio for later viewing or listening. For example, you can use a VCR to record a TV show and play it back later.
2. Users have the right to "space-shift" content that they have legally acquired.
This gives you the right to use your content in different places (as long as each use is personal and non-commercial). For example, you can copy a CD to a portable music player so that you can listen to the songs while you're jogging.
3. Users have the right to make backup copies of their content.
This gives you the right to make archival copies to be used in the event that your original copies are destroyed.
4. Users have the right to use legally acquired content on the platform of their choice.
This gives you the right to listen to music on your Rio, to watch TV on your iMac, and to view DVDs on your Linux computer.
5. Users have the right to translate legally acquired content into comparable formats.
This gives you the right to modify content in order to make it more usable. For example, a blind person can modify an electronic book so that the content can be read out loud.
6. Users have the right to use technology in order to achieve the rights previously mentioned.
This last right guarantees your ability to exercise your other rights. Certain recent copyright laws have paradoxical loopholes that claim to grant certain rights but then criminalize all technologies that could allow you to exercise those rights. In contrast, this Bill of Rights states that no technological barriers can deprive you of your other fair use rights.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I for one really like this idea. My intentions are to fully support the organization and it's idea of a consumer bill of rights. We've needed something like this for a long time. Who the hell does Hollywood think they are, standing in the way of progress? The sorid history of Hollywoods past tells us a lot about the enemy. Think about the "starlet pools" they used to keep around (not that I'd mind diving in...) for "casting". Even in the '30s and '40s they were hosing people with shitty contracts. The music industry was actually worse back then than Hollywood. How can we expect them to change now, especially since we are literally threatening their existence. Of course they're going to fight! All I can really say is, I hope we can win, because the future looks pretty bleak, what with the RIAA Stormtroopers and the MPAA KGB knocking on our doors, demanding we turn our equipment over.
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
Reading the story and the points, they seem very much aimed at getting the general public interested, as opposed to the smaller band of people currently involved who understand the effects of the DMCA and SSSCA. The language they use and what they are lobbying for are specifically things that consumers understand and want, as opposed to the more esoteric and ideal-oriented problems most of the /. crowd can understand and has been rallying against.
=Blue(23)
LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
for those without NYTimes accts:
Jonathan Zittrain, an assistant law professor at Harvard, pointed out in a recent New York Times editorial that what Eisner's really saying is that the most dangerous threat to his industry is the American consumer. If that's really the case, what Eisner needs to do is rethink his business model rather than look for a way to outsmart his customers.
which really sums it up for me
perl -MIO::Socket -e 'IO::Socket::INET-new(PeerAddr="some.windoze.box:1
And how exactly is this is bad? First of all, no corporation on earth has a guarantee that their business model will remain valid. To assume so, is a guarantee of (future) failure.
Given the quality and (lack of) originality of most the stuff that comes out of major studios, I would be more than happy for them to change their business model. Maybe they could actually produce something I wanted! Then again, maybe their new business model will be to stop producing anything at all. This will allow them to control distribution and prevent piracy
If you tag Legally acquired onto the end of each line then all the RIA and MPAA have to do is make it illegal to acquire the media without waving that right. Rights are waved all the time in agreements.
Also, all they have to do is make it illegal to acquire video via a recording device to defeat the space-shift/time-shift scenario.
I think the bill should make it illegal to require that a person give up any rights to consume media. Of course it would be ignored just like the fact that it is illegal to *require* a person to give you their SSN, but then the company isn't *required* to give you a loan unless you do either...
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
News Corp: without copyrights, we'll have to change our business model
I feel so sorry for all these 'poor' companies...
7. The rights previously mentioned cannot be hampered by technology.
Sounds good to me. I was all ready to send 'em some cash, but surprisingly, I couldn't find a donations page. I suppose I'll just have to mail a check the old-fashioned way.
I certainly hope they succeed. This is precisely the sort of effort I have been wishing the EFF would take, but they seem to concentrate solely on 'defensive' measures. (defending people who are accused under silly tech laws rather than pressing for good tech laws)
Included is my submission to the effort 8) Corporations may be the noisiest and most money throwing lobbyests around, but please don't mistake that for the best interests of Americans. I've heard a lot of arguements that say anything that makes a large corporation more money is in the best interest of the 'economy'. Please don't let the 'economy' (ceo pocketbooks) supercede my basic rights to use the media I buy in legal ways. Please don't make me buy 5 different media players, each with their own license, to install in my car when one can be translated to and save me space and electricity. Currently I have 3 different mediums in my living room. A computer to play recorded shows via an All-In-Wonder, a VCR deck to play old tapes, and an X-Box to play DVD's. The computer makes recording easier with the Guide+ software. If licensing on media wasn't so ludicrous I could archive my poor VHS collection to a computer format on cd and save these aging but precious copies that I rightfully paid for. I'm afraid that this will soon be illegal, and yes undo-able with new features that take macrovision and apply similar features to any copying media. It is a ploy to force consumers to re-buy their entire media library as the old one degrades past useability. Corporations will say the the interests of the 'economy' require this, but they are merely criminalizing the restoration and preservation of our own bought and paid for media. And as well I have read and agree with the form letter which follows: As a constituent and an ardent consumer of digital media, I write today to urge you to support a Consumer Technology Bill of Rights, and to express my concerns about the recent trend toward allowing one-sided copyright laws to eliminate my Fair Use rights. Historically, our country has enjoyed a balance between the rights of copyright holders and the rights of citizens who legally acquire copyrighted works. Generally speaking, rights holders have the exclusive right to distribute and profit from artistic works. Consumers like me who legally acquire these works are free to use them in most noncommercial ways. Unfortunately, this balance has shifted dramatically in recent years, much to the detriment of consumers. To prevent further erosion of my rights, I would like to add my voice to DigitalConsumer.org in calling for a "consumer technology bill of rights". It is simply an attempt to assert positively the public's personal use rights. These rights are not new; they are historic rights granted in previous legislation and court rulings that have over the last four years been whittled away. Under the guise of "preventing illegal copying" I believe Hollywood is vilifying their customers - people like me - and using the legislative process to create new lines of business at my expense. Their goal is to create a legal system that takes away my long-cherished personal use rights and then to charge me an additional fee to regain those rights! Copy protection, especially to prevent overseas piracy for illicit sale, is an important issue. But before Congress considers yet another change in the law at the behest of the copyright holders, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to protect my Fair Use rights. Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Justin Mahn
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
Of course the major reason all of this is happening is piracy. I submit that piracy isn't the cause of the problem, but a reaction to the fact that content simnply costs too much. We all know what happens when you are a content producer (e.g. musician, writer, software producer): to get your product distributed, you have to sign a contract with a distributor that grants them exclusive rights and lets them have the lion's share of the revenue. Distributors all consider this standard, and they also know that content producers have no choice but to to acquiesce. Anyone following the Bioware/Interplay fiasco knows what the game software industry is like--about the only way for a content producer to make any money anymore is to find a buyer for their company. It's the same with books and music. Ultimately the problem is that distributors with exclusive agreements are local monopolies, with the ability to charge a price far above where the supply and demand curves meet. The result is either abstention from buying their products or piracy. If music CDs cost $100 a piece, let's face it--NO ONE would buy them legitimately. At $22 a piece the effect is the same, just not as severe. My suggestion is to CHANGE CONTRACT LAW. Exclusive distribution arrangements and incentives should be classified as anti-competitive and make illegal. The incentive, from a content producer's standpoint, should always be in the direction of more distributors. Smaller distributors should be able to cut costs and undercut their competition by offering a producer's product to the consumer at a better price, thus garnering greater sales and revenue for the producer and themselves. Some distributors will survive, but the ones that don't suddenly start paying attention to their cost-revenue curves won't--just like in any other industry. The only real danger would be if distributors tacitly agreed not to "go after" each other's clients, but I feel that any distributor that didn't take every aggressive measure to undercut its competitors would quickly find itself sued by its stockholders. Greed will always be there, the trick is to make it work FOR the consumer instead of against it.
I usually listen to music in the car. Between road noise, wind noise (especially in summer when the windows are down), and engine noise the sound quality is never going to be that good anyway.
Best Slashdot Co
That brought an angry retort from Andrew S. Grove, the chairman of Intel. "Is it the responsibility of the world at large to protect an industry whose business model is facing a strategic challenge?" he said in an interview. "Or is it up to the entertainment industry to adapt to a new technical reality and a new set of consumers who want to take advantage of it?"
It is nice to see a more "mainstream" opinon which echos the sentiments of slashdot posters. This really is the core of the issue: Media companies don't want to deal with the new dynamics as to what people (the "consumer") want to do with the content that they percieve they own (i.e. i bought it in the store, i can do whatever i want with it). I don't see how digital rights should be any different than rights in the analog world. Asides from preceieved quality issues, all the move to digital has done, is make it easier for people to do stuff that they had done previously, i.e. the new term "space shift".
In my younger days i "spaceshifted" a record or cd to a tape or MD to listen to in my walkman or in my parents car. How is this any different than when I download a copy of a cd i own to my mp3 player?
The question I have, is who has more lobbyists? The hardware or media industires? That will probably be the deciding factor.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
You want to give up the convenience of wireless, pay per view, video on demand, media organization, plug and play, one touch recording, ease of use, so you can shift time? You need to give before you can get. If you want rights, use a PC and do it yourself. Don't expect major electronics companies to give you maximum convenience with full rights.
Joe Kraus, founder of Excite and co-founder of DigitalConsumer.org, is scheduled to testify before Congress today - his testimony is online and is excellent.
I'm a 2000 man.
From the Article(NYT one)...he(Eisner) suggested that they (MS Apple, Intel ETC) had failed to develop adequate protection for digital media because piracy helps sell computers.
Microsoft et al aren't even able to develop decent anti-piracy measures for their own software and hardware(Multi-Regional DVDs etc) why should they bother to work on another companies problems when they can't beat their own?
Also the very idea that pirited songs and ripped movies help to sell computers is stupid. At most it forces some people to go get a better video card, start a broadband account and get a bigger screen and speaker set.
Read Errant Story.
Why isn't anyone using this argument? I think I read somewhere that the video game industry is bigger than hollywood, and they don't seem to b*ch nearly as much, while their medium is solely computers. They can deal with it, why can't Hollywood/RIAA?
And because Windows XP is the heart of Microsofts business model, Microsoft has obviously devised a way to completely stop piracy of their operating system.
And as you can see today, they've been completely successful.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
you have the right to remain silent. anything you say has already been used against you. anything THEY (tm) say is protected by copyright and will be used against you unless used in the properly licensed, non-transferrable manner dictated by THEY (tm) lawyers.
you have the right to spend millions of dollars to defend yourself from frivolous corporate lawsuits, to pay for the lawyer's suits.
really folks, until we have our own multibillion dollar lobbying force to buy our government back from the corporations, this will be a VERY hard struggle to win.
But Mr. Chernin of the News Corporation suggested that matters might be different if the tables were turned. "Let's say I decide to broadcast on my network the code for how to make Intel chips or Microsoft software," he said. "I think they'd find a way to stop it."
It's called a "lawsuit." That is, you sue whoever leaks proprietary code when they do it. It doesn't mean you cripple your hardware or software on the off-chance that somebody could do it.
I swear to God, these media types must blow their noses by committee.
--- Work, worry, consume, die. It's a wonderful life. -- Bill Griffith
I understand. Just last week, I did the same sort of thing. Went to the doctor and mentioned to him that a friend of mine has a burning sensation when he urinates. Funny thing is, the prescription is in my name.
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
To contact your Representative and Senator. Go to http://www.digitalconsumer.org/fax.html and fill out your name, e-mail address, and Zip code. Then they'll fax a pre-made letter (which you can alter if you'd like) to your two Senators and your Representative (based on your Zip code). Very important since many people are concerned about this stuff, but balk when it's time to actually write and send a letter.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Mod me down, you know I'm right.
No, you're not.
Sure, the phrase "bill of rights" has been co-opted by every group of simpering, blood-sucking "activists" under the sun, but this time it is extremely appropriate. Why? Because this bill of rights was composed to remind people of the real, honest-to-goodness constitutional "fair use" rights that the media corps are trying to take away.
Yes, you heard me. Constitutional. Article I, Section 8. Look it up.
I like the concept and I thought the "bill of rights" was right on target but that website could use some more content. Possibly message boards and some type of petition to sign. A donations page is usually standard with these grass route advocacy pages. You think these guys would have their act together if they were getting linked from the WSJ.
Ah, yes, but it's not just the entertainment industry that you have to deal with. They have lots of ties. There's a good summary here (the fruits of a Google search). Entertainment and the major TV networks are tied in with power (GE, Westinghouse), AOL, and Philip Morris (already a massive company).
For example, Disney's ties (from the document linked above):
DISNEY / ABC / CAP
Television Holdings:
ABC: includes 10 stations, 24% of US households.
ABC Network News: Prime Time Live, Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America.
ESPN, Lifetime Television (50%), as well as minority holdings in A&E, History Channel and E!
Disney Channel/Disney Television, Touchtone Television.
Media Holdings:
Miramax, Touchtone Pictures.
Magazines: Jane, Los Angeles Magazine, W, Discover.
3 music labels, 11 major local newspapers.
Hyperion book publishers.
Infoseek Internet search engine (43%).
Other Holdings:
Sid R. Bass (major shares) crude oil and gas.
All Disney Theme Parks, Walt Disney Cruise Lines.
I know that the congressional staffers don't pay too much attention to boilerplate messages, so I rewrote mine to say the following, posted here as just another perspective:
I'm upset that the Fair Use rights of citizens and consumers of copyrighted information are under steady and increasing attack by profit-maximizing and liberty-minimizing corporations.
It'd be nice if some representatives such as yourself stood up for the average Joe's 'pursuit of happiness'.
Specifically, I would appreciate if Congress would grant the right for consumers to 'time-shift' and 'space-shift' our use of legitimately purchased (or licensed) copyrighted materials for personal use. I would like to add my voice to DigitalConsumer.org in calling for a "consumer technology bill of rights" in an attempt to preserve our Fair Use rights. I'm sure you've read their boilerplate, I won't repeat it.
I have a bunch of old cassette tapes. And I have a bunch of CDs. And I listen to a lot of my music and audio on the computer nowdays. And over time my cassettes (and even CDs) degrade for reasons of physics and cheap electronics.
As a software developer who respects intellectual property rights, I have never used Napster (or similar services) to download music I have not purchased. But I dang well *would* like the clear legal right to download MP3s of casettes I purchased 15 years ago, or CDs in my collection, so I don't have to go through the hassle of upgrading my tape deck and connecting it to my computer to try to move songs around. (To be fair to record companies, I would not demand the right to download CD-quality copies of my old cassettes, but CD-quality copies of CDs or low-medium-grade MP3 copies of casettes should be 'fair'.)
I've slowed and stopped purchasing much additional music until the industry comes up with a consumer-friendly way for me to purchase it; something which allows me to recognize a song on the radio, say "hey, I like that song and would like it in my permanent collection" and allows me to download it and play it for the rest of my life, like a book on my shelf.
The record industry wants me to purchase a 'license' to listen to the song when I am online, being tracked, or wants me to purchase a copy on some physical piece of media that they will obsolesce in 15 years.
I don't mind if they attempt to convince the public to do that, but I resent that they are enhancing their ability through highly suspect oligopolistic practices, through high-paid lawyers in the courts, through high-paid lobbiests trying to convince you, my representative.
Copyright was designed by our founders not as a license to print money (although that is a nice side effect when a work is popular). Copyright should be an incentive to create new, great works.
Wouldn't the world be a better place if they focused their massive resources on identifying new, good music? And not on trying to reduce the public's Fair Use rights in an attempt to create pseudo-mandatory upgrades for consumers who just want to listen to the Beatles songs of their youth, 20, 40, and 60 years later without paying copyright holders at every step along the way?
I focus on the music industry because that is closest to my heart, but there are very similar issues with movies, the electronic books of tomorrow, and other media products.
Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter.
--LP (no, I signed it with my real name and address in hopes they'd pay more attention)
Just so long as we don't have to pick up your medical and/or funeral bills. 8-)
"I believe if you say to these people, `You get us a system by Dec. 31 or we'll do it for you,' you'll be surprised at how innovative they'll become," Mr. Eisner told the lawmakers at last month's hearing.
Let's turn that around, and pretend I'm Intel for a moment:
"I believe if you say to the RIAA, `You find a new business model by Dec. 31 or we'll do it for you,' you'll be surprised at how quickly they'll adapt to current technology," Intel told the lawmakers at next month's hearing.
There, see how easy that was??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
"If someone figured out how to unlock the gas in the gas station, people would be outraged," Mr. Eisner added. "They wouldn't say to the oil industry, `You need a different business model.' "
i read the article and was not able to find one good point on behalf of the media companies. this point is absurd. when i copy a song, i am not depriving the people who have the song curently of their song so any analogy that deals with material goods is stupid at best.
We may be stupid... -Peter Chernin
you said it.
-
This is from the company that brought us a boxing match between Tonya Harding and Paula Jones, Temptation Island, Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire, The Chamber, and loads of other worthless trash, while at the same time doing a poor job of promoting Futurama and Family Guy (and a poor job in general with The Tick). Since when is changing this business model a bad thing? The public is already a loser, it can't get much worse.
Other nice quotes:
"I believe if you say to these people, `You get us a system by Dec. 31 or we'll do it for you,' you'll be surprised at how innovative they'll become," Mr. Eisner told the lawmakers at last month's hearing.
Oh yeah, this really makes Eisner look like the good guy...
Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina and chairman of the Commerce Committee, says that without technological safeguards Hollywood may never offer the kind of high-quality programming for digital television and broadband Internet services that would generate consumer interest and, in turn, economic growth.
Real "high-quality programming" comes from intelligent and creative writing, good acting, and management that lets these things happen - until that happens, it won't matter how many lines the video image has if they are all lines of crap.
"Unfortunately in many cases, fear is paralyzing Hollywood's ability to seize what I believe is an incredible opportunity," said Steven P. Jobs, chief executive of Apple Computer. "We at Apple believe most people want to be honest, and if offered reasonable choices, most people will choose to buy their content."
You know things are bad when Steve Jobs is the least insane person in the room...
That brought an angry retort from Andrew S. Grove, the chairman of Intel. "Is it the responsibility of the world at large to protect an industry whose business model is facing a strategic challenge?" he said in an interview. "Or is it up to the entertainment industry to adapt to a new technical reality and a new set of consumers who want to take advantage of it?"
Oh Yes! OH YES! OH YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!!
Andy's karma just went up a few notches there...
Edith Keeler Must Die
"Any person or company which manufactures a technological device which grants a user access to intellectual property content, must include functionality allowing the user to perform upon that content, any and all actions which may be legal."
You need to rethink this a bit. Your proposal as written would make it illegal to produce a playback device that didn't include a full range of copying and editing functions.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Excite was heavily hyped, didn't do much, and went bankrupt. This "DigitalConsumer" thing is starting out with heavy hype, and hasn't accomplished anything yet. Bad sign.
Point 6 is like the prostitution laws in Canada. Exchanging money for sex is perfectly legal, however any form of communication for the purposes of said exchange is solicitation and is illegal. So you can pay someone for sex as long as no-one ever actually talks about it. Funny, eh?
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
Ack! It should be protect the right -- this is not asking to ge given something, this is insisting that Congress cease and desist from violating our traditional rights.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
You already have copyright protection, so I must conclude that you're happy with what the status quo was before 1998.
And if copyright protection is what you're concerned about, why do you keep asking for something else -- copy protection?
Take all that money you're spending on congress bribes, and hire some private detectives and lawyers to prosecute infringers instead. Make an expensive example out of some Morpheus or Gnutella user, and maybe things will get back in line.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Otherwise, you will likely not get a response. Heck, it's likely the letter will go in the recycling bin if it doesn't have a return address.
Whomever handles the mail will enter it into their CMS, give you the "TECH.GEN", "PIRACY.PRO" and "DRM.CON" interest codes, and add a row for you to get the non-committal form letter regarding DRM(DRMGEN). A couple weeks later when a legislative coorespondent gets around to writing the letter, they'll print them off all at once and mail them out.
At the end of the month, the sys admin will run a report of the top ten interest codes for the Congresscritter. If enough people wrote in about DRM, it'll make the bottom half of the list. (Social Security, Medicare, Abortion, Guns and Education will always be the first five.) The sys admin may or may not include a sample letter for each of the subjects. Depends on whether he threw them out as soon as they were assigned a response in the system.
It's only at that point that the Congresscritter will notice that anyone is against DRM. Whether he's influenced by one line in the report more than the $10,000 HollyPAC just sent his campaign is up for you to decide.
If you haven't already, you'll soon start receiving mailings from your Rep's office. ie: newsletter, meeting notices, etc.
(Hint: If you want to get everything your Rep sends out, send a letter about the future of technology, education and Social Security and portray yourself as a hispanic mother in your 40s.)
'Is it the responsibility of the world at large to protect an industry whose business model is facing a strategic challenge?" he said in an interview. "Or is it up to the entertainment industry to adapt to a new technical reality and a new set of consumers who want to take advantage of it?"'
It's about time somebody said this! A company's inability to stay ahead of customer demand is not the fault of the consumer . Don't punish them for saying "we have more things we want to do with your product."
"Derp de derp."
The RIAA and the MPAA only want to sell the same crap over and over again, with no need to innovate. I have proof:
"If someone figured out how to unlock the gas in the gas station, people would be outraged," Mr. Eisner added. "They wouldn't say to the oil industry, `You need a different business model.' "
Never mind that he's accusing his customers of being natural thieves, but he also likens the content industry to an oil company. I don't think it's any accident that he used this terminology. He wants to be able to sell a movie, and anybody who uses it in any way pays for it, just like oil. He also secretly wants to make the content so easy to manufacture that there's always a supply of it.
Eisner is going to learn a very harsh lesson about how much I'm willing to pay for content.
"Derp de derp."
Aye, but one must remember, that while it's relatively easy to wave consumer rights in many US States, it's very hard to wave consumer rights in the EU (certainly the UK), and indeed to attempt to mandate such is itself often illegal.
It's for this reason that so much product legalese is followed by "this does not effect your statutory rights".
Typically in combination with the "if any of this is legally void the rest still stands" type clause. There are rights which cannot be waived in the US (and many other countries) just that they are not always the same rights. (Also there is AFAIK little interest in "harmonising" customer rights, since they arn't seen as something advantagous to big business.)
A basic problem is that most people don't know what inaliable rights they actually have, even in their own country, let alone if they travel elsewhere
I remember having an argument with my bank over copies of statements and the data protection act, tangental I know... "I don't care what your policy is on the data protection act, I'm waving and an act of Parliament under your nose, which carries a little more wait than your written policy"... I got what I wanted.
In other words they are so used to people not knowing their rights and accepting what they think customers rights should be that they are difficult to enlighten.
Similarly in the US an act of Congress or appropriate state legislature trumps any "policy". Though certain (large) commercial entities might take a lot of convincing. Also the US constitution should trump anything the US Congress comes up with, Even though it might be an uphill struggle getting the US Federal Government to agree.
Just like a whole population of stoners has been turned into criminals, we geeks could face the same fate, having our passtime be deemed illegal, and punishable by lots of jail time. I could end up buying hardware and pot from the same people. ;)
Cheers, Joshua
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
"If someone figured out how to unlock the gas in the gas station, people would be outraged," Mr. Eisner added. "They wouldn't say to the oil industry, `You need a different business model.' "
Yes they would. Gas is easy to go buy. There's really no need to try to steal it. There'd be far more drive-offs if people were really trying to steal gas. But let me tell you something, if companies who sell gasoline played games with how much people could by (like they cannot buy gas for their lawnmower), then they just might steal it. In which case, the oil industry would HAVE to have a new business model.
If Eisner really wants to liken Disney to the oil company, then this is a more accurate assesment:
- Gas can only work in cars, it may not be used in any other vehicle like a lawnmower.
- You have to pay for gas while you are using it. So if you are going up a hill, gas costs more.
- You're not allowed to try to make your own fuel.
- Disney has the right to tell you if you can drive or not.
- You may only buy a full tank of gas, you may not purchase only a gallon.
- The gas you bought will not work in anoter car, so you cannot sell your gas to somebody else.
- You're not allowed to store gas in a 1-gallon container, even though it is more convienient and you've paid for it.
If Disney ran the oil companies, and they played games like this, they're basically forcing people to acquire gas through 'unofficial channels'. The RIAA and the MPAA are basically entrapping people by not providing into the market people want to buy content in. "We're not going to sell into that market, but damn you if you try to get it anyway."
I think the end of the RIAA and the MPAA is on the horizon . It's like refusing to turn when the road is swerving to the right.
"Derp de derp."
I filled out the fax form, but I made a few changes to the default letter. You're all invited to use - - and in the further interest of fair use, to modify and add your own thoughts - - my version of the message, listed below:
---
You and your colleagues have recieved letters or faxes from me in the past regarding issues of Consumer Technology. While the are no doubt recieving a number of faxes that look very similar to this one, I urge to you read this one completely. While most of this letter was written by members of DigitalConsumer.org -- they've already stated things better than I could -- I have added a few of my own thoughts.
As a constituent, an ardent consumer of digital media, an artist, musician, author, and software developer, I write again today to urge you to support a Consumer Technology Bill of Rights, and to express my concerns about the recent trend toward allowing one-sided copyright laws to eliminate my Fair Use rights.
Historically, our country has enjoyed a balance between the rights of copyright holders and the rights of citizens who legally acquire copyrighted works. Generally speaking, rights holders have the exclusive right to distribute and profit from artistic works. Consumers like me who legally acquire these works are free to use them in most noncommercial ways. Unfortunately, this balance has shifted dramatically in recent years, much to the detriment of consumers.
To prevent further erosion of my rights, I would like to add my voice to DigitalConsumer.org in calling for a "consumer technology bill of rights". It is simply an attempt to assert positively the public's personal use rights. These rights are not new; they are historic rights granted in previous legislation and court rulings that have over the last four years been whittled away.
Under the guise of "preventing illegal copying" I believe media companies are vilifying their customers - people like me - and using the legislative process to stifle outside innovation and create new lines of business at my expense. Legitimate, legal devices and methods for Fair Use copying, time- or media-shifting -- privileges that I am granted under both Constitutional and Federal Law -- are being outlawed because of the possibility that they may be used for widespread copyright infringement. Content licenses are becoming more and more restrictive, too. I can recall a recent case where the license of a particular electronic book forbid the content of the book to be spoken aloud! And another case where consumers were cease-and-desisted because they figured out how to use a hardware -- hardware! -- bar code scanner that the company had given them to read bar codes other than the ones that the company had intended them to read. Can you imagine the state of the country if Goodyear tires could only be used on roads that Goodyear approved of, or if people were forced not to use timesaving or lifesaving products or information because to do so was not the use the manufacturer had intended for their product?
The goal of the media companies seems to be to create a legal system that takes away my long-cherished personal use rights and my right to innovate, and then to charge me additional fees to regain those rights! These companies should be encouraged to examine and reform their products and business models, not to infringe upon my rights.
Copy protection, especially to prevent overseas piracy for illicit sale, is an important issue. But before Congress considers yet another change in the law at the behest of the copyright holders, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to protect my Fair Use rights. I don't pirate software. I don't pirate music. Yet, what the media companies have done and are doing with laws like the DMCA and proposals like the SSSCA will have great negative impact on my rights, and what I choose to do, within the real of fair use, with content I license or own.
Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Just more fuel for those wanting to actually write letters.
Copy, mix, paste. (Hmm.. Kind of like Rip, Mix Burn huh?)
I am writing you today to urge you to seriously consider supporting the development of a consumer technology bill of rights. One such effort can be found here: http://www.digitalconsumer.org
Until now, our nation has employed a careful balance between the rights granted to copyright holders and those granted to citizens making use of protected content. These rights have enabled those who create and distribute content to generate wealth while allowing content to eventually pass into public domain in order to fuel future content creation.
Fair use also plays an important part in this balance. Today citizens who legally obtain content are free to use it in most non noncommercial ways such as time shifting, space shifting, and archive creation and use. These uses provide good value to consumers today. Fair use also permits many adademic uses of works that may or may not be endorsed by the creators, but are vital to the growth of our culture and society in general.
The efforts today to reduce the volume of content returned today to the public domain will reduce the quality and creative character of future content without any real benefit to society other than increased profits for the content creators. This is not what copyright was intended to do.
I am also concerned over the many efforts to eliminate or sharply constrain the scope of Fair Use. A reduction in Fair Use will have negative long term effects on our ability to understand the nature and worth of technology put forth in the future. These reductions will also come at our expense without any real benefit to society in general other than increased profits for the content creators.
The digital consumer today is under represented compared to the technology and content creators. The rapid pace of technology today makes it difficult for most of us to be reasonably informed about the technology that has a growing influence on our day to day lives. Through history, invention has changed our world in remarkable ways. We live now in a time where invention is again changing how our world works. Protecting the economic interests of a few large corporations now is just as wrong as it has been in the past.
Given the relative youth of digital technology and our limited understanding of its long term effects on society today, efforts such as the Consumer Technology Bill of Rights seek to establish a foundation upon which technology and content creators can innovate fairly while preserving every citizens essential freedoms in the process. Maintaining the checks and balances necessary for fair and just growth is a must and efforts such as the Consumer Technology Bill of rights represent a much needed vehicle to properly balance technology growth in the future.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I value it.
Blogging because I can...
If you want the media companies back in line, unplug your television and start talking to people about something other than SouthPark for a change.
It's funny, I'll be at work and I'll be talking part in a group conversation, you know, the kind where everybody's escalating who can be the wittiest! You know?
Then, I'll see a reference to a South Park episode that NOBODY will see, and I'll make a reference to it and everybody is silent as my poignant insight leaves them disoriented. Ha!
It's just that, I can find a way to reference South Park in ANY, and I mean ANY conversation!!!
There's an old addage from the newspaper business which is very applicable here: Only a fool would start a publicity fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
What do you think alternative media aims to do in the first place?
Seriously though, if you want to really cheese the media conglomerates, you have to fight them with the truth, smothered with an exquisite glaze of wit and sattire.
In this case, the topic being presented are by default, shrilly and droning, and you'd have to be pretty fucking entertaining and insightful to educate people on this shit.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Dear Billy,
Thank you for letting me know what I already know. I understand the issue, but it seems you don't understand that I don't really care about your "rights" to be entertained. Now listen little Billy, you'll always be able to watch TV and movies you want, we're just making sure that the other kids don't ruin free entertainment for everyone.
You see Billy, there's a lot of money to be made by pacifying the ignorant masses to keep them from killing each other and the rest of us who want to make this world a decent place to live without having to worry about migrant hoards of sodomizing hippies who smoke "dope" and play their anti-establishment MP3s on their computers running that communist operating system Linux.
Earth and Justice to you, Fcuky!!!
Your Congressman,
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
The problem is that if the hypothetical law allowed some hardware to be made that lacked these functions, the manufacturers could get around it: sell the crippled hardware
Manufacturers selling crippled hardware is not a problem. The problem is if another manufacturer is not allowed to sell non-crippled hardware.
Store manager: "Hmmm, that's odd. These Acme VCR's are flying off the shelves, but the MPAA VCR's without record buttons don't seem to be selling very well. Let's stock more MPAA VCR's."
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Is it just me or does Disney have some sort of evil "anti-consumer, anti-public domain" plan in store for us (to Disney, its loyal subjects)? This sounds quite plausible, given their recent activities.
But alas, our (new?) friend Andy Grove pins it on the head in the NYT article: "Is it the responsibility of the world at large to protect an industry whose business model is facing a strategic challenge?" I guess now we know what entertainment company has the most to fear from the future. And this is the same company that gave us FutureWorld.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Well, assuming that you are referring to using Napster/Morpheus/Kazaa for violating copyright (I will not use the loaded word "piracy"), no, it can't be justified. It's illegal.
Consider it civil disobedience, until there comes a time when consumers can buy content which respects their rights for a fair price.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota