NCC Calls for Laws to Protect User Rights

earthlingpink writes "We're used to reading articles about new and creative ways in which DRM and other such technologies can be used to prevent us from doing whatever we like with our media. The BBC offers us a glimmer of hope with a story about how the National Consumer Council (NCC) has made a report to a parliamentary inquiry in which it has highlighted the issues faced by many of us. From the article: 'Consumers face security risks to their equipment, limitations on their use of products, poor information when purchasing products and unfair contract terms.'"

Comments

Feh...

[Pig Hogger]

Given how big business has subverted the Democratic process, expect those who proposed this to be quietly removed from office...

Re:Feh...

[McFadden]

No need to remove them from office. That would give them a platform to raise hell. Better just to follow the normal Blair government course of action and ignore them.

Re:Feh...

[dada21]

Given how big business has subverted the Democratic process, expect those who proposed this to be quietly removed from office...

Big business comes directly out of the democratic process. Whenever you give 51% of the people control over the individual's freedom, you can expect there to be abuse.

Our country was never intended to be democratic -- our Congress and our Executive branches were to be strictly limited in scope and in power. They had no ability to abuse the individual just because the voting majority said to.

I don't trust democracy. It doesn't surprise me that laws are written to help the elite few at the expense of the many. If I offered you US$1 billion if you worked 40 hours a week for 2 years, would you take it? If I told you I'd put a gun to your head and take US$3 out of your pocket a year for 2 years, would you fight it?

US$3 per person x 300 million people = US$1 billion. A lobbiest that works 40 hours a week has reason to fight for his billion, while you have little reason to fight against giving up US$3 for him.

Democracy is evil, support Unanimocracy!

Re:Feh...

[ClamIAm]

I don't trust democracy.

That's the point.

Re:Feh...

[bheer]

Interesting link about unanimocracy. It demonstrated quite illuminatingly why I am suspicious of armchair libertarians. There was a nice post in the previous thread about

Sorry to butt in, but I just wanted to add a little input. I think total unanimity is going too far. There WILL be some jackass who votes 'NO' on "No Murder." So basically, wherever this guy lives, murder is legal. Do you propose that everyone always move away from this fellow, or is he one of the first legally sanctioned murders?

Things only get more interesting from there. Is secret ballot allowed? (I'm assuming yes, because it's a basic feature of modern voting.) In that case, how do you know who voted against the no-murder statute? Was it your neighbour who has the hots for your wife (and you happen to live in a no-divorce state)?

Better still, if murder is outlawed in some states but not in others, how can states reach a balance between playing well with other states and protecting their own citizens? Or reach a balance between playing well with other states and punishing their guilty (who may've fled to another state?)

And-- who votes? do babies vote? do 12 year olds? do convicted felons? (or is that decidable by vote? in that case who can vote for that proposition?) Can *any* proposition be brought to the ballot (good for DDoSing the electoral system) or will it require a certain number of signatures (like Switzerland)? Since laws expire every six years, it means that laws are _constantly_ expiring. Assuming voters vote every year, how many people will have the time to study the issues behind each law in detail? Or will they vote based on gut feel? How will unpopular but economically vital laws get passed, or will unanimocracy be condemned to populist policies forever?

And -- faced with the immense roster of laws they have to vote on, how will you avoid voter apathy? How will you deal with absent/ill voters, or voters who screw up their ballot somehow?

> I don't trust democracy.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." --Winston Churchill, who'd have laughted his gut out at that proposal of yours.

And as for your disdain for lobbying-- I don't care for it myself, but that's the way the game is played. And I'd rather have lobbying done by people I know are professional lobbyists, rather than in the shadows. Kinda like I agree with how most European countries have legalized prostitution because it's better to accept and regulate a very human vice than drive it underground. (and I'm sorry for comparing lobbyists to prostitutes, I do realize it was offensive to prostitutes).

Re:Feh...

[Grym]

Big business comes directly out of the democratic process.

That's an awfully large sweeping statement. As China is proving day after day, there's nothing inherent about Capitalism that prevents non-democratic entities from participating--and competing well even.

Whenever you give 51% of the people control over the individual's freedom, you can expect there to be abuse.

Well, of course. But you're oversimplifying the systems of control within the United States. Your point might ring true if we only had a single election every four years that determined everything, but we don't. This is basic government 101 stuff. There are three branches of the federal government on different schedules for re-election. This severely limits parties from gaining and maintaining a stranglehold of power (in politics, time changes everything; a lesson Republicans are soon going to find out in the upcoming elections). Even if one party controlled the supreme court, presidency, and 51% of Congress, an extreme agenda would STILL be difficult to pursue given the likelihood of dissenters within the faction and the threat of a backlash from the electorate. Furthermore, extreme changes to the structure of the system are stymied by the fact that a change to the constitution requires 66% of the legislature and re-ratification by most states.

It's pretty well recognized that the government was designed to be inefficient and difficult to change. A slight majority of power (51%) for one faction would not equate into the catastrophic consequences you project. Come on... give the founder's a little more credit than that.

Democracy is evil, support Unanimocracy!

I hoping this is a joke, but seeing as how this is rated +5, I'll bite. What you're suggesting is little better than anarchy. In fact, in practice, it would be anarchy. Look no further than the trolls and GNAA idiots on Slashdot for the reason why. A properly dispersed, obstructionist minority could send the entire system in to a paralysis.

I sympathize with your disgust at the nature of things currently with our government. However, the real cause of the unchecked corruption by big business isn't our system of democracy or a Republican majority. After all, business was, for the most part, completely in check at one point in our history under the same basic system we have today. The devil, as always, is in the details. I'm no expert, but I would pin the problem on a few specific things such as: the lack of congressional term limits (and the rise of professional politicians), the emergence of telecommunications media, the lack of transparency and accountability within public corporations, and the lack of more stringent restrictions on campaign contributions. If any one of these flaws were to fundamentally change, I think we'd definitely see ebbing in the power of big business. Now achieving such changes in our current situation is a big problem indeed...

-Grym

Re:Feh...

[servognome]

As China is proving day after day, there's nothing inherent about Capitalism that prevents non-democratic entities from participating--and competing well even.

Depends on how capitalism plays out. If you have a few elites controlling all the wealth, then yes non-democratic entities can continue. If, however, a strong middle/mercantile class arises, then you have a greater number of people who have property to lose and want a stake in governmental decisions.

After all, business was, for the most part, completely in check at one point in our history under the same basic system we have today

When was this? You had rich cotton farmers influencing the ratification of the Constitution, Rail barons holding cities hostage, and early industrialists influencing against unions.

I'm no expert, but I would pin the problem on a few specific things such as: the lack of congressional term limits (and the rise of professional politicians), the emergence of telecommunications media, the lack of transparency and accountability within public corporations, and the lack of more stringent restrictions on campaign contributions. If any one of these flaws were to fundamentally change, I think we'd definitely see ebbing in the power of big business. Now achieving such changes in our current situation is a big problem indeed...

All of these issues would be null if there was an interested voting populace. If people actually reviewed voting records, rather than voting in order of importance for 1) The incumbant, 2) Their party, 3) The person on TV, or with the most celebrity (the movie Predator has 2 governors!).
Right now we have about 25% of the voting population deciding things. Hence vocal special interest groups are over represented.

Re:Feh...

[dada21]

Interesting link about unanimocracy. It demonstrated quite illuminatingly why I am suspicious of armchair libertarians. There was a nice post in the previous thread about

Eventually I think you'll be convinced :)

So basically, wherever this guy lives, murder is legal.

Only on his property. Would you enter the property of someone who believes murder is legal? Maybe he could get together with a few hundred nutjobs and make an entire community with legal murder.

Read my murder post for more clarification: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174103&cid=144 87647

Or reach a balance between playing well with other states and punishing their guilty (who may've fled to another state?)

That's between the States to decide (and the people in the end). Of course people will flee crimes -- it happens every day. This is why we need a market solution to dealing with people such as a public moderation and feedback system (or multiple competitive systems). If someone rips people off on eBay, they won't be able to trade in the future. Right now, people trust zero feedback sellers and buyers, but give it time, zero feedback will be the equivalent to -15 feedback. The same would be true with moderation systems in a free market.

How will unpopular but economically vital laws get passed, or will unanimocracy be condemned to populist policies forever?

Like what? I don't know if any law is economically vital. If it is, it will get passed upon sunsetting.

*any* proposition be brought to the ballot (good for DDoSing the electoral system) or will it require a certain number of signatures (like Switzerland)?

I don't see why not. This would be the best form of superdemocracy anyway. Bring a bill to your community group -- let's call it 4th District Gurnee, IL (where I live, FYI). If the 4th District accepts your bill into law, they can push it to the next level. If that level accepts it (next year's election?) push it to the next level and so on and so on. By the time you have it at the Federal level, you'll test it well enough to see if you want to reintroduce it at the 6 year mark at the local level.

How will you deal with absent/ill voters, or voters who screw up their ballot somehow?

Full response voting records. When you vote online, you get a public record number assigned to your anonymous vote (along with a 4 digit private pin). That number is instantly posted in the "YES" or "NO" column for you to verify it made it there. Once it is there, you enter your private 4 digit pin, and you flag the public record number with your own 4 digit public code. The website is updated to reflect the public record number and your 4 digit public code. This is a two-way verification that your vote was accepted and in the correct place. Not every will want to verify it, but if they do, the opportunity to check your vote is there, forever and anonymous.

And I'd rather have lobbying done by people I know are professional lobbyists, rather than in the shadows. Kinda like I agree with how most European countries have legalized prostitution because it's better to accept and regulate a very human vice than drive it underground.

My problem with lobbying is encompassed in this thread here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174154&thresho ld=-1&commentsort=3&mode=flat&cid=14487056

Lobbyists have more reason to try to gain US$1 billion than 300 million taxpayers have to fight a US$3 cost to them.

Re:Feh...

[bheer]

That's an awfully large sweeping statement. As China is proving day after day, there's nothing inherent about Capitalism that prevents non-democratic entities from participating--and competing well even.

Big Business only needs a predictable legal climate (barring that, guns -- lots of guns). Capitalism != big business, OTOH. Capitalism is about entrpreneurship and/or innovation and reaping the profits of your time/monetary investment. Unsurprisingly, democratic countries like India, while poorer, fare better in providing opportunities for their citizens compared to China, where one needs a work permit to work in Shanghai even if one's a Chinese national (and these work permits are doled out very stingily). And China mostly competes on wage arbitrage and efficiencies of scale (and yes, Chinese workers have far better living conditions than many Chinese farmers), it's not like it's doing anything stunning in the world of business. If Europe (say) got its head out of its regulatory ass, it could probably compete as well with China. But then you have the pesky 40 hour workweek (no matter that many European factory workers would have willingly worked 44-48 hours a week (as they do in Britain) to keep their jobs instead of being outsourced to Asia) and things like clean air laws (which are nice, I admit, but it does keep Europe uncompetitve w.r.t. Asia -- and unlike the US, the EU's politically correct 'save the environment' messsages fall on deaf ears in Asia).

You're confusing China's foreign-investment driven coastal skyscrapers and the ubiquitous Made in China Walmart items for success in capitalism. In reality, China's economy has problematic fundamentals (astonishing levels of loan defaults and a banking system in tatters, to name but two). The lack of transparency will cover it for some time (just like the USSR covered up their tanking economy from the late 70s to the 80s) but without drastic action from the Chinese govt the truth would have come out years ago. Of course, one reason China's so big on foreign investment is that it's determined to not let the USSR's fate befall them: they will continue to shore up their image with foreign investor money, and the foreign investors will keep giving as long as Beijing keeps telling them that their money is welcome.

Re:Feh...

[dada21]

That's an awfully large sweeping statement. As China is proving day after day, there's nothing inherent about Capitalism that prevents non-democratic entities from participating--and competing well even.

Which is why I love capitalism -- everyone has a chance at competing. In cartel mercantilism (what the US is), there are very high costs to entering many markets.

Look no further than the trolls and GNAA idiots on Slashdot for the reason why. A properly dispersed, obstructionist minority could send the entire system in to a paralysis.

Not in a unanimocracy, actually. The GNAA idiot in your community can do whatever he wants on his property, but he can't get everyone in your community to agree with his practice. The same is true for the nut job that wants Social Security -- he could continue to bring the bill to the election, but if the community doesn't want to throw moeny into a pot to be spent willy-nilly, the law won't pass. Try revoking failed social security today. Can't be done, even if 51% of the people hate it. I bet in reality far more than 51% of Americans hate Social Security.

I'm no expert, but I would pin the problem on a few specific things such as: the lack of congressional term limits (and the rise of professional politicians), the emergence of telecommunications media, the lack of transparency and accountability within public corporations, and the lack of more stringent restrictions on campaign contributions.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

The problem with our government is their unlimited power. The money came after the corrupt people came after the power was set up in an unlimited fashion.

I want unlimited campaign finance -- let anyone give money to anyone. To me, spending money is how I can express myself. If you let unlimited money come in, third parties would have a bigger voice and you could use money to vote in the free market. How do you control unlimited finance? By having completely limited power in office. If the Congress was restricted to their Constitutionally limited power (VERY limited powers), no one would want to bribe them with any amount of campaign finance -- they have no power to help others financially.

All the things you ask for are tyrannical and prevent me from doing what I want to do. You have no reason to deal with public companies -- stop buying from them if they lie about their books or their products. Don't force them to disclose anything. Also stop funding them with taxpayer dollars or taxpayer-granted monopolies such as copyright, patents and other monopolist powers that should never be granted in the first place.

Re:Feh...

[bheer]

Like what? I don't know if any law is economically vital. If it is, it will get passed upon sunsetting.

In countries like France and India (where it's very difficult to fire people) lots of economists have been asking for labor reform. So far it's been a tough sell.

Of course, to cut off any 'Heartless MNCs fire people' rhetoric, I'll just point out that heartless MNCs simply move out of your country. Job-security laws mostly affect small and midsize businesses who are scared of adding on staff because they think they'll have to pay major $$$ for an employee they may not be able to justify in a year's time. And the bar for hiring goes up sharply (as many unemployed .de and .fr Slashdotters will tell you).

The problem is, people do not always make rational choices while voting. *Voters* are agenda-driven and selfish. And don't tell me that Foo County can have easy-fire laws if it so wants: most midsize businesses wouldn't want to work in an environment where laws are so narrowly applied and potentially change every 6 years (although I guess any county/town that implemented such a policy would have a thriving smallbiz scene).

Re:Feh...

[Grym]

Not in a unanimocracy, actually. The GNAA idiot in your community can do whatever he wants on his property, but he can't get everyone in your community to agree with his practice. The same is true for the nut job that wants Social Security -- he could continue to bring the bill to the election, but if the community doesn't want to throw moeny into a pot to be spent willy-nilly, the law won't pass.

I don't think you understand the nature of the problem. You're only thinking of passing laws in the positive sense. Sure, the GNAA idiot couldn't pass a law to intentionally create potholes in the street, but he could definitely VOTE DOWN any law to fix potholes--with exactly the same results. What's more, he could just vote against each and every law--effectively halting the local legislature until his demands are met. Properly dispersed (exactly ONE in every district), a very small minority of obstructionists could put the entire country in jeopardy.

You might argue that this wouldn't be in the personal best interests of such spoilers and thus such an event is impossible or at least unlikely. However, this would be short-sighted. What about agents or sympathizers of a foreign power or even a rival district? What about the few malevolent people who revel in the misery of others?

Lets be honest, a unanimocracy is an academic novelty, and that's putting it kindly.

All the things you ask for are tyrannical and prevent me from doing what I want to do. You have no reason to deal with public companies -- stop buying from them if they lie about their books or their products.

I disagree. All of the things you're suggesting require prerequisites that may or may not exist. First of all, consumers are only as powerful if they're informed about the market. This doesn't have to be the case, and, in fact, most assuredly wouldn't be the case if the company in question either owned or had agreements with major media companies. Secondly, the power of consumers is largely diminished in an unhealthy market (ex. a monopoly). Without a strong government, what entity would correct these unhealthy markets?

Don't force them to disclose anything.

Why not? Such disclosure is a fundamental to a healthy, free market. The benefits of corporate licensure are granted at the leisure of the public with the implicit agreement that it serve the public interest even, if only indirectly. More information about the inner workings of public companies would empower consumers and reduce corruption. There'd still be room for trade secrets, of course, but the scandals that characterize our system today would be nigh on impossible to achieve.

-Grym

Re:Feh...

[dada21]

Properly dispersed (exactly ONE in every district), a very small minority of obstructionists could put the entire country in jeopardy.

Ahh! Good point!

You might argue that this wouldn't be in the personal best interests of such spoilers and thus such an event is impossible or at least unlikely. However, this would be short-sighted. What about agents or sympathizers of a foreign power or even a rival district? What about the few malevolent people who revel in the misery of others

Right, I understand. So take it further. Us 1000 in the community called the 4th District of the Town of Gurnee in the County of Lake in the State of Illinois in the US want a law fixing potholes. Some GNAA-head decides to vote against it. I'm cool with it. I believe this gives us an opportunity to propose an additional part of the Unanimocracy Constitution -- secession. Any number of people can seceed from any organization above it without prejudice. If 999 of the community disagree with the 1, we can seceed (as long as we offer the 1 an outlet thoroughfare out of the community maybe?), they can seceed from the 1 and form another?

Lets be honest, a unanimocracy is an academic novelty, and that's putting it kindly.

Maybe, but the debate offers something different I think.

First of all, consumers are only as powerful if they're informed about the market.

This is a myth that I've spoken of regularly here. It is NOT needed for a free market, and in fact it is counterintuitive to a competitive marketplace. There are no consumers or producers in a barter -- both parties of an exchange are profiting from the exchange. Both have to have secrets or the exchange can't be mutually profitable. The "consumer" party must hide how much cash it has available and how badly it wants a given product or service. The "producer" party must hide how much profit it has available and what the demand of that product or service is. Both parties believe they're exiting the exchange ahead of what they had entering into it. The "consumer" gives up money that is worth less than the product or service. The "producer" gives up a product or service that is worth less than the money. Mutual profit!

This doesn't have to be the case, and, in fact, most assuredly wouldn't be the case if the company in question either owned or had agreements with major media companies

Would copyright exist in a unanimocracy? I doubt it would exist as it does today, leaving the major media companies in a much less powerful form -- definitely not a cartel.

Secondly, the power of consumers is largely diminished in an unhealthy market (ex. a monopoly). Without a strong government, what entity would correct these unhealthy markets?

In all my years on slashdot I have heard this question. I have yet to hear anyone show me what is an unhealthy market. Government is the only creator of monopolies. Free markets don't allow them in any way, shape or form for any extended period of time. All of the common examples (Standard Oil, Microsoft, etc) were not monopolies until government mandated licensing and regulatory structures, and even then, the companies were not monopolies in that they lowered prices to help the consumer buy more.

Why not? Such disclosure is a fundamental to a healthy, free market.

As I showed before, this is untrue.

More information about the inner workings of public companies would empower consumers and reduce corruption

I disagree. Corruption in a free market only increases the cost of doing business as the company performing the corruption must continue to hide the fraud. Fraudulent providers wouldn't last long, unless they were given a monopoly to use government force (by high regulatory standards, tariffs or protectionism, or other government manipulations).

Good words!

Re:Feh...

[savorymedia]

I say let the big business bastards put all the DRM they want on stuff, BUT gov't should require companies to put a LARGE notice on any piece of media containing DRM and a description of exactly what it does (including any possible security breaches). From there on, it's caveat emptor. If someone is f'n stupid enough to buy a DRMd product, then they deserve what it does to their system or whatever restrictions it places on them. Also, if people knew exactly how DRM affected them, I'm sure sales would drop like a rock. THAT would send a message to the corporate greedmongers.

(For the record, I'm a dyed in the wool capitalist. I do not support overarching corporate greed, though.)

Re:Feh...

[zippthorne]

UNLIMITED?? Surely you are opposed to foreign money in campaigns?

Re:Feh...

[Teun]

Democracy works by counting votes, in the US too many of these votes can be had for money.

I've said it before and I still believe in it; financial support for political means (like candidates, parties) should be limited.
It should be limited to be spend by real people that have the right to vote, not organisations or companies, these should and can be represented by the people (voters) that own them and/or work in them.
The amount of financial support should be democratised; that means a sum that even the poorest can affort, say $10.- per year.

In my view the present (US) political finance system is completely undemocratic when some can affort (and are allowed) to donate vast sums and others next to nothing. Especially non-natural entities like companies or unions should be banned from giving financial support to political parties or candidates.

The only ones suffering in such a system would be the media, no more 100 million dollar campains.

Re:Feh...

[Ihlosi]

Democracy works by counting votes, in the US too many of these votes can be had for money.

Sometimes, the process of counting the votes can be had for money, too. As long as it is well hidden, for example in a little electronic box.

Re:Feh...

[Yer Mom]

You mean like all those "smoking kills" warnings that take up half a cigarette packet?

Yup, Joe Consumer really pays attention to those...

(That said, I'd like to see those notices as well, so I can steer clear. But it's not going to reduce the amount of DRM out there, because most folk will just go "but I want my Craaazy Frog!" and buy it anyway.)

Re:Feh...

[halltk1983]

If he's voted down EVERYTHING... just kill him. Murder should be legal... once people see that you are willing to kill to get your pothole fixed, they will be okay with passing that... and a no-murder law.

Re:Feh...

[dada21]

UNLIMITED?? Surely you are opposed to foreign money in campaigns?

Why? I welcome all money, foreign or local.

If the power of Congress is severely limited and the balance of powers is truely checked, foreign financing would have zero effect.

What we have today is not campaign finance reform, it's imcumbent protection racketeering.

How?

If one of the two parties wants to get their voice heard, they have thousands of donators able to pay the cap. Third parties historically relied on fewer supporters giving more money each. With caps per business or individual, third parties have no voice. Campaign finance is speech!

Re:Feh...

[saltydogdesign]

You do realize that this article is not about the United States, right?

Re:Feh...

[hackstraw]

Why? I welcome all money, foreign or local.

Me too. In fact, I'll take whatever is given to me. duh.

What we have today is not campaign finance reform, it's imcumbent protection racketeering.

OK. What I wonder, is where does these "campaign funds" go? If I owned a TV or radio station, and a candidate that was worthwhile and I believed in them, and he/she/it wanted to air an ad, I would let them do it for free. I mean, they are not making money off of advertising like any of those $19.95 things that come with more free stuff after you pay for it, they are trying to lead people to make their lives better. Right? Its just a job. Most people have jobs. The inverse, is that I would not let a candidate air an ad that I do not believe in, no matter what they paid. Why should I? Oh, I guess it makes more sense to charge both (or all) candidates to air right?

If one of the two parties wants to get their voice heard...

Its not that tough these days to put up a website or something. If they actually had something worthwhile to say, people would wait to hear them. People would pay big bucks and wait outside the place they are talking. But that does not happen, because people simply do not give much authority to the government. Government does not really impact people's lives in a positive way. Mostly what they do is limit our freedoms and take our money.

Sure there are things that are needed by the government. Someone needs to decide which side of the road we drive on, and standardize that across states. Someone needs to fine and keep businesses from being greedy and treating their employees or the environment. Someone needs to protect our property. I simply don't understand why $400 billion a year is not enough to protect our borders. Why is it so easy just to walk into this country? What if a terrorist decides to do that instead of going through the hassle of the airport? Unless its necessary like time is important or I'm going overseas (maybe), I would not subject myself to the crap that the airlines are required to put me through. Cars, busses, or trains are cheaper, and almost as fast. Anyone can drive 500 to 700 miles in a day.

Re:Feh...

[dada21]

Oh, I guess it makes more sense to charge both (or all) candidates to air right?

If you decide you don't like a particular opinion, and you own the radio station, I guess you could work hard to prevent someone from speaking. You're in control of those airwaves. On the other hand, if the money is big enough, would you really say no? It is easy to say you wouldn't accept advertising dollars from someone you didn't agree with, but try it when the money is really offered. Our minds change when we think of what we can do with the dollars offered to us. Everyone has a price for everything.

Mostly what they do is limit our freedoms and take our money.

Which is why it is of vast importance to do the following:

1. Revoke all campaign finance laws and let people talk with their moneys.
2. Turn over all debate committees to anyone who is on the ballot.
3. Let anyone get on the ballot who wants to. Right now ballot access is near impossible for anyone but the 2 big parties.
4. Decrease the power of Congress and the Executive branch to the Constitutional limits, and return the Senate vote to the States, not the people. Democratically elected Senators is one of the worst changes to the Constitution in history.

Someone needs to decide which side of the road we drive on, and standardize that across states.

Really? I don't see why. Insurance companies can set these guidelines very easily -- and likely would if States and the feds did not. There is no need to "regulate" something is that is regulated by industry.

Someone needs to fine and keep businesses from being greedy and treating their employees or the environment.

Let the local governments regulate the environment. The federal and state governments are some of the worst polluters in history. As for employees, NO. Business regulations create unemployment -- minimum wage laws make it hard for minorities and kids to earn experience in a given trade, OSHA and ADA laws create barriers to hiring people with special needs. An employer hires an employee at the value that the employee provides the employer. If an employer takes advantage of an employee, someone else will hire the employee away. I know, I've hired all my employees out from under competitors, and then was very competitive in keeping them. No one ever quits working for me.

What if a terrorist decides to do that instead of going through the hassle of the airport?

Why would a terrorist attack a nation that is peaceful, has open borders with no trade restrictions, and doesn't murder tens of thousands of people a year? Our country would not be a target if we returned to the days when we were friends to everyone and hated no one.

The airlines don't put you through crap. Up until the 70s, the airlines let anyone carry a gun on the plane -- try hijacking a plane where half the passengers are armed.

Our government in the past 20 years has created laws in order to try to fix problems created by previous laws. In 10 years or less, most readers here will be unemployed, wishing they listened. We sow debt and anger with the world, we'll reap unemployment and hatred in the near future. This is our government doing it on our behalf. I don't vote, they don't do it in my name.

Re:Feh...

[ultranova]

Big business comes directly out of the democratic process. Whenever you give 51% of the people control over the individual's freedom, you can expect there to be abuse.

You seem to have misunderstood the basic ideas of representative democracy. Giving majority the official power to decide others rights would indeed lead to inevitable abuse. However, representative democracy doesn't mean that. Representative democracy simply means that the government of a country can be removed from power by its citizens without bloodshed. That is the whole purpose of voting - if someone is doing a really bad job, he can be removed from office in the next vote without having to risk death; this also makes the bar on doing so be a lot lower than if you had to fight your way through his Royal Guard to execute him and then put up with the inevitably resulting chaos or tyranny.

Democracy has been perverted by the combination of technological progress and free market ideology. The former has made it possible for big business to exist by solving the logistical problems associated with running them as well as allowed us to be bombarded with ads our whole waking time, while the latter has made it a thoughtcrime to even consider limiting what people can do with their property. The end result is a system where people can first acquire tremendous amounts of property and then use it for massive propaganda campaigns to ensure that the representative they want is elected, making representatives basically dependent on them in order to get elected in the first place; at the same time it allows those with property to acquire (buy) all communication channels to ensure that views and facts they don't like won't get spread.

A combination of democracy and an ideology that holds property rights sacred will inevitably lead to plutocracy; same propably holds true for any combination where such ideology holds a place. It is only logical, after all: buying the whole nation is only the logical last step of being allowed to acquire property without limits.

As for your unanimocracy: suppose I'm a criminal. Suppose someone suggests a law to establish a police force to enforce the rest of the laws. I'll vote no, of course. Consequently, those who want it will form it; there's no law against it, after all. And, since the people who are likely to want it are likely to be geographically spread thin, there will be several separate police forces.

Now then. Suppose that I'm one of the employers of these police forces. Suppose I find something personall offensive - say, drug use. There is no law against it, of course, because such law wouldn't possibly pass unaniminously. Now then, the big question: does it matter ? And the big answer: No, it doesn't matter. I have a private army at my beg and call. There is no federally sanctioned army, since I visely voted no for it. Consequently, my word is law, since I can back it up with rifles. And the same, of course, goes for every other creep who's managed to gather a gang of enforcers for him.

Congratulations, you've just converted democracy into outright tyranny, at least in areas that won't collapse into outright anarchy and civil war when various groups fight for power in them.

Your unanimocracy is just another attempt to give a simple answer to a very complex problem. It is also horribly flawed, just likely every previous attempt.

Re:Feh...

[hackstraw]

On the other hand, if the money is big enough, would you really say no?

Yes, would you let someone kill you're wife for enough money? That is a very extreme example, but principles and human life are more important than money.

Insurance companies can set these guidelines very easily...

Sure, like insurance companies have regulated the height and strength of bumpers to make rear end collisions a non-repairable issue. Government should set guidelines, that is what they are there for. We trust them to make decisions that are best for all of us. If we don't like the decisions, we do what we want otherwise. The government standardized on the metric system over 100 years ago. For various reasons, we rejected that decision. Driving on the right side of the road is arbitrary, but it is much better standardized across the country, if not the world. Remember, cars came before insurance. Insurance is a scam. If you get into a wreck or drive perfectly, insurance companies make money off of you either way. They actually make more money off of you when you wreck.

Let the local governments regulate the environment. The federal and state governments are some of the worst polluters in history.

No. That is a federal issue. If its the local or state government, then companies will go where its cheapest to operate. Its also inefficient to have each local government analyze the data and make guidelines. Releasing potentially fatal or harmful things into the environment should not be allowed anywhere.

Why would a terrorist attack a nation that is peaceful, has open borders with no trade restrictions, and doesn't murder tens of thousands of people a year? Our country would not be a target if we returned to the days when we were friends to everyone and hated no one.

That was a joke to begin with, but OK. No, it goes against species preservation instinct to harm another person intentionally. Harm is done out of anger via revenge. Oh, and we are on order of at least 100k deaths per year, not measly 10k. A poll in Europe demonstrated that out of Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and the USA, that most everyone polled said that the US was the largest threat to world peace. The data should speak for itself. Iran and Iraq only have hurt each other and their neighbors (still bad). North Korea hasn't attacked anybody. They did have a civil war a while back. USA has bombed every single one of these countries, and now the government is talking about going back and killing Koreans because its been a while. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/20 03-09-01-carter_x.htm

Re:Feh...

[ultranova]

Any number of people can seceed from any organization above it without prejudice. If 999 of the community disagree with the 1, we can seceed (as long as we offer the 1 an outlet thoroughfare out of the community maybe?), they can seceed from the 1 and form another?

Neat. I think I secede from your community. Then I'll march to your house and take away all your property. There is nothing you can do about it, since if you try to force your laws against stealing on me, then I haven't actually been allowed to seceed, now have I ? On the other hand, if you simply say that I'm not part of your community and therefore am not protected by its laws, allowing you to stop me, then haven't you actually created a situation where the community can blackmail you by threatening to secede from you ?

And why would the community give you this thoroughfare ? Who's going to make them ? If any higher-level community tries to make them, they can simply secede from it, can they not ?

First you complain that democracy lets majority to dictate for minority, and then you suggest a system that's custom built for just that. That's what anarchy means - a lack of government power, and the protection it gives you against other people. Better be everyone's friend in your utopia, since if you aren't, you're dead.

Just why do you think people put up with governments anyway ? Getting a boot on your face is better than getting a bullet trough your brain, that's why. You always have a group that holds power, in your system it would simply be completely unchecked power by whoever happens to be most charismatic, with no veneer of legality or fairness the current system gives. You don't want to be oppressed ? Then make sure that your system is never implemented.

Or did you think that you would be one of the people who'd get to do the oppressing ?

Re:Feh...

[xMilkmanDanx]

In all my years on slashdot I have heard this question. I have yet to hear anyone show me what is an unhealthy market. Government is the only creator of monopolies. Free markets don't allow them in any way, shape or form for any extended period of time. All of the common examples (Standard Oil, Microsoft, etc) were not monopolies until government mandated licensing and regulatory structures, and even then, the companies were not monopolies in that they lowered prices to help the consumer buy more.

Railroad barons were in a sense, monopolies due to the high cost of entry into a new territory. Whether or not they were a natural monopoly can be debated.

Re:Feh...

[zippthorne]

Oh i agree campaign finance is speech. Especially since current laws explicitly state the converse. I don't have any problem with people donating whatever they want in terms of money or in kind to whatever candidate they choose. Every opinion should be represented to the best of its ability.

Except foreign interests. I do not want any candidate to be beholden to any foreign power for any reason whatsoever. I also am concerned about candidates who are simply "very sympathetic" to a foreign power's interests, especially as those interests might run counter to the very existance of our fair republic.

What Rights?

[Freaky Spook]

I gave my rights up for a beer & a nudie mag, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Thats what it is with all this "free" software being shoved in our face.

Re:First post?

[mctk]

Now that's funny. The first post gets modded redundant. Wha?

Newsletter

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you are not familiar with NCC, here is their latest newsletter which showcases some of the work they do:
http://www.ncc.org.uk/e-newsletter/winter2005.htm

RIAA charges you?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you plead for all of those Pirated Britney Spears albums on your computers?

I plead insanity.

Re:RIAA charges you?

[roman_mir]

if you have that on your computer you should plead poor taste.

Re:RIAA charges you?

[Pig Hogger]

How do you plead for all of those Pirated Britney Spears albums on your computers?

I plead totally not guilty, nor for the 4503 songs I have on my computer, almost all of which I have downloaded and/or ripped from CDs borrowed from the library.

You see, where I live, downloading and copying music is perfectly legal.

Re:First post?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because making "first post" posts on message boards stopped being cool when everyone got sick of seeing them back in the mid 1990s.

Be Proactive

[Anonymous Coward]

Things you can do to prevent DRM:

1. Not buy from people who use it, an alternitive should be available.

2. Sell products without DRM

3. Not illegally share media

4. Vote for guys who are against it.

Other Ideas would be helpful

Re:Be Proactive

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Not buy from people who use it, an alternitive should be available.

When TC has been around for a while, the media company lobbyists will try to get importing non TC hardware banned.

2. Sell products without DRM

This will also become illegal.

3. Not illegally share media

Eventually, sharing of any media will become illegal. Everyone will be required to buy their own copy. Or, all media will be non-permanent, requiring you to purchase & stream it every time you use it.

4. Vote for guys who are against it.

Too late, you elected Bush, we elected Blair.

Re:Be Proactive

[slavemowgli]

1. Buy media used (on eBay etc.) instead of new, at least for companies like Sony etc. which advocate and use DRM techniques.
2. Exercise your fair use rights:
   1. Be familiar with the rights you have.
   2. If you can legally share CDs with friends, family etc. (this is the case in many countries outside of the USA), do so.
   3. Exercise other fair use rights you might have.
3. Donate to the EFF etc.
4. Write to your MPs/representatives/senators/... and let them know how you feel about DRM. Write actual letters, too, not emails or faxes. Phone them, too.
5. Educate your non-techie friends and family about copyright, fair use, and DRM.
6. Refrain from using the term "intellectual property", which not only lumps together unrelated concepts like copyright, patents and trademarks, but also implies that these things _are_ property in the same sense that a physical object in your possession is.
7. ... and so on.

Re:Be Proactive

[YoYoY]

Very laudible in principle, however the practical reality is not quite so simple:

1. I want ....'s new album/dvd/LP. Where can I get it? Most likely from the sole distributor in my country. I therefore have to accept whatever DRM comes with my chosen media. Of course, I could just not make my purchase but in the limit (DRM adopted by all major labels) I would have to rely on public radio / TV should I take this attitude. I could use a "grey" source for my purchases, such as allofmp3.com, but this is dangerously close to violating (3).

2. How many people actually record and distribute their own media? Enough to supersede the current radio / record label hegemony? Admittedly, new bands can use this to publicise their gigs etc, but in order to sell records they tend to need the publicity machine afforded by the established distributors. That said, even if bands gave their music away, a good number might still make a very good living touring, it just would be hard to establish a following unassisted.

3. Fair point, lost revenue due to piracy will drive publishers to DRM. DRM does not just prevent sharing though, in many cases it infringes fair use, which I guess is why no-one seems keen on it!

4. Fair point, although it relies on said candidates not joining the money as soon as they are elected, which seems dissappointingly common.

Perhaps a law mandating the explicit labelling (or equivalent) of products with DRM, detailing what measures have been taken and the restrictions on use, would be useful. It would allow consumers to make more considered purchases, in the light of (1) and provide those who don't adopt DRM with obvious added value for the consumer.

Re:Be Proactive

[click2005]

The UK (where this article is about) does not have a fair use doctrine.

Re:Be Proactive

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Apple's iTunes has quite a nice DRM.
1) it is completely transparent, and I can copy my music between my home computer, work computer, and a laptop without any problems
2) I could burn CDs on the songs I need to listen to in my car, etc. (though I never do cause of iPod)
3) Could load anything I like my my iPod
4) I cannot share this with pirates, but it never gets in my way otherwise, and I actually get to keep the stuff I bought forever.

DRM gone wrong is I believe the case of new Napster:
1) need to connect to internet every 12 hours to keep listening.
2) only works on windows
3) need to pay extra to burn CDs or use mp3 players
4) things created in 3) are DRMed to hell, to the point of severe sound distortion, and not being usable
5) need to keep paying, or licenses are revoked.
6) 10 years later, when there is no Napster or Windows, or Internet around, your entire DRMed investment is useless

Re:Be Proactive

[ClamIAm]

Educate your family and friends! Sneak things into conversation about the fact that you don't support the RIAA and MPAA due to moral reasons. Then they will want to know why. Tell them.

Re:Be Proactive

[kfg]

1. Buy media. . .

6. Refrain from using the term "intellectual property" . . .

As a corallary explain to them that one of the reasons for buying physical media is because it is property. They own it, not license it. They may use it as their property and its cash value is retained by them as an asset.

Do not buy "IP," buy property.

KFG

Re:Be Proactive

[Anonymous Coward]

You could do all of that WITHOUT DRM YOU FUCKING FANBOY

what you cannot do is where the DRM is the problem, like say if you have your Ipod stolen from you..what you have it all on itunes on your computer..great wew that was close, oh shit I just lost my ipod, opps another one stolen, oh crap this one broke, hey you stupid itunes how come I can't copy my sings to my new ipod anymore?!? What you want to see the old Ipod..but but it was stolen...

the itunes DRM does nothing except eventually (it may take 15+ years) fuck you in the ass.

Re:Be Proactive

[ajs318]

UK copyright law has the concept of "fair dealing", but exactly what constitutes fair dealing is not delimited in the statute books: it is for the courts to decide what is fair dealing and what is taking (liberties|advantage|the piss). And breach of copyright is a criminal offence in the UK.

If anybody was ever up in court for, say, taping an album to listen in the car, they would almost certainly be acquitted. How many members of the jury do you suppose have never done that? If they were convicted, it would give every copper in the land yet another reason to harass motorists. And of course, nobody would be allowed out of the court car park until every vehicle had been checked for illegal recordings. The situation would spiral rapidly out of control, until eventually an amnesty would have to be declared.

The UK has lots of unenforced laws, which are retained mainly for historical interest -- and also so the Old Bill can have some obscure reason to start fishing for more evidence against a suspect.

Finally!

[neochubbz]

It's about time that we, as the comsumer, got some legislation to protect us from Big Business. Big Business has had laws in their corner for about as long as forever. If there was only a way to get this passed before the Sony debacle....

Re:Finally!

[vux984]

You realize of course, that this would mean electing people who are left wing or at the very least centered (around here we call them 'liberals' but in the US that's apparently tantamount to being a communist and probably terrorist now too), instead of 'right wing' (democrats), or 'really right wing' (republicans) both of which typically ideologically favour corporate interests over consumer interests.

Here's a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Terms of a contract strike you as unfair? Don't agree to it!

Re:Here's a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to push an unfair contract? Don't let the consumers see it until after you have their money!

Re:Here's a thought

[WlfRecon]

Oh, you mean like in the case of the Sony DRM? The one where you'd hit the button to not accept and it would install the rootkit anyways? Yeah, that was helpful wasn't it?

Re:Here's a thought

[Mr. Shotgun]

Terms of a contract strike you as unfair? Don't agree to it!

Two counterpoints, if I may.

First, most DRM encrusted products that are purchased by the consumer(cd's, DVD's, etc.) do not have the "contract" (EULA) printed on the case. So the consumer is usually not aware of this "contract" until it pops up on their screen after purchasing and opening the product.

Second, most big box stores (Best Buy, Circuit City, Walmart, etc.) have a policy that does not allow consumers to return opened items of the types that are most commonly afflicted with DRM software.

So a consumer can easliy find themselves in the position of purchasing a product and not being able to use it if they will not accept the terms of the "contract" being offered, but they cannot return the product because the store will not accept returns on opened items of this type. It is not so much the "contract" itself that is the issue, but the conditions under which the "contract" is offered.

Re:Here's a thought

[m50d]

Return them for being goods not as described. If they won't take them, threaten to sue. You bought an audio CD, taken to mean a disc as per the red book specification, and what you got wasn't that, so you're entitled to a refund.

Re:Here's a thought

[Mr. Shotgun]

Return them for being goods not as described. If they won't take them, threaten to sue. You bought an audio CD, taken to mean a disc as per the red book specification, and what you got wasn't that, so you're entitled to a refund.

That might work in theory, but have you ever tried to explain red book/ blue book to a Best Buy PHB? More often than not they clam up and scream "STORE POLICY" like they were perfomring an exorcism. That only leaves litigation, and that become an exercise in frustration when you consider that the money lost is around $15, while the costs can become quite step, even in small claims court.

Re:Here's a thought

[Mr. Shotgun]

That only leaves litigation, and that become an exercise in frustration when you consider that the money lost is around $15, while the costs can become quite step, even in small claims court.

I mean steep. (Ealry morning posting)

Re:Here's a thought

[Gingernads]

OK, here's the logic(?) to the approach to returning DRM purchases: Me: Hello, I wanted film/album XXXX which I could use in any of my media devices and in any way I see fit. This one won't play/hijacks my system. Shopkeeper: sorry, we cannot refund opened media, you might have copied it. Me: How? It has DRM surely that is not possible. Shopkeeper: Well it turns out it is still possible to copy them after all. Me: So your DRM is dead then? Shopkeeper: No it's just pining. For the fjords. I don't see how they can have the pie both ways, either it's locked down, so can be returned like any 'hard' purchase or it isn't and I wouldn't want to take it back anyway.

Re:Here's a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're not talking about an unfair contract, you're talking about something else entirely.

Why would you buy something from a store that won't let you return the product if it's defective?

nice name

[nexcomlink]

NCC or National collections company

Re:nice name

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't NCC-1701D the law passed to protect user rights throughout the galaxy?

Hmmm..

[KwKSilver]

Interesting post. Had I mod points, I'd mod you up.I think the US founding fathers agreed about democracy. In a pure democracy 51% (actually 50% +1) can decree the execution of the other 49%. During the Peloponnesian War the citizens of Athens democratically voted to put all the men on one island to death & enslave the rest. Happily, it reversed itself in time to stop the mass murder. Democracy in action.

Re:Hmmm..

[dada21]

Thanks. I believe the word democracy is the worst villain in tyranny. The founding fathers likely believed it to be the case, but they were unable to battle off the big government founding fathers entirely. Hamilton and Clay were the enemies of the People, Jefferson and Washington were the enemies of the State. In the end, we're living in a world that Hamilton and Clay would have loved.

Re:Hmmm..

[MobyDisk]

Ironically, the article is talking about England, not the US. :-)

Re:Hmmm..

[NixLuver]

The problem with your protest is that the US is not - and has never been - a democracy. The vast majority of decisions are made for us by our duly elected representatives. I agree with you - completely - about democracy. However, the system in place is not responsible for the failure of our government, but the people who have abused it and abused the people of the United States.

The electoral system, I think, *is*, in large part, responsble for our predicament. The cost of campaigning is so prohibitive - and it's money that's simply gone, even if you win the election - that even if a politician starts out with the grandest of intentions and the most pristine ideals, in order to become elected, he or she has to find sponsors. And that money is not free.

The current situation makes a politician's first priority simply getting re-elected. And to get the money for that compaign, he or she must participate in quid pro quo. I don't think all politicians *start out* being lying, cheating, scheming, influence-peddling, traitorious bastards; but those qualities are insitutionalized by the system. Witness the abramofity of Washington.

Re:Hmmm..

[dada21]

I disagree completely.

Money is not the problem, power is. We gave the central government too much power, so those who wanted power run for office. If we took the power away, money wouldn't be an issue. No power to control means no reason to be corrupt.

Spends money to me is expression: it shouldn't be controlled. If Congress was severely limited in power, infinite money in bribes would get the briber nothing.

Campaign finance laws do nothing but keep incumbents in office. Want to fix the system? Abolish the FEC and return the central government to its Constitutional limits.

Re:Hmmm..

[servognome]

If Congress was severely limited in power, infinite money in bribes would get the briber nothing.

And would render government ineffective, so that it wouldn't have the power to serve the people.

Re:Hmmm..

[dada21]

And would render government ineffective, so that it wouldn't have the power to serve the people.

Good. The federal government was never meant to serve the people anything, it was meant to protect the rights of the people from tyranny. The States or the People themselves were meant to serve (see 9th and 10th Amendments as well as the text of the Constitution).

The Federal government had no power to regulate trade -- they were provided to make sure the States didn't set embargoes or tariffs or taxes against other States.

The Federal government had no power to tax unless it was a tax that would be provided equally to anyone utilizing a product or service. The Income tax is unconstitutional in every way because it is different for each person. An income tax that was equal to everyone (in dollars) would likely be OK. Of course, considering our budget was US$2.3 trillion and we have about 150 million taxpayers (estimated?), every taxpayer would have to pay around US$15,000 per year I believe. My math could be off, but this is the only way we could have a "Constitutional" tax, and even then I don't believe they are allotted to have an income tax.

The Federal government had no power to perform many "duties" we now accept: FDA, USDA, FEC, SEC, IRS, FEMA, DOT, OSHA, FCC, FAA, EPA, BATF and so on and so on. Constitutionally all of these agencies are illegal.

Re:Hmmm..

[servognome]

The Federal government had no power to regulate trade -- they were provided to make sure the States didn't set embargoes or tariffs or taxes against other States

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

The Federal government had no power to tax unless it was a tax that would be provided equally to anyone utilizing a product or service. The Income tax is unconstitutional in every way because it is different for each person.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The Federal government had no power to perform many "duties" we now accept: FDA, USDA, FEC, SEC, IRS, FEMA, DOT, OSHA, FCC, FAA, EPA, BATF and so on and so on. Constitutionally all of these agencies are illegal.

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

The US had a system with a weak central government, the Articles of Confederation, which failed.

Re:Hmmm..

[Mattintosh]

You and most of the parent/grandparent/great-etc. posters have missed the point.

It's not "Weak" vs. "Strong" with the government. Strong is good. Strong is what it should be. But the scope of its power should be limited. Here's how it should work:

The federal government should have exactly 50 citizens currently (the states), and a few working on their green cards (PR, Guam, etc.). It should collect a percentage tax from them, and should provide laws only governing them. The people are not under its control. It's scope is as a ruler of states.

State governments should have a limited number of citizens, with no hope of expansion. Each "citizen" would be a county or non-county municipal government. (When I say "non-county municipal government", I'm talking about situations like St. Louis City, which is not part of St. Louis County, but is still part of Missouri.) The state's scope is as a ruler of counties.

County (or Parish for you Louisiana residents) governments should collect directly from people who live within their borders and outside of incorporated cities, or from municipal governments.

Municipal governments should collect from the people who live within the city limits.

So, if you pay a 10% tax, and you live in a city and make $100000 a year (we all wish, right?), you would pay $10000 to the city. The city would pay $1000 to the county. The county would pay $100 to the state. The state would pay $10 to the feds. Multiply by the number of people in each jurisdiction, and you'll see that the money tree does indeed have leaves. You'll also see that the federal budget would (a) no longer have the capacity for pork-barrel crap, and (b) would no longer have the need for such money, since it's drastically out-of-scope for that level of government. The national government shouldn't be paying for local stuff unless it's specifically tied to the needs of that level of government. And they wouldn't under that plan, because they wouldn't have the money for it.

But of course, this would be a logical and efficient way of handling things, so not only will it not happen, but people won't even understand the concept because they're too fucking dumb.

Re:Hmmm..

[DesertBlade]

Good Point

The Articles of Confideration did not provide any power to the Federal Government. The Federal governemnt was second to the States government. The Federal Government was not allowed to tax. They had to ask the States for money to provide for a military and to pay of the war debts from the Revolutionary War.

Shay's Rebellion proved that we needed a stronger Government.

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

Re:Hmmm..

[westlake]

Hamilton and Clay were the enemies of the People, Jefferson and Washington were the enemies of the State. In the end, we're living in a world that Hamilton and Clay would have loved.

You would prefer the pre-industrial society of the southern planter?

It is an interesting twist in logic to define a member of a slave-owning elite as a friend of the people and an enemy of the state.

Re:Hmmm..

[sepluv]

Actually, it is about the UK.

And, it just goes to show how many RTFA or even the story when they talk about how the story would relate to a different jurisdiction.

Re:Hmmm..

[servognome]

The federal government should have exactly 50 citizens currently (the states), and a few working on their green cards (PR, Guam, etc.). It should collect a percentage tax from them, and should provide laws only governing them. The people are not under its control. It's scope is as a ruler of states.

By ruling states the federal government rules the people. For the federal government to be strong it would need to be able to force state governments to ratify laws. Which puts things back in the same situation we currently are in, except with more bureaucracy.

So, if you pay a 10% tax, and you live in a city and make $100000 a year (we all wish, right?), you would pay $10000 to the city. The city would pay $1000 to the county. The county would pay $100 to the state. The state would pay $10 to the feds. Multiply by the number of people in each jurisdiction, and you'll see that the money tree does indeed have leaves. You'll also see that the federal budget would (a) no longer have the capacity for pork-barrel crap, and (b) would no longer have the need for such money, since it's drastically out-of-scope for that level of government. The national government shouldn't be paying for local stuff unless it's specifically tied to the needs of that level of government. And they wouldn't under that plan, because they wouldn't have the money for it.

What areas wouldn't be under the scope of the federal governement? You'll still have pork barrel projects like where to put research facilities, where to put highways, where to put military bases, etc.
The biggest problem with decentralization is juridiction. How do you calculate taxes, especially with interstate trade without a big legal mess? Already we see issues with states trying to claim taxes on the internet, and trying to figure out which state can claim the sales tax.

But of course, this would be a logical and efficient way of handling things, so not only will it not happen, but people won't even understand the concept because they're too fucking dumb.

I don't see where the efficiency comes from. In general the federal governement doesn't concern itself with local matters (eg building sports stadiums, local law enforcement). It does concern itself with interstate matters (Standards, interstate regulation, etc).

In the end no matter how you set things up there will be a corruptable governing body.

Re:Hmmm..

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I believe the word democracy is the worst villain in tyranny.

I don't know. Autocracies, dictatorships, theocracies, plutocracies, etc, etc, all give democracy a run for its money.

Here's a relevant quote from our old pal, Winston Churchill:

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

I'll go farther. Democracy works. It works well. No other form of government has ever been so successful for such a sustained period of time.

Consider the United States. The country went from colonial backwater to the worlds most powerful country in less than 200 years. Immigration, untapped natural resources, climate, international conflict. All these played a part.

But these factors were apparent in almost every other country in the americas, and are still apparent in many countries today. Yet the United States surpassed all around it. I would argue this was because the United States was a democracy, and just as importantly, a free society. A lot of people spin this as rhetoric, but it really was the foundation on which the entire country was built.

Re:Hmmm..

[LordFnord]

Very interesting post. I have a question, though:

You'll also see that the federal budget would (a) no longer have the capacity for pork-barrel crap, and (b) would no longer have the need for such money, since it's drastically out-of-scope for that level of government.

Who pays for the big stuff?

Who pays for transport infrastructure? Motorways costs millions of dollars per kilometre to build, non-trivial sums to maintain, and require expensive engineering projects like bridges and tunnels along the way. Who looks after national defence and intelligence? Who administers things like state pensions and benefits?

I'm concerned that under your system we'd end up with a magnified version of what we in .uk call "postcode lottery", where local councils provide services to various areas and many people are in the position of having the street they live on determine things like the quality of their childrens' education or whether they'll wait one month or eighteen for their heart bypass operation.

Re:Hmmm..

[freedom_india]

The problem is not with democracy per se, it is with how it is implemented.

The Dutch vote for every little/big thing. The Australian(atleast Sydney does) still votes to have whether another airport or not (incidentally they refused during 2000 Olympics when the Govt, literally begged them to vote yes).

The moment we elect a congress with representatives who claim to represent us, we are giving a carte blanche Power of Attorney.
Instead, we should vote on small and big issues directly. Electronic voting from our Homes (Pools open from 7.30 PM to 10.30 PM every night) would make those congressmen irrelevant.
If each citizen votes directly to have laws created, activated, repealed, etc., it will be much better.

Of course there are issues: Pranks will be played, frivolous votings on dumb issues will come up, but like our good ol' democracy days in 1800's we can overcome them.

Once businesses realize they need to bring the "REAL" 51% to their side instead of just swinging 40 senators, they would think twice about putting rootkits into their CDs.

In a large democracy, we tend to give power of attorneys to so-called public representatives who claim to represent us (Like Mr.Smith goes to Washington). However, we don't watch their every move because we are too busy putting food on our table.

Once we take matters into our own hands, watch democracy grow beautifully well.

Re:Hmmm..

[Ihlosi]

Money is not the problem, power is.

One can easily be converted into the other, but money is more convenient and has the added benefit of increasing exponentially over time.

If Congress was severely limited in power, infinite money in bribes would get the briber nothing.

So ... who would prevent Congress from expanding its power ? No law is set in stone, neither is a constitution, if there are enough votes for the change. And even if one is, there are always ways to interpret it creatively or create additional laws to render is useless (in other circles, this process would be called hacking).

Re:Hmmm..

[Fred_A]

No other form of government has ever been so successful for such a sustained period of time.

To take an extreme example, the egyptian theocracy / royalty did fairly well for about four thousand years.

A couple hundred years isn't a sustained period of time by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:Hmmm..

[Ihlosi]

Consider the United States. The country went from colonial backwater to the worlds most powerful country in less than 200 years.

I would argue this was because the United States was a democracy, and just as importantly, a free society.

History is full of nations who went from almost zero to the worlds most powerful country of their time, and democracy isn't really the thing they have in common. Most of them do have in common that they aren't really big players anymore. Greece, Rome, Mongolia, England, and I'm sure the history books will yield more examples. Quite a few of them also lasted longer than 230 years (mostly those that were economically strong), while others crumbled within a few decades (those who were built only on military strength).

Re:Hmmm..

[AndersOSU]

Sorry Mr. Perot, but this wouldn't work either, some of us have jobs, and can't vote on everylittle thing, let alone try to become educated on every bill as written in the obtuse language of government. Neither are we all qualified to voice opinions on all matters of government, nor is the majority always right. I am very afraid what the current state of civil rights would be if we had a direct democracy.

People only care about themselves, and often in a very short sighted manner, so it makes sence to have one person represent an agglomeration of interests, hopefully things will sort out alright in the averages. It isn't perfect but it's better than what you propose.

Re:Hmmm..

[hurfy]

SO it would come down to: Who can write the best title for a bill?

no thanks, that may be worse than voting for the best salesman :O

Noone has time/energy now it seems to research the basics much less the details. You think Average Joe has a hope of understanding more than a small fraction of bills if that?

Re:Hmmm..

[CharlesClarkson]

And would render government ineffective, so that it wouldn't have the power to serve the people.

It would only render the government ineffective in those areas where political power is most disruptive. For example, limiting government by not allowing it to compete in or make laws regarding a postal service, does not do a disservice to citizens and still allows the government to be effective at prosecuting criminal cases. One limitation does not necessarily make all government ineffective.

Re:Hmmm..

[CharlesClarkson]

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

In his 1824 opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall stated:

Comprehensive as the word among is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one. The phrase is not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a State, because it is not an apt phrase for that purpose. . . . The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the States generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular State, which do not affect other States, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government. The completely internal commerce of a State, then, may be considered as reserved for the State itself.

So, the OP was also correct in saying "The Federal government had no power to regulate trade -- they were provided to make sure the States didn't set embargoes or tariffs or taxes against other States"

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

That's from the 16th Amendment. It was ratified in 1909. For more than a hundred years the feds were not allowed to tax without apportionment. So, the OP was correct in saying "The Federal government had no power to tax unless it was a tax that would be provided equally to anyone utilizing a product or service."

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

This contraversial clause assumes a responsible legislature that will correctly interpret what "necessary and proper" mean. It is doubtful that many federal agencies continue to pass the test of "necessary and proper".

Re:Hmmm..

[servognome]

So, the OP was also correct in saying "The Federal government had no power to regulate trade -- they were provided to make sure the States didn't set embargoes or tariffs or taxes against other States"

No it's more than just tariffs & taxes, its regulation between states, which could constitue many things (ensure quality, prevent fraud, etc). The conclusion "The completely internal commerce of a State, then, may be considered as reserved for the State itself." means that the federal government does not have jurisdiction if trade occurs completely within a state. Therefore it is legal for the federal government to regulate things such as livestock, banking, medicine, if the goods/services are intended to cross state lines (interstate commerce).

That's from the 16th Amendment. It was ratified in 1909. For more than a hundred years the feds were not allowed to tax without apportionment. So, the OP was correct in saying "The Federal government had no power to tax unless it was a tax that would be provided equally to anyone utilizing a product or service."

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" article I sec 8.

Equal protection was not included until the 14th amendment.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The first income tax was created to fund the civil war, a time when many unconstitutional things occurred (eg suspension of habeas corpus). After the war the income tax was dissolved and wasn't brought back until the 1890's when it was indeed held unconstitutional by the supreme court and stopped, which is why the 16th amendment was ratified.

This contraversial clause assumes a responsible legislature that will correctly interpret what "necessary and proper" mean. It is doubtful that many federal agencies continue to pass the test of "necessary and proper".

Such as? If any commerce (which nowadays is a lot) occurs over state lines, then it falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Given the free trade between states, there would be alot of government agencies required to manage everything.

Re:Hmmm..

[CharlesClarkson]

I said

This contraversial clause assumes a responsible legislature that will correctly interpret what "necessary and proper" mean. It is doubtful that many federal agencies continue to pass the test of "necessary and proper".

Such as?

AM radio was originally much like the internet today. Thousands of independents popped up with very low start up costs. It was the FCC which transformed that hodge-podge of stations into the orderly crowd of today. At the same time squeezing out small business in favor of large business. No big surprise. Most regulation of business eventually becomes a method of keeping competition from injuring established industry. After all, it is big business which is most likely to hire effective lobbyists. How can you see policies favoring large business as "needed and proper"?

Current price supports for farm crops administered through the USDA, push the price of some foods in supermarkets up. This hurts far more poor people than it helps farmers. Farm price supports and subsidies effectively rob from the poor to pay the rich. There is nothing "needed and proper" about these harmful practices.

Former officials of the FDA admit that present drug testing policies kill thousands each year by delaying medicines and devices that are ready for market. Many medicines which are already approved in other countries must be approved again in this country. The FDA is killing more people than would have died had they not existed. It takes a pretty warped mind to find this as "needed and proper"?

If any commerce (which nowadays is a lot) occurs over state lines, then it falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Jurisdiction does not imply a need for a specific law. For example, if I and my neighbor lived on opposite sides of a state border and we decided to barter eggs for pork, we are required under federal law to report the transaction and pay various taxes on it. This is hardly "needed and proper". There is a great chasm between jurisdiction and the need for a specific law. Criminal laws already protect the particpants from fraud and injury. Clear property rights protect them from financial harm. Any additional harm to one or the other can be handled in the courts.

Given the free trade between states, there would be a lot of government agencies required to manage everything.

That's the beauty of free trade. It does not need centralized management. In fact, it is retarded by such management. It depends on participants having the freedom to associate with each other without third party interference. It depends on the rule of law to protect the property rights (the body, the mind, the possessions, and the labor) of participants. There is little "necessary and proper" about government regulation of industry.

Re:Hmmm..

[servognome]

Thousands of independents popped up with very low start up costs. It was the FCC which transformed that hodge-podge of stations into the orderly crowd of today.

So you would prefer electromagnetic anarchy? At an extreme you could see GE being building microwave ovens that interfere with all the stations that aren't NBC (which GE owns). Regular radio stations sending out signals to interfere with satellite radio to prevent competition.

How can you see policies favoring large business as "needed and proper"?

While some policies favor large business, the vast majority of them were established to prevent problems with interference. You wouldn't want some cheap toy manufacturer to use the same wavelength that is used for airplane navigation.

Current price supports for farm crops administered through the USDA, push the price of some foods in supermarkets up. This hurts far more poor people than it helps farmers. Farm price supports and subsidies effectively rob from the poor to pay the rich. There is nothing "needed and proper" about these harmful practices.

What subsidies do economically is artifically keep supply higher. The subsidies are in place to ensure capacity. The reason for this is food is a very important resource and subject to instability (bad weather, insect infestation, etc). What having excess capicity does is help ensure stability to prices in the event of disaster.
Just look at oil, which was capacitiy constrained. A couple events like war, and hurricane and prices have skyrocketted. If something similar happened to food supplies, it would greatly impact the poor far more than the rich.

Former officials of the FDA admit that present drug testing policies kill thousands each year by delaying medicines and devices that are ready for market. Many medicines which are already approved in other countries must be approved again in this country. The FDA is killing more people than would have died had they not existed. It takes a pretty warped mind to find this as "needed and proper"?

I disagree. Without regulation, the big healthcare companies would just shove out whatever medicine they think would help people. Or people would just prescribe heroin to fix all your ills, causing massive addiction issues. Look at late 19th century US when you could order heroin from the Sear's catalog. Just look at the problems in the herbal suppliment market with ephedra.

That's the beauty of free trade. It does not need centralized management. In fact, it is retarded by such management. It depends on participants having the freedom to associate with each other without third party interference. It depends on the rule of law to protect the property rights (the body, the mind, the possessions, and the labor) of participants. There is little "necessary and proper" about government regulation of industry.

I believe free trade is a good in theory, but it is far from perfect. The power of free trade is that it leverages our greed to miximize productivity. The downside is as a whole people are more greedy than moral, and would follow profit to our own detriment. Child labor for example is a regulation preventing true free trade. Sure the free market could address this issue by people not buying from companies that use child labor, but in reality, this doesn't happen. People will ignore the issue worrying about their own well being so long as they convince themselves things aren't that bad. Government's job is to protect all its citizens, including protecting the minority from the will of the majority.

Re:Hmmm..

[Anonymous Coward]

Electronic voting from our Homes (Pools open from 7.30 PM to 10.30 PM every night) would make those congressmen irrelevant.

Right, we'll just disenfranchise everyone who lacks a computer, or who works the evening shift, or ...

Meanwhile, the special interests make a point of getting their 50,000 supporters to vote when their issue comes up, while the 3 million voters who are home with computers that day either don't understand the issue or can't be bothered spend the time to and vote randomly, meaning those 50,000 can easily overcome any statistical variance. Company's send emails to their employees saying vote yes on proposition 43845743 or they'll have to lay off 10% of the workforce, others buy votes from the poor (you think its hard preventing abuse of this in a population of 500, imagine controlling it in a population of 500 million.

The reality is that most states re-elect these abusive polititcians because they are good for them, who cares about the good of the country. An incumbent congressperson is better at getting pork (federal money for local projects means several times that in the local economy activity). They use this thing colled politics for barter to acheive this, I'll vote for your pork if you vote for mine. So long as they don't tick off the voting majority of their local constituancy they are doing their job.

In Canada

[CivilianHero]

'Consumers face security risks to their equipment, limitations on their use of products, poor information when purchasing products and unfair contract terms.'

Sounds like the Cellular Industry in Canada.

Back to the topic, IMO DRM encourages piracy as the "legit" has less options about what he can do with his product than the "pirate".

Re:In Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO DRM encourages piracy as the "legit" has less options about what he can do with his product than the "pirate".

I think this is a very real problem with DRM today. I have personally experienced the frustrations of a copy-protected game that I legally purchased not working on my system - entirely due to the DRM on it. The solution? Download the cracked version and run it without the CD.

Did this DRM slow the pirates down at all? Nope, the cracked version was available the very same day that I bought my game. Does it inconvenience the pirates at all? Nope, they never even see the DRM - just download the cracked version and play. Who does the DRM affect? Those of us who actually buy the thing legally... Who shell out our hard-earned cash to play these games... And then discover that there's some obscure DRM incompatability with our PC.

DRM simply does not do what it is supposed to. It doesn't stop piracy, it doesn't even slow it down. All it does is inconvenience those of us who've already paid for goods.

Exactly!

[Atragon]

Parent his the nail right on the head. If my cable company offered a decent VoD service to watch episodes of series that I missed for whatever reason, I would have no motivation to download said episodes. Also, pay per view VoD doesn't appeal to me as a solution since I've already paid to have access to the show via my subscription fee.

Note, I have tried to setup a PVR solution, but haven't managed to implement a satisfactory solution yet, TiVo wasn't an option for me since I'm in Canada, and my cable company (Rogers) has crappy DVRs.

Feh...Victimhood, Take Two.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Given how big business has subverted the Democratic process, expect those who proposed this to be quietly removed from office..."

And if they're not? Then what does that do to your "I'm a Victim. Feel pity for me" argument?*

*People like you remind me of that saying "For Evil to succeed, Good men have to do nothing."

Where east meets west.

[ncurtain]

Too late, you elected Bush, we elected Blair.

Hard to believe the Labour party is socialist, the last bastion of communism, when you see Tory BLiar with his nose so far up George Bush's bum that it makes him look like Margarat Thatcher. (You can almost imagine that blue rinsed grin as he pulls out.)

It's one thing having some lobbyists posting condemnations but quite another to get a bunch of politicians to stop looking the other way.

For the time being...

[sillysnipes]

...the reality is that until companies such as EMI, Sony, etc, realise that DRM hurts their profits more than benefit, we will continue to see new and more invasive DRM technology being pushed on to us.

All we can do is veto such products and make it known to the bands that the DRM their company placed on the CD are hurting their sales.

I'd love to get some of the latest CD, but, with the copy protected emblem on the back and saying it may not actually work on pretty much any device makes me keep my money.

Laws would be nice, but it wouldn't surprise me if the industry fought such a thing all the way to the high courts. Being told what to do would be such a culture shock for the industry :)

Re:For the time being...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

...until companies such as EMI, Sony, etc, realise that DRM hurts their profits more than benefit, we will continue to see new and more invasive DRM technology being pushed on to us.

Or not see it, if we want to watch or listen to the content on perfectly sensible devices that aren't Approved(TM) for the purpose...

Re:For the time being...

[Technician]

I'd love to get some of the latest CD, but, with the copy protected emblem on the back and saying it may not actually work on pretty much any device makes me keep my money.

The emblem on the front that says $12.95 is the main killer for me.

The lack of a Compact Disc tm logo is the icing on the cake.

The Compact Disk tm logo is my assurance I can play it, rip it, mix it, and load it in my MP3 player.

No gurantee of compatibility, no sale.

Translation for Dummies?

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry for the dumb question, but as this post stands, its is far beyond me...

Could anyone clarify what this $3/hr is meant to represent? Military/defence spending via taxes?
I mean, consumers are 99% of the population, so in a democracy, a customer is always right.

Clearly some people here can get what you mean, and I have a feeling your post is about something important, but for the politically dumb of us (I know I do not have time to watch FoxNews 24/7), could someone give a clarification?

Thanks much!

Re:Translation for Dummies?

[dada21]

Clarification:

If I offered you US$3 to work 40 hours a week for a year, would you do it?

If I offered you US$1,000,000,000 to work 40 hours a week for a year, would you do it?

This is the problem with taxation if the spenders can spend money on anything. A lobbyist will work hard to get US$1 billion for himself. A taxpayer won't think twice about paying US$3 a year. 300,000,000 taxpayers paying UX$3 each = US$1billion.

Get it?

Re:Translation for Dummies?

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't get it.

Can you translate it for morons, instead of dummies?

Re:Translation for Dummies?

[dada21]

I'm not sure if you're baiting me here :)

Ask yourself the following question:

Would you work an entire year for $3?

Would you work an entire year for $1 billion?

When you and 300 million other people pay $3 per year out of your pockets for a specific tax, you don't care. But 300 million x $3 = $1 billion. That $1 billion likely went to a lobbyist who worked that entire year just to receive that $1 billion entitlement.

The corruption in government comes from their unlimited ability to give a lobbyist $1 billion for a project. No single taxpayer will care that they paid $3 of that $1 billion, and no single taxpayer will work to decrease his taxes by $3. But still, $3 of your taxes went to paying someone $1 billion.

Re:Translation for Dummies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clarification:

If I offered you US$3 to work 40 hours a week for a year, would you do it? Depends: e.g. not if I could make more money elsewhere, while still enjoying my work

If I offered you US$1,000,000,000 to work 40 hours a week for a year, would you do it? Again, it depends: e.g. I would not kill people for all the money you could offer me



OK, I think I got it:

You are saying that the people who tax us get a lot more out of those $3/hr than we do (in your example, 1*10^9 per hour), so they can afford to cheat us out of even more money?

What I do NOT get is how this applies to democracy, or DRM.
1. In democracy, if the government does not give us our $3's worth, they get voted out.
2. With DRM'ed records, if the consumer does not get his $15's worth, they buy elsewhere. I moved away from the Napster last year, to iTunes: arguably, I pay much more, but I get to do all the things I want/need to the music I buy, legally.

Re:Translation for Dummies?

[dada21]

You are saying that the people who tax us get a lot more out of those $3/hr than we do (in your example, 1*10^9 per hour), so they can afford to cheat us out of even more money?

Sort of. I'm actually not saying $3 per hour, but $3 per year. $3 per year to you (the taxpayer) means $1 billion per year to the crony receiving the entitlement that the tax pays for. You won't work hard to get rid of the $3 per hour tax (will you call your representative every day?) but they will work hard to get the $1 billion entitlement (they'll not only call the representative every day but they'll wine and dine them).

What I do NOT get is how this applies to democracy, or DRM.

Democracy without limit is terrible. If 50%+1 can vote to take all the wealth of 50%-1, it is ok. The US constitution was supposed to give the central government VERY LIMITED power -- the power to do basically nothing.

1. In democracy, if the government does not give us our $3's worth, they get voted out.

They don't. By the time their power is abused, they've created the laws to keep them in office. In the US we have "campaign finance reform" laws that were written specifically to keep incumbents in office and keep third parties out of elections.

2. With DRM'ed records, if the consumer does not get his $15's worth, they buy elsewhere. I moved away from the Napster last year, to iTunes: arguably, I pay much more, but I get to do all the things I want/need to the music I buy, legally.

Legally but not in a market-driven way. In a free market, there is no way a CD (or music) would cost $1. By producing copyright that exists nearly forever, you're pay $1 for songs that should have been public domain 14 years ago. Beatles? All public domain. Disney movies? All public domain. Brazil (one of my favorite movies)? Public domain. Copyright is a monopoly used by the content cartels to keep you paying, over and over and over and over and over and over (Movie theater once, movie theater twice, Cable TV release, VHS release, LaserDisc release, DVD release, iTunes release).

Copyright in a limited fashion (7+7 years) is still evil in my mind, but I'll accept it. Copyright in an unlimited fashion (what is it now, 70 years beyond the creators death?) is completely evil.

Re:Translation for Dummies?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. Got it!

Thanks for taking the time to explain! I do tend to be slow on some things...

Very interesting clarifications, btw. I dropped a clipping to my 'Interesting suff' folder.

One thing though: that 70-year copyright was extended recently, I believe.

Re:Translation for Dummies?

[LordFnord]

Beatles? All public domain.

Fantastic, I'm really looking forward to the Ibiza-style boom-boom-loop remixes of "Day Tripper", cover versions of "Yesterday" by this week's 13-year-old teenie pop sensation, and "We Can Work It Out" as the background music in party political broadcasts.

Copyright in a limited fashion (7+7 years) is still evil in my mind

Absolutely. If, for example, I work hard for a couple of months to design and program a website for which I invoice my client several thousand pounds, anyone else should be completely entitled to copy the design and pass it off as their own work and neither I nor my client should have any legal recourse.

Re:Translation for Dummies?

[xMilkmanDanx]

If you/your client can't make money off a static website design in 14 years, then you don't deserve to be in business. Static, mind you, because any changes would be covered by copyright for an additional 14 years after that point.

The point of copyright and patent (originally) was to encourage inovation and reward the creators by granting a temporary monopoly on their content/idea. To this end, current law fails miserably because much of the current benefit does not go to the inventor/artist/musician but instead to some company.

Fantastic, I'm really looking forward to the Ibiza-style boom-boom-loop remixes of "Day Tripper", cover versions of "Yesterday" by this week's 13-year-old teenie pop sensation, and "We Can Work It Out" as the background music in party political broadcasts.

I've seen this argument before when disney was lobbying to get copyright extended. The problem becomes where (or when) do you draw the line? At what point can the copyright holder have no clue what the original creator's intent was? Should even the creator be able to block derivative works after a certain period of time?

In these times, it is far easier to capitalize on an idea and make a profit quickly than it was when the copyright laws were first created. Copyright laws should not be longer than they were originally with the possible exception for art and then only the lifetime of the artist.

Re:Translation for Dummies?

[LordFnord]

If you/your client can't make money off a static website design in 14 years, then you don't deserve to be in business. Static, mind you, because any changes would be covered by copyright for an additional 14 years after that point.

Well, I make money: I invoice the client when it's complete. The client makes money as well: they sell products via the site.

What I object to is that, without copyright, one of my client's competitors - who hasn't contributed anything to the creation of this site - could then download the design in its entirety, make no changes to it other than to remove any of my client's identifying marks, pass it off as their own, and use it to generate the same money as my client but without the overhead of actually developing the thing in the first place.

How about a newspaper which sends a journalist off to a far-flung country to break a story? He comes back with both the article and a fat expenses claim; the paper publishes the article and pays him for his travel, accommodation and out-of-pocket costs. Personally, I have difficulty taking the position that all the other newspapers in the world should now be allowed to copy that article, claim it as their own work, and print it verbatim without any consideration to the original creator.

If copyright is truly "evil", let's get rid of it - however, I fear we'll end up in a situation where no-one ever does anything first. Why would you, as CEO of a major multinational, pump billions of dollars into R&D when anyone who wants to can take your research and use it as your own (and, conversely, when you can just help yourself to anyone else's research as you see fit?) Why would you, as a inventor working from a shed at the bottom of your garden, try and develop some cool new technology if IBM could just step in as soon as you go public and take credit for all your hard work?

Copyright laws should not be longer than they were originally with the possible exception for art and then only the lifetime of the artist.

OK, but you now have to define "art" so that not only does it cover whatever you meant it to cover, but also in such a way that a Microsoft lawyer can't shoehorn the code for Vista into it.

I'd also quite like to know why Richard Strauss' four last songs (amongst the most beautiful music ever written, incidentally) should only have been subject to copyright during his lifetime, even though he died nine days before they were performed for the first time.

Re:Translation for Dummies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, consider some rich Saudi Arabs buying 'copyright' to the US Constitution, then issuing a cease and desist to the Americans? Goodness, if you do not see that this is logical extension of your argument for perpetual copyright, you need stop and think, my friend.

I think what the GP is saying is that eternal copyright is bad. His proposal to limit it to 14 years is really very nice, if you think about it.

I will give you an analogy you may find usefull.

Ability to use other's work is what makes us HUMAN. Most higher animals can learn from their mistakes and experiences... We are different largely because we can learn from experiences of OTHER people: via talking, schooling, proverbs/bible, socializing, books, TV, whatever. Please take a moment to think about this (consider, how many things do you know you should NOT do, even though you never tried them?)

Please also consider that while the human brain remained largely unchanged in the last 70,000 years, only the last 5,000 or so years we started to become more human. Some theorize that the suddent out-of-Africa exodus was performed 20k years ago by a single small group (200 Homo's), via a single route... It is very attractive to think that what made that 'tribe' succesfull in colonizing Eurasia, compared to all the others sitting in one place for 200k years, was language!

In this context, an eternal copyright on experience would be like being deaf, dumb, and blind, no less! Whatever you learn/think/discover would die with you.

Eternal copyright basically leads to the same end: if you cannot use or build upon other's work, that work is absolutely useless... Current copyright, as it stands, luckily does not YET apply to science, medicine, etc. But God knows, there is just sooooo much money to be made if you could 'copyright an AIDS cure, and sell it for $10,000,000 per person. Or 'copyright' computers, or 'transistors', and sell those to governments that want nukes, etc.

Limited copyright is there key here, and 14 years sounds reasonable, if not perhaps too long.

On a separate note, do you know that 99.9% of school children in US have NEVER heard the 'I have a dream' in its entirety? You know why? Cause King's family copyrighted that speach, and wants big money for it. Yeah, yeah, some portions are available cause of the 'fair use' clause, but you would do away with that, too?

give us a break

[grrrl]

At the end of the day, people want to use what they buy. Say you are making a home movie - and you want to use some music from the soundtrack of your favourite movie (which you have bought, on CD, online or however) to make it interesting/funny/epic, it shouldn't be a hassle to drop in an mp3 and edit it to your heart's content. If you can't, people just get frustrated and the whole era of 'easy multimedia' becomes a big joke.

I don't even get the concept of 'plays for sure' - if (eventually) all devices can play the damn song, whats the point of restricting it in the first place?

Re:give us a break

[QuantumG]

Yes, people want to copy. Unfortunately other people want to "get rich" by forcing people not to copy and the government helps them do it.

Re:give us a break

[Sax Maniac]

Right, it's so hilarious. Everything did work when there was just mp3. The only reason "plays for sure" even needs to exist is because now it might not, since we're having my-format-is-better pissing contests peppered with the DRM du jour, and thus people need to be reassured.

If it really did "play for sure" you wouldn't have to say anything. It's a bit like someone sitting at the border crossing saying "UH! HA, um... NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY, ha ha ha, UH, DRUGS! For sure!".

Mine mine mine!!!

[jfengel]

I am glad that there are organizations protecting consumers' rights. They form a critical balance to self-interested business who are only looking out for themselves, with considerable legal and political clout.

But pronouncements like this bore me silly. You've got companies shouting "We must protect our property!" and consumers screaming "We must protect our rights!" and so the final result is an unprincipled compromise between the two by lawmakers desperate only to stop the clamor in both ears simultaneously.

I'd be much more interested in an article which talked about principled compromises. There are all sorts of technological and legal solutions to ensure BOTH the consumers' rights to use purchased content in a variety of ways, AND the producer's rights to sell their property to all the consumers who wish to buy it at a rate the market will bear without having the simplest part of the creative process, duplicating the final result, pre-empted.

Apple, for example, has a system which allows considerable, but not complete, flexibility in the way you use the music you buy. Rather than just having the NCC declare "We want more!" I'd prefer to hear them propose a better solution, one which helps protect the producer's rights as well as their own. Until then I'm going to keep tuning out their arguments.

Re:Mine mine mine!!!

[rlauzon]

Apple, for example, has a system which allows considerable, but not complete, flexibility in the way you use the music you buy.

Excuse me. Are you talking about iTunes?

If so, you are mistaken. You do not buy music at iTunes. You rent it. Apple can change (and has changed) the rules by which you can enjoy "your" music at any time for any reason without any compensation to you whatsoever.

Apple has a system. But as a system to "sell" music, it fails. The only reason it's popular right now is because of a phrase P.T. Barnum used to use: There's a sucker born every minute.

There are already 16...

[Anonymous Coward]

NCC Calls for Laws to Protect User Rights

The NCC has already outlined 16 proposed rights; the latest, if passed, would be NCC-17. Its first amendment would be NCC-17.01.

Re:There are already 16...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's enterprise for you...

Re:There are already 16...

[colinrichardday]

But if they really were NCC-1701, why would they need laws? A few photon torpedoes would discourage any hostile activity.

Re:There are already 16...

[Mattintosh]

And a replicator would end this stupid "copy protection" bullcrap once and for all.

Re:There are already 16...

[raventh1]

Naw, it still wouldn't end it. They'd come up with new ways like half atoms and malformed clusters of atoms.

You aren't giving them enough credit.

However, we would just fix those problems with our 'felt tipped' replicators.

best way to stand up for rights

[DuctTape]

I think that the best way that we can stand up for our consumer rights is to spend our money where it does us the least harm. If someone tries to pass off a highly-DRMed piece of crap, don't buy it. Divx went away because it sucked. I don't watch TV (nor do I have cable) because it sucks. I don't buy Sony anymore because they suck. I've never bought a car from Detroit because domestic US cars suck.

If it sucks, don't buy it. But they'll say sales are down due to piracy anyway.

DT

Re:best way to stand up for rights

[LordSnooty]

If it sucks, don't buy it. But they'll say sales are down due to piracy anyway.

Which is why we have to do more than spend our money where we think is right. Before we know it, there'll be no choice than to buy something locked with DRM, even if it's made by FluffyWhiteCats Inc.

In other, geeker, news

[isny]

NCC-1701 breaks the prime directive. Again.

which market?

[Anonymous Coward]

"at a rate the market will bear "

    Where does this "market" exist?? got a location, an address? The big media companies and their partners in restrictions and maximizing profits the big vendors work in a global market, you and I consume mostly locally. If we try to consume globally, well, they got these pesky laws that say "no you don't" in a ton of cases. They take the same product, offer it in different nations/areas at vastly different prices, happens all the time. Why can't I buy it where it's the cheapest "market" then? Or, they don't even offer it in nation A or B, but it's there in C, but you must jump through black or gray market hoops to get it, running up against those pesky laws they lobbied for (bribed for) and got passed.

The big companies want it ALL in their favor, ALL the time, NO exceptions, EVERY place. And they have the large dollars bribe money to make it happen. It's not total yet but it's coming. It's global scale outright racketeering, yet no one takes them to any pseudo "court" over it, because they are international in scope and just *large*. Very very large with very very large wallets. Even when caught, such as the recent Sony actual criminal rootkit case, NO ONE at Sony or their DRM/trojan subcontractors has been arrested. Hacking computers is not a "civil tort" circumstance. They make "an arrangement" with "the lawful authorities" to "take care of it". If you try to bribe a cop for a speeding ticket, you might go to jail, a good chance. Some big corp pulls the same stunt on a large scale, they get a small fine, that's it. Any fines they get are a pittance, it's just business to them, they pass the cost back onto their customers with the next product. The ONLY time you hear of any big name money bags going to jail for breaking laws-even "market" laws is when they screwed some OTHER big name moneybags person or priveleged elite group. It NEVER happens with any normal joe sixpack as the victim. NEVER.

Lessons learned. It doesn't pay to be a small time crook, you're just a criminal then. If you want to succeed, be a BIG TIME crook, then you get to be a respectable "businessman" "bureaucrat" or "politician"..

Re:which market?

[mirkob]

Hacking computers is not a "civil tort" circumstance. They make "an arrangement" with "the lawful authorities" to "take care of it" here in italy we have a law against hacking a computer that commit a 8 year of prison! the same penance of raping! does sony selled those cd here? it could be a good starting point for a penal cause.

Mod parent up.

[plasmacutter]

that's all i gotta say.. because he said it all.

User-rights in Finland

[10Ghz]

At the start of the year, we got new copyright-legislation. And it has been a serious setback as far as user-rights are concerned. It makes it illegal to circumvent copy-protection (unless the proctection is "weak", which is clearly specified in the law). And it makes it illegal to "discuss methods of circumventing copy-protection in an organized manner". We do have the right to discuss methods of blowing up the Parliament, but we can't discuss methods of cirumventing copy-protection. Yes, it's insane. yes, it goes against the right to free speech.

The whole process of drafting the law was just sickening. Politicians did hear from few "experts". and they mostly represented the copyright-holders, consumers weren't heard at all. The record-labels made some ludicrous claims to back up the legislation (among others, they claimed that one album by one Finnish artist (his songs all have Finnish lyrics, so he doesn't really have market outside Finland) had been dowloaded 6 million times on the net. That would mean that each and every person living in Finland (about 5.1 million people) had a copy of his album, and there would still be enough copies to give citizen of Stockholm a copy as well.

Add to this the sweet irony when the minister spearheading this legislation was found to have bought a pirated copy of a Prada bag...

About a week ago, the opponents of the new legislation started a campaign aimed against the legislation. They set up a website, where they discussed methods of cirumventing copy-protection. Some participants were involved in order to earn money (they requested a payment of 5 cents for their advice). They discussed about copy-protection in organised manner for a week, and then they turned themselves to the police. They want clear information as to what is and isn't allowed under the new legislation and they wanted to show the absurdity of the law.

Re:User-rights in Finland

[Kjella]

You forgot to mention that this is the implementation of an EU directive (the EUCD) and that theres nothing the pollticians could seriously do, even if they wanted to. That's EUs greatest democratic deficit.

Re:User-rights in Finland

[10Ghz]

Actually, one newspaper in Finland asked the relevant comissioner that were these changes to law required in order to satisfy EUCD. His answer was "no". The minister spearheading the new legislation claimed that these changed are needed because of EU-directives, and now we have EU-comissioners saying that no changes were needed. What happened next? The minister started claiming that the comissioner doesn't know what he's talking about.

And I really, REALLY fail to see what part in EUCD says that we are not allowed to talk about copy-protection? Is this the Fight Club? "First rule of copy-protection: you do not talk about copy-protection!"

Re:User-rights in Finland

[chawly]

You forgot to remember that a vigourous campaign is underway to have the political twits change their opinions (woops, nearly wrote "change their minds") at the European level. You forgot to remember that each member country can decide for itself and that France (blimey!) just made the opposite decision - protection and freedom for the consumer. I think that some political nitwits forget that, while Bill and such organisations as the RIAA have the money/lobby WE have the friggin' votes. If enough people (but it is cold in Finland) want think and then stand up and be counted, the politicians have to start thinking our way (or start calculating their unemployment insurance). This is not about crying or about complaining; this is about making your opinions known and voting - for the politician who will listen

WTF?

[ncurtain]

The UK (where this article is about) does not have a fair use doctrine.

I hope you meant that to apply to the topic at the top of the page, alone?

People in the UK will be pretty well pissed off if they buy something that doesn't work the way it should and expect a full refund from the place they bought it.

The article may not have pointed out that things get a little blurred for customers who buy data on digital media. To buy a music recording from Sony for example would mean for the unwashed to accept that it has the plague writ large within.

I suppose it is the hi-tech aspect that loses most fellows on the Clapham Omnibus. One only has to think of (early??) wireless routers or Windows operating systems (TTVD) and Microsoft browsers for example. How many customers appreciate that such like wares are not supposed to work like that?

However if it was a frying pan with a hole in it, or eggs that gave off a distinct aroma of hydrogen sulphide there are any amount of fair trade watchdogs that would hound the rogue trader(s) into oblivion.

Sony has virtually been allowed to set its own penalty for that DRMM. Had it been a company producing kitchen cabinets that fell off the wall or that had shelves falling out, they would have had quite a different reception.

Personally I think they should got to the wall anyway. Feck em! Whatever happened to Harry Carey?

Voting for appearences

[Aceticon]

I've been toying for years with a couple of pet theories about the crisis with Democracy:

In a democratic system, people are suposed to elect some of their peers to represent them for a limited time period. The idea would be that elected representatives share opinions and experiences with the voters that chose them as representatives.

So what's going wrong?

- In most current implementations of Democracy, people don't personally know the people they vote for. In practice voting decisions are made on the basis of the image projected by the contestants (usually via the media), mostly during the campaign period. The result is that politicians are more worried about projecting the right image to their chosen target group than they are in actually doing policy choices according to the wishes of their voters. In practice people end up electing "salesmen" or "image experts" type of representative since those are the best at presenting the right image. In the same vein, exposure on the media is also important. In the US implementation of democracy more money available for the campaign means more exposure (mostly in the media). Thus either having the personal wealth to pay for a big campaign or receiving a lot of campaign contributions (in practice, owing a lot of favours) significantlty increases one's chances to be elected.

- Politicians have become professionals. Nowaydays they are in practice a separate group within the wider society. This has gone to such a point that politics has become a family business (the scion of a politician is probably a politician himself). Simply put: most politicians are not the peers of their constituents anymore - their life experience is far removed from the one of the people they suposedly represent, and they have trouble identifying themselfs with the "man on the street". What we see in practice is that politicians spend a lot of time doing policy about thing that only affect politicians. In practice they mostly defend and represent the social group from which they come - the "political class".

- Clubism. A lot of people chose political parties as they choose sports clubs - out of emotion. This means a lot of voters keep on voting for the same party (and defending them) no mater what, in the end the because they feel emotionally connected to it (in other words, they like it, it's THEIR party). The end result is that politicians can count on a unflinching, unthinking core of supporters and are much more at ease to make policies that actually have negative effects to the persons they supposedly represent.

How to fix this?

Re:Voting for appearences

[AndersOSU]

I think you've hit the nail on the head, the problem with democracy (and all political systems) is that they don't scale infinately.

Communism for instance works great in small communities, Kibbutzes and the early Catholic church - when you have to look your neighbor in the face and explain why you're not contributing.

Monarchy works with medium sized populations, the monarch is removed from your daily interactions giving them an apperance of aloofness, but not in societies so large that each citizen has to answer to several intermediates before the monarch.

Democracy works well for largish populations, electing local, regional and national representatives. The problems that arise are the ones you described and the symptom is voter apathy, the voters don't feel connected to the politicians.

What works for really large populations, I don't know but I'm sure China and India will let us know if they ever manage to sort it out.

For those talking about US law...

[abigsmurf]

Sorry this is all about UK consumer law. The sale of goods act (1971) gives us extremely good protection against purchased goods and this petition/inquirey is all about making sure these rights remain as more and more purchases are electronic in nature. Most EULAs for instance are already illegal in the UK purely because they ask you to sign away rights they can't ask you to give up. Especially considering you can't read a EULA on the box before purchasing (and the fact that they never usually ask for someone over 18 to agree to the contract) From what I've read of US consumer law, you get very little protection comparitively and it's more designed to protect businesses than it is customers. Sorry but this would be far too huge a jump to be implemented in the US

Crunchy Frog

[Anonymous Coward]

Your labeling scheme reminds me of the Monty Python sketch about the crunchy frog candy.

Europe's democratic deficit

[hr raattgift]

Directives come from the Council of the European Commission, which comprises every member state in the European Union. Typically a member state is represented by its head of government or a representative -- often a minister or a civil servant directly reporting to a minister.

The government of the moment of each and every EU country therefore is directly involved in originating directives of this nature. Each EU government is popularly and democratically elected.

Every directive must be reviewed and approved by the European Parliament, whose members are popularly elected directly by EU nationals.

The European Commission is also involved. Commissioners are appointed by the Council and approved the Parliament, and are collectively responsible to both bodies, either of which unilaterally may force the entire set of Commissioners out of office.

The Commission's role is typically advising the Council (sometimes making suggestions on directives to initiate, much more often providing technical and legal advice for whatever the Council cooks up on its own) through the legislative process, as well as trying to resolve any conflict between the Parliament and the Council when the former does not approve an initiative of the latter.

In any event, the Commission oversees the implementation of any directive finally agreed between the other two institutions, and may bring pressure to bear on members states which implement things the wrong way.

The defeated Constitution would have given more power to the Parliament to act as a check against the member states, on the grounds that MEPs are directly elected, represent finer-grained constituencies, and frequently are members of non-government parties (who have no direct say in the Council). The weakness of the Commission, where retired senior "opposition" politicians were the most common form of Commissioner suggested by each member state, was one reason. Another was the increasing tendency of several member state governments to run their local agenda through the existing process and then blame "Europe" for the results of their very own efforts in the Council. Finally, the hope was that a much stronger (as in more able to block the actions of the Council and review and repudiate the Commission) directly elected Parliament would solve some of the "democratic deficit" public relations disaster which has plagued the European Union.

This may be a case where Finland is blaming outside forces to disguise local politicians' pet projects. That this is both possible and plausible is what I think the greatest democratic deficit is: non-transparency.

Unfortunately, most of the other member states use the same tactic with some regularity and are unlikely to rebuke Finland for blaming the EU in general for something that none of its three institutions really approved.

Sadly, there are national polticians in every country who simply enjoy manipulating people into believing that it's all "Europe"'s fault when they decide themselves to do something unpopular.

All democracies are not equal

[Anonymous Coward]

A pure democracy should represent everyone, so your 49% wouldn't be killed off because 49% of the population didn't want it. Under a western majority rule democracy like the we have in the UK then 49% of the people would be killed off.

Imaginary Property

[Anonymous Coward]

While it's true that the term Imaginary Property still conflates the fact that copyright, trademark and patent laws are completely different, at least it reuses the acronym and makes a point that the "rights" to them are utterly artificial and hardly immutable. Unlike with, say, a belt, where the use of it by one person precludes its concurrent use by others.

Re:First post?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe slashdot backend should just automatically post a 'first post' on every article. Thus the whole 'first post' thing will be useless. Of course, Second Post's would be possible, but sound stupid.

Old Fashioned Consumer WatchDogs Wanted!

[catahoula10]

"poor information when purchasing products and unfair contract terms.'"

IMO these are the two biggest issues that American's face regarding conusmer items from apples to home loans. And what is needed is to bring back Ralph Nader, his consumer watch dog group and the 3rd party. BTW, where are all the UL labels lately?