Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Given how big business has subverted the Democratic process, expect those who proposed this to be quietly removed from office...
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.
Now that's funny. The first post gets modded redundant. Wha?
Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
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
How do you plead for all of those Pirated Britney Spears albums on your computers?
I plead insanity.
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
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....
Charming man. I wish I had a daughter so I could forbid her to marry one. -Arthur Dent
Terms of a contract strike you as unfair? Don't agree to it!
NCC or National collections company
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.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
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".
The best excuse for a President, a King or others *insert your words*, is God. God has still yet to find an excuse.
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.
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 :)
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
If it sucks, don't buy it. But they'll say sales are down due to piracy anyway.
DT
Is this thing on? Hello?
NCC-1701 breaks the prime directive. Again.
"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"..
that's all i gotta say.. because he said it all.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
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.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
I am not in anyway affiliated with Max Cannon
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.
"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?
This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
Catahoula!