Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NCC Calls for Laws to Protect User Rights

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the where-is-the-hidden-agenda dept.

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.'"

45 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. Feh... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Feh... by dada21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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!

    2. Re:Feh... by bheer · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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).
      --
      Go somewhere random
    3. Re:Feh... by Grym · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

    4. Re:Feh... by bheer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Go somewhere random
    5. Re:Feh... by dada21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  2. What Rights? by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  3. Newsletter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  4. RIAA charges you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    I plead insanity.

    1. Re:RIAA charges you? by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
  5. Be Proactive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Be Proactive by slavemowgli · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    2. Re:Be Proactive by click2005 · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    3. Re:Be Proactive by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

    4. Re:Be Proactive by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  6. Here's a thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Here's a thought by WlfRecon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Semper Fi
    2. Re:Here's a thought by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
  7. Hmmm.. by KwKSilver · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Hmmm.. by dada21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Hmmm.. by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Hmmm.. by NixLuver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Thinking outside my Head
    4. Re:Hmmm.. by dada21 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Hmmm.. by servognome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    6. Re:Hmmm.. by Mattintosh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Hmmm.. by sepluv · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    8. Re:Hmmm.. by servognome · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    9. Re:Hmmm.. by LordFnord · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

    10. Re:Hmmm.. by Fred_A · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  8. In Canada by CivilianHero · · Score: 3, Insightful
    '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".
    --
    The best excuse for a President, a King or others *insert your words*, is God. God has still yet to find an excuse.
    1. Re:In Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

  9. For the time being... by sillysnipes · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ...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 :)

    1. Re:For the time being... by Technician · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  10. give us a break by grrrl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  11. Mine mine mine!!! by jfengel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. There are already 16... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:There are already 16... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, that's enterprise for you...

    2. Re:There are already 16... by raventh1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

  13. Re:Translation for Dummies? by dada21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  14. best way to stand up for rights by DuctTape · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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

    --
    Is this thing on? Hello?
  15. In other, geeker, news by isny · · Score: 3, Funny

    NCC-1701 breaks the prime directive. Again.

  16. which market? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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"..

  17. User-rights in Finland by 10Ghz · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  18. Voting for appearences by Aceticon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  19. For those talking about US law... by abigsmurf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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