We're somewhat at cross purposes here. I agree with your general thrust - these cards pose huge civil liberties risks. Take Simonetta's comments, for example.
But in this instance, you had to ask them to notify you.
I suspect you are right about the other stores. Altruism is rarely their strong point. The dilemma is that one store has used their data responsibly. What privacy advocates need is an out and out example of abuse. Before it is too late....
That's very interesting - the government is using twenty year old marijuana misdemonor convictions to deny current benefits like housing assistance and graduate student loans presently - and makes a great Big Brother illustration. Can you please point to a url for an independent source ? Thanks.
Interesting. Shows the advantages of distributed decision taking - someone within the community might get it right. Rather like linux....
Or does Kroger use QFC to road test ideas ?
Having rtfm - unusual for/. I know - this is a complex example that neatly encapsulates the privacy dilemma.
QFC supermarkets posted a sign saying concerned shoppers could call to find out if they had bought suspect meat via their id.
Then, if and only if the customer called, QFC only told the shopper. Not any third parties.
I wouldn't want to catch the gruesome mad cow disease, so full ethical marks to QFC for offering customers an informed opportunity to consent.
As interesting are the dogs that didn't bark, bureaucracies hiding behind a privacy comfort blanket: giant Kroger, Safeway and Albertsons chains said they have no plans to take such a step. Perish the thought - publicise they have poisoned me ?
Katherine Albrecht, founder of Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering, hit the nail on the head at the end of the story. rtfm.
VOD replacing DVD is not primarily a technology issue, it's cultural.
I first worked on a massive vod system over 10 years ago, before the hype even became visible. Why did it fail ? Because the major studio's wouldn't licence their content.
Sure, as better bandwidth and compression becomes more widespread and cheaper, vod will spread. But slowly, and if the studios have their way, controlled by them.
Just as it took the competition authorities to prevent studios owning theaters, it will need the FTC to ensure vertical integration is moderated. A real role for burning-blockbuster's-bottom-line dept, probably.
And even when vod is widely available, remember retail vhs and rental coexist and there will always be some people who prefer to buy and some to rent, and most a mixture of both. Vod will not sweep the cultural factors that create that rent/buy mix to go away.
The original poster did not say what their newsletter concentrates on. If it is technology, it would be worth paying some attention to the impact of affordable dvd recorders in the generic video market, and consequently the Future of DVD.
because the cost of replacement for damaged DVDs is so much higher than VHS
That's because BB have revenue share deals for vhs, so the studios supply BB for peanuts - compared to a $50+ list price during the rental window.
But when the studios decided to pump prime the dvd market and release straight to retail at retail prices, BB opted to buy outright.
Although they make higher margins this way becaue they don't have to share revenue, it does cost them more to replace a dvd.
However, Netflix now claim to have revenue share deals on dvd's. So why aren't popular dvd's easily available regardless of how frequently you turn them round ?
"dvd_rent_test"'s analysis does imply Netflix are using satisfaction as a way of 'training' users towards 'reasonable' behaviour. Pavlov lives.
Oops. Thanks, that EU link was very illuminating. I'd relied on a newspaper report, which didn't cite the actual infringement. Should have used a more generic phrase like IP - luckily the error doesn't change the territorial bugbear it illustrated.
Have since come across another closer example in/. on the Disney Hostile dvd thread - This isn't new - in about '94/'95 my boss at the time ordered laserdiscs from the US. They were stopped at the border because the discs hadn't come through the official release channels and weren't officially available in NZ. (They were just regular Hollywood movies).
Your eurorights.org looks interesting. As you are clearly knowledgeable on EEA legals from your other postings, can you tell us if the EU 'fair terms for consumers' directive applies in Norway [sorry, lost that/. ref] ?
If the case against Jon Johansen initially stems from the resctrictment that the user used only autorised playback equipmen is it "reasonable" to claim a consumer is prohibited playing a legally purchased dvd on a linux box ? Especially in Scandanavia, origin of linux, of all places.
None of my dvd packaging includes any warnings about what it can be played on.
Bzzzt, sorry, thanks for playing. Once I've purchased a piece of
copyrighted material (be it a book, cd, dvd, or something else), I'm free to
distribute the one, original, legal copy I have where I like. I can send it
off to my friend in Europe.
[ or ]but once sold, the person can resell it or use it anywhere in the world that they like.
When I buy a paperback book in europe, and fly home with it, customs doesn't wrestle me to the ground for distribution infringment
Er - no, incorrect. USA First Sale rights only apply in the USA, unfortunately.
Levi recently took the major UK supermarket to court in the UK to prevent them buying jeans legitimately in the USA and importing them, on copyright grounds. Levi won.
The reason individuals are not prosecuted, let alone wrestled to the ground, is simply that it is uneconomic. Sad but true.
This case may well end up illuminating Norwegian law only. The access was illegal because the DVD-movies were sold with the resctrictment that the user used only autorised playback equipment. The terms visible to a consumer at the time of purchase on my region 2 copy of Lord of the Rings does not contain such a clause, even in the bit you need a magnifying glass to read.
At least the publicity should move along the process of getting Hollywood back in their pram.
Sorry, not clear enough - wasn't meant to be off-topic.
There are no special restrictions on rentals that extend beyond fair use - that was precisely the point the Supreme Court determined, and Warner are trying to circumvent.
Murky waters these, and very fluid. In short, the Supreme Court decided that once renters had bought a retail copy they could rent it. So the studios set vhs prices high to start with to cream the "must see" early viewers then lower prices after a while for general retail sale.
DVD's were priced straight at lower [but higher than vhs] retail levels from the getgo to encourage dvd penetration.
Then last week [July 26, 2002] Warner Home Video surfaced an attempt at an end run round that Supreme Court ruling by testing a new pricing structure.
Retailers will pay $39 per vhs until they hit a goal set by Warner. At that point, they can receive 200% free goods, bringing the per-unit cost of the title down to $13. DVDs will be $27 and $20, respectively.
Industry commentators say that Warner is attempting to introduce two-tiered pricing, as it has done in the UK and attempted in Australia [where the courts threw it out], without violating the fair use First Sale Doctrine established by the Supreme Court because rental retailers would have no reason to buy titles in retail volumes, so only retail accounts will be able to take advantage of the $13 price.
Slashdot Mirror
But in this instance, you had to ask them to notify you.
I suspect you are right about the other stores. Altruism is rarely their strong point. The dilemma is that one store has used their data responsibly. What privacy advocates need is an out and out example of abuse. Before it is too late....
That's very interesting - the government is using twenty year old marijuana misdemonor convictions to deny current benefits like housing assistance and graduate student loans presently - and makes a great Big Brother illustration. Can you please point to a url for an independent source ? Thanks.
Interesting. Shows the advantages of distributed decision taking - someone within the community might get it right. Rather like linux.... Or does Kroger use QFC to road test ideas ?
QFC supermarkets posted a sign saying concerned shoppers could call to find out if they had bought suspect meat via their id.
Then, if and only if the customer called, QFC only told the shopper. Not any third parties.
I wouldn't want to catch the gruesome mad cow disease, so full ethical marks to QFC for offering customers an informed opportunity to consent.
As interesting are the dogs that didn't bark, bureaucracies hiding behind a privacy comfort blanket: giant Kroger, Safeway and Albertsons chains said they have no plans to take such a step. Perish the thought - publicise they have poisoned me ?
Katherine Albrecht, founder of Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering, hit the nail on the head at the end of the story. rtfm.
I first worked on a massive vod system over 10 years ago, before the hype even became visible. Why did it fail ? Because the major studio's wouldn't licence their content.
Sure, as better bandwidth and compression becomes more widespread and cheaper, vod will spread. But slowly, and if the studios have their way, controlled by them.
Just as it took the competition authorities to prevent studios owning theaters, it will need the FTC to ensure vertical integration is moderated. A real role for burning-blockbuster's-bottom-line dept, probably.
And even when vod is widely available, remember retail vhs and rental coexist and there will always be some people who prefer to buy and some to rent, and most a mixture of both. Vod will not sweep the cultural factors that create that rent/buy mix to go away.
The original poster did not say what their newsletter concentrates on. If it is technology, it would be worth paying some attention to the impact of affordable dvd recorders in the generic video market, and consequently the Future of DVD.
That's because BB have revenue share deals for vhs, so the studios supply BB for peanuts - compared to a $50+ list price during the rental window.
But when the studios decided to pump prime the dvd market and release straight to retail at retail prices, BB opted to buy outright.
Although they make higher margins this way becaue they don't have to share revenue, it does cost them more to replace a dvd.
However, Netflix now claim to have revenue share deals on dvd's. So why aren't popular dvd's easily available regardless of how frequently you turn them round ?
"dvd_rent_test"'s analysis does imply Netflix are using satisfaction as a way of 'training' users towards 'reasonable' behaviour. Pavlov lives.
If I understod you correctly, then what kinds of titles were available at that price ? Older stuff ?
80% of demand from the public is for 20% of recent hit titles, which is priced far higher.
Anyway, your conclusions were correct - Do you hear me? RIAA? No need to create a policial state. Just price your stuff right!
Oops. Thanks, that EU link was very illuminating. I'd relied on a newspaper report, which didn't cite the actual infringement. Should have used a more generic phrase like IP - luckily the error doesn't change the territorial bugbear it illustrated.
/. on the Disney Hostile dvd thread - This isn't new - in about '94/'95 my boss at the time ordered laserdiscs from the US. They were stopped at the border because the discs hadn't come through the official release channels and weren't officially available in NZ. (They were just regular Hollywood movies).
/. ref] ?
Have since come across another closer example in
Your eurorights.org looks interesting. As you are clearly knowledgeable on EEA legals from your other postings, can you tell us if the EU 'fair terms for consumers' directive applies in Norway [sorry, lost that
If the case against Jon Johansen initially stems from the resctrictment that the user used only autorised playback equipmen is it "reasonable" to claim a consumer is prohibited playing a legally purchased dvd on a linux box ? Especially in Scandanavia, origin of linux, of all places.
None of my dvd packaging includes any warnings about what it can be played on.
What would be your advice to his legal team ?
[ or ] but once sold, the person can resell it or use it anywhere in the world that they like. When I buy a paperback book in europe, and fly home with it, customs doesn't wrestle me to the ground for distribution infringment
Er - no, incorrect. USA First Sale rights only apply in the USA, unfortunately.
Levi recently took the major UK supermarket to court in the UK to prevent them buying jeans legitimately in the USA and importing them, on copyright grounds. Levi won.
The reason individuals are not prosecuted, let alone wrestled to the ground, is simply that it is uneconomic. Sad but true.
This case may well end up illuminating Norwegian law only. The access was illegal because the DVD-movies were sold with the resctrictment that the user used only autorised playback equipment. The terms visible to a consumer at the time of purchase on my region 2 copy of Lord of the Rings does not contain such a clause, even in the bit you need a magnifying glass to read.
At least the publicity should move along the process of getting Hollywood back in their pram.
There are no special restrictions on rentals that extend beyond fair use - that was precisely the point the Supreme Court determined, and Warner are trying to circumvent.
Murky waters these, and very fluid. In short, the Supreme Court decided that once renters had bought a retail copy they could rent it. So the studios set vhs prices high to start with to cream the "must see" early viewers then lower prices after a while for general retail sale. DVD's were priced straight at lower [but higher than vhs] retail levels from the getgo to encourage dvd penetration. Then last week [July 26, 2002] Warner Home Video surfaced an attempt at an end run round that Supreme Court ruling by testing a new pricing structure. Retailers will pay $39 per vhs until they hit a goal set by Warner. At that point, they can receive 200% free goods, bringing the per-unit cost of the title down to $13. DVDs will be $27 and $20, respectively. Industry commentators say that Warner is attempting to introduce two-tiered pricing, as it has done in the UK and attempted in Australia [where the courts threw it out], without violating the fair use First Sale Doctrine established by the Supreme Court because rental retailers would have no reason to buy titles in retail volumes, so only retail accounts will be able to take advantage of the $13 price.