NCC Calls for Laws to Protect User Rights 137
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.'"
Feh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Feh... (Score:1)
Re:Feh... (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [slashdot.org]!
Hmmm.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.. (Score:2)
And would render government ineffective, so that it wouldn't have the power to serve the people.
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:2)
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 o
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:1)
The Articles of Confideration [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org] proved that we needed a stronger Government.
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)
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 situati
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:2)
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 no
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:2)
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 prope
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:2)
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 addition
Voting for appearences (Score:3, Insightful)
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 o
Re:Voting for appearences (Score:2)
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 a
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:2)
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.. (Score:2)
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:
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.. (Score:2)
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, a
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:2)
People only care about themselves, and often in a very short sighted manner, so it makes sence to have
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:2)
no thanks, that may be worse than voting for the best salesman
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:Feh... (Score:1)
That's the point.
Re:Feh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Things o
Re:Feh... (Score:2)
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]
Re:Feh... (Score:1)
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 t
Re:Feh... (Score:4, 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
Re:Feh... (Score:2)
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, c
Re:Feh... (Score:2, Interesting)
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 bette
Re:Feh... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 ent
Re:Feh... (Score:2)
I don't think you understand the nature of the problem. You're only thinking of passing laws in the positive
Re:Feh... (Score:2)
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 tak
Re:Feh... (Score:2)
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 t
Re:Feh... (Score:2)
Railroa
Re:Feh... (Score:2)
Re:Feh... (Score:2)
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
Re:Feh... (Score:2)
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 w
Re:Feh... (Score:2)
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 wh
Re:Feh... (Score:2)
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 dec
Re:Feh... (Score:2)
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 intere
Re:Feh... (Score:2)
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
Re:Feh... (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
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 w
Re:Translation for Dummies? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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 billio
Re:Translation for Dummies? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Translation for Dummies? (Score:2)
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 bu
Re:Feh... (Score:1)
Re:Feh... (Score:2)
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.)
What Rights? (Score:4, Funny)
Thats what it is with all this "free" software being shoved in our face.
Newsletter (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.ncc.org.uk/e-newsletter/winter2005.htm [ncc.org.uk]
RIAA charges you? (Score:5, Funny)
I plead insanity.
Re:RIAA charges you? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:RIAA charges you? (Score:2)
You see, where I live, downloading and copying music is perfectly legal.
Be Proactive (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Be Proactive (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Be Proactive (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Be Proactive (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:1)
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 danger
Re:Be Proactive (Score:1, Interesting)
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 co
Re:Be Proactive (Score:1)
Finally! (Score:1)
Re:Finally! (Score:1)
Here's a thought (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Here's a thought (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's a thought (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Here's a thought (Score:2)
Re:Here's a thought (Score:1)
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 con
nice name (Score:1, Troll)
In Canada (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Exactly! (Score:1)
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 compa
Re:In Canada (Score:3, Insightful)
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 bough
For the time being... (Score:3, Interesting)
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... (Score:2)
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... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
give us a break (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Re:give us a break (Score:2)
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!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
which market? (Score:4, Insightful)
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"..
Mod parent up. (Score:2)
There are already 16... (Score:3, Funny)
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... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:There are already 16... (Score:1)
Re:There are already 16... (Score:2)
Re:There are already 16... (Score:2, Funny)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Funny)
User-rights in Finland (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
Re:User-rights in Finland (Score:2)
And I really, REALLY fail to see what part in EUCD says that we are not a
For those talking about US law... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First post? (Score:1, Redundant)