Consumer Technology Bill of Rights? 264
thrilliams writes "The WSJ's Walt Mossberg has a story about DigitalConsumer.org, a new lobbying group that's pressing for a Consumer Technology Bill of Rights. It would aim to protect the right to time shift and space shift media, make backups, allow for platform independence and translation between formats. Given the current DCMA/SSSCA climate, even these basic rights seem ambitious, but check them out and do what you can to support this nascent effort." There's also an NYT article on the SSSCA debate, with an unintentionally humorous quote from the head of News Corporation (which owns 20th Century Fox): "without copyright protection we will change our business models".
We need sensationalism (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about all the public alerts that have been passed around the net that still cause headaches for government agencies, like the "FCC banning religious programs due to Madilyn O'hare" or the infamous modem tax issue or the $2,500 area code 809 phone calls.
Someone with a lot of literary skills needs to come up with some sort of alert that claims that those bastard liberal media companies and those liberals in Congress (I said sensationalist) are trying to take a way your right to record your TV shows by mandating that all future electronic devices contain copy protections to allow people who make shows to disable your ability to record them without paying for them. Include refs to digitalconsumer.org too. Then put the ole "We need to stop this right away, send this to all of your friends" line, details about the bill, and urge people to contact their congressman.
Make this issue so poisoned that no elected official will get near it. Remember, the public are sheep and the reason corporations give so much money to candidates and the reason that is so influential is that people are elected by the strength of their campaign ads. But in the end, it's people who vote, not companies. So if enough people get up in arms about this, the elected (and elected-wannabees) will stand up and take notice.
the quote was in the NYTimes (Score:4, Interesting)
Jonathan Zittrain, an assistant law professor at Harvard, pointed out in a recent New York Times editorial that what Eisner's really saying is that the most dangerous threat to his industry is the American consumer. If that's really the case, what Eisner needs to do is rethink his business model rather than look for a way to outsmart his customers.
which really sums it up for me
Re:We need sensationalism (Score:4, Interesting)
Legally acquired? (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, all they have to do is make it illegal to acquire video via a recording device to defeat the space-shift/time-shift scenario.
I think the bill should make it illegal to require that a person give up any rights to consume media. Of course it would be ignored just like the fact that it is illegal to *require* a person to give you their SSN, but then the company isn't *required* to give you a loan unless you do either...
What a shame (Score:3, Interesting)
News Corp: without copyrights, we'll have to change our business model
I feel so sorry for all these 'poor' companies...
My own submission (Score:2, Interesting)
My favourite quote! (Score:5, Interesting)
It is nice to see a more "mainstream" opinon which echos the sentiments of slashdot posters. This really is the core of the issue: Media companies don't want to deal with the new dynamics as to what people (the "consumer") want to do with the content that they percieve they own (i.e. i bought it in the store, i can do whatever i want with it). I don't see how digital rights should be any different than rights in the analog world. Asides from preceieved quality issues, all the move to digital has done, is make it easier for people to do stuff that they had done previously, i.e. the new term "space shift".
In my younger days i "spaceshifted" a record or cd to a tape or MD to listen to in my walkman or in my parents car. How is this any different than when I download a copy of a cd i own to my mp3 player?
The question I have, is who has more lobbyists? The hardware or media industires? That will probably be the deciding factor.
Software/hardware developers are for piracy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft et al aren't even able to develop decent anti-piracy measures for their own software and hardware(Multi-Regional DVDs etc) why should they bother to work on another companies problems when they can't beat their own?
Also the very idea that pirited songs and ripped movies help to sell computers is stupid. At most it forces some people to go get a better video card, start a broadband account and get a bigger screen and speaker set.
Games are flourishing despite piracy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bill of Rights (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have cable or a satellite dish, so I don't watch much TV.
I don't have broadband so I'm not one of the people downloading movies or MP3's off the Internet.
I don't own a DVD player, and while I do own a VCR, I don't use it to record programs off the air; instead it plays Lion King and Toy Story videos to keep the kids off my back.
I haven't bought a (music) CD in years, I don't own an MP3 player or even a writable CD drive.
While I admit I'm not the best customer of the audio/video content industries, I'm not a pirate in any sense of the term. I don't even exercise many of the rights that the content industries themselves grant that I have. I understand the technologies, and could probably become one, but that stuff just doesn't interest me. In short, I'm just not equipped to be a pirate.
But I do work with computers, and I am concerned about the effects that legislation like the DMCA and the SSSCA will have on me directly.
I guess I need to go out and buy a few CD's so I can begin to boycott them, eh? ;-)
The MPAA and the RIAA should view this as a shot across their bow; they are motivating people who otherwise couldn't care less and making enemies of people who would hapilly leave them alone. This is not a wise tactic.
Re:Broadcasting Intel Design Secrets! (Score:3, Interesting)
Intel and Microsoft may be guilty of other crimes, but this charge, even as an imaginary "Let's say" scenario, is spurious and dangerous! Intel and Microsoft aren't broadcasting anything that I'm aware of. The media themselves are the ones doing the broadcasting and a very very small minority of their customers take advantage of the fact that information is very difficult to fence in.
MPAA, I'm very sorry your major members are having trouble selling high speed internet connections to further increase your profits on wiring you've already laid (in spite of the fact that cable sales seem quite brisk). I'm also very sorry that you are afraid of publishing material over the net without additional protections that your material has not enjoyed at any point in history. If you don't like it, keep your content in the vault and see how well it sells there. Or here's an idea. Simply release it on video tape and only broadcast it over analog signals-- most of us have been getting along just fine on those two technologies for years.
music is a finite consumable resource? (Score:2, Interesting)
i read the article and was not able to find one good point on behalf of the media companies. this point is absurd. when i copy a song, i am not depriving the people who have the song curently of their song so any analogy that deals with material goods is stupid at best.
We may be stupid... -Peter Chernin
you said it.
How can Fox changing its business model be bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is from the company that brought us a boxing match between Tonya Harding and Paula Jones, Temptation Island, Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire, The Chamber, and loads of other worthless trash, while at the same time doing a poor job of promoting Futurama and Family Guy (and a poor job in general with The Tick). Since when is changing this business model a bad thing? The public is already a loser, it can't get much worse.
Other nice quotes:
"I believe if you say to these people, `You get us a system by Dec. 31 or we'll do it for you,' you'll be surprised at how innovative they'll become," Mr. Eisner told the lawmakers at last month's hearing.
Oh yeah, this really makes Eisner look like the good guy...
Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina and chairman of the Commerce Committee, says that without technological safeguards Hollywood may never offer the kind of high-quality programming for digital television and broadband Internet services that would generate consumer interest and, in turn, economic growth.
Real "high-quality programming" comes from intelligent and creative writing, good acting, and management that lets these things happen - until that happens, it won't matter how many lines the video image has if they are all lines of crap.
"Unfortunately in many cases, fear is paralyzing Hollywood's ability to seize what I believe is an incredible opportunity," said Steven P. Jobs, chief executive of Apple Computer. "We at Apple believe most people want to be honest, and if offered reasonable choices, most people will choose to buy their content."
You know things are bad when Steve Jobs is the least insane person in the room...
Re:We need sensationalism (Score:3, Interesting)
Congress and Hollywood to make you pay
Hollywood has gotten Congress to propose a law that will force you to have to buy new VCRs, CD players, and computers. If you keep your old ones, any new CDs or movies you buy won't work! If you buy a new one, any old CDs or movies won't work! Either way, we're in trouble! Also, forget about taking home videos-- you'll need to go to a professional place if you want to make copies for your folks. This little surprise is called SSSCA and is being slipped in by the hollywood movie moguls so they can make more $$$ and force us to buy the same stuff twice. Anyway, I'm passing this along to everyone I know, it'd be great if you did the same. I guess you could fax your congressman or complain at your local Best Buy on this.
Re:high quality recordings (Score:4, Interesting)
People find mp3 good enough because they dont' realize there's a difference. I did a presentation for professional communications on CDex, the little window program that rips mp3s. I ripped a 128, a 320, and a VBR. I played the same 5 second clip from each version, and then from the CD, everyone was shocked and amazed, they didn't realize that mp3 was lossy. Later 3 of them told me that they started to replace all their low rate mp3s with 320s. People do want higher quality, you just have to make them realize it.
The public wants the same things that we want. They just need to be shown.
If you're going to fax them.. (Score:2, Interesting)
---
You and your colleagues have recieved letters or faxes from me in the past regarding issues of Consumer Technology. While the are no doubt recieving a number of faxes that look very similar to this one, I urge to you read this one completely. While most of this letter was written by members of DigitalConsumer.org -- they've already stated things better than I could -- I have added a few of my own thoughts.
As a constituent, an ardent consumer of digital media, an artist, musician, author, and software developer, I write again today to urge you to support a Consumer Technology Bill of Rights, and to express my concerns about the recent trend toward allowing one-sided copyright laws to eliminate my Fair Use rights.
Historically, our country has enjoyed a balance between the rights of copyright holders and the rights of citizens who legally acquire copyrighted works. Generally speaking, rights holders have the exclusive right to distribute and profit from artistic works. Consumers like me who legally acquire these works are free to use them in most noncommercial ways. Unfortunately, this balance has shifted dramatically in recent years, much to the detriment of consumers.
To prevent further erosion of my rights, I would like to add my voice to DigitalConsumer.org in calling for a "consumer technology bill of rights". It is simply an attempt to assert positively the public's personal use rights. These rights are not new; they are historic rights granted in previous legislation and court rulings that have over the last four years been whittled away.
Under the guise of "preventing illegal copying" I believe media companies are vilifying their customers - people like me - and using the legislative process to stifle outside innovation and create new lines of business at my expense. Legitimate, legal devices and methods for Fair Use copying, time- or media-shifting -- privileges that I am granted under both Constitutional and Federal Law -- are being outlawed because of the possibility that they may be used for widespread copyright infringement. Content licenses are becoming more and more restrictive, too. I can recall a recent case where the license of a particular electronic book forbid the content of the book to be spoken aloud! And another case where consumers were cease-and-desisted because they figured out how to use a hardware -- hardware! -- bar code scanner that the company had given them to read bar codes other than the ones that the company had intended them to read. Can you imagine the state of the country if Goodyear tires could only be used on roads that Goodyear approved of, or if people were forced not to use timesaving or lifesaving products or information because to do so was not the use the manufacturer had intended for their product?
The goal of the media companies seems to be to create a legal system that takes away my long-cherished personal use rights and my right to innovate, and then to charge me additional fees to regain those rights! These companies should be encouraged to examine and reform their products and business models, not to infringe upon my rights.
Copy protection, especially to prevent overseas piracy for illicit sale, is an important issue. But before Congress considers yet another change in the law at the behest of the copyright holders, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to protect my Fair Use rights. I don't pirate software. I don't pirate music. Yet, what the media companies have done and are doing with laws like the DMCA and proposals like the SSSCA will have great negative impact on my rights, and what I choose to do, within the real of fair use, with content I license or own.
Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter.