|
Posted on
10.10.06 by Widge @ 4:15 pm
This is the silliest goddamn thing I have read all week. Check out the list. Where do they go first? Legislation. That's right. They want you to go to Parliament. And for my fellow Americans who have no clue, I'd like to point out that this has nothing to do with George Clinton. Think about this for a second: they want you to get government to tell the people who own these properties that they can only provide these properties to you in a certain way. Why is this bad? Because this is government. Any power you can give them can be perverted and twisted for their own benefit. Don't believe me? Here in the States we just got rid of a phone tax that was implemented to pay for the Spanish-American War. There actually had to be a fight to get rid of it. It's not like the government was going to go, "Whoops! Guess what? I'll be damned. We missed that one. Our bad. Here, let's take care of this for you." No, they were willing to keep taxing and taxing away. Look at it another way: here in the States, they think the Net is made of tubes. And not the band from the 80s, I mean actual tubes. Do you really want people who are that technologically backward passing laws about technology? And finally: it's not the government's job to protect you from DRM. They can barely protect you from [insert name of actual threat here]. You want to know how to deal with DRM? Here's Widgett Walls' handy guide for how to deal with DRM: 1. Stop fucking buying stuff with fucking DRM on it. That's it. One step. If you want to convince an industry to do something, hurt them at their wallet. They have the right to provide this stuff in any form they want. And you have the right to tell them to go fuck themselves. Show them how you're buying nothing but non-DRM shit from now on, and they will come around. Or they'll die. If you're willing to do that, great. If not, then you're showboating and you're wasting everybody's time. Sorry, but that's the way of it. Found via Boing Boing. And it's probably posts like this that keep me from getting linked on there, he said, smiling. Taggification: copyright, drm, intellectual-property Filed under: General BS
|
John Robinson is a writer of prose, poetry and comics who also writes under
the pseudonym of Widgett Walls.
This is my latest book. Short stories written especially for you, or at least someone who reminded me a lot of you at the time.
The thing is where you see artists holding copyright, they see big corporations owning them. And they probably think that they don't have the power to stop them so they need government to step in. It's also easier for them since they won't have to be inconvenineced by giving up their favorite band if the CD has DRM.
Not saying they're right, but it's always easier to get the mob to fight an enemy than to improve themselves.
Comment by ScottC — October 10, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
Of course they're wrong. Because any power you hand the government can be used against you later by somebody who disagrees with you. Part of the problem is that nobody has any kind of ability to think of long range reprecussions to their actions anymore–so they just assume how it is now or how it will be next week is how it will always be. Which is stupid. Also, if you're unwilling to give up your "convenience," then you might as well give up, because they have you by the balls.
And I don't care if it's a corporation or an individual–it's theirs, they can do what they want with it.
Comment by Widge — October 10, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
It might also be that they don't see governement just staying out of the way. Governement either support them or Big Media.
Comment by ScottC — October 10, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
Then they're fucking morons. Big Media won't be big anymore if you quit buying their shit. Pretty damn simple there. But the simple eludes people a lot.
Comment by Widge — October 10, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
Ah but if you look closer it makes sense. The Open Rights Group are simply asking the UK government to make it law that any product that DRM on has to be clearly labelled. If its not labelled how will most people know not to buy it?
Comment by Glyn — October 11, 2006 @ 7:47 am
Glyn: I would certainly appreciate that: I'm not advocating falsehood in advertising here. However, when I'm reading this list, here's what I'm seeing:
Our government should be lobbying the World Intellectual Property Organisation not to simply replicate US-style copyright reforms, but rather to consider different approaches to copyright - anti-circumvention measures in particular - that do not harm the public domain for the benefit of private interests.
No instance of the word "label" in there.
Moreover, it should be investigating cases of alleged abusive use of DRM.
If they were for labelling, I would think that would read "alleged mis-labelling of DRM-laced products."
Write to the Information Commissioner’s Office to ask for their support in protecting your personal privacy against DRM.
My personal privacy…should there be a label that says "This CD will steal your info?"
In fact, "Read Licence Terms" is way down at #27. And the word "label" doesn't appear in the group's goals (top right).
But anyway: that doesn't mean you're not right. If people are trying to get away with snookering you in regards to DRM, that's an issue. If stores aren't accepting returns when you find out something has DRM on it (#22), that's an issue. But when I read this list, and indeed the group's goals, I'm reading about a group that's ANTI-DRM not ANTI-MISLABELLING OF DRM-LACED PRODUCTS and going about it the wrong way.
Thanks for commenting, Glyn. Keep me relatively honest.
Comment by Widge — October 11, 2006 @ 8:23 am
I do understand completely where your coming from Widge. I guess I am realy thinking of the successful lobbying the Open rights Group have already done. If you look at one of the earlier blog posts
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/06/05/launch-of-the-apig-report-on-drm/
Given that these recommendations are already out there from a cross party group, if people start witting to their representatives about DRM, it very lightly that the All Party Internet Group's recommendations would gain even more weight.
Comment by Glyn — October 11, 2006 @ 9:07 am
I'm probably missing something but the 'Write a letter to…' don't say anything about anti-DRM legislation. It seems to be more about expressing disagreement with pro-DRM legislation.
Comment by ScottC — October 11, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
I must be missing something too, since it doesn't say anything about expressing disagreement with pro-DRM legislation. Here's what it says, actually:
Write to your local Member of Parliament. Letters (which are better than email) from just a handful of constituents are enough to get the attention of your local MP. Contact information and further advice here.
Nope. Nothing there.
So if you've got an anti-DRM focused site that's telling you to write government, my guess would be it's asking them to legislate. Which is bad. But the fact I have to guess at all is even worse.
Comment by Widge — October 12, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
True. You don't know if they want you to get the politicians to not support pro-DRM laws or support anti-DRM laws.
Comment by ScottC — October 12, 2006 @ 1:25 pm