Comments on: Let's Make This Simpler: 1 Thing You Can Do About DRM

By: ScottC

ScottC — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:25:33 +0000

True. You don't know if they want you to get the politicians to not support pro-DRM laws or support anti-DRM laws.

By: Widge

Widge — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:09:47 +0000

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.

By: ScottC

ScottC — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:33:07 +0000

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.

By: Glyn

Glyn — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:07:48 +0000

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.

By: Widge

Widge — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:23:12 +0000

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.

By: Glyn

Glyn — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:47:41 +0000

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?

By: Widge

Widge — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:30:35 +0000

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.

By: ScottC

ScottC — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:05:36 +0000

It might also be that they don't see governement just staying out of the way. Governement either support them or Big Media.

By: Widge

Widge — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:58:41 +0000

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.

By: ScottC

ScottC — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:52:31 +0000

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.