Consumer Rights Prevention

Copy protection is making headlines this week. In Norway, a second judge ruled that Jon Lech Johansen had no case to answer - providing tools to allow people to copy legally owned DVDs being ruled legal in Norway. Meanwhile, Belgian consumer watchdog Test-Achats is taking the major music companies to court for copy protection on CDs, arguing that personal copying of CDs is legal, and the protection prevents legally owned music being played on many players.

As the law currently stands, copying of either movies or music that you've paid for is perfectly legal. By attempting to prevent us from exercising these legal rights, the music companies are on dubious grounds. There is even a great danger to the music industry. By preventing the copying of a CD, the music companies are claiming that the CD is a single purchase. If your CD gets scratched, don't expect a free replacement. So the CD is ephemeral - when it's gone, it's gone. Even though you have paid to listen to the music, it is the CD that is essential to your ability to hear the music. Without copy prevention, you can make a back up. The music is yours forever. As the law currently stands, that's fine. However, the big music companies want to force you to buy a new CD.

The problem with this logic becomes clear when you look at it backwards. If the CD is what you are paying for, and buying the CD gives you no right to the actual music, then what if you don't care about the CD? By placing the CD at the centre of the purchase, the music companies are feeding the belief that the music itself is free. Worse, since current laws make copy protection indefensible, the music companies must lobby for new laws which actually confirm the belief. If purchase of a small plastic disc grants no rights to the music encoded on that disc, how can possession of the music without the disc be wrong?

The music industry needs to decide what it sells - music, or CDs. They cannot claim the former while actively attempting to prevent consumers from making use of the product they have allegedly bought. The same is true of the film industry, which has deliberately crippled the DVD standard. The attempt there is to prevent British consumers buying DVDs from America, and everyone from connecting DVD players to older televisions or video recorders. Add in an encryption system designed to prevent copying of discs, even for private purposes, and the attack on our existing legal rights is clear. The same questions apply - with the same answers. How do you update your DVD collection to a new standard? You can't. How do you protect your collection from damage? You can't. And why shouldn't you be allowed to buy DVDs from America? After all, it is entirely legal.

The content itself is, of course, already legally protected. Selling illegal copies is an offence, as is making copies for strangers. There are currently difficulties with enforcing these bans, but that has always been a problem. There is little evidence to suggest that the film industry is suffering significantly from piracy - quite the reverse. Music is a different matter, with MP3 copying apparently making a significant dent in legitimate music sales. The industry does need to find means to tackle this problem, but copy protection does not seem to be the solution. If I cannot play a legal CD in the way I wish, what choice do I have but to seek an illegal copy?

In the end, the music and film industries are quite correct to target those who are genuinely breaking the law, along with those whose sole purpose would appear to be to support illegal activities. It is difficult to imagine what legitimate purpose the likes of Napster (as was) or Kazaa can have. But targeting the ordinary consumer is counter-productive. An industry that forces us break the rules in order to enjoy the product we are supposedly paying for blurs the boundaries between the ordinary consumer, and those who are a genuine threat. The law gives us the right to enjoy music and films we have paid for. It is time the entertainment industry allowed us to enjoy those rights.

Graham Robinson. 7th January 2004.

An Open Letter to AOL

Dear AOL,

This morning my post included an envelope, marked as being from yourselves and stating it contained "Important Information" inside. You will not be surprised to learn that it contained no such thing, being instead some marketing materials trying to sell me an overpriced broadband internet connection. Not only was this information not important, it was entirely useless. I live in an area where AOL cannot provide broadband, as should be readily apparent from my postcode.

Now the normal person might be expected to guess that any envelope claiming to be from AOL isn't likely to actually contain anything of importance. But I, briefly, once had an AOL account, which I used to access the Internet while at friends' houses via my laptop. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the legacy of that account could be some information that is, indeed, of importance to me. Such as "we notice that we overcharged you, have a cheque" or "we forgot you cancelled the account, please pay us lots of money (or explain patiently why you shouldn't)".

I should perhaps point out that I am not, in general, against the junk mail that arrives with my more interesting post. Unlike Internet spam, traditional junk mail is paid for, and helps keep posties employed. If nothing else, it ensures I know when the post has been, and means that no post at all only occurs on bank holidays. Checking the post works is no problem where I currently live - but was a major concern when I lived in Edinburgh, and post frequently didn't arrive.

However junk mail masquerading as "Important Information" is unacceptable. Tricking people into reading your junk mail doesn't make them more likely to use your services. Any company pulling that kind of trick is one I couldn't have confidence in, and will not deal with. Worse, when people start recognising the trick, genuinely important information will get binned as "probably junk mail".

If you persist in sending junk mail masquerading as real mail, not only will all your mail end up in the bin, but you risk breaking the mail system for everyone. If too many companies follow your example, filtering postal mail will become as difficult as filtering spam, with no hope of automating the task. So, please stop pretending adverts are important. Otherwise, please expect that anything important you do send me will not be read.

Graham Robinson. 7th January 2004.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.