Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

U.K. Group Wants DRM'd Media Labeled 244

peterfa writes "The BBC reports that the U.K. 'All Party Parliamentary Internet Group' wants companies to label their DRMed products. Consumers will see a label on the product before they buy. The label will spell out clearly just how easy it is to copy media, and what they can and cannot do. This is in response to Sony BMG and their virus-like DRM. The group claims the industry is turning media into a rent system, rather than a purchase system."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.K. Group Wants DRM'd Media Labeled

Comments Filter:
  • Demand a refund. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by babbling ( 952366 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @02:39AM (#15470512)
    I have never bought anything that contained DRM, but if I did accidentally buy something, I would simply demand a refund.

    Anything with DRM should have a message on it similar to the "WARNING: SMOKING KILLS" warning. I don't want a small label I have to search for - it should be big, clear, and standardised. The exact same logo/warning message should appear on every product. Something like "Warning: This product uses Digital Rights/Restrictions Management" would do the job.

    Anyway, if anyone accidentally buys a product with DRM, they should be entitled to a refund. It is for all intents and purposes a defect, if you thought the product you were buying was a movie/music that you could use however you like.
  • Nice idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rpdillon ( 715137 ) * on Monday June 05, 2006 @02:49AM (#15470538) Homepage
    Well, this is refreshing. I mean, lets face it, vendors are peddling crippled products for their convenience, not the customers'. Often, people don't even realize what they're buying, so it would be nice to have a notice.

    This reminds me of a prediction I made about the iTMS - I think a lot of people are OK with paying $.99 per song *now*, but in a few years when perhaps they've gone through a couple more computers, and the iPod isn't as in-style as it is now, there will be a backlash of customers realizing that they paid for something they cannot easily use on "other" players (the burn-to-CD-and-rerip technique notwithstanding). I can visualize a similar diffculty with these crippled CDs - they will want to play them in a laptop or similar device that won't handle the DRM gracefully, and only then will they discover they paid for something only to find that it doesn't provide the value expected. It makes sense to notify the customer of what they are buying up front, rather than hiding it and hoping they never notice (obviously, some never will).

    But, as my sister told me when we discussed this, they will likely chalk it up to "technology has moved on" and view it the same way they view VHS as not playing in DVD players, and simply rebuy the same movie/album, again. I sure hope that doesn't become the mainstream attitude - it will give the record companies and movie studios yet-another-reason to implement DRM any chance they get.
  • Re:go even further (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @03:12AM (#15470590)
    I had to go through a few hoops to return what the store claimed was "non-returnable".

    I think perhaps phrases like "not fit for the purpose for which it was bought" may have been helpful, along with "I'll see what trading standards has to say about that then" if that doesn't work.

    It's being sold as an audio CD. You have a reasonable expectation that it will work in your audio CD player(s). If it doesn't, then as far as I'm concerned either the CD or the player(s) is faulty. Assuming your player(s) work(s) with other CDs, the implication would be that it's the CD that's faulty. Therefore, you're entitled to a refund, end of story.

    I don't buy very many CDs anymore, but if that happened to me and the store refused to accept the return, I'd definitely be contacting trading standards.
  • by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @03:14AM (#15470592) Homepage
    Definitely, DRM products should be labeled.

    Notice, however, that genetically modified food is not labeled. That was accomplished by corrupting the U.S. government. Probably that will happen in the case of DRM, too.
  • by MassEnergySpaceTime ( 957330 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @03:21AM (#15470614)
    I'm not entirely sure how they would do that.

    What's so cool about...
    1. Rated R? Because it's what only adults can see.
    2. Explicit Lyrics? Because it's how only adults can talk.
    3. DRM? Because it's, um.. adults can, um...

    I'm sure they'll try, though.
  • by Jaruzel ( 804522 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @03:23AM (#15470620) Homepage Journal
    It is for all intents and purposes a defect, if you thought the product you were buying was a movie/music that you could use however you like.

    Except you can't. Re-read the copyright disclaimer when you play a DVD. By buying it, you have paid for the right to watch it, that is all. Even then you can only watch it in certain circumstances (less than 20 of you, not on an oil rig or in a pub etc...). The DVD disc may be be yours to do with what you want, but the data on it is not, and never has been. DRM is simply one step further in enforcing those already existing rights.

    I don't agree with DRM, but then I don't agree with Piracy. However I also feel that most movies and music certainly arn't even worth the blank media they are printed on. So what do I do ? I vote with my wallet - I don't buy the disc. At some point down the line I'll watch the movie on Sky, and with the music - well there's plenty of other music out there that isn't DRMd and is far better quality (as in ability not bit rate).

    -Jar.

    NB. Is the new Slashdot CSS for myopic people? I'm sure everything is now 30% bigger? Plus this input comment box is too shallow.
  • by Technician ( 215283 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @03:38AM (#15470656)
    By visual inspection alone, it is impossible to look at a CD and know whether it is of the "corrupt" ilk.


    I look for the Philips Compact Disc logo. If it's missing, then the product may be incompatible. I wish more people refused to buy stuff without the logo. It would enforce a standard upon the industry. Use the logo or don't sell.

    The logo use requires technical standards to be met. When the standards are met, then it should play with no issues an any compliant device.

    Look for the logo. Get the clerk to help you look.
  • Re:go even further (Score:3, Insightful)

    by julesh ( 229690 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @04:04AM (#15470701)
    I had to go through a few hoops to return what the store claimed was "non-returnable".

    Interestingly, CDs (and other digital media) are exempt from the returnability requirements of a few laws (e.g. the Distance Selling Regulations, which require you to be able to return within 28 days for a full refund just about anything you buy online or via mail order) because of the possibility that you can copy them. Clearly this exclusion should not be extended to DRM-laden discs.
  • by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @05:47AM (#15470951) Journal
    I have never bought anything that contained DRM,

    Wow! I can't remember how long it's been since I've heard from someone who has never bought a single DVD (CSS).

    Or any digital audio recorders (SCMS).

    Never owned any videogames.

    Doesn't subscribe to digital cable or satellite TV...

    etc.
  • by MSZ ( 26307 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @05:52AM (#15470964)
    Which is why the law should define official text, just like cigarette warnings are prescribed. Also the minimum size requirements.
  • by Eivind ( 15695 ) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Monday June 05, 2006 @06:09AM (#15471018) Homepage
    Nonsense.

    Whatever conditions appear when you play the disc are not part of your agreement to buy the disc. You bougth one copy of the DVD, you own it. No question about it.

    It's still true that you cannot do everything you migth like with it. But that's because of copyrigth-law, and not because of any legal-sounding bullshit on the disc itself.

    Copyrigth-law prevents you from, among other things perform the work in public and make new copies of the work.

  • by klang ( 27062 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @06:24AM (#15471050)
    "WARNING: Will NOT play on iPod" will be understood by 99% of the population, resulting in lost sales.
    "Contains ENHANCED DRM" will also be undersood by 99% of the population .. as something good .. it's ENHANCED, right?
  • by rvw ( 755107 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @06:30AM (#15471068)
    Wouldn't it be better to do just the opposite: "This media is free from DRM" or "Play it anywhere anyhow"?
  • by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @09:02AM (#15471594) Journal
    That, and I think any DRM media should be disallowed from being included within 30 feet of non-DRM music in physical stores, and they must be segragated in online stores. For example, a search for "music" must me mutually exclusive with "DRM music", so that there is no question as to which it is you're buying. I don't expect to see this in my lifetime.
  • by RegularFry ( 137639 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @09:40AM (#15471826)
    DRM's presence is a simple yes-or-no. "Adult" is an opinion call which is guaranteed to be wrong for some of the people some of the time. Simple as that.

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Working...