Consumers loathe digital rights management! In other news, the sky is up.

Dec 12, 2006

And can we have a great big gigantic WTF

“There's a problem here. CD sales have fallen 20 per cent over five years. The message here is not that CD sales are coming back, the ability to obtain pirated music is now so widespread the DRM looks to consumers more like a problem than a benefit.” Forrester Research analyst Josh Bernoff (read more)

Ya think?!??!????!!!!!!!

The music industry has spent time trying to force consumers to cling to old distribution methods when they damn well should have been hopping on the digital-distribution bandwagon much faster, much earlier, and much more smoothly.

Instead, now they look like a gaggle of obstructionary fossils. Instead of freaking out that consumers were pissed about paying $15 for CDs with one or two songs they liked, the music labels should have figured out more ways to let consumers buy exactly the music they wanted, when they wanted.

It's possible there's still time to turn it around. It's possible that the music labels can get their heads out of the sand (or their backsides) and start routinely providing consumers with ways to pay how the consumers choose (per song, per month, or a funded incremental account). It would take some retraining; but if they provide a quality experience and are genuinely responsive to what consumers want, it's possible that piracy won't be as widespread as they phear.

On the other hand, keep going on this lame-ass track, and more of us will eventually decide to download things like BitTorrent and check out songs before we buy them...only to find that it wasn't what we wanted after all.

Related entry: Didn’t I pay for that already?
Keywords: | digital rights management | consumer rights |
Permalink

Musings on the recent ban on transfats in New York eateries.

Dec 09, 2006

The New York City Board of Health voted unanimously yesterday to require the city’s roughly 20,000 restaurants to stop cooking with trans fats, making New York the first major U.S. city to adopt such a ban.

Yep. Really.

Trans fats are chemically-modified food ingredients, long used as substitutes for saturated fats (which are found in foods like whole milk, butter, cream, and the like.) Trans fats have a longer shelf life than saturated fats. Trans fats have also, like saturated fats, been squarely linked to heart disease. [For the curious, trans fats are also known by the term “partially hydrogenated vegetable oils” — so be aware of what you’re eating.]

I love me some good baked things, with real butter and whole milk. I love a good pasta with creamy cheese sauce. Cheese sauce is officially a condiment, at least in my kitchen. I love rich desserts, too: Waldorf-Astoria cake (aka red cake, aka red velvet cake) with creamy white icing; cheesecake; chocolate cremes and caramels. (And snickerdoodles. And the recently-discovered eggnog snickerdoodles.) These things do not a healthy diet make. But I *know* this. I don’t eat these things every day; and I don’t eat them to excess. [Well…occasionally. Usually during the winter holidays.] But you know what? It’s my choice to eat these things. I didn’t like it when well-meaning relatives tried to dictate what, and how much, I would eat when I was a small child. My advanced age has not made me any more fond of having my menu determined for me.

I agree with the second part of the law, which requires restaurants (particularly fast-food restaurants) to prominently post caloric values for the foods they serve. McDonald’s whole “healthy choices” chicken sandwiches campaign is an exercise in misdirection. Those chicken sandwiches can have as many, if not more, calories than the fast-food giant’s burgers (yes, Virginia, even the grilled chicken sandwiches.) If consumers knew how many calories they were consuming with each meal, they might be a little less inclined to get the fast foods as frequently, or in the large quantities many now purchase. But…how does a government body, at any level, come to the conclusion that its job includes policing its citizen’s food choices?

I believe that New York, along with many US cities, has banned smoking in public places. I can see the logic in this because of the effects of secondhand smoke on others, even on those who have never smoked. But…trans fats in foods…unless trans fats make someone extremely and instantly gassy, the secondhand effects are a bit less direct. One argument made is that since trans fats significantly increase the possibility of, and severity of, heart disease, having a large percentage of the population on a diet that runs down their heart health means that as these people fall ill and require care (including angioplasty, artificial hearts, and other similar measures) consumers pay the cost in increased costs for health services. It’s a very chaos-math argument: a man in the boroughs eats a Triple Bypass Burger with Poutine Fries and Lil’ Jimmy’s parents can’t buy him new school clothes that year because they have to pay their increased health insurance rates. Not only is that argument a bit shaky — there are several methods that should be used to lower the cost of acquiring, and of providing, health services — but the other question is, just how far will this be taken? At what poing does the state stop carrying and tell the individual, Okay, from now on you need to walk for yourself? And the individual takes responsibility for their actions?

Just how far might this food-regulation go?

More..!

Keywords: | laws | health | consumer rights | alternate history |
Permalink

Why is the U.S. Congress whittling away at our right to freedom of speech?

Nov 29, 2006

So now apparently the government is concerned about consumer actions bringing down the economy. They’re so concerned that they’ve recently passed a law through both houses of Congress that makes it a crime to cause any business classified as an “animal enterprise” to suffer a loss of profit.

Let’s stop and translate that one.

If this new bill is not vetoed by the President, the following may come to pass:
An individual finds out, through completely legal means, that a particular company engages in business practices that cause offence. The company’s research division does not use humane testing methods, or they employ animal testing; or their products cause demonstrable harm to the environment…something. The person spreads information about these objectionable practices, either by creating a website or by posting about it in their blog; and urges other people to think about not boycotting that company because of X. Over months, the Company slowly loses credibility. People begin buying from suppliers other than Company, and Company eventually reports a significant loss one quarter. Company is classified as an animal enterprise (and just what in the hell does that phrase mean?!??)...and under the provisions of this new law, Company could then sue Individual.

I can think of oh so many ways this can be harmful to consumers. Whatthefuck…!?

Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by the first amendment to the US Constitution. There are exceptions to this, such as the old adage about yelling “Fire!!“ in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. In the example I just mentioned, such an action would cause people to rapidly leave the building, possibly causing serious damage to other people in the scramble to get away from the (alleged) danger. A person reporting on the actions of a company with the express purpose of organizing a boycott can cause financial harm — but not direct danger to life and limb. The parallels between the two situations are hazy at best.

I can understand a company being pissed if someone claims that they heard of the company’s inhumane animal testing and rampant pollution — but those facts aren’t true. A legal expert would know better, but I believe that there are already slander (spoken, unjust, inaccurate statements) and libel (published unjust statements) contingencies in place for all persons and companies. So why this law? And why specifically targeting “animal enterprises”?

Keywords: | laws | civil rights |
Permalink

Most of us haven't anything more than a hazy perception of what happens in the other 3/4 of the planet's surface.

Nov 27, 2006

I first read about this in an article "The Top News Stories You Didn't See in 2006," published in a local newspaper.

• 'Only 50 years left' for sea fish — BBC News
• Global Warming, Decline in Fish Stock Could Damage World Economy — PBS

Apparently, several factors have greatly reduced the diversity and stability of ocean ecosystems. Chemicals in rivers create oceanic dead zones. Catches include more and more commercially unusable fish. And (I really wish I could track down this factoid) I think I remember reading that it took approximately 3 pounds of wild fish to produce 1 pound of aquacultured fish (the fish have to eat something.)

Quite a few of the science fiction stories I read either stated or implied that, in the future, Earth's huge population would draw a large portion of its sustenance from the oceans. It appears that those stories will quickly become as dated as much of Jules Verne's works — still enjoyable, but out of step with contemporary knowledge.

This was first apparently published in the Journal of Science. I wouldn't mind reading the original article or white papers, if anyone can find the links.)

Keywords: | responsibility | ecology |
Permalink