Stupid Anti-Consumer Tricks
A storm has been brewing for quite a while now as consumers want to utilize new technologies to enhance their computer and entertainment experience by downloading music to a portable mp3 player or reading a book on a PDA. Many segments of the computer, entertainment, and broadcasting industries are making concerted efforts to push us back into the pre-computer age. Some people are already aware of the increasing push for digital rights management (DRM), but others will experience their first taste only when they suddenly see a message on their computer screen saying something like, "FU. You don't have the necessary digital signature to view the requested file," or when they see a message on their TV screen saying, "FU. The signal being sent to the television screen cannot be determined to be a program you are entitled to view." (The FU will probably stand for File Unapproved.)
This general theme, of efforts to take away rights from the consumer, has several forms, some of which are will underway, some of which are on the horizon.
The large music labels, along with the RIAA, have done an amazing amount of damage to their cause by introducing poison CDs that won't play in computer CD-ROMS, or will do damage to speakers. They compound this abuse by refusing to honestly and uniformly label such products. Failure to adhere to truth in advertising principles means the consumer can't tell if the CD in the bin is a genuine CD or if it's the poison CD variety, so they are less likely to purchase. And the music companies purport to be surprised that CD sales are not as high as they could be. Duh! And the fact that prices are almost as high now as they were in the pre-mass-market days tells every consumer that price-gouging is rampant. The fact that in some cases CD prices exceed tape prices when we know it's cheaper to produce a CD than a tape, is something some consumers find irritating and baffling. (It came as no surprise that in July 2003 the FTC concluded that some of the major labels were in fact price-fixing.)
Digital TV. There are media executives and a few congress members right now trying to ensure that no TV sold in the future will have analog inputs. The history of television evolution has been slowed at every stage by concern for all the old televisions in the market, yet these people want to shut the door on analog. And why is that, you ask? So we can get a better picture? No. They are trying to make this edict, that all TVs will have only digital inputs, so the content can be encrypted and controlled. Want to make a "fair use" home recording and play it back? Better make sure the digital rights management system in your TV thinks it's OK. Otherwise you might be able to watch that program only once and not be able to record it at all. And by trying to make obsolete all the early high-definition TVs that accept analog inputs, they are alienating the early adopters, the very people the TV manufacturers most want on their side. And some say people are elected to congress so they can pursue what's best for their citizens.
Microsoft and Windows. By coupling legitimate patches and fixes for Windows
2000 and XP with abusive "tell us who you are, and we'll now proceed to download
anything we feel like downloading" software, they are doing more than anyone
else to ensure people stop using the automatic product update feature and
therefore ensure more and more Windows systems deliver an unsecure environment
filled with bugs that could have been fixed if users trusted Microsoft. Apple
and UNIX devotees must be having non-stop celebrations. I know I've gone from
being a staunch Microsoft supporter to a critic in the last few years. (When
Microsoft indulges in abusive practices that would put a new company out of
business, that has to be the clearest indication yet of their greed and
monopolistic power. This goes hand in hand with their new abusive product
activation plan.)
Couple this with anti-consumer
digital rights management (DRM) changes that will be automatically downloaded to
unsuspecting users, Microsoft continues their customer-prevention program. I've
already seen a newsgroup complaint from a user who lost the "right" to read
files he'd paid for by upgrading to a different version of Microsoft Reader.
Wait until some general gets told the planned mission can't continue because the
battlefield computers are suddenly telling the users they don't have a digitally
signed key proving they are entitled to use the files on their computers.
In another related case of enforced registration that abuses the customer base, Casio released an OS upgrade for their BE-300 PDA and demanded that customers register their software within 30 days, or else it would quit working. One customer not only couldn't use the new OS, he couldn't use the old OS or any of the applications he had bought. The unit was effectively dead and had to be sent back to the factory. It will be a long time before I ever consider a Casio purchase. (See Infoworld, 10/7/2002, page 61.)
Some media-mogul-driven congress members want to mandate all US-made computers incorporate digital rights management from the ground up. What a good way to drive the US computer manufacturers out of business as everyone starts buying direct from foreign manufacturers. We don't want to check with some higher authority to see if we have the right to use our files. If the goal is to stop piracy, slap a tax on computers and blank media or price the recorded media product reasonably to begin with so the people who want it will buy it. If policies like this extended to the rest of life, in place of traffic laws we would have cars with built-in computers that prevent drivers from exceeding the speed limit. (And if the speed-limit transponders were tampered with, you'd be limited to 15mph.) Guns would check your fingerprint and phone home to ensure your license had not expired.
Broadcasters and TV networks. You may remember that congress guaranteed our
"fair use" right to record sound and video at home, but the broadcasters and
networks, in a continuing display of greed, keep making encroachment after
encroachment into our abilities. Here are some of the ways they are
systematically whittling away at the consumer, building an ever-increasing
backlash.
"Hour" programs have steadily moved from something
over fifty minutes down closer and closer to forty
minutes of content as more and more
ads are squeezed in. In other words, advertising now takes
more than 25% of air time.
We've lost count of how many times you've played rating games
with us and positioned the new science-fiction program opposite another SF
program, or positioned a family sitcom against a competing family sitcom. If you
would consider putting the consumer first, everyone would gain, because the SF
viewers could see both shows, and the sitcom viewers could see both.
Ads are now run over the top of
programming credits. Ads for other programs creep across the
screen during the main program. And you wonder why ratings are down.
We used to have a minute or two
between programs so a VCR could likely record the beginning and the end of the
program you wanted. In an effort to stop that, the networks put even more
commercials into the program time so they could remove them between programs, so
one program ends and the next starts, with no break. Couple this with the fact
that the networks can't even employ accurate clocks or the same bad clock, or,
worse yet, deliberately start programs before or after the hour to intentionally
interfere with our ability to record program A on network one followed by
program B on network two. For crying out loud, we can buy a WWV-controlled
accurate clock for home for $25. Why can't the broadcasters use one? Contempt
for the customer.
And what's with the station/network
logos on the screen (AKA on-screen
logo) all the time? It's constant advertising, that's what, and
it's a deliberate effort to make our fair use recordings less attractive
and force us to buy DVDs to get a clean picture. We
know what station we're watching, and we don't want the logo on the screen. If
the greedy people who put the logos there really felt we had to know the channel
ID at all times, then of course those logos would be on the screen during
commercials, too. Guess what. Our need to be reminded what channel we're
watching must vanish during commercials. Do that at the movie theater, and I'll
stop buying tickets. (Nowhere is this practice as blatant as
when letterboxed programs are aired with the station logo moved up from the
black border and into the actual letterboxed image. The position of the logo
makes it impossible to see this as a simple station ID instead of the
advertising it really is. Sometimes stations do run the logo in the black band, which is slightly
better but still not as good as no logo. What's next? Product advertising logos
constantly on screen?)
And if those hot-news tickers
and thunderstorm warnings simply must be run over the programming
when their real purpose is to advertise your news hours, the
banners should run over the commercials, too.
Even the pay channels are abusing
us. We're paying for uncut movies without ads, but we get HBO and others talking
over the credits and end music, advertising other HBO products. Some of these
pay channels like Showtime even want their logos on the screen all the time. Except for
commercials. These companies need to remember that when greed is uncontrolled to
the point that they are constantly irritating the only people who pay them money
or fund their shows, they're building backlash.
Cliff-hanger endings. If a show is
part one of two, and you bill it as a complete episode, you irritate us when we
learn the truth. End-of-season cliffhangers are a high point in customer abuse
and irritation. Just because you can do it doesn't mean the paying public
appreciates it. Every time you abuse us, the potential for backlash builds. What
about programs that are cancelled before they come to any conclusion? Producers
should have to escrow for the series conclusion. And a season-end cliffhanger?
Clearly abusive. Doing it without knowing if there will be a next season is
unconscionable. At the very least, use the proceeds from the future DVD sales to
fund some kind of conclusion you can then get paid for, but it would be better
to just do the right thing.
TV News teasers: "Celebrity shot;
news at 11," is another triumph of greed and marketing over public service and
the practice pushes us toward newspapers and web sites without pop-up ads. Tell
us who died or who was elected, and give us the details during your news hour.
In short, give us a break. Your new
tricks are even worse than cranking up the volume during commercials.
DVD producers. The calculated practice of releasing a film on DVD, waiting six months or a year and then releasing the "special edition" or the "enhanced edition" takes your very best customers, the early buyers, and penalizes them. This practices makes a number of them hold off on buying because they've been stung before, and you shoot yourselves in the foot.
Streaming audio on the web. Some streams are deliberately designed to prevent the consumer's fair right to record.
In summary, to the forces trying to ensure we can use our computers, televisions, and recordings only in the ways you want us to, please remember than when you so steadily display contempt for your customers, don't be surprised if revenue falls, and don't look to the government to try to force your concerns on its own citizens. (And I say this as a content provider--AKA writer--myself.) You can bilk some of the customers all of the time, and bilk all of the customers some of the time, but we're hoping you can't bilk all of the customers all of the time. To my fellow consumers who dislike the forms of customer abuse you see going on, post your own opinion pages and avoid purchases from the worst offenders if you can. Cash flow may be the only communication the worst abusers can understand.
Here's one place you can keep abreast of the efforts to curtail the use of our televisions and computers: The Register
Here's the UK
Logo-Free Campaign.
Site contents copyright © 2008 by John E. Stith. All rights reserved.
This page last updated on 01/07/08.