The following most pressing examples have been selected to illustrate the risks consumers face in the digital world where these rights are not respected. If you answer each question with NO, then you should support our campaign!


Right to choice, knowledge and cultural diversity Consumers are entitled to benefit from a competitive market which promotes creativity, freedom of expression, choice and cultural diversity. Politicians and lawmakers must make sure this right is respected and must encourage new forms of creating and sharing digital data, promote access to knowledge, a broad domain of IP-free and publicly accessible content and encourage of new methods of creating and sharing digital content

Should 4 big labels control 80% of the music market worldwide? There is a very high level of concentration in the sector for intermediaries in the film and music industries, such as portals, publishers and recording companies. The precedent set by the Sony/BMG merger in the music recording market strengthened the dominance of big labels vis-à-vis independent music labels.

Because the intermediaries are often after big “stars” andvery commercial acts, very many independent artists do not have access to market, nor to the distribution channels that would give them a fighting chance in a market monopolized by the big 4 music labels. This leads to the consumers having very little choice in the purchases they make online; the vast majority of music titles are not available to them. The lack of interoperability tends to confine consumers to particular download services and therefore limits their choice As a result individuals do not have access to to a wider range of information and culture. It is likewise difficult for new independent service providers to enter the market, thereby discouraging creativity and the creation of new outlets for creativity. This also leads to big players dictating the rules by overruling those who do not want to engage in a hostile relationship with consumers.

Should access to knowledge be restricted by unbalanced current rules and trends in IP copyright laws that harm authors, libraries, education institutions and archives to the detriment of consumers? Greater disclosure of knowledge and new incentives to create and share knowledge resources without restrictions on access is essential in the Information Society. However, when drafting recent pieces of intellectual property (IP) legislation, such as the European Copyright Directive access to knowledge has been rather neglected. This makes it difficult for universities and libraries to distribute knowledge in distance learning programmes, or for scientists to disseminate their research widely, to mention only two of many problems. At the same time not enough is done to promote the availability of broadly accessible content, the digitalization of content of public interest, and the fostering of the public domain.

Should dominant stakeholders dictate the way artists distribute their works? There are many avenues through which an artist can create and share digital content with their audience: Creative Commons licenses, legal P2P systems like Jamendo, potato systems or podcasting are a few examples; but right now artists are being forcefully discouraged by the rights societies from pursuing these new avenues of distribution. Likewise publishers dictate the conditions of use, thus preventing creators from using alternative business models such as Creative Commons. They also are ale to impose the use of DRM on authors, such as music bands, even against their will.



Right to the principle of “technical neutrality” – defend and maintain consumer rights in the digital environment Both consumers and creators are entitled to a high level of protection involving full, transparent information. Consumers are entitled to “technical neutrality”. They should have the same rights online as offline. Digital technology must not be used to take away established consumer rights.

Should music download services be able to change their terms unilaterally and without notice? When purchasing works online, consumers are rarely in a position to bargain contracts. Terms are made by business in standard contracts, on a “take it or leave it” basis.

Watch out for terms that allow business to make any changes it wants to the service. Napster UK for example states in its terms & conditions “Napster may from time to time modify these terms and will post a copy of the amended Agreement at http://www.napster.co.uk/terms.html. If you do not agree to (or cannot comply with) the Agreement as amended, your only remedy is to stop using the Service and, if applicable, to cancel your Subscription Service subscription. You will be deemed to have accepted the Agreement as amended if you continue to use the Service after any amendments are posted.”

Should industry alone be able to define what is fair or not and should it be industry alone fixing the breadth of rights?? Certain industries believe that under contract law, content owners can decide themselves what is fair use or not, and fix the width of their rights. Existing consumer protection law and procedural rights are often disregarded. Contractual terms often disregard legitimate usages of copy-protected works, so for example when they exclude private copies on a CD.

Should industry be able to alone define the functionality of content? DRM technology sometimes restricts home-taping but in addition, it causes devices to malfunction to the point where a purchased product won’t work with the consumers’ choice of player.

Should industry alone decide what information to disclose? Consumers are mainly not aware nor told told that certain devices contain DRM/ TPM (and their impact), that certain devices do not interoperate, and tie consumers to certain companies (lock-ins). There are still CDs that do not disclose usage restrictions or do so insufficiently. Standardising labelling requirements may help consumers to easily identify information. Consumers should be aware of any reduced playability or recording functionality of non-standard “copy protected compact discs” before they make the decision to purchase such items. It is really difficult to know with DRM devices like Media PCs and iPods exactly what all the restrictions are. It must be ensured that a certain quality and availability of comparable service information exists.

Why should it be industry to “educate” consumers? On the consumer education side, we are bombarded with anti-piracy messages and PR spin campaigns from the music and film industries that border on the Orwellian – “pirates” are blood thirsty thieves of the high seas, not 14 year old kids on the internet. The industry has spun and distorted several truths about file-sharing. One free download does NOT equal one CD stolen from a store; – this concept has been actively implanted in the general consciousness of consumers, but is intrinsically false and a new, balanced consumer education campaign that is funded by governments must be put into place. Any educational programme on copyrights must also include education on the limitations and exemptions of copyright and in particular the exemptions (as for example for private copying) that may - depending on the service offered - be undermined by DRM/TPM or contract. Only this will allow consumers to choose services which are most favourable to them.



Right to benefit from technological Policies must ensure that consumers and creators benefit fully from technological development – industry must not have the power to impose excessive control over digital content.

Should industry be able to prevent you to buy a DVD in the US and watch it on your DVD player in Europe? Control systems like the DVD-region codes prevent you from doing so. Laptops are meant to be portable travel companions, yet several operating systems and DVD players only allow for a restrictive number of DVD-region switches before the laptop becomes locked down to one region. This control does not protect copyright but segments markets.

Should industry be able to prevent you from ‘space-shifting’? The control standards of intermediaries will affect the way in which consumers are able to use the digital content they legally purchased, and reduce the possibilities of consumers to use digital content. So-called Digital Rights Management systems (DRMs) can dictate a specific range of usages and prevent other usages in digital content. DRMs can - for example - be used to forward-lock a content item (a music file) so that when delivered to the target consumption device, this device cannot redistribute it to another device, or prevent you from ‘space-shifting’. In other words, you may not be able to transfer music between your computer and iPod.

Should industry be able to prevent you from ‘time-shifting’? Viewers who own High-definition TV television receivers may lose their viewing and recording rights because of the unilateral use of failed US restriction-mandates like "down resolution" and "Selectable Output Controls" by giant media companies. There are indications that industry tries to impose the so-called broadcast flag in Europe, i.e. a sequence of digital bits embedded in a digital television program that indicates what can be done with recordings. To this end, an industry consortia, the Digital Video Broadcasting Project, is working on a CPCM-System (Content Protection and Copy Management) by which broadcasters can control the detailed functionality of receiving devices. In other words, once imposed, you may not be able to record your favourite television show on your home video recorder and play it back later unless you meet certain criteria set by the broadcaster. The project is conducted in secret, and excludes consumer-rights groups.

Should industry be able to pre-define functions of a general purpose PC? Technology can also be used to restrict the usage of devices by pre-defining a set of utility functions to a content item. This could prohibit extending the features of devices after sale as, for example, a Video Cassette Recorder (VCR) with the addition of a VCR-Plus device that simplifies recordings, allows you to record from a particular television or cable channel just by entering a specific code in a way that the VCR alone can't. Extending features after purchase are critical to protecting consumer investment in media formats, as these investments accumulate value as the features of the devices they play on are extended after purchase time.

Should industry be able to prevent you from translating legally acquired content into comparable formats? It is similarly important for certain consumers to translate content into comparable formats in order to make it more usable. For example, a blind person can modify an electronic book so that the content can be read out loud. Blind people can already surf the Web using screen access software that translates information into synthesized speech or Braille. Making these changes is essential to avoid excluding certain consumer groups from access to content.



Right to interoperability of content and devices It is time to guarantee the interoperability of digital content and material - free of business battles involving standards, control systems and proprietary formats!

Should companies be able to tie your legally purchased content to a certain device or format? Your right to space-shift content or to use your content on different devices can also be prevented by incompatible formats. Several different incompatible digital formats for music (files as well as players) as well as different DRM standards combined with present anti-copying legislation means that the consumer may be forced to purchase the same song several times in order to be able to listen at home, in their car, at their place of work or while in transit. Legally acquired content may not work on the platform of their choice – be it your iMac or your Linux computer. This means that you may not move old files to a new device because they do not support the same formats or you may not be able to communicate with other messenger services because your messengers are not compatible.



Right to the protection of privacy Politicians need to ensure that privacy and personal autonomy are respected in the digital environment. Digital players or computers should not be interfered with without the owner’s full knowledge and consent. Policies must discourage the use of DRM technologies that restrict personal autonomy.

Should industry have a say on who belongs to your household? Techniques that seek to define what a family sphere is, such as authorised or specified domain, are emerging. For example, DVB CPCM (Content Protection Copy Management is a digital television use-restriction specification that is under negotiation at the Digital Video Broadcasting) and other DRMs that make use of the "authorized domain" contain a set of nontransparent "tests" for whether a device is part of the same household as some other device. If you have a personal video recorder (PVR) at home and want to watch some show on it on your TV or handheld, you need to pass these tests, but who will be able to tell you what the tests are? It may be totally opaque to you, and the only way to find out if your new device will work on your home network is to buy it, take it out of the package and try it out. And who gets to define what a "household" is? Is a student home a household? Or a flat-share? Do a child’s separated parents belong to the same household or will the child have to buy its favourite audio play twice? Since when do we let entertainment companies tell us whether our living arrangements are valid or not?

Should industry have a say in what we listen to? Industry wants to make it technologically difficult for content with no licence to enter DRM systems. This may hinder consumer-created content that has no license to enter the consumer’s own system. Content that is for example CC-licensed is prohibited from being scrambled with DRM. If unscrambled content can't enter the system, then only material produced under the studios' terms can enter the home entertainment universe.

Should companies be able to remotely change the software that you bought? Equipment should not be able to change your operating system without your full knowledge. However, software that installs itself on consumers’ hardware without permission is common practice. Remote changing of software through updates is an emerging practice. DRMs can have "renewability" where features can be taken away through software updates. For example, the new PlayStation portable (PSP) shipped with firmware that allowed you to install your own software on it. A new firmware version blocks this. New PSP games require you to upgrade to the new firmware. Apple has done the same with iTunes.

Should companies be able to watch what you do in your home? To achieve control over use, industry seeks to enable tracing of the content source and trail through DRM, and to make it difficult for the user to stay anonymous. This raises serious privacy concerns. No company should be able to dictate what a person does, creatively, in their own home. DRM technologies not only enforce present unfair anti-creative legislation at large, but worse, they invade the homes and computers of consumers, wresting control away from human beings and placing it squarely on the shoulders of operating systems like Windows’ upcoming Trusted Computing.



Right not to be criminalised Give consumers clear and fair rights to use digital material and do not criminalise them for making non-commercial use of P2P file sharing techniques or other dissemination technologies!

Should industry criminalize consumers as pirates? Technological development behind file-sharing and digital copying without the loss of quality has opened up a brave new world of information sharing that can benefit both consumers and creators – the possibilities are near-infinite, while the intermediaries have lobbied heavily to ensure present legislation locks down the internet back into an analogue-based model of business exploitation and restricted distribution. “File sharing” has always existed, even in the analogue world – home taping has always been part and parcel of the free culture sharing that is an intrinsic part of human society; copyright was originally only meant to disallow unfair commercial competition, ensuring that artists can profit from their work, and the publisher from their investment. It was not meant to protect intermediaries indefinitely, at the expense of the consumers and the artists themselves.

Industry is using the term piracy to criminalize consumers. The term piracy is as such imprecise and should not be used. Instead there is a necessity to differentiate between non-commercial and commercial copyright infringement. While some "pirated content" is simply infringing (you upload a copy-protected music file on a P2P net without permission), other is commercially infringing (a seller represents a counterfeit as original). The impact of each is different. Conflating them under the "piracy" banner is nonsensical. Recent studies show that P2P increases the amount of money file-sharers spend on music purchases, and enables them to find out about new artists. From the artists’ side, there is an absolute lack of transparency as to how IFPI selects who they are suing, and what files are being sued over – there is concern that fans are being criminalised for having free files that they wanted them to have; there is lack of transparency in the accounting of collective rights management as well.