Longrider

My wife bought some DVDs recently via Amazon’s UK site. They are unavailable in the UK so she bought them through one of Amazon’s affiliates. When we tried to play them, we were puzzled to see a warning that the region code was incompatible with our machine. After all, our machine is a multi region device. Since the BBC sold the rights to the Monty Python series, for example, region 1 discs are all you can get. If you want to collect them, then this is the only option available.

The studios, however, think differently. They want to control who watches their product and where. In the case of a new release, I can understand why they might want to exercise some control over timing – after all, they want to maximise cinema takings. However, as my wife and I have no intention of watching films in a cinema, this control over our viewing is pointless and irritating. The Court Jester is long past this anyway. We like Danny Kaye and wanted a copy of this film. Perfectly reasonable, you might think. That’s why we have a multi region player – so that we can collect such films. Not according to the studios, though. Not satisfied with the iniquitous region coding arrangements, they have cranked up their spiteful behaviour and seek to punish their customers by introducing another layer of regional coding: Regional Coding Enhancement. This, we discovered the hard way…

A memo sent out by the offending studios underlines their arrogant and spiteful attitude:

WHV will start a program to enhance the capabilities of the regional code specification for DVD beginning in October. This program is a response to the unauthorized practice of altering DVD video hardware players so that they bypass the region code requirements for DVD. This is happening on a more frequent basis in many territories, and retailers are openly marketing these non-complying players with names such as “region free” and “multi zone”.

The reason that the hardware manufacturers produce region free or multi region products is because they, like the consumer, realise that the region coding is nothing more than anti-consumer protectionism; a triumph of greed, control freakery and spite over the needs of the customer.

But one statement from Toshiba Digital Media Networks’ Hisashi Yamada was particularly intriguing: “We’ve gotten a variety of opinions about region controls. Even in the Steering Committee, they are extremely unpopular; we decided to not put them in. HD DVD probably won’t contain any region playback controls.”

Having bought a DVD and paid good money for it, the buyer should be free to watch it wherever or whenever he wants on whatever machine he chooses – it is not up to the studio to control this. It is, frankly, none of their business once they have accepted the customer’s money. To attempt to do so is highly unethical. The studios take a distinctly imperial view over their product and the consumer that is totally out of touch with the rest of the world (not least the WTO free trade agreements).

Hollywood has long had a flair for the dramatic — and the imperial. Burger tells of a public hearing held in Washington that illustrates the culture gap between Hollywood and high tech. “One studio executive got up and said, ‘People pay for the privilege of watching movies.’ Could you imagine a computer executive saying, ‘People pay for the privilege of using one of our machines’? He’d be slaughtered. There’s sometimes a regal attitude in Hollywood.”

Also, that rampant paranoia; that malaise so oft touted by the entertainment industry; piracy, is much overstated and does not, as they would like us to believe lead to senior executives putting their children in the poor house any more than home taping killed music. It is hyperbole. Yes, piracy occurs and I deplore it. However, whatever means engaged upon by the industry to stop it will simply lead to another arms race involving more hacks to overcome the current copy protection in use. All they can hope to do is minimise it. This is not helped by alienating genuine consumers and pushing them into the open arms of Messrs Hackem and Teach.

Region coding will not contribute to the battle against piracy. Indeed, region coding creates a backlash that involves the honest consumer engaging in activity that they would not otherwise contemplate in order to access a product that they have paid for.

In the face of the studios’ arrogant attitude, a part of me wants to boycott them completely. However, that would be spiting myself to make a point.

I can recommend The Court Jester. It’s an excellent film.

A part of me is bemused and amused by the furore surrounding Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks regarding Islam. After all, I don’t hold a brief for the Pope. I regularly disagree with his pronouncements; sometimes vigorously. However, I haven’t yet resorted to demanding a public apology for the offence he has caused me (actually, he hasn’t, I don’t take offence easily), nor have I felt sufficiently inclined to parade through the streets burning effigies. I leave such behaviour to the infantile followers of the “religion of peace” as once more they wheel out their “victim” status and complain that they have been offended. So bloody what? It really is about time they got over themselves. Not that that is likely to happen any time soon. Complaining about being offended is the daily grist for this egregious religion.

Whatever the pontiff said, as prodicus points out, it’s not what he said, so much as the reaction that follows that is important, here. Although, I do recommend reading what he said, as it is perfectly reasonable and it is a quotation taken out of context that is stirring up the controversy. The pope didn’t say that the religion of Mohammed brought  “…things only evil and inhuman”, it was the emperor Manuel II Paleologus who said it. You’d have to be incredibly stupid to come to any other conclusion. That or incredibly devious in convincing your followers (who, doubtless will not have read the text) to believe it. They wouldn’t stoop that low, would they?

It seems they would. Islamic governments are tripping over themselves to ignore the context and jump on the offended “victim” bandwagon before it rolls out of town. When the Pakistani government claims that Islam is a religion of tolerance, you have to admire their chutzpah. As this quote from spokes-woman Tasnim Aslam neatly demonstrates.

“Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.”

Indeed, I would suggest that with her effortless delivery of such a self-contradictory statement, she would be ideal for a position in our Home Office. So, once more, the world of Islam confounds its critics by going out of its way to prove them right.

Islam is not a religion of tolerance and peace; it is a conquering religion of violence and brutality – the Pope was positively generous in his speech. Although it would seem that in suggesting that conversion by swordpoint is not a good thing, he touched a nerve or two. Indeed, much of this furore is probably because Emperor Manuel II Paleologus was right on the button and they know it. Methinks they doth protest too much.

Via the NO2ID Newsblog, I’m reminded of this story…

A vast database containing a file on every man, woman and child is being planned by the Government in a ’sinister’ expansion of the ‘Big Brother’ state.

Personal information containing details of every aspect of an individual’s life will be available to 400,000 Whitehall civil servants and council workers.

Lord Falconer has ordered privacy laws to be watered down to allow the plans to be forced through.

The plans would allow anyone working for a public body to monitor everything from an individual’s driving licence record to whether they had paid their council tax on time.

Ah, yes, good old unelected Charlie Falconer wants to ride roughshod all over our privacy, and why?

Data-sharing powers would also allow the electoral roll to be used to police the ID card database - allowing residents to be fined up to £2,500 for not registering their name or address.

Well, what did you expect? You didn’t think it would be for our benefit, would you?

The document says civil servants and council workers must ‘fully understand that the Data Protection Act is not a barrier to appropriate information sharing’.

Now, doesn’t that little bit of newspeak send a chill down the spine? Rephrased appropriately; the law is inconvenient to our authoritarian agenda, so we will change or ignore it as appropriate. People’s privacy is irrelevant to us. The state is master, all will submit to the will of the state.

The Government insisted the database would help people moving house avoid contacting local authority, driving licence and the Inland Revenue separately because records would be updated automatically.

Well, there’s nice, isn’t it? It is for our benefit after all… Hold it just a minute. Freeze frame, scroll back… I think I’ve just spotted a bijou flaw in the argument… When I change address, I have to notify the DVLA because I have to update my driving licence. I have to contact the Inland Revenue twice a year anyway to pay my protection money tax. I get a notification from the council requiring me to update the electoral roll, so this is of no use to me whatsoever.

Information should be routinely shared ‘to expand opportunities for the most disadvantaged, fight crime and provide better services’ and in other instances ‘where it is in the public interest’.

Bollocks! I’m losing interest, now, you can tell. The arguments are becoming so inane, so deranged, that a rational response is wasted, so “bollocks” will have to do. I’m mildly surprised that the disingenuous fuckwits didn’t try to squeeze terrorism in there somewhere.

Constitutional Affairs Minister Baroness Ashton said the Government was ‘committed to more information sharing between public sector organisations and service providers’.

Meaning that they will sell your information to whichever rogue is prepared to pay them. So we will get more hassle form arseholes like this (not to mention this) than we already do…

This, from Phil Booth:

‘From now on, you can assume that anything you tell to an official or public servant will not only go on your record, but be passed on to anyone at all in “the public interest” - which has already been neatly redefined to mean ‘official convenience’.

‘How many thousands of officials will now have free rein to snoop on your personal, business and children’s lives?’

Quite. :dry:

Late in July, I received an unsolicited sales call. I don’t get many of these as my phone is registered with the Telephone Preference Service, making it illegal for telesales companies to call me as I have expressed a preference not to receive their calls. This didn’t stop Satellite Direct UK calling me. So I complained via the TPS on-line form and forgot about it. When I arrived home from France in mid August, there was a letter of apology from Satellite Direct UK; saying that they were very sorry and that they would remove my details from their system.

Today, I received a sales call from a company calling itself Satcover. Interestingly, Satcover’s phone number is the same as that of Satellite Direct UK. This is because, as a little Internet searching reveals, they are the same company as Satellite Direct UK. Despite promises of removing my details from their database, they didn’t. So, that’s another fine, then. And it seems I’m not the only one complaining.

Update: It would seem that they are breaching the law in more ways than one – and the bit about the call being a “survey” to get around the TPS restrictions is just bollocks.

Here’s the relevant bit of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, which came into effect at the end of 2003:

19. (1) A person shall neither transmit, nor instigate the transmission of, communications comprising recorded matter for direct marketing purposes by means of an automated calling system except in the circumstances referred to in paragraph (2).

(2) Those circumstances are where the called line is that of a subscriber who has previously notified the caller that for the time being he consents to such communications being sent by, or at the instigation of, the caller on that line.

…

For the purposes of this regulation, an automated calling system is a system which is capable of -

(a) automatically initiating a sequence of calls to more than one destination in accordance with instructions stored in that system; and

(b) transmitting sounds which are not live speech for reception by persons at some or all of the destinations so called.

No need to invoke the TPS. It’s the law that a robot can’t call you without asking you first.

Further to my telephone conversation with an Amex representative last week, I received a mail-shot today trying to sell the same product. Presumably this way, I can’t be a smart-arse and call ’em on their fraudulent figures. Anyway, they go on to tell me how alarming identity fraud is:

Identity theft is a growing problem

Have you ever considered the impact identity theft could have on your life? Imagine how you would feel if someone used your name to obtain a loan, or acquire a new passport, or get new credit cards. It’s unnerving isn’t it?

Worryingly identity theft is on the increase. The CIFAS Fraud Trends 2000-2005 bear this out with the fact that there has been, “an increase of over 485% in identity theft incidence in the past 5 years”.

Being a nervous type and deeply worried by this information, I thought I’d take a peek at CIFAS’ website. Unfortunately, they repeat the fraudulent £1.3bn figure, which undermines their article somewhat. The website only goes up to 2003, however, we are talking about tens of thousands (high enough if you happen to get caught out, I know) out of a population of 60 million. So let’s keep a sense of proportion and manage the risk accordingly, please.

Shredding documents isn’t enough

Even if you take positive steps to avoid the problem such as shredding documents, you can still become a victim ­because criminals are finding increasingly ingenious ways to access your details both on and offline; and chances are you won’t even know about the crime until the trail of debt attached to your name catches up with you.

True enough, and I don’t just shred my documents. I read my bank statements and phone bills and check my credit ratings with Experian and Equifax on a regular basis. I also avoid giving information to people who ask unless I am sure that they need the information and I only provide as much as is necessary to conduct whatever business we intend to carry out – and no more. This is why I do not intend to allow my personal data to find its way onto a government run national database.

Take this example, Which? magazine highlighted in March 2005. “Mr B had his briefcase stolen containing his wallet, cheque book and items of mail - it was just the start of an elaborate identity scam which ended up costing £21,000.”

Mr B was a bloody fool keeping all that stuff together in his briefcase. How is his stupidity supposed to be a basis for me buying insurance? Oh, yes, that’s what all this is about, mind; flogging me insurance.

Think of all the time it could take to clear the whole mess up. Not to mention the sleepless nights spent worrying about it.

Yes, for £6.95 a month, I can buy “peace of mind”. Except that things are never that straightforward, are they? As El Reg points out, it shouldn’t be the punter who pays the bill. The question is, should I pay over £80 per year for something that will not prevent identity fraud, and will not directly cover monetary losses – at best all it will do is provide funding for legal expenses.

Before considering this type of insurance, think carefully about the proposed benefits. As with any insurance, what is the risk you are buying protection to mitigate, and can you mitigate it effectively for less outlay?

Research into identity fraud costs nothing – there is plenty of information on the web. A couple of credit reports a year costs up to £24. The costs involved with putting matters right is a risk that we have to make a decision about underwriting ourselves or forking out for an insurer to do so. But, what is the risk? Using *Amex’s risk calculator, my personal risk at 33% is below average. So, by their own terms of reference, I probably don’t need it. I can find a better use for that £80.

*Doesn’t work with Firefox. You have to use IE – a pox on web designers who don’t write compatible pages.

Felix Domesticus now has a Wiki Page. Here, you can add your own cat pictures or create a personal page for your cat stories and images.

To take part, you only need to register. It is free and simple. Thereafter, you have access to the wiki to add and amend as you see fit.

I didn’t hold a brief for Margaret Thatcher during her premiership. As a self-employed driving instructor, I felt the brunt of the 15% interest rates and the ill-fated poll tax. Suffice to say, my core clientele were young people who suddenly had to find money for their poll tax – or their parents who were likely as not also funding their driving lessons did. Add to this, mortgages heading skyward and it was no wonder my work dropped off sharply. My other major client group was the middle aged returners – who found their mortgage sky-rocketing and their kids an increased financial burden due to the poll tax. Added to this, my own outgoings increased along with those of my clients. It couldn’t go on and it didn’t. I folded the business. So, as I say, I don’t hold much of a brief for her.

However, rambling about my problems aside, there was one area where I consistently agreed with her. That was her uncompromising attitude towards terrorism. Even in the wake of an attack that became personal, she remained firm – don’t give in to the bastards. Terrorists are glorified blackmailers. They seek to change who we are or extort from us their aimed objective by the use of fear. Appeasement simply means they come back for more. Appeasement puts out the message that terrorism works. The response, therefore is not to appease. The response is belligerent refusal to co-operate.

Thatcher is wheeled out this week to comment on the current situation.

Lady Thatcher says Britain must stand shoulder to shoulder with the US in the fight against terrorism.

The ex-Conservative prime minister, in Washington to commemorate 9/11, warned: “We must not falter. We must not fail.”

She spoke as current Tory leader David Cameron called anti-Americanism “intellectual and moral surrender”.

It’s at times like this that you realise she is still around.

“With America, Britain stands in the front line against Islamist fanatics who hate our beliefs, our liberties and our citizens. We must not falter. We must not fail. Today, we are here to remember to pray for the dead and to share their loved one’s grieving. But we also need to renew our resolve that, however bitter or lengthy the struggle, this evil shall not prevail.”

It’s a shame that barely had the first bomb blast echoed into silence than her successors were rolling over in their willingness to concede defeat.

Better late than never, Britblog 82 is up.