On 28/07/07, Martin Belam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andy, it would probably also be common sense to read around on the > topic before insulting the majority of the BBC developers who frequent > this list.
I read the restrictions that the BBC *claims* it has to implement. However the section about specific implementations having to be accepted by certain people makes it sound awfully like a prohibited agreement (Section 2, Competition Act 1998 particularly in relevance to: (b) limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment;) > It is the requirement to have time-windowed DRM implementation, not > the ability to write cross-platform code, that is the issue. That would actually be the same issue. No iPlayer client existed when the BBC started the project. They created it. The BBC claim (possible incorrectly) that there exists no cross platform DRM solution, and yet they never considered creating it. If you find no adequate solution to your problem then most people would _at least_ consider the 2 options that all such projects have of coping with this problem. 1. Develop it yourself (in house so to speak). 2. Pay someone else to develop it for you. The FOI response shows the BBC never even _considered_ such options. At the very least that is neglegent. If the BBC had considered and rejected such solutions _with valid reasons_ then it would be a different matter. They didn't though. I assumed seems the BBC didn't develop cross platform, or platform independent when _ordered to do so_, that they did not know enough to do so. Are you saying they knew how to produce a cross platform system and refused to do so despite there obligations? > "At the time, the only two solutions deployed at scale on the internet > were Microsoft's DRM, and Apple's Fairplay DRM. Fairplay did not > include the ability to expire content, and therefore could not meet > the minimum requirements for our rights at all." As above, if there is no adequate solution, you develop your own! Why is this _so_ difficult? All you really need is a format for describing restrictions (how about something based on XML) and some kind of cryptographic system. Oh and look, Java (a platform independent language!!!) has in it's standard library classes for reading XML and using strong encryption. (I think Python may have these facilities too but not being a Python expert I can't be sure). > "The Trust has noted the strong public demand for platform neutrality > and is concerned to ensure that the BBC meets this demand as soon as > possible. The Trust acknowledges the BBC's commitment to platform > neutrality and has taken account of the Executive's response that a > two year deadline is unworkable because success is dependent on third > parties outside of the BBC's control. However, in the interest of > those members of the public who will be disadvantaged until this > matter is resolved, the Trust will audit the BBC's progress against > this objective every six months and publish its findings." Anyone notice how complete parts of that are blatantly untrue? I assume that is a mistake and not intentional deception. > because success is dependent on third > parties outside of the BBC's control. Which magical 3rd parties would this be? The BBC has the option to develop it's own DRM solution. DRM is like any other program. It's just a set of instructions. When I write a new program for Linux I don't phone Linux Torvalds for his permission, I can just write it. The BBC could have done the same. Add to that the fact that Linux is happy to allow you to put code into it's kernel should it need to do privileged tasks (which DRM shouldn't actually need to do, it's more for device drivers needing to write to IO registers) So why does the BBC need a third party to develop a DRM format? (also there is now cross platform time limited DRM so what more does a third party need to do?). Oh and Chris, if you are having problems with things starting at start up that you don't want to you might want to try Spybot Search & Destroy ( http://www.safer-networking.org/en/index.html ). Spybot S&D can show you what's set to run at startup and disable it. There was a time when all your startup programs were in a folder in the start menu, now they can be listed in several registry locations as well so it's easy to miss one. Oh and the problem with 40D, iPlayer and Sky Anytime possibly interfering with each other could be fixed by having one single open client (by open I mean anyone can publish content on it), didn't someone at the BBC say this as well? Maybe they are indeed wiser than I give them credit for. Oh well I'm off to go and see how hard it is to actually make DRM for Linux. I am not a cryptographer though, so off the shelf crypto it has to be (which is actually considerably more secure for many reasons). Though I still don't understand why bit torrent was not usable. It's a file transfer system, it can transfer files with DRM protection and the file transfer protocol has nothing to do with DRM anyway. Remember I can create 3 files, add them to an archive with 'tar', compress that archive with 'gz', encrypt the file with 'gpg' and then send the file with 'scp'. None of those tools need know how the other works. So why must the file transfer protocol have a clue what DRM is, it only needs to know how to pass the file to the user _they_ (or more likely there software) will handle all the DRM stuff. Just had a quick thought on the Kontiki runs forever problem: Perhaps a program that runs periodically that checks to see if iPlayer, 40D, Sky whatever it's called is running and if it isn't and Kontiki is terminate it's process. I am just a little worried that there will be a lot of angry people if iPlayer uses up there Monthly bandwidth in a single day. Also why does the BBC trust's report not mention the fact that not only is iPlayer Windows only, it is IE only? Did the BBC not tell them they where doing this? Why can't it work with Firefox? iplayer:// can be made to run iPlayer from Firefox it's not exactly tricky is it? Or do you use some dodgy way of invoking iPlayer from IE? (or is it no longer IE only?) Of course DRM itself may be illegal depending how you read the restrictions on modifying data under the computer missuse act. Of course I Am Not A Lawyer, but | can read. Andy -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
