On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 22:48 +0100, mike chamberlain wrote: > Given we all know DRM's broken, yet is mandated by the people who > own the content, what's better for the BBC to do? Write it's own and > be responsible for fixing any breakages, or use one the content > providers are happy with?
I think the best option is probably for the BBC to deceive the content providers by using some kind of snake-oil 'solution' which the BBC's own technical experts _know_ won't actually achieve their desires, but which looks just good enough to the non-expert that it'll trick them into thinking that their content is 'protected' even though it isn't. Hopefully, the lie should hold up for _just_ long enough for them to realise that the Internet is no more going to destroy the content industry than video recorders did. It's a shame that the BBC has to mislead the content providers, and it's a shame that honest consumers are so inconvenienced by something which doesn't actually prevent the _serious_ piracy anyway. But this really is the best answer... honest! Seriously though -- since it's being so blatantly disingenuous, the BBC probably is doing the best thing by using someone else's snake oil rather than creating their own. It'll put them in a much better position if they're ever sued by a content provider because they entered the arrangement _knowing_ that their DRM was going to be trivially 'broken'. -- dwmw2 - 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/
