IMHO I think the one thing that we can conclude is that the way the BBC have steamrollered the request to Ofcom with a short consultation period (and a Freeview HD service to start with hardware about to hit the shelves) is not cricket.
The BBC has given commitments to being "open" in the past (re BBC history) and this undermines it. If you want a conspiracy theory: - BBC Licence fee raised for HD in 2010 - BBC HD access via subscription system for extra payment - all services rolled onto HD over some years (say by 2015) - all BBC services are thus subscription That would please some people I guess. 2009/10/6 David Tomlinson <d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk> > This has discussion continued in a modest way on the blog comments. > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html > > I am sorry to say Nick is making misleading reassurances. > > (He is not sufficiently technical or familiar with the material, to > understand the logical inconsistencies - this is an observation of fact, not > a personal attack). > > > > See Nick comment No. 34. > > "Yes you will be able to put a HD tuner into my Open Source MythTV box and > watch BBC HD, again if suitable tuners become available." > > The only reason tuners would not become available (they are currently > available for Standard Definition), is that they will be excluded by the > licence required to decrypt the signals. > > Free and Open Source Software Drivers will be excluded (excluding Myth TV) > if there is any meaningful copy protection (unless the licence is breached). > > If the copy protection is to be meaningful, the BBC must break the law, > regarding an unencrypted signal (semantics aside) and exclude FOSS from > accessing the copy protected signals (which may only apply to Hollywood > films, US imports, or may apply to the majority of content). > > See Nevali's comments, No. 35, 36, 42. > > Clearly Nevali, is part of the official consultation process. > > > > > > Issues: > > 1.1 Free and Open Source software is incompatible with DRM. > > 1.2 Reassurances to the contrary, contradict this knowledge. And undermine > statements from the BBC. > > 2.1 What the BBC is proposing is in breach of the law by any reasonable > semantics, the law is clear and does not allow for exceptions. > > 2.2 You may wish to proceed as if this was not true, but it is a fatal flaw > that will destroy the agreements the BBC is entering into, and damage the > BBC. > > 2.3 The BBC TRUST cannot ignore the fact that the BBC is intending to > breaking the law. Semantics will not be sufficient to obfuscate this issue. > > 2.4 Several other options exist to exploit the flaw in the BBC's > intentions. I am aware how it is possible to subvert the law, but ultimately > the letter of the law, will be used to force the BBC to broadcast > unencrypted. > > 3.1 We are in a transition phase, away from copyright and DRM. > > 3.2. The BBC appear to be insufficiently aware of the arguments against DRM > and, dangers of the course of action they have embarked upon, to act in the > public intrest > > 3.3 The BBC are not familiar with the argument against DRM which has failed > repeatedly. > > 3.4. The BBC are not sufficiently aware of the arguments against > intellectual property which has already lost the intellectual debate. > > 4.0 Free and Open Source software proponents have experience of a > copyright, patent, and DRM free environment, and are therefore more ready to > embrace the concepts, and freedoms involved. > > In view of the above, how can the BBC management claim to represent the > public interest ? > > The BBC can choose to ignore the above, but the issues will not go away. > And the BBC will be seen to be, not side of the public, but on the side of > special interests on these issues. > > This is intention of this email to raise issues with the BBC Management of > which Nick is one of the current spokesmen. > > > Further Reading: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/thompson_bpi.shtml > > "But that's changing. The first episode of the new Dr Who series was > available on the unauthorised site Bit Torrent three weeks before its > premiere on BBC ONE. > > And, although of course our main model in the UK is free-to-air unencrypted > broadcast, the BBC has a duty to exploit the residual commercial value of > the rights we invest in on behalf of the public: we do that both here and > around the world. > > So we have an intense interest in effective digital rights management > systems; in technical, legal and regulatory means to protect the property of > rights-holders; and in increasing public awareness of the moral and economic > consequences of the theft of intellectual property. > > On this last point, I believe the BBC could do considerably more than it > does at present." > > Mark Thompson, BBC Director-General Thursday 14 July 2005 > > > > > Some background on semantics in law. > > http://ssrn.com/abstract=831604 > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=831604 > > "We consider in the paper whether a pragmatics of semantic content can be a > useful approach to legal interpretation. More extensively, since a pragmatic > conception of meaning is a component of an inferential semantics, we > consider whether an inferentialist approach to legal interpretation can be > of help in treating and resolving some problems of legal interpretation. In > sum: Is legal inferentialism a suitable conception of legal interpretation?" > > > Some of the Anti-copyright argument. > > > http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/web/la-oew-healey18feb18,0,7696645.story > > "In "The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism", the economist and Nobel > Prize winner F.A. Hayek explains the difference between conventional > property rights and copyright. While the supply of material resources is > limited by nature, the supply of an immaterial good [is] unlimited, unless > the government limits the supply by law?. A later Nobel Prize winner, Milton > Friedman, describes copyright as a monopoly that decreases supply to a level > below the optimal level. Copyright and the regulations that follow from it > should, according to Friedman, be described primarily as a limitation of > free speech. > > In essence, Sigfrid is saying that something in unlimited supply can't be > stolen." > > [...] > > "These aren't just academic arguments. They're ammunition in a battle > that's raging online to shape the way the public thinks about copyrights. > The first salvo was fired by the original Napster, which defined itself as a > file-sharing network. That won the semantic high ground by defining > unauthorized downloading as "sharing," not "copying" or "duplicating." The > implication was that users of these networks were merely being generous with > something they possessed, not usurping the rights of copyright holders." > > The arguments about theft of service in the article are also wrong, as > theft of service is just an extension of property rights. > > The BBC wishes to limit supply by encryption, and therefore restrict free > speech, and support private monopolies. > > > Must Read: > > A more complete argument against copyright can be found in the book: > http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm > which available as a pdf from the web site. > > > > - > 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/ > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
