I think Nevali might take umbrage at being lumped into our conspiracy so blatantly.
a On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM, David Tomlinson <d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > 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/ > -- Ant Miller tel: 07709 265961 email: ant.mil...@gmail.com - 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/
