Nick, I'm not sure if drawing battle lines in this way is helpful. I don't think anyone dislikes the production companies and other rights holders, it is simply asking that they have the rights assigned to them (by law, possibly). It is worth noting that the BBC has already run a closed service on the public airwaves before. BBC Select ran from 1992-1994 using Videocrypt-S overnight onto a VHS. It failed. [1]
I also would like to point out as someone who hand-coded the algorithm, the system is clearly a loss-less compression system. It is not in any way a security system. Given that the source data is quite public, doing the frequency count and working out the table could be done by a teenager. Also, I still don't know if is the BBC's suppliers that are asking for this, or those of Channel 4, FIVE or ITV. BBC FTV Ltd is the multiplex owner... [1] http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-11.pdf 2009/10/6 Nick Reynolds-FM&T <nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk> > dave - this is a wild exaggeration. The suppliers that you dislike so are > companies who provide content for the BBC for licence fee payers to enjoy. > Their interests have considered just like everyone else's. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto: > owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] *On Behalf Of *Dave Crossland > *Sent:* 06 October 2009 15:51 > *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ... > > Scot, > > You can't see how it is in the public interest BECAUSE IT ISN'T. The BBC > are very clear that they are willing to cut their own charter up to pander > to the special interests of their suppliers; there is no need for conspiracy > theories about this, they are very up front about admitting what is going on > right now. > > It is the future implications that are up for speculation... if I was in > management, Id be wondering, Cameron is going to rip Auntie a new one after > the Olympics, so what can we do now to prepare? > > Regards, Dave > > On 6 Oct 2009, 3:41 PM, "Scot McSweeney-Roberts" < > bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 15:00, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > David, I'm curious, what's y... > > I can't speak for David, but my own feeling on the subject is that because > the source is in the open, circumventing any restrictions would become > fairly trivial. While "security through obscurity is no security" still > holds (and is why even closed DRM has proven ineffective), it's hard to see > how FLOSS DRM would be in any way effective. At least with closed DRM, it > might take a little time to break. > > While I can't see much argument for FLOSS DRM, I can see a lot of argument > that if you're touting a DRM system, supporting FLOSS platforms is a really > good idea. Look at what happend with DVD - some kid wanted to watch DVDs on > his Linux box, the "powers that be" couldn't be bothered creating a licensed > DVD player for Linux so the kid breaks DVD's CSS, rendering CSS useless. All > it takes is one individual to break a DRM system and the exact same > superdistribution that DRM is trying to stop will quickly spread the > circumvention technique. > > Thinking about it, whatever DRM the BBC uses will be broken. Otherwise law > abiding people will then turn what could well be criminal activity just to > use the HD signal the way they currently use the SD signal. I don't see how > this is in the public interest. > > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
