[backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
People on the list may be interested in this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_manag ement.html Nick Reynolds (Editor, Social Media, Central Editorial Team, BBC Online) BBC Future MediaTechnology ext: 80934 mobile: 0780 162 4919 address: BC4 D6, Broadcast Centre, White City W12 BBC Internet Blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/ My internal blog: http://bbcblogs.gateway.bbc.co.uk/reynonp1/ Future Media Technology: http://home.gateway.bbc.co.uk/fmt/main.asp?page=4282 My personal twitter: https://twitter.com/nickreynoldsatw
Re: [backstage] NO Encryption of HD by the BBC !
A new proposal from Ofcom on the Freeview HD CMS: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/condoc.pdf http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_management.html -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Ah, the Irish Euro Referendum all over again. 2010/1/22 Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk People on the list may be interested in this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_management.html Nick Reynolds (Editor, Social Media, Central Editorial Team, BBC Online) BBC Future MediaTechnology ext: 80934 mobile: 0780 162 4919 address: BC4 D6, Broadcast Centre, White City W12 BBC Internet Blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/ My internal blog: http://bbcblogs.gateway.bbc.co.uk/reynonp1/ Future Media Technology: http://home.gateway.bbc.co.uk/fmt/main.asp?page=4282 My personal twitter: https://twitter.com/nickreynoldsatw -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] NO Encryption of HD by the BBC !
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:59, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: A new proposal from Ofcom on the Freeview HD CMS: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/condoc.pdf http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_management.html I love the fact that it's been called a Content Management System, which means something completely different to what most people term a CMS. I'm also wondering, having read the full consultation document, what a Blue-ray DVD is. I'll be publishing my response when I get around to writing it; I'll post a URL when I have (got to do the Canvas one first...) M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_manag ement.html Overall, we believe the proposed system takes a highly pragmatic approach to content management Why do people always use pragmatic as a synonym for complicit? Indeed, the proposed Freeview HD content management approach is so 'light-touch' that some have argued that it is not worth having. So don't have it then. Problem solved I just hope that these communities can understand our position too; that we want to deliver the service which enables more viewers across the UK to enjoy high definition content as soon as possible. That isn't the BBC's position. The BBC's position is that they are going to ignore both history and public opinion and keep pushing for DRM until they get it. Holding a new service hostage is a convenient way of achieving this. - Rob. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 13:08, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Holding a new service hostage is a convenient way of achieving this. Maybe they could just scrap Freeview HD all together and bring back the interactive services. If you want HD then you need Satellite or Cable, much in the same was as if you wanted colour you needed to get UHF. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Quotations except from JJ Rousseau are from the BBC Internet blog article. They don't like the idea that the owner of that media may want to limit the way they can use that content or have some say on whether it can be shared over the internet. Man is born free but why everywhere he is in chains? Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Your interest in secondary sources of income, is more important than, the freedom of action of the public. Consumers also stand to lose as, without this income, the range and quality of the content available (on free-to-air channels) would inevitably suffer. Double the license fee and double the quality and range of content ! I don't think the public will buy that argument. You are merely arguing for the status quo, as if that is evidence, of the best of all possible scenarios. Some would suggest the current BBC License Fee, is already over inflated, especially given the relative size of the national average wage vs BBC salaries and current BBC output. Arguing for restrictions to capture more revenue, strengthens this opinion. Broadcasters could have tried to take a 'heavy-handed' approach to this problem. The public would revolt at the lost of facilities provided by technology like timeshifting (VCR). This is the most you suspect the public will accept. Remember regional encoding and Content Scrambling System on DVD's. whilst at the same time protecting the legitimate concerns of rights holders. The concerns are not legitimate, you do not have the right to enslave the public, in exchange for secondary sources of revenue. The proposed technical solution increases complexity and will fail, both as a form of control and allowing legitimate access, making the publics life more difficult. any form of content management is philosophically a bad thing And to think there was no content management other than copyright when Jean-Jacques Rousseau, was alive. the Open Source community who may still fear that this will be more restrictive than it will actually turn out to be for them. Open source does not allow for secrets, the system is predicated on secrets. that we want to deliver the service which enables more viewers across the UK to enjoy high definition content as soon as possible. Subject to limitations imposed by blackmail from the content industries. Perhaps the public should just reject the blackmail, and maintain our freedom. This is a social contract too far, that only meets the needs of special interests. - 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/
[backstage] Defining Non-Commercial
Dear backstage team, I have a question regarding the backstage data license: How does the BBC define non-commercial use? Do you consider a free web service or website from which no income is generated, but which is run by a for-profit company, as non-commercial or commercial use? Thanks, Georgi - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
I like the way Ofcom have totally missed the point about Linux/Open Source presuming it refers to STBs running Linux. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Defining Non-Commercial
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 16:13, Georgi Kobilarov georgi.kobila...@uberblic.com wrote: Dear backstage team, I have a question regarding the backstage data license: How does the BBC define non-commercial use? Do you consider a free web service or website from which no income is generated, but which is run by a for-profit company, as non-commercial or commercial use? [Note: this is not an answer to the question, only the BBC can answer that!] Exactly the same problem exists with Creative Commons NC licenses - there isn't a solid definition of what non-commercial actually means. The CC actually ran a consultation on it, and were going to do... something, at some point. As far as I know, nothing's happened yet (beyond noting that if you think there's a possibility your usage might be considered 'commercial', you're best off just asking the licensor whether what they think of your proposed use, which does somewhat defeat the purpose of standardised licenses). I really wish somebody could come up with a definition (or at a push, a couple of alternative identifiable definitions) of commercial vs non-commercial that everyone could get behind (much as in the same way that everybody has a pretty good idea of what attribution and share-alike entails). M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Defining Non-Commercial
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:33:18 +, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: Exactly the same problem exists with Creative Commons NC licenses - there isn't a solid definition of what non-commercial actually means. The CC actually ran a consultation on it, and were going to do... something, at some point. As far as I know, nothing's happened yet (beyond noting that if you think there's a possibility your usage might be considered 'commercial', you're best off just asking the licensor whether what they think of your proposed use, which does somewhat defeat the purpose of standardised licenses). CC have run a consultation on this - http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127 - Rob. - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
JJ Rousseau wasn't able to burn a CD -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 22 January 2010 15:53 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management Quotations except from JJ Rousseau are from the BBC Internet blog article. They don't like the idea that the owner of that media may want to limit the way they can use that content or have some say on whether it can be shared over the internet. Man is born free but why everywhere he is in chains? Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Your interest in secondary sources of income, is more important than, the freedom of action of the public. Consumers also stand to lose as, without this income, the range and quality of the content available (on free-to-air channels) would inevitably suffer. Double the license fee and double the quality and range of content ! I don't think the public will buy that argument. You are merely arguing for the status quo, as if that is evidence, of the best of all possible scenarios. Some would suggest the current BBC License Fee, is already over inflated, especially given the relative size of the national average wage vs BBC salaries and current BBC output. Arguing for restrictions to capture more revenue, strengthens this opinion. Broadcasters could have tried to take a 'heavy-handed' approach to this problem. The public would revolt at the lost of facilities provided by technology like timeshifting (VCR). This is the most you suspect the public will accept. Remember regional encoding and Content Scrambling System on DVD's. whilst at the same time protecting the legitimate concerns of rights holders. The concerns are not legitimate, you do not have the right to enslave the public, in exchange for secondary sources of revenue. The proposed technical solution increases complexity and will fail, both as a form of control and allowing legitimate access, making the publics life more difficult. any form of content management is philosophically a bad thing And to think there was no content management other than copyright when Jean-Jacques Rousseau, was alive. the Open Source community who may still fear that this will be more restrictive than it will actually turn out to be for them. Open source does not allow for secrets, the system is predicated on secrets. that we want to deliver the service which enables more viewers across the UK to enjoy high definition content as soon as possible. Subject to limitations imposed by blackmail from the content industries. Perhaps the public should just reject the blackmail, and maintain our freedom. This is a social contract too far, that only meets the needs of special interests. - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
I note that WotSat and Digital Spy are saying that this document is approval http://blog.wotsat.com/page/whatsat?entry=bbc_copy_protection_plan_approved http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/news/a198463/ofcom-backs-bbc-freeview-hd-copy-plan.html But Ofcom call it a consultation: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/ Seems Ofcom must have been spinning (minded) this story? Wasn't the consultation response *100%* against it? Why call it a *consultation *when it's clearly bullcrap? 2010/1/22 Kieran Kunhya kie...@kunhya.com I like the way Ofcom have totally missed the point about Linux/Open Source presuming it refers to STBs running Linux. - 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
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 16:41, Kieran Kunhya kie...@kunhya.com wrote: I like the way Ofcom have totally missed the point about Linux/Open Source presuming it refers to STBs running Linux. Well, it would, and that's the easiest way to make the point about it. The fact it'll affect people running MythTV et al themselves *as well* is less of a concern for them (or the BBC). The reality is, STB manufacturers don't really have the luxury of being able to: a) ignore the licensing terms of the open source DVB stacks; b) reverse-engineer the decoding tables; c) obtain the tables from the BBC but breach the non-disclosure terms; or d) release a box which doesn't support FVHD ...even if they wanted to. Thus, open source DVB stacks are out of the running, which would push up price-per-unit and very likely discourage some from bothering at all. On the other hand, while (technically-minded) consumers wouldn't be permitted to do any of those things easier, nobody would come knocking on the door if they reverse-engineered the Huffman tables themselves and used them solely in order to make linux-dvb on their PC work. The minor snag is that this is a completely unrealistic scenario, because people who have successfully decoded them will want to (a) give others the tables or (b) give others a utility for decoding the tables, and people who can't figure it out will plead to be sent copies of it, and everyone will fall afoul of the EUCD's anti-circumvention provisions. But, neither Ofcom, nor the BBC (present company excepted), nor many Joe Consumers really care about these people (in a positive sense) and don't see why everyone else should suffer in the name of openness and principles; so, it's far easier to talk about the harm it will do to the _industry_, which is terms all of the above understand -- even if in actual fact, the underlying problems are precisely the same. M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Mo McRoberts wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 16:41, Kieran Kunhya kie...@kunhya.com wrote: I like the way Ofcom have totally missed the point about Linux/Open Source presuming it refers to STBs running Linux. The reality is, STB manufacturers don't really have the luxury of being able to: a) ignore the licensing terms of the open source DVB stacks; b) reverse-engineer the decoding tables; c) obtain the tables from the BBC but breach the non-disclosure terms; or d) release a box which doesn't support FVHD ...even if they wanted to. There is a third alternative. B) obtain the decoded tables from a third party in a country where this decryption is not illegal. I am unsure of the legality of this. It would of course imply that the device would need an internet connection - but... - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Ian Stirling backstage...@mauve.plus.com wrote at 17:42 on 2010-01-22: a) ignore the licensing terms of the open source DVB stacks; b) reverse-engineer the decoding tables; c) obtain the tables from the BBC but breach the non-disclosure terms; or d) release a box which doesn't support FVHD There is a third alternative. B) obtain the decoded tables from a third party in a country where this decryption is not illegal. Or use the usual open source DVB stack, read the raw EPG stream into a closed source userspace blob and de-huff it there with licensed tables? The LinuxTv stack appears to be under GPLv2, so no GPLv3 keys with the source worries. S S - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 22-Jan-2010, at 17:42, Ian Stirling wrote: There is a third alternative. B) obtain the decoded tables from a third party in a country where this decryption is not illegal. I am unsure of the legality of this. It would of course imply that the device would need an internet connection - but... I know some consumer electronics manufacturers have been known to do things which many would consider lacking in sanity, I’m not convinced any would go this far (if they were prepared to do this, there’s a good chance they’d probably just reverse-engineer them themselves and pretend they’re doing this ;) Of course, from an anti-piracy perspective, as soon as ONE person leaks the tables, all bets are off. As much as the BBC will claim the tables are its “intellectual property”, from what I know of copyright law it would be difficult to claim that they were © BBC; no other part of the various IP laws both applies here and provides for any kind of protection which can be aggressively defended in court. At absolute _best_ it's a grey area. This does lead into a further question as to whether reverse-engineering or leaking a table of numbers which are shared amongst a great many people and organisations under the sole protection of a non-disclosure agreement really constitutes circumvention of a copyright protection measure in terms congruent with our laws on the matter. If _not_, the whole exercise would be a huge waste of time and money (that would be licence-fee-payer’s money, by the way). As I said on the blog, this couldn’t be more flawed if they’d tried. M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 22-Jan-2010, at 17:58, Steffan Davies wrote: Or use the usual open source DVB stack, read the raw EPG stream into a closed source userspace blob and de-huff it there with licensed tables? The LinuxTv stack appears to be under GPLv2, so no GPLv3 keys with the source worries. For now, and that does depend on the will of the developers concerned; an additional clause prohibiting this sort of thing isn’t *common*, but it’s not unheard of, either. There’s also a secondary concern here, in that the terms under which the blob is distributed do not just pertain to what you do to the blob itself, but what you let the user do to both your device (i.e., no modifications) and to the content which has been received (HDCP-only-outputs, for example). Not only do both of these have cost implications, but restrict innovation in the CE space where it relates to FVHD receivers. It is, as they say, a can of worms. M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote at 18:15 on 2010-01-22: There’s also a secondary concern here, in that the terms under which the blob is distributed do not just pertain to what you do to the blob itself, but what you let the user do to both your device (i.e., no modifications) and to the content which has been received (HDCP-only-outputs, for example). Not only do both of these have cost implications, but restrict innovation in the CE space where it relates to FVHD receivers. It is, as they say, a can of worms. Oh, definitely. I wasn't saying that would be a good implementation, just that it might permit appliance makers to comply without having to reinvent the wheel entirely (which typically leads to square or triangular wheels). S - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 22-Jan-2010, at 18:55, Steffan Davies wrote: Oh, definitely. I wasn't saying that would be a good implementation, just that it might permit appliance makers to comply without having to reinvent the wheel entirely (which typically leads to square or triangular wheels). To a point, yes, I agree. But, it fundamentally alters the relationship between (content producers, distributors, broadcasters), standards bodies and manufacturers. Rather than standards bodies being in control (though responding to the needs of the industry) and the rest following, the former group are in control making use of holes deliberately left by the standards bodies (thanks to pressure from broadcasters) and the manufacturers are not only dictated to about how to receive broadcasts, but what a consumer can do with them subsequently. It’s one thing doing this with Sky or Virgin, but where we’re talking about licence-funded terrestrial TV, it's a different proposition altogether (I’m still rather unhappy that Freesat somehow didn’t require regulatory approval before implementing this same scheme, but then its marketshare is particularly minority-levels). There is a workaround, of sorts: perhaps it should be proposed that a TV Licence grants immunity from any legal action (or future “notification system”) relating to downloading illicitly-shared copyright material which has been broadcast free-to-air in this country within the last seven days (similar to the timeshifting exemption written into law at the moment). I can’t see it happening somehow, and it wouldn’t achieve total parity, but it’s an interesting idea: if the scheme were to achieve anything like the results the distributors (publicly) believe it will, then there’d be nothing for consumers to download and the exemption would have zero net effect. M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Well, it would, and that's the easiest way to make the point about it. The fact it'll affect people running MythTV et al themselves *as well* is less of a concern for them (or the BBC). What I mean is most (all?) the complaints before were from people wanting to watch on a Linux PC. (Irrelevant anyway because they are only blocking DVB-SI not the MPEG-2 PSI* which will still give you channels; they just won't be named and will have no EPG but both pieces of information can be downloaded from the internet anyways.) *unless they've conveniently decided to (incorrectly) group MPEG-2 PSI with DVB-SI. The reality is, STB manufacturers don't really have the luxury of being able to: a) ignore the licensing terms of the open source DVB stacks; b) reverse-engineer the decoding tables; c) obtain the tables from the BBC but breach the non-disclosure terms; or d) release a box which doesn't support FVHD GPL issues are pretty minor; a legal way of including the licenced codes could be fudged into the system. It can be done in the same way people have Linux mobile phones with a closed GSM stack. Low cost Chinese knockoff STBs won't care about the Freeview logo and will just get the codes from whoever reverse engineers them. On the other hand, while (technically-minded) consumers wouldn't be permitted to do any of those things easier, nobody would come knocking on the door if they reverse-engineered the Huffman tables themselves and used them solely in order to make linux-dvb on their PC work. The minor snag is that this is a completely unrealistic scenario, because people who have successfully decoded them will want to (a) give others the tables or (b) give others a utility for decoding the tables, and people who can't figure it out will plead to be sent copies of it, and everyone will fall afoul of the EUCD's anti-circumvention provisions. IANAL but there are also reverse engineering exemptions for interoperability purposes. (made stronger by the non-commercial use) The silly thing is this isn't going to deter anyone. Cheap boxes with reverse engineered codes will soon roll off the factory line in China. Again DRM is just affecting ordinary people wanting to record things for personal use. Nobody is going to replace all their devices at home with HDCP compatible ones. This is like Adobe's RTMP DRM which is just gives content providers a nice walled garden feeling in spite of the RTMP passkey being the phrase Adobe Flash. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Well, it would, and that's the easiest way to make the point about it. The fact it'll affect people running MythTV et al themselves *as well* is less of a concern for them (or the BBC). What I mean is most (all?) the complaints before were from people wanting to watch on a Linux PC. Er, no they weren’t. I was referring to the complaints which prompted the discussion about linux/open source in the consultation document. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Mo McRoberts wrote: Of course, from an anti-piracy perspective, as soon as ONE person leaks the tables, all bets are off. As much as the BBC will claim the tables are its “intellectual property”, from what I know of copyright law it would be difficult to claim that they were © BBC; no other part of the various IP laws both applies here Database Right. This is - in the simplest explanation - copyright for databases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
The following link has just been pointed out to me: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=803124 If my memory isn’t failing me, that would have been within a few days of Freesat’s encoding being switched on. Anybody know if the BBC’s attempted to take any action against the developers? (Or even if they’re aware of this) [I’m guessing we’d have heard about it if the former answer was “yes”, but I’m curious about the latter] M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Mo McRoberts wrote: Anybody know if the BBC’s attempted to take any action against the developers? (Or even if they’re aware of this) [I’m guessing we’d have heard about it if the former answer was “yes”, but I’m curious about the latter] I just wonder if the BBC realize how Freeview HD content restriction could become a PR Nightmare Construction Kit for their tabloid foes. Once someone makes available code to defeat it, how could prosecutions ensue without risking raging headlines like: BBC prosecutes licence-fee payer for watching Doctor Who And, if prosecutions did not ensue, then we might have: BBC wastes your money to shore up Hollywood's profits This is quite separate from any debate on how content management might support or hinder the BBC's public purposes, which I will happily leave to others. -- Frank Wales [fr...@limov.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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 22-Jan-2010, at 23:01, Frank Wales wrote: I just wonder if the BBC realize how Freeview HD content restriction could become a PR Nightmare Construction Kit for their tabloid foes. Once someone makes available code to defeat it, how could prosecutions ensue without risking raging headlines like: BBC prosecutes licence-fee payer for watching Doctor Who And, if prosecutions did not ensue, then we might have: BBC wastes your money to shore up Hollywood's profits Spot on. It’s lose-lose, and the BBC are on both sides: the public’s only on one of them. Here’s a novel idea: why doesn’t the BBC, and the content distributors, explain what it is they want to achieve, and ask all of the people who are doing a very good job of shooting this proposal down in flames (a) whether it’s workable (and if not, why not), and (b) what the alternative options are? Pay a few train fares if it helps, get a discussion going. Get the message across that, actually, neither the BBC nor the public are trying to be particularly difficult or awkward, but that there are tangible problems which need to be solved (though they may not necessarily be the ones some believe them to be), and there are some of the smartest people around who would only be too happy to try to reach some sort of… mutual understanding, as it were. M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Defining Non-Commercial
On 22-Jan-2010, at 16:50, Rob Myers wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:33:18 +, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: CC actually ran a consultation on it, and were going to do... something, at some point. … CC have run a consultation on this - http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127 :) The debate continues on the CC mailing list. This one won't get resolved until v4 of the licenses is out. MIT produced this statement for OpenCourseWare, which at least mitigates the problem a little: http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/terms/terms/index.htm#noncomm (Also, MIT’s interpretation of “non-commercial” is one I’m entirely happy with). If somebody with a BBC hat could throw it into the ring, especially in the context of the MIT page, that’d be grand ;) (it’s probably worth thinking about trying to come up with a similar page for backstage and getting it approved by the BBC legal eagles——Ian?) M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - 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/
