Re: [backstage] DRM duration?
On Nov 8, 2007 10:42 AM, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course this is a blog so not exactly a reference source: http://joyofsox.blogspot.com/2007/11/mlb-game-downloads-still-inaccessible.html So this DRM system seems to have lasted 2003-2006. Then a year later you lose any downloads. Yep, this is the kind of thing that makes honest consumers want to stay within the law. As a note: the (public service) BBC produces no DRM'd content which lasts longer than one month. This isn't a risk that those of us using iPlayer downloads need concern ourselves with, therefore. You might also enjoy http://james.cridland.net/blog/2007/08/11/when-content-restriction-and-protection-goes-bad/- the MLB aren't the first, nor will they be the last. -- http://james.cridland.net | http://www.mediauk.com Media UK is a Not At All Bad Ltd production. Company info: http://www.notatallbad.ltd.uk/
Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?
Sorry for the delay in replying but I've had a toothache! Right... You can divide the kind of material that is currently shown on television into five broad types: - True live, which a content that is actually live, or is non-archive material introduced by live presentation. This would be the news and weather on most channels, live events such as sport and music and so on. The value of the content is related to common experience or to the breaking news . - As live is content that is produced, recorded and edited as if it were broadcast live, but has actually been produced beforehand. Such programmes are usually produced in quantity and to a format which - Commissioned programmes covers the large part of factual and drama programmes. - Import programmes are bought from TV networks abroad. - Archive programmes are programmes of the above types that have been show before. Putting on my futurologist hat: TRUE LIVE True live will remain in the on broadcast TV. For the BBC this means streaming of BBC News 24 and BBC World. On the live sports side, this will remain the only existing pull for subscription TV, as is already the only service that Sky operates that has not lost almost all the viewers. Online live sport will either be provided by IPTV with spot-adverts, live streams (BBC Sport). Some formats such as talent shows will probably also be constructed for the live buzz. AS LIVE Much of this kind of entertainment material is produced for broadcast television and will probably continue to be pumped out over satellite, cable and terrestrial services. But as the shared live experience is fake, then these programmes will be eventually be pumped into on-demand services, vodcasts and so on.Current examples are Have I Got News For You and Watchdog. Most of these formats have daily or weekly episodes which have little resale value. COMMISSIONED This area covers the majority of content. In the past, these programmes are scheduled, but without the linear form of traditional TV, such material will be consumed on demand. If the BBC has any sense, all such material should be made available to any organization that will encode and distribute it as long as they make no edits and take no credit. The BBC, as a premium originated content broadcaster produces material that has a range of resale values. IMHO the BBC should stick all educational content online with immediate effect, unless there is a good reason for not doing so. Obviously most people would also like entertainment and comedy formats to be included, but these have much higher potential resale value and will probably have to wait until later. It is my opinion that the BBC should collect usage information from distributed video and have a fixed annual fund to compensate those who write, contribute and perform for the programmes. IMPORTS Once the world moves broadcasting in to cyberspace, Imports on TV channels will disappear. What is the point in waiting six months to watch a new Simpson's on Sky One (or years onto C4) if you can download it from the US minutes after broadcast. This is not much of a problem for the BBC as it has very little imported programming these days, but it may see the eventual death of BBC non-domestic channels (other than BBC World). The foreign sales of formats will no doubt continue, and there will be a market for subtitled and dubbed non-English content. ARCHIVE The value of programmes from the archive will fall because the costs of storage and distribution fall towards zero. Eventually it would be desirable to have every single programme the BBC has ever broadcast to be in an archive. To me the value of transmitting our culture abroad outweighs the cost of lost archive sales. On 14/06/07, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while, and want to ponder this question to the backstage community... We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well lets just say for this thread that DRM doesn't work and it just turns consumers into against the content holder. ...What happens next? Here's some thoughts from me, Content producers adopt watermarking technologies? P2P streaming and Multicasting becomes the next big advance for content producers People start paying for real time or 0day access? Google and Yahoo start indexing torrent sites and offering services like sharetv.org Joost and Democracy adoption increases The portable video player and digital set top (appletv, xbmc, etc) markets blows up Torrent site uses slowly drops, as content producers use other online services Windows Home server (now you see how my last post relates) and similar products sales increase 10 fold over the next 3 year - 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:
Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 21:52 +0100, Andy Leighton wrote: Steady on - why not Z80, OK a bit limited but the Z8 was 32bit and about the same time as some of those above? Basically some of the listed processors above are dead for general-purpose computing in the home and they are used by a dwindling core of hobbyists (and usually not as their main machine). Not main machine, true. Maybe as the media centre... some nice low-power cores in there which can be run fanless, for example :) -- 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/
Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?
On 6/15/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've obviously not read the numerous posts explaining in some detail why it *isn't* currently feasible Must have missed that one. Can you show in detail the point at which it says you MUST use MICROSOFT DRM? I would really like to know so I can email my MEP about this matter. In case they want to add the BBC as an accessory to whatever they are prosecuting Microsoft for today. Or is it not in fact true that the rights holders would be happy with any DRM? I believe the actual facts are... 1. Rights holders insist on time limited DRM solution. 2. Only Microsoft supports a time limited DRM. 3. Therefore, in order to conform to point 1, BBC have to use Microsoft based DRM. HTH. Mike. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really are a fucking twat, aren't you? Rich. Resorting to personal insults because you can't win an argument? What is so wrong with suggesting you publish said agreements? If they are published and I missed it, then I am sorry but you could be a tad more helpful and point to them instead of sending abusive emails. Or are the agreements/contracts protected by an NDA, or trade secret etc.? The list of OSes/Chips was never meant to be complete, it is just a list of platforms. To be neutral on platform the BBC's iPlayer will need to run on every platform that has existed, that does exist, or will exist in the future. It's not neutral if you select 3 software platforms and implement it on them because you have other platforms which don't have it. Websters dictionary define neutral as meaning: 1. Not engaged on either side; not taking part with or assisting either of two or more contending parties; neuter; indifferent. Wikipedia defines platform (in the computing context) to mean: In computing, a platform describes some sort of framework, either in hardware or software, which allows software to run. Typical platforms include a computer's architecture, operating system, or programming languages and their runtime libraries. Wordnet defines platform to mean: 3: the combination of a particular computer and a particular operating system (the other definitions weren't relevant due to context). Even by implementing iPlayer on Windows, Mac and Linux you are assisting those parties and not assisting contending parties such as BSD, or any other OS that exists or could exist. So given those definitions of neutral and platform how can implementing it on a subset of platforms ever be platform neutral. And even if it is implemented on all platforms it may not be neutral as it assists existing platforms over ones that have not been created yet. If you have any suggestions about how to achieve platform neutrality I would actually be genuinely interested in hearing them (provide you can manage to do that without resorting to personal insults). Right now I can only think of an Open Source reference implementation, or a publicly defined specification. If anyone else knows of a way to achieve platform neutrality speak up! Your new law, do you want it to be Lockwood's Law or Richard's Law? I think Lockwoods law sound better, but you invented the law so you get naming privileges. I concede now the BBC has no choice at this time but to use a DRM scheme, I just disagree with _which_ scheme, and it _appears_ the BBC Trust agrees with me. @Mike: Prove axiom 2. You are also failing to take into account the possibility of using a custom or adapted DRM implementation, it shouldn't cost too much compared with the 4.5 million that the BBC have spent so far. Ian Worte: Name another DRM system which is technically capable of the same things, and exists today. The BBC iPlayer didn't exist when the BBC started the project, why does the DRM need to have existed at that time as well? I will continue looking for such a DRM scheme. Or I could try and stall this for long enough to give me time to create my own DRM scheme and point to that (but that may be cheating?) I am downloading a cross platform DRM system as we speak, the source is rather large though. I think it's bringing all the crypto libraries and media libraries with it. More news on that if it does do time restrictions. can't be sure though. Andy -- SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1 - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 16/06/07, mike chamberlain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the actual facts are... 1. Rights holders insist on time limited DRM solution. 2. Only Microsoft supports a time limited DRM. 3. Therefore, in order to conform to point 1, BBC have to use Microsoft based DRM. I accept axiom 1. Axiom 2 is incorrect and can be proved to be so. Proof: 2a: If Microsoft's is the only scheme who support time limited DRM there can not exist a scheme such that: - scheme is not Microsoft's - scheme supports time limited DRM 2b: OpenIPMP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not Microsoft's scheme. 2c: OpenIPMP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) supports time limited DRM 2b and 2c contradict the hypothesis in 2a, thus axiom 2 can not be correct. Axiom 3 is incorrect. It's reasoning relied on Axiom 2 which was proved to be incorrect (see above). Ian wrote: Name another DRM system which is technically capable of the same things, and exists today. OpenIPMP Andy PS sorry about the double post but the DRM software I was taking quite a while to download. -- SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1 - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On Saturday 16 June 2007 12:43, Andy wrote: To be neutral on platform the BBC's iPlayer will need to run on every platform that has existed, that does exist, or will exist in the future Picking out this one point, this is bogus, unless you are suggesting that iPlayer should run on a ZX81 (In which case I give up talking to you right here). Platform neutrality means it should not favour any one specific system. There are several ways to achieve this. You've discounted several however claiming they're not platform neutral, so I'll leave my response there. Michael. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 16/06/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Platform neutrality means it should not favour any one specific system. That's not what platform neutral means. It means it shouldn't favour any specific system or systems. If there was a war between 4 nations, (called A, B, C, D) would you consider fighting with nations A and B as being neutral? There are several ways to achieve this. You've discounted several however claiming they're not platform neutral, so I'll leave my response there. I discounted things that did not meet defined objectives based on recognised definitions of the words platform (in the computing context) and neutral. I really don't see how you can claim choosing a few platforms is neutral. If you would like to point out how selecting a few platforms and not selecting other platforms is neutral be my guest. unless you are suggesting that iPlayer should run on a ZX81 I'm thinking lack of colour and sound support could be a problem. However if a spec was provided it wouldn't be the BBC saying no we won't allow it on the ZX81, they will be allowing it on any platform. If no one can actually get it to work on the platform then that is a problem with the platform. Unless the BBC provides specifications it can not be implemented on all platform's and would not be neutral as it is only selecting a subset of platforms. Which of the methods I discounted did you think would provide platform neutrality? I thought I provided reasons for them. Implementing it on all platforms - in practical too many platforms, BBC may not even know all the platforms. Using a Virtual Machine - the VM would be the platform, it would not be neutral as it only runs on specific platforms, namely the VM itself. Which part of which one of those do you disagree with? Or do you disagree with my definition of platform neutral? Andy -- SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1 - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 10:19 +0100, mike chamberlain wrote: 1. Rights holders insist on time limited DRM solution. 2. Only Microsoft supports a time limited DRM. 3. Therefore, in order to conform to point 1, BBC have to use Microsoft based DRM. I would phrase it slightly differently. 1. Rights holders ask for a time-limited DRM solution. 2. Microsoft offer a time-limited DRM solution. 3. The BBC accepts that this is a placebo; DRM doesn't really work. 4. The BBC offers this 'solution' to the rights-holders, knowing that it will actually be broken like all the other DRM solutions and it only _really_ serves to inconvenience the consumers. When a clueless person walks into a shop and is sold a 'solution', there is a legal obligation on the part of the shop assistant not to mis-sell, on the basis that the shop assistant is presumed to be an expert in the field. I'm sure the same _law_ doesn't apply here, but the moral principle should. I am very disappointed by the BBC's actions. They have a duty to the the public, and they _also_ have a duty to help the people who have come to them with such strange ideas, rather than disingenuously _pretending_ to meet their requirements. The BBC are failing on both counts. The world didn't fall on our heads when the MPAA failed to ban the VCR in 1984. And it won't fall on our heads when we wake up and drop DRM either. By reducing the usability of the content, you effectively prohibit almost _all_ innovation and development around the platform. It's not that the DRM won't be cracked -- of course it will. But you make people live in fear of generating programs and tools for dealing with that content, just like we live in fear of shipping programs which can allow you to view your legally-purchased DVDs. I don't see how anybody can think that's a good thing. Especially anyone subscribed to this particular mailing list. -- dwmw2 I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. -- Jack Valenti, MPAA. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:04, Andy wrote: Platform neutrality means it should not favour any one specific system. That's not what platform neutral means. It means it shouldn't favour any specific system or systems. Huh??? I wrote: me it should not favour any one specific system. you it shouldn't favour any specific system or systems. Care to explain how these two statements are actually different? I know you use a contraction and you didn't and you said any and I said one, but the intent/meaning is the same. I'm giving up talking to you at this point. Michael. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Depending on the kind of media there are other ways of making money other than charging for things that are copyable. Music: Charge for Live performances/concerts Charge for physical merchandise OK. So if I can't perform live (due to terrible stage fright (see XTC), disability or any other reason), what do I do? And if you think that physical merchandise (by which I assume you mean t-shirts etc) can't be copied, you've obviously never been to any live gigs. Bootleg merchandise traders are legion - and in your happy free world, the band wouldn't own their own logos, album cover designs etc, so that bootlegging would be legal. Any other brilliant thoughts? Cheers, Rich. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Software: Charge for support Charge for bespoke software Charge for custom modifications. Now this is a model we know works because there's a multiple of companies in the OpenSource world. So it's a no brainer. Music: Charge for Live performances/concerts Charge for physical merchandise Musical revenues are not something I know huge amounts, but this seems to me to be a model which drives the musicians very very hard. To earn money to live they have to perform - and they'll need to do it a LOT. But to prepare their next album, they'll need to stop performing because they'll need to write their album. And is there not a finite amount of gigs people will attend? The number of people who go to a gig a week isn't that high. Where does this model leave people like Kate Bush - internationally regarded and loved, but who hates doing live performances, so doesn't. As for merchandise, I like music, but I can count on my fingers the number of band related merchandise I own. It's a Shirehorses t-shirt. As an aside, Ash recently announced they'd no longer be releasing Albums. Instead they're going for downloadable singles - which of course people will pay for. Tracks they think will be released quicker and more often. Film: Charge the cinemas (but give the DVDs etc away) Or do like some of the community film projects (like the one mentioned on this list http://www.aswarmofangels.com/ ) Job done. How does this fund films which don't do very well in the cinemas but have done far better off the back of DVD sales? Clerks is an interesting example. It grossed millions in the US, yet had minimal cinematic release. Yet it's a highly regarded film and I suspect there's more than one person on this list who has a copy somewhere. DVD revenues now regularly eclipse box office reciepts. So your model could destroy huge chunks of the film industry.That might be a good thing, but it's very hard to see how Lord of the Rings would ever have been made under your model. The potential box office revenues alone wouldn't have cut the mustard. To look forward is not easy. To find workable solutions isn't. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
I think - as do many others, it seems - that people pirate because they want interoperability, convenience of consumption on their own terms, and the quality is often better to boot. Yes, yes, and yes. Don't forget though, that a lot of people pirate because they want the convenience of not having to pay for something they want. Cheers, Rich. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Musical revenues are not something I know huge amounts, but this seems to me to be a model which drives the musicians very very hard. To earn money to live they have to perform - and they'll need to do it a LOT. But to prepare their next album, they'll need to stop performing because they'll need to write their album. And is there not a finite amount of gigs people will attend? The number of people who go to a gig a week isn't that high. Where does this model leave people like Kate Bush - internationally regarded and loved, but who hates doing live performances, so doesn't. But aren't you just looking at the top end of musicians? Even for recording musicians quite a number of them aren't making much (or indeed any) money on their recordings. Artists could also sell recordings themselves presumably signed although this will probably not add much to the value long-term. We could completely go over to a gift culture - there would still be plenty of people who would like to reward artists. I did have top end musicians in mind, but I'm also keeping in mind a certain band of musicians who now sell their music themselves - retain the distribution and costs and so on. Sometimes people who have grown disgruntled with, or who have been dropped by their record label. Artists for whom the album sales and live music income (which lets face it, often isn't much either!) combined help pay their way. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:38:16AM +0100, Andrew Bowden wrote: Music: Charge for Live performances/concerts Charge for physical merchandise Musical revenues are not something I know huge amounts, but this seems to me to be a model which drives the musicians very very hard. To earn money to live they have to perform - and they'll need to do it a LOT. But to prepare their next album, they'll need to stop performing because they'll need to write their album. And is there not a finite amount of gigs people will attend? The number of people who go to a gig a week isn't that high. Where does this model leave people like Kate Bush - internationally regarded and loved, but who hates doing live performances, so doesn't. But aren't you just looking at the top end of musicians? Even for recording musicians quite a number of them aren't making much (or indeed any) money on their recordings. Artists could also sell recordings themselves presumably signed although this will probably not add much to the value long-term. We could completely go over to a gift culture - there would still be plenty of people who would like to reward artists. -- Andy Leighton = [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. So if I can't perform live (due to terrible stage fright (see XTC), disability or any other reason), what do I do? And if I develop RSI or another disability that prevents me doing my job? There is a reason we have a benefit for disability! We also have a little something called insurance that can cover you should you develop a disability. And if you think that physical merchandise (by which I assume you mean t-shirts etc) can't be copied, you've obviously never been to any live gigs. Bootleg merchandise traders are legion - and in your happy free world, the band wouldn't own their own logos, album cover designs etc, so that bootlegging would be legal. Your name and logo's would still be covered by Trademark and similar protections. Misrepresenting the source of a good is surely illegal isn't it? Any other brilliant thoughts? Why don't you offer something constructive for once? We could always use the donation model. Not sure how well that works though. Charities seem to get quite a bit. Could also use advertising, but I really dislike advertising as advertisers are responsible for attempts to destroy the functionality of the Internet. (e.g. legitimate pop ups don't work anymore as people block pop ups to weed out the uninvited adverts. They are also responsible for the increasing problems with email due to spam.) Having said that I do prefer target adverts, if you advertise something I actually wanted anyway I may buy it from you. Anyway the presence of other business models is insignificant, I don't need an alternative business model to determine whether the current one is morally right or not. But that is another discussion. And the reason why people pay for things that they can get free may include: Lack of knowledge (if you don't know something exists you're not going to get it) They view the free product as inferior in some way (regardless of whether it is) Oh and the reason people pay when they can download illegally may not be they are good people it may have something to do with the being sent to jail thing, or the lack of skill. as illegal content is driven underground. Andy -- SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1 - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your name and logo's would still be covered by Trademark and similar protections. Misrepresenting the source of a good is surely illegal isn't it? Oh - so visual intellectual property is fine, but recorded isn't? Trademark law is totally different to copyright law and totally different again to patent law. Please don't confuse them under the bogus umbrella term 'intellectual property' - its phrased intentionally to misdirect and confuse the way we consider these issues. -- Regards, Dave - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
That's just a personal preference amongst some people - it isn't wrong. According to Michael Swan from Oxford University Press, Practical English Usage: British English: different from / different to American English: different from / different than -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Lockwood Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 3:32 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next? On 6/15/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your name and logo's would still be covered by Trademark and similar protections. Misrepresenting the source of a good is surely illegal isn't it? Oh - so visual intellectual property is fine, but recorded isn't? Trademark law is totally different to copyright law and totally different again to patent law. Please don't confuse them under the bogus umbrella term 'intellectual property' - its phrased intentionally to misdirect and confuse the way we consider these issues. But in Davetopia, logos can be copied electronically, and hence freely shared (as they have no intrinsic value), and then printed on t-shirts. Rich. PS I know this isn't a grammar list, but it's a personal bugbear of mine... It's different from, not different to. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 10:19 +0100, Mr I Forrester wrote: I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while, and want to ponder this question to the backstage community... We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well lets just say for this thread that DRM doesn't work and it just turns consumers into against the content holder. ...What happens next? Nothing. We get a clue, stop making life hard for honest consumers, and after a while we realise that the sky _didn't_ actually fall on our head. Only a few years ago, the BBC renegotiated its contract with BSkyB to _remove_ DRM from its satellite broadcasts. That's why I can receive BBC content on my DVB-S card without having to muck about with a Dragon CAM and a Solus card. Well done, BBC. At least _then_ you had a clue. I think the whole discussion about alternative business models and even philosophical discussions about the nature of copyright are irrelevant and counterproductive. You don't need to be a revolutionary to observe that DRM is worthless and causes far more pain to consumers than the supposed benefits it actually achieves. And if you get distracted into 'revolutionary' talk like that, then you just give ammunition to the muppets who respond to anti-DRM arguments with Ad Hominem nonsense about students and ne'er-do-wells. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 10:15 +0100, Richard Lockwood wrote: I think - as do many others, it seems - that people pirate because they want interoperability, convenience of consumption on their own terms, and the quality is often better to boot. Yes, yes, and yes. Don't forget though, that a lot of people pirate because they want the convenience of not having to pay for something they want. That's a different kind of 'convenience'. A kind which DRM doesn't actually manage to prevent, if people are determined enough -- which history shows us they are. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?
On 15/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Only a few years ago, the BBC renegotiated its contract with BSkyB to _remove_ DRM from its satellite broadcasts. That's why I can receive BBC content on my DVB-S card without having to muck about with a Dragon CAM and a Solus card. Well done, BBC. At least _then_ you had a clue. It's pretty insulting to suggest that the BBC now somehow doesn't have a clue, don't you think? Certainly if I were a BBC employee, it would make me disinclined to take the case you're making seriously if your opening gambit is you're clueless... The situations aren't analogous. The satellite issue was, for a start, partly due to money: the BBC simply decided not to pay to be on Sky's encryption platform. But it the argument was simple: it was just making the same services available on satellite that everyone already gets via DTV and analogue broadcast. iPlayer, though, is a service over and above what exists. That makes it completely different territory in terms of rights and residuals, which, in turn, makes it about 500 times as complicated. I think the whole discussion about alternative business models and even philosophical discussions about the nature of copyright are irrelevant and counterproductive. Alternative business models are completely relevant. You don't need to be a revolutionary to observe that DRM is worthless and causes far more pain to consumers than the supposed benefits it actually achieves. DRM doesn't work to stop piracy. But as we've seen over and over again, it's not about stopping piracy: it's about reassuring rights holders. Persuade *them* that it doesn't stop piracy - but that, actually, piracy isn't really an issue on an individual basis - and you'd get somewhere. And if you get distracted into 'revolutionary' talk like that, then you just give ammunition to the muppets who respond to anti-DRM arguments with Ad Hominem nonsense about students and ne'er-do-wells. Well, the clueless jibe means you don't really have a lot of leg to stand on re: ad hominem attacks :)
Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?
I think the whole discussion about alternative business models and even philosophical discussions about the nature of copyright are irrelevant and counterproductive. You don't need to be a revolutionary to observe that DRM is worthless and causes far more pain to consumers than the supposed benefits it actually achieves. And if you get distracted into 'revolutionary' talk like that, then you just give ammunition to the muppets who respond to anti-DRM arguments with Ad Hominem nonsense about students and ne'er-do-wells. And Ad Hominem nonsense about muppets presumably. I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet. Obviously DRM free content is even better, but it's not feasible right now. Rich. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 6/15/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet. It's not worse, but it's not much better. The BBC charter is not to do a little bit better than it did before, but to give the best value it possibly can. It's not doing the best it can, and this isn't good enough. Obviously DRM free content is even better, but it's not feasible right now. It is feasible right now, for some content, if not all. The sentiment here seems to be that no one likes DRM, no one wants DRM, and no one believes it works, but a) the rights holders need to be lied to and b) they hold all the cards. I don't think this is the case, but even so, what's being done to fix this? Some DRM-free content available is better than no DRM-free content. The more DRM-free content which is widely available, the more pressure it puts on those who would use DRM, not to. The BBC has many thousands of hours of programming which it holds sufficient rights to enable it to published on the Internet, DRM-free. If DRM is so distasteful, then why isn't this being done? Surely the BBC should be taking steps to move towards a DRM-free world, if that's what it believes in, which is what has been reported here. It needn't cost any money, and we could start really simple: all local news casts, all weather reports, all House of Commons footage -- dump it to the Internet Archive and Google and anyone else who will take it. Just get it out there. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet. Because it's not free of charge -- it's our license fee that's going to pay for the useless DRM technology, even if we don't use it. I don't like paying more money to make something less useful. -- Adam Sampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://offog.org/ - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've obviously not read the numerous posts explaining in some detail why it *isn't* currently feasible Must have missed that one. Can you show in detail the point at which it says you MUST use MICROSOFT DRM? I would really like to know so I can email my MEP about this matter. In case they want to add the BBC as an accessory to whatever they are prosecuting Microsoft for today. Or is it not in fact true that the rights holders would be happy with any DRM? If you care to not believe that, and instead to believe that the BBC and its employees on this list are actively lying to you then fine They have done it before! if you lie to me in official communications (and the BBC has) then I am less likely to trust you. Oh and I know they have lied to me because in one message I was told they couldn't do something because an agreement existed, when I made an FOI request I was told no such agreement existed. If that's not lying how else do you explain that paradox? My favourite one is them telling me something that was free (and that the BBC had used for free) would cost too much. And particularly common is the BBC's ridiculous claim that something would cause them to have to increase the license fee. The BBC doesn't have that power does it? Face it certain members of the BBC will lie to hide data they are ashamed of. It's just a pity they give the honest and hard working members of the team a bad name. there's nothing anyone can say that will change your mind Publish these contracts or agreements. It's all well and good saying it's the license holders, honest it is and then not presenting any evidence they are requiring anything. Once it can be shown it really is the license holders fault, and we can see it's their fault we can focus on them a bit. But simple yelling rights holders and backing it up with nothing ain't going to work. Andy -- SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1 - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Stephen Deasey wrote: The BBC has many thousands of hours of programming which it holds sufficient rights to enable it to published on the Internet, DRM-free. If DRM is so distasteful, then why isn't this being done? Surely the BBC should be taking steps to move towards a DRM-free world, if that's what it believes in, which is what has been reported here. Isn't that what the BBC Archive Trial is all about. http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/ http://xrl.us/bbcarchive Ok, so it's currently closed, but it will return at some point. But that's a completely different proposition to the iPlayer. Dave... - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Andy wrote: Must have missed that one. Can you show in detail the point at which it says you MUST use MICROSOFT DRM? I would really like to know so I can email my MEP about this matter. In case they want to add the BBC as an accessory to whatever they are prosecuting Microsoft for today. Name another DRM system which is technically capable of the same things, and exists today. Once it can be shown it really is the license holders fault, and we can see it's their fault we can focus on them a bit. But simple yelling rights holders and backing it up with nothing ain't going to work. If you could be bothered to do any research, you could find out what residuals Equity and the Writers Guild of Great Britain accept as a minimum. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet. Because it's not free of charge -- it's our license fee that's going to pay for the useless DRM technology, even if we don't use it. I don't like paying more money to make something less useful. So you don't want the content under any circumstances unless those circumstances are *precisely* the ones you want. I see. Your license fee hasn't actually gone up because of this, has it? You haven't got an extra bill, saying Cost of you paying for our DRM system: 17p have you? You've been (I hope) paying your license fee for years, funding all kinds of activities that the BBC gets up to (I personally object to having to pay for Strictly Come Dancing, but we don't have the option to pick and choose the bits of the BBC our license fee goes to). During this discussion I've been growing increasingly more convinced that those arguing against the BBC putting their content out with DRM actually have no interest whatsoever in the actual content of that content (if you see what I mean), rather, they're simply using it as an excuse to start dropping the name Richard Stallman*, regrinding their axes on freedom, and bashing Microsoft. Rich. * I propose an amendment to Godwin's Law - anyone mentioning Richard Stallman automatically gets laughed out of the room and loses the argument on the basis that they're more than likely to be simply parroting currently fashionable views that they once read in Wired. ** ** Please note that this is meant to be a humourous aside, and not the point of this post. Ranty replies to this bit of the post will be laughed at. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:49:10PM +0100, Andy wrote: don't know about and aren't complete yet. Running on x86, intel/AMD 64 bit, PowerPC, Motorola 68k, Sparcs, Alpha, Arm, MIPS, PA-RISC, s/390, and CPU architectures that are unknown to the BBC or incomplete. Steady on - why not Z80, OK a bit limited but the Z8 was 32bit and about the same time as some of those above? Basically some of the listed processors above are dead for general-purpose computing in the home and they are used by a dwindling core of hobbyists (and usually not as their main machine). So when is the BBC going to comply with platform neutral? Or does it intend never to comply? What method of complying is it using (seems it should have started by now)? Is it going to be a specification like an RFC or is it going to be an open implementation which will serve as a specification for interaction? I don't see any other way to achieve platform neutral, any one else got any idea how else platform neutral is going to be achieved? For the benefit of those who do not understand why I am stressing the term platform neutral so hard, it is because the BBC Trust explicitly specified the BBC must provide a platform neutral solution. It depends what you mean by platform neutral? Platform neutral means to me software that is independent of any particular feature or any software particular to one platform. Of course any widely used end-user platform must be supported. But at the moment that seems to be restricted to three operating systems on four processor families. -- Andy Leighton = [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 6/14/07, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while, and want to ponder this question to the backstage community... We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well lets just say for this thread that DRM doesn't work and it just turns consumers into against the content holder. ...What happens next? Creating an artificial scarcity of bits and charging for them is just a round about way of charging for a genuinely scarce resource: the time and effort of creators. Because the scarce bits model no longer works, creators will have to charge differently: - More directly, e.g. I will play may guitar and sing if you pay at the door - Less directly, e.g. I will tell people to buy your perfume if you pay me I don't think the BBC has these problems. It knows exactly where it's next 3,000 million pounds is coming from, and by extension, the guy who sticks the sink plungers on the front of Daleks knows he will be compensated for his work. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Hi Ian, What happens next? .. well most that you listed below is already happening somewhere. In my opinion, this is what happens next.. Your whole office, and anybody interested in the positive future of the BBC, goes to the DG, or whomever now, and demands a budget to put as many pieces of content on the web as possible, under the banner of the BBC. You ask him/them to forget that he ever heard of GeoIP and DRM, and state that the web is now to be used to freely and openly fulfil the message on the BBC's coat of arms. Send out a press release to rights holders, and go ahead. If anyone wants to stop the process then they have a week to remove their content from the contractual status of the BBC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_BBC That the world needs the BBC is undeniable, and the web is now another place to distribute the content. Once you discover the true market place, you can then adjust your approach accordingly. As for rights holders, pull the other one. there is not one new unique creator on the planet who does not understand the benefit they could receive in this via the BBC. if they have a problem, then they can re-license their works to someone else, like ITV or Second Hand TV, as they do now. Just ask them. The majority of old rights holders, on the other hand, will always confuse the issue because they are in business, they do not normally simply create, they are also precious about the future, and their finances. even though, as you must be aware, the production costs are written off on first broadcast, and the license applies for only three years, in most cases. Not a very good deal for the financiers, especially if that is the public. If you wish, you could charge the customer outside of the UK, and would perhaps make more money than the complete income of the BBC already, even take a pound off the license fee and charge everyone worldwide £1 per month, or £10 per year, to watch via the net. Why shouldn't you compete with Realplayer or WMP, as they are US companies? Pass a royalty of that on to the creator, but don't get misled by the rights holder comments. Either way, if you trust your customer, and it works both ways, then they will always support you with their custom. The BBC can lead this cultural change, and must if it wishes to continue doing what it does best, worldwide. Stir up the nest as this present direction is useless to everyone. If you all begin now, then you will retain the upper hand I believe if you wait much longer then the actual creators will bypass your system of distribution, and the BBC will lose some more of its credibility as it loses its honest customers, resulting in economic Check Mate. :-) RichE On 14 Jun 2007, at 10:19, Mr I Forrester wrote: I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while, and want to ponder this question to the backstage community... We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well lets just say for this thread that DRM doesn't work and it just turns consumers into against the content holder. ...What happens next? Here's some thoughts from me, Content producers adopt watermarking technologies? P2P streaming and Multicasting becomes the next big advance for content producers People start paying for real time or 0day access? Google and Yahoo start indexing torrent sites and offering services like sharetv.org Joost and Democracy adoption increases The portable video player and digital set top (appletv, xbmc, etc) markets blows up Torrent site uses slowly drops, as content producers use other online services Windows Home server (now you see how my last post relates) and similar products sales increase 10 fold over the next 3 year - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 14/06/07, Stephen Deasey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Creating an artificial scarcity of bits and charging for them is just a round about way of charging for a genuinely scarce resource: the time and effort of creators. Because the scarce bits model no longer works, creators will have to charge differently: - More directly, e.g. I will play may guitar and sing if you pay at the door - Less directly, e.g. I will tell people to buy your perfume if you pay me What's interesting is that there are multiple models for how this works, and I suspect there's no on size fits all approach. For example, one of the common examples of how a non-DRM system could work to pay for creativity in music is give away the recordings, make money on the tours. But you can also turn that around: for example, Apple is sponsoring free gigs, while selling recordings of the gigs (hopefully DRM free, although I suspect that will be down to which record companies are involved). The idea is that you're paying for the convenience of being able to download them from a trusted source, fast, and with the quality you want. You pay for ease-of-download.
Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?
On 14/06/07, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...What happens next? Hopefully we will actually see some innovation! Depending on the kind of media there are other ways of making money other than charging for things that are copyable. Software: Charge for support Charge for bespoke software Charge for custom modifications. (actually software is doing the best in terms of giving content away). Music: Charge for Live performances/concerts Charge for physical merchandise Film: Charge the cinemas (but give the DVDs etc away) Or do like some of the community film projects (like the one mentioned on this list http://www.aswarmofangels.com/ ) Job done. Andy -- SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1 - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Andy wrote: On 14/06/07, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...What happens next? Hopefully we will actually see some innovation! I think there's actually a more pertinent question, which is this: Why are people currently paying for things that they could get for free? For example, why would anyone buy an un-DRM'd song from iTunes when, with about five minutes searching, they could download a pirate copy (possibly even better quality, if they go for FLAC)? Why do sites like Bleep, which sell un-DRM'd material, make money when all they are selling is bits that are available for nothing elsewhere? The answer, to me, is simple: people think that paying those who make things they take pleasure out of is perfectly fair, as long as it's easy to do and not overly expensive. People are basically honest, and agree with the idea that artists should get paid. So how about, instead of telling people that their industry is old fashioned and dying and they're all going to have to work in McDonalds, we give them some positive stories about how no DRM doesn't mean rampant piracy - in fact, it means people are more likely to actually pay for your work? Too often, all I see from the anti-DRM camp is basically snarky, dumb stuff which alienates content creators - the very people who need to be won over. Can we see some positivity, please? - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
People are basically honest, and agree with the idea that artists should get paid. LOL. Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha. I think there's actually a more pertinent question, which is this: Why are people currently paying for things that they could get for free? Even more pertinently, why are people stealing, suffering DRM, being electronic freedom fighters with Oggs etc when there is a wealth of freely available content already available. I don't spend a lot of time hunting for podcasts but I have gigs of great audio and video to consume. Yeah a few BBC but mostly not. I worry that the big media groups will finally get online but will just be clunky, expensive and irrelevent. I don't need more content so any big program libraries are just not appealing. Here's to cool ideas like Backstage !! As an aside, I wonder why the BBC can't be producing more original podcast content. For example, Grammar Girl - great show, dynamic and educational. Hardly has a Holywood budget. Why are the BBC shows so sanitized and sterile e.g. Digital Planet??!? They are hardly stretching the medium either and sound like recycled radio. To answer my own question, I think people mostly pirate stuff partly to feel like 'winning' or beating the system. Good old greed which you won't ever get rid of with any technology :-) Yours cynically, Davy -- Davy Mitchell Blog - http://www.latedecember.co.uk/sites/personal/davy/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/daftspaniel Skype - daftspaniel needgod.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] DRM does not work... what next?
copy. And, buying another digital copy? Higher profit ratio, because of the obvious savings of not having to press album, print artwork, send out CD... Why can't the labels see - and most importantly, acknowledge - that the only way forward which will work is NO DRM? -Original Message- From: Davy Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 June 2007 22:43 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next? People are basically honest, and agree with the idea that artists should get paid. LOL. Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha. I think there's actually a more pertinent question, which is this: Why are people currently paying for things that they could get for free? Even more pertinently, why are people stealing, suffering DRM, being electronic freedom fighters with Oggs etc when there is a wealth of freely available content already available. I don't spend a lot of time hunting for podcasts but I have gigs of great audio and video to consume. Yeah a few BBC but mostly not. I worry that the big media groups will finally get online but will just be clunky, expensive and irrelevent. I don't need more content so any big program libraries are just not appealing. Here's to cool ideas like Backstage !! As an aside, I wonder why the BBC can't be producing more original podcast content. For example, Grammar Girl - great show, dynamic and educational. Hardly has a Holywood budget. Why are the BBC shows so sanitized and sterile e.g. Digital Planet??!? They are hardly stretching the medium either and sound like recycled radio. To answer my own question, I think people mostly pirate stuff partly to feel like 'winning' or beating the system. Good old greed which you won't ever get rid of with any technology :-) Yours cynically, Davy -- Davy Mitchell Blog - http://www.latedecember.co.uk/sites/personal/davy/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/daftspaniel Skype - daftspaniel needgod.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/ - 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] DRM Podcast Video
At 15:56 + 20/2/07, Matthew Cashmore wrote: Sorry this took longer than planned but the video of the DRM Podcast is now available - the low quality version is here http://blip.tv/file/152907http://blip.tv/file/152907 Again it's a Creative Commons Attribution licence. One small step for mankind Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - 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] [DRM] Macrovision response to Jobs' Thoughts On Music
On 19/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Going into a cinema with a camcorder... That cinema rips on peekvid.com are palatable isn't something HD salesmen and industry professionals seem to really understand, eheh :-) -- Regards, Dave - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
TinyURL to save the copy-paste-linebreak fixing for the huge 4OD url http://preview.tinyurl.com/ycud7p On 15/02/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15/02/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks like the negative relationship can go even further :-) http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/,/? St=19,E=0069424,K=4792,Sxi=17,CASE=1363 Oh well, back to the torrents. Or off to sweden! ;-) http://svt.se/svt/road/Classic/shared/mediacenter/index.jsp?d=37591 -- Regards, Dave - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
Imagine if your local library imposed DRM on the books it lent you, you'd only be able to read them in certain places with certain light sources. Why do you accept unreasonable restrictions (even paying for the privilege) on music that you'd never except with the written word? Well libraries have a separate system. They lend you the books for free for (say) a month, and once you break the terms and conditions of the library (i.e. you don't return your book on time) they fine you.A library is not after all, a free for all. And that's in a way what DRM is all about - upholding the terms and conditions of your usage of the file. Of course an alternative way would be to automatically fine you every time you breached the terms and conditions. - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
Hello http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6353889.stm DRM software like Apple's Fairplay or Microsoft's Windows Media DRM should properly be called digital restriction management, since its primary goal is to limit what purchasers can do with downloaded content. (from Bill Thompson) Isn't the argument for DRM all but already lost? Why automatically regard purchasers as suspect criminals ... seems like a very negative relationship to have with your customers. A lot of the time record companies, for instance, have already had so many bites of the cherry selling music on vinyl, then the same music again on tape, CD and now as downloads. Don't think the BBC should waste time and money DRMing content that it provides. It doesn't DRM content on its TV and radio stations, so why should it discriminate against people who access material online? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Bowden Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:39 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes Imagine if your local library imposed DRM on the books it lent you, you'd only be able to read them in certain places with certain light sources. Why do you accept unreasonable restrictions (even paying for the privilege) on music that you'd never except with the written word? Well libraries have a separate system. They lend you the books for free for (say) a month, and once you break the terms and conditions of the library (i.e. you don't return your book on time) they fine you.A library is not after all, a free for all. And that's in a way what DRM is all about - upholding the terms and conditions of your usage of the file. Of course an alternative way would be to automatically fine you every time you breached the terms and conditions. - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 11/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote: On Saturday 10 February 2007 22:28, Tim Thornton wrote: Your machine will do what you tell it to. It's just that there are secrets you can't access. Regarding the point above, that's the issue here. Whilst you're happy with owning a computer that will keep secrets from you, I'm not. That's a minor detail though - kinda you say potato I saw potato - we're unlikely to agree. Much like attitudes to IP ownership, I suspect! :) (We both agree they keep their secrets from the user, from your perspective I still retain control, from mine I don't.) Unfortunately, for it to provide security to the level that it does, those private keys must be unavailable outside the TPM. I do understand where you're coming from, but you can think of it like any hardware resource; it has certain properties. I can write to a CD-R, but I can't erase that data (in software) once written. Or at a slightly different level, my file system prevents me from modifying files I don't have permission to access. Thanks for the references and explanation - I'll read up on the references, you never know when the positive uses of the technology will be handy. A genuine pleasure to have helped. Cheers, Tim -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On Saturday 10 February 2007 22:29, Tim Thornton wrote: [ lots of interesting material ] Having read /some/ of this now, it might useful to repeat in back to help others in the thread understand the basic ideas, or to allow me to be corrected if I've misunderstood :-). (The DRM use case will stay controversial, but I suspect understanding what's going on is useful.) In a trusted computing scenario, you don't actually own one computer, you own two in a single box - it just looks like one. (well, given the amount of tech inside a PC these days, its more a minimum of two computers in the box, a GPU can be called a computer as well) +-+ +---+ | TPM || Main computer | | | | (running some OS) | +-+ +---+ The TPM by definition of being a computer has its own CPU, local storage, and so on. Part of it's design is that at manufacture it is given it's own private/public key pair. At this stage, this is little different (conceptually) from 2 computers connected over a network by an ssh link. The difference is that the connection is significantly harder to snoop. However, in the way it's used, it more resembles the way SSL - ie https for those unfamiliar. With SSL there's two modes: * Trusted secure * Untrusted secure In both scenarios you have exchange of keys in order to set up a session key for allowing you to be happy with sending your credit card details over the network (among many other uses). This is what I mean by secure. However you can have a secure link directly to someone pretending to be your bank, so you don't know if the link is trusted. Well, in SSL/TLS/HTTPS (take your pick, the principles are the same), you essentially get your public key signed by a trusted third party. These trusted third parties include Verisign, Thawte [1] etc. [1] Founded by Mark Shuttleworth, which is where he made his fortune, and is the reason Ubuntu exists today... ie You can either run a SSL/TLS enabled webserver whose keys have been signed by one of these third parties, or not. ie if you consider the two computers above by the following metaphor: * The TPM as an HTTPS website * The Main computer as a browser Because the keys in the TPM have been signed by someone else, that browser can check to see if the TPM is a real TPM or not. Now the problem with this approach however is that it introduces potential bottlenecks into the system. As a result, there is another step you can add in. Given this basic chain - can you make it such that the main computer can verify the TPM without talking the third party all the time? Well, if you get the TPM to talk (via the main computer in this case hopefully obviously) to another third party you can do this: * The TPM authenticates itself to this other third party * It generates a special key (DAA) which the third party then signs, giving the TPM a certificate. It can sign this using a private key and publish the public key. Let's call that pubic key PK. Applications can either download PK on demand or even compile it into their code. This includes open source apps because it's not a secret. * Any one application who wishes to authenticate any TPM then does this: * It essentially asks the TPM to sign something using this key (DAA), and also provides the certificate as signed by the third party. Since the PK is public, the application can verify the that the thing just signed by the TPM is valid. Again, whilst that may sound relatively esoteric, it's actually very much the same technique as using PGP or GPG for email. You have public/private keys. You get your public key signed by someone. The slight difference (I think) is that recipients can be given another public key to use to verify the sender. As a result, this makes it clearly possible to create a rogue TPM (including virtualised ones) but people can tell the difference. Probably the weakest link in the chain here is the DAA's public certificate, but then that's why revocation gets built in as well. The other obvious weak point is where the TPM's are originally endorsed, since to be useful it needs to be networked, and software bugs are easier to find/exploit than cracking a large address space. To put this into context, your computer can do the equivalent of connecting at startup to a machine only you own, and only you have access to. This machine can be used to check the integrity of your system, and unlock secrets on the system. That machine cannot be accessed directly by others which gives you a level of confidence in this process. Ignoring the DRM usecase or restricting your computer scenarios, having a secure location for helping check system integrity and protecting the contents of your harddrive, is useful. Clearly the same technology can be used by an operating system that wishes to prevent you from (eg)
Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 11/02/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ignoring the DRM usecase or restricting your computer scenarios, having a secure location for helping check system integrity and protecting the contents of your harddrive, is useful. Sure. When you lose the ability to sign things yourself, effectively losing root access to the machine - like Tivo has done to the computers it sells for several years now - then we have a serious, serious problem. -- Regards, Dave - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 11/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've just reread one of RMS' musings on treacherous computing, and some of what he describes is terrible. But that's not what is on offer! If it was designed to stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer why can I turn it off? Go buy a Tivo and try turning it off :-) -- Regards, Dave - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 10/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your machine will do what you tell it to. It's just that there are secrets you can't access. So if you tell it to access those secrets, and it won't, how is it doing what you tell it to, again? -- Regards, Dave - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On Friday 09 February 2007 18:26, Tim Thornton wrote: ... I can trust your computer not to reveal my secrets to you, Do you not see how this is a bad thing - how this can be abused? I buy a car. It does what I tell it (well it would if I drove). I buy a hammer it bangs what I want to bang. I buy a phone. It phones where I tell it. I buy a general purpose computer, it does what I tell it. Or should. I need to be able to trust *my* machines, if it doesn't do what I tell it, I can't trust it. I don't want *my* property keeping secrets from me. If you do not trust me, but wish to deliver it by machine, then it is up to you to provide to me a machine *you* trust, it is not up to me to provide *you* a machine that you trust. Also, its a false trust. Your secret is audio and video. That's not a secret at all. BTW, I'm not arguing the /technology/ is broken. After all, using the same technology you can make things like secure personal storage are more secure and trustable by the user: * http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6633 Michael. -- All the above are my opinions only. - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 09/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote: Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe it to be orthogonal to DRM. In the trusted computing space, your secrets are secret, as are mine. I can trust your computer not to reveal my secrets to you, and you can trust that I can't get at yours. But I see this as a bad thing: If you leave your secrets on my computer I want to be able to read them. It's my computer. Not yours. Ok. But in that case I won't send them to you. If you invite my secrets to be on your machine, I want to know that they're secret. If you were a criminal who used my computer I want to know what you left on it. I'm sure. But the computer isn't constrained. There's an environment within it that is. I don't see the subtelty of this point at all. A computer with a so called trusted element *is* constrained. If the facility is there it will be used - it is surely nonsense to suggest that the trusted component is there but won't be used? No, in the PC space it's only constrained if you want it to be. Most PCs sold today have a TPM, which is rarely used (I've only met one person so far who uses their TPM, and I work in the industry). You need to enable it. You can use it to constrain your PC if you want (eg by enforcing a secure boot process), but it is only the basis of trust on your platform. If you don't want other people to use it, you don't need to let them. You are right that the computer will need a root of trust which will be provided by a corporation, but when that corporation is founded on selling trust (think Verisign, Entrust, Thwate or whoever) the incentive to not abuse it is massive. Not a good example. All the SSL companies I know have had problems with their procedures and sometimes abused their positions. I've not come across any such abuse, but ok. Anyway, this is the root of the argument. Whether my PC is wholly mine or whether there should be a feature within it that allows you to come and put stuff on there that I can't tamper with (and I can do the same to your computer of course). No - your PC /is/ wholly yours. There's a feature that allows you to invite me to put stuff on I can't tamper with. But I can't randomly take control of your computer. A whole bunch of us don't like this. We do understand it. But we don't like it. A whole bunch of people don't like this because RMS and Ross Anderson told them it was bad, but have no understanding of what the technology actually is. I'm sure you do understand it, but let's have the debate so that those who only hear the hype can make an informed decision. So Nya. }:p -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 09/02/07, vijay chopra wrote: There's not a single benefit that treacherous computing brings that cannot be solved another way, in your example you can hold secrets via any number of numerous encryption methods, my home PC has a whole encrypted partition for data security. Why do I need a so called trusted hardware element at all. Your PC has an encrypted partition - so how do you access the data on it? Somewhere you need a key that must be unencrypted. With a trusted computing system, you generate your private/public key pair in the secure element. The public key will be exposed, but the private key will never leave the device. Oh, and where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit to the computer's owner? It's a benefit to me, in that I subscribe to an online music library for less than I used to spend on CDs. I have more music, and more money - I call that a benefit. -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 10/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote: On Friday 09 February 2007 18:26, Tim Thornton wrote: ... I can trust your computer not to reveal my secrets to you, Do you not see how this is a bad thing - how this can be abused? I buy a car. It does what I tell it (well it would if I drove). I buy a hammer it bangs what I want to bang. I buy a phone. It phones where I tell it. I buy a general purpose computer, it does what I tell it. Or should. I need to be able to trust *my* machines, if it doesn't do what I tell it, I can't trust it. I don't want *my* property keeping secrets from me. Your machine will do what you tell it to. It's just that there are secrets you can't access. That includes your secrets, you just get to use the result of their manipulation. This is good, because *your* property is keeping your secrets safe from rogue applications/viruses. As well as the ability to store secrets, the TPM also has some other abilities. It can measure the system as it boots, so you can be sure that the operating system and application loaded are what you're expecting. It also contains a monotonic counter - that's a counter that will only increment. That allows protection against replay attacks, where for example the system clock is rolled back to enable some demo software to be used for longer than the trial period. If you do not trust me, but wish to deliver it by machine, then it is up to you to provide to me a machine *you* trust, it is not up to me to provide *you* a machine that you trust. If you are willing to provide me with a machine that I can trust, then I can deliver to you by machine. If you're not willing to provide that, we can agree to not transact. If the music industry are willing to deliver songs to you by machine, isn't it for you to provide that machine if you want to take advantage of that offer? Unfortunately, I had to buy my own CD player... ;) Also, its a false trust. Your secret is audio and video. That's not a secret at all. In the DRM case, the secret is a rights object. That contains a decryption key and information about what you're allowed to do (number of plays, key validity). The plaintext audio/video is not nearly as valuable. BTW, I'm not arguing the /technology/ is broken. After all, using the same technology you can make things like secure personal storage are more secure and trustable by the user: * http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6633 Now we're on the same page... :) Tim -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 10/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote: The TPM was designed with this in mind, and each TPM has its own keys. Because they're internal to the TPM and can't be extracted by software, you can have confidence in the TPM's authenticity. This is wy off topic, but how does a remote third party that wants to trust your system tell the difference between (for example): * A remote system that's just been bought that's using the TPM to securely store keys for a secure store/streaming system * A remote system that is running a virtual machine that looks to the operating system sitting inside that virtual machine as if it has a TPM module, and that remote machine looks like its just been installed, and the virtualised OS is otherwise installed identically. It's all about the keys installed at manufacture. Obviously, the TPM is just a computer itself (usually an 8 bit micro, but a computer nonetheless) and could be emulated in software. The security comes from the isolation of the TPM and the main computer - there is memory in the TPM that cannot be accessed from the big bad outside world. By placing a key in the device during manufacture (known as the Endorsement Key - Google Pt 1), there is an identification that cannot be spoofed by a rogue TPM. The public part of the Endorsement Key is signed by a certificate authority as belonging to a particular TPM. Now, an Attestation Identity Key is generated by the TPM for use by an application that wants to check the validity of the TPM. That's a private/public key pair that is signed by the private Endorsement Key. That new key can be sent to the certificate authority, who can check the Endorsement Key's signature - and also if that Endorsement Key has been revoked. If all's ok, the certificate authority signs the Attestation Identity Key, so the application (who also trusts the CA) knows the TPM is ok. There is also a more advanced method for validating the authenticity of a TPM without the need for trusted third party involvement, called Direct Anonymous Attestation. This presentation gives an overview of DAA: http://www.zurich.ibm.com/security/daa/daa-slides-ZISC.pdf Slightly more in depth presentation: https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/news/presentations/051012_DAA-slid es.pdf This paper describes in detail with proofs. Exercise for the reader! http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-93.pdf For all intents and purposes the remote third party (eg a person wanting to trust) should get the same responses from the secure system, and the supposedly secure system. If the virtualised TPM has the correct EK, you'd be right. I don't work with these things, but having read the linux journal article[1] sometime back, and knowing how virtualisation works, and the fact that any hardware system can be emulated I can't see how a remote third party can truly tell the difference. [1] For anyone else, if they haven't read this, its worth reading since you'll see that TCPA/TPM is a double edged sword that has many real uses beyond things like DRM. (Once I read it, it struck me that its primary use is for helping lock down a military laptop in the event of it being compromised/stolen in an even more secure fashion than people who are used to used an encrypted loopback device are used to) Thanks for mentioning that. Honestly, DRM != TPM. Although it's intended for day-to-day use in locking down enterprise PCs more than the military. For example, Vista's Bitlocker will take advantage of a TPM to store the drive encryption key (that's the only use that Vista puts the TPM to, as far as I'm aware) The TCG is not oblivious to the bad press it has received from certain in the community. Design decisions are made around principles that seem fine to me. For example, from: https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/specs/bestpractices/Best_Practices _Principles_Document_V2_0.pdf Each owner should have effective choice and control over the use and operation of the TCG-enabled capabilities that belong to them; their participation must be opt-in. Subsequently any user can reliably disable the TCG functionality in a way that does not violate the owner's policy. Note the dichotomy between user and owner - I'm using my company's laptop right now, and it's their right to lock it down. But if I were using my desktop, that decision would be mine to make. Based on your comments, I'm guessing that the TPMs themselves have default hardware keys as well as being able to generate keys and those default keys can in fact be authenticated rather than just being able to generated? What's to stop someone opening up the hardware to find out what that is? Obviously that's outside the realms of your average developer, but it's not outside the capabilities of a commercial company. That's right (as explained above). I've mentioned before that security isn't binary, and you only spend as much on security as is economically
Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes
Oh, and where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit to the computer's owner? It's a benefit to me, in that I subscribe to an online music library for less than I used to spend on CDs. I have more music, and more money - I call that a benefit. That requires neither treacherous computing, nor DRM. http://www.allofmp3.com/ gives me that facility cheaper and with more freedom to do as I like with tracks that buy. Imagine if your local library imposed DRM on the books it lent you, you'd only be able to read them in certain places with certain light sources. Why do you accept unreasonable restrictions (even paying for the privilege) on music that you'd never except with the written word?
Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes
Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, in the PC space it's only constrained if you want it to be. Most PCs sold today have a TPM, which is rarely used (I've only met one person so far who uses their TPM, and I work in the industry). You need to enable it. You can use it to constrain your PC if you want (eg by enforcing a secure boot process), but it is only the basis of trust on your platform. If you don't want other people to use it, you don't need to let them. Ok. So let's get rid of it entirely then. You work in the industry and you've only met one person who uses it. So why are firms still putting it in their products? Surely a motherboard would be cheaper without it? No - your PC /is/ wholly yours. There's a feature that allows you to invite me to put stuff on I can't tamper with. But I can't randomly take control of your computer. I never said you could. But you are being disenguous. There is a feature that allows me to let you put stuff on my computer that I can't tamper with, let alone you. A whole bunch of people don't like this because RMS and Ross Anderson told them it was bad, but have no understanding of what the technology actually is. I'm sure you do understand it, but let's have the debate so that those who only hear the hype can make an informed decision. This seems to be the people are stupid argument. I don't believe that. I understand this technology and I believe it threatens my freedom. I'm fairly sure that everyone I have heard describing their fears about such a module also understood it. }:p Have you got funny hair or something? -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On Saturday 10 February 2007 22:28, Tim Thornton wrote: ... Regarding the other longer mail, many thanks for that - I'll read up on the references. I'd made some assumptions about the system, but hadn't realised that there were some keys I was unaware of the the TPM and the fact that there is a signing authority involved as well (I know of someone who may be interested in this you see). Given that I can see how difficult it would be to fake the necessary environment. (People would just resort to re-encoding after it hits the analogue domain then and ignore the whole thing) Your machine will do what you tell it to. It's just that there are secrets you can't access. Regarding the point above, that's the issue here. Whilst you're happy with owning a computer that will keep secrets from you, I'm not. That's a minor detail though - kinda you say potato I saw potato - we're unlikely to agree. (We both agree they keep their secrets from the user, from your perspective I still retain control, from mine I don't.) After all, I'm happy with the idea that I can use it for all the obvious examples of it protecting my secrets though. A company storing its accounts information including my credit card details on a TCPA based system would be preferable to one that didn't. (After all companies are subject to burglaries, thefts, and losses of various kinds) Thanks for the references and explanation - I'll read up on the references, you never know when the positive uses of the technology will be handy. Regards, Michael. - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 10/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote: You work in the industry and you've only met one person who uses it. So why are firms still putting it in their products? Surely a motherboard would be cheaper without it? Of course it's cheaper not to install a TPM, but it's chicken and egg - to take advantage of its facilities, an enterprise needs a large proportion of its PCs to be enabled. No - your PC /is/ wholly yours. There's a feature that allows you to invite me to put stuff on I can't tamper with. But I can't randomly take control of your computer. I never said you could. But you are being disenguous. There is a feature that allows me to let you put stuff on my computer that I can't tamper with, let alone you. No, I'm really not being disingenuous. We both agree the feature is under your control. If you don't want to use it, you don't have to. Your PC is wholly yours. A whole bunch of people don't like this because RMS and Ross Anderson told them it was bad, but have no understanding of what the technology actually is. I'm sure you do understand it, but let's have the debate so that those who only hear the hype can make an informed decision. This seems to be the people are stupid argument. I don't believe that. I understand this technology and I believe it threatens my freedom. I'm fairly sure that everyone I have heard describing their fears about such a module also understood it. How is this, people are stupid? What I said was that some people are not informed. (Hey, we're back on topic - Educating, Informing Entertaining, all in one thread!) Look at Vijay's assertion regarding his encrypted partition, and how that obviated the need for a trusted element - when the protection of encrypted partitions is one of the primary use cases for TPMs. I've just reread one of RMS' musings on treacherous computing, and some of what he describes is terrible. But that's not what is on offer! From RMS at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html: In the past, these were isolated incidents. Trusted computing would make it pervasive. Treacherous computing is a more appropriate name, because the plan is designed to make sure your computer will systematically disobey you. In fact, it is designed to stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer. Every operation may require explicit permission. Which is absolute balderdash. If it was designed to stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer why can I turn it off? }:p Have you got funny hair or something? No, I had my hands to my head and was waving my fingers. :) Nya. -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 08/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote: Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, this /is/ an implementation problem, and can be overcome with a trusted hardware element on the platform. At that stage, the hoop will be more than simply running some code. Do you work for ARM? I do, but I'm posting as an individual. If so maybe you have a different perspective on these things but it I think we all agree on the logic: DRM requires constrained computer hardware No, strong DRM requires a hardware element to be constrained. the difference between you and Dave (and me! and Stallman!) is that you are not worried about having a constrained computer. I welcome it. Having a region of my computer that is independent of the regular computer gives me confidence that I can hold secrets on my PC. The whole purpose of trusted computing in its widest sense is to provide an environment where anyone can have trust. There are many uses for it, often directly beneficial to the owner, and DRM is only one. In fact, it's not the strongest use case in my opinion. I don't want a constrained comptuer because I don't trust the computer maker to be open and above board about the precise way the computer is constrained. What do you feel may be hidden? And there's the rub. They won't trust us. So we won't trust them. The rub is that they/I don't trust large codebases to be bug free, so if you have secrets (do you have a PGP key?) you need somewhere protected to keep and manipulate them. Are we off-topic yet? ;) Tim -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nic said: I don't want a constrained comptuer because I don't trust the computer maker to be open and above board about the precise way the computer is constrained. What do you feel may be hidden? What do you feel a company might not hide? I think the attitude that led to the Sony fiasco last year is all too prevalent. It's not particularly evil, it's quick fix that leads people to do stupid things. If I don't control my computer then I don't control those things. It's a philosophical issue I grant you. But it's an important one I think and the crux of the DRM issue. The rub is that they/I don't trust large codebases to be bug free, so if you have secrets (do you have a PGP key?) you need somewhere protected to keep and manipulate them. So you don't trust code bases to be bug free so you have to trust a corporation to not abuse your trust in a constrained computer? Are we off-topic yet? ;) Oh yes. Do you think anyone's noticed? -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - 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] DRM and hwardware attitudes
I welcome it. Having a region of my computer that is independent of the regular computer gives me confidence that I can hold secrets on my PC. The whole purpose of trusted computing in its widest sense is to provide an environment where anyone can have trust. There are many uses for it, often directly beneficial to the owner, and DRM is only one. In fact, it's not the strongest use case in my opinion. There's not a single benefit that treacherous computing brings that cannot be solved another way, in your example you can hold secrets via any number of numerous encryption methods, my home PC has a whole encrypted partition for data security. Why do I need a so called trusted hardware element at all. Oh, and where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit to the computer's owner? Vijay
Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 2/9/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit to the computer's owner? If content-owners* require DRM to be able to release content for use on your computer (currently the case in the BBC iPlayer, and/or Channel 4's on-demand plater, and/or XFM's MiXFM personalised radio service), then the additional content you are able to access is a benefit you would not get were your computer unable to deal with DRM. You are, of course, free not to use such services; and if enough people don't and tell the industry why, then the industry will be forced to listen. * content owners in this case is not the BBC, but musicians, actors, scriptwriters, production companies, and others who have a vested interest in Content Restriction And Protection. -- http://james.cridland.net/
RE: [backstage] DRM
I've been half following this thread, but Mr Steve Jobs over at Apple has just released this statement today regarding DRM. Thought it might be an interesting read. http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ - Seems he agrees with some guy called Bill Gates: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6182657.stm -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.29/673 - Release Date: 06/02/2007 17:52 - 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] DRM
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Cridland Sent: 28 January 2007 22:27 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] DRM On 1/26/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The flip side is that every format you add, has some extra setup costs of various magnitudes, and when belts have to be buckled because it's public money, why spend it when you're satisfying most people now. After all, how many people are not listening to (say) Radio 1 live online just because it's not being streamed in MP3 format. At least 10%, if not more. An interesting job to compare this with how many people listen to radio through Telewest, and the setup charges of that (even just the carriage fees). I'd argue strongly that streaming MP3 is better value. Ah well, the public service broadcasters do have some gifted capacity on Cable. I've no idea how far it extends, but it might extend to the radio stations :) However I take your point!
Re: [backstage] DRM
On 1/26/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The flip side is that every format you add, has some extra setup costs of various magnitudes, and when belts have to be buckled because it's public money, why spend it when you're satisfying most people now. After all, how many people are not listening to (say) Radio 1 live online just because it's not being streamed in MP3 format. At least 10%, if not more. An interesting job to compare this with how many people listen to radio through Telewest, and the setup charges of that (even just the carriage fees). I'd argue strongly that streaming MP3 is better value. If this is your only criteria, incidentally, it's also not worth bothering with Ogg Vorbis. -- http://james.cridland.net/
RE: [backstage] DRM
One might argue that the BBC should make their radio stations available in as many different ways as possible, to satisfy as many users as possible: after all, we pay for it. The flip side is that every format you add, has some extra setup costs of various magnitudes, and when belts have to be buckled because it's public money, why spend it when you're satisfying most people now. After all, how many people are not listening to (say) Radio 1 live online just because it's not being streamed in MP3 format. Not necessarily agreeing with it - just saying it exists as an argument. winmail.dat
RE: [backstage] DRM
James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Though looking at the big screen on the wall, the vast majority of users seem content with Windows Media (over 80% of our online listeners right now). Do you think those of us who aren't content should complain more? I complain sometimes but mostly the reaction from people here is sorry - it is like it is - get over it I was rather hoping it didn't come across like that. I, and other BBC staff, do try to explain the way things are, and why they are in respect to BBC decisions - we have the knowledge of why a lot is done the way it is. I should also add that most of the BBC staff on this list aren't (unfortunately!) the decision makers on the big subjects like DRM, audio streaming, and so on. We can try and influence the decisions in our areas where appropriate, we can keep bleating on about things, however we're not always in a position where we can actually make it happen :( If I had my way, we would have had Ogg streaming years ago! winmail.dat
Re: [backstage] DRM
Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Though looking at the big screen on the wall, the vast majority of users seem content with Windows Media (over 80% of our online listeners right now). Do you think those of us who aren't content should complain more? I complain sometimes but mostly the reaction from people here is sorry - it is like it is - get over it I was rather hoping it didn't come across like that. I, and other BBC staff, do try to explain the way things are, and why they are in respect to BBC decisions - we have the knowledge of why a lot is done the way it is. I've worked for the civil service and know how easy it is to get defensive when you don't mean to be - even about obviously stupid things - I remember sticking up for government nuclear policy when it was clearly mad. I also know that it's easy to get critical of one set of people when you actually mean to be critical of another set. I don't think many of the criticisms that are laid out here are about the people doing the work. They're mainly frustration with things not moving faster, being too locked down or not transparent enough. All problems for managers, not hackers. I should also add that most of the BBC staff on this list aren't (unfortunately!) the decision makers on the big subjects like DRM, audio streaming, and so on. We can try and influence the decisions in our areas where appropriate, we can keep bleating on about things, however we're not always in a position where we can actually make it happen :( Which is why, a few months ago, I was suggesting that managers at least listen to this list. Maybe they should get a summary. Maybe someone should do what the debian project does and do a weekly summary of activity here. I might investigate that. Maybe it could have a level of automation like kernel traffic used to have. Anybody else think that's a good idea? If I had my way, we would have had Ogg streaming years ago! Yes. The real reason people like me want it is because it's hackable in a way that other streaming tools aren't. If we had ogg we'd be able to provide just about everything else ontop of ogg. Ah well. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - 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] DRM
On 1/23/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seriously guys why the need for DRM, I've only just reconciled myself that I'm not going to get radio in ogg format You can get plenty of radio in Ogg Vorbis format. Try www.virginradio.co.uk/listen (hit the online tab for all the variants). Ah, you meant *BBC* radio? My fault. ;) One might argue that the BBC should make their radio stations available in as many different ways as possible, to satisfy as many users as possible: after all, we pay for it. Given that WMP and Real are not DRM'd, I don't understand why there aren't streams in MP3, Quicktime, AAC+ and Ogg Vorbis. I completely understand that television is different. Though looking at the big screen on the wall, the vast majority of users seem content with Windows Media (over 80% of our online listeners right now). -- http://james.cridland.net/ http://www.virginradio.co.uk/vip/profile/bigjim/
Re: [backstage] DRM
James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Though looking at the big screen on the wall, the vast majority of users seem content with Windows Media (over 80% of our online listeners right now). Do you think those of us who aren't content should complain more? I complain sometimes but mostly the reaction from people here is sorry - it is like it is - get over it I don't see any point complaining given that. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - 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] DRM
On 25/01/07, Nic James Ferrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Though looking at the big screen on the wall, the vast majority of users seem content with Windows Media (over 80% of our online listeners right now). Do you think those of us who aren't content should complain more? Yes. -- John '[Beta]' Drinkwater http://johndrinkwater.name/ - 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] DRM
On 25/01/07, Nic James Ferrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you think those of us who aren't content should complain more? I complain sometimes but mostly the reaction from people here is sorry - it is like it is - get over it I don't see any point complaining given that. Given hdkeys.com style 'terrorism,' asking politely for the BBC not to make things so bad we take things into our own hands is worthwhile, IMO. -- Regards, Dave - 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] DRM
All my personal point of view, as usual Seriously guys why the need for DRM, I've only just reconciled myself that I'm not going to get radio in ogg format, and will have to put up with real player as long as I want Radio on demand; now this?! Most BBC stations have a Windows Media stream as well now, I believe. If you come up with a solution to distribute content that satisfies all the requirements of the relevant rights holders then there is whole industry of people willing to give you money. Otherwise, its Windows Media Player DRM all the way if you want to want to get at that content at all, legally. J
Re: [backstage] DRM
Hi Jason, Does anyone know what the requirements of the rights holders are within this particular area? I would love to see a list, then another legal solution may become available. RichE On 24 Jan 2007, at 08:43, Jason Cartwright wrote: All my personal point of view, as usual Seriously guys why the need for DRM, I've only just reconciled myself that I'm not going to get radio in ogg format, and will have to put up with real player as long as I want Radio on demand; now this?! Most BBC stations have a Windows Media stream as well now, I believe. If you come up with a solution to distribute content that satisfies all the requirements of the relevant rights holders then there is whole industry of people willing to give you money. Otherwise, its Windows Media Player DRM all the way if you want to want to get at that content at all, legally. J
RE: [backstage] DRM
--- Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you come up with a solution to distribute content that satisfies all the requirements of the relevant rights holders then there is whole industry of people willing to give you money. Otherwise, its Windows Media Player DRM all the way if you want to want to get at that content at all, legally. Put a digital watermark in the content linked to the users details. It not a perfect solution, but if any one thinks DRM is a perfect solution I would be happily show them how to strip the DRM out, if it was not for the fact I don't want to annoy Ian. :) See this story for an example of it already happening. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070119-8657.html We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 - 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] DRM
Does anyone know what the requirements of the rights holders are within this particular area? I would love to see a list, then another legal solution may become available. I'm no expert on this, but if you want a start, you can find here details of the BBC's Terms of Business with independent production companies which will give you an idea of some of it http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/business/index.shtml The Terms of Trade cover some of the financial side http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/business/terms_trade.shtml And the Code of Practise covers some rights stuff. http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/business/code.shtml There's bound to be much more to it than that - however it's a beginning :) - 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] DRM
DRM doesn't exist on my planet... but then nor does BBC TV according to the BBC. Talk about restricting culture, it seems at every level. I don't believe that DRM is to stop the customer or help the original Rights owner. but it sure allows some control factor from the distributor. Indeed and that's why its there. DRM can never be about protecting the consumer. The fact is - like it or not - that the BBC essentially rents some parts of a, or all of a, programme. And then it rents them to you. That's the broadcast model that most broadcasters in this country, probably the world, Like any rental, it's time restricted in some way. So the people the BBC rent from, want to make sure that when the agreed rental period is over, you can't get at them. As I've said many times before, this is the way the industry works right now, and has done for decades. Changing that kind of mindset will take decades. I'm no fan of DRM - if for no other reason, as a Linux user at home, I'm pretty screwed - but it's the world we live in. - 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] DRM
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glyn Wintle Sent: 24 January 2007 09:17 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] DRM --- Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you come up with a solution to distribute content that satisfies all the requirements of the relevant rights holders then there is whole industry of people willing to give you money. Otherwise, its Windows Media Player DRM all the way if you want to want to get at that content at all, legally. Put a digital watermark in the content linked to the users details. It not a perfect solution, but if any one thinks DRM is a perfect solution I would be happily show them how to strip the DRM out, if it was not for the fact I don't want to annoy Ian. :) See this story for an example of it already happening. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070119-8657.html A decent, per-user watermarking system is seriously something that would perk up the interest of a lot of people both inside the BBC and in the wider media community. Thanks for the link, that article is an interesting description of the tech. I think the people here who are right into this stuff have heard of Streamburst, and that there are other people doing similar things, but I'll check to make sure. If someone can come up with a massively scaleable way of watermarking content for individual users as they stream or download content, and (just as importantly) a fraud-detection system of some sort that notices clips on YouTube, BitTorrent etc and detects the watermarks in them so that we can enforce the membership rules, then we could be a step closer to an alternative to DRM. Of course a big factor is that individually treating up the files as they are streamed/downloaded would be much more hardware-intensive than simply encrypting something once and then offering it up for download via a DRM system. So cost effectiveness is definitely an issue. Brendan. - 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] DRM
Brendan Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If someone can come up with a massively scaleable way of watermarking content for individual users as they stream or download content, and (just as importantly) a fraud-detection system of some sort that notices clips on YouTube, BitTorrent etc and detects the watermarks in them so that we can enforce the membership rules, then we could be a step closer to an alternative to DRM. Hmmm... I wouldn't get excited if I were you. As Tom said on the blog post that was referenced from this thread somewhere, it's the business models that need fixing. DRM, watermarking, etc... all are bad because they are not scalable solutions to the problems of getting creators a monetary incentive to create. What I find interesting is that there are a bunch of people making good money out of non-DRM solutions but they don't seem to make any dent in the DRM argument. No one seems to bring up emusic.com or tunetribe.com when they're saying the content owners won't accept anything without DRM. It seems like rot to me - clearly content owners will accept it. Otherwise I wouldn't have just been able to download PonyUp! from emusic. Maybe what we should say is not all content owners. Or not the content owners we want to deal with. Which might be a really big problem. Are the hattricks of this world not accepting non-DRM solutions because they know the BBC is going to do what they want? There are lots of problems here and a lot of them are to do with the tranparency, or otherwise, of the BBC. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - 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] DRM
A decent, per-user watermarking system is seriously something that would perk up the interest of a lot of people both inside the BBC and in the wider media community. Thanks for the link, that article is an interesting description of the tech. I think the people here who are right into this stuff have heard of Streamburst, and that there are other people doing similar things, but I'll check to make sure. If someone can come up with a massively scaleable way of watermarking content for individual users as they stream or download content, and (just as importantly) a fraud-detection system of some sort that notices clips on YouTube, BitTorrent etc and detects the watermarks in them so that we can enforce the membership rules, then we could be a step closer to an alternative to DRM. Of course a big factor is that individually treating up the files as they are streamed/downloaded would be much more hardware-intensive than simply encrypting something once and then offering it up for download via a DRM system. So cost effectiveness is definitely an issue. Brendan. - 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/ The story was linked to on slashdot, here: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/19/1918221 , so the tech community is already having a discussion about it. In my opinion, watermarking is a much better way to go about things than DRM, and I hope you guys at the beeb eventually decide to go that way, and abandon technology that just makes life harder for us as consumers, but doesn't hinder the pirates one iota.
Re: [backstage] DRM
Hi Vijay, Believe it.. I can hear the clunky wheels starting up. From the halls of the British Corporation.. yes we need DRM to satisfy the owners of the work that is to be re-produced, without it we could never get a licence, or the content etc.etc.etc.. DRM doesn't exist on my planet... but then nor does BBC TV according to the BBC. Talk about restricting culture, it seems at every level. I don't believe that DRM is to stop the customer or help the original Rights owner. but it sure allows some control factor from the distributor. It will be interesting to see why anyone believes that it is needed on BBC products. :-) RichE On 23 Jan 2007, at 18:30, vijay chopra wrote: I notice that the Beeb is going to put Digital restrictions management in it's upcoming online, TV on demand service via iPlayer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6290745.stm For this reason it has recommended that the BBC's on-demand service reduces from 13 weeks the planned amount of time that users could keep downloaded programmes. Not only that, but Ofcom wants to make the DRM tighter, so we have access to our own media for even less time! What planet are these people on, what would have happened if they were around when we first started printing books? My guess is this: http:// www.pingwales.co.uk/2007/01/18/Chisnall-DRM.html Seriously guys why the need for DRM, I've only just reconciled myself that I'm not going to get radio in ogg format, and will have to put up with real player as long as I want Radio on demand; now this?!
Re: [backstage] DRM
vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I notice that the Beeb is going to put Digital restrictions management in it's upcoming online, TV on demand service via iPlayer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6290745.stm For this reason it has recommended that the BBC's on-demand service reduces from 13 weeks the planned amount of time that users could keep downloaded programmes. Not only that, but Ofcom wants to make the DRM tighter, so we have access to our own media for even less time! What planet are these people on, what would have happened if they were around when we first started printing books? My guess is this: http://www.pingwales.co.uk/2007/01/18/Chisnall-DRM.html Seriously guys why the need for DRM, I've only just reconciled myself that I'm not going to get radio in ogg format, and will have to put up with real player as long as I want Radio on demand; now this?! I feel the same. But we've only recently discussed this haven't we? I think the only real solution is that we form a new organization to make our own content. How about it? I'll do Come Dancing and you be Dot Cotton? -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - 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/
