Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
2009/10/7 David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk Billy Abbott wrote: Mo McRoberts wrote: I might be being dim, but I can’t see an angle to this where the rights holders actually get what they want (anything which even impedes pirates) without fundamentally altering the conceptual landscape of free-to-air receiving equipment in the UK. I've always assumed that they don't want to impede the pirates, but instead want a way to pursue them legally and then make an extra profit. It's the people who can't break the law, the consumer electronics companies who will be required to obtain a licence who will be affected. It is a legal trigger. Conditions placed on them (Consumer Electronics), will impact the consumer, due to built in restrictions in the equipment, imposed by a licence holder (DTVA). This will alter the landscape of free-to-air, circumventing the intention of the law. You can't build a PVR, or even a TV without an EPG. And as was suggested, this will allow the DTVA to control innovation, in this field, by authorising products (and charging for a licence? aka profit). I suppose it depends on if the BBC asks for a payment for the licence. It could simply provide it for free to anyone who signs the agreement. This would allow the BBC to assert the control over the consumer that the foreign powers want. But common law does now allow a contract to override the provisions of Primary legislation. It would be hard for the BBC to have a contractual hold over all Freeview HD receivers and not violate the rights of citizens. There are rights in law to time-shift, and for educational establishments (and certain others) for archive and reuse. There is also the right for public free-to-air broadcasts to be retransmitted in the EU, and this system would violate that too. It's such a shame that Ofcom didn't give us time to work all this out. I would have gone about it earlier, but I was having my shoulder operated on... This exactly the public interest, that the law was intended to protect. And why the metadata (EPG), should be regarded as part of the signal, (it is broadcast) that must be unencrypted for public service broadcasting. QED. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 06:41, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: It's the people who can't break the law, the consumer electronics companies who will be required to obtain a licence who will be affected. It is a legal trigger. Conditions placed on them (Consumer Electronics), will impact the consumer, due to built in restrictions in the equipment, imposed by a licence holder (DTVA). This will alter the landscape of free-to-air, circumventing the intention of the law. I’ve taken the view to this point that, rather than being about control of the CE sector, this is more to do with trying to appease stroppy rights-holders without having a huge amount of tangible impact (though there would be collateral damage). The alternative view is, as you suggest, that it’s a bid to seek control of the consumer electronics space by way of holding a key which everybody needs. I’ve steered away from this conclusion, because I actually think attempts at placating rights-holders are more likely the root cause -however- it’s worth noting that the Project Canvas proposals suffer from precisely the same problems (in fact, they’re worse). The BBC did state in the letter to Ofcom that the license would be zero-cost, so that part’s not an issue. Obtaining a license would require agreeing to certain conditions, however, including non-disclosure, honouring the copy-control attributes of the HD channels, and prohibiting user modification. This is incompatible with DVB code _built on_ software licensed under many open source licenses, which CE manufacturers have been increasingly embracing over the past decade. After all, what’s the point in licensing a commercial DVB stack or expending the massive RD costs in rolling your own, when a perfectly good one is there already? It’s the same reason the creators of the transcoding platform behind iPlayer didn’t write their own filesystem (last I knew, much of it runs on OpenSolaris w/ZFS on x86_64 boxes), and why BBC Online didn’t write its own web server to power bbc.co.uk, and so on. In real terms, the intention and motivation behind it are almost immaterial: the end result is the same either way. I know for a fact that several of the responses to Ofcom from technically-knowledgeable people (both inside and outside of the broadcast industry) pointed all of this out, noting the futility of the approach with respect to piracy. And why the metadata (EPG), should be regarded as part of the signal, (it is broadcast) that must be unencrypted for public service broadcasting. EPG data is subject to regulation and a licensing regime itself. I don’t know, though, how in particular the various obligations of the BBC relate to this. It’s entirely possible that there’s a loophole. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Instead of doing that I will follow your example and pimp up my personal blog where I give my current personal thoughts on this in July of last year: http://nickreynoldsatwork.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/freedom-open-source-s how-me-how/ But my blog does have comments enabled! From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 06 October 2009 19:25 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ... You could post your comments here, just for now 2009/10/6 Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net Hi Nick, On 6-Oct-2009, at 18:55, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Pity. I would have left a comment. The effort required to enable comments is unfortunately more than it's worth expending (and an awful lot of people dislike all of the available comment system options for tumblr), but I really am all ears. Either here, via e-mail to me, or a post on your own blog (do you have one? apart from the bbc.co.uk thing, I mean)-whatever suits. If it's worth saying, I'd like to hear it-especially if it's constructive criticism (or juicy gossip...) The same obviously applies to anybody else, of course. Cheers, M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Mo McRoberts wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 06:41, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: It's the people who can't break the law, the consumer electronics companies who will be required to obtain a licence who will be affected. It is a legal trigger. Conditions placed on them (Consumer Electronics), will impact the consumer, due to built in restrictions in the equipment, imposed by a licence holder (DTVA). This will alter the landscape of free-to-air, circumventing the intention of the law. I’ve taken the view to this point that, rather than being about control of the CE sector, this is more to do with trying to appease stroppy rights-holders without having a huge amount of tangible impact (though there would be collateral damage). The alternative view is, as you suggest, that it’s a bid to seek control of the consumer electronics space by way of holding a key which everybody needs. I’ve steered away from this conclusion, because I actually think attempts at placating rights-holders are more likely the root cause -however- it’s worth noting that the Project Canvas proposals suffer from precisely the same problems (in fact, they’re worse). The BBC did state in the letter to Ofcom that the license would be zero-cost, so that part’s not an issue. Obtaining a license would require agreeing to certain conditions, however, including non-disclosure, honouring the copy-control attributes of the HD channels, and prohibiting user modification. This is incompatible with DVB code _built on_ software licensed under many open source licenses, which CE manufacturers have been increasingly embracing over the past decade. After all, what’s the point in licensing a commercial DVB stack or expending the massive RD costs in rolling your own, when a perfectly good one is there already? It’s the same reason the creators of the transcoding platform behind iPlayer didn’t write their own filesystem (last I knew, much of it runs on OpenSolaris w/ZFS on x86_64 boxes), and why BBC Online didn’t write its own web server to power bbc.co.uk, and so on. In real terms, the intention and motivation behind it are almost immaterial: the end result is the same either way. I know for a fact that several of the responses to Ofcom from technically-knowledgeable people (both inside and outside of the broadcast industry) pointed all of this out, noting the futility of the approach with respect to piracy. And why the metadata (EPG), should be regarded as part of the signal, (it is broadcast) that must be unencrypted for public service broadcasting. EPG data is subject to regulation and a licensing regime itself. I don’t know, though, how in particular the various obligations of the BBC relate to this. It’s entirely possible that there’s a loophole. M. You know what is really ironic, I think they intended to use 'Trade Secret' law, to trigger the licence, but when you make the codes to decompress the EPG secret, it is encryption, and requiring an NDA (to protect the secret, as required by law) excludes Open Source/Free Software. Of course you should ask why they want a meaningless restriction as part of the standard, and that is to trigger a licence, which can have any number of conditions including restricting the functionality of the equipment produced by the licencees (Consumer Electronics). Controlling the functionality of the Consumer Electronic product is seen (by the rights holders) as key to restricting the public access to broadcast content. No analog hole, HDMI only (encrypted, trusted) output etc. This is definitely not in the public interest. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:44, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Controlling the functionality of the Consumer Electronic product is seen (by the rights holders) as key to restricting the public access to broadcast content. No analog hole, HDMI only (encrypted, trusted) output etc. Except the idea of closing the untrusted path only works if you work on the premise that the nefarious types who illegally share copyright material only care about breaking one specific set of laws (copyright infringement) and won’t just work around the trusted path by modifying their kit or cobbling together some equivalent. This is sheer fantasy, really—it’s pretty much entirely incompatible with (a) an open market, and (b) broadcasting (as opposed to simulcasting to millions of people individually). I can’t think of an adjective which sums it up more adequately than “crazy”. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
The rights-holders will have to answer the first part. This is sheer fantasy, really—it’s pretty much entirely incompatible with (a) an open market, and (b) broadcasting (as opposed to simulcasting to millions of people individually). They don't want an open market, they have enjoyed a monopoly through broadcasting (limited bandwidth/broadcasters) and through copyright. They don't wish this to change. Regardless of the potential of new technology for increasing the public utility. (Gains for the public). If the HD signal is encrypted or licenced, then this can carry over to the Internet where simulcasts, would be encrypted or otherwise restricted. This is all about maintaining the rights-holders monopoly of content distribution, and possibly charging on a pay-per-view model. Pro Bono Publico For the good of the public ! - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:43, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: They don't want an open market, they have enjoyed a monopoly through broadcasting (limited bandwidth/broadcasters) and through copyright. They don't wish this to change. Regardless of the potential of new technology for increasing the public utility. (Gains for the public). Not quite what I meant by “open market”. There was never a requirement in the past for CE makers to join logo/licensing programmes to ensure their kit worked—they just followed the specs. That wasn’t limited to CE makers, either, which is how things like MythTV came to exist. FTA isn’t that “anybody can receive the broadcasts [if they buy from one of our approved manufacturers]” it’s “anybody can receive the broadcasts provided what they have adheres to the open specs”. If the HD signal is encrypted or licenced, then this can carry over to the Internet where simulcasts, would be encrypted or otherwise restricted. It’s harder when you’ve got Internet-based delivery, because you have to hand over both the crypto mechanism and the decryption key to something which is primarily under user control—it’s not a “black box” in the same way that an STB or TV is. But, it’s not something those doing Internet-based delivery don’t often attempt to do (look at iPlayer Desktop, for example). M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
I agree technical schemes and disproportionate legal threats are inefficient ways to combat illicit copying, and work should be done to make copying licit. However, the rights holders are not bad guys in the scenario, they represent (for better or worse) people making a living through creation. How can they be compensated fairly for their work? A watermarking scheme which counts downloads or views, and apportions revenues accordingly? That would possibly mean a shift away from overcompensation of big names and a reduction of middlemen, not bad things. Or perhaps the public should just settle for lots more mediocrity. Sean. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:43 PM, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: The rights-holders will have to answer the first part. This is sheer fantasy, really—it’s pretty much entirely incompatible with (a) an open market, and (b) broadcasting (as opposed to simulcasting to millions of people individually). They don't want an open market, they have enjoyed a monopoly through broadcasting (limited bandwidth/broadcasters) and through copyright. They don't wish this to change. Regardless of the potential of new technology for increasing the public utility. (Gains for the public). If the HD signal is encrypted or licenced, then this can carry over to the Internet where simulcasts, would be encrypted or otherwise restricted. This is all about maintaining the rights-holders monopoly of content distribution, and possibly charging on a pay-per-view model. Pro Bono Publico For the good of the public ! - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Mo McRoberts wrote: Not quite what I meant by “open market”. There was never a requirement in the past for CE makers to join logo/licensing programmes to ensure their kit worked—they just followed the specs. That wasn’t limited to CE makers, either, which is how things like MythTV came to exist. FTA isn’t that “anybody can receive the broadcasts [if they buy from one of our approved manufacturers]” it’s “anybody can receive the broadcasts provided what they have adheres to the open specs”. Yes even a certification scheme, is likely to exclude Myth TV etc. No hardware to certify, and the source code is constantly modified. It’s harder when you’ve got Internet-based delivery, because you have to hand over both the crypto mechanism and the decryption key to something which is primarily under user control—it’s not a “black box” in the same way that an STB or TV is. But, it’s not something those doing Internet-based delivery don’t often attempt to do (look at iPlayer Desktop, for example). If internet delivery is the primary delivery mechanism, then it is likely to be a STB style black box, or built into the TV, at the consumer end. I think this is the intention, of the rights-holders. I would not be surprised if they attempted to exclude open hardware (PC's). - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
-Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts I can't think of an adjective which sums it up more adequately than crazy. Time for me to unlurk :-) I'm pretty sure everyone knows by now that no-matter what DRM system is in place, it can be circumvented. But in the end that doesn't really matter - it's all just a case of being seen to be doing one's best to protect investments. Someone isn't going to finance content for you if you can't promise you'll do your utmost, through agreements with 3rd parties (e.g. broadcasters) and all the technical and legal measures available to you, to protect their investment, however futile that may be. That isn't crazy - if you were investing in a risky venture, you'd still want promises that those you were investing in would try to minimise risks. However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be Free software friendly? Chris - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:04, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: How can they be compensated fairly for their work? A watermarking scheme which counts downloads or views, and apportions revenues accordingly? That would possibly mean a shift away from overcompensation of big names and a reduction of middlemen, not bad things What, in your mind, are they being (additionally) compensated for? Bearing in mind that in this context, the broadcasts are being made to about 50 million people freely over the airwaves and the rights-holders are already paid for this. Anybody within that group of 50 million has already been compensated on behalf of through the commissioning process. If a significant proportion of the downloaders of your FTA UK content are themselves within the UK, as a rights-holder I’d be asking myself why they’re having to resort to illicit means to obtain content they already had rights to receive and time-shift. Then I’d try to fix it. Once you start going outside of the UK, things are more complicated. One thing is critically evident as things have changed over the past few years: artificial geographically-based restrictions are doomed to failure. If you have to wait weeks, or even months (and sometimes years) to get the same content legally in your region, the rights-holders have shot themselves in the foot. The broadcast industry would do well to learn from the mistakes the music industry made: artificial scarcity, legal threats, hyperbole and DRM only actually achieve the intended results for a painfully short period of time. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:33, Chris Warren ch...@ixalon.net wrote: Someone isn't going to finance content for you if you can't promise you'll do your utmost, through agreements with 3rd parties (e.g. broadcasters) and all the technical and legal measures available to you, to protect their investment, however futile that may be. That isn't crazy - if you were investing in a risky venture, you'd still want promises that those you were investing in would try to minimise risks. No, it _is_ crazy. What isn’t crazy is saying “look, it’s free to air. it’s available to virtually everybody in the UK, and that’s the purpose of the broadcast. that’s why we’re commissioning it.” Similarly, dispelling the myths that the technical measures do _anything_ except harm legitimate users would be a good start. Those wishing to misappropriate the investment are not those who are in any way affected by the DRM. Seriously. I don’t know of any other way to explain this. _All_ DRM does is harm the relationship with your customer. That’s it. It’s not “doing your utmost” at anything if you know already it’s futile. That’s just called wasting everybody’s time and money, including the people who ultimately pay for the output in the first place. However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be Free software friendly? The solution is not to attempt to implement a system which only achieves the opposite of the intended effect. DRM and anything “open” cannot by definition mix in any useful fashion: DRM relies solely on things being kept secret, which is pretty much the opposite of anything which is actually open ;) The solution is the one which has served free-to-air broadcasting very well for many decades: you accept the realities, or you don’t play ball. It really, honestly, truly, isn’t any more complicated than that provided you’re actually in possession of the facts (and I realise many of the people engaging in negotiations actually aren’t). M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
My understanding is that the BBC's strategy is to treat the UK and rest-of-world markets differently, with a profit orientation on the World side. Technical geolocalisation solutions are indeed doomed to failure in my view. Those sly devils at Google showed me a sponsored link last week promising international access to UK iPlayer through a proxy. As a former musician and record producer, you'll have no pity from me for the rapacious vultures of the music biz :-) But I'm speaking generally about digital disruption. The free-to-air model is now the free-to-world model. I'm actually much more worried about newspapers. Sean. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:04, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: How can they be compensated fairly for their work? A watermarking scheme which counts downloads or views, and apportions revenues accordingly? That would possibly mean a shift away from overcompensation of big names and a reduction of middlemen, not bad things What, in your mind, are they being (additionally) compensated for? Bearing in mind that in this context, the broadcasts are being made to about 50 million people freely over the airwaves and the rights-holders are already paid for this. Anybody within that group of 50 million has already been compensated on behalf of through the commissioning process. If a significant proportion of the downloaders of your FTA UK content are themselves within the UK, as a rights-holder I’d be asking myself why they’re having to resort to illicit means to obtain content they already had rights to receive and time-shift. Then I’d try to fix it. Once you start going outside of the UK, things are more complicated. One thing is critically evident as things have changed over the past few years: artificial geographically-based restrictions are doomed to failure. If you have to wait weeks, or even months (and sometimes years) to get the same content legally in your region, the rights-holders have shot themselves in the foot. The broadcast industry would do well to learn from the mistakes the music industry made: artificial scarcity, legal threats, hyperbole and DRM only actually achieve the intended results for a painfully short period of time. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:56, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: My understanding is that the BBC's strategy is to treat the UK and rest-of-world markets differently, with a profit orientation on the World side. Technical geolocalisation solutions are indeed doomed to failure in my view. Those sly devils at Google showed me a sponsored link last week promising international access to UK iPlayer through a proxy. Oh, you can do it. People will pay if the product’s of a good standard and not subject to ridiculous delays and impediments. Personally, I’m in favour of liberalising some of the restrictions upon BBCW (provided it doesn’t impact negatively upon the FTA efforts within the UK). People often resort to downloads because they -have- to in order to get the output they want on their terms, rather than because it's free. (Anecdotal personal example: I’m more than capable of downloading films from BitTorrent, and have a dim view much of the movie industry, but I rent movies from iTunes instead—it’s fast, it’s easy, it’s convenient, and it doesn’t cost the earth). As a former musician and record producer, you'll have no pity from me for the rapacious vultures of the music biz :-) the daft thing is, much of it’s been so depressingly predictable from very early on. so much of it’s been avoidable. But I'm speaking generally about digital disruption. The free-to-air model is now the free-to-world model. I'm actually much more worried about newspapers. The newspapers are fixable. Perhaps not -as- newspapers in many cases (though you’ll prize my magazine subscriptions from my cold, dead hands), but by becoming far more efficient at collating and redistributing news and—most importantly—the expert commentary on it; the latter being something news.bbc.co.uk only provides minimal amounts of. Free-to-air _can_ be free-to-world, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that it WILL be—that more depends upon the content than anything else (and it doesn’t have to be FTA in the first place, of course). The only real solution, though, is to capitalise on the overseas markets: business models wholly reliant upon it being difficult and uneconomical for consumers (on whichever side of the law) to ship content from one side of the world to the other weren’t ever going to last forever. That was the monopoly period—the breathing space to develop the models and form the alliances and dip toes in waters—which as with any other, has a limited lifespan. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
It is also worth highlighting that the Societies involved in protecting the rights of music producers have also lagged well behind the technical innovations which have subsequently opened up new areas of distribution... both legal and illegal. Their methods for trying to defend the rights have actually alienated the public, as well as some of those same serious investors. I am sure that PACT and the BBC could learn much from the recent experience of the physical music business. Whilst arguing for detail, they lost the battle. Sadly, as the whole model has been distorted by industry self interest, the golden goose, along with the bolting horse, have disappeared anyway, over the horizon to pastures new. :-) Richard Edwards On 7 Oct 2009, at 14:13, Mo McRoberts wrote: As a former musician and record producer, you'll have no pity from me for the rapacious vultures of the music biz :-) the daft thing is, much of it’s been so depressingly predictable from very early on. so much of it’s been avoidable. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Please. Only conspiracy theories allowed here. Move along:) However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be Free software friendly? Sounds good in all seriousness, would be interested to take part in *that* discussion. Alia Chris Warren wrote: Time for me to unlurk :-) I'm pretty sure everyone knows by now that no-matter what DRM system is in place, it can be circumvented. But in the end that doesn't really matter - it's all just a case of being seen to be doing one's best to protect investments. Someone isn't going to finance content for you if you can't promise you'll do your utmost, through agreements with 3rd parties (e.g. broadcasters) and all the technical and legal measures available to you, to protect their investment, however futile that may be. That isn't crazy - if you were investing in a risky venture, you'd still want promises that those you were investing in would try to minimise risks. However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be Free software friendly? Chris - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 15:07, Alia Sheikh alia.she...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote: However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be Free software friendly? Sounds good in all seriousness, would be interested to take part in *that* discussion. Unfortunately, that discussion isn’t really one which is at all technical in nature—it’s broadly a matter of legal and business strategy. Not quite so interesting to the kinds of smart people who tend to have an interest in the technical stuff! There’s some cross-over, though… ;) - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Mo McRoberts wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 15:07, Alia Sheikh alia.she...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote: However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be Free software friendly? Sounds good in all seriousness, would be interested to take part in *that* discussion. Unfortunately, that discussion isn’t really one which is at all technical in nature—it’s broadly a matter of legal and business strategy. Not quite so interesting to the kinds of smart people who tend to have an interest in the technical stuff! There’s some cross-over, though… ;) It is an interesting issue. Also known as why everything you know about copyright is wrong ! It needs a new thread and perhaps a new day, but please start without me, (I won't be able to resist commenting) You may find my views radical as my suggested title implies. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Hi, Id like to suggest that referring not to 'copy protection' but to 'copy restriction' is an effective way of adding clarity to this kind of discussion. I prepared a more emotive (angry) post about this issue but didn't allocate time to finish it as I figured an unemotive and level headed exposition of the issues would be more effective; thanks for doing one :) Regards, Dave On 6 Oct 2009, 10:39 AM, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: This has discussion continued in a modest way on the blog comments. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html I am sorry to say Nick is making misleading reassurances. (He is not sufficiently technical or familiar with the material, to understand the logical inconsistencies - this is an observation of fact, not a personal attack). See Nick comment No. 34. Yes you will be able to put a HD tuner into my Open Source MythTV box and watch BBC HD, again if suitable tuners become available. The only reason tuners would not become available (they are currently available for Standard Definition), is that they will be excluded by the licence required to decrypt the signals. Free and Open Source Software Drivers will be excluded (excluding Myth TV) if there is any meaningful copy protection (unless the licence is breached). If the copy protection is to be meaningful, the BBC must break the law, regarding an unencrypted signal (semantics aside) and exclude FOSS from accessing the copy protected signals (which may only apply to Hollywood films, US imports, or may apply to the majority of content). See Nevali's comments, No. 35, 36, 42. Clearly Nevali, is part of the official consultation process. Issues: 1.1 Free and Open Source software is incompatible with DRM. 1.2 Reassurances to the contrary, contradict this knowledge. And undermine statements from the BBC. 2.1 What the BBC is proposing is in breach of the law by any reasonable semantics, the law is clear and does not allow for exceptions. 2.2 You may wish to proceed as if this was not true, but it is a fatal flaw that will destroy the agreements the BBC is entering into, and damage the BBC. 2.3 The BBC TRUST cannot ignore the fact that the BBC is intending to breaking the law. Semantics will not be sufficient to obfuscate this issue. 2.4 Several other options exist to exploit the flaw in the BBC's intentions. I am aware how it is possible to subvert the law, but ultimately the letter of the law, will be used to force the BBC to broadcast unencrypted. 3.1 We are in a transition phase, away from copyright and DRM. 3.2. The BBC appear to be insufficiently aware of the arguments against DRM and, dangers of the course of action they have embarked upon, to act in the public intrest 3.3 The BBC are not familiar with the argument against DRM which has failed repeatedly. 3.4. The BBC are not sufficiently aware of the arguments against intellectual property which has already lost the intellectual debate. 4.0 Free and Open Source software proponents have experience of a copyright, patent, and DRM free environment, and are therefore more ready to embrace the concepts, and freedoms involved. In view of the above, how can the BBC management claim to represent the public interest ? The BBC can choose to ignore the above, but the issues will not go away. And the BBC will be seen to be, not side of the public, but on the side of special interests on these issues. This is intention of this email to raise issues with the BBC Management of which Nick is one of the current spokesmen. Further Reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/thompson_bpi.shtml But that's changing. The first episode of the new Dr Who series was available on the unauthorised site Bit Torrent three weeks before its premiere on BBC ONE. And, although of course our main model in the UK is free-to-air unencrypted broadcast, the BBC has a duty to exploit the residual commercial value of the rights we invest in on behalf of the public: we do that both here and around the world. So we have an intense interest in effective digital rights management systems; in technical, legal and regulatory means to protect the property of rights-holders; and in increasing public awareness of the moral and economic consequences of the theft of intellectual property. On this last point, I believe the BBC could do considerably more than it does at present. Mark Thompson, BBC Director-General Thursday 14 July 2005 Some background on semantics in law. http://ssrn.com/abstract=831604 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=831604 We consider in the paper whether a pragmatics of semantic content can be a useful approach to legal interpretation. More extensively, since a pragmatic conception of meaning is a component of an inferential semantics, we consider whether an inferentialist approach to legal interpretation can be of help in treating and resolving some problems of legal
RE: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
That I think is a conspiracy theory too far. From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 06 October 2009 14:12 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ... IMHO I think the one thing that we can conclude is that the way the BBC have steamrollered the request to Ofcom with a short consultation period (and a Freeview HD service to start with hardware about to hit the shelves) is not cricket. The BBC has given commitments to being open in the past (re BBC history) and this undermines it. If you want a conspiracy theory: - BBC Licence fee raised for HD in 2010 - BBC HD access via subscription system for extra payment - all services rolled onto HD over some years (say by 2015) - all BBC services are thus subscription That would please some people I guess. 2009/10/6 David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk This has discussion continued in a modest way on the blog comments. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html I am sorry to say Nick is making misleading reassurances. (He is not sufficiently technical or familiar with the material, to understand the logical inconsistencies - this is an observation of fact, not a personal attack). See Nick comment No. 34. Yes you will be able to put a HD tuner into my Open Source MythTV box and watch BBC HD, again if suitable tuners become available. The only reason tuners would not become available (they are currently available for Standard Definition), is that they will be excluded by the licence required to decrypt the signals. Free and Open Source Software Drivers will be excluded (excluding Myth TV) if there is any meaningful copy protection (unless the licence is breached). If the copy protection is to be meaningful, the BBC must break the law, regarding an unencrypted signal (semantics aside) and exclude FOSS from accessing the copy protected signals (which may only apply to Hollywood films, US imports, or may apply to the majority of content). See Nevali's comments, No. 35, 36, 42. Clearly Nevali, is part of the official consultation process. Issues: 1.1 Free and Open Source software is incompatible with DRM. 1.2 Reassurances to the contrary, contradict this knowledge. And undermine statements from the BBC. 2.1 What the BBC is proposing is in breach of the law by any reasonable semantics, the law is clear and does not allow for exceptions. 2.2 You may wish to proceed as if this was not true, but it is a fatal flaw that will destroy the agreements the BBC is entering into, and damage the BBC. 2.3 The BBC TRUST cannot ignore the fact that the BBC is intending to breaking the law. Semantics will not be sufficient to obfuscate this issue. 2.4 Several other options exist to exploit the flaw in the BBC's intentions. I am aware how it is possible to subvert the law, but ultimately the letter of the law, will be used to force the BBC to broadcast unencrypted. 3.1 We are in a transition phase, away from copyright and DRM. 3.2. The BBC appear to be insufficiently aware of the arguments against DRM and, dangers of the course of action they have embarked upon, to act in the public intrest 3.3 The BBC are not familiar with the argument against DRM which has failed repeatedly. 3.4. The BBC are not sufficiently aware of the arguments against intellectual property which has already lost the intellectual debate. 4.0 Free and Open Source software proponents have experience of a copyright, patent, and DRM free environment, and are therefore more ready to embrace the concepts, and freedoms involved. In view of the above, how can the BBC management claim to represent the public interest ? The BBC can choose to ignore the above, but the issues will not go away. And the BBC will be seen to be, not side of the public, but on the side of special interests on these issues. This is intention of this email to raise issues with the BBC Management of which Nick is one of the current spokesmen. Further Reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/thompson_bpi.shtml But that's changing. The first episode of the new Dr Who series was available on the unauthorised site Bit Torrent three weeks before its premiere on BBC ONE. And, although of course our main model in the UK is free-to-air unencrypted broadcast, the BBC
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Hi, I was referring to the wording of David's original post. Your last paragraph is a bit unclear to me, could you restate? Regards, Dave On 6 Oct 2009, 2:47 PM, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: Dave, I've gone back and looked at the original letter again. There are two proposals. The BBC is saying that it will use Huffman encoding to broadcast the SI tables. This is not a bad idea really, given that it could extend the EPG, for example. The BBC is saying that the table used for this Huffman encoding be licensed. The problem they have is that it is supposed to be generated from data that is already broadcast, so it should be reasonable easy to recreate this data. You can't claim rights on something that's just a published mathematical function on some specified public data. This is hardly 'copy restriction', it is simply a small data table that a bit of computing power can reproduce. It's not like the data being decoded from the SI isn't going to be in a known format! It's a bit like using a broken condom. And then the second proposal is for an unspecified scrambling system termed in such terms that it so clear that the answer should be no. 2009/10/6 Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com Hi, Id like to suggest that referring not to 'copy protection' but to 'copy restriction' is... -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.t...
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not an active project AFAIK, but it is Mozilla MPL. Of course, one could add that FLOSS engineers, probably more than most engineers, hate to spend time working on useless software. I would agree the industry is in a transition phase away from DRM, but I'd hesitate to say the same for copyright. Copyright, patents, trademarks, are state-sponsored monopolies originally intended to protect small inventors and creators with the goal of fostering innovation. Without a doubt, the law is struggling with new technologies, and patent and copyright claims overlap in software with silly results, and innovation is more and more the product of wired communities, but the concept of copyright is not disappearing, just being transformed. The goal of rewarding creators for their work is in my view unchanged, only made quite more difficult with new technologies. I had the opportunity to question Ashley Highfield about DRM several years ago (http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071118205358171), before he upped and joined Microsoft. Truth be told, I was not surprised nothing came of his pronouncement that day. Sean. On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:34 AM, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: This has discussion continued in a modest way on the blog comments. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html I am sorry to say Nick is making misleading reassurances. (He is not sufficiently technical or familiar with the material, to understand the logical inconsistencies - this is an observation of fact, not a personal attack). See Nick comment No. 34. Yes you will be able to put a HD tuner into my Open Source MythTV box and watch BBC HD, again if suitable tuners become available. The only reason tuners would not become available (they are currently available for Standard Definition), is that they will be excluded by the licence required to decrypt the signals. Free and Open Source Software Drivers will be excluded (excluding Myth TV) if there is any meaningful copy protection (unless the licence is breached). If the copy protection is to be meaningful, the BBC must break the law, regarding an unencrypted signal (semantics aside) and exclude FOSS from accessing the copy protected signals (which may only apply to Hollywood films, US imports, or may apply to the majority of content). See Nevali's comments, No. 35, 36, 42. Clearly Nevali, is part of the official consultation process. Issues: 1.1 Free and Open Source software is incompatible with DRM. 1.2 Reassurances to the contrary, contradict this knowledge. And undermine statements from the BBC. 2.1 What the BBC is proposing is in breach of the law by any reasonable semantics, the law is clear and does not allow for exceptions. 2.2 You may wish to proceed as if this was not true, but it is a fatal flaw that will destroy the agreements the BBC is entering into, and damage the BBC. 2.3 The BBC TRUST cannot ignore the fact that the BBC is intending to breaking the law. Semantics will not be sufficient to obfuscate this issue. 2.4 Several other options exist to exploit the flaw in the BBC's intentions. I am aware how it is possible to subvert the law, but ultimately the letter of the law, will be used to force the BBC to broadcast unencrypted. 3.1 We are in a transition phase, away from copyright and DRM. 3.2. The BBC appear to be insufficiently aware of the arguments against DRM and, dangers of the course of action they have embarked upon, to act in the public intrest 3.3 The BBC are not familiar with the argument against DRM which has failed repeatedly. 3.4. The BBC are not sufficiently aware of the arguments against intellectual property which has already lost the intellectual debate. 4.0 Free and Open Source software proponents have experience of a copyright, patent, and DRM free environment, and are therefore more ready to embrace the concepts, and freedoms involved. In view of the above, how can the BBC management claim to represent the public interest ? The BBC can choose to ignore the above, but the issues will not go away. And the BBC will be seen to be, not side of the public, but on the side of special interests on these issues. This is intention of this email to raise issues with the BBC Management of which Nick is one of the current spokesmen. Further Reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/thompson_bpi.shtml But that's changing. The first episode of the new Dr Who series was available on the unauthorised site Bit Torrent three weeks before its premiere on BBC ONE. And, although of course our main model in the UK is free-to-air unencrypted broadcast, the BBC has a duty to
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 15:00, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not an active project AFAIK, but it is Mozilla MPL. I can't speak for David, but my own feeling on the subject is that because the source is in the open, circumventing any restrictions would become fairly trivial. While security through obscurity is no security still holds (and is why even closed DRM has proven ineffective), it's hard to see how FLOSS DRM would be in any way effective. At least with closed DRM, it might take a little time to break. While I can't see much argument for FLOSS DRM, I can see a lot of argument that if you're touting a DRM system, supporting FLOSS platforms is a really good idea. Look at what happend with DVD - some kid wanted to watch DVDs on his Linux box, the powers that be couldn't be bothered creating a licensed DVD player for Linux so the kid breaks DVD's CSS, rendering CSS useless. All it takes is one individual to break a DRM system and the exact same superdistribution that DRM is trying to stop will quickly spread the circumvention technique. Thinking about it, whatever DRM the BBC uses will be broken. Otherwise law abiding people will then turn what could well be criminal activity just to use the HD signal the way they currently use the SD signal. I don't see how this is in the public interest.
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Scot, You can't see how it is in the public interest BECAUSE IT ISN'T. The BBC are very clear that they are willing to cut their own charter up to pander to the special interests of their suppliers; there is no need for conspiracy theories about this, they are very up front about admitting what is going on right now. It is the future implications that are up for speculation... if I was in management, Id be wondering, Cameron is going to rip Auntie a new one after the Olympics, so what can we do now to prepare? Regards, Dave On 6 Oct 2009, 3:41 PM, Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 15:00, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: David, I'm curious, what's y... I can't speak for David, but my own feeling on the subject is that because the source is in the open, circumventing any restrictions would become fairly trivial. While security through obscurity is no security still holds (and is why even closed DRM has proven ineffective), it's hard to see how FLOSS DRM would be in any way effective. At least with closed DRM, it might take a little time to break. While I can't see much argument for FLOSS DRM, I can see a lot of argument that if you're touting a DRM system, supporting FLOSS platforms is a really good idea. Look at what happend with DVD - some kid wanted to watch DVDs on his Linux box, the powers that be couldn't be bothered creating a licensed DVD player for Linux so the kid breaks DVD's CSS, rendering CSS useless. All it takes is one individual to break a DRM system and the exact same superdistribution that DRM is trying to stop will quickly spread the circumvention technique. Thinking about it, whatever DRM the BBC uses will be broken. Otherwise law abiding people will then turn what could well be criminal activity just to use the HD signal the way they currently use the SD signal. I don't see how this is in the public interest.
RE: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
dave - this is a wild exaggeration. The suppliers that you dislike so are companies who provide content for the BBC for licence fee payers to enjoy. Their interests have considered just like everyone else's. From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland Sent: 06 October 2009 15:51 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ... Scot, You can't see how it is in the public interest BECAUSE IT ISN'T. The BBC are very clear that they are willing to cut their own charter up to pander to the special interests of their suppliers; there is no need for conspiracy theories about this, they are very up front about admitting what is going on right now. It is the future implications that are up for speculation... if I was in management, Id be wondering, Cameron is going to rip Auntie a new one after the Olympics, so what can we do now to prepare? Regards, Dave On 6 Oct 2009, 3:41 PM, Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 15:00, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: David, I'm curious, what's y... I can't speak for David, but my own feeling on the subject is that because the source is in the open, circumventing any restrictions would become fairly trivial. While security through obscurity is no security still holds (and is why even closed DRM has proven ineffective), it's hard to see how FLOSS DRM would be in any way effective. At least with closed DRM, it might take a little time to break. While I can't see much argument for FLOSS DRM, I can see a lot of argument that if you're touting a DRM system, supporting FLOSS platforms is a really good idea. Look at what happend with DVD - some kid wanted to watch DVDs on his Linux box, the powers that be couldn't be bothered creating a licensed DVD player for Linux so the kid breaks DVD's CSS, rendering CSS useless. All it takes is one individual to break a DRM system and the exact same superdistribution that DRM is trying to stop will quickly spread the circumvention technique. Thinking about it, whatever DRM the BBC uses will be broken. Otherwise law abiding people will then turn what could well be criminal activity just to use the HD signal the way they currently use the SD signal. I don't see how this is in the public interest.
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Actually, lots of FLOSS code produces supersecure encryption; GnuPG for example. Digital Restrictions Management of broadcast media is harder to do than text messages or filesystem volumes. Most commercial DRM developers don't give a hoot about GNU/Linux platforms since marketshare is so small though. Sean On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 15:00, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not an active project AFAIK, but it is Mozilla MPL. I can't speak for David, but my own feeling on the subject is that because the source is in the open, circumventing any restrictions would become fairly trivial. While security through obscurity is no security still holds (and is why even closed DRM has proven ineffective), it's hard to see how FLOSS DRM would be in any way effective. At least with closed DRM, it might take a little time to break. While I can't see much argument for FLOSS DRM, I can see a lot of argument that if you're touting a DRM system, supporting FLOSS platforms is a really good idea. Look at what happend with DVD - some kid wanted to watch DVDs on his Linux box, the powers that be couldn't be bothered creating a licensed DVD player for Linux so the kid breaks DVD's CSS, rendering CSS useless. All it takes is one individual to break a DRM system and the exact same superdistribution that DRM is trying to stop will quickly spread the circumvention technique. Thinking about it, whatever DRM the BBC uses will be broken. Otherwise law abiding people will then turn what could well be criminal activity just to use the HD signal the way they currently use the SD signal. I don't see how this is in the public interest. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Hi all, I realise I’m somewhat late to the party going on here—for some reason, I never got around to subscribing to backst...@. You can probably guess from my e-mail address how I relate to this particular debate! For the record, I’m no more part of the official consultation process than anybody else—indeed, one of my gripes with all of this is how a proper consultation _hasn’t_ been carried out yet. I am a (vocal) bystander for most intents and purposes. To pimp my blog for a moment, some speculation on my part as to why this might be the case can be found at: http://nevali.net/post/205806183/bbc-internet-blog-bbchd-and-drm-a-response-to-cory I appreciate Nick’s involvement in this and trying to deal with pesky people who insist on asking awkward questions ;) However, I would like to respond to this:— On 6-Oct-2009, at 16:08, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: dave - this is a wild exaggeration. The suppliers that you dislike so are companies who provide content for the BBC for licence fee payers to enjoy. Their interests have considered just like everyone else's. While this is true, to an extent, historically the interests of the rights-holders (excepting certain more enlightened members of that particular community) have been squarely opposed to the interests of the consumer. If the rights-holders could, hypothetically, lock everything down without inciting a huge backlash, most would jump at the opportunity (irrespective of the actual benefits—this is all about perception on their part; bearing in mind that many of those doing these deals aren’t hugely technical themselves). The FTA remit is designed specifically to balance this: it says, in effect, “by all means come on board, but we have an obligation to the consumer that the likes of Sky and Virgin don’t: if you don’t like this, go elsewhere. The various pieces of legislation are quite clear about what consumers can and can’t do, and we’ve historically relied upon that as the principal copy-protection mechanism.”. The danger with this debate is that it indicates a shift away from this standpoint. Also, historically, there was no requirement to buy equipment branded and licensed by consortium heavily influenced by the broadcasters in order to ensure reception: you got a TV license, a PAL- I TV, and you were away. It also raises a number of (secondary) questions which are themselves quite troubling, but I’ve covered all of the ones I could think of in the comments on the blog post. Worms, meet can. Cheers, M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
DRM is law, not code. (As code it's useless, an encryption system where you give the attacker the key...) - rob. On Oct 6, 2009 4:14 PM, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, lots of FLOSS code produces supersecure encryption; GnuPG for example. Digital Restrictions Management of broadcast media is harder to do than text messages or filesystem volumes. Most commercial DRM developers don't give a hoot about GNU/Linux platforms since marketshare is so small though. Sean On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 15:00, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: David, I'm curious, what... - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Sean DALY wrote: David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not an active project AFAIK, but it is Mozilla MPL. Hoist by my own petard ? I was aware of some (misguided in my view) attempts at Open Source DRM. But I am not familiar with the details (I just rolled my eyes skyward). Open Source and Free Software cannot enter into Non Disclosure Agreements as the text of the source code must disclose the information contained in the agreement. If I can argue by analogy (Always a dangerous thing to do). DRM is about keeping a secret. Free standing DRM needs to supply the key within the material supplied therefore, the only security is through obscurity. e.g One system uses the file size (in plain view) as the key. Not knowing that his is the key or how to apply it is how this closed source system works to keep the secret key secret. So if in the case of a physical key, I hide a spare beneath the plant pot, that is security through obscurity. Placing a plain text note: On the door saying the key is beneath the plant pot is Open Source (or Free software), for anyone who can read the text (source code). Again the key could be in the dog kennel, but the dog is access control, which is a bit like the key locked inside a trusted module chip. Again it the the lack of control of the hardware that checks for signed code (XBOX PS3 etc) the DRM is in embedded in the hardware (even if it is software) hence the need for a mod chip. A note on the door saying the key is next door, just transfers the access control to my neighbor, and this is a tethered application like the ones that I understand audible use (audio books) etc. This can consist of a challenge and response etc, so could be open source as the secret is in the challenge (and required response) on server under external control. SUN's DReaM. http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20061115-00 with a tag to trace misuse - A watermark. Again enforcement is external to the source code. Sun's DReaM appears to require dedicated hardware, or am I mistaken. A purely open software solution to DRM would appear to be impractical, if Open Source is used and against the principles of free software. The DRM is in the hardware in Apples iTunes or the XBOX etc. Lessig and Stallman on Sun's DRM http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/15/lessig_stallman_drm/ I don't share Prof Lessig's views on DRM. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/24/lessig_blesses_drm/ The delay in replying is a product of having to lookup Sun's DRM. I will address the rest in a separate post. p.s. Strong encryption (GnuPG, TrueCrypt) relies on the control of the keys which have to be supplied with stand alone DRM and just obfuscated, difficult to do with open source (e.g Java Script Obfuscation). Public key encryption is strong, key control (in standalone DRM) is weak. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
I think Nevali might take umbrage at being lumped into our conspiracy so blatantly. a On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: This has discussion continued in a modest way on the blog comments. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html I am sorry to say Nick is making misleading reassurances. (He is not sufficiently technical or familiar with the material, to understand the logical inconsistencies - this is an observation of fact, not a personal attack). See Nick comment No. 34. Yes you will be able to put a HD tuner into my Open Source MythTV box and watch BBC HD, again if suitable tuners become available. The only reason tuners would not become available (they are currently available for Standard Definition), is that they will be excluded by the licence required to decrypt the signals. Free and Open Source Software Drivers will be excluded (excluding Myth TV) if there is any meaningful copy protection (unless the licence is breached). If the copy protection is to be meaningful, the BBC must break the law, regarding an unencrypted signal (semantics aside) and exclude FOSS from accessing the copy protected signals (which may only apply to Hollywood films, US imports, or may apply to the majority of content). See Nevali's comments, No. 35, 36, 42. Clearly Nevali, is part of the official consultation process. Issues: 1.1 Free and Open Source software is incompatible with DRM. 1.2 Reassurances to the contrary, contradict this knowledge. And undermine statements from the BBC. 2.1 What the BBC is proposing is in breach of the law by any reasonable semantics, the law is clear and does not allow for exceptions. 2.2 You may wish to proceed as if this was not true, but it is a fatal flaw that will destroy the agreements the BBC is entering into, and damage the BBC. 2.3 The BBC TRUST cannot ignore the fact that the BBC is intending to breaking the law. Semantics will not be sufficient to obfuscate this issue. 2.4 Several other options exist to exploit the flaw in the BBC's intentions. I am aware how it is possible to subvert the law, but ultimately the letter of the law, will be used to force the BBC to broadcast unencrypted. 3.1 We are in a transition phase, away from copyright and DRM. 3.2. The BBC appear to be insufficiently aware of the arguments against DRM and, dangers of the course of action they have embarked upon, to act in the public intrest 3.3 The BBC are not familiar with the argument against DRM which has failed repeatedly. 3.4. The BBC are not sufficiently aware of the arguments against intellectual property which has already lost the intellectual debate. 4.0 Free and Open Source software proponents have experience of a copyright, patent, and DRM free environment, and are therefore more ready to embrace the concepts, and freedoms involved. In view of the above, how can the BBC management claim to represent the public interest ? The BBC can choose to ignore the above, but the issues will not go away. And the BBC will be seen to be, not side of the public, but on the side of special interests on these issues. This is intention of this email to raise issues with the BBC Management of which Nick is one of the current spokesmen. Further Reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/thompson_bpi.shtml But that's changing. The first episode of the new Dr Who series was available on the unauthorised site Bit Torrent three weeks before its premiere on BBC ONE. And, although of course our main model in the UK is free-to-air unencrypted broadcast, the BBC has a duty to exploit the residual commercial value of the rights we invest in on behalf of the public: we do that both here and around the world. So we have an intense interest in effective digital rights management systems; in technical, legal and regulatory means to protect the property of rights-holders; and in increasing public awareness of the moral and economic consequences of the theft of intellectual property. On this last point, I believe the BBC could do considerably more than it does at present. Mark Thompson, BBC Director-General Thursday 14 July 2005 Some background on semantics in law. http://ssrn.com/abstract=831604 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=831604 We consider in the paper whether a pragmatics of semantic content can be a useful approach to legal interpretation. More extensively, since a pragmatic conception of meaning is a component of an inferential semantics, we consider whether an inferentialist approach to legal interpretation can be of help in treating and resolving some problems of legal interpretation. In sum: Is legal inferentialism a suitable conception of legal interpretation? Some of the Anti-copyright argument. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/web/la-oew-healey18feb18,0,7696645.story
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: dave - this is a wild exaggeration. The suppliers that you dislike so are companies who provide content for the BBC for licence fee payers to enjoy. Their interests have considered just like everyone else's. No the BBC needs to consider the interests of the licence fee payers. Any residuals are trivial compared with core funding and the purpose of the BBC. If supplies do not wish to deal with the BBC they are free to pursue that option. Enforcement of copyright especially through technical measures, is not the role of the BBC, especially for third party content. The public service role of the BBC requires unencrypted broadcasts by law. The public have funded (at least in part) the creation of the material. and should be free to use it, how they choose, and when they choose without DRM or other restrictions. Copyright is enforced by the state not the BBC. The following is speculative: The doctrine of first sale should apply to content (in my view), even where copyright applies, and the US courts appear to agree. http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/10/06/software_ownership_ruling/ One major consideration in that was the fact that the studio did not have the right, as it did in other agreements, to demand the return of the print. By analogy the BBC cannot demand the return of the TV signal. It is mine, to sell if I wish (as long as I only sell my copy once ?). Also: The court’s decision today is not based on any policy judgment. Congress is both constitutionally and institutionally suited to render judgments on policy; courts generally are not, the Court ruled. Precedent binds the court regardless of whether it would be good policy to ignore it. A similar relationship exists between the BBC and the parliament (law). - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Rob Myers wrote: DRM is law, not code. (As code it's useless, an encryption system where you give the attacker the key...) - rob. The law prevents the breaking of even trivial encryption, and the encryption prevents, the breaking of the code, which unilaterally imposes controls on the users behavior. Kind circular. DRM is law (DMCA, IPRED, IPRED2 etc) and code, but you knew that, and knew that I knew that. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
I like pesky people. Oddly though your blog doesn't have a comments facility. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 06 October 2009 16:30 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ... Hi all, I realise I'm somewhat late to the party going on here-for some reason, I never got around to subscribing to backst...@. You can probably guess from my e-mail address how I relate to this particular debate! For the record, I'm no more part of the official consultation process than anybody else-indeed, one of my gripes with all of this is how a proper consultation _hasn't_ been carried out yet. I am a (vocal) bystander for most intents and purposes. To pimp my blog for a moment, some speculation on my part as to why this might be the case can be found at: http://nevali.net/post/205806183/bbc-internet-blog-bbchd-and-drm-a-respo nse-to-cory I appreciate Nick's involvement in this and trying to deal with pesky people who insist on asking awkward questions ;) However, I would like to respond to this:- On 6-Oct-2009, at 16:08, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: dave - this is a wild exaggeration. The suppliers that you dislike so are companies who provide content for the BBC for licence fee payers to enjoy. Their interests have considered just like everyone else's. While this is true, to an extent, historically the interests of the rights-holders (excepting certain more enlightened members of that particular community) have been squarely opposed to the interests of the consumer. If the rights-holders could, hypothetically, lock everything down without inciting a huge backlash, most would jump at the opportunity (irrespective of the actual benefits-this is all about perception on their part; bearing in mind that many of those doing these deals aren't hugely technical themselves). The FTA remit is designed specifically to balance this: it says, in effect, by all means come on board, but we have an obligation to the consumer that the likes of Sky and Virgin don't: if you don't like this, go elsewhere. The various pieces of legislation are quite clear about what consumers can and can't do, and we've historically relied upon that as the principal copy-protection mechanism.. The danger with this debate is that it indicates a shift away from this standpoint. Also, historically, there was no requirement to buy equipment branded and licensed by consortium heavily influenced by the broadcasters in order to ensure reception: you got a TV license, a PAL- I TV, and you were away. It also raises a number of (secondary) questions which are themselves quite troubling, but I've covered all of the ones I could think of in the comments on the blog post. Worms, meet can. Cheers, M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Pity. I would have left a comment. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 06 October 2009 18:49 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ... On 6-Oct-2009, at 18:36, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: I like pesky people. Oddly though your blog doesn't have a comments facility. Historical reasons-most of the people who read my blog follow me on Twitter, are other tumblr users, or otherwise know how to get me. When I ran it on WordPress and had comments enabled, I actually only had one real comment in about 18 months (though hundreds of spam comments...). I'm not closed to comment, it's just that my blog is ;) M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Frank Wales wrote: Do you mean the DMCA? Isn't that American? And what is a unilaterally imposed licence, when it's at home? How can someone force me to accept their permission to do something? I can not remember the relevant European legislation, IPRED, IPRES2? The DMCA has more name recognition. It gives the DTVA absolute control over the consumer electronics industry and therefore the public. It gives them control over what functions the equipment will perform, time shifting, copying etc The consumer electronics industry has absolute control over me? OH NOES! Is my iPod making me type this now? HALP! You might want to see a doctor about that. Restricts the functionality, rather than controls ? - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Hi Nick, On 6-Oct-2009, at 18:55, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Pity. I would have left a comment. The effort required to enable comments is unfortunately more than it’s worth expending (and an awful lot of people dislike all of the available comment system options for tumblr), but I really am all ears. Either here, via e-mail to me, or a post on your own blog (do you have one? apart from the bbc.co.uk thing, I mean)—whatever suits. If it’s worth saying, I’d like to hear it—especially if it’s constructive criticism (or juicy gossip…) The same obviously applies to anybody else, of course. Cheers, M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On 06/10/09 19:07, David Tomlinson wrote: Frank Wales wrote: Do you mean the DMCA? Isn't that American? And what is a unilaterally imposed licence, when it's at home? How can someone force me to accept their permission to do something? I can not remember the relevant European legislation, IPRED, IPRES2? The EUCD. Which covers Technological Measures. And DRM does precisely force you to accept someone's (ability to grant you) permission to do something. That's its intended goal. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
You could post your comments here, just for now 2009/10/6 Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net Hi Nick, On 6-Oct-2009, at 18:55, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Pity. I would have left a comment. The effort required to enable comments is unfortunately more than it’s worth expending (and an awful lot of people dislike all of the available comment system options for tumblr), but I really am all ears. Either here, via e-mail to me, or a post on your own blog (do you have one? apart from the bbc.co.uk thing, I mean)—whatever suits. If it’s worth saying, I’d like to hear it—especially if it’s constructive criticism (or juicy gossip…) The same obviously applies to anybody else, of course. Cheers, M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
And let's not forget that EU Legislation has to be enacted by the UK Parliament. There's a few US laws I quite like, can I claim we use them here too? 2009/10/6 Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org On 06/10/09 19:07, David Tomlinson wrote: Frank Wales wrote: Do you mean the DMCA? Isn't that American? And what is a unilaterally imposed licence, when it's at home? How can someone force me to accept their permission to do something? I can not remember the relevant European legislation, IPRED, IPRES2? The EUCD. Which covers Technological Measures. And DRM does precisely force you to accept someone's (ability to grant you) permission to do something. That's its intended goal. - Rob. -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Brian Butterworth wrote: And let's not forget that EU Legislation has to be enacted by the UK Parliament. There's a few US laws I quite like, can I claim we use them here too? From the FFII mailing list. Bilski v. Kappos, currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, is considered the single most important decision worldwide on the issue of patents on business methods, software and algorithms since the rejection of the Software Patents Directive by the European Parliament. Why not we seem to follow the US on IP Law issues. I was illustrating a point (about the Tripwire and licence) and rather suggesting it applied in the UK, as Rob has supplied the European equivalent is the EU Copyright Directive (I knew there was a European equivalent). The US law is better known by it's initials the DMCA. The Autocad ruling was just too good not to exploit. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 20:05, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: And let's not forget that EU Legislation has to be enacted by the UK Parliament. It was, as far as I know, six years ago. Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On 06/10/09 20:05, Brian Butterworth wrote: And let's not forget that EU Legislation has to be enacted by the UK Parliament. Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_and_Related_Rights_Regulations_2003#Technical_measures And while I'm at it - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/19973032.htm ;-) - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Mo McRoberts wrote: I might be being dim, but I can’t see an angle to this where the rights holders actually get what they want (anything which even impedes pirates) without fundamentally altering the conceptual landscape of free-to-air receiving equipment in the UK. I've always assumed that they don't want to impede the pirates, but instead want a way to pursue them legally and then make an extra profit. --billy -- http://billyabbott.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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Billy Abbott wrote: Mo McRoberts wrote: I might be being dim, but I can’t see an angle to this where the rights holders actually get what they want (anything which even impedes pirates) without fundamentally altering the conceptual landscape of free-to-air receiving equipment in the UK. I've always assumed that they don't want to impede the pirates, but instead want a way to pursue them legally and then make an extra profit. It's the people who can't break the law, the consumer electronics companies who will be required to obtain a licence who will be affected. It is a legal trigger. Conditions placed on them (Consumer Electronics), will impact the consumer, due to built in restrictions in the equipment, imposed by a licence holder (DTVA). This will alter the landscape of free-to-air, circumventing the intention of the law. You can't build a PVR, or even a TV without an EPG. And as was suggested, this will allow the DTVA to control innovation, in this field, by authorising products (and charging for a licence? aka profit). This exactly the public interest, that the law was intended to protect. And why the metadata (EPG), should be regarded as part of the signal, (it is broadcast) that must be unencrypted for public service broadcasting. QED. - 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/
