Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On 20-Jul-2010, at 18:26, Brian Butterworth wrote:

> More DRM...
> 
> http://www.betanews.com/article/The-entertainment-Industry-debuts-yet-another-DRM-scheme-Ultraviolet/1279643971?

The mind boggles. A lot of it sounds like Marlin (even down to the wide range 
of industry partners, including Sony).

On second thoughts…

"Users will have to create UltraViolet accounts, where they access and manage 
all of their content. Licensing deals have not yet been announced, since the 
UltraViolet tech specs have not yet been released."

Attempting to create an alternative to the iTunes regime, by the looks of it.

(Also: fail fail fail fail fail fail)




-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Brian Butterworth]

More DRM...

http://www.betanews.com/article/The-entertainment-Industry-debuts-yet-another-DRM-scheme-Ultraviolet/1279643971?

On 19 July 2010 11:51, Mo McRoberts  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:38, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
>  wrote:
> > Mo - although we didn't publish your article on the blog I did circulate
> > it to other colleagues in the BBC and I was pleased to see it published
> > in the Guardian. We also linked to it from the blog when it was
> > published.
>
> Nick - honestly, I do appreciate your efforts on that front, please
> don't think otherwise! (Apologies if I'd given some other impression).
>
> The issue is that the information that was in that article is the
> information people were asking for in comments on the blog posts, and
> should really have been made clear from the outset. That's the thing
> -- if the BBC had published a post explaining clearly what the
> proposal was and how it would affect people simultaneously with the
> submission to Ofcom, there'd be no cause to be critical of anything
> except the meat of the proposal itself, which surely would have made
> lives (especially yours!) easier all-round!
>
> 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/
>



-- 

Brian Butterworth

follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist
web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
advice, since 2002

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:38, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
 wrote:
> Mo - although we didn't publish your article on the blog I did circulate
> it to other colleagues in the BBC and I was pleased to see it published
> in the Guardian. We also linked to it from the blog when it was
> published.

Nick - honestly, I do appreciate your efforts on that front, please
don't think otherwise! (Apologies if I'd given some other impression).

The issue is that the information that was in that article is the
information people were asking for in comments on the blog posts, and
should really have been made clear from the outset. That's the thing
-- if the BBC had published a post explaining clearly what the
proposal was and how it would affect people simultaneously with the
submission to Ofcom, there'd be no cause to be critical of anything
except the meat of the proposal itself, which surely would have made
lives (especially yours!) easier all-round!

M.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

Mo - although we didn't publish your article on the blog I did circulate
it to other colleagues in the BBC and I was pleased to see it published
in the Guardian. We also linked to it from the blog when it was
published.

-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 16 July 2010 21:02
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 19:27, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
 wrote:
> "glossing over details which might not seem important but are"
>
> What does or does not seem important is a matter of interpretation and

> is in the eye of the beholder...

Not really...

"What does this mean for consumers in real terms?" is pretty important
-- that's why I wrote "the guardian article" (can't think of a better
way to refer to that piece, sorry).

I'm not sure that's particularly subjective, given that most of the
questions being posed were along those lines, most of the
misunderstandings (which came about as a result of it not being clearly
explained _prior_ to anybody else having a stab at it) were in that
area, and there was still stuff that -- unless you already knew the
technology well -- was completely non-obvious (for example,
compatibility with TVs which didn't support HDCP).

The *big* thing people wanted to know from the outset was how it would
affect them -- whether they'd have to replace bits of their equipment,
whether they'd even want to, what things would stop working and what
things wouldn't -- most people couldn't care less if Tom Watson or Cory
Doctorow was wrong, because even being wrong they were saying more that
was substantive and along the right lines than the BBC were.
People didn't really *want* "Oh, Tom got it all wrong in his blog post",
they wanted "Tom got it all wrong in his blog post, we're sorry we
didn't post this sooner, these are the things you need to know".

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] Freeview HD Content Management

[Christopher Woods]

> "What does this mean for consumers in real terms?" is pretty important
> -- that's why I wrote "the guardian article" (can't think of 
> a better way to refer to that piece, sorry).

The Grauniad recital =D

I'll get my coat

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 19:27, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
 wrote:
> "glossing over details which might not seem important but are"
>
> What does or does not seem important is a matter of interpretation and
> is in the eye of the beholder...

Not really...

"What does this mean for consumers in real terms?" is pretty important
-- that's why I wrote "the guardian article" (can't think of a better
way to refer to that piece, sorry).

I'm not sure that's particularly subjective, given that most of the
questions being posed were along those lines, most of the
misunderstandings (which came about as a result of it not being
clearly explained _prior_ to anybody else having a stab at it) were in
that area, and there was still stuff that -- unless you already knew
the technology well -- was completely non-obvious (for example,
compatibility with TVs which didn't support HDCP).

The *big* thing people wanted to know from the outset was how it would
affect them -- whether they'd have to replace bits of their equipment,
whether they'd even want to, what things would stop working and what
things wouldn't -- most people couldn't care less if Tom Watson or
Cory Doctorow was wrong, because even being wrong they were saying
more that was substantive and along the right lines than the BBC were.
People didn't really *want* "Oh, Tom got it all wrong in his blog
post", they wanted "Tom got it all wrong in his blog post, we're sorry
we didn't post this sooner, these are the things you need to know".

M.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

"glossing over details which might not seem important but are" 

What does or does not seem important is a matter of interpretation and
is in the eye of the beholder...

-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 16 July 2010 16:03
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:07, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
 wrote:
> In the case of Erik's post that you mention all we are actually doing 
> is cross posting to it on the Internet blog. So the editor of the 
> About The BBC blog has editorial responsibility for it because it was 
> published first there.
>
> What happens in practice in general is;
>
> - sometimes we (i.e. Paul and I) have an idea for a blog post and we 
> ask someone to write it - we might help them by suggesting bullet 
> points but we don't write it for them
>
> - the communications team also sometimes send us ideas for posts and 
> in some cases finished posts - I assume they similarly help people 
> write posts
>
> But I would certainly not write a finished post for someone like Erik.
> Senior executives have different attitudes - Anthony Rose for example 
> writes all his posts in his own individual style. Others need or like 
> more of a steer.
>
> All this is in a context where we have editorial control and can ask 
> for a post to be changed and even have the right to refuse it - 
> although I can only recall one occasion where we have.

That's interesting stuff (genuinely!). you should probably do a blog
post on it one day. it's good to know what the process is, in general
(even if it varies).

on the topic of 'things which it might be worth doing blog posts about':
P4A.

> Again I disagree that I've been fed misleading information (and I'd 
> like to know in what way) - I suspect that this is again about 
> interpretation of information, which is another thing entirely.

I'll respond to this bit properly when I've had a proper think about it
-- interpretation comes down to it to an extent (i.e., how things are
most likely to be interpreted by those reading stuff vs. how things are
most likely to be interpreted by those with prior knowledge), but
there're other things, too. predominantly I was struck by errors of
omission, though (questions which don't really get answered, though not
for the want of trying on your part, glossing over details which might
not seem important but are). it's very difficult to know how much of
this is deliberate and how much is a product of circumstance or just
things being missed -- in either case, though, it comes across poorly
and doesn't help the BBC's case any. as I say, though, I'll follow up on
this later.

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] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:07, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
 wrote:
> In the case of Erik's post that you mention all we are actually doing is
> cross posting to it on the Internet blog. So the editor of the About The
> BBC blog has editorial responsibility for it because it was published
> first there.
>
> What happens in practice in general is;
>
> - sometimes we (i.e. Paul and I) have an idea for a blog post and we ask
> someone to write it - we might help them by suggesting bullet points but
> we don't write it for them
>
> - the communications team also sometimes send us ideas for posts and in
> some cases finished posts - I assume they similarly help people write
> posts
>
> But I would certainly not write a finished post for someone like Erik.
> Senior executives have different attitudes - Anthony Rose for example
> writes all his posts in his own individual style. Others need or like
> more of a steer.
>
> All this is in a context where we have editorial control and can ask for
> a post to be changed and even have the right to refuse it - although I
> can only recall one occasion where we have.

That's interesting stuff (genuinely!). you should probably do a blog
post on it one day. it's good to know what the process is, in general
(even if it varies).

on the topic of 'things which it might be worth doing blog posts about': P4A.

> Again I disagree that I've been fed misleading information (and I'd like
> to know in what way) - I suspect that this is again about interpretation
> of information, which is another thing entirely.

I'll respond to this bit properly when I've had a proper think about
it -- interpretation comes down to it to an extent (i.e., how things
are most likely to be interpreted by those reading stuff vs. how
things are most likely to be interpreted by those with prior
knowledge), but there're other things, too. predominantly I was struck
by errors of omission, though (questions which don't really get
answered, though not for the want of trying on your part, glossing
over details which might not seem important but are). it's very
difficult to know how much of this is deliberate and how much is a
product of circumstance or just things being missed -- in either case,
though, it comes across poorly and doesn't help the BBC's case any. as
I say, though, I'll follow up on this later.

M.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Christopher Woods]

A HUGE aside here, but still relevant given the previous discussion of the
traditional royalty share model and how it favours the labels.


I work for a (fairly small) indie label - from witnessing this model in
action I feel I have to stick up for the label given that I see the model
working (or sometimes not so well) on a daily basis! Where we've done deals
with artists in the past, they've almost always been a 50/50 arrangement -
the artist receives 50% of net royalties. Where a label fronts recording
costs, these can easily become £6-10,000 for an album session. Even an EP
session can be upwards of £1,500 although these figures are a little
pessimistic (though not unrealistic). (We actually designed, built and owned
studios for ten years until 2001 but the project haemorrhaged money.)

With regards to CD pressing, a 1,000 run will cost around £800 including
full colour print in a basic jewel case. The AP1/AP2a MCPS licence costs
another amount on top. When getting your CDs pressed, add in other things
(Super Jewel cases, slip / O-cards, digipaks or gatefolds with high quality
card / fancy posters) and you can easily top the 1k mark, not even counting
the artwork design costs. Of course, discount comes with with bulk, but
almost nobody except the Big Four do >1k discs in a pressing. (To put things
in perspective: when SyCo have done the X Factor Finalists CDs, they press
up >10,000 of EACH finalist's recording of the song - and shred the losers'
copies when the winner is announced!)

To put stuff into distro with someone like Universal, you have your line
costs simply to have the title listed on their system - monthly recurring,
per title - then handling costs, despatch costs, "salesforce" costs (even
though really the only people they sell into are HMV now, and from last year
they've stopped guaranteeing racking in all but the top 6 or so stores in
the UK, it's a joke). You can't sell your discs through at full retail, you
have your wholesale (Dealer) price. We've sold albums through at £6.65 and
I've later seen them in a London HMV for £12.99. Oh, and did I mention that
supermarkets and stores like HMV *DEMAND* what they call a "file discount"
of up to 40% just to take stock? (which is on a non-negotiable sale or
return basis with up to a six month returns period.)

If you end up in a position where you don't sell stock through into shops,
it usually costs less for your distro to SHRED your discs than it does to
send it back to you! Ridiculous. The costs are stacked against the labels at
all points - incredibly frustrating. And that's even before you begin to
contemplate any plugging, promo, advertising, miscellaneous online, merch,
booking agent / gig costs... Or even an advance for the artist! But it gets
better...

So, this figure of 63% which the old techdirt article might quote as truth
where valid for major labels (who might also own distribution, management,
publishing and studios under the same roof), the model quickly falls apart
as soon as focus on a smaller label. I used to think the whole model was
bullshit and the artists got shafted, but if anything it's level pegging -
smaller labels have just as tough a time as artists as the risk to them to
fund any new release is proportionally WAY larger. Also, the techdirt
article works on the basis of the artist receiving a 20% royalty - this is
dismal, and the artist should be smacked for agreeing to such a pitiful rate
like the chumps they probably (hypothetically) are.

Take one of our real world iTunes scenarios - from a 79p purchase, iTunes
immediately keeps about 32p. For UK and most worldwide sales, this also
includes the royalties which the label's obliged to pay (in the UK, to the
MCPS-PRS Alliance). However, the USA requires the selling party to pay the
mechanical on each sale (an arse-about-tit form which has arisen from the
disconnected Collection Agencies - Harry Fox Agency being the incumbent on
Mechanicals and ASCAP, BMI and SESAC on the Performance royalties - which
adds yet another level of complication.

>From what's left (47p), you halve the resulting amount on a 50/50 deal.
Neither the label nor the artist gets much for their work. On some artists
whom we've purely done digital distribution for (on a rolling licence
agreement), we give the artist 80% of net. As you can imagine, we get
virtually nothing - and our income's directly tied to their success, so we
have an interest in seeing them do well. It's a tough environment to be in.

For receiving US/Canadian/Mexico/European/Australasian payments, we first
have to receive the currency and have the bank convert it to GBP. Of course,
we can't get the Interbank rates, nobody but the banks get those - so more
money's immediately lost in conversion. The larger labels will have
sweetheart deals with their banks (or almost certainly have accounts in each
relevant territory) so this isn't so much of a big deal, but the amount of
administration just scales inordinately. If you deal with

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Richard P Edwards]

The internet doesn't make anything different. Not anymore.
It is exactly the same as the physical world but bigger and more connected.
The publishers should be educated at the same time as they would benefit from 
being open and educating their customers.
Surely the apparent subterfuge goes to show that they are running around like 
headless chickens in fear of something which the music industry has already had 
to become satisfied with?

I don't think that individual communication is something that the BBC is very 
good at. If they were then "we", the public, would not find ourselves in these 
situations. As David says, the BBC are looking in the wrong direction if they 
want to fear the dark.

Regards
Rich E

On 14 Jul 2010, at 12:52, Mo McRoberts wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:33, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
>  wrote:
>> What I'm describing is not home taping - it's publishing - the internet
>> makes everything different
> 
> The point is -- the leap from 'having recorded some programmes' to
> 'publishing them on the Internet' isn't a small one in real terms. It
> may well be a concern, but all evidence to date points to it being a
> pretty misplaced one (in part because the "determined pirates" who
> everybody knows aren't foiled by any of these measures continue
> unabated regardless - thus, there's no incentive for ordinary honest
> folk to go to the trouble of finding out how they might start to
> publish their archive on the Internet). Plus, publishing a stash of
> iPlayered content would stand out like a sore thumb -- unless you were
> clued up enough that you're technically on a par with the determined
> pirate class of users, you're not going to be able to keep something
> like that hidden from BBC Legal for very long. It doesn't take much
> imagination to see how selfsame honest folk would react to getting a
> letter in the post from m'learned friends as a result of their
> publication activities. "Turn the bloody thing off!" would tend
> towards being high on the list of priorities.
> 
> 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] Freeview HD Content Management

[David Tomlinson]

I know users of the site who have had nasty letters from solicitors
telling them to pay £300+ for a single album they torrented, etc.

So I think users may notice a difference in that regard.




Yes these guy's are saints.

"But as they say in Britain, “where there’s muck, there’s brass”, and 
that’s enough to attract more lawyers and more rightsholders to this 
most profitable of honeypots."



"It has been well documented that other lawyers previously involved in 
this type of work, such as ACS:Law, have been heavily reported both to 
the government and to organizations such as the Solicitors Regulatory 
Authority (SRA). Indeed, ACS:Law have proven record-breaking in this 
respect."


http://torrentfreak.com/yet-more-lawyers-jump-on-turn-piracy-into-profit-bandwagon-100712/


This is just extortion.

But then Nick is on the side of the real crooks as the courts have 
demonstrated, ever herd of Celador, well it wasn't the pirates who tried 
to cheat them of 270 millions.


"This week, the big case involved a TV show, rather than a movie, with 
the famed gameshow Who Wants To Be A Millionaire suddenly becoming "Who 
Wants To Hide Millions In Profits." A jury found the whole "Hollywood 
Accounting" discussion preposterous and awarded Celador $270 million in 
damages from Disney, after the jury believed that Disney used these 
kinds of tricks to cook the books and avoid having to pay Celador over 
the gameshow, as per their agreement."


http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml

"So, back to our original example of the average musician only earning 
$23.40 for every $1,000 sold. That money has to go back towards 
"recouping" the advance, even though the label is still straight up 
cashing 63% of every sale, which does not go towards making up the 
advance. The math here gets ridiculous pretty quickly when you start to 
think about it. These record label deals are basically out and out scams."


http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml

These are the big time crooks, that Nick should be concerned about.
He even uses the slippery slope argument, on that basis I am sure he is 
frightened of the dark...


As for the Artists:

"The really interesting thing is, of course, that these aren't Baen 
books, they're DAW---another publisher---so it's 'name loyalty' rather 
than 'brand loyalty.' I'll tell you what, I'm sold. Free works."


I've found that to be true myself; every time we make a few songs 
available on my website, sales of all the CDs go up. A lot. And I don't 
know about you, but as an artist with an in-print record catalogue that 
dates back to 1965, I'd be thrilled to see sales on my old catalogue rise."


http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

Free Works !

And don't miss the Courtney Love from 2000, URL in Techdirt story, on 
how an 11 million grossing band makes zero income, at least if they were 
established artists they would have made a quarter of a million.


Keep Honest People Honest !

Honest People don't need to be kept honest, but they can see the law is 
an ass, and choose to ignore it. Unless the BBC and the crooks get to 
impose 'Technical Protection Measures' for their extortion rackets.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

In the case of Erik's post that you mention all we are actually doing is
cross posting to it on the Internet blog. So the editor of the About The
BBC blog has editorial responsibility for it because it was published
first there. 

What happens in practice in general is;

- sometimes we (i.e. Paul and I) have an idea for a blog post and we ask
someone to write it - we might help them by suggesting bullet points but
we don't write it for them

- the communications team also sometimes send us ideas for posts and in
some cases finished posts - I assume they similarly help people write
posts

But I would certainly not write a finished post for someone like Erik.
Senior executives have different attitudes - Anthony Rose for example
writes all his posts in his own individual style. Others need or like
more of a steer.

All this is in a context where we have editorial control and can ask for
a post to be changed and even have the right to refuse it - although I
can only recall one occasion where we have.

Again I disagree that I've been fed misleading information (and I'd like
to know in what way) - I suspect that this is again about interpretation
of information, which is another thing entirely.

-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 14 July 2010 11:34
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:15, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
 wrote:
> I don't write other people's posts on the blog I only write my own.

Okay, just so we're clear (and as a minor educational exercise in
behind-the-scenes-on-the-Internet-Blog) - a post from, say, Erik Huggers
(like the one today) - was that written by Erik, and then sent over to
you (or Paul) for tidying up/formatting/etc., or do you guys write the
bulk of it based upon information Erik sends over? One can never quite
be sure how much a byline implies.

> I have to accept what my colleagues write in good faith, although if I
think there are inaccuracies or things which are unclear then I will
obviously ask for clarification. The blog is striving to be accurate and
impartial. That's particularly difficult to do when you are talking
about yourself but that's the aim.
>
> I have to be pragmatic. There may be things which people cannot talk
about for good reason (e.g. confidentiality, or damaging a relationship
with a partner). My aim is to get them to say something. If they say
something, even if its not perfect, then that may spark a useful
conversation and the next time they speak, it may be an improvement on
what was said previously.

This is a given - as I said, I don't doubt your intentions at all. I
think you've been fed misleading information, and you're not in a
position to either necessarily *know* that it's misleading, nor in some
circumstances do anything about it (especially when some of the posts
come from well above the paygrades of anybody here :)

And, it's part of your job to defend the BBC in these circles unless you
have a bloody good reason to think they're in the wrong. Indeed, I think
most people here would defend the BBC to the hilt in general terms,
myself included.

However, in this case, the BBC - the organisation, and the message it
conveyed - was misleading to the public. I don't think that's your
fault, and I don't think you could have necessarily done anything about
it, nor even known it to be the case. I *do* think the corporation,
again collectively, could have handled things a lot better and ensured
this didn't arise, but they didn't. That's the reason for my
disappointment, and nothing I've seen since has swayed me from this view
(and, as it goes, I might be stubborn, but I'm stubborn based on
available evidence - I know when I a gut feeling is just that).

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] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:10, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
 wrote:
> I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a personal 
> archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all on the internet 
> for your friends - even this which might seem harmless might prevent a rights 
> holder setting up their own website to do the same thing commercially and 
> legitimately.

Actually, more to the point:

If -- for example -- iPlayer Desktop didn't DRM the files, who do you
think would know? And those that did become aware of it, what
proportion of those people would have the smarts to make use of that
in order to keep copies of the files and create a personal archive of
a TV programme (which they can do with a PVR, of course, given
sufficient disk space)?

Of those people who have the technical smarts to do that, what
proportion of those *don't* know how to create a personal archive of a
TV programme through some other means (captured from broadcast,
BitTorrent, Usenet, IRC, whatever)?

And then, of those people, how many of them are going to want to
distribute the captured programmes to other people willy-nilly, given
that their peer group can likely accomplish the same thing all by
themselves, or alternately is happy with the status quo (i.e., what
level of demand is there for people doing this)?

If the BDG don't have a figure for that which shows it's anything
other than infinitesimal, then the whole thing is essentially based on
somebody's hunch, and not a very well-thought-through one at that.

M.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:33, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
 wrote:
> What I'm describing is not home taping - it's publishing - the internet
> makes everything different

The point is -- the leap from 'having recorded some programmes' to
'publishing them on the Internet' isn't a small one in real terms. It
may well be a concern, but all evidence to date points to it being a
pretty misplaced one (in part because the "determined pirates" who
everybody knows aren't foiled by any of these measures continue
unabated regardless - thus, there's no incentive for ordinary honest
folk to go to the trouble of finding out how they might start to
publish their archive on the Internet). Plus, publishing a stash of
iPlayered content would stand out like a sore thumb -- unless you were
clued up enough that you're technically on a par with the determined
pirate class of users, you're not going to be able to keep something
like that hidden from BBC Legal for very long. It doesn't take much
imagination to see how selfsame honest folk would react to getting a
letter in the post from m'learned friends as a result of their
publication activities. "Turn the bloody thing off!" would tend
towards being high on the list of priorities.

M.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

You'd be surprised - they do (think it's a concern) 

-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 14 July 2010 11:26
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:10, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
 wrote:
> I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a
personal archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all
on the internet for your friends - even this which might seem harmless
might prevent a rights holder setting up their own website to do the
same thing commercially and legitimately.

I'm actually flabbergasted that people think this is a serious concern.

> My own personal definition of a pirate and I would stress it is a
personal one not a BBC or official one is someone who knowingly attempts
to sell or commercially exploit other people's intellectual property
without their permission.

mine's actually a little broader than that, but at least we generally
agree on something :)

> People say "there's nothing people can do about this" but Pirate Bay
was closed down and fined heavily and I haven't seen much about them
since.

They were back online within about 24 hours and are still running more
or less quite happily. And, more to the point, there were *one* site of
many. Running a tracker's easy - that's the problem with peer-to-peer.
It's not a million miles away from trying to stop people delivering
letters to one another by hand.

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] Freeview HD Content Management

[backstage]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:28:33AM +0100, Adam Bradley wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Nick Reynolds-FM&T <
> nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> People say "there's nothing people can do about this" but Pirate Bay was
> > closed down and fined heavily and I haven't seen much about them since.
> 
> Perhaps you haven't heard much about them in the news, but they weren't
> closed down and I suspect that users of the site didn't notice any
> difference at all.

I know users of the site who have had nasty letters from solicitors
telling them to pay £300+ for a single album they torrented, etc.

So I think users may notice a difference in that regard.

-- 
Flash Bristow -www.gorge.org-07939 579090
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I prefer an email reply, but I will answer my phone after 1030am.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:15, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
 wrote:
> I don't write other people's posts on the blog I only write my own.

Okay, just so we're clear (and as a minor educational exercise in
behind-the-scenes-on-the-Internet-Blog) - a post from, say, Erik
Huggers (like the one today) - was that written by Erik, and then sent
over to you (or Paul) for tidying up/formatting/etc., or do you guys
write the bulk of it based upon information Erik sends over? One can
never quite be sure how much a byline implies.

> I have to accept what my colleagues write in good faith, although if I think 
> there are inaccuracies or things which are unclear then I will obviously ask 
> for clarification. The blog is striving to be accurate and impartial. That's 
> particularly difficult to do when you are talking about yourself but that's 
> the aim.
>
> I have to be pragmatic. There may be things which people cannot talk about 
> for good reason (e.g. confidentiality, or damaging a relationship with a 
> partner). My aim is to get them to say something. If they say something, even 
> if its not perfect, then that may spark a useful conversation and the next 
> time they speak, it may be an improvement on what was said previously.

This is a given - as I said, I don't doubt your intentions at all. I
think you've been fed misleading information, and you're not in a
position to either necessarily *know* that it's misleading, nor in
some circumstances do anything about it (especially when some of the
posts come from well above the paygrades of anybody here :)

And, it's part of your job to defend the BBC in these circles unless
you have a bloody good reason to think they're in the wrong. Indeed, I
think most people here would defend the BBC to the hilt in general
terms, myself included.

However, in this case, the BBC - the organisation, and the message it
conveyed - was misleading to the public. I don't think that's your
fault, and I don't think you could have necessarily done anything
about it, nor even known it to be the case. I *do* think the
corporation, again collectively, could have handled things a lot
better and ensured this didn't arise, but they didn't. That's the
reason for my disappointment, and nothing I've seen since has swayed
me from this view (and, as it goes, I might be stubborn, but I'm
stubborn based on available evidence - I know when I a gut feeling is
just that).

M.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

What I'm describing is not home taping - it's publishing - the internet
makes everything different 

-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Alex Mace
Sent: 14 July 2010 11:19
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

> I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a
personal archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all
on the internet for your friends - even this which might seem harmless
might prevent a rights holder setting up their own website to do the
same thing commercially and legitimately.

Seriously? Aren't you basically saying that home taping is killing
music?

Alex


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Adam Bradley]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Nick Reynolds-FM&T <
nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

People say "there's nothing people can do about this" but Pirate Bay was
> closed down and fined heavily and I haven't seen much about them since.


Perhaps you haven't heard much about them in the news, but they weren't
closed down and I suspect that users of the site didn't notice any
difference at all.

  Adam

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:10, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
 wrote:
> I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a personal 
> archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all on the internet 
> for your friends - even this which might seem harmless might prevent a rights 
> holder setting up their own website to do the same thing commercially and 
> legitimately.

I'm actually flabbergasted that people think this is a serious concern.

> My own personal definition of a pirate and I would stress it is a personal 
> one not a BBC or official one is someone who knowingly attempts to sell or 
> commercially exploit other people's intellectual property without their 
> permission.

mine's actually a little broader than that, but at least we generally
agree on something :)

> People say "there's nothing people can do about this" but Pirate Bay was 
> closed down and fined heavily and I haven't seen much about them since.

They were back online within about 24 hours and are still running more
or less quite happily. And, more to the point, there were *one* site
of many. Running a tracker's easy - that's the problem with
peer-to-peer. It's not a million miles away from trying to stop people
delivering letters to one another by hand.

M.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Alex Mace]

> I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a personal 
> archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all on the internet 
> for your friends - even this which might seem harmless might prevent a rights 
> holder setting up their own website to do the same thing commercially and 
> legitimately.

Seriously? Aren't you basically saying that home taping is killing music?

Alex


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

I don't write other people's posts on the blog I only write my own. 

I have to accept what my colleagues write in good faith, although if I think 
there are inaccuracies or things which are unclear then I will obviously ask 
for clarification. The blog is striving to be accurate and impartial. That's 
particularly difficult to do when you are talking about yourself but that's the 
aim.

I have to be pragmatic. There may be things which people cannot talk about for 
good reason (e.g. confidentiality, or damaging a relationship with a partner). 
My aim is to get them to say something. If they say something, even if its not 
perfect, then that may spark a useful conversation and the next time they 
speak, it may be an improvement on what was said previously.

-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] 
On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 13 July 2010 17:11
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 16:43, Nick Reynolds-FM&T  
wrote:
> Hi Mo,
>
> I am going out this evening so will be away from a computer.
>
> However I thought I would try and give you a quick response to some of 
> your questions.
>
> 1. Because I didn't know it was happening until after it was mentioned 
> by third parties. I'd point out that one of those third parties (Tom
> Watson) corrected his first blog post about the subject as he admitted 
> was inaccurate.


Nick, you're responding as though I'm criticising _you_. I'm not. It's not your 
responsibility to know that this stuff was being sent to Ofcom and make sure 
that the public were properly informed of it.
However, it *is* the BBC's responsibility to make this happen (and when that 
kicks off, _then_ it becomes your problem).

Tom Watson having to correct his post is something I answered back when we were 
talking about this previously - he wouldn't have had to do that if clear and 
accurate information had been published by the BBC *in the first place*!


> 2. Possibly because it wasn't published on the internet. I certainly 
> can't find it on OFCOM's website now.

It was published -- that's how people managed to respond to it :) Graham Plumb 
would certainly have known where it was (and indeed, would have had a copy of 
it -- you could have hosted a copy yourselves!). It wasn't easy to find on 
Ofcom's site, because it was pitched at the broadcasting industry, not the 
public (even though it concerns every potential customer of Freeview HD!)

It _should_ be here:

http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/other-issues/bbc-multiplex-enquiry/

But Ofcom have completely reorganised their site in the last couple of weeks, 
so I have no idea where it might have gone now.

> 3. Is this a falsehood? I'd like to know more.

Yes, which is why I wrote the post which ended up in the Guardian:
there are lots of things it prevents -- or at least seeks to -- so saying "the 
only thing you won't be able to is X" is false.

> 4. We answered most of those questions in subsequent blog posts and 
> comments.

A big part of the frustration on the part of the commenters was because 
questions weren't being answered. And, again, this isn't a criticism of you 
because I know you were trying to get answers, but ultimately a lot of quite 
clear and direct questions never had any followup at all.

> 5. Don't know the answer to this one. Will check.

Thanks -- appreciated.

> 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to 
> keep honest people honest. If pirates choose to do certain things then 
> that is their responsibility  not the BBCs. If we had no content 
> protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates 
> doing anything they want.

The point is: what evidence was there that honest people *needed* technological 
measures to keep them honest? If they're honest, but do something in an 
"unsupported" way, perhaps with a cheap imported receiver, or an HD television 
which doesn't support the protected path, are they still honest?

You're contradicting yourself when you say "if we had no content protection at 
all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want": 
first, this is not true, because copyright law applies whether or not content 
protection is applied, and second, both Graham's post and your statement there 
says that you're not targeting the pirates in the first place.

> 7. I'm not in charge of the BBC's Media Literacy strategy. I am only 
> in charge of the blog. I do my best to make it as accurate and 
> impartial as possible.

Indeed, and again, much of this is not criticism of the BBC Internet Blog 
specifically, but of the

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a personal 
archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all on the internet 
for your friends - even this which might seem harmless might prevent a rights 
holder setting up their own website to do the same thing commercially and 
legitimately.

My own personal definition of a pirate and I would stress it is a personal one 
not a BBC or official one is someone who knowingly attempts to sell or 
commercially exploit other people's intellectual property without their 
permission.

But people get hung up on the piracy word as its emotional and loaded.

People say "there's nothing people can do about this" but Pirate Bay was closed 
down and fined heavily and I haven't seen much about them since.
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] 
On Behalf Of Paul Battley
Sent: 13 July 2010 17:28
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

On 13 July 2010 16:43, Nick Reynolds-FM&T  wrote:
> 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to 
> keep honest people honest.

I don't understand this "keep honest people honest" thing. Is the BBC saving 
people from themselves, just in case they might be tempted to do something 
unlawful like copying a TV programme to their portable media player? And 
... are you saying that I'm dishonest for wanting to subvert these 
restrictions? Or is it a slippery slope - one day you're making a personal 
archive of a TV programme, the next you're wondering around West End pubs with 
a carrier bag full of DVD+Rs of shaky camcorder versions of Hollywood films? 
Bizarre.

> If pirates choose to do certain things then that is their 
> responsibility  not the BBCs. If we had no content protection at all 
> clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they 
> want.

They already are! And nothing the BBC is doing will stop them.
(Encrypting the EPG on Freeview HD while the video itself is in the clear? Give 
me a break!) They're also doing anything they want with Sky HD and Blu-ray, 
both of which have far harder protections than anything the BBC's mooted.

And, just to be clear, who do we mean by "pirates"? People downloading stuff? 
People uploading stuff? People making personal copies? People sharing copies 
with their friends? People selling stuff on for money?
People uploading it to online storage sites with affiliate plans?

There's such a huge gulf between the stated aims and the implementation of this 
policy.

Paul.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Paul Battley]

On 13 July 2010 16:43, Nick Reynolds-FM&T  wrote:
> 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to
> keep honest people honest.

I don't understand this "keep honest people honest" thing. Is the BBC
saving people from themselves, just in case they might be tempted to
do something unlawful like copying a TV programme to their portable
media player? And … are you saying that I'm dishonest for wanting to
subvert these restrictions? Or is it a slippery slope - one day you're
making a personal archive of a TV programme, the next you're wondering
around West End pubs with a carrier bag full of DVD+Rs of shaky
camcorder versions of Hollywood films? Bizarre.

> If pirates choose to do certain things then
> that is their responsibility  not the BBCs. If we had no content
> protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing
> anything they want.

They already are! And nothing the BBC is doing will stop them.
(Encrypting the EPG on Freeview HD while the video itself is in the
clear? Give me a break!) They're also doing anything they want with
Sky HD and Blu-ray, both of which have far harder protections than
anything the BBC's mooted.

And, just to be clear, who do we mean by "pirates"? People downloading
stuff? People uploading stuff? People making personal copies? People
sharing copies with their friends? People selling stuff on for money?
People uploading it to online storage sites with affiliate plans?

There's such a huge gulf between the stated aims and the
implementation of this policy.

Paul.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 16:43, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
 wrote:
> Hi Mo,
>
> I am going out this evening so will be away from a computer.
>
> However I thought I would try and give you a quick response to some of
> your questions.
>
> 1. Because I didn't know it was happening until after it was mentioned
> by third parties. I'd point out that one of those third parties (Tom
> Watson) corrected his first blog post about the subject as he admitted
> was inaccurate.


Nick, you're responding as though I'm criticising _you_. I'm not. It's
not your responsibility to know that this stuff was being sent to
Ofcom and make sure that the public were properly informed of it.
However, it *is* the BBC's responsibility to make this happen (and
when that kicks off, _then_ it becomes your problem).

Tom Watson having to correct his post is something I answered back
when we were talking about this previously - he wouldn't have had to
do that if clear and accurate information had been published by the
BBC *in the first place*!


> 2. Possibly because it wasn't published on the internet. I certainly
> can't find it on OFCOM's website now.

It was published -- that's how people managed to respond to it :)
Graham Plumb would certainly have known where it was (and indeed,
would have had a copy of it -- you could have hosted a copy
yourselves!). It wasn't easy to find on Ofcom's site, because it was
pitched at the broadcasting industry, not the public (even though it
concerns every potential customer of Freeview HD!)

It _should_ be here:

http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/other-issues/bbc-multiplex-enquiry/

But Ofcom have completely reorganised their site in the last couple of
weeks, so I have no idea where it might have gone now.

> 3. Is this a falsehood? I'd like to know more.

Yes, which is why I wrote the post which ended up in the Guardian:
there are lots of things it prevents -- or at least seeks to -- so
saying "the only thing you won't be able to is X" is false.

> 4. We answered most of those questions in subsequent blog posts and
> comments.

A big part of the frustration on the part of the commenters was
because questions weren't being answered. And, again, this isn't a
criticism of you because I know you were trying to get answers, but
ultimately a lot of quite clear and direct questions never had any
followup at all.

> 5. Don't know the answer to this one. Will check.

Thanks -- appreciated.

> 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to
> keep honest people honest. If pirates choose to do certain things then
> that is their responsibility  not the BBCs. If we had no content
> protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing
> anything they want.

The point is: what evidence was there that honest people *needed*
technological measures to keep them honest? If they're honest, but do
something in an "unsupported" way, perhaps with a cheap imported
receiver, or an HD television which doesn't support the protected
path, are they still honest?

You're contradicting yourself when you say "if we had no content
protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates
doing anything they want": first, this is not true, because copyright
law applies whether or not content protection is applied, and second,
both Graham's post and your statement there says that you're not
targeting the pirates in the first place.

> 7. I'm not in charge of the BBC's Media Literacy strategy. I am only in
> charge of the blog. I do my best to make it as accurate and impartial as
> possible.

Indeed, and again, much of this is not criticism of the BBC Internet
Blog specifically, but of the organisation's broader policy and
communication strategy as it relates to this issue. The Internet Blog
is obviously a part of that, but it's not the be-all and end-all.

> 8.  "...but the devil's in the detail, and _that_ hasn't been anything
> close to being honestly conveyed."
>
> I disagree - we have linked to and included all the detail that is
> publicly available and tried to dig out as much as we can, and we will
> continue to try and dig out more with an honest intent.

I think *you* have tried to, certainly. I don't think you've managed
it nearly as well as you could have if those providing the
explanations and content had been as upfront as they could have - if
they had, the questions above wouldn't exist :)

> We do not spin or misdirect on the Internet blog.
>
> I am saddened by your assertion that we do.

I'm as sure as I can be that you have no intention of doing so, but
with the best will in the world, you don't *write* the posts, and do
you?

M.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

Hi Mo,

I am going out this evening so will be away from a computer.

However I thought I would try and give you a quick response to some of
your questions.

1. Because I didn't know it was happening until after it was mentioned
by third parties. I'd point out that one of those third parties (Tom
Watson) corrected his first blog post about the subject as he admitted
was inaccurate.

2. Possibly because it wasn't published on the internet. I certainly
can't find it on OFCOM's website now.

3. Is this a falsehood? I'd like to know more.

4. We answered most of those questions in subsequent blog posts and
comments.

5. Don't know the answer to this one. Will check.

6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to
keep honest people honest. If pirates choose to do certain things then
that is their responsibility  not the BBCs. If we had no content
protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing
anything they want.

7. I'm not in charge of the BBC's Media Literacy strategy. I am only in
charge of the blog. I do my best to make it as accurate and impartial as
possible.

8.  "...but the devil's in the detail, and _that_ hasn't been anything
close to being honestly conveyed." 

I disagree - we have linked to and included all the detail that is
publicly available and tried to dig out as much as we can, and we will
continue to try and dig out more with an honest intent.

We do not spin or misdirect on the Internet blog. 

I am saddened by your assertion that we do.
 

-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 13 July 2010 01:14
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

A delayed reply, but:

On 16-Jun-2010, at 08:42, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:

> All I can really do with you Mo is disagree. 
> 
> Of course the public has a right to make an informed judgement. And 
> all I can say is that on the blog we have linked to and exposed all 
> sides of the argument and all the facts (including linking to your 
> Guardian piece and blog posts - and I suspect more people read it 
> there than would have if it was published on the blog). Anyone who is 
> a regular reader of the blog and interested in this issue would be
well informed.

So, why is the case that:

1) no mention of the plan to scramble the EIT on Freeview HD as it is on
Freesat was made on the blog, or anywhere else except a letter to Ofcom,
until _after_ the issue was publicised by third parties?

2) why the explanation of what was actually going to happen (in the
2009-09 post) included from a technical perspective a link to a general
Wikipedia page on lookup tables (not even on Huffman coding!), but not a
link to the letter from Ofcom; no explicit statement that it was the
same scheme as was employed by Freesat

3) why the following falsehood was included: "The only actions that may
be prevented, and only for certain programmes, are retransmitting the
content in HD over the internet or, in some cases, from making more than
one digital copy of the highest-value content onto Blu-ray."

4) why were many of the (serious) questions posed on that first post
never answered, and quite a few of the subsequent questions never really
answered either?

5) why the second post (2010-01) states "networked distribution and
viewing of HD content in the home is allowed" without mentioning that
restrictions apply to what devices the content can be transferred to
over the network (or, indeed, ordinary interconnect cables)?

6) given the following (from the 2010-01 post):

"Indeed, the proposed Freeview HD content management approach is so
'light-touch' that some have argued that it is not worth having. But,
this misses a key point - almost any copy protection system can be
circumvented (if you put enough effort into it) - and that it is never
going to be possible to prevent the determined pirate from lifting
content. However, it is still really important to make sure that the
unapproved copying and internet distribution of high value broadcast
content doesn't become so easy that people don't think twice about doing
it."

...do the BBC and third-party rightsholders have ANY evidence *at all*
which suggests that Joe Public were about to start doing this, rather
than relying on the "determined pirates" who get on with it unabated
today (go and look at a BitTorrent network for recordings from Sky HD,
for example - there are plenty about, and their content protection
measures are FAR more stringent than anything Freeview or Freesat will
have) -- why would anybody except a determined pirate _bother_?
Honestly, what have they got to gain from it?

7) Given that this affects _the whole of Freeview HD_, why is it only
those who are "a regular 

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

A delayed reply, but:

On 16-Jun-2010, at 08:42, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:

> All I can really do with you Mo is disagree. 
> 
> Of course the public has a right to make an informed judgement. And all
> I can say is that on the blog we have linked to and exposed all sides of
> the argument and all the facts (including linking to your Guardian piece
> and blog posts - and I suspect more people read it there than would have
> if it was published on the blog). Anyone who is a regular reader of the
> blog and interested in this issue would be well informed.

So, why is the case that:

1) no mention of the plan to scramble the EIT on Freeview HD as it is on 
Freesat was made on the blog, or anywhere else except a letter to Ofcom, until 
_after_ the issue was publicised by third parties?

2) why the explanation of what was actually going to happen (in the 2009-09 
post) included from a technical perspective a link to a general Wikipedia page 
on lookup tables (not even on Huffman coding!), but not a link to the letter 
from Ofcom; no explicit statement that it was the same scheme as was employed 
by Freesat

3) why the following falsehood was included: "The only actions that may be 
prevented, and only for certain programmes, are retransmitting the content in 
HD over the internet or, in some cases, from making more than one digital copy 
of the highest-value content onto Blu-ray."

4) why were many of the (serious) questions posed on that first post never 
answered, and quite a few of the subsequent questions never really answered 
either?

5) why the second post (2010-01) states "networked distribution and viewing of 
HD content in the home is allowed" without mentioning that restrictions apply 
to what devices the content can be transferred to over the network (or, indeed, 
ordinary interconnect cables)?

6) given the following (from the 2010-01 post):

"Indeed, the proposed Freeview HD content management approach is so 
'light-touch' that some have argued that it is not worth having. But, this 
misses a key point - almost any copy protection system can be circumvented (if 
you put enough effort into it) - and that it is never going to be possible to 
prevent the determined pirate from lifting content. However, it is still really 
important to make sure that the unapproved copying and internet distribution of 
high value broadcast content doesn't become so easy that people don't think 
twice about doing it."

…do the BBC and third-party rightsholders have ANY evidence *at all* which 
suggests that Joe Public were about to start doing this, rather than relying on 
the "determined pirates" who get on with it unabated today (go and look at a 
BitTorrent network for recordings from Sky HD, for example - there are plenty 
about, and their content protection measures are FAR more stringent than 
anything Freeview or Freesat will have) -- why would anybody except a 
determined pirate _bother_? Honestly, what have they got to gain from it?

7) Given that this affects _the whole of Freeview HD_, why is it only those who 
are "a regular reader of the blog and interested in this issue" who deserves to 
be well-informed? Indeed, one of the Public Purposes "Emerging technologies" 
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/purpose/public_purposes/communication.shtml) 
states:

"
5. Work in partnership with other organisations to help all audiences 
understand and adopt emerging communications technologies and services.

[...]

The BBC will:

• Work to support the media literacy of all of its audience.
• Aim to be a trusted guide to new technologies for audiences.
• Work with the wider industry to provide clear messages around 
benefits of emerging technologies.
"

Where was the BBC's role in fulfilling that aspect of this Public Purpose 
throughout this? Do you honestly think the BBC Internet Blog was it?

> Again its not about the BBC not being honest. It's about the fact that
> some people disagree with the BBC's position. But it's a honest
> position, honestly held.

No. Don't be so bloody ridiculous. Do you think I'm so incredibly stupid that I 
can't tell the difference between "I disagree with the position" and "I find 
the manner in which you've conveyed this information to be wholly 
unacceptable"? It may be honestly held -- I don't doubt that for a second -- 
but the devil's in the detail, and _that_ hasn't been anything close to being 
honestly conveyed.

And, yes, I'm still irritated by this, in part because it continues today with 
the Android/iPlayer debacle. More misdirection and a refusal to put the cards 
on the table.

M.


PS. The Guardian post got a handful of readers, as far as I know - it was 
pretty much snuck in there, and people had all of 24 hours to read it and the 
consultation and respond to it. I have an inkling a fair chunk of its readers 
came from my own Twitter feed. Perhaps that was still better than a post on the 
blog, perhaps not, I honestly don't know. As I said, I have

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Brian Butterworth]

Gareth,

You can force the WMC to use the Freeview EPG on individual channels, but
the guide you get by default is more .. comprehensive.

On 16 June 2010 12:01, Gareth Davis  wrote:

>
> On 16 Jun 2010, at 08:15, Brian Butterworth 
> wrote:
> > On 16 June 2010 07:54, Paul Webster  wrote:
> >
> >> On 16 Jun 2010, at 07:11, Brian Butterworth 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass
> it, as it uses the DigiGuide one.  Or record the whole audio-video
> stream and use an edit package.  Or pause/record the old fashioned way.
>
> >>>
> >> Deviation from the main topic - sorry - but I don't think WMC uses
> DigiGuide data (at least - it never used to). BDS was (and still is?)
> the original supplier to MS.
> >>
> > Oh, it was Microsoft who told me that they sourced all their data from
> there.  Either way, it doesn't use the broadcast guide, the one with the
> "protection".
>
> WMC started using the broadcast EPG with Freeview when the Vista 'TV
> pack' update came out. Using a live EPG was a requirement of getting the
> Freeview+ certification IIRC.
>
> On DSAT I'm fairly sure it follows the EIT now/next info but does not
> populate the full guide with it, as it usually records programmes
> correctly that have started late/overrun due to sports events.
>
> --
> Gareth Davis | Production Systems Specialist
> World Service Future Media, Digital Delivery Team - Part of BBC Global
> News Division
> * 500NE Bush House, Strand, London, WC2B 4PH * bbcworldservice.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/
>



-- 

Brian Butterworth

follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist
web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
advice, since 2002

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Gareth Davis]

On 16 Jun 2010, at 08:15, Brian Butterworth 
wrote:
> On 16 June 2010 07:54, Paul Webster  wrote:
>
>> On 16 Jun 2010, at 07:11, Brian Butterworth 
wrote:  
>>
>>> It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass
it, as it uses the DigiGuide one.  Or record the whole audio-video
stream and use an edit package.  Or pause/record the old fashioned way.

>>>
>> Deviation from the main topic - sorry - but I don't think WMC uses
DigiGuide data (at least - it never used to). BDS was (and still is?)
the original supplier to MS.
>> 
> Oh, it was Microsoft who told me that they sourced all their data from
there.  Either way, it doesn't use the broadcast guide, the one with the
"protection".
 
WMC started using the broadcast EPG with Freeview when the Vista 'TV
pack' update came out. Using a live EPG was a requirement of getting the
Freeview+ certification IIRC. 

On DSAT I'm fairly sure it follows the EIT now/next info but does not
populate the full guide with it, as it usually records programmes
correctly that have started late/overrun due to sports events.

-- 
Gareth Davis | Production Systems Specialist
World Service Future Media, Digital Delivery Team - Part of BBC Global
News Division
* 500NE Bush House, Strand, London, WC2B 4PH * bbcworldservice.com
  

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[David Tomlinson]

Brian Butterworth wrote:



If I had the resources I would launch a judicial review, as this is 
an appalling situation for Auntie. 

I too don't have the resources for a judicial review, perhaps the BBC 
should test the legal position it's self (judicial review), or the Open 
Rights Group may wish to pursue it.


Time for a formal complaint to the BBC complaints, followed by 
escalation to the Trust in the event of an unsatisfactory reply.


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Andrew Bowden]

> "Andrew Bowden"  writes:
> > It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR 
> > and on to 
> > my iPod that I've never done it.
> This is easy enough to automate however you like if you're 
> using a software PVR such as MythTV -- it's the only way I 
> listen to radio these days. I think it's a great shame that 
> some at the BBC want to discourage this kind of development.

I have a hardware PVR - I think we're a few years away from software
PVRs being particularly mainstream.  Whilst MythTV has come a long way,
it in particular has a lot of work to do to make it work properly for
the average user.  I certainly hope it's got better than a year ago when
I couldn't even manage to get Mythubuntu working on my home PC!  I've
used Linux since about 1998.  I have all sorts of peripherals working.
But I still have to scurry to Windows to use my TV card :(

Give me a hardware PVR that sits neatly under my TV any day.


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[David Greaves]

On 16/06/10 07:11, Brian Butterworth wrote:

It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it,
as it uses the DigiGuide one.  Or record the whole audio-video stream
and use an edit package.  Or pause/record the old fashioned way.


And how long will the Radio Times XML service continue?

Don't forget the schedule is copyright; the Ts & Cs will forbid automated 
scraping and, if you just ROT13 them the UK DMCA will, iirc, make it a 
*criminal* act to put TV schedules on a computer...


But not to worry, after a few generations of chains one could say this about 
slavery:

  "People won't miss something they never knew they had in the first place"


David

--
"Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once..."
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[David Tomlinson]

Brian Butterworth wrote:

The published document is  here:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/statement/statement.pdf


Section 2.18

"Ofcom is mindful that it does not have a power to include conditions in 
the Multiplex B licence relating to content management per se. Ofcom may 
only include those conditions specified in the 1996 Act and those it 
considers appropriate, taking into account its duties in the 
Broadcasting Act 1990, the 1996 Act and the 2003 Act.


None of those duties relates to the ability of viewers to deal with 
content once broadcast. Nor do they relate to the markets for receivers. 
In those circumstances, Ofcom could not impose a condition requiring 
content management nor could it expressly restrict the ability of a 
multiplex operator to implement content management."


Nor can Ofcom explicitly give consent, as it is clearly ouside it remit, 
especially when such consent would breach the EU Law, that Public 
Service Television has to be broadcast unencrypted.


There appears to be no evidence that Ofcom or the BBC are acting within 
the 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] Freeview HD Content Management

All I can really do with you Mo is disagree. 

Of course the public has a right to make an informed judgement. And all
I can say is that on the blog we have linked to and exposed all sides of
the argument and all the facts (including linking to your Guardian piece
and blog posts - and I suspect more people read it there than would have
if it was published on the blog). Anyone who is a regular reader of the
blog and interested in this issue would be well informed.

Again its not about the BBC not being honest. It's about the fact that
some people disagree with the BBC's position. But it's a honest
position, honestly held.

-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 15 June 2010 23:47
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management


On 15-Jun-2010, at 22:41, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:

> The BBC has made its position quite clear on the blog - not once but 
> several times. We have been straight about it as you can see from 
> these blog posts, not just recently but as far back as April last year

> (see Danielle Nagler's post in the list below) - so the idea that we 
> didn't want to talk about this is false:

well, yes. the *position* was very clear. the facts - that is, what was
being proposed and the nitty-gritty of how it would actually affect
people - weren't, as evidenced by the many questions which went
unanswered in the blog comments.

Tom Watson's blog post contained inaccuracies because he was
interpreting a very technical industry document without background
knowledge - which was what everybody else (myself included) had to do in
order to figure out what it was that was actually being proposed (how
else are people supposed to know what they're dealing with?)

the _position_ took priority over the facts. the BBC was very effective
at communicating the position. it was abysmal at communicating the
facts. the closest it came was Danielle's post back in April last year
(which I linked to earlier in this thread - I was very aware of it!),
and even that was rather heavy on the PR, and took some flak at the time
for it.

> I have worked hard to get the BBC to engage with you and in my view 
> bearing in mind the obvious sensitivities we have done this well. Even

> I though we couldn't publish your blog post I spent time trying to get

> it published in other places, encouraged you to do so and I was 
> pleased when it was.


Don't get me wrong, I do very much appreciate your efforts - please
don't take this as a personal criticism, because it's not, at all - in
no small part because it's not *your* job to translate engineering terms
into the actual effects. I'm not sure what the sensitivities are - does
the public not have a right to make an informed judgement given the
facts of it?

> And I'm saddened that you use the word "disgraceful" in your email 
> below. I believe the BBC has communicated this as well as we can.

I'm sorry you're saddened, but believe me, the BBC (not "you" singular),
could have done a lot better better. Communication on this was shoddy
and haphazard, it - with the exception of Danielle's post - reeked of
damage-limitation, missed out half of the stuff that people would
naturally want to know, and you weren't able to find out the answer to.
In fact, you had asked some of same questions, because you didn't know
the answer either. I know for a fact, though, that lots of the people
within the BBC who were involved in creating this whole thing would have
known the answers, because if you're an expert in DVB, it's actually
pretty basic stuff! (don't forget, this had already been implemented
once already, and the BBC, via the DTG and DTLA, were talking to
receiver manufacturers to ensure they were doing the right thing).

so, to be brutally honest, if there's something you couldn't be more
wrong about in this whole affair, it's this. the BBC wasn't particularly
honest - it didn't lie, but it was a very very long way away from the
whole truth - and I think it's unfortunate that you've been taken along
for the ride. I think *you*, not to mention everybody else, deserve
better than that, even if we ultimately disagree about whether the
actual proposal is a good or a bad thing.

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] Freeview HD Content Management

[David Tomlinson]

Brian Butterworth wrote:
It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, 
as it uses the DigiGuide one.  Or record the whole audio-video stream 
and use an edit package.  Or pause/record the old fashioned way.   


To expand my argument (as you have seen my previous post).

It is a matter of principle not expediency.

They are constructing the Infrastructure of Control, and the BBC are 
party to this. Such control which is never in the public interest.


If, as Mo pointed out, the guidelines say the 'copy never flag' should 
never be used. Then why does the copy never flag exist ?


In fact why is the whole infrastructure, been made more complex, brittle 
and expensive ?


We need to reject DRM in principle. The fact that it is ineffective in 
practice, is not a reason to tolerate this.


At the risk of infringing the Manic Street Preachers copyright:

"If you tolerate this, then your children will be next ..."

Only they won't wait for your children ...

Of course my use of the Manic Street Preachers lyrics is fair use, but 
the use of even a single frame of a protected HD content, fair use (or 
fair dealing) is prohibited by technology, not the law (or and the law 
as it is protected by technical measures).


Pastor Martin Niemöller is less likely to issue an extra judicial take 
down notice, especially if I change the text: "first they came for the 
pirates..."


The use of a single frame of protected HD doesn't breach the law, but 
still subject to technological measures and extra judicial enforcement. 
The circumvention of technological measures, to enjoy to copyright 
exceptions under the law, is in breach of the EU Copyright Directive.


The reality is everyone breaches copyright, all the time, and copyright 
is subject to fair use (fair dealing) ...


You make think this is exaggerated, but once you concede the principle, 
  and create the infrastructure, Intellectual Property owners will try 
and extend their control.  See the secret ACTA treaty from which the 
public are excluded, and is even outside purview of the World Trade 
Organisation, and which did not originally address Intellectual 
Property. etc.


Even GM crops are just another Intellectual Property land grab, dressed 
up as in the Public Interest.


Intellectual Property, an idea that was never justified, never served 
the purpose stated in the US constitution, and whose time has passed !


Pro Bono Publico - For the Public Good.















-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Brian Butterworth]

The published document is  here:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/statement/statement.pdf

The
legal nonsense in section 2 clearly shows how unclear the legal position is.


On 16 June 2010 06:38, David Tomlinson  wrote:

> Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
>
>> Well as always I suspect we will argue about this until the cows come
>> home and not resolve it.
>>
>>
> No what the BBC is doing is illegal under European law, (encrypting the
> broadcast - the EPG is broadcast), or at least, failing a legal opinion, in
> breach of the spirit of the law.
>
> Where is the mandate for the BBC to break the law.
>
> Where is the mandate for the BBC to enforce copyright or acquire control
> over consumers behavior through the use of intellectual property.
>
> We all know what the current political environment is with the secret ACTA
> etc. But that does not validate the Ofcom's or the BBC's actions.
>
> This is about the freedom of action of the individual, versus control by
> the intellectual property owner, whose rights are seen as more important to
> than public, and extend effectively forever.
>
> The BBC is in the wrong side on this fight. And I for one, am appalled at
> the BBC's stance.
>
> It doesn't get to be a much more fundamental principle, than freedom of
> speech and action, as the US constitution demonstrates.
>
> Comments Nick, anyone else ?
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
> visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
>  Unofficial list archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>



-- 

Brian Butterworth

follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist
web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
advice, since 2002

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Brian Butterworth]

On 16 June 2010 07:54, Paul Webster  wrote:

>
>
> On 16 Jun 2010, at 07:11, Brian Butterworth  wrote:
>
> > It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as
> it uses the DigiGuide one.  Or record the whole audio-video stream and use
> an edit package.  Or pause/record the old fashioned way.
>
> Deviation from the main topic - sorry - but I don't think WMC uses
> DigiGuide data (at least - it never used to). BDS was (and still is?) the
> original supplier to MS.
>

Oh, it was Microsoft who told me that they sourced all their data from
there.  Either way, it doesn't use the broadcast guide, the one with the
"protection".


>
> History - that I might have a bit wrong ...
> BDS was owned by BBC and ITV then in 2005 became part of BBC Broadcast and
> is now is part of RedBee (Macquarie Bank Group).
>
> Paul
>
> >
>
> -
> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
> visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
>  Unofficial list archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>



-- 

Brian Butterworth

follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist
web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
advice, since 2002

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Paul Webster]

On 16 Jun 2010, at 07:11, Brian Butterworth  wrote:

> It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it 
> uses the DigiGuide one.  Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an 
> edit package.  Or pause/record the old fashioned way.

Deviation from the main topic - sorry - but I don't think WMC uses DigiGuide 
data (at least - it never used to). BDS was (and still is?) the original 
supplier to MS.

History - that I might have a bit wrong ...
BDS was owned by BBC and ITV then in 2005 became part of BBC Broadcast and is 
now is part of RedBee (Macquarie Bank Group).

Paul

>   

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Brian Butterworth]

David,

As we have not actually seen the real Ofcom response yet, I don't know the
answers to your questions.  But asking the legal position was my one and
only response to the consultation, so it will be interesting to hear it.

If I had the resources I would launch a judicial review, as this is
an appalling situation for Auntie.

On 16 June 2010 06:38, David Tomlinson  wrote:

> Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
>
>> Well as always I suspect we will argue about this until the cows come
>> home and not resolve it.
>>
>>
> No what the BBC is doing is illegal under European law, (encrypting the
> broadcast - the EPG is broadcast), or at least, failing a legal opinion, in
> breach of the spirit of the law.
>
> Where is the mandate for the BBC to break the law.
>
> Where is the mandate for the BBC to enforce copyright or acquire control
> over consumers behavior through the use of intellectual property.
>
> We all know what the current political environment is with the secret ACTA
> etc. But that does not validate the Ofcom's or the BBC's actions.
>
> This is about the freedom of action of the individual, versus control by
> the intellectual property owner, whose rights are seen as more important to
> than public, and extend effectively forever.
>
> The BBC is in the wrong side on this fight. And I for one, am appalled at
> the BBC's stance.
>
> It doesn't get to be a much more fundamental principle, than freedom of
> speech and action, as the US constitution demonstrates.
>
> Comments Nick, anyone else ?
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
> visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
>  Unofficial list archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>



-- 

Brian Butterworth

follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist
web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
advice, since 2002

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Brian Butterworth]

It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it
uses the DigiGuide one.  Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an
edit package.  Or pause/record the old fashioned way.

On 14 June 2010 18:30, Phil Lewis  wrote:

> So is this just going to be another region-coding like affair where
> 'people' release cracked firmware or just press a few magic button
> sequences on their remote to remove this protection? And what about
> those vendors who sell DVRs that have community contributed plugins
> (e.g. like Topfield did/does); that's just going to make a mockery of
> this mockworthy content protection.
>
> - Phil
>
> On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 18:21 +0100, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> > On 14-Jun-2010, at 18:14, Alex Cockell wrote:
> >
> > > So i'll have to buy box after box to watch content?
> >
> > doubtful. those which have been sold for FVHD already will have in-built
> support for the mechanism (it's specced by the ETSI DVB standards), but will
> likely need an update to get the decoding table.
> >
> > that is, unless they're going to use the same decoding table as Freesat
> (given the fact that it was claimed to have been generated from a large
> sample set in order to ensure optimal compression rates, it _should_ be)…
> >
> > 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/
>



-- 

Brian Butterworth

follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist
web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
advice, since 2002

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[David Tomlinson]

Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:

Well as always I suspect we will argue about this until the cows come
home and not resolve it.



No what the BBC is doing is illegal under European law, (encrypting the 
broadcast - the EPG is broadcast), or at least, failing a legal opinion, 
in breach of the spirit of the law.


Where is the mandate for the BBC to break the law.

Where is the mandate for the BBC to enforce copyright or acquire control 
over consumers behavior through the use of intellectual property.


We all know what the current political environment is with the secret 
ACTA etc. But that does not validate the Ofcom's or the BBC's actions.


This is about the freedom of action of the individual, versus control by 
the intellectual property owner, whose rights are seen as more important 
to than public, and extend effectively forever.


The BBC is in the wrong side on this fight. And I for one, am appalled 
at the BBC's stance.


It doesn't get to be a much more fundamental principle, than freedom of 
speech and action, as the US constitution demonstrates.


Comments Nick, anyone else ?




-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On 15-Jun-2010, at 22:41, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:

> The BBC has made its position quite clear on the blog - not once but
> several times. We have been straight about it as you can see from these
> blog posts, not just recently but as far back as April last year (see
> Danielle Nagler's post in the list below) - so the idea that we didn't
> want to talk about this is false:

well, yes. the *position* was very clear. the facts — that is, what was being 
proposed and the nitty-gritty of how it would actually affect people — weren’t, 
as evidenced by the many questions which went unanswered in the blog comments.

Tom Watson’s blog post contained inaccuracies because he was interpreting a 
very technical industry document without background knowledge — which was what 
everybody else (myself included) had to do in order to figure out what it was 
that was actually being proposed (how else are people supposed to know what 
they’re dealing with?)

the _position_ took priority over the facts. the BBC was very effective at 
communicating the position. it was abysmal at communicating the facts. the 
closest it came was Danielle’s post back in April last year (which I linked to 
earlier in this thread — I was very aware of it!), and even that was rather 
heavy on the PR, and took some flak at the time for it.

> I have worked hard to get the BBC to engage with you and in my view
> bearing in mind the obvious sensitivities we have done this well. Even I
> though we couldn't publish your blog post I spent time trying to get it
> published in other places, encouraged you to do so and I was pleased
> when it was.


Don’t get me wrong, I do very much appreciate your efforts — please don’t take 
this as a personal criticism, because it’s not, at all — in no small part 
because it’s not *your* job to translate engineering terms into the actual 
effects. I’m not sure what the sensitivities are — does the public not have a 
right to make an informed judgement given the facts of it?

> And I'm saddened that you use the word "disgraceful" in your email
> below. I believe the BBC has communicated this as well as we can.

I’m sorry you’re saddened, but believe me, the BBC (not “you” singular), could 
have done a lot better better. Communication on this was shoddy and haphazard, 
it — with the exception of Danielle’s post — reeked of damage-limitation, 
missed out half of the stuff that people would naturally want to know, and you 
weren’t able to find out the answer to. In fact, you had asked some of same 
questions, because you didn’t know the answer either. I know for a fact, 
though, that lots of the people within the BBC who were involved in creating 
this whole thing would have known the answers, because if you’re an expert in 
DVB, it’s actually pretty basic stuff! (don’t forget, this had already been 
implemented once already, and the BBC, via the DTG and DTLA, were talking to 
receiver manufacturers to ensure they were doing the right thing).

so, to be brutally honest, if there’s something you couldn’t be more wrong 
about in this whole affair, it’s this. the BBC wasn’t particularly honest — it 
didn’t lie, but it was a very very long way away from the whole truth — and I 
think it’s unfortunate that you’ve been taken along for the ride. I think 
*you*, not to mention everybody else, deserve better than that, even if we 
ultimately disagree about whether the actual proposal is a good or a bad thing.

M.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Rob Myers]

On 06/15/2010 10:11 PM, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:

People won't miss something
they never knew they had in the first place especially if they are able
to do all the things they can now, which it appears they will be.


They'll find out soon enough, they're not, and it doesn't.

This is a problem.

- Rob.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

Mo, 

The BBC has made its position quite clear on the blog - not once but
several times. We have been straight about it as you can see from these
blog posts, not just recently but as far back as April last year (see
Danielle Nagler's post in the list below) - so the idea that we didn't
want to talk about this is false:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/welcome_to_some_new_initi
als_d.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti
on_up.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti
on_a.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_manag
ement.html

Tom Watson's original blog post contained inaccuracies as he himself
subsequently admitted and corrected.

As is often the case when the BBC takes a position that people disagree
with they then accuse the BBC of not being straight with them. We are
being straight but I'm afraid we can't give you exactly what you want.
There's no conspiracy or cover up we just disagree.

I have worked hard to get the BBC to engage with you and in my view
bearing in mind the obvious sensitivities we have done this well. Even I
though we couldn't publish your blog post I spent time trying to get it
published in other places, encouraged you to do so and I was pleased
when it was.

And I'm saddened that you use the word "disgraceful" in your email
below. I believe the BBC has communicated this as well as we can.  

-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 15 June 2010 22:14
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

right,

I'm going to level with you all:

I'm tired. very tired. I'm juggling a day-job building e-commerce
websites with a hobby helping to build some very very cool things, and
I've put an awful lot of time and effort into questioning, gaining
understanding of and explaining this whole Freeview HD copy-protection
debacle. I don't think I've been especially unclear, or got caught up in
rhetoric and emotion to any a great extent, and I've done my best to try
to answer questions and concerns and everything else to the best of my
knowledge. now, it's true that my knowledge of DVB internals isn't the
best in the world: the people for whom that holds true work for the BBC
and so can't really comment too much. but, I've taken what I do know and
tried to put it into plain English as much as I possibly can, and as far
as I can see much of this whole thing is rather cut-and-dried.

now, to be clear, this scheme hasn't particularly irritated me. in all
honesty, it was to be expected to an extent. there are aspects of it
which *have* annoyed me, but not to the point of getting angry about it
(the last time that happened, I spent all a whole day adding signatures
to the bottom of an open letter...)

what _has_ irritated to me, however, is the fact that nobody
representing the BBC will be straight about it. everything has to be
dressed up to make it look appealing (especially where it isn't), which
makes it a whole lot worse if it's principally motivated by _other_
Freeview HD broadcasters. the whole approach to it was not one of
informing the public in a fair and impartial manner, but of public
relations.

now, I wrote this article, originally for the BBC Internet Blog, but it
was declined (as the BBC had already made their position clear and
wanted nothing which might detract from it), and luckily I managed to
persuade the Guardian to run it instead:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/01/bbc-hd-consultation-hdmi

this was an article that I wrote deliberately (given its target outlet)
to avoid speculation, half-truths, paranoia, cynicism or knee-jerk,
sticking as much as humanly possible to the facts. if anything, I
probably gave the BBC the benefit of the doubt a little more than I
should! now, I can understand that it was declined for publication.
after all, at that point, a guest post from a non-staffer was pretty
unprecedented. but that's besides the point: why was it necessary for me
to write that post in the first place?

the method of engagement which the BBC employed - principally the BBC
Internet blog (and only _after_ Cory Doctorow and Tom Watson drew
attention to the proposal which had been quietly submitted to Ofcom
without any form of public statement by the BBC) - glossed over the
stuff that was in there, and yet those were the things people wanted to
know most of all.

so, all in all, I'm disappointed by the BBC. not for pushing this
through per se, but for its approach to it, which has been nothing short
of disgraceful. for the record, Nick, although I *disagree* with you on
some things, I think you've done as good a job as you could have done
with this whole thing - I do think it wa

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Ant Miller]

It is sincerely wearying.  I wish we were more honest.  If it was me doing the 
talking for us, it would be different, but i don't get that clout.

Cheers for the input.

a

Sent from my HTC

-Original Message-
From: Mo McRoberts 
Sent: 15 June 2010 22:13
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

right,

I’m going to level with you all:

I’m tired. very tired. I’m juggling a day-job building e-commerce websites with 
a hobby helping to build some very very cool things, and I’ve put an awful lot 
of time and effort into questioning, gaining understanding of and explaining 
this whole Freeview HD copy-protection debacle. I don’t think I’ve been 
especially unclear, or got caught up in rhetoric and emotion to any a great 
extent, and I’ve done my best to try to answer questions and concerns and 
everything else to the best of my knowledge. now, it’s true that my knowledge 
of DVB internals isn’t the best in the world: the people for whom that holds 
true work for the BBC and so can’t really comment too much. but, I’ve taken 
what I do know and tried to put it into plain English as much as I possibly 
can, and as far as I can see much of this whole thing is rather cut-and-dried.

now, to be clear, this scheme hasn’t particularly irritated me. in all honesty, 
it was to be expected to an extent. there are aspects of it which *have* 
annoyed me, but not to the point of getting angry about it (the last time that 
happened, I spent all a whole day adding signatures to the bottom of an open 
letter…)

what _has_ irritated to me, however, is the fact that nobody representing the 
BBC will be straight about it. everything has to be dressed up to make it look 
appealing (especially where it isn’t), which makes it a whole lot worse if it’s 
principally motivated by _other_ Freeview HD broadcasters. the whole approach 
to it was not one of informing the public in a fair and impartial manner, but 
of public relations.

now, I wrote this article, originally for the BBC Internet Blog, but it was 
declined (as the BBC had already made their position clear and wanted nothing 
which might detract from it), and luckily I managed to persuade the Guardian to 
run it instead:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/01/bbc-hd-consultation-hdmi

this was an article that I wrote deliberately (given its target outlet) to 
avoid speculation, half-truths, paranoia, cynicism or knee-jerk, sticking as 
much as humanly possible to the facts. if anything, I probably gave the BBC the 
benefit of the doubt a little more than I should! now, I can understand that it 
was declined for publication. after all, at that point, a guest post from a 
non-staffer was pretty unprecedented. but that’s besides the point: why was it 
necessary for me to write that post in the first place?

the method of engagement which the BBC employed — principally the BBC Internet 
blog (and only _after_ Cory Doctorow and Tom Watson drew attention to the 
proposal which had been quietly submitted to Ofcom without any form of public 
statement by the BBC) — glossed over the stuff that was in there, and yet those 
were the things people wanted to know most of all.

so, all in all, I’m disappointed by the BBC. not for pushing this through per 
se, but for its approach to it, which has been nothing short of disgraceful. 
for the record, Nick, although I *disagree* with you on some things, I think 
you’ve done as good a job as you could have done with this whole thing — I do 
think it was ridiculous that you were left to field questions, though 
(questions which would never have arisen had the BBC been upfront and honest 
with everybody in the first place).

I’ve made my position on the actual scheme quite clear, so I’m going to stop 
now. most of us on here are as far as I know (save for some quibbles over minor 
details and loopholes) of *broadly* the same opinion, though depending on your 
perspective your position might vary from “argh!” to “worthless waste of 
everybody’s time” (or more likely, somewhere in between). there are some who 
disagree, who think the short-term gain is worth the long-term loss, and I 
can’t do anything but agree to disagree. my colours have been nailed to the 
mast, and I’m not going to continue re-stating the facts in as many different 
ways as I can muster in order to answer the same points over and over again.

as I said, I have better things to be doing with my time. I’m not going 
anywhere, and I’ll still be reading this thread, but I don’t honestly have the 
energy to keep replying to anything but purely technical stuff in relation to 
this.

I really am very tired.

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 

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Michael Smethurst]

> People won't miss something they never knew they had in the first place 
> especially if they are able
to do all the things they can now, which it appears they will be

damn, someone invented the car and forgot to tell anyone. still we won't miss 
what we never knew...

or "miss" seems an odd word when describing past possibility?
<>

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

right,

I’m going to level with you all:

I’m tired. very tired. I’m juggling a day-job building e-commerce websites with 
a hobby helping to build some very very cool things, and I’ve put an awful lot 
of time and effort into questioning, gaining understanding of and explaining 
this whole Freeview HD copy-protection debacle. I don’t think I’ve been 
especially unclear, or got caught up in rhetoric and emotion to any a great 
extent, and I’ve done my best to try to answer questions and concerns and 
everything else to the best of my knowledge. now, it’s true that my knowledge 
of DVB internals isn’t the best in the world: the people for whom that holds 
true work for the BBC and so can’t really comment too much. but, I’ve taken 
what I do know and tried to put it into plain English as much as I possibly 
can, and as far as I can see much of this whole thing is rather cut-and-dried.

now, to be clear, this scheme hasn’t particularly irritated me. in all honesty, 
it was to be expected to an extent. there are aspects of it which *have* 
annoyed me, but not to the point of getting angry about it (the last time that 
happened, I spent all a whole day adding signatures to the bottom of an open 
letter…)

what _has_ irritated to me, however, is the fact that nobody representing the 
BBC will be straight about it. everything has to be dressed up to make it look 
appealing (especially where it isn’t), which makes it a whole lot worse if it’s 
principally motivated by _other_ Freeview HD broadcasters. the whole approach 
to it was not one of informing the public in a fair and impartial manner, but 
of public relations.

now, I wrote this article, originally for the BBC Internet Blog, but it was 
declined (as the BBC had already made their position clear and wanted nothing 
which might detract from it), and luckily I managed to persuade the Guardian to 
run it instead:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/01/bbc-hd-consultation-hdmi

this was an article that I wrote deliberately (given its target outlet) to 
avoid speculation, half-truths, paranoia, cynicism or knee-jerk, sticking as 
much as humanly possible to the facts. if anything, I probably gave the BBC the 
benefit of the doubt a little more than I should! now, I can understand that it 
was declined for publication. after all, at that point, a guest post from a 
non-staffer was pretty unprecedented. but that’s besides the point: why was it 
necessary for me to write that post in the first place?

the method of engagement which the BBC employed — principally the BBC Internet 
blog (and only _after_ Cory Doctorow and Tom Watson drew attention to the 
proposal which had been quietly submitted to Ofcom without any form of public 
statement by the BBC) — glossed over the stuff that was in there, and yet those 
were the things people wanted to know most of all.

so, all in all, I’m disappointed by the BBC. not for pushing this through per 
se, but for its approach to it, which has been nothing short of disgraceful. 
for the record, Nick, although I *disagree* with you on some things, I think 
you’ve done as good a job as you could have done with this whole thing — I do 
think it was ridiculous that you were left to field questions, though 
(questions which would never have arisen had the BBC been upfront and honest 
with everybody in the first place).

I’ve made my position on the actual scheme quite clear, so I’m going to stop 
now. most of us on here are as far as I know (save for some quibbles over minor 
details and loopholes) of *broadly* the same opinion, though depending on your 
perspective your position might vary from “argh!” to “worthless waste of 
everybody’s time” (or more likely, somewhere in between). there are some who 
disagree, who think the short-term gain is worth the long-term loss, and I 
can’t do anything but agree to disagree. my colours have been nailed to the 
mast, and I’m not going to continue re-stating the facts in as many different 
ways as I can muster in order to answer the same points over and over again.

as I said, I have better things to be doing with my time. I’m not going 
anywhere, and I’ll still be reading this thread, but I don’t honestly have the 
energy to keep replying to anything but purely technical stuff in relation to 
this.

I really am very tired.

M.


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

Well as always I suspect we will argue about this until the cows come
home and not resolve it.

Your caveats seems weak and speculative. People won't miss something
they never knew they had in the first place especially if they are able
to do all the things they can now, which it appears they will be. To
quote yourself:

"the above talks solely about the direct effect upon consumers in the
short term based on the equipment which exists today and assuming they
don't want to do any of the things which the scheme prohibits _and_ have
up-to-date equipment supporting the various schemes which make it work."

So no problem then.



 

-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 15 June 2010 21:48
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management


On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:38, Mo McRoberts wrote:

> 
> On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
> 
>> With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment 
>> on the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either:
> 
> those caveats, which make quite a significant difference:
> 
>> "nwhitfield
>> 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM
>> My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already 
>> on sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't 
>> going to be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG 
>> whether it's broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will 
>> be using them, but end users aren't going to see any difference in
that regard.
> 
> Freeview HD receivers on sale today will be unaffected, though they
may well need a firmware upgrade. that rather depends on whether the BBC
has *already* distributed the decoding table to manufacturers, which
would be quite naughty of them.

oops, missed out: but if the receiver is the only part of the chain
being upgraded (i.e., they already have an HDTV, as many people do),
"everything working" is *far* from guaranteed.


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:38, Mo McRoberts wrote:

> 
> On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
> 
>> With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on
>> the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either:
> 
> those caveats, which make quite a significant difference:
> 
>> "nwhitfield 
>> 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM
>> My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on
>> sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to
>> be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's
>> broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them,
>> but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard.
> 
> Freeview HD receivers on sale today will be unaffected, though they may well 
> need a firmware upgrade. that rather depends on whether the BBC has *already* 
> distributed the decoding table to manufacturers, which would be quite naughty 
> of them.

oops, missed out: but if the receiver is the only part of the chain being 
upgraded (i.e., they already have an HDTV, as many people do), “everything 
working” is *far* from guaranteed.


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:36, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:

> Omission from who? 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Or the person quoted?

the person quoted. he didn’t contradict you because he didn’t cover those 
points in enough detail. sheesh.

> 
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
> Sent: 15 June 2010 21:21
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
> 
> 
> On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:13, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
> 
>> Nor does it contradict anything I said either!
> 
> through omission, no. that's hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?
> 
> 
> -
> 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/


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:

> With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on
> the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either:

those caveats, which make quite a significant difference:

> "nwhitfield 
> 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM
> My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on
> sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to
> be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's
> broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them,
> but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard.

Freeview HD receivers on sale today will be unaffected, though they may well 
need a firmware upgrade. that rather depends on whether the BBC has *already* 
distributed the decoding table to manufacturers, which would be quite naughty 
of them.

> It's also clearly stated in the various documents relating to this that
> it's not going to affect - at all - the ability of people to record what
> they want to, on recorders with built in tuners (ie FreeviewHD+ boxes).

it would be quite insane for anybody to propose otherwise, if you think about 
it.

> In fact, the guidelines say the 'copy never' signal should not be used,
> everything should be at least 'copy once' and if it's already been
> broadcaster somewhere (like the US) in HD without protection, then even
> 'copy once' shouldn't be used in the UK.

the fourth word of that paragraph is quite important.

> Realistically, this change isn't going to affect many people at all.

that depends on quite a few factors. longer-term, it will (although perhaps 
unknowingly) affect increasing numbers of people. unfortunately, they won’t 
know what they’ve been missing.

> How many people out there have actually taken their DVD recorder and
> made multiple copies of a programme they've recorded?

DVD whatnow? who cares about DVD recorders, really? these things have hard 
disks, network and USB ports.

> Yes, some open source software may be affected, but even that's not a
> certainty; MythTV copes just fine with Freesat, which uses the same
> technology. Other open source systems manage well with the odd dash of
> proprietary stuff in there, like the drivers for some graphics cards."

MythTV copes with Freesat because it previously reverse-engineered _this_ 
scheme. the BBC has explicitly threatened legal action against people who do 
this, although whether they follow through on it is anybody’s guess. either 
way, however, the protection measure has been broken before it was even 
submitted for regulatory approval. this means, for the stated aim of preventing 
the pirates from uploading content to the Internet, it’s completely worthless.

the above talks solely about the direct effect upon consumers in the short term 
based on the equipment which exists today and assuming they don’t want to do 
any of the things which the scheme prohibits _and_ have up-to-date equipment 
supporting the various schemes which make it work. anybody who’s paying any 
attention at all to “next-generation” TV stuff knows that “next-generation” 
isn’t very far away *at all*. it also doesn’t account for changing trends in 
consumer behaviour, nor does it account for the innovations which will be made 
harder [that is, more costly, or not possible] because of the licensing regime.

and so, we’re left with a system which “do something which didn't achieve the 
desired effect, and caused additional negative effects”.

this somewhat contradicts your equivalent:

> do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small 
> negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any negative 
> effect at all

…which is patently false.

people complained vocally about this when it was rolled out on Freesat. people 
had problems with equipment not working (not the receivers themselves so much, 
but other parts of the puzzle). how can you *possibly* think it will go any 
better for a significantly larger roll-out?

remind me who it is that has to do with the front-line support for all of this? 
I don’t envy that job one little bit.

so, just explain to me, in the face of all of this, how is “because the 
rights-holder demanded it and threatened to pull their content, despite 
evidence showing that on the balance of probabilities, this is unlikely” as 
what amounts to the *sole* justification for doing it absolutely fine all the 
way up the chain?

my earlier (undirected) question about baseball caps was serious, incidentally, 
even if the choice of demand was deliberately flippant (it’s no *less* flippant 
than this one is, though — and indeed, would have even less risk of negative 
effects). would you be in favour, or not?



-
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.c

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

Omission from who? 

Me?

Or the person quoted? 

-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 15 June 2010 21:21
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management


On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:13, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:

> Nor does it contradict anything I said either!

through omission, no. that's hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Paul Webster]

Panasonic HD avert on ITV right after the match just now said  record HD TV 
(Freesat or Freeview) to BluRay and save forever

Paul

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:13, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:

> Nor does it contradict anything I said either!

through omission, no. that’s hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

Nor does it contradict anything I said either! 

-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 15 June 2010 21:06
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management


On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:

> With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment 
> on the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either:

!?!?!

with some caveats, that doesn't actually contradict what I've said!

> 
> "nwhitfield
> 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM
> My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on

> sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to

> be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's 
> broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them,

> but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard.
> 
> It's also clearly stated in the various documents relating to this 
> that it's not going to affect - at all - the ability of people to 
> record what they want to, on recorders with built in tuners (ie
FreeviewHD+ boxes).
> 
> In fact, the guidelines say the 'copy never' signal should not be 
> used, everything should be at least 'copy once' and if it's already 
> been broadcaster somewhere (like the US) in HD without protection, 
> then even 'copy once' shouldn't be used in the UK.
> 
> Realistically, this change isn't going to affect many people at all.
> Most people will record to their hard disk recorders, they'll be able 
> to watch as many times at they like, and then they'll delete stuff to 
> make space. If they did want to make a copy for posterity (ignoring 
> the fact that the law doesn't actually say you can), they will still
be able to.
> 
> How many people out there have actually taken their DVD recorder and 
> made multiple copies of a programme they've recorded?
> 
> Yes, some open source software may be affected, but even that's not a 
> certainty; MythTV copes just fine with Freesat, which uses the same 
> technology. Other open source systems manage well with the odd dash of

> proprietary stuff in there, like the drivers for some graphics cards."
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
> Sent: 15 June 2010 16:15
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
> 
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:57, Mo McRoberts  wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FM&T 
>>  wrote:
>>> The BBC had a choice
>>> 
>>> a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to 
>>> licence
> 
>>> fee payers
>>> 
>>> b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very

>>> small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it 
>>> has any negative effect at all
>> 
>> with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no 
>> technical understanding of the proposal.
>> 
>> your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the 
>> desired
> 
>> effect' is something other than that which has been publicly
reported.
> 
> to follow up - apologies if this came across as unduly rude or
brusque.
> I'm just very very tired of, having explained how this stuff works 
> fairly unequivocally, sticking clearly to the facts, over and over 
> again, to be met with the same thing every time.
> 
> key points:
> 
> the people who _upload_ content to filesharing networks are not 
> inhibited by this in the slightest.
> the people who _download_ content to filesharing networks are not 
> inhibited by this in the slightest (at least, not in that respect) - 
> they may or may not have a FVHD receiver.
> the people minority types you refer to who want to use MythTV and the 
> like may be inconvenienced, but Freesat suggests not fatally 
> law-abiding consumers are inconvenienced, because the 
> officially-branded boxes are crippled start-ups looking to build new 
> devices are (potentially
> fatally) inconvenienced
> -
> 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/20

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

But you can already obtain legal copies in many different ways, can't
you Andrew?

Explain to me how you can't... 

-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Adam Sampson
Sent: 15 June 2010 20:35
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

"Andrew Bowden"  writes:

> It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to 
> my iPod that I've never done it.

This is easy enough to automate however you like if you're using a
software PVR such as MythTV -- it's the only way I listen to radio these
days. I think it's a great shame that some at the BBC want to discourage
this kind of development.

While I'm sure the Huffman tables will be reverse-engineered soon
enough, it'd be much better if I, as a license fee payer, could obtain a
legal copy from the BBC for my personal use. UK copyright law is already
very clear on exactly what I'm allowed to do in terms of time-shifting
recordings...

-- 
Adam Sampson  <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/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:

> With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on
> the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either:

!?!?!

with some caveats, that doesn’t actually contradict what I’ve said!

> 
> "nwhitfield 
> 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM
> My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on
> sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to
> be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's
> broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them,
> but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard.
> 
> It's also clearly stated in the various documents relating to this that
> it's not going to affect - at all - the ability of people to record what
> they want to, on recorders with built in tuners (ie FreeviewHD+ boxes).
> 
> In fact, the guidelines say the 'copy never' signal should not be used,
> everything should be at least 'copy once' and if it's already been
> broadcaster somewhere (like the US) in HD without protection, then even
> 'copy once' shouldn't be used in the UK.
> 
> Realistically, this change isn't going to affect many people at all.
> Most people will record to their hard disk recorders, they'll be able to
> watch as many times at they like, and then they'll delete stuff to make
> space. If they did want to make a copy for posterity (ignoring the fact
> that the law doesn't actually say you can), they will still be able to.
> 
> How many people out there have actually taken their DVD recorder and
> made multiple copies of a programme they've recorded?
> 
> Yes, some open source software may be affected, but even that's not a
> certainty; MythTV copes just fine with Freesat, which uses the same
> technology. Other open source systems manage well with the odd dash of
> proprietary stuff in there, like the drivers for some graphics cards."
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
> Sent: 15 June 2010 16:15
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
> 
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:57, Mo McRoberts  wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FM&T 
>>  wrote:
>>> The BBC had a choice
>>> 
>>> a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence
> 
>>> fee payers
>>> 
>>> b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very 
>>> small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it 
>>> has any negative effect at all
>> 
>> with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no 
>> technical understanding of the proposal.
>> 
>> your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the desired
> 
>> effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported.
> 
> to follow up - apologies if this came across as unduly rude or brusque.
> I'm just very very tired of, having explained how this stuff works
> fairly unequivocally, sticking clearly to the facts, over and over
> again, to be met with the same thing every time.
> 
> key points:
> 
> the people who _upload_ content to filesharing networks are not
> inhibited by this in the slightest.
> the people who _download_ content to filesharing networks are not
> inhibited by this in the slightest (at least, not in that respect) -
> they may or may not have a FVHD receiver.
> the people minority types you refer to who want to use MythTV and the
> like may be inconvenienced, but Freesat suggests not fatally law-abiding
> consumers are inconvenienced, because the officially-branded boxes are
> crippled start-ups looking to build new devices are (potentially
> fatally) inconvenienced
> -
> 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/


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

But y 

-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Adam Sampson
Sent: 15 June 2010 20:35
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

"Andrew Bowden"  writes:

> It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to 
> my iPod that I've never done it.

This is easy enough to automate however you like if you're using a
software PVR such as MythTV -- it's the only way I listen to radio these
days. I think it's a great shame that some at the BBC want to discourage
this kind of development.

While I'm sure the Huffman tables will be reverse-engineered soon
enough, it'd be much better if I, as a license fee payer, could obtain a
legal copy from the BBC for my personal use. UK copyright law is already
very clear on exactly what I'm allowed to do in terms of time-shifting
recordings...

-- 
Adam Sampson  <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/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on
the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either:

"nwhitfield 
14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM
My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on
sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to
be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's
broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them,
but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard.

It's also clearly stated in the various documents relating to this that
it's not going to affect - at all - the ability of people to record what
they want to, on recorders with built in tuners (ie FreeviewHD+ boxes).

In fact, the guidelines say the 'copy never' signal should not be used,
everything should be at least 'copy once' and if it's already been
broadcaster somewhere (like the US) in HD without protection, then even
'copy once' shouldn't be used in the UK.

Realistically, this change isn't going to affect many people at all.
Most people will record to their hard disk recorders, they'll be able to
watch as many times at they like, and then they'll delete stuff to make
space. If they did want to make a copy for posterity (ignoring the fact
that the law doesn't actually say you can), they will still be able to.

How many people out there have actually taken their DVD recorder and
made multiple copies of a programme they've recorded?

Yes, some open source software may be affected, but even that's not a
certainty; MythTV copes just fine with Freesat, which uses the same
technology. Other open source systems manage well with the odd dash of
proprietary stuff in there, like the drivers for some graphics cards."

-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 15 June 2010 16:15
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:57, Mo McRoberts  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FM&T 
>  wrote:
>> The BBC had a choice
>>
>> a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence

>> fee payers
>>
>> b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very 
>> small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it 
>> has any negative effect at all
>
> with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no 
> technical understanding of the proposal.
>
> your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the desired

> effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported.

to follow up - apologies if this came across as unduly rude or brusque.
I'm just very very tired of, having explained how this stuff works
fairly unequivocally, sticking clearly to the facts, over and over
again, to be met with the same thing every time.

key points:

the people who _upload_ content to filesharing networks are not
inhibited by this in the slightest.
the people who _download_ content to filesharing networks are not
inhibited by this in the slightest (at least, not in that respect) -
they may or may not have a FVHD receiver.
the people minority types you refer to who want to use MythTV and the
like may be inconvenienced, but Freesat suggests not fatally law-abiding
consumers are inconvenienced, because the officially-branded boxes are
crippled start-ups looking to build new devices are (potentially
fatally) inconvenienced
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:34, Adam Sampson wrote:

> While I'm sure the Huffman tables will be reverse-engineered soon
> enough, it'd be much better if I, as a license fee payer, could obtain a
> legal copy from the BBC for my personal use. UK copyright law is already
> very clear on exactly what I'm allowed to do in terms of time-shifting
> recordings...

…but oft-misunderstood.

“it is not an offence if” is not the same as “shall not be prevented from”, 
sadly.


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Adam Sampson]

"Andrew Bowden"  writes:

> It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to
> my iPod that I've never done it.

This is easy enough to automate however you like if you're using a
software PVR such as MythTV -- it's the only way I listen to radio these
days. I think it's a great shame that some at the BBC want to discourage
this kind of development.

While I'm sure the Huffman tables will be reverse-engineered soon
enough, it'd be much better if I, as a license fee payer, could obtain a
legal copy from the BBC for my personal use. UK copyright law is already
very clear on exactly what I'm allowed to do in terms of time-shifting
recordings...

-- 
Adam Sampson  
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Scot McSweeney-Roberts]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:37, Andrew Bowden  wrote:

> Ease of use aside, even the iPhone 4 doesn't really have the screen
> resolution to require HD content - will many handheld devices really
> need HD?

The Archos 7 Home Tablet handles 720p. I would expect HD capability to
become fairly standard on handheld devices, especially tablets.

>
> This is actually where services like iPlayer will really make a
> difference because iPlayer can do all the hard work - for the user it
> would just happen nicely.

Shame that there's no Android app and flash will only work on Froyo
and above android devices (which rules the Archos 7 out).

Scot
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[b...@bt]

American TV producers and film companies used the same argument a few years 
back that if the broadcast flag wasn't allowed then they wouldn't allow HD 
content to be broadcast on non-encrypted channels. Congress rejected the use 
of the broadcast flag and American producers caved in and allowed HD content 
to be broadcast.


The encrypted EPG is just a watered down version of the broadcast flag as 
far as I can see which tried to prevent automatic recording of programmes on 
non-approved receiving hardware such as MythTV. Hardware manufacturers that 
agree to the license terms are given the secret of how to decode the Huffman 
tables and but the manufacturers will probably be forced to agree to encrypt 
the files when saved to the hard-disk to prevent them escaping.


MythTV equipment will still record the programme but you might miss 
something if the schedule changes at the last minute. Currently the backdoor 
approach is to use the Radio Times xml data streams that MythTV can use to 
show the EPG of DVB-S(2) channels. I assume this'll also work for the 
upcoming HD via the terrestrial multiplex. The other method is to use 
Digiguide and manually setup a recording with the hope that the schedule 
doesn't change.


So the whole point of encrypted EPG is to make scheduled recording on 
un-authorised hardware as difficult as possible and force hardware 
manufacturers to implement restrictions in how customers can view their 
recorded files.


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:48, Adam Bradley  wrote:

> Point taken, but it would be nice if someone made it easy in future and this
> just makes it less likely.
> Perhaps "Why can't I stream this on my network player upstairs" would be a
> more likely question in the future.

Oh, but it can! So long as it supports DNLA...

(ignoring the fact that DNLA interop seems to be a huge minefield,
unsurprisingly)
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:33, Paul Battley  wrote:
> On 15 June 2010 16:23, Mo McRoberts  wrote:
>> "why can I not watch Freeview HD on my (slightly older) HD TV?"
>
> This (HDCP) is one of the restrictions I understand the least. It's
> like screwing shut the cat-flap (the DVI/HDMI signal) when the door
> (unencrypted broadcasts) is open. If you want to rip HD content, you'd
> do it at the point where it's easy.

the HDCP requirement's part of a larger ecosystem - bonus crippling!

all of this stuff is largely *designed* to support conditional-access
setups, but because it's already supported by some devices, it's
attractive.

incidentally, are the BBC being paid by Panasonic or something? they
seem very keen to note that we'll still  be able to record programmes
on those Blu-Ray recorders that nobody wants.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Adam Bradley]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Andrew Bowden wrote:

> From: Adam Bradley
> > Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course.
> > "Why can't I record this TV show?",
>
> Unless I've missed something (and I'm sure someone will tell me if I
> have!) there's no proposals on the table to prevent people from
> recording HD content - as long as the user has a suitable device.
>

The Ofcom document has a requirement:
"That no functional content management restrictions are placed on the
recording of HD content onto a DVR which is integrated into a receiver."

This is a welcome protection, but suggests that if I have (e.g.) a Freeview
HD receiver and a separate Blu-Ray recorder then I won't be able to record.

Also, the content protection rules aren't defined or regulated by Ofcom, but
by what seems to be an industry group. I can't see what we have to stop them
unilaterally changing these terms in future, and historically a "do not
record" flag has been high on their list.


> > "Why do some of my shows not copy to my iPod?", etc.
>
> It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to my
> iPod that I've never done it.


Point taken, but it would be nice if someone made it easy in future and this
just makes it less likely.

Perhaps "Why can't I stream this on my network player upstairs" would be a
more likely question in the future.

  Adam

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:37, Andrew Bowden  wrote:
> From: Adam Bradley
>> Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course.
>> "Why can't I record this TV show?",
>
> Unless I've missed something (and I'm sure someone will tell me if I
> have!) there's no proposals on the table to prevent people from
> recording HD content - as long as the user has a suitable device.

you're not wrong. you can always PVR stuff, you're just limited in
what you can do with that recording.

> And if we're honest here, the overwhelming majority will have a suitable
> device.  I know one of my colleagues has an uber amazing magatastic
> satellite dish that has three tunes and can control the position of his
> satellite dish, but most people buy their box from Currys or Tesco.  The
> chances of a major UK retailer selling something that wouldn't support
> this "protection" system are very slim IMHO.

that's a big part of why it's wrong...

>> "Why do some of my shows not copy to my iPod?", etc.
>
> It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to my
> iPod that I've never done it.  This is despite me having a PVR which has
> a USB connection so I can download stuff on to my PC, and me having the
> software that converts (eventually!) the transport stream into an MPEG2.

on the flipside, these workflows are pretty new territory for the STB
manufacturers, and are improving all the time (where not hamstrung!)

> Ease of use aside, even the iPhone 4 doesn't really have the screen
> resolution to require HD content - will many handheld devices really
> need HD?

next year's iPad will probably do at least 720p, judging by the iPhone
4 (it's not _that_ far off now). there are HD tablets emerging, too.

> Of course there's an argument that what if you've only recorded the HD
> version, but for me the ease of use of getting stuff off a PVR or
> something and onto a handheld still makes it a pretty niche requirement.

well, I do wonder about this: how well will the downscaling work? if
you've recorded an HD prog, will you be able to get an SD version off
it that isn't complete tosh? I don't have a huge amount of faith in
this, and that's saying something.

> This is actually where services like iPlayer will really make a
> difference because iPlayer can do all the hard work - for the user it
> would just happen nicely.

oh, definitely... where iPlayer hasn't also been artificially
restricted (hello, Android).

M.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Andrew Bowden]

From: Adam Bradley
> Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course. 
> "Why can't I record this TV show?", 

Unless I've missed something (and I'm sure someone will tell me if I
have!) there's no proposals on the table to prevent people from
recording HD content - as long as the user has a suitable device.

And if we're honest here, the overwhelming majority will have a suitable
device.  I know one of my colleagues has an uber amazing magatastic
satellite dish that has three tunes and can control the position of his
satellite dish, but most people buy their box from Currys or Tesco.  The
chances of a major UK retailer selling something that wouldn't support
this "protection" system are very slim IMHO.

> "Why do some of my shows not copy to my iPod?", etc.

It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to my
iPod that I've never done it.  This is despite me having a PVR which has
a USB connection so I can download stuff on to my PC, and me having the
software that converts (eventually!) the transport stream into an MPEG2.


Ease of use aside, even the iPhone 4 doesn't really have the screen
resolution to require HD content - will many handheld devices really
need HD?  

Of course there's an argument that what if you've only recorded the HD
version, but for me the ease of use of getting stuff off a PVR or
something and onto a handheld still makes it a pretty niche requirement.


This is actually where services like iPlayer will really make a
difference because iPlayer can do all the hard work - for the user it
would just happen nicely.


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Paul Battley]

On 15 June 2010 16:23, Mo McRoberts  wrote:
> "why can I not watch Freeview HD on my (slightly older) HD TV?"

This (HDCP) is one of the restrictions I understand the least. It's
like screwing shut the cat-flap (the DVI/HDMI signal) when the door
(unencrypted broadcasts) is open. If you want to rip HD content, you'd
do it at the point where it's easy.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:16, Adam Bradley  wrote:

> If the desired effect was to limit what the average consumer can do with TV
> - i.e. only making one recording, and limiting how they can transfer this
> around their home - then it looks like it could achieve it. This ensures
> that any consumer electronics for Freeview HD will have to have content
> management built in.
> Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course. "Why can't I
> record this TV show?", "Why do some of my shows not copy to my iPod?", etc.

but it's okay, there's a blog post about it!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/welcome_to_some_new_initials_d.html

"we are absolutely committed to continuing to find ways to allow you
to enjoy our programmes as you choose"

Pull the other one, it has got bells on it.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:16, Adam Bradley  wrote:

> If the desired effect was to limit what the average consumer can do with TV
> - i.e. only making one recording, and limiting how they can transfer this
> around their home - then it looks like it could achieve it. This ensures
> that any consumer electronics for Freeview HD will have to have content
> management built in.
> Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course. "Why can't I
> record this TV show?", "Why do some of my shows not copy to my iPod?", etc.

"why can I not watch Freeview HD on my (slightly older) HD TV?"

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Kieran Kunhya]

> a) broadcast in other countries without this scheme or an
> equivalent
> b) distributed widely prior to it hitting the UK

And on BBC HD on satellite to the UK and large parts of Europe.

The horse-and-cart makers still can't stand the existence of the car...
Won't be long until the "DRM" is (symbolically) broken anyway.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Alex Cockell]

The group of licence fee payers who have been affected by all this lockdown is 
larger than you realise, Nick.  

And they're also early adopters as well.  For instance, my Nokia N900 may have 
Flash 9.4 on board, but i'm sure unadorned streams woukld play out better.

I run Ubuntu on an Atom netbook.  If the Beeb rolled out a plugin as well as 
their Flash client, as in one that fed into vlc, xbmc or whatever, it would be 
good press all around.

Just feels like loads of kicks in the teeth.   

- Original message -
> The BBC had a choice
>   
> a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence
> fee payers
>   
> b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very
> small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has
> any negative effect at all
> 
> 
> 
> From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Adam Bradley
> Sent: 15 June 2010 15:14
> To: backstage
> Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Mo McRoberts  wrote:
> 
> 
>     the BBC had a choice:
> 
>     a) do nothing
>    
>     b) do something which didn't achieve the desired effect, and
> caused
>     additional negative effects
>    
>     it chose (b), because the rights-holders threw their toys out of
> the pram.
>    
>     now, either this is because the people who know that this is the
> case
>     couldn't make themselves heard, or because stopping piracy
> wasn't the
>     goal in the first place. which is it?
> 
> 
> This is an interesting question, because I can't see what the goal here
> is from the BBC. Did they genuinely believe the rights-holders' bluff?
> 
>     Adam

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Adam Bradley]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Mo McRoberts  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
>  wrote:
> > The BBC had a choice
> >
> > a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee
> > payers
> >
> > b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very
> small
> > negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any
> > negative effect at all
>
> with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no
> technical understanding of the proposal.
>
> your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the desired
> effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported.
>

If the desired effect was to limit what the average consumer can do with TV
- i.e. only making one recording, and limiting how they can transfer this
around their home - then it looks like it could achieve it. This ensures
that any consumer electronics for Freeview HD will have to have content
management built in.

Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course. "Why can't I
record this TV show?", "Why do some of my shows not copy to my iPod?", etc.

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:57, Mo McRoberts  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
>  wrote:
>> The BBC had a choice
>>
>> a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee
>> payers
>>
>> b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small
>> negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any
>> negative effect at all
>
> with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no
> technical understanding of the proposal.
>
> your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the desired
> effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported.

to follow up - apologies if this came across as unduly rude or
brusque. I'm just very very tired of, having explained how this stuff
works fairly unequivocally, sticking clearly to the facts, over and
over again, to be met with the same thing every time.

key points:

the people who _upload_ content to filesharing networks are not
inhibited by this in the slightest.
the people who _download_ content to filesharing networks are not
inhibited by this in the slightest (at least, not in that respect) -
they may or may not have a FVHD receiver.
the people minority types you refer to who want to use MythTV and the
like may be inconvenienced, but Freesat suggests not fatally
law-abiding consumers are inconvenienced, because the
officially-branded boxes are crippled
start-ups looking to build new devices are (potentially fatally) inconvenienced
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Andrew Bowden]

> _however_, who do people like Graham Plumb work for? AFAIK, 
> he's BBC proper, not the subsidiary. _The Corporation_ has 
> made representations in favour of this idea (rather PR-heavy 
> representations, at that - possibly the single aspect of this 
> I'm least happy about).

In some situations staff in some areas will work on projects where the
funding for those projects does not come from the licence fee but from
another source like BBC Worldwide, or a joint venture like Freesat.  I
was interviewed for one such role myself a few years ago - funded by BBC
Worldwide however the employer was the standard BBC.  That particular
job was based mostly on international video on the News and Sports
websites. 

I can't speak for Graham's role obviously.

> ye, that's true, but that's not what it's remit _is_.
> it *regulates* the broadcast industry to ensure that it is 
> operating *in the interests of citizens*. that's part of the 
> legal framework which permits it to exist, and was reinforced 
> quite strongly in the statement released the other day.

Part of that role includes a role inherited from the ITC - broadcast
licencing.  
 

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Rob Myers]

On 06/15/2010 02:08 PM, Andrew Bowden wrote:


If the alternative was this system did not exist and rights holders told
broadcasters (for this is not just a BBC issue) that the broadcaster
could not broadcast their content in HD on the Freeview platform...


They threatened something like this before and were rightly ignored.

The result was...nothing happened.


...how would you explain to the average punter that the programme could
not be broadcast on Freeview HD?  And how would you justify it to them
in such a way that they went "Yes, you're right" rather than "Eh?"


See Virgin vs. Sky.

Or:

"These guys want to make it more expensive and less convenient for you 
to just watch TV and they're trying to use the national institution of 
the BBC to do so. We're fighting this rather than selling you out to 
make life easier for us when we join them after leaving the BBC^D^D^D."


- Rob.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
 wrote:
> The BBC had a choice
>
> a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee
> payers
>
> b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small
> negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any
> negative effect at all

with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no
technical understanding of the proposal.

your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the desired
effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Rob Myers]

On 06/15/2010 03:21 PM, Andrew Bowden wrote:


We can argue around this one as much as we want but I'm afraid there's one 
simple truth.  Most people don't care one bit and just want to watch their 
programme.


They do. And they won't take long to work out that technology, content 
and services are cheaper and more convenient where the BBC hasn't 
betrayed their interests.


- Rob.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:21, Andrew Bowden  wrote:

> The Strategy Review is irrelevant as this functionality could be used by ITV1 
> HD and Channel 4 HD.
>
> The BBC's name is plastered over this because it holds the multiplex 
> broadcast licence (in the guise of BBC Free to View Ltd) and, as such, had to 
> submit the licence change.  However the multiplex in question is used to 
> broadcast all Freeview HD services.
>
> So this is broadcaster independent and I would suggest the if isn't that 
> enormous.

That's a fair point.

> "Don't care.  I just want to watch Glee/Heroes/FlashForward/Running Out Of 
> Programme Names For HD Imports/whatever in HD."
> Actually I don't want to watch them at all, but that's the response you'll 
> get from many people.  Don't care.  Just want to watch it in HD.

yes, but that's why we have a regulatory framework. you can't do
something _just_ because the rightsholders demand it. that's bonkers.
there are people who'd cheerfully sell their own kids to watch the
season finale of some shows, but that doesn't mean a PSB should
facilitate that.

>> So, answer this: what right do the rights-holders have to
>> make these demands of the broadcaster? (IMO, every right -
>> they can ask anything they like, but it doesn't mean they'll
>> get it)
>
> It's their content as such they have every right to demand it.  It is up to 
> the broadcaster to decide whether to submit to those demands.  If the content 
> proposition is compelling and - in commercial broadcasters - likely to bring 
> in some serious cash, it might be a decision worth taking.

I think you're actually on to something in this:

>> what right does the licence-fee-funded public-service broadcaster have
>> to impose them upon the ordinary consumers (the only people who will be
>> inconvenienced by
>> them) without weight of merit and to lobby for them?
>
> As I mentioned, BBC Free to View Ltd is the licnece holder and rents space to 
> ITV plc, STV and Channel 4 for their respective services.
>
> There is the possibility that this request has been asked for by one or more 
> of its clients and as such it would be BBC Free to View Ltd's responsibity to 
> liase with Ofcom on the matter.
>
> I don't know the legal status of BBC Free to View Ltd - I'm guessing it's a 
> cost covering subsiduary of the main BBC corporation, and that therefore the 
> only licence fee money it gets is the money paid to it to cover the costs of 
> transmitting BBC HD and associated BBC services.

that is a very important distinction. if it was ITV/STV/Five/whoever
making the request, I'd actually not give a toss. (C4 I would, as
they're a bit special, though not as special as the BBC). there's a
lack of clarity here in that respect.

_however_, who do people like Graham Plumb work for? AFAIK, he's BBC
proper, not the subsidiary. _The Corporation_ has made representations
in favour of this idea (rather PR-heavy representations, at that -
possibly the single aspect of this I'm least happy about).

This also makes the regulatory position more complex, too: whose
"service activity" is the actual broadcast of the EPG? if it's the
BBC's, or one of the subsidiary's, then it's supposed to need Trust
approval to vary the conditions. that means another round of
consultations.

>> what
>> right does the telecommunications industry regulator, who is
>> supposed to operate in the interests of "consumers and
>> citizens", have in approving this measure?
>
> Because it is the regulator for the broadcasting industry as well.  Ofcom was 
> formed out of a number of regulators including the Independent Television 
> Commission.

ye, that's true, but that's not what it's remit _is_.

it *regulates* the broadcast industry to ensure that it is operating
*in the interests of citizens*. that's part of the legal framework
which permits it to exist, and was reinforced quite strongly in the
statement released the other day.

>> > ...how would you explain to the average punter that the programme
>> > could not be broadcast on Freeview HD?  And how would you
>> justify it
>> > to them in such a way that they went "Yes, you're right"
>> rather than "Eh?"
>> "The rights-holder won't allow it". Exactly as you do with
>> iPlayer, although frankly, I'd name names. Only within the
>> industry is there a conceptual difference between "broadcast"
>> and "on-demand" rights and differentials.
>
>
> You could explain it like that, but do people understand it?  Do people 
> really care for the reasons why Match of the Day isn't on iPlayer?

nope, they don't care. they ask from time to time, but do they really
care what the answer is? _no_ answer is satisfactory.

> We can argue around this one as much as we want but I'm afraid there's one 
> simple truth.  Most people don't care one bit and just want to watch their 
> programme.

this is true. but that's the point of a regulator, and - to an extent
- the means by which the corporation is funded: to weigh up the long
term lo

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

The BBC had a choice
 
a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence
fee payers
 
b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very
small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has
any negative effect at all



From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Adam Bradley
Sent: 15 June 2010 15:14
To: backstage
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management


On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Mo McRoberts  wrote:


the BBC had a choice:

a) do nothing

b) do something which didn't achieve the desired effect, and
caused
additional negative effects

it chose (b), because the rights-holders threw their toys out of
the pram.

now, either this is because the people who know that this is the
case
couldn't make themselves heard, or because stopping piracy
wasn't the
goal in the first place. which is it?


This is an interesting question, because I can't see what the goal here
is from the BBC. Did they genuinely believe the rights-holders' bluff?

  Adam

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:14, Adam Bradley  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Mo McRoberts  wrote:
>>
>> the BBC had a choice:
>> a) do nothing
>>
>> b) do something which didn't achieve the desired effect, and caused
>> additional negative effects
>>
>> it chose (b), because the rights-holders threw their toys out of the pram.
>>
>> now, either this is because the people who know that this is the case
>> couldn't make themselves heard, or because stopping piracy wasn't the
>> goal in the first place. which is it?
>
> This is an interesting question, because I can't see what the goal here is
> from the BBC. Did they genuinely believe the rights-holders' bluff?

I honestly think they might have done. Ofcom certainly did, and
they're supposed to know about this stuff.

this raises a more interesting question: -why- did the rights-holders
make the demand in the first place? they surely know just as well as
we do that this isn't any solution to the piracy problem (whatever you
might perceive that to be).
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Andrew Bowden]

> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 14:08, Andrew Bowden 
>  wrote:
> > Much as I'm rather loathe to wade into this, there's an important 
> > question to ponder.
> > If the alternative was this system did not exist and rights holders 
> > told broadcasters (for this is not just a BBC issue) that the 
> > broadcaster could not broadcast their content in HD on the 
> Freeview platform...
> Those are _very_ big "if"s. enormous.
> The content being talked about (that is, US imports, movies, 
> and the like), are
> a) broadcast in other countries without this scheme or an equivalent
> b) distributed widely prior to it hitting the UK
> couple with that with the fact that the Strategy Review 
> recommends reducing the budget and amount of bought-in 
> programming, and you're not look at anything like the gaping 
> holes in the schedule which have been foretold.

The Strategy Review is irrelevant as this functionality could be used by ITV1 
HD and Channel 4 HD.

The BBC's name is plastered over this because it holds the multiplex broadcast 
licence (in the guise of BBC Free to View Ltd) and, as such, had to submit the 
licence change.  However the multiplex in question is used to broadcast all 
Freeview HD services.

So this is broadcaster independent and I would suggest the if isn't that 
enormous.

> moreover, what happens if the rights holders demand something else?
> something that's clearly (not just to us on here, but to BBC 
> management and the regulators) ridiculous? what if they 
> demanded that all BBC staff wear HBO[0]-branded baseball caps 
> whenever one of their programmes is aired on FVHD? do we all 
> go along with it because we're scared of schedule-gaps, or do 
> we tell them to stuff it, because there are principles at 
> stake and the proposal is ridiculous?

"Don't care.  I just want to watch Glee/Heroes/FlashForward/Running Out Of 
Programme Names For HD Imports/whatever in HD."

Actually I don't want to watch them at all, but that's the response you'll get 
from many people.  Don't care.  Just want to watch it in HD.

> Don't get me wrong, I could actually understand the position 
> if this was remotely capable of achieving the publicly-stated 
> aims, but it cannot possibly be. I can't stress that enough, 
> because it's not an exaggeration or hyperbole: this scheme, 
> despite what's been said publicly, has about as much to do 
> with stopping "Internet piracy" as the ASA's latest 
> advertising adjudication does: nothing. it can't. the effect 
> it actually has upon pirates is about same as the "Copyright 
> BBC MMX" at the end of each programme.

"I'm the rights holder.  Don't tell me you know best about my business.  This 
is my content and I will demand what I feel fit.  I believe this works, so 
we're insisting on it"

We all know it doesn't make diddly squat difference.  But we still have it. 

> So, answer this: what right do the rights-holders have to 
> make these demands of the broadcaster? (IMO, every right - 
> they can ask anything they like, but it doesn't mean they'll 
> get it)

It's their content as such they have every right to demand it.  It is up to the 
broadcaster to decide whether to submit to those demands.  If the content 
proposition is compelling and - in commercial broadcasters - likely to bring in 
some serious cash, it might be a decision worth taking.

> what right does the licence-fee-funded public-service broadcaster have
> to impose them upon the ordinary consumers (the only people who will be
> inconvenienced by
> them) without weight of merit and to lobby for them?

As I mentioned, BBC Free to View Ltd is the licnece holder and rents space to 
ITV plc, STV and Channel 4 for their respective services.

There is the possibility that this request has been asked for by one or more of 
its clients and as such it would be BBC Free to View Ltd's responsibity to 
liase with Ofcom on the matter.

I don't know the legal status of BBC Free to View Ltd - I'm guessing it's a 
cost covering subsiduary of the main BBC corporation, and that therefore the 
only licence fee money it gets is the money paid to it to cover the costs of 
transmitting BBC HD and associated BBC services.

> what 
> right does the telecommunications industry regulator, who is 
> supposed to operate in the interests of "consumers and 
> citizens", have in approving this measure?

Because it is the regulator for the broadcasting industry as well.  Ofcom was 
formed out of a number of regulators including the Independent Television 
Commission.

> > ...how would you explain to the average punter that the programme 
> > could not be broadcast on Freeview HD?  And how would you 
> justify it 
> > to them in such a way that they went "Yes, you're right" 
> rather than "Eh?"
> "The rights-holder won't allow it". Exactly as you do with 
> iPlayer, although frankly, I'd name names. Only within the 
> industry is there a conceptual difference between "broadcast" 
> and "on-demand" rights and differentials.


You 

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Adam Bradley]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Mo McRoberts  wrote:

> the BBC had a choice:
>
> a) do nothing
>
> b) do something which didn't achieve the desired effect, and caused
> additional negative effects
>
> it chose (b), because the rights-holders threw their toys out of the pram.
>
> now, either this is because the people who know that this is the case
> couldn't make themselves heard, or because stopping piracy wasn't the
> goal in the first place. which is it?


This is an interesting question, because I can't see what the goal here is
from the BBC. Did they genuinely believe the rights-holders' bluff?

  Adam

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 14:08, Andrew Bowden  wrote:

> Much as I'm rather loathe to wade into this, there's an important
> question to ponder.
>
> If the alternative was this system did not exist and rights holders told
> broadcasters (for this is not just a BBC issue) that the broadcaster
> could not broadcast their content in HD on the Freeview platform...

Those are _very_ big "if"s. enormous.

The content being talked about (that is, US imports, movies, and the like), are

a) broadcast in other countries without this scheme or an equivalent
b) distributed widely prior to it hitting the UK

couple with that with the fact that the Strategy Review recommends
reducing the budget and amount of bought-in programming, and you're
not look at anything like the gaping holes in the schedule which have
been foretold.

moreover, what happens if the rights holders demand something else?
something that's clearly (not just to us on here, but to BBC
management and the regulators) ridiculous? what if they demanded that
all BBC staff wear HBO[0]-branded baseball caps whenever one of their
programmes is aired on FVHD? do we all go along with it because we're
scared of schedule-gaps, or do we tell them to stuff it, because there
are principles at stake and the proposal is ridiculous?

Don't get me wrong, I could actually understand the position if this
was remotely capable of achieving the publicly-stated aims, but it
cannot possibly be. I can't stress that enough, because it's not an
exaggeration or hyperbole: this scheme, despite what's been said
publicly, has about as much to do with stopping "Internet piracy" as
the ASA's latest advertising adjudication does: nothing. it can't. the
effect it actually has upon pirates is about same as the "Copyright
BBC MMX" at the end of each programme.

So, answer this: what right do the rights-holders have to make these
demands of the broadcaster? (IMO, every right - they can ask anything
they like, but it doesn't mean they'll get it); what right does the
licence-fee-funded public-service broadcaster have to impose them upon
the ordinary consumers (the only people who will be inconvenienced by
them) without weight of merit and to lobby for them? what right does
the telecommunications industry regulator, who is supposed to operate
in the interests of "consumers and citizens", have in approving this
measure?

the BBC had a choice:

a) do nothing

b) do something which didn't achieve the desired effect, and caused
additional negative effects

it chose (b), because the rights-holders threw their toys out of the pram.

now, either this is because the people who know that this is the case
couldn't make themselves heard, or because stopping piracy wasn't the
goal in the first place. which is it?

> ...how would you explain to the average punter that the programme could
> not be broadcast on Freeview HD?  And how would you justify it to them
> in such a way that they went "Yes, you're right" rather than "Eh?"

"The rights-holder won't allow it". Exactly as you do with iPlayer,
although frankly, I'd name names. Only within the industry is there a
conceptual difference between "broadcast" and "on-demand" rights and
differentials.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Andrew Bowden]

> From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk 
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:12, Alex Cockell 
>  wrote:
> > What I can't fathom is why the hell the Beeb's management 
> > has changed 
> > so much imn terms of homebrew innovation etc? What are they 
> > so scared 
> > of, anyway? Why don't they declare an open api etc?
> > Why are they so set on restricting my kit?
> At that level - the world is changing, and they haven't the 
> faintest idea how to deal with it.

Much as I'm rather loathe to wade into this, there's an important
question to ponder.

If the alternative was this system did not exist and rights holders told
broadcasters (for this is not just a BBC issue) that the broadcaster
could not broadcast their content in HD on the Freeview platform...

...how would you explain to the average punter that the programme could
not be broadcast on Freeview HD?  And how would you justify it to them
in such a way that they went "Yes, you're right" rather than "Eh?"


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:12, Alex Cockell  wrote:
> What I can't fathom is why the hell the Beeb's management has changed so
> much imn terms of homebrew innovation etc? What are they so scared of,
> anyway? Why don't they declare an open api etc?
>
> Why are they so set on restricting my kit?

At that level - the world is changing, and they haven't the faintest
idea how to deal with it.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Alex Cockell]

What I can't fathom is why the hell the Beeb's management has changed so much 
imn terms of homebrew innovation etc?  What are they so scared of, anyway? Why 
don't they declare an open api etc? 

Why are they so set on restricting my kit?


- Original message -
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:05, Stephen Jolly  wrote:
> 
> > You could generate new tables each week to track the slow evolution of
> > the English language? ;-)
> 
> more {better,useless} than that!
> 
> generate new tables each week to track the slow evolution in the
> English language as it's used in the EPG ;)
> -
> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.   To unsubscribe,
> please visit
> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. 
> Unofficial list archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:05, Stephen Jolly  wrote:

> You could generate new tables each week to track the slow evolution of the 
> English language? ;-)

more {better,useless} than that!

generate new tables each week to track the slow evolution in the
English language as it's used in the EPG ;)
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Stephen Jolly]

On 15 Jun 2010, at 09:53, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> either way, they'd just get reverse-engineered again. they could push
> out new tables every week, but they went to lengths to explain how the
> one they have was specially-generated to be wonderfully optimised (in
> order to qualify as being some kind of intellectual property,
> presumably), so they couldn't just generate a new one - and in any
> case that would cause monumental levels of breakage.

You could generate new tables each week to track the slow evolution of the 
English language? ;-)

S


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:13, Adam Bradley  wrote:
> I would assume that the rules for content protection would bar user created
> plugins from having access to the data. The Ofcom document had some comments
> from content providers about updates to the tables being necessary in the
> future if it gets broken, but it doesn't look like there are any firm plans
> there.

Can't see how that'll work. They can't assume everyone has Internet
access, which'd mean OTA updates...

either way, they'd just get reverse-engineered again. they could push
out new tables every week, but they went to lengths to explain how the
one they have was specially-generated to be wonderfully optimised (in
order to qualify as being some kind of intellectual property,
presumably), so they couldn't just generate a new one - and in any
case that would cause monumental levels of breakage.

> If Freesat is using the same system of Huffman tables then what happened
> there? Are the tables public knowledge yet?

As of forever ago, yup.http://svn.mythtv.org/trac/ticket/5365

M.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Adam Bradley]

I would assume that the rules for content protection would bar user created
plugins from having access to the data. The Ofcom document had some comments
from content providers about updates to the tables being necessary in the
future if it gets broken, but it doesn't look like there are any firm plans
there.

If Freesat is using the same system of Huffman tables then what happened
there? Are the tables public knowledge yet?

  Adam

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Phil Lewis wrote:

> So is this just going to be another region-coding like affair where
> 'people' release cracked firmware or just press a few magic button
> sequences on their remote to remove this protection? And what about
> those vendors who sell DVRs that have community contributed plugins
> (e.g. like Topfield did/does); that's just going to make a mockery of
> this mockworthy content protection.
>
> - Phil
>
> On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 18:21 +0100, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> > On 14-Jun-2010, at 18:14, Alex Cockell wrote:
> >
> > > So i'll have to buy box after box to watch content?
> >
> > doubtful. those which have been sold for FVHD already will have in-built
> support for the mechanism (it's specced by the ETSI DVB standards), but will
> likely need an update to get the decoding table.
> >
> > that is, unless they're going to use the same decoding table as Freesat
> (given the fact that it was claimed to have been generated from a large
> sample set in order to ensure optimal compression rates, it _should_ be)…
> >
> > 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] Freeview HD Content Management

[Phil Lewis]

So is this just going to be another region-coding like affair where
'people' release cracked firmware or just press a few magic button
sequences on their remote to remove this protection? And what about
those vendors who sell DVRs that have community contributed plugins
(e.g. like Topfield did/does); that's just going to make a mockery of
this mockworthy content protection.

- Phil

On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 18:21 +0100, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> On 14-Jun-2010, at 18:14, Alex Cockell wrote:
> 
> > So i'll have to buy box after box to watch content? 
> 
> doubtful. those which have been sold for FVHD already will have in-built 
> support for the mechanism (it's specced by the ETSI DVB standards), but will 
> likely need an update to get the decoding table.
> 
> that is, unless they're going to use the same decoding table as Freesat 
> (given the fact that it was claimed to have been generated from a large 
> sample set in order to ensure optimal compression rates, it _should_ be)…
> 
> 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] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On 14-Jun-2010, at 18:14, Alex Cockell wrote:

> So i'll have to buy box after box to watch content? 

doubtful. those which have been sold for FVHD already will have in-built 
support for the mechanism (it's specced by the ETSI DVB standards), but will 
likely need an update to get the decoding table.

that is, unless they're going to use the same decoding table as Freesat (given 
the fact that it was claimed to have been generated from a large sample set in 
order to ensure optimal compression rates, it _should_ be)…

M.


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Alex Cockell]

So i'll have to buy box after box to watch content?

- Original message -
> 
> On 14-Jun-2010, at 17:31, Brian Butterworth wrote:
> 
> > #FAIL
> > 
> > http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-freeview-allowed-to-use-drm-to-curtail-online-piracy/
> > 
> > Not much of a shock really.   Or much use for the stated purpose. 
> 
> +2
> 
> 
> -
> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.   To unsubscribe,
> please visit
> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. 
> Unofficial list archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On 14-Jun-2010, at 17:31, Brian Butterworth wrote:

> #FAIL
> 
> http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-freeview-allowed-to-use-drm-to-curtail-online-piracy/
> 
> Not much of a shock really.  Or much use for the stated purpose. 

+2


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Brian Butterworth]

#FAIL

http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-freeview-allowed-to-use-drm-to-curtail-online-piracy/

Not
much of a shock really.  Or much use for the stated purpose.

-- 

Brian Butterworth

follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist
web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
advice, since 2002

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On 26-Jan-2010, at 16:20, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> If I remember later, I'll dig it out and post it to this thread. It
> made for a reasonable semi-executive summary, even if it wasn't quite
> as diplomatic as it might be if it were addressed to BBC senior
> management, for example ;)

And without further ado, here it is.

Bear in mind this was written in December, so a few things have come to light 
since (and some more questions raised!). No idea if this is at all helpful to 
anybody, but enjoy :)

Nick:— you get a namecheck in this, though I just want to state, for the 
record, that I do very much appreciate your efforts in trying to be the 
middle-man on a fairly complex technical issue!

M.



Background
--

On the 27th August, Alix Pryde, controller of BBC Distribution, wrote
to Greg Bensberg at Ofcom outlining two alternative mechanisms of
implementing “Content management” for high-definition content
broadcast on BBC HD (and, presumably, other HD channels, though this
is unspecified) as carried by the then-upcoming Freeview HD service,
designed to be the ultimate successor to both the analogue terrestrial
and standard-definition Freeview television services.

Of the two proposals, the first was centred around a licensing regime
that would be adhered to by consumer electronics manufacturers: those
wishing to brand their equipment as being Freeview HD-compliant would
sign a non-disclosure agreement and implement certain decoding
routines for scrambled EPG data. As part of the agreement,
manufacturers would restrict the ability of their consumer electronics
to interface along so-called “untrusted paths”. In effect, a
simplistic digital rights management (DRM) system would be created,
albeit one maintained solely by licensing agreements, rather than
technical challenge.

The key facets of this first proposal are that:

* The actual high definition audio, video, subtitle and “Red Button”
application content streams would be broadcast “in the clear”
(unencrypted)
* Some metadata carried with the HD signal (the Event Information
Table, or EIT) would be compressed, with decoding tables “The Huffman
Look-Up Tables” required for decompression
* Although these decoding tables are trivial to reverse-engineer,
doing so could fall afoul of the provisions of the European Copyright
Directive (EUCD), and would also run counter to the Freeview HD
licensing regime

Thus, although a skilled individual—whatever their intent—would be
able to bypass the restrictions, a CE manufacturer would have no
option but to enter into the licensing agreement with the BBC in order
to legitimately obtain a copy of the decoding table, and in doing so
commit to implementing copy-restrictions in their device.

The second proposal was to implement a much stronger form of Digital
Rights Management whereby ostensibly “free to air” content would
itself be encrypted, rather than simply the EIT. This clearly runs
counter to the BBC’s public service principles, as indicated by
original inquiry letter which includes the phrase “…a move from
free-to-air to free-to-view…” in relation to this proposal.

It has been made reasonably clear that the BBC has no desire to
attempt to seek implementation of this second proposal, and it’s
relatively apparent that it would have little success in doing so
(especially given that the Freeview HD service has now launched, aside
from public policy concerns).


Publicity on the proposals
--

On the 3rd September, Greg Bensberg issued a letter to “Stakeholders
in the UK DTT industry”, published on Ofcom’s website. This was not
issued in the form of a public consultation, nor clearly announced on
the high-traffic areas of the site.

After the letters were published, both Tom Watson MP and Cory Doctorow
published blog articles online and in the MediaGuardian regarding the
issue. The articles contained some factual inaccuracies, brought about
largely thanks to the lack of a proper consultation including an
explanation of the issues and the proposed remedies. Despite this, the
publicity which resulted from Tom and Cory’s posts was sufficient to
cause the BBC to begin dialogue with the public on the issue.

In a BBC Internet Blog post,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protection_up.html,
Graham Plumb responded initially to Tom Watson’s piece (followed up
later by 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html
in response to Cory’s MediaGuardian article).

It became clear after these posts were published that the Graham
Plumb, although author of the text of the posts, was not directly
engaging those asking questions and submitting other comments. For the
most part, Nick Reynolds
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile/?userid=11648404) co-editor of the
BBC Internet Blog, did a reasonable job of fielding the questions, but
was limited in his ability to gain answers from Graham Plumb (or
anybody else with the ability to give the

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Mo McRoberts]

On 26-Jan-2010, at 17:20, Brian Butterworth wrote:

> It should be noted that the content management approach implemented for 
> Freeview HD will frequently enable far more extensive copying and  
> distribution of broadcast content than is likely to be considered acceptable 
> to  the majority of rights-holders or is legitimate under current UK law.  

That’s a slightly dubious interpretation (well, apart from the “considered 
acceptable to the majority of rights-holders”).

Time-shifting (which is only permitted for HD content under a relatively narrow 
set of circumstances, including you having purchased the “right” kit) is 
specifically “not an offence”.

While there aren’t specific exemptions written into law allowing for 
space-shifting, its practice is so widespread for other media that it would be 
impossible to enforce now without there being massive backlash from both 
consumers and CE manufacturers alike: to do so would outlaw ripping of 
[non-DRM’d] CDs, for a start, and theoretically mean you’d have to purchase a 
separate copy of each media item for each device you wanted it on, even if you 
never consumed them simultaneously (e.g., one copy for your laptop, one for 
your iPod…).

Given the above, and Ofcom’s wording, it still doesn’t open things up any 
(§A.2.3); according to commonplace and to date uncontested practice, on the 
other hand, it’s far more restrictive, and it certainly doesn't give anybody 
any *rights* to distribute.

Of course, all of that’s aside from the things unrelated to the content itself, 
such as the licensing regime and non-disclosure terms attached to it all.

One thing I have noticed about the official position is that it always talks 
about what the system would _permit_ you to do in glowing terms and skims over 
what it prevents you from doing. The reality is, we’re permitted (insofar as 
the hardware and broadcast chain is concerned) to do all of those things if the 
BBC does nothing at all. I noted with interest the publications which repeated 
Graham Plumb’s list of things we’d [still] be able to do if it went ahead.

M.


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

[Brian Butterworth]

Interesting.

2010/1/26 Mo McRoberts 

>
> I did do some digging, though IANAL and it was only a cursory
> high-level search (and it was a while ago)
>
> From memory, though, and this is just my skim-understanding: primary
> legislation covers EPG services as well as TV channels themselves and
> in much the same way to one another. Ofcom issues licenses for both,
> and both are bound by similar (and in many cases identical) rules. So,
> even if you accept that "the programmes will be broadcast in the
> clear", this doesn't change the fact that EPG data isn't unregulated.
>

The Ofcom document states:

5.9.2  A commitment to establishing an “appeals” process whereby viewers who
 believe their lawful usage is being impinged by the BBC’s use of  content
 management  can raise their concerns to the BBC, rather than having to
 write to the Secretary of State, which is the current legal requirement;

10.1  These raised a number of potentially significant questions
regarding compliance with  copyright law and competition issues that were
not addressed in our original letter.

3.16.1  An undertaking to respect current user protections enshrined in
copyright law and any future extension of these protections, such as
those recommended by the Gower’s Review of Intellectual Property;

5.9.1  An undertaking  that the BBC will  respect current usage protections
under copyright law and any future extension of these protections, such as
thoserecommended by the Gower’s Review of Intellectual Property18

and

A.2.3  The signalling of content management states by broadcasters in
respect of any  programme does not indicate any form of entitlement to copy
or distribute  this content.The responsibility resides with citizens and
consumers to  respect all rights associated with video and audio works.

It should be noted that the content management approach implemented for
Freeview HD will frequently enable far more extensive copying and
 distribution of broadcast content than is likely to be considered
acceptable to  the majority of rights-holders or is legitimate under current
UK law.




> Now, what I don't know is:
>
> a) whether the fact that the EPG data is broadcast by a wholly-owned
> subsidiary rather than the Corporation makes any difference
>

I'm quite sure that's not the case as the company is wholly owned by the
BBC.


> b) whether the PSB obligation applies to the EPG data in the first
> place (I'd guess yes, but would prefer confirmation of this)
>

Both the BBC and Ofcom would think so, because they would not have had to
consult.  The BBC could have just done it if the corporation's lawyers had
said it was "just OK".


> c) whether you'd need to mount a legal challenge in court to prove any
> of it if it turned out that Ofcom didn't, in fact, have the authority
>

I'm sure at the very least you would need a proper solicitor's letter,
rather than the word of a blogger.

But the BBC seems to be arguing that the BBC *must* have the ability to
protect the output of Freeview HD devices to comply with the law.

I have a Rumpole voice in my head asking the Director General "...but you
have run the Freeview service for over a decade without this protection, are
you telling the court that you were not complying with the law then, sir?"


>
> 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/
>



-- 

Brian Butterworth

follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist
web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
advice, since 2002