On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 23:56 +0100, David Gerard wrote: > On 4 July 2010 13:57, bjartur <svartma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I fail to see how BBC would be harmed by the usage of alternative > > software. Its business model is about content, not software, right? > > > See, you're using logic and sense ... about half the BBC want to just > *make their stuff available*, the other half are worried about the > thicket of laws and agreements that made sense in the days of analogue > tape broadcast on analogue television that, despite not making sense > on the Internet, still bind them legally. (Broadcast rights, residuals > for actors and writers, etc.) These are serious and real concerns and > they can't just ignore them. > > It's all very complicated when real money is at stake. > > (c.f. The Innovator's Dilemma.) > > > That said: DRM is a provably broken concept. Anyone who demands it be > incorporated into a standard is fundamentally, deeply wrong and can > work around it with some sort of proprietary plugin, because that way > they won't be requiring anyone else to pretend mathematics doesn't > work. > > > - d.
I agree. I don't condone illegally distributing digital content, but DRM doesn't have a good track record. At best, it disrupts illegal copyright infringement, at its worst, it harms the honest consumer. The game Spore was arguably one of the most copyrighted games ever, despite (or maybe because of) its almost draconian DRM. DVD's suffered for a long time with being locked into regions by DRM, making it difficult for people who travelled a lot but wanted to watch films, and made little or no impact on those that obtained an illegal DRM-free copy. There are countless more tales all like this, but until a fiscally viable alternative is offered to the media companies (as let's face it, it's not the artists pushing for DRM!) then we will continue to see more measures brought into place and broken. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
