2010-07-05 01:56 EEST: David Gerard:
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.
So, you're arguing that DRM is not required, right?
Basically the whole problem is about how current content distributors
(e.g. BBC) have made stupid contracts in the history and are trying to
work around those stupid contracts with DRM instead of doing the right
thing and do one of the following:
(1) renegotiate the contracts to allow redistribution, or
(2) stop trying to redistribute content you don't have proper rights to do.
Especially, the content distributors should immediately stop pretending
that DRM allows for any kind of protection. It's mathematically
impossible. It's like trying to send an encrypted message to Bob with a
requirement that Bob cannot have access to the message. That problem
cannot be solved. For that problem, a decision needs to be made:
(1) Bob is allowed to get access to the message, or
(2) Bob is not allowed to get access to the message (never send it!)
Notice how this is similar to the DRM case above?
Introducing a DRM system is about *trying to not do the decision* if you
really *want to distribute the content or not*. Such system should not
ever be standardized because it really cannot ever work, by definition.
--
Mikko
