BBC + Digital rights Management

[Frances_iom]

Tho some may not appreciate the technicalities but this Guardian article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology.../14/bbc-hd-drm - shows yet again that BBC tho supposedly wanting open + transparent government wants nothing of the kind for itself - DRM will mean that they can restrict viewing (+ in future I guess want higher licence fees via a backdoor)
It also shows the same type of response that FF has reported on numerous occasions

[french frank]

Oh, dear. I don't understand most of the technicalities, but, yes, this is the BBC I know and love ... I don't very often laugh out loud but I did several times on reading this.

I think that the BBC types think that they're clever and are 'outwitting' their opponents. They are actually exposed for what they are - which good manners dictates I shouldn't express ... I could say more but it's commercially sensitive .

[teamsaint]

what struck me forcibly about this is that an issue which will affect ordinary people, who actually pay for this service, is being dealt with in a way that excludes those very people from the debate.

Complicated legal language, and a bland assertions that its all in the public interest are not good enough.

Pity nobody at the BBc took the trouble to translate this stuff into ordinary langauge to spell out the real implications.

I could live without my telly, but i wonder if somewhere down the line digital radio receivers might get the same treatment, so that they have to comply with what the bbc wants, and forces us to pay for radio too?

[Frances_iom]

I could live without my telly, but i wonder if somewhere down the line digital radio receivers might get the same treatment, so that they have to comply with what the bbc wants, and forces us to pay for radio too?

you have it in one - would you believe anything the BBC says about its own affairs - in past it has been totally untrustworthy - once they can turn off FM then any digital stream can be encrypted tho most (?all) DRM measures can be circumvented the law to protect these commercial interests makes criminals of all - all the law on extensions to copyright etc have been dictated by the industry via the corrupt lobbying system in USA which we now see also started to appear in UK and behind closed doors in the various international organisations (WIPO etc) and by intense USA pressure

[barber olly]

It is noticeable how Freeview appears to be giving less away, maybe more channels but much of trash.

[LHC]

As I understand it DRM allows broadcasters to restrict the number of high definition copies made of a particular broadcast. I have a blu-ray recorder at home with an HDD. At present ITV applies DRM so that I can only make one HD copy of an ITV programme to blu-ray. After that, if I want to make any further copies, these would have to be in SD. The BBC doesn't apply DRM at present and so, if I want to, I can make as many HD copies to blu-ray as I want to.

I presume that the proposal here is that the BBC might in the future apply DRM (as ITV already do) to some of the programmes made for it by independent producers. (Why this needs to be kept secret is a mystery to me as it seems to be in line with how other broadcasters already operate.)

Or have I got this wrong?

[Simon]

In my view, the more serious matter raised in that superbly-written article is not the behaviour of the BBC, but the collusion of OFCOM.

Rather like OFGEM and OFWAT and all the other OF quangos set up to "protect" the customer against sharks, they appear to roll over and die whenever there's a serious clash of interests.

I wonder why?

[Frances_iom]

once there is a 'working' DRM scheme it is trivial to apply it to more materail - I pointed out some considerable time ago that one of the attractions of a digital channel is the possibility of considerably easier encryption than on an analogue channel (tho that too was used with the macrovision kludge to prevent taping of some TV signals) - American companies are greedy selfish + totally corrupt (please let me know of one that isn't)

[ardcarp]

Maybe they should OF****

[Simon]

Maybe they should OF****

LOL! I don't usually do the smiley things, ard, but that deserves a few!

[amateur51]

LOL! I don't usually do the smiley things, ard, but that deserves a few!

he's getting the hang of it!

[Simon]

Coming from an expert, I'll take that as a compliment. And I appreciate the humour!

[Dave2002]

As I understand it DRM allows broadcasters to restrict the number of high definition copies made of a particular broadcast. I have a blu-ray recorder at home with an HDD. At present ITV applies DRM so that I can only make one HD copy of an ITV programme to blu-ray. After that, if I want to make any further copies, these would have to be in SD. The BBC doesn't apply DRM at present and so, if I want to, I can make as many HD copies to blu-ray as I want to.

I presume that the proposal here is that the BBC might in the future apply DRM (as ITV already do) to some of the programmes made for it by independent producers. (Why this needs to be kept secret is a mystery to me as it seems to be in line with how other broadcasters already operate.)

Or have I got this wrong?

Maybe your system works that way, but I've noticed copy restrictions on HD material from the BBC on my PVR - a Humax. I think there are work arounds, but ...

Using the provided interface some material can be copied off, but then not copied back again, though it can be viewed from an external drive.

[Gordon]

MIcrosoft have applied for a patent for a system that uses the webcam in your computer and if attached to your internet TV - if you Skype with it - to watch you watching TV. It will be able to see how many are watching and get a picture of them too!! All meant to support collecting content owner royalties and a lot more besides.

Just google "microsoft patent DRM"and browse away!

[teamsaint]

Thanks Gordon.
That really is very scary.
DRM , (and what the BBC is doing) is a seriously big issue.

This thread needs renaming IMO.....