Slashdot Mirror
BBC Chooses Microsoft DRM Platform
bazorg writes "The BBC has chosen Microsoft's DRM technology to limit the viewing of content downloaded from their website. These downloads would allow viewers to catch up on shows that were broadcast on the previous 7 days; they would be compatible only with Windows Media Player and a new product called 'iPlayer'. This iPlayer is not yet available for platforms other than MS Windows, which caused the Open Source Consortium (OSC) to file a complaint to national and EU authorities. 'The BBC aims to make its content as widely available as possible and has always taken a platform agnostic approach to its internet services. It is not possible to put an exact timeframe on when BBC iPlayer will be available for Mac users. However, we are working to ensure this happens as soon as possible and the BBC Trust will be monitoring progress on a six monthly basis.'"
Windows and OS X!
What do you mean "What about all the others?" There are others? Er, when you say "Future platforms" you mean the next version of Windows, right?
We might need to go back to the drawing board on this one...
Don't worry, someone will be able to hack a player for Linux/Mac faster than BBC's official one.
-- tinyhack.com
Will the binary codecs for mplayer work with this stream? Not sure DRM is handled in this fashion but it does let you view wmv files.
is I have to pay for this junk through my "BBC Tax" even though I won't be able to use it. Here in the UK a TV license is compulsory if you have a TV that can receive a signal EVEN if you pay for a subscription service through someone like Sky or Virgin Media.
Despite the several hundred requests the BBC has received for a Linux iPlayer (so said one insider), the BBC is not planning to make iPlayer available for licence-fee payers who use Linux.
Run windows apps on Linux -- eventually, we're going to need to take this step. A standard, unified API to develop for makes it easier on companies that are already afraid that DRM violations will erode their bottom line. If Linux starts running Windows apps, I think more people will switch over, because they run Windows for the easy installation (now nearly conquered by Ubuntu) and the vast library of software guaranteed to run on it.
technical writing / development
Personally, I don't know of any off-the-shelf-and-easy-to-implement open source DRM solution the BBC could have gone for, and given the choice between using Microsoft DRM and getting an iPlayer out the door now or building something in house that could take years I can see why the BBC made the decision they did.
I'm from the UK, love the BBC, not overly keen on Microsoft. The BBC's promise to keep things under review and aim to get something for other platforms out in ~2 years is good enough for me.
Plus, I haven't heard of any rivals (ITV/Sky/Virgin) promising a non-Microsoft implementation and as far as I know the Channel4 on demand software (http://www.channel4.com/4od/index.html) doesn't even work on Vista let alone non-MS platforms.
Why would a government-owned media company need DRM?
With the resources that the BBC has available, the technological opportunities now available and the mandate that they have to serve the British public, I am consistently amazed that they continue to align themselves with multinational, license charging companies.
Shame on you BBC.
Seriously, what are they trying to "protect"
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
The BBC was working on a new open source / royalty free video Codec Dirac. I hope they did not drop the effort (looking at the projects websites makes me think there is still live to the project).
http://dirac.sourceforge.net/
http://schrodinger.sourceforge.net/
Channel 4's UK OnDemand service is the same, Windows only DRM. What happened to the work on the BBC's open source codec?
Don't use DRM. As a licence payer, UK tax-payer and voter I want my state broadcaster to, well, broadcast the media, not spend my money on restricting who can see it, and probably inconveniencing the people they WANT to see it in the process.
I thought leaving it out was considered the solution to DRM.
(IANAL)
This is in no way acceptable.
The BBC's insistence to use DRM (Digital RESTRICTIONS Management -- it does sod-all for my rights) goes against their charter.
When the BBC first began, you had no choice but to build your own radio set. There was never any question that some essential part might be kept locked away out of the reach of the General Public for the specific purpose of preventing just any random person from constructing a receiver.
For the BBC to insist that their programmes only be received on one particular make of receiver (however it may be rebadged), and that an essential part (the Source Code for the decryption) be specifically denied to home constructors and experimenters, is nothing short of outrageous.
This country is becoming more and more like the former GDR every day.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
The BBC Trust is a seperate organisation whos job it is to monitor the BBC and ensure they're obeying their charter. They report their findings publicly, and if there's a scandal, then it usually results in the boss of the BBC getting the sack. In other words, the BBC Trust will check every 6 months if the BBC has made any effort to produce a linux format player (and whether they should be doing), and if people are still kicking up a stink about it, the public will get to know about it, and it the BBC's board of directors will be "in the shit".
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
It doesn't and never will. DRM and openness are fundamentally incompatible. You can't have an "open source DRM" system, because it would expose the fundamental flaw of DRM -- that it's trying to keep something from you that you already have. [1]
I think what's really galling people is that the BBC is using DRM at all.
[1] It might be possible to build an "open source" DRM system, if you were only talking about 'open' software, and it was just a wrapper around some sort of hardware system that actually held the keys. But that's why I said "openness" and DRM are incompatible -- in a truly open computer platform there's absolutely no way to enforce DRM against a savvy user that doesn't want it enforced on them. The only way DRM works is if you have a 'black box' somewhere, either in software or hardware.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The problem with DRM is that it is as much about vendor lock in as it is about content protection. Ironicly is works far better as a vendor locking method than a content control method. M$ will be reluctant to provide licenses for GPL type code for obvious reasons. However they seem to be more open to licenseing there DRM than apple is.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Places to register complaints: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and_radio/points_ of_view/index.shtml
Maybe report the BBC to Watchdog for dodgy business practices ;-):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and_radio/watchdo g/index.shtml
Ooooh! I know! They're trying to stop people stealing the copy of Micro Live!, where the BBC was hacked on live TV by the Cheshire Catalyst!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
first, more info http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6236612.stm.
1, how did M$ persuade them?
There were many options out there, why on earth did they go to M$? call me suspicious - but I think there is more to this announcement then meets the eye.
2, did the BBC have to pay for this tripe?
or, its bad enough that BBC is using a DRM system from M$, but please tell me that they are not paying for it out of our license money. whats the betting M$ if offering this free in order get a larger audience for their crummy codecs and 'orrible player.
3, why not stick with the embedded player they have been trialling recently?
been a few demonstration pages from the BBC with embedded movies recently (I'll see if I can hunt one down) that have worked very well, kinda of youtube style. infinitely better then the real player rubbish they had been using, totally worthless that was - but at least it worked (kind of) under Linux.
4, why DRM in the first place?
I PVR all my TV so I watch it when I want, its not like that as DRM on it. I always archive any footage I want to keep to DivX, I view it the same way as DVD-R and VHS recording of shows for personal use. My point is - if the information is sent out free of DRM then why an earth are they adding DRM for web broadcasts?
Paying taxes for something you don't/can't actually use is nothing new. Homeowners here in Texas pay for public schools, whether or not they have children. And things of that nature are pretty similar across the board.
--"insert clever quote here"
You are an enemy of the people! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!
... and another nail in the coffin of DRM.
What solutions to DRM does open source software offer though?
never including DRM in the first place sounds like a good solution to me.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
All of this obsession about control of one's product goes to show that today's conservatives are dead wrong.
Today's liberal media isn't liberal. It's a bunch of conservatives pushing a liberal product.
As much as they talk about socialism and the idea of shared property, they certainly don't live it. These people in the media business aren't liberals - not the firms, major artists, or even much of the talent. They only walk around with a few Mao bags to have some street credibility, but, at the end of the day, they are grubbing for every nickel they can get their hands on, as much as the fat necked guy that ran Exxon. Today's so called liberal media isn't liberal at all, just talks that way while secretly bitter that they don't have their own fleet of private jets, like the really rich people do.
Liberal media? I dare anyone to post copies of the Rolling Stone, Time, New York Times, online on your own web site. Liberal writers? You go write ahead and start a web site with the text of Alterman, Kos, and others. Liberal movies? Let's see what happens when someone torrents Michael Moore's latest movie. I guarantee you all of these so-called socially conscious types won't wait two seconds to have a DMCA lawywer after you!
Abbie Hoffman is rolling over in his grave! As a Republican, I may not agree with much of what he said, but at least he was a real liberal, and was genuinely refreshing.
Steal this media! That's what he'd say.
This is my sig.
You can't expose the keys, but any DRM system that's based on a secret implementation rather than cryptography is going to be cracked.
Even ones based on cryptography are going to be cracked, since there's no way to make a cryptographically secure DRM system. The end user has to have both the ciphertext and the key, in order to use the content at all -- therefore they can get the plaintext. It's often not exactly trivial, because the keys can be obscured, but there's no mathematical security there. It's always just a "secret implementation." Remove the secrecy and you break the system, period.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Have we already forgotten that the BBC hates DRM?
What happened to the old days, where premium content on a website was behind a username/password system?
DRM'ing this content is -pointless- because it is sent over the air unencrypted first. Anyone who would download it from the website and repost it will instead just DVR it and rip it from there. It's an added step, but not much trouble at all. Especially with PC-based DVR.
So who are they really trying to protect this from? The common citizen? Most of them couldn't download the stream if you installed the firefox plugin FOR them. Most of the rest wouldn't bother. And the ones that would will just find another way.
I think this is an answer is search of a problem. Someone has been brainwashed or bribed into thinking DRM -has- to be used to protect content, instead of understanding that it's a choice, and a failed attempt at protection and more costly than it's worth.
I'm an American, and all the decent content will -still- end up within my reach very shortly after it airs. I don't need to go anywhere -near- the BBC's site, though I might consider paying some fees to watch their content online. I find some of it to be quite good. I -can't- if they DRM it, though, as my Windows PC is not in a room fit for relaxing.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
First, they cut down on spectacular comedy series they have been doing, and instead turned to crappy NBC imitation shows with subjects like forensic detectives, thrillers, crapola and crap.
now going microsoft drm way. beh.
apparently whomever is directing the channel now has no wits.
Read radical news here
Interesting that they get up in arms about DRM, but don't mention the fact that the BBC has its own private police force that's in charge of making sure people pay a yearly tax to own a TV. Not only do they have to register their TVs, but the police have vans equipped with systems for picking up and pinpointing TV heterodyne circuits to locate unlicensed TVs. Yeah, Britain, keep telling yourselves you're freer than US citizens...
Please help metamoderate.
The BBC has been offering video downloads on their website for quite a while now and it is still not available for other platforms. Trying to communicate with the BBC about ETA etc. is virtually impossible. I live in the UK, where open source is not very popular, and often considered not to be reliable enough for business or education environments. Here, ICT education in secondary schools means learning MS Office applications. Many city councils and universities have partnership agreements with MS. Even learning how to make web pages seems not possible with MS Word if you follow the governement agencies' guidelines. So the BBC's decision use with MS' DRM is very much in-line with everything else in this country.
-- Neminem laede, immo omnes, quantum potes, iuva.
I don't care if it runs on my mac or not --- if they are restricting when/where I can watch the content, then I'm not going to download it in the first place. I would be more than happy to pay the license fee to get bbc shows, but not with restrictions.
As long as content providers continue to dance around DRM distribution bittorrent sites will thrive.
nuff said
This just makes me sad. This is video that is paid for by British citizens. Publicly funded content. And still, the PHBs feel the need to lock it to specific devices, limit the number of views, and keep track of who watched what when.
:reads summary: :looks at BBC news feed on bookmark toolbar: :right-click, delete:
BBC can fuck right off. Shame too, since their news tends to be pretty good, but I refuse to support behavior like that. I've gotten to like Reuters better of late anyway.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
I'm wondering if there's mileage in an anti-trust suit against the Beeb for this...
Smegma.
Here in Denmark a TV license is compulsory if you have TV, a computer with a broadband connection (>64kbps) OR a mobile phone capable of playing videos (3GP).
And we got the lovely MS DRM WMP only crap as well and they have also "promised" to look into supporting other platforms, which won't happen because most of this country is windows only and thus won't complain.
I am furious about having to pay £200 a year for crap I can't even use. Even if I were a windows user I would be pissed anyway because our national
television is utter bullshit (at least everything besides the news). It's just endless talk show with stupid national celebrities doing stupid things
like singing quizzes, high school reunion quiz shows and that sort of retarded crap, at least the BBC has some good stuff (like Dr. Who).
The only way to evade this tax is either living in the technological stone age (not an option for me) or cheating.
I'm doing the latter.
What have the world come to? I have to pay a compulsory tax to my government, but inorder to access all of the content I also have
to pay a software license to an American company.
I recall the discussions about a GPLed DRM system also, and my recollection was that it was widely criticized for being impossible to achieve without a hardware module, or binary blob. At some point, you need the black box that does the magic and hides the keys from the user. Even if you pile on layers and layers of encryption onto the key (which is basically what AACS does), somewhere you have to decrypt the content in order to let the user view it. If you have a system that's open, where the code that's being executed at any given moment can be analyzed, then you're never going to be able to avoid letting the user get their hands on the key. (Or even more easily, just letting them get their hands on the decrypted content.)
Just to follow on your example, in such a system, the plugin would probably have to be a closed-source binary blob, or else you could just modify it to intercept and spit out the decryption key as it was being received from the provider. (I'm not trying to personally attack you -- what you created there was as good a DRM system as most of the real ones on the market, but it's running into the fundamental limitation of DRM.) It's all smoke and mirrors.
Anyway, after doing a little Googling, I think the "open source DRM" thing a while back was related to someone on the Gstreamer project discussing adding support for DRMed formats -- but it's still not clear how they'd accomplish that. Some people have pointed towards Sun's drm-opera project as one possible avenue, but AFAIK that's nothing but vaporware, and it too was widely criticized as being impossible when Jonathan Schwartz announced it. According to this article there have been two past attempts to create "open source DRM": one was OpenIPMP in 2002, another was Media-S, more recently.
OpenIPMP has a SourceForge project page, although the latest update was a year ago. Apparently there's some code that can be downloaded, but aside from that they are cagey on how it works, and heavy on buzzwords. Nothing about it makes me suspect that they have really discovered anything huge (and a DRM system that didn't rely on obscurity would be pretty huge). If anyone is familiar with the project and wants to comment, I'm genuinely curious.
Media-S apparently evolved out of an effort to make a "Secure OGG" format. They at least have an FAQ. Basically, they're going for the straightforward 'binary blob' route:
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
So the role of the broadcaster used to easy. Programs were broadcast over a limited area that could be tightly controlled.
/place shifted manner. If you don't like what they offer go out and get a solution that allows you to record the broadcast material that you can use when you want. (Bewaare though that there are legal protections, for the BBC, on this activity that while harder to police/enforce you should respect if you respect the fact that someone must create and pay for this content somewere. The license fee does not give you a right to material that the BBC has purchased/created in the same way the membership of a library does not give you the right to photocopy evrybook in it and distribute for free to whom so ever might want it.)
Some broadcaster pay huge sums of money for the rights to broadcast certain events (films, sporting events, programs such as Planet Earth (GBP8m) etc. ) They need to recoup this money. They do this by selling the rights for a certain georgraphy to other broadcasters. Or they pay less but can only broadcast to certain geographies.
The web has changed all this.
Some contracts allow broadcasters to rebroadcast on the web but only to their own georgraphy. My companys exit onto the internet is not in the UK. Therefore I can not access BBC/Channel4 content from work - none UK IP address. I don't hear anyone screaming about the injustice of this situation.
For the BBC to be able to succesfully bid for programmes and offer them on line they have to show the copyright holders they can protect their rights and, ultimatly whether you like it or not, their revenue stream. If the BBC can not show they can do this then either they are not considered in the race to purchase programmes or they can not offer them up via the web.
As someone says on this discussion 'no system is fair to everyone'. The BBC is luadable in that they are trying to offer some content to some people in a time
Thanks
Didn't the BBC go all RealPlayer several years ago for TV clips on their website?
I propose a new show: Gordon Ramsay's IT Nightmares. Gordon can go to the web/media dept of the BBC and yell at them for using stupid video formats. "COME ON!"
The BBC is a useful thing to have around, like schools and hospitals and welfare it's a good thing even if you might not use it personally.
Oh please don't tell me that people will have to pay Bill Gates before they can use schools, hospitals or welfare.
Wait, what was the reason for going with Windoze only digital restrictions? So the BBC and their audience can give Bill Gates money for nothing? To give preference to a foreign company over domestic software?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The BBC isn't actually a business, it's a state funded public service broadcaster. Every UK TV set requires a licence fee to be paid for it which is used to fund the BBC.
Perhaps one should do some research before shooting oneself in the foot ?
As a Linux user, I just lost a lot of respect for the BBC.
[alk]
I lived for 6 years without a TV. In that time I learned all about Linux and got seriously into BBC Radio 4 (comedy, science, current affairs, plays).
However, I was constantly badgered by the TV License people for not having a TV license, to the extent that they sent several scary-looking red letters, knocked on my door and put a threatening advert on the billboard across the road from my flat stating that three people in my street didn't have TV licenses and might be liable to £1000 fines.
A few months later I got a TV (and a license) since I wanted broadband Internet access, which was only available through a cable set top box in my area.
It's easier to drive without a license, MOT, insurance and road tax in this country than it is to operate an unlicensed television set.
Stick Men
Do you think, possibly, that the BBC might be trying to find the most cost-effective option?
No, they are cow towing to WIPO and US interests. The cost here are entirely created by software patents. The BBC should violate those patents instead of paying license fees and forcing their users onto Windoze. The cost of the Windoze monopoly in lost work and intentional waste is an order of magnitude greater than M$'s revenues. BBC endorsement of M$ harms everyone because those costs are passed on.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Still, given that US commerical broadcasters seemingly have found a way to stream content online in acceptable quality and fewer commericals, this strikes me as kind of silly. I'm not sure what ABC uses to stream shows like Lost, but I think it's somekind of Flash media. It works on PC's and Mac's for sure (as I'm on Mac), but Flash is generally playable on Linux from my limited experience (before switching to Mac).
Still there is going to be a lot of people who complain because this is Slashdot and extremely pro-linux. I remember working for a software company in 2000 that ported an application to Linux. And it never seemed like we could make anyone happy since we supported RH and SuSE at the time. We got more complaints from Linux users griping that it wouldn't work on their customed hacked kernal or why isn't Slackware supported, etc. that it really changed my whole approach.
Outside of the server room, Linux is a VERY small install base. When looking how to best spend money to reach the most people, Windows is always going to come first and there are enough mac users (and growing) that support for Mac comes next.
And if your going to support Linux, how about FreeBSD? Or OpenBSD? Or Solaris. Better support all those too. And who knows, there may even be an OpenVMS user or two that needs support also.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
And part of serving, me, the citizen, is to raise money via commercial sales outside the UK in order to keep the license fee down (even though the license is paid to the government, not the BBC). And giving content away does not serve that end.
Dear Auntie,
Are you aware that while one arm of your organisation is asking Microsoft to protect your content, another is broadcasting it on an open circuit?
It's a bit like putting up a locked gate in the middle of a prairie and expecting it to keep the buffalo in.
Use your fucking loaf, eh?
Yours sincerely,
Bertie.
All people, wether or not that have children, gain an enormous benefit from having an educated society.
And educated society has less crime.
An educated society is critical for progress.
Ans educated society means more jobs.
An education populace means more jobs. Even better, it means higher paying jobs.
So don't sit there and whine that your not getting anything from paying taxes to educate, because you are.
While I believe all public schools financial books should be open so people can look at the numbers when deciding if a school needs more money, they are critical for society and culture to grow.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What a stupid move. I receive all of the BBC's broadcasting in MPEG2 or MPEG4, including HD, un-encrypted digital through DVB-T broadcasts receivable through an antenna or DVB-S broadcasts receivable via satellite. What's the point of using DRMed material from their web site when I can just record the program.
Alice wants to send something to Bob, while keeping Eve from seeing it. The classic argument is that in DRM, Bob and Eve are the same person (the TV watcher; Alice being the studio). It was pointed out to me (on Slashdot, even) that Bob isn't the TV watcher. Bob is the TV. The media cartels want to own your TV and send the content to it. You're Eve, the eavesdropper.
Really puts our roll in the DRM equation into perspective, doesn't it?
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
That's What I'm saying. Sorry I didn't spell it out so good.
Sometimes people have to pay for things that may not benefit them directly in order to provide a necessary infrastructure that serves the needs of the populace.
So, to tie it all together, taxes geared towards funding things like BBC online, or PBS online here, or whatever, may not benefit people who don't have computers, or can't decode the content, or whatever. But they would serve for the good of the society in general. Much like homeowners pay for public education that may not directly help them or their posterity, but that does provide for the greater good.
BBC's choice of format, however, is still unfortunate.
Sorry for the mis-understanding.
--"insert clever quote here"
Well, I guess we have twitter's answer then, eh?
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Oh, look - I've just decided not to renew it. Thanks, BBC. I've been looking for a decent enough reason to dump you along with the rest of life's crap I've left by the wayside (Microsoft products).
I assume nothing. People are still going to record stuff, encode it, and put it on piratebay. So just like with music and movies and everything else, its still easier to pirate it and you end up with a better version of it that will happily interoperate on all your devices.
http://www.truecrypt.org/
Use a long password. And if you forget it, make sure to explain to her that your er... 'internal documents' are lost for eternity. Even for you, having the file, without the password it is impossible.
Note: Never attempt to explain quantum computing to your GF after this.
DRM would be if you actually wanted to show her sex tape on the Internet, then remove it again one week later. Yes, that is what DRM promises to do. Not an easy thing to do, no.
I'm wondering if the regular sex tape scandals on the net giving the next generation innate knowledge of how difficult(impossible?) DRM is.
I lost my sig.
Not only will this iPlayer venture be dead by 2010 but so will the careers of every single person involved from the BBC side.
... that sounds remarkably like it would work with your iPod, iPhone, iTunes, doesn't it? Except it's the OPPOSITE. Weird, huh? Ha ha. Microsoft, still milking the rubes.
I have to congratulate them on their big balls, though. Not many people are willing to bet against Apple, Google, Sony, Panasonic, the major music and movie studios, and the hundreds of millions of $500 consumer video players that can only play standard MPEG-4 H.264/AAC. When it comes to consumer audio video formats, most people would see both Panasonic and Sony and that would be enough for them. For others, Apple and Google would be enough. For still others, the fact that you can play H.264 in the palm of your hand on a $249 iPod for 2 years now would be enough for them to pick the internationally standardized audio video playback codec. But the BBC, they are doing another thing. They are certain that what people really want is to get the BBC on their PC's, enjoy it in the den on a $1000+ device rather than say on their phone wherever they happen to be. That's balls, baby.
Even the name "iPlayer"
How can you say this with a straight face? Do think this was driven by ANYTHING other than commercial interests? That is all this is about- the commercial interests of potential lawsuits which might be filed against the BBC by copyright holders if they aren't putting in the appearance of protecting the content.
The question of whether or not they are actually protecting anything is unclear. Freezing out non-Microsoft Windows users is a deliberate step (guess who they hired to manage the program and where they worked before...). If they were going to deploy Realplay (no great improvement) they would have figured out a way in the last three years to do so. Claims to the contrary are attempt to defuse the situation until MS has a things solidified and the non MS users have given up an gone away. Unless you are on BBC board or a high-ranking UK or EU official an personally involved the BBC couldn't give a shit who you are or what you think- they are sucking Microsoft's hind teat.
What do they mean it's not on the Mac? It starts with a lower case 'i', doesn't it? Didn't Apple trademark all possible 'i[A-Z][a-z]*' names?
J
BBC's new slogan... "Where does one want to go today?"
I am anarch of all I survey.
I'm wondering if the regular sex tape scandals on the net giving the next generation innate knowledge of how difficult(impossible?) DRM is.
A while ago there was a thread on Ask Metafilter where a person basically wanted to know if this was possible -- make a sex tape with the BF, but retain the ability to revoke it later so that it wouldn't get spammed all over the internet as part of a bad breakup. Not, perhaps, the most common situation, but there are lots of situations where people would like to have the sort of magic abilities that DRM purports to offer (the ability, generally, to modify or destroy things on computers you don't actually control).
I thought it was interesting because it didn't take them very long to comprehend that what they were asking for was basically impossible.
(Now, if you wanted to make a video that could only be watched by two people, together, you could probably do something with threshold encryption, but that's an entirely different problem. It's actually cryptographically robust, while a "self-destructing file" is not.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Continued on p.94 ?
Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
gf, sex tapes, drm, and backdoor access to FBI agents.
I got nothing. Need Benny Hill.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Funny you should say that, there's a group that are taking the BBC to court for anti-trust violations over the iPlayer.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
There is an 'e-petition' that can be signed by UK citizens or residents at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/iplayer/ (9,058 signatures at the time of this posting)
-- Neminem laede, immo omnes, quantum potes, iuva.