Slashdot Mirror
BBC Brings DRM-Free Content To Linux Users
eldavojohn writes "The BBC is planning to release some of its programmes to users of GNU & Linux. You won't see Doctor Who or Dragons' Den on there anytime soon, but they have been working with Canonical & Collabora on getting this out there for Totem users. The developer blog mentions that the sheer number of options in the open source world actually makes this difficult to accomplish."
Multiplicity of platform is not a problem for free software, so I'm confused. Every distro is able to use xorg, for example, and people who want to help out go there not to a distribution. If BBC releases free software, everyone else will be able to use it. It's nice of them to dive deeper, but if the backend work to totem is free, I expect it to turn up in my favorite distribution soon. They seem to understand this:
The question then, is why they worked with a specific distro rather than upstream. The Totem plugin says it uses Dirac, that's cool.
h.264 video, AAC/AC3 audio tracks, in an MPEG4 container. It'll play on almost anything modern.
Announce new content via RSS feeds.
Distribute it via BitTorrent and allow the consumers to foot the bandwidth bill for distribution.
Until it is this simple and straightforward, you're doing it wrong, BBC.
The developer blog mentions that the sheer number of options in the open source world actually makes this difficult to accomplish.
I call BS.
The diversity of options is only a problem if you try to specifically target a particular configuration. Doing so is dumb--In fact I can't think of any good reason to do so. (Hint: DRM is not a good reason.)
For instance, if you just have a link to a standard media file (e.g. mpeg) that the user can download, then you're done. The user can then use whatever browser they want, with whatever media player they want, and whatever operating system they want. The diversity of options is then the user's problem, not the distributors.
Invariably these "there are too many options to support" complaints arise because people have ulterior motives in wanting to target the OS/software/format more specifically (DRM, lockin, user tracking, advertising, promoting a particular OS/software/format, etc.).
(Note that I don't want the negative tone of my post to take anything away from the announcement. It is surely a good thing that they are working to make their shows available to us Linux users. That's great! But if they are truly going with a non-DRM solution, then why the heck don't they just skip the middleman and let everyone just download a simple file?)
Um pick a open and common streaming format and to hell with wasting time writing a client. They click on the episode name and let it stream.
Come on, this is so easy a webprogramming 101 student can do it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I can see how that would apply especially to any programs the BBC uses which were produced using subcontractors who usually put their copyright notices (not the BBC's) at the end of their shows. However, the BBC puts its own BBC copyright notice at the end of all of its current affairs programs such as "Panorama" and "Newsnight".
Doesn't that imply the BBC owns the copyright to the programs? If so, why doesn't it release all of them on iplayer for longer than 7 days? Programs like Newsnight and Panorama which have a lot of analysis and detailed investigative journalism can remain of interest even long after they are first broadcast. There is a demand for watching those programs much beyond 7 days. So, why the 7 days limit on these programs?
Someone needs to invest in an open source DRM mechanism.
Open source is fundamentally incompatible with DRM.
Either you have security-through-obscurity (in which case, I can just look at the source code), or you have at least some of the DRM implemented in hardware -- in which case, it's severely crippled your computer and your ability to run arbitrary software, including modified versions of the original "open source" code.
Which pretty much kills the point of open source. Look at Tivo for an example.
Not that it's stopped other people from trying...
if they were the first to create a true secure DRM format,
That is impossible. DRM, by its very nature, cannot be secured. The more "secure" you get, the closer you get to having a console or a set-top box, instead of a computer -- and it's still not secure, just that much more of a pain to crack.
they would be free to shape it in a way that is best for consumers whilst still being good for content producers.
"Best for consumers" means being able to do whatever you want with it, except pirate it. One of the things I want to be able to do with my media is use it on entirely open systems. This is a reasonable request, I think, and it is not itself piracy. However, an entirely open system would by definition make piracy possible.
And "best for content producers" generally means "not pissing off your customers".
So, the best for both parties is to abandon DRM. The content producers haven't realized this yet, and you aren't helping the situation by pretending that DRM can work.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
That's like asking the Red Cross to build a torture device.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Quoting:
"Someone needs to invest in an open source DRM mechanism. You have people like the BBC who have good intentions regarding the availability of content but the lack of any DRM at all means their hands are tied when it comes to Linux.
If some of the more talented OSS devs got off their high horse, they'd realise that if they were the first to create a true secure DRM format, they would be free to shape it in a way that is best for consumers whilst still being good for content producers. Being first would mean the chances of adoption were much greater."
And now the answer:
Holy shit! I cannot believe I actually read that.... We develop an OPEN platform, in all senses of the word OPEN. Indeed, the ONLY rule is that it cannot be closed. When someone finds a away around this, vast parts are re-licensed to prevent it.
The ONLY purpose of "DRM" is to close off the media. It does not make sense to use "OSS devs" and "create a true secure DRM format" in the same sentence.
Now, its NOT the kernel: the linux kernel remains under an older GPL -- the desktop being targeted is GNOME. Think about that for a millisecond. Now you should be laughing; if not, I'll let you in on the joke here -- the entire stack between the kernel and the X server is controlled by the GNU.
Now, you could go with KDE (QT) and Trolltech -- but I don't think you are going to get a (much) better reception.
Go ahead, try... it's purely political. (those "OSS devs" aren't getting off that high horse).
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Encryption, yes, but with DRM, the goal is to provide decrypted data without letting the person in physical control of the machine know how to decrypt it. I can easily provide you with encrypted audio/video files and no key, but that won't be very useful to you since you won't be able to play them. If I want to allow you to listen to/view the files, I have to provide you with the key, so you can decrypt the data. But then it's no longer encrypted (by definition). My only real option at that point is to try to hide the decryption mechanism so you don't know how to apply the key to the data (and may not even know exactly where the key is), and the decryption will only happen behind the scenes, as it were. But if you have the source to the decryption tool, I haven't done a very good job of hiding the decryption mechanism.
The entire problem with DRM is that it's trying to prevent access by the same people that it's trying to grant access to. If you can't see the inherent contradiction there, I don't know how I can make it any more clear.
The most secure key system in the world doesn't help you if you need to give the decryption key to the same people that you're trying to encrypt the data against.
The problem with DRM isn't the strength of the encryption, it's the fact that some component of the user's (presumably hostile) hardware must possess both the key and the data in order to display the DRMed content. There's no need to break any encryption when you already have the key.
A closed-source system at least has the option of obscuring the key and decrypted content inside a binary program with a draconian anti-reverse-engineering EULA (and even that doesn't work in practice). Truly open-source DRM software could be trivially modified to just dump the decrypted data to a file.
Ultimately, DRM can't possibly work unless the content provider has full control over the data path, from decryption all the way through the viewer's senses. Such control is plainly incompatible with the open-source mindset. In order to remain effective, some part of any DRM system much always remain closed to inspection and modification by the owner of the device it's running on.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
It's actually fairly different. A more accurate statement is that DRM is just another form of encryption - one where the decrypting algorithm/tool is a black box. As soon as you figure out how to implement a black box in open source, an open source DRM will be possible.
Also, the GP missed the point a bit as well. It's more than political, there's a logical barrier.
Would it be too much to ask to get BBC World Service in something other than WMP/Real format?
Right now, Vermont Public Radio has a transcoder that takes the Real and rebroadcasts it in streaming MP3, but even after donating to them, I still feel bad that the burden is on them to re-encode the stream.
I'd transcode the stream myself but, a) don't want to go to the trouble and b) suspect it's against their TOS anyway.
I'm sure the Beeb poured a ton of money into the Real platform years ago (to the extent that they may still be locked-in), but I'd really love to see such an important service be more accessible.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
We already have that...it's called the iplayer downloader...
i didn't even know that brits had computers yet. it's fantastic news.
Yep.. After inventing them, they kinda lost interest..
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Or.. you use "lossy" encryption.
The quickest link I could find there was this one.
That fails "best for the consumer", because now I'm getting a degraded product -- and yet, once we know it's being done, it's usually possible to circumvent.
But if you can do non-lossy watermarking, or if it actually doesn't impact quality (for example, it is applied during the encoding process, and produces no lossier output than without it), I have no problem with it. Still possible to circumvent, but impossible to be sure that it's circumvented until you release enough copies for them to check the watermark. At the same time, it doesn't affect legitimate use.
I generally categorize watermarking outside of DRM, however -- it's the only kind of "DRM" which doesn't also require specific software to play the media back. And it's that requirement for specific software that is what bothers me the most about DRM. (After all, I don't mind Steam so much, because you already need specific software (the game itself) to play any games. But I want to play my media on anything that has the right codecs.)
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!