Slashdot Mirror
BBC Wants DRM On HD Broadcasts
NickFortune writes "The EFF's Danny O'Brien has pointed out that the BBC has asked a UK regulator for permission to add DRM to their high-definition broadcasts. Apparently, this is at the behest of content providers. 'BBC is proposing to encode the TV listings metadata that accompanies all digital TV channels with a simple compression algorithm. The parameters to this algorithm would be kept secret by the BBC: it would ask manufacturers to sign a private agreement in order to receive a copy. This license would require the implementation of pervasive DRM in the equipment they build.' Ofcom, the regulatory body in question, has detailed the proposal asked for comments, but the window closes today."
a simple compression algorithm. The parameters to this algorithm would be kept secret by the BBC
My GOD! Hackers will *NEVER* figure this one out!
The people who pay the BBC certainly don't want this, and it certainly doesn't add anything of value. Stop this now, BBC. Is it silly season with legislation all of a sudden?
Pointless! It would be hacked the first week its released!
Or keep your old telly & don't watch HD. Simple.
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
That might have been true in the past. Now the BBC is awful. The news is biased nonsense ruined by trying to keep it modern and exciting (sigh) and half of the programming is apparently commissioned by women who attach great importance to handbags and shoes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00k9f5g/Snog_Marry_Avoid_Series_2_Episode_11/
Who is this going to thwart? People recording and burning discs and the ones that would have easy access to the workarounds when they inevitably hit the market.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
FUCK DRM
Yes I just bought one a few weeks ago to replace an early digital CRT.
I was surprised to find that it had a USB input, and read from mass storage devices, (albeit only FAT32) and could decode divX, xvid, mp3 and ogg.
TV manufactures now that everybody torrents, (Heroes 55 million, Lost 51 million, international favourite Top gear), and are just giving people what they want.
As for the DRM on HD, well whatever. I really don't have the bandwidth to throw away on HD content right now, but when it catches up...sure, I'll torrent that too.
don't folks in the UK have a whole "you own government things that are purchased with taxpayer monies", exception being crown copyright?
So couldn't members of the public just ask for this compression key equivalent?
There is no mathematical proof of DRM or Randomness, yet.
First of all, that's the matter.
A definition of randomness is a definion of a humanity.
A definiion of DRM is a definition of mathematical legal.
Evil or Stupid can't contribute such works.
Abraham TaddyHatty
It would be nice if you got your facts in order before mouthing off.
There is no fine/tax on the purchase of a new TV (I don't think I know a single person who calls them 'tellys' any more).
There is a licence fee - GBP142.50 a year. For that, we get many TV channels, umpteen national radio stations and even more local radio stations.
All of it without adverts.
News quality is absolutely superb. I think it's the biggest news broadcaster in the world which is not owned by some media billionaire or controlled by government. Personally, I'd trust the BBC news over any other source (note I'm not saying they're perfect though).
As a Brit, I'm proud of the BBC. Having visited many many countries, I can safely say there is absolutely no competition. None at all.
Nick.
I can safely say there is absolutely no competition. None at all.
That's usually the case with government-sponsored monopolies.
Sorry, I modded the parent by mistake, so I'm mainly posting to undo that.
However, it is worth pointing out that the parent is misleading on several counts. The BBC's public funding comes primarily from the licence fee rather than a tax on new TV purchases, and the BBC is not the same as the government. I have a suspicion that the whole post might have been meant as humour/irony, but if so, I'm afraid it failed: it's too close to the truth to be ironic, yet too wrong to be informative.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You shouldn't be. Most TV's these days have a full computer inside them, and a large percentage of them run Linux. Here's the list of Sony TV's that run Linux, for example.
BBC uses a simple huffman compression to reduce the volume of the EPG data. By that, they violate the DVB standard and thus are contemplating whether they should ask for licensing fee and treat it as a proprietary extension to the standard, or whether they should publish all details and ask for it to be integrated in the DVB standard.
You really don't have a clue, do you? The BBC is not government sponsored, neither is it a monopoly.
Prawn!.
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Just from the summary, this sounds like the BBC are proposing a tiny, insignicant technical change to their metadata broadcast and presenting to rightsholders as a complicated and cast-iron DRM solution. Of course it's nothing of the sort, will probably never get implemented, and if it were, sounds like it would be trivial to work around (if only by getting your listings data from an external source, of which there are several!) So I think this is just singing a song the rightsholders want to hear; I'm pretty certain nobody technical at the BBC gives a hoot about implementing DRM, and would see it as an unwelcome obstacle to doing their job.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
hefty fine on the purchase of any new TV set.
Uhh, not quite. You need a licence to watch broadcast TV, per household. So if you have 10 TVs, you still only need one licence. If you don't connect any TV to an aerial, i.e. you use it for a console or DVDs, you don't need a licence.
The annual cost is £140 odd a year; £12 or about $20 a month. For that we get 4 main tv channels, 4 minor ones, 7 national and a whole bunch of local radio stations, and arguably the best news website on the planet. All commercial advert free. Personally, I think the BBC TV is pretty good; their documentaries and nature programmes are top notch, at least, and they get the important sports rights, again free to watch. Nor is it government run, or funded; the tax is collected by a separate body, and given direct to the BBC, with no government control over editorial or programming decisions.
How much is the average cable subscription in the US - with adverts - again?
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
it's too close to the truth to be ironic, yet too wrong to be informative.
Let's see... A post that contains enough truth to be convincing but enough falsehoods to be completely wrong. It's almost like the post is designed to elicit responses.
What did we used to call that kind of post? What's the word? Oh, yes.
Underrated.
Obviously this doesn't apply to third party shows they buy in, but for their own stuff, absolutely no protection at all, thanks.
And by then you may rest assured that someone already hacked the superspecialsecret HD key, so...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
you brits as a collective need to say loudly...
"you can encrypt, IF you remove the Telly tax."
If you are paying for it, they have no right to encrypt it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
And I'm completely sure that all the legitimate home watchers will have no problem with their existing HD digital TVs requiring a decoder, and it'll do so much good cause you can just put your freaking DVR in after the decoder right?
Or will this force the Brits to have to shell out for a new TV?
Yea, solid idea. The DMCA thinks this is a bit too much...
Thanks for the correction. But don't you, as someone who pays his "TV tax" (you are paying, right?), think that you're entitled to get what you pay for? The BBC news are a standard to measure other news networks at. The BBC documentaries are amongst the best researched and best produced anywhere.
And you pay for that!
Personally, I would feel like I have the right to these products to some degree. Certainly I must not distribute them, but I would feel that I have the right to at the very least time and media shift documentaries I funded.
It's not like they lose any ad revenue from me fast forward the (non-existing) ads...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
First the BBC expects me to put up with rubbish SD quality digital television called "Freeview", analogue TV picture and audio is being deliberately degraded to make Freeview look good before the analogue switch off. Then as soon as a few* people** watch the "test" transmission from satellite of some BBC content in HD, they want to cripple it.
Go f-off BBC, like others, I pay a huge amount in a compulsory BBC tax every year for a progressively worse service and worse programming content. Freeview (digital tv) being pushed by the BBC is rubbish, DAB (digital radio) also being pushed by the BBC is also rubbish, now you want to turn HD into cr@p.
BTW, we don't want the HD channel wasted with hundreds of hours of pointless Olympics in 2012, shove that cr@p on your Freeview instead.
* Seriously, there can't be many with HD satellite in the UK....
** I got my Linux box to work with watching satellite HD. Ironically Windows is very problematic with HD and numerous flakey video watching / recording applications (even the paid stuff).
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Sky TV have over 240 channels. The BBC has 8. Doesn't really sound like a monopoly does it.
The BBC is not government sponsored at all (except for the BBC World service). The money the BBC gets is collected by the BBC and is never even seen by the Government.
First I am a little surprised that the British TV market is big enough, TV manufacturers would be interested in dealing with the code, regulatory requirements, and litigation risks to failure, of a single network's DRM request, just to sell TVs in that market. Though now that every TV basically contains a computer, rather than custom silicon, perhaps the code requirements are minor.
Second, is BBC the only supplier of TV programming in the British market (aside from satellite)? If there are other minor networks, that want to specify their own DRM or just don't want to participate, I'd think the TV manufacturers would be apoplectic.
IS there a British equivalent of "Elmo knows where you live!"?
The BBC's content is our content. Give it to us unmolested please. It's not like people are not going to let the BBC show their series unless there is DRM there.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Be proud :)
The best part of business trips to the UK is watching BBC. Superb, compared to the stuff in most other countries.
Given the Beebs previous actions with the iplayer, I am going to believe for now this is only because the content providers have requested it. The BBC does sometimes show imported shows like The Wire, Heroes, etc. The makers of these shows are probably reluctant to let the BBC broadcast them in HD without any sort of copy protection*. This is the same problem that made them use DRM on the iplayer, first windows only and now the adobe stuff. (They had the cross platform air application out the same day adobe released air, and even published a news story on their website talking about how some people had broken the windows DRM they were using and what the program was called hint hint nudge nudge.)
*because then us Brits might put them on bittorrent, instead of downloading the American ones that are released months/years earlier. The only time I ever saw a show from here first was some of the last Stargate SG1, because Sky (a UK satellite TV outfit, not free or unencrypted) didn't have the mid season break. Look at the channel ident from any torrent to get a good idea of where it aired first.
Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
So how long until someone finds an exploit in your TV using specially crafted broadcasts?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Please explain this to the non-brits reading slashdot. How exactly does the BBC collect money without resorting to "men with guns"? (i.e. similar to mafia protection money)
The way I understood it, there were government trucks that would sniff the airwaves looking for the local oscillator of unlicensed TVs. If they found you, you'd get a fine. If you didn't pay the fine, you'd get locked up.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
You've expressed my thoughts quite nicely.
The BBC together with the NHS are the last remaining "Great" in "Great Britain".
Yea, but you don't have Mr. Chuck.
Mr Chuck
here in the denmark the national broadcaster are planing to send hd over dvb-t without any drm, would have through that if any nation broadcaster would stand aganist this deadend drm it would have been BBC.
Yes.
Likely to be hassles if they see you have an arial, but keep it detuned and you won't have to pay.
Nor is it government run, or funded; the tax is collected by a separate body, and given direct to the BBC,
How is that separate body not a (sub) government all it's own? Are they elected? Appointed? Who do they answer to?
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
I'd have to disagree. I've lived in other countries - Holland, Belgium and the USA. I might add that I can follow Dutch language tv. I resent been forced to pay a licence for the BBC and the adverts in the USA are too frequent, which is why I had TiVo there. Got one here too. I'd happily pay a subscription via a card for the beeb, Virgin Media (unfortunately) in my case. If I didn't want the channels, I could cancel them. There's not a lot I watch on BBC other than mock the week. I mostly watch sky 1, sky movies and the various documentary channels. Okay, so many of the documentaries are BBC sourced - I even live near BBC Bristol - but I'm paying for those a different way. Oh, I absolutely never listen to radio from any station.
I'm not entirely sure what the actual reasoning behind this is. It seems as if:
It's a clever idea but I can only assume that some or all of the non-terrestrial networks operating in the UK have already agreed to the demands of the rights-holders, otherwise the BBC (and other free-to-air networks) could simply refuse to do anything about it - after all, the content providers aren't going to get very far if they refuse to allow their stuff aired on any networks because none of them will broadcast it with DRM in place.
As a license-payer I can't say I like it, but with the info I have I can't see that the BBC has much choice in the matter; either they and the other FTA networks agree to broadcast some or all HD content with DRM or the idiot content providers won't sell shows to them any more.
Straight from the BBC offices:
BBC DRM guy 1: We need a way to keep these sneaky people from stealing our HD
BBC DRM Guy 2: oh! I know! how about we encrypt it some how
(some time passes)
BBC DRM Guys (in unison) I've got it! we'll use the key 09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0....
My GOD! Hackers will *NEVER* figure this one out!
That is not the point. The intent here is to create a "protection mechanism" via "technical device" (however ineffective) which serves to trigger the portion of the DMCA law (Britain probably has equivalent legal language now due to copyright "normalization" treaties) which makes circumvention without permission or fair dealing (which requires a specially granted exemption from Library of Congress here in the United States) unlawful. In other words, it doesn't matter that they locked the door with chwing gum and rubber bands, you still "broke in" according to the letter of the law and they can still sue you. In these cases the "protection mechanism" is only there to create enough of a speed bump to trigger the anti-circumvention laws, NOT to present a real technical challenge to hackers.
As quarkoid said, there is a licence fee - GBP142.50 a year. And yes, they enforce the payment of this. If you really don't want to pay the fee, you can always just not watch TV.
The difference is that a tax goes to the government and the license fee goes straight to the beeb. If you buy a TV and play games on it, the beeb get nothing.
"Can I buy a TV just to play games on it without paying the tax?"
Yes.
The license fee is payable yearly, not at the point of purchase. If your TV isn't hooked up to receive television then you don't have to pay the license fee.
This is incorrect.
You do not need a TV Licence if you only use your TV to watch videos and DVDs or as a monitor for your games console.
http://tvlicensing.metafaq.com/templates/tvlicensing/main/answerPage?_mftvst:answerRef=%24http%3A%2F%2Fapi.transversal.com%2Fmfapi%2Fobjectref%2FEntryStore%2FEntry%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.metafaq.com%2Fmfapi%2FMetafaq%2FClients%2Ftvlicensing%2FModules%2FlicensingInfo%2FTopics%2Fgeneral%3A134832%3A5&_mftvst:moduleID=%24licensingInfo&_mftvst:topicID=%24&id=HS56T6VEPE7PUG02M2572GVV3M
You're right, the BBC collects their license fee. Under force of law, from anyone receiving broadcast TV, whether they use BBC services or not. You're being intentionally ignorant if you claim that's not a government-mandated tax.
The BBC also shows lots of content licensed from other producers. In fact a good deal of the content the BBC commisions remains owned by other people, the BBC gets certain rights in return for paying less.
These large media companies better learn quick that they are not going to save their industry by making it harder to access their media. As it is now, to get media I have to buy equipment, have it installed, get the dish pointed correctly... it cuts out during storms. Cables isn't much better. The force me to order channels in "Packages" so 90% of the channels I get are either espn (dont want) or home shopping network. I have absolutely no option to get rid of these channels. When I want a DVD they delay the release for months, but will release it in other country's first. I can't order it from those countrys becuase of my DVD players country code. Then they release 1 version of the movie... wait 6 months and release an extended version of the movie... then wait another 6 months and release a directors cut and then even a "Series" pack where you can get all the sequels. OR... I can go to a torrent site... click on the movie. 8hrs later I have the full, directors cut, with all the extra features, in english and I don't have to drive anywhere. Talk about a service I'd be willing to pay for. Oh wait, they wont let me pay for it. Morons.
Woosh... I believe he was making a joke about the similarities between your general statement when applied to a monopoly situation, not a slam at the BBC. It's a fine news source. I often browse the BBC just to get an 'outside' opinion on going's on within the US.
TV License site
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
News quality is absolutely superb.
It used to be good. Now its just government supporting propoganda and bullshit.
I think it's the biggest news broadcaster in the world which is not owned by some media billionaire or controlled by government.
It is controlled by government, just not officially.
By this rationale the taxes that are earmarked for things like education, pensions and old geezer medical coverage are not "taxes".
If the Sheriff of Nottingham or some equivalent is doing the collecting, then it's a tax.
Kind of like the "No new taxes" toll road.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Sorry, he wasn't making a joke, that was genuine trolling.
:-)
PS He wasn't replying to any comment I made anyway
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
I've been following the BBC's internet blog for quite a while (it's pretty good) and their engineers always come across as hating DRM and if they had the choice they wouldn't use it at all.
A few months ago one of them said they were pushing to keep any content produced by the BBC DRM free and that it was only because of licensed content that they employed any DRM at all.
Based on this I'm guessing this is the upper echelons of the beeb looking to push this.
yes, it's called "monitor".
just buy a dell 30 incher without a tunner and you're set.
What ? Me, worry ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/index.shtml
It's not a tax. It is a toll for a service.
You really don't have a clue, do you? The BBC is not government sponsored, Prawn!.
Are you saying that the government doesn't levy a TV tax that goes to the BBC? So if you have a TV in the UK and choose not to pay the BBC licensing fee the government doesn't come around and fine you?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
So how long until someone finds an exploit in your brain using specially crafted broadcasts?
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
It's not a separate authority its just the BBC but they purposefully confound the issue to make it appear as if some outside legal authority is demanding your money called TV Licensing.
I love the beeb but their approach for obtaining the license fee is often intimidating and usually quite intrusive.
The BBC would come round and fine you (eventually) under their other name "TV Licensing".
Only if you watch broadcast TV on it.
PS The license fee is not payable per TV, look it up:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/index.jsp
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
a simple compression algorithm. The parameters to this algorithm would be kept secret by the BBC
My GOD! Hackers will *NEVER* figure this one out!
The real killer, however, is that it probably isn't quite trivial to install the circumvention software on the actual TV set. So, even when it is cracked, as well as in the meanwhile, the majority of HD TV owners are going to have to shell out for new hardware.
So... it's not a tax and not government-controlled, but your only options are to pay it or not watch television? I guess there's no vehicle tax either, since you could always walk everywhere. Or is there some way to shut off whatever part of the TV is devoted to picking up broadcast signals, so that you can legally have a TV without paying this "optional" fee?
Federal income taxes are optional here in the US too -- you have the option of not making any income. This option is chosen by the very poor and very rich alike!
Revive the Constitution.
Since about 30s when they started broadcasting radio advertisements... Always Coca-Cola!
"an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain
Sorry what was that? I was too busy enjoying an ice-cold Cola-Cola to pay conscious attention to your post.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
That would be Videodrome.
I would have never found the best documentary series ever produced by man, Horizon.
I have learned more from watching those documentaries than going to formal schools and reading books and articles ever did. The learning, the layout and deconstruction that they provide, should be accessed freely by all of mankind. It would be a crime to lock up these wonderful programmes under DRM or similar so that people can not freely view them. They are the best most unbiased and impartial, yet still captivating, programmes that have ever been broadcast. I cannot recomend them enough.
If you are interested, and want to max out your connection for a week, I would highly recomend the following 78gb torrent of 139 of their full length documentaries
Anything that stops people from viewing horizon is a bad deal in my books. Everyone on earth should have access to this resource. As I said, its almost a crime against humanity to lock things like this away.
Monetizing quality science content makes the world population stupider.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
If they can't prove you've been watching broadcasts, they can't have you. Yeah, you could leave your tv unplugged from the aerial and you'd be fine.
The problem with trying to implement a new standard in the midst of the digital switch over is encouraging people that they need to replace their TVs or Set Top Boxes when they have little or no interest in the way the channels are broadcast but simply want to turn on the TV and for it to work. In the days of environmental responsibility if this key and the software for it to work could not be rolled out via an OTA update then it's a no go. If it were restricted to simply the HD channels, boxes for which are not yet available then it may work but if it's for the whole EPG then it will certainly fail.
Actually there is no legal impediment to accessing the fta video and audio.
The only restriction is on accessing the metadata and that is only that the BBC claim it is a breach of their copyright in the compression tables.
The DTLA say that manufacturers of DTCP products MUST NOT apply DRM to FTA content. BBC are trying to argue to DTLA that content is protected and to Ofcom that it is fta.
Request to Ofcom is very misleading in several ways. E.g. The D book version with content protection requirements has not been agreed. Major bust up with Samsung and Sony opposed to BBC. Broadcast meant to start 2nd December but spec and broadcasting license not sorted shows the mess the BBC is making.
Recently the BBC Management have been doing rather odd things recently including trying to pull off "dirty tricks" report here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6167078/BBC-schedules-Strictly-Come-Dancing-against-The-X-Factor.html It seems to me that as competition in the UK Market has reached saturation point and we will see constant "on-going" battles for customers and viewer ratings. Sky is trying to rope people in hard and fast for Sky HD which they are doing with some success, but have reached the point whereby the Public are sick of putting up with advertisements, now usually 20 mins for a 1 hour show and paying through the nose for SKY and they're HD channels. Trying to be analytical about this, the BBC has to fight back somehow, but without being seen to be malicious as they need to protect Market Share. Remember Murdoch does not give two hoots who he hurts along the way and will try and rope you all in so you have no other choice but to use Sky and pay him money. The alternative is http://www.freesat.co.uk/ I have switched from SKY recently and get HD channels through freesat which is saving me a staggering £339.00 per year that would otherwise go to Sky! I have saved a lot of money and hope some of you other people take the plunge as moving to freesat can only make the BBC better value for money.
All cows eat grass!
Put it this way - if we let the BBC "encrypt" content, it becomes a defensible position for not paying the Licence fee. I only need a TV Licence if I own receiver equipment that can pick up their TV programmes.
It's tough to compare a US Cable subscription with the BBC system because they are different types of service.
The Cable system includes wired delivery to your home, which the British system (as I understand it) does not. BBC is broadcast TV, correct? The BBC doesn't run a coaxial cable from their offices to your house and guarantee you reception, do they?
I currently have a 14-channel lineup which I pay $12US for. But most of those channels would be available to me free over the air if I chose to hook up my antenna and watch them that way, so comparing my 14 channels at $12 with advertising to your 15 channels for $20 without advertising is a somewhat meaningless comparison.
I'm paying for guaranteed delivery of a service into my house. If my Cable TV goes out for more than 4 hours in a given day, the Cable company is contractually obligated to refund me the equivalent of one days' delivery charge. I also have perfect reception all the time, and a support desk that will send out someone to fix it if I don't.
I'm mostly paying for the delivery of the TV stations (though some of my subscription fee certainly goes into content). The ads, by and large, pay for the content.
Of course, as you add the additional 80-1000 channels you COULD get on my cable system and get into the $50-200 a month range, certainly a significant amount of that money is paying for content, and you still have ads. But since you used a limited-lineup BBC-style system, I only felt it fair to compare that to the closest analogue here in the States.
I can't include radio, because that's a completely separate thing here. Radio stations are all (as far as I've ever heard) free, and are all paid for with advertising.
The only exception would be the National Public Radio system, which is paid for by a blend of sources including listener donations, corporate underwriting, and US Government taxpayer dollars. They acknowledge their underwriters, but do not engage in actual advertising per se.
Having said all that, I'd MUCH rather pay AN ADDITIONAL $20 a month and get advert-free programming where a one hour show is actually one hour long. The US standard seems to have devolved to about 38 minutes for a one-hour show, and 19 or so for a 1/2-hour show, and some of that is credits, the opening theme, etc.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
No. Most government produced data in the UK is under Crown copyright, and the government decides license restrictions. It sucks.
That's being pedantic. The Crown is part of government, and anything "mandated by the Crown" is done so by convention only, under direction of parliament - it's been that way at least since the 18th century when the principle of parliamentary sovereignty was firmly established in British constitutional law.
I'd have to disagree. I've lived in other countries - Holland, Belgium and the USA. I might add that I can follow Dutch language tv. I resent been forced to pay a licence for the BBC and the adverts in the USA are too frequent, which is why I had TiVo there. Got one here too.
...
On the other hand: I for one am glad to be able to get the extra BBC-channels into my home, even while it costs me 60 pounds a year extra. Yes, in Holland the BBC-channels are widely appreciated, and sometimes better valued than the Dutch counterparts.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
Fine? How about prison?
It's said that a lot of women are in prison because they cannot pay the fines from not having a TV license.
BBC admits going too far with TV license reminder slogan 'Your Arse Won't be Safe in Prison'
I jest?
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
You sure about that? I think you'll find it's worded as "capable of receiving". If it has a tuner, you have to pay.
People who prove they cannot receive decent pictures pay too.
People who don't own TVs get hounded by the authorities. Because everyone owns a TV, yeah?
Looks like a tax, smells like a tax...
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
...
How much is the average cable subscription in the US - with adverts - again?
Wouldn't know. I download all the shows I want to watch for free, with no adverts. In 720p.
Oh, hey, where is some new Doctor Who? Damn brit slackers...
Be seeing you...
I generally like the BBC too, but just one point:
All of it without adverts.
They happily advertise their own stuff on there.
Also they happily flog BBC content (paid for by licence payers) off to other UK channels (such as UKTV Gold), which have adverts on.
I agree. It may be a licence, but it's not unreasonable to also refer to it as a tax.
The BBC is not Government controlled in the sense of them controlling what airs, but it's certainly the Government who ultimately enforce this situation where everyone who watches any TV must pay the tax to the BBC.
Indeed - whilst I like the BBC, the TV Licencing are idiots. They send threatening, harrassing, and fraudulent letters to anyone who doesn't have a licence (claiming they must be breaking the law - even if they don't watch any TV), the kind that would surely be illegal for any other company to send out.
They also can't even manage a simple database - numerous times over the years, I've received these letters, even though I pay money. They then short-change you - if you buy a licence in the middle of the month, they round it down (so a "year" licence might only be 11 months or so). And if you've previously had a licence, but take a gap, they'll assume you're "renewing" it, and backdate it to when your last licence ran out!
The joke is that if someone doesn't want to pay, it's trivial to get away with it, because they have no real power, but it just causes harrassment for the rest of us - as well as wasting money that we've paid them.
Although note his point is still in general valid - what he should have said is "Can I watch TV without paying the tax?" The answer is No, even if you're not watching BBC channels.
It's not a tax on owning or buying TVs, but the licence is a tax on watching TV.
Yes he is the BBC operates under a Royal Charter, and has nothing to do with the executive. The license fee is collected by a none governmental organization, and goes direct to the BBC. They are also responsible for enforcement of the license fee, but they are *NOT* part of the government. Just like if I where to somehow hack Sky's encryption and watch their excuse for TV without paying them any money they could take me to court and have me fined.
At no point does any money pass through HM Treasury.
However the Crown is not part of the government.
Absolutely, if you are not using the TV tuner to view or record live broadcast pictures then you don't need a license.
A tax is a tax even when you call it a license fee. Can I buy a TV just to play games on it without paying the tax?
Yes. But you could also buy a monitor, which is exempt. So no hassles.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
It's not a tax. It is a toll for a service.
That's a nice television you have there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.
The BBC provides channels over unencrypted broadcast TV, both analog and digital, and satellite. They're also carried by both cable operators, but yes, your point is taken.
Oddly enough though, the BBC was actually founded as a combination of various electronics companies to provide the physical means to transmit radio, i.e. the studios, antennas and other physical plant; the content rather came along for the ride. It didn't become a publically owned company until several years later. I believe that the BBC still own and operate large amounts of the TV transmitters in the UK, and have a charter duty to provide coverage to the entire nation.
According to wikipedia, £1.08 a month of the fee goes on transmission costs.
Having said all that, I'd MUCH rather pay AN ADDITIONAL $20 a month and get advert-free programming where a one hour show is actually one hour long.
I'd actually pay the entirety of the licence fee just to keep BBC radio 4, so I can see where you're coming from. Having watched TV in the US - or the snatches of it you get between ad breaks, anyway - and listened to what clearchannel affiliates call music, and seen what Fox News call news, I'm deeply and eternally grateful for the BBC; even if you don't like their content, they keep the commercial broadcasters, such as Sky (owned by the same parent as fox news, i.e. Rupert Murdoch) honest.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
How much is the average cable subscription in the US - with adverts - again?
Depends on your provider and how many channels you want. For the equivalent number of channels you list for the BBC (possibly more) it would cost around $20 or so. However, it's OPTIONAL. You can use an antenna to watch publicly broadcast programs for free. So, according to things I've read on here, there are other non-BBC channels, yet even if you never watch a BBC channel, you're forced to pay the BBC if you want to watch tv. I guess we know where the RIAA / MPAA learned their tactics from.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Previously The TV Licencing Authority was an arm of the post office; now it's run by capita, under contract to the BBC. So it is a separate (private) body, but it's sole purpose is to collect money for the BBC and take legal action against those who don't pay but should, and is contracted to the BBC for just that service. So it is a bit of an arms-length dodge to take the flak off the BBC admittedly.
And given the evil that is the TVLA, and their absolute hounding of people without a TV as potential fee-dodgers, I'm certainly not going to defend their way of going about business; their methods for payment are absolutely byzantine.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Don't bet on that. Other "public" TV stations started encrypting their programs all over Europe, but the mandatory "you have a TV you pay" fee has not been turned into "if you wanna see our stuff, rent the decoder".
Understandable. The amount of decoders rented would be slim, if existent. For most European "state" TVs, you'll wonder what's the difference between them and private networks, they essentially show the same program. Yes, including ads.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
According to the article "No British commercial digital TV manufacturer would risk any innovation that might invalidate their "metadata compression parameter" license,"
That wasn't what happened with DVD region coding. Manufacturers of kit do so these days for the world market (perhaps with 2 or 3 models worldwide). While DVD players may still be sold locked to a particular region, unlocking them has become trivial, usually using information provided by the manufacturer themselves.
My antenna reception of the broadcast networks in HD is free, with a DVR there is more programing than I have time to watch.
So, what other private organizations have the right to tax you in the UK? The right to enforce anything? And from what you are saying they appear to have done this without prior authorization by Parliament.
In the example you gave of hacking Sky's encryption, Sky would have to go to court (the government) to get you fined, yet you appeared to state that BBC can enforce the license fee (fine you) without going to the government.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
And that's where you're wrong.
Like most US abominations, the DMCA is a US-only thing.
European laws prevent the adoption of any DMCA-like law in any country of the union. It does have something slightly similar though: circumvention is allowed unless it is done for illegal purposes; that means you're not allowed to spread information of how to break the protection of a certain service to render that protection ineffective and use the service for free, for example.
Outsourced their news to the US, eh?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
So let's all stop watching it. Seriously. Spend the time getting informed about important issues, teaching kids, fixing things, and writing code, documentation, or blogs. Build something. Accomplish something. Does anyone really *need* television? Movies? Go to the theater once in a while. The one-way content providers are on their way out precisely because we have two-way communications, right? So let's use it. They don't want us anyway.
So, if the BBC did DRM and went to a subscription model at the same cost tiers, would they have enough subscribers to survive?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
A few months ago one of them said they were pushing to keep any content produced by the BBC DRM free and that it was only because of licensed content that they employed any DRM at all.
Based on this I'm guessing this is the upper echelons of the beeb looking to push this.
It has to be. After all, they could simply say, "no". Then they'd be sold the 3rd-party programming anyway.
But the 3rd parties stand to profit from downmarket sales if the BBC does DRM. The question people should be asking is, "how does this benefit the decision makers at BBC?" I bet there's an interesting story to be had there.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Oh, right, but who's going to investigate that, the BBC?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
i agree, everything BBC has suffered greatly recently. their news is demonstrably biased propaganda, their comedy lost all humour years ago and is now just an endless series of sketch shows commissioned from the most popular people at the time. note: not the most popular comedians. just the most popular.
not controlled by government hahahahahahhhahhaahahahaaa compare against other countries' coverage of important events and you'll very quickly see exactly how the BBC's propaganda works
> All of it without adverts.
Except for the adverts between shows and the adverts in the middle of shows. (It doesn't matter that they advertise BBC programs and merchandise, they are still adverts).
-- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
So... it's not a tax and not government-controlled, but your only options are to pay it or not watch television? I guess there's no vehicle tax either, since you could always walk everywhere. Or is there some way to shut off whatever part of the TV is devoted to picking up broadcast signals, so that you can legally have a TV without paying this "optional" fee?
Yes, if you can prove that the TV is not used to receive broadcasts, then you do not need a license. However, if they inspect your TV and discover that it's tuned in to any stations or there's an aerial lead "nearby" or there's a tuned in video nearby, etc. then they are allowed to assume that you do in fact watch TV. Technically, they need to get the police involved in order to get a warrant to enter the premises unless they can actually see or hear you watching TV.
My experience on this in practice is divided, though.
Personally, when I first moved into my new house I decided I didn't want to watch TV for about a year. I simply wrote to them saying that I'd de-tuned the set and that I only used the TV with a SCART connection to my DVD player. They wrote back saying they'd come round and check, but they never did.
I know of other people that have been continually hassled by the TV licensing people. They visited one friend about 3 days after she moved in when everything was still in boxes. She said she didn't have a TV and allowed them in the house to check. 2 days later they appeared again because they didn't believe her the first time ("How can anybody not have a TV?" and "It was probably still packed") and again she let them in to check and by now everything was unpacked and still there was no TV. Despite that, they came round again on the next day to check again. She told them to get lost and they were never seen again.
Another friend hasn't had a TV for about the 14 years I've known him. For about the first 5 years, they sent him a threatening letter every year, each time he responded simply that he didn't have a TV. He hasn't mentioned it recently, so I guess they gave up.
So, it appears being proactive and telling them outright that you have a TV but it can't receive broadcasts is sufficient or maybe I just slipped through their intimidation loophole. Hard to tell. In any case, now that people can download shows from the BBC directly via a computer, there's been talk of turning it into a license for "anything capable of watching TV at all" including internet-capable PCs. This has met with a lot of resistance (obviously), although I'm sure there are many people who do think it's OK to download TV shows via iplayer without actually owning a TV license.
almost but not quite true, you can legally watch programs via the bbc iplayer for example without a license as it isn't a live broadcast.
Although living at a UK address on the database you will receive threatening letters and visits if you don't have a license.
The license today is lunacy, back in the 1940's and 50's when a TV wasn't a fixture in every house the license made sense. Today its used to criminalize the very poor.
A sensible and fair alternative would be to collect the fee via income tax adjusting the tax allowance as needed to collect the revenue. This would reduce the cost of collecting the fee, and put an end to prosecuting poor people for not having enough money. Pensioners would benefit too.
The daft thing is you can watch the bbc around europe with a fta satellite box and a dish pointing at 28.2 East.
Here in ireland you can subscribe to sky and get most of the same packages you would have in the UK along with RTE the Irish broadcaster. Unsubscribe from sky and take the card out and you get the core fta channels you
would have in the UK.
iPlayer is blocked to non uk ip addresses and perhaps scrambling the tv guide would be a small inconvenience to watchers of the BBC outside the UK.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Tell them no, then schedule the shows anyway and display text showing why they refuse for that block of time.
If it works for ESPN 360 to force cable companies to cough up money at MY expense, it should work for the BBC to make them cough up the programming DRM free.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Well it is basically a tax but the difference is that the government doesn't see the money, so they have no control over the BBC.
Try telling that to all the producers of all of the disks I've rented recently. They all say (on top of the "copying is theft" lie) that circumventing the copy protection is illegal and has a fine up to (IIRC) ~£5000. There's normally two different screens, one from FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft, I think) and something like Copyright.org.uk.
Also, the BBC is a content producer where as Sky has a subscription service. You can't "get your TV from the BBC", you just watch the channels. Sky, on the other hand, is a "pay your money now, get content later" (unless you include Sky 3 and the crap they put on there, which is available on Freeview).
It is perfectly legit to use iPlayer-style catch up services (i.e. on demand) without a license. Info here
Can't imagine this lasting very long, though
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
Not forgetting that anyone purchasing equipment capable of receiving TV broadcasts must give a name & address which the retailer is obliged to pass on to the licensing folks.
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
Is 'BBC Radio Ripper' still a useful tool? The answer is YES! BBC Radio Ripper makes it easy to rip music from BBC Radio station. It supports to convert the music in RM, RMJ, RAM, RA and RMVB formats into MP3 format. Free to Try. http://www.111download.com/product/bbc-radio-ripper.html
except it also covers satellite and cable, and I think Messrs Murdoch & Branson might have a different opinion as to who maintains their infrastructure
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
I generally like the BBC too, but just one point:
All of it without adverts.
They happily advertise their own stuff on there.
Maybe, but only between programs. Not by interrupting a program, say, 10x every hour.
Actually, at least the UK commercial stations are quite good in this respect with relatively few commercial breaks. Shame the same can't be said for many other countries where the time ratio of advert:program seems to approach 1:1 or worse!
I'm sure there are many people who do think it's OK to download TV shows via iplayer without actually owning a TV license.
Like the BBC?
Utter bollocks, as proven in a court of law several times. They are still insisting that computer monitors count as well, without a TV card.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
The BBC are currently showing Heroes in HD. You can copy this off your HD recording box (PC with a satellite card in it) and watch it happily in HD on other devices. Why should I buy a Heroes box set if I've already got all the shows in HD from the broadcast streams?
Why then would content creators sell shows to the BBC if the BBC then don't protect the show, so the BBC lose out in content providers not selling them the shows. Its not the BBC original shows that are causing this push - its the stuff the BBC buys in from other channels.
Someone has to grab the original broadcasts in the first place for them to be torrented.
If you have a TV card in your PC (or a USB stick in your laptop) you still have to pay for a TV license, even if you don't have a CRT in the corner of the room showing the channels.
Sure myself, as when I lived in student digs we'd have endless precessions of TV license people telling us that just because we had a TV we needed a license (not true - any device capable of receiving and displaying TV signals needs a license); we only had consoles and a DVD player hooked up to the thing and the guy admitted we were in the clear. It doesn't stop the license bods getting heavy and issuing warrants to raid your house when Eastenders is on and they're expecting you to be watching it (they do this with people who don't even own TV's), but that's simply because the license gathering arm are stereotypically a bunch of jackbooted yahoos. Alot of them will tell you all sorts of bullshit to trick people into paying up even when they don't legally need to - it literally pays to know your rights.
N.B. now I'm not a penniless student, I have absolutely no qualms about paying the license fee. BBC4 alone is worth it.
P.S. IIRC, Ireland is the country with the license you have to pay if you have any device that could "potentially" receive/display TV signals.
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
That seems incredibly close the the "home taping is killing music" or "home taping is killing tv" arguments, which have always (AFAIK) proven to be false. Why should I buy a DVD boxed set if I've already watched the shows on tv, HD or not? The companies involved have already squeezed money out of me by virtue of my paying the Tv license which goes to the BBC, allowing them to buy the show in the first place. One also has to question what the damn point in this is - the BBC is free to watch, paid for by the license. Everyone gets it. So why put DRM in broadcasts that everyone is going to receive? I can only see two options: 1) They will restrict the HD streams so that only people who pay extra for them get them (unlikely since it's the BBC) 2) They don't want people to rip the shows and share them on the internet (when the shows tend to be available on the iplayer anyway, or broadcast in a different country well before they are broadcast in the UK)
By this rationale the taxes that are earmarked for things like education, pensions and old geezer medical coverage are not "taxes".
All of those go to the HM treasury, maintained by the government, and are then distributed accordingly. That is tax.
The Licensing Fee goes to the BBC and License company, and then is distributed accordingly. This is not tax, unless you are saying the BBC is part of the government, which according to the laws of the UK, it is not.
And that's where you're wrong.
Like most US abominations, the DMCA is a US-only thing.
You're deluding yourself:
Article 6 of the Directive provides protection for "technological measures", any technology device or component which is designed to restrict or prevent certain acts which are not authorised by the rightholder.
Or is there some way to shut off whatever part of the TV is devoted to picking up broadcast signals, so that you can legally have a TV without paying this "optional" fee?
Yes, you can. If you use your TV for watching pre-recorded videos, games consoles, CCTV etc. but do not watch broadcast TV, you don't need a TV Licence. In a strange loophole (because the licence covers live broadcasts etc.) you don't need a licence to watch any BBC iPlayer content, except for items being streamed live (like BBC News).
Technically you're meant to disable the tuner, but as far as i'm aware if they do check your house an untuned telly and no aerial is enough proof.
To check your TV they need to gain a warrant allowing them entry to your house. To get the warrant they need to have a reasonable suspision of your household watching broadcast TV, usually they aren't able to do that. So typically, no warrant and no checks.
I thought the BBC was funded with public money. Why would they care about DRM? The British taxpayer already paid for it, right?
For some mysterious reason, the BBC has been trying to keep foreigners from watching their shows, which might be understandable considering they aren't paying the British TV fees, but I still don't understand what's in it for the BBC. They're just investing a lot of money into making their TV less accessible.
Wrong, downloading isn't free.
Someone somewhere is paying for the internet access: you, your town (which is funded by you through taxes), your school (which is funded by you through your tuition/taxes), and/or your neighbor (if you're stealing the connection).
Sony's PlayTV for the PS3, supposedly has a DVB-T2 receiver, though it isn't advertised as such.
Have a nice day!
You realise this has nothing to do with the BBC being a government organisation (which it isn't)? It's because the BBC has massive problems getting content providers (mostly US ones) to allow them to broadcast their content, especially in HD.
I believe this is one of the several reasons used to stop the BBC getting the rights to 24 after the first season, they didn't want it aired on the BBC in the UK as it affected their ability to sell it to Europe (as BBC signals can be picked up quite easily over there). Instead they managed to launch their show on the BBC and get a huge following, then move it to Sky. Fox and Sky TV are owned by the same guy...
It's free advertising for the Heroes box set. Wait, not free, they're getting paid for it.
Actually, that might be a fair trade - DRM for shows that are given free to the BBC, no DRM for shows the BBC pays for. There's still the cost of broadcasting and overhead, so maybe Heroes pays BBC something to broadcast the show.
I remember the South Park guys on an interview talking about how making any money on broadcast or theatre releases isn't important anymore - it's the DVD sales that bring in the money.
From either perspective, technology is rapidly obsoleting the old business models. I already have a Netflix box, and for $10 US per month I can watch as many (mostly old) movies and documentaries as I can handle (fortunately not too many). Just to bring it full circle, I'm enjoying catching up on Red Dwarf. :)
For double that, maybe I also get first-run TV shows, which seems to be the BBC price-point. 2015 is the year Internet streaming's cost curve is supposed to cross with broadcast's. No doubt the BBC is filled with smart people who are working diligently to stay relevant.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Compression look up tables would either be a mathematical expression or be a technical innovation - neither of which is copyrightable (the former is not patentable under the EPC either). Copyright protects creative expressions. I'm sure someone wants you to think that their key table is copyright but it is not. It may be an industrial secret - but that's not a copyrighted work.
It may be copyright if it is published, made available to the public but I think this would be hard to show as the numbers are borne out of the algorithm and not an artistic expression.
Copyright and patents are monopolies granted in exchange for either publication of the work being protected or (in the case of patents) publication of a specification enabling the reproduction of the technical aspects of an invention.
There are display devices which are incapable of receiving broadcast signals, they are generally called monitors...
Vehicle tax is simpler than paying individually for every toll road, and if you don't drive your own car you don't pay vehicle tax. You are free to walk, take trains, ride a bike (on the roads no less), or even take a taxi/bus but then you are indirectly paying for their road tax.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Most people aren't aware of the requirement for a warrant, and will let them in (you don't need a warrant if the occupant invites you in)... Or you can invite them in if you're sure you have nothing to hide, since they won't find anything and this might satisfy them enough to leave you alone.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Buy with cash and give a false address, most retailers wont verify the details you give them.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
You'd think. The BBC is not owned by us, we only have to pay for it if we want to watch TV.
No money goes through the treasury but plenty comes from it - the treasury pays the BBC a large annual stipend from general taxation, about £300 Million GBP annually.
Of course most of that goes to pay stupid money for football coverage and on Johnathon Ross's appearance fee. But hey I'm sure we don't have anything else to spend the money on.
You joke, but the BBC have been in trouble for sending round the heavies.
We've had several letters from them threatening court and don't have a telly on the premises.
Sadly my wife responded to the last letter - I wasn't going to (no SAE) as I don't agree with spending money, however little, to stop someone threatening me with court without any evidence and through no faulty action or inaction on my part. I was looking forward to that court appearance too ... "yes your honour, I don't have a TV". Wonder what I could spin my costs to; gotta be worth enough to pay off my license fee at home.
And the EUCD is a totally different things from the DMCA.
I already said what Europe had in my original message.
...half of the programming is apparently commissioned by women who attach great importance to handbags and shoes
Fortunately, the other half of the programming is still excellent. So I'm not worrying yet.
Pirate Party UK
AC has no confidence in me, lol.
Copyright protects your work from being copied it doesn't protect it from independently made equivalents.
Database rights require that substantial resource be used in acquisition of the contents of the db, seeking out details to be put in the db. The BBC clearly hasn't made this sort of investment and so these couple of numbers aren't protected by db rights either (see eg William Hill vs FML).
No IANAL but I do have professional experience of interpreting IP law.