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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
They know that. The important part is that it makes you a criminal in a way you weren't before.
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.
>>>It has the incidental effect of making anyone using linux and a DTV card to recieve the broadcasts act illegally
I match your DRM and raise with a semiautomatic aimed at the nearest MP.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
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.
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.
It's not a tax. It is a toll for a service.
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.
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.
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.
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.