Slashdot Mirror
Regulator Blocks BBC DRM Plans
TheRaven64 writes "The BBC's plans to introduce DRM for over-the-air digital broadcasts were today dealt a setback when the regulator, Ofcom, asked them the same question that has been asked of many DRM systems: 'How does this benefit the consumer?' The letter to the BBC is quoted in the article as saying that 'Ofcom received a large number of responses to this consultation, in particular from consumers and consumer groups, who raised a number of potentially significant consumer "fair use" and competition issues that were not addressed in our original consultation.' This does not end the chance of the BBC being allowed to introduce DRM in the future, but it at least delays their opportunity to do so."
All in all, a good example of how an independent, publicly funded news organisation can work. The BBC should focus on this kind of thing and not on idiocies like DRM. I wrote to Ofcom to oppose this and was very pleased that they have responded in this way. I was slightly less pleased that the form that they sent me asking for permission to publish my letter was a MS Word document...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Posted 12 minutes after the story hit the front page
Er, if you pay $5 once, you can see the stories early when they're plums. Had a while to think this through, hope that doesn't rub you the wrong way. (Note the asterisk to the right of my UID)
presents a cogent view in favor of the big media/BBC, says we should shut our dirty whore mouths unless we have a solution that will pass every test he can throw at it
I don't think that's what I said. I think the article, government and BBC are very clear on why they think they need this. I expressed my disapproval in (what I considered) a civil manner of the responses. I don't think they will hold the DRM at bay. Was hoping to have a discussion and not demand either side nor anyone "shut their dirty whore mouths." But way to put words into my mouth, well done.
has a PDF citation ready to go from some official .gov.uk comment site nobody has ever heard of
That was found in the article on the right side under "on the web." It's the official site for the responses and discussion.
and adds in an obvious spell flame/spelling error combo in his post to throw off follow-ups.
My hat's off to you sir, you are quite well-organized for a high 6-digit slashdot poster.
Really? It's come down to the numbers to the right of our names? I'm flamebait and you're insightful?! I give up.
My work here is dung.
in the case of the BBC, if they add DRM, then citizens of the UK CAN'T NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THEM, if they own a tv they have to pay the license fee that the bbc makes money off of. its sort of like forcefully paid for public broadcasting.
As one of those who responded, I'm glad I did.
Your comment also highlights that you misunderstand exactly what the BBC were proposing. Their plan was to encrypt the EPG, not the actual programming. Anybody who wanted to pirate the material still could - they just needed to know what time the program was on, the transponder frequency and PID to record the whole MPEG stream. So, this wasn't actually an effective technical measure against piracy. All it would have achieved is making life difficult for people who wanted to use open source software to access the EPG in order to actually discover what programs are on and when, enabling them to enjoy the TV that was being shown rather than expecting them to just flick through all channels until they found something that looked interesting.
It was a definite step backwards in terms of usability and offered nothing to protect broadcasts from pirates. What it did offer was a guaranteed revenue stream for the BBC by selling licenses to set-top box manufacturers.