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."
DRM was never about the consumer. The only people who benefit from DRM are content providers. They use DRM as a way of unfairly controlling what you can do with the content you paid good money for.
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
One particular fellow doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block:
While I appreciate the BBC is keen to retain third party content providers for their HD channels I think compromising the rights of their viewers is not an acceptable solution to achieve this. I believe that it is in contravention of the BBC's responsibilty to provide unencumbered content to TV licence payers.
Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.
It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect. It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem? That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative. Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really isn't a big deal, that's your only choice. Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.
My work here is dung.
Be interesting to see if this then get's applied to DVDs.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
"I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM."
Piracy is the only response of the market to a fiat monopoly.
With commodities you can "vote with your dollars". But with copyright, it's hobson's choice.
So why must piracy be solved here?
Sell cheap enough to maximise ROI. And they are the only ones who can do this.
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
The BBC argues that content providers expect that DRM be provided. Ignore, for a moment, all other strong arguments against the use of DRM (and against it doing any good anyhow).
The BBC is funded by public money, so they get the opportunity to do stuff without being pushed about by commercial interests - for this reason they are already expected to include programming that is for the benefit of society and the public. I'd say that this is another excellent reason that they should be pressured to take a stand against the erosion of fair use rights. Similarly to certain types of programming, this is too important to leave up to commercial stations - in fact, commercial stations seem likely to push their own DRM agenda based on connections to vested interests.
Fundamentally, the BBC is funded by the public and it ought to limit the extent to which it makes itself and its viewers beholden to commercial interests. If content providers won't play ball, the BBC has the clout (currently one of the only UK broadcasters who are actually doing well) to make them see sense, or do without them and take stuff in-house. If the BBC are going to allow themselves to be directed by private content producers then we might as well just leave it to the commercial broadcasters and save ourselves the money.
An old quote from where I come from goes like this... "If you see abundance of money and wastefulness of resources, then understand that someone's legitimate right to those resources is being compromised".
Yes, art... like any other field should provide a given artist a stable income.
Yes, the artist worked hard, nonetheless, piracy is a consequence of someone who is finding it hard to pay the bills wanting something beyond his budget. On the other hand, a given (successful) artist who will probably feed generations with the wealth accumulated wants even more money.
On purely human grounds, I find something is wrong with this picture, very wrong.
Once the songs has been composed, the value-added component for every CD or MP3 they sell just doesn't add up to the price they charge consumers. Even if you take into account the effort and labor of composing the song, it still does not add up. This is something fundamental to a working capitalist society. Things should cost a fair price, media does not.
What exactly are the media giants selling, is it art... then why have I bought the same song in LP, Cassette, CD and now mp3s.
I can't put my finger on exactly what is wrong with this model.
IMO, this needs to be revisited to figure out how everyone gets their fair share, consumers and artists.
To me, the real problem is greed. If the content providers were content to simply make a profit and live like normal human beings, then prices would be reasonable and pirating would be even more uncommon than it is already. But no, everybody has to try and become a millionaire (ah, so old-fashioned, I mean billionaire of course!). The current thinking is that it is a corporation's job to maximize profit. That makes corporations necessarily hostile to society and civilization as a whole. This type of thinking dictates that they must gouge, hype, stifle competition, and use monopolistic practices to victimize the consumer for maximum gain. In the United States, we can't even pass health care reform because corporations don't want it. These corporations bribe, intimidate, and use the media they control to turn public opinion against the public good. For as long as we continue to believe that greed is good, and that the goal of business is to maximize profits, our societies will continue to decline, and our jobs will go elsewhere, and our governments will work against us.
I'd rather watch both sides of an argument (FOX and MSNBC) rather than assume I can trust a single source.
Ahem. On most topics, FOX and MSNBC are on the same side of the argument, or close enough not to matter much. The American political spectrum has become so narrow, and so far skewed to the right, that differentiating between the American "left" and American "right" seems to be more about trying to decide who is further to the right, Gengis Khan or Benito Mousselini, than discussing any real differences.
Then along comes Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who would be considered to the right in any other part of the developed world, proposing sweeping (and belated) healthcare reform, and from the myopic and illiterate perspective of most Americans, they are seen as radically left.
It's amazing. To anyone else in the developed world, MSNBC and FOX are equally far out in right field, both bordering on unabashed extremism. As is most of America, for that matter. The fact that America is still struggling to sort out its medical system, 60-90 years after everyone else did, is telling in and of itself. For a bunch of creationists, the American right sure does seem to believe in Social Darwinism.
The sad thing is, most Americans don't even know enough to be ashamed of the rhetoric that is accepted as normal in politics over there, whether it's on defense, healthcare, women's rights, racial equality, or the so-called war on terror.
It has gotten to the point where "left wing" in America is not packing a pistol to an event where the president is expected to appear. Pathetic...and I don't see MSNBC, or CNN, as reporting these events all that differently than FOX these days. The do seem to be less tasteless in the talk shows they broadcast, but that's a far cry from broadcasting content that contains any real substance or concrete information, much less reporting balanced news a la the BBC.
But then, I'm an American lucky enough to be living elsewhere for the time being, and able to get relatively unbiased information without having to jump through a million hoops, or listen to Hannity screaming on my televison set.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
allowing BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Five, etc. to obtain the rights to show series and films that the rights holders will not allow them to show without content protection in the receiver.
Why do I want the BBC to be spending my licence fee on:
1. Development or licensing of DRM systems.
2. Broadcast of content which I cannot receive without buying a proprietary receiver (and thus paying another licence fee for the DRM system whilst giving me very limited choice on what equipment I use and which parts of my legal rights I can actually exercise).
3. "Premium" content you could get elsewhere anyway.
They should be investing this money in production of their own content, which wouldn't require crazy DRM anyway.
This would things like the HD versions of Hollywood films which the MPAA doesn't want people getting good digital copies of for free.
Those would be the films of which blueray rips were available for download months or years before the BBC show them anyway?
I find it strange that the BBC has been picked on for this, it is a condition imposed by the content rights holders and the BBC is only one of several companies involved in defining the broadcast platform specifications.
Not only does the BBC have a reasonable amount of bidding power (the BBC dropping out of the bidding wars would significantly reduce the profits made by the content producers selling to the UK), but they also have a mandate to make content available to as wide an audience as possible. As far as I can see, saying "you can only receive this content with this proprietary device" is in direct contradiction to that mandate. The broadcast content paid for by the licence fee has always been available at full quality through openly specified protocols/standards(*), there is no reason for this to change.
(* It is true that for some time the BBC's DVB-S transmissions were encrypted using VideoGuard due to territorial licensing issues. This hasn't been true for years since the move onto the restricted-footprint Astra 2D transponders, and that content was always available through other official means).
http://blog.nexusuk.org
The BBC board are not stupid, they know applying to have tax payer funded content restricted isnt going to fly. They are maneuvering to cover their backs. Despite what they say the BBC are very ratings focused. They are going head to head with ITV (the biggest independent TV station in the UK) over the Saturday night prime slot with their own reality TV/talent show for example.
They want to broadcast popular shows but dont want content restriction to be used as leverage by the content providers. Rather than saying "we wont do that b/c its not in the public interest" the BBC are aiming to say "We cant use DRM b/c its against the law."
I can't think of anything witty right now
That's essentially what it boils down to. If I paint a wall in a neighbours house, I charge for the time it takes to paint it. I don't expect to "earn" money every time the poor sods look at the bloody wall, now do I?
It's about time we sat down & looked at this copyright/DRM lark seriously. In no other profession can you expect to earn money, 70 sodding years after you are dead, for 3 hours work.
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
That's essentially what it boils down to. If I paint a wall in a neighbours house, I charge for the time it takes to paint it. I don't expect to "earn" money every time the poor sods look at the bloody wall, now do I?
Are you even listening to yourself?
1) You're comparing a service (like wall painting), which is arranged for in advance and with terms understood to both parties, to - for example - a novel. Which the author risks his time to write, with no known buyers necessarily lined up (unless a publisher really wants to front some money, against future sales, just to keep in the author's good graces).
2) An author doesn't make money every time you read his book, he makes money when you buy it. If he makes the mistake of only selling it in a way that some readers will find very inconvenient, then he's lost a customer, and has to live with the consequences. But you don't pay a musician every time you pop that same CD in the car's player, or pay a cookbook maker or gourmet magazine publisher every time you make a dish while looing at a printed recipe you bought.
3) The author doesn't make a penny unless he can find himself some customers that will agree to the terms under which he's selling the book. He may not find such a customer for days, or even years after he has invested the time to do the work. He may not find his second (or second millionth) customer until years more have gone by. But he risked the time it took to create the work in anticipation of finding those customers, later. Are you implying that there's a moral difference between selling a novel week after you finish it, and selling it three weeks after you finish it? How bout 30 weeks? Has the author's investment in his own work suddenly become unimportant to you based on which day it is on the calendar?
4) "for 3 hours work." Really. That's what you think is involved in producing, say, a documentary, or a symphony, or a graphic novel, and so on? I suppose you think that because a concert pianist only performs for 45 minutes during a concert, that she's only done 45 minutes worth of work in order to deliver that performance? Are you really that obtuse?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.