Slashdot Mirror
BBC's Plan To Kick Open Source Out of UK TV
bluec writes "Generally speaking, the BBC isn't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts: the license fee payer pays for these broadcasts. But the BBC has tried to get around this, asking Ofcom for permission to encrypt the 'metadata' on its broadcasts – including the assistive information used by deaf and blind people and the 'tables' used by receivers to play back the video. As Ofcom gears up to a second consultation on the issue, there's one important question that the BBC must answer if the implications of this move are to be fully explored, namely: How can free/open source software co-exist with a plan to put DRM on broadcasts?"
How can free/open source software co-exist with a plan to put DRM on broadcasts?
It's simple, really.
Someone develops an Open Source DRM software solution, and the BBC uses it.
It's no different from a closed source DRM solution, except that since it is OSS, it may have a stronger encryption system since it can't rely on security through obscurity.
"Open Source" means a lot of different things to different people, but the basic concept is that it is the software which is free. How the users use the tools isn't part of the equation. So a good OSS DRM solution is a boon for some users (and a bane for their users). But either way, FOSS is not at all at odds with DRM.
Maybe it's a nitpick, but the headline "BBC's Plan To Kick Open Source Out of UK TV" to me sounds like someone is against open-source software, and has conjured up a scheme, the primary purpose of which is to harm it.
From the article, though, it seems more likely that the BBC is worried about copyright infringement, and as with many companies, the only sort-of-half-assed solution they can think of to combat it is to introduce some DRM, and the only even-more-half-assed solution they can think of to make it hard to crack the DRM is security-through-obscurity. That's incompatible with OSS, as Cory Doctorow points out, but I think out of a misplaced attempt to use security-through-obscurity, not out of an actual antipathy to open-source vs. proprietary software as licensing models. Who knows if they even realized that: 1) lots of open-source software is used in conjunction with receiving TV broadcasts (and not just by warez groups); and 2) their scheme would therefore harm an important segment of the public.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Where is the "-1 boring" moderation?
However, the BBC would like to collaborate with the Open Source community, academics and others to produce an Open Codec
All the best encryption systems publish their source code. Real cryptographers don't trust closed source.
No sig today...
DRM absolutely excludes open source, Free-with-a-capital-F-as-in-Freedom software. My freedom is restricted if I am not permitted to modify the software (e.g. to write to disk instead of screen).
PGP has a much easier task, though: it only needs to ensure that people with the key can decrypt content, while people without the key cannot. DRM schemes need to ensure that the same person can only decrypt given content for certain purposes, and not for other purposes.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Where else in the world is someone required to pay a tax to a corporation? Required, as in you will go to jail if you don't give a corporation money for a service you might not need or want.
You have a lot to learn about the US tax system: http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//WhereOurTaxDollarsGo_MostOfBudget.jpg Around 70% to 80% of my taxes go to services I don't need or want, yet I am forced to pay for them. True, we don't have to pay for a TV license, so that makes it ok.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Although this is /. and people are more interested in technical questions, for me the really interesting question is: How can they encrypt the "metadata" on broadcasts – including the assistive information used by deaf and blind people ?
I mean, this basically means all of the broadcast can be copied and used in any way imaginable except for the part of the broadcast which is important to the handicapped ? This sounds sort of immoral to me.
How does DRM help the BBC provide their services to the taxpayer, better ?
You only have to give them money if you're using the service (television broadcasts). No TV, or a TV that's only a monitor for DVD players and video game consoles, and you don't have to pay.
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
Yes you can have an open source DRM library and so on. What you can't have is an open source media player that respects DRM usefully.
Either the user can modify the software doing the DRM to not obey the restrictions the DRM says it should in which case it isn't respecting the DRM. Or the user can't modify the software like that in which case it isn't FOSS.
DRM depends on proprietary software. You are encrypting a file, then giving the user the key to decode it, while telling the program in question to decode the file, but only allow it to be used in one of a few ways (eg. display PDF, but don't print).
Such a system is untenable with proprietary software (just need to find the right memory address), and absolutely impossible with open source software, as you can simply remove the line in the program that tells it what actions not to allow. (See xpdf). With proprietary DRM systems, the companies just hope it's difficult enough to decipher the compiled code of the proprietary programs, that it takes a while before someone finds the right spots in memory to probe/change, and publishes the details... Then, they make trivial changes to the DRM system, and call it a new, "fixed" version that everyone should start using quickly (before someone figures it out).
The only thing DRM can do effectively, is to prevent the first opening of the file. After you send that first key (eg. via server), no matter what the DRM involved, the user can (trivially) strip the DRM off, and do whatever they want with the unencrypted file.
If that is what you want... I would suggest using public-key encryption to protect the file instead of a commercial "DRM" system. Either PGP or SSL (keys in combination with a password) can make absolutely sure only the intended recipient can make use of the file, even if others obtain copies of it. If you are expecting any more control over what others do with the file, you are simply denying reality.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Except that there are non-BBC channels and you have to pay the tax even if you never watch a BBC channel.
To use a car analogy, this would be like having to pay a monthly fee to Ford for "car services" regardless of what brand your car is.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Gordon Ramsey cooks Doctor Hu a bird's nest souffle.
He reveals his secret identity as a Thymelord, but there is a leek in the kitchen.
And then someone with the source code to the DRM decoder can comment out the portion of the code which outputs the video and audio, and in its place add code to output to the hard drive.
Whether you're using ROT-26 or the most sophisticated techniques available, open source DRM is not possible because "decrypt something and display it on screen" and "decrypt something and write it to the hard drive" are not actually different things.
This is pretty unfair to the BBC. It should be made clear that the BBC probably isn't the one that's pushing for this. It's more likely that the BBC is being leant on by other content providers (like US networks) that it licences shows such as Heroes from, as well as movies it screens. It offers these on it's iPlayer service, so it's hardly surprising that it's being pressured into this.
At the moment in the UK, subscription to the BBC is compulsory, as a condition of being able to have a TV. And if you watch TV without subscribing, you will be hauled before a magistrate, fined, and maybe imprisoned. People are imprisoned all the time for doing this.
What we need to do is make it voluntary. Everyone should be able to subscribe to the channels of their choice, or not as the case may be. Then, when subscription to the BBC is voluntary, we can just stop arguing about it and let them do what they want. If we don't like it, we would cancel our subscriptions.
This is so simple and obvious, its very difficult to understand why everyone doesn't support it automatically. What possible case can there be for making subscription to one particular broadcaster compulsory, and enforced by criminal law sanctions? Its totally nuts. We don't make subscription to one particular newspaper a condition of being able to read the press. We don't make subscription to one particular web site a condition of being able to have Internet Access. What is the problem here?
I see what you mean. If I was poor, I'd choose to sleep under a bridge or to starve rather than take handouts. Therefore, I shouldn't have to pay taxes.
The only job for government is to bomb people and throw potheads in jail for a few decades, and in that case I'm hugely in favor of big government. Maybe this includes building freeways, but I'm not sure about maintenance or inspections. Aside from that I can teach my own kids, inspect my own meat, and I can drive myself to the hospital if I fall down the stairs or have a heart attack.
Also, if my house catches fire, it's my job to extinguish it. If some poor bastard's house down the way catches fire, that's his problem.
I've had enough with these fucking commies who want to take all my guns and money away.
In USA you're already required to pay a tax to a corporation (unless you are happy to die early from a treatable disease) - and guess what, we pay less in the UK for our health coverage than most people pay in the USA.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
For example, XOR encryption is remarkably weak in most cases.
That really depends.
If you repeat a password cyclically ("hunter2hunter2hunter2...") and XOR it onto your plain text, you're doing a polyalphabetic substitution cipher. Those were broken around the first world war (IIRC); google for "Kasiski Test" and others.
If you use a random byte (independent of every other byte) at each position of the key stream ("%Nb2a#!\nF..."), XOR is the perfect cipher. By observing the cipher text, you have no better idea about what the plain text is compared to what idea you would have if all you knew was that the plain text was there*.
If you use a block cipher (DES, AES, etc.) to encrypt "n+0", "n+1", "n+2", etc., for some random initial offset n, and concatenate the byte blocks of encrypted numbers, you have in some sense a simulation of the perfect XOR encryption; if the block cipher is strong, this is strong as well (maybe if the block cipher can be broken in O(t), this can be broken in O(sqrt(t)), but if t is superpolynomial, so is sqrt(t)). [This is known as "Counter Mode", and you can use it to protect your ssh sessions. It has a bunch of nice properties compared to other Modes Of Operation, but that's beyond today's cryptography lecture.]
* Say we have a residents meeting at my dorm, and someone suggests we buy a Wii for our basement lounge. Later, I see an encrypted message between the dorm chairman and SomeWiiShop.dk. I know my dorm chairman is not a gamer, so my natural assumption is that she's acting on the request for a Wii. Since I also know about the applications of cryptography (for transactions in e-trade, but not the shopping pages), I assume she's bought a Wii (plus maybe some games and controllers). This is all without decryption. The "perfect security" of XOR is saying that I can't improve my guess by trying to decrypt---not that I can't have a good guess before trying to decrypt.
The BBC is both producer and distributer. Maybe it should be split into "BBC TV" and "BBC Production"? After Dirac leading to a Windows only iPlayer I think we can dismiss their 'research' department.
The license could pay basic infrastructure costs for "BBC TV" running the distribution infrastructure (transmitters, etc). If they want to play the silly "ratings war" games they are playing, then they can buy up foreign commercial pap and be allowed to play a couple of adverts before and afterwards to pay for it. This would mean tax payers money isn't being sucked abroad for rubbish reality tv shows.
Most of the money goes into "BBC Production". This produces content as per their remit. This then goes to to "BBC TV" and is played for free, or is licensed to foreign TV stations. As soon as it is broadcast it is then put up for free on the BBC torrent site unrestricted. It is not even worth blocking foreign IPs, getting more private worldwide viewers will put pressure on other TV stations to license the content from the BBC.
Just food for thought, I am sure there may be problems with this I haven't thought of.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France