Slashdot Mirror
UK's Freeview HD To Go DRM
gbjbaanb writes "The BBC has been granted provisional approval to introduce copy protection for Freeview HD after they resubmitted an amended plan. Quoting from Ofcom's statement: 'In view of the fuller submission provided by the BBC, Ofcom is currently minded to approve its request for a multiplex license amendment subject to consultation responses, on the basis that in principle, content management is a justified objective which ensures that the broadest range of HD content is made available to citizens and consumers.' However, it's not too late yet — you can submit your comment and tell them you'd like to be able to record broadcast HD TV. I'm sure the 'content providers' will continue to sell content to the BBC, ITV, etc., if this is not implemented. They'll still take our license fee money (or advertising) and sell us the content, but refuse to let us record or copy it, hoping we'll go out and buy the DVD/Blu-ray as well."
So, if we can still comment, anyone have a link to do so?
Whoever thought this would end differently needs to have his head examined.
Twice.
At an Ofcom licensed specialist.
They'll still take our license fee money (or advertising) and sell us the content, but refuse to let us record or copy it
They won't be taking my 'licence fee money'. I don't pay that anachronistic tax. I encourage everyone else to do likewise.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
I have a Freesat HD PVR. HD content is encrypted to the box (you can back it up but it won't play anywhere else). Some content is even flagged and won't even transfer. It must be part of the Freesat conformance requirements. Stuff is broadcast in the clear, so in theory I could use a generic DVB-S2 recorder but then I lose other Freesat features like the EPG.
Why would we want to install a catholic ruler?
Guy Fawkes was not an anarchist and he did not reflect the people's views. He was not an anarchist, he was a religious nut who couldn't accept a protestant king and wanted one that met his religious views.
After the attempt on his parliament, Charles II's popularity shot through the roof and the 5th of November celebrates that he was caught. You don't burn effigies of people you are celebrating.
Sorry to rant but it pisses me off that people with no knowledge of history now think Guy Fawkes was an anarchist because of a movie and a graphic novel.
From the article: " I'm sure the 'content providers' will continue to sell content to the BBC, ITV, etc., if this is not implemented."
My guess would be 'no' actually - they'll happily sell non-HD versions, but I doubt they will sell HD without the DRM.
Hey, if the summary writer can speculate, so can I.
I'm sure the 'content providers' will continue to sell content to the BBC, ITV, etc.
The BBC has co-production and distribution agreements with private and public corporate partners all over the world.
The BBC's resources are not unlimited. It has only so much money to buy product, only so much money to produce product.
The BBC brand name is worth only so much. The BBC has to offer its partners protection in the UK market.
If you Read The Fine Article That Wasn't Linked on the Ofcom website you'll find interesting tidbits such as:
1.4 The BBC's proposed content management approach would require Ofcom to grant an amendment to its multiplex licence, subject to Ofcom's approval of specific proposals, to allow the BBC to restrict the availability of programme listing information for HDTV services only to receivers that implement content management technology.
1.9 The content management technology required to be implemented in receivers under the BBC's proposals would permit unrestricted recordings of HD content onto digital video recorders (DVRs) but would enable broadcasters to control the copying of this content onto other devices and its distribution over the internet. The HD content would only be accessible on other consumer devices which support the same content management technologies as those used in HD receivers.
In essence, if you use a receiver without support for this DRM tech, the only thing you're going to lose access to is the Programme Listing data - it's the BBC's way of placating the drooling media execs with as little direct impact on consumers as possible. Now that's not to say that someone in the government won't make it impossible to buy receivers that don't support this in the UK, but that's what China is for.
Full PDF is here
If they roll this out to the satellite transmissions of BBC HD as well, Arrrgghhh!
I bought a Analogue / DVB-T / DVB-S combi-card that can decode DVB-S HD transmissions, and of course a HD pc monitor* to watch / edit on. I know that the BBC and ITV are pushing people for the "Freesat" service, their locked-in satellite box... they get a cut from the sales you see. I suspect vendor lock-in is one reason they want to scramble the transmissions.
Having a FTA card allows me to watch from whatever terrestrial or satellite I can pick up from. Using Linux as well to do it is no mean feat, some HD channels have changed the spec on how to receive their signals, and it messes with the audio stream (BBC-HD implicated).
Having the Freeview HD signal scrambled is not a great loss, the bit rate for terrestrial HD is as predicted appallingly low and unwatchable. The problem is the masses will look at that bad picture and think it is acceptable, because they've not seen anything else, ie. the satellite HD signal (which has also had it's bit rate downgraded recently). The same thing happened with the roll out and push for Freeview terrestrial digital television, the bit rate has been dropping all the time, it is pretty bad, analogue beats it hands down for picture and audio quality.
For a supposed free to air channel (subject to paying the BBC tax), the BBC have acted appallingly. For a regulator of UK television that was started up by the current corrupt government, they are acting exactly to type, bought off by corporate interests instead of viewers interests.
* Strangely the pc Full HD monitor costs less than a regular HD-TV, even though the size is the same, and the pc monitor deals with a higher refresh rates than a regular TV does.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Why would we want to install a catholic ruler?
For the children?
... and then they built the supercollider.
And such a wonderful world we live in. A device that provides the same functionality as an old VHS recorder is illegal because it needs to bypass DRM to work. Never mind that we've had VHS for 30+ years and TV shows have been broadcast unencrypted for half a century.
Obviously anyone who wants to release a torrent can easily bypass the DRM and anyone who wants the non-DRM version can download it for free. The only ones who suffer are the ones who pay for their content and won't buy illegal hardware.
The use of the word "free" in both Freeview and Freesat is deceptive IMHO as in the UK (as many of you know) you _have_ to pay for a TV License, if you don't you can't have a TV or anything resembling a terrestrial (analog or digital) receiver. So no TV cards for your computer either. It really is not even an issue of quality anymore, I used to use the argument that the only thing I watched on the BBC was Top Gear and local news and that's still true but I'd gladly pay a token amount per view for each of those I just have a moral objection to being forced to pay for a service that I largely do not use. The fact is that if I stop paying my license I would eventually face prison time and a criminal record. Is this right?
No, the worst they'd give you is a fine.
Except the requirement to have a TV license has bugger all to do with how much equipment you own.
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
[...] on the basis that in principle, content management is a justified objective which ensures that the broadest range of HD content is made available to citizens and consumers.
Here is a lesson for us all, on how to talk and act, if you want to push something trough that everybody hates: You state the exact opposite of what it will do. Which is of course, what everybody will want. And you get it across not only without the blink of an eye, but in a way that makes others feel like this is in fact reality, so that they start to believe it too.
Today’s wars are not fought with machines and deaths. They are fought with ideas / mindsets / realities, and people that you don’t have to kill, but instead make your “best friends”, so that they fight on your side.
I say, we as hackers (actually more “crackers”) should become the masters of that! Hack the human mind! As an extension of social engineering. But for good things!
Psychology, social dynamics, true leadership and rhetorics. Those are the key skills.
Hmm... I should make a RPG out of that, to train my army... Muhahahaha ;)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Obviously anyone who wants to release a torrent can easily bypass the DRM and anyone who wants the non-DRM version can download it for free. The only ones who suffer are the ones who pay for their content and won't buy illegal hardware.
THIS, BBC!
Why the fuck are they so stupid?
This won't stop ANYONE who is determined enough.
Nor did it make things worse off years ago.
Fact is, anything that is encrypted can be decrypted. If you have the hardware decrypters, it is only a matter of time before someone gets in to it.
And that doesn't even matter either since a LOT of people have cameras, TVs and miniature sound recording studio built specifically for ripping copies off of everything.
This is helped even further by things like "Sky Multiroom" and such systems.
The ONLY way they* (the companies in general) can improve anything is by making shows easily accessible for rental / purchase through the Internet.
Lower prices will lower the barriers most people have. (certainly worked on iTunes, PSN and XBLA, and so on)
But they never learn, do they? The distribution companies rape most profit that any company gets from media and leave them with pennies. (somewhat literally in some cases)
Until we get rid of most of those, things are going to be a mess for a while.
And since the backbone in the UK is awful at best, probably not happening for at least a decade or 2.
Wouldn't be surprised if BT are being paid off to limit progression.
* In BBCs case, they can't due to the licence fee.
How often do 99% of consumers realise they're watching encrypted DVD? Consumers won't care if it's not intrusive. ....
Yeah, they didn't care when the only devices they had which played video were televisions which were connected with DVD players. Nowadays, every other cell phone/music player can play video. You can safely bet that the unstoppable progression of technology will soon make it quite obvious to the consumer that they are being asked to pay over and over again for playing the same content on ever increasing numbers of portable devices. And they won't like it.
That is what lead us to non-DRM music; it will also eventually happen to video.
Stop reading the right wing press and think for yourself. Stalinist my arse.
... Linux users that cannot view the DRM broadcasts won't have to pay the license fee?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
But this is tele over the internet, right? If all you have is a computer and high speed internet, but no tele, do you, or do you not, have to pay a license fee? And what if (you Brits) are overseas and want to see the tele shows from back home?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Don't like it? Don't watch it. Don't buy the equipment. Don't support it. Seems pretty simple.
Up until a year or so ago I was a TV licence payer in the UK - then I discovered that not having a TV didn't make any difference to my viewing habits i.e. there was nothing but shit on and the stuff I did want to see I could get other ways *legally* which, for the most part, didn't involve giving corporations money - BBC iPlayer etc. aren't subject to the license because that only covers having the capability to watch the programmes on British TV as they are broadcast - so you don't need a TV license, but get the same programmes.
And the things that are worth watching, I buy a DVD of (which I then rip, of course, but seeing as I "own" it, that's my decision). I paid for Sky until it became a million channels of crap, ten minute advert breaks and re-re-re-re-re-peats of programmes. I paid for a TV licence until the same thing happened and I realised I could just watch on iPlayer / ITV Player / 4od without (most of) the crap any time I liked. Why *pay* for something you disagree with? Voting with your feet is the most powerful commercial incentive for a large corporation... if you don't buy, say, a DAB radio, then they won't want to support it (that's what happening with DAB at the moment). It's the same thing. Stop giving your money to people you don't like... you don't go to buskers on the streets and say "I'll give you a pound, but only if you improve the way you play and correct the second note in the third stave..."... you either like it and pay for it, or you don't. And the news is that millions of people *will* pay for it (HD seems to be an addiction even amongst my techie friends that I just don't understand).
Come on, people, if you have such ideals, take a sacrifice for them - stop watching and supporting media/hardware that is DRM if you feel so strongly about it.
Especially when the movie and graphic novel never portray Fawkes as an anarchist, but instead portray a random other guy as being something like fawkes. Where "something like fawkes" is defined as "tried to blow up parliament".
As a matter of fact, Digital Restrictions Management with its inherently evil capabilities for censorship will indeed make every Adam Sutler drool with joy over its Orwellian prospects.
Enforcing "Freedom is Slavery" and "Ignorance is Strength", swatting two civil liberties with one stone (or was it a bricked once-free DTV receiver?).
"War is Peace" may come to join them as soon as every TV viewer is digitally numbered and individually addressable, i.e. can be force-fed the very selected bits and pieces of information most useful to bring him or her into (party) line, and cut off from everything else.
But this is tele over the internet, right? If all you have is a computer and high speed internet, but no tele, do you, or do you not, have to pay a license fee? And what if (you Brits) are overseas and want to see the tele shows from back home?
You don't need a license for the internet connection, you need a license to watch anything that is being broadcast over the airwaves as you are watching it, even if you are watching it over the internet. This does not include most shows on the iPlayer or other sites like that, as that content is being streamed personally to you, and not being broadcast over the airwaves at the same time. The one exception to this is live shows on the iPlayer, as those are also being broadcast over the airwaves at the same time.
Who need's speling and grammar?
I thought publication copyright expires someday, when the publication goes into the public domain - as in, free - but apparently following that law does not work for the copyright holders, or the government offices doing the broadcasting to the public.
I'm sorry, Mr. and Mrs. Citizenry, your copyright law has expired.
Good thing the stuff they show on TV is tailored to be of interest to the widest (read: dumbest) audience and a waste of time to those who enjoy writing computer software or, say, reading.
Even though it triggers Godwin's Law...
If this were enabled, then in theory then Freeview could do away with copy protection, instead using passive monitoring of various P2P sites to deter file sharing. They could use the information to prosecute, or even send warning / copy disabling / kill codes to offending boxes if they so desired.
The fact is that if I stop paying my license I would eventually face prison time and a criminal record. Is this right?
No, only if you wanted to watch TV.
In the past 30 years, the only time I have watched TV is when a relative or friend I was already spending time with wanted to watch something.
Now a lot of things Steve says are pure marketing noise, but he was right on the money back in 2003 when he said:
The ONLY thing that's making people think DRM will work for movies is that, just for the moment, movies are too big to throw around on the net like MP3s. But that's short term, and already eroding. It's like the first video games came out that needed CDs instead of floppies, you couldn't easily copy a CDROM, and CD images were too big to download over your dialup modem. That all changed, as media became bigger and bandwidth became cheaper, and downloading a CDs worth of data has been trivial for a long time. It's already happening to DVD, and it's going to happen to Blu-Ray as well.
>Guy Fawkes [...] was a religious nut who couldn't accept a protestant king and wanted one that met his religious views.
That's an interesting take on the times. As I understand it, the Protestants who were in power persecuted people of other faiths. Since the King was Protestant, so every one of his subjects was meant to be and they were discriminated against until they converted.
That seems like Fawkes was fighting against oppression from religious nuts, to me, and for the freedom to practice the religion of one's own choice.
It doesn't make him so much of an anarchist as a freedom fighter, true, but it hardly makes him a "religious nut" who insisted on imposing his religious viwes on othes.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Somebody really need to licence the word "free" and require any user to actually comply with a set of simple "free" standards rules to be allowed use of the word! Seriously..
to Unfreeview
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Once they implement DRM, the BBC becomes just another commercial company. This should mean the TV licence goes away, however I bet nothing will change.
I also expect the BBC are already planning a tiered service they can charge extra for, that allows you to once again record shows like you (legally) can now for free.
I also imagine that whatever DRM they choose will assume/require Microsoft Windows for PC-based solutions, so us Linux/Mythbox users are screwed by the BBC yet again.
Why would we want to install a catholic ruler?
After the attempt on his parliament, Charles II's popularity shot through the roof and the 5th of November celebrates that he was caught. You don't burn effigies of people you are celebrating.
While the basic message of the parent post is correct, it seems to fail somewhat in the details. For starters, it was James I not Charles II. Charles II was James I's grandson and Charles I was in between (along with that unpleasant interregnum period).
While religion was the "excuse" for the plot, it was mainly down to a group of nobles who were unhappy at their lack of power and wanted to take over. Blowing up the British Parliament (King, royal family and Lords, some of whom were Catholic) was a good way of getting everyone more powerful than them out of the way. There was no "for the people" element to the plot.
Guy Fawkes was a soldier/mercenary. He was a junior member of the conspiracy but due to his experience he was put in charge of setting up the explosives etc.. He became the most famous person involved because he was caught leaving the cellar which was full of gunpowder and so was the first caught. [After the failed attack, the main conspirators openly declared themselves and tried to raise an army to march on London. Unfortunately for them, no one cared enough to join them and they were hunted down.]
The Gunpowder Plot was little more than a power struggle between nobles and Guy Fawkes was the mercenary foolish enough to get caught planting the explosives.
I would be more inclined to believe you, except for the fact that I've been seeing more and more anti-DRM comments popping up on non-geek Internet sites. For example, I was recently really happy to see that the majority of people who commented on a news anouncement about Disney's latest DRM dream, KeyChest, knew what DRM was and those who talked about DRM were unanimously skeptical about it.