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."
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.
That will just go in the Recycle Bin. The correct place to complain is here
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/howtorespond/
If you've ever complained to the BBC, I think you'll find that complaining to them is like writing a complaint and sending it to /dev/null.
They don't listen, they don't care, they are completely unaccountable, due to the unique way they are funded - by a compulsory tax.
BS - I have and they were very responsive. A delight, compared to most other organisations I've had cause to tussle with. In fact, if anything, I was a little concerned that too much license fee money was going on customer service. I am very pelased to pay the "compulsry tax" as you put it. It makes the BBC one of the last places on earth that is ad free. And having kids who like CBBC that is very important to us - easily worth the license fee keeping the latest guns, junk food and general crap away from them.
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.
Even if you only use your widescreen TV to watch Mapouka on youtube, and its not connected to an aerial, you still have to pay for a licence.
Not true. You need a license only if you are watching or recording live broadcasts. If you're not, you don't need one, even if you do have the equipment. Of course, they may suspect that you're lying, but if it isn't connected to an aerial, and it is connected to something else, you should be able to convince them.
Before replying, bear in mind that you're writing to Ofcom (an independent regulator), not the BBC itself, and first check out the full proposal at:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/condoc.pdf
The devil, of course, is in the details (which the Ofcom summary glosses over). The BBC is proposing an 'amendment' to 'Condition 6' of the current Multiplex B licence (which Ofcom has to approve). This might more accurately be described as a complete reversal of that Condition. EPG data will no longer be freely available, but encrypted. The decryption keys ('Huffman code look-up tables') will only be provided under a licence that mandates that the HD box manufacturer implements DRM, to be applied to any content that the broadcaster flags as 'protected'. It looks like the the BBC intends to require a level of DRM for most of its HD programming ('The BBC indicates in its proposal that it intends to apply the multiple copy state to the majority of its HD content.'). The even more restrictive 'managed copy' flag will be used when required; an 'unrestricted copy' flag is also available, but it doesn't look like it will get much use.
The issue of Open Source implementations is also dealt with in a deeply misleading way:
'The licensing terms for Open Source software typically require that this software is made freely available to others to use, which may be incompatible with and the licensing terms of the BBC's Huffman Code look-up tables. This issue appears to have been addressed by HD Freesat receivers that use Linux Open Source software and implement similar content management technologies'
This only 'appears to have been addressed' if you don't actually understand the issues. An HD box may well be running a Linux kernel, with proprietary software on top of it, just as MacOS runs on a FOSS XNU kernel. What the current proposal would block is any fully Free/Open Source implementation of a Freeview HD system.
The BBC is about the only example of a 'compulsory tax' (it isn't compulsory) which has worked and continues to work in the public good to the satisfaction of pretty much everyone. The recent disputes about funding cause me to worry: it is money well spent.
If we complain to the BBC, they will listen: it is precisely because of this 'compulsory tax' that they may listen to us over the huge pockets and interests of the comercial fat cats