Secret BBC Documents Reveal Flimsy Case For DRM

mouthbeef writes "The Guardian just published my investigative story on the BBC and Ofcom's abuse of secrecy laws to hide the reasons for granting permission for DRM on UK public broadcasts. The UK public overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, but Ofcom approved it anyway, saying they were convinced by secret BBC arguments that couldn't be published due to 'commercial sensitivity.' As the article shows, the material was neither sensitive nor convincing — a fact that Ofcom and the BBC tried to hide from the public."

Comments

Entrenched Interests

[Nom du Keyboard]

The Entrenched Interests are going to use every means, including illegal ones, to maintain and extend their hold over content that they profit from. When America was established one of the major things that they overthrew (so major that is is part of the original Constitution) was the concept of Forever Copyrights -- and they were better off for it. Those Entrenched Interests never went away however, and they try to chip away at those rights at every opportunity. We are very close to the point, if not past it, where copyright infringement becomes civil disobedience -- if not a civil duty.

Re:Entrenched Interests

[Enderandrew]

Content owners do have a right to make money from their content.

But the argument for DRM is a poor one. It punishes paying customers while not stopping piracy. Even worse, content owners/providers have to pay money to license DRM technology. It is a lose-lose scenario.

The CEO of Warner Brothers at the time predicted iTunes would fail, because no one would willingly pay for digital content. He compared it to Coca Cola coming out of the faucet for free, so why would someone willingly pay for a Coke?

As it turns out, people do like supporting things they enjoy, and iTunes is the largest retailer of music on the planet. Frankly, I think Apple has enough clout that they could make a difference here. They successfully sell DRM-free music. They need to publicly make the argument for why DRM is a broken concept so that the big players finally listen.

The MPAA/RIAA won't listen to Google because they think Google is the devil.

Re:Entrenched Interests

[russotto]

Those Entrenched Interests never went away however, and they try to chip away at those rights at every opportunity. We are very close to the point, if not past it, where copyright infringement becomes civil disobedience -- if not a civil duty.

Civil disobedience is defeated. First of all, if you want to commit civil disobedience, you've got to be able to show your situation is at least as bad as Jim Crow, or you'll be sneered at rather than sympathized with. Since no one in the mainstream will believe DRM is as bad as Jim Crow (even if they believe it is bad at all, which is unlikely), you're done there.

Second, civil disobedience won't work when the result of disobedience is that you are quietly punished. You need to be _noisily_ punished without being portrayed as a mere criminal, which means you need the support of the media... who are your opponents.

Third, most mainstream people agree with the RIAA's position, when push comes to shove. Oh, they'll violate it left and right, but if you put it to them, they'd agree it's wrong to do so. And they'd see anyone trying to fight about it as merely trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. Authority bias is rampant today; if you can be seen as an authority (as the RIAA is), anyone opposing you is automatically wrong.

Re:Entrenched Interests

[dmacleod808]

So I, being Rick Astley, can simply go to the store once every 5 years and buy my own album? And put provisions in my will for my estate to do the same in perpetuity?

Re:Entrenched Interests

[Medievalist]

Content owners do have a right to make money from their content.

Really? OK, I'll make a movie that nobody wants to see, and nobody wants to buy, and spend my life's savings on it! Society will owe me money! Wooooohoooooo! I'm in the benjamins, baby!

Absolute statements are rarely correct. In Real Life [tm] a group of citizens have decided to permit certain types of unfair restriction of trade in order to achieve a greater good. But nobody has a "right" in the absolute, moral sense, to make money for painting a picture, recording noise, etc., etc. It is a contrived, fictious legal right meant to serve a purpose, and if it is not serving said purpose it then the law is unjust.

Mmm, anyone can find this story on the BBC itself?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Guess this might finally convince those who think the BBC is unbiased about how wrong they are. The BBC has been caught out so many times in the past yet people continue to believe they are any more credible then Fox or Reuters. Unbiased != telling me what I want to hear.

Re:Surprise surprise

[GameboyRMH]

The other side's arguments consist of "WAAAAH I hate the nature of computers, make them work different so that *I* will be the master of other people's computers and those people will be forced to pay whenever any content my company has a perpetual copyright on is viewed with one, WAAAH!"

Re:Surprise surprise

[Fned]

You are dork because you're missing the other side's arguments completely.

He's not missing them, they're just 100% invalid.

DRM is fundamentally broken, mathematically. It seeks to grant and deny access to the same party simultaneously.

Secret laws ...

[gstoddart]

and finally, the full rules set out by DTLA for its DRM were governed by confidentiality agreements, which meant that UK manufacturers would be ordered to comply with a set of secret rules that the public wasn't allowed to know.

So, I'm of the opinion that any law, regulation, or treaty which the public isn't allowed to know the specifics of should be null and void.

You simply can't have "secret laws" in a free society.

And, once again it seems the US-based media companies are trying to get laws abroad they can't have domestically. Then they'll point to those laws as something that needs to be done domestically in order to keep pace with the rest of the world.

At this rate, the "rights holders" will be the ones who dictate to us how technology can be used on the assumption that everything everybody does is "stealing" from them. (My god, two people could watch this show and nobody would know!!)

Re:Secret laws ...

[gstoddart]

While I agree with your post, this 'secret rules' is akin to a contract or non-disclosure agreement, not a 'secret law'.

Except, in this case, this "non-disclosure agreement" was in direct contradiction to an existing EU law:

the proposal violated the EU common market by breaking foreign TV receivers and it meant that popular free/open source receivers and recorders would be frozen out of the UK device market

The fact that they tried to keep this secret because they had no really good defensible reason highlights the problems with it.

Your NDA can't spill into things affected by laws and policies that are written down.

Re:Surprise surprise

[MysteriousPreacher]

Seriously, read beyond the title and post something that isn't just a childlike and generic screed against DRM. The big issue here is in how a state broadcaster and a regulator conspired to very much go against the interests of the public. In that regard it certainly is a "news at 11" situation for the more cynical ones among us.