There is a right derived from that section that gives you the right to record for timeshifting purposes and DRM infringes upon that right. Let me see if i can find the derived rights statement for you to peruse.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 and later amendments. Section 70. Want to go look that up? You'll notice it contradicts the right to record-to-timeshift. The BBC will be aware of this since i sent off my FOI request last night, they've claimed i'll get an answer within 20 days.
you'd encourage changing the laws? There's a reason the rebroadcast laws were set up like that in the first place, nothing's exclusive once it's been shown exclusively once. This says that therefore anyone can have a copy of it to watch etc. The laws were set up to give the consumer at least some rights over what is quickly becoming a rape-the-consumer industry. I too boycott DRMed services and music because i'm not going to buy into my own slavery.
What gets me is that anyone determined can crack it fairly easily, there are over 30 programs that remove the WMV DRM. And if you want a program it's undoubtably on a p2p network anyway
I would suspect you will have to log on with your licence number and password before long to use any of their services. Well if they don't clear up their act then it's fine by me because i'll stop paying the licence since i rarely watch TV as is.
The BBC's directive comes second to the letter of the law, need I remind you, and if the law says the rebroadcast can't be DRMed, then the rebroadcast can't be DRMed. The BBCs directive also says nothing about people living in other countries should be stopped from accessing our content and frankly i'd rather they didn't spend money on DRM to try and lock these people out creating more costs. And since you're unfamiliar with the way linux works, i'll put it simply. Linux as a platform is not something you can hide things in, it's completely open and anything they try will be easily crackable. On top of that, modifying the (FLOSS) kernel to dump video to file would not be a particularly difficult task and this would bypass the DRM
I pay my licence, I expect my service. When I go to buy a steak pie, do i get home and read the packet and find it says it's incompatible with electric ovens and only gas will do? It's not the BBC's place to provide lock-in to a platform, especially with their published platform neutrality policy. And DRM is worth bitching about, it's a big deal. And it will come off. I still intend to contact OFCOM about it who will do something about it. And if nothing changes, i'll quit paying my licence fee because frankly i never watch TV anyway.
They can do it legally because they're putting the DRM on illegally. The BBC is becoming another corporation where breaking the law is justifiable and legal fees are just part of the budget. The BBC also has a policy of platform neutrality you may wish to take a look at.
Nowadays we've moved to the web, it's this wonderful thing where information is available very quickly at any place in the world. The web was meant for freely sharing information, this just buggers that concept up
Would it really? I disagree. The BBC provides the content at the convenience of your TV, it's not even close to that with the iMP, that's downloading the individual programs, putting them in a playlist and watching them. Which is easier? How many more people would rather watch it in front of a TV?
I mind. I mind they're illegally restricting me from using that iMP service by locking it into windows, i mind that i won't be able to use any of their DRMed services when i'm abroad. I mind they're wasting a hell of a lot of licencepayers' money on DRM when we could be having a cheaper licence.
And when I travel on business? I'm buggered, non? This is going to affect british people who travel. And do I stop paying my licence when i travel? I don't think so....
Under a good few laws, they'd be fine rebroadcasting since rebroadcasting does not entail such restrictions (and in fact the usage of DRM on rebroadcasts is illegal, but more on that once i've sent in my complaint to OFCOM.
I disagree. They could allow the public in other countries access and demand certain uses be licenced, that would be a much fairer system. In any case, how many people are going to go find a UK proxy after reading this article?
I did launch a complaint against this a while ago as a concerned licencepayer, and i will be following it up with complaints to OFCOM and going to town with the press as well. Under the Freedom of Information act, the BBC is required to answer any questions I may have relevant to the spending of money, schedule selection etc. and so it will be interesting to see just how much has been spent on this tacky DRM system, why they feel the need to lock it into the UK, how they feel they can justify breaking numerous laws regarding rebroadcast (i've researched that quite heavily) and how this fits into their so called `platform neutrality policy`
... on the iMP service shows the exact opposite attitude. Information is there to be shared and yet BBC owned programs werent exempt from the DRM they used to lock it into the UK among other things. I mean for Chrissakes, freely sharing information is what it's about, yet locking it to one country? So no, the BBC is no different.
UK
The Creative Archive content is made available to internet users for use within the UK.
Looks that way doesn't it? Given the BBC has a definite worldwide presence, would it not make sense for them to open it up to other countries as well? It's a bizarre choice, just like they used DRM on the iMP service to lock it into the UK. I can see they don't want to waste bandwidth on non licence paying countries, but either stop broadcasting BBC World and pull out of the world altogether or just do the sensible thing and let other countries share the archive.
I am so sick and tired of hearing about 'failed RIAA business models.' This has nothing to do with the traditional record industry business model -- it has everything to do with whether IP is valid property or not. Business models should never enter into a discussion of the validity of IP, since IP is a theoretical construct that doesn't depend on business models for its existence, regardless of what the motivation for original IP laws was.
You're right, IP is just a theory since the product doesn't actually exist, but the point is that the business model IS broken. First thing you learn when you do a philosophy course is to always have something to fall back on, and the broken business model is always going to be a stable foundation, because it's a model that is not maintainable.
I was talking to a business studies lecturer late this afternoon, and it's a commonly accepted view by the people who are teaching our kids business, that the model is broken. Suing people is not the answer to stop them sharing, once it's in bits and bytes, god help you. As far as i'm concerned with intellectual property, if you can't lock it down with true, uncrackable security, then it's not something you should be suing over. And by true, uncrackable, i'm not talking security through obscurity with DRM, i'm not talking a false sense of security, i'm talking true, proven security.
And how should a private company have any say in how the system works when it is not in the interests of the consumers? How should the record industry be able to justify access to retained data under that data retention law? It should not. The law is there to enforce utility, that is the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, albeit with certain rules applied because there ARE cases where that could lead to anarchy. This is not one of them. Yes, the music artists put work into creating the music, yes they deserve a reward, but at the end of the day, all the record companies have traditionally done comes to nothing with the internet, they are no longer needed, period. Artists can record their music, put it up, advertise themselves and put up a site. Distribution can be through the internet and the artists can have much lower costs and make more than they could have through a record company. The record company's place is gone, they're just clutching at straws
You might want to reread my post and realise i did say they aren't doing enough... People are stupid on the whole and that's what ebay isn't tackling. But if you got mugged, are you going to blame the person who mugged you or the police for not stopping the mugger before they mugged you?
Yes, it's ebay's responsibility to do something about this, but if you're making a big purchase it makes sense to pay a little more and use their escrow service. You should instantly be set on alert if the seller has a low feedback and it's an expensive item, or has never bought something etc. but noone does this. There's a certain level of responsibility to fall upon the consumer. That said, ebay aren't doing enough, but it's not ALL their fault
The only purpose of software patents is to cash in. Patents were originally there to prevent ideas theft because it was expensive to develop ideas and manufacturing a product was expensive. In the digital world, it costs nothing to refine an idea and a mere half an hour to develop all but the most advanced software that you are patenting. If it's an idea you have, it will have been patented, especially with things like scrollbars patented, and not forgetting the patent on the idea of a menu. They're used by everyone and there is always going to be patent action against people who use them. I would feel sympathy for microsoft for once, if it weren't for the fact they've been suing for software patent infringement on equally ridiculous things. The US patent office is a joke. One-click shopping should be unpatentable, and patenting an algorithm in the year 2002 that was implemented in the linux kernel since 1992 (i think that was the year?) really beggars belief (a method of detecting whether a 2 digit year was in the 20th or 21st century - checking if it was above 70). Patents were there to make people innovate more, but in software, they stifle innovation because there arent a thousand ways of doing things and when they're all patented (usually by one or two companies), you're a bit buggered as a software dev.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a right derived from that section that gives you the right to record for timeshifting purposes and DRM infringes upon that right. Let me see if i can find the derived rights statement for you to peruse.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 and later amendments. Section 70. Want to go look that up? You'll notice it contradicts the right to record-to-timeshift. The BBC will be aware of this since i sent off my FOI request last night, they've claimed i'll get an answer within 20 days.
you'd encourage changing the laws? There's a reason the rebroadcast laws were set up like that in the first place, nothing's exclusive once it's been shown exclusively once. This says that therefore anyone can have a copy of it to watch etc. The laws were set up to give the consumer at least some rights over what is quickly becoming a rape-the-consumer industry. I too boycott DRMed services and music because i'm not going to buy into my own slavery.
Firefox's next killer feature? Maybe next they'll consider tabs and an address bar... Of course that would be taking it too far...
Maintenance costs. Not just for the IP blocker, for the DRM
What gets me is that anyone determined can crack it fairly easily, there are over 30 programs that remove the WMV DRM. And if you want a program it's undoubtably on a p2p network anyway
I would suspect you will have to log on with your licence number and password before long to use any of their services. Well if they don't clear up their act then it's fine by me because i'll stop paying the licence since i rarely watch TV as is.
The BBC's directive comes second to the letter of the law, need I remind you, and if the law says the rebroadcast can't be DRMed, then the rebroadcast can't be DRMed. The BBCs directive also says nothing about people living in other countries should be stopped from accessing our content and frankly i'd rather they didn't spend money on DRM to try and lock these people out creating more costs. And since you're unfamiliar with the way linux works, i'll put it simply. Linux as a platform is not something you can hide things in, it's completely open and anything they try will be easily crackable. On top of that, modifying the (FLOSS) kernel to dump video to file would not be a particularly difficult task and this would bypass the DRM
I pay my licence, I expect my service. When I go to buy a steak pie, do i get home and read the packet and find it says it's incompatible with electric ovens and only gas will do? It's not the BBC's place to provide lock-in to a platform, especially with their published platform neutrality policy. And DRM is worth bitching about, it's a big deal. And it will come off. I still intend to contact OFCOM about it who will do something about it. And if nothing changes, i'll quit paying my licence fee because frankly i never watch TV anyway.
They can do it legally because they're putting the DRM on illegally. The BBC is becoming another corporation where breaking the law is justifiable and legal fees are just part of the budget. The BBC also has a policy of platform neutrality you may wish to take a look at.
Nowadays we've moved to the web, it's this wonderful thing where information is available very quickly at any place in the world. The web was meant for freely sharing information, this just buggers that concept up
Would it really? I disagree. The BBC provides the content at the convenience of your TV, it's not even close to that with the iMP, that's downloading the individual programs, putting them in a playlist and watching them. Which is easier? How many more people would rather watch it in front of a TV?
Ergh, I set up a subdomain a while ago, i'll keep everyone updated from there. http://drm.wefixtech.co.uk/
The windows using ones who don't travel much...
Then there's me who uses linux and travels a lot. And has a moral objection to DRM too. Well i'm being raped on all 3 fronts...
I mind. I mind they're illegally restricting me from using that iMP service by locking it into windows, i mind that i won't be able to use any of their DRMed services when i'm abroad. I mind they're wasting a hell of a lot of licencepayers' money on DRM when we could be having a cheaper licence.
And when I travel on business? I'm buggered, non? This is going to affect british people who travel. And do I stop paying my licence when i travel? I don't think so....
Under a good few laws, they'd be fine rebroadcasting since rebroadcasting does not entail such restrictions (and in fact the usage of DRM on rebroadcasts is illegal, but more on that once i've sent in my complaint to OFCOM.
I disagree. They could allow the public in other countries access and demand certain uses be licenced, that would be a much fairer system. In any case, how many people are going to go find a UK proxy after reading this article?
I did launch a complaint against this a while ago as a concerned licencepayer, and i will be following it up with complaints to OFCOM and going to town with the press as well. Under the Freedom of Information act, the BBC is required to answer any questions I may have relevant to the spending of money, schedule selection etc. and so it will be interesting to see just how much has been spent on this tacky DRM system, why they feel the need to lock it into the UK, how they feel they can justify breaking numerous laws regarding rebroadcast (i've researched that quite heavily) and how this fits into their so called `platform neutrality policy`
... on the iMP service shows the exact opposite attitude. Information is there to be shared and yet BBC owned programs werent exempt from the DRM they used to lock it into the UK among other things. I mean for Chrissakes, freely sharing information is what it's about, yet locking it to one country? So no, the BBC is no different.
Looks that way doesn't it? Given the BBC has a definite worldwide presence, would it not make sense for them to open it up to other countries as well? It's a bizarre choice, just like they used DRM on the iMP service to lock it into the UK. I can see they don't want to waste bandwidth on non licence paying countries, but either stop broadcasting BBC World and pull out of the world altogether or just do the sensible thing and let other countries share the archive.
You're right, IP is just a theory since the product doesn't actually exist, but the point is that the business model IS broken. First thing you learn when you do a philosophy course is to always have something to fall back on, and the broken business model is always going to be a stable foundation, because it's a model that is not maintainable.
I was talking to a business studies lecturer late this afternoon, and it's a commonly accepted view by the people who are teaching our kids business, that the model is broken. Suing people is not the answer to stop them sharing, once it's in bits and bytes, god help you. As far as i'm concerned with intellectual property, if you can't lock it down with true, uncrackable security, then it's not something you should be suing over. And by true, uncrackable, i'm not talking security through obscurity with DRM, i'm not talking a false sense of security, i'm talking true, proven security.
And how should a private company have any say in how the system works when it is not in the interests of the consumers? How should the record industry be able to justify access to retained data under that data retention law? It should not. The law is there to enforce utility, that is the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, albeit with certain rules applied because there ARE cases where that could lead to anarchy. This is not one of them. Yes, the music artists put work into creating the music, yes they deserve a reward, but at the end of the day, all the record companies have traditionally done comes to nothing with the internet, they are no longer needed, period. Artists can record their music, put it up, advertise themselves and put up a site. Distribution can be through the internet and the artists can have much lower costs and make more than they could have through a record company. The record company's place is gone, they're just clutching at straws
You might want to reread my post and realise i did say they aren't doing enough... People are stupid on the whole and that's what ebay isn't tackling. But if you got mugged, are you going to blame the person who mugged you or the police for not stopping the mugger before they mugged you?
Yes, it's ebay's responsibility to do something about this, but if you're making a big purchase it makes sense to pay a little more and use their escrow service. You should instantly be set on alert if the seller has a low feedback and it's an expensive item, or has never bought something etc. but noone does this. There's a certain level of responsibility to fall upon the consumer. That said, ebay aren't doing enough, but it's not ALL their fault
The only purpose of software patents is to cash in. Patents were originally there to prevent ideas theft because it was expensive to develop ideas and manufacturing a product was expensive. In the digital world, it costs nothing to refine an idea and a mere half an hour to develop all but the most advanced software that you are patenting. If it's an idea you have, it will have been patented, especially with things like scrollbars patented, and not forgetting the patent on the idea of a menu. They're used by everyone and there is always going to be patent action against people who use them. I would feel sympathy for microsoft for once, if it weren't for the fact they've been suing for software patent infringement on equally ridiculous things. The US patent office is a joke. One-click shopping should be unpatentable, and patenting an algorithm in the year 2002 that was implemented in the linux kernel since 1992 (i think that was the year?) really beggars belief (a method of detecting whether a 2 digit year was in the 20th or 21st century - checking if it was above 70). Patents were there to make people innovate more, but in software, they stifle innovation because there arent a thousand ways of doing things and when they're all patented (usually by one or two companies), you're a bit buggered as a software dev.