Regulator Blocks BBC DRM Plans 177
TheRaven64 writes "The BBC's plans to introduce DRM for over-the-air digital broadcasts were today dealt a setback when the regulator, Ofcom, asked them the same question that has been asked of many DRM systems: 'How does this benefit the consumer?' The letter to the BBC is quoted in the article as saying that 'Ofcom received a large number of responses to this consultation, in particular from consumers and consumer groups, who raised a number of potentially significant consumer "fair use" and competition issues that were not addressed in our original consultation.' This does not end the chance of the BBC being allowed to introduce DRM in the future, but it at least delays their opportunity to do so."
BBC Bias (Score:5, Informative)
All in all, a good example of how an independent, publicly funded news organisation can work. The BBC should focus on this kind of thing and not on idiocies like DRM. I wrote to Ofcom to oppose this and was very pleased that they have responded in this way. I was slightly less pleased that the form that they sent me asking for permission to publish my letter was a MS Word document...
Re:Need Better Input Than This (Score:5, Informative)
Posted 12 minutes after the story hit the front page
Er, if you pay $5 once, you can see the stories early when they're plums. Had a while to think this through, hope that doesn't rub you the wrong way. (Note the asterisk to the right of my UID)
presents a cogent view in favor of the big media/BBC, says we should shut our dirty whore mouths unless we have a solution that will pass every test he can throw at it
I don't think that's what I said. I think the article, government and BBC are very clear on why they think they need this. I expressed my disapproval in (what I considered) a civil manner of the responses. I don't think they will hold the DRM at bay. Was hoping to have a discussion and not demand either side nor anyone "shut their dirty whore mouths." But way to put words into my mouth, well done.
has a PDF citation ready to go from some official .gov.uk comment site nobody has ever heard of
That was found in the article on the right side under "on the web." It's the official site for the responses and discussion.
and adds in an obvious spell flame/spelling error combo in his post to throw off follow-ups.
My hat's off to you sir, you are quite well-organized for a high 6-digit slashdot poster.
Really? It's come down to the numbers to the right of our names? I'm flamebait and you're insightful?! I give up.
Re:BBC Bias (Score:3, Informative)
>>>good example of how an independent, publicly funded news organisation can work.
Yes. But think of all the stories you DON'T see on the BBC because they conveniently don't discuss them. There are many, many of them, and it's become rather well-known that the BBC is pro-European Union biased. http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html [dailymail.co.uk] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece [timesonline.co.uk] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC [wikipedia.org]
I'd rather watch both sides of an argument (FOX and MSNBC) rather than assume I can trust a single source.
Re:BBC Bias (Score:4, Informative)
They aren't perfect by a long shot but yes, this is one of the reasons that the BBC is my main provider of news content. So they damn well should be, though. Why *all* news companies aren't like this, I can't understand. I thought the stereotypical reporter had a reputation for hitting the front page hard with controversial stories that they were "banned" from telling, not regurgitating celebrity crap.
I really don't care if Paris Hilton did X, Y or Z (or all three), I just want a quick summary of interesting things that have happened. I want more details on the ones *I* choose to read. I want them to get updated if the story changes. I want the facts and a couple of in-context quotes from the people involved if they want to say something. I want it online. I want to be able to access and search its archives. I don't need the news-provider to tell me their opinion ("Isn't it terrible? They are ruining the country!") - I have a brain of my own, thanks.
The fact that their entire site (not just the news section) is mostly clean HTML+CSS without all the fancy shit (except possibly on the BBC Schools page where they have interactive games etc.), that iPlayer (although "officially" not supporting Linux or permanent download) actually plays very well with get_iplayer.pl, that it's *always* up and loads super-fast even in the heaviest news scandals, and a million and one other tiny bonuses.
I don't watch the news... haven't for 10 years. I don't buy a paper... haven't for ten years (though I sometimes nick a Metro on the way home - free paper, fair summary of events, available on every London train, and a daily sudoku). I don't subscribe to *any* news outlet or use any other company/organisation to give me news. I get my news from the BBC and random things that catch my eye. The fact that the BBC is the only website that I *expect* to find some well-reported news on is testament to their expertise.
When there's the next big news story and I feel the need to pay attention, BBC News is where you'll find me. If there's no coverage there, I'll be looking on Google (not their News thing) somewhere for it myself.
Re:Consumer? Pah. (Score:4, Informative)
in the case of the BBC, if they add DRM, then citizens of the UK CAN'T NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THEM, if they own a tv they have to pay the license fee that the bbc makes money off of. its sort of like forcefully paid for public broadcasting.
Re:Need Better Input Than This (Score:5, Informative)
Your comment also highlights that you misunderstand exactly what the BBC were proposing. Their plan was to encrypt the EPG, not the actual programming. Anybody who wanted to pirate the material still could - they just needed to know what time the program was on, the transponder frequency and PID to record the whole MPEG stream. So, this wasn't actually an effective technical measure against piracy. All it would have achieved is making life difficult for people who wanted to use open source software to access the EPG in order to actually discover what programs are on and when, enabling them to enjoy the TV that was being shown rather than expecting them to just flick through all channels until they found something that looked interesting.
It was a definite step backwards in terms of usability and offered nothing to protect broadcasts from pirates. What it did offer was a guaranteed revenue stream for the BBC by selling licenses to set-top box manufacturers.
Re:Need Better Input Than This (Score:4, Informative)
One particular fellow [ofcom.org.uk] doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block:
Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.
Why would they want to block this? Note that he said watch TV on a computer - if he had said that he wanted to keep the ability to illegally copy it then you might have a point, but that's not what he said at all.
It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect.
Why should I (the licence fee payer) be legally required to financially support something controversial like DRM, that I fundamentally disagree with? If the content producers don't want the BBC to have their content then that's fine by me, but it will reduce their profits (by immediately excluding the BBC from the bidding process, they are automatically reducing the value of their content since less bidders means a lower winning bid (on average)).
It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem?
Perceived problems don't need solutions. Real problems need solutions.
That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative.
The alternative is to continue doing as they have been doing for decades - allowing licence payers to use the content to the full extent allowed by the law (and yes, this includes building your own receiver). Its worked up till now, why do they need to change?
Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.
DRM doesn't actually do anything to reduce copyright infringement. If anything, it increases copyright infringement by reducing the number of people who can get at the content by legitimate means. The choice is going to come down to:
* Replace my whole A/V system with a new system that has extremely limited functionality compared to what I already have.
* Illegally download the content off the internet.
Guess which choice I'm more likely to pick?
Re:Consumer? Pah. (Score:3, Informative)
If terms and conditions are understood and agreed in advance, then you can accomplish the same thing without DRM. But that's not exactly a revelation, since the movie rental market thrived for 3 decades without any seriously effective DRM. Interesting that it's starting to die at right around the same time that BluRay, and it's relatively more effective DRM, came out. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. ;-)
With DRM or without it, if you really want to keep the content (perhaps because you see time-to-release as a dicksize measurement, or because you just wanted to save money by buying for the rental price), then you're going to be able to. DRM never helps to prevent that. All it is capable of doing, is making access less convenient, and there are a lot more people accessing movies because they're trying to play them, than there are people trying to access movies to copy them.
Re:Piracy is a consequence.... (Score:3, Informative)
Magnatune [magnatune.com] works pretty close to this. Want to download an album? You can choose to pay between $5 and $18 or listen to it at 128kbps on the site (with occasional adverts on the end of songs).