Anti-DRM Activists Take On the BBC

An anonymous reader writes "Activists from Binary Freedom Boston have launched a campaign calling on the BBC to release their content online without DRM or proprietary formats. You might remember the BBC asking us about this earlier and even though the public chose not to use DRM by a landslide, they still decided to use it. EMI and Amazon have already ditched DRM. How long before the BBC does?"

Freedom of information act may already cover this

DRM free content? Absolutely. I have to pay my TV license every year for the BBC. For the most part, I think it is value for money. The BBC news site is worth the license fee all by itself. For comparison, I pay about a third of the cost of a license on a Slashdot subscription each year and Slashdot is less than a third of the quality.

However, I'm of the opinion that if you're going to force people to pay for a service through a tax, then the products of that government service should be free in the BSD style sense of the word. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that this needs to be codified in to law. In fact, we may already have in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 [opsi.gov.uk].

Having just read the first section of the act, you could make a questionable legal argument that if you make a request for the unDRMED content and they fail to give you that version they are in breach of the act. If you have to buy a Windows machine just to watch one of their publicly broadcast snippets I'd say that obstructs the request for the information sufficiently for it to become unlawful. No other department is free to restrict requests in that manner!

We've already paid for the service so give us the bloody content in a usable format!

Simon

Re:Freedom of information act may already cover th

What makes you thinkthe small island of Britain has a right to push cultural influence outside of its own borders?

This question puzzles me. Why should they not have this right? If freedom of speech is important on a domestic level, why would it not be equally important on an international one? If the content turns out of be of no interest to the world at large, they'll just ignore it. (Although my opinion is that the BBC produces content of sufficiently high quality that it will not, in fact, be totally ignored.)

I think it would be far more valuable to Britain to venture out looking for cultural influence from outside.

This seems to be a false dilemma. Surely, it is possible both to export culture and to import it at the same time.

Don't get me wrong I am not attacking Britain, but we are long past the days of the British Empire and there is too much naval gazing and self congratulation in nations throughout the world without more pushing of their own views. Countries would have more benefit if they looked beyond themselves for their own growth.

It will be difficult to look beyond oneself for cultural input if everyone around you is jealously guarding all of their goods. My suggestion is basically that Britain not prevent others from looking to it should they so choose.

Is it better than mandating into your national broadcaster that they should be pushing "the British way/view" as you put it?

I am not sure where, or how, I "put" that. I am suggesting that Britain should spend money to make their cultural production available to the world at large. How they go about doing this is certainly an interesting question, but I don't think that I even hinted that the solution might be "force Brazilians at gunpoint to watch Shooting Stars". If I suggested anything then it might have been, considering the context of this debate, "make BBC content available on the internet without DRM".

The problem

The problem is royalties for net based distribution, the morons at equity (the union) refuse to recognize that repeat fees are unworkable in the digital age.

It will change gradually as those who stick to the outmoded royalties model find themselves without work. If these guys really want to protest - target equity [equity.org.uk]

Amazon does use DRM

Amazon Unbox is as DRM infested as they come. Perhaps they've chosen to unencumber certain music tracks (no doubt to "coincide" with a price hike), but movies? No way.

Wrong for both technically and financial reasons

I see no reason why the BBC should award a monopoly to any company and their media format for material owned by the BBC. It is not the job of the BBC to support Microsoft, Real or any other closed format exclusively.

I note with interest that the various free/open media formats are available on every platform and do not require license payments. The only reason not to use a free/open format is DRM and if that is the case here then the BBC is making a wrong choice for both technical and financial reasons.

Umm there's something wrong with this tea party

So some group of yahoo's out of Massachusetts have decided that they dont like restrictions on free content? The anti-drm argument is fine when its paid for content (If I buy it I should be able to do what I want) but free content should be distributed however the owner wants to do it. Their arguments are rather sad. The first one is that DRM doesnt work, if thats the case then why worry about it, just circumvent it and shut the hell up. The second point makes no sense, what right do you have to free content? The third point streches it about as far as it can go...you can watch anytime you want so how is the lack of being able to copy inhibiting your ability to learn? DRM is their business decision, in some cases its done to protect content that can provide revenue to the BBC such as blocking access to the Torchwood site content to those outside the area's in which its shown. The argument is made that the BBC is paid for by the public, which is true but last I checked Boston didnt pay the TV tax so IMHO they have negated their voice in the matter simply by location. I hate DRM as much as anyone but the argument made by Binary Freedom Bostom just comes across as a bunch of whining hippies who were upset that they couldnt easily record Hex.

Ownership of content

Part of the problem is that a lot of the "BBC's" content isn't actually owned by the BBC because they just buy it in from 3rd parties (I'm talking original programming here, not stuff bought from the US etc).

The smart thing to do (depending on your attitude towards these things) would be to take the Apple-esque route and make all of the BBC-owned content available sans-DRM (but maintaining the existing geo-IP blocks for non UK users as is required) and then make everything else available DRM-encumbered with clear information explaining why this is the case and who to contact if you want to bitch about it.

To be honest, I do believe that if they had the choice, the BBC would open up all of their archives for DRM-free download to UK citizens, but it's not always as simple as that.

in soviet britan

music own you

How about never?

The BBC is a state protected monopoly, a relic of a bygone modernist age. The TV License is not a tax, nor are the BBC part of the state. They are a media company guaranteed a significant income by the laws of the land, for which they in turn have to meet certain criteria in their programming and the way the business is run. But they still sell DVDs at a profit, why should they not try to milk the market any way they see fit? FYI I'm not a fan of the setup. From the start the BBC was supposed to "Educate, Entertain, and Inform." This was pre-WWII mind. The world is different now, there's no shortage of transmission technology, no use for a monopoly just to keep morale up during the depression and then the blitz. I'd happily settle for "Educate" and leave the other two to commercial programmers.

What about NPR?

Why can't we easily download NPR content in a friendly format?

It seems like their audio is WMV or RP and the download links are buried. I don't want to launch a proprietary player from my browser or otherwise, thankyourverymuch.

Amazon Ditched DRM?

Then why the Amazon Unbox DRM on my Tivo? I "rent" a movie, it's downloaded to my Tivo automatically. I have 30 days to watch it before it's deleted from my Tivo. Once I start watching it, I have to finish within 24 hours or it's deleted from my Tivo. Those stingy rules are the reason I don't rent from Amazon Unbox other than my initial test.

Licencing issues...

Don't forget that the BBC doesn't always have the rights for some of the programming, or only has rights to broadcast within certain geographic boundaries. For example football (soccer) matches are sold in other markets as PPV whilst being free in the UK. Those broadcasters abroad will not be happy if everyone can watch those matches off of the BBC web site for free.

When the BBC channels were broadcast on the old satellite the satellite foot print meant that many european countries could also pick up the channels. In order to have some control the channels were encrypted. You could watch them for free with an appropriate access card which required you to have a UK address. Now the channels are not encrypted because they've moved to a satellite with a far smaller foot print which covers basically the UK and the Republic of Ireland plus the periphery of the European mainland.

The DRM is used to fulfil the licencing requirements of programs or content used in programs. If you download some of the podcasts there are bits missing because the BBC isn't allowed to put them in the podcast. The same must be true for other programs...

won't happen

I'm a license payer, I've tried to email them about the content not working with open formats and needed real player/WMP. I simply don't understand why they don't allow it to work with Helix player or even provide it as an ogg download so that it would be really easy to play it in linux through mplayer.

The automated response I got threatened to sue me if I told anyone the contents in a way which I'm pretty sure isn't legal (but i'm used to being threatened by the BBC...). I never got a real reply. Over the summer I was considering writing one letter a week... but it would be so much more effective if we could organise such as that every morning they had at least 200 letters on the matter...

TV License?

The BBC is well watched in lots of countries in the world (hurray Dr. Who in 30 minutes!!) yet not all the viewer pay the hundreds of euros/dollars for that privilege. Right now I pay less for the beeb than when I lived and worked in London, even when nowadays BBC3 and 4 are available. Point is: they have the right to market their reputation, and if they think they need to protect it with a light DRM (comparable to Apples), well so be it. It's a treasure trove of data, and they can do with it whatever they want.

I don't understand the BBC

They air their programs world wide, via satellite, they make extraordinarily good journalism, they're a public television and once the program's has aired, it just disappears into oblivion...That's not vey smart.

Why not let people download all their content with tools like the Democracy player? What have they to loose if more people see a fantastic BBC documentary they like? What's it to them if I wanna keep a documentary where I actually learn something?

It makes no sense to me. The content has already been paid for (by taxes of UK citizens). I mean, maybe if you're British you don't think its fair but, I think you got to look at it as a great way to divulge "brand Britain."

I think France and Germany do a much better job of divulging their country and culture than the Brits (colonialism techniques notwithstanding;-)). Germany has Deutsche Welle and the Goethe Institute, and France has always understood the importance of catering to their "francophone" audience. They know they are people that'll actually consume French products (literature, movies, a trip to Paris, etc.)

The BBC has got to loosen up that tight upper lip.

PS: We are still waiting for Dirac. ;-)

BBC and MS

Remember when the BBC were developing their own open source video codec (Google dirac [google.co.uk] for more info)? All looked promising, the thought of being able to download BBC content to use on your OS of choice was starting to look very likely.

Then they suddenly became very friendly with Microsoft (not sure if it was connected with the change of management after Blair kicked the existing one out by saying bad things about Iraq or whether Bill came by with a sack of cash) - they developed iPlayer [wikipedia.org] which was based on Windows Media Player, so now Linux and even Mac users were left out in the cold. In effect the BBC started discriminating against people unwilling or unable to pay the Microsoft Tax.

The BBC have lately promised to also make the content available on MacOS X eventually, but no dates have been fixed. In the end for it to work on the Mac they will have to offer their content either in an open DRM-free format or use Apples DRM. If they stick with the DRM route it will mean Linux and other OS users will be out of luck. FWIW (not a lot probably) here's a petition [pm.gov.uk] to make iPlayer cross platform (with a name like iSomething you'd expect it to work on a mac!).

The problem with the BBC

The problem is a simple one. In the UK, in order to have the legal right to watch any television, including non-BBC television, you are obliged to subscribe to the BBC. It is compulsory, its a criminal offense not to.

It is as if, for you guys in the US, in order for you to be allowed to read any newspaper, you were legally obliged to buy a subscription to the NY Times, whether you wanted to read it or did read it or not. It is as if you are legally obliged to buy a copy of Windows in order to own a computer and run Linux or MacOS, whether you install and use it or not. Whether you even can install and use it or not. You buy computer, Mac or barebones. Fine, pay fee to MS.

Now, the BBC has no corresponding obligations back to you. And there is no way you can say, no I would like to choose an alternative supplier of TV. You cannot, for instance, say that, since the BBC does not support your chosen OS, but Sky does, you are going to subscribe to Sky instead. No, you subscribe to Sky AS WELL.

Whether the BBC does DRM is neither here nor there - its no more objectionable, nor less so, than any other company doing DRM.

What is appalling, and a total denial of human rights, is that it forces people to subscribe, whether they want or can access its content or not, so they can get to different content they do want and can access.

Now, in reply to this point, we ordinarily get people saying that the BBC is excellent. Ie they like it. They can receive its content. They want to subscribe. Its just irrelevant to the human rights issue. I should have the right to watch TV without paying for the BBC if I do not want to watch it.

Tell me again why everyone else has to be compelled to subscribe?

Not sure if it's relevant

I'd consider the BBC to be a subscription service.

There's a big difference between "pay for an item and want the ability to play it without restriction" DRM and "pay for an item and the ability to play it while you pay your subscription".

DRM works - at least it has a purpose - for the subscription model. Just like I (in the UK) can't even view the Showtime website to check on some of the shows I've seen from the Showtime network, and HBO crack down on non-subscribers accessing their shows (although I get to see them on UK TV about a year behind), and I can't view the Battlestar Galactica extra scenes from the US Sci-Fi website (it tells me I am not in the USA therefore have no access to it - and no anonymous proxying works for some reason), I don't see why a bunch of Americans, French, Japanese should be able to get hold of unrestricted content that I as a UK citizen and a dutiful payer of the TV license in the UK have technically paid for.

After all, someone has to pay for the content at some point. It stands to reason if the content is subscription-based, some kind of rights management needs to be in place.

DRM may well be in place for BBC because they are protecting British citizens and license-fee payers' rights to the media. If you did not have to pay the license fee to download the content for free, the BBC would not get any money every year; that's what the license fee is piled into. So it has to be protected somehow.

Dirac

Note that the BBC are creating a free (MPL/GPLv2/LGPL, patent unencumbered) video format called Dirac [wikipedia.org]. Presumably once this is developed sufficiently they will start using it for their content.

I'm slightly confused by this post

I live in the UK and am forced to pay a license fee to support the BBC.
Now whilst I don't actually like being forced to pay, I don't mind paying as I love the BBC to bits (one of the few remaining things in this country I'm actually proud of) and think it's pretty good value.
Most of the planet is not paying to fund the BBC however, but gets free access to the website, radio stations and some international TV stations - I don't have a problem with this.
Some premium content the BBC produces such as documentaries (e.g. Planet Earth), drama (e.g. Rome), entertainment (e.g. Dr Who) are not released free to the world, but are instead sold to foreign networks for broadcast. The money this brings in is used to partially subsidize the production and help keep down the license fee I'm forced to pay.
If the BBC were to 'set the content free' then revenue would fall and the either the quality of output would have to be cut, or my license fee would be shoved up to subsidize the freeloaders.
Within the UK the BBC are pretty good at supplying me with free stuff, I can stream radio/tv online and my cable company can provide me with free BBC TV on demand for the last weeks programming.
Now there's still plenty more I want from the BBC (i.e. entire output ever, on demand, on every platform, whenever I want it), but they seem to be making progress towards this and I'm prepared to wait.

Re:Free

"To you" being the operative words... without DRM the content would be free to those who haven't paid their license fee, which is against the BBC's charter. It would mean folks just wouldn't pay their license fees, as they could get the content for free, which means no money is put into the BBC, which means no shows, which means everyone suffers. Yay!

Re:youtube geo-blocked "bring the UK to the world"

This has always been the way. The BBC operates as an internal and external company, with BBC World being entirely self-funding (and must do so under the BBC charter). The other main reason for the geoblocking on online BBC media is the fact that the BBC often are not the sole copyright owner with many productions being produced by studios for the BBC who often retain some rights.