UK's Freeview HD To Go DRM 169
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."
Where do we complain? (Score:1)
So, if we can still comment, anyone have a link to do so?
Re:Where do we complain? (Score:4, Informative)
This ought to work: http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/ [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Where do we complain? (Score:5, Informative)
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/ [ofcom.org.uk]
Re:Where do we complain? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [ofcom.org.uk]
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.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Stop reading the right wing press and think for yourself. This [bbc.co.uk] might help your understanding a bit better. By the way the tax isn't compulsory. Don't receive live TV broadcasts and you won't ever have to pay it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sales tax isn't compulsory - make everything you use yourself and you won't ever have to pay for it.
Re:Where do we complain? (Score:5, Informative)
Even if you only use your widescreen TV to watch Mapouka [youtube.com] 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 [tvlicensing.co.uk]. 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.
Re: (Score:2)
You guys have to buy a license to watch television? I've never heard of this. How bizarre that we are so fundamentally different.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true - you have to not have the ability to recieve said broadcasts if you dont want to pay. Even if you only use your widescreen TV to watch Mapouka [youtube.com] on youtube, and its not connected to an aerial, you still have to pay for a licence.
I hate the TV licensing system, because it's run by a set of government approved con artists. What you have just said is NOT true, and the parent is correct, mostly. You ONLY need a tv license if you receive broadcast TV as it's being broadcast. You don't need one to watch you tube videos, or anything that isn't being broadcast as you watch it (this includes iPlayer unless it's live TV). You don't need it to watch videos / dvd's or to play games. By receive I mean watch or record as it's being broadcast, an
Re: (Score:2)
i know this because i do not pay a TV license and have even invited the guys round to prove it after getting a letter from them.
there is enough FUD spread about tv licensing such as you HAVE to let their guys in when they call. you do NOT , they have absolutely no powers of entry and those guys themselves are not even govt employees, they work for a c
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want logic, you want foaming at the mouth BBC hate. A TV is a luxury item, therefore it is not compulsory to pay for a TV licence. That is a fact no matter how much you want to pretend that it's some great imposition on you.
Re:Where do we complain? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Where do we complain? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I can confirm that the BBC takes complaints seriously. I put in a complaint recently about the BNP invasion of the Have Your Say forums, and they have been very responsive and helpful.
To cut a long story short the HYS forums are flawed. To get to the top of the recommended post list your messages typically only needs 180-200 votes. The BNP, or any other medium sized organisation for that matter, can easily muster 200 votes. When you look at the top rated comments many of them show outright support for the B
Here we go again! (Score:1)
Whoever thought this would end differently needs to have his head examined.
Twice.
At an Ofcom licensed specialist.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't worry too much.
Our summary says, "in principle, content management is a justified objective." While this may or may not be true, the reality is that "content management systems" (aka DRM) never work. Someone will crack it immediately, flushing another $5-6 million down the drain.
Re: (Score:2)
All the BBC would need to do is revoke compromised keys (and issue new keys to affected devices via over the air firmware upgrades).
Re: (Score:2)
Mainly because it's not worth it, people bypass the whole problem by just downloading instead.
For any serious attempt I'd expect a record and post-process approach would work fairly well, with or without key sharing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
any changes to copyright law need to be made by Parliament, not sneaked in through the back door with technological restrictions.
Well yes, but the depressing thing is that what's being discussed by Ofcom is a set of contract terms between the broadcaster, their audience and the content providers. Copyright law will not (can cannot) be changed by this, the rights holders will still be the rights holders, etc. The crucial point is that in almost all jurisdictions on earth, contract beats copyright, so in this debate copyright might seem like the the issue, but it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no proper encryption as the programmes will still be available for free and unencrypted. With a smart receiver connected to the internet to access a program guide it won't be a problem. What it will do is screw up the functionality of simple receivers that want to record and display program information. It will prevent competition in the receiver market and make using unlicensed boxes awkward and unreliable.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It will be intrusive if you can't record it to watch it later.
Re: (Score:2)
You can record it to watch it later though. See the BBC's Internet Blog [bbc.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
Yeh noticed that later after I'd already posted. I need to learn to read more thoroughly :-)
Maybe a long time ago (Score:3, Insightful)
How often do 99% of consumers realise they're watching encrypted DVD? Consumers won't care if it's not intrusive. ....
Yeah, they didn't care when the only devices they had which played video were televisions which were connected with DVD players. Nowadays, every other cell phone/music player can play video. You can safely bet that the unstoppable progression of technology will soon make it quite obvious to the consumer that they are being asked to pay over and over again for playing the same content on ever increasing numbers of portable devices. And they won't like it.
That is what lead us to non-DRM music; it will also ev
Re: (Score:2)
That is what lead us to non-DRM music; it will also eventually happen to video.
I've seen that belief expressed a couple of times in the past few weeks here on slashdot.
Unforunately, it ain't true.
The only reason DRM has been removed from most online music sales is because Apple had an effective monopoly on DRM - they refused to license itunes-compatible DRM to any other hardware manufacturer - and the one thing the RIAA monopolists can't stand is being under the thumb of a monopoly. They fully understand how badly that sucks.
As long as the RIAA insisted on DRM, they had to cede contr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Consumers won't care if it's not intrusive.
Suddenly not being able to use your DVR to keep a copy of a show to watch later I consider to be fairly intrusive
Meanwhile encyrpted channels can licence shows and movies quicker and cheaper, making better use of the licence fee.
Whilst at the same time taking away our rights as a consumer. In the UK it is perfectly legal to record anything broadcast so long as you have a TV license, and to keep it for up to a year. This will not be used to license shows quicker and cheaper, it will just be used to take away a right, and then next year they'll try to take away another.
Note: this is record and watch, not distribute. Takin
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so (Score:3)
They'll still take our license fee money (or advertising) and sell us the content, but refuse to let us record or copy it
They won't be taking my 'licence fee money'. I don't pay that anachronistic tax. I encourage everyone else to do likewise.
Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, because the quality of television (And radio, and internet services) provided by ITV is soooooo much better than the BBC.
I can't wait until The Natural World becomes The Real Natural World, in which a series of barely cognizant social rejects are dumped into the middle of the African plains to see how they cope with being hunted by an incredible array of nature's creations. Actually, that would probably be quite entertaining for a while, but not as a *replacement* for decent, intelligent, educational television.
Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Informative)
If you watch BBC1 live on iPlayer, you need a license.
If you plug your PS3 into your TV and only use your TV for that, you don't need a license.
From http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ [tvlicensing.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, you have to pay it if you watch live terrestrial broadcasts. Owning a TV with the capability is irrelevant.
If you watch BBC1 live on iPlayer, you need a license.
Ok, I was a bit off. My point still stands, even if you watch 0 minutes of BBC, spending your time on the private channels, you still have to pay their tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm being to picky, but while you do need a license to watch the bbc live the iplayer service is for catching up rather than watching live tv, so you don't need a license for that.
While that's true, most people in the UK who watch TV at all watch the BBC at least some of the time. After all, the tax is already paid and the programmes are not interrupted by ads. There's also plenty of good content; what person with a Y chromosome doesn't like Top Gear?
Re: (Score:2)
But you're right that to watch historical stuff, you don't need a license, and I guess that what most people use the service for.
Re: (Score:2)
It's already DRMd (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's already DRMd (Score:4, Informative)
Freesat != Freeview
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's already DRMd (Score:4, Informative)
You said "It's already DRMd". Except "it" isn't. Freeview at the moment isn't DRMd. If you meant to say "The BBC already uses DRM, e.g. FreeSat, which is a similar service to FreeView, so I'm not surprised." then you should have said that. Instead, you talked about the two as if they were the same thing, which is why I said "Freesat != Freeview".
I don't think the DRM matters one way or the other. It will be broken, probably quite easily, and then the issue will go away again.
Re: (Score:2)
As for DRM being broken, this depends how it is implemented and what built-in resilience / healing capabilities it has. If it's some unique key buried in each STB that scrambles the content, then perhaps. If its full broadcast encryption with keys cycling every second combined with occasional over the air changesthen probably not. Eve
Re: (Score:2)
If they were going to use DRM, they should tie the key to your TV license. That way, you have to have a TV license to watch the content. Unfortunately that would involve uniquely encrypting the content for every viewer, which just isn't practical, especially for over-the-air broadcasts.
Instead they'll implement some crap system where the key is hidden in the device somehow. Someone will get it out, and then they'll be free to decrypt anything and post it onto the net.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that annoys me most though is that whilst the encryption will make no practical difference to most people here since we'll know how to get around it, it makes Linux/FOSS a second class citizen to proprietry solutions. For example, a machine pre-
Re: (Score:2)
If this were enabled, then in theory then Freeview could do away with copy protection, instead using passive
Re: (Score:2)
That makes me quite glad I bought an unencumbered DVB-S PVR. It was much cheaper than what you would pay for a freesat box and records to any USB media. Plus every freesat receiver is crippled in a variety of other ways (they make it illegal to receive any other stations than the ones approved by the BBC for example)
But what they intend to do with terrestrial TV is what they've been doing on Satellite for a long time. No standard receiver can understand the EPG data so I have to input everything manually an
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I think it will be fairly pointless to stop people doing what they like with the content. Just like Freesat HD, the content will be festooned with adverts, DOGs and sub-optimal encoding (both bitrate constrained and in real time) so it's hardly likely to compete with either DVD or Blu Ray. If they're that paranoid about content le
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think it is likely to be part of the conditions to get the "Freesat" trademark to include this.
A manufacturer has the choice of either not being "Freesat", the approved and promoted platform by BBC with support for iPlayer coming very soon and other benefits. Or include DRM.
Adding DRM is the fault of Freesat although perhaps there is some blame to be shared by manufacturers who alter their products to comply.
D'ya think? (Score:2)
From the article: " I'm sure the 'content providers' will continue to sell content to the BBC, ITV, etc., if this is not implemented."
My guess would be 'no' actually - they'll happily sell non-HD versions, but I doubt they will sell HD without the DRM.
Hey, if the summary writer can speculate, so can I.
Re: (Score:2)
From the article: " I'm sure the 'content providers' will continue to sell content to the BBC, ITV, etc., if this is not implemented." My guess would be 'no' actually - they'll happily sell non-HD versions, but I doubt they will sell HD without the DRM.
Indeed the price would go up for the HD version, and they'd happily tell the BBC and ITV "Sorry, but Sky [an entirely encrypted pay-TV channel] are offering lots of cash with built in DRM. Cya." The BBC has already been out-bid on many popular programs by Sky -- they plucked 24 from the BBC after season 2 when it had built an audience; same for Lost; they plucked the cricket from Channel 4; ... If you're keen to tie the BBC's hands behind its back in content negotiations, the result won't be "more for fre
Re: (Score:2)
And would this matter?
What I'd like to know is when we're going to get a proper EPG and HD recording for Radio 4? In mono, of course. Why bother paying for bandwidth and electronics for an ear you don't use?
Sharing the costs of production (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure the 'content providers' will continue to sell content to the BBC, ITV, etc.
The BBC has co-production and distribution agreements with private and public corporate partners all over the world.
The BBC's resources are not unlimited. It has only so much money to buy product, only so much money to produce product.
The BBC brand name is worth only so much. The BBC has to offer its partners protection in the UK market.
Re: (Score:2)
Also:
BBC produced content is sold Worldwide, making a tidy contribution*. Most of this is broadcast to the UK well before internationally, so (for example) an American TV exec would naturally be concerned that any show they were interested in licensing might just be all over the torrents well in advance.
* Though this is quite difficult to determine, since while the Annual Review [bbcworldwide.com] indicates dividends paid of around £70m in 2008-09, there's presumably a lot of scope for costs shared with the BBC (i.e. t
Re: (Score:2)
The signal is still unencrypted, meaning anyone who has the patience to push in the numbers can use a receiver like mine, copy it to their computer, and throw it about all over the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC still has a duty to serve the public, and definitely should not be dictating the tech market. Being the richest public funded network in the world they are always the stronger negotiator and in many other countries the public broadcaster fulfill similar obligations to broadcast free. And while they do show a few purchased U.S. shows, the majority of productions are in-house. It's competitors show the majority of foreign shows on UK TVs.
RTFATWL (Score:5, Informative)
If you Read The Fine Article That Wasn't Linked [ofcom.org.uk] on the Ofcom website you'll find interesting tidbits such as:
1.4 The BBC's proposed content management approach would require Ofcom to grant an amendment to its multiplex licence, subject to Ofcom's approval of specific proposals, to allow the BBC to restrict the availability of programme listing information for HDTV services only to receivers that implement content management technology.
1.9 The content management technology required to be implemented in receivers under the BBC's proposals would permit unrestricted recordings of HD content onto digital video recorders (DVRs) but would enable broadcasters to control the copying of this content onto other devices and its distribution over the internet. The HD content would only be accessible on other consumer devices which support the same content management technologies as those used in HD receivers.
In essence, if you use a receiver without support for this DRM tech, the only thing you're going to lose access to is the Programme Listing data - it's the BBC's way of placating the drooling media execs with as little direct impact on consumers as possible. Now that's not to say that someone in the government won't make it impossible to buy receivers that don't support this in the UK, but that's what China is for.
Full PDF is here [ofcom.org.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the people the BBC are trying to satisfy will never be satisfied. More and more little restrictions will be add, and this same argument will be made each time.
Let Sky handle the drooling media types, they'll feel right at home there.
Re: (Score:2)
In essence, if you use a receiver without support for this DRM tech, the only thing you're going to lose access to is the Programme Listing data - it's the BBC's way of placating the drooling media execs with as little direct impact on consumers as possible
ICBW but don't most DVRs depend on program listing data to know when to record?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
are you sure? 1.9 says that they can prevent copying of content (not listing data). Whilst the paragraph says 'unrestricted coying onto DVRs' it also says "would permit". ie, they'll be able to prevent that for high-worth content, like a movie the producer didn't want you to record.
Later in the spec, they say there are 3 modes of protection allowed: unrestricted (fair enough, I imagine a lot of general TV would fall into this category, stuff like all those cookery or property shows), limited-copy (which all
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'Later in the spec, they say there are 3 modes of protection allowed: unrestricted (fair enough, I imagine a lot of general TV would fall into this category, stuff like all those cookery or property shows).'
It's a bit worse than that - the BBC says 'it intends to apply the multiple copy state to the majority of its HD content' ('multiple copy state' is the less restrictive level of DRM, but still DRM).
'I think the implementation is designed to DRM the listings data (as the programmes themselves cannot be en
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, the people hurt by the DRM will be all the (millions of?) legitimate users
Amen.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
'In essence, if you use a receiver without support for this DRM tech, the only thing you're going to lose access to is the Programme Listing data - it's the BBC's way of placating the drooling media execs with as little direct impact on consumers as possible.'
An built-in EPG is pretty fundamental to the way we use DTV boxes today. Any manufacturer that chose not to sign up the DRM would have to provide its own (which would need a net connection).
'Now that's not to say that someone in the government won't ma
Re: (Score:2)
Someone mod the parent up for pointing out what is actually going on here!
As mentioned, the ONLY thing being lost here is the program guide. HTPC users will still be able to use a plain old DVB-T2 card with their MCE or XMLTV guide data without so much as a hint of lack of functionality.
B@st@rds ! (Score:5, Interesting)
I bought a Analogue / DVB-T / DVB-S combi-card that can decode DVB-S HD transmissions, and of course a HD pc monitor* to watch / edit on. I know that the BBC and ITV are pushing people for the "Freesat" service, their locked-in satellite box... they get a cut from the sales you see. I suspect vendor lock-in is one reason they want to scramble the transmissions.
Having a FTA card allows me to watch from whatever terrestrial or satellite I can pick up from. Using Linux as well to do it is no mean feat, some HD channels have changed the spec on how to receive their signals, and it messes with the audio stream (BBC-HD implicated).
Having the Freeview HD signal scrambled is not a great loss, the bit rate for terrestrial HD is as predicted appallingly low and unwatchable. The problem is the masses will look at that bad picture and think it is acceptable, because they've not seen anything else, ie. the satellite HD signal (which has also had it's bit rate downgraded recently). The same thing happened with the roll out and push for Freeview terrestrial digital television, the bit rate has been dropping all the time, it is pretty bad, analogue beats it hands down for picture and audio quality.
For a supposed free to air channel (subject to paying the BBC tax), the BBC have acted appallingly. For a regulator of UK television that was started up by the current corrupt government, they are acting exactly to type, bought off by corporate interests instead of viewers interests.
* Strangely the pc Full HD monitor costs less than a regular HD-TV, even though the size is the same, and the pc monitor deals with a higher refresh rates than a regular TV does.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They already have done. It was cracked within months by the developers of PVR software.
Re: (Score:2)
For a supposed free to air channel (subject to paying the BBC tax), the BBC have acted appallingly.
For a regulator of UK television that was started up by the current corrupt government, they are acting exactly to type, bought off by corporate interests instead of viewers interests.
Rupert? Is that you? No content provider will sell non-DRM HD content. If the BBC is not able to implement DRM, then the only purchaser of HD content will be Sky.
A government with (enormous) balls could deal with that problem, if they were prepared to confront Murdoch. Since Sky relies on satellite transmissions, they could refuse to grant a licence for the frequencies used to Sky without a requirement that no DRM be used, or that no HD content be transmitted, or anything else.
Unfortunately, this leaves the problem that rights-holders could refuse to licence anything for broadcast there, so to do that, you'd have to ban all DRM, and then declare that there is no los
A lesson on what it means to distort reality: (Score:5, Interesting)
[...] 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.
Here is a lesson for us all, on how to talk and act, if you want to push something trough that everybody hates: You state the exact opposite of what it will do. Which is of course, what everybody will want. And you get it across not only without the blink of an eye, but in a way that makes others feel like this is in fact reality, so that they start to believe it too.
Today’s wars are not fought with machines and deaths. They are fought with ideas / mindsets / realities, and people that you don’t have to kill, but instead make your “best friends”, so that they fight on your side.
I say, we as hackers (actually more “crackers”) should become the masters of that! Hack the human mind! As an extension of social engineering. But for good things!
Psychology, social dynamics, true leadership and rhetorics. Those are the key skills.
Hmm... I should make a RPG out of that, to train my army... Muhahahaha ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The BBC can in fact deliver the broadest range of HD content this way.
Nonsense. Any player that can play DRMd content can play unDRMd content. Adding DRM to their video streams does not increase their audience one bit. Not by one single person, anywhere on Earth.
Does this mean that ... (Score:3, Interesting)
... Linux users that cannot view the DRM broadcasts won't have to pay the license fee?
Vote with your feet? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Vote with your feet? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Wait until a 'net licence fee' is announced. It WILL happen as long as the BBC continues to garner so much support on its past laurels, rather than its current behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider all of the shows you watch on BBC channels / iPlayer. Count them over a month, make a note. Check the cost of the DVD on Amazon / LoveFilm etc. If you get less value out of the BBC than buy buying / renting the DVDs of the shows you watch, then you should get rid of your TV aerial. It just makes economical sense.
I watch maybe 9 or 10 different shows each week on
Re: (Score:2)
Then, by all means, go ahead and pay for it. Just don't ask me to. And no, I don't give a shit about or consume any BBC programmes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm interested in what "current behaviour" you're referring to, though. Your tone suggests something insipid.
Free-As-In-BBC (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought publication copyright expires someday, when the publication goes into the public domain - as in, free - but apparently following that law does not work for the copyright holders, or the government offices doing the broadcasting to the public.
I'm sorry, Mr. and Mrs. Citizenry, your copyright law has expired.
Good thing the stuff they show on TV is tailored to be of interest to the widest (read: dumbest) audience and a waste of time to those who enjoy writing computer software or, say, reading.
One of Steve Jobs greatest moments (Score:2)
Now a lot of things Steve says are pure marketing noise, but he was right on the money back in 2003 [rollingstone.com] when he said:
And then it will change name (Score:2)
to Unfreeview
Doomsday predictions (Score:2)
Once they implement DRM, the BBC becomes just another commercial company. This should mean the TV licence goes away, however I bet nothing will change.
I also expect the BBC are already planning a tiered service they can charge extra for, that allows you to once again record shows like you (legally) can now for free.
I also imagine that whatever DRM they choose will assume/require Microsoft Windows for PC-based solutions, so us Linux/Mythbox users are screwed by the BBC yet again.
Re:I think it's about time .... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would we want to install a catholic ruler?
For the children?
*) Citation needed (Score:2)
Even though it triggers Godwin's Law...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly. You'll be shocked to learn who infamously posited: "As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when the movie and graphic novel never portray Fawkes as an anarchist, but instead portray a random other guy as being something like fawkes. Where "something like fawkes" is defined as "tried to blow up parliament".
Re: (Score:2)
>Guy Fawkes [...] was a religious nut who couldn't accept a protestant king and wanted one that met his religious views.
That's an interesting take on the times. As I understand it, the Protestants who were in power persecuted people of other faiths. Since the King was Protestant, so every one of his subjects was meant to be and they were discriminated against until they converted.
That seems like Fawkes was fighting against oppression from religious nuts, to me, and for the freedom to practice the religio
You mean... as alluding to "V for Vendetta": (Score:3, Funny)
As a matter of fact, Digital Restrictions Management with its inherently evil capabilities for censorship will indeed make every Adam Sutler [imdb.com] drool with joy over its Orwellian prospects.
Re:What a wonderful opportunity (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously anyone who wants to release a torrent can easily bypass the DRM and anyone who wants the non-DRM version can download it for free. The only ones who suffer are the ones who pay for their content and won't buy illegal hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
The use of the word "free" in both Freeview and Freesat is deceptive IMHO as in the UK (as many of you know) you _have_ to pay for a TV License, if you don't you can't have a TV or anything resembling a terrestrial (analog or digital) receiver. So no TV cards for your computer either. It really is not even an issue of quality anymore, I used to use the argument that the only thing I watched on the BBC was Top Gear and local news and that's still true but I'd gladly pay a token amount per view for each of those I just have a moral objection to being forced to pay for a service that I largely do not use. The fact is that if I stop paying my license I would eventually face prison time and a criminal record. Is this right?
No, the worst they'd give you is a fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop reading the right wing press and think for yourself. Stalinist my arse.
You don't need a TV... license or no. (Score:2)
The fact is that if I stop paying my license I would eventually face prison time and a criminal record. Is this right?
No, only if you wanted to watch TV.
In the past 30 years, the only time I have watched TV is when a relative or friend I was already spending time with wanted to watch something.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But this is tele over the internet, right? If all you have is a computer and high speed internet, but no tele, do you, or do you not, have to pay a license fee? And what if (you Brits) are overseas and want to see the tele shows from back home?
Re: (Score:2)
But this is tele over the internet, right? If all you have is a computer and high speed internet, but no tele, do you, or do you not, have to pay a license fee? And what if (you Brits) are overseas and want to see the tele shows from back home?
You don't need a license for the internet connection, you need a license to watch anything that is being broadcast over the airwaves as you are watching it, even if you are watching it over the internet. This does not include most shows on the iPlayer or other sites like that, as that content is being streamed personally to you, and not being broadcast over the airwaves at the same time. The one exception to this is live shows on the iPlayer, as those are also being broadcast over the airwaves at the same t
It's a page right out of the Minitrue's cursebook (Score:2)
"War is Peace" may come to join them as soon as every TV viewer is digitally numbered and individually addressable, i.e. can be force-fed the very selected bits and pieces of information most useful to bring him or her into (party) line, and cut off from everything else.