Just like the eminently defeatable locks on your house help you to sleep at night, so DRM helps some media people sleep at night.
??? Are you serious, if the lock on my door was as easy to break as DRM, I would be up all night with a baseball bat under my pillow, are these "media people" so stupid as to believe that DRM gives more protection against copyright infringement than giving a quality product that people want to pay for? An example, I recently forked over $20 to the creator of http://www.pvponline.com for his new animated series (previously he's just been giving his webcomic away for free). But on the strength of his short preview, great daily comic strip and low price I figured I could afford ~£10 for a years worth of entertainment(1 episode a month, first one was aired today). Guess what it's DRM free, and a second series depends on getting enough people to buy his first series, but he's still letting his fans download it DRM free as he realises that there's no way he'll stop it ending up on youTube\Bit Torrent etc. so why should he screw over his loyal fans who paid for the content.
Consequently, if the choice becomes 'DRM-protected content' or 'test card', I vote 'DRM-protected content', with the following proviso: make sure that the rights that the DRM protects includes the rights that I, as the consumer, have in handling that content.
I would rather the BBC aired all that stuff with expired copyright, all that copyleft\creative commons talent, and gave exposure to new talent who are willing to show me how good they are without dictating how I use what I've seen. There's a lot out there without riling on the traditional content providers. The old distribution model is fataly flawed in the new age.
I take it you haven't spent much time negotiating with programme makers, then? In general, "my way or the highway" isn't a winning strategy to get talented people to work with you, especially when they're scared of what the future might hold for them.
No, I haven't, but from my prospective I can see there are hundreds of independent and small artists, and even many of the Big companies who would do what ever it takes to be associated with the BBC. The BBC can tell anyone who doesn't like it where to go, and still be left with a huge pool of talent. They can tell all the old (DRM loving) companies to go hang for all I care, they should evolve or die.
The day the BBC sells its airwaves to the highest bidder in this way is the day they betray the public's trust.
You misunderstand, I wasn't advocating that they sell to the highest bidder, merely expressing the view that there are so many people wishing to be on the BBC that the BBC wouldn't even have to pay them, but would be able to charge artists to appear. I wasn't advocating this system, just using it to illustrate the BBCs bargaining power. The BBC should do the opposite, and start a channel (Radio\TV\online, it doesn't matter) only showing free(libre) content and watch the artists flock to see who can create the best stuff for free, just to get on the BBC.
