> * One question I have is: why Kontiki? Given that the files being distributed > are DRM-wrapped anyway, why not use something more mainstream such as > Bittorrent?
Cos at the design stage the very word 'Bittorrent' was capable of sending rights holders running for the hills, regardless of reason. Less true now. > First, the BBC are _already_ broadcasting all of their content, digitally and > in > the clear, in the form of RealPlayer streams, terrestrial radio and (HD) > television broadcasts and also via internet multicast. all above are geographically bounded. general users can't yet *easily* grab a broadcast stream and copy/share a file internationally Even UK pirate sites rely on very few expert cappers who do this by hand, hence the relative scarcity of UK TV programmes on the darknets compared to music.(that said, it's perfectly possible to automate the whole process from DVB stream to DivX .torrent if you apply enough cpu and hard disk to the broadcast stream and SI data. Allegedly. Cough.) > Secondly, all evidence to date shows that DRM does not in fact prevent the > redistribution of content by end-users -- indeed, the WMPv9 DRM scheme > currently > used by the iPlayer distribution service had already been broken before the > Beta > had even launched! right holders would argue that it's "enough" rather than "absolute" deterrent which matters. > * Rights buy-outs: it's not necessary to buy out the rights to putting on live > shows, publishing books and many of the other functions mentioned by Ashley in > the podcast in order to set up a functional, DRM-free iPlayer service. how so? What would be required is to do a series of radical deals with a staggeringly wide range of rights holders, many of whom get a load of cash from residual and secondary rights exploirtation, and are very keen to see these conserved for as long as poss, even if in the long term this isn't viable. This includes the recording industry, BTW, given how much music exists within TV shows. I'm not saying this shouldn't be done. I'm just pointing out that it *would* require the mother and father of all rights deals and even then you wouldn't get everyone. > Moreover, his assertion that all of the downstream rights - for books and so > forth - would become worthless if the shows themselves could be readily > downloaded seems dubious. agreed that worthless is an overstatement - but it's hard to argue that they'll not be reduced, which is enough for most rights holders to resist. > Indeed, the value of many related works - books, live shows, etc. - may well > _increase_ significantly if the original shows themselves were more readily > available. sadly there are far fewer related works for TV than for music - comedy excepted. otherwise this is a powerful argument. > * One of the things Ashley talks about is a potential new future distribution > model which he hopes that technology will enable the publication of content > "with no DRM" -- but distributed in an "intelligent wrapper" that is able to > enforce a set of rules for how it should behave. > > I think someone needs to tell Ashley that the mythical future technology he's > describing _is_ what the rest of us would call DRM! i *think* he mean't to express a desire for standard machine-readable means of attaching (if not enforcing) rigfhts to media. Kinda CC+ without creative reuse? -T - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
