Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
More DRM... http://www.betanews.com/article/The-entertainment-Industry-debuts-yet-another-DRM-scheme-Ultraviolet/1279643971? On 19 July 2010 11:51, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:38, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Mo - although we didn't publish your article on the blog I did circulate it to other colleagues in the BBC and I was pleased to see it published in the Guardian. We also linked to it from the blog when it was published. Nick - honestly, I do appreciate your efforts on that front, please don't think otherwise! (Apologies if I'd given some other impression). The issue is that the information that was in that article is the information people were asking for in comments on the blog posts, and should really have been made clear from the outset. That's the thing -- if the BBC had published a post explaining clearly what the proposal was and how it would affect people simultaneously with the submission to Ofcom, there'd be no cause to be critical of anything except the meat of the proposal itself, which surely would have made lives (especially yours!) easier all-round! M. - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 20-Jul-2010, at 18:26, Brian Butterworth wrote: More DRM... http://www.betanews.com/article/The-entertainment-Industry-debuts-yet-another-DRM-scheme-Ultraviolet/1279643971? The mind boggles. A lot of it sounds like Marlin (even down to the wide range of industry partners, including Sony). On second thoughts… Users will have to create UltraViolet accounts, where they access and manage all of their content. Licensing deals have not yet been announced, since the UltraViolet tech specs have not yet been released. Attempting to create an alternative to the iTunes regime, by the looks of it. (Also: fail fail fail fail fail fail) - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Mo - although we didn't publish your article on the blog I did circulate it to other colleagues in the BBC and I was pleased to see it published in the Guardian. We also linked to it from the blog when it was published. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 16 July 2010 21:02 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 19:27, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: glossing over details which might not seem important but are What does or does not seem important is a matter of interpretation and is in the eye of the beholder... Not really... What does this mean for consumers in real terms? is pretty important -- that's why I wrote the guardian article (can't think of a better way to refer to that piece, sorry). I'm not sure that's particularly subjective, given that most of the questions being posed were along those lines, most of the misunderstandings (which came about as a result of it not being clearly explained _prior_ to anybody else having a stab at it) were in that area, and there was still stuff that -- unless you already knew the technology well -- was completely non-obvious (for example, compatibility with TVs which didn't support HDCP). The *big* thing people wanted to know from the outset was how it would affect them -- whether they'd have to replace bits of their equipment, whether they'd even want to, what things would stop working and what things wouldn't -- most people couldn't care less if Tom Watson or Cory Doctorow was wrong, because even being wrong they were saying more that was substantive and along the right lines than the BBC were. People didn't really *want* Oh, Tom got it all wrong in his blog post, they wanted Tom got it all wrong in his blog post, we're sorry we didn't post this sooner, these are the things you need to know. M. - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:38, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Mo - although we didn't publish your article on the blog I did circulate it to other colleagues in the BBC and I was pleased to see it published in the Guardian. We also linked to it from the blog when it was published. Nick - honestly, I do appreciate your efforts on that front, please don't think otherwise! (Apologies if I'd given some other impression). The issue is that the information that was in that article is the information people were asking for in comments on the blog posts, and should really have been made clear from the outset. That's the thing -- if the BBC had published a post explaining clearly what the proposal was and how it would affect people simultaneously with the submission to Ofcom, there'd be no cause to be critical of anything except the meat of the proposal itself, which surely would have made lives (especially yours!) easier all-round! M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:07, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: In the case of Erik's post that you mention all we are actually doing is cross posting to it on the Internet blog. So the editor of the About The BBC blog has editorial responsibility for it because it was published first there. What happens in practice in general is; - sometimes we (i.e. Paul and I) have an idea for a blog post and we ask someone to write it - we might help them by suggesting bullet points but we don't write it for them - the communications team also sometimes send us ideas for posts and in some cases finished posts - I assume they similarly help people write posts But I would certainly not write a finished post for someone like Erik. Senior executives have different attitudes - Anthony Rose for example writes all his posts in his own individual style. Others need or like more of a steer. All this is in a context where we have editorial control and can ask for a post to be changed and even have the right to refuse it - although I can only recall one occasion where we have. That's interesting stuff (genuinely!). you should probably do a blog post on it one day. it's good to know what the process is, in general (even if it varies). on the topic of 'things which it might be worth doing blog posts about': P4A. Again I disagree that I've been fed misleading information (and I'd like to know in what way) - I suspect that this is again about interpretation of information, which is another thing entirely. I'll respond to this bit properly when I've had a proper think about it -- interpretation comes down to it to an extent (i.e., how things are most likely to be interpreted by those reading stuff vs. how things are most likely to be interpreted by those with prior knowledge), but there're other things, too. predominantly I was struck by errors of omission, though (questions which don't really get answered, though not for the want of trying on your part, glossing over details which might not seem important but are). it's very difficult to know how much of this is deliberate and how much is a product of circumstance or just things being missed -- in either case, though, it comes across poorly and doesn't help the BBC's case any. as I say, though, I'll follow up on this later. M. - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
glossing over details which might not seem important but are What does or does not seem important is a matter of interpretation and is in the eye of the beholder... -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 16 July 2010 16:03 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:07, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: In the case of Erik's post that you mention all we are actually doing is cross posting to it on the Internet blog. So the editor of the About The BBC blog has editorial responsibility for it because it was published first there. What happens in practice in general is; - sometimes we (i.e. Paul and I) have an idea for a blog post and we ask someone to write it - we might help them by suggesting bullet points but we don't write it for them - the communications team also sometimes send us ideas for posts and in some cases finished posts - I assume they similarly help people write posts But I would certainly not write a finished post for someone like Erik. Senior executives have different attitudes - Anthony Rose for example writes all his posts in his own individual style. Others need or like more of a steer. All this is in a context where we have editorial control and can ask for a post to be changed and even have the right to refuse it - although I can only recall one occasion where we have. That's interesting stuff (genuinely!). you should probably do a blog post on it one day. it's good to know what the process is, in general (even if it varies). on the topic of 'things which it might be worth doing blog posts about': P4A. Again I disagree that I've been fed misleading information (and I'd like to know in what way) - I suspect that this is again about interpretation of information, which is another thing entirely. I'll respond to this bit properly when I've had a proper think about it -- interpretation comes down to it to an extent (i.e., how things are most likely to be interpreted by those reading stuff vs. how things are most likely to be interpreted by those with prior knowledge), but there're other things, too. predominantly I was struck by errors of omission, though (questions which don't really get answered, though not for the want of trying on your part, glossing over details which might not seem important but are). it's very difficult to know how much of this is deliberate and how much is a product of circumstance or just things being missed -- in either case, though, it comes across poorly and doesn't help the BBC's case any. as I say, though, I'll follow up on this later. M. - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 19:27, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: glossing over details which might not seem important but are What does or does not seem important is a matter of interpretation and is in the eye of the beholder... Not really... What does this mean for consumers in real terms? is pretty important -- that's why I wrote the guardian article (can't think of a better way to refer to that piece, sorry). I'm not sure that's particularly subjective, given that most of the questions being posed were along those lines, most of the misunderstandings (which came about as a result of it not being clearly explained _prior_ to anybody else having a stab at it) were in that area, and there was still stuff that -- unless you already knew the technology well -- was completely non-obvious (for example, compatibility with TVs which didn't support HDCP). The *big* thing people wanted to know from the outset was how it would affect them -- whether they'd have to replace bits of their equipment, whether they'd even want to, what things would stop working and what things wouldn't -- most people couldn't care less if Tom Watson or Cory Doctorow was wrong, because even being wrong they were saying more that was substantive and along the right lines than the BBC were. People didn't really *want* Oh, Tom got it all wrong in his blog post, they wanted Tom got it all wrong in his blog post, we're sorry we didn't post this sooner, these are the things you need to know. M. - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
What does this mean for consumers in real terms? is pretty important -- that's why I wrote the guardian article (can't think of a better way to refer to that piece, sorry). The Grauniad recital =D I'll get my coat - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
A HUGE aside here, but still relevant given the previous discussion of the traditional royalty share model and how it favours the labels. I work for a (fairly small) indie label - from witnessing this model in action I feel I have to stick up for the label given that I see the model working (or sometimes not so well) on a daily basis! Where we've done deals with artists in the past, they've almost always been a 50/50 arrangement - the artist receives 50% of net royalties. Where a label fronts recording costs, these can easily become £6-10,000 for an album session. Even an EP session can be upwards of £1,500 although these figures are a little pessimistic (though not unrealistic). (We actually designed, built and owned studios for ten years until 2001 but the project haemorrhaged money.) With regards to CD pressing, a 1,000 run will cost around £800 including full colour print in a basic jewel case. The AP1/AP2a MCPS licence costs another amount on top. When getting your CDs pressed, add in other things (Super Jewel cases, slip / O-cards, digipaks or gatefolds with high quality card / fancy posters) and you can easily top the 1k mark, not even counting the artwork design costs. Of course, discount comes with with bulk, but almost nobody except the Big Four do 1k discs in a pressing. (To put things in perspective: when SyCo have done the X Factor Finalists CDs, they press up 10,000 of EACH finalist's recording of the song - and shred the losers' copies when the winner is announced!) To put stuff into distro with someone like Universal, you have your line costs simply to have the title listed on their system - monthly recurring, per title - then handling costs, despatch costs, salesforce costs (even though really the only people they sell into are HMV now, and from last year they've stopped guaranteeing racking in all but the top 6 or so stores in the UK, it's a joke). You can't sell your discs through at full retail, you have your wholesale (Dealer) price. We've sold albums through at £6.65 and I've later seen them in a London HMV for £12.99. Oh, and did I mention that supermarkets and stores like HMV *DEMAND* what they call a file discount of up to 40% just to take stock? (which is on a non-negotiable sale or return basis with up to a six month returns period.) If you end up in a position where you don't sell stock through into shops, it usually costs less for your distro to SHRED your discs than it does to send it back to you! Ridiculous. The costs are stacked against the labels at all points - incredibly frustrating. And that's even before you begin to contemplate any plugging, promo, advertising, miscellaneous online, merch, booking agent / gig costs... Or even an advance for the artist! But it gets better... So, this figure of 63% which the old techdirt article might quote as truth where valid for major labels (who might also own distribution, management, publishing and studios under the same roof), the model quickly falls apart as soon as focus on a smaller label. I used to think the whole model was bullshit and the artists got shafted, but if anything it's level pegging - smaller labels have just as tough a time as artists as the risk to them to fund any new release is proportionally WAY larger. Also, the techdirt article works on the basis of the artist receiving a 20% royalty - this is dismal, and the artist should be smacked for agreeing to such a pitiful rate like the chumps they probably (hypothetically) are. Take one of our real world iTunes scenarios - from a 79p purchase, iTunes immediately keeps about 32p. For UK and most worldwide sales, this also includes the royalties which the label's obliged to pay (in the UK, to the MCPS-PRS Alliance). However, the USA requires the selling party to pay the mechanical on each sale (an arse-about-tit form which has arisen from the disconnected Collection Agencies - Harry Fox Agency being the incumbent on Mechanicals and ASCAP, BMI and SESAC on the Performance royalties - which adds yet another level of complication. From what's left (47p), you halve the resulting amount on a 50/50 deal. Neither the label nor the artist gets much for their work. On some artists whom we've purely done digital distribution for (on a rolling licence agreement), we give the artist 80% of net. As you can imagine, we get virtually nothing - and our income's directly tied to their success, so we have an interest in seeing them do well. It's a tough environment to be in. For receiving US/Canadian/Mexico/European/Australasian payments, we first have to receive the currency and have the bank convert it to GBP. Of course, we can't get the Interbank rates, nobody but the banks get those - so more money's immediately lost in conversion. The larger labels will have sweetheart deals with their banks (or almost certainly have accounts in each relevant territory) so this isn't so much of a big deal, but the amount of administration just scales inordinately. If you deal with
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a personal archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all on the internet for your friends - even this which might seem harmless might prevent a rights holder setting up their own website to do the same thing commercially and legitimately. My own personal definition of a pirate and I would stress it is a personal one not a BBC or official one is someone who knowingly attempts to sell or commercially exploit other people's intellectual property without their permission. But people get hung up on the piracy word as its emotional and loaded. People say there's nothing people can do about this but Pirate Bay was closed down and fined heavily and I haven't seen much about them since. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Paul Battley Sent: 13 July 2010 17:28 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On 13 July 2010 16:43, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to keep honest people honest. I don't understand this keep honest people honest thing. Is the BBC saving people from themselves, just in case they might be tempted to do something unlawful like copying a TV programme to their portable media player? And ... are you saying that I'm dishonest for wanting to subvert these restrictions? Or is it a slippery slope - one day you're making a personal archive of a TV programme, the next you're wondering around West End pubs with a carrier bag full of DVD+Rs of shaky camcorder versions of Hollywood films? Bizarre. If pirates choose to do certain things then that is their responsibility not the BBCs. If we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want. They already are! And nothing the BBC is doing will stop them. (Encrypting the EPG on Freeview HD while the video itself is in the clear? Give me a break!) They're also doing anything they want with Sky HD and Blu-ray, both of which have far harder protections than anything the BBC's mooted. And, just to be clear, who do we mean by pirates? People downloading stuff? People uploading stuff? People making personal copies? People sharing copies with their friends? People selling stuff on for money? People uploading it to online storage sites with affiliate plans? There's such a huge gulf between the stated aims and the implementation of this policy. Paul. - 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/ - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
I don't write other people's posts on the blog I only write my own. I have to accept what my colleagues write in good faith, although if I think there are inaccuracies or things which are unclear then I will obviously ask for clarification. The blog is striving to be accurate and impartial. That's particularly difficult to do when you are talking about yourself but that's the aim. I have to be pragmatic. There may be things which people cannot talk about for good reason (e.g. confidentiality, or damaging a relationship with a partner). My aim is to get them to say something. If they say something, even if its not perfect, then that may spark a useful conversation and the next time they speak, it may be an improvement on what was said previously. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 13 July 2010 17:11 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 16:43, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Hi Mo, I am going out this evening so will be away from a computer. However I thought I would try and give you a quick response to some of your questions. 1. Because I didn't know it was happening until after it was mentioned by third parties. I'd point out that one of those third parties (Tom Watson) corrected his first blog post about the subject as he admitted was inaccurate. Nick, you're responding as though I'm criticising _you_. I'm not. It's not your responsibility to know that this stuff was being sent to Ofcom and make sure that the public were properly informed of it. However, it *is* the BBC's responsibility to make this happen (and when that kicks off, _then_ it becomes your problem). Tom Watson having to correct his post is something I answered back when we were talking about this previously - he wouldn't have had to do that if clear and accurate information had been published by the BBC *in the first place*! 2. Possibly because it wasn't published on the internet. I certainly can't find it on OFCOM's website now. It was published -- that's how people managed to respond to it :) Graham Plumb would certainly have known where it was (and indeed, would have had a copy of it -- you could have hosted a copy yourselves!). It wasn't easy to find on Ofcom's site, because it was pitched at the broadcasting industry, not the public (even though it concerns every potential customer of Freeview HD!) It _should_ be here: http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/other-issues/bbc-multiplex-enquiry/ But Ofcom have completely reorganised their site in the last couple of weeks, so I have no idea where it might have gone now. 3. Is this a falsehood? I'd like to know more. Yes, which is why I wrote the post which ended up in the Guardian: there are lots of things it prevents -- or at least seeks to -- so saying the only thing you won't be able to is X is false. 4. We answered most of those questions in subsequent blog posts and comments. A big part of the frustration on the part of the commenters was because questions weren't being answered. And, again, this isn't a criticism of you because I know you were trying to get answers, but ultimately a lot of quite clear and direct questions never had any followup at all. 5. Don't know the answer to this one. Will check. Thanks -- appreciated. 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to keep honest people honest. If pirates choose to do certain things then that is their responsibility not the BBCs. If we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want. The point is: what evidence was there that honest people *needed* technological measures to keep them honest? If they're honest, but do something in an unsupported way, perhaps with a cheap imported receiver, or an HD television which doesn't support the protected path, are they still honest? You're contradicting yourself when you say if we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want: first, this is not true, because copyright law applies whether or not content protection is applied, and second, both Graham's post and your statement there says that you're not targeting the pirates in the first place. 7. I'm not in charge of the BBC's Media Literacy strategy. I am only in charge of the blog. I do my best to make it as accurate and impartial as possible. Indeed, and again, much of this is not criticism of the BBC Internet Blog specifically, but of the organisation's broader policy and communication strategy as it relates to this issue. The Internet Blog is obviously a part of that, but it's not the be-all and end-all. 8. ...but the devil's in the detail, and _that_ hasn't been anything close to being honestly
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a personal archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all on the internet for your friends - even this which might seem harmless might prevent a rights holder setting up their own website to do the same thing commercially and legitimately. Seriously? Aren't you basically saying that home taping is killing music? Alex - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:10, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a personal archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all on the internet for your friends - even this which might seem harmless might prevent a rights holder setting up their own website to do the same thing commercially and legitimately. I'm actually flabbergasted that people think this is a serious concern. My own personal definition of a pirate and I would stress it is a personal one not a BBC or official one is someone who knowingly attempts to sell or commercially exploit other people's intellectual property without their permission. mine's actually a little broader than that, but at least we generally agree on something :) People say there's nothing people can do about this but Pirate Bay was closed down and fined heavily and I haven't seen much about them since. They were back online within about 24 hours and are still running more or less quite happily. And, more to the point, there were *one* site of many. Running a tracker's easy - that's the problem with peer-to-peer. It's not a million miles away from trying to stop people delivering letters to one another by hand. M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: People say there's nothing people can do about this but Pirate Bay was closed down and fined heavily and I haven't seen much about them since. Perhaps you haven't heard much about them in the news, but they weren't closed down and I suspect that users of the site didn't notice any difference at all. Adam
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:15, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: I don't write other people's posts on the blog I only write my own. Okay, just so we're clear (and as a minor educational exercise in behind-the-scenes-on-the-Internet-Blog) - a post from, say, Erik Huggers (like the one today) - was that written by Erik, and then sent over to you (or Paul) for tidying up/formatting/etc., or do you guys write the bulk of it based upon information Erik sends over? One can never quite be sure how much a byline implies. I have to accept what my colleagues write in good faith, although if I think there are inaccuracies or things which are unclear then I will obviously ask for clarification. The blog is striving to be accurate and impartial. That's particularly difficult to do when you are talking about yourself but that's the aim. I have to be pragmatic. There may be things which people cannot talk about for good reason (e.g. confidentiality, or damaging a relationship with a partner). My aim is to get them to say something. If they say something, even if its not perfect, then that may spark a useful conversation and the next time they speak, it may be an improvement on what was said previously. This is a given - as I said, I don't doubt your intentions at all. I think you've been fed misleading information, and you're not in a position to either necessarily *know* that it's misleading, nor in some circumstances do anything about it (especially when some of the posts come from well above the paygrades of anybody here :) And, it's part of your job to defend the BBC in these circles unless you have a bloody good reason to think they're in the wrong. Indeed, I think most people here would defend the BBC to the hilt in general terms, myself included. However, in this case, the BBC - the organisation, and the message it conveyed - was misleading to the public. I don't think that's your fault, and I don't think you could have necessarily done anything about it, nor even known it to be the case. I *do* think the corporation, again collectively, could have handled things a lot better and ensured this didn't arise, but they didn't. That's the reason for my disappointment, and nothing I've seen since has swayed me from this view (and, as it goes, I might be stubborn, but I'm stubborn based on available evidence - I know when I a gut feeling is just that). M. - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
What I'm describing is not home taping - it's publishing - the internet makes everything different -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Alex Mace Sent: 14 July 2010 11:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a personal archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all on the internet for your friends - even this which might seem harmless might prevent a rights holder setting up their own website to do the same thing commercially and legitimately. Seriously? Aren't you basically saying that home taping is killing music? Alex - 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/ - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
You'd be surprised - they do (think it's a concern) -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 14 July 2010 11:26 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:10, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a personal archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all on the internet for your friends - even this which might seem harmless might prevent a rights holder setting up their own website to do the same thing commercially and legitimately. I'm actually flabbergasted that people think this is a serious concern. My own personal definition of a pirate and I would stress it is a personal one not a BBC or official one is someone who knowingly attempts to sell or commercially exploit other people's intellectual property without their permission. mine's actually a little broader than that, but at least we generally agree on something :) People say there's nothing people can do about this but Pirate Bay was closed down and fined heavily and I haven't seen much about them since. They were back online within about 24 hours and are still running more or less quite happily. And, more to the point, there were *one* site of many. Running a tracker's easy - that's the problem with peer-to-peer. It's not a million miles away from trying to stop people delivering letters to one another by hand. M. - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:33, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: What I'm describing is not home taping - it's publishing - the internet makes everything different The point is -- the leap from 'having recorded some programmes' to 'publishing them on the Internet' isn't a small one in real terms. It may well be a concern, but all evidence to date points to it being a pretty misplaced one (in part because the determined pirates who everybody knows aren't foiled by any of these measures continue unabated regardless - thus, there's no incentive for ordinary honest folk to go to the trouble of finding out how they might start to publish their archive on the Internet). Plus, publishing a stash of iPlayered content would stand out like a sore thumb -- unless you were clued up enough that you're technically on a par with the determined pirate class of users, you're not going to be able to keep something like that hidden from BBC Legal for very long. It doesn't take much imagination to see how selfsame honest folk would react to getting a letter in the post from m'learned friends as a result of their publication activities. Turn the bloody thing off! would tend towards being high on the list of priorities. M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:10, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a personal archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all on the internet for your friends - even this which might seem harmless might prevent a rights holder setting up their own website to do the same thing commercially and legitimately. Actually, more to the point: If -- for example -- iPlayer Desktop didn't DRM the files, who do you think would know? And those that did become aware of it, what proportion of those people would have the smarts to make use of that in order to keep copies of the files and create a personal archive of a TV programme (which they can do with a PVR, of course, given sufficient disk space)? Of those people who have the technical smarts to do that, what proportion of those *don't* know how to create a personal archive of a TV programme through some other means (captured from broadcast, BitTorrent, Usenet, IRC, whatever)? And then, of those people, how many of them are going to want to distribute the captured programmes to other people willy-nilly, given that their peer group can likely accomplish the same thing all by themselves, or alternately is happy with the status quo (i.e., what level of demand is there for people doing this)? If the BDG don't have a figure for that which shows it's anything other than infinitesimal, then the whole thing is essentially based on somebody's hunch, and not a very well-thought-through one at that. M. - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
In the case of Erik's post that you mention all we are actually doing is cross posting to it on the Internet blog. So the editor of the About The BBC blog has editorial responsibility for it because it was published first there. What happens in practice in general is; - sometimes we (i.e. Paul and I) have an idea for a blog post and we ask someone to write it - we might help them by suggesting bullet points but we don't write it for them - the communications team also sometimes send us ideas for posts and in some cases finished posts - I assume they similarly help people write posts But I would certainly not write a finished post for someone like Erik. Senior executives have different attitudes - Anthony Rose for example writes all his posts in his own individual style. Others need or like more of a steer. All this is in a context where we have editorial control and can ask for a post to be changed and even have the right to refuse it - although I can only recall one occasion where we have. Again I disagree that I've been fed misleading information (and I'd like to know in what way) - I suspect that this is again about interpretation of information, which is another thing entirely. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 14 July 2010 11:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:15, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: I don't write other people's posts on the blog I only write my own. Okay, just so we're clear (and as a minor educational exercise in behind-the-scenes-on-the-Internet-Blog) - a post from, say, Erik Huggers (like the one today) - was that written by Erik, and then sent over to you (or Paul) for tidying up/formatting/etc., or do you guys write the bulk of it based upon information Erik sends over? One can never quite be sure how much a byline implies. I have to accept what my colleagues write in good faith, although if I think there are inaccuracies or things which are unclear then I will obviously ask for clarification. The blog is striving to be accurate and impartial. That's particularly difficult to do when you are talking about yourself but that's the aim. I have to be pragmatic. There may be things which people cannot talk about for good reason (e.g. confidentiality, or damaging a relationship with a partner). My aim is to get them to say something. If they say something, even if its not perfect, then that may spark a useful conversation and the next time they speak, it may be an improvement on what was said previously. This is a given - as I said, I don't doubt your intentions at all. I think you've been fed misleading information, and you're not in a position to either necessarily *know* that it's misleading, nor in some circumstances do anything about it (especially when some of the posts come from well above the paygrades of anybody here :) And, it's part of your job to defend the BBC in these circles unless you have a bloody good reason to think they're in the wrong. Indeed, I think most people here would defend the BBC to the hilt in general terms, myself included. However, in this case, the BBC - the organisation, and the message it conveyed - was misleading to the public. I don't think that's your fault, and I don't think you could have necessarily done anything about it, nor even known it to be the case. I *do* think the corporation, again collectively, could have handled things a lot better and ensured this didn't arise, but they didn't. That's the reason for my disappointment, and nothing I've seen since has swayed me from this view (and, as it goes, I might be stubborn, but I'm stubborn based on available evidence - I know when I a gut feeling is just that). M. - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
I know users of the site who have had nasty letters from solicitors telling them to pay £300+ for a single album they torrented, etc. So I think users may notice a difference in that regard. Yes these guy's are saints. But as they say in Britain, “where there’s muck, there’s brass”, and that’s enough to attract more lawyers and more rightsholders to this most profitable of honeypots. It has been well documented that other lawyers previously involved in this type of work, such as ACS:Law, have been heavily reported both to the government and to organizations such as the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA). Indeed, ACS:Law have proven record-breaking in this respect. http://torrentfreak.com/yet-more-lawyers-jump-on-turn-piracy-into-profit-bandwagon-100712/ This is just extortion. But then Nick is on the side of the real crooks as the courts have demonstrated, ever herd of Celador, well it wasn't the pirates who tried to cheat them of 270 millions. This week, the big case involved a TV show, rather than a movie, with the famed gameshow Who Wants To Be A Millionaire suddenly becoming Who Wants To Hide Millions In Profits. A jury found the whole Hollywood Accounting discussion preposterous and awarded Celador $270 million in damages from Disney, after the jury believed that Disney used these kinds of tricks to cook the books and avoid having to pay Celador over the gameshow, as per their agreement. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml So, back to our original example of the average musician only earning $23.40 for every $1,000 sold. That money has to go back towards recouping the advance, even though the label is still straight up cashing 63% of every sale, which does not go towards making up the advance. The math here gets ridiculous pretty quickly when you start to think about it. These record label deals are basically out and out scams. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml These are the big time crooks, that Nick should be concerned about. He even uses the slippery slope argument, on that basis I am sure he is frightened of the dark... As for the Artists: The really interesting thing is, of course, that these aren't Baen books, they're DAW---another publisher---so it's 'name loyalty' rather than 'brand loyalty.' I'll tell you what, I'm sold. Free works. I've found that to be true myself; every time we make a few songs available on my website, sales of all the CDs go up. A lot. And I don't know about you, but as an artist with an in-print record catalogue that dates back to 1965, I'd be thrilled to see sales on my old catalogue rise. http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html Free Works ! And don't miss the Courtney Love from 2000, URL in Techdirt story, on how an 11 million grossing band makes zero income, at least if they were established artists they would have made a quarter of a million. Keep Honest People Honest ! Honest People don't need to be kept honest, but they can see the law is an ass, and choose to ignore it. Unless the BBC and the crooks get to impose 'Technical Protection Measures' for their extortion rackets. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
The internet doesn't make anything different. Not anymore. It is exactly the same as the physical world but bigger and more connected. The publishers should be educated at the same time as they would benefit from being open and educating their customers. Surely the apparent subterfuge goes to show that they are running around like headless chickens in fear of something which the music industry has already had to become satisfied with? I don't think that individual communication is something that the BBC is very good at. If they were then we, the public, would not find ourselves in these situations. As David says, the BBC are looking in the wrong direction if they want to fear the dark. Regards Rich E On 14 Jul 2010, at 12:52, Mo McRoberts wrote: On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:33, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: What I'm describing is not home taping - it's publishing - the internet makes everything different The point is -- the leap from 'having recorded some programmes' to 'publishing them on the Internet' isn't a small one in real terms. It may well be a concern, but all evidence to date points to it being a pretty misplaced one (in part because the determined pirates who everybody knows aren't foiled by any of these measures continue unabated regardless - thus, there's no incentive for ordinary honest folk to go to the trouble of finding out how they might start to publish their archive on the Internet). Plus, publishing a stash of iPlayered content would stand out like a sore thumb -- unless you were clued up enough that you're technically on a par with the determined pirate class of users, you're not going to be able to keep something like that hidden from BBC Legal for very long. It doesn't take much imagination to see how selfsame honest folk would react to getting a letter in the post from m'learned friends as a result of their publication activities. Turn the bloody thing off! would tend towards being high on the list of priorities. M. - 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/ - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Hi Mo, I am going out this evening so will be away from a computer. However I thought I would try and give you a quick response to some of your questions. 1. Because I didn't know it was happening until after it was mentioned by third parties. I'd point out that one of those third parties (Tom Watson) corrected his first blog post about the subject as he admitted was inaccurate. 2. Possibly because it wasn't published on the internet. I certainly can't find it on OFCOM's website now. 3. Is this a falsehood? I'd like to know more. 4. We answered most of those questions in subsequent blog posts and comments. 5. Don't know the answer to this one. Will check. 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to keep honest people honest. If pirates choose to do certain things then that is their responsibility not the BBCs. If we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want. 7. I'm not in charge of the BBC's Media Literacy strategy. I am only in charge of the blog. I do my best to make it as accurate and impartial as possible. 8. ...but the devil's in the detail, and _that_ hasn't been anything close to being honestly conveyed. I disagree - we have linked to and included all the detail that is publicly available and tried to dig out as much as we can, and we will continue to try and dig out more with an honest intent. We do not spin or misdirect on the Internet blog. I am saddened by your assertion that we do. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 13 July 2010 01:14 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management A delayed reply, but: On 16-Jun-2010, at 08:42, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: All I can really do with you Mo is disagree. Of course the public has a right to make an informed judgement. And all I can say is that on the blog we have linked to and exposed all sides of the argument and all the facts (including linking to your Guardian piece and blog posts - and I suspect more people read it there than would have if it was published on the blog). Anyone who is a regular reader of the blog and interested in this issue would be well informed. So, why is the case that: 1) no mention of the plan to scramble the EIT on Freeview HD as it is on Freesat was made on the blog, or anywhere else except a letter to Ofcom, until _after_ the issue was publicised by third parties? 2) why the explanation of what was actually going to happen (in the 2009-09 post) included from a technical perspective a link to a general Wikipedia page on lookup tables (not even on Huffman coding!), but not a link to the letter from Ofcom; no explicit statement that it was the same scheme as was employed by Freesat 3) why the following falsehood was included: The only actions that may be prevented, and only for certain programmes, are retransmitting the content in HD over the internet or, in some cases, from making more than one digital copy of the highest-value content onto Blu-ray. 4) why were many of the (serious) questions posed on that first post never answered, and quite a few of the subsequent questions never really answered either? 5) why the second post (2010-01) states networked distribution and viewing of HD content in the home is allowed without mentioning that restrictions apply to what devices the content can be transferred to over the network (or, indeed, ordinary interconnect cables)? 6) given the following (from the 2010-01 post): Indeed, the proposed Freeview HD content management approach is so 'light-touch' that some have argued that it is not worth having. But, this misses a key point - almost any copy protection system can be circumvented (if you put enough effort into it) - and that it is never going to be possible to prevent the determined pirate from lifting content. However, it is still really important to make sure that the unapproved copying and internet distribution of high value broadcast content doesn't become so easy that people don't think twice about doing it. ...do the BBC and third-party rightsholders have ANY evidence *at all* which suggests that Joe Public were about to start doing this, rather than relying on the determined pirates who get on with it unabated today (go and look at a BitTorrent network for recordings from Sky HD, for example - there are plenty about, and their content protection measures are FAR more stringent than anything Freeview or Freesat will have) -- why would anybody except a determined pirate _bother_? Honestly, what have they got to gain from it? 7) Given that this affects _the whole of Freeview HD_, why is it only those who are a regular reader of the blog and interested in this issue who deserves to be well-informed? Indeed, one of the Public Purposes Emerging technologies (http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/purpose
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 16:43, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Hi Mo, I am going out this evening so will be away from a computer. However I thought I would try and give you a quick response to some of your questions. 1. Because I didn't know it was happening until after it was mentioned by third parties. I'd point out that one of those third parties (Tom Watson) corrected his first blog post about the subject as he admitted was inaccurate. Nick, you're responding as though I'm criticising _you_. I'm not. It's not your responsibility to know that this stuff was being sent to Ofcom and make sure that the public were properly informed of it. However, it *is* the BBC's responsibility to make this happen (and when that kicks off, _then_ it becomes your problem). Tom Watson having to correct his post is something I answered back when we were talking about this previously - he wouldn't have had to do that if clear and accurate information had been published by the BBC *in the first place*! 2. Possibly because it wasn't published on the internet. I certainly can't find it on OFCOM's website now. It was published -- that's how people managed to respond to it :) Graham Plumb would certainly have known where it was (and indeed, would have had a copy of it -- you could have hosted a copy yourselves!). It wasn't easy to find on Ofcom's site, because it was pitched at the broadcasting industry, not the public (even though it concerns every potential customer of Freeview HD!) It _should_ be here: http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/other-issues/bbc-multiplex-enquiry/ But Ofcom have completely reorganised their site in the last couple of weeks, so I have no idea where it might have gone now. 3. Is this a falsehood? I'd like to know more. Yes, which is why I wrote the post which ended up in the Guardian: there are lots of things it prevents -- or at least seeks to -- so saying the only thing you won't be able to is X is false. 4. We answered most of those questions in subsequent blog posts and comments. A big part of the frustration on the part of the commenters was because questions weren't being answered. And, again, this isn't a criticism of you because I know you were trying to get answers, but ultimately a lot of quite clear and direct questions never had any followup at all. 5. Don't know the answer to this one. Will check. Thanks -- appreciated. 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to keep honest people honest. If pirates choose to do certain things then that is their responsibility not the BBCs. If we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want. The point is: what evidence was there that honest people *needed* technological measures to keep them honest? If they're honest, but do something in an unsupported way, perhaps with a cheap imported receiver, or an HD television which doesn't support the protected path, are they still honest? You're contradicting yourself when you say if we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want: first, this is not true, because copyright law applies whether or not content protection is applied, and second, both Graham's post and your statement there says that you're not targeting the pirates in the first place. 7. I'm not in charge of the BBC's Media Literacy strategy. I am only in charge of the blog. I do my best to make it as accurate and impartial as possible. Indeed, and again, much of this is not criticism of the BBC Internet Blog specifically, but of the organisation's broader policy and communication strategy as it relates to this issue. The Internet Blog is obviously a part of that, but it's not the be-all and end-all. 8. ...but the devil's in the detail, and _that_ hasn't been anything close to being honestly conveyed. I disagree - we have linked to and included all the detail that is publicly available and tried to dig out as much as we can, and we will continue to try and dig out more with an honest intent. I think *you* have tried to, certainly. I don't think you've managed it nearly as well as you could have if those providing the explanations and content had been as upfront as they could have - if they had, the questions above wouldn't exist :) We do not spin or misdirect on the Internet blog. I am saddened by your assertion that we do. I'm as sure as I can be that you have no intention of doing so, but with the best will in the world, you don't *write* the posts, and do you? M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 13 July 2010 16:43, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to keep honest people honest. I don't understand this keep honest people honest thing. Is the BBC saving people from themselves, just in case they might be tempted to do something unlawful like copying a TV programme to their portable media player? And … are you saying that I'm dishonest for wanting to subvert these restrictions? Or is it a slippery slope - one day you're making a personal archive of a TV programme, the next you're wondering around West End pubs with a carrier bag full of DVD+Rs of shaky camcorder versions of Hollywood films? Bizarre. If pirates choose to do certain things then that is their responsibility not the BBCs. If we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want. They already are! And nothing the BBC is doing will stop them. (Encrypting the EPG on Freeview HD while the video itself is in the clear? Give me a break!) They're also doing anything they want with Sky HD and Blu-ray, both of which have far harder protections than anything the BBC's mooted. And, just to be clear, who do we mean by pirates? People downloading stuff? People uploading stuff? People making personal copies? People sharing copies with their friends? People selling stuff on for money? People uploading it to online storage sites with affiliate plans? There's such a huge gulf between the stated aims and the implementation of this policy. Paul. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Gareth, You can force the WMC to use the Freeview EPG on individual channels, but the guide you get by default is more .. comprehensive. On 16 June 2010 12:01, Gareth Davis gareth.da...@bbc.co.uk wrote: On 16 Jun 2010, at 08:15, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: On 16 June 2010 07:54, Paul Webster p...@dabdig.com wrote: On 16 Jun 2010, at 07:11, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way. Deviation from the main topic - sorry - but I don't think WMC uses DigiGuide data (at least - it never used to). BDS was (and still is?) the original supplier to MS. Oh, it was Microsoft who told me that they sourced all their data from there. Either way, it doesn't use the broadcast guide, the one with the protection. WMC started using the broadcast EPG with Freeview when the Vista 'TV pack' update came out. Using a live EPG was a requirement of getting the Freeview+ certification IIRC. On DSAT I'm fairly sure it follows the EIT now/next info but does not populate the full guide with it, as it usually records programmes correctly that have started late/overrun due to sports events. -- Gareth Davis | Production Systems Specialist World Service Future Media, Digital Delivery Team - Part of BBC Global News Division * 500NE Bush House, Strand, London, WC2B 4PH * bbcworldservice.com http://bbcworldservice.com/ - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way. On 14 June 2010 18:30, Phil Lewis backst...@linuxcentre.net wrote: So is this just going to be another region-coding like affair where 'people' release cracked firmware or just press a few magic button sequences on their remote to remove this protection? And what about those vendors who sell DVRs that have community contributed plugins (e.g. like Topfield did/does); that's just going to make a mockery of this mockworthy content protection. - Phil On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 18:21 +0100, Mo McRoberts wrote: On 14-Jun-2010, at 18:14, Alex Cockell wrote: So i'll have to buy box after box to watch content? doubtful. those which have been sold for FVHD already will have in-built support for the mechanism (it's specced by the ETSI DVB standards), but will likely need an update to get the decoding table. that is, unless they're going to use the same decoding table as Freesat (given the fact that it was claimed to have been generated from a large sample set in order to ensure optimal compression rates, it _should_ be)… M. - 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/ - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
David, As we have not actually seen the real Ofcom response yet, I don't know the answers to your questions. But asking the legal position was my one and only response to the consultation, so it will be interesting to hear it. If I had the resources I would launch a judicial review, as this is an appalling situation for Auntie. On 16 June 2010 06:38, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Well as always I suspect we will argue about this until the cows come home and not resolve it. No what the BBC is doing is illegal under European law, (encrypting the broadcast - the EPG is broadcast), or at least, failing a legal opinion, in breach of the spirit of the law. Where is the mandate for the BBC to break the law. Where is the mandate for the BBC to enforce copyright or acquire control over consumers behavior through the use of intellectual property. We all know what the current political environment is with the secret ACTA etc. But that does not validate the Ofcom's or the BBC's actions. This is about the freedom of action of the individual, versus control by the intellectual property owner, whose rights are seen as more important to than public, and extend effectively forever. The BBC is in the wrong side on this fight. And I for one, am appalled at the BBC's stance. It doesn't get to be a much more fundamental principle, than freedom of speech and action, as the US constitution demonstrates. Comments Nick, anyone else ? - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 16 Jun 2010, at 07:11, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way. Deviation from the main topic - sorry - but I don't think WMC uses DigiGuide data (at least - it never used to). BDS was (and still is?) the original supplier to MS. History - that I might have a bit wrong ... BDS was owned by BBC and ITV then in 2005 became part of BBC Broadcast and is now is part of RedBee (Macquarie Bank Group). Paul - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 16 June 2010 07:54, Paul Webster p...@dabdig.com wrote: On 16 Jun 2010, at 07:11, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way. Deviation from the main topic - sorry - but I don't think WMC uses DigiGuide data (at least - it never used to). BDS was (and still is?) the original supplier to MS. Oh, it was Microsoft who told me that they sourced all their data from there. Either way, it doesn't use the broadcast guide, the one with the protection. History - that I might have a bit wrong ... BDS was owned by BBC and ITV then in 2005 became part of BBC Broadcast and is now is part of RedBee (Macquarie Bank Group). Paul - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
The published document is here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/statement/statement.pdf http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/statement/The legal nonsense in section 2 clearly shows how unclear the legal position is. On 16 June 2010 06:38, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Well as always I suspect we will argue about this until the cows come home and not resolve it. No what the BBC is doing is illegal under European law, (encrypting the broadcast - the EPG is broadcast), or at least, failing a legal opinion, in breach of the spirit of the law. Where is the mandate for the BBC to break the law. Where is the mandate for the BBC to enforce copyright or acquire control over consumers behavior through the use of intellectual property. We all know what the current political environment is with the secret ACTA etc. But that does not validate the Ofcom's or the BBC's actions. This is about the freedom of action of the individual, versus control by the intellectual property owner, whose rights are seen as more important to than public, and extend effectively forever. The BBC is in the wrong side on this fight. And I for one, am appalled at the BBC's stance. It doesn't get to be a much more fundamental principle, than freedom of speech and action, as the US constitution demonstrates. Comments Nick, anyone else ? - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Brian Butterworth wrote: It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way. To expand my argument (as you have seen my previous post). It is a matter of principle not expediency. They are constructing the Infrastructure of Control, and the BBC are party to this. Such control which is never in the public interest. If, as Mo pointed out, the guidelines say the 'copy never flag' should never be used. Then why does the copy never flag exist ? In fact why is the whole infrastructure, been made more complex, brittle and expensive ? We need to reject DRM in principle. The fact that it is ineffective in practice, is not a reason to tolerate this. At the risk of infringing the Manic Street Preachers copyright: If you tolerate this, then your children will be next ... Only they won't wait for your children ... Of course my use of the Manic Street Preachers lyrics is fair use, but the use of even a single frame of a protected HD content, fair use (or fair dealing) is prohibited by technology, not the law (or and the law as it is protected by technical measures). Pastor Martin Niemöller is less likely to issue an extra judicial take down notice, especially if I change the text: first they came for the pirates... The use of a single frame of protected HD doesn't breach the law, but still subject to technological measures and extra judicial enforcement. The circumvention of technological measures, to enjoy to copyright exceptions under the law, is in breach of the EU Copyright Directive. The reality is everyone breaches copyright, all the time, and copyright is subject to fair use (fair dealing) ... You make think this is exaggerated, but once you concede the principle, and create the infrastructure, Intellectual Property owners will try and extend their control. See the secret ACTA treaty from which the public are excluded, and is even outside purview of the World Trade Organisation, and which did not originally address Intellectual Property. etc. Even GM crops are just another Intellectual Property land grab, dressed up as in the Public Interest. Intellectual Property, an idea that was never justified, never served the purpose stated in the US constitution, and whose time has passed ! Pro Bono Publico - For the Public Good. - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
All I can really do with you Mo is disagree. Of course the public has a right to make an informed judgement. And all I can say is that on the blog we have linked to and exposed all sides of the argument and all the facts (including linking to your Guardian piece and blog posts - and I suspect more people read it there than would have if it was published on the blog). Anyone who is a regular reader of the blog and interested in this issue would be well informed. Again its not about the BBC not being honest. It's about the fact that some people disagree with the BBC's position. But it's a honest position, honestly held. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 23:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On 15-Jun-2010, at 22:41, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: The BBC has made its position quite clear on the blog - not once but several times. We have been straight about it as you can see from these blog posts, not just recently but as far back as April last year (see Danielle Nagler's post in the list below) - so the idea that we didn't want to talk about this is false: well, yes. the *position* was very clear. the facts - that is, what was being proposed and the nitty-gritty of how it would actually affect people - weren't, as evidenced by the many questions which went unanswered in the blog comments. Tom Watson's blog post contained inaccuracies because he was interpreting a very technical industry document without background knowledge - which was what everybody else (myself included) had to do in order to figure out what it was that was actually being proposed (how else are people supposed to know what they're dealing with?) the _position_ took priority over the facts. the BBC was very effective at communicating the position. it was abysmal at communicating the facts. the closest it came was Danielle's post back in April last year (which I linked to earlier in this thread - I was very aware of it!), and even that was rather heavy on the PR, and took some flak at the time for it. I have worked hard to get the BBC to engage with you and in my view bearing in mind the obvious sensitivities we have done this well. Even I though we couldn't publish your blog post I spent time trying to get it published in other places, encouraged you to do so and I was pleased when it was. Don't get me wrong, I do very much appreciate your efforts - please don't take this as a personal criticism, because it's not, at all - in no small part because it's not *your* job to translate engineering terms into the actual effects. I'm not sure what the sensitivities are - does the public not have a right to make an informed judgement given the facts of it? And I'm saddened that you use the word disgraceful in your email below. I believe the BBC has communicated this as well as we can. I'm sorry you're saddened, but believe me, the BBC (not you singular), could have done a lot better better. Communication on this was shoddy and haphazard, it - with the exception of Danielle's post - reeked of damage-limitation, missed out half of the stuff that people would naturally want to know, and you weren't able to find out the answer to. In fact, you had asked some of same questions, because you didn't know the answer either. I know for a fact, though, that lots of the people within the BBC who were involved in creating this whole thing would have known the answers, because if you're an expert in DVB, it's actually pretty basic stuff! (don't forget, this had already been implemented once already, and the BBC, via the DTG and DTLA, were talking to receiver manufacturers to ensure they were doing the right thing). so, to be brutally honest, if there's something you couldn't be more wrong about in this whole affair, it's this. the BBC wasn't particularly honest - it didn't lie, but it was a very very long way away from the whole truth - and I think it's unfortunate that you've been taken along for the ride. I think *you*, not to mention everybody else, deserve better than that, even if we ultimately disagree about whether the actual proposal is a good or a bad thing. M. - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Brian Butterworth wrote: The published document is here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/statement/statement.pdf Section 2.18 Ofcom is mindful that it does not have a power to include conditions in the Multiplex B licence relating to content management per se. Ofcom may only include those conditions specified in the 1996 Act and those it considers appropriate, taking into account its duties in the Broadcasting Act 1990, the 1996 Act and the 2003 Act. None of those duties relates to the ability of viewers to deal with content once broadcast. Nor do they relate to the markets for receivers. In those circumstances, Ofcom could not impose a condition requiring content management nor could it expressly restrict the ability of a multiplex operator to implement content management. Nor can Ofcom explicitly give consent, as it is clearly ouside it remit, especially when such consent would breach the EU Law, that Public Service Television has to be broadcast unencrypted. There appears to be no evidence that Ofcom or the BBC are acting within the law. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 16/06/10 07:11, Brian Butterworth wrote: It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way. And how long will the Radio Times XML service continue? Don't forget the schedule is copyright; the Ts Cs will forbid automated scraping and, if you just ROT13 them the UK DMCA will, iirc, make it a *criminal* act to put TV schedules on a computer... But not to worry, after a few generations of chains one could say this about slavery: People won't miss something they never knew they had in the first place David -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once... - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk writes: It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to my iPod that I've never done it. This is easy enough to automate however you like if you're using a software PVR such as MythTV -- it's the only way I listen to radio these days. I think it's a great shame that some at the BBC want to discourage this kind of development. I have a hardware PVR - I think we're a few years away from software PVRs being particularly mainstream. Whilst MythTV has come a long way, it in particular has a lot of work to do to make it work properly for the average user. I certainly hope it's got better than a year ago when I couldn't even manage to get Mythubuntu working on my home PC! I've used Linux since about 1998. I have all sorts of peripherals working. But I still have to scurry to Windows to use my TV card :( Give me a hardware PVR that sits neatly under my TV any day. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Brian Butterworth wrote: If I had the resources I would launch a judicial review, as this is an appalling situation for Auntie. I too don't have the resources for a judicial review, perhaps the BBC should test the legal position it's self (judicial review), or the Open Rights Group may wish to pursue it. Time for a formal complaint to the BBC complaints, followed by escalation to the Trust in the event of an unsatisfactory reply. - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 16 Jun 2010, at 08:15, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: On 16 June 2010 07:54, Paul Webster p...@dabdig.com wrote: On 16 Jun 2010, at 07:11, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way. Deviation from the main topic - sorry - but I don't think WMC uses DigiGuide data (at least - it never used to). BDS was (and still is?) the original supplier to MS. Oh, it was Microsoft who told me that they sourced all their data from there. Either way, it doesn't use the broadcast guide, the one with the protection. WMC started using the broadcast EPG with Freeview when the Vista 'TV pack' update came out. Using a live EPG was a requirement of getting the Freeview+ certification IIRC. On DSAT I'm fairly sure it follows the EIT now/next info but does not populate the full guide with it, as it usually records programmes correctly that have started late/overrun due to sports events. -- Gareth Davis | Production Systems Specialist World Service Future Media, Digital Delivery Team - Part of BBC Global News Division * 500NE Bush House, Strand, London, WC2B 4PH * bbcworldservice.com http://bbcworldservice.com/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
I would assume that the rules for content protection would bar user created plugins from having access to the data. The Ofcom document had some comments from content providers about updates to the tables being necessary in the future if it gets broken, but it doesn't look like there are any firm plans there. If Freesat is using the same system of Huffman tables then what happened there? Are the tables public knowledge yet? Adam On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Phil Lewis backst...@linuxcentre.netwrote: So is this just going to be another region-coding like affair where 'people' release cracked firmware or just press a few magic button sequences on their remote to remove this protection? And what about those vendors who sell DVRs that have community contributed plugins (e.g. like Topfield did/does); that's just going to make a mockery of this mockworthy content protection. - Phil On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 18:21 +0100, Mo McRoberts wrote: On 14-Jun-2010, at 18:14, Alex Cockell wrote: So i'll have to buy box after box to watch content? doubtful. those which have been sold for FVHD already will have in-built support for the mechanism (it's specced by the ETSI DVB standards), but will likely need an update to get the decoding table. that is, unless they're going to use the same decoding table as Freesat (given the fact that it was claimed to have been generated from a large sample set in order to ensure optimal compression rates, it _should_ be)… M. - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 15 Jun 2010, at 09:53, Mo McRoberts wrote: either way, they'd just get reverse-engineered again. they could push out new tables every week, but they went to lengths to explain how the one they have was specially-generated to be wonderfully optimised (in order to qualify as being some kind of intellectual property, presumably), so they couldn't just generate a new one - and in any case that would cause monumental levels of breakage. You could generate new tables each week to track the slow evolution of the English language? ;-) S - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
The BBC had a choice a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee payers b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any negative effect at all From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Adam Bradley Sent: 15 June 2010 15:14 To: backstage Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: the BBC had a choice: a) do nothing b) do something which didn't achieve the desired effect, and caused additional negative effects it chose (b), because the rights-holders threw their toys out of the pram. now, either this is because the people who know that this is the case couldn't make themselves heard, or because stopping piracy wasn't the goal in the first place. which is it? This is an interesting question, because I can't see what the goal here is from the BBC. Did they genuinely believe the rights-holders' bluff? Adam
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 06/15/2010 03:21 PM, Andrew Bowden wrote: We can argue around this one as much as we want but I'm afraid there's one simple truth. Most people don't care one bit and just want to watch their programme. They do. And they won't take long to work out that technology, content and services are cheaper and more convenient where the BBC hasn't betrayed their interests. - Rob. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: The BBC had a choice a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee payers b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any negative effect at all with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no technical understanding of the proposal. your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the desired effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 06/15/2010 02:08 PM, Andrew Bowden wrote: If the alternative was this system did not exist and rights holders told broadcasters (for this is not just a BBC issue) that the broadcaster could not broadcast their content in HD on the Freeview platform... They threatened something like this before and were rightly ignored. The result was...nothing happened. ...how would you explain to the average punter that the programme could not be broadcast on Freeview HD? And how would you justify it to them in such a way that they went Yes, you're right rather than Eh? See Virgin vs. Sky. Or: These guys want to make it more expensive and less convenient for you to just watch TV and they're trying to use the national institution of the BBC to do so. We're fighting this rather than selling you out to make life easier for us when we join them after leaving the BBC^D^D^D. - Rob. - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
_however_, who do people like Graham Plumb work for? AFAIK, he's BBC proper, not the subsidiary. _The Corporation_ has made representations in favour of this idea (rather PR-heavy representations, at that - possibly the single aspect of this I'm least happy about). In some situations staff in some areas will work on projects where the funding for those projects does not come from the licence fee but from another source like BBC Worldwide, or a joint venture like Freesat. I was interviewed for one such role myself a few years ago - funded by BBC Worldwide however the employer was the standard BBC. That particular job was based mostly on international video on the News and Sports websites. I can't speak for Graham's role obviously. ye, that's true, but that's not what it's remit _is_. it *regulates* the broadcast industry to ensure that it is operating *in the interests of citizens*. that's part of the legal framework which permits it to exist, and was reinforced quite strongly in the statement released the other day. Part of that role includes a role inherited from the ITC - broadcast licencing. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:57, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: The BBC had a choice a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee payers b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any negative effect at all with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no technical understanding of the proposal. your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the desired effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported. to follow up - apologies if this came across as unduly rude or brusque. I'm just very very tired of, having explained how this stuff works fairly unequivocally, sticking clearly to the facts, over and over again, to be met with the same thing every time. key points: the people who _upload_ content to filesharing networks are not inhibited by this in the slightest. the people who _download_ content to filesharing networks are not inhibited by this in the slightest (at least, not in that respect) - they may or may not have a FVHD receiver. the people minority types you refer to who want to use MythTV and the like may be inconvenienced, but Freesat suggests not fatally law-abiding consumers are inconvenienced, because the officially-branded boxes are crippled start-ups looking to build new devices are (potentially fatally) inconvenienced - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: The BBC had a choice a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee payers b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any negative effect at all with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no technical understanding of the proposal. your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the desired effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported. If the desired effect was to limit what the average consumer can do with TV - i.e. only making one recording, and limiting how they can transfer this around their home - then it looks like it could achieve it. This ensures that any consumer electronics for Freeview HD will have to have content management built in. Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course. Why can't I record this TV show?, Why do some of my shows not copy to my iPod?, etc.
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
The group of licence fee payers who have been affected by all this lockdown is larger than you realise, Nick. And they're also early adopters as well. For instance, my Nokia N900 may have Flash 9.4 on board, but i'm sure unadorned streams woukld play out better. I run Ubuntu on an Atom netbook. If the Beeb rolled out a plugin as well as their Flash client, as in one that fed into vlc, xbmc or whatever, it would be good press all around. Just feels like loads of kicks in the teeth. - Original message - The BBC had a choice a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee payers b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any negative effect at all From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Adam Bradley Sent: 15 June 2010 15:14 To: backstage Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: the BBC had a choice: a) do nothing b) do something which didn't achieve the desired effect, and caused additional negative effects it chose (b), because the rights-holders threw their toys out of the pram. now, either this is because the people who know that this is the case couldn't make themselves heard, or because stopping piracy wasn't the goal in the first place. which is it? This is an interesting question, because I can't see what the goal here is from the BBC. Did they genuinely believe the rights-holders' bluff? Adam
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:16, Adam Bradley a...@doublegeek.com wrote: If the desired effect was to limit what the average consumer can do with TV - i.e. only making one recording, and limiting how they can transfer this around their home - then it looks like it could achieve it. This ensures that any consumer electronics for Freeview HD will have to have content management built in. Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course. Why can't I record this TV show?, Why do some of my shows not copy to my iPod?, etc. why can I not watch Freeview HD on my (slightly older) HD TV? - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
a) broadcast in other countries without this scheme or an equivalent b) distributed widely prior to it hitting the UK And on BBC HD on satellite to the UK and large parts of Europe. The horse-and-cart makers still can't stand the existence of the car... Won't be long until the DRM is (symbolically) broken anyway. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:16, Adam Bradley a...@doublegeek.com wrote: If the desired effect was to limit what the average consumer can do with TV - i.e. only making one recording, and limiting how they can transfer this around their home - then it looks like it could achieve it. This ensures that any consumer electronics for Freeview HD will have to have content management built in. Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course. Why can't I record this TV show?, Why do some of my shows not copy to my iPod?, etc. but it's okay, there's a blog post about it! http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/welcome_to_some_new_initials_d.html we are absolutely committed to continuing to find ways to allow you to enjoy our programmes as you choose Pull the other one, it has got bells on it. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 15 June 2010 16:23, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: why can I not watch Freeview HD on my (slightly older) HD TV? This (HDCP) is one of the restrictions I understand the least. It's like screwing shut the cat-flap (the DVI/HDMI signal) when the door (unencrypted broadcasts) is open. If you want to rip HD content, you'd do it at the point where it's easy. - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
From: Adam Bradley Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course. Why can't I record this TV show?, Unless I've missed something (and I'm sure someone will tell me if I have!) there's no proposals on the table to prevent people from recording HD content - as long as the user has a suitable device. And if we're honest here, the overwhelming majority will have a suitable device. I know one of my colleagues has an uber amazing magatastic satellite dish that has three tunes and can control the position of his satellite dish, but most people buy their box from Currys or Tesco. The chances of a major UK retailer selling something that wouldn't support this protection system are very slim IMHO. Why do some of my shows not copy to my iPod?, etc. It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to my iPod that I've never done it. This is despite me having a PVR which has a USB connection so I can download stuff on to my PC, and me having the software that converts (eventually!) the transport stream into an MPEG2. Ease of use aside, even the iPhone 4 doesn't really have the screen resolution to require HD content - will many handheld devices really need HD? Of course there's an argument that what if you've only recorded the HD version, but for me the ease of use of getting stuff off a PVR or something and onto a handheld still makes it a pretty niche requirement. This is actually where services like iPlayer will really make a difference because iPlayer can do all the hard work - for the user it would just happen nicely. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:37, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote: From: Adam Bradley Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course. Why can't I record this TV show?, Unless I've missed something (and I'm sure someone will tell me if I have!) there's no proposals on the table to prevent people from recording HD content - as long as the user has a suitable device. you're not wrong. you can always PVR stuff, you're just limited in what you can do with that recording. And if we're honest here, the overwhelming majority will have a suitable device. I know one of my colleagues has an uber amazing magatastic satellite dish that has three tunes and can control the position of his satellite dish, but most people buy their box from Currys or Tesco. The chances of a major UK retailer selling something that wouldn't support this protection system are very slim IMHO. that's a big part of why it's wrong... Why do some of my shows not copy to my iPod?, etc. It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to my iPod that I've never done it. This is despite me having a PVR which has a USB connection so I can download stuff on to my PC, and me having the software that converts (eventually!) the transport stream into an MPEG2. on the flipside, these workflows are pretty new territory for the STB manufacturers, and are improving all the time (where not hamstrung!) Ease of use aside, even the iPhone 4 doesn't really have the screen resolution to require HD content - will many handheld devices really need HD? next year's iPad will probably do at least 720p, judging by the iPhone 4 (it's not _that_ far off now). there are HD tablets emerging, too. Of course there's an argument that what if you've only recorded the HD version, but for me the ease of use of getting stuff off a PVR or something and onto a handheld still makes it a pretty niche requirement. well, I do wonder about this: how well will the downscaling work? if you've recorded an HD prog, will you be able to get an SD version off it that isn't complete tosh? I don't have a huge amount of faith in this, and that's saying something. This is actually where services like iPlayer will really make a difference because iPlayer can do all the hard work - for the user it would just happen nicely. oh, definitely... where iPlayer hasn't also been artificially restricted (hello, Android). M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.ukwrote: From: Adam Bradley Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course. Why can't I record this TV show?, Unless I've missed something (and I'm sure someone will tell me if I have!) there's no proposals on the table to prevent people from recording HD content - as long as the user has a suitable device. The Ofcom document has a requirement: That no functional content management restrictions are placed on the recording of HD content onto a DVR which is integrated into a receiver. This is a welcome protection, but suggests that if I have (e.g.) a Freeview HD receiver and a separate Blu-Ray recorder then I won't be able to record. Also, the content protection rules aren't defined or regulated by Ofcom, but by what seems to be an industry group. I can't see what we have to stop them unilaterally changing these terms in future, and historically a do not record flag has been high on their list. Why do some of my shows not copy to my iPod?, etc. It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to my iPod that I've never done it. Point taken, but it would be nice if someone made it easy in future and this just makes it less likely. Perhaps Why can't I stream this on my network player upstairs would be a more likely question in the future. Adam
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:33, Paul Battley pbatt...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 June 2010 16:23, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: why can I not watch Freeview HD on my (slightly older) HD TV? This (HDCP) is one of the restrictions I understand the least. It's like screwing shut the cat-flap (the DVI/HDMI signal) when the door (unencrypted broadcasts) is open. If you want to rip HD content, you'd do it at the point where it's easy. the HDCP requirement's part of a larger ecosystem - bonus crippling! all of this stuff is largely *designed* to support conditional-access setups, but because it's already supported by some devices, it's attractive. incidentally, are the BBC being paid by Panasonic or something? they seem very keen to note that we'll still be able to record programmes on those Blu-Ray recorders that nobody wants. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:48, Adam Bradley a...@doublegeek.com wrote: Point taken, but it would be nice if someone made it easy in future and this just makes it less likely. Perhaps Why can't I stream this on my network player upstairs would be a more likely question in the future. Oh, but it can! So long as it supports DNLA... (ignoring the fact that DNLA interop seems to be a huge minefield, unsurprisingly) - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
American TV producers and film companies used the same argument a few years back that if the broadcast flag wasn't allowed then they wouldn't allow HD content to be broadcast on non-encrypted channels. Congress rejected the use of the broadcast flag and American producers caved in and allowed HD content to be broadcast. The encrypted EPG is just a watered down version of the broadcast flag as far as I can see which tried to prevent automatic recording of programmes on non-approved receiving hardware such as MythTV. Hardware manufacturers that agree to the license terms are given the secret of how to decode the Huffman tables and but the manufacturers will probably be forced to agree to encrypt the files when saved to the hard-disk to prevent them escaping. MythTV equipment will still record the programme but you might miss something if the schedule changes at the last minute. Currently the backdoor approach is to use the Radio Times xml data streams that MythTV can use to show the EPG of DVB-S(2) channels. I assume this'll also work for the upcoming HD via the terrestrial multiplex. The other method is to use Digiguide and manually setup a recording with the hope that the schedule doesn't change. So the whole point of encrypted EPG is to make scheduled recording on un-authorised hardware as difficult as possible and force hardware manufacturers to implement restrictions in how customers can view their recorded files. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:37, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Ease of use aside, even the iPhone 4 doesn't really have the screen resolution to require HD content - will many handheld devices really need HD? The Archos 7 Home Tablet handles 720p. I would expect HD capability to become fairly standard on handheld devices, especially tablets. This is actually where services like iPlayer will really make a difference because iPlayer can do all the hard work - for the user it would just happen nicely. Shame that there's no Android app and flash will only work on Froyo and above android devices (which rules the Archos 7 out). Scot - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk writes: It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to my iPod that I've never done it. This is easy enough to automate however you like if you're using a software PVR such as MythTV -- it's the only way I listen to radio these days. I think it's a great shame that some at the BBC want to discourage this kind of development. While I'm sure the Huffman tables will be reverse-engineered soon enough, it'd be much better if I, as a license fee payer, could obtain a legal copy from the BBC for my personal use. UK copyright law is already very clear on exactly what I'm allowed to do in terms of time-shifting recordings... -- Adam Sampson a...@offog.org http://offog.org/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:34, Adam Sampson wrote: While I'm sure the Huffman tables will be reverse-engineered soon enough, it'd be much better if I, as a license fee payer, could obtain a legal copy from the BBC for my personal use. UK copyright law is already very clear on exactly what I'm allowed to do in terms of time-shifting recordings... …but oft-misunderstood. “it is not an offence if” is not the same as “shall not be prevented from”, sadly. - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
But you can already obtain legal copies in many different ways, can't you Andrew? Explain to me how you can't... -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Adam Sampson Sent: 15 June 2010 20:35 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk writes: It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to my iPod that I've never done it. This is easy enough to automate however you like if you're using a software PVR such as MythTV -- it's the only way I listen to radio these days. I think it's a great shame that some at the BBC want to discourage this kind of development. While I'm sure the Huffman tables will be reverse-engineered soon enough, it'd be much better if I, as a license fee payer, could obtain a legal copy from the BBC for my personal use. UK copyright law is already very clear on exactly what I'm allowed to do in terms of time-shifting recordings... -- Adam Sampson a...@offog.org http://offog.org/ - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either: !?!?! with some caveats, that doesn’t actually contradict what I’ve said! nwhitfield 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them, but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard. It's also clearly stated in the various documents relating to this that it's not going to affect - at all - the ability of people to record what they want to, on recorders with built in tuners (ie FreeviewHD+ boxes). In fact, the guidelines say the 'copy never' signal should not be used, everything should be at least 'copy once' and if it's already been broadcaster somewhere (like the US) in HD without protection, then even 'copy once' shouldn't be used in the UK. Realistically, this change isn't going to affect many people at all. Most people will record to their hard disk recorders, they'll be able to watch as many times at they like, and then they'll delete stuff to make space. If they did want to make a copy for posterity (ignoring the fact that the law doesn't actually say you can), they will still be able to. How many people out there have actually taken their DVD recorder and made multiple copies of a programme they've recorded? Yes, some open source software may be affected, but even that's not a certainty; MythTV copes just fine with Freesat, which uses the same technology. Other open source systems manage well with the odd dash of proprietary stuff in there, like the drivers for some graphics cards. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 16:15 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:57, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: The BBC had a choice a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee payers b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any negative effect at all with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no technical understanding of the proposal. your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the desired effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported. to follow up - apologies if this came across as unduly rude or brusque. I'm just very very tired of, having explained how this stuff works fairly unequivocally, sticking clearly to the facts, over and over again, to be met with the same thing every time. key points: the people who _upload_ content to filesharing networks are not inhibited by this in the slightest. the people who _download_ content to filesharing networks are not inhibited by this in the slightest (at least, not in that respect) - they may or may not have a FVHD receiver. the people minority types you refer to who want to use MythTV and the like may be inconvenienced, but Freesat suggests not fatally law-abiding consumers are inconvenienced, because the officially-branded boxes are crippled start-ups looking to build new devices are (potentially fatally) inconvenienced - 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/ - 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/ - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Nor does it contradict anything I said either! -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 21:06 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either: !?!?! with some caveats, that doesn't actually contradict what I've said! nwhitfield 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them, but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard. It's also clearly stated in the various documents relating to this that it's not going to affect - at all - the ability of people to record what they want to, on recorders with built in tuners (ie FreeviewHD+ boxes). In fact, the guidelines say the 'copy never' signal should not be used, everything should be at least 'copy once' and if it's already been broadcaster somewhere (like the US) in HD without protection, then even 'copy once' shouldn't be used in the UK. Realistically, this change isn't going to affect many people at all. Most people will record to their hard disk recorders, they'll be able to watch as many times at they like, and then they'll delete stuff to make space. If they did want to make a copy for posterity (ignoring the fact that the law doesn't actually say you can), they will still be able to. How many people out there have actually taken their DVD recorder and made multiple copies of a programme they've recorded? Yes, some open source software may be affected, but even that's not a certainty; MythTV copes just fine with Freesat, which uses the same technology. Other open source systems manage well with the odd dash of proprietary stuff in there, like the drivers for some graphics cards. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 16:15 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:57, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: The BBC had a choice a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee payers b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any negative effect at all with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no technical understanding of the proposal. your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the desired effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported. to follow up - apologies if this came across as unduly rude or brusque. I'm just very very tired of, having explained how this stuff works fairly unequivocally, sticking clearly to the facts, over and over again, to be met with the same thing every time. key points: the people who _upload_ content to filesharing networks are not inhibited by this in the slightest. the people who _download_ content to filesharing networks are not inhibited by this in the slightest (at least, not in that respect) - they may or may not have a FVHD receiver. the people minority types you refer to who want to use MythTV and the like may be inconvenienced, but Freesat suggests not fatally law-abiding consumers are inconvenienced, because the officially-branded boxes are crippled start-ups looking to build new devices are (potentially fatally) inconvenienced - 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/ - 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/ - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:13, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Nor does it contradict anything I said either! through omission, no. that’s hardly a ringing endorsement, is it? - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Panasonic HD avert on ITV right after the match just now said record HD TV (Freesat or Freeview) to BluRay and save forever Paul
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Omission from who? Me? Or the person quoted? -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 21:21 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:13, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Nor does it contradict anything I said either! through omission, no. that's hardly a ringing endorsement, is it? - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either: those caveats, which make quite a significant difference: nwhitfield 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them, but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard. Freeview HD receivers on sale today will be unaffected, though they may well need a firmware upgrade. that rather depends on whether the BBC has *already* distributed the decoding table to manufacturers, which would be quite naughty of them. It's also clearly stated in the various documents relating to this that it's not going to affect - at all - the ability of people to record what they want to, on recorders with built in tuners (ie FreeviewHD+ boxes). it would be quite insane for anybody to propose otherwise, if you think about it. In fact, the guidelines say the 'copy never' signal should not be used, everything should be at least 'copy once' and if it's already been broadcaster somewhere (like the US) in HD without protection, then even 'copy once' shouldn't be used in the UK. the fourth word of that paragraph is quite important. Realistically, this change isn't going to affect many people at all. that depends on quite a few factors. longer-term, it will (although perhaps unknowingly) affect increasing numbers of people. unfortunately, they won’t know what they’ve been missing. How many people out there have actually taken their DVD recorder and made multiple copies of a programme they've recorded? DVD whatnow? who cares about DVD recorders, really? these things have hard disks, network and USB ports. Yes, some open source software may be affected, but even that's not a certainty; MythTV copes just fine with Freesat, which uses the same technology. Other open source systems manage well with the odd dash of proprietary stuff in there, like the drivers for some graphics cards. MythTV copes with Freesat because it previously reverse-engineered _this_ scheme. the BBC has explicitly threatened legal action against people who do this, although whether they follow through on it is anybody’s guess. either way, however, the protection measure has been broken before it was even submitted for regulatory approval. this means, for the stated aim of preventing the pirates from uploading content to the Internet, it’s completely worthless. the above talks solely about the direct effect upon consumers in the short term based on the equipment which exists today and assuming they don’t want to do any of the things which the scheme prohibits _and_ have up-to-date equipment supporting the various schemes which make it work. anybody who’s paying any attention at all to “next-generation” TV stuff knows that “next-generation” isn’t very far away *at all*. it also doesn’t account for changing trends in consumer behaviour, nor does it account for the innovations which will be made harder [that is, more costly, or not possible] because of the licensing regime. and so, we’re left with a system which “do something which didn't achieve the desired effect, and caused additional negative effects”. this somewhat contradicts your equivalent: do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any negative effect at all …which is patently false. people complained vocally about this when it was rolled out on Freesat. people had problems with equipment not working (not the receivers themselves so much, but other parts of the puzzle). how can you *possibly* think it will go any better for a significantly larger roll-out? remind me who it is that has to do with the front-line support for all of this? I don’t envy that job one little bit. so, just explain to me, in the face of all of this, how is “because the rights-holder demanded it and threatened to pull their content, despite evidence showing that on the balance of probabilities, this is unlikely” as what amounts to the *sole* justification for doing it absolutely fine all the way up the chain? my earlier (undirected) question about baseball caps was serious, incidentally, even if the choice of demand was deliberately flippant (it’s no *less* flippant than this one is, though — and indeed, would have even less risk of negative effects). would you be in favour, or not? - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:36, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Omission from who? Me? Or the person quoted? the person quoted. he didn’t contradict you because he didn’t cover those points in enough detail. sheesh. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 21:21 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:13, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Nor does it contradict anything I said either! through omission, no. that's hardly a ringing endorsement, is it? - 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/ - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:38, Mo McRoberts wrote: On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either: those caveats, which make quite a significant difference: nwhitfield 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them, but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard. Freeview HD receivers on sale today will be unaffected, though they may well need a firmware upgrade. that rather depends on whether the BBC has *already* distributed the decoding table to manufacturers, which would be quite naughty of them. oops, missed out: but if the receiver is the only part of the chain being upgraded (i.e., they already have an HDTV, as many people do), “everything working” is *far* from guaranteed. - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Well as always I suspect we will argue about this until the cows come home and not resolve it. Your caveats seems weak and speculative. People won't miss something they never knew they had in the first place especially if they are able to do all the things they can now, which it appears they will be. To quote yourself: the above talks solely about the direct effect upon consumers in the short term based on the equipment which exists today and assuming they don't want to do any of the things which the scheme prohibits _and_ have up-to-date equipment supporting the various schemes which make it work. So no problem then. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 21:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:38, Mo McRoberts wrote: On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either: those caveats, which make quite a significant difference: nwhitfield 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them, but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard. Freeview HD receivers on sale today will be unaffected, though they may well need a firmware upgrade. that rather depends on whether the BBC has *already* distributed the decoding table to manufacturers, which would be quite naughty of them. oops, missed out: but if the receiver is the only part of the chain being upgraded (i.e., they already have an HDTV, as many people do), everything working is *far* from guaranteed. - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
right, I’m going to level with you all: I’m tired. very tired. I’m juggling a day-job building e-commerce websites with a hobby helping to build some very very cool things, and I’ve put an awful lot of time and effort into questioning, gaining understanding of and explaining this whole Freeview HD copy-protection debacle. I don’t think I’ve been especially unclear, or got caught up in rhetoric and emotion to any a great extent, and I’ve done my best to try to answer questions and concerns and everything else to the best of my knowledge. now, it’s true that my knowledge of DVB internals isn’t the best in the world: the people for whom that holds true work for the BBC and so can’t really comment too much. but, I’ve taken what I do know and tried to put it into plain English as much as I possibly can, and as far as I can see much of this whole thing is rather cut-and-dried. now, to be clear, this scheme hasn’t particularly irritated me. in all honesty, it was to be expected to an extent. there are aspects of it which *have* annoyed me, but not to the point of getting angry about it (the last time that happened, I spent all a whole day adding signatures to the bottom of an open letter…) what _has_ irritated to me, however, is the fact that nobody representing the BBC will be straight about it. everything has to be dressed up to make it look appealing (especially where it isn’t), which makes it a whole lot worse if it’s principally motivated by _other_ Freeview HD broadcasters. the whole approach to it was not one of informing the public in a fair and impartial manner, but of public relations. now, I wrote this article, originally for the BBC Internet Blog, but it was declined (as the BBC had already made their position clear and wanted nothing which might detract from it), and luckily I managed to persuade the Guardian to run it instead: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/01/bbc-hd-consultation-hdmi this was an article that I wrote deliberately (given its target outlet) to avoid speculation, half-truths, paranoia, cynicism or knee-jerk, sticking as much as humanly possible to the facts. if anything, I probably gave the BBC the benefit of the doubt a little more than I should! now, I can understand that it was declined for publication. after all, at that point, a guest post from a non-staffer was pretty unprecedented. but that’s besides the point: why was it necessary for me to write that post in the first place? the method of engagement which the BBC employed — principally the BBC Internet blog (and only _after_ Cory Doctorow and Tom Watson drew attention to the proposal which had been quietly submitted to Ofcom without any form of public statement by the BBC) — glossed over the stuff that was in there, and yet those were the things people wanted to know most of all. so, all in all, I’m disappointed by the BBC. not for pushing this through per se, but for its approach to it, which has been nothing short of disgraceful. for the record, Nick, although I *disagree* with you on some things, I think you’ve done as good a job as you could have done with this whole thing — I do think it was ridiculous that you were left to field questions, though (questions which would never have arisen had the BBC been upfront and honest with everybody in the first place). I’ve made my position on the actual scheme quite clear, so I’m going to stop now. most of us on here are as far as I know (save for some quibbles over minor details and loopholes) of *broadly* the same opinion, though depending on your perspective your position might vary from “argh!” to “worthless waste of everybody’s time” (or more likely, somewhere in between). there are some who disagree, who think the short-term gain is worth the long-term loss, and I can’t do anything but agree to disagree. my colours have been nailed to the mast, and I’m not going to continue re-stating the facts in as many different ways as I can muster in order to answer the same points over and over again. as I said, I have better things to be doing with my time. I’m not going anywhere, and I’ll still be reading this thread, but I don’t honestly have the energy to keep replying to anything but purely technical stuff in relation to this. I really am very tired. M. - 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/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
People won't miss something they never knew they had in the first place especially if they are able to do all the things they can now, which it appears they will be damn, someone invented the car and forgot to tell anyone. still we won't miss what we never knew... or miss seems an odd word when describing past possibility? winmail.dat
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
It is sincerely wearying. I wish we were more honest. If it was me doing the talking for us, it would be different, but i don't get that clout. Cheers for the input. a Sent from my HTC -Original Message- From: Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net Sent: 15 June 2010 22:13 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management right, Im going to level with you all: Im tired. very tired. Im juggling a day-job building e-commerce websites with a hobby helping to build some very very cool things, and Ive put an awful lot of time and effort into questioning, gaining understanding of and explaining this whole Freeview HD copy-protection debacle. I dont think Ive been especially unclear, or got caught up in rhetoric and emotion to any a great extent, and Ive done my best to try to answer questions and concerns and everything else to the best of my knowledge. now, its true that my knowledge of DVB internals isnt the best in the world: the people for whom that holds true work for the BBC and so cant really comment too much. but, Ive taken what I do know and tried to put it into plain English as much as I possibly can, and as far as I can see much of this whole thing is rather cut-and-dried. now, to be clear, this scheme hasnt particularly irritated me. in all honesty, it was to be expected to an extent. there are aspects of it which *have* annoyed me, but not to the point of getting angry about it (the last time that happened, I spent all a whole day adding signatures to the bottom of an open letter ) what _has_ irritated to me, however, is the fact that nobody representing the BBC will be straight about it. everything has to be dressed up to make it look appealing (especially where it isnt), which makes it a whole lot worse if its principally motivated by _other_ Freeview HD broadcasters. the whole approach to it was not one of informing the public in a fair and impartial manner, but of public relations. now, I wrote this article, originally for the BBC Internet Blog, but it was declined (as the BBC had already made their position clear and wanted nothing which might detract from it), and luckily I managed to persuade the Guardian to run it instead: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/01/bbc-hd-consultation-hdmi this was an article that I wrote deliberately (given its target outlet) to avoid speculation, half-truths, paranoia, cynicism or knee-jerk, sticking as much as humanly possible to the facts. if anything, I probably gave the BBC the benefit of the doubt a little more than I should! now, I can understand that it was declined for publication. after all, at that point, a guest post from a non-staffer was pretty unprecedented. but thats besides the point: why was it necessary for me to write that post in the first place? the method of engagement which the BBC employed principally the BBC Internet blog (and only _after_ Cory Doctorow and Tom Watson drew attention to the proposal which had been quietly submitted to Ofcom without any form of public statement by the BBC) glossed over the stuff that was in there, and yet those were the things people wanted to know most of all. so, all in all, Im disappointed by the BBC. not for pushing this through per se, but for its approach to it, which has been nothing short of disgraceful. for the record, Nick, although I *disagree* with you on some things, I think youve done as good a job as you could have done with this whole thing I do think it was ridiculous that you were left to field questions, though (questions which would never have arisen had the BBC been upfront and honest with everybody in the first place). Ive made my position on the actual scheme quite clear, so Im going to stop now. most of us on here are as far as I know (save for some quibbles over minor details and loopholes) of *broadly* the same opinion, though depending on your perspective your position might vary from argh! to worthless waste of everybodys time (or more likely, somewhere in between). there are some who disagree, who think the short-term gain is worth the long-term loss, and I cant do anything but agree to disagree. my colours have been nailed to the mast, and Im not going to continue re-stating the facts in as many different ways as I can muster in order to answer the same points over and over again. as I said, I have better things to be doing with my time. Im not going anywhere, and Ill still be reading this thread, but I dont honestly have the energy to keep replying to anything but purely technical stuff in relation to this. I really am very tired. M. - 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Mo, The BBC has made its position quite clear on the blog - not once but several times. We have been straight about it as you can see from these blog posts, not just recently but as far back as April last year (see Danielle Nagler's post in the list below) - so the idea that we didn't want to talk about this is false: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/welcome_to_some_new_initi als_d.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_up.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_manag ement.html Tom Watson's original blog post contained inaccuracies as he himself subsequently admitted and corrected. As is often the case when the BBC takes a position that people disagree with they then accuse the BBC of not being straight with them. We are being straight but I'm afraid we can't give you exactly what you want. There's no conspiracy or cover up we just disagree. I have worked hard to get the BBC to engage with you and in my view bearing in mind the obvious sensitivities we have done this well. Even I though we couldn't publish your blog post I spent time trying to get it published in other places, encouraged you to do so and I was pleased when it was. And I'm saddened that you use the word disgraceful in your email below. I believe the BBC has communicated this as well as we can. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 22:14 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management right, I'm going to level with you all: I'm tired. very tired. I'm juggling a day-job building e-commerce websites with a hobby helping to build some very very cool things, and I've put an awful lot of time and effort into questioning, gaining understanding of and explaining this whole Freeview HD copy-protection debacle. I don't think I've been especially unclear, or got caught up in rhetoric and emotion to any a great extent, and I've done my best to try to answer questions and concerns and everything else to the best of my knowledge. now, it's true that my knowledge of DVB internals isn't the best in the world: the people for whom that holds true work for the BBC and so can't really comment too much. but, I've taken what I do know and tried to put it into plain English as much as I possibly can, and as far as I can see much of this whole thing is rather cut-and-dried. now, to be clear, this scheme hasn't particularly irritated me. in all honesty, it was to be expected to an extent. there are aspects of it which *have* annoyed me, but not to the point of getting angry about it (the last time that happened, I spent all a whole day adding signatures to the bottom of an open letter...) what _has_ irritated to me, however, is the fact that nobody representing the BBC will be straight about it. everything has to be dressed up to make it look appealing (especially where it isn't), which makes it a whole lot worse if it's principally motivated by _other_ Freeview HD broadcasters. the whole approach to it was not one of informing the public in a fair and impartial manner, but of public relations. now, I wrote this article, originally for the BBC Internet Blog, but it was declined (as the BBC had already made their position clear and wanted nothing which might detract from it), and luckily I managed to persuade the Guardian to run it instead: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/01/bbc-hd-consultation-hdmi this was an article that I wrote deliberately (given its target outlet) to avoid speculation, half-truths, paranoia, cynicism or knee-jerk, sticking as much as humanly possible to the facts. if anything, I probably gave the BBC the benefit of the doubt a little more than I should! now, I can understand that it was declined for publication. after all, at that point, a guest post from a non-staffer was pretty unprecedented. but that's besides the point: why was it necessary for me to write that post in the first place? the method of engagement which the BBC employed - principally the BBC Internet blog (and only _after_ Cory Doctorow and Tom Watson drew attention to the proposal which had been quietly submitted to Ofcom without any form of public statement by the BBC) - glossed over the stuff that was in there, and yet those were the things people wanted to know most of all. so, all in all, I'm disappointed by the BBC. not for pushing this through per se, but for its approach to it, which has been nothing short of disgraceful. for the record, Nick, although I *disagree* with you on some things, I think you've done as good a job as you could have done with this whole thing - I do think it was ridiculous that you were left to field questions, though (questions which would never have arisen had the BBC been upfront and honest
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 06/15/2010 10:11 PM, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: People won't miss something they never knew they had in the first place especially if they are able to do all the things they can now, which it appears they will be. They'll find out soon enough, they're not, and it doesn't. This is a problem. - Rob. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 15-Jun-2010, at 22:41, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: The BBC has made its position quite clear on the blog - not once but several times. We have been straight about it as you can see from these blog posts, not just recently but as far back as April last year (see Danielle Nagler's post in the list below) - so the idea that we didn't want to talk about this is false: well, yes. the *position* was very clear. the facts — that is, what was being proposed and the nitty-gritty of how it would actually affect people — weren’t, as evidenced by the many questions which went unanswered in the blog comments. Tom Watson’s blog post contained inaccuracies because he was interpreting a very technical industry document without background knowledge — which was what everybody else (myself included) had to do in order to figure out what it was that was actually being proposed (how else are people supposed to know what they’re dealing with?) the _position_ took priority over the facts. the BBC was very effective at communicating the position. it was abysmal at communicating the facts. the closest it came was Danielle’s post back in April last year (which I linked to earlier in this thread — I was very aware of it!), and even that was rather heavy on the PR, and took some flak at the time for it. I have worked hard to get the BBC to engage with you and in my view bearing in mind the obvious sensitivities we have done this well. Even I though we couldn't publish your blog post I spent time trying to get it published in other places, encouraged you to do so and I was pleased when it was. Don’t get me wrong, I do very much appreciate your efforts — please don’t take this as a personal criticism, because it’s not, at all — in no small part because it’s not *your* job to translate engineering terms into the actual effects. I’m not sure what the sensitivities are — does the public not have a right to make an informed judgement given the facts of it? And I'm saddened that you use the word disgraceful in your email below. I believe the BBC has communicated this as well as we can. I’m sorry you’re saddened, but believe me, the BBC (not “you” singular), could have done a lot better better. Communication on this was shoddy and haphazard, it — with the exception of Danielle’s post — reeked of damage-limitation, missed out half of the stuff that people would naturally want to know, and you weren’t able to find out the answer to. In fact, you had asked some of same questions, because you didn’t know the answer either. I know for a fact, though, that lots of the people within the BBC who were involved in creating this whole thing would have known the answers, because if you’re an expert in DVB, it’s actually pretty basic stuff! (don’t forget, this had already been implemented once already, and the BBC, via the DTG and DTLA, were talking to receiver manufacturers to ensure they were doing the right thing). so, to be brutally honest, if there’s something you couldn’t be more wrong about in this whole affair, it’s this. the BBC wasn’t particularly honest — it didn’t lie, but it was a very very long way away from the whole truth — and I think it’s unfortunate that you’ve been taken along for the ride. I think *you*, not to mention everybody else, deserve better than that, even if we ultimately disagree about whether the actual proposal is a good or a bad thing. M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Well as always I suspect we will argue about this until the cows come home and not resolve it. No what the BBC is doing is illegal under European law, (encrypting the broadcast - the EPG is broadcast), or at least, failing a legal opinion, in breach of the spirit of the law. Where is the mandate for the BBC to break the law. Where is the mandate for the BBC to enforce copyright or acquire control over consumers behavior through the use of intellectual property. We all know what the current political environment is with the secret ACTA etc. But that does not validate the Ofcom's or the BBC's actions. This is about the freedom of action of the individual, versus control by the intellectual property owner, whose rights are seen as more important to than public, and extend effectively forever. The BBC is in the wrong side on this fight. And I for one, am appalled at the BBC's stance. It doesn't get to be a much more fundamental principle, than freedom of speech and action, as the US constitution demonstrates. Comments Nick, anyone else ? - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
#FAIL http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-freeview-allowed-to-use-drm-to-curtail-online-piracy/ http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-freeview-allowed-to-use-drm-to-curtail-online-piracy/Not much of a shock really. Or much use for the stated purpose. -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 14-Jun-2010, at 17:31, Brian Butterworth wrote: #FAIL http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-freeview-allowed-to-use-drm-to-curtail-online-piracy/ Not much of a shock really. Or much use for the stated purpose. +2 - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 14-Jun-2010, at 18:14, Alex Cockell wrote: So i'll have to buy box after box to watch content? doubtful. those which have been sold for FVHD already will have in-built support for the mechanism (it's specced by the ETSI DVB standards), but will likely need an update to get the decoding table. that is, unless they're going to use the same decoding table as Freesat (given the fact that it was claimed to have been generated from a large sample set in order to ensure optimal compression rates, it _should_ be)… M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
So is this just going to be another region-coding like affair where 'people' release cracked firmware or just press a few magic button sequences on their remote to remove this protection? And what about those vendors who sell DVRs that have community contributed plugins (e.g. like Topfield did/does); that's just going to make a mockery of this mockworthy content protection. - Phil On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 18:21 +0100, Mo McRoberts wrote: On 14-Jun-2010, at 18:14, Alex Cockell wrote: So i'll have to buy box after box to watch content? doubtful. those which have been sold for FVHD already will have in-built support for the mechanism (it's specced by the ETSI DVB standards), but will likely need an update to get the decoding table. that is, unless they're going to use the same decoding table as Freesat (given the fact that it was claimed to have been generated from a large sample set in order to ensure optimal compression rates, it _should_ be)… M. - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
People might be interested that in the ORG perspective: Original Message Subject: Re: [ORG-discuss] ofcom drm bbc consultation - redux Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:14:47 + From: Jim Killock j...@openrightsgroup.org Reply-To: Open Rights Group open discussion list org-disc...@lists.openrightsgroup.org To: Open Rights Group open discussion list org-disc...@lists.openrightsgroup.org References: 117182.75425...@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com Just to say, Cory, myself and others met with Ofcom to discuss this. I don't think they had a full idea of the likely impacts, or the game playing that is going on. What is needed now is a wide coalition including potentially affected device manufacturers and software engineers to show the impacts on them. If anyone has contacts like these, please let me know. On 22 Jan 2010, at 12:19, Glyn Wintle wrote: Ofcom, following the great idea of asking the same question enough times till you get the answer you want, have published a new consultation. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/condoc.pdf http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_management.html ___ ORG-discuss mailing list org-disc...@lists.openrightsgroup.org http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/org-discuss To unsubscribe, send a blank email to org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org Jim Killock Executive Director Open Rights Group +44 (0) 7894 498 127 Skype: jimkillock http://twitter.com/jimkillock http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ ___ ORG-discuss mailing list org-disc...@lists.openrightsgroup.org http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/org-discuss To unsubscribe, send a blank email to org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: People on the list may be interested in this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_manag ement.html - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:58, Tim Dobson li...@tdobson.net wrote: People might be interested that in the ORG perspective: For what it's worth, I was in discussions with Jim prior to that meeting, and put together a document for him outlining the situation and the issues that I'd turned up (obviously quite a bit of it had come up discussions here and on the bbcinternet blog). I hope it went some way in helping. If I remember later, I'll dig it out and post it to this thread. It made for a reasonable semi-executive summary, even if it wasn't quite as diplomatic as it might be if it were addressed to BBC senior management, for example ;) M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Out of interest, has anyone done a proper legal search on the proposals? I'm under the impression that the mandate that puts all public service content out without any form of proection is in primary legislation, various Broadcasting Acts and Wireless Telegraphy Acts. Ofcom's powers are limited to those provided to it under the Communications Act 2003 and the set-up act Office of *Communications Act* 2002. Ofcom only has power to issue licences that are legal, it does not have the power to change the primary legislation. Or have I missed something obvious here? 2010/1/26 Tim Dobson li...@tdobson.net People might be interested that in the ORG perspective: Original Message Subject: Re: [ORG-discuss] ofcom drm bbc consultation - redux Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:14:47 + From: Jim Killock j...@openrightsgroup.org Reply-To: Open Rights Group open discussion list org-disc...@lists.openrightsgroup.org To: Open Rights Group open discussion list org-disc...@lists.openrightsgroup.org References: 117182.75425...@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com Just to say, Cory, myself and others met with Ofcom to discuss this. I don't think they had a full idea of the likely impacts, or the game playing that is going on. What is needed now is a wide coalition including potentially affected device manufacturers and software engineers to show the impacts on them. If anyone has contacts like these, please let me know. On 22 Jan 2010, at 12:19, Glyn Wintle wrote: Ofcom, following the great idea of asking the same question enough times till you get the answer you want, have published a new consultation. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/condoc.pdf http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_management.html ___ ORG-discuss mailing list org-disc...@lists.openrightsgroup.org http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/org-discuss To unsubscribe, send a blank email to org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org Jim Killock Executive Director Open Rights Group +44 (0) 7894 498 127 Skype: jimkillock http://twitter.com/jimkillock http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ ___ ORG-discuss mailing list org-disc...@lists.openrightsgroup.org http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/org-discuss To unsubscribe, send a blank email to org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: People on the list may be interested in this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_manag ement.html - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:26, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: Out of interest, has anyone done a proper legal search on the proposals? I'm under the impression that the mandate that puts all public service content out without any form of proection is in primary legislation, various Broadcasting Acts and Wireless Telegraphy Acts. Ofcom's powers are limited to those provided to it under the Communications Act 2003 and the set-up act Office of Communications Act 2002. Ofcom only has power to issue licences that are legal, it does not have the power to change the primary legislation. Or have I missed something obvious here? I did do some digging, though IANAL and it was only a cursory high-level search (and it was a while ago) From memory, though, and this is just my skim-understanding: primary legislation covers EPG services as well as TV channels themselves and in much the same way to one another. Ofcom issues licenses for both, and both are bound by similar (and in many cases identical) rules. So, even if you accept that the programmes will be broadcast in the clear, this doesn't change the fact that EPG data isn't unregulated. Now, what I don't know is: a) whether the fact that the EPG data is broadcast by a wholly-owned subsidiary rather than the Corporation makes any difference b) whether the PSB obligation applies to the EPG data in the first place (I'd guess yes, but would prefer confirmation of this) c) whether you'd need to mount a legal challenge in court to prove any of it if it turned out that Ofcom didn't, in fact, have the authority M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Interesting. 2010/1/26 Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net I did do some digging, though IANAL and it was only a cursory high-level search (and it was a while ago) From memory, though, and this is just my skim-understanding: primary legislation covers EPG services as well as TV channels themselves and in much the same way to one another. Ofcom issues licenses for both, and both are bound by similar (and in many cases identical) rules. So, even if you accept that the programmes will be broadcast in the clear, this doesn't change the fact that EPG data isn't unregulated. The Ofcom document states: 5.9.2 A commitment to establishing an “appeals” process whereby viewers who believe their lawful usage is being impinged by the BBC’s use of content management can raise their concerns to the BBC, rather than having to write to the Secretary of State, which is the current legal requirement; 10.1 These raised a number of potentially significant questions regarding compliance with copyright law and competition issues that were not addressed in our original letter. 3.16.1 An undertaking to respect current user protections enshrined in copyright law and any future extension of these protections, such as those recommended by the Gower’s Review of Intellectual Property; 5.9.1 An undertaking that the BBC will respect current usage protections under copyright law and any future extension of these protections, such as thoserecommended by the Gower’s Review of Intellectual Property18 and A.2.3 The signalling of content management states by broadcasters in respect of any programme does not indicate any form of entitlement to copy or distribute this content.The responsibility resides with citizens and consumers to respect all rights associated with video and audio works. It should be noted that the content management approach implemented for Freeview HD will frequently enable far more extensive copying and distribution of broadcast content than is likely to be considered acceptable to the majority of rights-holders or is legitimate under current UK law. Now, what I don't know is: a) whether the fact that the EPG data is broadcast by a wholly-owned subsidiary rather than the Corporation makes any difference I'm quite sure that's not the case as the company is wholly owned by the BBC. b) whether the PSB obligation applies to the EPG data in the first place (I'd guess yes, but would prefer confirmation of this) Both the BBC and Ofcom would think so, because they would not have had to consult. The BBC could have just done it if the corporation's lawyers had said it was just OK. c) whether you'd need to mount a legal challenge in court to prove any of it if it turned out that Ofcom didn't, in fact, have the authority I'm sure at the very least you would need a proper solicitor's letter, rather than the word of a blogger. But the BBC seems to be arguing that the BBC *must* have the ability to protect the output of Freeview HD devices to comply with the law. I have a Rumpole voice in my head asking the Director General ...but you have run the Freeview service for over a decade without this protection, are you telling the court that you were not complying with the law then, sir? M. - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 26-Jan-2010, at 17:20, Brian Butterworth wrote: It should be noted that the content management approach implemented for Freeview HD will frequently enable far more extensive copying and distribution of broadcast content than is likely to be considered acceptable to the majority of rights-holders or is legitimate under current UK law. That’s a slightly dubious interpretation (well, apart from the “considered acceptable to the majority of rights-holders”). Time-shifting (which is only permitted for HD content under a relatively narrow set of circumstances, including you having purchased the “right” kit) is specifically “not an offence”. While there aren’t specific exemptions written into law allowing for space-shifting, its practice is so widespread for other media that it would be impossible to enforce now without there being massive backlash from both consumers and CE manufacturers alike: to do so would outlaw ripping of [non-DRM’d] CDs, for a start, and theoretically mean you’d have to purchase a separate copy of each media item for each device you wanted it on, even if you never consumed them simultaneously (e.g., one copy for your laptop, one for your iPod…). Given the above, and Ofcom’s wording, it still doesn’t open things up any (§A.2.3); according to commonplace and to date uncontested practice, on the other hand, it’s far more restrictive, and it certainly doesn't give anybody any *rights* to distribute. Of course, all of that’s aside from the things unrelated to the content itself, such as the licensing regime and non-disclosure terms attached to it all. One thing I have noticed about the official position is that it always talks about what the system would _permit_ you to do in glowing terms and skims over what it prevents you from doing. The reality is, we’re permitted (insofar as the hardware and broadcast chain is concerned) to do all of those things if the BBC does nothing at all. I noted with interest the publications which repeated Graham Plumb’s list of things we’d [still] be able to do if it went ahead. M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 26-Jan-2010, at 16:20, Mo McRoberts wrote: If I remember later, I'll dig it out and post it to this thread. It made for a reasonable semi-executive summary, even if it wasn't quite as diplomatic as it might be if it were addressed to BBC senior management, for example ;) And without further ado, here it is. Bear in mind this was written in December, so a few things have come to light since (and some more questions raised!). No idea if this is at all helpful to anybody, but enjoy :) Nick:— you get a namecheck in this, though I just want to state, for the record, that I do very much appreciate your efforts in trying to be the middle-man on a fairly complex technical issue! M. Background -- On the 27th August, Alix Pryde, controller of BBC Distribution, wrote to Greg Bensberg at Ofcom outlining two alternative mechanisms of implementing “Content management” for high-definition content broadcast on BBC HD (and, presumably, other HD channels, though this is unspecified) as carried by the then-upcoming Freeview HD service, designed to be the ultimate successor to both the analogue terrestrial and standard-definition Freeview television services. Of the two proposals, the first was centred around a licensing regime that would be adhered to by consumer electronics manufacturers: those wishing to brand their equipment as being Freeview HD-compliant would sign a non-disclosure agreement and implement certain decoding routines for scrambled EPG data. As part of the agreement, manufacturers would restrict the ability of their consumer electronics to interface along so-called “untrusted paths”. In effect, a simplistic digital rights management (DRM) system would be created, albeit one maintained solely by licensing agreements, rather than technical challenge. The key facets of this first proposal are that: * The actual high definition audio, video, subtitle and “Red Button” application content streams would be broadcast “in the clear” (unencrypted) * Some metadata carried with the HD signal (the Event Information Table, or EIT) would be compressed, with decoding tables “The Huffman Look-Up Tables” required for decompression * Although these decoding tables are trivial to reverse-engineer, doing so could fall afoul of the provisions of the European Copyright Directive (EUCD), and would also run counter to the Freeview HD licensing regime Thus, although a skilled individual—whatever their intent—would be able to bypass the restrictions, a CE manufacturer would have no option but to enter into the licensing agreement with the BBC in order to legitimately obtain a copy of the decoding table, and in doing so commit to implementing copy-restrictions in their device. The second proposal was to implement a much stronger form of Digital Rights Management whereby ostensibly “free to air” content would itself be encrypted, rather than simply the EIT. This clearly runs counter to the BBC’s public service principles, as indicated by original inquiry letter which includes the phrase “…a move from free-to-air to free-to-view…” in relation to this proposal. It has been made reasonably clear that the BBC has no desire to attempt to seek implementation of this second proposal, and it’s relatively apparent that it would have little success in doing so (especially given that the Freeview HD service has now launched, aside from public policy concerns). Publicity on the proposals -- On the 3rd September, Greg Bensberg issued a letter to “Stakeholders in the UK DTT industry”, published on Ofcom’s website. This was not issued in the form of a public consultation, nor clearly announced on the high-traffic areas of the site. After the letters were published, both Tom Watson MP and Cory Doctorow published blog articles online and in the MediaGuardian regarding the issue. The articles contained some factual inaccuracies, brought about largely thanks to the lack of a proper consultation including an explanation of the issues and the proposed remedies. Despite this, the publicity which resulted from Tom and Cory’s posts was sufficient to cause the BBC to begin dialogue with the public on the issue. In a BBC Internet Blog post, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protection_up.html, Graham Plumb responded initially to Tom Watson’s piece (followed up later by http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html in response to Cory’s MediaGuardian article). It became clear after these posts were published that the Graham Plumb, although author of the text of the posts, was not directly engaging those asking questions and submitting other comments. For the most part, Nick Reynolds (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile/?userid=11648404) co-editor of the BBC Internet Blog, did a reasonable job of fielding the questions, but was limited in his ability to gain answers from Graham Plumb (or anybody else with the ability to give them).
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Hummm what's this I spy here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcbackstage/2010/01/freeview-hd-content-management.shtml Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Frank Wales Sent: 23 January 2010 17:54 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management Mo McRoberts wrote: It’s almost as though Ofcom (and the BBC, and distributors) believe the illicit file-sharing is bound by geographical restrictions, though that’s so crazy it can’t possibly be true… Are you suggesting that these organizations don't fully understand the media landscape they're presiding over? Why, that's...inconceivable! -- Frank Wales [fr...@limov.com] - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Given it a go, going to Tweet it and things. 2010/1/25 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk Hummm what's this I spy here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcbackstage/2010/01/freeview-hd-content-management.shtml Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Frank Wales Sent: 23 January 2010 17:54 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management Mo McRoberts wrote: It’s almost as though Ofcom (and the BBC, and distributors) believe the illicit file-sharing is bound by geographical restrictions, though that’s so crazy it can’t possibly be true… Are you suggesting that these organizations don't fully understand the media landscape they're presiding over? Why, that's...inconceivable! -- Frank Wales [fr...@limov.com] - 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/ - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Good thinking :) So not use to tweeting my blog entries and MT doesn't have that support in the version we use on blogs.bbc.co.uk Secret[] Private[x] Public[] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 25 January 2010 16:58 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management Given it a go, going to Tweet it and things. 2010/1/25 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk Hummm what's this I spy here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcbackstage/2010/01/freeview-hd-content-management.shtml Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Frank Wales Sent: 23 January 2010 17:54 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management Mo McRoberts wrote: It’s almost as though Ofcom (and the BBC, and distributors) believe the illicit file-sharing is bound by geographical restrictions, though that’s so crazy it can’t possibly be true… Are you suggesting that these organizations don't fully understand the media landscape they're presiding over? Why, that's...inconceivable! -- Frank Wales [fr...@limov.com] - 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/ - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
I use Hootsuite to publish from my RSS feeds. It works even if you don't log in. http://hootsuite.com/ 2010/1/25 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk Good thinking :) So not use to tweeting my blog entries and MT doesn't have that support in the version we use on blogs.bbc.co.uk Secret[] Private[x] Public[] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ -- *From:* owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth *Sent:* 25 January 2010 16:58 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management Given it a go, going to Tweet it and things. 2010/1/25 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk Hummm what's this I spy here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcbackstage/2010/01/freeview-hd-content-management.shtml Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Frank Wales Sent: 23 January 2010 17:54 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management Mo McRoberts wrote: It’s almost as though Ofcom (and the BBC, and distributors) believe the illicit file-sharing is bound by geographical restrictions, though that’s so crazy it can’t possibly be true… Are you suggesting that these organizations don't fully understand the media landscape they're presiding over? Why, that's...inconceivable! -- Frank Wales [fr...@limov.com] - 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/ - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote at 19:35 on 2010-01-22: On 22-Jan-2010, at 18:55, Steffan Davies wrote: Oh, definitely. I wasn't saying that would be a good implementation, just that it might permit appliance makers to comply without having to reinvent the wheel entirely (which typically leads to square or triangular wheels). But, it fundamentally alters the relationship between (content producers, distributors, broadcasters), standards bodies and manufacturers. Couldn't agree more - the idea is daft and my suggestion was purely a implementation suggestion in the light of that daftery. Quite HD is so intrinsically different from standard DVB-T that it needs to be encumbered in this way is beyond me. S - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 15:07, Steffan Davies st...@steff.name wrote: Couldn't agree more - the idea is daft and my suggestion was purely a implementation suggestion in the light of that daftery. Quite HD is so intrinsically different from standard DVB-T that it needs to be encumbered in this way is beyond me. Even if you were to, hypothetically, accept that it was somehow different, a lot of the content being talked about as “needing protection” is imported: premium US TV shows, films and the like. The copy-protection regime being talked about here doesn’t exist in the US (the FCC specifically prohibited it), and so if they’re going to circulate illicitly, chances are they’ll come from the US—rendering the whole thing moot. This bizarre view that programmes almost don’t exist until they’re aired in the UK (and that consumers won’t be aware of them) is played out by the Ofcom consultation document, which talks specifically about content being aired for the first time _in this UK_ — which will, in general, be at an absolute bare minimum a day or two after it was screened in the US. It’s almost as though Ofcom (and the BBC, and distributors) believe the illicit file-sharing is bound by geographical restrictions, though that’s so crazy it can’t possibly be true… M. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Mo McRoberts wrote: It’s almost as though Ofcom (and the BBC, and distributors) believe the illicit file-sharing is bound by geographical restrictions, though that’s so crazy it can’t possibly be true… Are you suggesting that these organizations don't fully understand the media landscape they're presiding over? Why, that's...inconceivable! -- Frank Wales [fr...@limov.com] - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Ah, the Irish Euro Referendum all over again. 2010/1/22 Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk People on the list may be interested in this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_management.html Nick Reynolds (Editor, Social Media, Central Editorial Team, BBC Online) BBC Future MediaTechnology ext: 80934 mobile: 0780 162 4919 address: BC4 D6, Broadcast Centre, White City W12 BBC Internet Blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/ My internal blog: http://bbcblogs.gateway.bbc.co.uk/reynonp1/ Future Media Technology: http://home.gateway.bbc.co.uk/fmt/main.asp?page=4282 My personal twitter: https://twitter.com/nickreynoldsatw -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_manag ement.html Overall, we believe the proposed system takes a highly pragmatic approach to content management Why do people always use pragmatic as a synonym for complicit? Indeed, the proposed Freeview HD content management approach is so 'light-touch' that some have argued that it is not worth having. So don't have it then. Problem solved I just hope that these communities can understand our position too; that we want to deliver the service which enables more viewers across the UK to enjoy high definition content as soon as possible. That isn't the BBC's position. The BBC's position is that they are going to ignore both history and public opinion and keep pushing for DRM until they get it. Holding a new service hostage is a convenient way of achieving this. - Rob. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 13:08, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Holding a new service hostage is a convenient way of achieving this. Maybe they could just scrap Freeview HD all together and bring back the interactive services. If you want HD then you need Satellite or Cable, much in the same was as if you wanted colour you needed to get UHF. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Quotations except from JJ Rousseau are from the BBC Internet blog article. They don't like the idea that the owner of that media may want to limit the way they can use that content or have some say on whether it can be shared over the internet. Man is born free but why everywhere he is in chains? Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Your interest in secondary sources of income, is more important than, the freedom of action of the public. Consumers also stand to lose as, without this income, the range and quality of the content available (on free-to-air channels) would inevitably suffer. Double the license fee and double the quality and range of content ! I don't think the public will buy that argument. You are merely arguing for the status quo, as if that is evidence, of the best of all possible scenarios. Some would suggest the current BBC License Fee, is already over inflated, especially given the relative size of the national average wage vs BBC salaries and current BBC output. Arguing for restrictions to capture more revenue, strengthens this opinion. Broadcasters could have tried to take a 'heavy-handed' approach to this problem. The public would revolt at the lost of facilities provided by technology like timeshifting (VCR). This is the most you suspect the public will accept. Remember regional encoding and Content Scrambling System on DVD's. whilst at the same time protecting the legitimate concerns of rights holders. The concerns are not legitimate, you do not have the right to enslave the public, in exchange for secondary sources of revenue. The proposed technical solution increases complexity and will fail, both as a form of control and allowing legitimate access, making the publics life more difficult. any form of content management is philosophically a bad thing And to think there was no content management other than copyright when Jean-Jacques Rousseau, was alive. the Open Source community who may still fear that this will be more restrictive than it will actually turn out to be for them. Open source does not allow for secrets, the system is predicated on secrets. that we want to deliver the service which enables more viewers across the UK to enjoy high definition content as soon as possible. Subject to limitations imposed by blackmail from the content industries. Perhaps the public should just reject the blackmail, and maintain our freedom. This is a social contract too far, that only meets the needs of special interests. - 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/
