On 03/04/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, of course. However, I said "more people put the unDRMed file on the
torrents". The file without DRM will be easier to distribute, therefore
perhaps more people will.
Apart from the fact that once the DRM is stripped
Hi Jason!
On 15/06/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I really don't want to get back into this :-)
I think this is important, and I hope you do too. So thanks for
contributing to the debate :-)
DRM is wrong. Pretty much anything that stops the free flow of
info
On 16/06/07, mike chamberlain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe the actual facts are...
1. Rights holders insist on time limited DRM solution.
2. Only Microsoft supports a time limited DRM.
3. Therefore, in order to conform to point 1, BBC have to use
Microsoft based DRM.
I accept a
rter is not to do a little bit better than it did before,
but to give the best value it possibly can. It's not doing the best it
can, and this isn't good enough.
Obviously DRM free content is even better, but it's not feasible right
now.
It is feasible right now, for some conte
, Microsoft's new Media
> Center marketing manager Mike Seamons, charged with demonstrating the charms
> of the Windows 7 version of Media Center, said that "Microsoft has always
> preferred DRM-free" content, adding that the company nonetheless understands
> the need for
Hi Jason!
On 03/04/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Yes, of course. However, I said
"more people put the unDRMed file on the> torrents". The file without DRM will be easier to
distribute, therefore> perhaps more people will.
The point about this Apple/E
Hi Jeremy,
From your first link:
"This requires the BBC to develop an alternative DRM framework to enable
users of other technology, for example, Apple and Linux, to access the
on-demand services."
They do realise that this will be virtually impossible, don't they? any
iPla
> Hi Jeremy,
> From your first link:
> "This requires the BBC to develop an alternative DRM framework
to
> enable users of other technology, for example, Apple and Linux, to
> access the on-demand services."
> They do realise that this will be
methods.
If the iPlayer did that then there would be choice!
I think its a mistake to concentrate on choice: If that's what is
promoted, then we'll just get a cross platform DRM system, which will
be even worse, because even more people will get their freedom
trampled.
DRM is not accept
me then, except that the other
> > media industries were yet to adondon DRM.
>
> as you say, in 2003/4 rights holders in other media industries still
> thought DRM would work
Many people who understood the nature of digital networks knew it
wouldn't work in 03/04, and now some rig
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 15:00, Sean DALY wrote:
> David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is
> incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to
> allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP
> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/
Actually I do wonder if the itunes store going non-DRM will finally be enough
to convince copyright owners that releasing content under a licence but with no
DRM is a good thing for everyone involved?
I mean what other popular DRM is there now? Windows media plays for sure?
-Original
Actually, lots of FLOSS code produces supersecure encryption; GnuPG for example.
Digital Restrictions Management of broadcast media is harder to do
than text messages or filesystem volumes.
Most commercial DRM developers don't give a hoot about GNU/Linux
platforms since marketshare is so
usual, guess GMail messed it up... Thanks for telling me!
Here it is again:
The point about this Apple/EMI deal is that they have costed out the"cost" of
non-DRM. This is very significant, and something MilesMetcalfe suggested in the DRM
Podcast.
Since there's no transcript, here&#x
Aleem B wrote:
> (why is it so surpising that microsoft would prefer
> DRM-free content).
Their prior actions, corporate culture, general technological
strategies, partnerships and regulatory environment.
And you have stripped the emphasis of the original. There is no evidence
that MS
r the internet
> from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet.
>
It's not worse, but it's not much better.
The BBC charter is not to do a little bit better than it did before,
but to give the best value it possibly can. It's not doing the best it
ca
<>
(I ask this politely) On what basis do you say that?
I don't know anyone who is happy with DRM. My 70 year-old neighbour refuses
to buy DRM material just on the principle that rights shouldn't be managed
because the implication of all DRM is that the buyer would be - but for t
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 20:07 +, vijay chopra wrote:
> And I'm sure the proposal for "Linux DRM" will go down well in the
> FLOSS community, as well as a lead balloon anyway.
Well, Linus seems to think it's OK...
http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/20030424011
ation on a TV, and also through a cable set top box? One
product.
> > Choice of methods.
>
> If the iPlayer did that then there would be choice!
I think its a mistake to concentrate on choice: If that's what is
promoted, then we'll just get a cross platform DRM system, whic
"This requires the BBC to develop an alternative DRM framework to enable
users of other technology, for example, Apple and Linux, to access the
on-demand..."
I'm now taking bets on how soon "BBC DRM" is cracked.
Seriously, do the people who wrote that paragraph seri
> > cos the start was in 2003/4, at which point in time the world looked
> > very different to both the BBC and to rights holders
>
>
> Really? The world looked the same to me then, except that the other
> media industries were yet to adondon DRM.
as you say, in 2
value chain.
> > >
> > > The business models which recognise this will thrive in the long term.
> >
> > Redressing things in the discourse of corporate businesses, like this,
> > is okay, but can lead to nasty outcomes like thinking that DRM is
> > legit
Aleem B wrote:
> BBC is a public service so the issues don't really translate to
> Microsoft/DRM which is inclined to support DRM so it can sign deals with
> labels and sell their music players.
Unless the BBC uses MS solutions with their DRM systems that aren't turned off.
Whi
OK, so the BBC has decided to use something more involved than a simple user
agent check to determine whether it will serve up standards compliant and non
DRM encumbered media to a client.
Fair enough. What I still find rather confusing is that, short of using
whatever DRM capabilities the
nt at which
it says you MUST use MICROSOFT DRM? I would really like to know so I
can email my MEP about this matter. In case they want to add the "BBC"
as an accessory to whatever they are prosecuting Microsoft for today.
Or is it not in fact true that the rights holders would be happy
On Sunday 23 November 2008 21:07:04 Aleem B wrote:
> > one of the more amusing aspects about
> > that is that some people prefer DVD because "it doesn't have any DRM".
...
> DVDs are not DRM free.
Sigh. You obviously can't read. I said I found it amusing that p
Michael,
The reason for this is probably due to the rather extreme lengths that
> Microsoft appear to have gone to with regard to their DRM system. This
> is a either a good thing or a bad thing from any given individual's
> perspective.
>From the end consumer it's never
I've had the opportunity to discuss DRM with Stallman and he said this:
"There is no room for DRM in Free Software. You could write a Free
program which refuses to do something, I think there are a few, but
the point is, since users can change it, it won't really satisfy
anyon
Circumventing DRM is explicitly permitted by law, for the purpose of
fair dealing. And penalties apply to those who attempt to use DRM to
prevent fair dealing.
http://www.gorila.hr/go/brazil-s-copyright-law-forbids-using-drm-to-block-fair-use_feeds_boingboing_net
http://www.myce.com/news/brazil
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 10:19 +0100, mike chamberlain wrote:
> 1. Rights holders insist on time limited DRM solution.
> 2. Only Microsoft supports a time limited DRM.
> 3. Therefore, in order to conform to point 1, BBC have to use
> Microsoft based DRM.
I would phrase it slightly dif
If no iPlayer is preferable to a DRM iPlayer then what's the problem, just
don't use the thing - nobody is forcing you to do anything.
I don't agree with piracy and it annoys the hell out of me when I see entire
episodes of BBC programming published on places like YouTube (adm
Does it in any way run counter to Microsoft's statement that they prefer
DRM-free content? Microsoft has a tainted history of bugs around DRM
(possibly even reason enough them the skip it altogether). The point,
however, is that Microsoft has little to gain from DRM but that's the w
> MS has a lot of employees - many have never liked DRM, many would bet their
> future on it. En-masse I thinkg MS tends towards the latter rather than the
> former.
I don't think DRM will go away either but that doesn't mean I like it. If I
were a company seeking out to bui
Sean DALY wrote:
David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is
incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to
allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not an active project
AFAIK, but it
On Thursday 13 March 2008 16:03:26 Thomas Leitch wrote:
> > Fair enough. What I still find rather confusing is that,
> > short of using whatever DRM capabilities the iPhone has, they
> > will still be streaming DRM free content to a single
> > platform, someth
On 13/12/2007, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > asta la vista DRM debate
> > > > I wouldn't be so sure about that; isn't there DRM in Flash video
> > > > streaming too?
> > > sorry - you're right - flash st
And don't forget the 'OMA DRM 2' used by iPlayer mobile.
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 12:25 +, Alan Pope wrote:
> 2009/1/12 Ian Forrester :
> > Actually I do wonder if the itunes store going non-DRM will finally be
> > enough to convince copyright owners that rel
This is NOT to replace HTTP delivery in order to enforce DRM in the flash
> player.
It is! :-)
No, it isn't. But your off-key one-note tune has already taken up too much
of my time.
Your failure to acknowledge the social problem of DRM - the BBC
acknowledges DRM but whines "we
On 01/03/2008, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is NOT to replace HTTP delivery in order to enforce DRM in the flash
> player.
It is! :-)
> As far as the flash player goes, this FMS 3 requirement is only
> about streaming MP4 container (h264/aac) into the flash pl
On 23/01/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Vijay,
Believe it.. I can hear the clunky wheels starting up.
"From the halls of the British Corporation.. yes we need DRM to satisfy
the owners of the work that is to be re-produced, without it we could
oning them to re-think
> their stance on DRM?
>
> Erm, I was talking about locking the MP4 stream to iPhone what has
> this got to do with DRM now?
DRM means "technical protection mechanisms" that are intended to
prevent unauthorised usage which is also restricted by copyrigh
I love how they make it sound like Apple's recent dumping of DRM was an
embrace of some form of DRM that would work on any and all devices:
"Digital Rights Management (DRM), properly applied, also has a role (i.e.
where it allows users to access content on any device that they own, r
2009/1/12 Ian Forrester :
> Actually I do wonder if the itunes store going non-DRM will finally be
> enough to convince copyright owners that releasing content under a licence
> but with no DRM is a good thing for everyone involved?
>
> I mean what other popular DRM is there now
Don't forget that iTunes still DRMs all their video content as well so
Apple hasn't really gone DRM free :)
-C.
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Scot
McSweeney-Roberts
Sent:
Hello
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6353889.stm
<< DRM software like Apple's Fairplay or Microsoft's Windows Media DRM
should properly be called digital restriction management, since its primary
goal is to limit what purchasers can do with downloaded content.>&g
On 29/02/2008, Iain Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> RTMP. This isn't DRM as the files
> inside the protocol are the same video formats that would be streamed
> over the web. DRM tends to be applied to the files directly.
That's what is new and vicious abou
ns would become
fairly trivial. While "security through obscurity is no security" still
holds (and is why even closed DRM has proven ineffective), it's hard to see
how FLOSS DRM would be in any way effective. At least with closed DRM, it
might take a little time to break.
While I can&
> > In time it'll be able to go back to rights holders and say "look,
> > piracy has not gone through the roof since we launched non-DRM
> > versions of iPlayer, meanwhile usage has gone through the roof (10x
> > increase), we're fighting a l
> > > > asta la vista DRM debate
> > >
> > > I wouldn't be so sure about that; isn't there DRM in Flash video
> > > streaming too?
> >
> > sorry - you're right - flash streaming using flash media server can be DRM'd
>
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 13:19, Tim Dobson wrote:
>
> We'll have to see what happens, but it wouldn't surprise me if 2010 was
> the year video DRM got dropped as DRM for audio and in music has been in
> the last year or two...
>
>
I'm not that hopeful. I th
Dave Crossland wrote:
On 12/06/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Having never written or Product Managed the writing of a reliable DRM
system
No one has ever and no one will ever write or Product Manage the
writing of a reliable DRM system.
There can never be such a
On 31/10/2007, Ian Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes there is Open source DRM, but if we choose some open
> source DRM, honestly would we all be happy? Remember DRM is
> DRM in any form.
I'd be happy with DRM licensed under the GPLv3, because of part 3:
--- 8&l
Hi,
A very interesting interview - many thanks to Backstage and Ashley. A few
thoughts:
* It seems clear that all of the portability issues currently affecting the
iPlayer beta are a direct result of the requirement for DRM specified at the
design stage.
If the DRM constraint _were_ relaxed
I think this is blurring the line between what constitutes DRM and
what constitutes a proprietary streaming protocol. The article doesn't
really go into any technical detail about what they're referring to,
but I take it they're referring to RTMP. This isn't DRM as the files
I couldn't agree more. The problem seems to be that everyone has bought the
DRM snake oil, and no one is willing to admit they got it wrong. Indeed I'm
sure there are many people who still believe that DRM is the "solution" to a
problem*; and no one in the broadcasting industry
On 25/06/07, Graeme Mulvaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If no iPlayer is preferable to a DRM iPlayer then what's the problem, just
don't use the thing - nobody is forcing you to do anything.
That, however much it might be your point of view, is not "a choice".
> Fair enough. What I still find rather confusing is that,
> short of using whatever DRM capabilities the iPhone has, they
> will still be streaming DRM free content to a single
> platform, something that is likely to be circumventable by
> other clients soon. Not only th
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 13:15 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
> The point about this Apple/EMI deal is that they have costed out
> the"cost" of non-DRM. This is very significant, and something
> MilesMetcalfe suggested in the DRM Podcast.
The BBC Trust had already done that. Des
On 13/02/07, Nic James Ferrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
either we're going to get some kind of DRM or rights holders are going
to be a less rich overall.
DRM doesn't halt file sharing, and for those who it does restrict from
sharing, it breaks the BBC's Web Principle #1
On 03/04/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 13:15 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
> The point about this Apple/EMI deal is that they have costed out
> the"cost" of non-DRM. This is very significant, and something
> MilesMetcalfe suggested
Actually the ones who are "watching again" on their PCs are already getting
it DRM free:
via bittorrent or eMule etc.
and just find a non-techie friend who wants their Fairplay encumbered music
to work on their non-apple MP3 player; then tell me that people don't want
DRM free
se it, but I can't even use that!
Taking into account that there are many DVRs out there running Linux
(including home-built MythTV boxes) or OSX (such as the AppleTV), it
seems silly to rely on the Microsoft DRM system when it is not a
*standard* that can be freely implemented by all.
s on YouTube, BitTorrent etc and detects the watermarks in them so
> that we can enforce the membership rules, then we could be a step closer
> to an alternative to DRM.
Hmmm... I wouldn't get excited if I were you.
As Tom said on the blog post that was referenced from this thread
somewh
savvy or not) to buy from that shop. I suspect that the iPlayer DRM will
never bother me as I'll be among the first to get the cracked iPlayer
client. Obviously I'll tell my friends and family to do the same, but it's
those people without tech-savvy friends who will be inconvenienc
Tom Loosemore wrote:
Why would he agree to talk to groklaw about DRM if that wasn't his
intention? It's not like him saying no to their interview request
would have been hard... and rights holders do know how to share
links...
You will find if you spider the backstage blog etc that
Hi Tom!
Great to see you posting here :-)
On 13/03/2008, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I can't help but feel a bit sorry for the BBC here. Rock and hard
> place. It's just removed DRM from the last two iPlayer releases (90%
> of iPlayer users do
Aleem, are you aware of the difficulties the BBC has encountered in
the iPlayer project after choosing Microsoft DRM to satisfy content
rights owners?
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Aleem B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BBC is a public service so the issues don't reall
On 12/06/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah yes. An insecure-by-design DRM scheme. Well that's useful, isn't
it.
Can't be worse the defective by design DRM we have now
A Digital Rights Management system that doesn't actually allow
you to manag
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 10:19 +0100, Mr I Forrester wrote:
> I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while,
> and want to ponder this question to the backstage community...
>
> We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Wel
Wrong - the door is open with a welcome sign because all the progs are
broadcast first of all on TV without DRM. Adding DRM later on is just a
meaningless waste of money. If people want to get content online, they can
and they will. iTV will probably make it even easier if it records live TV
as
> Oh, and where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit
> to the computer's owner?
It's a benefit to me, in that I subscribe to an online music library for
less than I used to spend on CDs. I have more music, and more money - I
call that a benefit.
That requires nei
Stephen Deasey wrote:
The BBC has many thousands of hours of programming which it holds
sufficient rights to enable it to published on the Internet, DRM-free.
If DRM is so distasteful, then why isn't this being done? Surely the
BBC should be taking steps to move towards a DRM-free worl
/technology/6353889.stm
<< DRM software like Apple's Fairplay or Microsoft's Windows Media DRM
should properly be called digital restriction management, since its
primary
goal is to limit what purchasers can do with downloaded content.>>
(from
Bill Thompson)
Isn't t
On 13/03/2008, Matt Barber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Wrong - the door is open with a welcome sign because all the progs are
> broadcast first of all on TV without DRM. Adding DRM later on is just a
> meaningless waste of money. If people want to get content online, they
> David, I'm curious, what's y...
I can't speak for David, but my own feeling on the subject is
that because the source is in the open, circumventing any restrictions
would become fairly trivial. While "security through obscurity is no
security" still holds (
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glyn Wintle
Sent: 24 January 2007 09:17
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] DRM
> --- Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you come up with a solution to dis
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 11:36 +0100, Ian Betteridge wrote:
> On 26/06/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 10:00 +0100, Ian Betteridge wrote:
> > > I happen to think you're completely wrong, on pretty much every
> > > count,
BBC is a public service so the issues don't really translate to
Microsoft/DRM which is inclined to support DRM so it can sign deals with
labels and sell their music players.
Your original mail (and subsequent follow up) is classic
flamebait<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamebait>--so
Hi Vijay,
Believe it.. I can hear the clunky wheels starting up.
"From the halls of the British Corporation.. yes we need DRM to
satisfy the owners of the work that is to be re-produced, without it
we could never get a licence, or the content etc.etc.etc.."
D
On 4/3/07, Daniel Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that many CDs have some form of DRM on them.
I was under the impression that DRM'd CDs were flawed, and have largely
stopped being sold? (Not to mention the bad public reaction of people
using their pc as a hifi buyin
> On that note, what type
> > of Pirate (Arrgh, me hearties) downloads DRMed Music?
>
> People are often falling foul of FairPlay DRM because they want to
> have more/different devices than Apple deem necessary. That's a
> regrettable side effect though; the people that the r
I'm happy to take the BBC's money and produce content for it without any DRM
clause. The BBC can find other suppliers. It doesn't have to stick with its
current suppliers/friends/former
employees-now-turned-private-production-companies. Break up the cartel and
get some new life a
]Those watching the DRM debate will be interested to see the latest music
industry developments which will presumably set the precedent for download
video bus models.
Last week's Music Week (the weekly UK music industry trade paper) led with the
headline reporting from "Midem (
> On 12/06/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Having never written or Product Managed the writing of a
> > reliable DRM
> > system
> No one has ever and no one will ever write or Product Manage
> the writing of a reliable DRM system.
> There
> DRM doesn't exist on my planet... but then nor does BBC TV
> according to the BBC. Talk about restricting culture, it seems
> at every level. I don't believe that DRM is to stop the customer
> or help the original Rights owner. but it sure allows some
>
On a related DRM tip, I just thought I'd chip in with some comments my
wife made last night. We download podcasts from the BBC, and from
Virgin Radio (thanks Mr Cridland!), but obviously it is all talk
related, not full track music content.
My wife asked me "Are there any podcasts f
Maybe the BBC is only paying lip-service to the notion of DRM knowing that
anything it puts in place can and will be broken.
Maybe everyone should just keep quiet and play along with this DRM charade?
Can't help but feel that the DRM supporters are the luddites of the 21st
century - peopl
Any DRM system will be hacked regardless of platform. GNU/Linux is no
exception.
Does that make any "Linux DRM" potentially any less secure than a
Windows version? I doubt it myself.
I totally agree, however I think spending money developing DRM is a waste of
licence payers mon
On 03/04/07, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note that many CDs have some form of DRM on them.
And that recently the publishers stopped putting DRM on CDs, because
they've realised that hurting their customers only hurts them.
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk
On 2/9/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit to the computer's owner?
If content-owners* require DRM to be able to release content for use on your
computer (currently the case in the BBC iPlayer, and/or Channel 4's
on-de
the UK gains both individually and collectively to an
> > extent greater than the BBC's negative market impact
>
> This is a nice argument against BBC DRM, I think :-D
Let's not be un-necessarily emotive. There is no such thing as "BBC DRM"
The BBC is using DRM in t
Tim Dobson wrote:
> The default Maemo browser is essentially Firefox 3.5+ which supports
> (not natively H.264 though, but that's a different debate).
>
> With regards to DRM, well, I think some people are generally coming
> round to the idea that it may not be the be all and
2008/11/23 Sean DALY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Aleem, are you aware of the difficulties the BBC has encountered in
> the iPlayer project after choosing Microsoft DRM to satisfy content
> rights owners?
Of course not. He can't be arsed to listen to the podcast.
>
>
>
As with any DRM, you only have to break it once.
Perhaps they'll use the BBC codec thats being worked on
http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/projects/dirac/
Although it's not clear what DRM if any it'll use.
- JW
On 13/11/05, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And
It depends what you mean by "failed" Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is circumvented
by simply burning your tracks to CD, then ripping to MP3. I'd count that as
a failed DRM mechanism, as it's essentially useless. If the BBC implements
DRM that's as "good" as Fairpl
>> Yes even the ones that that harp on
> > about DRM noon and night ;)
> >
Actually the DRM discussions in recent weeks have been incredibly
stimulating and provocative and much appreciated inside BBC towers and I
hope for other subscribers. (I always knew I shouldn't try
http://www.betanews.com/article/Classical_music_joins_the_DRMfree_trend/1196714195
" *Adding to the canon of DRM-free music, a Universal Music Group subsidiary
has made a large portion of its catalog of classical performances available
online free from digital rights protection.*
Today, a
"Wrong - the door is open with a welcome sign because all the progs are
broadcast first of all on TV without DRM. Adding DRM later on is just a
meaningless waste of money. If people want to get content online, they can
and they will."
This is irrelevant really because we're afte
2009/6/18 Phil Lewis
> This shouldn't be a problem from a rights perspective AFAIK. Currently
> all web based iPlayer content (including the 3200 kbps HD streams) is
> delivered without any DRM. RTMP is not DRM or content protection.
>
RTMP may not be DRM, but I it's clos
Just like the eminently defeatable locks on your house help you
to sleep at night, so DRM helps some media people sleep at night.
??? Are you serious, if the lock on my door was as easy to break as DRM, I
would be up all night with a baseball bat under my pillow, are these "media
peopl
1 - 100 of 1365 matches
Mail list logo
