This is all my personal view. Most of the content people want is not owned by the BBC, therefore the BBC needs to get permission to release said content in this way. There are people on this list who can explain what a complex process this is. The DRM is crackable - the point is that it is 'good enough' for these people, and its deemed 'good enough' for the general public (the vast, vast majority of which just want to watch Eastenders/Dragons Den/whatever the next day). Nobody is saying that this situation is ideal. DRM is a means to an end. J
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 08 February 2007 20:56 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] £1.2 billion question (or RE: [backstage] BBC Bias??? >Click and Torrents) On 08/02/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The purpose of being good enough to satisfy the people that own the rights to the content - and therefore being able to release the content in this manner. Satisfy them to what end? The current arrangement temporarily "satisfies" media execs at the expense of the general public. Besides, the BBC's job isn't t satisfy Media execs, it's to satisfy licence fee payers, and pouring money down a DRM drain won't satisfy anyone. It won't satisfy us because of the DRM, when thee DRM is cracked the media execs will cease being satisfied, and when the Daily mail prints "BBCs computer code hacked" as its headline, the government will not feel particularly satisfied either. Remind me again of the point of DRM at the BBC, to me it seems as though the point is to find a way of wasting licence fee payers money, so Auntie can claim to be at the cutting edge of technology, whilst actually going backwards.
