Greetings,
Interesting discussion - primarily useful for the "we don't have the rights"
arguments that haven't been effectively aired until now.
The reason for using DRM has often been stated thus:
* We need to prevent our users from re-distributing content that we feed them.
However, it now appears clear that the real reason is thus:
* We have to be seen to be trying to do something to prevent our users
re-distributing content.
Given that no DRM scheme has _ever_ met the goal of preventing users
re-distributing content, would it not be better for the BBC, consumers and
pretty much everyone (except perhaps MS) in the long-run if the BBC simply
denounced DRM as the snake-oil it is and refuse to deploy it?
Indeed, this seems particularly pointless when I can simply point my desk
antenna at the Crystal Palace transmitter and record the 20Mbaud H.264 1080p
stream being broadcast in clear.
Cheers,
David
--
David McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Department of Computing, Imperial College, London
-
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/[email protected]/
