On 12/06/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Currently, as I understand it, only Microsoft's DRM mechanisms are being
used because contracts signed with rights holders have required the
implementation of a specific window which the BBC can offer such
downloads.
[snip]
Restricting the availability of the BBC downloaded version allows them
to do that. If a BBC downloaded version was available to all forever,
it would destroy their commercial exploitation online. So to restrict
the availability, you /currently/ need Windows DRM.
And why could the BBC not develop an openly specified DRM. It would be
able to support _any_ restrictions they want and it is ridiculously
simple.
I have stated this before, but there is no reason why you can't
represent restrictions in XML and tag it before the media file. Simply
have the player parse the XML (not difficult, there are libraries for
this libxml for instance)
The BBC is claiming it could take over 2 years to do this. This is
complete rubbish.
I hate to accuse the BBC of intentionally lying to it's regulator but
it is beginning to look like this.
What restrictions are needed?
I am guessing they want:
Country Locking (safer to implement on the key exchanging server to be honest)
Expiry Time
Complex things like season stacking can be implemented server side and
just have the correct expiry time set in the file.
How difficult do you think this is, it could have been done by the BBC
in a matter of days, the BBC must have some very good software people.
Why doesn't someone as them what XML is. After you've finished writing
the specification publish it and then the next time someone asks why
it's not supported on their platform simply point to the spec and say
"here you go, implement it for yourself".
So whilst rights holders wouldn't have insisted on Windows DRM, they
have got Windows DRM because it does what the rights holders want.
So it _is_ the BBC who make it only work on a single platform
Implementation of an (insecure) DRM scheme is not difficult. If the
BBC is willing to pay me £1 million (less than they spent on Windows
iPlayer) I could write up a nice specification for you and then you
would have a truly platform agnostic system.
[1] I read somewhere that ITV will be getting round this whole issue by
streaming content rather than allowing download. Don't know how true
that is.
I doubt that. The bandwidth would cost ITV a fortune. Then there is
the fact that many people don't have connections fast enough to
actually stream full screen high quality video.
So BBC what _are_ the restrictions that the "content producers" want?
There is no reason not to tell us, unless you are hiding something?
Oh and perhaps I should clear something up:
My view is that the BBC should be using openly published standards
that are free to implement, including DRM if it is "needed". And I
have precisely no problem with locking content to the UK, but that is
done more securely server side NOT client side.
freethebbc.info appears to want NO DRM, and wants it to be available
to the non-UK.
Andy
--
First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi
-
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]/
