On 29/07/07, mike chamberlain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Options 3, Buy an off the shelf solution and use it. Bonus points if
> the people whose content your licensing are happy with it and will
> endemnify you against someone cracking it.
Yes use an Off the shelf solution, provided it satisfies the criteria
"Platform Neutral". The BBC's claim "We had no choice but to use MS
DRM" is clearly false as there where 2 perfectly good options.
Instead the BBC flush several million down the drain as poor design
decision mean most of iPlayer is now likely useless for a platform
neutral version.
It's written in C. Yes C can be platform neutral but the BBC has made
sure it isn't!
C is of course a compiled language. Thus to get it to run on a
platform it must be compiled for that platform (obviously).
So the only ways I can think of right now for getting a platform
independent C implementation:
1. Provide Source Code and ensure the code is platform neutral
(conforming to standards such as POSIX).
2. Compile it to a "Virtual Machine", an instruction set that doesn't
really exist but can be implemented on any OS and have iPlayer run on
top of it.
There may be other ways, if so suggest them. But remember "platform
neutral" so it must favour no particular platform or platforms.
> "If you think cryptography will solve your problem, you don't know anything
> about cryptography, and you don't understand your problem."
"If you think DRM will solve your problem, you don't know anything
about DRM or how CPU's function, and you don't understand your problem."
Crypto is used on most DRM implementations. Thus if you say to some
rights holder "Look really powerful crypto, state of the art, takes
trillions of years to brute force this key" they'll shut up and let
you use it. The BBC managed to con their media people into believing
Microsoft DRM was secure, and then waited for it to be cracked before
releasing iPlayer.
Of course the fact it takes trillions of years to brute force the key
is worthless when you put the key in the hands of the "attacker"
(apparently all users are "attackers", nice to be treated like scum by
public organisations you are forced to pay for.)
> Given we all know DRM's broken, yet is mandated by the people who
> own the content, what's better for the BBC to do? Write it's own and
> be responsible
> for fixing any breakages, or use one the content providers are happy with?
Write it's own. The other one is not "platform neutral" and will have
to re engineered anyway.
Is it better to get it right first time, or to waste large amounts of
money on implementations that are unworkable under your regulators
restrictions?
Mind you the BBC could always rig a few competitions if it gets short
of cash. Wouldn't be the first time would it ;).
A simply way of seeing why the BBC did what it did would be to look at
the iPlayer Feasibility Study, where is that document? Can I see it?
Google can't find it so it's probably not on the publicly accessible
web.
Andy
--
Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows.
-- Adam Heath
-
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]/
