> First, the BBC are _already_ broadcasting all of their content, digitally and > in > the clear, in the form of RealPlayer streams, terrestrial radio and (HD) > television broadcasts and also via internet multicast. > Why is it useful to apply DRM to this one distribution channel, when anyone > can > ignore it and instead obtain a 20Mbit/sec HD digital copy encoded in a > standard, > well-defined encoding by pointing an antenna at Crystal Palace?
I have a PVR which has a USB port on it - which is great cos I can take files off the PVR if I want to and keep a copy of them. However it's nowhere near as simple as just copying the files and burning them to DVD thanks to the fact that my PVR saves the transport stream, which you then have to convert in a convoluted process - if I wanted to give something to a friend, there's a lot of hassle. So convoluted is it all, that it's not even mentioned in the manual! My point? it's not always as easy to take an off air broadcast and put it online. To do it, most people would have to have a little dedication and a little time. Even Windows Media Centre makes it slightly tricky - you first have to track down where it saves things (dunno about anyone else, but this took me ages!) and then convert them. "Security" through effort does actually work in many ways. :) > * Rights buy-outs: it's not necessary to buy out the rights to putting on live > shows, publishing books and many of the other functions mentioned by Ashley in > the podcast in order to set up a functional, DRM-free iPlayer service. > Moreover, his assertion that all of the downstream rights - for books and so > forth - would become worthless if the shows themselves could be readily > downloaded seems dubious. > Indeed, the value of many related works - books, live shows, etc. - may well > _increase_ significantly if the original shows themselves were more readily > available. Maybe. Maybe not. We're not going to find out because the BBC Trust has set it in stone that the BBC can't do such thing on a big scale. Maybe it would do publishers of content a world of good publicity and sales. But we ain't going to find out any time soon. > * One of the things Ashley talks about is a potential new future distribution > model which he hopes that technology will enable the publication of content > "with no DRM" -- but distributed in an "intelligent wrapper" that is able to > enforce a set of rules for how it should behave. > I think someone needs to tell Ashley that the mythical future technology he's > describing _is_ what the rest of us would call DRM! Yes. but it's a different kind, and can you really blame the man for not wanting to call it DRM? just look how many posts on t'internet it results in ;)
