I'll reverse these comments :) Andrew Bowden wrote: > 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 <difficult tech barrier that Andrew 'defeated' snipped>
> 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. > > "Security" through effort does actually work in many ways. :) Yeah - that's because you're too much of a tech geek to spend £60 on this: http://www.dvdrecorderworld.com/news/448 <grin> It records Freeview to DVD at the push of a button. Did you get the £60 price tag? OK they haven't automated ripping the DVD and creating a torrent - not so hard though. >From which.co.uk: "The ideal combination is a PVR with a DVD recorder." Dec '05 http://tinyurl.com/yot3a6 Oh look: http://www.dvdrecorderworld.com/news/443 (April '07) (The irony is that it's a Sony product!!) The only security being achieved is the security Microsoft will feel as the BBC helps them try to establish a dominant position in the home entertainment market. A far more interesting comment came from David McBride who wrote: >> 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? You ask "Why is it useful..." Maybe one should ask "*Who* is it useful to to apply DRM to... ?" a) The 'Rights Holders' are frantically grasping at the water as it slips through their fingers. It feels useful to them as it will 'stem the flow'. They've already lost this fight though (see comments above about Crystal palace and £60 recorder, also see bittorrent, "Sony vs Betamax" [yes, a US ruling but...], iTunes drm-free music, oh, and the public). b) Microsoft see an incredible opportunity to appear to be 'doing the right thing' and so use the rights holders as 'independent' salespeople. It's *vital* for their strategy to 'own' multimedia as an aspect of ubiquitous (PC) technology. They of course can't actually deliver DRM (see: "the internet"). c) The BBC don't have a grasp on the bigger picture where it counts (though judging by the comments about ex-MS people within the project - maybe they do?) They have sold out the public by allowing MS to manipulate them. It's not their fault - MS are incredibly powerful and capable. The 'business' people at the top of Microsoft will simply annihilate the bigwigs at the BBC (or the govt) when it comes to technology strategy. They just know which buttons to press in more ways than one. You're right it's a shame that the BBC couldn't say "Hmmm this is the UK. We already *broadcast* mpegs free-to-air - let's not essentially give a chunk of BBC Centre to MS for nothing." David PS: A note to finish: Yes, I have a huge respect for the Open Source philosophy. I am not, however, fundamentally opposed to capitalism, copyrights, patents etc. I am opposed to rampant greed, oppression and bullying - and I don't think those traits makes good business (or social) sense in the long term. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
