I couldn't agree more. The problem seems to be that everyone has bought the DRM snake oil, and no one is willing to admit they got it wrong. Indeed I'm sure there are many people who still believe that DRM is the "solution" to a problem*; and no one in the broadcasting industry seems to be capable of standing up and saying "we got it wrong, DRM doesn't help". Eventually some one will follow EMI's lead and start allowing DRM free downloads, but who knows how long that will take.
*despite the fact that they seem to be giving content away DRM free over the air, by satellite and on cable etc. with no real problems. Exactly what is the problem DRM is supposed to solve again? Vijay. On 06/11/2007, David McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > vijay chopra wrote: > > > Of course, this raises the question, is he misleading deliberately, or > just > > misinformed? Considering his recent faux pas it's not much of a stretch > to > > believe he's not only misinformed, terminally so (I ascribe nothing to > > malice that can be explained by eveyday incompetence). > > To paraphrase a famous saying, "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is > indistinguishable from malice." (With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke.) > > But, seriously, I do have a great deal of sympathy for Ashley's current > predicament. If you had: > > * Negotiated distribution rights with large numbers of programme-makers, > * Developed and deployed a large-scale, proprietary peer-to-peer > distribution > system for providing access to said programmes, > * Developed the client-side programs and web- and server-side tooling to > support such access, > > ... and then later realised that: > > * That the arguments for DRM that you'd previously accepted do not make > sound > technological sense, > * The regulatory agency that you report to is indicating that the > current > platform support is insufficient, > * That the proprietary technology choices that you'd made for the > distribution > and DRM components of your infrastructure are not portable to > all of the necessary and ideal target platforms (Mac, Linux, > smartphones, > iPods, etc.), > * You're being forced to publically defend the decisions that you'd > previously > made using the rationale you used at the time, and finding that the > arguments you're making are unconvincing (at least to this audience), > > ... what would you do? > > So far as I see it, Ashley has only a couple of options: > > 1. Try to continue down the present course - procuring or developing DRM > and/or distribution technology as necessary in order to satisfy both > the > BBC regulators' and the rights-holders' requirements. > (See also: the recent Adobe Air streaming announcement.) > > Or: > > 2. Develop and advocate a major shift in strategy, that involves: > - Dropping the design requirement for DRM on all distributed content, > - Retooling the existing production infrastructure as necessary to > support > open distribution and content standards, > - Either convincing the BBC legal team that they have the rights to > distribute the programme-makers content sans-DRM under their > existing > broadcast / streaming agreements, -or- > - Re-opening negotiations with the programme makers to secure internet > distribution rights sans-DRM, -or- > - Restricting the programmes that may be downloaded by the iPlayer > service > to in-house content that they clearly can offer for access by UK > residents. > > Though option 2 seems, to me at least, to clearly be in the > license-payer's (and > our) interest - and a technically superior option - it's certainly a much > higher-risk strategy from Ashley's perspective, and, politically, would > most > likely be a very hard sell to BBC management. > > At what point does option 1 become untenable? > > Cheers, > David > -- > David McBride < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Department of Computing, Imperial College, London > > >
