On 12/11/2007, Stuart Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why do you have to use > proprietary standards for Listen again (real player) when plenty of > perfectly good open standards exist.
I *believe* Mr Highfield did address this, he said anything open was insecure. (conversely he implied proprietary software was secure. I am therefore apparently imagining the hundreds of spam messages I receive from zombied proprietary Windows boxes. Hmm on another note I wonder what Googling for "iPlayer DRM Crack" does. Ah the wonders of proprietary security, so trustworthy.) Also if Mr Highfield is believed you may want to contact your bank and ask them to stop using SSL as it must be insecure as it is an open standard. You may also want to stop using SSH as well. And PGP encryption has got to be insecure as well. > Is it because it is meant to be a streaming service that you cant > record? Well I am sorry then it is just a fig leaf because it can be > recorded. I think there is a command to a certain Media PLAYER that allows you to dump streams to a file on your hard disk. Damn useful for trying to find out how a stream somehow became noise as it moved the the PC in one corner of the room to one in the other corner. I suppose it would work equally well for any stream. (This may actually only work in the Debug version, not entirely sure). > The rights holders should be told that all their content is out there > for free anyway. It just that those using it are not making too many > waves. Some of them are making "waves" Ahh me hearties and shiver me timbers. </subtle> > The solution for iPlayer and the horrible DRM is to do what the Open > Rights group advocated and launch a streaming service. Register your > computer with your TV licence number and use a streaming video format. Why do you need to provide a TV license number? Don't we have the TV Licensing Agency to enforce TV licenses? What happens if you are in your car (using a Laptop and Free WiFi) and your TV license is all the way in your house? Do you even require a T.V. License for streaming (non-live) content? Remember, much as the BBC ignore it, they are bound by a charter and agreement, which states: > 102. The meaning of "licence fee payer" > In this Agreement, a reference to a "licence fee payer" is not to be taken > literally but > includes, not only a person to whom a TV licence is issued under section 364 > of the > Communications Act 2003, but also (so far as is sensible in the context) any > other person > in the UK who watches, listens to or uses any BBC service, or may do so or > wish to do > so in the future. > From: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/charter_agreement/bbcagreement_july06.txt So why should you need to enter a TV License number? Especially if one is not actually needed. You don't need to key your license number into your T.V. set do you? Also the BBC have said that the streaming will be of "Lower Quality" than the download service. So anyone who doesn't subscribe to a Third Party (foreign) software vendor the BBC has selected gets a worse service. Now where is that permitted in the charter and agreement? If I am not much mistaken the streaming will be in a proprietary format requiring a proprietary platform to run it on. But please correct me if this is a mistake, in doing so it would be helpful if you provided the RFC number for the standard format and protocols that will be deployed. Thanks - 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]/
