On Thursday 13 March 2008 16:03:26 Thomas Leitch wrote: > > Fair enough. What I still find rather confusing is that, > > short of using whatever DRM capabilities the iPhone has, they > > will still be streaming DRM free content to a single > > platform, something that is likely to be circumventable by > > other clients soon. Not only that, but the BBC article I > > posted a link for earlier plainly states that the iPlayer DRM > > used to protect the downloaded content for Windows is also > > broken, so in effect supplying DRM encumbered media to a > > windows client is the same as providing DRM free content (the > > difference is when the removal of or circumvention of > > protective measures is carried out). > > "In effect".. No. It's not broken. You pointed out something that probably > circumvents the protection. You can force your way into my house should > you really want to, but that doesn't mean my front door is broken. No it doesn't, it means that the protection you have is broken, i.e. a code has been 'broken'. In the case of DRM 'broken' would indicate that it is (easily, systematically and/or repeatably) breachable, broken as in 'doesn't work anymore' not broken as in 'broken window'
> > It works well enough to give rights holders a safety blanket. Fair enough, if that is the BBC's position. What I find worrying is that the argument 'we need to protect our content' has in your view become 'we need to be seen to be trying to protect the content'. Thats fine too, but lets be honest about it. Now, if broken DRM is OK why are we limiting it to a broken DRM scheme on a single vendors platform. > > > So the BBC is claiming it is not permissible for it to make > > non-DRM content that it has licensed available, but is doing > > so and doing so in a manner that makes that content only > > available to a device (th iPhone) that comes from a single > > vendor and has a very small market share (I wont go into > > depth here to draw parallels with reasons given for Linux > > support as they are self evident). > > BBC also makes iPlayer content available in formats Windows can understand, > oh and Adobe Flash. Yes, but that hardly addresses the point, the iPhone version is DRM free. You pointed out earlier that DRM was required for the rights holders to be happy with it, are rights holders happy with DRM free content being distributed for the iPhone? > > > The BBC are also making > > media available for download to another single vendor > > provided platform (a vendor that has faced and is facing > > further anti-trust action in the EU). In the latter case the > > media is encumbered with DRM, but that DRM has been broken. > > You can download on an iPhone or iPod Touch made by Apple, or Microsoft > Windows. Separate companies... separate vendors even. > > > So in effect the BBC are giving a competitive edge to two > > commercial entities > > Adobe. Microsoft. Apple. > > > Now, I am sure that fairly soon the method being used to > > 'protect' the iPhone specific DRM free content will be > > identified and circumvented, some people would probably be > > happy with that as a solution. I would however suggest that > > using such workarounds will be detrimental. The BBC needs to > > either provide a platform agnostic DRM capable player (I > > would even add the fantasy requirement for it to be > > unbreakable DRM), or resolve its licensing issues (or something else). > > Pay £££££££ for a license to freely distributre individual bits of content. > Spend many months dealing with each different holder of those rights... > you've probably guessed that there isn't one mammoth, single "rights > holder", or distribute it in a "protected" form to as many people as > possible. A format which obviously doesn't satisfy the vocal minority. > > > Earlier in the week a number of people posted references to a > > BBC blog that seemed to indicate that DRM free, standards > > compliant media would be available to mobile devices > > (regardless of type) as long as they were capable of > > displaying such media in a satisfactory manner, I would > > rather like to know if that is still the case and how the BBC > > is going to justify becoming a very nice marketing tool for a > > select number of device providers (without cost to those providers!). > > So one moment you to want it to be available on more devices. Now you think > that's quite anti-competitive ? Wait, we stream in Real and Windows > formats here you know. Have you seen those companies using that as a "very > nice marketing tool" ? Because I sure as hell haven't. > > > ....does not > > favour one or more commercial entities.... > > I can really the people who, you know, act and write music and direct, > produce and fund... you know, those pesky creatives and the like really > plumping for that one. > > > > Get real. So in summary, there are issues with DRM and cross platform compatibility, these are legal (in terms of licensing) and technological. Fine, if the BBC were a commercial entity I would be entirely happy for them to do what they wish, ignore the issue and provide whatever support provided the most commercial advantage, but they are not. The BBC is publically funded and accountable, and whilst the BBC does extremely well in all the areas it operates, it could do more to prevent itself from becoming a barrier to technological change and/or advance, it needent supply Open Source and Free software to all, an iPlayer for the C64 or relicense everything it owns under the Creative Commons, but it could at least ensure that its offerings are as portable as possible. As for getting real, I felt my comments on this list have been both polite and constructive, if you want to point out where I am going wrong, feel free. > > - > 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]/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
