I think the point is that no technical copy inhibiting scheme will
ever "work"; the best ones will only discourage casual users but time
and time again we see that such solutions merely penalize most users.
Unscrupulous vendors or integrators will assert that "protection" is
available to worried rights holders, some of whom even believe that
streaming inhibits copying. Although it's possible to have DRM at
codec level, it's probably not the best choice for performance and
flexibility and complexity reasons (not to mention uselessness as each
version is cracked).

What is necessary is a different structure for rewarding rights
holders, ideally proportionately if remuneration is to match the
existing system closely enough. The BBC is perhaps uniquely positioned
to bring about such change. In this connection it's useful to remember
that copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret laws, international
conventions for these, are constructs which changed the previous
systems. [I don't use the terms "intellectual property" - ridiculously
vague - or "piracy" - activity off Somalia, not myself when I want to
make a backup copy of an out-of-print Disney DVD before my
three-year-old scratches it up.]

Of course, such a massive change will be quite difficult to implement.
It may involve the disappearance of traditional middlemen. But
maintaining the current situation I believe is just heading towards
something worse where DRM becomes so easily crackable, or so
unpalatable to most users and therefore dropped by distributors, that
rights holders merely abdicate any control over their works at all.
Claiming that any DRM works is really doing rights holders a great
disservice I'm afraid.

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/

Reply via email to