Rob Myers wrote:
On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
People on this list may be interested in this latest blog post:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti
on_a.html
The first commenter is far more worth reading than the original post -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html?ssorl=1254509384&ssoc=rd
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html
2. The DTV is not serving the public if it introduces unnecessary
controls and complexity into the standards process. Requiring secret
codes to decompress the data stream is excluding free and open source
software (just like the content scrambling system excluded open source
DVD players). The ability to revoke or otherwise impose sanctions on the
consumer electronics industry, including retrospective disabling of
products and impose restrictions on functionality. After all that is
it's intent.
3. To whom ever the DTLA is responding it is not the public. As
indicated above, it is about giving the content industries control.
4. It will apply to HD devices without a HDMI output, another overly
complex standard that will raise the cost to consumers due to the
addition of encryption etc, which restricts the devices it will 'trust'.
5. The BBC's "cosy negotiation" with rightholders and "secretive
consultations" amounts to us neglecting our responsibilities and a
desire to slip this process through quietly
"This point we take most seriously. Above all else, we are a public
organisation funded by the Licence Fee and have committed ourselves to
greater transparency and openness because we believe that this is an
obligation we have to our audience"
And yet you are looking to sophistry and an abuse of language to subvert
the legal requirement to broadcast an unencrypted signal. It is clear
that if you need a secret key to uncompress the broadcast stream rather
than using a public standard which anyone can implement, then you are de
facto engaged in encryption just like the Content Scrambling System.
In my view this is a breach of the legal requirement to broadcast an
un-encrypted signal.
Any collusion by Ofcom's part, would not void the intention and letter
of the law.
nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk
>How would the cause of audiences be served if the BBC refused to deal
>with content vendors and as a result audiences could not access that
>content?
>As usual it's a difficult balancing act.
No it is a blatent breach of the law
-
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/
