i do get this strange sense of deja vu ________________________________
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Stone Sent: 02 October 2009 20:19 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door Oh its just like the old days :) Jem Stone Communities Executive | BBC Audio and Music O7966 551242 | twitter: @jemstone | jem.stone [at] bbc.co.uk. ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Fri Oct 02 20:12:04 2009 Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door 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_protecti on_a.html?ssorl=1254509384&ssoc=rd > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_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. [email protected] >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/[email protected]/
