Thanks It is still my thinking that no encryption = keep licence fee, encryption in every home = BBC subscription. This is why Freeview was a great way of ensuring the funding method.
Greg Dyke understood that, Alix Pryde Controller BBC Production doesn't seem to. IMHO 2009/10/6 Nick Reynolds-FM&T <[email protected]> > That I think is a conspiracy theory too far. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth > *Sent:* 06 October 2009 14:12 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ... > > IMHO > I think the one thing that we can conclude is that the way the BBC have > steamrollered the request to Ofcom with a short consultation period (and a > Freeview HD service to start with hardware about to hit the shelves) is not > cricket. > > The BBC has given commitments to being "open" in the past (re BBC history) > and this undermines it. > > If you want a conspiracy theory: > > - BBC Licence fee raised for HD in 2010 > - BBC HD access via subscription system for extra payment > - all services rolled onto HD over some years (say by 2015) > - all BBC services are thus subscription > > That would please some people I guess. > > 2009/10/6 David Tomlinson <[email protected]> > >> This has discussion continued in a modest way on the blog comments. >> >> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html >> >> I am sorry to say Nick is making misleading reassurances. >> >> (He is not sufficiently technical or familiar with the material, to >> understand the logical inconsistencies - this is an observation of fact, not >> a personal attack). >> >> >> >> See Nick comment No. 34. >> >> "Yes you will be able to put a HD tuner into my Open Source MythTV box and >> watch BBC HD, again if suitable tuners become available." >> >> The only reason tuners would not become available (they are currently >> available for Standard Definition), is that they will be excluded by the >> licence required to decrypt the signals. >> >> Free and Open Source Software Drivers will be excluded (excluding Myth TV) >> if there is any meaningful copy protection (unless the licence is breached). >> >> If the copy protection is to be meaningful, the BBC must break the law, >> regarding an unencrypted signal (semantics aside) and exclude FOSS from >> accessing the copy protected signals (which may only apply to Hollywood >> films, US imports, or may apply to the majority of content). >> >> See Nevali's comments, No. 35, 36, 42. >> >> Clearly Nevali, is part of the official consultation process. >> >> >> >> >> >> Issues: >> >> 1.1 Free and Open Source software is incompatible with DRM. >> >> 1.2 Reassurances to the contrary, contradict this knowledge. And undermine >> statements from the BBC. >> >> 2.1 What the BBC is proposing is in breach of the law by any reasonable >> semantics, the law is clear and does not allow for exceptions. >> >> 2.2 You may wish to proceed as if this was not true, but it is a fatal >> flaw that will destroy the agreements the BBC is entering into, and damage >> the BBC. >> >> 2.3 The BBC TRUST cannot ignore the fact that the BBC is intending to >> breaking the law. Semantics will not be sufficient to obfuscate this issue. >> >> 2.4 Several other options exist to exploit the flaw in the BBC's >> intentions. I am aware how it is possible to subvert the law, but ultimately >> the letter of the law, will be used to force the BBC to broadcast >> unencrypted. >> >> 3.1 We are in a transition phase, away from copyright and DRM. >> >> 3.2. The BBC appear to be insufficiently aware of the arguments against >> DRM and, dangers of the course of action they have embarked upon, to act in >> the public intrest >> >> 3.3 The BBC are not familiar with the argument against DRM which has >> failed repeatedly. >> >> 3.4. The BBC are not sufficiently aware of the arguments against >> intellectual property which has already lost the intellectual debate. >> >> 4.0 Free and Open Source software proponents have experience of a >> copyright, patent, and DRM free environment, and are therefore more ready to >> embrace the concepts, and freedoms involved. >> >> In view of the above, how can the BBC management claim to represent the >> public interest ? >> >> The BBC can choose to ignore the above, but the issues will not go away. >> And the BBC will be seen to be, not side of the public, but on the side of >> special interests on these issues. >> >> This is intention of this email to raise issues with the BBC Management of >> which Nick is one of the current spokesmen. >> >> >> Further Reading: >> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/thompson_bpi.shtml >> >> "But that's changing. The first episode of the new Dr Who series was >> available on the unauthorised site Bit Torrent three weeks before its >> premiere on BBC ONE. >> >> And, although of course our main model in the UK is free-to-air >> unencrypted broadcast, the BBC has a duty to exploit the residual commercial >> value of the rights we invest in on behalf of the public: we do that both >> here and around the world. >> >> So we have an intense interest in effective digital rights management >> systems; in technical, legal and regulatory means to protect the property of >> rights-holders; and in increasing public awareness of the moral and economic >> consequences of the theft of intellectual property. >> >> On this last point, I believe the BBC could do considerably more than it >> does at present." >> >> Mark Thompson, BBC Director-General Thursday 14 July 2005 >> >> >> >> >> Some background on semantics in law. >> >> http://ssrn.com/abstract=831604 >> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=831604 >> >> "We consider in the paper whether a pragmatics of semantic content can be >> a useful approach to legal interpretation. More extensively, since a >> pragmatic conception of meaning is a component of an inferential semantics, >> we consider whether an inferentialist approach to legal interpretation can >> be of help in treating and resolving some problems of legal interpretation. >> In sum: Is legal inferentialism a suitable conception of legal >> interpretation?" >> >> >> Some of the Anti-copyright argument. >> >> >> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/web/la-oew-healey18feb18,0,7696645.story >> >> "In "The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism", the economist and Nobel >> Prize winner F.A. Hayek explains the difference between conventional >> property rights and copyright. While the supply of material resources is >> limited by nature, the supply of an immaterial good [is] unlimited, unless >> the government limits the supply by law?. A later Nobel Prize winner, Milton >> Friedman, describes copyright as a monopoly that decreases supply to a level >> below the optimal level. Copyright and the regulations that follow from it >> should, according to Friedman, be described primarily as a limitation of >> free speech. >> >> In essence, Sigfrid is saying that something in unlimited supply can't be >> stolen." >> >> [...] >> >> "These aren't just academic arguments. They're ammunition in a battle >> that's raging online to shape the way the public thinks about copyrights. >> The first salvo was fired by the original Napster, which defined itself as a >> file-sharing network. That won the semantic high ground by defining >> unauthorized downloading as "sharing," not "copying" or "duplicating." The >> implication was that users of these networks were merely being generous with >> something they possessed, not usurping the rights of copyright holders." >> >> The arguments about theft of service in the article are also wrong, as >> theft of service is just an extension of property rights. >> >> The BBC wishes to limit supply by encryption, and therefore restrict free >> speech, and support private monopolies. >> >> >> Must Read: >> >> A more complete argument against copyright can be found in the book: >> http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm >> which available as a pdf from the web site. >> >> >> >> - >> 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]/ >> > > > > -- > > Brian Butterworth > > follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist > web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover > advice, since 2002 > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
