Hi all,
I realise I’m somewhat late to the party going on here—for some
reason, I never got around to subscribing to backst...@. You can
probably guess from my e-mail address how I relate to this particular
debate!
For the record, I’m no more part of the official consultation process
than anybody else—indeed, one of my gripes with all of this is how a
proper consultation _hasn’t_ been carried out yet. I am a (vocal)
bystander for most intents and purposes.
To pimp my blog for a moment, some speculation on my part as to why
this might be the case can be found at:
http://nevali.net/post/205806183/bbc-internet-blog-bbchd-and-drm-a-response-to-cory
I appreciate Nick’s involvement in this and trying to deal with pesky
people who insist on asking awkward questions ;)
However, I would like to respond to this:—
On 6-Oct-2009, at 16:08, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
dave - this is a wild exaggeration. The suppliers that you dislike
so are companies who provide content for the BBC for licence fee
payers to enjoy. Their interests have considered just like everyone
else's.
While this is true, to an extent, historically the interests of the
rights-holders (excepting certain more enlightened members of that
particular community) have been squarely opposed to the interests of
the consumer. If the rights-holders could, hypothetically, lock
everything down without inciting a huge backlash, most would jump at
the opportunity (irrespective of the actual benefits—this is all about
perception on their part; bearing in mind that many of those doing
these deals aren’t hugely technical themselves).
The FTA remit is designed specifically to balance this: it says, in
effect, “by all means come on board, but we have an obligation to the
consumer that the likes of Sky and Virgin don’t: if you don’t like
this, go elsewhere. The various pieces of legislation are quite clear
about what consumers can and can’t do, and we’ve historically relied
upon that as the principal copy-protection mechanism.”.
The danger with this debate is that it indicates a shift away from
this standpoint. Also, historically, there was no requirement to buy
equipment branded and licensed by consortium heavily influenced by the
broadcasters in order to ensure reception: you got a TV license, a PAL-
I TV, and you were away.
It also raises a number of (secondary) questions which are themselves
quite troubling, but I’ve covered all of the ones I could think of in
the comments on the blog post.
Worms, meet can.
Cheers,
M.
--
mo mcroberts
http://nevali.net
iChat: [email protected] Jabber/GTalk: [email protected]
Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook -
http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/
-
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]/
