There is an problem in the Ofcom justification:
"3.6 We came to the provisional view that, due to the likelihood that
content management would deliver a greater variety of content to viewers
on the DTT platform, an effective content management framework should be
available for broadcasters to use on HD DTT. However, we also recognised
that there were risks of potential detriments for consumers (we consider
these risks in section 5)."
I am just trying some idea's if anyone wishes to comment:
Ofcom talk about the (increased) availability of HD content, in the
event of content protection been available on DTT.
The creation of HD content is a technical feature of the hardware. Even
consumer equipment is offering HD resolutions (720p or even higher).
Further limits on distribution vs standard resolution (rather than just
price), would appear to be prima facie evidence of anti-competitive
behavior.
More magic logic from Ofcom:
"5.31 Whilst we recognise that viewers may wish to record or copy
material within the confines of the provisions of the CDPA, that
legislation does not grant rights to copy material to viewers. Rather,
it provides a defence to any action for copyright infringement. Viewers
do not therefore have any right to copy any material broadcast on the HD
DTT platform. In this context, it would not be appropriate for Ofcom to
refuse to allow copy management on the basis of such a right. We would
nevertheless hope that broadcasters sought to ensure the greatest
flexibility possible for viewers."
Copyright is not an absolute right to restrict use, but a Tort, "No harm
no foul" applies.
5.31 Whilst we recognise that viewers may wish to breathe. Legislation
does not grant rights to breathe, Rather it provides a defense against
been murdered, or otherwise unlawfuly killed. In this context, it would
not be appropriate for Ofcom to refuse to allow the restriction of
breathing on the basis of such a right (to breathe).
We do not need legal permission for our actions, by default we are free
men !
What is not denied is permitted, and what is denied needs to be subject
to judicial process.
Extra judicial enforcement by a public organisation breeches the Human
Rights Act.
Copyright originally only applied to commercial exploitation, now Ofcom,
not parliament, is deciding extra judicial enforcement is appropriate in
the privacy of peoples own home, and imposes restrictions the
functionality of private property (force majeure - greater force)
against the wishes of it's owners.
How does Ofcom acquire such enormous powers, by the use of faulty logic
and assuming powers is does not have the authority to exercise ?
Another:
English Common Law has the concept of Restraint of Trade.
I think it is anti-completive behavior
"4.30 Whilst adoption of the Freeview HD logo by receiver manufacturers
has resulted in early receiver equipment implementing the content
management solution specified in the DTG receiver specification without
the BBC proposals being implemented, we remain of the view that, absent
the BBC proposal, mass market receiver equipment with no content
management could enter the market in the future. Over time this could
lead to an unlevel playing field between receivers which implement and
do not implement content management, causing the market to ‘tip’ in time
such that a large proportion of manufacturers would stop including
content management technology in their products. As set out in section
3, this may result in a reduction in the variety of content being made
available on the HD DTT platform and would therefore be an undesirable
outcome for viewers. We therefore consider that the BBC proposal is a
proportionate means of securing effective content management framework
on HD DTT."
With the BBC (and Canvas members) or BBC (and Canvas members) and the
Film distributors, engaging in discriminatory and anti-competitive
behaviour, could it also be illegal by virtue of restraint of trade ?
"The public have an interest in every person's carrying on his trade
freely: so has the individual. All interference with individual liberty
of action in trading, and all restraints of trade of themselves, if
there is nothing more, are contrary to public policy . . . ."
http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/ch13illegaility.htm
"Thorsten Nordenfelt, a manufacturer specialising in armaments, had sold
his business to Hiram Stevens Maxim. They had agreed that Nordenfelt
‘would not make guns or ammunition anywhere in the world, and would not
compete with Maxim in any way for a period of 25 years’."
"The House of Lords held that:
* The provision prohibiting Nordenfelt from making guns or
ammunition was reasonable.
* The providing banning competition 'in any way' was unenforceable
as an unreasonable restraint of trade."
Requiring content protection is a prima facie restraint of trade.
It is really not the business of the BBC (and Canvas members) to impose
arbitrary conditions the market for television receivers (at the behest
of third party special interests).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordenfelt_v_Maxim,_Nordenfelt_Guns_and_Ammunition_Co
-
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/
