Re: [backstage] barcamplondon2: Proof of Identity
Hey Gordo, if you're not going, count me out... what's the problem? need a ticket? Ian's a friendly kinda guy, sure they have some spares for corporate staff... cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 10 Feb 2007, at 21:32, Gordon Joly wrote: At 14:27 + 8/2/07, John wrote: why is this a problem? they're only making sure no scalywags get in. It's OK. I won't be there. Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
On 10/02/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 15:42 + 8/2/07, Dave Crossland wrote: On 06/02/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We also know that the BBC has content that they own 100% of the copyright. This is, apparently, not the case at all for the majority of existing records. However, moving forward, I see no reason why the BBC cannot be clear that it is owning 100% of the rights in all new contracts for internally produced works. *** Desert Island Discs is one of Radio 4's most popular and enduring programmes. Created by Roy Plomley in 1942, the format is simple: each week a guest is invited by Kirsty Young to choose the eight records they would take with them to a desert island. *** For rights reasons Desert Island Discs is not available as a listen again item. *** http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/desertislanddiscs.shtml Why no podcast? Gordo Estate of Roy Plumley owns the rights to the format, and isn't keen on on demand... - 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/
RE: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 11/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote: On Saturday 10 February 2007 22:28, Tim Thornton wrote: Your machine will do what you tell it to. It's just that there are secrets you can't access. Regarding the point above, that's the issue here. Whilst you're happy with owning a computer that will keep secrets from you, I'm not. That's a minor detail though - kinda you say potato I saw potato - we're unlikely to agree. Much like attitudes to IP ownership, I suspect! :) (We both agree they keep their secrets from the user, from your perspective I still retain control, from mine I don't.) Unfortunately, for it to provide security to the level that it does, those private keys must be unavailable outside the TPM. I do understand where you're coming from, but you can think of it like any hardware resource; it has certain properties. I can write to a CD-R, but I can't erase that data (in software) once written. Or at a slightly different level, my file system prevents me from modifying files I don't have permission to access. Thanks for the references and explanation - I'll read up on the references, you never know when the positive uses of the technology will be handy. A genuine pleasure to have helped. Cheers, Tim -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. - 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/
Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On Saturday 10 February 2007 22:29, Tim Thornton wrote: [ lots of interesting material ] Having read /some/ of this now, it might useful to repeat in back to help others in the thread understand the basic ideas, or to allow me to be corrected if I've misunderstood :-). (The DRM use case will stay controversial, but I suspect understanding what's going on is useful.) In a trusted computing scenario, you don't actually own one computer, you own two in a single box - it just looks like one. (well, given the amount of tech inside a PC these days, its more a minimum of two computers in the box, a GPU can be called a computer as well) +-+ +---+ | TPM || Main computer | | | | (running some OS) | +-+ +---+ The TPM by definition of being a computer has its own CPU, local storage, and so on. Part of it's design is that at manufacture it is given it's own private/public key pair. At this stage, this is little different (conceptually) from 2 computers connected over a network by an ssh link. The difference is that the connection is significantly harder to snoop. However, in the way it's used, it more resembles the way SSL - ie https for those unfamiliar. With SSL there's two modes: * Trusted secure * Untrusted secure In both scenarios you have exchange of keys in order to set up a session key for allowing you to be happy with sending your credit card details over the network (among many other uses). This is what I mean by secure. However you can have a secure link directly to someone pretending to be your bank, so you don't know if the link is trusted. Well, in SSL/TLS/HTTPS (take your pick, the principles are the same), you essentially get your public key signed by a trusted third party. These trusted third parties include Verisign, Thawte [1] etc. [1] Founded by Mark Shuttleworth, which is where he made his fortune, and is the reason Ubuntu exists today... ie You can either run a SSL/TLS enabled webserver whose keys have been signed by one of these third parties, or not. ie if you consider the two computers above by the following metaphor: * The TPM as an HTTPS website * The Main computer as a browser Because the keys in the TPM have been signed by someone else, that browser can check to see if the TPM is a real TPM or not. Now the problem with this approach however is that it introduces potential bottlenecks into the system. As a result, there is another step you can add in. Given this basic chain - can you make it such that the main computer can verify the TPM without talking the third party all the time? Well, if you get the TPM to talk (via the main computer in this case hopefully obviously) to another third party you can do this: * The TPM authenticates itself to this other third party * It generates a special key (DAA) which the third party then signs, giving the TPM a certificate. It can sign this using a private key and publish the public key. Let's call that pubic key PK. Applications can either download PK on demand or even compile it into their code. This includes open source apps because it's not a secret. * Any one application who wishes to authenticate any TPM then does this: * It essentially asks the TPM to sign something using this key (DAA), and also provides the certificate as signed by the third party. Since the PK is public, the application can verify the that the thing just signed by the TPM is valid. Again, whilst that may sound relatively esoteric, it's actually very much the same technique as using PGP or GPG for email. You have public/private keys. You get your public key signed by someone. The slight difference (I think) is that recipients can be given another public key to use to verify the sender. As a result, this makes it clearly possible to create a rogue TPM (including virtualised ones) but people can tell the difference. Probably the weakest link in the chain here is the DAA's public certificate, but then that's why revocation gets built in as well. The other obvious weak point is where the TPM's are originally endorsed, since to be useful it needs to be networked, and software bugs are easier to find/exploit than cracking a large address space. To put this into context, your computer can do the equivalent of connecting at startup to a machine only you own, and only you have access to. This machine can be used to check the integrity of your system, and unlock secrets on the system. That machine cannot be accessed directly by others which gives you a level of confidence in this process. Ignoring the DRM usecase or restricting your computer scenarios, having a secure location for helping check system integrity and protecting the contents of your harddrive, is useful. Clearly the same technology can be used by an operating system that wishes to prevent you from (eg)
Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 11/02/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ignoring the DRM usecase or restricting your computer scenarios, having a secure location for helping check system integrity and protecting the contents of your harddrive, is useful. Sure. When you lose the ability to sign things yourself, effectively losing root access to the machine - like Tivo has done to the computers it sells for several years now - then we have a serious, serious problem. -- Regards, Dave - 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/
Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 11/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've just reread one of RMS' musings on treacherous computing, and some of what he describes is terrible. But that's not what is on offer! If it was designed to stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer why can I turn it off? Go buy a Tivo and try turning it off :-) -- Regards, Dave - 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/
Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
On 11/02/07, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Desert Island Discs ... Why no podcast? Estate of Roy Plumley owns the rights to the format, and isn't keen on on demand... Wow. How curious. Rights to the format means what, exactely? I can imagine Desert Island Discs might be a trademark. But I don't think the format can be copyrighted, and I'm pretty sure it can't be patented. -- Regards, Dave - 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/
Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 10/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your machine will do what you tell it to. It's just that there are secrets you can't access. So if you tell it to access those secrets, and it won't, how is it doing what you tell it to, again? -- Regards, Dave - 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/
Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 21:45 +, Dave Crossland wrote: On 11/02/07, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Desert Island Discs ... Why no podcast? Estate of Roy Plumley owns the rights to the format, and isn't keen on on demand... Rights to the format means what, exactely? some (random ish) links (about format rights, rather than DID itself) http://www.wragge.com/publications/hottopics/default_1661.html http://www.ifla.tv/protectyourformat.html http://www.legalday.co.uk/lexnex/simkins03/simkinsq303/simkins050803.htm I can imagine Desert Island Discs might be a trademark. But I don't think the format can be copyrighted, Some lawyers may disagree with you (not necessarily about whether DID is copyrightable or not, but about whether 'formats' can be 'protected' in law.) George (disclaimer - I work for the BBC) - 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/
Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
the honest answer is we don't know bear in mind that to know for sure you have to examine *all* the various contracts with *all* the various contributors - and for that, you need to know who the contributors are, and where their contracts are stored... if their contracts are stored. Then you have to hope the contracts we unambiguous. When the creative archive team went hunting for some content for their trial which was demonstrably unambiguously BBC owned, they found nothing that didn't require at least some additional rights clearance... There's lot of stuff for which the BBC owns *broadcast* rights, because that was the reality of all that was possible at the time. And then there's moral rights, but let's no go there for now... On 11/02/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Tom, Can I ask again then, is there anything that the BBC owns 100% copyright of in an archive? Yes or no would be a start. :-) Regards Richard On 11 Feb 2007, at 11:43, Tom Loosemore wrote: On 10/02/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 15:42 + 8/2/07, Dave Crossland wrote: On 06/02/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We also know that the BBC has content that they own 100% of the copyright. This is, apparently, not the case at all for the majority of existing records. However, moving forward, I see no reason why the BBC cannot be clear that it is owning 100% of the rights in all new contracts for internally produced works. *** Desert Island Discs is one of Radio 4's most popular and enduring programmes. Created by Roy Plomley in 1942, the format is simple: each week a guest is invited by Kirsty Young to choose the eight records they would take with them to a desert island. *** For rights reasons Desert Island Discs is not available as a listen again item. *** http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/desertislanddiscs.shtml Why no podcast? Gordo Estate of Roy Plumley owns the rights to the format, and isn't keen on on demand... - 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/ - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
On 11/02/07, George Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rights to the format means what, exactely? some (random ish) links Maybe this is a bit of a Rorschach effect, but these all seem to prop up my view that 'format rights' is hand waving. http://www.wragge.com/publications/hottopics/default_1661.html If a format has distinct and original features and is recorded on paper in detail, with every angle of the format being covered and thoroughly documented, then the chance of being able to protect the format through the copyright subsisting in these documents is much better. As developers of software well know, copyright does not prevent copycats who made their own from scratch. http://www.ifla.tv/protectyourformat.html There is no statutory protection for television formats in any country that we know of. This also centers on copyrights, as above. http://www.legalday.co.uk/lexnex/simkins03/simkinsq303/simkins050803.htm The laws of copyright, passing off, and confidence may all be relevant. Additionally, this page is seminar snake oil :-) I can imagine Desert Island Discs might be a trademark. But I don't think the format can be copyrighted, Some lawyers may disagree with you (not necessarily about whether DID is copyrightable or not, but about whether 'formats' can be 'protected' in law.) Based on those links, it sounds like all the case law is in my favour. Tom, what kind of ninja lawyers does the Estate of Roy Plumley employ? :-) -- Regards, Dave - 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/
Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
Hi Tom! On 12/02/07, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the honest answer is we don't know Thanks for explaining this clearly! What about new works though? Such as those currently podcast? :-) -- Regards, Dave - 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/
