RE: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
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 -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 02 October 2009 00:45 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_up.html We've said before that we are specifically avoiding encryption of the broadcast signal to ensure that the public service content remains free to air. Content protection gives content producers comfort to give consumers early and free access to more content, without jeopardising future revenue streams. Stop the rationalisation and sophistry. If you can't decode the compression, then it is effectively encrypted. And making it available as FOSS (Free, Open Source Software), would effectively make the codes public. Therefore this will be restricted (outlawed) by licence agreements. Content Protection, DRM, call it what you will, this is selling the public down the river, once established the intention will be to maintain the system when HD becomes the standard. And it seems the BBC needs all the friends it can get. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-cameron-cosied-up-to-m urdoch--son-1795742.html Curb the BBC Its income is guaranteed through the licence system, while the profitability of Sky television and the Murdoch newspapers depend on the state of the market. Mr Cameron is sympathetic. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/01/murdoch-labour-bbc-b rown A Murdoch-Cameron alliance could be formidably threatening to the BBC. As William Shawcross wrote of the elder Murdoch: The power he has accumulated on the part of his allies is awesome to his enemies. The BBC often does its best to lose friends and generally annoy and irritate people. But, in the coming months and years, it is going to need all the friends it can get. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/welcome_to_some_new_initi als_d.html This is clearly not a fully open and connected world - but we are absolutely committed to continuing to find ways to allow you to enjoy our programmes as you choose. More sophistry, fully open and connected world is what we require of the BBC. There is a case against copyright (Intellectual Monopoly), and DRM witch extends the copyright monopolist control to consumer electronics and consumers. The BBC needs to be aware that people will be outraged at the restrictions placed on their use of content they have paid for. I for one, have an interest in this topic, and will act accordingly, now and in the future. The BBC can not afford to alienate the public. Stand on principle, no encryption, no DRM, by any name or form. This is the legal requirement and what the public expect. - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html However our focus is not to champion causes - it's meeting our public service remit which means serving our many audiences as best, as fairly, and as openly as we can. Championing the cause of content vendors against those audiences is out of focus by that description. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
RE: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
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. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Rob Myers Sent: 02 October 2009 19:26 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protec ti on_a.html However our focus is not to champion causes - it's meeting our public service remit which means serving our many audiences as best, as fairly, and as openly as we can. Championing the cause of content vendors against those audiences is out of focus by that description. - Rob. - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT 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_protection_a.html?ssorl=1254509384ssoc=rd For example - “With access to its technology, consumers will be able to share high definition content across home networks.” This isn’t something which DRM _enables_. It’s something that DRM _permits_ in a limited fashion. Re-stating this ad nauseum doesn’t make the reverse magically true. “We have consulted a wide range of stakeholders” Who? When? The BBC only made mention of it here -after- the Ofcom non-consultation got widespread coverage—that in itself was a miracle, as Ofcom didn’t actually publish it AS a consultation, merely a “letter of enquiry” with a minimal window for responses. If there’s a consultation still to come, when will it be? Please don’t forget that the license-fee paying public ARE stakeholders here. If discussions have been ongoing for months, why is it only now being made public? Moreover, if introducing this is critical to the launch schedule of Freeview HD services, why is it only being discussed now (at what can only charitably be called the eleventh hour)? Have rights-holders been told they can expect it to be in place in time for launch, despite it being contingent upon Ofcom’s (and presumably, the Trust’s) approval? If not, then what do the contracts for BBC HD on Freesat say? (broad terms, we don’t need to breach “commercial confidentiality”) Alternatively, is it the case that the content licensing agreements for BBC HD currently ONLY cover Freesat, despite everybody knowing perfectly well when Freesat was launched that Freeview HD was due to launch late 2009/early 2010? - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
Rob Myers wrote: On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT 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_protection_a.html?ssorl=1254509384ssoc=rd http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_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. nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
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: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk 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-FMT 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_protection_a.html?ssorl=1254509384ssoc=rd http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_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. nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
