Re: [backstage] DRM duration?

[James Cridland]

On Nov 8, 2007 10:42 AM, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Of course this is a blog so not exactly a reference source:
>
> http://joyofsox.blogspot.com/2007/11/mlb-game-downloads-still-inaccessible.html
>
> So this DRM system seems to have lasted 2003-2006. Then a year later you
> lose
> any downloads.
>
> Yep, this is the kind of thing that makes honest consumers want to stay
> within
> the law.


As a note: the (public service) BBC produces no DRM'd content which lasts
longer than one month. This isn't a risk that those of us using iPlayer
downloads need concern ourselves with, therefore.

You might also enjoy
http://james.cridland.net/blog/2007/08/11/when-content-restriction-and-protection-goes-bad/-
the MLB aren't the first, nor will they be the last.

-- 
http://james.cridland.net | http://www.mediauk.com

Media UK is a Not At All Bad Ltd production. Company info:
http://www.notatallbad.ltd.uk/

[backstage] DRM duration?

[David Greaves]

Of course this is a blog so not exactly a reference source:
http://joyofsox.blogspot.com/2007/11/mlb-game-downloads-still-inaccessible.html

So this DRM system seems to have lasted 2003-2006. Then a year later you lose
any downloads.

Yep, this is the kind of thing that makes honest consumers want to stay within
the law.

David

-
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 does not work... what next?

[Brian Butterworth]

Sorry for the delay in replying but I've had a toothache!

Right...

You can divide the kind of material that is currently shown on television
into five broad types:

- "True live", which a content that is actually live, or is non-archive
material introduced by live presentation.  This would be the news and
weather on most channels, live events such as sport and music and so on.
The value of the content is related to common experience or to the "breaking
news" .

- "As live" is content that is produced, recorded and edited as if it were
broadcast live, but has actually been produced beforehand.   Such programmes
are usually produced in quantity and to a "format" which

- "Commissioned" programmes covers the large part of factual and drama
programmes.

- "Import" programmes are bought from TV networks abroad.

- "Archive" programmes are programmes of the above types that have been show
before.


Putting on my futurologist hat:


TRUE LIVE

"True live" will remain in the on broadcast TV.  For the BBC this means
streaming of BBC News 24 and BBC World.

On the "live" sports side, this will remain the only existing pull for
subscription TV, as is already the only service that Sky operates that has
not lost almost all the viewers.  Online "live sport" will either be
provided by IPTV with spot-adverts, live streams (BBC Sport).

Some formats such as talent shows will probably also be constructed for the
"live buzz".


AS LIVE

Much of this kind of entertainment material is produced for broadcast
television and will probably continue to be pumped out over satellite, cable
and terrestrial services.   But as the "shared live experience" is fake,
then these programmes will be eventually be pumped into on-demand services,
vodcasts and so on.Current examples are "Have I Got News For You" and
"Watchdog".  Most of these formats have daily or weekly episodes which have
little resale value.


COMMISSIONED

This area covers the majority of content.  In the past, these programmes
are scheduled, but without the linear form of traditional TV, such material
will be consumed "on demand".  If the BBC has any sense, all such material
should be made available to any organization that will encode and
distribute it as long as they make no edits and take no credit.

The BBC, as a "premium originated content" broadcaster produces
material that has a range of resale values.  IMHO the BBC should stick all
educational content online with immediate effect, unless there is a good
reason for not doing so.  Obviously most people would
also like entertainment and comedy formats to be included, but these have
much higher potential resale value and will probably have to wait until
later.

It is my opinion  that the BBC should collect usage information from
distributed video and have a fixed annual fund to compensate those
who write, contribute and perform for the programmes.


IMPORTS

Once the world moves broadcasting in to cyberspace, Imports on TV channels
will disappear.  What is the point in waiting six months to watch a new
Simpson's on Sky One (or years onto C4) if you can download it from the
US minutes after broadcast.

This is not much of a problem for the BBC as it has very little imported
programming these days, but it may see the eventual death of BBC
non-domestic channels (other than BBC World).

The foreign sales of formats will no doubt continue, and there will be a
market for subtitled and dubbed non-English content.


ARCHIVE

The value of programmes from the archive will fall because the costs of
storage and distribution fall towards zero.  Eventually it would be
desirable to have every single programme the BBC has ever broadcast to be in
an archive.  To me the value of transmitting our culture abroad outweighs the
cost of lost archive sales.

On 14/06/07, Mr I Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:


I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while,
and want to ponder this question to the backstage community...

We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well
lets just say for this thread that DRM doesn't work and it just turns
consumers into against the content holder.

...What happens next?

Here's some thoughts from me,

Content producers adopt watermarking technologies?
P2P streaming and Multicasting becomes the next big advance for content
producers
People start paying for real time or 0day access?
Google and Yahoo start indexing torrent sites and offering services like
sharetv.org
Joost and Democracy adoption increases
The portable video player and digital set top (appletv, xbmc, etc)
markets blows up
Torrent site uses slowly drops, as content producers use other online
services
Windows Home server (now you see how my last post relates) and similar
products sales increase 10 fold over the next 3 year
-
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: h

Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?

[Michael Sparks]

On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:04, Andy wrote:
> > Platform neutrality means it should not favour any one specific system.
>
> That's not what platform neutral means. It means it shouldn't favour
> any specific system or systems.

Huh???

I wrote:
me > it should not favour any one specific system.
you> it shouldn't favour any specific system or systems.

Care to explain how these two statements are actually different?

I know you use a contraction and you didn't and you said any and I said one, 
but the intent/meaning is the same. 

I'm giving up talking to you at this point.


Michael.
-
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 does not work... what next?

[David Woodhouse]

On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 10:19 +0100, mike chamberlain wrote:
> 1. Rights holders insist on time limited DRM solution.
> 2. Only Microsoft supports a time limited DRM.
> 3. Therefore, in order to conform to point 1, BBC have to use
> Microsoft based DRM.

I would phrase it slightly differently.

1. Rights holders ask for a time-limited DRM solution.
2. Microsoft offer a time-limited DRM solution.
3. The BBC accepts that this is a placebo; DRM doesn't really work.
4. The BBC offers this 'solution' to the rights-holders, knowing that
   it will actually be broken like all the other DRM solutions and
   it only _really_ serves to inconvenience the consumers.

When a clueless person walks into a shop and is sold a 'solution', there
is a legal obligation on the part of the shop assistant not to mis-sell,
on the basis that the shop assistant is presumed to be an expert in the
field.

I'm sure the same _law_ doesn't apply here, but the moral principle
should. I am very disappointed by the BBC's actions. They have a duty to
the the public, and they _also_ have a duty to help the people who have
come to them with such strange ideas, rather than disingenuously
_pretending_ to meet their requirements. The BBC are failing on both
counts.

The world didn't fall on our heads when the MPAA failed to ban the VCR
in 1984. And it won't fall on our heads when we wake up and drop DRM
either.

By reducing the usability of the content, you effectively prohibit
almost _all_ innovation and development around the platform. It's not
that the DRM won't be cracked -- of course it will. But you make people
live in fear of generating programs and tools for dealing with that
content, just like we live in fear of shipping programs which can allow
you to view your legally-purchased DVDs.

I don't see how anybody can think that's a good thing. Especially anyone
subscribed to this particular mailing list.

-- 
dwmw2

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the
American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
 -- Jack Valenti, MPAA.

-
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 does not work... what next?

[Andy]

On 16/06/07, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Platform neutrality means it should not favour any one specific system.


That's not what platform neutral means. It means it shouldn't favour
any specific system or systems.

If there was a war between 4 nations, (called A, B, C, D) would you
consider fighting with nations A and B as being neutral?



There are several ways to achieve this. You've discounted several however
claiming they're not platform neutral, so I'll leave my response there.


I discounted things that did not meet defined objectives based on
recognised definitions of the words "platform" (in the computing
context) and "neutral".
I really don't see how you can claim "choosing a few platforms" is neutral.

If you would like to point out how selecting a few platforms and not
selecting other platforms is neutral be my guest.


unless you are suggesting that iPlayer should run on a ZX81


I'm thinking lack of colour and sound support could be a problem.

However if a spec was provided it wouldn't be the BBC saying "no we
won't allow it on the ZX81", they will be allowing it on any platform.
If no one can actually get it to work on the platform then that is a
problem with the platform.

Unless the BBC provides specifications it can not be implemented on
all platform's and would not be neutral as it is only selecting a
subset of platforms.

Which of the methods I discounted did you think would provide platform
neutrality? I thought I provided reasons for them.

Implementing it on all platforms - in practical too many platforms,
BBC may not even know all the platforms.

Using a Virtual Machine - the VM would be the platform, it would not
be neutral as it only runs on specific platforms, namely the VM
itself.

Which part of which one of those do you disagree with?
Or do you disagree with my definition of "platform neutral"?

Andy

--
SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Michael Sparks]

On Saturday 16 June 2007 12:43, Andy wrote:
> To be "neutral" on platform the BBC's iPlayer will need to run on
> every platform that has existed, that does exist, or will exist in the
> future

Picking out this one point, this is bogus, unless you are suggesting that
iPlayer should run on a ZX81 (In which case I give up talking to you right
here). Platform neutrality means it should not favour any one specific system.

There are several ways to achieve this. You've discounted several however
claiming they're not platform neutral, so I'll leave my response there.


Michael.
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Andy]

On 16/06/07, mike chamberlain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I believe the actual facts are...

1. Rights holders insist on time limited DRM solution.
2. Only Microsoft supports a time limited DRM.
3. Therefore, in order to conform to point 1, BBC have to use
Microsoft based DRM.


I accept axiom 1.

Axiom 2 is incorrect and can be proved to be so.
Proof:

2a: If Microsoft's is the only scheme who support time limited DRM
there can not exist a scheme such that:
- scheme is not Microsoft's
- scheme supports time limited DRM

2b: OpenIPMP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not
Microsoft's scheme.

2c: OpenIPMP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) supports time
limited DRM

2b and 2c contradict the hypothesis in 2a, thus axiom 2 can not be correct.

Axiom 3 is incorrect.
It's reasoning relied on Axiom 2 which was proved to be incorrect (see above).

Ian wrote:

Name another DRM system which is technically capable of the same things,
and exists today.


OpenIPMP


Andy

PS sorry about the double post but the DRM software I was taking quite
a while to download.

--
SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Andy]

On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

You really are a fucking twat, aren't you?

Rich.



Resorting to personal insults because you can't win an argument?

What is so wrong with suggesting you publish said agreements?
If they are published and I missed it, then I am sorry but you could
be a tad more helpful and point to them instead of sending abusive
emails.

Or are the agreements/contracts protected by an NDA, or trade secret etc.?


The list of OSes/Chips was never meant to be complete, it is just a
list of platforms.
To be "neutral" on platform the BBC's iPlayer will need to run on
every platform that has existed, that does exist, or will exist in the
future. It's not "neutral" if you select 3 software platforms and
implement it on them because you have other platforms which don't have
it.

Websters dictionary define neutral as meaning:

1. Not engaged on either side; not taking part with or
 assisting either of two or more contending parties;
 neuter; indifferent.


Wikipedia defines platform (in the computing context) to mean:

In computing, a platform describes some sort of framework, either in
hardware or software, which allows software to run. Typical platforms include
a computer's architecture, operating system, or programming languages
and their runtime libraries.


Wordnet defines platform to mean:

3: the combination of a particular computer and a particular
operating system

(the other definitions weren't relevant due to context).

Even by implementing iPlayer on Windows, Mac and Linux you are
"assisting" those parties and not assisting contending parties such as
BSD, or any other OS that exists or could exist.

So given those definitions of "neutral" and "platform" how can
implementing it on a subset of platforms ever be platform neutral. And
even if it is implemented on all platforms it may not be neutral as it
assists existing platforms over ones that have not been created yet.

If you have any suggestions about how to achieve platform neutrality I
would actually be genuinely interested in hearing them (provide you
can manage to do that without resorting to personal insults).

Right now I can only think of an Open Source reference implementation,
or a publicly defined specification. If anyone else knows of a way to
achieve platform neutrality speak up!

Your new law, do you want it to be "Lockwood's Law" or "Richard's
Law"? I think "Lockwoods law" sound better, but you invented the law
so you get naming privileges.

I concede now the BBC has no choice at this time but to use a DRM
scheme, I just disagree with _which_ scheme, and it _appears_ the BBC
Trust agrees with me.


@Mike:
Prove axiom 2. You are also failing to take into account the
possibility of using a custom or adapted DRM implementation, it
shouldn't cost too much compared with the 4.5 million that the BBC
have spent so far.

Ian Worte:

Name another DRM system which is technically capable of the same things,
and exists today.


The BBC iPlayer didn't exist when the BBC started the project, why
does the DRM need to have existed at that time as well?

I will continue looking for such a DRM scheme. Or I could try and
stall this for long enough to give me time to create my own DRM scheme
and point to that (but that may be cheating?)

I am downloading a cross platform DRM system as we speak, the source
is rather large though. I think it's bringing all the crypto libraries
and media libraries with it.
More news on that if it does do time restrictions. can't be sure though.

Andy



--
SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1
-
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 does not work... what next?

[mike chamberlain]

On 6/15/07, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You've obviously not read the numerous posts explaining in some detail
> why it *isn't* currently feasible

Must have missed that one. Can you show in detail the point at which
it says you MUST use MICROSOFT DRM? I would really like to know so I
can email my MEP about this matter. In case they want to add the "BBC"
as an accessory to whatever they are prosecuting Microsoft for today.

Or is it not in fact true that the rights holders would be happy with any DRM?



I believe the actual facts are...

1. Rights holders insist on time limited DRM solution.
2. Only Microsoft supports a time limited DRM.
3. Therefore, in order to conform to point 1, BBC have to use
Microsoft based DRM.

HTH.

Mike.
-
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 does not work... what next?

[David Woodhouse]

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 21:52 +0100, Andy Leighton wrote:
> Steady on - why not Z80, OK a bit limited but the Z8 was 32bit and
> about the same time as some of those above?  Basically some of the
> listed processors above are dead for general-purpose computing in the
> home and they are used by a dwindling core of hobbyists (and usually 
> not as their main machine). 

Not main machine, true. Maybe as the media centre... some nice low-power
cores in there which can be run fanless, for example :)

-- 
dwmw2

-
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 does not work... what next?

[Andy Leighton]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:49:10PM +0100, Andy wrote:
> don't know about and aren't complete yet. Running on x86, intel/AMD 64
> bit, PowerPC, Motorola 68k, Sparcs, Alpha, Arm, MIPS, PA-RISC, s/390,
> and CPU architectures that are unknown to the BBC or incomplete.

Steady on - why not Z80, OK a bit limited but the Z8 was 32bit and
about the same time as some of those above?  Basically some of the
listed processors above are dead for general-purpose computing in the
home and they are used by a dwindling core of hobbyists (and usually 
not as their main machine).

> So when is the BBC going to comply with "platform neutral"? Or does it
> intend never to comply? What method of complying is it using (seems it
> should have started by now)? Is it going to be a specification like an
> RFC or is it going to be an open implementation which will serve as a
> specification for interaction?
> 
> I don't see any other way to achieve "platform neutral", any one else
> got any idea how else platform neutral is going to be achieved?
> 
> For the benefit of those who do not understand why I am stressing the
> term "platform neutral" so hard, it is because the BBC Trust
> explicitly specified the BBC must provide a platform neutral solution.

It depends what you mean by platform neutral?  Platform neutral means to
me software that is independent of any particular feature or any software 
particular to one platform.  Of course any widely used end-user platform
must be supported.  But at the moment that seems to be restricted to three 
operating systems on four processor families.

-- 
Andy Leighton => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" 
   - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Richard Lockwood]

> I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the
> internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC
> over the internet.

Because it's not free of charge -- it's our license fee that's going
to pay for the useless DRM technology, even if we don't use it. I
don't like paying more money to make something less useful.


So you don't want the content under any circumstances unless those
circumstances are *precisely* the ones you want.  I see.

Your license fee hasn't actually gone up because of this, has it?  You
haven't got an extra bill, saying "Cost of you paying for our DRM
system: 17p" have you?  You've been (I hope) paying your license fee
for years, funding all kinds of activities that the BBC gets up to (I
personally object to having to pay for Strictly Come Dancing, but we
don't have the option to pick and choose the bits of the BBC our
license fee goes to).

During this discussion I've been growing increasingly more convinced
that those arguing against the BBC putting their content out with DRM
actually have no interest whatsoever in the actual content of that
content (if you see what I mean), rather, they're simply using it as
an excuse to start dropping the name "Richard Stallman*", regrinding
their axes on "freedom", and bashing Microsoft.

Rich.

* I propose an amendment to Godwin's Law - anyone mentioning Richard
Stallman automatically gets laughed out of the room and loses the
argument on the basis that they're more than likely to be simply
parroting currently fashionable views that they once read in "Wired".
**

** Please note that this is meant to be a humourous aside, and not the
point of this post.  Ranty replies to this bit of the post will be
laughed at.
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Ian Betteridge]

Andy wrote:

Must have missed that one. Can you show in detail the point at which
it says you MUST use MICROSOFT DRM? I would really like to know so I
can email my MEP about this matter. In case they want to add the "BBC"
as an accessory to whatever they are prosecuting Microsoft for today.


Name another DRM system which is technically capable of the same things, 
and exists today.




Once it can be shown it really is the license holders fault, and we
can see it's their fault we can focus on them a bit. But simple
yelling "rights holders" and backing it up with nothing ain't going to
work.


If you could be bothered to do any research, you could find out what 
residuals Equity and the Writers Guild of Great Britain accept as a 
minimum.

-
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 does not work... what next?

[Dave Cross]

Stephen Deasey wrote:


The BBC has many thousands of hours of programming which it holds
sufficient rights to enable it to published on the Internet, DRM-free.
If DRM is so distasteful, then why isn't this being done? Surely the
BBC should be taking steps to move towards a DRM-free world, if that's
what it believes in, which is what has been reported here.


Isn't that what the BBC Archive Trial is all about.

  http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/
  http://xrl.us/bbcarchive

Ok, so it's currently closed, but it will return at some point.

But that's a completely different proposition to the iPlayer.

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 does not work... what next?

[Andy]

On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

You've obviously not read the numerous posts explaining in some detail
why it *isn't* currently feasible


Must have missed that one. Can you show in detail the point at which
it says you MUST use MICROSOFT DRM? I would really like to know so I
can email my MEP about this matter. In case they want to add the "BBC"
as an accessory to whatever they are prosecuting Microsoft for today.

Or is it not in fact true that the rights holders would be happy with any DRM?



If you care to not believe that, and instead to
believe that the BBC and its employees on this list are actively lying
to you then fine


They have done it before! if you lie to me in official communications
(and the BBC has) then I am less likely to trust you.

Oh and I know they have lied to me because in one message I was told
they couldn't do something because "an agreement existed", when I made
an FOI request I was told no such agreement existed.

If that's not lying how else do you explain that paradox?

My favourite one is them telling me something that was free (and that
the BBC had used for free) would cost too much.
And particularly common is the BBC's ridiculous claim that something
would cause them to have to increase the license fee. The BBC doesn't
have that power does it?

Face it certain members of the BBC will lie to hide data they are
ashamed of. It's just a pity they give the honest and hard working
members of the team a bad name.


there's nothing anyone can say that will change
your mind


Publish these contracts or agreements.
It's all well and good saying "it's the license holders, honest it is"
and then not presenting any evidence they are requiring anything.

Once it can be shown it really is the license holders fault, and we
can see it's their fault we can focus on them a bit. But simple
yelling "rights holders" and backing it up with nothing ain't going to
work.

Andy


--
SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Richard Lockwood]

You've obviously not read the numerous posts explaining in some detail
why it *isn't* currently feasible and that yes, it *is* doing the best
it can at the moment.  If you care to not believe that, and instead to
believe that the BBC and its employees on this list are actively lying
to you then fine - there's nothing anyone can say that will change
your mind.

Rich.

On 6/15/07, Stephen Deasey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 6/15/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet
> from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet.
>

It's not worse, but it's not much better.

The BBC charter is not to do a little bit better than it did before,
but to give the best value it possibly can. It's not doing the best it
can, and this isn't good enough.


> Obviously DRM free content is even better, but it's not feasible right
> now.


It is feasible right now, for some content, if not all.

The sentiment here seems to be that no one likes DRM, no one wants
DRM, and no one believes it works, but a) the "rights holders" need to
be lied to and b) they hold all the cards.  I don't think this is the
case, but even so, what's being done to fix this?

Some DRM-free content available is better than no DRM-free content.
The more DRM-free content which is widely available, the more pressure
it puts on those who would use DRM, not to.

The BBC has many thousands of hours of programming which it holds
sufficient rights to enable it to published on the Internet, DRM-free.
If DRM is so distasteful, then why isn't this being done? Surely the
BBC should be taking steps to move towards a DRM-free world, if that's
what it believes in, which is what has been reported here.

It needn't cost any money, and we could start really simple: all local
news casts, all weather reports, all House of Commons footage -- dump
it to the Internet Archive and  Google and anyone else who will take
it.

Just get it out there.

-
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 does not work... what next?

[Adam Sampson]

"Richard Lockwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the
> internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC
> over the internet.

Because it's not free of charge -- it's our license fee that's going
to pay for the useless DRM technology, even if we don't use it. I
don't like paying more money to make something less useful.

-- 
Adam Sampson <[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/

Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?

[Stephen Deasey]

On 6/15/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet
from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet.



It's not worse, but it's not much better.

The BBC charter is not to do a little bit better than it did before,
but to give the best value it possibly can. It's not doing the best it
can, and this isn't good enough.



Obviously DRM free content is even better, but it's not feasible right
now.



It is feasible right now, for some content, if not all.

The sentiment here seems to be that no one likes DRM, no one wants
DRM, and no one believes it works, but a) the "rights holders" need to
be lied to and b) they hold all the cards.  I don't think this is the
case, but even so, what's being done to fix this?

Some DRM-free content available is better than no DRM-free content.
The more DRM-free content which is widely available, the more pressure
it puts on those who would use DRM, not to.

The BBC has many thousands of hours of programming which it holds
sufficient rights to enable it to published on the Internet, DRM-free.
If DRM is so distasteful, then why isn't this being done? Surely the
BBC should be taking steps to move towards a DRM-free world, if that's
what it believes in, which is what has been reported here.

It needn't cost any money, and we could start really simple: all local
news casts, all weather reports, all House of Commons footage -- dump
it to the Internet Archive and  Google and anyone else who will take
it.

Just get it out there.
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Andy]

On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

And Ad Hominem nonsense about "muppets" presumably.  I still don't see
how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet from the
BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet.


Because the DRM the BBC uses is NOT free.
It costs hundreds of pounds to buy the software.
Add to that the software it self is badly written and poses a security nightmare
and the fact is unverifiable
and produced by someone who has been successfully prosecuted of
offences may times.
Then you're starting to get somewhere.

Also add to the fact the BBC is trying (and succeeding) in interfering
in a market that is well known for anti-competitive practices.

In fact the platform the BBC chose has already been the subject of
legal action from the European Union.

If the BBC wants to use DRM it should create a platform neutral DRM
scheme like the BBC trust has said.

And yet the BBC has shown no evidence what so ever that it has any
intention of creating a platform neutral iPlayer.

Especially considering that the BBC would have little other option
other than to release a specification for iPlayer so that other
clients can be produced or to Open Source iPlayers code (and
everything it requires) so that it can be ported to other platforms.

Simple producing a Windows, Mac and Linux version is NOT platform neutral.
platform neutral would work irrespective of platform. So that's *BSD,
Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows, any other OS including ones the BBC
don't know about and aren't complete yet. Running on x86, intel/AMD 64
bit, PowerPC, Motorola 68k, Sparcs, Alpha, Arm, MIPS, PA-RISC, s/390,
and CPU architectures that are unknown to the BBC or incomplete.
That's a lot of different versions for the BBC to create isn't it, and
even then it's not truly neutral as it won't work on new or
undisclosed platforms.

Could use Java, Python or another abstraction layer apart from the
fact that technically Java or Python would be considered the platform
so it would not be platform neutral either.

So when is the BBC going to comply with "platform neutral"? Or does it
intend never to comply? What method of complying is it using (seems it
should have started by now)? Is it going to be a specification like an
RFC or is it going to be an open implementation which will serve as a
specification for interaction?

I don't see any other way to achieve "platform neutral", any one else
got any idea how else platform neutral is going to be achieved?

For the benefit of those who do not understand why I am stressing the
term "platform neutral" so hard, it is because the BBC Trust
explicitly specified the BBC must provide a platform neutral solution.
Quoting from the BBC trust's website:


The service will be provided on a platform-neutral basis within a reasonable
timeframe of launch
From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/closed_consultations/ondemand.html




Andy

--
SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Ian Betteridge]

On 15/06/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Only a few years ago, the BBC renegotiated its contract with BSkyB to

_remove_ DRM from its satellite broadcasts. That's why I can receive BBC
content on my DVB-S card without having to muck about with a Dragon CAM
and a Solus card. Well done, BBC. At least _then_ you had a clue.




It's pretty insulting to suggest that the BBC now somehow doesn't have a
clue, don't you think? Certainly if I were a BBC employee, it would make me
disinclined to take the case you're making seriously if your opening gambit
is "you're clueless"...

The situations aren't analogous. The satellite issue was, for a start,
partly due to money: the BBC simply decided not to pay to be on Sky's
encryption platform. But it the argument was simple: it was just making the
same services available on satellite that everyone already gets via DTV and
analogue broadcast.

iPlayer, though, is a service over and above what exists. That makes it
completely different territory in terms of rights and residuals, which, in
turn, makes it about 500 times as complicated.


I think the whole discussion about alternative business models and even

philosophical discussions about the nature of copyright are irrelevant
and counterproductive.



Alternative business models are completely relevant.

You don't need to be a revolutionary to observe

that DRM is worthless and causes far more pain to consumers than the
supposed benefits it actually achieves.



DRM doesn't work to stop piracy. But as we've seen over and over again, it's
not about stopping piracy: it's about reassuring rights holders. Persuade
*them* that it doesn't stop piracy - but that, actually, piracy isn't really
an issue on an individual basis - and you'd get somewhere.


And if you get distracted into

'revolutionary' talk like that, then you just give ammunition to the
muppets who respond to anti-DRM arguments with Ad Hominem nonsense about
"students and ne'er-do-wells".



Well, the "clueless" jibe means you don't really have a lot of leg to stand
on re: ad hominem attacks :)

Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?

[Richard Lockwood]

I think the whole discussion about alternative business models and even
philosophical discussions about the nature of copyright are irrelevant
and counterproductive. You don't need to be a revolutionary to observe
that DRM is worthless and causes far more pain to consumers than the
supposed benefits it actually achieves. And if you get distracted into
'revolutionary' talk like that, then you just give ammunition to the
muppets who respond to anti-DRM arguments with Ad Hominem nonsense about
"students and ne'er-do-wells".


And Ad Hominem nonsense about "muppets" presumably.  I still don't see
how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet from the
BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet.
Obviously DRM free content is even better, but it's not feasible right
now.

Rich.
-
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 does not work... what next?

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 10:19 +0100, Mr I Forrester wrote:
> I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while, 
> and want to ponder this question to the backstage community...
> 
> We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well 
> lets just say for this thread that DRM doesn't work and it just turns 
> consumers into against the content holder.
> 
> ...What happens next? 

Nothing. We get a clue, stop making life hard for honest consumers, and
after a while we realise that the sky _didn't_ actually fall on our
head.

Only a few years ago, the BBC renegotiated its contract with BSkyB to
_remove_ DRM from its satellite broadcasts. That's why I can receive BBC
content on my DVB-S card without having to muck about with a Dragon CAM
and a Solus card. Well done, BBC. At least _then_ you had a clue.

I think the whole discussion about alternative business models and even
philosophical discussions about the nature of copyright are irrelevant
and counterproductive. You don't need to be a revolutionary to observe
that DRM is worthless and causes far more pain to consumers than the
supposed benefits it actually achieves. And if you get distracted into
'revolutionary' talk like that, then you just give ammunition to the
muppets who respond to anti-DRM arguments with Ad Hominem nonsense about
"students and ne'er-do-wells".

-- 
dwmw2

-
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 does not work... what next?

[David Woodhouse]

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 10:15 +0100, Richard Lockwood wrote:
> > I think - as do many others, it seems - that people pirate because they want
> > interoperability, convenience of consumption on their own terms, and the
> > quality is often better to boot.
> 
> Yes, yes, and yes.  Don't forget though, that a lot of people pirate
> because they want the convenience of not having to pay for something
> they want.

That's a different kind of 'convenience'. A kind which DRM doesn't
actually manage to prevent, if people are determined enough -- which
history shows us they are.

-- 
dwmw2

-
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 does not work... what next?

[zen16083]

That's just a personal preference amongst some people - it isn't wrong.
According to Michael Swan from Oxford University Press, Practical English
Usage:

British English: different from / different to

American English: different from / different than


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Lockwood
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 3:32 PM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?

On 6/15/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Your name and logo's would still be covered by "Trademark" and similar
> > > protections. Misrepresenting the source of a good is surely illegal
> > > isn't it?
> >
> > Oh - so visual intellectual property is fine, but recorded isn't?
>
> Trademark law is totally different to copyright law and totally
> different again to patent law. Please don't confuse them under the
> bogus umbrella term 'intellectual property' - its phrased
> intentionally to misdirect and confuse the way we consider these
> issues.

But in Davetopia, logos can be copied electronically, and hence freely
shared (as they have no intrinsic value), and then printed on
t-shirts.

Rich.

PS I know this isn't a grammar list, but it's a personal bugbear of
mine...  It's "different from", not "different to".
-
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] DRM does not work... what next?

[Richard Lockwood]

On 6/15/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Your name and logo's would still be covered by "Trademark" and similar
> > protections. Misrepresenting the source of a good is surely illegal
> > isn't it?
>
> Oh - so visual intellectual property is fine, but recorded isn't?

Trademark law is totally different to copyright law and totally
different again to patent law. Please don't confuse them under the
bogus umbrella term 'intellectual property' - its phrased
intentionally to misdirect and confuse the way we consider these
issues.


But in Davetopia, logos can be copied electronically, and hence freely
shared (as they have no intrinsic value), and then printed on
t-shirts.

Rich.

PS I know this isn't a grammar list, but it's a personal bugbear of
mine...  It's "different from", not "different to".
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Dave Crossland]

On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Your name and logo's would still be covered by "Trademark" and similar
> protections. Misrepresenting the source of a good is surely illegal
> isn't it?

Oh - so visual intellectual property is fine, but recorded isn't?


Trademark law is totally different to copyright law and totally
different again to patent law. Please don't confuse them under the
bogus umbrella term 'intellectual property' - its phrased
intentionally to misdirect and confuse the way we consider these
issues.

--
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 does not work... what next?

[Richard Lockwood]

On 6/15/07, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK.  So if I can't perform live (due to terrible stage fright (see
> XTC), disability or any other reason), what do I do?

And if I develop RSI or another disability that prevents me doing my job?

There is a reason we have a benefit for disability!
We also have a little something called insurance that can cover you
should you develop a disability.


No.  You're deliberately misunderstanding me.  Not "What if I am
suddenly unable to perform live?", but "what if I've never been able
to - but am still perfectly able to perform recorded music?"



>  And if you think
> that physical merchandise (by which I assume you mean t-shirts etc)
> can't be copied, you've obviously never been to any live gigs.
> Bootleg merchandise traders are legion - and in your happy "free"
> world, the band wouldn't own their own logos, album cover designs etc,
> so that bootlegging would be legal.

Your name and logo's would still be covered by "Trademark" and similar
protections. Misrepresenting the source of a good is surely illegal
isn't it?



Oh - so visual intellectual property is fine, but recorded isn't?



> Any other brilliant thoughts?

Why don't you offer something constructive for once?


I'm not pretending that I have a solution - I'm simply pointing out
that while DRM isn't a perfect solution, the wholesale removal of
rights and restrictions on recorded product isn't a viable and moral
alternative.



Anyway the presence of other business models is insignificant, I don't
need an alternative business model to determine whether the current
one is morally right or not. But that is another discussion.


So you don't need to offer anything constructive, but I do?  I see.

Rich.
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Andy]

On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

OK.  So if I can't perform live (due to terrible stage fright (see
XTC), disability or any other reason), what do I do?


And if I develop RSI or another disability that prevents me doing my job?

There is a reason we have a benefit for disability!
We also have a little something called insurance that can cover you
should you develop a disability.


 And if you think
that physical merchandise (by which I assume you mean t-shirts etc)
can't be copied, you've obviously never been to any live gigs.
Bootleg merchandise traders are legion - and in your happy "free"
world, the band wouldn't own their own logos, album cover designs etc,
so that bootlegging would be legal.


Your name and logo's would still be covered by "Trademark" and similar
protections. Misrepresenting the source of a good is surely illegal
isn't it?



Any other brilliant thoughts?


Why don't you offer something constructive for once?

We could always use the donation model. Not sure how well that works
though. Charities seem to get quite a bit.
Could also use "advertising", but I really dislike advertising as
advertisers are responsible for attempts to destroy the functionality
of the Internet.
(e.g. legitimate pop ups don't work anymore as people block pop ups to
weed out the uninvited adverts. They are also responsible for the
increasing problems with email due to spam.) Having said that I do
prefer target adverts, if you advertise something I actually wanted
anyway I may buy it from you.

Anyway the presence of other business models is insignificant, I don't
need an alternative business model to determine whether the current
one is morally right or not. But that is another discussion.


And the reason why people pay for things that they can get free may include:

Lack of knowledge (if you don't know something exists you're not going
to get it)
They view the free product as inferior in some way (regardless of whether it is)


Oh and the reason people pay when they can download illegally may not
be "they are good people" it may have something to do with the "being
sent to jail thing", or the lack of skill. as illegal content is
driven underground.

Andy

--
SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Andrew Bowden]

> > Musical revenues are not something I know huge amounts, but 
> > this seems 
> > to me to be a model which drives the musicians very very hard.  To 
> > earn money to live they have to perform - and they'll need 
> > to do it a LOT.
> > But to prepare their next album, they'll need to stop performing 
> > because they'll need to write their album.
> > And is there not a finite amount of gigs people will attend?  The 
> > number of people who go to a gig a week isn't that high.
> > Where does this model leave people like Kate Bush - internationally 
> > regarded and loved, but who hates doing live performances, 
> so doesn't.
> But aren't you just looking at the top end of musicians?  
> Even for recording musicians quite a number of them aren't 
> making much (or indeed
> any) money on their recordings.  Artists could also sell 
> recordings themselves presumably signed although this will 
> probably not add much to the value long-term.  We could 
> completely go over to a gift culture - there would still be 
> plenty of people who would like to reward artists.

I did have top end musicians in mind, but I'm also keeping in mind a
certain band of musicians who now sell their music themselves - retain
the distribution and costs and so on.  Sometimes people who have grown
disgruntled with, or who have been dropped by their record label.
Artists for whom the album sales and live music income (which lets face
it, often isn't much either!) combined help pay their way.

-
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 does not work... what next?

[Andy Leighton]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:38:16AM +0100, Andrew Bowden wrote:
> > Music:
> > Charge for Live performances/concerts
> > Charge for physical merchandise
> 
> Musical revenues are not something I know huge amounts, but this seems
> to me to be a model which drives the musicians very very hard.  To earn
> money to live they have to perform - and they'll need to do it a LOT.
> But to prepare their next album, they'll need to stop performing because
> they'll need to write their album.
> 
> And is there not a finite amount of gigs people will attend?  The number
> of people who go to a gig a week isn't that high. 
> 
> Where does this model leave people like Kate Bush - internationally
> regarded and loved, but who hates doing live performances, so doesn't.

But aren't you just looking at the top end of musicians?  Even for 
recording musicians quite a number of them aren't making much (or indeed
any) money on their recordings.  Artists could also sell recordings
themselves presumably signed although this will probably not add much to 
the value long-term.  We could completely go over to a gift culture - 
there would still be plenty of people who would like to reward artists.

-- 
Andy Leighton => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" 
   - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Richard Lockwood]

I think - as do many others, it seems - that people pirate because they want
interoperability, convenience of consumption on their own terms, and the
quality is often better to boot.


Yes, yes, and yes.  Don't forget though, that a lot of people pirate
because they want the convenience of not having to pay for something
they want.

Cheers,

Rich.
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Ian Betteridge]

On 15/06/07, Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



I've downloaded music from allofmp3 in the past because it's just so
convenient. Why can't the industries understand that people, above all
else,
value convenience? I wanted to get another copy of an album I had a long
time ago but since mislaid (though I know it's around somewhere, probably
scratched to buggery). Jumped onto AOMP3, got a FLAC copy of it. Perfect.
Other stuff I've downloaded in MP3 format, in a quality level I've decided
upon to balance the cost versus quality.




Yes, if only they actually paid the artists, allofmp3 would be perfect ;)
Seriously though, if there's one lesson the music industry ought to take
from allofmp3, it's that people will pay when the price is right and the
convenience is high.


I've said it before, I'll say it again - the labels need to embrace the

customer. Treat them as potential investors, not criminals, offer them a
friendly, versatile solution which offers their choice of music via an
intuitive interface in their choice of formats - no DRM, of course - and
make it fairly priced. Digital music is still not fairly priced.



I agree with you almost entirely, although I'm not sure about the "fairly
priced" bit - in the sense that I simply don't have enough data to say one
way or another. It's easy to see how the "fair price" for a U2 single might
be pretty low (it's been sold a bazillion times before, after all) but what
about a more obscure band? What's the record company's fair returns, given
their development costs? I just don't have the answer to that.

RE: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?

[Andrew Bowden]

> Software:
> Charge for support
> Charge for bespoke software
> Charge for custom modifications.

Now this is a model we know works because there's a multiple of
companies in the OpenSource world.  So it's a no brainer.
 
> Music:
> Charge for Live performances/concerts
> Charge for physical merchandise

Musical revenues are not something I know huge amounts, but this seems
to me to be a model which drives the musicians very very hard.  To earn
money to live they have to perform - and they'll need to do it a LOT.
But to prepare their next album, they'll need to stop performing because
they'll need to write their album.

And is there not a finite amount of gigs people will attend?  The number
of people who go to a gig a week isn't that high. 

Where does this model leave people like Kate Bush - internationally
regarded and loved, but who hates doing live performances, so doesn't.  

As for merchandise, I like music, but I can count on my fingers the
number of band related merchandise I own.  It's a Shirehorses t-shirt.


As an aside, Ash recently announced they'd no longer be releasing
Albums.  Instead they're going for downloadable singles - which of
course people will pay for.  Tracks they think will be released quicker
and more often.

 
> Film:
> Charge the cinemas (but give the DVDs etc away) Or do like 
> some of the community film projects (like the one mentioned 
> on this list http://www.aswarmofangels.com/ )
> Job done.

How does this fund films which don't do very well in the cinemas but
have done far better off the back of DVD sales?  Clerks is an
interesting example.  It grossed millions in the US, yet had minimal
cinematic release.  Yet it's a highly regarded film and I suspect
there's more than one person on this list who has a copy somewhere.

DVD revenues now regularly eclipse box office reciepts.  So your model
could destroy huge chunks of the film industry.That might be a good
thing, but it's very hard to see how Lord of the Rings would ever have
been made under your model.  The potential box office revenues alone
wouldn't have cut the mustard.


To look forward is not easy.  To find workable solutions isn't.

-
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 does not work... what next?

[Richard Lockwood]

Depending on the kind of media there are other ways of making money
other than charging for things that are copyable.

Music:
Charge for Live performances/concerts
Charge for physical merchandise


OK.  So if I can't perform live (due to terrible stage fright (see
XTC), disability or any other reason), what do I do?  And if you think
that physical merchandise (by which I assume you mean t-shirts etc)
can't be copied, you've obviously never been to any live gigs.
Bootleg merchandise traders are legion - and in your happy "free"
world, the band wouldn't own their own logos, album cover designs etc,
so that bootlegging would be legal.

Any other brilliant thoughts?

Cheers,

Rich.
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Christopher Woods]

bly more likely to think positively about doing so
because he knows that if he does buy a copy in digital format, he'll be able
to do exactly what he would otherwise if he bought a physical copy. And,
buying another digital copy? Higher profit ratio, because of the obvious
savings of not having to press album, print artwork, send out CD... 


Why can't the labels see - and most importantly, acknowledge - that the only
way forward which will work is NO DRM?

> -Original Message-
> From: Davy Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 14 June 2007 22:43
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?
> 
> > People are basically honest, and agree with the idea that artists 
> > should get paid.
> 
> LOL. Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha.
> 
> >I think there's actually a more pertinent question, which is 
> this: Why 
> >are people currently paying for things that they could get for free?
> 
> Even more pertinently, why are people "stealing", suffering 
> DRM, being electronic freedom fighters with Oggs etc when 
> there is a wealth of freely available content already available.
> 
> I don't spend a lot of time hunting for podcasts but I have 
> gigs of great audio and video to consume. Yeah a few BBC but 
> mostly not. I worry that the big media groups will finally 
> get online but will just be clunky, expensive and irrelevent. 
> I don't need more content so any big program libraries are 
> just not appealing. Here's to cool ideas like Backstage !!
> 
> As an aside, I wonder why the BBC can't be producing more 
> original podcast content. For example, Grammar Girl - great 
> show, dynamic and educational. Hardly has a Holywood budget. 
> Why are the BBC shows so sanitized and sterile e.g. Digital 
> Planet??!? They are hardly stretching the medium either and 
> sound like recycled radio.
> 
> To answer my own question, I think people mostly pirate stuff 
> partly to feel like 'winning' or beating the system. Good old 
> greed which you won't ever get rid of with any technology :-)
> 
> Yours cynically,
> Davy
> 
> --
> Davy Mitchell
> Blog - http://www.latedecember.co.uk/sites/personal/davy/
> Twitter - http://twitter.com/daftspaniel Skype - daftspaniel 
> needgod.com
> -
> 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] DRM does not work... what next?

[Davy Mitchell]

People are basically honest, and agree
with the idea that artists should get paid.


LOL. Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha.


I think there's actually a more pertinent question, which is this: Why
are people currently paying for things that they could get for free?


Even more pertinently, why are people "stealing", suffering DRM, being
electronic freedom fighters with Oggs etc when there is a wealth of
freely available content already available.

I don't spend a lot of time hunting for podcasts but I have gigs of
great audio and video to consume. Yeah a few BBC but mostly not. I
worry that the big media groups will finally get online but will just
be clunky, expensive and irrelevent. I don't need more content so any
big program libraries are just not appealing. Here's to cool ideas
like Backstage !!

As an aside, I wonder why the BBC can't be producing more original
podcast content. For example, Grammar Girl - great show, dynamic and
educational. Hardly has a Holywood budget. Why are the BBC shows so
sanitized and sterile e.g. Digital Planet??!? They are hardly
stretching the medium either and sound like recycled radio.

To answer my own question, I think people mostly pirate stuff partly
to feel like 'winning' or beating the system. Good old greed which you
won't ever get rid of with any technology :-)

Yours cynically,
Davy

--
Davy Mitchell
Blog - http://www.latedecember.co.uk/sites/personal/davy/
Twitter - http://twitter.com/daftspaniel
Skype - daftspaniel
needgod.com
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Ian Betteridge]

Andy wrote:

On 14/06/07, Mr I Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

...What happens next?


Hopefully we will actually see some innovation!



I think there's actually a more pertinent question, which is this: Why 
are people currently paying for things that they could get for free?


For example, why would anyone buy an un-DRM'd song from iTunes when, 
with about five minutes searching, they could download a pirate copy 
(possibly even better quality, if they go for FLAC)? Why do sites like 
Bleep, which sell un-DRM'd material, make money when all they are 
selling is bits that are available for nothing elsewhere?


The answer, to me, is simple: people think that paying those who make 
things they take pleasure out of is perfectly fair, as long as it's easy 
to do and not overly expensive. People are basically honest, and agree 
with the idea that artists should get paid.


So how about, instead of telling people that their industry is old 
fashioned and dying and they're all going to have to work in McDonalds, 
we give them some positive stories about how "no DRM" doesn't mean 
rampant piracy - in fact, it means people are more likely to actually 
pay for your work? Too often, all I see from the anti-DRM camp is 
basically snarky, dumb stuff which alienates content creators - the very 
people who need to be won over. Can we see some positivity, please?

-
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 does not work... what next?

[Andy]

On 14/06/07, Mr I Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

...What happens next?


Hopefully we will actually see some innovation!

Depending on the kind of media there are other ways of making money
other than charging for things that are copyable.

Software:
Charge for support
Charge for bespoke software
Charge for custom modifications.

(actually software is doing the best in terms of giving content away).

Music:
Charge for Live performances/concerts
Charge for physical merchandise

Film:
Charge the cinemas (but give the DVDs etc away)
Or do like some of the community film projects
(like the one mentioned on this list http://www.aswarmofangels.com/ )

Job done.

Andy


--
SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1
-
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 does not work... what next?

[Ian Betteridge]

On 14/06/07, Stephen Deasey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Creating an artificial scarcity of bits and charging for them is just
a round about way of charging for a genuinely scarce resource: the
time and effort of creators. Because the scarce bits model no longer
works, creators will have to charge differently:

  - More directly, e.g. I will play may guitar and sing if you pay at the
door
  - Less directly, e.g. I will tell people to buy your perfume if you pay
me



What's interesting is that there are multiple models for how this works, and
I suspect there's no "on size fits all" approach. For example, one of the
common examples of how a non-DRM system could work to pay for creativity in
music is "give away the recordings, make money on the tours". But you can
also turn that around: for example, Apple is "sponsoring" free gigs, while
selling recordings of the gigs (hopefully DRM free, although I suspect that
will be down to which record companies are involved). The idea is that
you're paying for the convenience of being able to download them from a
trusted source, fast, and with the quality you want. You pay for
ease-of-download.

Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?

[Richard P Edwards]

Hi Ian,

What happens next? .. well most that you listed below is already  
happening somewhere.

In my opinion, this is what happens next..

Your whole office, and anybody interested in the positive future of  
the BBC, goes to the DG, or whomever now, and demands a budget to put  
as many pieces of content on the web as possible, under the banner of  
the BBC. You ask him/them to forget that he ever heard of GeoIP and  
DRM, and state that the web is now to be used to freely and openly  
fulfil the message on the BBC's coat of arms. Send out a press  
release to rights holders, and go ahead. If anyone wants to stop the  
process then they have a week to remove their content from the  
contractual status of the BBC.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_BBC

That the world needs the BBC is undeniable, and the web is now  
another place to distribute the content. Once you discover the true  
market place, you can then adjust your approach accordingly.
As for rights holders, pull the other one. there is not one new  
unique creator on the planet who does not understand the benefit they  
could receive in this via the BBC. if they have a problem, then  
they can re-license their works to someone else, like ITV or Second  
Hand TV, as they do now. Just ask them. The majority of old rights  
holders, on the other hand, will always confuse the issue because  
they are in business, they do not normally simply create,  they are  
also precious about the future, and their finances. even though,  
as you must be aware, the production costs are written off on first  
broadcast, and the license applies for only three years, in most  
cases. Not a very good deal for the financiers, especially if that is  
the public.


If you wish, you could charge the customer outside of the UK, and  
would perhaps  make more money than the complete income of the BBC  
already, even take a pound off the license fee and charge everyone  
worldwide £1 per month, or £10 per year, to watch via the net. Why  
shouldn't you compete with Realplayer or WMP, as they are US  
companies? Pass a royalty of that on to the creator, but don't get  
misled by the rights holder comments.
Either way, if you trust your customer, and it works both ways, then  
they will always support you with their custom. The BBC can lead this  
cultural change, and must if it wishes to continue doing what it does  
best, worldwide.
Stir up the nest as this present direction is useless to everyone. If  
you all begin now, then you will retain the upper hand I believe  
if you wait much longer then the actual creators will bypass your  
system of distribution, and the BBC will lose some more of its  
credibility as it loses its honest customers, resulting in economic   
Check Mate. :-)


RichE


On 14 Jun 2007, at 10:19, Mr I Forrester wrote:

I've been thinking about products and services like this for a  
while, and want to ponder this question to the backstage community...


We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts.  
Well lets just say for this thread that DRM doesn't work and it  
just turns consumers into against the content holder.


...What happens next?

Here's some thoughts from me,

Content producers adopt watermarking technologies?
P2P streaming and Multicasting becomes the next big advance for  
content producers

People start paying for real time or 0day access?
Google and Yahoo start indexing torrent sites and offering services  
like sharetv.org

Joost and Democracy adoption increases
The portable video player and digital set top (appletv, xbmc, etc)  
markets blows up
Torrent site uses slowly drops, as content producers use other  
online services
Windows Home server (now you see how my last post relates) and  
similar products sales increase 10 fold over the next 3 year

-
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] DRM does not work... what next?

[Stephen Deasey]

On 6/14/07, Mr I Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while,
and want to ponder this question to the backstage community...

We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well
lets just say for this thread that DRM doesn't work and it just turns
consumers into against the content holder.

...What happens next?



Creating an artificial scarcity of bits and charging for them is just
a round about way of charging for a genuinely scarce resource: the
time and effort of creators. Because the scarce bits model no longer
works, creators will have to charge differently:

 - More directly, e.g. I will play may guitar and sing if you pay at the door
 - Less directly, e.g. I will tell people to buy your perfume if you pay me

I don't think the BBC has these problems. It knows exactly where it's
next 3,000 million pounds is coming from, and by extension, the guy
who sticks the sink plungers on the front of Daleks knows he will be
compensated for his work.
-
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/

[backstage] DRM does not work... what next?

[Mr I Forrester]

I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while, 
and want to ponder this question to the backstage community...


We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well 
lets just say for this thread that DRM doesn't work and it just turns 
consumers into against the content holder.


...What happens next?

Here's some thoughts from me,

Content producers adopt watermarking technologies?
P2P streaming and Multicasting becomes the next big advance for content 
producers

People start paying for real time or 0day access?
Google and Yahoo start indexing torrent sites and offering services like 
sharetv.org

Joost and Democracy adoption increases
The portable video player and digital set top (appletv, xbmc, etc) 
markets blows up
Torrent site uses slowly drops, as content producers use other online 
services
Windows Home server (now you see how my last post relates) and similar 
products sales increase 10 fold over the next 3 year

-
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 Podcast Video

[Gordon Joly]

At 15:56 + 20/2/07, Matthew Cashmore wrote:
Sorry this took longer than planned but the video of the DRM Podcast 
is now available - the low quality version is here


http://blip.tv/file/152907

Again it's a Creative Commons Attribution licence.


One small step for mankind

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/

Re: [backstage] [DRM] Macrovision response to Jobs' Thoughts On Music

[Dave Crossland]

On 19/02/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Going into a cinema with a camcorder...


That cinema rips on peekvid.com are palatable isn't something HD
salesmen and industry professionals seem to really understand, eheh
:-)

--
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/

[backstage] DRM Podcast Video

[Matthew Cashmore]

Sorry this took longer than planned but the video of the DRM Podcast is now
available ­ the low quality version is here

http://blip.tv/file/152907

Again it¹s a Creative Commons Attribution licence.

I¹ll get the HQ version up tomorrow when I can persuade our network that
790mb of video isn¹t a bad thing, and that it should let me upload it :-)
I¹ll add both the videos to the RSS feed for the podcast here in the
morning.

http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/news/podcast/backstage.xml

m
-
Matthew Cashmore
Development Producer
Research Development & Technology

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
0208 008 3959
07711 913241

Broadcast Centre (BC4B5), Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London. W12 7TS

RE: [backstage] [DRM] Macrovision response to Jobs' Thoughts On Music

[Andrew Bowden]

> http://daringfireball.net/2007/02/macrovision_translation
> Classic :-)

Interestingly what came straight to my mind when reading that was the
case of pirated DVDs and the technology that enables the pirates to make
those DVDs in the first place.

Going into a cinema with a camcorder...

-
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/

[backstage] [DRM] Macrovision response to Jobs' Thoughts On Music

[Dave Crossland]

http://daringfireball.net/2007/02/macrovision_translation

Classic :-)

--
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

[David McBride]

Richard P Edwards wrote:

> http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/,/?St=19,E=0069424,K=4792,Sxi=17,CASE=1363

It really would be nice if website administrators would actually read and apply
the principles in "Cool URIs Do Not Change" [0] ...

(I'm not holding my breath, however.)

Cheers,
David

[0] http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
-- 
David McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Department of Computing, Imperial College, London
-
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

[John Wesley]

TinyURL to save the copy-paste-linebreak fixing for the huge 4OD url

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ycud7p

On 15/02/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 15/02/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks like the negative relationship can go even further :-)
> http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/,/?
> St=19,E=0069424,K=4792,Sxi=17,CASE=1363
>
> Oh well, back to the torrents.

Or off to sweden! ;-)

http://svt.se/svt/road/Classic/shared/mediacenter/index.jsp?d=37591


--
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

[Dave Crossland]

On 15/02/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Looks like the negative relationship can go even further :-)
http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/,/?
St=19,E=0069424,K=4792,Sxi=17,CASE=1363

Oh well, back to the torrents.


Or off to sweden! ;-)

http://svt.se/svt/road/Classic/shared/mediacenter/index.jsp?d=37591


--
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

[Richard P Edwards]

Looks like the negative relationship can go even further :-)
http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/,/? 
St=19,E=0069424,K=4792,Sxi=17,CASE=1363


Oh well, back to the torrents.
RichE

On 13 Feb 2007, at 10:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Hello

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6353889.stm

<< DRM software like Apple's Fairplay or Microsoft's Windows Media DRM
should properly be called digital restriction management, since its  
primary
goal is to limit what purchasers can do with downloaded content.>>  
(from

Bill Thompson)

Isn't the argument for DRM all but already lost? Why automatically  
regard
purchasers as suspect criminals ... seems like a very negative  
relationship

to have with your customers. A lot of the time record companies, for
instance, have already had so many bites of the cherry selling  
music on
vinyl, then the same music again on tape, CD and now as downloads.  
Don't
think the BBC should waste time and money DRMing content that it  
provides.

It doesn't DRM content on its TV and radio stations, so why should it
discriminate against people who access material online?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Bowden
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:39 AM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes


Imagine if your local library imposed DRM on the books it lent you,
you'd only be able to read them in certain places with certain light
sources. Why do you accept unreasonable restrictions (even paying for
the "privilege") on music that you'd never except with the written

word?

Well libraries have a separate system.  They lend you the books for  
free

for (say) a month, and once you break the terms and conditions of the
library (i.e. you don't return your book on time) they fine you.A
library is not after all, a free for all.

And that's in a way what DRM is all about - upholding the terms and
conditions of your usage of the file.  Of course an alternative way
would be to automatically fine you every time you "breached" the terms
and conditions.


-
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] DRM and hwardware attitudes

[zen16083]

Hello

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6353889.stm

<< DRM software like Apple's Fairplay or Microsoft's Windows Media DRM
should properly be called digital restriction management, since its primary
goal is to limit what purchasers can do with downloaded content.>> (from
Bill Thompson)

Isn't the argument for DRM all but already lost? Why automatically regard
purchasers as suspect criminals ... seems like a very negative relationship
to have with your customers. A lot of the time record companies, for
instance, have already had so many bites of the cherry selling music on
vinyl, then the same music again on tape, CD and now as downloads. Don't
think the BBC should waste time and money DRMing content that it provides.
It doesn't DRM content on its TV and radio stations, so why should it
discriminate against people who access material online?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Bowden
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:39 AM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes

> Imagine if your local library imposed DRM on the books it lent you,
> you'd only be able to read them in certain places with certain light
> sources. Why do you accept unreasonable restrictions (even paying for
> the "privilege") on music that you'd never except with the written
word?

Well libraries have a separate system.  They lend you the books for free
for (say) a month, and once you break the terms and conditions of the
library (i.e. you don't return your book on time) they fine you.A
library is not after all, a free for all.

And that's in a way what DRM is all about - upholding the terms and
conditions of your usage of the file.  Of course an alternative way
would be to automatically fine you every time you "breached" the terms
and conditions.


-
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] DRM and hwardware attitudes

[Andrew Bowden]

> Imagine if your local library imposed DRM on the books it lent you,
> you'd only be able to read them in certain places with certain light 
> sources. Why do you accept unreasonable restrictions (even paying for 
> the "privilege") on music that you'd never except with the written
word? 

Well libraries have a separate system.  They lend you the books for free
for (say) a month, and once you break the terms and conditions of the
library (i.e. you don't return your book on time) they fine you.A
library is not after all, a free for all.

And that's in a way what DRM is all about - upholding the terms and
conditions of your usage of the file.  Of course an alternative way
would be to automatically fine you every time you "breached" the terms
and conditions.


-
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

[Nic James Ferrier]

"Tim Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Of course it's cheaper not to install a TPM, but it's chicken and egg -
> to take advantage of its facilities, an enterprise needs a large
> proportion of its PCs to be enabled.

But you just said no one is taking advantage of it (you only know one
person who is using it - I don't know any).

So how long will it be before they stop doing this? I would suggest
they won't stop doing it because, in the end, they want to make it
pervasive and a requirement.


>> This seems to be the "people are stupid" argument. I don't believe
>> that. I understand this technology and I believe it threatens my
>> freedom. I'm fairly sure that everyone I have heard describing their
>> fears about such a module also understood it.
>
> How is this, "people are stupid"? What I said was that some people are
> not informed. (Hey, we're back on topic - Educating, Informing &
> Entertaining, all in one thread!) Look at Vijay's assertion regarding
> his encrypted partition, and how that obviated the need for a trusted
> element - when the protection of encrypted partitions is one of the
> primary use cases for TPMs.
>
> 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!
>
> From RMS at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html:
> "In the past, these were isolated incidents. "Trusted computing" would
> make it pervasive. "Treacherous computing" is a more appropriate name,
> because the plan is designed to make sure your computer will
> systematically disobey you. In fact, it is designed to stop your
> computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer. Every operation
> may require explicit permission."
>
> Which is absolute balderdash. If it was designed to "stop your computer
> from functioning as a general-purpose computer" why can I turn it
> off?

He's talking about what will happen. I believe he's right. If you make
TPM use pervasive, as the industry clearly wants to do, then operating
systems like Windows will lock in usage of it. Tis as plain as the
summer sun, as the Archbishop of Canterbury might say if this were a
Shakespeare play.


TPM allows the things that Stallman is talking about to happen. If we
resist TPM then we can be pretty sure that the music we buy is not
going to suddenly stop working because they've decided we can only own
it for a year or something.


The whole reason for TPM is DRM. But the reason for DRM is that the
established content industries don't trust consumers with new business
models. If holywood and nashville weren't bleating Intel and Microsoft
wouldn't have spent all this money would they? So - no thanks.


>> > }:p 
>>
>> Have you got funny hair or something?
>
> No, I had my hands to my head and was waving my fingers. :) Nya.

I've never seen that before. It's brilliant. 


-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   for all your tapsell ferrier needs
-
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

[Richard P Edwards]

Exactly. trust normally only works if both sides agree.
Earlier I read that the BBC are content to follow the music  
industry's example with DRM if anyone reads any of the debates  
and the opinions of the record execs, it is very clear that they are  
promoting a protection racket.
I don't see many of the artists arguing for DRM, simply because they  
have no real choice if they are contracted to the industry... if they  
are not, they are normally promoting their own music, on myspace or  
even youtube.
Since the early 90's I have watched the industry destroy itself,  
cutting budgets, wasting money on lawsuits etc if that is the  
future of the BBC, then I wish you all luck.
Whatever happened to the safest dual private key system?. yes,  
where I give you a key physically and you give me a key  
physically then our private keys are decoders of public keys.  
from memory, the first time that was debated in Parliament, the UK  
government used the "fear" of terrorism to make it illegal, mid 90's  
I think, following the Septics again. :-)
If that hadn't happened, then the music companies could have used CD  
as a carrier for those keys... allowing the customer to access data  
through the net and computers, instead of locking everyone out.  
Everyone would have been too secure in the eyes of the government.
Let us be real, the business has sold you the Beatles on record,  
cassette and CD. if they can make more money selling you the same  
content on DRM'd data file, then they will. As the technology changes  
they will sell the same property again and again.
Sadly, they, as well as I believe now the BBC, will make more effort  
to protect that, call it what you like, the end result is already  
happening. the old physical model of distribution of music is  
absolutely not compatible with this technology.
The artists will eventually embrace the new model, especially as most  
groups are young kids who want everyone to hear their music. In the  
new model there is very little need for a middle man between the  
artist and audience.
I can assure you that the user/administrator debate took place when  
Mac OS-X arrived, years ago, and the customers were very clear that  
there was no room for free outside access to the motherboard or hard- 
drive. As a result, I have a network filter, and am saddened by how  
much that is already abused. Still, at least I try to limit it.

Regards
RichE



On 11 Feb 2007, at 18:24, vijay chopra wrote:


 Look at Vijay's assertion regarding
his encrypted partition, and how that obviated the need for a trusted
element - when the protection of encrypted partitions is one of the
primary use cases for TPMs.
You obviously missed my point though, I don't need someone else to  
"protect" my data, I'm perfectly capable of doing it myself,  
secondly I only give sensitive data to people I already trust not  
to give it away, if I have to be reliant on their hardware as  
opposed to their brain, I probably shouldn't (and don't) give them  
access to my data anyway. The thing that negates the need for  
trusted computing are trusted people. If I don't trust the person,  
I'm not going to give them access to my data; trusted computing or  
not.


-
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

[Dave Crossland]

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] DRM and hwardware attitudes

[Dave Crossland]

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] DRM and hwardware attitudes

[Dave Crossland]

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

[vijay chopra]

 Look at Vijay's assertion regarding
his encrypted partition, and how that obviated the need for a trusted
element - when the protection of encrypted partitions is one of the
primary use cases for TPMs.


You obviously missed my point though, I don't need someone else to "protect"
my data, I'm perfectly capable of doing it myself, secondly I only give
sensitive data to people I already trust not to give it away, if I have to
be reliant on their hardware as opposed to their brain, I probably shouldn't
(and don't) give them access to my data anyway. The thing that negates the
need for trusted computing are trusted people. If I don't trust the person,
I'm not going to give them access to my data; trusted computing or not.

Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes

[James Cridland]

Further to this conversation, you might like to pop along and read what
happens when the big boys start arguing about this:

http://calmdowncalmdown.notlong.com (it's a link to paidcontent.org)

Fascinating clash of cultures; but typical "amplify other person's view
until it no longer makes sense" type arguing that appears to pollute this
space.

--
James Cridland
Director and Founder, Media UK
http://www.mediauk.com/

Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes

[Michael Sparks]

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

[Tim Thornton]

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

[Tim Thornton]

On 10/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote:

> You work in the industry and you've only met one person who uses
> it. So why are firms still putting it in their products? Surely a
> motherboard would be cheaper without it?

Of course it's cheaper not to install a TPM, but it's chicken and egg -
to take advantage of its facilities, an enterprise needs a large
proportion of its PCs to be enabled.

> > No - your PC /is/ wholly yours. There's a feature that allows you to
> > invite me to put stuff on I can't tamper with. But I can't randomly
take
> > control of your computer.
>
> I never said you could. But you are being disenguous. There is a
> feature that allows me to let you put stuff on my computer that I
> can't tamper with, let alone you.

No, I'm really not being disingenuous. We both agree the feature is
under your control. If you don't want to use it, you don't have to. Your
PC is wholly yours.

> > A whole bunch of people don't like this because RMS and Ross
Anderson
> > told them it was bad, but have no understanding of what the
technology
> > actually is. I'm sure you do understand it, but let's have the
debate so
> > that those who only hear the hype can make an informed decision.
>
> This seems to be the "people are stupid" argument. I don't believe
> that. I understand this technology and I believe it threatens my
> freedom. I'm fairly sure that everyone I have heard describing their
> fears about such a module also understood it.

How is this, "people are stupid"? What I said was that some people are
not informed. (Hey, we're back on topic - Educating, Informing &
Entertaining, all in one thread!) Look at Vijay's assertion regarding
his encrypted partition, and how that obviated the need for a trusted
element - when the protection of encrypted partitions is one of the
primary use cases for TPMs.

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!

>From RMS at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html:
"In the past, these were isolated incidents. "Trusted computing" would
make it pervasive. "Treacherous computing" is a more appropriate name,
because the plan is designed to make sure your computer will
systematically disobey you. In fact, it is designed to stop your
computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer. Every operation
may require explicit permission."

Which is absolute balderdash. If it was designed to "stop your computer
from functioning as a general-purpose computer" why can I turn it off?

> > }:p 
>
> Have you got funny hair or something?

No, I had my hands to my head and was waving my fingers. :) Nya.

-- 
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

[Michael Sparks]

On Saturday 10 February 2007 22:28, Tim Thornton wrote:
...

Regarding the other longer mail, many thanks for that - I'll read up on the 
references. I'd made some assumptions about the system, but hadn't realised 
that there were some keys I was unaware of the the TPM and the fact that 
there is a signing authority involved as well (I know of someone who may be 
interested in this you see). Given that I can see how difficult it would be 
to fake the necessary environment. (People would just resort to re-encoding 
after it hits the analogue domain then and ignore the whole thing)

> 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. (We both agree they keep their secrets from the user,
from your perspective I still retain control, from mine I don't.)

After all, I'm happy with the idea that I can use it for all the obvious 
examples of it protecting my secrets though. A company storing its accounts 
information including my credit card details on a TCPA based system would be 
preferable to one that didn't. (After all companies are subject to 
burglaries, thefts, and losses of various kinds)

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.

Regards,


Michael.
-
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

[Nic James Ferrier]

"Tim Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> No, in the PC space it's only constrained if you want it to be. Most PCs
> sold today have a TPM, which is rarely used (I've only met one person so
> far who uses their TPM, and I work in the industry). You need to enable
> it. You can use it to constrain your PC if you want (eg by enforcing a
> secure boot process), but it is only the basis of trust on your
> platform. If you don't want other people to use it, you don't need to
> let them.

Ok. So let's get rid of it entirely then.

You work in the industry and you've only met one person who uses
it. So why are firms still putting it in their products? Surely a
motherboard would be cheaper without it?


> No - your PC /is/ wholly yours. There's a feature that allows you to
> invite me to put stuff on I can't tamper with. But I can't randomly take
> control of your computer.

I never said you could. But you are being disenguous. There is a
feature that allows me to let you put stuff on my computer that I
can't tamper with, let alone you.


> A whole bunch of people don't like this because RMS and Ross Anderson
> told them it was bad, but have no understanding of what the technology
> actually is. I'm sure you do understand it, but let's have the debate so
> that those who only hear the hype can make an informed decision.

This seems to be the "people are stupid" argument. I don't believe
that. I understand this technology and I believe it threatens my
freedom. I'm fairly sure that everyone I have heard describing their
fears about such a module also understood it.


> }:p 

Have you got funny hair or something?

-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   for all your tapsell ferrier needs
-
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

[vijay chopra]

> Oh, and where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit
> to the computer's owner?

It's a benefit to me, in that I subscribe to an online music library for
less than I used to spend on CDs. I have more music, and more money - I
call that a benefit.



That requires neither treacherous computing, nor DRM.
http://www.allofmp3.com/ gives me that facility cheaper and with more
freedom to do as I like with tracks that buy. Imagine if your local library
imposed DRM on the books it lent you, you'd only be able to read them in
certain places with certain light sources. Why do you accept unreasonable
restrictions (even paying for the "privilege") on music that you'd never
except with the written word?

RE: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes

[Tim Thornton]

On 10/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote:

> > The TPM was designed with this in mind, and each TPM has its own
keys.
> > Because they're internal to the TPM and can't be extracted by
software,
> > you can have confidence in the TPM's authenticity.
>
> This is wy off topic, but how does a remote third party that wants
to 
> trust your system tell the difference between (for example):
>
> * A remote system that's just been bought that's using the TPM to
securely
>   store keys for a secure store/streaming system
>
> * A remote system that is running a virtual machine that looks to the
>   operating system sitting inside that virtual machine as if it has a
TPM
>   module, and that remote machine looks like its just been installed,
and
>   the virtualised OS is otherwise installed identically.

It's all about the keys installed at manufacture. Obviously, the TPM is
just a computer itself (usually an 8 bit micro, but a computer
nonetheless) and could be emulated in software. The security comes from
the isolation of the TPM and the main computer - there is memory in the
TPM that cannot be accessed from the big bad outside world. By placing a
key in the device during manufacture (known as the Endorsement Key -
Google Pt 1), there is an identification that cannot be spoofed by a
rogue TPM. The public part of the Endorsement Key is signed by a
certificate authority as belonging to a particular TPM.

Now, an Attestation Identity Key is generated by the TPM for use by an
application that wants to check the validity of the TPM. That's a
private/public key pair that is signed by the private Endorsement Key.
That new key can be sent to the certificate authority, who can check the
Endorsement Key's signature - and also if that Endorsement Key has been
revoked. If all's ok, the certificate authority signs the Attestation
Identity Key, so the application (who also trusts the CA) knows the TPM
is ok.

There is also a more advanced method for validating the authenticity of
a TPM without the need for trusted third party involvement, called
Direct Anonymous Attestation. 

This presentation gives an overview of DAA:
http://www.zurich.ibm.com/security/daa/daa-slides-ZISC.pdf

Slightly more in depth presentation:
https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/news/presentations/051012_DAA-slid
es.pdf

This paper describes in detail with proofs. Exercise for the reader!
http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-93.pdf

> For all intents and purposes the remote third party (eg a person
wanting
> to trust) should get the same responses from the secure system, and
the 
> supposedly secure system.

If the virtualised TPM has the correct EK, you'd be right.

> I don't work with these things, but having read the linux journal
> article[1] sometime back, and knowing how virtualisation works, and
the
> fact that any hardware system can be emulated I can't see how a remote
> third party can truly tell the difference.
>
>  [1] For anyone else, if they haven't read this, its worth reading
since
>  you'll see that TCPA/TPM is a double edged sword that has many
real
>  uses beyond things like DRM. (Once I read it, it struck me that
its
>  primary use is for helping lock down a military laptop in the
event
>  of it being compromised/stolen in an even more secure fashion
than
>  people who are used to used an encrypted loopback device are used
to)

Thanks for mentioning that. Honestly, DRM != TPM. Although it's intended
for day-to-day use in locking down enterprise PCs more than the
military. For example, Vista's Bitlocker will take advantage of a TPM to
store the drive encryption key (that's the only use that Vista puts the
TPM to, as far as I'm aware)

The TCG is not oblivious to the bad press it has received from certain
in the community. Design decisions are made around principles that seem
fine to me. For example, from:
https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/specs/bestpractices/Best_Practices
_Principles_Document_V2_0.pdf

"Each owner should have effective choice and control over the use and
operation of the TCG-enabled capabilities that belong to them; their
participation must be opt-in. Subsequently any user can reliably disable
the
TCG functionality in a way that does not violate the owner's policy."

Note the dichotomy between user and owner - I'm using my company's
laptop right now, and it's their right to lock it down. But if I were
using my desktop, that decision would be mine to make.

> Based on your comments, I'm guessing that the TPMs themselves have
default 
> hardware keys as well as being able to generate keys and those default
> keys can in fact be authenticated rather than just being able to
> generated? What's to stop someone opening up the hardware to find out
what
> that is? Obviously that's outside the realms of your average
developer,
> but it's not outside the capabilities of a commercial company.

That's right (as explained above). I've mentioned before that security
isn't binary, and you only spend as m

RE: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes

[Tim Thornton]

On 10/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote:

> On Friday 09 February 2007 18:26, Tim Thornton wrote:
>...
> > I can trust your computer not to reveal my secrets to you,
>
> Do you not see how this is a bad thing - how this can be abused?
>
> I buy a car. It does what I tell it (well it would if I drove). I buy
> a hammer it bangs what I want to bang. I buy a phone. It phones where
> I tell it. I buy a general purpose computer,  it does what I tell it.
> Or should. I need to be able to trust *my* machines, if it doesn't do
> what I tell it,  I can't trust it. I don't want *my* property keeping
> secrets from me.

Your machine will do what you tell it to. It's just that there are
secrets you can't access. That includes your secrets, you just get to
use the result of their manipulation. This is good, because *your*
property is keeping your secrets safe from rogue applications/viruses.

As well as the ability to store secrets, the TPM also has some other
abilities. It can "measure" the system as it boots, so you can be sure
that the operating system and application loaded are what you're
expecting. It also contains a monotonic counter - that's a counter that
will only increment. That allows protection against replay attacks,
where for example the system clock is rolled back to enable some demo
software to be used for longer than the trial period.

> If you do not trust me, but wish to deliver it by machine, then it is
> up to you to provide to me a machine *you* trust,  it is not up to me
> to provide *you* a machine that you trust. 

If you are willing to provide me with a machine that I can trust, then I
can deliver to you by machine. If you're not willing to provide that, we
can agree to not transact.

If the music industry are willing to deliver songs to you by machine,
isn't it for you to provide that machine if you want to take advantage
of that offer? Unfortunately, I had to buy my own CD player... ;)

> Also, its a false "trust".  Your "secret" is audio and video.  That's
> not a secret at all. 

In the DRM case, the secret is a rights object. That contains a
decryption key and information about what you're allowed to do (number
of plays, key validity). The plaintext audio/video is not nearly as
valuable.

> BTW, I'm not arguing the /technology/ is broken. After all, using the
> same technology  you can make things like secure personal storage are
> more secure and trustable by the user:
>* http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6633

Now we're on the same page... :)

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

[Michael Sparks]

On Saturday 10 February 2007 17:13, Tim Thornton wrote:
...
> The TPM was designed with this in mind, and each TPM has its own keys.
> Because they're internal to the TPM and can't be extracted by software,
> you can have confidence in the TPM's authenticity.

This is wy off topic, but how does a remote third party that wants to 
trust your system tell the difference between (for example):

   * A remote system that's just been bought that's using the TPM to securely
 store keys for a secure store/streaming system

   * A remote system that is running a virtual machine that looks to the
 operating system sitting inside that virtual machine as if it has a TPM
 module, and that remote machine looks like its just been installed, and
 the virtualised OS is otherwise installed identically.

For all intents and purposes the remote third party (eg a person wanting to 
trust) should get the same responses from the secure system, and the 
supposedly secure system.

I don't work with these things, but having read the linux journal article[1] 
sometime back, and knowing how virtualisation works, and the fact that any 
hardware system can be emulated I can't see how a remote third party can 
truly tell the difference.

   [1] For anyone else, if they haven't read this, its worth reading since
   you'll see that TCPA/TPM is a double edged sword that has many real
   uses beyond things like DRM. (Once I read it, it struck me that its
   primary use is for helping lock down a military laptop in the event
   of it being compromised/stolen in an even more secure fashion than
   people who are used to used an encrypted loopback device are used to)

Based on your comments, I'm guessing that the TPMs themselves have default 
hardware keys as well as being able to generate keys and those default keys 
can in fact be authenticated rather than just being able to generated? What's 
to stop someone opening up the hardware to find out what that is? Obviously 
that's outside the realms of your average developer, but it's not outside the 
capabilities of a commercial company.

All clearly hypothetical examples, with varying levels of likelihood, but 
since you say you work in the area, I'm curious as to the answer or pointers 
since I suspect there is :)

Feel free to respond with terms that I should google for BTW :)

Regards,


Michael.
-
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

[Tim Thornton]

On 09/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote:

> "Tim Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> > No, this /is/ an implementation problem, and can be overcome with a
> > trusted hardware element on the platform. At that stage, the hoop
> > will be more than simply running some code.
>
> Trusted element? Trusted by whom? The so-called "trusted computing"
> platform is a double edged sword - whilst it can be used by a user to
> implement a data store they personally trust[1] the situations where a
it
> is used by a remote party to trust the user, is from a users
perspective 
> not trustable.
>
> The reason for this is it places an element of _their_ hardware under
the 
> control of a third party. This is actually a _untrustable_ hardware 
> element from the perspective of the perspective of the user. There
have 
> been somewhat less flattering descriptions of this.
> 
> Personally I'd prefer it if people stated by *whom* such hardware
elements
> are to be trusted in these discussions. Personally I prefer to own
> hardware devices that do what I tell them to, when I tell them to, and
how.

The difficulty with stating by whom the element is to be trusted, is
that it depends on the application. For a disk encryption application, I
trust the device, for a DRM application, the music provider trusts it,
for a VPN encryption driver, my company trusts it. The commonality
between all applications is that there is one party that /is/ trusted by
all users, and that's the supplier of the secure element. If that trust
doesn't exist, then the device is useless.

> Otherwise you're (probably inadvertantly) continuing the false
implication
> that such systems are more trustable by their _owners_ whereas in
practice
> it depends on HOW such systems are controlled by software installed on
> them as to whether the system is more trustable by their owners (safe
> personal store) or by third parties.

Absolutely. 

> [1] Since you can access the TCPA from userspace to store/retrieve
keys to
> make encrypting your own file system under your control &
passphrase.
> (There's a tutorial for this in a Linux World issue from about 3
or 4
> years ago which is quite interesting)
>
> (as an aside, given you can emulate a TCPA based system in software
> however even that doesn't really actually solve your implementation
issue,
> since you just virtualise the entire platform including TCPA module -
> which would of course happen if you provide people with a sufficient
> incentive...)

The TPM was designed with this in mind, and each TPM has its own keys.
Because they're internal to the TPM and can't be extracted by software,
you can have confidence in the TPM's authenticity.

-- 
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

[Tim Thornton]

On 09/02/07, vijay chopra wrote:

> There's not a single benefit that treacherous computing brings that
cannot
> be solved another way, in your example you can "hold secrets" via any 
> number of numerous encryption methods, my home PC has a whole
encrypted
> partition for data security. Why do I need a so called "trusted
hardware 
> element" at all. 

Your PC has an encrypted partition - so how do you access the data on
it? Somewhere you need a key that must be unencrypted. With a trusted
computing system, you generate your private/public key pair in the
secure element. The public key will be exposed, but the private key will
never leave the device.

> Oh, and where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit 
> to the computer's owner? 

It's a benefit to me, in that I subscribe to an online music library for
less than I used to spend on CDs. I have more music, and more money - I
call that a benefit.

-- 
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

[Tim Thornton]

On 09/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote:

> "Tim Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I believe it to be orthogonal to DRM. In the trusted computing
space,
> > your secrets are secret, as are mine. I can trust your computer not
to
> > reveal my secrets to you, and you can trust that I can't get at
> > yours.  
>
> But I see this as a bad thing:
>
> If you leave your secrets on my computer I want to be able to read
> them. It's my computer. Not yours.

Ok. But in that case I won't send them to you. If you invite my secrets
to be on your machine, I want to know that they're secret.

> If you were a criminal who used my computer I want to know what you
> left on it.

I'm sure.

> > But the computer isn't constrained. There's an environment within it
> > that is. 
>
> I don't see the subtelty of this point at all. A computer with a so
> called trusted element *is* constrained. If the facility is there it
> will be used - it is surely nonsense to suggest that the trusted
> component is there but won't be used?

No, in the PC space it's only constrained if you want it to be. Most PCs
sold today have a TPM, which is rarely used (I've only met one person so
far who uses their TPM, and I work in the industry). You need to enable
it. You can use it to constrain your PC if you want (eg by enforcing a
secure boot process), but it is only the basis of trust on your
platform. If you don't want other people to use it, you don't need to
let them.

> > You are right that the computer will need a "root of trust"
> > which will be provided by a corporation, but when that corporation
is
> > founded on selling trust (think Verisign, Entrust, Thwate or
whoever)
> > the incentive to not abuse it is massive.
>
> Not a good example. All the SSL companies I know have had problems
> with their procedures and sometimes abused their positions.

I've not come across any such abuse, but ok. 

> Anyway, this is the root of the argument. Whether my PC is wholly mine
> or whether there should be a feature within it that allows you to come
> and put stuff on there that I can't tamper with (and I can do the same
> to your computer of course).

No - your PC /is/ wholly yours. There's a feature that allows you to
invite me to put stuff on I can't tamper with. But I can't randomly take
control of your computer.

> A whole bunch of us don't like this. We do understand it. But we don't
> like it.

A whole bunch of people don't like this because RMS and Ross Anderson
told them it was bad, but have no understanding of what the technology
actually is. I'm sure you do understand it, but let's have the debate so
that those who only hear the hype can make an informed decision.

> So Nya.

}:p 

-- 
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

[Michael Sparks]

On Friday 09 February 2007 18:26, Tim Thornton wrote:
...
> I can trust your computer not to reveal my secrets to you,

Do you not see how this is a bad thing - how this can be abused?

I buy a car. It does what I tell it (well it would if I drove). I buy
a hammer it bangs what I want to bang. I buy a phone. It phones where
I tell it. I buy a general purpose computer,  it does what I tell it.
Or should. I need to be able to trust *my* machines, if it doesn't do
what I tell it,  I can't trust it. I don't want *my* property keeping
secrets from me.

If you do not trust me, but wish to deliver it by machine, then it is
up to you to provide to me a machine *you* trust,  it is not up to me
to provide *you* a machine that you trust. 

Also, its a false "trust".  Your "secret" is audio and video.  That's
not a secret at all. 

BTW, I'm not arguing the /technology/ is broken. After all, using the
same technology  you can make things like secure personal storage are
more secure and trustable by the user:
   * http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6633


Michael.
--
All the above are my opinions only.
-
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

[James Cridland]

On 2/9/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit to the computer's owner?



If content-owners* require DRM to be able to release content for use on your
computer (currently the case in the BBC iPlayer, and/or Channel 4's
on-demand plater, and/or XFM's "MiXFM" personalised radio service), then the
additional content you are able to access is a benefit you would not get
were your computer unable to deal with DRM.

You are, of course, free not to use such services; and if enough people
don't and tell the industry why, then the industry will be forced to listen.

* "content owners" in this case is not the BBC, but musicians, actors,
scriptwriters, production companies, and others who have a vested interest
in Content Restriction And Protection.

--
http://james.cridland.net/

Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes

[Nic James Ferrier]

"Tim Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I believe it to be orthogonal to DRM. In the trusted computing space,
> your secrets are secret, as are mine. I can trust your computer not to
> reveal my secrets to you, and you can trust that I can't get at
> yours.  

But I see this as a bad thing:

If you leave your secrets on my computer I want to be able to read
them. It's my computer. Not yours.

If you were a criminal who used my computer I want to know what you
left on it.


> But the computer isn't constrained. There's an environment within it
> that is. 

I don't see the subtelty of this point at all. A computer with a so
called trusted element *is* constrained. If the facility is there it
will be used - it is surely nonsense to suggest that the trusted
component is there but won't be used?

My current computer doesn't have an environment within it that is
constrained.


> You are right that the computer will need a "root of trust"
> which will be provided by a corporation, but when that corporation is
> founded on selling trust (think Verisign, Entrust, Thwate or whoever)
> the incentive to not abuse it is massive.

Not a good example. All the SSL companies I know have had problems
with their procedures and sometimes abused their positions.


Anyway, this is the root of the argument. Whether my PC is wholly mine
or whether there should be a feature within it that allows you to come
and put stuff on there that I can't tamper with (and I can do the same
to your computer of course).

A whole bunch of us don't like this. We do understand it. But we don't
like it.

So Nya.

-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   for all your tapsell ferrier needs

PS I meant the "Nya" in jest.
-
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

[Tim Thornton]

On 08/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote:
> "Tim Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Nic said:
> >> I don't want a constrained comptuer because I don't trust the
computer
> >> maker to be open and above board about the precise way the computer
is
> >> constrained.
> >
> > What do you feel may be hidden?
>
> What do you feel a company might not hide?
>
> I think the attitude that led to the Sony fiasco last year is all too
> prevalent. It's not particularly evil, it's quick fix that leads
> people to do stupid things. If I don't control my computer then I
> don't control those things.

Ironically, one of the principal goals of trusted computing is to
protect against things like the Sony rootkit.

> It's a philosophical issue I grant you. But it's an important one I
> think and the crux of the DRM issue.

I believe it to be orthogonal to DRM. In the trusted computing space,
your secrets are secret, as are mine. I can trust your computer not to
reveal my secrets to you, and you can trust that I can't get at yours.  

> > The rub is that they/I don't trust large codebases to be bug free,
so if
> > you have secrets (do you have a PGP key?) you need somewhere
protected
> > to keep and manipulate them.
>
> So you don't trust code bases to be bug free so you have to trust a
> corporation to not abuse your trust in a constrained computer?

But the computer isn't constrained. There's an environment within it
that is. You are right that the computer will need a "root of trust"
which will be provided by a corporation, but when that corporation is
founded on selling trust (think Verisign, Entrust, Thwate or whoever)
the incentive to not abuse it is massive.

> > Are we off-topic yet? ;)
>
> Oh yes. Do you think anyone's noticed?

Seems not!

-- 
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

[Michael Sparks]

"Tim Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> No, this /is/ an implementation problem, and can be overcome with a
> trusted hardware element on the platform. At that stage, the hoop
> will be more than simply running some code.

Trusted element? Trusted by whom? The so-called "trusted computing" platform
is a double edged sword - whilst it can be used by a user to implement a data
store they personally trust[1] the situations where a it is used by a remote
party to trust the user, is from a users perspective not trustable.

The reason for this is it places an element of _their_ hardware under the
control of a third party. This is actually a _untrustable_ hardware element
from the perspective of the perspective of the user. There have been somewhat
less flattering descriptions of this.

Personally I'd prefer it if people stated by *whom* such hardware elements
are to be trusted in these discussions. Personally I prefer to own hardware
devices that do what I tell them to, when I tell them to, and how.

Otherwise you're (probably inadvertantly) continuing the false implication
that such systems are more trustable by their _owners_ whereas in practice
it depends on HOW such systems are controlled by software installed on them
as to whether the system is more trustable by their owners (safe personal
store) or by third parties.

[1] Since you can access the TCPA from userspace to store/retrieve keys to
make encrypting your own file system under your control & passphrase.
(There's a tutorial for this in a Linux World issue from about 3 or 4
years ago which is quite interesting)

(as an aside, given you can emulate a TCPA based system in software however
 even that doesn't really actually solve your implementation issue, since
 you just virtualise the entire platform including TCPA module - which would
 of course happen if you provide people with a sufficient incentive...)


Michael.
--
Michael Sparks, Senior Research Engineer, BBC Research, Future Media & 
Technology,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Kamaelia Project Lead, http://kamaelia.sf.net/

*** The above comment is purely personal, and I have no idea if the ***
*** opinion expressed it's shared by my employer or not. ***
<>

Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes

[vijay chopra]

I welcome it. Having a region of my computer that is independent of the
"regular" computer gives me confidence that I can hold secrets on my PC.
The whole purpose of trusted computing in its widest sense is to provide
an environment where anyone can have trust. There are many uses for it,
often directly beneficial to the owner, and DRM is only one. In fact,
it's not the strongest use case in my opinion.



There's not a single benefit that treacherous computing brings that cannot
be solved another way, in your example you can "hold secrets" via any number
of numerous encryption methods, my home PC has a whole encrypted partition
for data security. Why do I need a so called "trusted hardware element" at
all. Oh, and where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit to the
computer's owner?

Vijay

Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes

[Nic James Ferrier]

"Tim Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Nic said:
>> I don't want a constrained comptuer because I don't trust the computer
>> maker to be open and above board about the precise way the computer is
>> constrained.
>
> What do you feel may be hidden?

What do you feel a company might not hide?

I think the attitude that led to the Sony fiasco last year is all too
prevalent. It's not particularly evil, it's quick fix that leads
people to do stupid things. If I don't control my computer then I
don't control those things.

It's a philosophical issue I grant you. But it's an important one I
think and the crux of the DRM issue.


> The rub is that they/I don't trust large codebases to be bug free, so if
> you have secrets (do you have a PGP key?) you need somewhere protected
> to keep and manipulate them.

So you don't trust code bases to be bug free so you have to trust a
corporation to not abuse your trust in a constrained computer?


> Are we off-topic yet? ;)

Oh yes. Do you think anyone's noticed?

-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   for all your tapsell ferrier needs
-
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

[Tim Thornton]

On 08/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote:
> "Tim Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No, this /is/ an implementation problem, and can be overcome with a
> > trusted hardware element on the platform. At that stage, the hoop
> > will be more than simply running some code.
>
> Do you work for ARM? 

I do, but I'm posting as an individual.

> If so maybe you have a different perspective on
> these things but it I think we all agree on the logic:
>
>DRM requires constrained computer hardware

No, strong DRM requires a hardware element to be constrained.

> the difference between you and Dave (and me! and Stallman!) is that
> you are not worried about having a constrained computer.

I welcome it. Having a region of my computer that is independent of the
"regular" computer gives me confidence that I can hold secrets on my PC.
The whole purpose of trusted computing in its widest sense is to provide
an environment where anyone can have trust. There are many uses for it,
often directly beneficial to the owner, and DRM is only one. In fact,
it's not the strongest use case in my opinion.

> I don't want a constrained comptuer because I don't trust the computer
> maker to be open and above board about the precise way the computer is
> constrained.

What do you feel may be hidden?

> And there's the rub. They won't trust us. So we won't trust them.

The rub is that they/I don't trust large codebases to be bug free, so if
you have secrets (do you have a PGP key?) you need somewhere protected
to keep and manipulate them.

Are we off-topic yet? ;)

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/

[backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes

[Nic James Ferrier]

"Tim Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> No, this /is/ an implementation problem, and can be overcome with a
> trusted hardware element on the platform. At that stage, the hoop
> will be more than simply running some code.

Do you work for ARM? If so maybe you have a different perspective on
these things but it I think we all agree on the logic:

   DRM requires constrained computer hardware

the difference between you and Dave (and me! and Stallman!) is that
you are not worried about having a constrained computer.

I don't want a constrained comptuer because I don't trust the computer
maker to be open and above board about the precise way the computer is
constrained.

And there's the rub. They won't trust us. So we won't trust them.

-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   for all your tapsell ferrier needs
-
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

[Brian Butterworth]

> I've been half following this thread, but Mr Steve Jobs over 
> at Apple has just released this statement today regarding DRM.
> 
> Thought it might be an interesting read.
> 
> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
> -

Seems he agrees with some guy called Bill Gates:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6182657.stm

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.29/673 - Release Date: 06/02/2007
17:52
 

-
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

[Davinder Mahal]

I've been half following this thread, but Mr Steve Jobs over at Apple  
has just released this statement today regarding DRM.


Thought it might be an interesting read.

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
-
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

[Andrew Bowden]

 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Cridland
Sent: 28 January 2007 22:27
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] DRM


On 1/26/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 


The flip side is that every format you add, has some
extra setup costs of various magnitudes, and when belts have to be
buckled because it's public money, why spend it when you're satisfying
most people now.  After all, how many people are not listening to (say)
Radio 1 live online just because it's not being streamed in MP3 format. 



At least 10%, if not more. An interesting job to compare this
with how many people listen to radio through Telewest, and the setup
charges of that (even just the carriage fees). I'd argue strongly that
streaming MP3 is better value. 
 

Ah well, the public service broadcasters do have some gifted capacity on
Cable.  I've no idea how far it extends, but it might extend to the
radio stations :)
 
However I take your point!

Re: [backstage] DRM

[James Cridland]

On 1/26/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


The flip side is that every format you add, has some extra setup costs of
various magnitudes, and when belts have to be buckled because it's public
money, why spend it when you're satisfying most people now.  After all, how
many people are not listening to (say) Radio 1 live online just because it's
not being streamed in MP3 format.



At least 10%, if not more. An interesting job to compare this with how many
people listen to radio through Telewest, and the setup charges of that (even
just the carriage fees). I'd argue strongly that streaming MP3 is better
value.

If this is your only criteria, incidentally, it's also not worth bothering
with Ogg Vorbis.

--
http://james.cridland.net/

Re: [backstage] DRM

[Nic James Ferrier]

"Andrew Bowden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> "James Cridland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Though looking at the big screen on the wall, the vast majority of users
>> > seem content with Windows Media (over 80% of our online listeners right
>> > now).
>
>> Do you think those of us who aren't content should complain more?
>> I complain sometimes but mostly the reaction from people here is
>> "sorry - it is like it is - get over it"
>
> I was rather hoping it didn't come across like that.  I, and other
> BBC staff, do try to explain the way things are, and why they are in
> respect to BBC decisions - we have the knowledge of why a lot is
> done the way it is.

I've worked for the civil service and know how easy it is to get
defensive when you don't mean to be - even about obviously stupid
things - I remember sticking up for government nuclear policy when it
was clearly mad.

I also know that it's easy to get critical of one set of people when
you actually mean to be critical of another set.

I don't think many of the criticisms that are laid out here are about
the people doing the work. They're mainly frustration with things not
moving faster, being too locked down or not transparent enough. All
problems for managers, not hackers.


> I should also add that most of the BBC staff on this list aren't
> (unfortunately!) the decision makers on the big subjects like DRM,
> audio streaming, and so on.  We can try and influence the decisions
> in our areas where appropriate, we can keep bleating on about
> things, however we're not always in a position where we can actually
> make it happen :(

Which is why, a few months ago, I was suggesting that managers at
least listen to this list. Maybe they should get a summary. Maybe
someone should do what the debian project does and do a weekly summary
of activity here.

I might investigate that. Maybe it could have a level of automation
like kernel traffic used to have.

Anybody else think that's a good idea?


> If I had my way, we would have had Ogg streaming years ago!

Yes. The real reason people like me want it is because it's hackable
in a way that other streaming tools aren't. If we had ogg we'd be able
to provide just about everything else ontop of ogg.

Ah well.

-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   for all your tapsell ferrier needs
-
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

[Andrew Bowden]

> "James Cridland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Though looking at the big screen on the wall, the vast majority of users
> > seem content with Windows Media (over 80% of our online listeners right
> > now).

> Do you think those of us who aren't content should complain more?
> I complain sometimes but mostly the reaction from people here is
> "sorry - it is like it is - get over it"

I was rather hoping it didn't come across like that.  I, and other BBC staff, 
do try to explain the way things are, and why they are in respect to BBC 
decisions - we have the knowledge of why a lot is done the way it is.

I should also add that most of the BBC staff on this list aren't 
(unfortunately!) the decision makers on the big subjects like DRM, audio 
streaming, and so on.  We can try and influence the decisions in our areas 
where appropriate, we can keep bleating on about things, however we're not 
always in a position where we can actually make it happen :(

If I had my way, we would have had Ogg streaming years ago!
<>

RE: [backstage] DRM

[Andrew Bowden]

> One might argue that the BBC should make their radio stations available in
> as many different ways as possible, to satisfy as many users as possible:
> after all, we pay for it. 

The flip side is that every format you add, has some extra setup costs of 
various magnitudes, and when belts have to be buckled because it's public 
money, why spend it when you're satisfying most people now.  After all, how 
many people are not listening to (say) Radio 1 live online just because it's 
not being streamed in MP3 format.

Not necessarily agreeing with it - just saying it exists as an argument.


<>

Re: [backstage] DRM

[Dave Crossland]

On 25/01/07, Nic James Ferrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Do you think those of us who aren't content should complain more?
I complain sometimes but mostly the reaction from people here is
"sorry - it is like it is - get over it"
I don't see any point complaining given that.


Given hdkeys.com style 'terrorism,' asking politely for the BBC not to
make things so bad we take things into our own hands is worthwhile,
IMO.

--
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

[Tom Loosemore]

> Though looking at the big screen on the wall, the vast majority of users
> seem content with Windows Media (over 80% of our online listeners right
> now).

Do you think those of us who aren't content should complain more?

I complain sometimes but mostly the reaction from people here is
"sorry - it is like it is - get over it"

I don't see any point complaining given that.


Do It Officially

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
-
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

[John Drinkwater]

On 25/01/07, Nic James Ferrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

"James Cridland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Though looking at the big screen on the wall, the vast majority of users
> seem content with Windows Media (over 80% of our online listeners right
> now).

Do you think those of us who aren't content should complain more?


Yes.



--
John '[Beta]' Drinkwater
http://johndrinkwater.name/
-
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

[Nic James Ferrier]

"James Cridland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Though looking at the big screen on the wall, the vast majority of users
> seem content with Windows Media (over 80% of our online listeners right
> now).

Do you think those of us who aren't content should complain more?

I complain sometimes but mostly the reaction from people here is
"sorry - it is like it is - get over it"

I don't see any point complaining given that.

-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   for all your tapsell ferrier needs
-
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

[James Cridland]

On 1/23/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Seriously guys why the need for DRM, I've only just reconciled myself that
I'm not going to get radio in ogg format



You can get plenty of radio in Ogg Vorbis format. Try
www.virginradio.co.uk/listen (hit the "online" tab for all the variants).
Ah, you meant *BBC* radio? My fault. ;)

One might argue that the BBC should make their radio stations available in
as many different ways as possible, to satisfy as many users as possible:
after all, we pay for it. Given that WMP and Real are not DRM'd, I don't
understand why there aren't streams in MP3, Quicktime, AAC+ and Ogg Vorbis.
I completely understand that television is different.

Though looking at the big screen on the wall, the vast majority of users
seem content with Windows Media (over 80% of our online listeners right
now).

--

http://james.cridland.net/
http://www.virginradio.co.uk/vip/profile/bigjim/

Re: [backstage] DRM

[vijay chopra]

A decent, per-user watermarking system is seriously something that would
perk up the interest of a lot of people both inside the BBC and in the
wider media community. Thanks for the link, that article is an
interesting description of the tech. I think the people here who are
right into this stuff have heard of Streamburst, and that there are
other people doing similar things, but I'll check to make sure.

If someone can come up with a massively scaleable way of watermarking
content for individual users as they stream or download content, and
(just as importantly) a fraud-detection system of some sort that notices
clips on YouTube, BitTorrent etc and detects the watermarks in them so
that we can enforce the membership rules, then we could be a step closer
to an alternative to DRM.

Of course a big factor is that individually treating up the files as
they are streamed/downloaded would be much more hardware-intensive than
simply encrypting something once and then offering it up for download
via a DRM system. So cost effectiveness is definitely an issue.

Brendan.

-
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/




The story was linked to on slashdot, here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/19/1918221 , so the tech
community is already having a discussion about it. In my opinion,
watermarking is a much better way to go about things than DRM, and I hope
you guys at the beeb eventually decide to go that way, and abandon
technology that just makes life harder for us as consumers, but doesn't
hinder the pirates one iota.

Re: [backstage] DRM

[Nic James Ferrier]

"Brendan Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> If someone can come up with a massively scaleable way of watermarking
> content for individual users as they stream or download content, and
> (just as importantly) a fraud-detection system of some sort that notices
> clips on YouTube, BitTorrent etc and detects the watermarks in them so
> that we can enforce the membership rules, then we could be a step closer
> to an alternative to DRM.

Hmmm... I wouldn't get excited if I were you.

As Tom said on the blog post that was referenced from this thread
somewhere, it's the business models that need fixing. DRM,
watermarking, etc... all are bad because they are not scalable
solutions to the problems of getting creators a monetary incentive to
create.



What I find interesting is that there are a bunch of people making
good money out of non-DRM solutions but they don't seem to make any
dent in the DRM argument. No one seems to bring up emusic.com or
tunetribe.com when they're saying "the content owners won't accept
anything without DRM". 

It seems like rot to me - clearly content owners will accept
it. Otherwise I wouldn't have just been able to download PonyUp! from
emusic.

Maybe what we should say is "not all content owners". Or "not the
content owners we want to deal with".

Which might be a really big problem. Are the hattricks of this world
not accepting non-DRM solutions because they know the BBC is going to
do what they want?

There are lots of problems here and a lot of them are to do with the
tranparency, or otherwise, of the BBC.

-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   for all your tapsell ferrier needs
-
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

[Brendan Quinn]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glyn Wintle
Sent: 24 January 2007 09:17
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] DRM

> --- Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you come up with a solution to distribute content that satisfies 
> > all the requirements of the relevant rights holders then there is 
> > whole industry of people willing to give you money.
> > Otherwise, its Windows
> > Media Player DRM all the way if you want to want to get at that 
> > content at all, legally.

> Put a digital watermark in the content linked to the users details. It
not a perfect solution, but if any
> one thinks DRM is a perfect solution I would be happily show them how
to strip the DRM out, if it was not
> for the fact I don't want to annoy Ian. :)

> See this story for an example of it already happening.
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070119-8657.html 

A decent, per-user watermarking system is seriously something that would
perk up the interest of a lot of people both inside the BBC and in the
wider media community. Thanks for the link, that article is an
interesting description of the tech. I think the people here who are
right into this stuff have heard of Streamburst, and that there are
other people doing similar things, but I'll check to make sure.

If someone can come up with a massively scaleable way of watermarking
content for individual users as they stream or download content, and
(just as importantly) a fraud-detection system of some sort that notices
clips on YouTube, BitTorrent etc and detects the watermarks in them so
that we can enforce the membership rules, then we could be a step closer
to an alternative to DRM.

Of course a big factor is that individually treating up the files as
they are streamed/downloaded would be much more hardware-intensive than
simply encrypting something once and then offering it up for download
via a DRM system. So cost effectiveness is definitely an issue.

Brendan.

-
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

[Andrew Bowden]

> DRM doesn't exist on my planet... but then nor does BBC TV
> according to the BBC. Talk about restricting culture, it seems
> at every level. I don't believe that DRM is to stop the customer
> or help the original Rights owner. but it sure allows some
> control factor from the distributor.

Indeed and that's why its there.  DRM can never be about protecting the
consumer.

The fact is - like it or not - that the BBC essentially rents some parts
of a, or all of a, programme.  And then it rents them to you.  That's
the broadcast model that most broadcasters in this country, probably the
world, 

Like any rental, it's time restricted in some way.

So the people the BBC rent from, want to make sure that when the agreed
rental period is over, you can't get at them.

As I've said many times before, this is the way the industry works right
now, and has done for decades.  Changing that kind of mindset will take
decades.


I'm no fan of DRM - if for no other reason, as a Linux user at home, I'm
pretty screwed - but it's the world we live in.


-
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

[Andrew Bowden]

> Does anyone know what the requirements of the rights holders are
within 
> this particular area?
> I would love to see a list, then another legal solution may become 
> available. 

I'm no expert on this, but if you want a start, you can find here
details of the BBC's Terms of Business with independent production
companies which will give you an idea of some of it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/business/index.shtml

The Terms of Trade cover some of the financial side
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/business/terms_trade.shtml

And the Code of Practise covers some rights stuff.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/business/code.shtml

There's bound to be much more to it than that - however it's a beginning
:)

-
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

[Glyn Wintle]

--- Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> If you come up with a solution to distribute content
> that satisfies all
> the requirements of the relevant rights holders then
> there is whole
> industry of people willing to give you money.
> Otherwise, its Windows
> Media Player DRM all the way if you want to want to
> get at that content
> at all, legally.

Put a digital watermark in the content linked to the
users details. It not a perfect solution, but if any
one thinks DRM is a perfect solution I would be
happily show them how to strip the DRM out, if it was
not for the fact I don't want to annoy Ian. :)

See this story for an example of it already happening.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070119-8657.html


 

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love 
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 
-
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/