2009/10/7 David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk
Billy Abbott wrote:
Mo McRoberts wrote:
I might be being dim, but I can’t see an angle to this where the rights
holders actually get what they want (anything which even impedes pirates)
without fundamentally altering the conceptual
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 06:41, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
It's the people who can't break the law, the consumer electronics companies
who will be required to obtain a licence who will be affected.
It is a legal trigger.
Conditions placed on them (Consumer Electronics),
!
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth
Sent: 06 October 2009 19:25
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
You could post your comments here, just for now
Mo McRoberts wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 06:41, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
It's the people who can't break the law, the consumer electronics companies
who will be required to obtain a licence who will be affected.
It is a legal trigger.
Conditions placed on them
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:44, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Controlling the functionality of the Consumer Electronic product is seen (by
the rights holders) as key to restricting the public access to broadcast
content. No analog hole, HDMI only (encrypted, trusted) output
The rights-holders will have to answer the first part.
This is sheer fantasy,
really—it’s pretty much entirely incompatible with (a) an open market,
and (b) broadcasting (as opposed to simulcasting to millions of people
individually).
They don't want an open market, they have enjoyed a
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:43, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
They don't want an open market, they have enjoyed a monopoly through
broadcasting (limited bandwidth/broadcasters) and through copyright.
They don't wish this to change. Regardless of the potential of new
I agree technical schemes and disproportionate legal threats are
inefficient ways to combat illicit copying, and work should be done to
make copying licit.
However, the rights holders are not bad guys in the scenario, they
represent (for better or worse) people making a living through
creation.
Mo McRoberts wrote:
Not quite what I meant by “open market”. There was never a requirement
in the past for CE makers to join logo/licensing programmes to ensure
their kit worked—they just followed the specs. That wasn’t limited to
CE makers, either, which is how things like MythTV came to
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
I can't think of an adjective which sums it up more
adequately than crazy.
Time for me to unlurk :-)
I'm pretty sure everyone knows by now that
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:04, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote:
How can they be compensated fairly for their work? A watermarking
scheme which counts downloads or views, and apportions revenues
accordingly? That would possibly mean a shift away from
overcompensation of big names and a
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:33, Chris Warren ch...@ixalon.net wrote:
Someone isn't going to finance content for you if you can't promise you'll
do your utmost, through agreements with 3rd parties (e.g. broadcasters) and
all the technical and legal measures available to you, to protect their
My understanding is that the BBC's strategy is to treat the UK and
rest-of-world markets differently, with a profit orientation on the
World side. Technical geolocalisation solutions are indeed doomed to
failure in my view. Those sly devils at Google showed me a sponsored
link last week promising
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:56, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote:
My understanding is that the BBC's strategy is to treat the UK and
rest-of-world markets differently, with a profit orientation on the
World side. Technical geolocalisation solutions are indeed doomed to
failure in my view.
It is also worth highlighting that the Societies involved in
protecting the rights of music producers have also lagged well behind
the technical innovations which have subsequently opened up new areas
of distribution... both legal and illegal. Their methods for trying to
defend the rights
Please. Only conspiracy theories allowed here. Move along:)
However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more
flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of
many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM,
maybe it would be
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 15:07, Alia Sheikh alia.she...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote:
However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more
flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of
many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM,
maybe
Mo McRoberts wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 15:07, Alia Sheikh alia.she...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote:
However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more
flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of
many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort
This has discussion continued in a modest way on the blog comments.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html
I am sorry to say Nick is making misleading reassurances.
(He is not sufficiently technical or familiar with the material, to
understand the
Hi,
Id like to suggest that referring not to 'copy protection' but to 'copy
restriction' is an effective way of adding clarity to this kind of
discussion.
I prepared a more emotive (angry) post about this issue but didn't allocate
time to finish it as I figured an unemotive and level headed
That I think is a conspiracy theory too far.
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth
Sent: 06 October 2009 14:12
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD
Hi,
I was referring to the wording of David's original post.
Your last paragraph is a bit unclear to me, could you restate?
Regards, Dave
On 6 Oct 2009, 2:47 PM, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote:
Dave,
I've gone back and looked at the original letter again.
There are two
David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is
incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to
allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not an active project
AFAIK, but it is Mozilla MPL.
Of course, one
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 15:00, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote:
David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is
incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to
allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is
Scot,
You can't see how it is in the public interest BECAUSE IT ISN'T. The BBC are
very clear that they are willing to cut their own charter up to pander to
the special interests of their suppliers; there is no need for conspiracy
theories about this, they are very up front about admitting what
-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland
Sent: 06 October 2009 15:51
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Scot,
You can't see how it is in the public interest BECAUSE IT ISN'T. The BBC
are very clear that they are willing
Actually, lots of FLOSS code produces supersecure encryption; GnuPG for example.
Digital Restrictions Management of broadcast media is harder to do
than text messages or filesystem volumes.
Most commercial DRM developers don't give a hoot about GNU/Linux
platforms since marketshare is so small
Hi all,
I realise I’m somewhat late to the party going on here—for some
reason, I never got around to subscribing to backst...@. You can
probably guess from my e-mail address how I relate to this particular
debate!
For the record, I’m no more part of the official consultation process
DRM is law, not code.
(As code it's useless, an encryption system where you give the attacker the
key...)
- rob.
On Oct 6, 2009 4:14 PM, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, lots of FLOSS code produces supersecure encryption; GnuPG for
example.
Digital Restrictions Management of
Sean DALY wrote:
David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is
incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to
allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not an active project
AFAIK, but it is Mozilla MPL.
I think Nevali might take umbrage at being lumped into our conspiracy
so blatantly.
a
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM, David Tomlinson
d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
This has discussion continued in a modest way on the blog comments.
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
dave - this is a wild exaggeration. The suppliers that you dislike so
are companies who provide content for the BBC for licence fee payers to
enjoy. Their interests have considered just like everyone else's.
No the BBC needs to consider the interests of the licence
Rob Myers wrote:
DRM is law, not code.
(As code it's useless, an encryption system where you give the attacker
the key...)
- rob.
The law prevents the breaking of even trivial encryption, and the
encryption prevents, the breaking of the code, which unilaterally
imposes controls on the
] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Hi all,
I realise I'm somewhat late to the party going on here-for some reason,
I never got around to subscribing to backst...@. You can probably guess
from my e-mail address how I relate to this particular debate!
For the record, I'm no more part
Pity. I would have left a comment.
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 06 October 2009 18:49
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On 6
Frank Wales wrote:
Do you mean the DMCA? Isn't that American? And what is a unilaterally
imposed licence, when it's at home? How can someone force me to accept
their permission to do something?
I can not remember the relevant European legislation, IPRED, IPRES2?
The DMCA has more name
Hi Nick,
On 6-Oct-2009, at 18:55, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
Pity. I would have left a comment.
The effort required to enable comments is unfortunately more than it’s
worth expending (and an awful lot of people dislike all of the
available comment system options for tumblr), but I really
On 06/10/09 19:07, David Tomlinson wrote:
Frank Wales wrote:
Do you mean the DMCA? Isn't that American? And what is a unilaterally
imposed licence, when it's at home? How can someone force me to accept
their permission to do something?
I can not remember the relevant European
You could post your comments here, just for now
2009/10/6 Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net
Hi Nick,
On 6-Oct-2009, at 18:55, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
Pity. I would have left a comment.
The effort required to enable comments is unfortunately more than it’s
worth expending (and an awful
And let's not forget that EU Legislation has to be enacted by the
UK Parliament.
There's a few US laws I quite like, can I claim we use them here too?
2009/10/6 Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
On 06/10/09 19:07, David Tomlinson wrote:
Frank Wales wrote:
Do you mean the DMCA? Isn't that
Brian Butterworth wrote:
And let's not forget that EU Legislation has to be enacted by the
UK Parliament.
There's a few US laws I quite like, can I claim we use them here too?
From the FFII mailing list.
Bilski v. Kappos, currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, is
considered the
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 20:05, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote:
And let's not forget that EU Legislation has to be enacted by the
UK Parliament.
It was, as far as I know, six years ago. Copyright and Related Rights
Regulations 2003.
M.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk
On 06/10/09 20:05, Brian Butterworth wrote:
And let's not forget that EU Legislation has to be enacted by the
UK Parliament.
Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_and_Related_Rights_Regulations_2003#Technical_measures
And while I'm at it -
Mo McRoberts wrote:
I might be being dim, but I can’t see an angle to this where the
rights holders actually get what they want (anything which even
impedes pirates) without fundamentally altering the conceptual
landscape of free-to-air receiving equipment in the UK.
I've always assumed that
Billy Abbott wrote:
Mo McRoberts wrote:
I might be being dim, but I can’t see an angle to this where the
rights holders actually get what they want (anything which even
impedes pirates) without fundamentally altering the conceptual
landscape of free-to-air receiving equipment in the UK.
45 matches
Mail list logo
