Re: [backstage] Project Kangaroo - what's the point?

[vijay chopra]

On 21/06/07, Adam Bowie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 6/21/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:47 +0100, Adam Bowie wrote:

> >
> > A single solution would be sensible in the long run.
>
> No. A selection of _open_, interoperable solutions would be sensible.
>

As a user, I don't want to have install a new piece of software every
time I download a different piece of programming from a different
broadcaster.



That's where the word "interoperable" comes in



Aside from anything else, multiple clients all using peer to peer
technology will kill my broadband connectivity.



Again, if they're interoperable you'd only need one client, but you'd get a
choice of which one.

Of course an open solution would be best. But then there's DRM which

currently each broadcaster has their own solution to (even if they're
really all the same just now), but I'm not going to get into that...



Indeed.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

[Timothy-john Bishop]

On 19/06/07, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


vijay chopra wrote:
> On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> I totally agree, however seeing as I have no intention of breaking the
> spirit of the law (I may be breaching a technicality) I have no qualms
> in using any software to break copy protection to make personal backups,
> and supply it to others if requested. I regularly get told by friends
> and family "my computer won't let me copy this DVD" my reply is either
> to do it for them, or give them a CD with the appropriate tools on it.
> I doubt that the BPI is likely to come after me as a pirate (Argghh!) as
> I only back up for personal use, and only use file sharing services in
> legal ways. The only thing I have downloaded unlawfully is an out of
> print RPG book, that I would be happy to pay for, if only I could find
> someone selling it!

Interesting business model called "The long tail" in Wired a while back.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail_pr.html

> The flipside to that is when does it become a "normal" number again? I
> translated the ACSS decryption key back into base10 if I were then to
> perform various other mathematical functions on it would it stop being
> the ACSS key? What if I needed that number for another purpose? I'm not
> saying that posting an entire DVD in hex is OK, just asking questions.

Like I said, context.
You posted that number and even quoted the words "ACSS decryption code".



Problems with laws arise when you start enforcing them rigidly :)

Technology has no common sense. It's a bit like speeding. Technically
doing
31mph in a 30 zone is illegal. No policeman would ever stop you (just) for
that.



Have you been in Plymouth City Centre on a weekend?!? Devon and Cornwall
Police have done this when its a quiet night... (The Pub I work in has a
open fire - one Saturday evening the police turned up because they were
walking past and decided to enquire if the smoke coming from the chimley -
or however you spell it - was coming from the open fire or if the building
was on fire...)

BUT I DIGRESS... SORRY!


DRM, being technological, cannot turn a blind eye to the law. The law is

supposed to be a bit fuzzy.

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/



Also.  DRM will be "Hacked" by whoever wants to, its just the general public
that will not be able to figure it out...  "Where there is a will, there is
a way..."

--
This email is intended for the named recipient(s) only.
Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named
recipient(s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the prior consent of
Timothy-John Bishop. If you are not the intended recipient please discard
this email and notify the sender as quickly as possible. This email and any
attached files have been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.
However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk.
Please note that electronic mail may be monitored in accordance with the
Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practices) (Interception of
Communications) Regulations 2000.

Re: [backstage] Project Kangaroo - what's the point?

[Adam Bowie]

On 6/21/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:47 +0100, Adam Bowie wrote:



>
> A single solution would be sensible in the long run.

No. A selection of _open_, interoperable solutions would be sensible.



As a user, I don't want to have install a new piece of software every
time I download a different piece of programming from a different
broadcaster.

Aside from anything else, multiple clients all using peer to peer
technology will kill my broadband connectivity.

Of course an open solution would be best. But then there's DRM which
currently each broadcaster has their own solution to (even if they're
really all the same just now), but I'm not going to get into that...
-
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] Project Kangaroo - what's the point?

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:47 +0100, Adam Bowie wrote:
> I don't think there's a set-top box involved.
> 
> Surely it's just early discussions to try to achieve a single
> downloading architecture across all the UK broadcasters?
> 
> At the moment I have to download one app. for the BBC, another for
> 4od, another for Sky Anytime and goodness knows what for Five, ITV or
> any other broadcaster. And they're not all necessarily compatible.
> 
> A single solution would be sensible in the long run. 

No. A selection of _open_, interoperable solutions would be sensible.

-- 
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] Project Kangaroo - what's the point?

[Adam Bowie]

I don't think there's a set-top box involved.

Surely it's just early discussions to try to achieve a single
downloading architecture across all the UK broadcasters?

At the moment I have to download one app. for the BBC, another for
4od, another for Sky Anytime and goodness knows what for Five, ITV or
any other broadcaster. And they're not all necessarily compatible.

A single solution would be sensible in the long run.


On 6/21/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I read about "Project Kangaroo" in the press the other day.  It seems to be
a "set top box" iPlayer.

http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/8242/9266/BBC-ITV-C4-Project-Kangeroo.phtml

Wouldn't the BBC be better off just getting broadband Freeview Playback
boxes to exchange content with each other, rather than this "top down"
solution?

Oh, and it would cost almost nothing to run...

--

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

-
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] Project Kangaroo - what's the point?

[Brian Butterworth]

I read about "Project Kangaroo" in the press the other day.  It seems to be
a "set top box" iPlayer.

http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/8242/9266/BBC-ITV-C4-Project-Kangeroo.phtml

Wouldn't the BBC be better off just getting broadband Freeview Playback
boxes to exchange content with each other, rather than this "top down"
solution?

Oh, and it would cost almost nothing to run...

--

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv