[backstage] I'm off to Brazil...
Circumventing DRM is explicitly permitted by law, for the purpose of fair dealing. And penalties apply to those who attempt to use DRM to prevent fair dealing. http://www.gorila.hr/go/brazil-s-copyright-law-forbids-using-drm-to-block-fair-use_feeds_boingboing_net http://www.myce.com/news/brazil-legalizes-bypassing-drm-for-fair-use-or-public-domain-31831/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5180/125/ Go here and vote for this to happen in the UK too: http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/brazils-new-copyright-law-forbids-using-drm-to-block-fair-use.-the-same-system-should-be-implemented-here-1 -- 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] Unable to sign up for Backstage account?
Hi David, We're in the process of updating some of the infrastructure behind the Backstage set up so it's possible that some processes are a little bit orphaned at the moment. I've passed this over for a support request and we'll get back to you asap Cheers Ant On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:51 AM, David Craddock cont...@davidcraddock.netwrote: Hi, I have attempted to sign up under three different email addresses, including @gmail.com @googlemail.com, and from another googlemail account hosted on my domain. It doesn't look like the signup emails are being sent over. I have checked all spam filtering on these accounts. Maybe there is a problem with the server? I'm looking for access to the API, so that I can experiment with the backstage content. 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/ -- Ant Miller tel: 07709 265961 email: ant.mil...@gmail.com
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Hi Mo, I am going out this evening so will be away from a computer. However I thought I would try and give you a quick response to some of your questions. 1. Because I didn't know it was happening until after it was mentioned by third parties. I'd point out that one of those third parties (Tom Watson) corrected his first blog post about the subject as he admitted was inaccurate. 2. Possibly because it wasn't published on the internet. I certainly can't find it on OFCOM's website now. 3. Is this a falsehood? I'd like to know more. 4. We answered most of those questions in subsequent blog posts and comments. 5. Don't know the answer to this one. Will check. 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to keep honest people honest. If pirates choose to do certain things then that is their responsibility not the BBCs. If we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want. 7. I'm not in charge of the BBC's Media Literacy strategy. I am only in charge of the blog. I do my best to make it as accurate and impartial as possible. 8. ...but the devil's in the detail, and _that_ hasn't been anything close to being honestly conveyed. I disagree - we have linked to and included all the detail that is publicly available and tried to dig out as much as we can, and we will continue to try and dig out more with an honest intent. We do not spin or misdirect on the Internet blog. I am saddened by your assertion that we do. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 13 July 2010 01:14 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management A delayed reply, but: On 16-Jun-2010, at 08:42, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: All I can really do with you Mo is disagree. Of course the public has a right to make an informed judgement. And all I can say is that on the blog we have linked to and exposed all sides of the argument and all the facts (including linking to your Guardian piece and blog posts - and I suspect more people read it there than would have if it was published on the blog). Anyone who is a regular reader of the blog and interested in this issue would be well informed. So, why is the case that: 1) no mention of the plan to scramble the EIT on Freeview HD as it is on Freesat was made on the blog, or anywhere else except a letter to Ofcom, until _after_ the issue was publicised by third parties? 2) why the explanation of what was actually going to happen (in the 2009-09 post) included from a technical perspective a link to a general Wikipedia page on lookup tables (not even on Huffman coding!), but not a link to the letter from Ofcom; no explicit statement that it was the same scheme as was employed by Freesat 3) why the following falsehood was included: The only actions that may be prevented, and only for certain programmes, are retransmitting the content in HD over the internet or, in some cases, from making more than one digital copy of the highest-value content onto Blu-ray. 4) why were many of the (serious) questions posed on that first post never answered, and quite a few of the subsequent questions never really answered either? 5) why the second post (2010-01) states networked distribution and viewing of HD content in the home is allowed without mentioning that restrictions apply to what devices the content can be transferred to over the network (or, indeed, ordinary interconnect cables)? 6) given the following (from the 2010-01 post): Indeed, the proposed Freeview HD content management approach is so 'light-touch' that some have argued that it is not worth having. But, this misses a key point - almost any copy protection system can be circumvented (if you put enough effort into it) - and that it is never going to be possible to prevent the determined pirate from lifting content. However, it is still really important to make sure that the unapproved copying and internet distribution of high value broadcast content doesn't become so easy that people don't think twice about doing it. ...do the BBC and third-party rightsholders have ANY evidence *at all* which suggests that Joe Public were about to start doing this, rather than relying on the determined pirates who get on with it unabated today (go and look at a BitTorrent network for recordings from Sky HD, for example - there are plenty about, and their content protection measures are FAR more stringent than anything Freeview or Freesat will have) -- why would anybody except a determined pirate _bother_? Honestly, what have they got to gain from it? 7) Given that this affects _the whole of Freeview HD_, why is it only those who are a regular reader of the blog and interested in this issue who deserves to be well-informed? Indeed, one of the Public Purposes Emerging technologies
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 16:43, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Hi Mo, I am going out this evening so will be away from a computer. However I thought I would try and give you a quick response to some of your questions. 1. Because I didn't know it was happening until after it was mentioned by third parties. I'd point out that one of those third parties (Tom Watson) corrected his first blog post about the subject as he admitted was inaccurate. Nick, you're responding as though I'm criticising _you_. I'm not. It's not your responsibility to know that this stuff was being sent to Ofcom and make sure that the public were properly informed of it. However, it *is* the BBC's responsibility to make this happen (and when that kicks off, _then_ it becomes your problem). Tom Watson having to correct his post is something I answered back when we were talking about this previously - he wouldn't have had to do that if clear and accurate information had been published by the BBC *in the first place*! 2. Possibly because it wasn't published on the internet. I certainly can't find it on OFCOM's website now. It was published -- that's how people managed to respond to it :) Graham Plumb would certainly have known where it was (and indeed, would have had a copy of it -- you could have hosted a copy yourselves!). It wasn't easy to find on Ofcom's site, because it was pitched at the broadcasting industry, not the public (even though it concerns every potential customer of Freeview HD!) It _should_ be here: http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/other-issues/bbc-multiplex-enquiry/ But Ofcom have completely reorganised their site in the last couple of weeks, so I have no idea where it might have gone now. 3. Is this a falsehood? I'd like to know more. Yes, which is why I wrote the post which ended up in the Guardian: there are lots of things it prevents -- or at least seeks to -- so saying the only thing you won't be able to is X is false. 4. We answered most of those questions in subsequent blog posts and comments. A big part of the frustration on the part of the commenters was because questions weren't being answered. And, again, this isn't a criticism of you because I know you were trying to get answers, but ultimately a lot of quite clear and direct questions never had any followup at all. 5. Don't know the answer to this one. Will check. Thanks -- appreciated. 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to keep honest people honest. If pirates choose to do certain things then that is their responsibility not the BBCs. If we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want. The point is: what evidence was there that honest people *needed* technological measures to keep them honest? If they're honest, but do something in an unsupported way, perhaps with a cheap imported receiver, or an HD television which doesn't support the protected path, are they still honest? You're contradicting yourself when you say if we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want: first, this is not true, because copyright law applies whether or not content protection is applied, and second, both Graham's post and your statement there says that you're not targeting the pirates in the first place. 7. I'm not in charge of the BBC's Media Literacy strategy. I am only in charge of the blog. I do my best to make it as accurate and impartial as possible. Indeed, and again, much of this is not criticism of the BBC Internet Blog specifically, but of the organisation's broader policy and communication strategy as it relates to this issue. The Internet Blog is obviously a part of that, but it's not the be-all and end-all. 8. ...but the devil's in the detail, and _that_ hasn't been anything close to being honestly conveyed. I disagree - we have linked to and included all the detail that is publicly available and tried to dig out as much as we can, and we will continue to try and dig out more with an honest intent. I think *you* have tried to, certainly. I don't think you've managed it nearly as well as you could have if those providing the explanations and content had been as upfront as they could have - if they had, the questions above wouldn't exist :) We do not spin or misdirect on the Internet blog. I am saddened by your assertion that we do. I'm as sure as I can be that you have no intention of doing so, but with the best will in the world, you don't *write* the posts, and do you? M. - 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] Freeview HD Content Management
On 13 July 2010 16:43, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to keep honest people honest. I don't understand this keep honest people honest thing. Is the BBC saving people from themselves, just in case they might be tempted to do something unlawful like copying a TV programme to their portable media player? And … are you saying that I'm dishonest for wanting to subvert these restrictions? Or is it a slippery slope - one day you're making a personal archive of a TV programme, the next you're wondering around West End pubs with a carrier bag full of DVD+Rs of shaky camcorder versions of Hollywood films? Bizarre. If pirates choose to do certain things then that is their responsibility not the BBCs. If we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want. They already are! And nothing the BBC is doing will stop them. (Encrypting the EPG on Freeview HD while the video itself is in the clear? Give me a break!) They're also doing anything they want with Sky HD and Blu-ray, both of which have far harder protections than anything the BBC's mooted. And, just to be clear, who do we mean by pirates? People downloading stuff? People uploading stuff? People making personal copies? People sharing copies with their friends? People selling stuff on for money? People uploading it to online storage sites with affiliate plans? There's such a huge gulf between the stated aims and the implementation of this policy. Paul. - 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/
