I've just watched the DRM podcast and I have to admit I was very
disappointed. It seemed to digress into a pie-in-the-sky discussion
about changing the licensing model and even changing the law, rather
than concentrating on how ineffective the proposed use of DRM would
actually be.
I was
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 22:20 +, George Wright wrote:
So, your major objection to real is that it isn't free software?
I can't speak for Andy, but my main objection to the Real formats is
that they _cannot_ be implemented in free software. It's a proprietary
format, not an open standard. Even
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 10:06 +, Jason Cartwright wrote:
For every anti-Flash zealot yelling Flash isn't Free Software, there
are millions of people using flash without any problems at all.
Because Flash isn't Free Software, I cannot use it. Not through zealotry
or paranoia, but because it
shouldn't be doing it - for the reasons David
Woodhouse mentions.
I think the trick might be to _not_ sell it as a Real replacement.
Vorbis is just another one of the multitude of codecs which the Real
software, both server side and client side, supports. Hopefully it could
be treated
On Sat, 2007-03-10 at 17:46 +, James Cridland wrote:
I think I was trying to say (I'm sometimes not very lucid) that home
piracy in the 1980s didn't have a vast effect, mainly because of the
physical effort required in buying video cassettes, copying cassettes
onto other cassettes and
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 01:29 +, Adam Leach wrote:
The best option is Asterisk (http://asterisk.org/) as it can do the
following:
* It can record phone calls. Depending on the complexity the
standard voicemail system might be perfect as this is designed to
record messages
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:44 +0100, James Cridland wrote:
I think we both agree. IP restrictions (generally) work, and they are
forms of DRM, however you look at it (it's a rights management tool).
However, this only works for streaming media; not for downloadable
files.
I'm not entirely sure
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 10:47 +0100, Andy wrote:
Incidentally hows development of the non windows iPlayer that the BBC
Trust asked for going? If you need someone to trial a Linux version
give me a shout.
Which architectures? I can do PowerPC and ARM relatively easily. Also
Alpha, PA-RISC, SPARC
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 00:50 +0100, Richard Lockwood wrote:
Andy,
You've completely missed the point of my argument.
While we can bicker over the technical details of DRM systems involved,
the fact is that the majority of facts presented in that letter are
not facts at all. Let's go
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
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
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
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.
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 17:45 +0100, Ian Betteridge wrote:
No ad hominem attacks there, then. I could, of course, start talking
about arrogant techies who think they know it all - but I'll refrain.
For the record...
Ad Hominem (lit. 'against the man'¹) is the logical fallacy where you
discount
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:28 +0100, Christopher Woods wrote:
Nah, because the technology-friendly minority of the world's population will
figure out both how to crack the DRM, and how to produce one-click tools
which strip the DRM from crap-ridden files they've downloaded.
The world rejoices!
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 09:59 +0100, vijay chopra wrote:
You might well be right there, if so it would be unfortunate. However IIRC
not long ago the BPI (the UKs equivilant to the RIAA) promised that it
wouldn'd sue home users making copies for personal use and backup. So even
so home users can
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 18:41 +0100, vijay chopra wrote:
On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ACSS decryption code? :)
You mean 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640 ?
No, that's just a decryption key. I meant the whole of the software
package which
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 08:43 +0100, David Greaves wrote:
Incidentally, who thinks the law should allow protection of this type of
information beyond trade secret - if an organisation is dumb enough to
expose
it's PKI keys then they deserve no legal protection.
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 12:50 +0100, David Greaves wrote:
DRM, being technological, cannot turn a blind eye to the law. The law
is supposed to be a bit fuzzy.
DRM doesn't even cope with the clear-cut cases without screwing the
consumer over, let alone the 'fuzz'.
My partner is a high school
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,
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 10:00 +0100, Ian Betteridge wrote:
I happen to think you're completely wrong, on pretty much every count,
So you think that DRM actually _works_ for its (supposedly) intended
purpose, and prevents criminals from copying content?
You think that it _won't_ end up just making
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 11:36 +0100, Ian Betteridge wrote:
On 26/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 10:00 +0100, Ian Betteridge wrote:
I happen to think you're completely wrong, on pretty much every
count,
So you think that DRM actually _works_ for its
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 18:15 +0100, Simon Cross wrote:
250 texts for £10 via a API, awesome. I'm paying 6p/msg at the mo. 4p
is very good value. Now placing voice calls in an app
Alternatively, I think the BT Together Option 3 Anytime Plan gives you
200 texts for £7.95 -- assuming you have
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 18:25 +0100, Ian Forrester wrote:
I specially like the Chinese version -
http://www.google.com/news?imv=1ned=cn
Ironic that you can't get at it from China, really. :)
--
dwmw2
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 09:03 +0100, Otu Ekanem wrote:
Be careful of BT's SMS services though -- not only can they
not send to non-UK mobile numbers, but they can't even manage
to deliver to UK mobiles when they're roaming abroad. You
might want to use someone
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 22:48 +0100, mike chamberlain wrote:
Given we all know DRM's broken, yet is mandated by the people who
own the content, what's better for the BBC to do? Write it's own and
be responsible for fixing any breakages, or use one the content
providers are happy with?
I think
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 19:03 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
On 27/07/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sun opened Java a while ago:
http://www.sun.com/2006-1113/feature/
it's free now.
Sun announced an intention to release Java under GPLv2.
It is not free now.
On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 16:39 +, Andy wrote:
Any links to the specification for RTMP all the usual places I find
protocol specs have turned up no results.
http://wiki.gnashdev.org/wiki/index.php/RTMP
http://osflash.org/documentation/rtmp
See also
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 15:26 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I /heart/ about the pre-2K bit of plastic is the way it takes control
over your TV/DVD and insists that you watch the copyright notices
Sounds like you need to get yourself a better DVD player.
--
dwmw2
-
Sent via the
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 14:13 +0100, Sean DALY wrote:
Concerning physical records, I feel the same way. I buy few items
online, not only because of the silly DRM, but because managing
storage and backups is a headache.
I still prefer to buy real CDs, partly because they _become_ the backup
--
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 08:03 +, Brian Butterworth wrote:
Is the BBC Shop going to swap defunt HD-DVD for BR versions?
Why don't you just write it to a BR disc for yourself? You bought it,
after all -- surely you have a right to _use_ it?
--
dwmw2
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk
On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 21:15 +0100, Tim Dobson wrote:
Bah. I hadn't realise it still used flash.
How about someone does the same thing but with the nice DRM-free open
standard stuff which I can watch without flash. :)
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flv/
--
dwmw2
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 15:07 +, Iain Wallace wrote:
Given that this is entirely open source (real open source, not Ian
Hunter bizarro-land open source) and the number of users it has it
seems unlikely that someone won't fork or maintain the code. If it
does fall out of repair, it's back to
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 16:02 +0100, Mo McRoberts wrote:
JOOI, how much divergance is there between this and
http://github.com/jjl/get_iplayer ?
Not a lot -- I've been talking to James and trying to make sure I wasn't
stepping on his toes. Only the Akamai stuff is different, which we're
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 10:10 -0700, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
You realise that Open Source isn't an organisation that designs
software, right? You also realise we've had SWF verification software
for quite a long time and we're happily using it to download video
behind SWF verified flash apps?
The
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 22:56 +0100, Jonathan Tweed wrote:
On 27 May 2010, at 20:42, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote:
Personally, all my use of iPlayer content is to fetch something I'm
already aware of; I'm not just browsing randomly. And for that, I find
that a command line tool
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 11:11 +0100, Anthony McKale wrote:
Has everyone seen -
http://whomwah.github.com/radioaunty/
http://whomwah.github.com/tellybox/
Doesn't seem too hard if someone was interested to build a ondemand
version of these apps,
A bit like
The news page at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10225181.stm
currently lists 'JP Morgan gets record �33m fine' under 'Top Business
Stories' on the right-hand side, just above the 'Most Popular...'.
Do not adjust your set; that's really an unprintable character before
the '33m', where there
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 19:34 +0100, John O'Donovan wrote:
Hi David,
Sorry for delayed reply -- because the backstage mailing list is
(mis)configured to make you omit me from the recipients of your
response, I didn't see it until now.
We do respond to queries as fast as possible. Would be useful
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 08:06 +0100, Brian Butterworth wrote:
The short form of the headlines are destined for Ceefax - where 0x23
is £ and 0x5F is #...
No, this is definitely something like ISO8859-1 or ISO8859-15. The byte
where the pound sign should be is 0xA3, not 0x23.
For example...
$
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
41 matches
Mail list logo
