Re: RE: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
I get a strange sense of the BBC pushing DRM down the throats of the public, AGAIN, so, yes. On 3 Oct 2009, 10:27 AM, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: i do get this strange sense of deja vu -- *From:* owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Stone *Sent:* 02 October 2009 20:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door Oh its just like the old days :) Jem Stone Communities Executive | BBC Audio and Music O7966 551242 ...
Re: RE: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty 2009/10/6 Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com I get a strange sense of the BBC pushing DRM down the throats of the public, AGAIN, so, yes. On 3 Oct 2009, 10:27 AM, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: i do get this strange sense of deja vu -- *From:* owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Stone *Sent:* 02 October 2009 20:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door Oh its just like the old days :) Jem Stone Communities Executive | BBC Audio and Music O7966 551242 ... -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
2009/9/30 Kieran Kunhya kie...@kunhya.com Generate a mountain of e-waste, because manufacturers won't be able to produce set-top boxes that downsample the HD signal and feed it through a digital output to existing SD tuners and recorders. No idea what he's talking about here. If an STB could decode the H.264, why would downscaling be a primary function of the device? What digital output is he talking about? With the Freesat boxes, the BBC HD and ITV HD channels only output the HD in HDMI, the other connections, including the HD composite signal, is blocked. This means you can't record anything HD onto another device in HD quality. I suspect the idea is that Freeview HD boxes will not be able to record some programmes. I guess there could be then some type of offical TopUp TV Anytime box that could have overnight-delivered premium content. This facility, like Top Up TV, won't work with generic receivers. IMHO it would be better to ban content that requires copy protection from the public airwaves and leave encrypted systems to the net. -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
RE: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
I do wonder what the point of all this is. I know sometimes circumstances complicate matters, but from the POV of a viewer the Beeb shouldn't be beholden to the rightsholders. I certainly don't want to see a repeat of the same kind of infighting witnessed in the States over the Broadcast Flag. Any additional complexity in the act of broadcasting the channel to its viewers is just worthless in the long run and a waste of license fee contributions. Is BBC HD going to be broadcast 100% in the clear (both video metadata) or are all of the interested parties going to end up having to speak to the Trust and Ofcom about this? (just curious) _ From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Nick Reynolds-FMT Sent: 03 October 2009 10:23 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door i do get this strange sense of deja vu _ From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Jeremy Stone Sent: 02 October 2009 20:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door Oh its just like the old days :) Jem Stone Communities Executive | BBC Audio and Music O7966 551242 | twitter: @jemstone | jem.stone [at] bbc.co.uk. - Original Message - From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Sent: Fri Oct 02 20:12:04 2009 Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door Rob Myers wrote: On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: People on this list may be interested in this latest blog post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html The first commenter is far more worth reading than the original post - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a .html?ssorl=1254509384 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_ a.html?ssorl=1254509384ssoc=rd ssoc=rd http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a .html 2. The DTV is not serving the public if it introduces unnecessary controls and complexity into the standards process. Requiring secret codes to decompress the data stream is excluding free and open source software (just like the content scrambling system excluded open source DVD players). The ability to revoke or otherwise impose sanctions on the consumer electronics industry, including retrospective disabling of products and impose restrictions on functionality. After all that is it's intent. 3. To whom ever the DTLA is responding it is not the public. As indicated above, it is about giving the content industries control. 4. It will apply to HD devices without a HDMI output, another overly complex standard that will raise the cost to consumers due to the addition of encryption etc, which restricts the devices it will 'trust'. 5. The BBC's cosy negotiation with rightholders and secretive consultations amounts to us neglecting our responsibilities and a desire to slip this process through quietly This point we take most seriously. Above all else, we are a public organisation funded by the Licence Fee and have committed ourselves to greater transparency and openness because we believe that this is an obligation we have to our audience And yet you are looking to sophistry and an abuse of language to subvert the legal requirement to broadcast an unencrypted signal. It is clear that if you need a secret key to uncompress the broadcast stream rather than using a public standard which anyone can implement, then you are de facto engaged in encryption just like the Content Scrambling System. In my view this is a breach of the legal requirement to broadcast an un-encrypted signal. Any collusion by Ofcom's part, would not void the intention and letter of the law. nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk How would the cause of audiences be served if the BBC refused to deal with content vendors and as a result audiences could not access that content? As usual it's a difficult balancing act. No it is a blatent breach of the law - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
i do get this strange sense of deja vu From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Jeremy Stone Sent: 02 October 2009 20:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door Oh its just like the old days :) Jem Stone Communities Executive | BBC Audio and Music O7966 551242 | twitter: @jemstone | jem.stone [at] bbc.co.uk. - Original Message - From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Sent: Fri Oct 02 20:12:04 2009 Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door Rob Myers wrote: On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: People on this list may be interested in this latest blog post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html The first commenter is far more worth reading than the original post - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html?ssorl=1254509384ssoc=rd http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html 2. The DTV is not serving the public if it introduces unnecessary controls and complexity into the standards process. Requiring secret codes to decompress the data stream is excluding free and open source software (just like the content scrambling system excluded open source DVD players). The ability to revoke or otherwise impose sanctions on the consumer electronics industry, including retrospective disabling of products and impose restrictions on functionality. After all that is it's intent. 3. To whom ever the DTLA is responding it is not the public. As indicated above, it is about giving the content industries control. 4. It will apply to HD devices without a HDMI output, another overly complex standard that will raise the cost to consumers due to the addition of encryption etc, which restricts the devices it will 'trust'. 5. The BBC's cosy negotiation with rightholders and secretive consultations amounts to us neglecting our responsibilities and a desire to slip this process through quietly This point we take most seriously. Above all else, we are a public organisation funded by the Licence Fee and have committed ourselves to greater transparency and openness because we believe that this is an obligation we have to our audience And yet you are looking to sophistry and an abuse of language to subvert the legal requirement to broadcast an unencrypted signal. It is clear that if you need a secret key to uncompress the broadcast stream rather than using a public standard which anyone can implement, then you are de facto engaged in encryption just like the Content Scrambling System. In my view this is a breach of the legal requirement to broadcast an un-encrypted signal. Any collusion by Ofcom's part, would not void the intention and letter of the law. nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk How would the cause of audiences be served if the BBC refused to deal with content vendors and as a result audiences could not access that content? As usual it's a difficult balancing act. No it is a blatent breach of the law - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 19:53, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.ukwrote: How would the cause of audiences be served if the BBC refused to deal with content vendors and as a result audiences could not access that content? As usual it's a difficult balancing act. But the content providers are trying to sell stuff to the BBC. You would think the BBC would be in much the same position as Tesco is allegedly in with regards to farmers and be able to exert some pressure on your suppliers. Are all the content providers suicidal enough to not sell content to the BBC if you refuse to use DRM on HD? Even with multichannel, there aren't that many buyers of content inthe UK and most of them aren't as big as the BBC, so I'm surprised that the BBC is in such a difficult bargaining position.
Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 19:53, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.ukwrote: How would the cause of audiences be served if the BBC refused to deal with content vendors and as a result audiences could not access that content? History shows that this won't happen. And this time the BBC is in an even stronger position given the collapse of advertising revenue for commercial TV in the UK. The BBC is a nice big pot of easy money for content vendors. The threats of content vendors not to take that money shouldn't fool anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Next they'll be threatening to hold their breath until they get what they want. As usual it's a difficult balancing act. It is not. It's capitulation to special interests for no good reason. If it was a balancing act, how would just giving the side that is against the BBC and its audience everything they want balance things? - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
RE: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
Rob - you forget that the BBC is also a content vendor. Also content vendors do want their content to be shown to licence fee payers. They just want some compensation in return. And it's an exaggeration to say that the content venedors are getting everything they want. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Rob Myers Sent: 03 October 2009 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 19:53, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.ukwrote: How would the cause of audiences be served if the BBC refused to deal with content vendors and as a result audiences could not access that content? History shows that this won't happen. And this time the BBC is in an even stronger position given the collapse of advertising revenue for commercial TV in the UK. The BBC is a nice big pot of easy money for content vendors. The threats of content vendors not to take that money shouldn't fool anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Next they'll be threatening to hold their breath until they get what they want. As usual it's a difficult balancing act. It is not. It's capitulation to special interests for no good reason. If it was a balancing act, how would just giving the side that is against the BBC and its audience everything they want balance things? - Rob. - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
Well I'm not party to the negotiations so I've no idea how strong or how weak the BBC's bargaining position is. But don't forget that the BBC is a content vendor too. From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Scot McSweeney-Roberts Sent: 03 October 2009 14:43 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 19:53, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: How would the cause of audiences be served if the BBC refused to deal with content vendors and as a result audiences could not access that content? As usual it's a difficult balancing act. But the content providers are trying to sell stuff to the BBC. You would think the BBC would be in much the same position as Tesco is allegedly in with regards to farmers and be able to exert some pressure on your suppliers. Are all the content providers suicidal enough to not sell content to the BBC if you refuse to use DRM on HD? Even with multichannel, there aren't that many buyers of content inthe UK and most of them aren't as big as the BBC, so I'm surprised that the BBC is in such a difficult bargaining position.
Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Well I'm not party to the negotiations so I've no idea how strong or how weak the BBC's bargaining position is. But don't forget that the BBC is a content vendor too. I see my past has caught up with me ! (the references to the past, deja vu, my reputation has been earned). The BBC can not break the law, or it's own charter, this is a show stopper. Semantics will not be enough to avoid this fact. I am just in the process of polishing my arguments :) What they (content vendors, or special interests) want is control. That is the route to monopoly rents. This is about technical control over consumer electronics and the public. The BBC charter is on the side of the public, and the BBC should not making policy in this area. I assume my views on copyright are known (to some), I am prepared to join the debate, on the anti-copyright side. - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
People on this list may be interested in this latest blog post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 02 October 2009 00:45 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_up.html We've said before that we are specifically avoiding encryption of the broadcast signal to ensure that the public service content remains free to air. Content protection gives content producers comfort to give consumers early and free access to more content, without jeopardising future revenue streams. Stop the rationalisation and sophistry. If you can't decode the compression, then it is effectively encrypted. And making it available as FOSS (Free, Open Source Software), would effectively make the codes public. Therefore this will be restricted (outlawed) by licence agreements. Content Protection, DRM, call it what you will, this is selling the public down the river, once established the intention will be to maintain the system when HD becomes the standard. And it seems the BBC needs all the friends it can get. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-cameron-cosied-up-to-m urdoch--son-1795742.html Curb the BBC Its income is guaranteed through the licence system, while the profitability of Sky television and the Murdoch newspapers depend on the state of the market. Mr Cameron is sympathetic. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/01/murdoch-labour-bbc-b rown A Murdoch-Cameron alliance could be formidably threatening to the BBC. As William Shawcross wrote of the elder Murdoch: The power he has accumulated on the part of his allies is awesome to his enemies. The BBC often does its best to lose friends and generally annoy and irritate people. But, in the coming months and years, it is going to need all the friends it can get. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/welcome_to_some_new_initi als_d.html This is clearly not a fully open and connected world - but we are absolutely committed to continuing to find ways to allow you to enjoy our programmes as you choose. More sophistry, fully open and connected world is what we require of the BBC. There is a case against copyright (Intellectual Monopoly), and DRM witch extends the copyright monopolist control to consumer electronics and consumers. The BBC needs to be aware that people will be outraged at the restrictions placed on their use of content they have paid for. I for one, have an interest in this topic, and will act accordingly, now and in the future. The BBC can not afford to alienate the public. Stand on principle, no encryption, no DRM, by any name or form. This is the legal requirement and what the public expect. - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html However our focus is not to champion causes - it's meeting our public service remit which means serving our many audiences as best, as fairly, and as openly as we can. Championing the cause of content vendors against those audiences is out of focus by that description. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
RE: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
How would the cause of audiences be served if the BBC refused to deal with content vendors and as a result audiences could not access that content? As usual it's a difficult balancing act. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Rob Myers Sent: 02 October 2009 19:26 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protec ti on_a.html However our focus is not to champion causes - it's meeting our public service remit which means serving our many audiences as best, as fairly, and as openly as we can. Championing the cause of content vendors against those audiences is out of focus by that description. - Rob. - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: People on this list may be interested in this latest blog post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html The first commenter is far more worth reading than the original post - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html?ssorl=1254509384ssoc=rd For example - “With access to its technology, consumers will be able to share high definition content across home networks.” This isn’t something which DRM _enables_. It’s something that DRM _permits_ in a limited fashion. Re-stating this ad nauseum doesn’t make the reverse magically true. “We have consulted a wide range of stakeholders” Who? When? The BBC only made mention of it here -after- the Ofcom non-consultation got widespread coverage—that in itself was a miracle, as Ofcom didn’t actually publish it AS a consultation, merely a “letter of enquiry” with a minimal window for responses. If there’s a consultation still to come, when will it be? Please don’t forget that the license-fee paying public ARE stakeholders here. If discussions have been ongoing for months, why is it only now being made public? Moreover, if introducing this is critical to the launch schedule of Freeview HD services, why is it only being discussed now (at what can only charitably be called the eleventh hour)? Have rights-holders been told they can expect it to be in place in time for launch, despite it being contingent upon Ofcom’s (and presumably, the Trust’s) approval? If not, then what do the contracts for BBC HD on Freesat say? (broad terms, we don’t need to breach “commercial confidentiality”) Alternatively, is it the case that the content licensing agreements for BBC HD currently ONLY cover Freesat, despite everybody knowing perfectly well when Freesat was launched that Freeview HD was due to launch late 2009/early 2010? - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
Rob Myers wrote: On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: People on this list may be interested in this latest blog post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html The first commenter is far more worth reading than the original post - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html?ssorl=1254509384ssoc=rd http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html 2. The DTV is not serving the public if it introduces unnecessary controls and complexity into the standards process. Requiring secret codes to decompress the data stream is excluding free and open source software (just like the content scrambling system excluded open source DVD players). The ability to revoke or otherwise impose sanctions on the consumer electronics industry, including retrospective disabling of products and impose restrictions on functionality. After all that is it's intent. 3. To whom ever the DTLA is responding it is not the public. As indicated above, it is about giving the content industries control. 4. It will apply to HD devices without a HDMI output, another overly complex standard that will raise the cost to consumers due to the addition of encryption etc, which restricts the devices it will 'trust'. 5. The BBC's cosy negotiation with rightholders and secretive consultations amounts to us neglecting our responsibilities and a desire to slip this process through quietly This point we take most seriously. Above all else, we are a public organisation funded by the Licence Fee and have committed ourselves to greater transparency and openness because we believe that this is an obligation we have to our audience And yet you are looking to sophistry and an abuse of language to subvert the legal requirement to broadcast an unencrypted signal. It is clear that if you need a secret key to uncompress the broadcast stream rather than using a public standard which anyone can implement, then you are de facto engaged in encryption just like the Content Scrambling System. In my view this is a breach of the legal requirement to broadcast an un-encrypted signal. Any collusion by Ofcom's part, would not void the intention and letter of the law. nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk How would the cause of audiences be served if the BBC refused to deal with content vendors and as a result audiences could not access that content? As usual it's a difficult balancing act. No it is a blatent breach of the law - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
Oh its just like the old days :) Jem Stone Communities Executive | BBC Audio and Music O7966 551242 | twitter: @jemstone | jem.stone [at] bbc.co.uk. - Original Message - From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Sent: Fri Oct 02 20:12:04 2009 Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door Rob Myers wrote: On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: People on this list may be interested in this latest blog post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html The first commenter is far more worth reading than the original post - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html?ssorl=1254509384ssoc=rd http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html 2. The DTV is not serving the public if it introduces unnecessary controls and complexity into the standards process. Requiring secret codes to decompress the data stream is excluding free and open source software (just like the content scrambling system excluded open source DVD players). The ability to revoke or otherwise impose sanctions on the consumer electronics industry, including retrospective disabling of products and impose restrictions on functionality. After all that is it's intent. 3. To whom ever the DTLA is responding it is not the public. As indicated above, it is about giving the content industries control. 4. It will apply to HD devices without a HDMI output, another overly complex standard that will raise the cost to consumers due to the addition of encryption etc, which restricts the devices it will 'trust'. 5. The BBC's cosy negotiation with rightholders and secretive consultations amounts to us neglecting our responsibilities and a desire to slip this process through quietly This point we take most seriously. Above all else, we are a public organisation funded by the Licence Fee and have committed ourselves to greater transparency and openness because we believe that this is an obligation we have to our audience And yet you are looking to sophistry and an abuse of language to subvert the legal requirement to broadcast an unencrypted signal. It is clear that if you need a secret key to uncompress the broadcast stream rather than using a public standard which anyone can implement, then you are de facto engaged in encryption just like the Content Scrambling System. In my view this is a breach of the legal requirement to broadcast an un-encrypted signal. Any collusion by Ofcom's part, would not void the intention and letter of the law. nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk How would the cause of audiences be served if the BBC refused to deal with content vendors and as a result audiences could not access that content? As usual it's a difficult balancing act. No it is a blatent breach of the law - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
Scot McSweeney-Roberts wrote: On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 19:07, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk mailto:nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: that's why there's a public consultation Where? There doesn't seem to be anything related on ofcom's site http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/?open=Yessector=Broadcasting%20-%20TV http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/?open=Yessector=Broadcasting%20-%20TV You'd think they'd be the ones doing the consulting. They were, you've missed the consultation cut-off date. The outcome will be posted in due course. -- *Simon Thompson MEng MIET*
Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
2009/9/30 Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk Cory's piece is inaccurate in many respects - see this http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_up.htmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti%0Aon_up.html I wasn't entirely impressed with the Open Rights Group's response, either. See my comment on http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2009/bbc-seeks-tv-encryption-through-the-back-door There seems to be a lot of FUD-spreading about breaking existing Freeview boxes. That said, I'm no fan of the proposal either, but I can at least see where it's coming from. Does anyone know how the lookup tables compression/encryption (as proposed by the BBC) compares to the encryption of the actual TV signal (which seems to be what all the commercial channels are going to do)? ie will the BBC's broadcasts be more or less open/accessible than the commercial ones? Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com
Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
Ofcom's letter to DTT industry stakeholders inviting comments To me, that's not the quite the same thing as a public debate on the issue. On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 09:27, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote: From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Scot McSweeney-Roberts On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 19:07, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: that's why there's a public consultation Where? There doesn't seem to be anything related on ofcom's site http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/?open=Yessector=Broadcasting%20 -%20TVhttp://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/?open=Yessector=Broadcasting%20%0A-%20TV You'd think they'd be the ones doing the consulting. This is from an Ofcom email sent on their updates mailing list: Ofcom has today published a letter from BBC Free to View Ltd concerning its licence for DTT Multiplex B. A modification to the licence would allow Ofcom and the BBC to agree the BBC's proposal to compress service information text on the Multiplex. The BBC's letter, alongside Ofcom's letter to DTT industry stakeholders inviting comments by 16 September 2009, can be found here http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/; - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
--- On Thu, 1/10/09, Frankie Roberto fran...@frankieroberto.com wrote: From: Frankie Roberto fran...@frankieroberto.com Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Date: Thursday, 1 October, 2009, 11:39 AM 2009/9/30 Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk Cory's piece is inaccurate in many respects - see this http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_up.html I wasn't entirely impressed with the Open Rights Group's response, either. See my comment on http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2009/bbc-seeks-tv-encryption-through-the-back-door There seems to be a lot of FUD-spreading about breaking existing Freeview boxes. That said, I'm no fan of the proposal either, but I can at least see where it's coming from. Does anyone know how the lookup tables compression/encryption (as proposed by the BBC) compares to the encryption of the actual TV signal (which seems to be what all the commercial channels are going to do)? ie will the BBC's broadcasts be more or less open/accessible than the commercial ones? The interesting twist is that they intend to protect the look up tables using the European database right, so you will not be able to use them in your own hardware unless you are licensed to do so. - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protection_up.html We've said before that we are specifically avoiding encryption of the broadcast signal to ensure that the public service content remains free to air. Content protection gives content producers comfort to give consumers early and free access to more content, without jeopardising future revenue streams. Stop the rationalisation and sophistry. If you can't decode the compression, then it is effectively encrypted. And making it available as FOSS (Free, Open Source Software), would effectively make the codes public. Therefore this will be restricted (outlawed) by licence agreements. Content Protection, DRM, call it what you will, this is selling the public down the river, once established the intention will be to maintain the system when HD becomes the standard. And it seems the BBC needs all the friends it can get. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-cameron-cosied-up-to-murdoch--son-1795742.html Curb the BBC Its income is guaranteed through the licence system, while the profitability of Sky television and the Murdoch newspapers depend on the state of the market. Mr Cameron is sympathetic. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/01/murdoch-labour-bbc-brown A Murdoch-Cameron alliance could be formidably threatening to the BBC. As William Shawcross wrote of the elder Murdoch: The power he has accumulated on the part of his allies is awesome to his enemies. The BBC often does its best to lose friends and generally annoy and irritate people. But, in the coming months and years, it is going to need all the friends it can get. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/welcome_to_some_new_initials_d.html This is clearly not a fully open and connected world - but we are absolutely committed to continuing to find ways to allow you to enjoy our programmes as you choose. More sophistry, fully open and connected world is what we require of the BBC. There is a case against copyright (Intellectual Monopoly), and DRM witch extends the copyright monopolist control to consumer electronics and consumers. The BBC needs to be aware that people will be outraged at the restrictions placed on their use of content they have paid for. I for one, have an interest in this topic, and will act accordingly, now and in the future. The BBC can not afford to alienate the public. Stand on principle, no encryption, no DRM, by any name or form. This is the legal requirement and what the public expect. - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/29/bbc-hd-encryption Ok I know we talked about it before but here he (cory) is again, but this time in the Guardian. Cheers, Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer, BBC RD 01612444063 | 07711913293 ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk (here's hoping this works) While I don't support this obfuscation of SI information, a lot of the arguments in that article aren't particularly good or don't make sense. Also because one can't have a reasoned discussion in any newspaper comment section these days, I will make my point here. Break existing equipment, such as HD laptop cards that have open drivers. Because of DVB-T2, no such devices are on the market yet. Generate a mountain of e-waste, because manufacturers won't be able to produce set-top boxes that downsample the HD signal and feed it through a digital output to existing SD tuners and recorders. No idea what he's talking about here. If an STB could decode the H.264, why would downscaling be a primary function of the device? What digital output is he talking about? Freeze out British entrepreneurs, such as the manufacturers of the Promise TV, who produce video recorders that run on open source software. If anything the open source community will be the first to find a workaround. There are a lot of programs out there to read damaged transport streams - ITV HD on Freesat was slightly obfuscated as an h.222 stream but people made it work. BBC HD used MBAFF in H.264 and someone wrote a patch. The same will happen or people will just continue to use satellite. Kieran. - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
Cory's piece is inaccurate in many respects - see this http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_up.html -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Kieran Kunhya Sent: 30 September 2009 17:37 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/29/bbc-hd-encryption Ok I know we talked about it before but here he (cory) is again, but this time in the Guardian. Cheers, Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer, BBC RD 01612444063 | 07711913293 ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk (here's hoping this works) While I don't support this obfuscation of SI information, a lot of the arguments in that article aren't particularly good or don't make sense. Also because one can't have a reasoned discussion in any newspaper comment section these days, I will make my point here. Break existing equipment, such as HD laptop cards that have open drivers. Because of DVB-T2, no such devices are on the market yet. Generate a mountain of e-waste, because manufacturers won't be able to produce set-top boxes that downsample the HD signal and feed it through a digital output to existing SD tuners and recorders. No idea what he's talking about here. If an STB could decode the H.264, why would downscaling be a primary function of the device? What digital output is he talking about? Freeze out British entrepreneurs, such as the manufacturers of the Promise TV, who produce video recorders that run on open source software. If anything the open source community will be the first to find a workaround. There are a lot of programs out there to read damaged transport streams - ITV HD on Freesat was slightly obfuscated as an h.222 stream but people made it work. BBC HD used MBAFF in H.264 and someone wrote a patch. The same will happen or people will just continue to use satellite. Kieran. - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 18:21, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.ukwrote: Cory's piece is inaccurate in many respects - see this http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_up.htmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti%0Aon_up.html Is there any explanation out there of how huffman lookup tables provide content management? I'd like to have a better idea of what exactly is being proposed and what the effect will be. I think the statement no existing Freeview boxes will be affected by this whatsoever near the top of that article is a bit of a Jedi mind trick. Of course no freeview box on the market will be affected by encryption/encryption-like techniques that might be used with DVB-T2, but that's not the point. The point is that with DVB-T transmissions people have been able to do what ever they want with them and I'm guessing that the messing about with lookup tables on HD transmissions will put a stop to that. If that's the case, then I think there should be some public debate about it. Scot
RE: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
that's why there's a public consultation see also this from April http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/welcome_to_some_new_initi als_d.html From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Scot McSweeney-Roberts Sent: 30 September 2009 18:55 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 18:21, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Cory's piece is inaccurate in many respects - see this http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_up.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protect i%0Aon_up.html Is there any explanation out there of how huffman lookup tables provide content management? I'd like to have a better idea of what exactly is being proposed and what the effect will be. I think the statement no existing Freeview boxes will be affected by this whatsoever near the top of that article is a bit of a Jedi mind trick. Of course no freeview box on the market will be affected by encryption/encryption-like techniques that might be used with DVB-T2, but that's not the point. The point is that with DVB-T transmissions people have been able to do what ever they want with them and I'm guessing that the messing about with lookup tables on HD transmissions will put a stop to that. If that's the case, then I think there should be some public debate about it. Scot
Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
On 30/09/09 17:37, Kieran Kunhya wrote: If anything the open source community will be the first to find a workaround. It will be both impractical and illegal to do so. From the article - DTLA requires that all devices be made to resist end-user modification. That is, DTLA devices can't use open-source software, lest the pesky licence-fee payer alter the restrictions in the code. And the novel feature of the proposed system is that it is a way of abusing the database right to exclude free software developers in the absence of software patents. The important point isn't the technical details, though - These rightsholder groups have a long history of trying to arm-twist the BBC into imposing restrictions on the TV that you and I are obliged to pay for. For years, the BBC broadcast its satellite feed in encrypted form, paying an additional £20m a year to run this scheme. When the BBC decided that it was unseemly and wasteful to go on paying for encrypted satellite signals, the major studios promised a boycott of the corporation. The boycott was short-lived: as soon as the quarterly results came in with a massive BBC-shaped hole in the studios' income, they recanted. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 19:07, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.ukwrote: that's why there's a public consultation Where? There doesn't seem to be anything related on ofcom's site http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/?open=Yessector=Broadcasting%20-%20TV You'd think they'd be the ones doing the consulting.
