[Nottingham] BBC iPlayer petition

[Graeme Fowler]

On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 16:28 +0100, Andy Davidson wrote:
> I'm happy to run proprietary software, and I think I am clever.

The question wasn't whether or not you are clever - and I happen to
agree that you are, but stating that you think you are seems... oh,
never mind :) - but, as Martin went on to clarify, the group of people
who condone this sort of restrictive technological covenant on something
we may have a right to reproduce. I use the word "reproduce" there by
way of display, watch, listen to - rather then "make copies of and
distribute".

> I think if Internet delivered video is going to become the norm (and  
> I hope it isn't ubiquitous for my own reasons), then it shouldn't  
> matter what platform you want to watch it on, really.  That is, you  
> could buy a black-box from Pace or Amstrad and use a whizzy interface  
> on your tv, or you bin your tv and watch it on your computer running  
> Linux or - your own choice.

So we agree on that, at least.

> I have my views on BBC content and I notice that someone on LugRadio  
> this week said they had the same opinion.  Because I pay my TV  
> License, I own that content.  That content is *mine*.  I shouldn't  
> need to pass through layers of Digital Restrictions Management in  
> order to get to something I own.

BBC content is not yours. Your TV License permits you to operate
receiving equipment for terrestrial broadcast television signals where
that equipment is capable of being connected to the mains electricity
supply in the property named on the license, with some exceptions. It
also permits you to make reproductions of that content for your own use,
as long as those reproductions are not rebroadcast, sold, or kept for an
excessively long period (I think that last clause is still there,
somewhere!).

I'm paraphrasing heavily there, obviously.

What your TV License does not do is assign you ownership of any content.
Ownership rather tends to imply that you may do with said content what
you want, and there's a rather well-entrenched set of copyright laws in
this country which explicitly forbid you from doing that.

Back to DRM: tasteless, restrictive and unethical as you may find it,
the BBC have been strongarmed into applying DRM to their downloadable
online content by a set of politicians and lobbyists who are acting in
the interests of the BBC's direct competition, namely Other Broadcasters
(who in their own way apply DRM quite happily by encrypting signals, but
I digress). I speak from a little personal experience, having spoken to
someone who works there, that internally there was no desire whatsoever
to apply DRM - and that went all the way to the top - but the lobby
groups won out as the BBC is forbidden by charter to compete
commercially.

Rock, hard place.

We lose.

Graeme