[SWLUG] New protest and petition against BBC's Windows-only iPlayer

[Steve Hill]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Vladimir Zlatanov wrote:

> It is (nearly) the same argument as the analogue hole in DRM. The
> technologies differ, but the pattern is the same.

I'd say it's quite different to the analogue hole since you can get a 
bit-exact copy off the DVB stream.  It's more akin to asking why 
downloaded music needs to be DRM'd whilest the same content is available 
on a CD that can happilly be ripped to a file.  I guess an important 
difference here is that both sources of the BBC's content are accessible 
at no cost, making the DRM-free content even more accessible.

> * it puts a presumption like - everyone is a possible offender ( pirate ) -
> is that ethical?

If a normal business starts forcing DRM on everyone then you have a choice 
to boycott them and they lose the money.  You don't have a similar ability 
with the BBC unless you want to ditch your TV entirely - if you watch TV 
you are _required_ to fund this service through your licence.  To my mind, 
that makes it truely unethical - not only am I considered a potential 
criminal, but I am legally required to fund the technology that will treat 
me like one.

> If they used a DRM which is open, that is anyone can
> have the knowledge to implement it, then there would be no technical or
> 'public contract' problem. a player would very soon exist on all platforms.
> The ethical issues will still exist, but that is yet another fight....

The trouble here is that DRM is fundamentally incompatible with openness - 
DRM relies on security by obscurity and as soon as you open the DRM system 
for review you remove what little security it had.

> individual watermarking,

I think individual watermarking would be a horrendous idea.  Sure, you can 
identify who infringed your copyright, but what are you going to do about 
it?  Presumably launch large scale RIAA-style lawsuits against your 
audiance?

> TV license number based access

Here is another sticking point - you are not legally required to have a TV 
licence to receive video streams unless the streams are simulcast over 
both normal broadcast channels and IP.

Since the licence now funds so much stuff that does not require the 
receiver to hold a licence (radio, the website, etc), IMHO the TV licence 
should be abolished and replaced with general taxation (maybe implemented 
similar to council tax).  This would have the added advantage that you can 
probably cut administration costs since you nolonger need to track who has 
a TV and prove they have a TV in court.  However, this is an argument for 
another day.

-- 

  - Steve
    xmpp:steve at nexusuk.org   sip:steve at nexusuk.org   http://www.nexusuk.org/

      Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence