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

[Ian Hill]

On 8/3/07, Steve Hill <steve at nexusuk.org> wrote:
> 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.

Certainly not true. The fact that the current systems seem to have
been poorly designed does not mean that the concept is flawed. It is
entirely feasible to have an open DRM system.

> 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?

You're missing the problem with the RIAA lawsuits. A well designed,
secure, unique fingerprinting system (I'm not aware that one exists,
so work with me here and imagine one) that could uniquely identify you
represents perfectly acceptable evidence for a court. The problem with
the RIAA is that working off your IP address is not unique but
requires a certain amount of fishing to find you. It results in far
too many people being investigated.

Now, its entirely possible that such a system could not be devised,
but lets not dismiss it out of hand.

> 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.

IANAL, but I don't believe this is true. You must be licensed to watch
someone else's copyrighted material. That's common sense: they have
it, you don't, you are negotiating with them to provide it to you. If
you are right and the TV license does not cover VOD, then you need to
negotiate another license that does. (For the record, I'm not
convinced you're correct about that one anyway. I'm pretty sure that
VOD would legally count as a broadcast - in which case a TV license is
definitely necessary.)


On 8/3/07, Julian Hall <lists at kaotic.co.uk> wrote:
> DRM assumes guilt of all parties which
> undoubtedly has ethical problems.

I'm not sure that it does. When I lock my front door, I am not
assuming that every person who comes to it is intending to break in.
As with all security measures, it exists for the few not the many.
Now, many existing systems may get this wrong (I own my CDs - I should
be able to copy them to my iPOD. I own my xbox - I should be free to
modify it as I see fit) but that doesn't invalidate the whole concept.

> A thought that just occurred.  British Law guarantees assumption of
> innocence *until proven otherwise*.  Is there then not an argument to
> say that implementation of DRM which assumes guilt, is illegal in concept?

That's patently silly. British law guarantees assumption of innocence,
/in a court of law/, not elsewhere.


Now, I'd love to see this situation change. I think the BBC is just
the sort of heavyweight who could really land a blow for the consumer
in freeing this material which, as someone as rightly noticed, is
being guarded without consideration to the side effects.

I do not believe that the fact that I can download a movie makes me
less likely to visit the cinema (my unlimited card proves otherwise.)
I do not believe that allowing me to carry my cds around on an iPod
should have any impact on the record label's balance sheet. I do
believe that when people argue that these things provide excellent,
free promotion for these products, they are making a good point.

However, trying to pretend that the BBC is breaking the law by simply
following the pack is a little strange.

Ian


-- 
Ian Hill
ian at cellar.org.uk