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

[Steve Hill]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Ian Hill wrote:

> 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.

Would you care to explain how you would construct an open DRM system, 
given that with access to the source code you could modify it to do 
whatever you want with the clear-text stream.

> 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

You can use the fingerprint to tie a copy to the original download.  For 
the original download you know the IP address - you must get a court order 
and have the ISP link the IP address with the ISP's subscriber.  ISPs make 
mistakes (as the RIAA has found).  Also, even if you correctly identify 
the subscriber you cannot prove that the subscriber is the person who 
infringed the copyright - maybe it was someone else using the subscriber's 
computer, or a piece of malware.

Even if you require the user to enter credentials before starting the 
download and record those, how do you know the credentials are legitimate 
- they could be stolen.  And even with legitimate credentials, you _still_ 
can't prove that ther person who downloaded the file was the infringer. 
They only downloaded it and stored it on their computer (which is allowed) 
- another person, or a piece of malware could then redistribute that file.

> 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

The TV licence does not give you the right to receive the content - the TV 
licence gives you the right to receive broadcast TV (and is required for 
*any* broadcast TV, even if you don't watch the BBC).  Your right to 
receive the content comes from the fact that the BBC have negotiated 
rights to broadcast it to the general public.

Just as you have the right to receive any content over the public radio 
channels - it is up to the broadcaster to negotiate the rights to 
broadcast to the general public.

In the same way, if you receive content over the web, _you_ do not 
inherently have to agree to a licence - you are entitled to receive that 
content and it is up to the content publisher to make sure they are 
licenced to send it to you.  (Of course, the content publisher can require 
you to agree to an EULA before they start to deliver the content by 
placing a technical restriction on the delivery system.  The enforcability 
of EULAs is questionable, but there's nothing stopping them doing it).

Now, just because you didn't agree to a licence before receiving content 
(no matter what technology was used to get the content to you - FM radio, 
DVB, CD, DVD, IP, etc), doesn't mean that you have the right to do 
whatever you want with the content - you are still bound by copyright and 
no licence agreement is required for this.

> 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.)

The TV licensing authority have gone on record stating that a TV licence 
is required if you are watching content delivered at (more or less) the 
same time as a broadcast over traditional means.  Content that is 
delivered purely over IP or is significantly time-shifted does not require 
a licence.

As much as the TV licensing authority would _like_ to charge a TV licence 
to everyone watching YouTube and have been pressuring the government to 
allow them to charge any computer owners, this is not currently the case.

-- 

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

      Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence