[Wylug-discuss] Re: Windows-only distribution of BBC Programs

[Mark P. Conmy]

A lot of what I was going to say has been made redundant by Smylers'
reply (which I wholeheartedly agree with).

I would love to see a business model develop (as it already has done in
many sectors of the software market) where content providers didn't rely
on Copyright and controlling distribution as tightly as possible, but
the reality is that (while they might not put it quite this way) the
whole TV and movie game is based on making it hard* enough to obtain
that there is a high turnover from legitimate copies (broadcasts, DVD
sales, sponsorship and so on) from which a percentage profit exists and
is of value.  Sadly, making it easy to develop acompletely Free solution
(and we know one will be made eventually anyway) makes it easy to make
DRM-free copies which erases the value.  A perfect copy of the latest
movie available for <5UKP in every pub and free on every P-to-P network
doesn't create a great DVD/HDDVD/Blu-Ray market. ;-)

*  This used to be simple because non-legitimate copies were hard and/or
    expensive to obtain.

Now, they have three choices:

    - Rely on legislative restrictions and hope people honour it;
    - Make it hard technologically* so that most take the easier legal
      routes;
    - Give up on high-cost production because you can't recover costs let
      alone make a profit.

*  We know technological restrictions will be by-passed, but make the
    game hard and/or tedious enough and enough will be using legitimate
    channels that the illegal percentage is ignorable.

We know the first option won't work.  It's not that I agree with the
RIAA or MPAA (particularly when they assume each illegal copy represents
a lost sale), but there is enough evidence already that most people have
a fairly laissez faire attitude when it comes to copyright infringement.

The last option isn't (I would argue) palatable to the general public
(they would lose a lot of content) or to the content providers (they
would lose an industry, pretty much).

The second is the option they have pretty much chosen.

(There _is_ a fourth option where the studios find this new business
  model, but they haven't found one yet).

Do I like it?  No, but I'd rather work around it than face the world of
the 70s where you saw a film on the odd occasion it was on TV or when a
studio deigned to put it on general release.

And that's where the BBC sits.  You can bet your life that the content
providers are not giving the copyrights that the BBC naturally has on
its own content.  That means they don't have the _right_ to broadcast it
as and when they like.  As Smylers says, the likes of HBO are now
mandating certain DRM or other restrictions if you want the content.

Don't believe me?  Watch their news broadcasts online when there are
juicy stories in the news.  The best bits are blanked.  The
third-parties have licensed their material for terrestrial broadcast and
other limited platforms, but not to be played around the world to
an unlimited audience.

Of course, I'm sure they'd give the BBC the additional rights...for the
additional cost.  Can the BBC afford to buy the right to openly
distribute the content as opposed to these schemes that will deter most
copying?  Shall I put it another way, who wants a 500 UKP, 1000 UKP TV
license?  The discussion so far makes it sound as though there is no
cost or legal impediment to the BBC doing as it wishes.  I will bet
anything that's not the case.

To pick up on some points, though:


On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Gareth Eason wrote:
>
> 	The BBC use a DRM model, which is not available to license payers who 
> want to legally use the valid content on a non-Windows system. To make it 
> absolutely clear, these are license payers, who are legally entitled to watch 
> the BBC material, who own a legal copy of Linux (or Mac OS X, or BSD, or in 
> fact some versions of Windows) and who wish to view this content.

I'm not sure where the "legally entitled" comes from.  The rights (to
BBC or any other copyrighted content) are whatever the rights holders
license them as.  If we want the BBC charter to limit it to only using
material they can give away, I think you're probably looking at a much
more expensive licence or a much more limited programme selection and/or
cheaper production costs.

This legal framework that allows content providers to impose these
restrictions is the bedrock of the GPL, however; just as one can say
"You can only use this software if you observe the rules of the GPL",
HBO can say "you can watch this as broadcast or via a Windows,
DRM-encumbered player".  That's copyright law.

(Personally, I think copyright has too much power and is for too long a
  period, but that's another matter).

And in case anyone raises "fair use", don't go there.  The UK has no
fair-use provision in law.  Even time-shifting isn't legally protected
(AIUI, IANAL).  Sure, no-one will go to the trouble of suing
individuals, particularly for personal use, but that doesn't make it
legal or a right.

Does it stink?  Sure.

> 	The article claims that they will be catered for because they may be 
> tech-savvy enough to obtain a DRM-free version of the content.  ( c.f. "Of 
> course the DRM won't stop piracy, or stop the computer-savvy ripping Windows 
> Media streams into their preferred Ogg Vorbis format, or stop people using 
> UKNova, but it tends to make the expected level of piracy tolerable for the 
> people investing in television production." )

True - they'll turn a blind eye...where it's for personal use and
doesn't publically interfere with their main business.

> 	It's an admission of failure before we even start. The article admits 
> that DRM will not stop piracy, but yet it makes it illegal for a subset of 
> the consuming population (in some way, IANAL and I realise the DMCA does not 
> apply to the UK - but other anti-DRM laws most likely do and/or *will*!) to 
> use otherwise legal content.

I'm still not clear what is meant by "...otherwise legal content...".
The DRM is there to make it tricky to use content in ways not covered
by the copyright.  If it gets subverted (just because it _can_ be
played) doesn't make the use legal.  The DRM doesn't make anything
illegal, merely more difficult.  The illegality comes from actions which
breach the copyright, which would be just as illegal if there were no
DRM...but (as I argue above) so many would do it anyway it might as well
not be.

Hence the DRM.

> 	Thus, the British public has a choice: they can either not avail of 
> the service, or - for an already proven pointless reason - they can ensure 
> legality only through purchasing and running a copy of Microsoft Windows.

Correct.  The correct answer (as with MS Windows) is to boycott it
and/or replace it.  Ignoring the copyright isn't the answer.

(Changing copyright law - if it can be done - might help).

> 	I'm no longer resident in the UK, and so am no longer a license 
> payer. I was though, for many years, and am acutely aware that places like 
> Ireland (where I now live) look to institutions such as the BBC to see what 
> so called 'Best Practice' look like.
>
> 	Please, make every effort to educate the BBC that their methods of 
> applying DRM are fundamentally flawed, and that they are running the real 
> risk of criminalising innocent people.

This simply isn't true.  It's like saying that speed cameras criminalise
drivers (which I've heard far too often).  Driving faster than the speed
limit criminalises drivers, the cameras simply record the crime.

(We could argue about the stupidity of some of the placements and/or
speed limits, but that's not the point).

> 	By the same token, please stop accepting the flawed assertions and 
> justifications for the DRM model detailed in this article. They are simply 
> wrong, given the current litigious attitude of the world in which we live.
>
> 	I shall dismount my soap box now, in the hope that perhaps content 
> producers and providers will learn that a DRM model which criminalises a 
> chunk of your audience is not the way forward :-)

For the reasons I gave at the top, I believe that we live (for now) with
DRM and accept that systems like Linux will have to work around it
rather than be directly supported or we (as Smylers says) demand that
since we can't have a sweetie, no-one should be allowed one either.
Until a different model occurs (and I can't think of one, sadly), I
think that's the menu on the table.

Which would you prefer?

IANAL and IMHO.

Mark