The Underscore Archives

On 16/07/07, Mike Prudence <mjp at filmsat59.com> wrote:
> >>> But there's nothing _quite_ like getting indignant about stuff, is
> >>> there?

When I said the above, I meant that the facts (there will be a Mac
version eventually) were not quite as exciting as ignoring them for
"it's a conspiracy by Microsoft".

> I agree, but I've also been explaining to people that this might be the last
> time we get to have this discussion in the UK - and I humbly submit that the
> BBC is the organisation most likely in the world to be able to Do The Sensible
> Thing as far as us, the consumers, are concerned.
>
> For me, this is as much about DRM restrictions and removal of 'fair use'
> rights as it is about platform exclusivity.  It's not about whether you can
> get this media to work on your Mac or PC... those are both 'commercial'
> platforms that have 'secret source code' that can be used to 'enforce' via
> 'contracts' the legal force of the DRM.

As Linux users are SOL, possibly forever, I would have to agree. It's
not the first time I've said something flippant quickly, then gone on
to eat my words ;)

> What it is about is stopping me (or some more clever folks) being able to view
> this content on a device they have total control over - including some
> mega-widget that we can't even imagine yet.

As I mentioned in the "secure podcasts" thread last week, many in the
open data, OSs & formats crowd have possibly not helped themselves
because of their complete opposition to DRM. Thus, they don't get a
non-evil open-source DRM (if such a thing could even exist) because
they don't think it's a worthy aim.

>From the BBC's pov, though, DRM is a requirement, not because they
hate freedom, but because they're not the rights holders for much of
the stuff they broadcast, and those rights holders have IP to protect.
BBC Worldwide also makes a lot of money selling shows to other
broadcasters, and on DVD to consumers; this reduces the amount of
money we need to pay in the form of the licence fee.

I know the mice will always find the cheese, but the suits at the
various TV production companies won't easily be convinced to remove
DRM from their output. I also know EMI have embraced clue wrt music,
but TV (I gather) is a different beast.

> Yes, I agree, you can currently say that 'most people use PCs' and 'most of
> the rest use Macs' - and this would be a bit of a moot point if it weren't for
> that fact that an increasing number of people are using other 'open' platforms
> they have control over because they are cheaper/better/faster than the
> commercial offerings.
>
> I'll be the first to admit that I've got a bit of a bug up my ass regarding
> open standards in digital media, as I work in that bit of the industry that
> spends all of it's time inefficiently working around the fact that the
> manufacturers actively don't support open standards as it suits their business
> models to 'lock us in'.  To see the nail on that coffin finally driven in on
> BBC content for consumers?  Frankly, I find it just mind boggling.

What else could they do? It's like when iTunes was launched. At the
time, there was no way that the record industry would have got on
board without DRM in place. Now, EMI at least has seen the light.
Perhaps this will happen with BBC content, but because you're not
buying TV shows like you buy music, probably not.

Just found this on The Register:
"BBC Trust to hear open sourcers' iPlayer gripes"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/12/bbc_osc_meeting/

> Finally, having been forced to buy a laptop with Vista pre-installed recently,
>  I'm not at all happy if the same people are also going to be in control of
> the software that I use to view BBC content 5 years from now.

Forced? Was it gun- or knife-point that prevented you from buying a
Macbook / Pro? :D

Tim