8 ms·

BBC Attacks the Open Web, GNU/Linux in Danger

223 points by kurtable 14y ago

jiggy2011 14y ago
Surely even with baked in support at the operating system level such a thing would be trivial to bypass? Simply run a DRM compatible OS in a virtual machine, capture the video output from the VM in the host machine and encode that?
- praptak 14y ago
  There are already solutions for full stack DRM. The player would output video stream only decryptable by licensed display devices. ( Which you could hack or just film the output with a camera)
- L0j1k 14y ago
  Hence the rider about ensuring their ability to sue the people bypassing their DRM.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    Good luck suing a nameless ip in Russia.
jpalomaki 14y ago
So far it looks like the rights owners have chosen not to support standards if the standards lack support for DRM functionality they feel are necessary for protecting the content. Instead of HTML5 video we are still seeing Silverlight, Flash and similar solutions.
- theallan 14y ago
  This - I wish I could up vote multiple times. Fundamentally, distributors want to be able to use DRM to protect their content. If open standards won't provide a way to do that, there is no surprise that they turn to Silverlight etc.
  - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
    What's the issue, then? They still find a way to distribute their content but Web Standards aren't tainted. Seems like things are working as they should.
    - takluyver 14y ago
      The issue is that I need a proprietary plug-in with frequent security problems (Flash) to watch the videos. It would be better if they could deliver their content through a standardised protocol with more secure clients. On the whole, that benefit isn't worth the downsides of adding DRM provisions to an open standard. And of course, I'd prefer they could do without DRM at all, but that still seems like a pipe dream.
      - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        >I'd love a youtube where I could pay a monthly subscription instead of watching annoying ads. If DRM gave me that option it'd be great. The pipe dream is working DRM. DRM is inherently a failure. Anything we can do to make it less convenient or harder to use will only convince more content providers not to use it -- especially when the inconveniences cause more normal users to complain, which can only be a good thing. Or to put it another way, why are you advocating polishing a turd so that it appears less objectionable and can be more common? It needs to be less common. Hollywood is not omnipotent. They are capable of being convinced to change their ways. Witness music DRM. Witness the broadcast flag, which was defeated but HD content continues to be distributed without it. This "we won't distribute content without DRM" is just bloviating from pompous industry executives who hope you won't call their bluff. They need to be called on it far more often.
    - jpalomaki 14y ago
      Problem is that those vendors offering the proprietary solutions may not have interest in offering their solution for all platforms. Let's take Flash as an example. I remember days from the past when I was happily watching MythTV recordings from my Nokia Internet Tablet. The tablet had no problems playing the content, since I was able to use software optimized for the tablet. Using the same hardware to watch some Flash content was painful. Flash implementation was not nearly as good as the video player that was able to utilize the platforms hardware capabilities. Open standards make it possible for companies like Nokia, Blackberry and Canonical to implement the video players themselves. They don't need to rely on Microsoft or Adobe to provide support for their platforms.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  Yes and look at how well that works -- most things are on filesharing networks long before they are on netflix (which has DRM). Really though, they add DRM to an open standard and we break it open like the old rusty lock that it is.
nnq 14y ago
> the BBC is a public service broadcaster primarily funded by the licence fee paid by UK households So DRM-ing BBC programmes would be very much alike, uhm... publishing publicly funded research in journals that require paid subscriptions? ...ain't that cute
- blowski 14y ago
  UK citizens pay for a TV license which gives them access to BBC broadcasts - through IPlayer, freeview TV, radio, and websites. The BBC is also able to sell DVDs of their programs in the UK, and internationally (through BBC World). In theory, DRM would prevent people selling bootlegged copies that would severely impact this revenue stream.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    > UK citizens pay for a TV license which gives them access to BBC broadcasts More correctly, UK citizens pay for a TV licence which gives them access to any tv broadcast. TV and broadcast are defined in law, but it's pretty much anything broadcast live over any medium. Thus, people living in the south of England who use a satellite dish to receive French telly (and nothing else) will need to pay a licence fee. Weirdly, I use the BBC a lot (all day radio, Video on demand) and don't need to pay the licence.
- oneandoneis2 14y ago
  Not exactly, because it'd be against their own rules - the BBC is actually forbidden to encrypt its broadcasts. That's why their DVDs were always region 0 and bereft of copy-protection. Things get a little more murky where we're talking about "downloads" as opposed to "broadcasts" - both the BBC and theit regulator, Ofcom, have confirmed on numerous occasions that it's mandatory that the BBC's "public service content remains free to air i.e. unencrypted." ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm ) but they've been allowed to place limits on downloaded content such as iPlayer not letting you store content forever. I suspect this is less about "BBC wants DRM" and more about "BBC is under massive pressure to use DRM" Either way, I was disappointed when I first saw their submission to W3C talking about their support for DRM'd media - I've always been gratified by the way the BBC was the only big media corp. out there that wasn't chasing the dream of total control over its content. If they're making a U-turn on that I'll have to rethink my policy on paying the license fee. (Before anyone steps up with the "it's mandatory" - it isn't if you don't own & use a TV, and I'd feel no sorrow at all about getting rid of my TV)
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
Is it just me or is the copyright debate the wrong problem to be working on ? Around the world we have people trying to speak freely about matters of justice, life and death, and they are being arrested, shot, mortared and harassed. TOR and similar are steps in the right direction, but mobile hardware is still clearly identifiable and root is getting taken from people and given to the network operators. Solve the problems of those who cannot speak freely, give them tools and anonymity and innovation around freedom once more and we shall see the problems of copyright solved in new ways. Solve for X.
- rwmj 14y ago
  With 6 billion people in the world, it is possible to solve more than one problem at once.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  These problems are sort of related. If you build technology to allow people to communicate anonymously then most likely that technology can also be used for piracy. So enforcement of systems that are less anonymous and offer less overall control to the end user can be justified under the grounds of protecting intellectual property rights. If you can reform IP law in some way then perhaps you can remove roadblocks towards the adoption of systems which are more open, more secure etc.
anoncow 14y ago
Shame on you BBC. Technology cannot prevent IP theft. You can outlaw it and hope fear will stop people from sharing. Or else you can find better ways to monetize your IP. BBC should be working on putting that license money to better use. Our greed knows no bounds. People with money and power have the means to act on their greed. Left in their hands, the internet will become as useful as the tv is today. Anything that is not certified by the moneybags will become illegal. Shame on you bbc for taking money from the same people whom you intend to screw.
- timc3 14y ago
  Why? They have a right to do whatever they like with their content In accordance with the rules laid down to them. If it means that I in Sweden can pay and watch BBC content then where is the shame in that.
  - anoncow 14y ago
    as a corporation running on public money, i expect the bbc to keep public interest in mind. Drm only hinders the paying public. I will have to pay for a windows license if i intend to view content i have already paid for, so that bbc can keep their illegitimate masters happy. As for others, they are free to use proprietary software to deliver their content. I just want them to stay away from buying out the somewhat open internet that we have today. for people who believe that if only open source could reliably protect IP - almost nothing can protect content which is meant to be consumed. Only law can and that is where we are headed.
- FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
  This isn't the BBC screwing people over. This is likely a constraint introduced by licensing American (or foreign) exports for broadcast over here. If the licensors want DRM as part of the agreement, then there's not much choice left for the BBC unless they want to reduce the diversity of their content.
  - drucken 14y ago
    That is not true, since there is a significant commercial part of the BBC and since the parts of the DRM submissions quoted referenced reasons of control over BBC identity (mixing streams etc.). But lets say for the sake of argument it is true, then there would be no need for the BBC to actively campaign on a part of a standard that they themselves would not/could not have elected to use and would only be imposed on them by others.
CJefferson 14y ago
I felt this was a fairly poor article. One of the most telling (for me) quotes was: "Dedicating itself to sharing knowledge and creativity - not just in the UK, but everywhere in the world - is an important and worthy cause, and I will happily pay my (compulsory) £145.50 each year to support the BBC in this." This, I feel, misses the entire point of DRM. It is the belief of the BBC that adding DRM makes them money, by making it easier for them to sell their content, both as DVDs and overseas. I don't believe the BBC would put DRM on their content purely for the fun of irritating people. So, the question isn't "would you pay your £145.50". The question is, how much more would you pay? Taking some very vague numbers, there are just under 25 million TV licenses, and BBC international made £160 million profit last year on a turnover of £1bn. I'm not sure how much of that turnover is "value for the BBC" (are they paying to make TV programs?), but this means I can badly handwave that removing DRM might cost between around £7 to £40. Would most people in the UK accept an increase in their licence fee of £7 in return for DRM free, and allowing everyone around the world to get free access to BBC programs? I suspect, unfortunately, the answer is no. (Sorry if this is a bit simplistic, a true "the money of DRM" would be interesting, if contraversal. But, I feel this article really is ignoring the real most important issue, the money).
- rwmj 14y ago
  As a license payer (who doesn't even own a TV), yes. However I do understand that many would say no. Also the license fee is a pretty regressive tax[1]. I can easily afford it, but many people living in the council estate near by likely have some trouble paying it, and rich pensioners living in the posh bit of the village in their £1m houses get it for free. [1] Yes, I know it's not strictly speaking a "tax".
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >this means I can badly handwave that removing DRM might cost between around £7 to £40. How do you come to the conclusion that it would cost the BBC anything to remove DRM? If anything it would save them any money they currently spend implementing it and hopelessly attempting to secure it. The "cost" of not having DRM, if any, is that some content distributors may refuse to license to them without it. The article itself points out that this has demonstrably not occurred in the past, but even if it did, why is that a cost to the television licensee? The money not paid to license that content is still available to license some other content from someone not so irrational on the point of DRM, or to fund new original BBC programming, or (if you're more worried about the cost to the public than providing more content) to use to reduce the price of a television license. Let me say that again: It costs nothing to remove DRM and it costs something to implement it. It is costing the British television licensee money that could be used to create original programming to instead be used to restrict what they can do with their own devices. Why are they doing this again?
TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
Why add DRM? It is consistently bypassed. The BBC only needs it for iPlayer, but DRM there is pointless since everything on iPlayer was broadcast prior on unprotected terrestial TV. Just use HTTPS, check referrers, prevent iframing and require passing a one-use token, locked to IP address, embedded in the page. That won't protect you from people stealing the content, sure. But at least it prevents bandwidth-stealing.
- DanBC 14y ago
  > Why add DRM? The only reason: The people selling content to the BBC require that the BBC has DRM measures in place.
  - anoncow 14y ago
    if bbc is a big enough customer for such content ( and i believe the bbc is), it can dictate terms when buying such content. If it is not doing so, we can only assume corruption and collusion as reasons.
    - seabee 14y ago
      Is the BBC big enough to fend off ITV, C5 or Sky who don't have to worry about such issues? Remember Occam's Razor before jumping to conclusions about corruption...
      - anoncow 14y ago
        you are right. Assuming corruption is unnecessary here, as business interests fairly explain their behaviour.
  - voyou 14y ago
    :The people selling content to the BBC Blaming "the people selling content to the BBC" ignores the fact that the BBC is itself a content producer which, through BBC Worldwide, makes money from that content. Media companies want to restrict the availability of their products, and sadly the BBC management is acting no different from other companies in that respect.
DanBC 14y ago
The BBC makes a lot of content available for free. (The licence fee is payable whether you watch BBC tv or not). The BBC doesn't produce all the content they show. Rights owners have considerable control over what happens to the content. Thus, many BBC radio programmes are downloadable as MP3 and can be kept forever. An excellent programme In Our Time[1] has made their entire back catalogue available, but a programme that has music (Desert Island Discs, or any live concerts on BBC Radio 1) will have much more restricted download conditions. iPlayer (hateful stupid ridiculous name) really is amazing. The BBC led OnDemand viewing in the UK. And what we've got now is very very much better than the RealAudio kludge we had years ago. So, really, the target here should be stupid rights holders who don't understand the benefits to greater viewership. They need to come up with some other way of paying people who create content. The BBC is (at least, I hope they are) collecting a lot of data about how often programmes get watched or downloaded over their various online services; so maybe payment could be linked to download amounts somehow. Paying content creators in a better way would also help "archive" services like BBC Radio FourExtra, which suffers from heavy rolling repeats.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  It's payable if you watch any TV "as it is broadcast" so that means watching via a cable/satellite/freeview or watching stuff that is being streamed on iplayer the same time as on TV. Weirdly though you don't need one to watch iplayer "catch up" content which is usually available about an hour after the initial showing. So if you watch a lot of iplayer catch up you don't have to pay, but if you consume no BBC content and just use your TV to watch Sky1 or whatever then you do have to pay.
  - stuartmemo 14y ago
    Incorrect. You need a license to watch the BBC online. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/ http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/
    - hahainternet 14y ago
      The very first paragraph on your link: > You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder. You just confirmed he was right.
znowi 14y ago
It's funny how all the rage is descending upon BBC while the 3 other companies that back up the DRM proposal (Google, Microsoft and Netflix) entice zero attention.
- dcminter 14y ago
  The obvious difference is that those companies are not funded out of a regressive tax (technically a license but nobody's fooled by that).
- onemorepassword 14y ago
  The other companies are not publicly funded organisations. The BBC is supposed to be acting in the public interests. Besides, everybody already knows which side of the fence Google and Microsoft are on, both in terms of self-interest and semi-political ideology.
- Create 14y ago
  http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt
- azakai 14y ago
  Yup, I came here to post that. Can we put pressure on Google, Microsoft and Netflix to not promote this? That makes more sense than targeting the BBC, which is just in one country anyhow. Our targets should be the multinationals, Google and Microsoft.
acabal 14y ago
I find it very surprising that the organization supposedly promoting the open "web for all" is even considering baking in DRM handcuffs. It seems so short-sighted. Copyright is just a bunch of laws this society agrees on today. The web is not about today's laws, social mores, or profit motives, but of connectivity, sharing, and freedom of information and expression. When I see things like this even being considered, I sometimes think that we don't deserve such freedom. If we're going to start DRM'ing media, why not just DRM the entire web page and be done with it? Why send HTML over the wire at all when we can send an encrypted blob? That'd be the ideal world for the media companies--total end-to-end secrecy, with users just being warm bodies with credit cards. BBC, Netflix, MS, and--of all companies--Google should be ashamed to be involved in this.
- anoncow 14y ago
  profit and social responsibility don't go together. Google has every reason to be interested in a locked-down web. That way it could be sure of all the revenue that youtube movie premieres would bring. Sadly, a more responsible way of doing the same thing will not be as profitable.
  - acabal 14y ago
    I totally agree. But w3c should be standing up for the open web, not the profit motives of its sponsors. If they're going to start transparently considering whatever restrictive practices their sponsors demand, then they become nothing more than an industry interest group versus what they ostensibly are now, which is a group that's at least partially community-driven.
    - justincormack 14y ago
      The W3C has always alas been sponsor led, and is a poor organisation, and not what the web should have.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      W3C is an industry consortium of for profit companies. It is not some utopian political organization.
rimantas 14y ago
So, how exactly BBC attacks the whole open web? Do they demand, that all web content should be DRMed? How did it become so, that wanting some feature means you are attacking all those who don't want and don't need that feature? Say HTML5 gets DRM. So what? What exactly forbids you not to use it? The web is open because there are people wanting to give away content for free, not because there is no DRM tech built-in in HTML. You cannot force openness for those unwilling. If some company thinks it needs DRM, let it have it. If they think it is essential and web does not provide it they just won't use web tech and will have some proprietary plugins for that. How exactly GNU/Linux is in danger there? They don't like it, they don't implement it. End of story. Seriously, people, calm down. I am being sick from all that hysterics about attack on web (just because somebody chose to develop a native app, shock and horror), walled gardens, etc.
- onemorepassword 14y ago
  HTML itself is a fundamentally open standard on which the entire op web is built. Adding DRM to that ends that. Period. No hysterics. The attempt to add DRM to HTML is a full frontal attack on the open web. This is not subject to interpretation or nuance, that is equivalent to being "a little bit pregnant".
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    It does not necessarily stop the web being an open standard in that sense. An open standard is really just a way of saying "if you want to do X in a way that is compatible with Y then your implementation must follow these rules and these rules are published in such a way that any person will be equally able to produce an implementation". You can propose an open standard for DRM that everyone is free to implement or not. If you want to have a DRM free browsing experience you can simply use a browser that implements every part of the standard apart from the DRM part. The only thing that changes is that stuff that is built to require the DRM component will not work. It would be just like disabling <canvas> support in your browser or something like that.
    - michaelt 14y ago
shadowmint 14y ago
How could they possibly prevent a custom no-DRM fork of a browser? Seems like a waste of time to me; it'll be about as effective as having a 'no download' flag on images.
- ferongr 14y ago
  The currentl proposal [1] mandates content decryption modules that are not part of the browser but rather plugins akin to current NPAPI ones (Flash etc). Those will most likely be platform-specific binaries. That makes operating systems like GNU/Linux or BSD-likes unable to decrypt content depending without the correct CDM. [1] 1https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med... More reading https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944 http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/02/unethical-html-video-copy-protection-proposal-criticized-by-standards-stakeholders/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/02/unethical-html-video...
jfaucett 14y ago
If google is behind this as the article states, it just shows their hypocrasy behind their mantra of "supporting the open web". Given that companies with w3c leverage are behind this proposal does anyone think it will get through? Personally, I can't imagine anything worse for the future of the web than DRM. It would be like forcibly going to back to a dark ages that never existed for the web medium.
mdeslaur 14y ago
I'm sorry, but I don't see how "GNU/Linux in Danger". This is actually _good_ for Linux, as adding DRM to HTML will alleviate the need to use closed-source technologies like Flash and Silverlight to stream DRMed content. Getting rid of closed-source Flash and Silverlight is a _good_ thing.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  What is it that you imagine they'll be replaced with? There has to be a binary blob somewhere whose purpose is to attempt to make the decryption and display process opaque. That's what DRM is. I'm not sure what it matters whether you call it Flash or something else.
rayiner 14y ago
What kind of crappy article leads with a false dichotomy. DRM isn't any different than a paywall. It doesn't make the internet suddenly not open to allow sites to protect video content and for users to choose to view that content or not.
static_typed 14y ago
I can't believe how many apology-niks are on here trotting out the old merde about how we need DRM, and won't somebody please think of the rights-holders. Here in the UK we pay the TV license fee. Now, granted most of the output it funds is utter crap, but hey, we paid for it. There should be no reason for DRM to be applied at all, but especially not if delivered via the web. If the standards wonks permit this, we really need to fork the standards, and avoid this. If the open web does not support your intended business model then go away and change the model.
- andrewflnr 14y ago
  The conversation has spread beyond the UK. I would even hazard a guess that a majority of HNers are in the US, where there is no such fee and most content producers are on their own.
andylei 14y ago
This article (especially the headline) is honestly a joke. The BBC wants encrypted media extensions in HTML5. That's DRM for stuff like video. The logical leap to GNU/Linux collapsing is astoundingly ridiculous.
- cmsj 14y ago
  Boing Boing generally is ridiculous because Cory Doctorow ;)
  - pjscott 14y ago
    This is an article in Computerworld UK by Glyn Moody. How are Boing Boing or Cory Doctorow relevant?
ekpyrotic 14y ago
Attack articles will not change the views of those working in the BBC's policy department. If you/we believe there are societal/economic benefits to the open web, they must be argued persuasively and clearly. Too many digital commentators and bloggers do not engage with these issues in any productive way. Attack articles do not reform political procedures, substantive policy suggestions do. The BBC quite obviously, and validly, worries that open use of its content will put it at a competitive disadvantage. They can foresee International producers withdrawing content from its platforms if its distribution channels are not duly protected. That does not seem like an unfair concern. There might be space to argue that the BBC is being short-sighted. That is to say, that while we understand its concerns on this issue, the introduction of DRM will negatively affects its longer term success. That is to say, the success of the BBC has been prefaced on the wide distribution of its original content around the world. In fact, it wouldn't be too strong to say the BBC's reputation rests on the free, worldwide distribution of its news programming -- today this has been inherited by its news website. We might press the concern that locking all of its content behind DRM technology will harm the wide distribution of its content, hurting awareness of its international brand. We ask the BBC to consider the following example: fears of recording radio programming have existed since the early 20th Century. If the BBC, cracked down on its distribution in response to those issues in the 50s-, we believe the BBC wouldn't be the worldwide powerhouse it is now. Locking up its content is not in the long term interests of the BBC brand, esp. as the developing world -- China, Brazil, Russia -- start looking online for reliable programming. Therefore, we call on the BBC to initiate a review into the implications of its policy decision, and its effect on international brand awareness. This isn't my argument, but at least it understands, appreciates, and responds to their economic concerns.
- Strshps1MoreTim 14y ago
  The guys who control BBC are not employes of policy or any other BBC department. The old boy networks in UK currently see the open Internet as extremely dangerous and will do almost anything to monitor/limit/regulate/restrict it.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
scaphandre 14y ago
UK readers: You might want to register your opposition with the BBC here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/ Takes less than 3 min.

223 points by kurtable 14y ago

jiggy2011 14y ago

Surely even with baked in support at the operating system level such a thing would be trivial to bypass? Simply run a DRM compatible OS in a virtual machine, capture the video output from the VM in the host machine and encode that?

praptak 14y ago
There are already solutions for full stack DRM. The player would output video stream only decryptable by licensed display devices. ( Which you could hack or just film the output with a camera)
L0j1k 14y ago
Hence the rider about ensuring their ability to sue the people bypassing their DRM.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  Good luck suing a nameless ip in Russia.

jpalomaki 14y ago

So far it looks like the rights owners have chosen not to support standards if the standards lack support for DRM functionality they feel are necessary for protecting the content. Instead of HTML5 video we are still seeing Silverlight, Flash and similar solutions.

theallan 14y ago
This - I wish I could up vote multiple times. Fundamentally, distributors want to be able to use DRM to protect their content. If open standards won't provide a way to do that, there is no surprise that they turn to Silverlight etc.
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  What's the issue, then? They still find a way to distribute their content but Web Standards aren't tainted. Seems like things are working as they should.
  - takluyver 14y ago
    The issue is that I need a proprietary plug-in with frequent security problems (Flash) to watch the videos. It would be better if they could deliver their content through a standardised protocol with more secure clients. On the whole, that benefit isn't worth the downsides of adding DRM provisions to an open standard. And of course, I'd prefer they could do without DRM at all, but that still seems like a pipe dream.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      >I'd love a youtube where I could pay a monthly subscription instead of watching annoying ads. If DRM gave me that option it'd be great. The pipe dream is working DRM. DRM is inherently a failure. Anything we can do to make it less convenient or harder to use will only convince more content providers not to use it -- especially when the inconveniences cause more normal users to complain, which can only be a good thing. Or to put it another way, why are you advocating polishing a turd so that it appears less objectionable and can be more common? It needs to be less common. Hollywood is not omnipotent. They are capable of being convinced to change their ways. Witness music DRM. Witness the broadcast flag, which was defeated but HD content continues to be distributed without it. This "we won't distribute content without DRM" is just bloviating from pompous industry executives who hope you won't call their bluff. They need to be called on it far more often.
  - jpalomaki 14y ago
    Problem is that those vendors offering the proprietary solutions may not have interest in offering their solution for all platforms. Let's take Flash as an example. I remember days from the past when I was happily watching MythTV recordings from my Nokia Internet Tablet. The tablet had no problems playing the content, since I was able to use software optimized for the tablet. Using the same hardware to watch some Flash content was painful. Flash implementation was not nearly as good as the video player that was able to utilize the platforms hardware capabilities. Open standards make it possible for companies like Nokia, Blackberry and Canonical to implement the video players themselves. They don't need to rely on Microsoft or Adobe to provide support for their platforms.
tomjen3 14y ago
Yes and look at how well that works -- most things are on filesharing networks long before they are on netflix (which has DRM). Really though, they add DRM to an open standard and we break it open like the old rusty lock that it is.

nnq 14y ago

> the BBC is a public service broadcaster primarily funded by the licence fee paid by UK households So DRM-ing BBC programmes would be very much alike, uhm... publishing publicly funded research in journals that require paid subscriptions? ...ain't that cute

blowski 14y ago
UK citizens pay for a TV license which gives them access to BBC broadcasts - through IPlayer, freeview TV, radio, and websites. The BBC is also able to sell DVDs of their programs in the UK, and internationally (through BBC World). In theory, DRM would prevent people selling bootlegged copies that would severely impact this revenue stream.
- DanBC 14y ago
  > UK citizens pay for a TV license which gives them access to BBC broadcasts More correctly, UK citizens pay for a TV licence which gives them access to any tv broadcast. TV and broadcast are defined in law, but it's pretty much anything broadcast live over any medium. Thus, people living in the south of England who use a satellite dish to receive French telly (and nothing else) will need to pay a licence fee. Weirdly, I use the BBC a lot (all day radio, Video on demand) and don't need to pay the licence.
oneandoneis2 14y ago
Not exactly, because it'd be against their own rules - the BBC is actually forbidden to encrypt its broadcasts. That's why their DVDs were always region 0 and bereft of copy-protection. Things get a little more murky where we're talking about "downloads" as opposed to "broadcasts" - both the BBC and theit regulator, Ofcom, have confirmed on numerous occasions that it's mandatory that the BBC's "public service content remains free to air i.e. unencrypted." ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm ) but they've been allowed to place limits on downloaded content such as iPlayer not letting you store content forever. I suspect this is less about "BBC wants DRM" and more about "BBC is under massive pressure to use DRM" Either way, I was disappointed when I first saw their submission to W3C talking about their support for DRM'd media - I've always been gratified by the way the BBC was the only big media corp. out there that wasn't chasing the dream of total control over its content. If they're making a U-turn on that I'll have to rethink my policy on paying the license fee. (Before anyone steps up with the "it's mandatory" - it isn't if you don't own & use a TV, and I'd feel no sorrow at all about getting rid of my TV)

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

Is it just me or is the copyright debate the wrong problem to be working on ? Around the world we have people trying to speak freely about matters of justice, life and death, and they are being arrested, shot, mortared and harassed. TOR and similar are steps in the right direction, but mobile hardware is still clearly identifiable and root is getting taken from people and given to the network operators. Solve the problems of those who cannot speak freely, give them tools and anonymity and innovation around freedom once more and we shall see the problems of copyright solved in new ways. Solve for X.

rwmj 14y ago
With 6 billion people in the world, it is possible to solve more than one problem at once.
jiggy2011 14y ago
These problems are sort of related. If you build technology to allow people to communicate anonymously then most likely that technology can also be used for piracy. So enforcement of systems that are less anonymous and offer less overall control to the end user can be justified under the grounds of protecting intellectual property rights. If you can reform IP law in some way then perhaps you can remove roadblocks towards the adoption of systems which are more open, more secure etc.

anoncow 14y ago

Shame on you BBC. Technology cannot prevent IP theft. You can outlaw it and hope fear will stop people from sharing. Or else you can find better ways to monetize your IP. BBC should be working on putting that license money to better use. Our greed knows no bounds. People with money and power have the means to act on their greed. Left in their hands, the internet will become as useful as the tv is today. Anything that is not certified by the moneybags will become illegal. Shame on you bbc for taking money from the same people whom you intend to screw.

timc3 14y ago
Why? They have a right to do whatever they like with their content In accordance with the rules laid down to them. If it means that I in Sweden can pay and watch BBC content then where is the shame in that.
- anoncow 14y ago
  as a corporation running on public money, i expect the bbc to keep public interest in mind. Drm only hinders the paying public. I will have to pay for a windows license if i intend to view content i have already paid for, so that bbc can keep their illegitimate masters happy. As for others, they are free to use proprietary software to deliver their content. I just want them to stay away from buying out the somewhat open internet that we have today. for people who believe that if only open source could reliably protect IP - almost nothing can protect content which is meant to be consumed. Only law can and that is where we are headed.
FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
This isn't the BBC screwing people over. This is likely a constraint introduced by licensing American (or foreign) exports for broadcast over here. If the licensors want DRM as part of the agreement, then there's not much choice left for the BBC unless they want to reduce the diversity of their content.
- drucken 14y ago
  That is not true, since there is a significant commercial part of the BBC and since the parts of the DRM submissions quoted referenced reasons of control over BBC identity (mixing streams etc.). But lets say for the sake of argument it is true, then there would be no need for the BBC to actively campaign on a part of a standard that they themselves would not/could not have elected to use and would only be imposed on them by others.

CJefferson 14y ago

I felt this was a fairly poor article. One of the most telling (for me) quotes was: "Dedicating itself to sharing knowledge and creativity - not just in the UK, but everywhere in the world - is an important and worthy cause, and I will happily pay my (compulsory) £145.50 each year to support the BBC in this." This, I feel, misses the entire point of DRM. It is the belief of the BBC that adding DRM makes them money, by making it easier for them to sell their content, both as DVDs and overseas. I don't believe the BBC would put DRM on their content purely for the fun of irritating people. So, the question isn't "would you pay your £145.50". The question is, how much more would you pay? Taking some very vague numbers, there are just under 25 million TV licenses, and BBC international made £160 million profit last year on a turnover of £1bn. I'm not sure how much of that turnover is "value for the BBC" (are they paying to make TV programs?), but this means I can badly handwave that removing DRM might cost between around £7 to £40. Would most people in the UK accept an increase in their licence fee of £7 in return for DRM free, and allowing everyone around the world to get free access to BBC programs? I suspect, unfortunately, the answer is no. (Sorry if this is a bit simplistic, a true "the money of DRM" would be interesting, if contraversal. But, I feel this article really is ignoring the real most important issue, the money).

rwmj 14y ago
As a license payer (who doesn't even own a TV), yes. However I do understand that many would say no. Also the license fee is a pretty regressive tax[1]. I can easily afford it, but many people living in the council estate near by likely have some trouble paying it, and rich pensioners living in the posh bit of the village in their £1m houses get it for free. [1] Yes, I know it's not strictly speaking a "tax".
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>this means I can badly handwave that removing DRM might cost between around £7 to £40. How do you come to the conclusion that it would cost the BBC anything to remove DRM? If anything it would save them any money they currently spend implementing it and hopelessly attempting to secure it. The "cost" of not having DRM, if any, is that some content distributors may refuse to license to them without it. The article itself points out that this has demonstrably not occurred in the past, but even if it did, why is that a cost to the television licensee? The money not paid to license that content is still available to license some other content from someone not so irrational on the point of DRM, or to fund new original BBC programming, or (if you're more worried about the cost to the public than providing more content) to use to reduce the price of a television license. Let me say that again: It costs nothing to remove DRM and it costs something to implement it. It is costing the British television licensee money that could be used to create original programming to instead be used to restrict what they can do with their own devices. Why are they doing this again?

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago

Why add DRM? It is consistently bypassed. The BBC only needs it for iPlayer, but DRM there is pointless since everything on iPlayer was broadcast prior on unprotected terrestial TV. Just use HTTPS, check referrers, prevent iframing and require passing a one-use token, locked to IP address, embedded in the page. That won't protect you from people stealing the content, sure. But at least it prevents bandwidth-stealing.

DanBC 14y ago
> Why add DRM? The only reason: The people selling content to the BBC require that the BBC has DRM measures in place.
- anoncow 14y ago
  if bbc is a big enough customer for such content ( and i believe the bbc is), it can dictate terms when buying such content. If it is not doing so, we can only assume corruption and collusion as reasons.
  - seabee 14y ago
    Is the BBC big enough to fend off ITV, C5 or Sky who don't have to worry about such issues? Remember Occam's Razor before jumping to conclusions about corruption...
    - anoncow 14y ago
      you are right. Assuming corruption is unnecessary here, as business interests fairly explain their behaviour.
- voyou 14y ago
  :The people selling content to the BBC Blaming "the people selling content to the BBC" ignores the fact that the BBC is itself a content producer which, through BBC Worldwide, makes money from that content. Media companies want to restrict the availability of their products, and sadly the BBC management is acting no different from other companies in that respect.

DanBC 14y ago

The BBC makes a lot of content available for free. (The licence fee is payable whether you watch BBC tv or not). The BBC doesn't produce all the content they show. Rights owners have considerable control over what happens to the content. Thus, many BBC radio programmes are downloadable as MP3 and can be kept forever. An excellent programme In Our Time[1] has made their entire back catalogue available, but a programme that has music (Desert Island Discs, or any live concerts on BBC Radio 1) will have much more restricted download conditions. iPlayer (hateful stupid ridiculous name) really is amazing. The BBC led OnDemand viewing in the UK. And what we've got now is very very much better than the RealAudio kludge we had years ago. So, really, the target here should be stupid rights holders who don't understand the benefits to greater viewership. They need to come up with some other way of paying people who create content. The BBC is (at least, I hope they are) collecting a lot of data about how often programmes get watched or downloaded over their various online services; so maybe payment could be linked to download amounts somehow. Paying content creators in a better way would also help "archive" services like BBC Radio FourExtra, which suffers from heavy rolling repeats.

jiggy2011 14y ago
It's payable if you watch any TV "as it is broadcast" so that means watching via a cable/satellite/freeview or watching stuff that is being streamed on iplayer the same time as on TV. Weirdly though you don't need one to watch iplayer "catch up" content which is usually available about an hour after the initial showing. So if you watch a lot of iplayer catch up you don't have to pay, but if you consume no BBC content and just use your TV to watch Sky1 or whatever then you do have to pay.
- stuartmemo 14y ago
  Incorrect. You need a license to watch the BBC online. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/ http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/
  - hahainternet 14y ago
    The very first paragraph on your link: > You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder. You just confirmed he was right.

znowi 14y ago

It's funny how all the rage is descending upon BBC while the 3 other companies that back up the DRM proposal (Google, Microsoft and Netflix) entice zero attention.

dcminter 14y ago
The obvious difference is that those companies are not funded out of a regressive tax (technically a license but nobody's fooled by that).
onemorepassword 14y ago
The other companies are not publicly funded organisations. The BBC is supposed to be acting in the public interests. Besides, everybody already knows which side of the fence Google and Microsoft are on, both in terms of self-interest and semi-political ideology.
Create 14y ago
http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt
azakai 14y ago
Yup, I came here to post that. Can we put pressure on Google, Microsoft and Netflix to not promote this? That makes more sense than targeting the BBC, which is just in one country anyhow. Our targets should be the multinationals, Google and Microsoft.

acabal 14y ago

I find it very surprising that the organization supposedly promoting the open "web for all" is even considering baking in DRM handcuffs. It seems so short-sighted. Copyright is just a bunch of laws this society agrees on today. The web is not about today's laws, social mores, or profit motives, but of connectivity, sharing, and freedom of information and expression. When I see things like this even being considered, I sometimes think that we don't deserve such freedom. If we're going to start DRM'ing media, why not just DRM the entire web page and be done with it? Why send HTML over the wire at all when we can send an encrypted blob? That'd be the ideal world for the media companies--total end-to-end secrecy, with users just being warm bodies with credit cards. BBC, Netflix, MS, and--of all companies--Google should be ashamed to be involved in this.

anoncow 14y ago
profit and social responsibility don't go together. Google has every reason to be interested in a locked-down web. That way it could be sure of all the revenue that youtube movie premieres would bring. Sadly, a more responsible way of doing the same thing will not be as profitable.
- acabal 14y ago
  I totally agree. But w3c should be standing up for the open web, not the profit motives of its sponsors. If they're going to start transparently considering whatever restrictive practices their sponsors demand, then they become nothing more than an industry interest group versus what they ostensibly are now, which is a group that's at least partially community-driven.
  - justincormack 14y ago
    The W3C has always alas been sponsor led, and is a poor organisation, and not what the web should have.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    W3C is an industry consortium of for profit companies. It is not some utopian political organization.

rimantas 14y ago

So, how exactly BBC attacks the whole open web? Do they demand, that all web content should be DRMed? How did it become so, that wanting some feature means you are attacking all those who don't want and don't need that feature? Say HTML5 gets DRM. So what? What exactly forbids you not to use it? The web is open because there are people wanting to give away content for free, not because there is no DRM tech built-in in HTML. You cannot force openness for those unwilling. If some company thinks it needs DRM, let it have it. If they think it is essential and web does not provide it they just won't use web tech and will have some proprietary plugins for that. How exactly GNU/Linux is in danger there? They don't like it, they don't implement it. End of story. Seriously, people, calm down. I am being sick from all that hysterics about attack on web (just because somebody chose to develop a native app, shock and horror), walled gardens, etc.

onemorepassword 14y ago
HTML itself is a fundamentally open standard on which the entire op web is built. Adding DRM to that ends that. Period. No hysterics. The attempt to add DRM to HTML is a full frontal attack on the open web. This is not subject to interpretation or nuance, that is equivalent to being "a little bit pregnant".
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  It does not necessarily stop the web being an open standard in that sense. An open standard is really just a way of saying "if you want to do X in a way that is compatible with Y then your implementation must follow these rules and these rules are published in such a way that any person will be equally able to produce an implementation". You can propose an open standard for DRM that everyone is free to implement or not. If you want to have a DRM free browsing experience you can simply use a browser that implements every part of the standard apart from the DRM part. The only thing that changes is that stuff that is built to require the DRM component will not work. It would be just like disabling <canvas> support in your browser or something like that.
  - michaelt 14y ago

shadowmint 14y ago

How could they possibly prevent a custom no-DRM fork of a browser? Seems like a waste of time to me; it'll be about as effective as having a 'no download' flag on images.

ferongr 14y ago
The currentl proposal [1] mandates content decryption modules that are not part of the browser but rather plugins akin to current NPAPI ones (Flash etc). Those will most likely be platform-specific binaries. That makes operating systems like GNU/Linux or BSD-likes unable to decrypt content depending without the correct CDM. [1] 1https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med... More reading https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944 http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/02/unethical-html-video-copy-protection-proposal-criticized-by-standards-stakeholders/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/02/unethical-html-video...

jfaucett 14y ago

If google is behind this as the article states, it just shows their hypocrasy behind their mantra of "supporting the open web". Given that companies with w3c leverage are behind this proposal does anyone think it will get through? Personally, I can't imagine anything worse for the future of the web than DRM. It would be like forcibly going to back to a dark ages that never existed for the web medium.

mdeslaur 14y ago

I'm sorry, but I don't see how "GNU/Linux in Danger". This is actually _good_ for Linux, as adding DRM to HTML will alleviate the need to use closed-source technologies like Flash and Silverlight to stream DRMed content. Getting rid of closed-source Flash and Silverlight is a _good_ thing.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
What is it that you imagine they'll be replaced with? There has to be a binary blob somewhere whose purpose is to attempt to make the decryption and display process opaque. That's what DRM is. I'm not sure what it matters whether you call it Flash or something else.

rayiner 14y ago

What kind of crappy article leads with a false dichotomy. DRM isn't any different than a paywall. It doesn't make the internet suddenly not open to allow sites to protect video content and for users to choose to view that content or not.

static_typed 14y ago

I can't believe how many apology-niks are on here trotting out the old merde about how we need DRM, and won't somebody please think of the rights-holders. Here in the UK we pay the TV license fee. Now, granted most of the output it funds is utter crap, but hey, we paid for it. There should be no reason for DRM to be applied at all, but especially not if delivered via the web. If the standards wonks permit this, we really need to fork the standards, and avoid this. If the open web does not support your intended business model then go away and change the model.

andrewflnr 14y ago
The conversation has spread beyond the UK. I would even hazard a guess that a majority of HNers are in the US, where there is no such fee and most content producers are on their own.

andylei 14y ago

This article (especially the headline) is honestly a joke. The BBC wants encrypted media extensions in HTML5. That's DRM for stuff like video. The logical leap to GNU/Linux collapsing is astoundingly ridiculous.

cmsj 14y ago
Boing Boing generally is ridiculous because Cory Doctorow ;)
- pjscott 14y ago
  This is an article in Computerworld UK by Glyn Moody. How are Boing Boing or Cory Doctorow relevant?

ekpyrotic 14y ago

Attack articles will not change the views of those working in the BBC's policy department. If you/we believe there are societal/economic benefits to the open web, they must be argued persuasively and clearly. Too many digital commentators and bloggers do not engage with these issues in any productive way. Attack articles do not reform political procedures, substantive policy suggestions do. The BBC quite obviously, and validly, worries that open use of its content will put it at a competitive disadvantage. They can foresee International producers withdrawing content from its platforms if its distribution channels are not duly protected. That does not seem like an unfair concern. There might be space to argue that the BBC is being short-sighted. That is to say, that while we understand its concerns on this issue, the introduction of DRM will negatively affects its longer term success. That is to say, the success of the BBC has been prefaced on the wide distribution of its original content around the world. In fact, it wouldn't be too strong to say the BBC's reputation rests on the free, worldwide distribution of its news programming -- today this has been inherited by its news website. We might press the concern that locking all of its content behind DRM technology will harm the wide distribution of its content, hurting awareness of its international brand. We ask the BBC to consider the following example: fears of recording radio programming have existed since the early 20th Century. If the BBC, cracked down on its distribution in response to those issues in the 50s-, we believe the BBC wouldn't be the worldwide powerhouse it is now. Locking up its content is not in the long term interests of the BBC brand, esp. as the developing world -- China, Brazil, Russia -- start looking online for reliable programming. Therefore, we call on the BBC to initiate a review into the implications of its policy decision, and its effect on international brand awareness. This isn't my argument, but at least it understands, appreciates, and responds to their economic concerns.

Strshps1MoreTim 14y ago
The guys who control BBC are not employes of policy or any other BBC department. The old boy networks in UK currently see the open Internet as extremely dangerous and will do almost anything to monitor/limit/regulate/restrict it.
- anigbrowl 14y ago

scaphandre 14y ago

UK readers: You might want to register your opposition with the BBC here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/ Takes less than 3 min.