3 ms·

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,

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?
- CJefferson 14y ago
  The (possible) cost of removing DRM, as I said, is that the BBC currently makes money by selling the content it makes, both direct to consumers and the TV and DVD companies in other countries. If the BBC released all its content DRM-free, then this money might dry up.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    It seems like you're assuming contrary to evidence that the DRM is actually effective.

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?

CJefferson 14y ago
The (possible) cost of removing DRM, as I said, is that the BBC currently makes money by selling the content it makes, both direct to consumers and the TV and DVD companies in other countries. If the BBC released all its content DRM-free, then this money might dry up.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  It seems like you're assuming contrary to evidence that the DRM is actually effective.