5 ms·

First you have to understand that not all of the content broadcast on the BBC is created by the BBC. They carry programs made by independent, limited, for-profi

First you have to understand that not all of the content broadcast on the BBC is created by the BBC. They carry programs made by independent, limited, for-profit studios. They also regularly carry movies. All of which they put up on their iPlayer service. As an example, you can currently watch Madagascar, in full, for free on BBC iPlayer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gd77z/Madagascar/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gd77z/Madagascar/). While there is an argument that programs produced by the BBC should be DRM free, there is no way larger, and independent studios would allow their content uploaded DRM free. Personally, I want the BBC (and other sites) to be able to use technology like HTML5 video, because I don't like flash, and it's unlikely the studios are going to suddenly decide their OK with DRM free video, I'm not necessarily /for/ DRM in HTML5, but I don't see any other way around it for now. While you can argue all you want about how DRM is useless and easily broken, as yet no-one has managed to convince big TV and movie (and even game) studios of that. The BBC is just doing what it feels it needs to in order to be able to deliver video using the latest technology, while keeping it's partners happy.

samworm 14y ago
My argument, and I sent this too them when they were doing a consultation a while ago, is that they shouldn't be buying content that they can't use for public service purposes. We have many good sources of movies in the UK, and many of them are "free" at the point of use (ie advert funded). Let them show Madagascar, and while they do that the BBC can run some other program. They should remove themselves from the content purchasing market if the terms are too restrictive to allow them to meet their public remit. We don't /need/ these films on the BBC. They could run some of the content they're currently relegating the digital ghettos of BBC3 and BBC4 instead.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >They could run some of the content they're currently relegating the digital ghettos of BBC3 and BBC4 instead. Better yet, take the money they're paying to run Madagascar and use it to fund more original BBC content.
- seabee 14y ago
  Now every TV broadcast is digital, BBC3/4 are less 'ghetto' and more 'dumping grounds'
- takluyver 14y ago
  The counterargument is that, if you canvassed license fee payers, I bet more of them would care about seeing Madagascar without ads than about DRM issues. So should the BBC pursue what a small number of people loudly claim to be the 'public interest', or should they aim for what the public is interested in? Thinking more strategically, the BBC needs some high profile popular things, including imported movies, to keep people on side. If they lose their popularity, it's only a matter of time before a politician wins votes by promising to slash the license fee.
Udo 14y ago
I think everyone understands why these companies (including BBC) are pushing for DRM. That doesn't mean it's not evil. The larger issue here, expressed quite well by Doctorow, is that this push requires converting the web into a closed platform. It's clear why entertainment companies want to turn the internet into something that can only be consumed by, say, the Apple app store. That's also the reason why this will never fly. Even if/when the W3C gave in to these demands, browser makers other than Apple and Microsoft would never stand for it. And even if they did somehow, it would be trivial for the open source community to release one without those features. I'm not saying the outrage is entirely misplaced, because it's important to keep an eye out for what those companies have planned for our future. But as far as the fear of actual threat is concerned this should not alarm anybody.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- PavlovsCat 14y ago
  this push requires converting the web into a closed platform How so? It requires the ability to have "locked" content and a mechanism to "unlock" it, but how does this affect anything else? Honest question.
  - Udo 14y ago
    Because the browser is an open stack. There are many layers interacting from the network protocols up to the rendering and scripting engines, and they are all open. The implementations are generally open, but more importantly it's possible to look into the data itself. You can see why this is a problem for DRM. To "properly" lock it down, you'd have to close the entire stack, and then you'd have to outlaw open source implementations. The whole thing is just not designed to disobey the user. Keep in mind that this would have to cover the entire chain, from the network connection all the way up to the screen you are allowed to play the content on. For that kind of DRM to work, your browser would have to be turned into a black box that is difficult to inspect, designed to be controlled entirely from remote, and illegal to alter. If this series of events were to unfold, closing the browser would not be done to benefit the content industry directly. They don't need that to deliver content, because they can always just put out an app and pump out their stuff that way. They can also just make a plugin if they want to deliver video content through the browser - which would possible with current technology today. That's not why they are proposing this. Instead this move would serve solely to restrict user freedom to use anything but approved apps for approved content. So to make it clear why this outrage exists: there is absolutely no technical need to include this natively in HTML5. The proposal does not aim to give something to the content industry, it is instead designed to take something away from everybody else. That's not a subtle difference. But, as I said earlier, it's doubtful it will/could play out this way. The only way to achieve this "dream" is by making the web as it exists today illegal to use, and then enforce that ban through extensive ISP surveillance. In which case a DRM solution for HTML5 wouldn't matter anyway.
mtgx 14y ago
But would all browsers and services use the same HTML5 DRM scheme, or would they be incompatible with each other, and then you'd need someone to make a plugin with "all-in-one" HTML5 DRM schemes? Because if they aren't compatible then that defeats the point of doing this in HTML5.
betterunix 14y ago
"there is no way larger, and independent studios would allow their content uploaded DRM free." Then I guess they do not get to have it on the BBC website. You know, assuming the BBC sticks to its guns, which they apparently have not.
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
>you can currently watch Madagascar, in full, for free on BBC iPlayer Not if you're a license fee payer or a UK tax-payer. You already paid to watch it.
justincormack 14y ago
It is not at all the case that every film they show that they do not make is on iplayer. Most films are not. Most the content they make is on iplayer, but not all content they don't make. Not all content is even available in the live streams, eg sport which has other rights. I would be happy for only BBC-commissioned content to be available without DRM and the rest to be not available or use plugins. Or indeed I would be happy for the BBC to not broadcast the output of Hollywood etc which is easily available elsewhere commercially eg on Netflix or Sky. I do not think that showing "Madagascar" is really a public service...

samworm 14y ago

My argument, and I sent this too them when they were doing a consultation a while ago, is that they shouldn't be buying content that they can't use for public service purposes. We have many good sources of movies in the UK, and many of them are "free" at the point of use (ie advert funded). Let them show Madagascar, and while they do that the BBC can run some other program. They should remove themselves from the content purchasing market if the terms are too restrictive to allow them to meet their public remit. We don't /need/ these films on the BBC. They could run some of the content they're currently relegating the digital ghettos of BBC3 and BBC4 instead.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>They could run some of the content they're currently relegating the digital ghettos of BBC3 and BBC4 instead. Better yet, take the money they're paying to run Madagascar and use it to fund more original BBC content.
seabee 14y ago
Now every TV broadcast is digital, BBC3/4 are less 'ghetto' and more 'dumping grounds'
takluyver 14y ago
The counterargument is that, if you canvassed license fee payers, I bet more of them would care about seeing Madagascar without ads than about DRM issues. So should the BBC pursue what a small number of people loudly claim to be the 'public interest', or should they aim for what the public is interested in? Thinking more strategically, the BBC needs some high profile popular things, including imported movies, to keep people on side. If they lose their popularity, it's only a matter of time before a politician wins votes by promising to slash the license fee.

Udo 14y ago

I think everyone understands why these companies (including BBC) are pushing for DRM. That doesn't mean it's not evil. The larger issue here, expressed quite well by Doctorow, is that this push requires converting the web into a closed platform. It's clear why entertainment companies want to turn the internet into something that can only be consumed by, say, the Apple app store. That's also the reason why this will never fly. Even if/when the W3C gave in to these demands, browser makers other than Apple and Microsoft would never stand for it. And even if they did somehow, it would be trivial for the open source community to release one without those features. I'm not saying the outrage is entirely misplaced, because it's important to keep an eye out for what those companies have planned for our future. But as far as the fear of actual threat is concerned this should not alarm anybody.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
PavlovsCat 14y ago
this push requires converting the web into a closed platform How so? It requires the ability to have "locked" content and a mechanism to "unlock" it, but how does this affect anything else? Honest question.
- Udo 14y ago
  Because the browser is an open stack. There are many layers interacting from the network protocols up to the rendering and scripting engines, and they are all open. The implementations are generally open, but more importantly it's possible to look into the data itself. You can see why this is a problem for DRM. To "properly" lock it down, you'd have to close the entire stack, and then you'd have to outlaw open source implementations. The whole thing is just not designed to disobey the user. Keep in mind that this would have to cover the entire chain, from the network connection all the way up to the screen you are allowed to play the content on. For that kind of DRM to work, your browser would have to be turned into a black box that is difficult to inspect, designed to be controlled entirely from remote, and illegal to alter. If this series of events were to unfold, closing the browser would not be done to benefit the content industry directly. They don't need that to deliver content, because they can always just put out an app and pump out their stuff that way. They can also just make a plugin if they want to deliver video content through the browser - which would possible with current technology today. That's not why they are proposing this. Instead this move would serve solely to restrict user freedom to use anything but approved apps for approved content. So to make it clear why this outrage exists: there is absolutely no technical need to include this natively in HTML5. The proposal does not aim to give something to the content industry, it is instead designed to take something away from everybody else. That's not a subtle difference. But, as I said earlier, it's doubtful it will/could play out this way. The only way to achieve this "dream" is by making the web as it exists today illegal to use, and then enforce that ban through extensive ISP surveillance. In which case a DRM solution for HTML5 wouldn't matter anyway.

mtgx 14y ago

But would all browsers and services use the same HTML5 DRM scheme, or would they be incompatible with each other, and then you'd need someone to make a plugin with "all-in-one" HTML5 DRM schemes? Because if they aren't compatible then that defeats the point of doing this in HTML5.

betterunix 14y ago

"there is no way larger, and independent studios would allow their content uploaded DRM free." Then I guess they do not get to have it on the BBC website. You know, assuming the BBC sticks to its guns, which they apparently have not.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

>you can currently watch Madagascar, in full, for free on BBC iPlayer Not if you're a license fee payer or a UK tax-payer. You already paid to watch it.

justincormack 14y ago

It is not at all the case that every film they show that they do not make is on iplayer. Most films are not. Most the content they make is on iplayer, but not all content they don't make. Not all content is even available in the live streams, eg sport which has other rights. I would be happy for only BBC-commissioned content to be available without DRM and the rest to be not available or use plugins. Or indeed I would be happy for the BBC to not broadcast the output of Hollywood etc which is easily available elsewhere commercially eg on Netflix or Sky. I do not think that showing "Madagascar" is really a public service...