BBC Chooses Microsoft DRM Platform

bazorg writes "The BBC has chosen Microsoft's DRM technology to limit the viewing of content downloaded from their website. These downloads would allow viewers to catch up on shows that were broadcast on the previous 7 days; they would be compatible only with Windows Media Player and a new product called 'iPlayer'. This iPlayer is not yet available for platforms other than MS Windows, which caused the Open Source Consortium (OSC) to file a complaint to national and EU authorities. 'The BBC aims to make its content as widely available as possible and has always taken a platform agnostic approach to its internet services. It is not possible to put an exact timeframe on when BBC iPlayer will be available for Mac users. However, we are working to ensure this happens as soon as possible and the BBC Trust will be monitoring progress on a six monthly basis.'"

Don't worry, it will support all platforms

Windows and OS X!

What do you mean "What about all the others?" There are others? Er, when you say "Future platforms" you mean the next version of Windows, right?

We might need to go back to the drawing board on this one...

They will hack it

Don't worry, someone will be able to hack a player for Linux/Mac faster than BBC's official one.

Re:They will hack it

Maybe, maybe not.

Microsoft DRM has been around for a good few years now and whereas the earliest versions were cracked in due course, the later versions are still fairly solid. I don't believe it's yet possible, for example, to watch DRM-protected WMV files on Linux, even if you have the W32 codecs pack installed.

I did see one sort of hack for MS DRM but it was limited in what it could do...if you had a valid DRM "licence" for the protected file you could use the hack tool to create a non-DRM copy of the file. But it couldn't unlock a file for which you didn't have a valid key.

I suppose this type of hack could theoretically be used to unlock MS-DRM protected videos on BBC *if* they use the current form of DRM which relies on you downloading a key and *if* you use the tool to unlock it before the seven days expires.

It's hardly ideal.

OTOH, a much bigger worry is this response from the BBC that "iPlayer will be available for Mac" - it's implausible that they haven't heard of Linux, so this is tantamount to a deliberate slap in the face for Linux users. And checking on progress every SIX MONTHS!? What kind of project management it that? The "don't care" kind.

Common sense prevailed at the BBC while Greg Dyke was around. Since he was pushed out it's all turning to shit again. With people like these at the wheel, television's days are surely numbered. I don't know about you lot but the only thing I watch on TV these days is Dr Who and it wouldn't kill me to give that up. Fuck 'em.

Re:They will hack it

> I don't believe it's yet possible, for example, to watch DRM-protected WMV files on Linux, even if you have the W32 codecs pack installed.

Your phrasing means you don't know. I don't know either, and I use Linux exclusively. That shows you how important playing DRMed WMV files is.

DRM is impossible to implement correctly because it is theoretically impossible to do. The only reason any DRM system isn't cracked is because no one has cared enough yet to crack it.

The earliest versions of WMV DRM probably were just so easy to crack that someone did it without really trying, but when they fixed the most obvious holes ... no one really cared enough to actually bother.

If WMV DRM gets used on anything people actually want to watch (like the BBC), it will be cracked.

Mplayer + Binary Codecs

Will the binary codecs for mplayer work with this stream? Not sure DRM is handled in this fashion but it does let you view wmv files.

What makes this really suck...

is I have to pay for this junk through my "BBC Tax" even though I won't be able to use it. Here in the UK a TV license is compulsory if you have a TV that can receive a signal EVEN if you pay for a subscription service through someone like Sky or Virgin Media.

Re:What makes this really suck...

Ah, suck it up. It's a tax, always has been a tax. Finding a random situation where you personally believe you pay enough doesn't change the fact that you're paying for a public broadcaster. The BBC is a useful thing to have around, like schools and hospitals and welfare it's a good thing even if you might not use it personally.

Pay your licence and be happy that not everything in Britain is driven by commercial interests.

Re:What makes this really suck...

But surely if you pay the tax you should have unlimited acess to BBC content. So why should the BBC adopt DRM to limit access, it's public.

Re:What makes this really suck...

The BBC is a useful thing to have around, like schools and hospitals and welfare it's a good thing even if you might not use it personally.

I've got no problem with paying my licence fee so long as I am allowed to access the content. Sadly the BBC seems to be adding artifical restrictions to ensure that I can't access the content without me purchasing an expensive product from exactly one vendor with whome I have ethical problems. This is the same as saying "you can only watch TV on TVs made by Sony" - it completely removes competition from the market and this inevitably leads to an expensive poor quality product.

Also a worry is that the BBC appears to believe that being "platform agnostic" involves only supporting Windows and Mac - no mention of other platforms at all.

Re:What makes this really suck...

"is I have to pay for this junk through my "BBC Tax" even though I won't be able to use it. Here in the UK a TV license is compulsory if you have a TV that can receive a signal EVEN if you pay for a subscription service through someone like Sky or Virgin Media."

I completely agree that the BBC has a duty to make this available to anyone that wants it, thus choosing an open platform for it. However, I disagree with your sentiment on the BBC tax in general. The TV license is why the UK has a healthy non-commerical broadcaster that produces some very good quality material that maybe otherwise wouldn't be commercially viable. That you pay for a subscription service in addition is completely irrelevant. You still receive all the BBC channels and it is not the BBC's fault that you chose to give money to Sky or Virgin in addition.

Non-commercially funded TV is necessary as a counterweight to commercial TV, particularly as commercial media is consolidated onto fewer and fewer hands. While I won't claim that Non-commercially funded TV is non-biased, it certainly has a different bias.

If you suggest that it should rather be included as part of the regular income tax, then I might agree. The TV license makes no distinction as to people's ability to pay the license, and almost anyone has a TV. Yes, it would be unfair on the people who do not have a TV, but no system is fair to everyone.

Not for Linux

Despite the several hundred requests the BBC has received for a Linux iPlayer (so said one insider), the BBC is not planning to make iPlayer available for licence-fee payers who use Linux.

Re:Not for Linux

I'm not sure I understand why everyone is outraged at the fact that the Beeb is not catering to an OS that has less than 2% of the desktop market?

It's the government. That means it has a responsibility to all citizens, not just the ones who use commercial OSs! Ignoring Linux (and other) users by refusing to use open standards is like ignoring disabled people by refusing to provide wheelchair access to government buildings*. Would you be equally okay with that?

I'd be more outraged if we were talking OS X here, but that's not even the case.

Why? At this point, there's probably at least as many users of Linux as there are of OS X.

I surmise that they need DRM because the BBC Trust requires that only TV tax-paying Britons can watch the taxpayer-funded content. If that's the case, then I don't see what the alternative would be for them, since there are no "free" file formats that support DRM in a stable, tested way.

Don't use DRM, and accept that non-Britons might have access to it. It should be obvious that it's better to give it to extra people for free than to restrict it from people who already have a claim to it! After all (and here my American bias shows through), the whole point of creating a work is to show it to people, not to hide it from them; copyright and licensing is only a necessary(?) evil to begin with!

(* aside from the unfortunate implication that Linux users are "disabled," which they're not -- DRM users are the disabled ones!)

Re:Not for Linux

Why people insist on running Linux when they could use OS X, I'll never understand.

Err... because Linux is better? Seriously, everyone raved about OS X, so I gave it a go. I found it horribly restricting, and it didn't suit my way of working, so I went back to Linux.

it does everything you need it to do, and -- above all -- it just works

Were that true, then maybe I'd be using it. Since it didn't do everything I needed it to, I'm not. It may well be a good option for many people. But for me, Linux allows me to be more productive. Why would I want to switch to an OS that didn't work as well as the one I'm currently using?

Linux must run Windows apps

Run windows apps on Linux [computerworld.com] -- eventually, we're going to need to take this step. A standard, unified API to develop for makes it easier on companies that are already afraid that DRM violations will erode their bottom line. If Linux starts running Windows apps, I think more people will switch over, because they run Windows for the easy installation (now nearly conquered by Ubuntu) and the vast library of software guaranteed to run on it.

What's the alternative?

Personally, I don't know of any off-the-shelf-and-easy-to-implement open source DRM solution the BBC could have gone for, and given the choice between using Microsoft DRM and getting an iPlayer out the door now or building something in house that could take years I can see why the BBC made the decision they did.

I'm from the UK, love the BBC, not overly keen on Microsoft. The BBC's promise to keep things under review and aim to get something for other platforms out in ~2 years is good enough for me.

Plus, I haven't heard of any rivals (ITV/Sky/Virgin) promising a non-Microsoft implementation and as far as I know the Channel4 on demand software (http://www.channel4.com/4od/index.html [channel4.com]) doesn't even work on Vista let alone non-MS platforms.

Here's a simple alternative

Don't use DRM. As a licence payer, UK tax-payer and voter I want my state broadcaster to, well, broadcast the media, not spend my money on restricting who can see it, and probably inconveniencing the people they WANT to see it in the process.

Huh

Why would a government-owned media company need DRM?

Party like it's 1999

With the resources that the BBC has available, the technological opportunities now available [mediaframe.org] and the mandate that they have to serve the British public, I am consistently amazed that they continue to align themselves with multinational, license charging companies.

Shame on you BBC.

Why does the BBC need DRM?

Seriously, what are they trying to "protect"

What about dirac

The BBC was working on a new open source / royalty free video Codec Dirac. I hope they did not drop the effort (looking at the projects websites makes me think there is still live to the project).

http://dirac.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
http://schrodinger.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

"ASAP"

we are working to ensure this happens as soon as possible and the BBC Trust will be monitoring progress on a six monthly basis.

Huh? So in other words, they've given the BBC at minimum 6 months to come up with a solution, after which they will presumably see that nothing has happened, wave their finger a little and forget about it for another half a year. This doesn't quite fit the sense of urgency I feel goes with the term "as soon as possible".

Channel 4

Channel 4's UK OnDemand service is the same, Windows only DRM. What happened to the work on the BBC's open source codec?

Absolutely unacceptable

This is in no way acceptable.

The BBC's insistence to use DRM (Digital RESTRICTIONS Management -- it does sod-all for my rights) goes against their charter.

When the BBC first began, you had no choice but to build your own radio set. There was never any question that some essential part might be kept locked away out of the reach of the General Public for the specific purpose of preventing just any random person from constructing a receiver.

For the BBC to insist that their programmes only be received on one particular make of receiver (however it may be rebadged), and that an essential part (the Source Code for the decryption) be specifically denied to home constructors and experimenters, is nothing short of outrageous.

This country is becoming more and more like the former GDR every day.

Complain?

Places to register complaints: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/ [bbc.co.uk] http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and_radio/points_ of_view/index.shtml [bbc.co.uk] Maybe report the BBC to Watchdog for dodgy business practices ;-): http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and_radio/watchdo g/index.shtml [bbc.co.uk]

two questions.

first, more info http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6236612.stm [bbc.co.uk].

1, how did M$ persuade them?

There were many options out there, why on earth did they go to M$? call me suspicious - but I think there is more to this announcement then meets the eye.

2, did the BBC have to pay for this tripe?

or, its bad enough that BBC is using a DRM system from M$, but please tell me that they are not paying for it out of our license money. whats the betting M$ if offering this free in order get a larger audience for their crummy codecs and 'orrible player.

3, why not stick with the embedded player they have been trialling recently?

been a few demonstration pages from the BBC with embedded movies recently (I'll see if I can hunt one down) that have worked very well, kinda of youtube style. infinitely better then the real player rubbish they had been using, totally worthless that was - but at least it worked (kind of) under Linux.

4, why DRM in the first place?

I PVR all my TV so I watch it when I want, its not like that as DRM on it. I always archive any footage I want to keep to DivX, I view it the same way as DVD-R and VHS recording of shows for personal use. My point is - if the information is sent out free of DRM then why an earth are they adding DRM for web broadcasts?

Proper response to BBC's use of DRM (Silly)

You are an enemy of the people! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!

Yet another incentive for piracy

... and another nail in the coffin of DRM.

Steal This Media!

All of this obsession about control of one's product goes to show that today's conservatives are dead wrong.

Today's liberal media isn't liberal. It's a bunch of conservatives pushing a liberal product.

As much as they talk about socialism and the idea of shared property, they certainly don't live it. These people in the media business aren't liberals - not the firms, major artists, or even much of the talent. They only walk around with a few Mao bags to have some street credibility, but, at the end of the day, they are grubbing for every nickel they can get their hands on, as much as the fat necked guy that ran Exxon. Today's so called liberal media isn't liberal at all, just talks that way while secretly bitter that they don't have their own fleet of private jets, like the really rich people do.

Liberal media? I dare anyone to post copies of the Rolling Stone, Time, New York Times, online on your own web site. Liberal writers? You go write ahead and start a web site with the text of Alterman, Kos, and others. Liberal movies? Let's see what happens when someone torrents Michael Moore's latest movie. I guarantee you all of these so-called socially conscious types won't wait two seconds to have a DMCA lawywer after you!

Abbie Hoffman is rolling over in his grave! As a Republican, I may not agree with much of what he said, but at least he was a real liberal, and was genuinely refreshing.

Steal this media! That's what he'd say.

BBC hates DRM

Have we already forgotten that the BBC hates DRM? [slashdot.org]

The old days...

What happened to the old days, where premium content on a website was behind a username/password system?

DRM'ing this content is -pointless- because it is sent over the air unencrypted first. Anyone who would download it from the website and repost it will instead just DVR it and rip it from there. It's an added step, but not much trouble at all. Especially with PC-based DVR.

So who are they really trying to protect this from? The common citizen? Most of them couldn't download the stream if you installed the firefox plugin FOR them. Most of the rest wouldn't bother. And the ones that would will just find another way.

I think this is an answer is search of a problem. Someone has been brainwashed or bribed into thinking DRM -has- to be used to protect content, instead of understanding that it's a choice, and a failed attempt at protection and more costly than it's worth.

I'm an American, and all the decent content will -still- end up within my reach very shortly after it airs. I don't need to go anywhere -near- the BBC's site, though I might consider paying some fees to watch their content online. I find some of it to be quite good. I -can't- if they DRM it, though, as my Windows PC is not in a room fit for relaxing.

BBC has been going downhill for a while

First, they cut down on spectacular comedy series they have been doing, and instead turned to crappy NBC imitation shows with subjects like forensic detectives, thrillers, crapola and crap.

now going microsoft drm way. beh.

apparently whomever is directing the channel now has no wits.

TV Police

Interesting that they get up in arms about DRM, but don't mention the fact that the BBC has its own private police force that's in charge of making sure people pay a yearly tax to own a TV. Not only do they have to register their TVs, but the police have vans equipped with systems for picking up and pinpointing TV heterodyne circuits to locate unlicensed TVs. Yeah, Britain, keep telling yourselves you're freer than US citizens...

No surprise

The BBC has been offering video downloads on their website for quite a while now and it is still not available for other platforms. Trying to communicate with the BBC about ETA etc. is virtually impossible. I live in the UK, where open source is not very popular, and often considered not to be reliable enough for business or education environments. Here, ICT education in secondary schools means learning MS Office applications. Many city councils and universities have partnership agreements with MS. Even learning how to make web pages seems not possible with MS Word if you follow the governement agencies' guidelines. So the BBC's decision use with MS' DRM is very much in-line with everything else in this country.

Irrelevant

I don't care if it runs on my mac or not --- if they are restricting when/where I can watch the content, then I'm not going to download it in the first place. I would be more than happy to pay the license fee to get bbc shows, but not with restrictions.

beat around the bush

As long as content providers continue to dance around DRM distribution bittorrent sites will thrive.

nuff said

DRM on Publicly Funded Content

This just makes me sad. This is video that is paid for by British citizens. Publicly funded content. And still, the PHBs feel the need to lock it to specific devices, limit the number of views, and keep track of who watched what when.

Here's a Reaction...

:reads summary: :looks at BBC news feed on bookmark toolbar: :right-click, delete:

BBC can fuck right off. Shame too, since their news tends to be pretty good, but I refuse to support behavior like that. I've gotten to like Reuters better of late anyway.

Free The BBC

There's an effort going on to persuade the BBC to adopt DRM-free technology: www.freethebbc.info [freethebbc.info].

I'm wondering if there's mileage in an anti-trust suit against the Beeb for this...

BBC's 2nd screwup with media formats

Didn't the BBC go all RealPlayer several years ago for TV clips on their website?

I propose a new show: Gordon Ramsay's IT Nightmares. Gordon can go to the web/media dept of the BBC and yell at them for using stupid video formats. "COME ON!"

BBC

As a Linux user, I just lost a lot of respect for the BBC.

And the non-tax paying users that have the net

While the folks in the UK can squawk about paying their taxes and not having access to shows, etc. the internet IS worldwide and there are plenty of us across the pond with broadband and no TV tax. Just saying that there could be other reasons here why one may wish to restrict such content.

Still, given that US commerical broadcasters seemingly have found a way to stream content online in acceptable quality and fewer commericals, this strikes me as kind of silly. I'm not sure what ABC uses to stream shows like Lost, but I think it's somekind of Flash media. It works on PC's and Mac's for sure (as I'm on Mac), but Flash is generally playable on Linux from my limited experience (before switching to Mac).

Still there is going to be a lot of people who complain because this is Slashdot and extremely pro-linux. I remember working for a software company in 2000 that ported an application to Linux. And it never seemed like we could make anyone happy since we supported RH and SuSE at the time. We got more complaints from Linux users griping that it wouldn't work on their customed hacked kernal or why isn't Slackware supported, etc. that it really changed my whole approach.

Outside of the server room, Linux is a VERY small install base. When looking how to best spend money to reach the most people, Windows is always going to come first and there are enough mac users (and growing) that support for Mac comes next.

And if your going to support Linux, how about FreeBSD? Or OpenBSD? Or Solaris. Better support all those too. And who knows, there may even be an OpenVMS user or two that needs support also.

An open letter to the BBC

Dear Auntie,

Are you aware that while one arm of your organisation is asking Microsoft to protect your content, another is broadcasting it on an open circuit?

It's a bit like putting up a locked gate in the middle of a prairie and expecting it to keep the buffalo in.

Use your fucking loaf, eh?

Yours sincerely,

Bertie.

Doh!

What a stupid move. I receive all of the BBC's broadcasting in MPEG2 or MPEG4, including HD, un-encrypted digital through DVB-T broadcasts receivable through an antenna or DVB-S broadcasts receivable via satellite. What's the point of using DRMed material from their web site when I can just record the program.

TV License..?

Oh, look - I've just decided not to renew it. Thanks, BBC. I've been looking for a decent enough reason to dump you along with the rest of life's crap I've left by the wayside (Microsoft products).

And the practical effects of this will be...?

I assume nothing. People are still going to record stuff, encode it, and put it on piratebay. So just like with music and movies and everything else, its still easier to pirate it and you end up with a better version of it that will happily interoperate on all your devices.

Dead by 2010

Not only will this iPlayer venture be dead by 2010 but so will the careers of every single person involved from the BBC side.

I have to congratulate them on their big balls, though. Not many people are willing to bet against Apple, Google, Sony, Panasonic, the major music and movie studios, and the hundreds of millions of $500 consumer video players that can only play standard MPEG-4 H.264/AAC. When it comes to consumer audio video formats, most people would see both Panasonic and Sony and that would be enough for them. For others, Apple and Google would be enough. For still others, the fact that you can play H.264 in the palm of your hand on a $249 iPod for 2 years now would be enough for them to pick the internationally standardized audio video playback codec. But the BBC, they are doing another thing. They are certain that what people really want is to get the BBC on their PC's, enjoy it in the den on a $1000+ device rather than say on their phone wherever they happen to be. That's balls, baby.

Even the name "iPlayer" ... that sounds remarkably like it would work with your iPod, iPhone, iTunes, doesn't it? Except it's the OPPOSITE. Weird, huh? Ha ha. Microsoft, still milking the rubes.

Not on Mac????

"It is not possible to put an exact timeframe on when BBC iPlayer will be available for Mac users."

What do they mean it's not on the Mac? It starts with a lower case 'i', doesn't it? Didn't Apple trademark all possible 'i[A-Z][a-z]*' names?

BBC's new slogan...

BBC's new slogan... "Where does one want to go today?"

Sign the on-line petition

There is an 'e-petition' that can be signed by UK citizens or residents at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/iplayer/ [pm.gov.uk] (9,058 signatures at the time of this posting)

Re:DRM

I thought leaving it out was considered the solution to DRM.

Doesn't and can't exist.

It doesn't and never will. DRM and openness are fundamentally incompatible. You can't have an "open source DRM" system, because it would expose the fundamental flaw of DRM -- that it's trying to keep something from you that you already have. [1]

I think what's really galling people is that the BBC is using DRM at all.

[1] It might be possible to build an "open source" DRM system, if you were only talking about 'open' software, and it was just a wrapper around some sort of hardware system that actually held the keys. But that's why I said "openness" and DRM are incompatible -- in a truly open computer platform there's absolutely no way to enforce DRM against a savvy user that doesn't want it enforced on them. The only way DRM works is if you have a 'black box' somewhere, either in software or hardware.

Even more fundamental than that

You can't expose the keys, but any DRM system that's based on a secret implementation rather than cryptography is going to be cracked.

Even ones based on cryptography are going to be cracked, since there's no way to make a cryptographically secure DRM system. The end user has to have both the ciphertext and the key, in order to use the content at all -- therefore they can get the plaintext. It's often not exactly trivial, because the keys can be obscured, but there's no mathematical security there. It's always just a "secret implementation." Remove the secrecy and you break the system, period.

Re:Doesn't and can't exist.

I think what's really galling people is that the BBC is using DRM at all.

What's really galling me is that the BBC is adding an artificial limitation which will prevent me (a licence payer) from accessing this content at all since I don't own any Windows machines (and I'm not about to buy Windows just so I can watch this content - which I can most likley download illegally in a platform agnostic format anyway). And of course, licence fee payers can't withhold a portion of their licence in response to the BBC intentionally preventing them from accessing content they have a legal right to.

There is a distinct difference between someone not being able to access the BBC website because they don't own a computer (which is fundamentally required to access a web site) and someone not being able to access some content because the BBC has explicitly excluded them through artificial means (there is no reason to _require_ a user has Windows in order to view videos - other operating systems are equally capable of playing videos).

Re:Doesn't and can't exist.

We had this entire discussion on Sunday (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/22/2 08205) but to summarise:

You do not pay you licence fee to the BBC. You pay the government for the right to be able to receive television broadcasts from any source in any format. Read your licence.

The government funds part of the BBC providing it fulfills its charter and provides public service facilities for use during times of crisis.

Web streaming is NOT covered by the charter nor, therefore, by any funding provided by the government. You licence fee is totally irrelevant to this discussion

You are correct when you say that the BBC is restricting choice to those who use Windows systems - I am as unhappy with this decision as you are. However, they are free to provide web streaming in whatever format they choose with no regard to outside influence (either government or licence payers). They have chosen to stream to the largest possible user base that supports DRM (i.e. Windows). We are stuck with their decision - but from a business point of view it make sense.

DRM, or some other form of control over who can receive the data. is necessary in this instance. If they were to stream data around the world they would be breaking the terms of their own broadcasting licence and annoying other broadcasters in other countries. For example, if they are streaming coverage of the Olympic Games in near-real-time then they would be providing unfair competition to broadcasters in other countries.

Re:Doesn't and can't exist.

" I can see how portable intrinsic permissions could be a very good idea for media. Protecting internal documents. And hey, if it helps convince my gf that the sex tape won't end up on the internet, but I still get to watch it, that's one step closer. Work with me people. I have a dream!"

Can you post some footage of her, so we can see if it is going to be worth all the effort?

Re:Doesn't and can't exist.

We all think permissions are a good idea for computer security.

Yes we do, as long as their enforcement is managed by the computer owner.

I can see how portable intrinsic permissions could be a very good idea for media.

The problem here is that with DRM, computers obey the content owners' wishes, not the computer owners' wishes. The idea that my computer would refuse to permit me to do something because some third party says so is simply unacceptable.

Protecting internal documents.

No DRM is required to protect internal documents, ordinary permission systems would do fine. DRM is used to protect content that the owner want to publish for a wider audience, but still retain some control over. The problem is that to view the content, the key needs to be supplied, and with the key, the content can be permanently emancipated. Their so-called "solution" is to obfuscate the code in several ways so that key recovery will be harder. It is still not impossible to recover though.

Re:Doesn't and can't exist.

It doesn't and never will. DRM and openness are fundamentally incompatible. You can't have an "open source DRM" system, because it would expose the fundamental flaw of DRM -- that it's trying to keep something from you that you already have. [1]

Well, wrong. sort of.

It will eventually have DRM and If I'm not mistaken, there are projects currently working on it. But the thing is, the DRM doesn't have to work by locking everything down. All it has to do is lock the content down. So it isn't exactly that open source DRM but rather DRM that will work with open source.

[1] It might be possible to build an "open source" DRM system, if you were only talking about 'open' software, and it was just a wrapper around some sort of hardware system that actually held the keys. But that's why I said "openness" and DRM are incompatible -- in a truly open computer platform there's absolutely no way to enforce DRM against a savvy user that doesn't want it enforced on them. The only way DRM works is if you have a 'black box' somewhere, either in software or hardware.

It was explained to me that this is possible. I cannot seem to find the links to it but I remember a project who was working on a GPLed opensource product that institute DRM. It went something like a ssha encryption of the binary content and the provider generated an encrypted key based on your key which was based on your account information(from the provider). Then whatever player you were using needed a plugin that used another program to decrypt the media and stream it into the player.

I even had a discussion on slashdot [slashdot.org] with Bruce Perens where he said it was possible to lock down hardware and all with DRM in a similar manor. Of course he was talking about then non-existant revisions of the GPLv3 draft. So this might have changed. I haven't heard anything on it though.

Re:Doesn't and can't exist.

I think what's really galling people is that the BBC is using DRM at all.

Unfortunately, as I understand it, the BBC has been pushed into using DRM not because providing free unrestricted content might harm the BBC's own commercial interests, but because it might harm their rivals' (eg ITV, Sky). The BBC's most recent charter review, where the government decides whether the BBC can continue to collect TV licence fee revenue, carefully scrutinised whether the BBC's free content offerings would "distort the market" (ie make it too hard for commercial rivals to compete). DRM is the price the BBC is having to pay to release its content over the internet without harming its rivals too much.

Personally, I think it's daft of the government: effectively they are telling the BBC it mustn't offer too good value for licence fee payers' money. As a licence fee payer, I'd like the best value for money possible, thankyou very much, and I don't care two hoots about ITV's or Sky's commercial interests!

Re:DRM

The problem with DRM is that it is as much about vendor lock in as it is about content protection. Ironicly is works far better as a vendor locking method than a content control method. M$ will be reluctant to provide licenses for GPL type code for obvious reasons. However they seem to be more open to licenseing there DRM than apple is.

Re:TV License Fee moving to a computer tax

Paying taxes for something you don't/can't actually use is nothing new. Homeowners here in Texas pay for public schools, whether or not they have children. And things of that nature are pretty similar across the board.

Re:DRM

What solutions to DRM does open source software offer though?

never including DRM in the first place sounds like a good solution to me.

Isn't the BBC being forced to do this?

So the role of the broadcaster used to easy. Programs were broadcast over a limited area that could be tightly controlled.

Some broadcaster pay huge sums of money for the rights to broadcast certain events (films, sporting events, programs such as Planet Earth (GBP8m) etc. ) They need to recoup this money. They do this by selling the rights for a certain georgraphy to other broadcasters. Or they pay less but can only broadcast to certain geographies.

The web has changed all this.

Some contracts allow broadcasters to rebroadcast on the web but only to their own georgraphy. My companys exit onto the internet is not in the UK. Therefore I can not access BBC/Channel4 content from work - none UK IP address. I don't hear anyone screaming about the injustice of this situation.

For the BBC to be able to succesfully bid for programmes and offer them on line they have to show the copyright holders they can protect their rights and, ultimatly whether you like it or not, their revenue stream. If the BBC can not show they can do this then either they are not considered in the race to purchase programmes or they can not offer them up via the web.

As someone says on this discussion 'no system is fair to everyone'. The BBC is luadable in that they are trying to offer some content to some people in a time /place shifted manner. If you don't like what they offer go out and get a solution that allows you to record the broadcast material that you can use when you want. (Bewaare though that there are legal protections, for the BBC, on this activity that while harder to police/enforce you should respect if you respect the fact that someone must create and pay for this content somewere. The license fee does not give you a right to material that the BBC has purchased/created in the same way the membership of a library does not give you the right to photocopy evrybook in it and distribute for free to whom so ever might want it.)

Thanks

Re:pick your battles

The BBC isn't actually a business, it's a state funded public service broadcaster. Every UK TV set requires a licence fee to be paid for it which is used to fund the BBC.

Perhaps one should do some research before shooting oneself in the foot ?

Re:So it would be better if the BBC didn't do this

Well, I guess we have twitter's answer then, eh?

Re:Points of View

Continued on p.94 ?

Re:Is this even legal?

Funny you should say that, there's a group that are taking the BBC to court for anti-trust violations over the iPlayer.