Anti-DRM Activists Take On the BBC

An anonymous reader writes "Activists from Binary Freedom Boston have launched a campaign calling on the BBC to release their content online without DRM or proprietary formats. You might remember the BBC asking us about this earlier and even though the public chose not to use DRM by a landslide, they still decided to use it. EMI and Amazon have already ditched DRM. How long before the BBC does?"

Freedom of information act may already cover this

[Ckwop (707653)]

DRM free content? Absolutely. I have to pay my TV license every year for the BBC. For the most part, I think it is value for money. The BBC news site is worth the license fee all by itself. For comparison, I pay about a third of the cost of a license on a Slashdot subscription each year and Slashdot is less than a third of the quality.

However, I'm of the opinion that if you're going to force people to pay for a service through a tax, then the products of that government service should be free in the BSD style sense of the word. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that this needs to be codified in to law. In fact, we may already have in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 [opsi.gov.uk].

Having just read the first section of the act, you could make a questionable legal argument that if you make a request for the unDRMED content and they fail to give you that version they are in breach of the act. If you have to buy a Windows machine just to watch one of their publicly broadcast snippets I'd say that obstructs the request for the information sufficiently for it to become unlawful. No other department is free to restrict requests in that manner!

We've already paid for the service so give us the bloody content in a usable format!

Simon

Re:

[dave420 (699308)]

But what about people who don't pay for a TV license? This will allow THEM access to shows YOU'VE paid for... What about if the only DRM is you entering your TV license code, with no restrictions on what you can do with it, bar removing the protection? For you, the media would be free, but for those without TV licenses (who have no right to the media), it's not free. The BBC has a mandate to protect the interests of the license fee payer, which means limiting the availability of the media to those folks

Re:

[janrinok (846318)]

The BBC's broadcasts are already free, via satellite, in Europe. I do not pay a UK license fee but can watch BBC, and the other UK channels, via Sky and without the use of any Sky subscription. I do not think that the content being available to anyone else in the world is such a major issue. The material has already been funded and you pay for your internet access so no-one is losing money.

Re:

[dave420 (699308)]

That's because they have no way of changing that without denying license payers in the UK access to the content for free. They have to do all they can to ensure license payers get the content for free, and those without licenses don't. That's why as DRM exists, they're forced to use it, as without it, they'd be in breach of their charter. They can't have advertising-supported DRM-free content, as other content suppliers have done, as that again is in serious breach of their charter.

Re:

[bentcd (690786)]

They have to do all they can to ensure license payers get the content for free, and those without licenses don't. That's why as DRM exists, they're forced to use it, as without it, they'd be in breach of their charter.

But, certainly, it is sufficiently easy to make an argument that DRM is ineffective (and, additionally, that it inconveniences the license payers) that if they had wanted to they could easily have neutralized that particular line of reasoning.

Re:

[pe1chl (90186)]

That's because they have no way of changing that without denying license payers in the UK access to the content for free.

That isn't true. Until about two years ago they encrypted their broadcast and allowed UK residents to view it for free by making available smartcards to them.
However, they did so in association with the commercial TV companies (sharing their card), and apparently that deal was so expensive to them that they decided to end it.

But that does not mean there is "no way". E.g. here in the Ne

Re:

[LingNoi (1066278)]

As a license fee payer myself, I do not care if third parties have access. Good for them!

Although some people will disagree they're more the old moaning grandparent types with their "because I had to pay you do to!" speeches. These old farts need to stop complaining and realize theres a lot of us Brits outside the country wanting to watch the BBC.

This is really what the BBC has needed for a long time. It never made any sense to me that I have to pay this license every year but if I want to watch something I

Re:

[dave420 (699308)]

If people can watch the BBC legally without having to pay for it, or without the BBC being reimbursed in a way that doesn't break their charter, then people will stop paying their TV licenses, which means the BBC will get less funding, which means its quality will suffer.

I totally agree that the BBC's back-catalogue should be made available to license payers to watch, but without some sort of mechanism to ensure that viewers actually have a license fee, when such a measure is possible, then that breaks thei

Re:

[gilesjuk (604902)]

Simple, make people register and use their TV licence details to gain access.

It's better than locking everything with DRM.

Re:

[dave420 (699308)]

And those files will not be able to be shared with non-license-fee-paying folks how, exactly? Your solution is not a solution in the slightest. It certainly doesn't free the BBC from their obligations. I'm completely against DRM on music, as music is an advert for the live gigs. I support DRM when it's used as it should be, to allow media to exist where previously it couldn't.

Re:

[asuffield (111848)]

I totally agree that the BBC's back-catalogue should be made available to license payers to watch, but without some sort of mechanism to ensure that viewers actually have a license fee, when such a measure is possible, then that breaks their charter.

The BBC's main product is the BBC terrestrial broadcast. DRM measures are possible on this, such as the encryption and decoder mechanisms used by the cable companies. The BBC does not use them. Anybody can buy (or build, it's not that hard!) their own TV receive

Re:

[dave420 (699308)]

And how do you stop those videos from being uploaded after they've typed in their TV license? That's kind of why DRM was invented. Plenty of folks don't watch TV on actual TVs but over the internet. It's getting more and more. The line between TVs and computers is getting thinner and thinner, and if they can get BBC content over the internet for free, without paying their license, they will, which will put a massive dent in the BBC's income, which will in turn put a massive dent in their programming, to

Re:

[cortana (588495)]

But DRM does not stop the videos from being uploaded either. It is precicely as effective; that is to say, not at all.

Giving someone the ciphertext and the key that decrypts it is exactly the same as giving them the plaintext. It has to be, otherwise how could they watch the content?

Re:

[bentcd (690786)]

As a license fee payer myself, I do not care if third parties have access. Good for them!

One minor question that has been bugging me for a while is this: has Britain totally given up any attempt at cultural influence beyond its own borders? I have for long time considered that the cultural value inherent in BBC's very high quality of programming could be a most potent tool in gendering understanding for "the British way/view" abroad if only the world at large were given ready access to it. Surely, such an effect would have considerably more value to Britain than whatever it is they would be sp

Re:

[bigtomrodney (993427)]

One minor question that has been bugging me for a while is this: has Britain totally given up any attempt at cultural influence beyond its own borders? I have for long time considered that the cultural value inherent in BBC's very high quality of programming could be a most potent tool in gendering understanding for "the British way/view" abroad if only the world at large were given ready access to it.

I think that is a very narrow view, and if I may say so a very British one. What makes you thinkthe small island of Britain has a right to push cultural influence outside of its own borders?
I think it would be far more valuable to Britain to venture out looking for cultural influence from outside. Don't get me wrong I am not attacking Britain, but we are long past the days of the British Empire and there is too much naval gazing and self congratulation in nations throughout the world without more pushing o

Re:Freedom of information act may already cover th

[bentcd (690786)]

What makes you thinkthe small island of Britain has a right to push cultural influence outside of its own borders?

This question puzzles me. Why should they not have this right? If freedom of speech is important on a domestic level, why would it not be equally important on an international one? If the content turns out of be of no interest to the world at large, they'll just ignore it. (Although my opinion is that the BBC produces content of sufficiently high quality that it will not, in fact, be totally ignored.)

I think it would be far more valuable to Britain to venture out looking for cultural influence from outside.

This seems to be a false dilemma. Surely, it is possible both to export culture and to import it at the same time.

Don't get me wrong I am not attacking Britain, but we are long past the days of the British Empire and there is too much naval gazing and self congratulation in nations throughout the world without more pushing of their own views. Countries would have more benefit if they looked beyond themselves for their own growth.

It will be difficult to look beyond oneself for cultural input if everyone around you is jealously guarding all of their goods. My suggestion is basically that Britain not prevent others from looking to it should they so choose.

Is it better than mandating into your national broadcaster that they should be pushing "the British way/view" as you put it?

I am not sure where, or how, I "put" that. I am suggesting that Britain should spend money to make their cultural production available to the world at large. How they go about doing this is certainly an interesting question, but I don't think that I even hinted that the solution might be "force Brazilians at gunpoint to watch Shooting Stars". If I suggested anything then it might have been, considering the context of this debate, "make BBC content available on the internet without DRM".

Re:

[Chaffar (670874)]

there is too much naval gazing and self congratulation in nations throughout the world

I totally agree. Here in France, we spend on average 10 hours a week looking at ships pass by and congratulating ourselves for it; something must be done.

Re:Freedom of information act may already cover th

[LehiNephi (695428)]

The BBC has actually done this at least once in the past. A while ago, they released recordings of the BBC Orchestra playing Beethoven Symphonies Nos. 6-9 in MP3 format, for free on their website. I jumped at the chance and downloaded them, and still listen to those recordings occasionally.

Re:

[Angostura (703910)]

And they were jumped on by the regulators and the BBC Trustees. The BBC had to commit to them to not do any such thing in the future.

(It was the full set of symphonies, actually).

Re:

[arivanov (12034)]

That is an interesting and rather entertaining interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act.

Anyway problem elsewhere. BBC already tried to release un-DRM-ed content and got into hot water for it. More specifically they released all Bethoven Symphonies as played on BBC radio via their web site 2 or 3 years ago (I got 6-9 and missed the first 5). And they stopped. Guess why - because the rest of the music industry threatened to sue them for undercutting classical music prices.

Personally, I found the argum

Re:

[Original Replica (908688)]

I have to pay my TV license every year for the BBC.

And here across the pond I have to pay the music industry for every RW-CD I buy regardless of use. But they still want to sell you the same thing twice. I think you in the UK stand a better chance of getting DRM-free BBC, than we do of getting rid of the music tax. For us Yankees just how much is your TV liscense? I might want to pay it from here, If that got me some BBC DVDs.

Re:

[MightyYar (622222)]

You realize that you can record music onto a data CD-RW (which are not encumbered with a fee)? Or are you applying the term "Yankee" to Canadians, who do have to pay a license fee for CD-RW disks?

The problem

[by Anonymous Coward]

The problem is royalties for net based distribution, the morons at equity (the union) refuse to recognize that repeat fees are unworkable in the digital age.

It will change gradually as those who stick to the outmoded royalties model find themselves without work. If these guys really want to protest - target equity [equity.org.uk]

Amazon does use DRM

[DrXym (126579)]

Amazon Unbox is as DRM infested as they come. Perhaps they've chosen to unencumber certain music tracks (no doubt to "coincide" with a price hike), but movies? No way.

Wrong for both technically and financial reasons

[geoff lane (93738)]

I see no reason why the BBC should award a monopoly to any company and their media format for material owned by the BBC. It is not the job of the BBC to support Microsoft, Real or any other closed format exclusively.

I note with interest that the various free/open media formats are available on every platform and do not require license payments. The only reason not to use a free/open format is DRM and if that is the case here then the BBC is making a wrong choice for both technical and financial reasons.

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

One of the main reasons for wanting to download TV shows is to be able to watch them in places other than the living room, for example on portable media players or mobile 'phones. The BBC's proposal, to use Microsoft DRM, effectively hands this entire market to Microsoft. I own a few mobile devices capable of video playback, but none of them run Wince, and so none of them are capable of playing back Microsoft DRM'd content.

They can maximize their profite by using DRM properly

Last time I read the BBC's charter, maximising profit was not one of their objec

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

Uh huh. And Microsoft's objective is to produce the worlds greatest software!

Here in the UK, Microsoft is not a taxpayer-funded organisation. The BBC is. Microsoft's principle responsibility is to its shareholders. The BBC's is to the citizens of the UK.

Umm there's something wrong with this tea party

[grapeape (137008)]

So some group of yahoo's out of Massachusetts have decided that they dont like restrictions on free content? The anti-drm argument is fine when its paid for content (If I buy it I should be able to do what I want) but free content should be distributed however the owner wants to do it. Their arguments are rather sad. The first one is that DRM doesnt work, if thats the case then why worry about it, just circumvent it and shut the hell up. The second point makes no sense, what right do you have to free co

Re:

[Jeremy_Bee (1064620)]

Your really missing the point here; possibly because of a lack of knowledge about BBC, the UK, and the history behind all of this. I know I am making a big assumption there as to your background, but your comments make no sense to me except as being made by an uninformed observer.

The BBC is a public service and does not operate on the same standard corporate level that you seem to think it does. That's why they have a charter from the government (quoted many times in the article).

To refute your formulation

Ownership of content

[Spad (470073)]

Part of the problem is that a lot of the "BBC's" content isn't actually owned by the BBC because they just buy it in from 3rd parties (I'm talking original programming here, not stuff bought from the US etc).

The smart thing to do (depending on your attitude towards these things) would be to take the Apple-esque route and make all of the BBC-owned content available sans-DRM (but maintaining the existing geo-IP blocks for non UK users as is required) and then make everything else available DRM-encumbered with clear information explaining why this is the case and who to contact if you want to bitch about it.

To be honest, I do believe that if they had the choice, the BBC would open up all of their archives for DRM-free download to UK citizens, but it's not always as simple as that.

in soviet britan

[superwiz (655733)]

music own you

What about NPR?

[freelunch (258011)]

Why can't we easily download NPR content in a friendly format?

It seems like their audio is WMV or RP and the download links are buried. I don't want to launch a proprietary player from my browser or otherwise, thankyourverymuch.

Re:

[delirium of disorder (701392)]

Why can't we easily download NPR content in a friendly format?

Some local NPR affiliates release their broadcasts in open formats even through nationally NPR does not. BTW, why are you still listening to NPR? It really isn't "public" media anymore, and the political slant is about as right wing as fox news. Pro-war, pro-religion, pro-corporatism. "Nationalist Public Radio" perhaps? "National Pentagon Radio"? I prefer Democracy Now! [democracynow.org] for my news. They offer one hour ogg vorbis streams every day.

Licencing issues...

[Goth Biker Babe (311502)]

Don't forget that the BBC doesn't always have the rights for some of the programming, or only has rights to broadcast within certain geographic boundaries. For example football (soccer) matches are sold in other markets as PPV whilst being free in the UK. Those broadcasters abroad will not be happy if everyone can watch those matches off of the BBC web site for free.

When the BBC channels were broadcast on the old satellite the satellite foot print meant that many european countries could also pick up the

won't happen

[joe 155 (937621)]

I'm a license payer, I've tried to email them about the content not working with open formats and needed real player/WMP. I simply don't understand why they don't allow it to work with Helix player or even provide it as an ogg download so that it would be really easy to play it in linux through mplayer.

The automated response I got threatened to sue me if I told anyone the contents in a way which I'm pretty sure isn't legal (but i'm used to being threatened by the BBC...). I never got a real reply. Over t

BBC and MS

[linuxci (3530)]

Remember when the BBC were developing their own open source video codec (Google dirac [google.co.uk] for more info)? All looked promising, the thought of being able to download BBC content to use on your OS of choice was starting to look very likely.

Then they suddenly became very friendly with Microsoft (not sure if it was connected with the change of management after Blair kicked the existing one out by saying bad things about Iraq or whether Bill came by with a sack of cash) - they developed iPlayer [wikipedia.org] which was based on Windows Media Player, so now Linux and even Mac users were left out in the cold. In effect the BBC started discriminating against people unwilling or unable to pay the Microsoft Tax.

The BBC have lately promised to also make the content available on MacOS X eventually, but no dates have been fixed. In the end for it to work on the Mac they will have to offer their content either in an open DRM-free format or use Apples DRM. If they stick with the DRM route it will mean Linux and other OS users will be out of luck. FWIW (not a lot probably) here's a petition [pm.gov.uk] to make iPlayer cross platform (with a name like iSomething you'd expect it to work on a mac!).

The problem with the BBC

[Budenny (888916)]

The problem is a simple one. In the UK, in order to have the legal right to watch any television, including non-BBC television, you are obliged to subscribe to the BBC. It is compulsory, its a criminal offense not to.

It is as if, for you guys in the US, in order for you to be allowed to read any newspaper, you were legally obliged to buy a subscription to the NY Times, whether you wanted to read it or did read it or not. It is as if you are legally obliged to buy a copy of Windows in order to own a computer and run Linux or MacOS, whether you install and use it or not. Whether you even can install and use it or not. You buy computer, Mac or barebones. Fine, pay fee to MS.

Now, the BBC has no corresponding obligations back to you. And there is no way you can say, no I would like to choose an alternative supplier of TV. You cannot, for instance, say that, since the BBC does not support your chosen OS, but Sky does, you are going to subscribe to Sky instead. No, you subscribe to Sky AS WELL.

Whether the BBC does DRM is neither here nor there - its no more objectionable, nor less so, than any other company doing DRM.

What is appalling, and a total denial of human rights, is that it forces people to subscribe, whether they want or can access its content or not, so they can get to different content they do want and can access.

Now, in reply to this point, we ordinarily get people saying that the BBC is excellent. Ie they like it. They can receive its content. They want to subscribe. Its just irrelevant to the human rights issue. I should have the right to watch TV without paying for the BBC if I do not want to watch it.

Tell me again why everyone else has to be compelled to subscribe?

Re:

[evilviper (135110)]

the UK, in order to have the legal right to watch any television, including non-BBC television, you are obliged to subscribe to the BBC. It is compulsory, its a criminal offense not to.

And in order to have the legal right to drive on the roads, you are obliged to pay taxes for road maintenance... even the roads you NEVER drive on.

That's the way all taxes go. They go to some things you like, as well as some things you may not like. Being in a democracy, however, you do have the right to lobby for your mon

Not sure if it's relevant

[-Neko- (67564)]

I'd consider the BBC to be a subscription service.

There's a big difference between "pay for an item and want the ability to play it without restriction" DRM and "pay for an item and the ability to play it while you pay your subscription".

DRM works - at least it has a purpose - for the subscription model. Just like I (in the UK) can't even view the Showtime website to check on some of the shows I've seen from the Showtime network, and HBO crack down on non-subscribers accessing their shows (although I get to see them on UK TV about a year behind), and I can't view the Battlestar Galactica extra scenes from the US Sci-Fi website (it tells me I am not in the USA therefore have no access to it - and no anonymous proxying works for some reason), I don't see why a bunch of Americans, French, Japanese should be able to get hold of unrestricted content that I as a UK citizen and a dutiful payer of the TV license in the UK have technically paid for.

After all, someone has to pay for the content at some point. It stands to reason if the content is subscription-based, some kind of rights management needs to be in place.

DRM may well be in place for BBC because they are protecting British citizens and license-fee payers' rights to the media. If you did not have to pay the license fee to download the content for free, the BBC would not get any money every year; that's what the license fee is piled into. So it has to be protected somehow.

Re:

[dave420 (699308)]

"To you" being the operative words... without DRM the content would be free to those who haven't paid their license fee, which is against the BBC's charter. It would mean folks just wouldn't pay their license fees, as they could get the content for free, which means no money is put into the BBC, which means no shows, which means everyone suffers. Yay!

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

without DRM the content would be free to those who haven't paid their license fee, which is against the BBC's charter

Last time I read the BBC's charter (which, to be fair, was about five years ago), they were required to make use of any means available to them to get their content to UK citizens. There was no mention of it only being available to license payers; you can read the BBC web site or listen to BBC radio, for example, without paying the license fee.

I don't watch much TV these days, but I do enjoy the other services. My TV license is up for renewal in a few months, and if they still intend to spend some of th

Re:

[dave420 (699308)]

If you have a PC that is capable of listening to BBC radio, you technically should have a radio license. The other part of their charter that deals with this is they have to strike a balance between providing the content to license fee payers, and stopping those who don't have licenses from getting it. That's why they (or, rather the TV licensing authority) enforce the TV license, and that's why the TV license isn't optional but mandatory for those who receive the content in the UK.

The BBC isn't supportin

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

If you have a PC that is capable of listening to BBC radio, you technically should have a radio license

You only need a radio license in the UK if you plan on broadcasting. Receiving radio broadcasts on any frequency is either legal or illegal, depending on the frequency (some military / police frequencies are illegal). You do not need a license of any kind to own an AM, FM or DAB radio that can receive BBC programs.

The BBC isn't supporting Microsoft, they're supporting the people, most of who use Microsoft

Really? How many people in the UK own a mobile phone? How many of those are capable of playing back video? And, of those, how many run a Microsoft OS or media player? Only being able to

Re:

[dave420 (699308)]

By "radio license" I meant the discounted TV license for people who only have radio sets and no TV, obviously.

The BBC's media is clearly intended to be viewed on a large-screen PC, not a 2.something" screen on your phone. As soon as the BBC can find a way of protecting its content on those mobile phones, the content will be there. The BBC does what its charter allows and what the public wants. Just because people have devices that can't play un-DRM'd media doesn't mean they can ditch their charter and st

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

By "radio license" I meant the discounted TV license for people who only have radio sets and no TV, obviously.

There is no such license. There are two forms of TV license; those for people with black-and-white TVs, and those for colour. There is also a concessionary rate for blind people, I believe. There is no 'radio license,' 'TV license for people with only radio sets,' or any other form of license required to receive non-TV BBC material. You don't need a TV license to browse news.bbc.co.uk, nor to listen to Radio 4.

Re:

[the_womble (580291)]

Absolute rubbish there is no such thing as a radio license [bbc.co.uk]. Do your research. The same goes for all the other idiots (or possibly music and TV industry shills) claiming that the BBC has to use DRM because of their charter. The BBC has to use DRM because of lobbying (of the government, the BBC trustees, and Ofcom) by its competitors that want to hobble the distribution of free content. This was clear from the BBC's own announcement on the decision to use DRM (you did read it? No? How odd!).

Re:

[nine-times (778537)]

I'm not English so I don't know... is the licensing fee mandatory (just part of your taxes), or is it optional?

Re:

[swab79 (842256)]

You should check out Zattoo. It's an internet TV service. Right now it is only available in Switzerland, however, a couple of weeks ago I signed up to be notified when it becomes available in the UK. Yesterday I got an email asking me to become one of the first in the UK to use Zattoo.

I signed up, downloaded the Linux client (LGPL) and can now watch 7 BBC channels plus France 24, TVE Internacional and TV Polonia!

No mention from Zattoo of the need for a TV license, so not sure if this is the case.

Re:

[aslate (675607)]

This has always been the way. The BBC operates as an internal and external company, with BBC World being entirely self-funding (and must do so under the BBC charter). The other main reason for the geoblocking on online BBC media is the fact that the BBC often are not the sole copyright owner with many productions being produced by studios for the BBC who often retain some rights.

Re:

[VJ42 (860241)]

No, I think it's more complicated than that, as I understand it the world service [wikipedia.org] still recieves FCO funding, however BBC world [wikipedia.org] has to be self funding.