BBC's Plan To Kick Open Source Out of UK TV 302
bluec writes "Generally speaking, the BBC isn't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts: the license fee payer pays for these broadcasts. But the BBC has tried to get around this, asking Ofcom for permission to encrypt the 'metadata' on its broadcasts – including the assistive information used by deaf and blind people and the 'tables' used by receivers to play back the video. As Ofcom gears up to a second consultation on the issue, there's one important question that the BBC must answer if the implications of this move are to be fully explored, namely: How can free/open source software co-exist with a plan to put DRM on broadcasts?"
Dirac (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the BBC would like to collaborate with the Open Source community, academics and others to produce an Open Codec [bbc.co.uk]
Not Mutually Exclusive (Score:3, Interesting)
DRM does not depend on a particular programming paradigm, nor does Open Source. PGP is a great example of open source security which remains secure. The challenge really lies in the implementor, who needs to enforce security while not falling back on closed-cource obfuscation to achieve the task.
Why does DRM exclude open source? (Score:4, Interesting)
All the best encryption systems publish their source code. Real cryptographers don't trust closed source.
Re:Strange question (Score:2, Interesting)
The interesting question ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Although this is /. and people are more interested in technical questions, for me the really interesting question is: How can they encrypt the "metadata" on broadcasts – including the assistive information used by deaf and blind people ?
I mean, this basically means all of the broadcast can be copied and used in any way imaginable except for the part of the broadcast which is important to the handicapped ? This sounds sort of immoral to me.
Re:Strange question (Score:3, Interesting)
At some point there's going to need to be decrypted data at the device its self and once that happens it's game over.
Re:Strange question (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think you quite understand. The only thing DRM has is security by obscurity. When you freely hand out both the ciphertext *and* the key to whoever asks, you can't have anything else. And if it's open source, you don't get even that. So no, you're not going to see any open source DRM systems any time soon.
Re:Strange question (Score:5, Interesting)
you're not going to see any open source DRM systems any time soon.
While I can't be clear on their efficacy, it would be incorrect to say there are no DRM systems available.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=open+source+drm+solutions [lmgtfy.com]
Re:Strange question (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems like the article is suggesting that all media boxes that run on open source software will be unusable with any kind DRM because, in general, DRM solutions need to be closed. Setting aside whether or not that's correct (see other responses for discussion of that) it seems to be oblivious to the fact that open source players are perfectly capable of using closed-source codecs provided they can license use of the relevant binary blobs. Furthermore, proprietary video players can always be released for Linux.
Sure the BBC could choose to use a format that isn't supported on Linux but there's no fundamental problem with running proprietary software on open source platforms. If the BBC wants to pay for developing a version of a proprietary codec to run on Linux media boxes, they can. DRM will still be a poor choice for reasons that any /. reader knows all about, but it's a choice that isn't fundamentally tied in to interoperability with OSS (even if the philosophies behind DRM and OSS are at odds).
Re:Why does DRM exclude open source? (Score:1, Interesting)
Of course you can. There is one fool proof (and open source) way to ensure you only use the content of the message in one way.
The BBC needs one armed person for every viewer aiming at the viewer's head while the viewer 'watches' the BBC programming. The armed person will demand that you
1) refrain from doing anything with the content
2) ensure that the content is removed from your consciousness immediately after viewing.
3) upon immediate failure of either following 1 or 2 the gun goes off.
It might be a bit intrusive, and a little expensive, but it will surely get the job done.
RIRO = Retarded In - Retarded Out
DRM is a stupid idea that only exists as a fanciful idea for the lazy ass corporate control freaks. Only when these type of fools stop trying to implement the costly DRM system will they actually spend money on creating more material than wasting money on a failure of an idea, like DRM.
I can only imagine what's going on in the Corporate fools heads:
CF1: "Oooo - I've heard of this great idea, DRM, it will make us money."
CF2: "Excellent, tell me all about how we can ensure making money?"
CF1: "We need to spend a billion dollars on DRM. Then we will control the peons."
CF2: "Sounds great! Lets start"
H1: "I've cracked the CF1 DRM in 2 minutes."
CF2: "OMG - We need a new DRM!" ... rinse - repeat ...
CF1: "Oooo - I've heard of this great idea, DRM, it will make us money."
DRM is the biggest waste of money there is. It wastes peoples time making it, wastes it cracking it, wastes it using it. I wonder how big a carbon footprint DRM has made? It's probably huge!
Re:BBC (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that there are non-BBC channels and you have to pay the tax even if you never watch a BBC channel.
To use a car analogy, this would be like having to pay a monthly fee to Ford for "car services" regardless of what brand your car is.
There are many arguments around this one, but my favourite is that because the BBC (usually!) sets such high standards it makes the other terrestrial TV companies (ITV, Chan4/5) and the UK cable companies strive to raise their game also. Hence the benefit for any UK TV watcher regardless of which channel.
It is more like the UK's road fund licence (AKA Car Tax): everyone pays if they own a car because it (is supposed to!) make ALL the roads better!
That said, IMHO I'd say the TV License has had its day and it should be scrapped and an equal amount just taken from income tax instead. This would save money 'cos there'd be no need for all the TV License infrastructure, etc.
make the license fee voluntary (Score:4, Interesting)
At the moment in the UK, subscription to the BBC is compulsory, as a condition of being able to have a TV. And if you watch TV without subscribing, you will be hauled before a magistrate, fined, and maybe imprisoned. People are imprisoned all the time for doing this.
What we need to do is make it voluntary. Everyone should be able to subscribe to the channels of their choice, or not as the case may be. Then, when subscription to the BBC is voluntary, we can just stop arguing about it and let them do what they want. If we don't like it, we would cancel our subscriptions.
This is so simple and obvious, its very difficult to understand why everyone doesn't support it automatically. What possible case can there be for making subscription to one particular broadcaster compulsory, and enforced by criminal law sanctions? Its totally nuts. We don't make subscription to one particular newspaper a condition of being able to read the press. We don't make subscription to one particular web site a condition of being able to have Internet Access. What is the problem here?
Re:make the license fee voluntary (Score:1, Interesting)
I support it alright, but I'm pretty sure they'd want it both ways with encryption and a mandatory licence. As it stands if you don't own a TV and exercise your right not to pay for a licence you receive an endless stream of threatening letters which would have you believe that it's a criminal act to not have a licence regardless.
DRM and a per-box licence would allow people to opt out of paying for what they don't want and I reckon the BBC know how much cash they stand to lose from this if people just pay for what they want and rightfully receive it.
and this is why the move to digital TV was wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
The analogue system was stable, open, technician-friendly, and degraded gracefully. A 30-year-old analogue set still works today, except in regions where the analogue signal has now been switched off.
The digital system opens the doors for tweaks to be made with protocols to add "features" or restrictions, each of which will require buying a new STB/TV every few years. It is already the case that many Freeview systems from half a decade ago need replacing - do not even dream that the majority of manufacturers are going to provide firmware updates.
Yes, we can now admit 6 to 8 channels where previously only one could be transmitted on a particular frequency, but the large majority of the channels are dedicated to repeats and/or excreta. It is hard to find and apply good writing and production talent, and not worth the time and money when the number of viewers is spread so thinly over so many channels. And do not be fooled into thinking that the number of potential channels will increase as the art allows! Two large chunks of the broadcast TV bandwidth are to be reallocated, i.e. what the people own will be sold off.
All you have gained is the potential for HDTV, but this could already have been run as a separate service alongside analog. What is more, it distracts from the original purpose of TV in the UK as a public service broadcasting medium, not an eye candy broadcasting medium.
BBC the producer / BBC the distributer (Score:4, Interesting)
The BBC is both producer and distributer. Maybe it should be split into "BBC TV" and "BBC Production"? After Dirac leading to a Windows only iPlayer I think we can dismiss their 'research' department.
The license could pay basic infrastructure costs for "BBC TV" running the distribution infrastructure (transmitters, etc). If they want to play the silly "ratings war" games they are playing, then they can buy up foreign commercial pap and be allowed to play a couple of adverts before and afterwards to pay for it. This would mean tax payers money isn't being sucked abroad for rubbish reality tv shows.
Most of the money goes into "BBC Production". This produces content as per their remit. This then goes to to "BBC TV" and is played for free, or is licensed to foreign TV stations. As soon as it is broadcast it is then put up for free on the BBC torrent site unrestricted. It is not even worth blocking foreign IPs, getting more private worldwide viewers will put pressure on other TV stations to license the content from the BBC.
Just food for thought, I am sure there may be problems with this I haven't thought of.
Phillip.
Anachronistic US Speech (Re:The BBC aren't) (Score:3, Interesting)
That's right, the business with Americans' prolific use of z's seems to be a holdover from an alternative spelling convention that dates back to before English was properly standardised (Note: "standardised", not "standarized").
Californian "Valley Talk" in particular seem to have strong elements of late Seventeenth/early Eighteenth century spoken English, notably the "delayed negative" that's often used for humour or emphasis (this is well known ... not).
This anachronistic anomaly may be due to the comparatively high proportion of vampires that left Europe for the New World to avoid persecution at around the time of the Founding Fathers, and who kept migrating West until they ended up concentrated in small communities in California.
The BBC isn't/aren't, corporations (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right about the "corporation" bit. Under English law, a "corporation" is "an artificial human being" ("corp..." referring to things bodylike), so the BBC as a corporation is singular whenever we're talking about a matter of centralised policy (whenever the BBC is acting as a single entity).
However, there are many groups within the BBC in charge of different aspects of policymaking (such as the technical and standards groups), so "The BBC" can also be considered as a group, and when one of these groups does a thing, or floats an idea that can't be treated as a definitive official action by the corporation, we tend to use the plural (plurals sometimes being used to symbolise "fuzziness", to signify vagueness over who exactly it is that's being referred to).
"The BBC" can also be plural when it refers to a group of broadcast channels.
So for instance you might hear people saying:
PS: On the "corporation" bit, that's what niggled me about Asimov's "I Robot" series ... the ongoing plot element about the robot wanting to have status as a person. I don't see why they couldn't simply have had him registered as a corporation. Corporations have reponsibilities and can be deemed to have committed crimes (eg corporate manslaughter), they can own property, and they can be subjected to penalties, like people. If you want to deem a sentient robot to be an autonomous entity, then declaring them an "artificial person" seems appropriate.