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?"
Strange question (Score:4, Insightful)
How can free/open source software co-exist with a plan to put DRM on broadcasts?
It's simple, really.
Someone develops an Open Source DRM software solution, and the BBC uses it.
It's no different from a closed source DRM solution, except that since it is OSS, it may have a stronger encryption system since it can't rely on security through obscurity.
"Open Source" means a lot of different things to different people, but the basic concept is that it is the software which is free. How the users use the tools isn't part of the equation. So a good OSS DRM solution is a boon for some users (and a bane for their users). But either way, FOSS is not at all at odds with DRM.
Re:Strange question (Score:5, Informative)
In an open-source solution you can download the source and a debugger and see exactly which bytes you need to patch to break the DRM.. Finding 09 F9 was hard when hackers had a 15MB memory dump to scour, but it wouldn't be hard at all with the full source code. You don't seem to realize that an "encryption system" needs to store its key (or a method of obtaining the key) in the source or else the client can't view the content at all.
You can do some Bad Things like using a weird memory manager that puts instructions in unpredictable places but that only increases headaches all around and is still breakable.
Re:Strange question (Score:5, Insightful)
Encryption strength depends on the key, not the algorithm. You can study the source of GnuPG all you want, but you can't break the encryption without the private key.
And DRM fails because of neither the key nor the algorithm. It fails because some greedy clods don't know heck about the basic principles of encryption, one of which being that you can't encrypt and not-encrypt at the same time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Encryption strength depends on the key, not the algorithm.
Actually they're both important. For example, XOR encryption is remarkably weak in most cases. Especially based on your further comments, I think what you really meant to say was:
Encryption strength depends on the secrecy of the key, not the algorithm.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
XOR, just like ROT-N, isn't really encryption at all, I think.
And yes, secrecy of the key is a necessity, but not all. Weak keys can be guessed. Strong keys add to the difficulty of breaching its secrecy by guess.
But all these are trash-talk WRT DRM. Those who want DRM are blinded by the doublethink of giving you something while not giving you it. They borrow things from encryption technology but refuse to face the fact that encryption is intended to defeat tampering or eavesdropping, not DUPLICATION -- nei
Re:Strange question (Score:5, Informative)
XOR encryption isn't weak. It's just extremely vulnerable to a plaintext attack. Where that isn't an issue (eg. one time pads), it's the best algorithm out there.
The exceptions (where XOR is strong) (Score:4, Informative)
For example, XOR encryption is remarkably weak in most cases.
That really depends.
If you repeat a password cyclically ("hunter2hunter2hunter2...") and XOR it onto your plain text, you're doing a polyalphabetic substitution cipher. Those were broken around the first world war (IIRC); google for "Kasiski Test" and others.
If you use a random byte (independent of every other byte) at each position of the key stream ("%Nb2a#!\nF..."), XOR is the perfect cipher. By observing the cipher text, you have no better idea about what the plain text is compared to what idea you would have if all you knew was that the plain text was there*.
If you use a block cipher (DES, AES, etc.) to encrypt "n+0", "n+1", "n+2", etc., for some random initial offset n, and concatenate the byte blocks of encrypted numbers, you have in some sense a simulation of the perfect XOR encryption; if the block cipher is strong, this is strong as well (maybe if the block cipher can be broken in O(t), this can be broken in O(sqrt(t)), but if t is superpolynomial, so is sqrt(t)). [This is known as "Counter Mode", and you can use it to protect your ssh sessions. It has a bunch of nice properties compared to other Modes Of Operation, but that's beyond today's cryptography lecture.]
* Say we have a residents meeting at my dorm, and someone suggests we buy a Wii for our basement lounge. Later, I see an encrypted message between the dorm chairman and SomeWiiShop.dk. I know my dorm chairman is not a gamer, so my natural assumption is that she's acting on the request for a Wii. Since I also know about the applications of cryptography (for transactions in e-trade, but not the shopping pages), I assume she's bought a Wii (plus maybe some games and controllers). This is all without decryption. The "perfect security" of XOR is saying that I can't improve my guess by trying to decrypt---not that I can't have a good guess before trying to decrypt.
Re: (Score:2)
No DRM fails because it is technically impossible. Yes, this is because some greedy clods who don't know heck about th
Re: (Score:2)
All the DRM I know of involves you having both the encrypted data AND the key on your system, with an obfuscated piece of software controlling the two. I think this is the problem that the summary tries to describe: if all DRM relies on an obscure implementation to hide the key from the user, how can you build DRM in an open source application.
I don't think it would be possible to build a DRM system that didn't involve having the decryption key on the users hardware, but you talk of it like an implementatio
Re:Strange question (Score:5, Informative)
> an "encryption system" needs to store its key (or a method of obtaining the key) in the source or else the client can't view the content at all.
This is untrue for an "encryption system". It is generally true for a DRM system.
GPG, PGP, many open source projects implementing encryption systems such as AES, DES, etc... have no qualms about their source being public. Because the keys do NOT need to be included in the source.
DRM system such as DVD encryption however requires the player to be able to decode the disc for playback, but they don't want the user to be able to playback on non-certified devices. This means the player has to have a key to decode the files. Keys don't need to be stored in the source, but the source would reveal how the key was used. It would reveal implementation problems that could make breaking the DRM easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Satellite receivers solve this with smartcards. Then there's government and/or industry collusion to make sure the readers aren't available on the open market for open source solutions to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Which of course is why we get our smartcards replaced every couple of months, and new pirate cards are advertised without a few hours of each update. To say that the satellite companies have "solved" this problem is perhaps a slight exaggeration. It would be true to say that they have reduced it to a problem that they can justify ignoring...
Re: (Score:2)
In an open-source solution, you can download the source, read it, modify it and recompile it.
- if (playBackAuthorized()) // if (playBackAuthorized())
+
play();
In a true Free Software solution, you can even redistribute binaries.
No need to patch bytes ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's not quite how it works:
- key = magicallyGetKeySomehow();
+ key = bytesGrabbedOutOfTheMagicalPlace;
play(key);
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
If it's encrypted and the keys are stored elsewhere, the drive is full of useless data. If you use any competent encryption, it will take at least thousands of years to break - assuming he has no more resources than every computer on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
My statement was accurate. If you want the client to view the content then it has to have a key or a reproducable method of obtaining the key externally (network, smartcard reader) in the source code.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you can read the source code of a program, the function can be modified and thus a hypothetical open source DRM program could be engineered to decode the media wtihout implementing DRM's limitations. Which is much of why DRM is so disgusting. Not only does it severely limit what someone can do with their legally bought media, it also must be proprietary in order to hide the key from the user themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (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:5, Insightful)
It's no different from a closed source DRM solution, except that since it is OSS, it may have a stronger encryption system since it can't rely on security through obscurity.
You're operating under two assumptions that exec-types often do:
First, you assume it has something to do with the strength of the encryption. It doesn't. DVD CSS was pathetic, it's true, and can easily be brute-forced on modern machines -- but the original crack was someone obtaining the keys. Blu-Ray (and HD-DVD) were cracked not by finding some flaw in the algorithms used, but in finding the key (09 F9 ...).
Second, it is always security through obscurity. In order to play the movie, you need the key. In order to copy the movie, you need the key. Thus, in order to play the movie, you need the same thing you'd need in order to copy the movie, and there is no way around that. All DRM around audiovisual content is crackable. This is a flaw inherent in the nature of DRM. It is something which will never be improved.
Re:Strange question (Score:5, Informative)
...and that's the major reason for the industry to move us to HDMI.
*facepalm*
You've just confused HDMI with HDCP, as so many do. I hate DRM, too, but in this case, that would be like refusing to use DVDRs because commercial DVDs are sometimes DRM'd.
The only possibility is to use a dongle / smartcard (same thing, different name)
Different form factor too, and usually a different, less sinister use, but I'll give you that.
in the display and run the signal encrypted from disk to display.
And what would that accomplish? I'm sorry, but if I'm going to rip a movie, I'm not going to do it by trying to capture 1080p video from HDMI and compressing it down to something manageable -- not when it's already on the disc in beautiful h.264 or VC-1. Maybe if there was no other way, but there's always another way, which was part of the point of my post.
Encrypting the signal from the box to the display only pushes the problem either back to the box, or into the display. If it was actually encrypted from disk to display, that just means you've got the decryption hardware (and the keys) in the display instead of inside your blu-ray player (or TV box, whatever). I really don't see how the display is harder to open up and hack around in than any other box.
But that's not even what's done with HDCP -- it takes the video from the disc, decrypts it, decodes it, then re-encrypts it and sends it to the TV. This means that the video exists in an encoded but decrypted state at some point inside the machine (set-top box, blu-ray player, whatever), and it's always possible (though it may be difficult) to retrieve a perfect-quality copy.
But all of this is offtopic, because, again, you're confusing HDCP, which is the DRM-over-video-cable scheme, with HDMI, which is a perfectly reasonable standard.
I'm running 2000+ x 1600+ on my old EIZO CRT monitor @85Hz on old analog VGA connector, HiRes graphics do not need HDMI
That is true, but after using an LCD screen, you couldn't force me to go back to analog, even 85hz analog. Once you've gone digital, VGA makes no sense -- you're taking the digital signal from the computer, sending it analog over the wire, for the monitor to make digital again before it can be displayed?
No, DVI solves that problem -- the image is sent, still digital, over the wire. And you don't hear Slashdotters whining about DVI being evil and DRM'd.
The point is, HDMI is DVI plus an audio signal. That's it. In fact, HDCP works just as well over DVI.
Now, I use a laptop as my primary computer. I have a nice 1920x1080 24" LCD on my desk. Every time I bring the laptop in there, I want to plug it in. Should I have to fiddle with all those pins and screws of VGA or DVI? Or can I just plug in that one HDMI plug? That goes doubly if you're using it for audio -- while my laptop isn't configured this way, in theory, I could plug the HDMI cable into a home theater system and have the surround sound system and the gigantic projector instantly supported.
The only real reason not to use HDMI for a new system is if you're using analog for some perverse reason, or if you're using DisplayPort instead (which is better).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well your TV licence number then. We're talking about the BBC here.
Vastly more important question (Score:5, Insightful)
How does DRM help the BBC provide their services to the taxpayer, better ?
Re:Vastly more important question (Score:4, Insightful)
How does DRM help the BBC provide their services to the taxpayer, better ?
The BBC partners with other prduction companies and distributors world-wide.
International syndication and home video sales draws in big money and big talent. That's the benefit to the taxpayer.
Small Island
Adapted from the award-winning 2004 novel, this mini-series stars Naomie Harris (Pirates of the Caribbean, White Teeth, 28 Days Later) as Hortense, a young ambitious Jamaican woman thrust into the grit of 1940s post-war London. A Ruby Television production in association with AL Films for BBC, coproduced with WGBH and made on location in Northern Ireland with the assistance of Northern Ireland Screen.
Sharpe's Peril
Sharpe's Challenge
Shot entirely in India, these two installments of the award-winning series, Sharpe, star Sean Bean (Lord of the Rings, Troy, Golden Eye) as Bernard Cornwell's title character. Sharpe's Peril is a Celtic Films Ent./Picture Palace Films/Duke Street Films co-production in association with Harper Collins. Sharpe's Challenge is a Celtic Films and Picture Place production.
BBC WORLDWIDE ANNOUNCES DRAMA CO-PRODUCTIONS WITH WGBH/MASTERPIECE FOR EMMA AND CRANFORD 2 [pbs.org]
Dougray Scott, Joely Richardson, Brian Cox, Vanessa Redgrave, Eddie Izzard and Jason Priestley star in The Day Of The Triffids, written by Patrick Harbinson (ER, Law & Order). This epic, apocalyptic and futuristic two-part drama is a co-production between Power and Canadian producer Prodigy Pictures for BBC One The Day Of The Triffids attracts all-star cast to BBC One [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Vastly more important question (Score:4, Funny)
Because US TV and movie studios claim they won't accept the BBC's money if they don't.
Giggle snort.
-
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Could that mean the BBC would not get swamped with shallow sitcoms and pointless shows?
How do I press against using DRM in the BBC?
Re:Vastly more important question (Score:4, Insightful)
How does DRM help the BBC provide their services to the taxpayer, better ?
Because one of its services is its support for British programme-makers and independent production companies. Those companies rely partly on revenue from DVD sales and international sales for their survival. So, the BBC's DRM isn't just "because the nasty big-wigs in Hollywood want us to", but also part of their remit to foster artistic industry in the UK. If Kudos, Tiger Aspect, Hat Trick, etc, say they need DRM if content is to be broadcast in better-than-DVD quality, that matters.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Strange question (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is truly FOSS then I can modify the software to, as well sending the decrypted video to the output device, write it to a storage device in unencrypted non-DRMed format.
Hence the DRM is completely useless and pointless and there can be no FOSS media players that respect DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
All non-software DRM is vulnerable to the "redirect the screen and speaker output to the hard drive" exploit.
Re: (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
strange headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's a nitpick, but the headline "BBC's Plan To Kick Open Source Out of UK TV" to me sounds like someone is against open-source software, and has conjured up a scheme, the primary purpose of which is to harm it.
From the article, though, it seems more likely that the BBC is worried about copyright infringement, and as with many companies, the only sort-of-half-assed solution they can think of to combat it is to introduce some DRM, and the only even-more-half-assed solution they can think of to make it hard to crack the DRM is security-through-obscurity. That's incompatible with OSS, as Cory Doctorow points out, but I think out of a misplaced attempt to use security-through-obscurity, not out of an actual antipathy to open-source vs. proprietary software as licensing models. Who knows if they even realized that: 1) lots of open-source software is used in conjunction with receiving TV broadcasts (and not just by warez groups); and 2) their scheme would therefore harm an important segment of the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Do you have a suggestion for a non half-assed solution to prevent copyright infringement?"
How about something along the lines of: you'll never fully eliminate copying and in many cases copying has been demonstrated to have positive benefits (exposing a wider audience to your product, allowing people a try-before-you-buy service, etc), while DRM and other prevention techniques have been shown to have many disadvantages and cause issues for legitimate customers (rootkits, WGA issues, software installation bu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM means that you give the ciphertext and the key to the customer but prevent him from getting the key. Obscurity is the only security you have.
DRM *is* security through obscurity (Score:3, Informative)
the only even-more-half-assed solution they can think of to make it hard to crack the DRM is security-through-obscurity.
But... but...
DRM is security by obscurity.
Here's how DRM works: I encrypt the movie, such that a given key k is required to decrypt it. To play the movie, you need to decrypt it first.
Then, I give you the key. I don't want you to decrypt-and-save, or decrypt-and-share-with-your-6-billion-best-friends, but I want you to decrypt-and-play.
This "works" by putting a "Play" button in the playback software which does the decrypt-and-play, and not putting in a "Save" button which does the decrypt-and-save.
But if
Double Check Your Premise & Concentrate on Cas (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, generally speaking, the BBC isn't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts
Where is it written that the BBC isn't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts? Is that a law I'm unaware of?
the licence fee payer pays for these broadcasts, and no licence fee payer woke up today wishing that the BBC had added restrictions to its programming.
I think that's a false statement. I would bet there are some of the population wagering that if the BBC could encrypt the signal in some way, then they could better control one of the few revenues they have (aside from the taxpayer). That being DVD sales and sales to a vast amount of the world--namely everyone who is not British.
This might conflict statements about wanting to encourage open source but make no mistake about it, the BBC does not have to support open source. Does it suck? Most certainly. Should you complain about it? Of course. But the logic here isn't just the desire to control the set top boxes or some ultra evil GNU/GPL destruction campaign. No%2
Re: (Score:2)
Where is it written that the BBC isn't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts? Is that a law I'm unaware of?
Exactly. TV broadcasts are legally required to be in the clear in the US as well. Public broadcasting licenses require the broadcasts to actually be public. For example you can broadcasts personal chat on CB frequencies, but a TV station cannot use its frequencies to transmit the station owner's chat to his buddies.
That is why the TV and movie studios have been pushing in the US for a "broadcas
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.
Re:Not Mutually Exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM absolutely excludes open source, Free-with-a-capital-F-as-in-Freedom software. My freedom is restricted if I am not permitted to modify the software (e.g. to write to disk instead of screen).
Re:Not Mutually Exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
PGP has a much easier task, though: it only needs to ensure that people with the key can decrypt content, while people without the key cannot. DRM schemes need to ensure that the same person can only decrypt given content for certain purposes, and not for other purposes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And thus DRM ultimately is, at best, security through obscurity (by obscurity, in this case, burying the key and hoping it's obfuscated enough that a hacker can't pull out the key). The problem is simple. They want to control how you use their data, but no too much. It would certainly be trivial to set up a public-private key system for content, particularly for downloadable content. But they want their cake and eat it too, they want to protect their rights, as they perceive it, but still keep their exi
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, DRM will accomplish nothing other than to frustrate some users, limit others and on good days, go unnoticed. It will NEVER stop people from copying content. It never has, and it never will.
Re:Not Mutually Exclusive (Score:4, Informative)
DRM depends on proprietary software. You are encrypting a file, then giving the user the key to decode it, while telling the program in question to decode the file, but only allow it to be used in one of a few ways (eg. display PDF, but don't print).
Such a system is untenable with proprietary software (just need to find the right memory address), and absolutely impossible with open source software, as you can simply remove the line in the program that tells it what actions not to allow. (See xpdf). With proprietary DRM systems, the companies just hope it's difficult enough to decipher the compiled code of the proprietary programs, that it takes a while before someone finds the right spots in memory to probe/change, and publishes the details... Then, they make trivial changes to the DRM system, and call it a new, "fixed" version that everyone should start using quickly (before someone figures it out).
The only thing DRM can do effectively, is to prevent the first opening of the file. After you send that first key (eg. via server), no matter what the DRM involved, the user can (trivially) strip the DRM off, and do whatever they want with the unencrypted file.
If that is what you want... I would suggest using public-key encryption to protect the file instead of a commercial "DRM" system. Either PGP or SSL (keys in combination with a password) can make absolutely sure only the intended recipient can make use of the file, even if others obtain copies of it. If you are expecting any more control over what others do with the file, you are simply denying reality.
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:Why does DRM exclude open source? (Score:5, Informative)
Real cryptographers don't try to keep the intended recipient of the message from being able to access the encryption key either. The problem is that DRM is a flawed system, you can't stop the intended recipient of a message from doing what they like with your message after they receive it... in the end they will find a way to break your system, and the fact that you had to make it possible for them to decrypt it means that you can't rely on them not being able to decrypt it.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought this was how it worked already? [youtube.com]
Three and a half Billion Pounds (Score:2, Insightful)
Why if 3 1/2 Billion pounds of money why is the content ALL just simply available to those who should OWN it.
It does make 700 million selling the stuff, insultingly back to us either in DVD/CD or via other freeview channels.
I understand the need for tax but not for this
Re: (Score:2)
Because the BBC itself only owns a relatively small proportion of the material it broadcasts; most of it is owned by 3rd party production companies who put their own restrictions on what can be done with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding (and I hope someone will correct me if they know I'm wrong) is that it's not as simple as "most of it is owned by third party production companies".
There is a lot which essentially boils down to how the television industry works. When the BBC makes a show of their own, it's not just "they own it, they can do what they like". Quite often the writer is essentially a freelance who gets royalties but continues to hold copyright on the script - therefore there's a contract with the writer whic
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It sounds sort of illegal to me, they'd essentially be forcing everyone who's deaf to go out and buy a new Freeview box which supports their encryption. IANAL, but I'd have thought this would fly in the face of the Disability Discrimination Act. Unless they also encrypt the EPG, that way everyone would have to upgrade if they wanted to actually be able to use the features which are the whole freaking point of digital TV.
It can co-exist (Score:2)
I have no issue with open source players being given a API that allows them to make use of precompiled bits that allow decryption. Hell even put some sort of identifying information into the recorded bits to keep people honest. Not everything has to be open source. If I pay for a TV broadcast then I expect to be able to play it back on the media player of my choice. However, I will not agree to anyone trying to tell me I can not play it on my blackberry, xbox, iphone, because they've not been paid to al
The real question is ... (Score:2, Funny)
will the Doctor Who christmas special (part 1) still be on tonight?
Re:The real question is ... (Score:5, Funny)
Gordon Ramsey cooks Doctor Hu a bird's nest souffle.
He reveals his secret identity as a Thymelord, but there is a leek in the kitchen.
Mutually exclusive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when is FOSS mutually exclusive with DRM? You can use FOSS to sell software, make money, create DRM, and write Windows programs. These aren't activities we normally think of when it comes to FOSS, but they are generally allowed.
Re:Mutually exclusive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes you can have an open source DRM library and so on. What you can't have is an open source media player that respects DRM usefully.
Either the user can modify the software doing the DRM to not obey the restrictions the DRM says it should in which case it isn't respecting the DRM. Or the user can't modify the software like that in which case it isn't FOSS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And then someone with the source code to the DRM decoder can comment out the portion of the code which outputs the video and audio, and in its place add code to output to the hard drive.
Whether you're using ROT-26 or the most sophisticated techniques available, open source DRM is not possible because "decrypt something and display it on screen" and "decrypt something and write it to the hard drive" are not actually different things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The AC doesn't fail.
If you look at it from a very high level, the process of decrypting video is essentially identical on everything that's ever done it:
Step 1 - Decrypt the data stream.
Step 2 - Plug the output of step 1 into the input of a suitable decoder algorithm (eg. MPEG4).
There's no reason Step 2 couldn't be "write the output to a hard drive" and then read it back and pass it through your codec at a later date.
The only way open source DRM like that can work is if there are no such thing as TV capture
ofcom should deny this (Score:2)
If the law (or the regulations applying to the BBC or whatever) prohibit encryption, said prohibition should apply to the entire signal as transmitted by the BBC over the air.
outrage machine. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Trusted Computing" rears its already cracked head (Score:2)
Take a good look at the "Palladium" toolkit, renamed "Trusted Computing". This is precisely what it was designed for: hardware specific encryption, with cautious escalation of privileges to run secured hardware with secured software. Its proprietary design broke down under virtualization, for reasons that would have been spotted much faster with an open source approach, much as the old "Clipper Chip" and "SkipJack" tools were discovered to be "flawed" because you could use your own keys to encrypt, rather t
Re:"Trusted Computing" rears its already cracked h (Score:2)
The iPlayer streams. It takes about 0.5 seconds for your TV programme to start playing. That's certainly a lot faster than waiting many hours for something to download over BitTorrent. The iPlayer has been enormously successful, so much so many ISPs are complaining and want the BBC to pay them for all the extra bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
_Now_ it streams. It was originally designed to do something like Bittorrent live, so that you shared bandwidth with your neighbors from a BBC provided list of seed servers, in their proprietary setup. It apparently didn't used to, before the lawsuits that led to the move away from the DRM burdened Windows Media Player technology and using more open formats, suitable to Macintosh and Linux systems.
Just because a lot of people watch Iplayer doesn't make it "successful". Does it make money for the BBC? Does i
BBC not the guilty party (Score:4, Insightful)
This is pretty unfair to the BBC. It should be made clear that the BBC probably isn't the one that's pushing for this. It's more likely that the BBC is being leant on by other content providers (like US networks) that it licences shows such as Heroes from, as well as movies it screens. It offers these on it's iPlayer service, so it's hardly surprising that it's being pressured into this.
Re: (Score:2)
This consultation is about the infrastructure of by far the biggest broadcast TV network in the UK. The BBC have a massive amount of power here should they choose to use it.
Play by the rules or have very little exposure in the UK. Simple as that.
It's the wrong question.. (Score:2)
The problem isn't that the BBC is planning to 'block open source', it is that the BBC is planning to block open access. It's a subtle but important difference.
The BBC is different from almost any other company, it is a bizarre mash-up of private and public sector and as such it's primary concern is not profit but value to British citizens.
The first question that should be asked (and the one I think OFCOM asked the first time around) is 'how does this benefit the British consumer?'. It is quite clear that th
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Sorry, but that's bollocks. The maximum penalty is a fine of £1000 + costs. You may go to prison for not paying the fine, but that's the same for any offence. No one has been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence.
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.
Re:The BBC aren't (Score:5, Funny)
Where is the "-1 boring" moderation?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yes it (the BBC) is. No it (the BBC) isn't.
English... Do you speak it?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's behind you!
Cue panto replies.
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 comparat
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 grou
Re:BBC (Score:4, Insightful)
You have a lot to learn about the US tax system: http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//WhereOurTaxDollarsGo_MostOfBudget.jpg [cbpp.org] Around 70% to 80% of my taxes go to services I don't need or want, yet I am forced to pay for them. True, we don't have to pay for a TV license, so that makes it ok.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I looked at that graph. Which 70 or 80% do you not want?
Defense is kind of important (whether or not you agree on our current strategy)
Assuming that the legislature don't deliberately bankrupt it, you'll eventually benefit from Social Security (and as the past year or so has shown, people are horrible at staying out of debt, let alone saving for retirement).
You'll also eventually want Medicare (or at least need the services it provides).
Of course, if you plan to die before retirement age under foreign occu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only job for government is to bomb people and throw potheads in jail for a few decades, and in that case I'm hugely in favor of big government. Maybe this includes building freeways, but I'm not sure about maintenance or inspections. Aside from that I can teach my own kids, inspect my own meat, and I can drive myself to the hospital if I fall down
Re:BBC (Score:4, Informative)
Re:BBC (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (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 a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not all of the licence fee goes to the BBC, the vast majority does yes but some of it also goes to the other main channels.
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy for you to say not to pay the disgusting BBC tax, but recent developments will most likely mean that all phone lines will get a new BBC tax (eventually).... because you "could" get the BBC by clicking a link.
If the government can come up with a fake reason to slap a 50pence/month (plus VAT tax on this 50p tax) on all phone lines (even VoIP lines line SkypeIn), then they could put another tax on phone lines "just in case" you want to visit the BBC / view online content.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Where else in the world is someone required to pay a tax to a corporation? Required, as in you will go to jail if you don't give a corporation money for a service you might not need or want.
You're not "required" to pay a tax to the BBC. Where does it say that you are?
Re: (Score:2)
Um, how about most towns in the US [wikipedia.org]? A "corporation" is simply a body established under a charter from the government. If the government provides services by chartering a particular body to provide them, it's perfectly sensible for tax money to go to a corporation.
Re:BBC (Score:5, Informative)
In USA you're already required to pay a tax to a corporation (unless you are happy to die early from a treatable disease) - and guess what, we pay less in the UK for our health coverage than most people pay in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a second consultation because OFCOM have already told the BBC where to go over this.
Consultation: where? (Score:2)
Does anyone know where we can get hold of the text of this consultation, and where we respond to it? I'd very much like to give Ofcom my contribution on this! I've searched their website but thus far I haven't found it, and the Grauniad article doesn't give a URL. Basically my view is that if the BBC ceases to be a public broadcaster funded by the license fee, then they can do what they like. But until they do that they are owned by and answerable to their public, and they can't. And one of the things they
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The last one was here
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/ofcom_bbc.pdf [ofcom.org.uk]
Not too sure what is actually going on with the second round yet.
Re: (Score:2)
On the real BBC, none of the shows have Gordon Ramsey in them! Locally he's contracted to a different Channel (C4), but yeah, on that channel he's almost omnipresent.
I have to say in relation to GP's post, although I think most TV is crap most of the time, when I do find myself watching it's probably in the region of 85% BBC, 10% Sky (for the Simpsons/Futurama) and then a mixture of the others. It might be crap but at least it's generally crap with decent production values, and the few must-watch shows I do