"These comments confuse me. Is this some kind of Turing test?
I would much prefer the BBC to figure out the bits of the web they do horribly first - like a permanent webpage for every programme and give up blocking content to non-UK Internet users.
My suggestion would be to be for the BBC to have a top 10 list of sites for each genre of output and assign an employee to each to interact with licence fee payers there. Anyone coming to the BBC pages get the list of sites where BBC employee will be participating.
This does a number of very important things: 1. It drives traffic from the BBC to other sites. 2. It moves the moderation headache to sites who get the benefit of BBC traffic. 3. It allows BBC people to participate without having to spend most of the time firefighting turf wars. 4. It cross-polinates to others who may not actively be using the BBC sites. 5. It removes the "dead-hand" feel to the moderation task the BBC has to enforce."
DRM is merely reflective of the rightsholders fear of the underlying technology.
- By using a peer-to-peer system the broadcasters have lost control of their content. - The rightsholders recognise that this superdistribution model is fundamentally different from the broadcast model, in terms of scarce resources, content reproduction and control. - DRM is seen as the panacea.
Spectrum is a scarce resource. There is a limited number of channels broadcasting a broad church of content. With peer-to-peer, as long as one person is willing to host the content then you can have, in effect, a dedicated channel to Doctor_Who.S03E11.MP4, The_Blue_Planet.S01E05.MP4, etc.
With the broadcast model, the broadcaster pumps out the content and moves on. What the person watching does with the content is not part of the pact the broadcasters have with the rightsholders. In a non-Internet world, reproduction on a global scale required a large capital investment. This meant a limited number of broadcasters with whom the rightsholders negotiated. This is no longer the case. Content reproduction and distribution just got "pwned" by the masses. Copyright law is not capable, at the moment, of dealing with the DRM-free P2P model. Rightsholders have no means of dealing with this new model and so seek to impose a technological control solution on top of the new distribution architecture.
So DRM is seen as a means of restricting content reproduction and imposing control on the distribution - in effect creating an artificial scarce resource.
The mistake the broadcasters have made is in believing in the underlying P2P technology without fully getting buy-in from the rightsholders (and a change copyright law - a task best left to the "pirates" who won't get sued out of extinction). DRM and cross-platform issues are merely manifestations of the underlying issues.
There are other technological solutions to replace P2P. I believe this will happen. We will then look back on this period as a glorious failure by the broadcasters in trying one technology, which was ultimately supplanted by a better technological solution (cf Baird's 240 line broadcasts versus Marconi's 405 line system)."
Any parallels to be drawn with the HD channel's strategy? I'll let you decide.
"What I find strange here is this application of DRM is there to allow you to watch programmes and allow you to record as distribute them as you feel fit at home. Can I ask what the problem you have actually is?"
I can do this now without having to get "approved" devices to playback my media. All that happens with "DRM approved" platforms is you end up in an Orwellian "PlaysForSure" technocrash. Just ask Microsoft how that's working out for them!
Why put anyone in the middle?
Bruce Schneier's article is worth reading as it's a clear statement as to the pointlessness of trying to put DRM in as a roadblock - the only people you discomfort are the legal law-abiding licence fee payers!
Why do it?
The BBC should be religious on production, agnostic on delivery.
The BBC, especially the lads in R&D in Kingswood Warren, did amazing work to recover from the failure of the closed/encrypted DTT service provided by ITV.
An open/unencrypted free-to-air service called Freeview.
One of the defining successes of the digital broadcasting era.
Rights holders are much better served by having a technological solution which isn't falsely offering them a segmented and diversified market - they can price properly and schedule releases accordingly.
It is very unfair to continue to give rights holders belief in technologically solutions which experts in the field, the broadcasters, know to be fundamentally unfit for purpose.
The BBC has enough real-world examples, at this stage, of money and time wasted by all parties involved (over a variety of different delivery platforms - terrestrial, satellite, online) which ultimately show that the open, unencrypted cross-platform model is the best solution for all involved.
Do we really need to suffer through this needless charade again?
re: "Well Michael, have a read through all the posts on this subject, both on the messageboards and on NR's blogs and you will get a flavour of how 'encouraging' he and Jem can be. IMHO they are often dismissive, inflammatory, and unwilling to engage in a constructive and meaningful way. "
"Only on their terms, and, predominantly, in the place they specify - ie 'use my blog then I can prove blogs are best (look at all the responses!), and I get a pat on the back, promotion, move-on, and leave all you idiots here to repeat the same arguments over again with my replacement."
I can't defend or condemn anyone for their online interactions - more than once I've completely missed the intention and content of someone's post because of what I read into it or what I thought I read - as opposed to what that person actually wrote or intended. So I'll refrain from interpreting for, speaking on behalf of, condemning out of hand or castigating from afar Nick or Jem in my "glasshouse".
What I would say, is that they may be a pain in the arse to get answers from but at least they are out there being a pain in the arse. I have huge respect for them and the efforts that they go to in trying to have the conversation with the wider community. They get a world of pain and keep coming back for more - either they're masochists or they believe in a higher purpose.
They are genuinely seeking solutions and my advice would be to work positively with them to help them. They have to go back within the deep recesses of the BBC and make the case for how this "new media" (or cringingly "future media"!) is a public service offering the BBC should be providing.
The fact that they even still have to make that case says more about the BBC than I could ever.
What is a TV Licence needed for? - To use any TV equipment such as a TV set, digital box, video or DVD recorder, computer or mobile phone to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on television.