Round up: Monday 14 June 2010
Post categories: DRM,ÌýFreeview HD,Ìýround up
| 21:50 UK time, Monday, 14 June 2010
If the words "open", "source", "piracy" and "DRM" make you sit up and pay attention, you may have already commented on in the Guardian:
nwhitfield :
Yes, some open source software may be affected, but even that's not a certainty; MythTV copes just fine with Freesat, which uses the same technology. Other open source systems manage well with the odd dash of proprietary stuff in there, like the drivers for some graphics cards.
Nigel Whitfield in Reg Hardware (possibly related to nwhitfield?) subtitles "No need for panic?". are (cough) typically robust and contain strong language. :
So the programs aren't encrypted, but the program guide is, and to get the free key for the program guide you have to agree to not be a naughty boy. I assume chasing people for breach of contract is easier than chasing them for copyright infringement?
The has two comments. This one's from Kevin:
There is no copy protection or DRM for US HDTV. Do the ´óÏó´«Ã½ seriously believe that these unnamed "rights holders" who would prevent the ´óÏó´«Ã½ from broadcasting their material do not allow their material to be broadcast unprotected on US TV? Rubbish. Boo ´óÏó´«Ã½. Boo OFCOM.
And don't forget the
For a reminder of what this is all about from a ´óÏó´«Ã½ perspective see Graham Plumb's post from January. And from Reg Hardware at around the same time.
Meanwhile in another part of the forest seenit.tv to the ongoing ´óÏó´«Ã½ HD picture quality conversation.
Media Guardian has:
And my favourite comment on the Internet blog in the past couple of weeks is this one. If you're reading this Bob, I like your attitude...
Nick Reynolds is Social Media Executive, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online.
Comment number 1.
At 14th Jun 2010, Bob_ wrote:Nick,
Thanks, it is a fine line I balance between making an official "statement" and quiet clarification to keep people informed.
It would be nice if the rights holders didn't require such mechanisms, but these people pay lawyers to plug every hole and at this time I don't see their attitude changing.
Personally I think this is something of a storm in a teacup, but not in a way that most people think. All the security technology is available 'FRND' ('Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory') to manufacturers and compliance is pretty much optional if you don't need Freeview HD branding. The open source community has already used the same compression, even if they don't know it, that will be used. There isn't much preventing someone with a computer experiencing the complete HD experience (once someone starts making T2 computer adaptors).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 15th Jun 2010, PlatinumPlatypus wrote:The reason rights-holders would think any of this is a good idea is a matter for debate, however. Pirates will get around it. It's just a barrier between the license-fee payer and their content.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 15th Jun 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:I forgot to include a link to OFCOM's full statement.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 15th Jun 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:Nick,
What are the chances of opening a conversation between the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and Free Software developers (e.g. "linuxcentre" and Paul Battley) about developing some kind of protection scheme/protocol for the HTML video iPlayer similar in spirit to the HD scheme? I.e. a scheme which both implements the ´óÏó´«Ã½s desired controls, while being implementable via Free Software, such that Free Software operating systems could ship support for iPlayer "out of the box" (without the user having to go download "illicit" software from whispered-about websites)?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 16th Jun 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:NB: When the ´óÏó´«Ã½ blames these unnamed rights-holders for the need for encryption, giving the impression the ´óÏó´«Ã½s hands are tied, a lot of people jump to assuming that those rights-holders must be US media companies. However it appears that one of the more significant of these rights-holders, based on ´óÏó´«Ã½ upper-management statements, is actually "´óÏó´«Ã½ Worldwide".
I.e. when the ´óÏó´«Ã½ say "we're being forced to by rights-holders", that's likely equivalent to "*we* want it for our content".
There appears to be an industry wide play to use the technology shift to digital to grab more and more power over end-user devices. "Rights holders might hold HD content hostage!" is just a canard in this play, based on what happened in the US when the FTC denied the copy flag.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 16th Jun 2010, Bob_ wrote:Paul,
Actually, in my experience it is actually the major studios that are the biggest barrier. The likes of Sony Pictures, Universal, etc.
Bob
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 16th Jun 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:Bob,
They may be an obstacle, but the fact remains that:
a) The ´óÏó´«Ã½ have said ´óÏó´«Ã½ Worldwide is one of the rights holders. So that equivalence remains true.
b) So far as the US majors go, we know they're bluffing cause they lost the FTC battle and make content available for HD there.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 18th Jun 2010, Parax wrote:I have to agree with Paul's comments above about the Rights holders demands. It's all very well them saying 'we want' but at what cost to the licence payer? where and when will a line be drawn? eventually someone is going to have to grow a spine and stop capitulating to every demand. There are plenty of fish in the sea! And if we refuse individual specific demands they are not going to go out of business! they are still receiving the same income.
I have to say that the Americans demonstrate a far higher level of shrewdness, they seem to have the ability to just say No! Just look at how much money an artist gets paid in the US for having thier tracks aired on the radio. The answer is None! Has it killed the music industry? No, but what do we do over here? Hand out the cash!
In My opinion the ´óÏó´«Ã½ needs to wise up over its spending on Rights and stop pouring cash into an ill-defined hole. Motorsport is dangerous it says so on every ticket, Free to air Public Broadcasting has consequences to, its about time we accept that, just like motorsport, you cannot fix it without breaking it altogether.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 18th Jun 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:which lists the following as organisations which indicated to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ an interest in the DVB HD DRM:
• ITV
• C4
• S4C
• Five
• ´óÏó´«Ã½ Worldwide
• Disney
• Fox Entertainment
• Sony Pictures
• Time Warner
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)