Posts like this really annoy me
I stumbled across this post on the BBC Internet blog.
This is what it should have said:
When we launched BBC HD, we didn’t have the infrastructure to enable the “Copy Control Information” on a per-programme basis, and so we had to enable it for everything. This meant that certain HD receivers wouldn’t allow content to be recorded, or displayed unless you had the right kind of cable and TV.
We were forced into doing this because rights-holders won’t allow us to broadcast some content in HD unless we apply the CCI, even though most people know that all it does is inconvenience legitimate users, and anybody who’s ever looked at more illicit sources for obtaining programmes will see that it’s done nothing to prevent illegal distribution of the content.
The good news is that we’re still trying to figure out the best way of tackling this: we have to keep the rights-holders happy, even if their demands don’t aid in achieving what they want, but we also need to make sure that legitimate viewers aren’t inconvenienced by it.
We’ve taken the step of partially “unlocking” the programmes, by sending the “copy once” CCI instead of “never copy”, so that certain devices can record copies of the content, although it’s still a long way from the level of flexibility that you used to get with VHS recorders. We hope that, at least in the short term, the vastly higher-resolution content outweighs the downsides.
What actually ensued was a fairly rambly post which skirted around the issue of rights-holders’ demands being worthless in the context of free-to-air transmissions, and talked about how wonderful it was that the copying restrictions had been slightly relaxed, provided that you had compliant “protected path” devices.
A number of commenters saw through this, and weren’t entirely happy at the application of DRM on free-to-air TV in the first place, and (rightly) put forth several arguments as to why it’s a bad thing for consumers, why it doesn’t help fight piracy in this (or indeed most) contexts, and why the BBC should actually be pointing all of this out to the rights-holders they’re negotiating with.
Although he started off well, Andy Quested, Principal Technologist for BBC HD got a little dismayed at this quite legitimate criticism, despite it being the “BBC Internet” blog, where most readers will be tech-savvy, and also a little put out that advances in broadcast technology often (unnecessarily) seem to involve a trade-off in terms of consumer flexibility. This comment marks the start of him getting unstuck:
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?
…which was followed up after people described exactly what the problem they have was with this:
Again I ask what the problem is? We have reduced the level of protection and intend to reduce it again only applying it to programmes we are obliged to protect. This is a protection applied to the HD version only - SD is unaffected, rights holders have no financial penalty but they do have access to the ultimate (completely unbreakable) protection for HD programmes.
(By “unbreakable protection” here he means not broadcasting them at all).
If you keep reading, it all goes rather downhill from here. The simple fact is, if the Principal Technologist for BBC HD can’t actually see what’s wrong with DRM on free-to-air transmissions which are trivial for would-be pirates to circumvent but make life difficult for legitimate users, then there’s a serious problem there.
It’s quite evident, though, that he does understand the problem—or at least is committed to solving it. The BBC doesn’t like DRM in general (although it rarely says at much): its entire business model was built on open standards, for a start; and it’s working on having the infrastructure in place for per-programme (as opposed to whole-channel) content restrictions.
I, for one, would like to see the BBC naming and shaming rights-holders who, when told exactly what DRM really will and won’t do for them in this context, are insistent that it be applied in any case. Let people see exactly who is making life difficult for them.
(It’s worth noting that in the US, free-to-air broadcasts a forced to set the CCI flag to “copy freely”, though cable channels can have it to set to anything; most of the interesting content that gets bought by non-US broadcasters such as the BBC tends to be exclusive to cable networks, though).
