[H]omer <spam@xxxxxxx> espoused:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Mark Kent spake thusly:
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>
>>> BBC does the right thing: will support Macs with iPlayer
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Of course they couldn't do this without a little bit of snarkiness,
>>> | with BBC New Media boss Ashley Highfield saying that Apple's
>>> | "proprietary and closed framework for digital rights management
>>> | gives us headaches [but] it is one of our top priorities to
>>> | re-engineer our proposed BBC iPlayer service to work on Macs."
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.tuaw.com/2007/04/18/bbc-does-the-right-thing-will-support-macs-with-iplayer/
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2xhd48
>>>
>>> The Microsoft DRM brainwash all over again. The BBC does _NOT_ need
>>> DRM. DRM is a dying technology that Microsoft is still betting on.
>>> It's means for controlling the users and abusing their rights.
>
>> These people are completely insane - this is /not/ the right thing,
>> DRM is not the right thing at all.
>
> Correct. If the original broadcast is not DRM encrypted, then why the
> hell should it be so important to encrypt the "Web" version? This is
> ridiculous, especially since the digital version will likely be a highly
> compressed, low quality version of the original. Yes, I'm sure some
> Korean pirate is going to duplicate *that* and sell it on DVD on eBay
> ... not! The BBC are idiots.
>
> As for principle, well IMHO nobody should be using DRM for anything,
> ever. This is AFAICT your main beef, and I'm right behind you. Use
> copyright *law*, and subsequently those charged with *upholding* those
> laws, to protect content. *Don't* be vigilantes and force *all*
> consumers to live in a DRM prison, punished for crimes they *might* commit.
>
>> So come on, Ashley Highfield - what's your technical background? Why
>> is one proprietary and closed system (Microsoft) any better than
>> another (Apple)?
>
> Because his new business partner, Microsoft, says so.
>
> It's odd that in all this, the BBC never once considered RealNetworks
> Helix DNA framework as a solution. If they had, then at least they would
> have had a fully interoperable DRM system that worked with *all*
> platforms. But then I guess that would not have been in the best
> interest of their new "technology provider" pals, Microsoft.
>
>> What's really bl**dy irritating is that my licence fees are being
>> wasted on paying people like this guy.
>
> It galls me to think that *my* BBC license fee contributes towards
> furthering Microsoft's goals. Did the BBC ever stop to consider whether
> these decisions were in the best interest of their *subscribers*, you
> know, like they are mandated to do by their charter?
>
Actually, no - this was never debated or discussed. The only document
released was written with the in-built assumption that DRM was a
requirement for streaming video - no justification for it, no arguments,
no evidence, nothing. Basically, as you say, the BBC have been conned
by Microsoft on this one. I wonder how much Microsoft will be paid for
each stream? That information should be published alongside Ashley
Highfield's, the idiot who doesn't know what proprietary means.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
