Roger Sinden":3kawushv said:
How so? Supposing they launched , say, a new digital TV sports channel that was not available to 25% of their viewers.....do you think that they are ignoring their charter then?
Curious to know more why you think the DRM implemantation is 'deeply flawed'.
In that case they might be said to be ignoring their charter, Im not up on the demands of he charter so I couldn't say for sure. However the requirement to make a catch up tv facility which is platform independent is not part of the charter. It is a requirement laid down by the BBC Trust. In as much as they facilitate a streamed service of content then they are fulfilling the requirement. As I say the user wants a download that he or she can keep which is a different issue but in downloading and keeping content the user denies the content owner the the royalty rights. The BBC doesn't own rights in entirety to everything it produces let alone shows and therein lies the problem and the reason for DRM. Personally speaking I want to download the program to watch because my connection is poor and the streaming option isnt really usable. I would also like to use something other than media player 10 to view the content because I dont have it even on my windows machine. However these choices are mine to make, the facility has been put in place by the BBC.
My view of DRM is that it is flawed for several reasons. Firstly whatever mechanism is found to facilitate rights management it will be broken and bypassed. It's an arms race, as new methods come into play they are broken etc. An encryption standard comprises three things, the encryption algorithm, the content and the key. When you buy it in the first place you are given all three - it stands to reason that it can always be circumvented somehow particularly when all three pieces are in the hands of millions of users.
Additionally Time restricted DRM makes no allowance for the manner in which the the end user wants to use the content. It dictates to the user that they can have this piece of content for 7 days, or they can make 2 copies of it and in this way it restricts the usage and so hopes to mitigate the financial loss to the copyright holders should the user abuse the content. The problem now is that if you circumvent the DRM mechanism to make use of the content under a fair usage banner which is your right, you are now in breach of the law. So DRM could be said to criminalize those who are simply exercising their right to use the content they have bought as they should be, and were previously, able to prior to the introduction of DRM.
DRM implementations as we see them at the moment are not about enhancing user experience but more about restricting usage. My argument is not about copyright protection, copyright is a good thing it protects my living and probably that of many other people on this forum, but current DRM implementations restrict usage beyond the legal requirement which is a bad thing and one which invites users to steal the content and risk prosecution.
Phew - that was a mouthful
Cheers Mike
