Actually, the thing I found interesting was not that the BBC commented on their own behaviour — as you quite rightly point out, they are generally scrupulous in doing so — but rather the ordering of events:

* Cory posts Danny’s article on the proposed DRM.
* I comment on the story, linking to prior discussion on this subject on Tom Watson’s blog.
* The BBC then publish an article on the subject, using the MP’s online comments as the source material for a contrarying opinion — despite the fact that they’d been there for a week or two already.

I’m just wondering if, by posting the link to this story earlier this morning, I inadvertently helped some tech-savvy researcher at the BBC discover enough material from quotable sources to post a story on the subject?

Perhaps not, but I found the idea interesting!

Mind you, are the entertainment-producing hoardes being properly or improperly paid? Have you seen BBC radio’s rates for playing music? They’re among the highest in the world.

Maybe it’s time the artists and creators accepted a lower pay per view, and innovated around better distribution of their work, and better quality work full stop. We have here a bit of a closed shop, no?

So DRM or not – stop watching rubbish. Chuck the tv, don’t pay the license – work on this whole system from the other side – the side of demanding, difficult to satisfy consumers.

Shows like Attenborough are invaluable, and I’d happily give a charitable, regular donation to any production team who can deliver that content to me. But most TV time is toss. Except CBeebies, which is wonderful and educational.

Ahhhhh!

Maybe I’m missing something in your maths, but how do you arrive at 3 pence a week?

The current UK tv licence is £142.50.

Are you subsidized somehow? Do you mean £3 a week?

http://linuxcentre.net/getiplayer/

Can’t recommend this highly enough. Enjoy it whilst it lasts :(

Due to the very short duration of the consultation, interested members of the public like myself have not had time to examine all sides of the argument.

Welcome to the new Transparency in Government, it’s all the rage here in the US. You’d be amazed how fast a five-day public review period goes these days…

We understand the radio spectrum, and its licensing a little better these days; If we didn’t fund all poll licence tax the market wouldn’t allow this DRM nonsense. DRM is a pointless waste of time. It hinders the end user, protects the pirates and offers no real protection against theft.

All DRM formats are defeated swiftly and easily.
“…like trying to make water unwet”, a great man said.
Stop it. Stop trying to have complete control over the signal. It leaks.. no channel is noiseless. let it!

The TVO situation is a smidge more complicated, but as for the CBC:
- we have no receiver license, so we buy American and Japanese sets (NTSC, now ATSC and QAM mostly built in)
- We pay taxes to our governments, who then distribute the money to these programmes (contrast to a situation where you can opt out, this is true ‘forced payment’)
- Nevertheless, a solid majority of us pay extra money to get a bunch more channels via cable or satellite, some Canadian but most American

Don’t get me wrong, I love the CBC, but those who don’t have no choices. Also, like most of the modern world, I download most of my TV and movies. TV is as dead as, if a few years behind, the newspaper industry.

Whose side are Ofcom on? (Oh – wait …)

Worry about DRM, yes, but if there’s no money going in, the whole thing falls over.

They do it all the time, and everytime it happens I think, “bravo”.

Of course the cynical part of me expects them to spin it, but generally the reports contain the same info I’ll find on Channel 4 or ITN.

Does anyone else think that the alternate proposal (totally encrytped content) is only added in order to make the main proposal (essentially encrypted keys to the content) seem more acceptable?

Does anyone else think that the alternate proposal (totally encrytped content) is only added in order to make the main proposal (essentially encrypted keys to the content) seem more acceptable?

Yes, since you ask, that’s exactly what I thought when I read it.

Nick Reynolds (I am the executive editor of the BBC Internet blog)

For less than 3 pence a week (and, I guarantee, that either by dint of radio or TV, somebody in our household will use the service almost every day) we get some of the best programming in the world, with new drama and comedy that no commercial enterprise would dare risk.

Frankly, its worth it for BBC Wildlife documentaries alone – NOBODY, and I mean this utterly sincerely – NOBODY matches the BBC when it comes to amazing documentaries about the natural world.

(Though I do feel sorry for those that suffer dubbing to put an American voice in instead of David Attenbourough’s dulcet tones)

You mean, apart from:
Albania
Austria
Belgium (Walloon Region)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Macedonia
Malta
Montenegro
Norway
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Israel
Japan
Korea, Republic of
Pakistan
Singapore
Ghana
Mauritius
Namibia
South Africa
Brazil

Also check how well you do by the BBC licence cf the RAI licence for example.

Would I be compensated for buying equipment the government told me I would need for switchover?

I would hope so…

“No other developed nation still requires a licence for public access broadcast media.”

In fact, Ireland also requires a TV licence. And it looks like Singapore does too.

thanks for pointing that post out, I would also refer to this other post, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html

With those however, I fail to see the commenter’s on each post getting any kind of detailed answer at all to their questions either.

http://www.onlydreaming.net/blog/drm-on-my-bbc-broadcasts

This is Ofcom’s proposal –

To add at the end of Condition 6: “(8) Nothing in this Condition 6 is to be
construed as preventing the Licensee from entering into arrangements for the
protection of intellectual property rights in High Definition television services
where such arrangements have been approved by Ofcom in writing”.

On the other hand, this amendment will of course help to grease the wheels, and it will pre-emptively remove one possible line of defense when the real issue comes up for debate. That issue being whether or not Ofcom will grant written permission for the DTLA to fuck everyone up the ass while the BBC discreetly provides the mood music and rohypnol.