Secret documents reveal the flimsy case for Ofcom to give into BBC's public TV DRM demands

Discuss

14 Responses to “Secret documents reveal the flimsy case for Ofcom to give into BBC's public TV DRM demands”

  1. atimoshenko says:

    So has the exclusion of the broad public from the channels of influence and power become more pervasive and unassailable, or are have we just now become better at digging instances of it up? Maybe both?

    Disgusting whatever the case.

  2. peregrinus says:

    The tech chappie at the BBC is now working for Ofcom.  Thought you might like to know.

  3. obah says:

    I know, I know: BBC is actually trying to help people by making them buy new HD receivers and TVs and regulating the usage of programs thus creating jobs in industry, regulation administration and DRM business and as a bonus everybody wins as taxes are collected from new devices! Less electircity is also consumed as people will spend less time watching programs they miss and because they don’t have money to replace broken TVs! Libraries are flocked by people seeking entertainment from.. ahem. It’s the coffee in me.

  4. Jakob Rooney says:

    I can see that your cold-extracted coffee is working well! Great post, and thanks for making me feel a little better about living in the USA… We need more white knights like yourself defending content!

  5. Eugh, every day I feel a little more conned having to pay the BBC a license fee to be exposed to their saccharin propaganda and shit like this.

    Do they even need license money any more now they run a worldwide service?

  6. Damien says:

    So f***ing sick of Digital Restrictions Management.

    I wish they’d stop insulting the public by calling DRM “Digital Rights Management”. It has nothing to do with my rights as a consumer/owner/customer, and everything to do with some irrelevant industry types imposing their restrictions on the media I like to listen to / watch / read.

  7. johngoad says:

    They are so greedy and self centered they do not see the negative downside they have sentenced themselves too. Thanks for protecting me from myself you short sighted twits.

  8. Dr_Wadd says:

    I’m not suggesting this in any way undermines the argument that the BBC should not have DRM, but my recollection is that the BBC has lost programming in the past because it refused to impose DRM on broadcasts. Unfortunately I’m not able to turn up anything on Google to verify this memory, but I’m pretty sure that part of the reason that Fox sold 24 to Sky 1 from season 3 onwards is because the BBC had no mechanism in place to impose DRM. I’m sure there were other factors involved such as attempting to keep Fox programming on Sky 1 to bring it back within the Murdoch empire, but (unless I’m completely wrong) DRM was cited as a factor.

    • Cory Doctorow says:

      Presumably, the major reason that Fox gives preferential treatment to Sky is that they’re owned by the same company.

      • You_Sir_Cannot says:

        I’m pretty sure it’s a case of highest bidder wins, just because News Corp “owns” Sky doesn’t mean they give the show to Sky for free.

    • toyg says:

      That’s actually a fantastic argument AGAINST drm. Less US crap bought by BBC => more money for homegrown productions.  I don’t watch Downton Abbey, but just reading about it, you can see the sort of connection it makes with people just by talking about England, rather than some random terrorist-fighter working for a President we don’t elect.

  9. digi_owl says:

    A example of regulatory capture? Seems to be all too rampant in the “creative” industries…

  10. hbgvfcdxsz hbgvfcdxsz says:

    Great post Cory.

  11. I really hope that it is easy to defeat.   Because as well as being immoral this is commercial suicide, and I’d hate to lose the BBC.

    I mean, really?  Who is going to want to make these special boxes just for the UK?

Leave a Reply