Freeview HD content management, what the community thinks
Graham Plumb wrote a piece for the Internet blog just recently about the difficult area of content protection for HD Freeview. As you can imagine, there has been quite a few comments attached to the blog post but there has also been even more on .
From Kieran Kunhya
Frank also points out, how this type of thing has played out previously in the music industry and in that case, how much of nightmare it was for their image.
Moving away from ways around the problem, Christopher Woods writes this interesting paragraph about the transparency of delivery.
As usual Backstage will be there to give you the voices you don't usually hear... You can also join the conversation by joining or following us on Identi.ca and twitter.
From Kieran Kunhya
I like the way Ofcom have totally missed the point about Linux/Open Source presuming it refers to STBs running Linux.Mo McRoberts follows that up with a reality check,
The reality is, STB manufacturers don't really have the luxury of being able to:Ian Stirling suggests another way,
a) ignore the licensing terms of the open source DVB stacks;
b) reverse-engineer the decoding tables;
c) obtain the tables from the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ but breach the non-disclosure terms; or
d) release a box which doesn't support FVHD
...even if they wanted to.
There is a third alternative.Steffan Davies ponders generally,
B) obtain the decoded tables from a third party in a country where this decryption is not illegal.
I am unsure of the legality of this. It would of course imply that the device would need an internet connection
Quite why HD is so intrinsically different from standard DVB-T that it needs to be encumbered in this way is beyond me.Mo McRoberts replies,
Even if you were to, hypothetically, accept that it was somehow different, a lot of the content being talked about as "needing protection" is imported: premium US TV shows, films and the like. The copy-protection regime being talked about here doesn't exist in the US (the FCC specifically prohibited it), and so if they're going to circulate illicitly, chances are they'll come from the US--rendering the whole thing moot.Frank Wales replies with,
This bizarre view that programmes almost don't exist until they're aired in the UK (and that consumers won't be aware of them) is played out by the Ofcom consultation document, which talks specifically about content being aired for the first time _in this UK_ -- which will, in general, be at an absolute bare minimum a day or two after it was screened in the US. It's almost as though Ofcom (and the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ, and
distributors) believe the illicit file-sharing is bound by geographical restrictions, though that's so crazy it can't possibly be true...
I'm sure there was a missing smile after that last comment. Well we certainly like to think we do a reasonable good job of learning and understanding the media landscape. Actually things like the recent rumour that Digital Revolution now called Virtual Revolution will go out on iPlayer afterwards internationally, could if true be very interesting and show we got a better understanding of the media landscape that most imagine.
Are you suggesting that these organizations don't fully understand the media landscape they're presiding over? Why, that's...inconceivable!
Frank also points out, how this type of thing has played out previously in the music industry and in that case, how much of nightmare it was for their image.
I just wonder if the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ realize how Freeview HD content restriction could become a PR Nightmare Construction Kit for their tabloid foes.
Once someone makes available code to defeat it, how could prosecutions ensue without risking raging headlines like: "³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ prosecutes licence-fee payer for watching Doctor Who"
Moving away from ways around the problem, Christopher Woods writes this interesting paragraph about the transparency of delivery.
It's a weird mindset people have these days. I myself have downloaded a show if I missed it on the iPlayer. I wish there was an accurate means by which I could submit views of programming - think Nielsen, but for the benefit of rightsholders. The iPlayer could then just become a torrent tracker, and you download your vids from that in an open standard and the little app which runs in your system tray notes when you open a video, how long you watch it for etc. This could all be managed A typical internal thought process might go, "why should I be beholden to the 7 day / 2 month / xyz day availability period? I didn't want to watch it when it first aired, but I want to watch it now and it's still not available on DVD, so I'll download it. I will NOT be dictated to as to when I want to consume my media."I don't know how many people would be in favour of something which watches and reports back how much time they spent watching a piece of media but its a interesting idea because it actually cuts away at the root of the issue. Generally a reason for drm is because content producers need to proof people are buying/watching/paying attention to the content, but if it was reversed so we gave away that data for free, there would be less need for locks on the content at all? I expect the likes of Boxee are sure to exploit or explore this in more depth. Who would have thought audioscrobbling/last.fm would take off which tracks every piece of music your listening to?
And it's that point - "MY media" - where I think this battle's already lost.
I think the trend is to consider it as 'my [favourite] TV' - no more waiting for months for the boxsets, I want to watch this in HD on my little media streaming box under my TV in high def and I want to watch at my convenience... So out comes the torrent client, down loads the H.264 MKV file and down one sits in front of the box to enjoy the show. Why isn't this possible already without being forced to circumvent the usual channels of distribution?
As usual Backstage will be there to give you the voices you don't usually hear... You can also join the conversation by joining or following us on Identi.ca and twitter.
Comments