DRM again

Haven't content providers, suppliers, and anyone in the media industry got the message yet? Are they still wasting time, money, effort and valuable good will on futile efforts to control, subjugate, and extort money from, their customers?

Apparently not.

There is a proposal from the BBC concerning the scrambling of EPG (Electronic Programme Guide) data on the HD channel such that only receivers that supported a given DRM technology would be permitted and able to access it. This, the proposal claims, would then lead to devices having to support a given DRM mechanism which could then be used to protect content from rights-holders who want to stipulate such restrictions. The Register has a good article about this (which is where I got the link).

Seriously, this technology doesn't work. It is a waste of time (everyones) and money. For example, at home I can play or copy CDs or DVDs without restriction at all. There are tools available to record streams from iPlayer and other VOD (Video On Demand) services. I did a quick Google and it seems BluRay has been hacked already as well.

No matter what methods are used, there will always be a way round them. What is also apparent is that DRM, far from protecting consumers, will often result in them not being able to make legitimate use of content, e.g. CDs that won't play in PCs because of copy-protection schemes.

Given my objections to this proposal I've done something about it and responded using the online form, here are the answers I gave to the questions posed, I would urge anyone with an opinion on this to respond as well.

Question 1: Do you agree that copy management would broaden the range of HD content available on DTT and help secure its long term viability as a platform?	No, absolutely not. Investment in new and original ontent would be a better use of the money involved in implementing DRM. The BBC in particular has had a reputation for this type of programming before, and providing more of this is likely to support the viability of DTT HD as a platform far better than wasting money on futile attempts at restricting illegal copying.
Question 2: Do you agree that the BBC’s proposed multiplex licence amendment represents the most appropriate means for securing an effective content management system on HD DTT?	No, the most effective content management system is not to implement any restrictions at all. Taking the no-DRM approach is a 0 cost option, maintains consumers rights to make fair and legal use of content and encourages the development of innovative and affordable receiver equipment.
Question 3: Do you agree with the proposed change to Condition 6 in the Multiplex B Licence?	No
Question 4: Do you agree that Multiplexes C and D should be granted a similar amendment to their Licences as Multiplex B?.	No
Question 5: Do you agree that the BBC’s proposed approach for implementing content management would safeguard citizens and consumers legitimate use of HD content, and if not, what additional guarantees would be appropriate?	No, absolutely not. The legitimate use of content would be seriously hampered. This has been true of all past DRM implementations, e.g. copy protection on music CDs led to them being unplayable on many home computers. Any of the approaches that were used before, e.g. in the example above where a special player were provided, would lead to increased complexity and restrictions.
Question 6: Do you agree that the BBC’s proposed choice of content management technologies will have only a negligible impact on the cost of HD DTT receivers and their interoperability with other HD consumer equipment? .	Actual cost to manufacturers would likely not be affected significantly though the prices a consumer pays could well be - essentially devices with this support would be more expensive than those that do not. Interoperability will be dramatically affected, even if the devices concerned support DRM the extra complexity could well lead to problems. There is also the increased potential for legitimately recorded content to become unusable due to software changes or bugs, thus providing more inconvenience and cost to consumers.
Question 7: Do stakeholders agree that the BBC’s proposed Huffman Code licensing arrangements would have a negligible effect on the market for HD DTT receivers?	I am not a stakeholder in this per se, however I would suspect that this proposal would allow device manufacturers force consumers to purchase new products to support the implementation of these proposals. Their incentives to update older hardware are not apparent and I would expect would be dismissed on the grounds of cost or viability.
Question 8: Do the BBC’s proposed content management states and their permitted use for different categories of HD content meet the requirements of other HD broadcasters on DTT? .	I am not able to comment on this.
Question 9: Are there any issues that you consider Ofcom should take into account in assessing the BBC’s proposal, that have not been addressed by this consultation?	There isn't a single commercial encryption system in existence that has not been cracked or circumvented in some way. No matter what technique is used by the BBC, those who have the technical know-how will, eventually, render any implementation of DRM ineffective. Forcing the implementation of a DRM technology is likely to increase the level of illegal copying rather than reduce it. This appears to be the case with existing formats such as DVD, CD, and BluRay. Forcing a DRM implementation would also add to or cause compatibility issues with devices that would interfere with consumers legitimate use of content. Devices that consumers currently own or may purchase in the near future may become obsolete very quickly if this proposal goes ahead. Quite simply, this proposal will not, in any way whatsoever, bring benefits to the consumer, quite the reverse; it will restrict competition in the marketplace, restrict or eliminate fair-use of content and ultimately cost a significant amount to license fee payers.

The Sky's the Limit

While alot of the house is still no longer visible I do remember that there are quite a few phone and television points so of course I wanted to get the PVR and TV plugged in and running so as not to miss all that wonderful winter programming (or probably more entertaining would be the Christmas adverts).

But something was wrong. Couldn't seem to get a signal at all from the main connection. Hmmm, I thought about this for a while and then happened to be in the back garden where I could see wires tacked to the wall - I assumed these were for the satellite dish ... and some were, but others were for the TV sockets ... and they were just connected together, no aerial in sight! It seems this house is limited to receiving programming from Sky!

So I need to look into the options: there is obviously Sky which is ridiculously over-priced, there is now FreeSat which seems better in that you simply need a receiver (though I's need to replace my PVR and some channels aren't available), I could also get an aerial fitted and stick to FreeView. All of these require money and complexity that probably aren't justified given the amount of TV I watch.

There is one other possibility on the horizon and that is SeeSaw. From the news report in the Guardian it seems that project Kangaroo has been resurrected and this could, if it aims to have the same content, offer an alternative to watching programmes over-the-air. It may also have the knock-on affect of increasing competition and driving down the costs of the likes of Sky and could maybe even lead to interesting home entertainment systems in the future.

For now, I think I'll just have to stick to iPlayer or my collection of DVDs for viewing entertainment, until I can save up to implement an alternative plan after some extensive research into the available gadgetry.

The X Factor

I've always professed to watching and enjoying the initial stages of the programme where those who clearly have no talent, though have the unshakable belief that they do, attempt to argue against insurmountable odds that they know better than the likes of Simon Cowell.

This is supposedly a case of mass schadenfreude on the part of us, the viewing public, but if you don't think about it too much it helps to ease your conscience! Also, I always considered that those that put themselves forward are fair game for public ridicule since they obviously have a choice and no-one has had a chance to persuade them otherwise.

However, someone I spoke to last night had a friend who went through the process, apparently even getting as far as boot-camp, and what actually happens seems far less fair and equitable than I thought and in fact appears to be very cruel in the extreme.

First of all the initial thousands of auditionees are seen by producers for the show, not the judges, which makes sense when I think about it now, obviously, this person said to me, the judges don't have time to see every single person face-to-face. So this pre-screening is done by nameless others and there are several stages before anyone gets as far as the judges.

After all of the hullabaloo of the judging and selection for boot-camp we are led to believe that further work, effort, and performance can get you into the next stage. However, it seems that the selection has already been made, this person's friend accidentally saw a copy of the list with names already circled.

I guess this bit isn't too surprising and in some ways it is slightly excusable; by this point there will be obvious favorites or particularly saleable, I'm sorry, I mean worthy, contestants so very little is likely to change.

After hearing what really happens I have to say I've gone off watching the show and now view it as unfairly cruel and exploitative. I think a better way would be to empower people to make and sell their own music, online obviously, as this at least gives an even playing field with no greedy TV or music executives to profit from others humiliation - alot of those deluded enough to think they can sing when they can't need to learn this lesson and not be publicly ridiculed.