alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Mon Jan 11 10:39:42 UTC 2010
> Um, no, that's not unprecedented. It was how television was invented.
The standards for free to air in Europe were always published ones, right
back to crystal radio sets and the original AM signals.
> I'm not saying that it's necessarily a good or bad thing that the BBC
> might try to mandate a specific design, now. Though it might well be a
> good thing if one organisation, a broadcaster rather than electronics
> manufacturer, sets the pace.
The BBC is a government funded body - its prohibited from distorting
> No biggy, but it's always overlooked that you do have to restrict
> dissemination of your material. You make it, you sell it, you pay
> people and fund more productions with the profits. The restriction
> doesn't have to be absolute, though, merely reasonable.
Also false. Analogue TV has DRM, US free to air TV has no drm flags
because the EFF fought them off and the US government had the sense to
say no to free to air DRM. That would of course be the same programs they
want to pretend to encrypt in Europe.
> "... But free software is bad for DTLA compliance."
> But, bulldust... It's perfectly feasible to produce all that's required
> to receive and display the video in open source, and have the decryption
> managed by a standard closed source gadget somewhere in the appliance.
Which isn't open source. Also you wouldn't be allowed to as your laptop
screen isn't a DTLA protected device, so you might do evil stuff like
> We manage it with plenty of other things, including hardware devices for
> analog and digital television built from ordinary electronic parts, bar
> the special bits.
You won't be allowed to buy those if the DRM nuts have their way. You'll
have to be a big company and member of their little organisations in
order to be permitted to buy the electronics you need. It's already the
case for many things - try buying yourself the components for an
encrypted HDMI link.
More information about the users