Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?

On 14 Nov 2005 08:19:45 -0800, "larkim"
wrote:

If there are 'sound legal contractual reasons' then the first port of
call should be to review the contracts they sign.

mmm. Let's have a think. Let's say I am a Chief Exec of a firm which
makes original material for the BBC to produce. I hold the copyright
for this material that I've made. Do I a) sign a contract which waives
all rights that I have to that copyright, thus losing myself the
economic benefit of the original material that I have produced or b)
sign a contract which makes sensible commercial arrangements about the
copyright of the material which is my lifeblood?

Hmmm...let's explore that EXACT line of thinking a little further! So
let's further assume this 'Chief Exec' your refer to (whatever the
**** that title means...call me old-fashioned but I only know what
'manager' means) is operating in a market economy in a few years time.
In previous years he's been primarily funded by the BBC who have been
buying his output for 'primary' broadcast. In the past he's been able
to make a few extra quid from selling his product on to other
broadcasters for 'secondary' broadcast. The BBC are now asking him to
allow the download of his wares on to PC's (without DRM) and those
downloads are likely to make their way on to P2P networks. How much of
a diminution of his income is that likely to represent? Even now, ANY
broadcast of ANY worth appears on P2P networks within hours. It makes
no difference if he 'allows' it contractually or not!

If the concept of basic copyright offends you so much, perhaps you
should create some highly original creative material and then publish
it. Try to make some money if anyone is allowed to reproduce and
publish without any reference to you or licence fee payable.

The concept of basic copyright DOES offend me......but not because I
begrudge 'content producers' an income..........but because the
current system is unworkable. If any 12 year old can record a TV
broadcast in his bedroom and post it on pirate networks on the
Internet with a low or zero possibility of being 'caught' then the
system conforms to my idea of being 'unworkable'.

Not sure that your average joe bloggs would consider the VMWare
installation etc a "few mouse click" (sic).

Oooops! You found a typo and inserted a 'sic'! Congrats! But my typo
doesn't negate the point I was making. My suggestion was that you
install VMware once. It doesn't have to be installed EVERY time you
want to remove the DRM from a file.

Plus the downloading /
installation of pirated copies of WinXP / VM Ware etc does put you on
somewhat "dodgy" legal grounds.

No part of my argument is negated by the fact that I use pirate
software. If YOU want to buy a legitimate copy of VMWare and/or
Windows XP (and you'd be a fool to do either) then feel free, After
you've done that I suspect you'll still be operating within UK law if
you use my suggested method to remove DRM protection on BBC Internet
broadcasts.

I have some sympathy with your goal of circumventing DRM, given that it
puts a specific time limit on what has previously been considered a
"reasonable" length of time before time-shifted material must be
watched, but anyone who doesn't believe that there is a genuine benefit
to society of a copyright law (and the associated contracts that this
encourages between organisations / individuals) is talking rubbish.

Hmm......'rubbish' is pretty strong. For what it's worth, I feel that
any law that's unworkable or unenforceable; or any law that primarily
relies on the goodwill of the 'honest' for its efficacy, is a bad law
AND an unfair law AND a law that undermines respect for the law in
general. It's far better to change the underlying market system (or
preferably just let the market evolve). In the UK we seem to be going
through a phase of legislating at everything that moves. It's a big
mistake.



Peter/John (I can't remember what I'm using!)

"MJ Ray" wrote in message
reenews.net...
Conor wrote:
In article , Peter
says...
I don't want to discuss it because......

1) It bores me rigid

2) I've found from past experience that there is an inverse
correlation between the number of brain cells possessed by
people who
are motivated to take the moral high ground in these matters
and their
willingness to lecture others. Otherwise discussion on the
matter
might be interesting.
[...]
So in other words, you refuse to accept you're a thief.

So, everyone who videotapes a show is a thief to you?
I think you just proved his point about lack of brain cells.

Nothing to do with what he thinks, everything to do with what the law
states...


First up, it's desirable to strip those DRM technological
restrictions to allow format conversion, longer timeshifting,
commodity off-line storage and a whole range of other
usually-permitted private uses.

NOT permitted but frequently abused may be nearer the mark...


Secondly, it's not theft in the usual sense: the owner is not
deprived of the item. If anything, technological restrictions
are theft of rights from private users by the producer.

Of course the owner is deprived, the owner is going to be deprived of
a possible sale if you keep a boot-leg copy rather than buy a
commercial copy of the programme.


It's a scandal that fair dealing can be reduced in this way.

There is not such thing as 'far dealing', their is fair use, but
boot-leg archiving is not fair use.

It's high time for a root-and-branch reform of copyright to
reverse the recent increases in power of publishers and to
make the system work in the public interest again.


In other words, you don't want the programme makers to make a profit,
how the **** do you expect them to make other programmes....

"steve" wrote in message
news
snipped

FOAD troll.

"larkim" wrote:

Peter wrote:
If there are 'sound legal contractual reasons' then the first port of
call should be to review the contracts they sign.

mmm. Let's have a think. Let's say I am a Chief Exec of a firm which
makes original material for the BBC to produce. I hold the copyright
for this material that I've made.

More often, the Chief Exec is holding copyright for material *someone
else* has made.

Do I a) sign a contract which waives
all rights that I have to that copyright, thus losing myself the
economic benefit of the original material that I have produced or b)
sign a contract which makes sensible commercial arrangements about the
copyright of the material which is my lifeblood?

It depends on the negotiating position, which usually depends on how
big a producer you are and how much the broadcaster/republisher
wants your material.

If the concept of basic copyright offends you so much, perhaps you
should create some highly original creative material and then publish
it. Try to make some money if anyone is allowed to reproduce and
publish without any reference to you or licence fee payable.

People can republish much of the "highly original creative material"
I create without asking me or paying a so-called royalty. I make money
because I'm paid to write new stuff for my own company and others, and to
deliver what I write. Why it's beyond television people to try the same
model, I don't know. Small producers need to be careful, else the rise
of the videoblog and videophone may lead to the death of some. Already
small parts of BBC World seems to consist mostly of these formats.

[...] anyone who doesn't believe that there is a genuine benefit
to society of a copyright law (and the associated contracts that this
encourages between organisations / individuals) is talking rubbish.

There is a benefit, but recent changes to copyright law (term extensions,
DMCA) have increased the loss: things do not enter the public domain (and
become free culture) as quickly as they used to. Is the current state of
copyright still giving us a net benefit?

In article ews.net, MJ
Ray wrote:
People can republish much of the "highly original creative material"
I create without asking me or paying a so-called royalty. I make money
because I'm paid to write new stuff for my own company and others, and to
deliver what I write. Why it's beyond television people to try the same
model, I don't know.

Maybe they have, or maybe they've just been able to work out from common
sense that it wouldn't work so there's no point in trying.

*You* may be willing to do your highly original creative work, sell it once,
and watch others sell it over and over again without any more payments to
you, but most would never agree to such an arrangement as long as the
conventional one is available.

Rod.

MJ Ray wrote:

There is a benefit, but recent changes to copyright law (term extensions,
DMCA) have increased the loss: things do not enter the public domain (and
become free culture) as quickly as they used to. Is the current state of
copyright still giving us a net benefit?

What relevance does the US DMCA have here in the UK? For example, sound
recordings are still out of copyright 51 years after issue on this side
of the pond, unless I've missed a recent unwelcome change.

As for the benefit of copyright _as_a_concept_ (rather than a specific
good or bad law somewhere or other), I've met plenty of people who
suggest that copyright in audio or video (music or film), or even
writing, is a bad thing, and copyright in software is equally so. "All
these things should be open and free, and people can donate to the
artist or writer if they enjoy their output".

I find this quite offensive. There are people in this world who will be
plumbers or electricians, or make tangible real world things; they may
make a good living out of their trade, irrespective of copyright law.
However, there are other people in this world who will be writers or
musicians; through the printing press, recorded sound, film and video,
these people can reach a much wider audience than was possible a few
centuries ago. Without copyright law, these people cannot make a living
from this.

Copyright law allows creative people to earn a living in the same way
that plumbers do. I find it offensive that a plumber should be allowed
to charge whatever they choose for what they do, while a musician
selling a recording is reduced to begging for donations. Some of the
greatest composers and musicians of the past have died in poverty. If
the copyright opponents have their way, we'll see this happening again.

I should declare an interest in that I work within the industry -
however, it's the people who work _against_ copyright which have led me
to hold these views.

Cheers,
David.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
snip

The concept of basic copyright DOES offend me......but not because
I
begrudge 'content producers' an income..........but because the
current system is unworkable. If any 12 year old can record a TV
broadcast in his bedroom and post it on pirate networks on the
Internet with a low or zero possibility of being 'caught' then the
system conforms to my idea of being 'unworkable'.
snip

Well that is an argument for tighter copyright laws and tighter
encryption / content management systems, not for less!

Peter wrote:

[snip]

Please do keep posting, whatever your name is! I'm quite enjoying your
indignant replies to the responses you're getting.

And yes, when it doesn't crash, my Pace Twin does a much better job
(for me) of part of what you're trying to do. It only requires me to
remember to set it, which is much easier than even switching the PC on,
never mind getting broadband, installing this, that and the other,
downloading something else, cracking it etc.

I was only guessing at the picture quality, since I'm not part of the
trial. Given what you've said, I expect samples are available.

Cheers,
David.

"MJ Ray" wrote in message
reenews.net...
"larkim" wrote:

Peter wrote:
If there are 'sound legal contractual reasons' then the first
port of
call should be to review the contracts they sign.

mmm. Let's have a think. Let's say I am a Chief Exec of a firm
which
makes original material for the BBC to produce. I hold the
copyright
for this material that I've made.

More often, the Chief Exec is holding copyright for material
*someone
else* has made.

Most often it's the money that the Chief Exec put up front that
allowed for the 'material' (content) that *someone else* made...

More to the point, it's the money that the Chief Exec can / will make
from that content which will allow either that 'someone' or another
person / group to make more content.

Just where do you think the money comes from to make new content?...
Duh :~(

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
"steve" wrote in message
news
snipped

FOAD troll.

Cheesus Jerry, do you have to argue on EVERY group you post on?
And do you HAVE to call people Trolls when you lose an argument, or can
no longer find the words to fight back?

Doc