Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK's Freeview HD To Go DRM

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the for-some-values-of-free dept.

Television 169

gbjbaanb writes "The BBC has been granted provisional approval to introduce copy protection for Freeview HD after they resubmitted an amended plan. Quoting from Ofcom's statement: 'In view of the fuller submission provided by the BBC, Ofcom is currently minded to approve its request for a multiplex license amendment subject to consultation responses, on the basis that in principle, content management is a justified objective which ensures that the broadest range of HD content is made available to citizens and consumers.' However, it's not too late yet — you can submit your comment and tell them you'd like to be able to record broadcast HD TV. I'm sure the 'content providers' will continue to sell content to the BBC, ITV, etc., if this is not implemented. They'll still take our license fee money (or advertising) and sell us the content, but refuse to let us record or copy it, hoping we'll go out and buy the DVD/Blu-ray as well."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Where do we complain? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877094)

So, if we can still comment, anyone have a link to do so?

Re:Where do we complain? (3, Informative)

MacWiz (665750) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877112)

This ought to work: http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/ [bbc.co.uk]

Commie thief bastards (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877136)

Yeah, I said it. If you want a recording of the program, go the fuck out and buy it. Content creators don't pour their blood, sweat and tears into this programming for you self-entitled twats to steal it.

Re:Commie thief bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877230)

you suck at trolling, but just in case anyone is dumb enough to not see the difference here...

If the BBC pays them the license fees they want to broadcast it, and the BBC in turn makes the revenue they want from you receiving the broadcast, why is it thievery to record the broadcast? If making a recording is so trivial in cost that anyone can do it, why should a recorded copy cost a premium? If it should be worth more, why aren't they asking the BBC for more to broadcast it to millions of potential recording devices?

Note that this isn't a case of simply going to some torrent site and skipping any steps such that the content creators see nothing. This is a case of providing viewership to the BBC that provides them the revenue they desire. This is why the BBC pay for the distribution rights to begin with.

Re:Commie thief bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877248)

Congratulations on pointing out a troll and feeding it immediately.

Re:Commie thief bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877254)

Nice troll. The reality is that buying DVD boxsets of TV programming is quite a new phenomenon. There was never an issue with recording TV content from the air in the past and this only changed when the studios realised there was more profit to be made. Because they can sell DVDs now doesn't mean that recording from the air is suddenly unacceptable.

Re:Commie thief bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877986)

Not to mention the content makers have already been paid with our license fees. When the BBC broadcasts something, viewers are allowed to watch the content whenever and however they want.

Re:Commie thief bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877376)

Yeah, and you know what, content creators just rent you the bitstream. If you want to actually watch it, you're gonna have to pay again.

Re:Commie thief bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30878240)

Why ? They didn't do anything extra to deserve it.

Re:Where do we complain? (5, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877252)

That will just go in the Recycle Bin. The correct place to complain is here
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/howtorespond/ [ofcom.org.uk]

Re:Where do we complain? (5, Informative)

RDW (41497) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877852)

Before replying, bear in mind that you're writing to Ofcom (an independent regulator), not the BBC itself, and first check out the full proposal at:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/condoc.pdf [ofcom.org.uk]

The devil, of course, is in the details (which the Ofcom summary glosses over). The BBC is proposing an 'amendment' to 'Condition 6' of the current Multiplex B licence (which Ofcom has to approve). This might more accurately be described as a complete reversal of that Condition. EPG data will no longer be freely available, but encrypted. The decryption keys ('Huffman code look-up tables') will only be provided under a licence that mandates that the HD box manufacturer implements DRM, to be applied to any content that the broadcaster flags as 'protected'. It looks like the the BBC intends to require a level of DRM for most of its HD programming ('The BBC indicates in its proposal that it intends to apply the multiple copy state to the majority of its HD content.'). The even more restrictive 'managed copy' flag will be used when required; an 'unrestricted copy' flag is also available, but it doesn't look like it will get much use.

The issue of Open Source implementations is also dealt with in a deeply misleading way:

'The licensing terms for Open Source software typically require that this software is made freely available to others to use, which may be incompatible with and the licensing terms of the BBC's Huffman Code look-up tables. This issue appears to have been addressed by HD Freesat receivers that use Linux Open Source software and implement similar content management technologies'

This only 'appears to have been addressed' if you don't actually understand the issues. An HD box may well be running a Linux kernel, with proprietary software on top of it, just as MacOS runs on a FOSS XNU kernel. What the current proposal would block is any fully Free/Open Source implementation of a Freeview HD system.

Re:Where do we complain? (0, Flamebait)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877322)

If you've ever complained to the BBC, I think you'll find that complaining to them is like writing a complaint and sending it to /dev/null.

They don't listen, they don't care, they are completely unaccountable, due to the unique way they are funded - by a compulsory tax.

Re:Where do we complain? (1, Flamebait)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877458)

Stop reading the right wing press and think for yourself. This [bbc.co.uk] might help your understanding a bit better. By the way the tax isn't compulsory. Don't receive live TV broadcasts and you won't ever have to pay it.

Re:Where do we complain? (0, Flamebait)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877658)

. Don't receive live TV broadcasts and you won't ever have to pay it.

Not true - you have to not have the ability to recieve said broadcasts if you dont want to pay. Even if you only use your widescreen TV to watch Mapouka [youtube.com] on youtube, and its not connected to an aerial, you still have to pay for a licence.

Re:Where do we complain? (5, Informative)

takowl (905807) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877732)

Even if you only use your widescreen TV to watch Mapouka [youtube.com] on youtube, and its not connected to an aerial, you still have to pay for a licence.

Not true. You need a license only if you are watching or recording live broadcasts. If you're not, you don't need one, even if you do have the equipment [tvlicensing.co.uk] . Of course, they may suspect that you're lying, but if it isn't connected to an aerial, and it is connected to something else, you should be able to convince them.

Re:Where do we complain? (1)

Pax681 (1002592) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877888)

indeed, i have a 32 inch TV here and it's NOT connected to an aerial but to my PC and is essentially used as a monitor. they have check it and approved it as a situation where no license is needed

Re:Where do we complain? (1)

thetartanavenger (1052920) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877750)

Not true - you have to not have the ability to recieve said broadcasts if you dont want to pay. Even if you only use your widescreen TV to watch Mapouka [youtube.com] on youtube, and its not connected to an aerial, you still have to pay for a licence.

I hate the TV licensing system, because it's run by a set of government approved con artists. What you have just said is NOT true, and the parent is correct, mostly. You ONLY need a tv license if you receive broadcast TV as it's being broadcast. You don't need one to watch you tube videos, or anything that isn't being broadcast as you watch it (this includes iPlayer unless it's live TV). You don't need it to watch videos / dvd's or to play games. By receive I mean watch or record as it's being broadcast, and streaming is completely different from broadcasting.

I call them con artists because their website tries very hard to make you think you always need a TV license, or at least it used to. Their customer service is also extremely misleading, however I think this is due to incompetence rather than actual malice. If you inform them that you don't need a TV license for the reasons above, they will respond by telling you the reasons why you need a TV license which do not fit your current situation. The solution, call them out on it in a semi-aggressive way complaining that they did not even read your original letter, reiterate your reasons, and they generally get the point, eventually. It's probably best to make sure your TV isn't connected to an aerial, and if possible detune any of the channels on it. It will make life much easier if they ever send out someone to check.

At the start of this semester they even had a van on campus with the words "Now you know you need one on" the side of it. Complete BS lying to you trying to extort more money out of students.

Re:Where do we complain? (2)

Pax681 (1002592) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877880)

WRONG! if you do not use watch LIVE broadcast tv, whether via aerial, cable or software services such as www.tvcatchup.com then you DO NOT NEED A LICENSE!

i know this because i do not pay a TV license and have even invited the guys round to prove it after getting a letter from them.

there is enough FUD spread about tv licensing such as you HAVE to let their guys in when they call. you do NOT , they have absolutely no powers of entry and those guys themselves are not even govt employees, they work for a contractor.>br>
thre are even doubts about the amounts of detector staff/vans there are ofcom will not answer any questions on this.

so spreading more crapioca aboutit doesn't help to clear the FUD fog away.

so to sum up, if you do not watch LIVE broadcast tv via sattelite,tv aerial, cable or a software tuner then you DO NOT need a license.
look here http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/ [tvlicensing.co.uk]

Watching TV on the internet You need to be covered by a licence if you watch TV online at the same time as it's being broadcast on conventional TV in the UK or the Channel Islands. Video recorders and digital recorders like Sky+ You need a licence if you record TV as it's broadcast, whether that's on a conventional video recorder or digital box. Mobile phones A licence covers you to watch TV as it's broadcast on a mobile phone, whether you're at home or out and about.

It makes no difference how you watch TV - whether it's on your laptop, PC or mobile phone or through a digital box, DVD recorder or TV set - if you use any device to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV, the law requires you to be covered by a TV Licence.

note the "AS it's been shown "stipulation , youtube is not live so you, my friend are spreading utter FUD

What about when they push for IPTV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877752)

What about when they push for IPTV? Then anyone in the UK with an internet connection will have to pay.

PS you have only to de-tune your TV to not pay the license fee. However, auto-tuning sets make this a difficult proposition to prove...

Re:Where do we complain? (5, Informative)

symes (835608) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877556)

If you've ever complained to the BBC, I think you'll find that complaining to them is like writing a complaint and sending it to /dev/null. They don't listen, they don't care, they are completely unaccountable, due to the unique way they are funded - by a compulsory tax.

BS - I have and they were very responsive. A delight, compared to most other organisations I've had cause to tussle with. In fact, if anything, I was a little concerned that too much license fee money was going on customer service. I am very pelased to pay the "compulsry tax" as you put it. It makes the BBC one of the last places on earth that is ad free. And having kids who like CBBC that is very important to us - easily worth the license fee keeping the latest guns, junk food and general crap away from them.

Re:Where do we complain? (1)

lilo_booter (649045) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877868)

Agreed, and as expat living in Belgium, I'd happily continue to pay it - we get most of the beeb output via cable/digital tv here, and my kids love cbeebies, my wife loves the the drama and other stuff they produce, and me, I like to keep in touch with UK life. Yes, I pay for the local access already and my provider pays to distribute it, but me, I'd happily pay more (esp. if they opened the iplayer up in the process).

Re:Where do we complain? (5, Insightful)

simondm (901892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877870)

So true, try complaining and you will see what he means. I'd like to say that the documentaries the BBC produces, especially the new wildlife ones, are groundbreaking worldwide and worth the funding alone in my opinion. Then you have hours of original and period drama, the 24hr news service online and on the television, some sports coverage, lots of comedy, CBBC, Radio 1(current),2(old),3(classical),4(current issues),5 (sport) and local, all WITHOUT ADVERTS. Add to this that BBC pretty much kick started the whole internet TV thing, at least in this country - without adverts.

The BBC is about the only example of a 'compulsory tax' (it isn't compulsory) which has worked and continues to work in the public good to the satisfaction of pretty much everyone. The recent disputes about funding cause me to worry: it is money well spent.

If we complain to the BBC, they will listen: it is precisely because of this 'compulsory tax' that they may listen to us over the huge pockets and interests of the comercial fat cats

Re:Where do we complain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877114)

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/howtorespond/

More likely to go goatse (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877096)

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality', which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to paedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

  • Linus Torvalds [microsoft.com] is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
  • Richard M. Stallman [archive.org] , spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
  • Alan Cox [microsoft.com] is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual [goatse.fr] propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail [microsoft.com] , which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted [salon.com] on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo [comp-u-geek.net] slut [rotten.com] !

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual [goatse.fr] perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children [slashdot.org] . To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis [rotten.com] in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual [goatse.fr] terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual [goatse.fr] lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and copyright of posters to Slashdot by gathering together their postings and publishing them en masse to further his twisted and manipulative journalistic agenda.

Sick, disgusting antichristian perverts, the lot of them.

In addition, many of the Linux distributions (a 'distribution' is the most common way to spread the faggots' wares) are run by faggot groups. The Slackware [redhat.com] distro is named after the 'Slack-wear' fags wear to allow easy access to the anus for sexual purposes. Furthermore, Slackware is a close anagram of claw arse, a reference to the homosexual [goatse.fr] practise of anal fisting. The Mandrake [slackware.com] product is run by a group of French faggot satanists, and is named after the faggot nickname for the vibrator. It was also chosen because it is an anagram for dark amen and ram naked, which is what they do.

Another 'distro,' (abbrieviated as such because it sounds a bit like 'Disco,' which is where homosexuals [goatse.fr] preyed on young boys in the 1970s), is Debian, [mandrake.com] an anagram of in a bed, which could be considered innocent enough (after all, a bed is both where we sleep and pray), until we realise what other names Debian uses to describe their foul wares. 'Woody' is obvious enough, being a term for the erect male penis [rotten.com] , glistening with pre-cum. But far sicker is the phrase 'Frozen Potato' that they use. This filthy term, again found in the secret homosexual [goatse.fr] 'Sauce Code,' refers to the solo homosexual [goatse.fr] practice of defecating into a clear polythene bag, shaping the turd into a crude approximation of the male phallus, then leaving it in the freezer overnight until it becomes solid. The practitioner then proceeds to push the frozen 'potato' up his own rectum, squeezing it in and out until his tight young balls erupt in a screaming orgasm.

And Red Hat [debian.org] is secret homo [comp-u-geek.net] slang for the tip of a penis [rotten.com] that is soaked in blood from a freshly violated underage ringpiece.

The fags have even invented special tools to aid their faggotry! For example, the 'supermount' tool was devised to allow deeper penetration, which is good for fags because it gives more pressure on the prostate gland. 'Automount' is used, on the other hand, because Linux users are all fat and gay, and need to mount each other [comp-u-geek.net] automatically.

The depths of their depravity can be seen in their use of 'mount points.' These are, plainly speaking, the different points of penetration. The main one is obviously/anus, but there are others. Militant fags even say 'there is no/opt mount point' because for these dirty perverts faggotry is not optional but a way of life.

More evidence is in the fact that Linux users say how much they love `man`, even going so far as to say that all new Linux users (who are in fact just innocent heterosexuals indoctrinated by the gay propaganda) should try out `man`. In no other system do users boast of their frequent recourse to a man.

Other areas of the system also show Linux's inherent gayness. For example, people are often told of the 'FAQ,' but how many innocent heterosexual Windows [amiga.com] users know what this actually means. The answer is shocking: Faggot Anal Quest: the voyage of discovery for newly converted fags!

Even the title 'Slashdot [geekizoid.com] ' originally referred to a homosexual [goatse.fr] practice. Slashdot [kuro5hin.org] of course refers to the popular gay practice of blood-letting. The Slashbots, of course are those super-zealous homosexuals [goatse.fr] who take this perversion to its extreme by ripping open their anuses, as seen on the site most popular with Slashdot users, the depraved work of Satan, http://www.eff.org/ [eff.org] .

The editors of Slashdot [slashduh.org] also have homosexual [goatse.fr] names: 'Hemos' is obvious in itself, being one vowel away from 'Homos.' But even more sickening is 'Commander Taco' which sounds a bit like 'Commode in Taco,' filthy gay slang for a pair of spreadeagled buttocks that are caked with excrement [pboy.com] . (The best form of lubrication, they insist.) Sometimes, these 'Taco Commodes' have special 'Salsa Sauce' (blood from a ruptured rectum) and 'Cheese' (rancid flakes of penis [rotten.com] discharge) toppings. And to make it even worse, Slashdot [notslashdot.org] runs on Apache!

The Apache [microsoft.com] server, whose use among fags is as prevalent as AIDS, is named after homosexual [goatse.fr] activity -- as everyone knows, popular faggot band, the Village People, featured an Apache Indian, and it is for him that this gay program is named.

And that's not forgetting the use of patches in the Linux fag world -- patches are used to make the anus accessible for repeated anal sex even after its rupture by a session of fisting.

To summarise: Linux is gay. 'Slash -- Dot' is the graphical description of the space between a young boy's scrotum and anus. And BeOS [apple.com] is for hermaphrodites and disabled 'stumpers.'

FEEDBACK

What worries me is how much you know about what gay people do. I'm scared I actually read this whole thing. I think this post is a good example of the negative effects of Internet usage on people. This person obviously has no social life anymore and had to result to writing something as stupid as this. And actually take the time to do it too. Although... I think it was satire.. blah.. it's early. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Well, the only reason I know all about this is because I had the misfortune to read the Linux 'Sauce code' once. Although publicised as the computer code needed to get Linux up and running on a computer (and haven't you always been worried about the phrase 'Monolithic Kernel'?), this foul document is actually a detailed and graphic description of every conceivable degrading perversion known to the human race, as well as a few of the major animal species. It has shocked and disturbed me, to the point of needing to shock and disturb the common man to warn them of the impending homo [comp-u-geek.net] -calypse which threatens to engulf our planet.

You must work for the government. Trying to post the most obscene stuff in hopes that slashdot won't be able to continue or something, due to legal woes. If i ever see your ugly face, i'm going to stick my fireplace poker up your ass, after it's nice and hot, to weld shut that nasty gaping hole of yours. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Doesn't it give you a hard-on to imagine your thick strong poker ramming it's way up my most sacred of sphincters? You're beyond help, my friend, as the only thing you can imagine is the foul penetrative violation of another man. Are you sure you're not Eric Raymond? The government, being populated by limp-wristed liberals, could never stem the sickening tide of homosexual [goatse.fr] child molesting Linux advocacy. Hell, they've given NAMBLA free reign for years!

you really should post this logged in. i wish i could remember jebus's password, cuz i'd give it to you. -- mighty jebus [slashdot.org] , Slashdot

Thank you for your kind words of support. However, this document shall only ever be posted anonymously. This is because the 'Open Sauce' movement is a sham, proposing homoerotic cults of hero worshipping in the name of freedom. I speak for the common man. For any man who prefers the warm, enveloping velvet folds of a woman's vagina [bodysnatchers.co.uk] to the tight puckered ringpiece of a child. These men, being common, decent folk, don't have a say in the political hypocrisy that is Slashdot culture. I am the unknown liberator [hitler.org] .

ROLF LAMO i hate linux FAGGOTS -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

We shouldn't hate them, we should pity them for the misguided fools they are... Fanatical Linux zeal-outs need to be herded into camps for re-education and subsequent rehabilitation into normal heterosexual society. This re-education shall be achieved by forcing them to watch repeats of Baywatch until the very mention of Pamela Anderson [rotten.com] causes them to fill their pants with healthy heterosexual jism [zillabunny.com] .

Actually, that's not at all how scrotal inflation works. I understand it involves injecting sterile saline solution into the scrotum. I've never tried this, but you can read how to do it safely in case you're interested. (Before you moderate this down, ask yourself honestly -- who are the real crazies -- people who do scrotal inflation, or people who pay $1000+ for a game console?) -- double_h [slashdot.org] , Slashdot

Well, it just goes to show that even the holy Linux 'sauce code' is riddled with bugs that need fixing. (The irony of Jon Katz not even being able to inflate his scrotum correctly has not been lost on me.) The Linux pervert elite already acknowledge this, with their queer slogan: 'Given enough arms, all rectums are shallow.' And anyway, the PS2 [xbox.com] sucks major cock and isn't worth the money. Intellivision forever!

dude did u used to post on msnbc's nt bulletin board now that u are doing anti-gay posts u also need to start in with anti-black stuff too c u in church -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

For one thing, whilst Linux is a cavalcade of queer propaganda masquerading as the future of computing, NT [linux.com] is used by people who think nothing better of encasing their genitals in quick setting plaster then going to see a really dirty porno film, enjoying the restriction enforced onto them. Remember, a wasted arousal is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church [atheism.org] . Clearly, the only god-fearing Christian operating system in existence is CP/M -- The Christian Program Monitor. All computer users should immediately ask their local pastor to install this fine OS onto their systems. It is the only route to salvation.

Secondly, this message is for every man. Computers know no colour. Not only that, but one of the finest websites in the world is maintained by a Black Man [stileproject.com] . Now fuck off you racist donkey felcher.

And don't forget that slashdot was written in Perl, which is just too close to 'Pearl Necklace' for comfort.... oh wait; that's something all you heterosexuals do.... I can't help but wonder how much faster the trolls could do First-Posts on this site if it were redone in PHP... I could hand-type dynamic HTML pages faster than Perl can do them. -- phee [slashdot.org] , Slashdot

Although there is nothing unholy about the fine heterosexual act of ejaculating between a woman's breasts, squirting one's load up towards her neck and chin area, it should be noted that Perl [python.org] (standing for Pansies Entering Rectums Locally) is also close to 'Pearl Monocle,' 'Pearl Nosering,' and the ubiquitous 'Pearl Enema.'

One scary thing about Perl [sun.com] is that it contains hidden homosexual [goatse.fr] messages. Take the following code: LWP::Simple -- It looks innocuous enough, doesn't it? But look at the line closely: There are two colons next to each other! As Larry 'Balls to the' Wall would openly admit in the Perl Documentation, Perl was designed from the ground up to indoctrinate it's programmers into performing unnatural sexual acts -- having two colons so closely together is clearly a reference to the perverse sickening act of 'colon kissing,' whereby two homosexual [goatse.fr] queers spread their buttocks wide, pressing their filthy torn sphincters together. They then share small round objects like marbles or golfballs by passing them from one rectum to another using muscle contraction alone. This is also referred to in programming 'circles' as 'Parameter Passing.'

And PHP [perl.org] stands for Perverted Homosexual Penetration. Didn't you know?

Thank you for your valuable input on this. I am sure you will be never forgotten. BTW: Did I mention that this could be useful in terraforming Mars? Mars rulaa. -- Eimernase [slashdot.org] , Slashdot

Well, I don't know about terraforming Mars, but I do know that homosexual [goatse.fr] Linux Advocates have been probing Uranus for years.

That's inspiring. Keep up the good work, AC. May God in his wisdom grant you the strength to bring the plain honest truth to this community, and make it pure again. Yours, Cerberus. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

*sniff* That brings a tear to my eye. Thank you once more for your kind support. I have taken faith in the knowledge that I am doing the Good Lord [atheism.org] 's work, but it is encouraging to know that I am helping out the common man here.

However, I should be cautious about revealing your name 'Cerberus' on such a filthy den of depravity as Slashdot. It is a well known fact that the 'Kerberos' documentation from Microsoft is a detailed manual describing, in intimate, exacting detail, how to sexually penetrate a variety of unwilling canine animals; be they domesticated, wild, or mythical. Slashdot posters have taken great pleasure in illegally spreading this documentation far and wide, treating it as an 'extension' to the Linux 'Sauce Code,' for the sake of 'interoperability.' (The slang term they use for nonconsensual intercourse -- their favourite kind.)

In fact, sick twisted Linux deviants are known to have LAN parties, (Love of Anal Naughtiness, needless to say.), wherein they entice a stray dog, known as the 'Samba Mount,' into their homes. Up to four of these filth-sodden blasphemers against nature take turns to plunge their erect, throbbing, uncircumcised members, conkers-deep, into the rectum, mouth, and other fleshy orifices of the poor animal. Eventually, the 'Samba Mount' collapses due to 'overload,' and needs to be 'rebooted.' (i.e., kicked out into the street, and left to fend for itself.) Many Linux users boast about their 'uptime' in such situations.

Inspiring stuff! If only all trolls were this quality! -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

If only indeed. You can help our brave cause by moderating this message up as often as possible. I recommend '+1, Underrated,' as that will protect your precious Karma in Metamoderation [slashdot.org] . Only then can we break through the glass ceiling of Homosexual Slashdot Culture. Is it any wonder that the new version of Slashcode has been christened 'Bender'???

If we can get just one of these postings up to at least '+1,' then it will be archived forever! Others will learn of our struggle, and join with us in our battle for freedom!

It's pathetic you've spent so much time writing this. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

I am compelled to document the foulness and carnal depravity [catholic.net] that is Linux, in order that we may prepare ourselves for the great holy war that is to follow. It is my solemn duty to peel back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment.

As with any great open-source project, you need someone asking this question, so I'll do it. When the hell is version 2.0 going to be ready?!?! -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

I could make an arrogant, childish comment along the lines of 'Every time someone asks for 2.0, I won't release it for another 24 hours,' but the truth of the matter is that I'm quite nervous of releasing a 'number two,' as I can guarantee some filthy shit-slurping Linux pervert would want to suck it straight out of my anus before I've even had chance to wipe.

I desperately want to suck your monolithic kernel, you sexy hunk, you. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

I sincerely hope you're Natalie Portman [archive.org] .

Dude, nothing on slashdot larger than 3 paragraphs is worth reading. Try to distill the message, whatever it was, and maybe I'll read it. As it is, I have to much open source software to write to waste even 10 seconds of precious time. 10 seconds is all its gonna take M$ to whoop Linux's ass. Vigilence is the price of Free (as in libre -- from the fine, frou frou French language) Software. Hack on fellow geeks, and remember: Friday is Bouillabaisse day except for heathens who do not believe that Jesus died for their sins. Those godless, oil drench, bearded sexist clowns can pull grits from their pantaloons (another fine, fine French word) and eat that. Anyway, try to keep your message focused and concise. For concision is the soul of derision. Way. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

What the fuck?

I've read your gay conspiracy post version 1.3.0 and I must say I'm impressed. In particular, I appreciate how you have managed to squeeze in a healthy dose of the latent homosexuality you gay-bashing homos [comp-u-geek.net] tend to be full of. Thank you again. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Well bugger me!

ooooh honey. how insecure are you!!! wann a little massage from deare bruci. love you -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Fuck right off!

IMPORTANT: This message needs to be heard (Not HURD [linux.org] , which is an acronym for 'Huge Unclean Rectal Dilator') across the whole community, so it has been released into the Public Domain [icopyright.com] . You know, that licence that we all had before those homoerotic crypto-fascists came out with the GPL [apple.com] (Gay Penetration License) that is no more than an excuse to see who's got the biggest feces-encrusted [rotten.com] cock. I would have put this up on Freshmeat [adultmember.com] , but that name is known to be a euphemism for the tight rump of a young boy.

Come to think of it, the whole concept of 'Source Control' unnerves me, because it sounds a bit like 'Sauce Control,' which is a description of the homosexual [goatse.fr] practice of holding the base of the cock shaft tightly upon the point of ejaculation, thus causing a build up of semenal fluid that is only released upon entry into an incision made into the base of the receiver's scrotum. And 'Open Sauce' is the act of ejaculating into another mans face or perhaps a biscuit to be shared later. Obviously, 'Closed Sauce' is the only Christian thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that it is what Cathedrals are all about.

Contributors: (although not to the eternal game of 'soggy biscuit' that open 'sauce' development has become) Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, phee, Anonymous Coward, mighty jebus, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, double_h, Anonymous Coward, Eimernase, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward. Further contributions are welcome.

Current changes: This version sent to FreeWIPO [slashdot.org] by 'Bring BackATV' as plain text. Reformatted everything, added all links back in (that we could match from the previous version), many new ones (Slashbot bait links). Even more spelling fixed. Who wrote this thing, CmdrTaco himself?

Previous changes: Yet more changes added. Spelling fixed. Feedback added. Explanation of 'distro' system. 'Mount Point' syntax described. More filth regarding `man` and Slashdot. Yet more fucking spelling fixed. 'Fetchmail' uncovered further. More Slashbot baiting. Apache exposed. Distribution licence at foot of document.

ANUX -- A full Linux distribution... Up your ass!

Here we go again! (1)

DamageLabs (980310) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877106)

Whoever thought this would end differently needs to have his head examined.

Twice.

At an Ofcom licensed specialist.

Re:Here we go again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877148)

So, DRM... to prevent piracy.

I admit it is late, and the article didn't make sense to me, but do they really think that all this effort will prevent piracy?

Has it prevented piracy so far?

Will it prevent piracy in the future?

When will businesses/industries restructure their business model to work witn the 21st centry rather than fighting it this way?

I don't have a solution to prevent people from "stealing" content (i don't get paid big bucks to figure it out), but there has to be a better approach to this all. Pissing off the consumers, especially the legal ones, is not the way to go about this.

Re:Here we go again! (1, Flamebait)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877184)

How often do 99% of consumers realise they're watching encrypted DVD? Consumers won't care if it's not intrusive. Meanwhile encyrpted channels can licence shows and movies quicker and cheaper, making better use of the licence fee.

Re:Here we go again! (2, Insightful)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877462)

It will be intrusive if you can't record it to watch it later.

Maybe a long time ago (3, Insightful)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877498)

How often do 99% of consumers realise they're watching encrypted DVD? Consumers won't care if it's not intrusive. ....

Yeah, they didn't care when the only devices they had which played video were televisions which were connected with DVD players. Nowadays, every other cell phone/music player can play video. You can safely bet that the unstoppable progression of technology will soon make it quite obvious to the consumer that they are being asked to pay over and over again for playing the same content on ever increasing numbers of portable devices. And they won't like it.

That is what lead us to non-DRM music; it will also eventually happen to video.

Re:Maybe a long time ago (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877662)

That is what lead us to non-DRM music; it will also eventually happen to video.

I've seen that belief expressed a couple of times in the past few weeks here on slashdot.
Unforunately, it ain't true.
The only reason DRM has been removed from most online music sales is because Apple had an effective monopoly on DRM - they refused to license itunes-compatible DRM to any other hardware manufacturer - and the one thing the RIAA monopolists can't stand is being under the thumb of a monopoly. They fully understand how badly that sucks.

As long as the RIAA insisted on DRM, they had to cede control over everything else to Apple. Dropping the requirement for DRM meant they could sell through multiple outlets instead of just itunes - which gave them back control over pricing and bundling.

The video business ain't the same - there is no single dominant DRM system and even then some of the larger DRM vendors (MS and Rovi nee Macrovision) are happy to license it on any hardware platform. We won't be seeing the death of DRM on video any time soon, we may even see a resurgence on music if Apple loses its market dominance.

Re:Here we go again! (2, Insightful)

thetartanavenger (1052920) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877780)

Consumers won't care if it's not intrusive.

Suddenly not being able to use your DVR to keep a copy of a show to watch later I consider to be fairly intrusive

Meanwhile encyrpted channels can licence shows and movies quicker and cheaper, making better use of the licence fee.

Whilst at the same time taking away our rights as a consumer. In the UK it is perfectly legal to record anything broadcast so long as you have a TV license, and to keep it for up to a year. This will not be used to license shows quicker and cheaper, it will just be used to take away a right, and then next year they'll try to take away another.

Note: this is record and watch, not distribute. Taking a lending a video to a friend does not constitute distribution.

Re:Here we go again! (1)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877896)

It drives me nuts every time I watch a DVD, and I use MythTV or VLC to watch DVDs for this reason: I bought the DVD, it's a random access medium and I should be able to start watching the film immediately. Any 'properly' licensed DVD player will force you to watch a long copyright message, various warnings, and sometime even a series of adverts before getting to the root menu. I find that intrusive, annoying, and a downgrade from VHS where I could hold the FF button down for 10 seconds to get past all of that. I find it particularly annoying when it's a DVD I really like and I'm watching it for the 3rd or 4th time, or when it's a series box-set and it does it with every disc change.

Re:Here we go again! (1)

MacWiz (665750) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877156)

I wouldn't worry too much.

Our summary says, "in principle, content management is a justified objective." While this may or may not be true, the reality is that "content management systems" (aka DRM) never work. Someone will crack it immediately, flushing another $5-6 million down the drain.

Re:Here we go again! (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877178)

Sky's encyrption is pretty rock solid. It occasionallly get broken but they simply issue a new key.

All the BBC would need to do is revoke compromised keys (and issue new keys to affected devices via over the air firmware upgrades).

Re:Here we go again! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877218)

Sky is a subscription-based service. They can afford to provide their own receiving hardware to all their subscribers, they are able to keep this hardware updated, and they are able to replace the hardware when they need to. In addition, they have no requirement to have their service work with any hardware other than what they provide.

None of that applies to the BBC.

Re:Here we go again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877300)

The encryption may be rock solid, but with some hardware (smartcard writer), some software (softcams) and a little bit of social engineering anyone able to receive signals from the Astra2 satellite can view the various Sky channels thru the magic of cardsharing.

Re:Here we go again! (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877320)

Mainly because it's not worth it, people bypass the whole problem by just downloading instead.

For any serious attempt I'd expect a record and post-process approach would work fairly well, with or without key sharing.

Re:Here we go again! (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877302)

One of the arguments I plan to make is that it's simply not up to Ofcom or the BBC to decide whether restricting home recording is a 'justified objective'. Copyright, being a tradeoff between competing interests, is essentially a political rather than technical question, and any changes to copyright law need to be made by Parliament, not sneaked in through the back door with technological restrictions. (I responded to the earlier consultation, and so did many others, which meant Ofcom said 'no' to the BBC's request, but they appear to have found a way to work around public opinion and reverse the earlier decision. But it's not too late.) (just to repeat the correct link for those who haven't seen it: )

Re:Here we go again! (1)

gilgongo (57446) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877410)

any changes to copyright law need to be made by Parliament, not sneaked in through the back door with technological restrictions.

Well yes, but the depressing thing is that what's being discussed by Ofcom is a set of contract terms between the broadcaster, their audience and the content providers. Copyright law will not (can cannot) be changed by this, the rights holders will still be the rights holders, etc. The crucial point is that in almost all jurisdictions on earth, contract beats copyright, so in this debate copyright might seem like the the issue, but it's not.

I don't think so (2)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877160)

They'll still take our license fee money (or advertising) and sell us the content, but refuse to let us record or copy it

They won't be taking my 'licence fee money'. I don't pay that anachronistic tax. I encourage everyone else to do likewise.

Re:I don't think so (3, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877240)

Yes, because the quality of television (And radio, and internet services) provided by ITV is soooooo much better than the BBC.

I can't wait until The Natural World becomes The Real Natural World, in which a series of barely cognizant social rejects are dumped into the middle of the African plains to see how they cope with being hunted by an incredible array of nature's creations. Actually, that would probably be quite entertaining for a while, but not as a *replacement* for decent, intelligent, educational television.

Re:I don't think so (1)

optkk (907995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877246)

I ditched my TV about 6 months ago. The majority of shows I want are available on the 'net, one way or another. I'm not dictated to by licences, adverts or broadcast schedules.

Re:I don't think so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877286)

It's not a tax. You're paying for the BBC (and Channel 4, a bit) like you pay for Sky/cable/whatever. Have you seen the state US television compared to ours? I know which system I vastly prefer.

Re:I don't think so (0)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877350)

It is a tax. You have to pay it if you have a TV that can receive channels, regardless of which channels you watch. It's like adding a $1 tax to restaurants to fund your program of giving out free vegetables there. Even if you don't eat the vegetables, you still have to pay, and the veggies are "free".

Re:I don't think so (4, Informative)

growse (928427) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877400)

Actually, you have to pay it if you watch live terrestrial broadcasts. Owning a TV with the capability is irrelevant.

If you watch BBC1 live on iPlayer, you need a license.

If you plug your PS3 into your TV and only use your TV for that, you don't need a license.

From http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ [tvlicensing.co.uk] :

If you watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV you must, by law, be covered by a TV Licence, no matter what device you're using.

Re:I don't think so (1, Interesting)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877624)

Actually, you have to pay it if you watch live terrestrial broadcasts. Owning a TV with the capability is irrelevant.

If you watch BBC1 live on iPlayer, you need a license.

Ok, I was a bit off. My point still stands, even if you watch 0 minutes of BBC, spending your time on the private channels, you still have to pay their tax.

Re:I don't think so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877954)

Maybe I'm being to picky, but while you do need a license to watch the bbc live the iplayer service is for catching up rather than watching live tv, so you don't need a license for that.

http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_iplayer/tvlicence

It's already DRMd (4, Interesting)

DrXym (126579) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877166)

I have a Freesat HD PVR. HD content is encrypted to the box (you can back it up but it won't play anywhere else). Some content is even flagged and won't even transfer. It must be part of the Freesat conformance requirements. Stuff is broadcast in the clear, so in theory I could use a generic DVB-S2 recorder but then I lose other Freesat features like the EPG.

Re:It's already DRMd (3, Informative)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877256)

Freesat != Freeview

Re:It's already DRMd (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877472)

I never said they were. However Freesat is a joint venture between the BBC & ITV and already implements a form of DRM. Therefore I do not understand why people thought Freeview would be any different, especially when it has more stakeholders.

Re:It's already DRMd (3, Informative)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877550)

You said "It's already DRMd". Except "it" isn't. Freeview at the moment isn't DRMd. If you meant to say "The BBC already uses DRM, e.g. FreeSat, which is a similar service to FreeView, so I'm not surprised." then you should have said that. Instead, you talked about the two as if they were the same thing, which is why I said "Freesat != Freeview".

I don't think the DRM matters one way or the other. It will be broken, probably quite easily, and then the issue will go away again.

Re:It's already DRMd (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877654)

It as in HD content, as in BBC content. It as in Freesat which is a joint venture between the BBC & ITV. Freesat only offers HD content from the BBC & ITV at present.

As for DRM being broken, this depends how it is implemented and what built-in resilience / healing capabilities it has. If it's some unique key buried in each STB that scrambles the content, then perhaps. If its full broadcast encryption with keys cycling every second combined with occasional over the air changesthen probably not. Even if it were cracked, the vast majority of users wouldn't even care.

Personally I think they should forget about controlling the content and just passively watermark it. They could always send OTA kill codes or prosecute copyright infringers if a unique code was embedded into the image.

Re:It's already DRMd (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877674)

If they were going to use DRM, they should tie the key to your TV license. That way, you have to have a TV license to watch the content. Unfortunately that would involve uniquely encrypting the content for every viewer, which just isn't practical, especially for over-the-air broadcasts.

Instead they'll implement some crap system where the key is hidden in the device somehow. Someone will get it out, and then they'll be free to decrypt anything and post it onto the net.

Re:It's already DRMd (watermark) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30878108)

I've noticed the BBC 24 News channel does just this when it is showing video footage. There is a very faint watermark of the News 24 "globe swirls" on it.

I guess this is so if another news channel shows it without acknowledgement of the source the BBC can complain or something.

Thanks

captcha : decrypts :)

Re:It's already DRMd (1)

groovelator (994174) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877318)

From http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/summary/ [ofcom.org.uk]

1.9 The content management technology required to be implemented in receivers under the BBC's proposals would permit unrestricted recordings of HD content onto digital video recorders (DVRs) but would enable broadcasters to control the copying of this content onto other devices and its distribution over the internet. The HD content would only be accessible on other consumer devices which support the same content management technologies as those used in HD receivers.

Re:It's already DRMd (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877614)

That's pretty much what Freesat boxes do right now. It's not surprising that BBC (a major stakeholder in both formats) would advance a similar proposal in Freeview HD.

Personally I think it will be fairly pointless to stop people doing what they like with the content. Just like Freesat HD, the content will be festooned with adverts, DOGs and sub-optimal encoding (both bitrate constrained and in real time) so it's hardly likely to compete with either DVD or Blu Ray. If they're that paranoid about content leaking out, they should just watermark it via hardware so it's easier to bring prosecutions if they wish.

I think it's about time .... (0, Offtopic)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877186)

... for another gunpowder rebellion.

Re:I think it's about time .... (5, Informative)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877210)

Why would we want to install a catholic ruler?

Guy Fawkes was not an anarchist and he did not reflect the people's views. He was not an anarchist, he was a religious nut who couldn't accept a protestant king and wanted one that met his religious views.

After the attempt on his parliament, Charles II's popularity shot through the roof and the 5th of November celebrates that he was caught. You don't burn effigies of people you are celebrating.

Sorry to rant but it pisses me off that people with no knowledge of history now think Guy Fawkes was an anarchist because of a movie and a graphic novel.

Re:I think it's about time .... (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877312)

Why would we want to install a catholic ruler?

For the children?

*) Citation needed (1)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 4 years ago | (#30878216)

For the children?

Even though it triggers Godwin's Law...

Re:I think it's about time .... (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877688)

Especially when the movie and graphic novel never portray Fawkes as an anarchist, but instead portray a random other guy as being something like fawkes. Where "something like fawkes" is defined as "tried to blow up parliament".

You mean... as alluding to "V for Vendetta": (2, Funny)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877722)

http://www.loveisearned.com/assets/images/in%20case%20of%20revolution%20break%20glass.jpg [loveisearned.com] ?

As a matter of fact, Digital Restrictions Management with its inherently evil capabilities for censorship will indeed make every Adam Sutler [imdb.com] drool with joy over its Orwellian prospects.

Freeview? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877204)

sarcasm at its best.

It's a page right out of the Minitrue's cursebook (1)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877772)

Enforcing "Freedom is Slavery" and "Ignorance is Strength", swatting two civil liberties with one stone (or was it a bricked once-free DTV receiver?).
"War is Peace" may come to join them as soon as every TV viewer is digitally numbered and individually addressable, i.e. can be force-fed the very selected bits and pieces of information most useful to bring him or her into (party) line, and cut off from everything else.

What a wonderful opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877214)

I really don't care what they do, I have a HDMI harddisk recorder. It works great even on copy protected content such as blu-ray disks etc.
I suspect these devices will become more widespread and someone is going to become quite rich making and selling these boxes.
Mine works by cloning the Device ID of the TV its connected to and pretends to be that Device from then on. Any attempt my manufacturers and movie producers to circumvent this would result in rendering lots / possibly all HDMI - through-devices such as switchers, distribution amplifiers, surround sound decoders and maybe a few displays useless.

Re:What a wonderful opportunity (3, Insightful)

grimJester (890090) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877348)

And such a wonderful world we live in. A device that provides the same functionality as an old VHS recorder is illegal because it needs to bypass DRM to work. Never mind that we've had VHS for 30+ years and TV shows have been broadcast unencrypted for half a century.

Obviously anyone who wants to release a torrent can easily bypass the DRM and anyone who wants the non-DRM version can download it for free. The only ones who suffer are the ones who pay for their content and won't buy illegal hardware.

Re:What a wonderful opportunity (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877444)

Obviously anyone who wants to release a torrent can easily bypass the DRM and anyone who wants the non-DRM version can download it for free. The only ones who suffer are the ones who pay for their content and won't buy illegal hardware.

THIS, BBC!
Why the fuck are they so stupid?
This won't stop ANYONE who is determined enough.
Nor did it make things worse off years ago.

Fact is, anything that is encrypted can be decrypted. If you have the hardware decrypters, it is only a matter of time before someone gets in to it.
And that doesn't even matter either since a LOT of people have cameras, TVs and miniature sound recording studio built specifically for ripping copies off of everything.
This is helped even further by things like "Sky Multiroom" and such systems.

The ONLY way they* (the companies in general) can improve anything is by making shows easily accessible for rental / purchase through the Internet.
Lower prices will lower the barriers most people have. (certainly worked on iTunes, PSN and XBLA, and so on)
But they never learn, do they? The distribution companies rape most profit that any company gets from media and leave them with pennies. (somewhat literally in some cases)
Until we get rid of most of those, things are going to be a mess for a while.
And since the backbone in the UK is awful at best, probably not happening for at least a decade or 2.
Wouldn't be surprised if BT are being paid off to limit progression.

* In BBCs case, they can't due to the licence fee.

D'ya think? (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877216)

From the article: " I'm sure the 'content providers' will continue to sell content to the BBC, ITV, etc., if this is not implemented."

My guess would be 'no' actually - they'll happily sell non-HD versions, but I doubt they will sell HD without the DRM.

Hey, if the summary writer can speculate, so can I.

Re:D'ya think? (1)

williamhb (758070) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877490)

From the article: " I'm sure the 'content providers' will continue to sell content to the BBC, ITV, etc., if this is not implemented." My guess would be 'no' actually - they'll happily sell non-HD versions, but I doubt they will sell HD without the DRM.

Indeed the price would go up for the HD version, and they'd happily tell the BBC and ITV "Sorry, but Sky [an entirely encrypted pay-TV channel] are offering lots of cash with built in DRM. Cya." The BBC has already been out-bid on many popular programs by Sky -- they plucked 24 from the BBC after season 2 when it had built an audience; same for Lost; they plucked the cricket from Channel 4; ... If you're keen to tie the BBC's hands behind its back in content negotiations, the result won't be "more for free" -- it'll be "now I have to pay for a Sky subscription at three times the licence fee AND put up with adverts AND put up with DRM"...

Sharing the costs of production (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877238)

I'm sure the 'content providers' will continue to sell content to the BBC, ITV, etc.

The BBC has co-production and distribution agreements with private and public corporate partners all over the world.

The BBC's resources are not unlimited. It has only so much money to buy product, only so much money to produce product.

The BBC brand name is worth only so much. The BBC has to offer its partners protection in the UK market.

RTFATWL (4, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877270)

If you Read The Fine Article That Wasn't Linked [ofcom.org.uk] on the Ofcom website you'll find interesting tidbits such as:

1.4 The BBC's proposed content management approach would require Ofcom to grant an amendment to its multiplex licence, subject to Ofcom's approval of specific proposals, to allow the BBC to restrict the availability of programme listing information for HDTV services only to receivers that implement content management technology.

1.9 The content management technology required to be implemented in receivers under the BBC's proposals would permit unrestricted recordings of HD content onto digital video recorders (DVRs) but would enable broadcasters to control the copying of this content onto other devices and its distribution over the internet. The HD content would only be accessible on other consumer devices which support the same content management technologies as those used in HD receivers.

In essence, if you use a receiver without support for this DRM tech, the only thing you're going to lose access to is the Programme Listing data - it's the BBC's way of placating the drooling media execs with as little direct impact on consumers as possible. Now that's not to say that someone in the government won't make it impossible to buy receivers that don't support this in the UK, but that's what China is for.

Full PDF is here [ofcom.org.uk]

Re:RTFATWL (1)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877826)

it's the BBC's way of placating the drooling media execs with as little direct impact on consumers as possible.

Unfortunately the people the BBC are trying to satisfy will never be satisfied. More and more little restrictions will be add, and this same argument will be made each time.

Let Sky handle the drooling media types, they'll feel right at home there.

Re:RTFATWL (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877924)

In essence, if you use a receiver without support for this DRM tech, the only thing you're going to lose access to is the Programme Listing data - it's the BBC's way of placating the drooling media execs with as little direct impact on consumers as possible

ICBW but don't most DVRs depend on program listing data to know when to record?

Re:RTFATWL (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877932)

are you sure? 1.9 says that they can prevent copying of content (not listing data). Whilst the paragraph says 'unrestricted coying onto DVRs' it also says "would permit". ie, they'll be able to prevent that for high-worth content, like a movie the producer didn't want you to record.

Later in the spec, they say there are 3 modes of protection allowed: unrestricted (fair enough, I imagine a lot of general TV would fall into this category, stuff like all those cookery or property shows), limited-copy (which allows you to make say 3 copies) and copy-once (ie to your DVR). Guess which mode would be employed for the programme's you'd like to keep?

I think the implementation is designed to DRM the listings data (as the programmes themselves cannot be encrypted), but still put the DRM onto the receiver - which in turn would prevent you from copying the programmes simply because they've got it there to protect the listing data. (ie because the 'what's on' info is embedded in it, no copying of the programme is allowed either)

How many receivers will be produced that do not have a listing guide? Probably none - they wouldn't sell in large enough quantities to be worth even a Chinese manufacturer making them.

Re:RTFATWL (2, Informative)

RDW (41497) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877942)

'In essence, if you use a receiver without support for this DRM tech, the only thing you're going to lose access to is the Programme Listing data - it's the BBC's way of placating the drooling media execs with as little direct impact on consumers as possible.'

An built-in EPG is pretty fundamental to the way we use DTV boxes today. Any manufacturer that chose not to sign up the DRM would have to provide its own (which would need a net connection).

'Now that's not to say that someone in the government won't make it impossible to buy receivers that don't support this in the UK, but that's what China is for.'

I don't think this we'll be seeing rogue Chinese Freeview HD boxes any time soon. The DVB-T2 system is not widely used elsewhere, and the chipsets are expensive.

B@st@rds ! (4, Interesting)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877292)

If they roll this out to the satellite transmissions of BBC HD as well, Arrrgghhh!

I bought a Analogue / DVB-T / DVB-S combi-card that can decode DVB-S HD transmissions, and of course a HD pc monitor* to watch / edit on. I know that the BBC and ITV are pushing people for the "Freesat" service, their locked-in satellite box... they get a cut from the sales you see. I suspect vendor lock-in is one reason they want to scramble the transmissions.

Having a FTA card allows me to watch from whatever terrestrial or satellite I can pick up from. Using Linux as well to do it is no mean feat, some HD channels have changed the spec on how to receive their signals, and it messes with the audio stream (BBC-HD implicated).

Having the Freeview HD signal scrambled is not a great loss, the bit rate for terrestrial HD is as predicted appallingly low and unwatchable. The problem is the masses will look at that bad picture and think it is acceptable, because they've not seen anything else, ie. the satellite HD signal (which has also had it's bit rate downgraded recently). The same thing happened with the roll out and push for Freeview terrestrial digital television, the bit rate has been dropping all the time, it is pretty bad, analogue beats it hands down for picture and audio quality.

For a supposed free to air channel (subject to paying the BBC tax), the BBC have acted appallingly. For a regulator of UK television that was started up by the current corrupt government, they are acting exactly to type, bought off by corporate interests instead of viewers interests.

* Strangely the pc Full HD monitor costs less than a regular HD-TV, even though the size is the same, and the pc monitor deals with a higher refresh rates than a regular TV does.

Re:B@st@rds ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877380)

If they roll this out to the satellite transmissions of BBC HD as well, Arrrgghhh!

It's already on the satellite transmissions of BBC HD, hence the need for third party listings.

Having the Freeview HD signal scrambled is not a great loss, the bit rate for terrestrial HD is as predicted appallingly low and unwatchable.

The Freeview HD broadcasts already exist and are not 'unwatchable' or anything close to it.

For a supposed free to air channel (subject to paying the BBC tax), the BBC have acted appallingly.

For a regulator of UK television that was started up by the current corrupt government, they are acting exactly to type, bought off by corporate interests instead of viewers interests.

Rupert? Is that you? No content provider will sell non-DRM HD content. If the BBC is not able to implement DRM, then the only purchaser of HD content will be Sky.

Re:B@st@rds ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877384)

> Strangely the pc Full HD monitor costs less than a regular HD-TV, even though the size is the same, and the pc monitor deals with a higher refresh rates than a regular TV does.

Why would you think those two would be the determining factors? I suspect an HDTV has to do a lot more than an HD monitor does.

Re:B@st@rds ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877800)

Uh, the difference between a TV and a monitor is probably that the TV has an IR remote, has more inputs, and is tends to be lower resolution and larger in size. They take the same inputs. (Well, it costs a bit more to get a monitor with RCA/component inputs, but you can get them.)

Re:B@st@rds ! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877418)

* Strangely the pc Full HD monitor costs less than a regular HD-TV, even though the size is the same, and the pc monitor deals with a higher refresh rates than a regular TV does.

If I remember correctly, monitors are taxed at a different rate to TVs by the EU on import.

Re:B@st@rds ! (2, Interesting)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877440)

I have a Humax Foxsat HD Freesat receiver, and it can pick up any satellite channel as well. There's a 'Freesat mode' that can be turned off. I don't see why you'd want to though.

Re:B@st@rds ! (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 4 years ago | (#30878198)

They already have done. It was cracked within months by the developers of PVR software.

No free TV (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877304)

The use of the word "free" in both Freeview and Freesat is deceptive IMHO as in the UK (as many of you know) you _have_ to pay for a TV License, if you don't you can't have a TV or anything resembling a terrestrial (analog or digital) receiver. So no TV cards for your computer either. It really is not even an issue of quality anymore, I used to use the argument that the only thing I watched on the BBC was Top Gear and local news and that's still true but I'd gladly pay a token amount per view for each of those I just have a moral objection to being forced to pay for a service that I largely do not use. The fact is that if I stop paying my license I would eventually face prison time and a criminal record. Is this right? It really is more of an issue of freedom now than anything else. If I want to pay for a subscription TV service then I will but nobody should be able to use coercion to force me to. Imagine if a private company attempted the same techniques there would (rightfully) be an outcry! The BBC is an outmoded, Stalinist model of public broadcasting and should be condemned to the history books as a way not to do things sooner rather than later.

Re:No free TV (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877374)

The use of the word "free" in both Freeview and Freesat is deceptive IMHO as in the UK (as many of you know) you _have_ to pay for a TV License, if you don't you can't have a TV or anything resembling a terrestrial (analog or digital) receiver. So no TV cards for your computer either. It really is not even an issue of quality anymore, I used to use the argument that the only thing I watched on the BBC was Top Gear and local news and that's still true but I'd gladly pay a token amount per view for each of those I just have a moral objection to being forced to pay for a service that I largely do not use. The fact is that if I stop paying my license I would eventually face prison time and a criminal record. Is this right?

No, the worst they'd give you is a fine.

Re:No free TV (1)

growse (928427) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877412)

Except the requirement to have a TV license has bugger all to do with how much equipment you own.

Re:No free TV (2, Insightful)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877502)

Stop reading the right wing press and think for yourself. Stalinist my arse.

SD output permitted unprotected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877328)

I think I'm still opposed on principle but the details aren't as bad as the summary sounds.

1) Unprotected SD output is permitted for all content.
2) All content is broadcast unencrypted an can be received by any satellite receiver.

Even the listings data is not encrypted but it is compressed. The BBC claim copyright and trade secret rights in the table required to decompress the listings data. The same scheme has been used on Freesat for all it's listings data. The system and tables have been reverse engineered by the VDR and MythTV projects.

The main question about the system is whether there is any security or it just disables HD streaming outputs and multiple Blu-ray copies for users of Freeview labelled gear.

A lesson on what it means to distort reality: (4, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877422)

[...] on the basis that in principle, content management is a justified objective which ensures that the broadest range of HD content is made available to citizens and consumers.

Here is a lesson for us all, on how to talk and act, if you want to push something trough that everybody hates: You state the exact opposite of what it will do. Which is of course, what everybody will want. And you get it across not only without the blink of an eye, but in a way that makes others feel like this is in fact reality, so that they start to believe it too.

Today’s wars are not fought with machines and deaths. They are fought with ideas / mindsets / realities, and people that you don’t have to kill, but instead make your “best friends”, so that they fight on your side.

I say, we as hackers (actually more “crackers”) should become the masters of that! Hack the human mind! As an extension of social engineering. But for good things!
Psychology, social dynamics, true leadership and rhetorics. Those are the key skills.

Hmm... I should make a RPG out of that, to train my army... Muhahahaha ;)

Re:A lesson on what it means to distort reality: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877558)

You, sir, are a jive turkey. You know some of the lingo but come across as a poser.

Not that you're wrong about spin though.

Re:A lesson on what it means to distort reality: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877958)

That is a lesson that can be learned from just looking at what DRM officially stands for.

They call it Digital RIGHTS Management, while in reality, it means Digital RESTRICTIONS Management.

Error in summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30877604)

"They'll still take our license fee money (or advertising) and sell us the content, but refuse to let us record or copy it, hoping we'll go out and buy the DVD/Blu-ray as well"
That's a LICENSE FEE for which you get a LICENSE to watch live TV.

The content is not "sold" to you, it's LICENSED. If you don't want LICENSED content, don't pay for a LICENSE.

The COPYRIGHT HOLDER who has the COPYRIGHT is the only person allowed to COPY it.

Understand now?

No, I thought not. This is /. after all.

Re:Error in summary (2, Insightful)

Skapare (16644) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877626)

But this is tele over the internet, right? If all you have is a computer and high speed internet, but no tele, do you, or do you not, have to pay a license fee? And what if (you Brits) are overseas and want to see the tele shows from back home?

Re:Error in summary (1)

thetartanavenger (1052920) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877848)

But this is tele over the internet, right? If all you have is a computer and high speed internet, but no tele, do you, or do you not, have to pay a license fee? And what if (you Brits) are overseas and want to see the tele shows from back home?

You don't need a license for the internet connection, you need a license to watch anything that is being broadcast over the airwaves as you are watching it, even if you are watching it over the internet. This does not include most shows on the iPlayer or other sites like that, as that content is being streamed personally to you, and not being broadcast over the airwaves at the same time. The one exception to this is live shows on the iPlayer, as those are also being broadcast over the airwaves at the same time.

Does this mean that ... (2, Interesting)

Skapare (16644) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877618)

... Linux users that cannot view the DRM broadcasts won't have to pay the license fee?

Vote with your feet? (5, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877672)

Don't like it? Don't watch it. Don't buy the equipment. Don't support it. Seems pretty simple.

Up until a year or so ago I was a TV licence payer in the UK - then I discovered that not having a TV didn't make any difference to my viewing habits i.e. there was nothing but shit on and the stuff I did want to see I could get other ways *legally* which, for the most part, didn't involve giving corporations money - BBC iPlayer etc. aren't subject to the license because that only covers having the capability to watch the programmes on British TV as they are broadcast - so you don't need a TV license, but get the same programmes.

And the things that are worth watching, I buy a DVD of (which I then rip, of course, but seeing as I "own" it, that's my decision). I paid for Sky until it became a million channels of crap, ten minute advert breaks and re-re-re-re-re-peats of programmes. I paid for a TV licence until the same thing happened and I realised I could just watch on iPlayer / ITV Player / 4od without (most of) the crap any time I liked. Why *pay* for something you disagree with? Voting with your feet is the most powerful commercial incentive for a large corporation... if you don't buy, say, a DAB radio, then they won't want to support it (that's what happening with DAB at the moment). It's the same thing. Stop giving your money to people you don't like... you don't go to buskers on the streets and say "I'll give you a pound, but only if you improve the way you play and correct the second note in the third stave..."... you either like it and pay for it, or you don't. And the news is that millions of people *will* pay for it (HD seems to be an addiction even amongst my techie friends that I just don't understand).

Come on, people, if you have such ideals, take a sacrifice for them - stop watching and supporting media/hardware that is DRM if you feel so strongly about it.

Re:Vote with your feet? (3, Interesting)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30878286)

then I discovered that not having a TV didn't make any difference to my viewing habits i.e. there was nothing but shit on and the stuff I did want to see I could get other ways *legally* which, for the most part, didn't involve giving corporations money - BBC iPlayer etc.

Wait until a 'net licence fee' is announced. It WILL happen as long as the BBC continues to garner so much support on its past laurels, rather than its current behaviour.

Free-As-In-BBC (2, Interesting)

flaptrap (1038180) | more than 4 years ago | (#30877962)

I thought publication copyright expires someday, when the publication goes into the public domain - as in, free - but apparently following that law does not work for the copyright holders, or the government offices doing the broadcasting to the public.

I'm sorry, Mr. and Mrs. Citizenry, your copyright law has expired.

Good thing the stuff they show on TV is tailored to be of interest to the widest (read: dumbest) audience and a waste of time to those who enjoy writing computer software or, say, reading.

Content (1)

dandart (1274360) | more than 4 years ago | (#30878128)

If you want people to watch your stuff... make it available to EVERYONE. Let them do what they wish, else it will never get "out there". In the case where it is "out there" it's an awful lot kinder to consumers, especially the honest ones who want to record your programmes. My, my opinion of the BBC is going downhill.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?