"Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s70 (Recording for purposes of time-shifting): "The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast or cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any copyright in the broadcast or cable programme or in any work included in it."
So yes, the BBC is going down a road which will remove from licence fee payers an existing right firmly established in law - that of recording their TV programmes to watch at any time of their choosing. People should be able to record any programme broadcast on iPlayer to watch when they want to. The fact that you are preventing them from legally doing this is pretty objectionable, given it is preventing them from exercising a legal right purely on a technicality of the method of transmission."
[BBC blog by Ajo]
Well now this is the real issue, someone out there - the media companies - is trying to take away my legal rights. And the BBC is not on my side, but supports them in this. Even though I pay for the BBC through my licence fee.
How come?
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
I am moved to agree with Micheal about the BBC
At 8:31pm on 17 Aug 2010, Michael wrote:
Let's face it, the BBC decision to rely on Flash is driven by DRM and licenced content. That is why the BBC is not using open source codecs and distribution mechanisms. That is why the BBC is locking out homebuilt video players like XMBC. And that is why the BBC is involved in the Project Canvas consortium to make it even harder for UK citizens to watch TV content without paying fees to somebody, whether Sky or BT or some other Project Canvas licensee.
This whole thing is not a technical issue, it is not an issue of providing a high quality experience to the largest possible audience. This is 100% a political issue in which the hidden media players behind the BBC, Sky and other TV companies, are trying to create a CLOSED ecosystem in the UK where revenue will flow from the viewer into the pockets of the hidden media companies.
There is only one way out of this and it is through political action to stop Project Canvas, and to stop the BBC from televising any DRM licenced content whatsoever. It means that the BBC will likely have to stop showing any American TV content because licencing it restricts it from iPlayer or requires DRM on iPlayer. But this is the route that we have to go down. The licence fee payers deserve to get an open television system in which content is freely available to view through whatever means they choose whether that is XMBC or MythTV or a box from Sky or BT.
Spend less time in the blogosphere and more time on educating MPs and OFCOM about this issue. When the lightbulb finally goes on, Project Canvas will be dead, and the BBC's license conditions will be changed. Right now, media interests have effectively taken over the BBC and OFCOM and are playing a game of brinksmanship in order to steer UK TV into a closed ecosystem.
Meanwhile in other countries, people are free to view their TV how they want. There aren't any quality problems and nobody suggests that it is hard to view Internet TV on a TV set.
[From the BBC Blog]
100% right. Canvas is designed to allow the media companies to control the distribution chain, like they already do for Sky and others. To do this the BBC has designed a closed, DRM system and will licence its production to approved hardware makers. The iPlayer we know to day will be dead and we will have to buy a box to view any IPTV...
Let's face it, the BBC decision to rely on Flash is driven by DRM and licenced content. That is why the BBC is not using open source codecs and distribution mechanisms. That is why the BBC is locking out homebuilt video players like XMBC. And that is why the BBC is involved in the Project Canvas consortium to make it even harder for UK citizens to watch TV content without paying fees to somebody, whether Sky or BT or some other Project Canvas licensee.
This whole thing is not a technical issue, it is not an issue of providing a high quality experience to the largest possible audience. This is 100% a political issue in which the hidden media players behind the BBC, Sky and other TV companies, are trying to create a CLOSED ecosystem in the UK where revenue will flow from the viewer into the pockets of the hidden media companies.
There is only one way out of this and it is through political action to stop Project Canvas, and to stop the BBC from televising any DRM licenced content whatsoever. It means that the BBC will likely have to stop showing any American TV content because licencing it restricts it from iPlayer or requires DRM on iPlayer. But this is the route that we have to go down. The licence fee payers deserve to get an open television system in which content is freely available to view through whatever means they choose whether that is XMBC or MythTV or a box from Sky or BT.
Spend less time in the blogosphere and more time on educating MPs and OFCOM about this issue. When the lightbulb finally goes on, Project Canvas will be dead, and the BBC's license conditions will be changed. Right now, media interests have effectively taken over the BBC and OFCOM and are playing a game of brinksmanship in order to steer UK TV into a closed ecosystem.
Meanwhile in other countries, people are free to view their TV how they want. There aren't any quality problems and nobody suggests that it is hard to view Internet TV on a TV set.
[From the BBC Blog]
100% right. Canvas is designed to allow the media companies to control the distribution chain, like they already do for Sky and others. To do this the BBC has designed a closed, DRM system and will licence its production to approved hardware makers. The iPlayer we know to day will be dead and we will have to buy a box to view any IPTV...
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Reform the banks - NOW
Our banks are still playing the same old game. They need a solid kick up the pants to change their ways.
Between 1997 and 2009, almost a third of lending was between banks. Half went to individuals, mainly on mortgages that fuelled the housing bubble; manufacturing received just 3% of the pie; other business loans accounted for only 17%. Since the crash, net lending to business has fallen by £40bn.
1. 1/3rd of lending is bank-to-bank to cover gambling positions
2. 1/2 is loans to individuals (mortgages, credit cards)
3. Manufacturing gets just 3% of bank loans. No wonder they are screaming for help
4. Business loans are another 17%, but lending to business has fallen £40bn. So our only salvation, manufacturing and profitable business is ignored by the greedy, casino, banks
Neither can the finance sector credibly claim to be the major source of tax revenue in the UK. It contributed just 6.8% of tax revenues between 2002 and 2008, just over half the amount paid by manufacturers; the reason traditional industry generates more is because it is labour-intensive.
Using Bank of England figures, it is reckoned it could take the finance sector 25 years to repay the £1 trillion costs of bailing it out. Bring it on, NOW.
Radical restructuring is needed to separate their genuine utility functions need from their gambling activities.
Between 1997 and 2009, almost a third of lending was between banks. Half went to individuals, mainly on mortgages that fuelled the housing bubble; manufacturing received just 3% of the pie; other business loans accounted for only 17%. Since the crash, net lending to business has fallen by £40bn.
To summarise
1. 1/3rd of lending is bank-to-bank to cover gambling positions
2. 1/2 is loans to individuals (mortgages, credit cards)
3. Manufacturing gets just 3% of bank loans. No wonder they are screaming for help
4. Business loans are another 17%, but lending to business has fallen £40bn. So our only salvation, manufacturing and profitable business is ignored by the greedy, casino, banks
Tax?
Neither can the finance sector credibly claim to be the major source of tax revenue in the UK. It contributed just 6.8% of tax revenues between 2002 and 2008, just over half the amount paid by manufacturers; the reason traditional industry generates more is because it is labour-intensive.
Using Bank of England figures, it is reckoned it could take the finance sector 25 years to repay the £1 trillion costs of bailing it out. Bring it on, NOW.
Radical restructuring is needed to separate their genuine utility functions need from their gambling activities.
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
BBC & Ofcom cave in to HD studios - implement DRM
BBC HD
I give up, I despair, we have no guts in the UK. We are all lazy dimwits and lack understanding of the issues that concern us all.
The big studios have tried to force TV companies in the USA to implement DRM for HD shows, but this was refused and still they show them... but in UK the BBC and Ofcom have conspired to allow DRM on HD TV. The DRM is placed on your program guide and implemented at your home by the box you buy to receive Freeview and Freesat.
UK has caved in. Our own laws of copyright are to be re-written and enforced by large, mainly USA companies. And politicians are doing nothing about it. In fact they are conniving by turning their backs and ignoring the problem.
It means you have to have a UK-only TV and box, incompatible with any other EU country (expect BIG price hikes). And it means you are restricted in what you can do in your own home, with public broadcast shows that you have paid for. This is what the system looks like, all imposed on you in your own home by USA studios and the BBC...
"This technology would control the way HD films and TV shows are copied on to, for example Blu-ray DVDs and shared with others over the internet," Ofcom said. Ofcom have no evidence to support the opinion that people will record and copy to friends shows, or put them on the internet. Anyway those pirates who want to can easily circumvent this DRM. It will only affect ordinary users and force them to buy new boxes.
"Ofcom have taken a decision which pushes technology further towards a copyright-centric model of control, where only copyright holders have the right to decide how everyday devices are allowed work."
"In this new regime, people with hearing problems will be prevented from modifying their equipment to deal with their problems. Software developers will be stopped from making your TV, computer and mobile phone properly working with each other.
"HD devices will have to built to work in the UK alone, reducing competition and pushing prices up."
The complete absurdity and deception being promoted by Ofcom and the BBC is that any DVB-T2 receiver can receive the HD broadcasts without DRM, its just the program guide that gets encrypted!
Let all go out and buy decent DVB-T2 receivers which can receive Freesat perfectly well as the programs them selves are transmitted without DRM
I give up, I despair, we have no guts in the UK. We are all lazy dimwits and lack understanding of the issues that concern us all.
The big studios have tried to force TV companies in the USA to implement DRM for HD shows, but this was refused and still they show them... but in UK the BBC and Ofcom have conspired to allow DRM on HD TV. The DRM is placed on your program guide and implemented at your home by the box you buy to receive Freeview and Freesat.
This is ridiculous.
UK has caved in. Our own laws of copyright are to be re-written and enforced by large, mainly USA companies. And politicians are doing nothing about it. In fact they are conniving by turning their backs and ignoring the problem.
It means you have to have a UK-only TV and box, incompatible with any other EU country (expect BIG price hikes). And it means you are restricted in what you can do in your own home, with public broadcast shows that you have paid for. This is what the system looks like, all imposed on you in your own home by USA studios and the BBC...
"This technology would control the way HD films and TV shows are copied on to, for example Blu-ray DVDs and shared with others over the internet," Ofcom said. Ofcom have no evidence to support the opinion that people will record and copy to friends shows, or put them on the internet. Anyway those pirates who want to can easily circumvent this DRM. It will only affect ordinary users and force them to buy new boxes.
"Ofcom have taken a decision which pushes technology further towards a copyright-centric model of control, where only copyright holders have the right to decide how everyday devices are allowed work."
"In this new regime, people with hearing problems will be prevented from modifying their equipment to deal with their problems. Software developers will be stopped from making your TV, computer and mobile phone properly working with each other.
"HD devices will have to built to work in the UK alone, reducing competition and pushing prices up."
The complete absurdity and deception being promoted by Ofcom and the BBC is that any DVB-T2 receiver can receive the HD broadcasts without DRM, its just the program guide that gets encrypted!
Let all go out and buy decent DVB-T2 receivers which can receive Freesat perfectly well as the programs them selves are transmitted without DRM
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
STOP hounding politicians over pay
Stop this stupid hounding of politicians, stop it NOW.
They have a country to run, they need to be in the public eye, for all the right reasons - for example to let us know what is happening to our deficit, and the restoration of our human freedoms - not because they took advantage of the loose, ill-defined, previous rules about expenses.
There is for sure a lot to be sorted out about pay scales both for politicians and for lots and lots of civil servants. What I believe is that politician should get at least double their current pay, government as well. Then they should have small allowances, no second homes.
All, and I mean all, civil servants, and public bodies like the BBC, should earn less than the prime minister.
There needs to be sweeping changes throughout local government, regional government and at all quangos. Do not hit me with the argument that if we don't pay enough we will not get the people we need. That is stuff and nonsense. We will define a pay grade and get the best we can for that, and set about doing the best job we can. If there are failures then there will be dismissals.
They have a country to run, they need to be in the public eye, for all the right reasons - for example to let us know what is happening to our deficit, and the restoration of our human freedoms - not because they took advantage of the loose, ill-defined, previous rules about expenses.
Double pay - small allowances, no homes
There is for sure a lot to be sorted out about pay scales both for politicians and for lots and lots of civil servants. What I believe is that politician should get at least double their current pay, government as well. Then they should have small allowances, no second homes.
Applies to everyone
All, and I mean all, civil servants, and public bodies like the BBC, should earn less than the prime minister.
There needs to be sweeping changes throughout local government, regional government and at all quangos. Do not hit me with the argument that if we don't pay enough we will not get the people we need. That is stuff and nonsense. We will define a pay grade and get the best we can for that, and set about doing the best job we can. If there are failures then there will be dismissals.
Saturday, 22 May 2010
Damp squib, with a possible joyful outcome
So 25,000 of us made a huge noise about the Digital Economy Bill - which is now law.
Let's see a summary of what is involved for the protection of copyright.
1. Copyright owners allege abuse and within one month send a copyright infringement report to the ISP.
2. Within another month the ISP has to notify its subscriber, by letter, giving
- the extent of the infringement
- the copyright owners efforts to provide a legal alternative
- the appeal & legal issues
Well there are some interesting issues here;
How does the copyright owner come to find out about abuse? I guess they try abusing the web themselves and see if they can download copyright material...
What is the extent of the 'legal alternatives' that the copyright owner must provide - I mean is this a valid, legal source of the alleged infringing material. Wow, if it is this is a BIG step. You see the internet is global, but most copyright infringement takes place because music, movies, CDs, DVD, are released in one country before another: a sure way to entice people to file share on the global internet! But now if the copyright owners have to show how anyone can get a legal download, they will have to release their media globally, all at one time. A true revolution and a wonderful breakdown of the use of copyright to control 'distribution right', which is was never intended to do.
Could I be wrong? Yes, probably Ofcom hasn't the guts to write the 'code' this way, but just to insist on listing a few irrelevant legal download sites. Not containing the one thing you wanted.
Ofcom has issued its code, there is NOTHING in it about the obligation for copyright owners to provide details about how to get legal downloads of the material they claim is infringing...
This is simply not good enough, they have to meet their side of the bargain.
Let's see a summary of what is involved for the protection of copyright.
1. Copyright owners allege abuse and within one month send a copyright infringement report to the ISP.
2. Within another month the ISP has to notify its subscriber, by letter, giving
- the extent of the infringement
- the copyright owners efforts to provide a legal alternative
- the appeal & legal issues
So what?
Well there are some interesting issues here;
How does the copyright owner come to find out about abuse? I guess they try abusing the web themselves and see if they can download copyright material...
What is the extent of the 'legal alternatives' that the copyright owner must provide - I mean is this a valid, legal source of the alleged infringing material. Wow, if it is this is a BIG step. You see the internet is global, but most copyright infringement takes place because music, movies, CDs, DVD, are released in one country before another: a sure way to entice people to file share on the global internet! But now if the copyright owners have to show how anyone can get a legal download, they will have to release their media globally, all at one time. A true revolution and a wonderful breakdown of the use of copyright to control 'distribution right', which is was never intended to do.
Could I be wrong? Yes, probably Ofcom hasn't the guts to write the 'code' this way, but just to insist on listing a few irrelevant legal download sites. Not containing the one thing you wanted.
Added later
Ofcom has issued its code, there is NOTHING in it about the obligation for copyright owners to provide details about how to get legal downloads of the material they claim is infringing...
This is simply not good enough, they have to meet their side of the bargain.
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
Three things wrong with media industry
Quite simply there are three things wrong with the media industry (Books, Films, Music).
1 They have lots of stuff locked up in their vaults which they hold copyright for, and which people want to purchase, but they do not have open access to it.
2 They impose severe restrictions not on copyright as such (i.e. permission to copy a work), but on the distribution channels, like region codes, DVD vs download, limited release, tim erelated release, etc etc
3 They block users from transcoding purchases (like a valid DVD) to their computers by using encryption/DRM. If material is actually purchased on-line, then this DRM blocks user rights copy for personal use, or re-sell 2nd hand.
This has all to stop. It is unreasonable and simply lead to file sharing.
1 They have lots of stuff locked up in their vaults which they hold copyright for, and which people want to purchase, but they do not have open access to it.
2 They impose severe restrictions not on copyright as such (i.e. permission to copy a work), but on the distribution channels, like region codes, DVD vs download, limited release, tim erelated release, etc etc
3 They block users from transcoding purchases (like a valid DVD) to their computers by using encryption/DRM. If material is actually purchased on-line, then this DRM blocks user rights copy for personal use, or re-sell 2nd hand.
This has all to stop. It is unreasonable and simply lead to file sharing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)