BBC looks to copy protect content

I wonder whether this is other copyright holders trying to get the BBC on-board. I've read an article before HD could represent the end of unencrypted analogue output, and how companies are trying to control the recording of programs.<p><a href="http://writersblocklive.com/hd-boycott-2006-02" rel="nofollow">http://writersblocklive.com/hd-boycott-2006-02</a> <a href="http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/" rel="nofollow">http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/</a><p>It seems to me that the license fee in the UK is under constant attack for being "unfair", but in reality it sets the bar and makes UK television cheap and high quality. For example I think if you wanted Sky TV it would cost you £17 per month for a basic package.<p>The more that people have to subscribe to television the more we have to pay for watching the same programmes again. I'm all for copyright holders making a profit but not sitting on stale programming for 30 years. At some point this content should be in the public domain, like the Gutenberg project.

This article is a little bit misleading because it's not really copy protection.<p>The BBC aren't allowed to encrypt content at all but they're proposting to encrypt only HD content over DVB-T2, known as Freeview (OTA for Americans).<p>There's two things which they're asking for (feel free to correct me if the transport stream technicalities are wrong).<p>Obfuscation of the service information data with a huffman code lookup table. The SI allows transport stream demuxers to work out how to split the transport stream up with information like video types, audio tracks, clock info etc...This can all be worked around easily.<p>The other is full encryption which won't be allowed because it will delay set top boxes and there won't be any on the shelves during the World Cup, which is basically an HD flagship event.<p>There's no encryption on satellite nor on cable anyway so it's a bit of a moot point.

Ironically they're trying to subvert their own contract terms.<p>They've agreed to broadcast unencrypted "free to air" content, but now they're trying to encrypt the program guide data in order to force set top box makers to pretend(!) that the data really is encrypted by rendering their products useless if they dont.<p>It's yet another new low for DRM.<p>Hopefully the regulatory body will reject this bit of tomfoolery.<p>More info here on the tech-savvy MP's blog (particularly in the comments, which refute the fear of this making set top boxes any more obsolete, and provide other details):<p><a href="http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2009/09/personal-video-recorders-ofcom-consultation-indicates-that-the-bbc-want-to-make-yours-obsolete/" rel="nofollow">http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2009/09/personal-video-recorders...</a>

Claiming this will help reduce piracy is an asinine argument, virtually everyone in the UK pays for a TV License which means they've already paid for the content.

At least the BBC can write an objective article about their own controversial pursuits.<p>I think they need to look at their regional restrictions. I can never watch any of the football or other sport clips.

TV licensing seems like such a weird concept after living in the US<p>And now looks a bit corrupted if they are going so far as to put DRM on broadcast streams

<i>BBC HD has proved extremely popular</i><p>&#60;a picture of a swimming elephant in 226x170 pixels&#62;<p>Waaah?