http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
-- 
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist.  Or use a contact addresses at:
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message news:mfqif5prpo883fu1tcl0nr2gvta54mst0i@4ax.com...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm



Survey:
How many of you like me, clicked on that link expecting an article
on the other kind of DRM?
-- 
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:mfqif5prpo883fu1tcl0nr2gvta54mst0i@4ax.com...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm

They need to go further and ban the plans completely. Then they need to 
force the BBC to using a minimum of 20 mbps for its HD service and 256 kbps 
for DAB.

> -- 
> =========================================================
> Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
> header does not exist.  Or use a contact addresses at:
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Not me for one.  Having read the original story of a few weeks ago, I
guessed exactly what it was about.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:51:02 -0000, "Graham."  wrote:
> 
> Survey:
> How many of you like me, clicked on that link expecting an article
> on the other kind of DRM?
-- 
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist.  Or use a contact addresses at:
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Graham. wrote:
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mfqif5prpo883fu1tcl0nr2gvta54mst0i@4ax.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
>
>
>
> Survey:
> How many of you like me, clicked on that link expecting an article
> on the other kind of DRM?

Not me.  Out of interest I checked on Google for links to "DRM" and 
"Acronym".  8 of the first 10 had Digital Rights Management as the first 
entry, the other 2 had it second.  What were you expecting it to be?

-- 
Jeff

"Graham."  wrote in message 
news:hdbr48$upp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:mfqif5prpo883fu1tcl0nr2gvta54mst0i@4ax.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
>
>
>
> Survey:
> How many of you like me, clicked on that link expecting an article
> on the other kind of DRM?
> -- 

I thought DRM was a digital radio system that other parts of Europe used 
because it was superior to the BBC preferred DAB radio system.

-- 
Regards,
David

FREESAT HD  as it is now it is a joke.

"Jeff Layman" <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:hdbstq$apg$1@news.albasani.net...
> Graham. wrote:
>> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:mfqif5prpo883fu1tcl0nr2gvta54mst0i@4ax.com...
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
>>
>>
>>
>> Survey:
>> How many of you like me, clicked on that link expecting an article
>> on the other kind of DRM?
>
> Not me.  Out of interest I checked on Google for links to "DRM" and 
> "Acronym".  8 of the first 10 had Digital Rights Management as the first 
> entry, the other 2 had it second.  What were you expecting it to be?
>

Did you not go passed the first Google result to the next?
http://www.drm.org/

-- 
Regards,
David

FREESAT HD  as it is now it is a joke.

OK, what is the problem with free to air though? In fact even if the bbc do 
go down the restricted use of the info for  program data, what is to stop 
somone from just doing what we all used to do and publish a listing and 
doing it all manually, or even reinvent the video plus system in paper 
publications. I  must say that all of use visually impaired folk cannot now 
access menu driven systems as it is, so not sure where the disabled access 
thing comes from in the story.

I think a lot of what is going on in broadcasting at the moment means 
lowering of quality, lowering of the ease of use and restriction on who can 
access things. Take the bbc I player flash front end on the internet. its 
only able to be used by the most up to date screenreaders, and even then the 
clunky way the bbc web site is set up is a pain in the brain.

If we are serious about keeping the BBC as an inclusive and publically 
funded broadcaster, a lot of the  reductions in bandwidth, competing for 
ratings, lefty tendencies and general lit service to what they really should 
be doing will need to go.

Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:mfqif5prpo883fu1tcl0nr2gvta54mst0i@4ax.com...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
> -- 
> =========================================================
> Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
> header does not exist.  Or use a contact addresses at:
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"Graham."  wrote in message 
news:hdbr48$upp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:mfqif5prpo883fu1tcl0nr2gvta54mst0i@4ax.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
>
>
>
> Survey:
> How many of you like me, clicked on that link expecting an article
> on the other kind of DRM?
> -- 
> Graham.
>
> %Profound_observation%
>

Since it was posted in in "uk.tech.digital-tv" probably not many.

Graham. wrote:
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message news:mfqif5prpo883fu1tcl0nr2gvta54mst0i@4ax.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
> 
> 
> 
> Survey:
> How many of you like me, clicked on that link expecting an article
> on the other kind of DRM?
My hand is up!
Having worked on DRM radio.... any other kind is evil!

A

In article <V3fKm.3649$Ym4.2280@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Brian Gaff
 wrote:
> OK, what is the problem with free to air though? In fact even if the bbc
> do go down the restricted use of the info for  program data, what is to
> stop somone from just doing what we all used to do and publish a
> listing and doing it all manually, or even reinvent the video plus
> system in paper publications.

It isn't clear to me from the webpage what the BBC was actually proposing.
However my impression is that it was a scheme for 'encrypting' the info
needed to be able to then locate the specific AV data stream for any given
channel from the MUX. The idea being perhaps like the way they wrap acc
into a 'Flash' layer that makes it harder for 'non recognised' systems to
get at and use the data payload. If so, and the 'keys' were being fiddled
with, then publishing a listing might not solve the problem for those 'not
in the BBC club'. 

But I'm only guessing here as the webpage doesn't seem to explain this.
Huffman coding isn't a form of 'encryption' as such. It is a data
compression scheme for optimising the symbol patterns used for a given
information payload. But the reference to it may mean the BBC want to keep
'secret' the actual lookup of the Huffman coding used in each case. Since
efficient loss-free compression tends to make the result 'efficient' in IT
terms that might make it harder to sort out without the details.

However for me the worry isn't just for viewers being able to record. It is
the way it would produce an anti-competitive barrier for any small
potential makers of equipment who would not have access to the key info
needed to make working receivers, etc. Hence the encryption works in favour
of big companies in the 'BBC club' to the detriment of small would-be
comnpetitors.

So not just a matter of established 'fair use' for veiwers. But a barrier
for new businesses, etc.

Slainte,

Jim

-- 
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"David"  wrote in message 
news:hdbt7n$b9a$1@news.albasani.net...
>
>
> "Jeff Layman" <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:hdbstq$apg$1@news.albasani.net...
>> Graham. wrote:
>>> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:mfqif5prpo883fu1tcl0nr2gvta54mst0i@4ax.com...
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Survey:
>>> How many of you like me, clicked on that link expecting an article
>>> on the other kind of DRM?
>>
>> Not me.  Out of interest I checked on Google for links to "DRM" and 
>> "Acronym".  8 of the first 10 had Digital Rights Management as the first 
>> entry, the other 2 had it second.  What were you expecting it to be?
>>
>
> Did you not go passed the first Google result to the next?
> http://www.drm.org/
>
> -- 
> Regards,
> David
>
> FREESAT HD  as it is now it is a joke.

Your message is also a joke.  "Go passed the first" should be changed to
"Go past the first".  Do learn English.

"David"  wrote in message 
news:hdbt0l$ar1$1@news.albasani.net...
>
>
> "Graham."  wrote in message 
> news:hdbr48$upp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:mfqif5prpo883fu1tcl0nr2gvta54mst0i@4ax.com...
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
>>
>>
>>
>> Survey:
>> How many of you like me, clicked on that link expecting an article
>> on the other kind of DRM?
>> -- 
>
> I thought DRM was a digital radio system that other parts of Europe used 
> because it was superior to the BBC preferred DAB radio system.
>
> -- 
> Regards,
> David
>
> FREESAT HD  as it is now it is a joke.

DRM has lower bitrates and is not superior to DAB.  DAB is inferior to
FM stereo and AM.  Even AM stereo sounds better than DAB.

"Graham."  wrote in message 
news:hdbr48$upp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:mfqif5prpo883fu1tcl0nr2gvta54mst0i@4ax.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
>
>
>
> Survey:
> How many of you like me, clicked on that link expecting an article
> on the other kind of DRM?
> -- 
> Graham.
>
> %Profound_observation%
>
I expected to read about DRM, not digital rights.  This is one problem
with idiots who just post website links without having anything to
say.  They always get the wrong group so people end up clicking!
It's to give them the benefit of the doubt.

"Roger"  wrote in message news:hdccsv$5v3$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> "David"  wrote in message news:hdbt7n$b9a$1@news.albasani.net...
>>
>>
>> "Jeff Layman" <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:hdbstq$apg$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> Graham. wrote:
>>>> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:mfqif5prpo883fu1tcl0nr2gvta54mst0i@4ax.com...
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Survey:
>>>> How many of you like me, clicked on that link expecting an article
>>>> on the other kind of DRM?
>>>
>>> Not me.  Out of interest I checked on Google for links to "DRM" and "Acronym".  8 of the first 10 had Digital Rights Management 
>>> as the first entry, the other 2 had it second.  What were you expecting it to be?
>>>
>>
>> Did you not go passed the first Google result to the next?
>> http://www.drm.org/
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>> David
>>
>> FREESAT HD  as it is now it is a joke.
>
> Your message is also a joke.  "Go passed the first" should be changed to
> "Go past the first".  Do learn English.

Don't knock it, he could be the next PM ;-)

-- 
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

...
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
>>
>>
>>
>> Survey:
>> How many of you like me, clicked on that link expecting an article
>> on the other kind of DRM?
>> -- 
>> Graham.
>>
>> %Profound_observation%
>>
>
> Since it was posted in in "uk.tech.digital-tv" probably not many.

How so?
Digital radio discussion  is regarded as on-topic on u.t.d, but not by you it seems.

-- 
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"Roger"  wrote in message 
news:hdcd00$66l$1@news.albasani.net...
> "David"  wrote in message 
> news:hdbt0l$ar1$1@news.albasani.net...
>> "Graham."  wrote in message 
>> news:hdbr48$upp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message 
>>> news:mfqif5prpo883fu1tcl0nr2gvta54mst0i@4ax.com...
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm

>>> Survey:
>>> How many of you like me, clicked on that link expecting an article
>>> on the other kind of DRM?

>> I thought DRM was a digital radio system that other parts of Europe used 
>> because it was superior to the BBC preferred DAB radio system.

>> FREESAT HD  as it is now it is a joke.
>
> DRM has lower bitrates and is not superior to DAB.  DAB is inferior to
> FM stereo and AM.  Even AM stereo sounds better than DAB.

Where have you heard AM stereo? Do you mean the experiments in  the 60s 
where they broadcast the two channels on radio and TV sound?

-- 
Max Demian

"Roger"  wrote in message 
news:hdcd00$66l$1@news.albasani.net...
> "David"  wrote in message 
> news:hdbt0l$ar1$1@news.albasani.net...
>> "Graham."  wrote in message 
>> news:hdbr48$upp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message 
>>> news:mfqif5prpo883fu1tcl0nr2gvta54mst0i@4ax.com...
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
>
> DRM has lower bitrates and is not superior to DAB.  DAB is inferior to
> FM stereo and AM.  Even AM stereo sounds better than DAB.
>
>
DRM is based on mp4, DAB on mp2
How can DRM not be superior to DAB?

Steve Terry
--
Get a free Three 3pay Sim with £2 bonus after £10 top up
http://freeagent.three.co.uk/stand/view/id/5276

"David"  wrote in message 
news:hdbt0l$ar1$1@news.albasani.net...
> I thought DRM was a digital radio system that other parts of Europe used 
> because it was superior to the BBC preferred DAB radio system.

You're most likely thinking of DAB+.

DRM is used a little bit for international broadcasts on short wave but it 
isn't at all popular.

DRM+ looks a bit more promising.

-- 

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
ng@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.

"Steve Terry"  wrote in message 
news:hdcqfn$pbv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> DRM is based on mp4, DAB on mp2
> How can DRM not be superior to DAB?

With DRM (not DRM+) the typical bit rates are 20kbps.

-- 

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
ng@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.

Yes, well, I'm not sure its really that convoluted. The usual pressure comes 
from content copyright holders. I mean, maybe they would just provide an 
analogue output or a standard def output or something. It just all smacks of 
the old home taping is killing music kind of approach which as we all now 
should know did nothing of the kind, it was the pricing that did that.

Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
 graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"Jim Lesurf"  wrote in message 
news:50b81f70bbnoise@audiomisc.co.uk...
> In article <V3fKm.3649$Ym4.2280@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Brian Gaff
>  wrote:
>> OK, what is the problem with free to air though? In fact even if the bbc
>> do go down the restricted use of the info for  program data, what is to
>> stop somone from just doing what we all used to do and publish a
>> listing and doing it all manually, or even reinvent the video plus
>> system in paper publications.
>
> It isn't clear to me from the webpage what the BBC was actually proposing.
> However my impression is that it was a scheme for 'encrypting' the info
> needed to be able to then locate the specific AV data stream for any given
> channel from the MUX. The idea being perhaps like the way they wrap acc
> into a 'Flash' layer that makes it harder for 'non recognised' systems to
> get at and use the data payload. If so, and the 'keys' were being fiddled
> with, then publishing a listing might not solve the problem for those 'not
> in the BBC club'.
>
> But I'm only guessing here as the webpage doesn't seem to explain this.
> Huffman coding isn't a form of 'encryption' as such. It is a data
> compression scheme for optimising the symbol patterns used for a given
> information payload. But the reference to it may mean the BBC want to keep
> 'secret' the actual lookup of the Huffman coding used in each case. Since
> efficient loss-free compression tends to make the result 'efficient' in IT
> terms that might make it harder to sort out without the details.
>
> However for me the worry isn't just for viewers being able to record. It 
> is
> the way it would produce an anti-competitive barrier for any small
> potential makers of equipment who would not have access to the key info
> needed to make working receivers, etc. Hence the encryption works in 
> favour
> of big companies in the 'BBC club' to the detriment of small would-be
> comnpetitors.
>
> So not just a matter of established 'fair use' for veiwers. But a barrier
> for new businesses, etc.
>
> Slainte,
>
> Jim
>
> -- 
> Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
> Electronics 
> http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
> Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
> Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
>

On 10 Nov, 13:26, Java Jive <j...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm

I think the BBC needs to be a little more open and honest about their
motivations.

I'm guessing they're something like this:

"Without being seen to be providing some kind of protection on
standard "branded" "Freeview HD+" boxes, we will not be given access
to X content in HD, and we will have to pay Y more for Z content in
HD".

Then we, the public, can decide whether we would prefer to watch
content X in HD with DRM, or not watch content X on FTA HD at all. We
can also decide if we want Y more of our licence fee to be spent on
acquiring content Z for broadcast without DRM, or save Y and slap DRM
on it.

Like many, my response would depend on what X, Y and Z were! Obviously
I'd prefer cheaply and commonly available boxes with useful features
to let me do what I like with the recordings. But if that means less
content, or less licence fee for other useful things, I might be
willing to trade some of the freedom. It's not like we're talking
about locking BBC content behind, say, NDS-style encryption - the
content will still be there for those who really want it (just like
the "protected" iPlayer stuff!).

Cheers,
David.

In article <2ztKm.3828$Ym4.599@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Briang1
@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> 
> Yes, well, I'm not sure its really that convoluted. The usual pressure comes 
> from content copyright holders. I mean, maybe they would just provide an 
> analogue output or a standard def output or something. It just all smacks of 
> the old home taping is killing music kind of approach which as we all now 
> should know did nothing of the kind, it was the pricing that did that.
> 
Surely the BBC has already introduced the ultimate in DRM?

All they have to tell the copyright holders is the truth: that they've 
reduced the bit rate so much that no self respecting pirate will 
consider the resulting poor quality worth bothering with ...

... and, with tongue firmly jammed in the other cheek ...

... after that stupid cow's pronouncement on POV that reducing bit rate 
doesn't cause any loss of quality, the bean counters must think they're 
in heaven as they dream of how much money they'll rake in after the bit 
rates are decimated and the new digital dividend sold off ...

-- 

Terry

davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk  wrote:
: I think the BBC needs to be a little more open and honest about their
: motivations.

: I'm guessing they're something like this:

: "Without being seen to be providing some kind of protection on
: standard "branded" "Freeview HD+" boxes, we will not be given access
: to X content in HD, and we will have to pay Y more for Z content in
: HD".

That's what OFCOM seems to want them to do - that is to spell out motives and
consequences more clearly!

It all seems yet another fig-leaf to appease rights owners yet again. Some of
the Freesat EPG data is also obscurated with Huffman codes not in the public
domain. It did not take long to discover them!

>> Yes, well, I'm not sure its really that convoluted. The usual pressure comes
>> from content copyright holders. I mean, maybe they would just provide an
>> analogue output or a standard def output or something. It just all smacks of
>> the old home taping is killing music kind of approach which as we all now
>> should know did nothing of the kind, it was the pricing that did that.
>>
> Surely the BBC has already introduced the ultimate in DRM?
>
> All they have to tell the copyright holders is the truth: that they've
> reduced the bit rate so much that no self respecting pirate will
> consider the resulting poor quality worth bothering with ...
>
> ... and, with tongue firmly jammed in the other cheek ...
>
> ... after that stupid cow's pronouncement on POV that reducing bit rate
> doesn't cause any loss of quality, the bean counters must think they're
> in heaven as they dream of how much money they'll rake in after the bit
> rates are decimated and the new digital dividend sold off ...
>

She's not a bean counter herself then? Certainly talks like one.

-- 
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On 11 Nov, 11:07, b...@somewhere.ac.uk (Brian Mc) wrote:
> davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk  wrote:
>
> : I think the BBC needs to be a little more open and honest about their
> : motivations.
>
> : I'm guessing they're something like this:
>
> : "Without being seen to be providing some kind of protection on
> : standard "branded" "Freeview HD+" boxes, we will not be given access
> : to X content in HD, and we will have to pay Y more for Z content in
> : HD".
>
> That's what OFCOM seems to want them to do - that is to spell out motives and
> consequences more clearly!
>
> It all seems yet another fig-leaf to appease rights owners yet again. Some of
> the Freesat EPG data is also obscurated with Huffman codes not in the public
> domain. It did not take long to discover them!

"appease rights owners"?

That's very biassed language. Is your implication that if I make
content, and want to sell it to the BBC, it's unreasonable of me to
set the price based on the use they will make of it? Or that DRM
doesn't work?

I think it just all needs to come out in the open - what's at stake?
If the BBC respond to OfCom, am I right in thinking that that response
will be public?

Cheers,
David.

davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk  wrote:

: That's very biassed language. Is your implication that if I make
: content, and want to sell it to the BBC, it's unreasonable of me to
: set the price based on the use they will make of it? Or that DRM
: doesn't work?

The latter! Anything short of encryption (which isn't allowed) won't last
too long! With Freesat Rights Owners were told that they should not worry
about going FTA - as Astra 2D was tightly beamed. In practice this has not
stopped many people abroad who wanted to receive it!

The Freesat EPG is, again, encoded - less for Rights and more for 
confining it to licensed receivers this time - in a manner which sounds 
like the DRM being proposed for Freeview. The details leaked out before
very long!

The Rights Owners may as well price on Freeview HD being FTA! I cannot see
the BBC's thinking behind this half-hearted DRM.

On 2009-11-11, Brian Mc  wrote:
> davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk  wrote:
>
>: That's very biassed language. Is your implication that if I make
>: content, and want to sell it to the BBC, it's unreasonable of me to
>: set the price based on the use they will make of it? Or that DRM
>: doesn't work?
>
> The latter! Anything short of encryption (which isn't allowed) won't last
> too long! With Freesat Rights Owners were told that they should not worry
> about going FTA - as Astra 2D was tightly beamed. In practice this has not
> stopped many people abroad who wanted to receive it!

Even encryption won't last too long, if you have to give the keys to your
customers...

-- 
David Taylor

David wrote:
> "Jeff Layman" <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hdbstq$apg$1@news.albasani.net...
>> Graham. wrote:
>>> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:mfqif5prpo883fu1tcl0nr2gvta54mst0i@4ax.com...
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Survey:
>>> How many of you like me, clicked on that link expecting an article
>>> on the other kind of DRM?
>>
>> Not me.  Out of interest I checked on Google for links to "DRM" and
>> "Acronym".  8 of the first 10 had Digital Rights Management as the first
>> entry, the other 2 had it second.  What were you expecting it to be?
>>
>
> Did you not go passed the first Google result to the next?
> http://www.drm.org/

I searched on DRM and acronym to try to limit the results.  Although radio 
has reared its head in the newsgroup, I had eliminated Digital Radio 
Mondiale as a possibility.

-- 
Jeff

On 11 Nov, 14:28, b...@somewhere.ac.uk (Brian Mc) wrote:
> davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk  wrote:
>
> : That's very biassed language. Is your implication that if I make
> : content, and want to sell it to the BBC, it's unreasonable of me to
> : set the price based on the use they will make of it? Or that DRM
> : doesn't work?
>
> The latter! Anything short of encryption (which isn't allowed) won't last
> too long! With Freesat Rights Owners were told that they should not worry
> about going FTA - as Astra 2D was tightly beamed. In practice this has not
> stopped many people abroad who wanted to receive it!
>
> The Freesat EPG is, again, encoded - less for Rights and more for
> confining it to licensed receivers this time - in a manner which sounds
> like the DRM being proposed for Freeview. The details leaked out before
> very long!
>
> The Rights Owners may as well price on Freeview HD being FTA! I cannot see
> the BBC's thinking behind this half-hearted DRM.

That's a very binary view of the world.

I suppose because any lock can be picked you don't bother with them on
your house?

Cheers,
David.

In article
,
   davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk  wrote:
> On 10 Nov, 13:26, Java Jive <j...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
[snip]

> It's not like we're talking about locking BBC content behind, say,
> NDS-style encryption - the content will still be there for those who
> really want it (just like the "protected" iPlayer stuff!).

Must admit to being curious about that. With iPlayer sound it is trivially
easy by the simple method of recording the LPCM that emerges from the
decoding. But I do wonder about what the BBC might do with HD video. Am I
right to suspect that HD devices will tend to use HDMI and might not have
analogue outputs? Or that the boxes may disable analogue (or spdif) from a
flag in the input data?

FWIW I've recently been trying to examine DVDs I have recorded to examine
the audio. Old DVDs recorded with Philips videorecorders were easy. But
ones made with a couple of Panasonics had all access permissions forbidden,
so initially blocked mounting the discs, or opening directories, or reading
files. 

Fortunately, with some advice from someone else I found this was simple
enough to fix and allow me to overcome the problems. I do wonder if this
was a conscious attempt by Panasonic to block access, or a simple slip up
in their disc creation details, or for some other reason. All this makes me
wonder what makers will get up to with HD devices.

Slainte,

Jim

-- 
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 11 Nov, 16:36, Jim Lesurf  wrote:
> In article
> ,
>    davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk  wrote:> On 10 Nov, 13:26, Java Jive <j...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm
>
> [snip]
>
> > It's not like we're talking about locking BBC content behind, say,
> > NDS-style encryption - the content will still be there for those who
> > really want it (just like the "protected" iPlayer stuff!).
>
> Must admit to being curious about that. With iPlayer sound it is trivially
> easy by the simple method of recording the LPCM that emerges from the
> decoding. But I do wonder about what the BBC might do with HD video. Am I
> right to suspect that HD devices will tend to use HDMI and might not have
> analogue outputs? Or that the boxes may disable analogue (or spdif) from a
> flag in the input data?
>
> FWIW I've recently been trying to examine DVDs I have recorded to examine
> the audio. Old DVDs recorded with Philips videorecorders were easy. But
> ones made with a couple of Panasonics had all access permissions forbidden,
> so initially blocked mounting the discs, or opening directories, or reading
> files.
>
> Fortunately, with some advice from someone else I found this was simple
> enough to fix and allow me to overcome the problems. I do wonder if this
> was a conscious attempt by Panasonic to block access, or a simple slip up
> in their disc creation details, or for some other reason. All this makes me
> wonder what makers will get up to with HD devices.

Official Freesat boxes already only allow the BBC HD channel out via
HDMI with HDCP encryption, and analogue SD composite video. Recordings
made to disc are encrypted.

Whereas the broadcast is FTA, and any PC DVB-S card hooked up to a
dish can save the stream to disc - which you can then do what you like
with. (Very fast modern computers, or one with appropriate codecs and
compatible hardware graphics acceleration even let you watch it! ;) )

Cheers,
David.

In ,
"davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk"  wrote:

>Official Freesat boxes already only allow the BBC HD channel out via
>HDMI with HDCP encryption, 

Yes, I read this recently (possibly here?) and it's despicable.

>and analogue SD composite video.

Not even RGB scart is allowed? *composite*? Geeez.

>Recordings made to disc are encrypted

Despicable again...

>Whereas the broadcast is FTA, and any PC DVB-S card hooked up to a
>dish can save the stream to disc - which you can then do what you like
>with.

For that reason. 

>(Very fast modern computers, or one with appropriate codecs and
>compatible hardware graphics acceleration even let you watch it! ;) )

Indeed.

On 12 Nov, 19:13, Mike Henry <{$mrtickl...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In ,
>
> "davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk"  wrote:
> >Official Freesat boxes already only allow the BBC HD channel out via
> >HDMI with HDCP encryption,
>
> Yes, I read this recently (possibly here?) and it's despicable.
>
> >and analogue SD composite video.
>
> Not even RGB scart is allowed? *composite*? Geeez.

The recent software update to the Humax Foxsat HDR relaxed this and
now allows RGB SCART SD output for BBC HD.

Cheers,
David.

In ,
"davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk"  wrote:

>On 12 Nov, 19:13, Mike Henry <{$mrtickl...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In ,
>>
>> "davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk"  wrote:
>> >Official Freesat boxes already only allow the BBC HD channel out via
>> >HDMI with HDCP encryption,
>>
>> Yes, I read this recently (possibly here?) and it's despicable.
>>
>> >and analogue SD composite video.
>>
>> Not even RGB scart is allowed? *composite*? Geeez.
>
>The recent software update to the Humax Foxsat HDR relaxed this and
>now allows RGB SCART SD output for BBC HD.

Thanks for the information. I'm appalled that RGB SCART was considered
worthy of banning previously.