[FC-discuss] Letter to the BBC

[Ringo Kamens]

Dear BBC,

We the undersigned are seriously concerned about the direction the BBC
is taking. As of a recent decision, the BBC has decided to use
"Digital Rights Management", herein described as DRM, to manage
content delivered to users over the internet. In this day and age, it
is becoming clear that the internet will be the most powerful
distribution method available to content producers such as the BBC.
There are dozens of arguments against the use of DRM and a few flawed
ones that can be used in favor of it, each of which we will address.

Copyright holders are told by the producers of DRM technology that in
order to keep their content safe from unauthorized copying and
commercial piracy, they must use DRM. This, while this appears to be
correct at first, it is completely false. Every DRM system that has
been deployed thus far has been broken, or in technical terms,
"cracked". This is not caused by flaws in implementation or weak
encryption, but by the basic fact that DRM is defective by design. DRM
relies on users not knowing an encryption key that is widely
distributed to devices that play content. This paradigm has made
cracking DRM a simple task and new "DRM-enabled" technologies like
HD-DVD and Blu-ray have already been cracked before their prime.
Additionally, users may still view BBC content over-the-air or through
cable/satellite subscription services and make their own legitimate
backup copies. In such a situation, the entire DRM system is
circumvented and the argument to "protect copyrighted materials" is
removed.

Leaders in the other content-driven industries such as music and
movies have already woken up to the fact that DRM is not the solution
to their copyright woes. Apple's CEO Steve Jobs called on the music
industry to release DRM-free music and they listened. This was seen as
a major victory for consumer freedom and democracy by the entire world
so it amazes us that you would use this deeply and fundamentally
flawed technology.

DRM makes consumers into enemies and by using it the BBC is telling
users that they are criminals. DRM assumes that a user will
use the content they are provided with to violate copyright law and in
reaction removes their fair use rights. Fair use is a doctrine that
establishes when copyrighted content can be
used without permission. Because of fair use, researchers can make
photocopies of articles for studying purposes, political candidates
and news shows can critique speeches by public officials, and parody
shows such as "Saturday Night Live" can exist without being laden with
royalty payments. DRM takes the fair use doctrine and throws it out
the window by refusing to let users make legitimate backup copies of
their content, edit their content, or in some cases rewind or
fast-forward their content. In the UK, a similar doctrine called "fair
dealing" is used, however since this content will be available in the
US it is worth mentioning US laws.

DRM is in direct contradiction to the BBC Royal Charter. The BBC royal
charter establishes a number of goals and operating conditions
including promoting education and learning, and stimulating
creativity. Because DRM stops users from editing content, saving
content to external sources, copying content for educational purposes,
and remixing content in the end it stifles creativity and learning. If
people are unable to take content which they have purchased and use it
for their own personal purposes, then they will choose other locations
to receive that content. DRM chooses corporate interests over the
public interest, and because the BBC exists to serve the public
interest it should not implement any new technology that goes against
it.

The BBC has decided to release their content under the Windows Media
Format. The Windows Media Format (WMF) is a proprietary system. This
means that in order to view it, users have to buy Microsoft Windows or
licenses for other operating systems (none of which are available).
The BBC is a public corporation and its funding comes from public
sources. If people pay for a service, they should only have to pay for
it once. With WMF and DRM, they are having to pay twice (once to have
the content created and once to have it shown to them through WMF). In
addition, since WMF requires Microsoft Windows, it is like adding a
tax to the content you produce and results in the BBC favoring the
interests of an unrelated private enterprise. Microsoft has been
caught multiple times falsifying evidence under oath in US courts and
violating anti-trust laws in the EU so they aren't a company that you
should trust all of your content to.

As we have demonstrated, DRM software is not the correct path for the
BBC to take when releasing its content online. We have demonstrated
that DRM criminalizes consumers, is defective by design, contradicts
the BBC charter, and that the use of WMF serves to enrich
private enterprises. The BBC has been a world leader in content
delivery and news services for decades. It is time that instead of
going down the financially and morally bankrupt path by using DRM the
BBC should take the higher ground and abstain from its use.


I'm not exactly sure how to word the fair use paragraph since it's
certainly one of the most important points.
Comrade Ringo Kamens
On 5/13/07, Timothy Cowlishaw <timcowlishaw at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 13 May 2007, at 16:01, Ringo Kamens wrote:
>
> >  users may still view BBC content over-the-air or through
> > cable/satellite subscription services and make their own legitimate
> > backup copies. In such a situation, the entire DRM system is
> > circumvented and the argument to "protect copyrighted materials" is
> > removed.
> >
> [...snip...]
> > DRM assumes that a user will
> > use the content they are provided to violate copyright law and in
> > reaction removes their fair use rights. Fair use is an internationally
> > recognized doctrine that establishes when copyrighted content can be
> > used without permission. Because of fair use, researchers can make
> > photocopies of articles for studying purposes, political candidates
> > and news shows can critique speeches by public officials, and parody
> > shows such as "Saturday Night Live" can exist without being laden with
> > royalty payments. DRM takes the fair use doctrine and throws it out
> > the window by refusing to let users make legitimate backup copies of
> > their content, edit their content, or in some cases rewind or
> > fast-forward their content.
>
> See my previous email - It might be worth toning down the 'fair-use'
> and private-copying right stuff, as we essentially don't have these
> in the UK (Fair Use is not actually an 'internationally recognised'
> doctrine, but purely a US one, although other countries may have
> similar statutes.) Best steer clear of using these arguments when
> writing to a UK entity.
>
> However, the Royal Charter stuff is great, and it's worth mentioning
> (as much as possible) that there is *no point* DRM-ing your content
> for internet delivery, when it's transmitted in the clear over
> conventional TV broadcast.
>
> cheers,
>
> Tim
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>