[mythtv] BBC Freeview HD encoded/licensed EPG content proposal - comments due 2nd April 2010

[Another Sillyname]

2010/1/23 Paul Gardiner <lists at glidos.net>:
> Stuart Morgan wrote:
>>
>> On Friday 22 Jan 2010 16:45:41 Stuart Morgan wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm all for it, this is fantastic news and we should be supporting the
>>> BBC.
>>> I'll let that sink in before explain why.
>>
>> Technical - Only the EPG (EIT) data for this one channel will be affected.
>> It will be compressed, not encrypted. The video, audio and subtitles will
>> remain free to air, with no encryption. This same compression is already
>> being used by Freesat for _all_ channels. It will only apply for certain
>> programming, imports mostly.
>
> Damn! I wish I'd read it more thoroughly before submitting a response.
> What you say does seem to be correct. Although, this proposal in
> addition to the radio times xml data being encrypted would hurt.
>
> Paul.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-dev mailing list
> mythtv-dev at mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
>

There is a school of thought though that once you've accepted the
principal of any encryption that the 'industry' will continue to
'creep' further encryptions.

I have to say I'm against any encryption in principal, the 'studios'
that are saying they won't sell their movies to the Beeb cannot be
serious that it will prevent piracy. Between the number of stations in
North America, Canada and Oz that transmit HD in the clear, cracked
Blu Rays and other sources the HD version of a movie is often on the
net before the first Blu Ray has even shipped.

We've already seen that the pursuit of DRM is in many instances being
driven by 'trade' organisations that are financial bonused each time
they get a 'win'.

In the interests in real transparency why don't the Beeb state which
organisations have stated they won't sell to the Beeb (Fox and Sony
perhaps?) and let the licence payers decide if they think it's
acceptable.