[FC-discuss] Letter to the BBC

[Michelle Childs]

This is the first time I am posting to this list, so I hope this is  
seen as a helpful comment.

I fully support the points so eloquently made against the BBC's use  
of DRM. However  I think the points on copyright law need to be  
changed to reflect UK law. Sadly our 'fair dealing' exceptions are no  
where near as flexible as the US concept of fair use, for example  
there is no right to private copy, so in the UK, technically it is  
illegal to copy from a cd onto a MP3 player ( although its is  
recommended that this should be changed) There is only a very   
limited 'format shifting'  exception  to record on a VCR to watch  
later. There is no exception for parody. Nor do we have the same wide  
'transformative use' exception which is so important for creators.  
You can find a comparison between the US fair use and the UK fair  
dealing in a recent report into IPR law in the UK ( with  
recommendations for change) in the Gowers review (http://www.hm- 
treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/ 
gowers_review_intellectual_property/gowers ) see page 61 onwards. The  
report also makes some useful points about how copyright can and  
should be changed to allow access to knowledge, which the BBC should  
be leading on as it is a public body.

Michelle
Michelle Childs
  Head of European Affairs
Knowledge Ecology International
www.keionline.org


On 13 May 2007, at 16:24, Ringo Kamens wrote:

> Updated version:
> 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 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> What do you mean by "Provided with?"
> Thanks for the help,
> Comrade Ringo Kamens
> On 5/13/07, Jonathan Roberts <jonathan.roberts.uk at googlemail.com>  
> wrote:
>> Hey :D
>>
>> On 13/05/07, Ringo Kamens <2600denver at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So I'm working on a super-secret project which will be revealed in a
>>> few days.
>>
>> I'm intrigued and can't wait to discover what!
>>
>>> We will be calling on the BBC to remove DRM from their
>>> broadcasts. I have written a sample letter and would appreciate some
>>> feedback on it. Are there additional points we should emphasize?
>>> Spelling errors? etc. It seems a little long. Can this be split up
>>> into three separate letters?
>>>
>>> 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 it appears to be
>>> correct at first, it is completely false. Every DRM system that has
>>
>> I think you need to remove the "it" from the above line.
>>
>>> 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. The BBC has changed the perception
>>> of viewers that it presents to the world.
>>
>> I think the above sentence needs rewording. Perhaps:
>>
>> DRM makes consumers into enemies, and by utilizing DRM the BBC is
>> changing the way that the rest of the world perceives it.
>>
>> Maybe not exactly that but I don't think it reads right now.
>>
>>> DRM assumes that a user will
>>> use the content they are provided to violate copyright law and in
>>> reaction removes their fair use rights.
>>
>> Provided with?
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Great point :D
>>
>>> 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 the WMF format serves to enrich
>>
>>
>> Windows Media Format format?
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Great work :D
>>
>> Jon
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

Michelle Childs
Head of European Affairs
Knowledge Ecology International
michelle.childs at cptech.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070513/3856d2b6/attachment-0001.htm