[FC-discuss] Letter to the BBC

[Ringo Kamens]

I think that when given the choice between ethics/the public interest
and the interest of copyright holders the BBC should choose the public
interest. If it comes down to it, I would prefer they not make the
content available at all over making it available with DRM. You bring
up a good point. If the BBC said "online users won't get your content
unless you agree to license it without DRM" then I think there's a
good chance that they could do it without DRM.
Comrade Ringo Kamens

On 5/13/07, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> I asked someone I know who works in TV. They are not a lawyer (and
> aren't at the BBC) but they have to know this stuff.
>
> The BBC may not have a real choice about adding DRM.
>
> Due to the 2003 Communications act the BBC don't own third party
> content. It's leased to them by the external production company. The BBC
> thus have to protect the rights of the external company under the 2003 act.
>
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030021.htm
>
> It's the UK equivalent of the DMCA in terms of content providers getting
> their wildest dreams written into law. It will presumably bite them at
> some point in the future the same way the DMCA is currently biting
> Viacom via YouTube. It needs amending but that won't happen until after
> the next elections at the earliest.
>
> Anyway, it might be worthwhile arguing that the BBC can fulfil its
> obligations under the 2003 act without DRM. If anyone can suggest how to
> do that. :-)
>
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>