Re: [Fsfe-uk] BBC News partnership with Microsoft

[P.L.Hayes]

"it's stated goals" in paragraph 2 should be "its stated goals"

"BBCs own" in paragraph 3 should be "BBC's own"

and there are several more mistakes other than those already pointed
out by others.

Anyway... I'm not surprised that the BBC is doing this. It is just
another step in its transition from public service organisation into
purely commercial media company. I see it has already been lobbying
WIPO for extreme IP rights and now it is working to stifle competition
innovation and choice in software. As far as I'm concerned, the sooner
the licence fee is abolished and the BBC is forced to play fairly with
the companies it is trying to emulate, the better. The BBC already has
a very bad record in this area: it is neither necessary nor desirable
for the BBC to apply DRM to (or use proprietary formats for) the vast
majority of its audio output and yet inexplicably it has always done
so. As we all know, four years ago it even decided not to take
advantage of modern free and open audio technologies, despite having
successfully tested some of them and having claimed to have resolved
all of the legal issues. Its continued almost exclusive use of
proprietary audio formats has severely restricted listener choice and
quite likely stifled innovation. Genuine public service organisations
such as American NPR stations and national radio broadcasters in
countries such as the Czech Republic and Norway have for a long time
provided a far better public service in this respect than has the BBC.

If the BBC really is still a public service organisation (and I don't
think it is), it is quite clear that on economic and public service
grounds that it would be desirable, if and when such measures as DRM
are considered necessary, for the BBC to apply them in ways that are
as open and vendor neutral as possible. Since there is no such thing
as pirate-proof DRM anyway, I would think that forensic watermarking
could achieve a level of protection appropriate to most if not all of
the BBC's content and without all the disadvantages and difficulties
of pervasive and comprehensive direct control solutions. Even if the
BBC does think that some form of proprietary DRM is necessary, it is
still unacceptable for it to even consider delivering its content only
to those licence fee payers who are also Microsoft software licensees.
If that is what the BBC really is intending to do it may have
enormous negative economic and cultural consequences - the exact
opposite of the effect the BBC ought to be aiming for.