The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
John
be able to access BBC programs from the previous 7 days and download
them using a proprietary P2P network. The downloaded programs will be
protected by DRM and will self-destruct (or be unplayable?) after 7
days. It looks like the service will use a special media player (or
will it be MS Media Player?) program which will presumably include the
DRM technology.
Does anyone know anything about the nature of the DRM to be used in
this trial? Will it be possible to circumvent the DRM by using one of
the many programs on the net that record streaming video? (although I
think the programs will be downloaded in their entirety before being
watched). How likely will it be that the protection will be hacked?
Has the DRM in Microsoft's Media Player been hacked?
I wonder if the inclusion of DRM is just a sop to be thrown at
copyright holders. The BBC already knows that any program they
broadcast can be recorded, digitised and pirated; and large numbers of
such programs are already available on P2P networks. Implementing DRM
technology seems a little pointless.
John
MJ Ray
> [...] Will it be possible to circumvent the DRM by using one of
> the many programs on the net that record streaming video? [...]
It is not a Digital Rights Management. They're not trying to
help you manage the rights. They're trying to restrict your
usage. It's a Digital Rights Restriction Technique. However,
if it plays back via anything which you can write drivers for,
or configure drivers in a certain way, it can be broken. Did
the EUCD make it illegal to tell people how? I forget.
It seems even sillier, as BBC broadcasts are recordable (and
it's not copyright infringement to time-shift) so what
licence-fee-payer is going to be happy about this crippled
service? Maybe it's a sop to PVR/VCR makers.
Finally, this is not necessarily hacking. Changing a few
configuration settings is not creative programming, nor
like capturing ships on the high seas, despite media claims.
:::Jerry::::
"MJ Ray" <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote in message
news:43303a20$0$82460$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
<snip>
>
> It seems even sillier, as BBC broadcasts are recordable (and
> it's not copyright infringement to time-shift)
But that is not the same as making a permanent recording, the
downloaded programme will be playable for 7 days - you are meant to
erase any time-shifted recording after something like that time
period, I've forgotten the exact number of days specified that you
are allowed to (technically) kept any time-shifted programme, but
it's not infinitum.
Ad C
nos...@nospam.co.uk says...
> The BBC is starting a trial at the end of this month where people will
> be able to access BBC programs from the previous 7 days and download
> them using a proprietary P2P network. The downloaded programs will be
> protected by DRM and will self-destruct (or be unplayable?) after 7
> days. It looks like the service will use a special media player (or
> will it be MS Media Player?) program which will presumably include the
> DRM technology.
Media player already got the technology.
I stay well clear of DRM, which is one reason I will not be touching
Microsoft vista when it is launched.
> Does anyone know anything about the nature of the DRM to be used in
> this trial? Will it be possible to circumvent the DRM by using one of
> the many programs on the net that record streaming video? (although I
> think the programs will be downloaded in their entirety before being
> watched). How likely will it be that the protection will be hacked?
> Has the DRM in Microsoft's Media Player been hacked?
Most things are hacked and someone somewhere will find a way around it
all.
>
> I wonder if the inclusion of DRM is just a sop to be thrown at
> copyright holders. The BBC already knows that any program they
> broadcast can be recorded, digitised and pirated; and large numbers of
> such programs are already available on P2P networks. Implementing DRM
> technology seems a little pointless.
>
I do not see the point in it unless you got a computer connected to the
T.V. I am not going to sit up here and watch a programme, when I could
have watched it in comfort downstairs.
Ad C
m...@privacy.INVALID says...
back. but it is unworkable, just like most copyright laws.
MJ Ray
> [...] you are meant to
> erase any time-shifted recording after something like that time
> period, I've forgotten the exact number of days specified that you
> are allowed to (technically) kept any time-shifted programme, but
> it's not infinitum.
What is the source of that? There's no time limit specified in the
Copyright Designs and Patents Act Section 70 or Schedule 2. I
think you're just meant to be reasonable.
(If you deal in the recording, you're infringing, though.)
:::Jerry::::
It was in the Copyright Act I read (I still have the notes I made at
the time someplace, together with other information regarding media
law, if I must look them out I will), I suggest you either read a
more up to date version...
:::Jerry::::
"Ad C" <graph...@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d9a5b6ab...@news.metronet.co.uk...
> In article <q610j199phmsqtlru...@4ax.com>,
> nos...@nospam.co.uk says...
> > The BBC is starting a trial at the end of this month where people
will
> > be able to access BBC programs from the previous 7 days and
download
> > them using a proprietary P2P network. The downloaded programs
will be
> > protected by DRM and will self-destruct (or be unplayable?) after
7
> > days. It looks like the service will use a special media player
(or
> > will it be MS Media Player?) program which will presumably
include the
> > DRM technology.
>
>
> Media player already got the technology.
>
> I stay well clear of DRM, which is one reason I will not be
touching
> Microsoft vista when it is launched.
Is macrovision (as if that matters anyway) added to these DRM
programme downloads then?....
<snip>
>
> I do not see the point in it unless you got a computer connected to
the
> T.V. I am not going to sit up here and watch a programme, when I
could
> have watched it in comfort downstairs.
But that is the way things look like they are going, a computer as
part of the homes AV set up, hence Microsoft's XP Media edition.
Roderick Stewart
> The BBC is starting a trial at the end of this month where people will
> be able to access BBC programs from the previous 7 days and download
> them using a proprietary P2P network. The downloaded programs will be
> protected by DRM and will self-destruct (or be unplayable?) after 7
> days.
What an utter waste of effort! Who's going to go to the bother of
fiddling about with a special programme just to make recordings that
won't last? It'll either be hacked or forgotten.
Rod.
Richard
> this trial? Will it be possible to circumvent the DRM by using one of
> the many programs on the net that record streaming video? (although I
> think the programs will be downloaded in their entirety before being
> watched). How likely will it be that the protection will be hacked?
> Has the DRM in Microsoft's Media Player been hacked?
I don't know about the implementation they will use in this trial. I
suspect it will be hacked pretty quickly. However, I don't think that
will worry them. They are looking ahead to the future. Browse the
TCPA-FAQ on this site:
The (misnomer) Trusted Computing means that your PC will have a chip
that contains keys unique to you and the operating system (Palladium in
Windows) will collude with content providers to provide protected
memory that will not be accessible by any other application. If you
don't have a TC machine, or you have TC disabled in your operating
system, then you won't be able to view DRM content.
The other issues of trusted computing are even worse and could allow
content providers to delete documents off your machine and lock you out
of documents you have authored if you choose to move to a non TC
platform.
I suspect the BBC's system will use TC and since we (as licence payers)
will get their content for free, I have no problem with it. However, I
do have serious concerns about the other aspects of TC.
Be afraid.
Richard
MJ Ray
> "MJ Ray" <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > What is the source of that? There's no time limit specified in the
> > Copyright Designs and Patents Act Section 70 or Schedule 2. I
> > think you're just meant to be reasonable.
>
> the time someplace, together with other information regarding media
> law, if I must look them out I will), I suggest you either read a
> more up to date version...
The copy I'm using is marked "as amended at 1/1/2005". What is
the source of your time limit claim? Are you imagining things?
Jonathan Buzzard
The Copyright Act is a total mess. The original 1988 Act has been amended
by about a dozen Acts and countless Statutory Instruments. Besides the
time limit that I have seen, and I cannot remember which bit it was in,
was six months, but you are only allowed to watch it once.
Anyway this is all rather pointless as with Freeview and Satellite one
can capture a MPEG stream directly onto ones hard disk, with not a
sign of encryption of DRM in sight.
JAB.
--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195
Jonathan Buzzard
> In <433042c9$0$72031$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
> ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>But that is not the same as making a permanent recording, the
>>downloaded programme will be playable for 7 days - you are meant to
>>erase any time-shifted recording after something like that time
>>period, I've forgotten the exact number of days specified that you
>>are allowed to (technically) kept any time-shifted programme, but
>>it's not infinitum.
>
> It is a common misconception, but there is in fact definitely no time
> limit on how long you make keep recordings you make for timeshifting
> before you view them.
> Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
> Section 70, "Recording for purposes of time-shifting."
> http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_4.htm#mdiv70
>
> During the draft stages of the Act, there were discussions about putting
> in a time limit (30 days or so). These were dropped, but because of
> those discussions people still wrongly think to this day that there is a
> time limit.
Reading the original 1988 Act is an almost pointless waste of time, as it
has since been heavily modified many times by both further acts of
Parliament and Statutory Instruments.
:::Jerry::::
"Mike Henry" <{$usenet-spamdump$}@mrtickle.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:poq0j1hdichik77ks...@4ax.com...
> In <433042c9$0$72031$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
> ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >downloaded programme will be playable for 7 days - you are meant
to
> >erase any time-shifted recording after something like that time
> >period, I've forgotten the exact number of days specified that you
> >are allowed to (technically) kept any time-shifted programme, but
> >it's not infinitum.
>
time
> limit on how long you make keep recordings you make for
timeshifting
> before you view them.
> Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
> Section 70, "Recording for purposes of time-shifting."
> http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_4.htm#mdiv70
>
> During the draft stages of the Act, there were discussions about
putting
> in a time limit (30 days or so). These were dropped, but because of
> those discussions people still wrongly think to this day that there
is a
> time limit.
>
>
<quote>
Recording for purposes of time-shifting.
70. The making for private and domestic use of a
recording of a broadcast or cable programme solely
for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or listened
to at a more convenient time does not infringe any
copyright in the broadcast or cable programme or in
any work included in it.
</quote>
So, unless you never bother to watch the recording (!), it does not
say that you can keep a copy. Time-shifting is exactly that, it is
not making a copy for (permanent) archiving purposes.
The way the above section is worded makes any mention of a set period
of time before erasing, should be carried out, unnecessary. It would
come down to what a Court thinks is a *reasonable* time period.
Further, unless you are a 'designated body' you may NOT make a copy
for permanent (archival) purposes;
<quote>
Recording for archival purposes.
75.-(1) A recording of a broadcast or cable programme
of a designated class, or a copy of such a recording,
may be made for the purpose of being placed in an
archive maintained by a designated body without thereby
infringing any copyright in the broadcast or cable
programme or in any work included in it.
(2) In subsection (1) "designated" means designated for
the purposes of this section by order of the Secretary of
State, who shall not designate a body unless he is
satisfied that it is not established or conducted for profit.
(3) An order under this section shall be made by statutory
instrument which shall be subject to annulment in
pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
</quote>
:::Jerry::::
Please cite the section that says people can make permanent copies...
:::Jerry::::
"Jonathan Buzzard" <jona...@uk.me.buzzard> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.09.20....@uk.me.buzzard...
<snip>
>
> Anyway this is all rather pointless as with Freeview and Satellite
one
> can capture a MPEG stream directly onto ones hard disk, with not a
> sign of encryption of DRM in sight.
>
Assuming that the programme is shown on those mediums, this thread is
about the BBC placing programme content on the web as time limited
(playable) downloads.
Ad C
m...@privacy.INVALID says...
>
> Is macrovision (as if that matters anyway) added to these DRM
> programme downloads then?....
I don't know, but as you said it makes no difference.
>
> <snip>
> >
> > I do not see the point in it unless you got a computer connected to
> the
> > T.V. I am not going to sit up here and watch a programme, when I
> could
> > have watched it in comfort downstairs.
>
> But that is the way things look like they are going, a computer as
> part of the homes AV set up, hence Microsoft's XP Media edition.
>
I had a computer in my living room for 2 years when I had a lodger,
never again.
Harvey Van Sickle
> In <43308ced$0$14483$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
> I did not say that it does. Once again more time: There is in fact
> definitely no time limit on how long you make keep recordings you
> make for timeshifting before you view them.
>
>> Time-shifting is exactly that, it is
>> not making a copy for (permanent) archiving purposes.
>
> Correct. You said there was a time limit on how long you may keep
> the programme, but you can't quote where the time limit comes
> from.
It would be down to case law -- which probably hasn't happened --- to
establish that retaining it for X days would be "for the purpose of
enabling it to be viewed...", wwhilst retaining it for Y days would not
qualify as being "for the purpose of...", etc.
That the time limit isn't specified in the act doesn't mean that there
is no time limit: it means that the courts would be left to decide
what time could be accepted as being "for the purpose of" shifting the
viewing.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
John Phillips
Helpfully a consolidated (unofficial) text is maintained (>250 pages)
at http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/legislation/legislation.pdf.
--
John Phillips
MJ Ray
> "MJ Ray" <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
> > > MJ Ray <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > > > Copyright Designs and Patents Act Section 70 or Schedule 2. I
> > > > think you're just meant to be reasonable.
> > >
> > > It was in the Copyright Act I read (I still have the notes I made at
> > > the time someplace, together with other information regarding media
> > > law, if I must look them out I will), I suggest you either read a
> > > more up to date version...
> >
> > The copy I'm using is marked "as amended at 1/1/2005". What is
> > the source of your time limit claim? Are you imagining things?
>
> Please cite the section that says people can make permanent copies...
Why would I want to do that? Please cite where I made any
claim that people can make permanent copies.
Ye gods! You just don't have the neck to admit clearly that
the time limit either wasn't "in the Copyright Act [you] read"
or that whatever you read isn't currently law, do you?
Remember, you originally claimed:
> [...] the downloaded programme will be playable for 7 days
> - you are meant to erase any time-shifted recording after
> something like that time period, I've forgotten the exact
> number of days specified [...]
but by yesterday evening, you'd actually checked and wrote:
> The way the above section is worded makes any mention of a set period
> of time before erasing, should be carried out, unnecessary. It would
> come down to what a Court thinks is a *reasonable* time period.
I guess you did accept you were wrong earlier, more or less. That's
pretty much the same "reasonable" claim I made and is quoted above.
Cite your sources or stop playing games, please.
--
MJR/slef
:::Jerry::::
> In <43308ced$0$14483$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
> ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >
> definitely no time limit on how long you make keep recordings you
make
> for timeshifting before you view them.
>
> >not making a copy for (permanent) archiving purposes.
>
the
> programme, but you can't quote where the time limit comes from.
>
>
You not reading the Act, you are cherry picking sections, there is a
time limit - that of what the Court will consider a reasonable period
to watch the recording, that could be as little as one day, given one
set of circumstances, or 12 months in another, if the recording is
kept after that *reasonable* period it could be deemed that you have
made a copy for archival.
The way that one section fails back of other sections means that
every section doesn't need to list every cleaviat and exception.
:::Jerry::::
<snip>
>
> It's down to the people claiming there is a new time limit that
didn't
> exist before, to quote chapter and verse where it is. All the Acts
of
> Parliament and Statutory Instruments that could have modified the
> original Act are on the web, but I am not the one making the
claims.
> It's for them to prove this time limit exists.
>
The only thing you are doing is showing up the fact that you don't
know how to read the Act...
:::Jerry::::
> In article
<43305e6c$1$7057$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
> m...@privacy.INVALID says...
> >
> > Is macrovision (as if that matters anyway) added to these DRM
> > programme downloads then?....
>
>
> I don't know, but as you said it makes no difference.
It would make a difference to the casual person who doesn't know
about what Macrovision is and how it works - once an AV signal is
sent to another device.
>
> >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > I do not see the point in it unless you got a computer
connected to
> > the
> > > T.V. I am not going to sit up here and watch a programme, when
I
> > could
> > > have watched it in comfort downstairs.
> >
> > But that is the way things look like they are going, a computer
as
> > part of the homes AV set up, hence Microsoft's XP Media edition.
> >
>
>
> I had a computer in my living room for 2 years when I had a lodger,
> never again.
<FX>
WHOOSH......
</FX>
You point being what?...
:::Jerry::::
> ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
> > "MJ Ray" <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > > ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
> > > > MJ Ray <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > > > > [...] There's no time limit specified in the
> > > > > Copyright Designs and Patents Act Section 70 or Schedule 2.
I
> > > > > think you're just meant to be reasonable.
> > > >
> > > > It was in the Copyright Act I read (I still have the notes I
made at
> > > > the time someplace, together with other information regarding
media
> > > > law, if I must look them out I will), I suggest you either
read a
> > > > more up to date version...
> > >
> > > The copy I'm using is marked "as amended at 1/1/2005". What is
> > > the source of your time limit claim? Are you imagining things?
> >
> > Please cite the section that says people can make permanent
copies...
>
> Why would I want to do that? Please cite where I made any
> claim that people can make permanent copies.
By stating that there wasn't a time limit for how long a time-shifted
recording can be kept.
>
> Ye gods! You just don't have the neck to admit clearly that
> the time limit either wasn't "in the Copyright Act [you] read"
> or that whatever you read isn't currently law, do you?
No, the problem is that you obviously don't know how to read the Act.
>
> Remember, you originally claimed:
> > [...] the downloaded programme will be playable for 7 days
> > - you are meant to erase any time-shifted recording after
> > something like that time period, I've forgotten the exact
> > number of days specified [...]
>
> but by yesterday evening, you'd actually checked and wrote:
> > The way the above section is worded makes any mention of a set
period
> > of time before erasing, should be carried out, unnecessary. It
would
> > come down to what a Court thinks is a *reasonable* time period.
That is correct, a quote from the ACT, now tell me were that Act say
that people can keep copies, otherwise take your own (snipped)
advice!
DAB sounds worse than FM
:@~Jerry~@: is one of these infuriating characters you get on Usenet
that no matter how wrong they are they will never admit it.
--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info
Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm
DAB sounds worse than FM
Actually, it's not just that about him that I dislike so much, it's the
way he actually tries to make out that he's right even when he doesn't
have a clue what he's going on about. Again, there are quite a few
people on Usenet like this, unfortunately.
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
> > During the draft stages of the Act, there were discussions about putting
> > in a time limit (30 days or so). These were dropped, but because of
> > those discussions people still wrongly think to this day that there is a
> > time limit.
>
> Reading the original 1988 Act is an almost pointless waste of time, as it
> has since been heavily modified many times by both further acts of
> Parliament and Statutory Instruments.
Not to mention changes in what it is possible to do as a result of the
continuous development of new technology, giving rise to changes in what most
people consider it is acceptable to do. The legal fine points can be argued
forever, but the practical result is, as usual, that we have laws that it is
impossible to police or administer, and are decades out of date with reality.
Rod.
:::Jerry::::
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
news:WeaYe.10288$st1....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
> Actually, it's not just that about him that I dislike so much, it's
the
> way he actually tries to make out that he's right even when he
doesn't
> have a clue what he's going on about.
Stop talking about yourself cretin.
DAB sounds worse than FM
See what I mean?...
MJ Ray
> "MJ Ray" <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
> > > Please cite the section that says people can make permanent copies...
> >
> > Why would I want to do that? Please cite where I made any
> > claim that people can make permanent copies.
>
> By stating that there wasn't a time limit for how long a time-shifted
> recording can be kept.
I claimed only that there was no *specified* limit, unlike
your claim of about 7 days. My view was that "I think you're
just meant to be reasonable."
Your imagination seems more active than mine: why don't you
argue why people can make permanent complete copies? I believe
many would get a big laugh from it.
> > Ye gods! You just don't have the neck to admit clearly that
> > the time limit either wasn't "in the Copyright Act [you] read"
> > or that whatever you read isn't currently law, do you?
>
> No, the problem is that you obviously don't know how to read the Act.
So teach! Do you read the Act while smashed or otherwise addled?
:::Jerry::::
> ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
> > "MJ Ray" <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > > ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
> > > > Please cite the section that says people can make permanent
copies...
> > >
> > > Why would I want to do that? Please cite where I made any
> > > claim that people can make permanent copies.
> >
> > By stating that there wasn't a time limit for how long a
time-shifted
> > recording can be kept.
>
> I claimed only that there was no *specified* limit, unlike
> your claim of about 7 days. My view was that "I think you're
> just meant to be reasonable."
Read what I said moron before making a total fuckwit of yourself, I
was talking about the BBC download when I mentioned the seven day, I
stated that there was a time limit in the Copyright Act, I didn't
specify that limit (hence my comment about having to look out my
notes).
>
> Your imagination seems more active than mine: why don't you
> argue why people can make permanent complete copies? I believe
> many would get a big laugh from it.
Why don't you piss off back to alt.troll, or were ever you normally
live?
>
> > > Ye gods! You just don't have the neck to admit clearly that
> > > the time limit either wasn't "in the Copyright Act [you] read"
> > > or that whatever you read isn't currently law, do you?
> >
> > No, the problem is that you obviously don't know how to read the
Act.
>
> So teach! Do you read the Act while smashed or otherwise addled?
>
You really are showing up just what a total ignoranus you are.
:::Jerry::::
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
> :::Jerry:::: wrote:
> > "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
> > news:WeaYe.10288$st1....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> >>
> >> Actually, it's not just that about him that I dislike so much,
it's
> >> the way he actually tries to make out that he's right even when
he
> >> doesn't have a clue what he's going on about.
> >
> > Stop talking about yourself cretin.
>
>
> See what I mean?...
>
...and how many time have your rants about DAB been proved well short
of the mark?....
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "MJ Ray" <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote in message
> news:43316dc7$0$23710$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>> ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
>>> "MJ Ray" <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
>>>> ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>> Please cite the section that says people can make permanent
>>>>> copies...
>>>>
>>>> Why would I want to do that? Please cite where I made any
>>>> claim that people can make permanent copies.
>>>
>>> By stating that there wasn't a time limit for how long a
>>> time-shifted recording can be kept.
>>
>> I claimed only that there was no *specified* limit, unlike
>> your claim of about 7 days. My view was that "I think you're
>> just meant to be reasonable."
>
> Read what I said moron before making a total fuckwit of yourself,
> You really are showing up just what a total ignoranus you are.
:@~Jerry~@:, I'm afraid the only moron, fuckwit and ignoramus around
here is yourself.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
> news:RBcYe.20124$yF2....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>>>>> Jerry:::: wrote:
>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
>>> news:WeaYe.10288$st1....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it's not just that about him that I dislike so much, it's
>>>> the way he actually tries to make out that he's right even when he
>>>> doesn't have a clue what he's going on about.
>>>
>>> Stop talking about yourself cretin.
>>
>>
>> See what I mean?...
>>
>
> ...and how many time have your rants about DAB been proved well short
> of the mark?....
They're never short of the mark. You may disagree with what I say, but
this is exactly what I'm talking about, because you know jack shit about
DAB and the issues surrounding it, whereas I've studied the technology
at uni, have read massive amounts about all of the issues surrounding
it, and even written a whole sodding website about it.
:::Jerry::::
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
<snip>
>
> They're never short of the mark.
Yes they are, often well short, as you never take the commercial
aspect into account when you start having one of your rants...
:::Jerry::::
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
<snip>
I'm afraid the only moron, fuckwit and ignoramus around
> here is yourself.
>
:::Jerry::::
> In <43311674$1$62676$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
>
I have, I've quoted the frigging Act!
Now either cite were the Act says that people can make their own
permanent copies or piss off.
MJ Ray
> "MJ Ray" <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > I claimed only that there was no *specified* limit, unlike
> > your claim of about 7 days. My view was that "I think you're
> > just meant to be reasonable."
>
> Read what I said moron before making a total fuckwit of yourself, I
> was talking about the BBC download when I mentioned the seven day, I
> stated that there was a time limit in the Copyright Act, I didn't
You still haven't specified that limit. This is because there is
NO TIME LIMIT in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1998 as
amended. You just need to be reasonable.
I acknowledge you wrote (note: this is text, not speech) about
the BBC player download, but you also claimed the (non-existant)
time limit in the Act was similar. I claim you're addled.
> Why don't you piss off back to alt.troll, or were ever you normally
> live?
alt.surrealism not alt.troll. Your posts are almost surreal.
:::Jerry::::
So you can't cite a reference (in the Act) to prove that people are
permitted to make their own permanent copies...
DAB sounds worse than FM
Commercial aspect? Why on earth should any listener care less about
this? The FACT is that the audio quality on DAB sounds crap, and yet DAB
was supposed to sound better than bloody FM you moron. It's not my
problem or any listener's problem that the incompetent broadcasters
chose to use the most outdated, expensive and least efficient system --
that should not alter the original requirements of the digital radio
system, which were that it would provide CD-quality on the radio, so it
is wholly unacceptable that the audio quality is as low as it is. They
had the opportunity to change systems. It was glaringly obvious that DAB
was well out-of-date and far superior alternatives were available. But
no, they stuck with DAB. Now, if they advertised DAB as being of lower
quality than FM I wouldn't have a problem. But they advertise DAB as if
it provides far higher quality than on FM.
So, you can take your commercial aspects and shove them.
:::Jerry::::
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
> :::Jerry:::: wrote:
<snip>
> > as you never take the commercial
> > aspect into account when you start having one of your rants...
>
>
> Commercial aspect? Why on earth should any listener care less about
Because it's what put most of the stations on air! Duh...
DAB sounds worse than FM
Sorry, but that just sums up how weak your arguments are and always have
been. Basically, commercial radio stations start because radio groups
think they can make a healthy profit by starting such a station. Your
argument now seems to be that because they exist in the first place then
they should be able to do basically what they want to do, i.e.
self-regulate the audio quality.
The thing you're failing to grasp is that commercial radio groups put
profit above all else, so they *need* to be regulated.
Why do they use 128kbps? Is it to provide more stations out of the good
of their heart? Nope, it's because a commercial radio group given the
choice between providing 3 stations at 160kbps or 4 stations at 128kbps,
the latter option will make them far more profit, so they do that and
screw the listeners because they know they've got an attractive product
(e.g. good content) so listeners either have to listen and put up with
whatever audio quality the broadcaster sees fit to provide, or the
listener has to go without. Think about it: would you listen to your
favourite breakfast radio show at lower audio quality, or would you
decide not to listen at all?
The minimum bit rate level was set low in the hope that they would use a
range of bit rate levels, and that competition would keep standards
high. The reality is that 98% use the same bit rate, which is the
minimum bit rate, and the audio quality is shite, but all the other
stations sound shite, so it makes no difference. The regulation has
failed.
Anyway, I don't know why I'm wasting my breath on an ignorant fool like
you. Feel free to have the last word - I'm sure it'll be a highly
profound insight into consumerist behaviour.
MJ Ray
> So you can't cite a reference (in the Act) to prove that people are
> permitted to make their own permanent copies...
I never claimed that.
I corrected your claim that there is a time limit specified. You
can't cite a reference for that because you dreamt it up, addled.
:::Jerry::::
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
> :::Jerry:::: wrote:
> > "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
> > news:PawYe.11278$st1....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> >>>>> Jerry:::: wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>> as you never take the commercial
> >>> aspect into account when you start having one of your rants...
> >>
> >>
> >> Commercial aspect? Why on earth should any listener care less
about
> >> this? <snip>
> >
> > Because it's what put most of the stations on air! Duh...
>
>
> Sorry, but that just sums up how weak your arguments are and always
have
> been. Basically, commercial radio stations start because radio
groups
> think they can make a healthy profit by starting such a station.
Your
> argument now seems to be that because they exist in the first place
then
> they should be able to do basically what they want to do, i.e.
> self-regulate the audio quality.
That is not what I'm saying, as you trolling well know.
>
> The thing you're failing to grasp is that commercial radio groups
put
> profit above all else, so they *need* to be regulated.
Which they are, or have you never heard of Ofcom etc. ?! Duh..
>
> Why do they use 128kbps? Is it to provide more stations out of the
good
> of their heart? Nope, it's because a commercial radio group given
the
> choice between providing 3 stations at 160kbps or 4 stations at
128kbps,
> the latter option will make them far more profit, so they do that
and
> screw the listeners because they know they've got an attractive
product
> (e.g. good content) so listeners either have to listen and put up
with
> whatever audio quality the broadcaster sees fit to provide, or the
> listener has to go without. Think about it: would you listen to
your
> favourite breakfast radio show at lower audio quality, or would you
> decide not to listen at all?
Many may well chose not to listen, other don't care, but if the
company behind the station(s) can't make a profit there will be no
station !... Duh.
>
> The minimum bit rate level was set low in the hope that they would
use a
> range of bit rate levels, and that competition would keep standards
> high. The reality is that 98% use the same bit rate, which is the
> minimum bit rate, and the audio quality is shite, but all the other
> stations sound shite, so it makes no difference. The regulation has
> failed.
But the business of commercial radio on DAB and the listener having
choice hasn't...
>
> Anyway, I don't know why I'm wasting my breath on an ignorant fool
like
> you. Feel free to have the last word - I'm sure it'll be a highly
> profound insight into consumerist behaviour.
>
The words of someone who trained as a broadcast engineer but can't
gain worthwhile employment by all accounts....
Face it Stave, you are so up your own rear end with your technical
textbooks your are clueless as to what allows any commercial radio to
exist.
:::Jerry::::
> ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
> > So you can't cite a reference (in the Act) to prove that people
are
> > permitted to make their own permanent copies...
>
> I never claimed that.
>
Yes you did, by saying that there was no time limit.
> I corrected your claim that there is a time limit specified. You
> can't cite a reference for that because you dreamt it up, addled.
>
I have, but you can't cite any reference that says people can make
permanent copies...
Either PUT UP or SHUT tf UP.
Nick
news:4332bd88$1$97912$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
No, you haven't - you've simply referred to an entire document and then claimed
that people weren't reading it properly if they failed to "understand" it in the
way you did. You certainly seem to enjoy evading the issue, but you're no
politician. <fx>whoosh</fx>? ;o)
> Either PUT UP or SHUT tf UP.
Yes, I'm sure "shouting" will make them all admit defeat. Your surname isn't
Hatrick by any chance? (groan)
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
> news:z4yYe.13341$ws4....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>>>> Jerry:::: wrote:
>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
>>> news:PawYe.11278$st1....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>>> Jerry:::: wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> as you never take the commercial
>>>>> aspect into account when you start having one of your rants...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Commercial aspect? Why on earth should any listener care less about
>>>> this? <snip>
>>>
>>> Because it's what put most of the stations on air! Duh...
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but that just sums up how weak your arguments are and always
>> have been. Basically, commercial radio stations start because radio
>> groups think they can make a healthy profit by starting such a
>> station. Your argument now seems to be that because they exist in
>> the first place then they should be able to do basically what they
>> want to do, i.e. self-regulate the audio quality.
>
> That is not what I'm saying, as you trolling well know.
You're sticking up for extremely light regulation, which is only a step
away from self-regulation.
>> The thing you're failing to grasp is that commercial radio groups put
>> profit above all else, so they *need* to be regulated.
>
> Which they are, or have you never heard of Ofcom etc. ?! Duh..
If you knew anything about how Ofcom supposedly "regulate" DAB then
you'd realise that they need to come up with a new term instead of
"regulation".
>> Why do they use 128kbps? Is it to provide more stations out of the
>> good of their heart? Nope, it's because a commercial radio group
>> given the choice between providing 3 stations at 160kbps or 4
>> stations at 128kbps, the latter option will make them far more
>> profit, so they do that and screw the listeners because they know
>> they've got an attractive product (e.g. good content) so listeners
>> either have to listen and put up with whatever audio quality the
>> broadcaster sees fit to provide, or the listener has to go without.
>> Think about it: would you listen to your favourite breakfast radio
>> show at lower audio quality, or would you decide not to listen at
>> all?
>
> Many may well chose not to listen,
'Many' can always be used for a broadcast radio station, because so
fking many people listen in the first place. It's percentages that
decide not to listen that's important, and the fact is that far more
people will listen to a show they like than will decide to go without
it. This means they've effectively got a monopoly position, and that is
why "letting the market decide" doesn't work like it does for things
like baked beans and so on.
> other don't care, but if the
> company behind the station(s) can't make a profit there will be no
> station !... Duh.
We're a long, long way away from the situation where the radio market is
saturated so that it's difficult to make a profit. If they can't make a
profit then they're doing something wrong.
Of course, you've now got Digital One campaigning for no more national
DAB multiplexes, and despite the fact that one of the main things that
they promote DAB on - the extra choice - they're literally now saying
that the last thing people want is extra choice. Proof if proof were
needed that market research can produce whatever results you design the
survey to produce.
>> The minimum bit rate level was set low in the hope that they would
>> use a range of bit rate levels, and that competition would keep
>> standards high. The reality is that 98% use the same bit rate, which
>> is the minimum bit rate, and the audio quality is shite, but all the
>> other stations sound shite, so it makes no difference. The
>> regulation has failed.
>
> But the business of commercial radio on DAB and the listener having
> choice hasn't...
Do me a favour. There's been 18 very high impact TV advertising
campaigns on BBC TV so far, plus about the same number of high impact
radio campaigns. Normal products cannot hope to spend the kind of money
that that kind of exposure requires. Basically, whatever the BBC decide
they want us to have they get their own way.
>> Anyway, I don't know why I'm wasting my breath on an ignorant fool
>> like you. Feel free to have the last word - I'm sure it'll be a
>> highly profound insight into consumerist behaviour.
>>
>
> The words of someone who trained as a broadcast engineer but can't
> gain worthwhile employment by all accounts....
I have not been trained as a broadcast engineer and I haven't applied
for jobs yet. In my 3 degrees I've studied mechanical, electrical and
electronic, and communications engineering, plus DSP and some computer
science and business studies courses.
> Face it Stave, you are so up your own rear end with your technical
> textbooks your are clueless as to what allows any commercial radio to
> exist.
Not at all. I have a very good understanding of what goes on in the
commercial world, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Big
difference.
:::Jerry::::
"Nick" <ni...@yourstuff.com> wrote in message
news:bczYe.179181$s35....@fe09.news.easynews.com...
> ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:4332bd88$1$97912$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> > "MJ Ray" <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote in message
> > news:4332b6a6$0$67557$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> >> ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
> >> > So you can't cite a reference (in the Act) to prove that
people
> > are
> >> > permitted to make their own permanent copies...
> >>
> >> I never claimed that.
> >
> > Yes you did, by saying that there was no time limit.
> >
> >> I corrected your claim that there is a time limit specified. You
> >> can't cite a reference for that because you dreamt it up,
addled.
> >
> > I have, but you can't cite any reference that says people can
make
> > permanent copies...
>
> No, you haven't - you've simply referred to an entire document and
then claimed
> that people weren't reading it properly if they failed to
"understand" it in the
> way you did. You certainly seem to enjoy evading the issue, but
you're no
> politician. <fx>whoosh</fx>? ;o)
So citing the section(s) in the Act is now not quoting the sections
of the Act now ?!
See message
news:43308ced$0$14483$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net
<message quote>
<quote>
Recording for purposes of time-shifting.
70. The making for private and domestic use of a
recording of a broadcast or cable programme solely
for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or listened
to at a more convenient time does not infringe any
copyright in the broadcast or cable programme or in
any work included in it.
</quote>
So, unless you never bother to watch the recording (!), it does not
say that you can keep a copy. Time-shifting is exactly that, it is
not making a copy for (permanent) archiving purposes.
The way the above section is worded makes any mention of a set period
of time before erasing, should be carried out, unnecessary. It would
come down to what a Court thinks is a *reasonable* time period.
Further, unless you are a 'designated body' you may NOT make a copy
for permanent (archival) purposes;
<quote>
Recording for archival purposes.
75.-(1) A recording of a broadcast or cable programme
of a designated class, or a copy of such a recording,
may be made for the purpose of being placed in an
archive maintained by a designated body without thereby
infringing any copyright in the broadcast or cable
programme or in any work included in it.
(2) In subsection (1) "designated" means designated for
the purposes of this section by order of the Secretary of
State, who shall not designate a body unless he is
satisfied that it is not established or conducted for profit.
(3) An order under this section shall be made by statutory
instrument which shall be subject to annulment in
pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
</quote>
</message quote>
>
> > Either PUT UP or SHUT tf UP.
>
> Yes, I'm sure "shouting" will make them all admit defeat. Your
surname isn't
> Hatrick by any chance? (groan)
>
All he has to do is cite the relevant clause, section (or sub
section) that allow people to make permanent copies, but he won't
because he can't...
:::Jerry::::
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
> :::Jerry:::: wrote:
<snip waffle>
> >
> > The words of someone who trained as a broadcast engineer but
can't
> > gain worthwhile employment by all accounts....
>
>
> I have not been trained as a broadcast engineer and I haven't
applied
> for jobs yet. In my 3 degrees I've studied mechanical, electrical
and
> electronic, and communications engineering, plus DSP and some
computer
> science and business studies courses.
>
Oh right, sorry, that must be your next degree (as the ever lasting
student) no doubt...
>
> > Face it Stave, you are so up your own rear end with your
technical
> > textbooks your are clueless as to what allows any commercial
radio to
> > exist.
>
>
> Not at all. I have a very good understanding of what goes on in the
> commercial world, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Big
> difference.
>
Seems like it, but just what experience have you though?...
MJ Ray
>
> "MJ Ray" <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote in message
> news:4332b6a6$0$67557$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> > ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
> > > So you can't cite a reference (in the Act) to prove that people
> are
> > > permitted to make their own permanent copies...
> >
> > I never claimed that.
>
> Yes you did, by saying that there was no time limit.
When challenging your entirely fictitious and misleading claim
of an "exact number of days" about 7, I wrote "There's no time
limit specified ..." and not that there's no time limit. Can
you cite a reference that I did otherwise?
Are you too addled to read more than four words into a sentence?
Did you threaten to overrule him?
:::Jerry::::
Learn to f*cking read moron, then cite were the copyright Act says
that you can make permanent copies, either put up or piss off.
MJ Ray
> > of an "exact number of days" about 7, I wrote "There's no time
> > limit specified ..." and not that there's no time limit. Can
> > you cite a reference that I did otherwise?
> >
> > Are you too addled to read more than four words into a sentence?
> >
> > Did you threaten to overrule him?
> >
>
> Learn to f*cking read moron, then cite were the copyright Act says
> that you can make permanent copies, either put up or piss off.
You learn to read. I never made that claim. You can't support your
wild claim of an exact time limit so you're dreaming that other
people made other claims. Put up or shut up.
To help you get started on reading:
1. were is a form of the verb to be;
2. where is a place, a location;
4. specified is when something is clearly and explicitly stated.
1. The Larch. The Larch.
Nick
>> > > > So you can't cite a reference (in the Act) to prove that
> people
>> > are
>> > > > permitted to make their own permanent copies...
>> > >
>> > > I never claimed that.
>> >
>> > Yes you did, by saying that there was no time limit.
>>
>> When challenging your entirely fictitious and misleading claim
>> of an "exact number of days" about 7, I wrote "There's no time
>> limit specified ..." and not that there's no time limit. Can
>> you cite a reference that I did otherwise?
>>
>> Are you too addled to read more than four words into a sentence?
>>
>> Did you threaten to overrule him?
>
> Learn to f*cking read moron, then cite were the copyright Act says
> that you can make permanent copies, either put up or piss off.
Since it was you that made the original claim, I'm afraid the onus is on you to
cite where a specific number of days is quoted.
Ray has never said that permanent copies are allowed - all he's done is asked
where you got your claimed set number of days from. Can you understand that?
It looks to me like you're avoiding simply admitting that you were wrong and
that there is no set number of days stated anywhere. All Ray wants is for you
either to quote the RELEVANT (got that?) section or admit defeat. It can't be
put any simpler than that.
And a tip: keeping control of your temper may have helped you maintain some
degree of credibility. Abusing people and acting like a child has done you no
favours.
:::Jerry::::
<snip trolling>
Oh just piss off moron.
:::Jerry::::
Oh just piss off, you are nothing but a trolling t***er.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Lost another argument, Jeremy old bean?
DAB sounds worse than FM
Yep, lost another argument. What a buffoon.
:::Jerry::::
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
> :::Jerry:::: wrote:
> > "MJ Ray" <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote in message
> > news:4333b825$0$32866$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> >
> > <snip trolling>
> >
> > Oh just piss off moron.
>
>
> Lost another argument, Jeremy old bean?
>
No I have not, I cited the Copyright Act and proved my point.
:::Jerry::::
> ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
> > Oh just piss off, you are nothing but a trolling t***er.
>
> to argue that black is white, your bizarre language use and abuse
> (piss unstarred, tosser starrred?) and, most importantly, your
> psychotic inability to ever ever ever let a horse rest in peace.
>
> I eagerly await your next claim of a zebra crossing on the M1.
>
...and I await your citation of the paragraphs sections or
sub-sections in the copyright Act that states that people can make
their own permanent copies of someone else's protected work...
Go on, cite the part of the Act that proves your point - either put
up or piss off.
:::Jerry::::
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
<snip>
>
> Yep, lost another argument. What a buffoon.
>
Stop talking about yourself.
Nick
I've not heard that sort of response since primary school. Immaturity, or
senility?
cue Jerry: "I know you are, but what am I then?" etc.
Nick
Well, look on the Internet and you'll see you're wrong. There, proof.
:::Jerry::::
LOL, so the law (Act) is incorrect, but the word of some halfwit on
the internet is correct - you utter moron... :~(
:::Jerry::::
> ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:433559ca$0$72031$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> > "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
> > news:DrbZe.1962$3q4...@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> Yep, lost another argument. What a buffoon.
> >
> > Stop talking about yourself.
>
> I've not heard that sort of response since primary school.
Immaturity
Sorry, I must try harder not to stoop to their and your level of
immaturity and ignorance in future.
Nick
Man, you are THICK. My point was, citing THE WHOLE THING isn't enough - you have
to show the exact point. I could claim anything and cite the whole internet as
my proof - but you'd expect me to provice a direct link to my proof, wouldn't
you? Ah well, I'm done with you, mister moron - into the killfile you go. Have a
nice day.
Nick
Brilliant. Truly brilliant. Nice grammar too. Anyway, I was just on my way to
killfile you, so... ker-PLONK!
:::Jerry::::
Go to your library and read the printed Act then, is that wrong to, I
have read the printed Act (as it applies to the media), you obviously
haven't.
You can cite a printed work, you can't cite a web page, you seem to
lack that vital understanding.
:::Jerry::::
<snip>
>
> Brilliant. Truly brilliant. Nice grammar too. Anyway, I was just on
my way to
> killfile you, so... ker-PLONK!
>
Yes, most ignoranus's do that after being found out as the ignorant
arse wipes they are.
Every Strangers Eyes
It's actually ignoramus, you ignoramus.
HTH
:::Jerry::::
> ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
> > ....and I await your citation of the paragraphs sections or
> > sub-sections in the copyright Act that states that people can
make
> > their own permanent copies of someone else's protected work...
>
Yes you did.
You claimed that there is an exact
> time-limit specified. You have still not cited any such limit.
Yes I have, the fact that you can't read (or more likely don't want
to read the relevant section) doesn't change the fact that only
organisations directly allowed by the Secutary of State can make
permanent recordings of copyrighted works.
>
> > Go on, cite the part of the Act that proves your point - either
put
> > up or piss off.
>
> I cited the time-shifting section and showed the absence of an
> exact time limit in the Act. However, that doesn't prove there
> isn't a time limit specified somewhere else. I merely show your
> poor conduct as strong evidence that your claim is false.
>
Yes you did cite that section but you also failed to read the very
next section that proves that you can't make permanent copies. Just
accept that you have failed to, and can't, cite any evidence that
would even suggest that you can make a permanent recording of a
copyrighted work.
Albert Grennock
"John" <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q610j199phmsqtlru...@4ax.com...
> The BBC is starting a trial at the end of this month where people will
> be able to access BBC programs from the previous 7 days and download
> them using a proprietary P2P network. The downloaded programs will be
> protected by DRM and will self-destruct (or be unplayable?) after 7
> days. It looks like the service will use a special media player (or
> will it be MS Media Player?) program which will presumably include the
> DRM technology.
>
> Does anyone know anything about the nature of the DRM to be used in
> this trial? Will it be possible to circumvent the DRM by using one of
> the many programs on the net that record streaming video? (although I
> think the programs will be downloaded in their entirety before being
> watched). How likely will it be that the protection will be hacked?
> Has the DRM in Microsoft's Media Player been hacked?
>
> I wonder if the inclusion of DRM is just a sop to be thrown at
> copyright holders. The BBC already knows that any program they
> broadcast can be recorded, digitised and pirated; and large numbers of
> such programs are already available on P2P networks. Implementing DRM
> technology seems a little pointless.
>
>
I expect some bright spark will invent a device for recording television
programs someday. However they could make the program widescreen
to discourage such unscruplous practices, in the unlikely event that such
a device could be devised.
>
>
> John