“…it is critical to the good of society that clever people be allowed to publicly discuss the flaws they discover in security schemes. Experience has shown that quite often they must demonstrate a flaw in order for the designer of the scheme and/or 3rd parties to take the flaw seriously.”
The key word is “publicly” perhaps. If someone discovers a flaw in a security scheme then they could tell the designer privately. That way the flaw could be corrected. If the designer ignored them, then there might be a case to go public.
I discover a flaw in a bank’s lock. I would tell the bank. But I might not tell everyone – since that would mean that everyone would know how to break into the bank before the flaw was corrected.
There’s a section in Jaron Lanier’s book about hacking pacemakers and the morality of this kind of thing which seems relevant.
“…do you rip CDs?”
I have been known to copy CDs occasionally. What I haven’t done is either copy lots and lots of them and sell them on the local market, or put the files on a website for other people to share (and sell advertising on it).
Of course if a CD had copy protection on it I would not be able to copy it. And I’m too ignorant to know how to remove the copy protection measures. At which point I would probably swear a bit and give up. Copy protection is designed to stop ignoramuses like me – and so, it works.
As one of your career goals you stated: “I want to change the UK’s media, so that it becomes something we all do together, not something that is just pushed at passive consumers.”
When a consumer is subject to DRM restrictions set by the BBC, exactly how does that make said consumer less passive?
I said that when I was a little younger and more foolish, and before I’d got used to being beaten up all over the internet by people just because I was attempting to be a little more open and transparent that the norm.
I suppose it doesn’t make the consumer less passive, but there are other benefits. Like rights holders getting revenue from content which they can reinvest in more content for consumers.
why does iPlayer need to be treated any different to traditional over-the-air TV and radio?
Because the regulation is different, as laid out in the service licence. Traditional TV and radio don’t have windows of 7 days, for example.
When I said that the list of iPlayer-supported devices was a small number, I meant it. Compared to those which are technically capable of playing audio and video and could be made to work by somebody (that is, the corporation, or the manufacturer, or a third party — including the individual who bought the device), it’s a hilariously small proportion.
Here’s a list of devices and platforms on which you can get BBC iPlayer (I notice that Linux is included). It would be interesting to know how many licence fee payers in the UK get access to iPlayer through them. Not I suspect “a hillariously small proportion”.
How many mandarin and cantonese speakers does the BBC have btw? How many are sufficiently technical to be able to work with asian manufacturers?
Doesn’t matter since this is about UK public service.
If the BBC published its programmes in an open format, it would be more accessible – to me, at least,
Could this be done with the appropriate content restrictions in place?