[LINK] DRM and DVB Standards

[rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au]

Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 01:20:36PM +1100, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>   
>> A little way back, I remarked that I believe one of the aims of digital 
>> TV is to provide a trojan by which DRM can be brought into the home.
>>
>> It seems the EFF agrees:
>> http://www.eff.org/IP/DVB/dvb_briefing_paper.php
>> [...]
>>
>> So; the consumer is merely a participant in a cargo cult. Dress up the 
>> technology as an "upgrade" and any sucker will buy anything, with a 
>> conga line of ... reviewers ... to say "it's wonderful, you get better 
>> pictures, the sound is crystal clear!" and so on.
>>
>> Some 'digital dividend'.
>>     
>
> hey richard, you know how when anyone says RFID is evil you say
> (paraphrased) "prove it, all those evil applications you mention are
> just hypothetical speculation". 
You need more practise at paraphrasing, or more care when trying to 
summarise other peoples' points of view. I never said any such thing; 
provide citations and don't verbal people, it's poor manners.
> well, the same applies here. only more
> so. at least with RFID there are actual demonstrable evil applications
> in existence right now. which is a lot more than you can say for
> DVB-paranoia.
>   
Yes to RFID - if we're talking about hostile tracking of active tags, 
compilation of invasive databases of individuals' purchases, the 
referral of all tag queries back to a US root server, etc. And evil 
applications for DRM exist now. They haven't been fully implemented in 
consumer video yet - but the industry has a strong move in that 
direction, which was my point.
> yes, a new version of DVB *could* be developed, with DRM embedded, and that
> *could* obsolete all the current DVB players.  but that has no bearing on 
> the *CURRENT*, *ALREADY IN EXISTENCE IN REAL, ACTUAL PRODUCTS* DVB.  aside
> from some future-DVB sharing the same name and the same basic purpose (digital
> video), they're unrelated.
>   
Don't shout. I'm deaf on the right, but I can read. The relationship is 
quite straightforward. The developers of the DVB standard are working on 
DRM. We already have an example of DRM making existing consumer 
electronics obsolete: HDMI, which if in the DVD player would decline to 
play back in high-definition without an HDMI interface on the TV.

This is partly conjectural, I agree. The standard may not be developed, 
or it may not be adopted. But the intention is there; and my argument 
was merely that the digitisation of the signal is an important enabler 
to the DRM; that is, without the digitised transmission, you can't apply 
digital DRM to the signal.

I would even argue that there is a similarity of intent between this 
sort of development and RFID. They are or can easily become anti-consumer.

And there is, in fact, a current DRM buried in the Digital TV world: 
DTCP (Digital Transmission Control Protection). So the relationship 
between DVB and DRM is not so hypothetical that it should be ignored.

RC
> i'm not going to lose any sleep over it. it's unlikely that the
> transition to even current DVB will ever actually be "done". some new
> DRM version of DVB that doesn't even exist yet isn't going to magically
> take over overnight.
>
> in any case, there'll be a hack published.  even if it only runs on linux and
> other operating systems without corporate DRM restrictions installed.  that'll
> be more incentive for Joe Sixpack to switch away from MS crapware...possibly
> the final nail in MS's coffin.
>
> oh yeah, any hack, whatever it is, will also be on cheap imported DVB
> players & recorders. probably not on name-brands players...they're a big
> enough target to sue. but cheap no-name chinese/korean/taiwaense stuff.
> press some obscure key combination (which will be widely published on
> web sites) to enable the hack...same as all the cheap DVD players had a
> hack to disable region coding.
>
> craig
>
>