Freeview HD Copy Protection Update
Some of you will have seen that suggested that the 麻豆官网首页入口 intends to make millions of Freeview PVRs obsolete by encrypting the service information data of the DVB stream. Some of you may also not have seen his later updates. There has been a lot of confusion around this post and that has resulted in a lot of conversations on Twitter and in the press. Some interesting posts can be seen onand , but we thought it would be only right for you to get the information straight from the horse's mouth.
First of all, as we have already said publicly, no existing Freeview boxes will be affected by this whatsoever. So don't think that your current Freeview box is suddenly going to go off because that's not the case.
Secondly, and this is the difficult bit, the 麻豆官网首页入口 is committed to ensuring that public service content remains free to air i.e. unencrypted. But a form of content management is required to enable us to launch Freeview HD to audiences in early 2010, so we have a simple choice; either we wait for a resolution to the copy protection debate or go ahead and launch Freeview HD and give UK audiences who can't or don't want to pay for subscription services a way to get HD.
The 麻豆官网首页入口 is tasked to offer content on as many different platforms as possible, and with the other PSB partners, want to deliver Freeview HD before the World Cup in 2010.
We've said before that we are specifically avoiding encryption of the broadcast signal to ensure that the public service content remains free to air. Content protection gives content producers comfort to give consumers early and free access to more content, without jeopardising future revenue streams.
Our preferred content management approach (Huffman's ) as stated in our letter to Ofcom describes how using this method will allow us to deliver Freeview HD on time, with the least disruption to manufacturers, and the least restriction to audiences. But it is important to stress that the technology places no restrictions whatsoever on copying standard definition content - nor recording and viewing any HD content stored on a PVR. Even in its most restrictive state it still allows one HD copy to be made to Blu-ray and unrestricted copies in SD (and for most content there will be no restriction whatsoever on the number of Blu-ray copies permitted).
We want to make our content as accessible as possible but we have to balance this with the amount of content we have the ability to show. We could have said no to the content owners' request and delayed the launch of Freeview HD, but we had to balance this with the fact that respecting the request for content protection should result in more programmes and hence a better viewing experience for our audiences.
We are confident that Freeview HD will be great, and you'll always be able to copy programmes for personal use. Most people will probably never know that any form of content management exists since they'll not be prevented from the normal home enjoyment or recording on PVRs, DVD and Blu-Ray recorders.
The only actions that may be prevented, and only for certain programmes, are retransmitting the content in HD over the internet or, in some cases, from making more than one digital copy of the highest-value content onto Blu-ray.
Graham Plumb is Head of Distribution Technology, 麻豆官网首页入口 FM&T
Comment number 1.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Mo McRoberts wrote:鈥淏ut a form of content management is required to enable us to launch Freeview HD to audiences in early 2010鈥
That鈥檚 a point which is being hotly debated. Please don鈥檛 post statements of opinion as though they were fact.
More to the point, encrypting the look-up tables is tantamount to encrypting the content, as the latter is relatively meaningless without the former. This is an attempt to wriggle out of the free-to-air obligations through a loophole, nothing more.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 22nd Sep 2009, The Phazer wrote:"That鈥檚 a point which is being hotly debated. Please don鈥檛 post statements of opinion as though they were fact."
What part of that would be an opinion?
Phazer
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Mo McRoberts wrote:鈥淲hat part of that would be an opinion?鈥
That content-management is required to launch Freeview HD services in early 2010, which would be the part I quoted. I鈥檓 not sure which part of that was difficult to follow.
Sure, the 麻豆官网首页入口 may not be able to launch _the services it鈥檚 currently in discussions with content rights-holders about launching_ in early 2010, but that鈥檚 quite different.
A two week consultation (not even published _as_ a consultation) is a ridiculous way to approach deciding whether it鈥檚 in the public鈥檚 interest to shun the spirit of the FTA obligations in return for getting some extra content, or whether those obligations should be maintained as they are and rights-holders can either play ball or take it elsewhere. Worse, stating it as a matter of fact when there鈥檚 much still to be decided, does the 麻豆官网首页入口 and the general public a huge disservice.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 22nd Sep 2009, The Phazer wrote:"Sure, the 麻豆官网首页入口 may not be able to launch _the services it鈥檚 currently in discussions with content rights-holders about launching_ in early 2010, but that鈥檚 quite different."
No it isn't. Creating an entirely seperate programme schedule from the existing satellite HD channel would require a seperate service licence from the 麻豆官网首页入口 Trust (since it'd be a new channel), which would take at least six months, and hence create a considerable delay.
It's a simple matter of fact.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Mo McRoberts wrote:鈥淐reating an entirely seperate programme schedule from the existing satellite HD channel would require a seperate service licence from the 麻豆官网首页入口 Trust (since it'd be a new channel)鈥
and yet, unless I missed a trick (鈥nd consultation document)鈥 麻豆官网首页入口 HD is broadcast today to a noticeably larger geographical footprint than Freeview HD will be incarnation without anything but a bit being toggled as its 鈥減rotection鈥 along with a promise from a few manufacturers that they鈥檒l faithfully honour the flag in return for sticking a logo on their kit. Hardly 鈥渃ontent management鈥 in any meaningful sense.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Alex wrote:So what does this mean in laymans terms? Will I be able to watch Freeview HD on my current HD TV with built in digital tuner?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 22nd Sep 2009, The Phazer wrote:So, you admit that you were wrong on the timescale then since you're trying to change the subject. Jolly good. Research has never been a strong point of the content protection is evil lobby.
Bluntly, the Freeview and Freesat reciever markets are two very different things.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Trev wrote:All drm systems are crackable. If copies can be made to blu-ray it is relativly easy as I suspect Slyfox would soon demonstrate. But the issue is whether it is worth the effort. It is debatable as to whether the terestrial transmissions can be called "HD" and viewers may get a better pictures with upscalled SD.
So what is happening to satellite transmisions.
The 麻豆官网首页入口 is playing a dangerous game here. Technially it would be fairly easy to turn such a system into full encryption not allowing any copying. This would make it fairly easy for the Government to sell off the 麻豆官网首页入口 and make it a subscription channel. According to Greg Dyke the main reason the 麻豆官网首页入口 has supported free to air was to make it impossible to for Government to get rid of the licence fee.
At the moment I am totally fed up with the 麻豆官网首页入口 because of the fantastic drop in picture and sound quaility on 麻豆官网首页入口 HD. There is very little original programming as well so I find I am now rairly watching 麻豆官网首页入口 and so I think the licence fee should be abolished.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Mo McRoberts wrote:鈥淪o, you admit that you were wrong on the timescale then since you're trying to change the subject.鈥
Are you reading different posts to the ones I鈥檓 writing or something?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Mo McRoberts wrote:鈥淪o what does this mean in laymans terms? Will I be able to watch Freeview HD on my current HD TV with built in digital tuner?鈥
Probably not. Most 鈥淗D ready鈥 TVs don鈥檛 include DVB-T2 receivers (though that鈥檚 not universally true). Even if yours did, the 麻豆官网首页入口 plans to encrypt the information which would make watching the 鈥渇ree to air鈥 programmes possible, so you鈥檇 have to buy a STB or new TV.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Mo McRoberts wrote:(following up on my own post)
鈥f you were one of the few people who happened to have a DVB-T2-capable receiver, given that the PSI/SI specification is still in draft, it鈥檚 likely that you鈥檇 be able to get a firmware update for it to handle the decoding.
Chances are, though, that you won鈥檛 have a T2-capable device anyway, and so will need an STB to receive Freeview HD services.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Trev wrote:In reply to Alexbennee you will need a new box. Terestrial HD uses DVB-T2 and H264 encoding. No current boxes or televisions support these standards.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 22nd Sep 2009, cragllo wrote:I honestly don't see any type of encryption or DRM stopping anyone determined enough to want to record something from doing so. If it's stopping people recording and putting online your trying to stop, there are endless means and ways of recording and those people in particular probably know more tricks than most.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 22nd Sep 2009, The Phazer wrote:"and yet, unless I missed a trick (鈥nd consultation document)鈥 麻豆官网首页入口 HD is broadcast today to a noticeably larger geographical footprint than Freeview HD will be incarnation without anything but a bit being toggled as its 鈥減rotection鈥 along with a promise from a few manufacturers that they鈥檒l faithfully honour the flag in return for sticking a logo on their kit. Hardly 鈥渃ontent management鈥 in any meaningful sense."
Having read this again this makes even less sense - Freesat also "encrypts" their EPG using Huffman and only gives the key out to licenced manufacturers. It's exactly the same.
"Are you reading different posts to the ones I鈥檓 writing or something?"
Certainly if you're writing different ones to those being posted on this website it would explain why you've changed arguement three times already in this thread.
First the timescale was "hotly debated".
Then the timescale was right but the content could be changed.
Then I pointed that was wrong and the timescale was right and the content couldn't be changed but Freesat already transmitted without this proposal.
And even that's not right! Want a fourth go at the point?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Mo McRoberts wrote:鈥淗aving read this again this makes even less sense - Freesat also "encrypts" their EPG using Huffman and only gives the key out to licenced manufacturers. It's exactly the same.鈥
Do you have a reference for this? The 麻豆官网首页入口鈥檚 own posts on this blog on the subject don鈥檛 indicate anything to this effect, and I can find no other reference to any specifications, license agreements, consultation documents, or other or links which suggest such things exist, stating that the SI on Freesat HD is encrypted in the same way as the 麻豆官网首页入口 is proposing Freeview HD be.
鈥淔irst the timescale was "hotly debated".
Then the timescale was right but the content could be changed.
Then I pointed that was wrong and the timescale was right and the content couldn't be changed but Freesat already transmitted without this proposal.鈥
Yes, in retrospect, I suppose it is quite easy to read changing viewpoints when you pick and choose which bits of sentences you want to pay attention to or make inferences which simply aren鈥檛 there.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Terence Eden wrote:How do I get access to my the decryption keys? I want to build my own FreeViewHD receiver.
Serious question - or are hobbyists and small manufacturers going to be excluded? Will I be able to watch FreeViewHD on MythTV?
You and I both know that "allows one HD copy to be made" is false. Once one copy can be made, so can another and another and another. There has never been a copy-protection scheme that hasn't been cracked.
We all know this - so why haven't the people who insist on "Content Protection" understood this simple point?
I'm in two minds... Go ahead, put on some weak copy-protection, give us a month to crack it and we can go back to normal. Or should we make a stand now against the thin end of the wedge?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Nick Reynolds wrote:Keep it civil please.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 22nd Sep 2009, KernowChris wrote:Thanks for this,
I note the use of 2010 in this article, does this mean that 02-Dec-2009 for Winter Hill is now no longer the launch date?
Now can we have the roll out details please?
Hopefully on Content Protection the 麻豆官网首页入口 (and other broadcasters too) will once HD is more commonplace be able to remove the restrictions over time. I really fancy being able to establish a many Terrabyte archive of programmes for reviewing at my own pace.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Sam Jacobs wrote:AlexBennee wrote: "So what does this mean in laymans terms? Will I be able to watch Freeview HD on my current HD TV with built in digital tuner?鈥
No, but you wouldn鈥檛 be able to do that anyway. In any case, that鈥檚 not the issue here.
The issue, or at least one of the big ones, is what this will mean for those wishing to implement Freeview HD receivers with open source software. Basically, an open source implementation will not be able to successfully, reliably and *automatically* tune to a Freeview HD channel. The video and audio streams that make up the Freeview HD channels will be in the clear, but the data which enables them to be associated with channels will be protected by the 鈥渓ookup tables鈥.
To watch a Freeview HD channel without the lookup tables (or an alternative source of SI-equivalent data), the view could, for example, be presented with the 鈥渆lementary streams鈥 in turn, choosing the video stream then the audio stream for the channel they want to watch. Viewing a recording would work in much the same way, but all ~36Mbit/sec (or around 16 gigabytes per hour) of the multiplex would need to be recorded. Idents and (ironically) DOGs will help here.
All in all, I believe that this represents an unacceptably substantial level of inconvenience to license fee paying, legitimate viewers.
Now lets consider those 鈥渢eams鈥 of people who take content鈥攆rom DVD, Blu-ray, broadcast, wherever鈥攁nd make it available on file sharing networks. These teams consist of dedicated, often highly skilled people鈥攖hose who are willing and able to bother with decrypting a Blu-ray disc, for example鈥攚ho are very unlikely to be particularly inconvenienced by a system that doesn鈥檛 even encrypt the audio and video streams! I don鈥檛 expect this to have any real impact on the availability of content on file sharing networks.
Finally, let鈥檚 look at the people who actually download and consume this content. Will they be at all inconvenienced by any of this? NOT ONE BIT鈥攖hey鈥檒l do what they鈥檝e always done, because the aforementioned 鈥渢eams鈥 will have already done all the hard work.
The only people this is really going to affect are license fee paying, legitimate viewers who just want a little bit of choice. Please explain to me how that鈥檚 right鈥
Sam
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 22nd Sep 2009, HD wrote:I agree with the previous posts - I thought some regions would be launching Freeview HD in late 2009? Also, if the launch of Freeview HD was delayed (as the article is suggesting might need to happen for a resolution to the copy protection debate), does that mean there is more chance that 1080p50 could be added to the Freeview HD spec and that all Freeview HD boxes released would be compatible with this?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Duellist wrote:"The only actions that may be prevented, and only for certain programmes, are retransmitting the content in HD over the internet or, in some cases, from making more than one digital copy of the highest-value content onto Blu-ray."
I was just curious about this. It sort of implies that posting 麻豆官网首页入口 programmes to the net won't be prevented. Now, is this an inevitable result of the open approach we hope the 麻豆官网首页入口 will take, or a tacit approval of the free dissemination of the 麻豆官网首页入口 programming?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Trev wrote:In reply to #20 I don't think freeview will ever support 1080p50 as freeview HD is specified to H264 Level 4.1. It would also require a higher bit rate.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 22nd Sep 2009, HD wrote:If it was delayed, they could alter the current specs to the ones they wanted to use. The project manager of the EBU says it will not require a higher bitrate than 1080i.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 23rd Sep 2009, Andrew wrote:@HD1080: 1080p50, or more specifically AVC 4.2, was ruled out by Ofcom for Freeview HD for the current generation of receivers back in February:
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 23rd Sep 2009, HD wrote:Because, to add it would have delayed the launch. Isn't this 麻豆官网首页入口 blog saying that waiting for a resolution to the copy protection debate may delay the launch of Freeview HD? If so, I'm all for delaying the launch if it means that when they launch Freeview HD it has the specs the originally intended/the best specs (AVC 4.2, 1080p50).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 23rd Sep 2009, Andrew wrote:@HD1080: The Wotsat blog post I posted the link to quotes Ofcom's reasoning:
'Ofcom said: "If AVC level 4.2 were to be adopted, manufacturers reported that they would then feel compelled to bring only 1080p50-compatible products to market. This would have the effect of delaying availability of DVB-T2 / MPEG-4 products by at least one year, possibly more, and would probably result in a material cost uplift.
"We now feel that while the setting of an AVC level of 4.2 at this point is desirable, its adoption would also represent a significant risk to the early launch of the DVB-T2 platform."'
It seems pretty clear to me that Ofcom has decided that the cost of delaying Freeview HD by a year (or more) and making the receivers considerably more expensive is not justified by the benefit of having 1080p50-capable Freeview HD receivers. Ofcom has made its decision, and what the 麻豆官网首页入口 does on copy protection won't affect it.
Also, I think you have misread the 麻豆官网首页入口 blog above. Graham Plumb is arguing that it was a choice between delaying the launch of Freeview HD or launching Freeview HD on schedule with a copy-protection hack (encrypting the look-up tables). He is clear that they have chosen the latter option to avoid delaying the launch (although he confusingly says that Freeview HD will launch in 2010, whereas before we had been given the date on this blog as 2 December 2009, which is when the Granada region completes its switch to digital: ).
Finally, I just wanted to say that I agree with all the previous commenters who said that this won't affect the availability of unauthorised content on the Internet at all; that it will however inconvenience (at the very least) those wanting to build their own Freeview HD tuners (especially in open-source software); and that it is a worrying development that the 麻豆官网首页入口 is putting the interests of content owners before the interests of the licence fee payers and the 麻豆官网首页入口's commitment to free-to-air television.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)
Comment number 27.
At 23rd Sep 2009, Captain Weirdness wrote:Just about any car can be stolen but this does not mean you should just leave the car unlocked with the keys in the ignition. The content providers require the 麻豆官网首页入口 to show intent to stop programmes being ripped off. Whether this is effective is nether here nor there unless you somehow manage to get the content providers to change their minds. They want some sort of protection in place or they will not let the program be shown. The 麻豆官网首页入口 can't say 'No we will just show it anyway without constraints'. They are not putting the interests of the content providers above their commitment to FTA television but they do HAVE to play within the rules laid down by the content providers or they would loose a lot of the programming people enjoy on their FTA television.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 27)
Comment number 28.
At 24th Sep 2009, Ed Lyons wrote:@pedgington
If your car is going to get stolen, whether you leave it unlocked or not, why bother locking it?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 28)
Comment number 29.
At 24th Sep 2009, Captain Weirdness wrote:"If your car is going to get stolen, whether you leave it unlocked or not, why bother locking it?"
Because, to extend the bad analogy, your insurance company would not pay up if you left it unlocked. Similarly we know that the content provider still want to see some protection in place, even if in reality that protection is useless. No lock, no insurance, no money. No protection, no content, no channel.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 29)
Comment number 30.
At 30th Sep 2009, Andy Davies wrote:OK this is the bit I don't get
"Secondly, and this is the difficult bit, the 麻豆官网首页入口 is committed to ensuring that public service content remains free to air i.e. unencrypted."
So if your have to encrypt something surely it's not public service content and so shouldn't be funded by the license fee.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 30)
Comment number 31.
At 1st Oct 2009, Aglet321 wrote:Isn't this just a repeat of the US broadcast flag debate from a few years ago ?
Why does the 麻豆官网首页入口 feel they have to accept DRM conditions from the content owners when those content owners have failed to get the same conditions accepted in other countries ?
Personally, I'm only concerned with the rights for open source hardware and software to continue receiving HD content. I've been a user of MythTV to record all my TV for the last few years (as I find it superior to commercially available PVRs).
If FreeviewHD is launched with DRM, will I be able to continue recording TV as I choose or will I be forced to buy a commercial PVR that's been blessed by the 麻豆官网首页入口 ?
In short, why does the 麻豆官网首页入口 or an American TV studio get to dictate the hardware and software I use to receive content I'm already paying for via the licence fee ?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 31)
Comment number 32.
At 1st Oct 2009, Andy Quested wrote:I think I threw this in last time the debate was going on - I always start from: who does this inconvenience?
If we get a programme in SD and transmit it on an SD channel, the rights holder gets paid (so do the artist, production companies, distribution companies...) and we can all record it on PVRs, DVDs (even VHS) etc.
If we are supplied the same programme in HD, we still transmit it on an SD channel and the rights holder gets paid (the same as above), we can still record it on PVRs, DVDs (even VHS) etc.... but we also want to transmit it on the HD Channel and there's the problem - we can't because the rights holders says you can use a PVR and make a single Blu Ray but no more - you can't show the HD image without some form of protection.
This is more a debate on quality protection not content protect - Difficult!
Andy
Complain about this comment (Comment number 32)
Comment number 33.
At 2nd Oct 2009, Tiggs wrote:@32
"I think I threw this in last time the debate was going on - I always start from: who does this inconvenience?"
Ummmm, anyone wanting to use MythTV or similar homebrew software-based PVR solutions. And people do have such systems hooked up to HD-capable screens. And will, therefore, want to be able to view/record the HD channels.
And, cards on the table, half the content's already out there. Non-UK stuff is online long before the 麻豆官网首页入口 gets around to broadcasting it. (When is Heroes coming to 麻豆官网首页入口? I've seen people with copies of S4 episodes already - not that i'm bothered myself, I lost interest in the show early S2)
And UK stuff is up shortly after broadcast because you can't stop everyone.
So, simple question. Will MythTV, and other software based PVRs and HTPCs, be able to record Freeview HD?
And if not, how long do you really think it'll be before someone submits a patch to get it to work?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 33)
Comment number 34.
At 11th Oct 2009, Titch wrote:I live in Dumfries and Galloway and we went totally digital earlier in the year. It was great, 130 + channels, (mixed radio and TV), most were complete rubbish, but there were some new easy to watch channels. Post the great 29th retune, (and the 30th and every day since), we have lost nearly ALL of them. We still get all the 麻豆官网首页入口 channels, sort of , if you count a pixilating picture as a channel, but as of yesterday October 09th, I counted 14 channels that you might watch, all the rest are gone.
We are pensioners, my husband is disabled and we don't go out much. So as a treat I had bought us two new digital TV's. Why... I ask myself. I'm getting almost exactly the same as I got pre digital. It stinks!!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 34)
Comment number 35.
At 9th Nov 2009, ferhat wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 35)
Comment number 36.
At 30th Mar 2010, U14402580 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 36)
Comment number 37.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 37)