Why add DRM? It is consistently bypassed. The BBC only needs it for iPlayer, but DRM there is pointless since everything on iPlayer was broadcast prior on unprotected terrestial TV.
Just use HTTPS, check referrers, prevent iframing and require passing a one-use token, locked to IP address, embedded in the page. That won't protect you from people stealing the content, sure. But at least it prevents bandwidth-stealing.
Blaming "the people selling content to the BBC" ignores the fact that the BBC is itself a content producer which, through BBC Worldwide, makes money from that content. Media companies want to restrict the availability of their products, and sadly the BBC management is acting no different from other companies in that respect.
I can see the logic in having socialized broadcasting that funds the creation and distribution of content. But what is the point if it is buying pre-existing commercial content?
Why not lower the fee/tax and let people buy content on the free market if the price is right?
if bbc is a big enough customer for such content ( and i believe the bbc is), it can dictate terms when buying such content. If it is not doing so, we can only assume corruption and collusion as reasons.
Is the BBC big enough to fend off ITV, C5 or Sky who don't have to worry about such issues? Remember Occam's Razor before jumping to conclusions about corruption...
Just use HTTPS, check referrers, prevent iframing and require passing a one-use token, locked to IP address, embedded in the page. That won't protect you from people stealing the content, sure. But at least it prevents bandwidth-stealing.