BBC Discusses PVR Software, Creative Archive Plans

Fidigit writes "You may have heard something about the BBC Internet Media Player {iMP) - a computer-based PVR for the BBC's TV and radio content, 'only... available to UK broadband users', which'll use P2P to shuttle content around between downloaders. Now we hear the iMP content will distributed using DRM, using Microsoft's DRM technology, 'in a break with the BBC's long-standing support of Real.'" The previously mentioned BBC Creative Archive is also discussed - apparently its content "...will be downloaded using a similar application, but will not be restricted by DRM, enabling people to re-edit it, or use it to make other programmes" - the content "will not be the complete BBC archive", but an example given of the initial content is "nature programmes".

Comments

Good Idea

[OPTiX_iNC]

If you have all the p2p people dowloading the legit programs, then they don't have time to download all the illegal stuff.

What about the jackass who decides to rename his entire porn collection to titles of children's shows?

Re:Good Idea

[Dogers]

I speak only out of logic here, not facts, so take this as you will..

Most P2P programs which break down files into chunks would have some sort of hash on the individual chunks, which are compared to others or a central tracker (a la bittorrent) - you cant rename file and try to share them, as your data will continually be corrupted to other users.

Of course, the more basic P2P apps, like the old gnutella (& co) simply worked off the name and downloaded from a single user, whereby renaming would let you download rubbish, thinking it was something else!

eMule/Donkey/whatever has a has for the files and even if the filenames the same, if the hash doesnt match, that users file is not lumped in with all the others that do match - its returned as an extra result in the search box.

Re:Good Idea

[hcintra]

P2P techs have been revolutionary, almost no one would claim the contrary, but they are nascent still. They lack features for the management of trust. Not that this has been lacking in developers imagination and efforts. Soulseek, for one, was developed around the concept of stablishing links between people of commom interest and letting this bound built trust among peers. But, while copyright legal infrastructure continues to trow its menacing clout on P2P, it will be almost impossible to built real trust, because we cannot establish real identity. If one cannot know how his is relating to, he cannot trust this individual. Open arenas as present P2p shemes presents are not competing for trust but for the hability to deliver efficient cover up against RIAA. (please forgive for redundancy or faults in style, as this is my first post around here)

The US needs something like this!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cuz between p2p networks, newsgroups, and torrents, I can't find any TV Shows :(

Grrrrrrr

[Realistic_Dragon]

The BBC is funded esentially by general taxation.

No problem with them limiting content to the UK (and turning it into a revenue service outside the UK, as they do with BBC North America) but WTF do they think they should be restricting content? We paid for it after all.

For example the BBC has not embraced Open Source, even for their own in house products, even under a non-commercial-use-only license. They are an organisation that could do such things free from commercial considerations, yet refuse to. It's infuriating.

They do the same thing with their programming - because of the way they are funded they could offer interesting and different programming _NOT_ reality crap that is available on the commercial channels anyway. And they even have adverts (self promotion) now - and at a louder volume in the same irritating commercial TV style.

Well, I don't care, I don't have a TV and I'll just carry on stealing the few things I want to watch anyway. Groening et al can contact the BBC for their royalties, since if they could find their ass with both hands I'd be getting the content (legally) from them instead.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Anonymous Coward]

>No problem with them limiting content to the UK (and turning it into a revenue >service outside the UK, as they do with BBC North America) but WTF do they think
>they should be restricting content? We paid for it after all.

They're restricting it to people who paid for it, dumbass. How would YOU do it?

Re:Grrrrrrr

[trash eighty]

so you pay the TV licence then even though you don't have a TV?

Re:Grrrrrrr

[ssmiley]

"because of the way they are funded they could offer interesting and different programming"

BBC 4 (television channel not BBC Radio 4) I would class that as quality programming.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Anonymous Coward]

Since it is a public service, it really should become much more open.

Embracing open source seems an obvious first step.

However after talking to the head of IT at BBC Manchester, I discovered that most of the techs are very much for open source solutions, but are restricted due to internal politics.

Essentially, the governors that control the BBC tend to nix any moves to open the BBC - and that filters down to BBCi (bbc online services).

Re:Grrrrrrr

[twilight30]

Hm. I sympathise with your line of thinking.

Nonetheless I think they'd be hard-pressed to use open source stuff on a widespread basis. Remember when they used to stream Radio One using ogg?

They refuse to do things free of commercial considerations because at the end of the day and notwithstanding their highblown language, they still have to think about the all-mighty pound.

'OK,' I hear you say, 'you sure about that?'
Yes, I'm sure.

Really sure.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. The beeb uses a lot of open source, and has even released some software as open src, including a nice little web ticketing system and a more portable PXE booter.

I do wish that people would do a little research before going off on bordering right-wing murdoch style rants, especially ones so ill-informed.

Also, be aware that there are several sources of technology advocacy within the BBC, the engineers in R+D at Kingswood Warren are a lot more open to open src software than the less technically astute creative types (who are brilliant in their own way, but not always best placed to make such decisions).

The BBC /HAS/ embraced open src for in-house products, and indeed some of the cutting-edge production tools used are based in part on Linux, even. It's just that if you ask people who don't really understand it, obviously they won't be able to give you an accurate picture, no matter how helpful they want to be; try asking one of the engineers to help with moody lighting and you'll get about as far :-)

Rather than merely writing off things you know nothing about, a little background research might be an idea.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[six809]

For example the BBC has not embraced Open Source, even for their own in house products, even under a non-commercial-use-only license.

Not embraced per se, but:

• WebTodo
• BETSIE

Re:Grrrrrrr

[NickFitz]

most of the techs are very much for open source solutions, but are restricted due to internal politics

A few years ago I did some work at TV Centre with BBC News Online. I was told, "The servers run Windows. The person responsible for this mistake has since been removed." :-)

Re:Grrrrrrr

[mr_tommy]

No - you dont. If you buy a TV to watch broadcasted television from BBC / ITV / SKY you must have a license, otherwise you are breaking the law. If you buy a TV simply to watch DVDs then you do not have to get a license. However, License inspectors would be highly sceptical if they were to find an aerial lying around....

Re:Grrrrrrr

[twilight30]

Ease up man.

He has to pay it, even if he doesn't have a TV, if he has a TV tuner card in his machine. Also, if he is a tenant in a flat with others, he has to pay the license, because the fee is allocated on 'separately occupied places'.

Have you seen the penalties? Up to a thousand quid? Christ.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

No problem with them limiting content to the UK (and turning it into a revenue service outside the UK, as they do with BBC North America) but WTF do they think they should be restricting content? We paid for it after all.

Presumably that means you are a UK citizen who might have seen the political games going on around the time of the initial announcement. The previous discussion was over the BBC article quoting the now ex-Director General, Greg Dyke.

I missed that discussion, but reading it now I found this comment predicting Greg's departure.

Politics, eh?

Re:Grrrrrrr

[eyeye]

I am wondering if you are a troll.
You dont pay for the BBC, you dont have a license.
Slashdot has had more than one article mentioning the beeb streaming OGG. I saw a couple of perl programming jobs there recently, combined with the comments from others I think you have just made this crap up - you are talking out of your arse.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Inda]

That's not true. My old landlord would be in the shit every other week in regards to watching VHS only on his TV. He had no aerial but the tuner was capable of picking up signals so he had to pay - so they kept telling him. He had the option to remove the tuner (not practical) or pay the tax.

He paid because the hassle was not worth the £100+ licence fee he might have saved.

It is a tax, not a service.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[gbjbaanb]

not true - if he has the capability to receive TV broadcasts, then he has to pay.

Every TV that I know of has a tuner in it, so, if you have a TV, you have to pay. Even if you *say* you never use it to watch broadcasts. This also applies to VCRs that have tuners in them.

I think you might get away with it if you have a plasma screen without the tuner box, but if you disconnect the aerial when the inspector comes round, I wouldn't fancy your chances.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[BenBenBen]

For example the BBC has not embraced Open Source, even for their own in house products, even under a non-commercial-use-only license. They are an organisation that could do such things free from commercial considerations, yet refuse to. It's infuriating.

There used to be a unit at Kingswood Warren that worked extensively using OSS. They even had a webcam here [No longer working] with a great big inflatable Tux in the background. Then the unit got sucked into the Beeb's commercial arm, moved elesewhere and were forced at gunpiont to use IIS. I cried for them, having had the same thing happen to me.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Echemus]

The license is on the tuner not on the viewing device.

For example, if you purchased a computer monitor and a DVD player and connected them to each other, you would not be required to own a TV license to use them together, as you do not have a method of viewing "television". If you bought a regular TV you would.

In another example, if you had a black and white television and a VCR, you would have to own a colour television license, as the VCR is able to receive colour television, even though you cannot view it.

A further example would be if you owned a TV Tuner card for your computer, irreguardless of whether it was physically in the computer or not you would be required to own a TV License.

In cases where you do not own a Television Tuner, you are usually invited to sign a document saying that you do not, otherwise the TV Licensing authority will assume you are dodging paying your TV License fee and fine you accordingly. (This agreement also has the clause, like the license, that you must inform them when you move)

Re:Grrrrrrr

[hughk]

Um no, unless you have an antenna, you can't receive a signal (unless the strength is such that a coat hanger will do). There have been court cases back to the original micros connected via a modulator to the antenna socket of a TV which were thrown out.

If you are using a TV in a room with an antenna connector on the wall, you may have a hard time proving your case - even if there is no apparent connection.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[16K Ram Pack]

That's not true. You only need a license once you connect it and start reciving TV signals. If the channels are tuned out, you are fine. Some people only use them for watching DVDs and videos and this has been ruled as fine.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[yoz]

They do the same thing with their programming - because of the way they are funded they could offer interesting and different programming _NOT_ reality crap that is available on the commercial channels anyway.

That's odd, because most of the stuff I see coming out of the BBC is interesting and different programming. Especially, as another poster said, BBC4.

But you wouldn't know that, since you don't have a TV.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[lga]

A licence is not needed to own a TV receiver. A licence is needed only for the reception of broadcast television signals. You could have a TV plugged into an ariel and tuned in, and not be in violation of the law as long as you never used it. However, the TV licencing authority (a private company run by Capita) will assume that you have and use a TV and will prosecute anyone who doesn't have a TV licence. They usually rely on a signed confession for this, and drop prosecutions against people who fight back in court. Have a look at the Abolish the TV licence campaign.

Steve.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[wfberg]

That's odd, because most of the stuff I see coming out of the BBC is interesting and different programming. Especially, as another poster said, BBC4.

But you wouldn't know that, since you don't have a TV.

I have a TV. I watch the BBC. But only 1 and 2, because that's all they deem fit for international distribution. BBC 4 is one of them digital thingamajiggies that you can't receive unless you get a digital tuner, or you have cable, and digital doesn't travel very far over the channel.

So yes, all the interesting stuff has moved to BBC 4, and 1&2 are horrid, drab, commercial channels with the same old shit on them as any other channel, and that's what they choose to export as well. Yay, BBC!

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Cerv]

I'd say that both of the fours are class.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Wolfbone]

No they don't stream OGG. The fact that they don't and that they only stream in Real format is a major letdown by the BBC. They promised it but never delivered. As for free software; they use it a lot but they also take a hypocritically antithetical stance on it in their reporting and with regard to their internal policy on it.

Not paying for the TV license is really an irrelevance - the BBC isn't just a TV station, it is radio too and more than that, it is part of the national infrastructure. You can't really regard it as though it was just another commercial TV station and as though the original poster was criticising something he didn't buy or want to buy anyway.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Alan Partridge]

Why not get a Sky Digital reciever, then?

Re:Grrrrrrr

[abe ferlman]

There was a great episode of the Young Ones about this. The telly inspector comes round and sees Vivian with a power cable hanging out of his mouth.

"You at the telly, didn't you?"

"It's a toaster!"

Then the inspector-man goes to the bathroom, shouting "I can wait! I know how... to wait!"

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Anonymous Coward]

Having been shown round the server rooms in BBC Television Centre, I know they make alot of use Linux.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[wfberg]

Why not get a Sky Digital reciever, then? ...and on that bombshell!

Observant readers will have noticed that I'm not located in the UK and digital channels don't make it across the channel, so my Belgian or Flushing-based friends aren't able to pick it up either.

If I want to watch BBC 4 programming (and as I've mentioned, anything good is instantly banished to the digital channels, there wasn't even anything good on 1&2 at Christmas ferchrissakes) it would have to be purchased from BBC Worldwide (the commercial/sublicensing dudes) by a Dutch channel - the BBC won't even allow cable operators to make any deals for digital channels (except BBC World, if that's even on freeview in the UK, I suspect you only get news24 terrestrially?)

(No, I don't pay your license fees, but I pay my cable operator, and they pay the BBC directly).

Re:Grrrrrrr

[turgid]

In cases where you do not own a Television Tuner, you are usually invited to sign a document saying that you do not, otherwise the TV Licensing authority will assume you are dodging paying your TV License fee and fine you accordingly. (This agreement also has the clause, like the license, that you must inform them when you move)

You sign the damned form and send it to them. A fortnight later you get a letter saying "thankyou for informing us that you do not need a TV license now sign the form to declare it formallly." It's the same damned form. You send it away.

A week later a nice lady from TV Licensing phones you and announces that you've sent a form saying you don't need a TV license. She asks you why. You tell her. She asks "are you sure?". You assure her. She asks whether you'd mind signing a form. She'll send you one in the post.

So you get the same form again, in the post, inviting you to sign.

You phone them to explain. They say "just fill it in and sign it anayway." You protest but reluctantly agree.

A month later a man from TV licensing knocks on your door when you're in the middle of cooking your dinner.

He says, "You don't have a TV license!" And grins.

"That's right," you reply cheerfully, "I don't have a TV set!"

"Really?" He says, "why's that?"

"Because there's nothing on it I wan't to watch and I'd rather spend the 100-odd pound license fee on bits for my computer.

He agrees, muttering about the lack of quality TV content and leaves.

So you move house. A week later they put up a billboard poster across the road saying "3 adresses in don't have TV licenses."

No, this is not Soviet Russia or 1984. This is late 1990/early 2000's England, UK etc.

Now tell me we're not going to hell in a hand basket.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[isorox]

No, only if you use said tuner to receive UK originated broadcasts. A TV with tuner that's not tuned in and doesn't have an ariel plugged in is perfectly fine with no TV License. If you own a TV tuner card then there is no need for a license, unless you use it to receive UK originated TV programs.

TVL can't fine you without evidence, nor do they have any right to enter your property without a search warrent served by the police.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true, people have been prosecuted for having a device capable of reception. You'd have to remove reception circuits.
Sorry no refs to hand :(

Re:Grrrrrrr

[lga]

Not true, people have been prosecuted for having a device capable of reception. You'd have to remove reception circuits.

It is true, read my other post on this subject. And get an ID.
Also note that prosecutions does not equal convictions. There are several cases at the moment going to the high court and the house of lords.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Anonymous Coward]

Both? All three are good for me: BBC 4, Channel 4 and E4 show some quality programming (Even if the stuff on E4 is mostly American shows, at least they're half decent shows like ER)

If you include Radio of course, there are four 4's.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[tolan-b]

Not true.

I haven't had a TV license for the last year. I rang them up, told them I would only be using my TV for consoles and DVDs and they said that was fine, that I should just detune the TV so that it wouldn't pick up any TV channels without retuning, even though the aerial would be unplugged.

So I did, no problem.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't stream Ogg because the BBC dept. which was going to do it got reorganised, the budget was cut and the guy who was doing it was reassigned to other work. Which was a crying shame, because Ogg streaming from the BBC was useful and cool.

As for "As for free software; they use it a lot but they also take a hypocritically antithetical stance on it in their reporting and with regard to their internal policy on it." I suggest you try reading some of the BBC News IT & Technology section some more, because almost every other story is ra-ra for Linux and OSS and critical of Microsoft. Their regular columnist is an a-typical Linux user who links to Slashdot in almost every story. They couldn't be much more pro-Open Source if they employed Roblimo to repost old Newsforge stories.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[peterpi]

There are so many horror stories about the license folks that I thought I'd post about my own non-horrific experience with them.

At the end of January my license ran out. Seeing as I don't have a TV any more, I phoned the license people and told them I don't need a license. They were very polite, apologied for any letters that might already be in the post to me, and I've not heard from them since.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a lot of hassle. When I discarded my TV I just ignored all the licence reminders (though when they send me prepaid envelopes I stuff them full of generic unaddressed junk mail and send them back) I've had no license since June 2002, I've been getting monthly threats that they'll be round to see me Real Soon Now since September 2002, and that they'll call round Any Moment Now since December 2002. As I live in a rural (=low-population density) fairly prosperous area (=few welfare mothers who don't know their rights) I don't expect a visit very soon. The "inspectors" are paid on results, and there are too many easier targets elsewhere,

Don't waste your time replying to those wankers.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Gossy]

Not true, people have been prosecuted for having a device capable of reception. You'd have to remove reception circuits.

Not quite there..

You can have a TV that is detuned (just clear the channel data), and not pluged into the aerial, and then you don't need a license. You need to contact them to let them know about this, and they claim they'll come and check on you.

This snippet of info is buried away somewhere on the TVL site. I wanted my TV for DVDs/PC/Xbox, so that's what I did. They've never actually come to check on me mind you..

Re:Grrrrrrr

[mdwh2]

When I was at University, you could see that they'd mass mailed harrassing letters to all the students, even though none of us had TVs. IIRC, the wording wasn't even along the lines of an informative "if you have a TV you need a licence", but more "We know you have a TV and must pay up for face prison!".

When later on I did have a TV, and a licence, they still sent me harrassing letters! Presumably this was a mistake in their database, but I'm not the only one I know that this has happened to.

I have no problem with the idea of a licence fee, but the way they go about enforcing it is out of order. I can't help feeling that if any normal company behaved in this manner (harrassment, false information, trying to extort money with fraudulent claims) it would be rather illegal.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Goth Biker Babe]

I had a big argument with a woman in Tescos when I bought my first DVD player a few years ago. She made me fill in one of those "you're buying TV reception equipment" forms even through it was a DVD *player*. I pointed out that it couldn't receive TV programs so what she was doing was wrong. She said but you need a TV to watch the DVDs. I said I didn't as it had Composite, S-Video and RGB outputs. She said it was company policy. I said it was bollocks. But as I already have a TV licence I filled it in anyway.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[dave420-2]

Because, if you're like the 99% of other people in Britain and pay your license, it's not an issue. I have a license, and pay by direct debit, so just a bit is paid every month.

It's worth every penny, that's for sure. Say what you want about the BBC, but there's no-one else better.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Clueless_Medic]

Maybe you ought to try here :

Astrosat [reseller] or any of the links here Google results for resellers in Europe

Re:Grrrrrrr

[turgid]

Unfortunately, in 2002, I had to get a TV (after over 6 years without) because NTHell broadband required one to operate the set top box through which it was provided. So I borrowed a TV and bought a license, paid for by direct debit.....

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Wolfbone]

You make it sound like the BBC would do it if they could and may do so in the future. I hope you're right because there are wider concerns surrounding the media formats used by the BBC than just the superior coolness, efficiency or usefulness of Ogg, important though those concerns undoubtedly are. Their inertia is very disappointing.

Sadly the good stuff in the Technology section, including Bill Thomson's stuff, does not seem to influence the rest of the BBC. Stephen Evans's recent vitriolic attack in the business section (aswell as the technology section) and his pro copyright extension piece on the Today prog. seem more representative of the general BBC attitude to me. What struck me as most significant was the absence of any coverage of last year's anti-software patent battles. Little if any attention is paid to this or related issues like the EUCD and the -now hot- IP enforcement directive - despite the ramifications for society as a whole rather than just the people who read the technology pages.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Alan Partridge]

This observant Sky subscriber seems rather more aware than you that the Astra Satellites are in SPACE, and that there are a great many people outside the UK who buy themselves a Sky receiver in the UK and then use it abroad.

Digital channels more than make it across the channel numb nuts, the do a whole 72000km journey before being watched even in the UK.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[BiggyP]

modded funny? from what i've just read they apear to be restricting the content to users of platforms supported by Microsoft's DRM software, so as well as paying the license fee, UK residents not running windows will need to pay for a windows license in order to use the service, does that sound reasonable to you, "dumbass"?

i wonder if i'll be able to get hold of paradise lost in space and old harry's game on the thing...

Re:Grrrrrrr

[aastanna]

Wow, being from Canada this discussion blows my mind!

You've got to wonder if they're spending all the revenue from the TV licences trying to enforce the policy.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[turgid]

You've got to wonder if they're spending all the revenue from the TV licences trying to enforce the policy.

Quite. I also wonder how much of it finds its way into the hands of the record companies i.e. via the Radio 1 playlist. That's right kids, we pay the record companies through this regressive (and virtually mandatory) tax to advertise thier shoddy wares (techno handbag disco music e.g. Kylie, Saints Alive, Pope Idle) at us.

Is there something fundamentally wrong here?

Re:Grrrrrrr

[alexpage]

I pay the TV license even though I don't have a TV. I feel it's a small price to pay for the organisation which brings me BBCi and BBC News Online, not to mention their excellent radio services.

There's a lot more to the BBC than just television.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC definitely seems to be one of the best content-producers in the world to voluntarily fund, if possible. I don't live in the UK, but I find that many of the best documentaries and series imported into my country are produced by the BBC. And from everything I hear, they are one of the most worthwile organizations to support in other ways, as well - including open source support.

However, in principle, I don't like the idea of people having to involuntarily fund an organization, no matter how good they are, and from other posts, it seems that UK citizens are fairly strongly pressured to fund the BBC in the form of TV licenses...which is sad. Any organization as excellent as the BBC should have an enthusiastic voluntary backing. If they had an international support organization or subscription service, I'd definitely be a member.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[jifl]

Either he or the people in the TV licensing Authority he talked to are lying. You do not need a TV license just because you have a tuner. This site describes it in detail, including a letter from the TVLA saying explicitly that you only need to detune your television and make sure it isn't connected to an aerial.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[jifl]

> A further example would be if you owned a TV Tuner
> card for your computer, irreguardless of whether
> it was physically in the computer or not you would
> be required to own a TV License.

No, this isn't true. See this site for details. It says: "It is ONLY the use FOR RECEIVING BROADCASTS that requires a licence."

If it is not connected to an aerial there is no issue. If it isn't even installed then doubly so.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Ed Avis]

Unfortunately in the world of television there are all sorts of restrictive contracts with actors and content providers, for example repeat fees, and making programmes freely distributable might infringe those. (I don't work in broadcasting but this seems fairly obvious.)

I think it would be best if the BBC could avoid getting tangled up in such contracts, but that would mean paying more up front, and I don't think the organization is ready to gear itself towards free content. They're still thinking of making shows for broadcast television and sticking any bits and pieces online afterwards if they can do so without paying much more.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[The Dark P]

That may be true, but if you look at the link in the Register story to new media age you would see that they intend to make it "platform neutral"

Re:Grrrrrrr

[wfberg]

This observant Sky subscriber seems rather more aware than you that the Astra Satellites are in SPACE, and that there are a great many people outside the UK who buy themselves a Sky receiver in the UK and then use it abroad.

Digital channels more than make it across the channel numb nuts, the do a whole 72000km journey before being watched even in the UK. ...and on that bombshell!

Is BBC4 on Astra? I was assuming you were on about terrestrial Sky digital, since you didn't mention the particulars (and expect everyone, everywhere to know the exact offerings of your broadcasters (we don't see 'em, I just done tole you) apparently). So let me check..
Why yes, BBC4 *IS* on satellite! conditional access satellite.. Which means I'll have to fraudulently obtain a chipcard that decodes it by pretending to be a UK resident in order to watch it..
As I've said before, the BBC won't even let cable operators carry the channel, preferring to pimp out programs one-by-one, and stiffing the rest of Europe with their crappy BBC1&2 programming..
Unless you get yourself some illegal access, of course. Well duh.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Alan Partridge]

They have this thing called the "internet" now

Apparently there's a wide range of information available on there somewhere

Must be awful to get stiffed by the BBC, in the UK we can';t get enough continental TV - all my friends watch it, too

If you don't like British TV, stop stealing it. If you DO like it - why not get yourself some sat gear and get watching. Seems to me that complaining about it on Slashdot is just about the only thing that WON'T help you out.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[wfberg]

They have this thing called the "internet" now

Apparently there's a wide range of information available on there somewhere

Also, communication between civil people. I guess you've not been exposed to that part.

Must be awful to get stiffed by the BBC, in the UK we can';t get enough continental TV - all my friends watch it, too

If you don't like British TV, stop stealing it. If you DO like it - why not get yourself some sat gear and get watching. Seems to me that complaining about it on Slashdot is just about the only thing that WON'T help you out.

I'm not stealing it, I can't watch it without stealing it, which is what I'd be doing if I would get satellite gear, which is what you're suggesting.
Twisting my words? Simply obtuse? Nope. Troll.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Alan Partridge]

Is "troll" supposed to be some kind of insult?

It'll be an Olympic sport before you know it.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[Spolster]

You're wouldn't really be stealing satellite since you'd still be paying for it, you would just be watching it at an address different to the one you gave when signing up.
When my dad was working in Slovenia for a year he enquired about the availabilty of Sky there and was encouraged (unofficially) to sign up in the UK and move the equipment out there by a Sky salesperson. They don't really care where you are watching from as long as you continue paying.

Re:Grrrrrrr

[bears]

Check out this page. You don't need a card to get the full set of BBC TV and Radio services, including all UK regionals and BBC7, my main reason for wanting a TiVO-for-Radio. Click on the EPG link for the full list.

Decent of all us licence fee payers to sub the rest of youse, eh? I note that Radio 4 is available in both LW and FM versions, so no more bloody moaning about missing You And Yours when the cricket's on from all you European mainland dwellers, please.

Re:Microsuck DRM...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the BBC doesn't need to keep a lot of its content secure because it has all been paid for by the license fee. In fact, the BBC is pretty much obliged to distribute its stuff as far as possible - we own it already!

At least this will stop people calling me a pirate

[MrRTFM]

Most of the people at work (non IT - all over 34yrs) look at me funny when I mention I listen to music on my PC - even though its ripped from CD's i purchased years ago. The notion that I have "MP3's" makes me look suspect (sheez - imagine if I had ripped everything to OGG !).

Downloadable Nature shows - now that's a Good Thing - Once the average person understands that "you are not a pirate if you download music/videos", then its a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

Crippled

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

apparently its content "...will be downloaded using a similar application, but will not be restricted by DRM, enabling people to re-edit it, or use it to make other programmes" - the content "will not be the complete BBC archive"

So in short: the BBC will put the "BBC Creative Archive" online, composed of BBC programs (well, slightly crippled, it's not all of the BBC's archive) using Microsoft's DRM technology (only a bit crippled, as the DRM part of the technology is disabled).

In short, it really seems the Beeb is crippled these days...

Re:Crippled

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you misread it. The BBC Archives will not use DRM, although they will apparently use Microsoft media codecs. There should be nothing to stop some enterprising bunch of people from transcoding these WMV files into something more useful (Such as MPEG2, MPEG4 or VP3/Theora), though.

Re:Crippled

[westlake]

There should be nothing to stop some enterprising bunch of people from transcoding these WMV files into something more useful (Such as MPEG2, MPEG4 or VP3/Theora), though.

and why would anyone want a degraded copy of a WMV when they can play the original, which looks pretty damn good? It isn't only the Beeb that is walking away from Real.

Re:Crippled

[Anonymous Coward]

Because playing back that WMV encoded file without using a legally licensed copy of Windows Media Player would be a license violation, and I don't have a legally licensed copy of Windows Media Player?

Besides which if the original is encoded at a high enough quality there is no reason why the transcoded version would be substantially worse. Any loss of quality is just the price I'll pay for not using Windows Media Player to view it.

At last! Digital quality BBC recordings..

[Channard]

Maybe leading to the creation a distributed archive of sorts, because the BBC doesn't exactly have a great track record of keeping its own archives, having wiped a great many programmes from its own archives. I can see it now - 'BBC appeals to PVR owners after short sightedly deleting every episode of Dr Who in archives'

Re:At last! Digital quality BBC recordings..

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

the BBC doesn't exactly have a great track record of keeping its own archives, having wiped a great many programmes from its own archives.

Well no, those records were naturally wiped out when Lister found them after his million-year stasis.

Re:At last! Digital quality BBC recordings..

[16K Ram Pack]

I think the main reason for wiping of programmes was to do with the cost of tapes. They were just so expensive in the 1960s/1970s, and at that time, people didn't have nostalgia about TV (partly because tons of good programmes were being made, rather than soaps/reality garbage that we get now).

Re:At last! Digital quality BBC recordings..

[pubjames]

Maybe leading to the creation a distributed archive of sorts, because the BBC doesn't exactly have a great track record of keeping its own archives,

For those Slashdotters that don't know, the BBC committed the outrageous sin of recording over much of the live shows of "Pete and Dud", Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. Peter Cook was nothing short of a comic genius, and for the BBC to have destroyed much of his work when he was at his peak is a crying shame.

(Note that other than this outrage, I think the BBC is great.)

Re:At last! Digital quality BBC recordings..

[1u3hr]

I think the main reason for wiping of programmes was to do with the cost of tapes.

I read recently (no citation, I'm afraid, but it was probably on a BBC site) that the old film (rather than video) was literally piled up in a building and was a fire risk. As the perceived value of these old programmes was zero, they were trashed (not reused). With most of the ephemera, they were right. They weren't to know the cult status some like Dr Who would achieve years later, and selling video was also years in the future (ironic for an SF show to suffer from the lack of thinking forward).

Re:At last! Digital quality BBC recordings..

[Gordonjcp]

Don't forget, though, that media was very, very expensive in those days, and the shows were considered ephemeral - look at topical humour like Drop The Dead Donkey, for instance. When shows are rebroadcast, a short (typically 15 seconds) summary of the news current around that episode's original air date is broadcast before it, so that audiences aren't left totally bewildered by the "in-jokes".

Re:At last! Digital quality BBC recordings..

[kabanossen]

the BBC doesn't exactly have a great track record of keeping its own archives, having wiped a great many programmes from its own archives.

That's what users can fix when the content's out there. Some will mirror all of it, some will create search interfaces, some will structure the shows in novel ways that give viewers a better experience and some will link shows together that have something in common. The programming will be handled by the viewers and eventually that'll create higher quality television. I think it's brilliant.

"Shuttle Content"

[rholliday]

So it will be P2P, but do you think they should use some sort of BitTorrent-esque protocol to make the process even easier?

You have to be kidding

[Walkiry]

So they use P2P so that I can send part of the contents to people with MY bandwidth (baid by me on a monthly basis), but comes with Digital Restrictions Management so that I cannot actually use it as I want?

Yeah right, that'll happen.

Re:You have to be kidding

[gbjbaanb]

I may be wrong here, but I understood the DRM aspect not to stop you from making copies etc, but to stop you placing non-BBC content, or edited content (eg. porn) on the system.

Last thing the BBC wants is for you to distribute kiddie porn and pretend that its the latest episode of some children's programme. With the 'DRM signing' you wouldn't be able to do that.

Re:You have to be kidding

[Alsee]

No, you don't need DRM to do that. An ordinary crypto signature would do.

The article specificlly says that content will be forcibly deleted (deactivated) after a certain number of days, one example they gave was 2 days. It takes crippled hardware and stupid DRM games to try to enforce a rule like that.

Of course like any DRM attempt, it is an inherently flawed goal. It is flat-out impossible to prevent an owner from opening his own property and directing it NOT to delete. They can merely make it inconvienent to do, and make it non-obvious to figure out how. But ultimately it is his property and they can't make it impossible.

-

Re:You have to be kidding

[sir_cello]

What's the problem? If you don't want to use the BBC content, don't run their P2P software. If you do, then realise that all the money and effort they've invested in the material is being given to you for the "small price" of having to reshare the content.

Re:You have to be kidding

[dave420-2]

Calm down! Crikey!

It's "Digital Rights Management", and if you don't want it, don't download it. Seriously. Anyway, DRM isn't a Bad Thing(tm) - it's giving people control of what they spent $millions making after they distribute it. Without it, many companies wouldn't share anything. Just because it can stop you doing something doesn't mean it's intrinsically bad.

Re:You have to be kidding

[Analysis Paralysis]

I beg to differ here.

DRM does not give the people control, it gives the publishers control. And that control can far exceed the basic restrictions needed for copyright enforcement and be used to deny "fair use" rights - and inflate publishers' profits. Certainly anything that artificially limits the longevity of media is a Bad Thing(tm) and the DRM used by most commercial music download sites does just that (by limiting transfers to other computers - so after a couple of PC replacements you can no longer play those tracks you paid for).

Without it, many companies wouldn't share anything.

Not so - companies require money, if they do not sell their content then they will go bankrupt. All this hoo-ha about not having content available is just empty threats by the record/film industry, trying to manufacture arguments for copyright legislation. Ultimately this could be cured by adding a "use it or lose it" provision into law - companies that fail to release content within a certain time forfeit all rights to it. This would ensure the preservation and expansion of our cultural heritage far more than any DRM.

Re:You have to be kidding

[FLEB]

-- companies that fail to release content within a certain time forfeit all rights to it. --

What if I'm an artist who doesn't *want* to release my content to the entire world. Perhaps it's some memento of an event or a small, personal release for only a select few. Should my rights to protect my creation be stripped by the fact that I want to protect my rights?

Remember children...

[turgid]

If you don't use DRM your computer is insecure and is at risk from viruses, trojans, hackers, paedophiles, terrorists and illegal copyright violators.

Re:Remember children...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't use DRM your computer is insecure and is at risk from viruses, trojans, hackers, paedophiles, terrorists and illegal copyright violators.

Oh Crap! I knew that funny guy at the LUG meeting that talked me into installing linux was evil.... Yegads! there isn't even a virus scanner on this thing!!! I'm betting I am broadcasting my IP address!!!!

AHHHHHHHHHHH!

Re:Remember children...

[cfuse]

If you don't use DRM your computer is insecure and is at risk from viruses, trojans, hackers, paedophiles, terrorists and illegal copyright violators.

Don't be silly, it's only at risk of those things after a patch is released by Microsoft.

offcourse

[selderrr]

but an example given of the initial content is "nature programmes".

great ! More pr0n... Now who said the BBC is conservative ?

Re:offcourse

[rholliday]

When I read "nature programmes," the first thing I thought of was Coupling, Season 2, Episode 2, where he's talking about the BBC trying to embarass him with nudity. :)

oddly

[segment]

I was looking at some comp magazine, PC Weekly or one of those mags, can't recall, but I remember seeing like a two page fold out - which would have equaled 4 pages - with an MS advertising touting how easy it is for you to share music. "Microsoft where do you want to go after you by our product, rip mp3's, share them, and then get arrested because you didn't know it was illegal. But don't let that stop you from buying our products. After all clarifying the legalities of music sharing is not our job" would be too long a slogan I guess.

Nevertheless, judging from all types of RIAA gestapo tactics, it's surprising they haven't gone after companies like MS, you know the big boys, who are promoting "sharing music" without clarifying (there was no disclaimer that I can recall) the legalities of legal and non legal music swapping.

So many channels so little time.

[Moderation abuser]

Any one else noticed that the quality of productions on the BBC has fallen off drastically the last couple of years? Coincided with the explosion in the numbers of channels.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[Anonymous Coward]

ugh.
Yes things were always better back in the good 'ole days.

I agree the signal to noise ratio is lower (?higher?) but the BBCs making just as much good stuff as it used to. You forget that though the BBC has made many GREAT shows over the years they've always been surrounded by whatever commercial crap is cheap to make and pulls in the viewers.

get some perspective please.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[WIAKywbfatw]

Yeah, because quality programmes such as Dead Ringers, Little Britain and Nighty Night, all three of which are new shows that the BBC has come up with in the last couple of years are just figments of my imagination.

At least two of those three debuted on BBC3, one of those new digital channels, and it's hard to imagine that all three would have been made if the BBC still had only two channels.

So that's three great new shows and those only touch one genre (comedy). I think perhaps you're writing off the BBC's ability to foster and develop talent a little too quickly.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[BenjyD]

I think the BBC's main problems are its complete inability to produce funny comedy (Coupling, My Family, Mad About Alice make me physically ill), unimaginative and dull drama output, its complete lack of new ideas and a general reliance on cheap TV (DIY, gardening etc).
Not exactly worth 114GBP/year.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[BenjyD]

Both Dead Ringers and Little Britain started out on Radio 4, not TV. The main problem with the Dead Ringers transition was that the impressionists look absolutely nothing like the actual people - after all, it doesn't matter on radio.
Radio 4 seems to be a last bastion of quality on the BBC.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[turgid]

The best things about the BBC are BBC2 and Radio 4. Everything else (perhaps excluding BBC4 and Radio 3) are drivel, and in my opinion should not be funded by the television license.

BBC TV news has become very "dumbed down" in recent years and very tabloid. The news casters often have a very poor grasp of the language, unlike days of old.

BBC science programmes have been subject to dumbing down recently. I watched a Horizon a few weeks ago. It was about something nominally interesting. However, it was so bad I can't even remember what it was about (something to do with space). It was all visual and audio special effects, minimalist content and very slow narration. The picture kept flashing and changing quickly. There was very little in the way of information.

Channel 4 (and even Channel 5) have some better documentaries, good comedy, good science programmes etc.

I really object to the current BBC set-up. It is not value for money. It should not try to be all things to all people. It should concentrate on providing a solid foundation of news, education and information, and seek to provide quality entertainment where commercial broadcasting is unable.

But who cares what I think? I went for 6 years without a TV. And I had to fend of the license Gestapo with a poopy stick.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[pubjames]

Any one else noticed that the quality of productions on the BBC has fallen off drastically the last couple of years?

No, not really. Memory has the effect of compressing things from the past together (like how you only remember all the good songs from the last decade, and not all the crap), so it probably just seems that way.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[16K Ram Pack]

They'd mainly debuted on BBC3 to justify it's existence IMO.

There is plenty of filler and repeat TV on BBC1 and BBC2, and these could have been debuted there first.

BBC4 is sometimes good, though, with programmes like The DVD Collection and some good foreign films (although BBC2 used to be the place for things like this).

Re:So many channels so little time.

[FireFury03]

I do wonder why I have to pay 114ukp a year for 2 channels, when I pay Sky about 215ukp per year for over 60 subscription channels. Yes, I know those subscription channels are also supported by adverts, but I don't really mind that since the BBC has almost as many adverts (advertising themselves) and have much poorer content.

And before you start saying there are more than 2 BBC channels, you are indeed right, but they presumably can't be paid for by the licence fee since a lot of people can't receive the extra channels but are still forced to pay the full fee.

I think the BBC's problem is that they're not really answerable to anyonw since everyone is force to pay them whether they want to watch or not. If a subscription channel plays crap then noone will bother subscribing. If a advertisment-supported channel plays crap then noone watches and the advertisers won't pay. If the BBC play crap then everyone's still forced to pay them.

IMHO the ideal subscription model for TV would be to have 2 methods for paying for subscription channels (including BBC channels): Either pay a monthly subscription if you watch quite a lot on that channel, or if you only watch 1 or 2 progs a week on that channel then do pay per view for just those shows. With CATV and satellite the technology is already there to allow this.

I think there is probably something to be said for splitting TV production and TV broadcasting into separate companies...

</rant>

Re:So many channels so little time.

[FireFury03]

I miss Tomorrow's World (specifically from the 1990 era).

I agree entirely about the serious science programs like Horizon being very dumbed down and non-informational. I think the only good science series I've seen on the beeb in recent years is Rough Science (and that isn't really a serious science show)

Re:So many channels so little time.

[1u3hr]

I think the BBC's main problems are its complete inability to produce funny comedy

The Office?

Re:So many channels so little time.

[16K Ram Pack]

There is too much crap on the BBC but there's also a lot of good things that are on a parallel or above anything in the world.

I can't stand that we have Eastenders 4 times a week, or that there is some lame comedy, but there's also Have I Got News For You, Little Britain, The Office, Buzzcocks, CBeebies, Newsnight, Mind Games, Restoration,

Then, add in the best radio services in the world. Does anyone else do anything close to what Radio 3 and 4 do anywhere?

Re:So many channels so little time.

[Ian Bell]

All BBC channels, Radio and Television, are funded by the Licence Fee, except for the World Service which is paid for by a grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and some of the BBC's other international channels.
The logic that because some people cannot receive the channels, but are forced to pay the full fee, that only BBC1 and BBC2 are funded by the fee is false.
My TV doesn't receive Teletext, but my license fee still partially pays for BBC Teletext. If I bought a Teletext TV, then I would be able to receive Teletext. If you don't have facilities to recieve Digital TV, you can't get the extra channels. Buy a digital receiver, and you can.

Sky's model is quite similar to the BBC's if you think about it. The only channels I want on Sky are Sky One, E4, and Paramount. But to get these I have to pay Sky GBP216 per year for a package containing many channels I don't want or watch. (ie Sky charge me GBP216 p.a. for 4 channels)
So if a subscription channel plays crap, then people will bother to subscribe, because they don't have a choice if they want to get another channel in the same package.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[Alan Partridge]

I couldn't agree more. In fact, not only is Dead Ringers Dead unfunny on TV, but Little Britain suffers greatly in translation too. Come to think of it, has there EVER been a comedy transplant from R4 to TV that has benefitted from the change.

TV Knowing Me, Knowing You had it's moments, but the R4 version was still better.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[vilms]

Yeah, what about that one that had Tony Slattery on it? Ummmm, wotsisface in the chair... you know, the balding barrister fella.
I thought that was a reasonable tranlation from the wireless.

And wasn't Q.I. a radio show?

Re:So many channels so little time.

[Alan Partridge]

That is ridiculous. Sky costs a minmum of 18.50UKP per month now, and offers - essentially - Sky One, UKGold and Paramount for that outlay, none of which have any native original programming of any quality. No matter how bad you think the BBCs output is, surely it's better than the ZERO output you get from the satellite channels?

And, 2 channels from the BBC?

TV channels: BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, BBC News 24, BBC Parliament, CBBC, CBeebies.

Radio channels: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 Live, R6 Music, BBC7, 1Xtra, Asian network and BBC World Service.

In addition to all of this stuff that you CAN receive as a Sky Digital subscriber, there are the BBCs various local radio and TV programmes and their huge WWW site.

So stop writing such unadulterated bollocks.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[Quaryon]

You call Little Britain "quality"?! I think that's where the discrepancy between the two views comes from :p

Q.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[FireFury03]

Buy a digital receiver, and you can.

Wrong - a lot of people are in areas which _cannot_ get terrestrial TV, and if the trees behind my house were about a metre taller I wouldn't be able to get satellite either. People should be able to pay for what they want instead of being forced to pay for something they don't want.

You're right that Sky's model is similar - except that if I want to watch _no_ channels in the package I am not forced to pay. And if sky can give me so many channels for that price, why do the BBC give me so few channels?

Re:So many channels so little time.

[BenjyD]

OK, I'll give you that one. Of course, it's not on any more, hasn't been replaced, and Ricky Gervais is now helping on the US version.
The Fast Show quality dropped and is gone, the last few Alan Partridge series were awful. Only Fools and Horses died a horrible, unfunny death. The last series of Red Dwarf had about three laughs in the entire series. The talent seems to be leaching out of the BBC. Even the Simpsons episodes they show are old ones that have been on a million times.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[FireFury03]

Wrong. I have the familly pack from Sky - if you think that
this list has only 3 channels on it you need to go back to school.

The point is that I watch about 1 show on BBC1 - if I had a choice about paying the licence fee I wouldn't pay any of it and would miss that show because it isn't worth 114 quid a year. I watch none of the other BBC channels and having seen the schedules for BBC3 and BBC4 I wonder who _would_ watch that crap. I don't listen to the radio channels, and whilest I do use the news section of the BBC website, I would be happy to pay a small subscription for that privalidge (or look at other commercial sites that are free anyway).

Shouldn't I have the choice about what I want to subscribe to? Wouldn't you complain if you were required to pay BT for a phone line because you had a phone, even though the phone was connected directly to some other company, never touched the BT network and you never used BT?

Re:So many channels so little time.

[CausticWindow]

Dude, Coupling is hilarious. It's a European version of Friends. No need to be an uptight American to enjoy the situations there.

Btw., NBC has bought the rights for an American watered down version of Coupling which better fits American morality. It's going to replace Friends.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[Anonymous Coward]

The League of Gentlemen?

Re:So many channels so little time.

[Wirr]

With the risk of sounding like a dork - I actually really like the home improvement stuff the BBC does.

Sunday home and gardens ist really great.

And The Million Pound Property Experiment was great.

And the Cookery shows are excelent! Saturdays kitchen, Ever wondered about food, Gary Rhodes and Delia's

Re:So many channels so little time.

[s-meister]

Come to think of it, has there EVER been a comedy transplant from R4 to TV that has benefitted from the change.

How quickly we forget "The League Of Gentlemen"...

Re:So many channels so little time.

[16K Ram Pack]

For your information, Million Pound Property Experiment was a bit distorted. The houses overlapped each other.

Some of the cookery is good. Rick Stein, Delia and Saturday Kitchen are good. It's some of the things like Ready Steady Cook which are garbage.

I think that what they do with home stuff is OK. I just get a bit annoyed that sometimes as many as 2 or 3 of the main 5 channels have something to do with cookery, house moving or gardening.

It's basically cheap TV - making something like a home improvement show requires a presenter, small crew, a few researchers and some DIY experts. Compare that with making something like Middlemarch where you need a large crew, locations hiring, costume designers, makeup people and actors. It also counts towards 'original programming' percentages.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[Alan Partridge]

I preferred it on the radio - they really are an ugly bunch of bastards.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[metamatic]

"The Day Today" vs "On The Hour"? They were able to expand the show to a whole new level.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Wow. Looks like your trolling has caught up w/ you, Eurotrash. Pretty soon you'll be moderated out of existence.

Re:So many channels so little time.

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Once again, I'm an atheist who doesn't believe that crap. You might want to focus your energy on actually doing something in the world, not bitching about America.

quick fix

[segment]

ipf/ipchain/$* or chmod it. I don't see what the big deal is.

Merchandising

[jdifool]

I know it's offtopic, but, it deserved to be asked.

WTF are all these ads ?
(I mean, how come that /. needs more ads right now, when nothing could let think that there are some financial issues ?)

Regards,
jdif

Re:Merchandising

[Anonymous Coward]

These ads are the fault of the CMS (culture, media and sport ministry) and their insistence that the BBC make more of it's money commercially.

There's a reason why the murdoch-owned media back Tony Blair, Blair is furthering Murchdoch's aims to 0wn the media, Murchdoch is helping Blair's aims by trying to deliver a submissive and complaint media.

It's real-world politics, I'm afraid, maybe outside the scope of discussion of your average slashdotter :-/

Yay for DRM!

[skinfitz]

This is very very good news - lets hope that DRM is used to only allow TV License owners to experience the content thus causing we few people who do not need a TV License constantly receiving threatening letters.

Re:Yay for DRM!

[FireFury03]

About 4 years ago, after just moving house, I didn't have a TV for about 2 months - the TV Licencing Authority took to sending me letters with "YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW" in bold red letters across the front of the envelope because I didn't have a TV licence (since I had no TV). I'd love to see what would've happened if I had taken them to court for libel.

Re:Yay for DRM!

[turgid]

*Puts on tinfoil helmet*

I think there's un unsaid law or implication in British society that everyone must watch the TV, or how else would we be pacified. It's how we're controlled and told what to do and think. Our culture is prescribed, right the way up from the most trashy Radio 1 techno handbag disco music and TV soap operas through to serious politics , news and documentaries. The license fee is how this is funded.

Not to own or operate a TV set is subversive, a symptom of induviduality, free though, danger to the Establishment. You probably have latend deviant sociopathic terrorist tendencies. You may upset the apple cart.

Most people capitulate eventually (such as I) and get a TV. "If I must have the damned license (for a quiet life) I might as well get a TV set." Before you know it, if you're not careful, you're hooked.

*Removes tinfoil helmet and looks at real world outside window*

In English at school I studied a short story about a TV-sedated society in the future. I wrote about it in an exam. I've forgotten what it was called.

Re:Microsuck DRM...

[Alephcat]

This distribution of programmes is part of the BBC's public service agreement as all BBC content is supposed to be free, as in no money required and as in to be used by other people.

Re:Microsuck DRM...

[Angostura]

You over simplify; the BBC archive os beset by complex ownership issues; especially the older stuff. In many cases, the actors, writers, directors have rights involving repeat showing fees etc. Much kudos to the BBC to attempt to find a way through these problems. ... Yes the new contracts have this sorted out.

Good and bad

[claudebbg]

I'm a bit jealous because it won't be available outside UK (well, I understand the legal mess it would be, but BBC is a real reference outside UK, and I'd be glad to watch legally some of their programs).
The good point is, at last, somebody big understood what P2P could bring technically. As they are close friends with Real and its network, it means a lot for the future if this experiment works fine.
The really bad point is this MsDRM. It means no standard and even no cross-platform; it means no freedom for the player (I don't really appreciate WMPlayer and usually watch wm file using VLC which brings me many more functions I like).
When will big company understand that opening their offer to as many customers/users as possible is a good thing? If you've got a shop, you try to make it accessible to anybody, with or without a car, with or without disabilities; you try to be opened as much as you can!
Why the technical options are not the same (and it's so easier with the Internet and the standards than with real world places)?
Why consider all the Internet users/customers as thiefs? Imagine a shop where you are systematically checked walking out, will you come back?
Why can a UK citizen rip/mix/burn as much BBC programs as he want from his TV plug but not from his IP plug?
I hope they will change their mind with the time (for example after the experiment!) but I know they have also to face the rights owners (producers, agencies) who are certainly a bit less interested in what final users experience

Re:Good and bad

[houghi]

If you've got a shop, you try to make it accessible to anybody, with or without a car, with or without disabilities; you try to be opened as much as you can!

I beg to differ. There are enough stores that are not easily reachable by people without cars or by disabled people. The difference is that witch shops you still have a choice.

A company will try to find a way to as accessible to as many people as possible for as low a price as they can get. At a certain point the cost to gain an other customer will be more then the profit you will get. MS stuff will bring them more customers then they would get with REAL or any other format. At least that is the way they think and that is a direct result of the fact that MS is extremely dominant.

Re:Good and bad

[FireFury03]

AFAIK, a UK citizen cannot rip/mix/burn BBC progs. The UK law allows for time shifting recordings, but not for storing them for repeated viewing. ISTR you're not allowed to keep a recording for over 28 days (or is it a week?). Of course noone pays any attention to the law, but it is still there.

Re:Good and bad

[dave420-2]

It's the BBC. If they released their archive without DRM, they'd just be throwing it into the public domain, with no claim of ownership.

It's incredibly immature to get huffy about this point - they're protecting something the british taxpayer has spent millions on.

Also, DRM serves to sign the content, so no-one distributes anything harmfull under the BBC brand... think about that consequence - pretty important.

Congrats!

[Duderstadt]

You live in a social democracy.

Is it not wonderful that your government has found a way to tax you several times for the same service? And at the same time, defy all attempts at spending the cash they have made off with in a common sense manner?

Not to worry though, we here in the former colonies are in the same position as you are!

First, our Federal government trims our paychecks with the income tax. Then, it takes another good bit out via a host of payroll taxes.

Next, the feds reduce the buying power of what little we have left to us, artfully (underhandedly) accomplished through levies, taxes, fees, and inflationary subsidies on virtually every good or service available.

And finally, the state and local governments get a turn... hey, I was wondering why I'm always broke.

P2P: Media killer app after TV and Radio

[AmVidia HQ]

This article is revealing of a future I envision, where P2P is not seen as a pirate's haven, but a tool for highly efficient delivery and marketing of digital media. I don't need to explain this to ./ers, but imagine set-top PC's (or Media Centers as MS likes to call them) communicating and sharing music / movies / TV eps with each other, like how you send IM / email messages to friends and family.

The lines between fair use and "piracy" would be thin in this scenario, but I don't think most people want to steal if you give them a choice that is more convenient and higher service quality than the pirate networks can offer.

And BitTorrent will be the perfect use for this: legitimate content distribution, which is exactly what it was designed for. I have some plans for projects toward this vision, I will be putting up a website that outline my ideas but I just don't have time for it yet.

Re:P2P: Media killer app after TV and Radio

[AmVidia HQ]

I forgot to mention DRM.

I don't think people would care about it as long as it isn't overly restricting or inconvenient. Not too many people complain about Apple's DRM due to this reason. Do the contrary, and a lot more people will be using the pirate networks. On the internet, Quality of service is more important than restrictions that will eventually be cracked.

When fair use is outlawed, outlaws will practice more than just fair use.

I already have all the DRM'd BBC content I need

[Anonymous Coward]

...meaning the 14 DVD's of The Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus. If we're lucky, all future incarnations of DRM will either flop in the marketplace, or become the joke that is now CSS...

Re:I already have all the DRM'd BBC content I need

[FireFury03]

IMHO all DRM is ultimately flawed and can't seriously come to much - at some point the data has to be decrypted, and this has to happen in the user's home equipment. So long as the user has the equipment they can hack it to shreads to see how it works. And of course, where personal computers things are even worse since releasing the decoder as open source would render it useless so it suddenly becomes illegal to play the media under Linux or include the ability to play the media in free opensource software such as mplayer.

BBC and Redmond

[martin]

There's a whole internal discussion going on inside the BBC about them being a MS house.

Remember when PalmOS devices where 'banned' from the network, they closed down Kingswood Warren and moved everyone to Maidenhead to be with the MS based content team, stopped the OGG streams...

Of course all the computers you see on live telly (non-current news items with phone-ins) always have those ever so pretty Apples rather than ugly PC's!!!

Re:BBC and Redmond

[Alan Partridge]

Not any more - the whole of News 24 seems to been equipped with brand-new Dell laptops, even though they're STILL editing their fucking News content on BetaSP!!

Re:BBC and Redmond

[martin]

Like I said - non news..

watchdog et al..

Re:BBC and Redmond

[dave420-2]

Score:5,Big Hairy Bollocks

This is what I don't get about Slashdot... how a comment so based in fiction and opinion can be modded as "interesting".

The BBC is a humongous corporation. They do EVERYTHING from web-hosting, R&D, TV/film/radio production, digital and analogue broadcasting. You name something to do with computers, and there'll be a team at the BBC talking about it, at least. To say every single BBC employee is a MS-zealot just shows your ignorance about the corporation. "Pretty Apples"?? What are you on? Have you looked at a modern PC recently? Obviously not... Again, ignorance.

The OGG streams were shut down because no-one used them. OGG users are in the minority, by a large margin. Providing every obscure format for every techno-zealot of every description would drive them into the ground. We get the formats that matter, which is good enough.

When you step away from the mainstream, you lose all right to complain no-one's catering for you. That's life.

Re:BBC and Redmond

[martin]

It's called choice...

I can choose to watch the BBC or ITV/Ch4/5 or indeed sky.

If I choose to run a mac, then content providers shouldn't stop me from getting my content. Ok so maybe '*nix' is a bit special, but i can still get Real Media on it. I can't get Media player (with DRM) to stream to my Mac (I can with *nix!)).

It about choice, the content delivery system shouldn't lock me into buying my TV from Panasonic, not should an internet based system lock me into MS-Windows.

And no the BBC isn't 100% MS (http://support.bbc.co.uk for an example), but it's moving that way, possible being forced that way as more and more of the software they need is Windows only...

Re:BBC and Redmond

[dave420-2]

There's no difference between a Panasonic TV and a Sony. A real comparison would be between a radio and a TV... the same frequencies, different content. Imagine if after TVs were released, everyone with a radio complained the way you are... It hardly makes sense. There is a huge difference between Windows, macs and Linux. Seeing as windows has about 90% of the desktop market, they can hardly be blamed for not focussing 50% of their attention on the other 10%...

It all seems like sour grapes to me... :-P

This is nothing personal, but for a tiny minority to expect the same treatment as the rest of the users (which would cost the provider a lot of money), is immature, no matter how you look at it.

Re:BBC and Redmond

[martin]

All this argument does is increase the mono culture.

I don't want an internet with 100% (or even 90%) of the same thing attached to it. This leads to massive risks - eg virus/trojan attacks.

I'm arguing the case for choice of content receiver.

Sure some things needs push to get going, for example DAB radio; no content so no radio's, the BBC decided to start broadcasting in DAB to stimulate the market.

But once the market is there you shouldn't only broadcast for a single supplier, or that supplier should licence its technology to others - eg PAL. Yes you can only recieve the BBC on analogue TVs that use the PAL encoding system. BUT I can buy my PAL TV from many suppliers who pay a small fee to the creators of the PAL standard. Same for the DAB radio's - no single vendor lock-in.

This my my issue - vendor lock-in and a vendor who won't licence to other users at that, or provide solutions for other platforms.

Again if Ford started producing petrol that ONLY worked in there cars and owned 100% of the petrol stations, you wouldn't be able to use a Toyota very well.

Re:BBC and Redmond

[dave420-2]

And how, exactly, has the BBC written Windows and Media Player?

Re:BBC and Redmond

[martin]

They haven't - but in buying into MS' Media player and it's DRM technology you can only 'receive' the content on PC running Media Player 9 - ie MS-Windows only.

Like choosing a TV broadcast solution that will only work on one company's TVs.

Re:BBC and Redmond

[dave420-2]

But there's no conflict of interests, which is what was being discussed (as in Ford making a car that can only use Ford petrol). The BBC have no reason to pick WMP over anything else - they just chose the better product. What people here are annoyed about is that they can't get it on their machines, which is a completely different issue altogether.

Re:BBC and Redmond

[The Dark P]

I understand your point, but, in the Register article there was a link to the original source for the story.

http://www.newmediazero.com/lo-fi/story.asp?id=2 43 987

In this article it says "A fully flexible, platform-neutral, super EPG is in development that will allow TV content to be recorded TiVo-style,"

Re:BBC and Redmond

[martin]

Exactly my point - it's only making the Microsoft monoculture issue worse.

They picked a Ford that will only run on Ford petrol, not a Ford that will run on BP, Shell, Sainsburys.... petrol.

IMHO they didn't pick a better product, they just picked the "easiest" product to pick, and bought into this whole DRM pack of dross.

DRM has it's own issues, that I shall leave as an excercise for the reader to investigate :-)

Re:BBC and Redmond

[martin]

Oh and another thing, don't even think of getting any of this content onto your iPod - Microsoft only media players will do.

Re:BBC and Redmond

[martin]

Guess we'll see - linking it to MS's DRM (if the second article quoted is to be believed) is a bad move. I guess we'll see which article is the more accurate, a quick search fails to find any more info..

Re:Microsuck DRM...

[frozen_kangaroo]

Perhaps instead of using DRM to protect their stuff against unauthorised commercial exploitation and still put it in the public domain, they should consider learing some lessons from the Gnu Public License.

They can still sell their DVDs and CDs of old shows which must be big buisness for them and still charge for the "media."

Governments giveth, and taketh away...

[mariox19]

I always wonder how governments can complain about monopoly and unfair advantage on one hand, and then purchase from these "monopolies" on the other. Isn't that what's going on here?

Take U.S. v Microsoft. The United States government is a huge customer. If they decide to place a bunch of PC's on the desks of their departments, and all those PC's run Windows, that more than anything helps foster Microsoft's continued dominance. Why don't they standardize all documents in XML, or plaintext. No! See how many times you're asked to submit something in Word format.

Goverments could just as easily begin converting to open source, or begin a Linux initiative; they could require a certain number of computers be Macintosh; or they could choose to buy something other than the Microsoft Office suite. Now, the British government is going to switch to MS, dumping Real. All these actions encourage the same company they complain about.

Am I the only one who sees conflict and hypocrisy?

Re:Governments giveth, and taketh away...

[trout_fish]

Now, the British government is going to switch to MS, dumping Real. All these actions encourage the same company they complain about.

The BBC is not part of the British government. It may have funding provided by the government, but it is an independant body.

Re:Governments giveth, and taketh away...

[FireFury03]

The BBC is not part of the British government. Yes, there are stupid laws that tax everyone who wants to use a TV (even if that TV won't be used to receive a broadcast signal) and give the money to the BBC, but that doesn't make them part of the government.

Re:Governments giveth, and taketh away...

[mariox19]

The BBC is run in the interests of its viewers and listeners. Twelve governors act as trustees of the public interest and regulate the BBC. They are appointed by the Queen on advice from ministers. [1]

Sorry, my misunderstanding. I guess the accurate term would be fiefdom.

In all seriousness, I'm sure I'm not being "technically" accurate when I lump the BBC and the British government together. However, as I understand it, it's a completely socialistic enterprise. So, who owns it if not the government?

Re:Governments giveth, and taketh away...

[The Dark P]

Why, the people own it!
seriously though, the hutton business has shown that the BBC is not the British Government

Re:At least this will stop people calling me a pir

[Ben Hutchings]

In the UK it is illegal to make MP3s from your own CDs. The copyright exceptions for "fair dealing" don't cover nearly as much as the US's "fair use".

A small clarification

[T-Kir]

I think it is if you have anything capable of recieving any active TV signals, and only if the device actually works... and if you don't have a license they have to prove the something was receiving TV signals (i.e. with their tracker van).

If you live in a flat with other tenants, and you have independant contracts with the landlord, then you have to have a TV license if you wanna watch TV irrelevant of the other tenants. If all the tenants are on a sharing contract, then only on TV license is needed for the whole building (or area covering shared accomodation).

I for one have first hand experience with the TV licensing people. On my uni industrial placement (internship), I lived in a flat on an individual contract. I didn't have a TV nor did I want one (boy did that free up my time for doing other things I tell you!), but I got a threatening letter from TV licensing nearly every 2 months... they threatened me by saying that you don't have a license, they'll get a warrant to check on me... blah blah. I was just waiting for the time they actually followed through with one of those threats just to be able to explore the option of being able to sue them... I know that they can trace a signal to individual rooms, and I was happy in the knowledge that I did not have anything capable of recieving TV signals (my PC video card wasn't VIVO either).

Although I'm not sure on the precise details, but I think the TV license is illegal under European law... but with the UK being half in and half out of the EU depending on whether it suits the government at the time, not much can be done about it. The BBC's charter is up for renewal in 2006, and they've been hit hard by the Hutton report (those who say that will have no bearing on the charter renewal, yeah right!). Plus the license fee continually goes up in frickin price.

Just my 0.02, not going to the licensing gestapo though ;-)

Re:A small clarification

[twilight30]

I'm pretty sure the TV license isn't illegal -- after 5 yrs in London I moved to Italy (where I am now) and here they have similar arrangements.

Better bimbos on Mediaset than ITV, though :)

Re:A small clarification

[rishistar]

from http://www.tv-l.co.uk/:

If you use or install television receiving equipment to receive or record television programme services you are required by law to have a valid TV Licence.

So that means it just needs to be installed - even if the TV was never plugged in - you would need to pay for a licence

Re:A small clarification

[lga]

If you use or install television receiving equipment to receive or record television programme services you are required by law to have a valid TV Licence.

The TV licenceing website is lying. Complaints have been made about it to the advertising standards authority, and an MP called Andrew Carey complained about it in the house of commons. This is easy to check, there are numerous websites with information about the TV licence.

Some links to get you started:
Abolish the TV licence
C.A.L.
Broadband and the TV licence

Re:A small clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I'm not sure on the precise details, but I think the TV license is illegal under European law..

Why would you think that?

The BBC's charter is up for renewal in 2006, and they've been hit hard by the Hutton report (those who say that will have no bearing on the charter renewal, yeah right!).

Blair knows full well not to mess with the BBCs charter. As was proven by Hutton & the Iraq war, more people trust the BBC than MPs. Messing with the BBC is a good way to ensure you loose your majority.

Not only that but the cripling the BBC would be a shot in the foot for any political party; todays current ruling party are tommorows opposition, and I don't think Blair is foolish enough to forget that the BBC can be a useful ally when you're in opposition.

Re:A small clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm, I'd have thought that the only installation required for a TV was plugging it in.

you can use a TV as a coffee table and pay no licence if you like, but that would be so stupid they wouldn't believe you.

Re:A small clarification

[goatan]

I know that they can trace a signal to individual rooms

Actually that's just propaganda there detector vans are not very useful, with the amount of signals going around pin pointing a house without a license it is close to impossible unless no one in the street has a licence. They rely on a datbase of houses that have bought tv's, the reson you have to fill in your adress when you buy one. Then they send letters to those adress along with student's flats and anywhere else that they think might be avoiding paying. Sometimes they send out inspector's the Vans are rarley used, more to intimidate than any pratical use.

The TV license fee and the BBC

[Insipid Trunculance]

I have always considered the TV licensing fee to be a breach of human rights.Amongst the rights we have, the right to information is amongst the foremost.I cant protest against the breach of rights of my fellow citizens if i dont know about it and in the present day world TV & radio are the most wisespread disseminators of news.By making me purchase a TV license the gov makes me pay to exercise a right of mine.And since this money is supposed to fund the BBC,it is making a choice for me.If i want to watch the Beeb let me decide,by charging me money dont make that decision for me.

We pay a charge for phone services,not for owning the bloody instrument,for god's sake.I will support abolition of the licence fee in the next review of the bbc charter.

OTT:
I am getting increasingly frustated by this government's tax them to death tactics.The govt makes enough of our taxes to pay for our uni fees.plaese fund education in this country before funding other people's wars in some godforsaken place.I know the whitehall govtment is not to blame but the council tax fiasco is too much to take.My Borough(Wandsworth) increased it by a whopping 50% last year and this year they want a 18% increase.I fully support the OAP pensioners who are willing to go to prison than pay this blood money.Civil disobedience against unjust laws is the last and often the only resort.let's hope the present lot remember Martin Luther King and Gandhi.

Re:The TV license fee and the BBC

[trout_fish]

The TV license provides a broadcaster that is not dependant on advertising for revenue. In theory it can broadcast programmes that are not popular with advertisers. It doesn't always work, but when it does it works very well.

Re:The TV licence fee and the BBC

[andrewbaldwin]

I do not have any connection with the BBC.

I do get fed up with the complaints about the licence fees. The output must be paid for in some way. Having a fee gives the BBC some independence. If it were funded through advertising we'd lose out - the output would be geared to mass markets (lowest common denominator) to attract advertisers and the BBC could not output any consumer watchdog or similar programmes as businesses would threaten to withdraw funding. We'd be stuck with what business thought we should view.

With a few notable exceptions, you just need to look at the other channels to see examples of this [there's only so many cheesy game shows you can watch].

[rant] You complain about the licence - I complain about the inflated prices in shops as companies pay for adverising on channels I don't watch! You don't have to have a TV - I do have to buy food! [/rant]

Incentive to piracy

[CdBee]

The BBC's choice to use a platform-restricted DRM file format can only have one certain consequence - more time and development being spent on breaking Windows Media DRM components.

I have a right to view this content, if I cannot do so on a platform of my choice then I'll strip the DRM from the files and watch them in a format of my choice. I can't see there being any difficulty in getting hold of software to defeat the restrictions....

Re:The TV licence fee and the BBC

[0123456]

"Having a fee gives the BBC some independence."

Having a license fee makes the BBC totally dependant on government goodwill. It's no surprise that it has a perpetual left-wing slant, while kowtowing to the government in power when political needs demand.

If you want a left-leaning government propaganda station, how about you pay for it out of your own pocket and let other people watch whatever they want to watch?

"If it were funded through advertising we'd lose out - the output would be geared to mass markets (lowest common denominator) to attract advertisers"

"Noel's House Party", anyone?

I haven't watched much TV for three or four years because most of it was such utter crap, but when I did still watch TV the BBC shows were usually just as awful as most of the ITV shows. I still have nightmares where I'm strapped to a chair like the guy in 'Clockwork Orange' and forced to watch Saturday night TV for days without end.

Honestly, after not watching TV for years I really don't understand how people can do it.

Hehe

[FrostedWheat]

using Microsoft's DRM technology

Phew, for a second there I thought they where going to restrict the content.

Not into the public domain

[Anonymous Coward]

They mean to distribute it only to people who have alreay paid for the content. The fact that subscribers already number the majority of the population of the UK is neither here no there. Hence DRM.

free nature programmes

[thomasj]

Mmmmmmm, nice! Nature programmes as in... nature programmes?

Re:Microsuck DRM...

[blowdart]

Where in your linked document does it say that all BBC content is supposed to be free?

It doesn't. Nor is that document the BBC's public service agreement, it's an update to the original document (copies of the new Charter (Cm 3248) and Agreement (Cm 3152) are available from HMSO, priced 4.50 each!)

Your assertation that all content be free is bogus. Otherwise the BBC could not sell content abroad, provide DVDs and Videos of shows, partner books and so on. They do.

The only thing the BBC has to do is (apparently) "To provide, as public services, sound and television broadcasting services (whether by analogue or digital means) and to provide sound and television programmes of information, education and entertainment for general reception in Our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the territorial waters thereof, and on board ships and aircraft".

There's nothing about content being "used by other people" either. Copyright exists on BBC produced programmes, or BBC commisioned programmes.

Re:The TV licence fee and the BBC

[a24061]

If you want a left-leaning government propaganda station, how about you pay for it out of your own pocket and let other people watch whatever they want to watch?

And if you want right-leaning propaganda, watch a TV network run by a big corporation, e.g. Sky/Fox News! Most of the broadcasting media are owned by big corporations (because they have the money) which are inherently right-wing (because they want more money). Without public services there would be no balance.

Re:Microsuck DRM...

[FireFury03]

Why should I pay the BBC 114ukp per year to make shows that I don't want to watch (most of what I watch is on Sky One because the BBC show nothing but crap) just so someone in another country can see them for free?

Re:The TV licence fee and the BBC

[0123456]

"And if you want right-leaning propaganda, watch a TV network run by a big corporation, e.g. Sky/Fox News"

People pay their own money for Sky: no-one is forcing them to do so just because they have a TV, like the British Propaganda Corporation.

"Without public services there would be no balance."

If people _want_ a lefty TV station, they'll be able to pay for it out of their own pocket. If people don't want a lefty TV station, there won't be one.

What problem do you have with that?

Creative Archive a long way off

[PhillC]

Although there's been a lot of announcements recently about the BBC's Creative Archive, I can't really see it being launched for at least a couple of years.

One of the major issues with distributing BBC aired programmes, via the Internet, is rights management. A lot of BBC produced programmes use material that is not actually owned by the BBC. It may have been commissioned from independant produces who retain some rights over it, or even purchased from other broadcasters. For example, the BBC archive has no World War II footage. That's because the BBC didn't start broadcasting until the 1950's. So every time you see a documentary on the BBC that has original WWII footage incorporated, that material has been purchased from a 3rd party (say Pathe for example). So clearing all material from all BBC shows is going to be a total headache! This may be in part why only a portion of the archive, and not the whole thing, is going to be initially available online.

The other issue is of course digitising all that content. It's a big ask and not going to happen overnight. The whole process of getting the tapes from the Windmill Road archive, selecting the content that you want to use, encoding that content (let's hope for MPEG4 but most likely to be MPEG2. Although Creative Archive doesn't have to be broadcast quality for personal use, only VHS quality, they'd be crazy not to encode at a higher quality so that content could be re-used in a digital format for other projects), cataloguing that content with all relevant keywords and metadata and then publishing the content. As for storage we're talking several (tens) terabytes at least.

I think building the website itself if going to be the easy bit!

Creative Archive is a project I'd love to work on as I think it's going to be quite exciting, but the shear scale is also quite enormous.

Re:Creative Archive a long way off

[pyropaul]

For example, the BBC archive has no World War II footage. That's because the BBC didn't start broadcasting until the 1950's.

Actually, you'll find that the BBC (TV service) started broadcasting in the 1930s, but stopped during the war. BBC radio was even earlier. Paul.

Re:Creative Archive a long way off

[PhillC]

You're right Paul, thanks for correcting me.

The first experimental BBC television broadcasts were in 1928, with a regular service starting in 1936. Services were suspended in 1939 for the duration of the war due to defence reasons.

1955 was the first colour transmission.

I should have checked my dates!

Re:At least this will stop people calling me a pir

[Quaryon]

To clarify - any copying is illegal under UK law, there's nothing special about MP3s. Technically, making a cassette copy of a CD you own for a walkman or for the car is equally illegal.

Since no-one prosecutes for making tapes for the car, I suspect it's unlikely (although entirely possible) that anyone would prosecute you for ripping CDs you own to MP3.

Q.

Embracing Open Source

[Snart Barfunz]

Many years ago, the Beeb turned a generation onto programming with the BBC micro and associated courseware. They should be doing the same thing today with their own Linux distro. Think also of the massive contribution to the technology of broadcasting made by the BBC. Using and developing Open Source software would build on that legacy for the 21st century. That's what I want my license money spent on - not on software taxes paid to the US.

Here's a million dollar idea

[walterbyrd]

Why not make a home stereo that plays mp3s, and has a hard drive? A 20GB HDD would hold, what? 4000 songs?

Of course you could use your PC for this, but who wants their stereo clutered with a keyboard, mouse, and monitor?

Of course you would need a way to get the mp3s on the HDD. Network?

Re:Here's a million dollar idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake up, this is what xboxes are being used for!

Re:Microsuck DRM...

[Anonymous Coward]

You acuse the BBC of showing "crap" but then only want to watch Sky One?

Yeah, because we all know that Footballers Wives is a masterpeice of dramatic screenplay.

Lets see..Sky One has The Simpsons and Scrubs. Everything else half decent is on E4 these days (Friends, ER) At least the BBC manage to produce some of their own, original programming.

Still I guess it could be worse. We could be talking about ITV or Channel 5. Crap doesn't begin to describe the output from those two.

Re:The TV licence fee and the BBC

[Alan Partridge]

What a cretinous line of reasoning.

So - without the BBC we would all be free to "choose" to watch all of the wonderful American crap on Sky, the lowest common denominator pop-idol crap on ITV or the absolutely top-notch house-buying and top tens content that they have on Channel 4. And then there's the radio, with no more Radio 4 we would all be free to choose to listen to Virgin, Capital Gold and News Talk - all complete and utter shite.

What a wonderful vision of British broadcasting the way it could be!

Re:Microsuck DRM...

[FireFury03]

On TV I watch stuff like Enterprise, FireFly, etc... none of which were produced by the BBC. I used to watch a lot of BBC science shows like Tomorrow's World, but guess what - they cancelled them all or dumbed them down to be completely non-informational so I don't bother anymore.

It is _my_ opinion that the BBC produce mostly crap these days. Everyone is entitled to their opinion though, which is why I think the subscription to the bbc should be optional. That way everyone gets what they want. I don't want to pay for something I'm not going to use - isn't that a completely valid opinion?.

It happened to me Re:Grrrrrrr

[samjam]

I was fed up of being hassled for not having a TV license. The form I had to fill in suggested I sent a solicitors letter as evidence the TV had been got rid of!

I regularly got letters which hinted darkly that representatives could be in my area soon...

I phoned the licensing authority to make a formal complain and ask for compensation for waiting in for these representatives who never showed up!

They phone back (yes!) and said they would put me on a list so I wouldn't get hassled again for a year. (is that all!)

I also complained that the letters did not make clear what the license was required for, the letters just tried to scare me.

It seems the license is required to install television equipment or receive (or watch) broadcast programmes only.

Sam

Re:It happened to me Re:Grrrrrrr

[turgid]

The thing is, I can't see why they are so fastidious in following it up. One of my friends pointed out that I could probably keep a car untaxed (although not now) and uninsured and never be questioned at all by anyone.

Re:It happened to me Re:Grrrrrrr

[mr_sas]

i got a darkly written letter informing me i hadn't got a tv license and that i had to write to them if i didn't own a tv. I never wrote to them and they've still not been two months-ish later.

Re:Microsuck DRM...

[Redmega]

Spot on.

Why watch any BBC when you only get to see Miriam on Sky? Damn, that girl's fine!

what? did I miss something?

Is DRM inevitable?

[CausticWindow]

Maybe there should be an open DRM, an alternative to the obvious MS lock-in version?

Re:Microsuck DRM...

[Anonymous Coward]

You choose to watch Enterprise and FireFly and then call the BBC crap?

wow.

Time To Email The BBC Methinks...

[pandrijeczko]

This definitely needs some action from us license payers...

Firstly, I don't mind the BBC license at all because I get advert-free TV and radio programming that's of a consistently good quality. It's worth the money in that respect.

Secondly, the "illusion" that ITV is "free" is a myth - we all pay higher prices for products because a proportion of those prices funds TV & radio advertisement. Get those channels through satellite or cable TV and you pay an extra subscription charge on the top of that...

However, there's a much deeper issue here. The BBC has been in existence for most of the 20th century and their archive includes a very detailed log of global history throughout that time as well as entertainment programs. The value of that archive cannot be underestimated as a historical, social and political eductaional resource for future generations - therefore, if it is to be "opened to the public" then it must be done so in a manner independent of DRM enforced by an American software company! Otherwise, the public ends up paying Microsoft to access information that should be accessible to all, no matter whether they can afford to pay MS for a DRM license.

I must admit, I'm not sure about how access should be controlled to entertainment programs in the archive - for example, I guess a lot of people already own taped copies of "Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy" when it was first broadcast on BBC Radio while many others have purchased legitimate tapes and CDs of the same programs; the same can be said for the superb "Lord Of The Rings" and Asimov's "Foundation" dramatisations that were also broadcast on BBC radio.

I think the answer probably lies in the BBC making lower quality audio and video versions freely available in their archive with the option to purchase higher quality versions legitimately - in the way that MP3 downloading has done no real damage to CD sales.

However, the core issue here is maintaining the right to free information. Just as anyone (in the UK at least) can stroll into a public library and have free access to important historical books, the factual BBC archive must be handled in a similar fashion, even to the point where there's a PC in every library to be able to get to that archive also.

Anyone know of the best place to send an email to on this within the BBC? They'll have to listen to those if us that pay our licenses :-)

Re:At least this will stop people calling me a pir

[Ben Hutchings]

To clarify - any copying is illegal under UK law, there's nothing special about MP3s.

There are cases where whole-sale copying is allowed without explicit permission, such as time-shifting TV programs using a VCR.

Technically, making a cassette copy of a CD you own for a walkman or for the car is equally illegal.

Agreed.

That makes no sense

[shepd]

Perhaps in Europe everything is opposite (well, having been there, it'd come as no surprise to me if this was true :-) ), but I do know one thing: There's a great deal of broadcasters in North America who lack any form of commercials.

Some of them are paid directly by people who subscribe to the programming, for example, HBO, and FSTV. Some of them broadcast for free and have absolutely no charge attached to them, for example, PBS, and, to some degree (if you live outside of Ontario) TV Ontario. FSTV also has a station without commercials.

Commercial free stations such as TV Ontario, PBS, FSTV, and the various religious stations regularly broadcast content which a great many would find objectionable if they didn't keep their TV sets glued to stations they actually enjoy. In fact, in spite of the fact the BBC forces a license upon people in the UK for their content, PBS manages to give away many of the exact same programs developed by the BBC themselves, and has continued to do so for years. Also, I am certain that the content broadcast on FSTV is FAR more objectionable to many than just about ANY other station I know of, especially the BBC.

Why it is that there are more commercial free programs being broadcast that I can pick up in North America for free than there are in the UK under forced licencing will always remain an unsolveable enigmah to me.

Re:Microsuck DRM...

[BigBadBus]

To throw further fat on the fire: there isn't a huge amount of pre-1980s stuff available anyway :(

look here

Best wishes

Paul

downloading copyrighted material is stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a troll. I really am interested in your logic.

How about these.

You bring your car to the garage. It gets fixed and the bill comes to some amount of money. You are expected to pay the mechanic this amount. Lets say it was all labor as well and no parts were replaced. You use your extra key and get your car back some night without paying the mechanic for the work he did. Did you just steal from him or did you just violate his right to collect the money you owe him. What is he no longer in possession of in this example? The car was always yours, you just took it back without paying the bill. If the answer is nothing then you did not steal from him although I think a court would disagree.

Since many people claim that theft can only occur when a physical object is taken then how about electricity. Assume a city produces their own electricity via a solar grid. Say you are walking down the street. You see an outlet. You decide that you need to give you cell phone a quick charge and plug it in. You leave your cell phone there (because this is a perfect world and it won't get stolen) and it charges. When you get back there is a city employee there holding your cell phone (He unplugged it to plug his whatever in) telling you that you owe the City $20 for the electricity you used (your cell phone takes a lot of juice to charge). Did you just steal from the city or not? You didn't take anything "physical" from them.

Re:downloading copyrighted material is stealing

[chearn]

To step in here

Copyright violations are not theft because they do not deprive the owner of the work they have created.

In your mechanic example you have deprived the mechanic of his time without compensation. He does not have the time he spent back, nor can he sell his time again.

Your electricty argument is getting a little absurd. I would argue the fact that anybody who designed a building to have an eletric outlet open on the sidewalk is a dumbass, anybody who charges $20 for the juice to charge a cell phone is a jackass, and anybody who pays it is a moron.
Further more you are assuming that even solar generated electricity is not a scarce resource when it is. But for your argument for some reason the city may have needed the amount of electricity being generated by the solar array to preform some necessary function and you have deprived them of that (say electricuting the guy that designed the building.)

The fact that a song generated in digital format and shared via P2P is never a scarce resource. My downloading media never deprives any else of anything.

Re:downloading copyrighted material is stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

Is either considered stealing by you?

Re:downloading copyrighted material is stealing

[chearn]

I would consider both examples to be stealing because something that was a scarce resource was removed.

I consider file sharing(of copyrighted material) to be in copyright violation and not stealing.

Both are illegal, just not the same thing.

Re:downloading copyrighted material is stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the most logical argument I have ever heard. I was hoping for a zealot who denied that there was anything wrong with downloading copyrighted material.

Anyway, let me try to get the young kids who live in their mothers' basement to bite next time. As for you all I can say is I hope you enjoy your house/apartment/girlfriend/wife/whatever, and grasp on reality so many here on /. seem to be missing.

Take care.

Re:The TV licence fee and the BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

>It's no surprise that it has a perpetual left-wing slant, while kowtowing to the government in power when political needs demand.

this is utter nonsense. i'm left wing and if the bbc has this bias then i must have missed it in the 32 years i've been watching it. the bbc has always been the establishment voice.

if you want an example of this, just look at their uncritical coverage of the israeli government and their oppression of the palestinians.

it is only the deceit of the current government in supporting an illegal war that has brought about this confrontation with the bbc, who after all have to report on the issues of the day, even if they generally play it safe.

besides by your own admission you don't even watch tv so what do you know about it?

TV License = Racketeering

[BeCre8iv]

An ex housemate brought an Xbox to our digs, and then bought a cheap TV to use it with. The shop he bought it at told the TV Gestapo and they paid us a visit - cautioned another resident who happened to open the door and when showed the Tv/Console set up and the legit Licence for our communal TV, he still summonsed my Xbox owning freind who paid up rather than go to court. Why should we be deprived of the right to own a TV and watch non BBC content without paying the BBC? - ITV/C4/C5 should sue.

Re:At least this will stop people calling me a pir

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK it is illegal to make MP3s from your own CDs

Then make oggs instead. Better sound anyway.

Erm...hello? Royalties?

[lxt]

I take it you have no idea how much the BBC must pay to show one of it's own TV shows - although not true for the older shows (such as Morecambe & Wise), every time a BBC show is repeated the writer must recieve a repeat fee, the actors might recieve something (depending on their contract), the director, producer etc. The Writer's Guild is VERY pissed off that the BBC are even thinking about distributing data like this (because it's impossible to work out royalties), so be thankful you're getting it at all.

I CAN'T buy a TV Licence

[amembleton]

I'm in a student dig in Hull, and according to the TV Licencing ppl we don't exist. We've tried to purchase one several times, but according to them our house dosen't exist.

After buying stuff on line I've realised that our address exists in some databases but not in others, so it does seem reasonable.

You can see the Beeb use Linux...

[Anonymous Coward]

Allegedly the graphics generator for the big red spinny logo/clock on News 24 in the UK and BBC World News internationally is in fact a Linux machine with a Windows NT frontend. The fact it's jerky is less impressive though...

This explains the other article

[richardbowers]

[tinfoilhat on]
So, about the same time this comes out, the BBC publishes a whitewash of Microsoft's security problems (also available here on Slashdot.)

Is this a coincidence? Or are they hoping to make everyone feel better about their support for Microsoft?

Camel's Nose Further Under Tent

[Aire Libre]

So the BBC is "using Microsoft's DRM technology, in a break with the BBC's long-standing support of Real"? This illustrates the danger we face when competition authorities twiddle their thumbs at the dwindling competition in media players, DRM and any other enabling software. The BBC could never dictate which television or radio manufactures I chose to use, but somehow these public and private media giants think nothing of dictating which media player, DRM software or computer operating system they will "support". We desparately need third parties to be free to offer consumers support for the media palyers, OS and DRM of their choice. The BBC may set minimum DRM or player standards, for example, but should never be able to dictate which company from among numerous software providers actually wins in the marketplace.

So, Real loses another big client?

[Kiyooka]

I love it when reality hits blind businessmen and marketers over the head: IF YOU'RE PRODUCT IS TERRIBLE, ADVERTISEMENT AND SPYWARE DOES NOT MAKE IT BETTER! Don't mess with the user/customer, especially in a competitive market. Quality products and good service is what counts. ARE YOU LISTENING REAL?

The irony is that you call yourselves "Real" but seem to live in a fantasyland.