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

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

[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

[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.

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: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).

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 :-)