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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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: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.

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..

[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".

"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

[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.

-

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.

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. :)

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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: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

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!!!

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: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: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.

Hehe

[FrostedWheat]

using Microsoft's DRM technology

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

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: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.

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: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.

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!

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

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: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.