BBC Releases P2P TV Client Test

evildeed writes "The BBC's Internet Media Player trial started today, and a few thousand lucky UK citizens now have a copy. The good news? Legal P2P downloads of quality shows. The bad news? Requires IE and Windows Media Player, and it's probably going to be UK-only. Oh well. One of the lucky few has uploaded screenshots and a brief review." The service was first announced back in may.

Comments

Before anyone asks..

[MullerMn]

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/imp/help/index.shtml#fourteen :

14. When will I get iMP on Mac & Linux?
Currently, our supplier is working towards supporting a Mac and Linux version.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Anonymous Coward]

That I will not be using because of DRM on content that my license fee pays for. This is bullshit!

Re:Before anyone asks..

[squoozer]

I can certianly sympathize with you. I often wondered why we paid for the creation of the content but didn't have more rights to it. If you paid for anything else to be created you would naturally assume that you would own it at the end. Surely anyone who pays the licence fee should be able to give a copy of a show to anyone else who pays the fee (tax).

It doesn't bother me much any more though. I got rid of the TV 5 or 6 years ago and so have saved around £600 in license fees. I can't say I have missed it either. I have a decent sized DVD collection for those times when I really want to kick back and watch something. There have always been a few shows though that I have wanted to watch such as some of the nature pieces. They normally eventually come out on DVD but that's not quite the same. Hopefully this will mean I will be able to pick up such shows for a tiny price.

The thing that worries me, however, is that we will end up with an Internet tax in much the same way as they have in Germany. Be prepared to fight for you right to not pay the BBC.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

The idea that you "paid for the creation of the content" shows that you don't really understand the process of creating TV programmes, and how rights are distributed and money made from them.

With most programmes that have been created, the copyright is owned by the company that created it - which, thanks to the decision to "outsource" a lot of programme making, isn't always the BBC. Furthermore, writers and artists involved in programmes - actors, for example - usually have rights to additional money when a programme is shown again. This means that, in order to comply with its contracts with these rights-holders, the BBC has to know how many times a programme has been viewed. Without a DRM scheme of some sort, I don't see how this would be possible. It's a classic case where "digial rights management" doesn't mean "copy protection" - it means being able to manage and account for the rights.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I'm a strong supporter of the BBC but this move is highly offensive, adoption of Windows Media and DRM is not in the public interest. I will run only open source applications and refuse to view DRM content on principal. They sould have used VLC and put some more funding into Dirac and theora, something that is in the public interest.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Tobias Lobster]

I can certianly sympathize with you. I often wondered why we paid for the creation of the content but didn't have more rights to it. If you paid for anything else to be created you would naturally assume that you would own it at the end.

Is this any different from buying a DVD? In both cases you are partly funding the creation of the content. I'm not saying that you shouln't have rights to the content, just that what applies to one type of media should also apply to the other.

Surely anyone who pays the licence fee should be able to give a copy of a show to anyone else who pays the fee (tax).

Without DRM how could the content creators determine whether you were giving a copy to a person who had paid their license fee, or one who hadn't?

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, They might take a while porting that interface..

From TFA

"This could be explained by the fact that every screen is actually a web page loaded off the BBC's servers using Internet Explorer..."

I bet theres all kinds of ActiveX goodness in there. Having said that, the reviewer says the widgets are all clumsy and non-standard.
For a windows program.
Do you really want that on a Mac?

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

Dirac is alive and well and living in open source land. However, it's a streaming codec, which means it wouldn't be so good for iMP - instead, it's intended to be a codec that can be used for live streams at high quality.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[aussie_a]

Without DRM how could the content creators determine whether you were giving a copy to a person who had paid their license fee, or one who hadn't?

Same way they did for all those years that DRM didn't exist for.

Companies do NOT need DRM to be able to make a profit (and if they do need DRM, then they're doing something dreadfully wrong all of a sudden as many companies out there don't need it and are able to make profits). The idea that they do need DRM is pure nonesense fostered by the companies in their greed for greater profits. Whether or not they actually reach these greater profits as a result of DRM is questionable.

Having said that, yes I do buy DRM'd content. I buy DVDs, console games and e-books. All of which have DRM. I see if a product meets my needs, and if it does I buy it. If it doesn't, I don't buy it (and too bad if I liked the content).

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that you "paid for the creation of the content" shows that you don't really understand the process of creating TV programmes, and how rights are distributed and money made from them.

Actually no, it shows that programme makers still haven't moved into the 21st century.

With most programmes that have been created, the copyright is owned by the company that created it - which, thanks to the decision to "outsource" a lot of programme making, isn't always the BBC.

Yes, copyright is held by the ex-BBC employees who (purely coincidentally) get all the contracts. The point I made above holds, the business model needs to change to reflect distribution in the 21st century.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[squoozer]

Lets seperate the medium that delivers the content from the content itself as the medium is secondary to the argument. By asking how it is different to a DVD I think you are really asking how is it different to a film made by an independent studio.

When making a film someone stumps up a big pile of money with the hope of recovering that money through the sale of the film (eg cinema / DVD sales). Providing the money to make the film is a risk and the person / people who do so have a right to expect to own the content at the end of the process so that they can make money from it.

In the case of the BBC the license directly pays for the creation of the content. Thus it should be fair to assume that the people paying the license fee own the content. The difference is subtle but important. The public have accepted teh risk by paying the fee but don't own the product. That's got to be wrong.

If you take the view that the people who paid for the creation of the content own teh content then there is no sensible reason for DRM if both parties have paid. The problem only comes if the content is passed on to someone who hasn't paid. DRM might be able to stop just them viewing the content but it is unlikely.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

This isn't a question of profit: This is a free (to UK viewers) service. It's analogous to on-demand broadcast TV - the fact that it's using distributed digital files is not important.

You're misunderstanding the point, I think. When the BBC reshows "Allo Allo", Gordon Kaye (who played Rene) gets paid an additional fee. When you sell a DVD of "Allo Allo" you know how many copies you've sold - and Gordon gets another fee, according to how many copies get sold.

Now, assume for a second that you're Gordon Kaye (or rather his agent). The BBC comes to you and tells you that it will be allowing people to download "Allo Allo" for a week. How much do you charge the BBC for that? It depends, of course, on how many people view the programme - and knowing that depends on include some kind of DRM.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Tobias Lobster]

I'm certianly not defending DRM on a wide scale, but I would rather the BBC provided this facility with DRM than not at all.

While the release of unencumbered media files by the BBC shouldn't impact on any future profitablity, it may decrease the willingness of overseas broadcasters to buy BBC content to show on their own channels. Once the general paranoia felt by big buisiness over digital copies fades then hopefully the DRM would be removed.

(I can't see any reason why current affairs programmes should have any DRM - their resale value must be negligible)

In the case of the BBC I do care about the levels of profit - because with more profit they will have more money to spend on producing better shows, so I will have a choice of something other than continual makeover and property development shows to watch.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

"Actually no, it shows that programme makers still haven't moved into the 21st century."

*Shrug*. Well, if you'd like to volunteer to handle the negotiations with the many thousands of rights-holders that the BBC has to deal with, your help would no-doubt be welcome. And I suspect that, if you did, we'd see a BBC iMP in time for the next century - not this one.

"Yes, copyright is held by the ex-BBC employees who (purely coincidentally) get all the contracts."

Yes, isn't it terrible the way that the BBC acts as a training ground for the majority of the TV talent in the UK. And how dare those people who got laid off when the government forced the BBC to outsource much of its programme production actually start up their own businesses to compete for the business. Shameful of them. You'd have thought they'd have just all become IT consultants instead.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

"I can't see any reason why current affairs programmes should have any DRM - their resale value must be negligible"

I would expect that current affairs stuff will make its way into the Creative Archive fairly quickly.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Freexe]

The BBC sometimes uses our money to buy a short lience to films or series (think 24) so I can understand the advantage of having DRM on that content. I imagine that they have made a deal of the '8 days to view' and have put it on all content so not to confuse people. Hopefully BBC made programs will eventually be made availble well outside of the 8 days time frame. But most of the old programs rights have been sold for DVDs and such.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

"In the case of the BBC the license directly pays for the creation of the content. Thus it should be fair to assume that the people paying the license fee own the content. The difference is subtle but important. The public have accepted teh risk by paying the fee but don't own the product. That's got to be wrong."

That's not a great line of argument. Apply it to another medium - say newspapers. The people who buy newspapers (and the companies that advertise in them) pay for the content. Does that mean they *own* the content? No - in fact, usually the newspaper itself has only paid for a limited set of rights from the original copyright holders, the authors and photographers.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

"Except they don't compete with anyone, it is amazing that the BBC's long standing culture of nepotism and corruption has managed to produce so many worthwhile programmes."

Ahh, so basically you're one of those people who hate the BBC and will look for any old stick to bash it with? Fine - that puts your previous comments in a little more context. Have you ever thought you might have got the argument the wrong way round - that the fact that the BBC produces so many worthwhile programmes (much more than "free market" ITV) is actually evidence that it's not nepotistic or corrupt? Or would that be using logic instead of your own bias?

And if you think that programme makers aren't in a competitive market, you know nothing about media.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Tobias Lobster]

Lets seperate the medium that delivers the content from the content itself as the medium is secondary to the argument. By asking how it is different to a DVD I think you are really asking how is it different to a film made by an independent studio.

Yes, you've described it far better than I did.

When making a film someone stumps up a big pile of money with the hope of recovering that money through the sale of the film (eg cinema / DVD sales). Providing the money to make the film is a risk and the person / people who do so have a right to expect to own the content at the end of the process so that they can make money from it.

It could be argued (although it's quite tenuous) that the film financiers take a gamble, with the risk of losing their money vs the chance of making a profit. The license fee payers take no such gamble, so don't get such a great reward.

In reality they don't even have a choice of investing. The more I think about this the more I realise we get the short end of the stick.

The upswing though is that any profits the BBC does make go back into producing more content, so we get a better product than the license fee alone would provide. And it would be difficult to get an agreement of every single financiers (license fee payers) to give the content away to anyone who wanted it, unless it was made a condition of the license fee.

I'm rambling here and I've gone completely away from the original point. Sorry about that...

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Tobias Lobster]

I wouldn't be surprised if several of the posters on this thread are confusing iMP with the Creative Archive, given the level of negativity towards this scheme.

Still, it would be more convenient if the lines were blurred to an extent, so that the programmes which didn't warrant DRM were released unencumbered from the outset.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[zootm]

I'm interested about this — the guy in the article said he was hoping the DRM was only for the duration of the trial, and in the iMP help, you find:

(This trial unfortunately does not support Apple Macs dues to the Digital Rights Management being Windows based)

Now, that either means that they're going to be using other DRM when the full system is released, or none at all. I'd really like to hope the latter (the likelihood is probably away from that though).

Re:Before anyone asks..

[squidinkcalligraphy]

Actually, that's not quite true - it's not free to UK viewers - while being 'free-to-air' TV, TV owners have to pay a yearly license fee of about 100 pounds I think. i.e. a BBC tax.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[imdx80]

If the bbc were to provide a service where you could download any program then you've got your record of how many people do this to pay Gordon Kaye his fee,(Possibly charging for outside of the UK viewers).

Yes the first person could download it and put it up on his favourite p2p 'pirate' site but the majority of people would still use the simplest solution, go to the bbc, to get it. Dvd sales proove this, which are for intense and purposes drm free.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[rwjyoung]

Surely if you do pay the BBC TV/Radio licence then what you can do with what you have licenced really depends on the terms of the licence. You are not paying for the content but only for a licence to view that content under the conditions set out in that licence. In fact it seems similar to other media licence issues where you are buying a licence for that media and not the actual media itself.
Surely it depends on the what the licence small print allows its buyer to do ?

Re:Before anyone asks..

[trezor]

I'm certianly not defending DRM on a wide scale, but I would rather the BBC provided this facility with DRM than not at all.

And there went the chance for the rest of us to live in a world without DRMed content. DRM being just another way of saying "fuck the public domain".

I can't believe how people time and time again seem totally oblivious of that consequence. DRM = Perpetual copyright, which in effect reverses the effect copyright was intended to have. For the record: Copyright doesn't mean right to profit.

How nice of you guys defending the big coprporations, IP mongerers and cash-reapers while they are not only getting away with your cash once again, but also are taking away what was supposed to be something that belonged to society.

Well done.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Tobias Lobster]

I'm certianly not defending DRM on a wide scale, but I would rather the BBC provided this facility with DRM than not at all.

And there went the chance for the rest of us to live in a world without DRMed content. DRM being just another way of saying "fuck the public domain".

I can't believe how people time and time again seem totally oblivious of that consequence. DRM = Perpetual copyright, which in effect reverses the effect copyright was intended to have. For the record: Copyright doesn't mean right to profit.

How nice of you guys defending the big coprporations, IP mongerers and cash-reapers while they are not only getting away with your cash once again, but also are taking away what was supposed to be something that belonged to society.

Well done.

Do you not feel this is a little extreme? Before this service you could record BBC content off the tv as much as you wanted, and you still can. But in addition, they're letting you download the same content for free with the trade-off that you can only keep it 7 days.

This is a service for people who missed something when it was broadcast and would like another chance to watch it. The BBC hasn't trampled on your rights or taken anything from you, and you're complaining because the gift isn't yours to keep, just to borrow.

If you don't like this service, you could always go to the creative archive (http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/) and download what the BBC provides there, without DRM, and well before the 70 years of copyright have expired.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

Well, that's debatable. The license fee is tied to television ownership, not to internet usage - so it's perfectly possible to not own a television (and so not pay the license fee) while receiving this service.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

DVD purchases are not DRM free in any sense. Copyng DVDs is much more of a PITA than simply giving someone a copy of a file you've already downloaded, given that this file would be a few hundred MB at most.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[imdx80]

But there are tools that can convert dvds to divx at the click of the button which in my mind are for all 'intense and purposes drm free'

Re:Before anyone asks..

[trezor]

I am more concerned about the slipperly slope aspect of this, rather than this being BBC or whoever, and thus my reaction.

His atttitude towards it all seemed very much to lean against "I'd rather have DRMed content than none at all, if corporations aren't willing to provide us with what we are entitled to". At least that is how I read it.

If people have that kind of attitude, I can see the the suits smiling already.

Copyright-holders are entitled to copyright protection, given that the material will return to the public domain. DRM effectively hinders this, as only those with the proper keys are actually able to free the content when copyright expires.

And before anyone goes "but you don't have to buy the DRMed content"... I don't. I don't support copyright-holders breaking the intent of copyright.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

Yes, but *you're* not the average computer user. There are tools for removing the FairPlay DRM from Apple's AAC files, but that doesn't mean they're DRM free.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you not feel this is a little extreme?

I don't, the GP provided a good overview of the threat DRM poses to society in regard to the future distribution of information and culture. Those of us on slashdot are aware of all the arguments for and against DRM, the wider public that this iMP service is targeted at are not. There appears to be a widely held belief here that the BBC should not be using licence payers money to promote proprietry restrictions on media.

The BBC hasn't trampled on your rights or taken anything from you, and you're complaining because the gift isn't yours to keep, just to borrow.

That wasn't what the GP was complaining about at all, he was noting how people are prepared to accept DRM without being fully aware of the consequences. To reiterate; DRM = Perpetual copyright.

If you don't like this service, you could always go to the creative archive (http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/) and download what the BBC provides there, without DRM, and well before the 70 years of copyright have expired.

I agree that the archive was a step forward, however DRM encumbered iMP is 2 giant leaps back.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[imdx80]

and that is my point, p2p software is arguably as difficult to use as copying a dvd for the 'home' user, but it hasnt stopped shops selling dvds and the money lost to pirates is insignificant.

If the bbc / itv / fox / abc etc provided a service where you could pay to get tv and do what you want with it then i would pay, i wouldnt hope that somebody else pays and releases it on p2p and have the hassle of hunting it down and hoping the quality is good etc.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

"Rather, you know nothing about me."

Evidently, as you choose to hide behind being an AC.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

Thankfully, the BBC, *is* providing a service where you get TV and can do what you want with it - it's called the Creative Archive.

However, the rights issues involved with the vast majority of programming mean that such an approach can't work with 80-90% of what you see on TV - and in these circumstances, iMP is a happy medium.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[squoozer]

There is no comparison here. The author of a newspaper article (assuming the writer is freelance) is the one that has invested the money (and took the risk) into creating a given article. It is right and proper they should own the copyright to that article. The newspaper licenses the article, end of story (sorry bad pun).

This is comparable to the BBC licensing a show from another production company. I would never argue that they own the copyright on that content (unless they actually bought the copyright of course).

I can see where you are coming from. In house writers for the newspaper are paid for by the price of the paper and the advertising contained within. The material produced by these writer should be owed by the paper.

The BBC, however, is not like this. The creation of the BBC was paid for by the licence fee the creation of the newspaper was by individuals who took a risk with their own money. The BBC and all it's works should therefore be owned by the people that paid for it to be created.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

"I can see where you are coming from. In house writers for the newspaper are paid for by the price of the paper and the advertising contained within. The material produced by these writer should be owed by the paper. The BBC, however, is not like this."

Actually, these days the BBC is very much like this - check out the closing credits for programmes on BBC 1 and 2, and you'll see a lot of independent productions. In fact, the BBC has a statutory requirement - set by government - for 25% of its programmes on BBC 1 and 2 to be made by independent producers.

And, exactly as in the worlds of magazines and newspapers, some of those are bought by the BBC "on spec" - pre-made, or part pre-made - while others are commissioned. And as in the world of newspapers, the BBC's rights are more limited when they buy a show or commission a show from an independent. Usually, they have first-showing rights, and have to pay set fees afterwards - just as, in journalism, a newspaper has "first use" rights, and has to pay fees afterwards.

But I guess the underlying point is simply that rights issues are complex in the media, much more complex than "who pays gets the rights". This is the landscape the BBC is having to navigate around with its online stuff.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[squoozer]

It could be argued (although it's quite tenuous) that the film financiers take a gamble, with the risk of losing their money vs the chance of making a profit. The license fee payers take no such gamble, so don't get such a great reward.

The licence payers do take a gamble. They put money into the pot and trust the people running the BBC (and oddly enough the people have no say over who runs the BBC) to produce quality programming that they want to watch and can be sold abroad. Sometimes it doesn't workout and a huge amount of money is wasted. Do you remember Eldorado?

We get the seriously short end of the stick when you consider that you aren't allowed to own a TV without paying the license fee even if you don't watch any BBC content. In that respect you are guilty till proven innocent.

I'm particularly against the license fee as a way for paying for content as I have had the BBC threaten to break my front door down and search the house for contraband TVs. Many people who own a TV don't understand the hassle you get for not owning one. The TVLA have a special exception (or at least and understanding) when it comes to getting search warrents - they are never refused. Have a read about some of my dealings here.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Tobias Lobster]

I am more concerned about the slipperly slope aspect of this, rather than this being BBC or whoever, and thus my reaction.

Fair enough, I'd taken your comment to be specifically about the BBC offering, not DRM in general. I think the BBC case is different to the majority, as the content is also available in a non-DRM format and at equal (or better) quality for those with DVB-T decoders.

I do accept your point about the slippery slope, although I hope consumers will see the difference between a product which is restricted even though it has been purchased, and a product which is free to download (licence fee aside) yet restricted.

His atttitude towards it all seemed very much to lean against "I'd rather have DRMed content than none at all, if corporations aren't willing to provide us with what we are entitled to". At least that is how I read it.

It may have seemed that way, but it certainly wasn't what I meant. As I said a couple of lines above, I think the DRM here is a different case, because the media is also available in a non-DRM format as long as I remember to watch it or record it at the time it is broadcast. If the BBC were to start attaching DRM to on-air broadcasts then it would be another matter entirely and I'd agree with your point that it was taking away more than copyright should allow.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

"There appears to be a widely held belief here that the BBC should not be using licence payers money to promote proprietry restrictions on media."

The BBC isn't "promoting" anything. You don't have to use this service. It's not as if they were adding some kind of broadcast flag system that prevented you from recording TV on a PVR or VCR and offering this as an alternative. They're not - this is simply an extra service, that you can choose to use or not use. Don't like the DRM restrictions? Then don't use it - instead, record the show on your PVR and do what you want with it.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[fyonn]

The license fee is tied to television ownership

well, it is, or certainly was tied to the use of a television to watch broadcasts. if you only used one to watch DVD's or play PS2 games etc then you do not need a TV licence.

or have they "fixed" that by now?

dave

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Grab]

No worries. The BBC could always "move into the 21st century" by buying programmes outright and freely distributing them on the web. Expect your TV license fee to rise by a couple of orders of magnitude - maybe £5k a year would cover it. Great idea, Einstein!

Grab.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Grab]

Download any programme, yes. However you still have to prevent it being redistributed, otherwise you *will* end up with "internet TV" sites putting these out without paying a penny, or simply ripped onto eDonkey or some other system. And most of those "internet TV" sites will inevitably be in Russia or somewhere else where rule of copyright law doesn't apply. So we're back to DRM again.

I agree that the 7-day thing is crap, but you'll still need the DRM.

Grab.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Tobias Lobster]

Just finished reading your tv license page - no wonder you're not a fan of the BBC or TVLA. A friend of mine has been in a similar situation, although his case is complicated by the fact that he does have a plasma screen which he uses to watch DVDs (it has no tuner, so no license is required). Even after an enforcement officer visited and confirmed that the setup was legal the TVLA continued to send threatening letters.

I was rather surprised by your figure of 2% not having a television, I always assumed the UK population were more addicted to tv than that.

Regarding the gamble taken by the license payers - Yes, I agree we lost big when it came to Eldorado, but because the bets are spread widely it rarely becomes a total loss. Hopefully the BBC will never spend a whole year's budget on a single project - that would be bad (remember On Digital and the football broadcast rights?)

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidently, as you choose to hide behind being an AC.

And you behind an alias. We may have strayed way off-topic here but saying I know nothing about the media while making statements about the Beeb not being nepotistic or corrupt was the most amusing.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

Actually, it's never been tied to how you use it. Any household containing a device *capable* of receiving TV - including PCs with a TV tuner card - is subject to the license.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[imdx80]

More out of curiosity, am I in a minority where i would rather get things easier at a (nominal) cost, in a format that i have the freedom to do what i want eg transfer it to various players, rather than get things for free but with the hassle of finding one with the uncertainties that p2p comes with.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Haeleth]

However you still have to prevent it being redistributed, otherwise you *will* end up with "internet TV" sites putting these out without paying a penny, or simply ripped onto eDonkey or some other system. And most of those "internet TV" sites will inevitably be in Russia or somewhere else where rule of copyright law doesn't apply. So we're back to DRM again.

But any broadcast programme that people want to watch is already being ripped and distributed over just about any P2P system you care to name.

This cannot be emphasised too much: Downloadable content does not carry any new risks!

I can see that DRM is beneficial to copyright holders. I am open to the argument that it is beneficial to society, provided safeguards are put in place to ensure that the content will enter the public domain properly when its copyright expires. But the copyright holders do themselves no favours when they lie to us and pretend that DRM is a way for them to maintain the status quo, when it is really a way for them to increase the level of control they have over their work.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC isn't "promoting" anything. You don't have to use this service. It's not as if they were adding some kind of broadcast flag system that prevented you from recording TV on a PVR or VCR and offering this as an alternative. They're not - this is simply an extra service, that you can choose to use or not use. Don't like the DRM restrictions? Then don't use it - instead, record the show on your PVR and do what you want with it.

Yes the BBC allocated funds to create an extra service that is less functional, why? In releasing the service, the BBC certainly are promoting the concept of DRM media to the public. One of the concerns is that this could ease adoption of a UK broadcast flag or equivilent at some future point.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think his point is: the BBC (us, in other words) pays for the programme to be made, why the fuck does it belong to the outside production company?

Re:Before anyone asks..

[fyonn]

Actually, it's never been tied to how you use it. Any household containing a device *capable* of receiving TV - including PCs with a TV tuner card - is subject to the license.

not quite true. if you use a TV tuner card to watch tv, then yes, you need a licence, but the Licence is, or certainly was at the start of last year, only for the use of a TV to watch broadcasts. not purely for the ownership of a device which can watch TV. The TV licencing company don't like to admit it, but here is a quote from their webpage:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp

"Do I need a licence?
If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one."

look at what they are not saying. they do not say that if you have a device that can record TV then you need a licence. they only say that if you *use* a TV or other device to receive TV then you need a licence.

My best friend used a TV purely for dvd's, xbox and playstation for years and after informing the TV licencing company they left him alone (for about a year, and then hassled him again) and didn't require him to buy a licence.

also note that you do not need to disable the TV tuner in a device either. simple not having it plugged into an aerial is technically enough. I think that detuning channels would be a wise move too :)

this guy managed to get an admittance of the facts from the TV licencing people

http://www.jifvik.org/tv/tvl1.jpg
dave

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Stween]

That still holds. If you have but one TV which you do not use to watch TV, then you pay no fee.

They'll bug you about it, but you don't have to pay. I know a guy who had a TV but couldn't get a signal -- at all. The TV license folks would bug him every few months, but he'd always point out that it was actually impossible for him to watch TV, and they'd go away.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

I stand corrected - thanks for the info!

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

In what way could delivering a service which doesn't remove anyone rights, but instead gives them additional options, "ease adoption" of removing rights that already exist? Please explain the causal mechanism.

It's like saying that having an option to buy a car in red is somehow easing the way for removing the option to buy one in silver (the most popular colour choice). That argument makes no sense.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

You have the thesis: You provide the evidence. Given that I don't know who you are, I have every reason in the absence of evidence to suppose that your accusations are groundless. Given that I know a good deal about the BBC's recruitment and purchasing policies, I have very good reasons to *know* they're groundless.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[aminorex]

> you still have to prevent it being redistributed

And believe five or six impossible things before breakfast, too, eh?
Sorry, not going to happen.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[EvilMole]

"But any broadcast programme that people want to watch is already being ripped and distributed over just about any P2P system you care to name."

That's demonstrably false. Is yesterday's edition of "Mastermind" on UK Nova? Not yet - and it might not ever be. The same is true for a broad swathe of programmes, and especially children's programmes.

You seem to agree that there are circumstances where no DRM isn't a bad thing, and your objection appears to be when it's used to increase control. And I agree with you on both those points. But this, to me, is a classic case of providing a service that doesn't reduce the rights of users or increase the control of the copyright holders. If you want to keep a permanent copy, then there's nothing stopping you using your TV card or VCR to do so. However, if you miss the program and forget to set your PVR/VCR, then this offers you a way to see it - something you simply can't do at the moment.

It's an additional service, not a replacement - and so adds to your options, rather than reducing them.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Grab]

OK, to be clearer - redistribution of the file has to be made pointless. DRM fulfills that requirement, by making the data unuseable (assuming the DRM has been implemented in a reasonably strong way).

Another way of stopping redistribution is by making downloading the original file free/cheap. But this doesn't look likely for non-UK residents, since they're not contributing to the BBC through the TV license fee, and this will also be limited by the licensing terms under which shows are transmitted.

Grab.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to agree that there are circumstances where no DRM isn't a bad thing

I agree with him - there aren't not cases where not having a lack of DRM isn't not a non-good thing.

I think...

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh the BBC crimilising the poor because they dare to own a TV, or maybe in the future an Internet connection, in the 21st century - a bastion of all that is good ...

Re:Before anyone asks..

[aminorex]

> assuming the DRM has been implemented in a reasonably strong way

It's a fantasy assumption. Has never happened yet, and I don't see a reason to think that it's ever going to happen. Check it out:

EVERY

DRM

SYSTEM

DEPLOYED

HAS

BEEN

CRACKED

without exception, every time someone releases a DRM system into the wild, it gets cracked. The pattern is long and consistent and obvious. If someone running a media business thinks that their content will not be copied freely, either they think their content is undesirable crap or they are an incompetent fool.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[the real darkskye]

Not true, the DRM on my iPod hasn't been cracked.
If anyone wants to listen to my music on my iPod will have to pry it from my cold dead hands first.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Anonymous Coward]

BBC's recruitment and purchasing policies

Dimbleby, Dimbleby, Dimbleby. What the Sophie, Desmond and Esther (Rantzen) Wilcox are you wittering about? Why would people mention something that never happens because it's against policy? Given a choice between working with a friend or a stranger people choose the friend every time, it's not as if the BBC have a monopoly or anything.

This academic paper titled Freelance Worker Networks in Audio-Visual Industries is a good read, I imagine a real eye opener for you.

Re:Before anyone asks..

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way could delivering a service which doesn't remove anyone rights, but instead gives them additional options, "ease adoption" of removing rights that already exist? Please explain the causal mechanism.

RMS explains the mechanism well enough. How about the BBC putting a link to that document on the iMP front page?

It's like saying that having an option to buy a car in red is somehow easing the way for removing the option to buy one in silver (the most popular colour choice). That argument makes no sense.

No, it's not like that at all. A better analogy would be a heavily discounted car having the hood welded shut, convienient auto pilot, no steering wheel and once widely adopted they switch to only travelling on journeys approved by a media conglomerate. Naturally, the public buy this car without knowing that at some future point they will no longer be free to make decisions about their route or destination.

Genius, I tell you!

[rincebrain]

He linked to a UK torrent site right from the article! He's a legal genius!

DRM-encumbered

[ReformedExCon]

I don't see how it can be considered P2P. You download the media off of the BBC's servers, not from your friends and neighbors.

In addition, the media files themselves are DRM-encumbered, so it wouldn't even make sense to have them on a P2P network when the files would 1) stop working after 7 days and 2) may not work on other machines.

Is this really P2P? If they are opening up the archives, why would they want to put DRM on the files?

It doesn't make sense.

Re:DRM-encumbered

[Musteval]

From the article:

iMP uses peer to peer distribution technology (P2P) to legally distribute these programmes.

Somebody is wrong, and I doubt it's the BBC in regards to their own technology.

Re:DRM-encumbered

[porksoda]

Is this really P2P?

No.

Re:DRM-encumbered

[Tobias Lobster]

From the BBC About iMP page http://www.bbc.co.uk/imp// - The files stop working 7 days after the broadcast date of the programme. So this isn't archive material, it's current programmes being offered for people who missed the live broadcast.

Because all the files expire at the same time there's no reason why everyone couldn't use the exact same DRM-encumbered data, so there's no reason why it shouldn't be downloaded from peers.

People who don't have the DRM key (ie those don't have the iMP application) won't be able to watch the media.

Re:DRM-encumbered

[Anonymous Coward]

The 7 day limit is just to ensure that you can't archive the TV series. Otherwise they would destroy their highly profitable market in DVD sales and syndication of successfull series. It also fits with the p2p aspect because the main BBC servers only have to have a limited (7 days worth) amount of programming available. Less if they only upload new material.

Much of the demand for this will come from sports events. How many people are watching TV at 10.30 on a Saturday night to watch Match of the Day? The replay on Sunday morning is even less appealing.

Re:DRM-encumbered

[spacefight]

Why not? It's based on technology from kontiki.com, see yourself there.

Re:DRM-encumbered

[Archibald Buttle]

The BBC claim that this utilises P2P technology. The fact that it also uses DRM is not incompatible with this - the two can live together just fine. There is no evidence at all that this does not use P2P, and you can distribute DRM'ed files over any existing P2P network. It is the player application that enforces the DRM.

The BBC are of course hosting the files themselves on their own servers, and these are high bandwidth seeds in the P2P network.

Re:DRM-encumbered

[MattBurke]

I don't see how it can be considered P2P. You download the media off of the BBC's servers,

Just because the BBC are seeding the files and there are very few other users in the trial to connect to (let alone any that might have the show you're after) means it's not a P2P network? So by your logic bittorrent, edonkey, winmx, etc all were never actually P2P networks until they gained X number of clients? I think not.

Re:DRM-encumbered

[zootm]

Take a look at their technology provider's page — it looks like a similar system to BitTorrent, but with a specific content (and DRM) system built on top, as opposed to just being a networking system. It's certainly P2P, from what they describe.

Re:DRM-encumbered

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition, the media files themselves are DRM-encumbered, so it wouldn't even make sense to have them on a P2P network when the files would 1) stop working after 7 days and 2) may not work on other machines.

How hard would it be to set up a Bochs partition with a common hardware profile and a hacked date?

Re:DRM-encumbered

[anthony_dipierro]

So, what if I change the date on my computer? What if I download the software from someone else? What if I reverse engineer the softrware to discover the key?

This doesn't sound like a very strong system, regardless of whether or not it's distributed by P2P. I believe on the of the other posters who said his wife works for this company and said that they are only instituting a half-hearted DRM scheme because they're required to do due diligence by the content owners.

Re:DRM-encumbered

[Tobias Lobster]

This doesn't sound like a very strong system, regardless of whether or not it's distributed by P2P. I believe on the of the other posters who said his wife works for this company and said that they are only instituting a half-hearted DRM scheme because they're required to do due diligence by the content owners.

I agree - they're doing what they need to for legal and boardroom reasons, and if it stops the majority of unauthorised viewers that's good enough.

Almost all of the UK population can record this stuff off air with no DRM anyway, in fact those with DVB-T cards in their PCs can record nice high-quality unprotected digital streams - too big to fileshare for the moment, but easily re-encoded to a lower bitrate.

As soon as the BBC put in some sort of inconvenience for unauthorised viewers those viewers will either get the media another way, or not bother because they weren't that interested in it in the first place.

Re:DRM-encumbered

[dave420]

p2p means "peer to peer" not "peer to peer files you can do anything with at anytime using any software you want".

Translation: If it comes from peers, it's p2p :)

Re:DRM-encumbered

[EvilMole]

Can someone mod this down, given that it's been pretty fairly established that (1) the files are seeded via the BBC's servers, rather than served from them, and (2) whether a file is DRM'd or otherwise makes no difference to if a service is peer to peer.

The idea that this is five points "insightful" just makes Slashdot mods look stupid!

Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[Professor S. Brown]

Homer: Bart whats on the telly tonight?
Bart: I don't know dad, why don't you look in the paper?
Homer: I don't have a paper, boy, I lost it while trapping foxes down the old mine!

When can I buy the service?

[NigelJohnstone]

I don't live in the UK, do they plan to let non UK people get (pay) for access? Anyone from the beeb know?

Re:When can I buy the service?

[91degrees]

Not going to happen.

The BBC sells these shows to networks in other countries. They're not going to be interested unless they have exclusivity.

Re:When can I buy the service?

[EvilMole]

I wouldn't bet that it won't happen. The majority of BBC-produced content isn't sold abroad, or not for a long time. Allowing non-UK viewers to watch, with the same "seven days after original broadcast" stipulation, wouldn't be hard to implement or commercially damaging.

Re:When can I buy the service?

[EddyPearson]

Absolutely not. British Broadcasting Company is the clue, since its really P2P only for the name (thing is it isnt really p2p at all!) all of the world using the service would be like slashdotting a Tagged Warez FTP :p

Re:When can I buy the service?

[jaseuk]

I expect that the real problem is bandwidth. Just think what would happen their internet costs if this was available worldwide.

Jason.

Re:When can I buy the service?

[Anonymous Coward]

The beeb are bound by a charter (the terms which govern it's use of the broadcasting fee) to only use the license fee for the purpose of UK viewers. If non-UK people wished to use a similar service, the BBC would have to raise the fee to recuperate expenses paid from the license fee from seperate means.

Re:When can I buy the service?

[Anonymous Coward]

And those of us that moved from the UK and have to put up with useless local USA TV :-(
As a UK guy and previous ;-) BBC license payer prior to moving, I'd love to be able to pay a few to receive this.

Re:When can I buy the service?

[aslate]

Well, they already sell BBC America abroad and they are able to do this with no problems with the fee. The charter states that the British-based sevices and the Worldwide services are seperate companies (Or seperately financed). So if they were to do this, i can't see why they can't just charge foreigners in the same ways they do for BBC America.

"UK only"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone please tell me how they are going to ensure only those in the UK get it?

Oh wait, does it mean that it is legal to download it only if you're in the UK?

Re:"UK only"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... IP filtering? Like Google does to direct UK addresses to google.co.uk.

Re:"UK only"?

[prionic6]

Probably only UK citizens can subscribe. Only subscribers will get in.

Re:"UK only"?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have agreements with UK ISP's. It already is in place - as the odd radio broadcasts on the internet are restricted to 'UK only' for rights reasons - they then give a link to the ISP's who are good to go, and say that if you are inside the UK and your SP isn't on the list then you should get in touch with them so they can get in touch with the BBC.

I imagine an international version will be about sooner or later for all the BBC produced material - but probably fee based. The reason is that those in the UK have already paid the fee by already having (the vast vast majority anyway)a TV licence - so I can see a fee based version run by BBC worldwide as an option for those outside the UK.

Re:"UK only"?

[ray-auch]

They'll use current (imperfect) IP geolocation stuff like everyone else.

In future they might well simply require some form of confirmation of your tv licence details to prove that you've paid for it - which is the real goal. Restricting the downloads to UK only is only an approximation - since not everyone in the UK has a tv licence.

Re:"UK only"?

[Richard_at_work]

They'll use current (imperfect) IP geolocation stuff like everyone else.

No, they wont. They will use the internal peering arrangements that they have currently setup with a large number of UK ISPs. When you gain access to BBC content through one of these ISPs, you dont actually go out onto the internet but you are routed through private peering directly onto a BBC network with content servers. You cant access these content servers any other way (currently), they are not 'public'.

THe BBC provides highspeed peering for a large number of businesses and reasons, tehy have a pretty impressive network.

Re:"UK only"?

[Ngwenya]

They'll use current (imperfect) IP geolocation stuff like everyone else.

No, they wont.

I rather think that they will. I know because my wife works for the BBC and showed me a preview of the technology roadmap - which is now public, and so I can talk about it here.

They're using GeoIP to do IP location, Kontiki to handle the P2P aspect and (at the moment) Windows WMV DRM to handle the encryption and license to view.

I suspect that this is only the initial technology - there is no way that MPlayer/VLC/etc will implement DRM (and even if they did, they're open source, so people could just dike it out anyway).

The DRM aspect is for due diligence - so that the Beeb can represent to the content producers (often non-BBC companies) that their content is being safeguarded against the legions of pirates, who, err.. download the stuff via DVB-{S,T,C} and then upload to Bittorrent. In other words - the guys at Kingswood Warren [BBC Tech HQ] know fine that the DRM protection is ultimately bullshit, but that they have to make some good faith effort to raise the piracy bar.

Back to GeoIP: I tried going out to my (German-based) Web proxy, then back via a UK HTTP proxy to test whether it would work. And it did - proving nothing, BTW, except that non UK people will get access to this content anyway.

--Ng

Re:"UK only"?

[ukmountie]

Easy, In order to start the player you have to press the £ (pound) key. :-)

Re:"UK only"?

[ln -sf head ass]

Just keep restarting TOR until you get google.co.uk after you type google.com. Then get the content.

Re:"UK only"?

[Richard_at_work]

Thats interesting, because I just did a traceroute on the IP my copy of iMP connects to to login and get initial content, and the seed and login servers are on the private peered network, which is only accessable from within certain UK ISPs networks. Trying to access this IP address from a server in Canada and I get no return from it. They may use Geo IP for the p2p part, but for authentication and initial content they most certainly use content servers on the private peering only.

Re:"UK only"?

[ray-auch]

To quote their FAQ:

13. Will internet users abroad be able to get iMP?
No. The BBC will be using Geo-IP technology to restrict usage to UK users only. [Top]

15. What do I need to use iMP?
FOR PC (and the High Definition tests):
A broadband connection at home - 512kbps or higher


So, Geo-IP and no mention of needing to use specific partner ISPs (I do vaguely remember this being a requirement for some free streaming content, possibly BBC, but that was some time ago).

Re:"UK only"?

[ray-auch]

private peered network, which is only accessable from within certain UK ISPs

So how do they get away with none of the documentation (or announcements) mentioning the limitation to certain ISPs ?

Or is it because of trial stage is invite-only and they've limited the invites to those ISPs ?

What happens if you go via a different UK ISP (not cennected to that network) - maybe then it falls back to Geo-IP and a different route (or different auth servers) ?

Re:"UK only"?

[Richard_at_work]

Quite simply, because the BBC peering offer is not limited to certain ISPs, but is open to all of them - its non selected, its just a matter of whether or not your ISP has signed up. The BBC already host content on these restricted content servers already, and last I heard something like 90% of UK ISPs had a peering arrangement that also allowed them access to the content servers.

Re:"UK only"?

[ray-auch]

From the consumers point of view (where their faq is aimed) it is limited - either your ISP is signed up or it isn't.

All the FAQ says is that you need broadband (and you could read that that is just because of the download size because elsewhere they mention it taking hours to download typical show over dial-up).

I wouldn't have thought that 90% was high enough to advertise without availability caveats, and if it is not even documented in FAQs etc. you are talking about 1 in 10 of your users who are definitely going to be calling your support lines with a major (known, unresolvable) problem. That is a lot.

Re:"UK only"?

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesn't mean that. Internet suppliers don't all hold an equal share of the market. The largest companies will almost definilty have signed up to this, and therefore I doubt that it would even currently be 1 in 10 of the population unable to get it. Even if it cooincidently happens to be the case, 90% of isps having signed up to this does not mean 1 in 10 people will not have access to this content

Re:"UK only"?

[Richard_at_work]

When you consider that all of the UKs major ISPs have signed up, and the 10% that havent mainly include smaller, none national ISPs, the figure is going to be a lot less than 1 in 10 users affected.

Maybe they are just using it as a buzzword

[ReformedExCon]

Take a look at this page which details how to download the files:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/imp/tour/tour7.shtml

Maybe the files themselves are hosted on a P2P network and the BBC saves on bandwidth costs by offloading the files onto that network. But it doesn't seem very "P2Pish".

Re:Maybe they are just using it as a buzzword

[Musteval]

Maybe I should read more than one article next time.

Re:Maybe they are just using it as a buzzword

[zootm]

It is using a P2P system, kontiki.com appears to have details (those are the providers). From the pretty brief overview they give, it looks similar to BitTorrent.

Re:Maybe they are just using it as a buzzword

[deinol]

Maybe the files themselves are hosted on a P2P network and the BBC saves on bandwidth costs by offloading the files onto that network. But it doesn't seem very "P2Pish".

Peer to Peer is a network term, not a social one. It does not mean that the content originates from your "peers" in the since that they are your "Friends and Neighbors", it means that the data is distributed from many places accross the network. It's not a traditional Client/Server model. Everyone is a client, everyone is a server. This is what bittorrent is.

Once it is out on the network, they can stop hosting and the files will still be available if others continue to seed.

Question..

[dotslasher_sri]

Wouldn't it be a good idea to open up to the world and generate more revenue from advertising (free internet based content = more potential viewers)?. I know BBC is paid be the UK public and all, but if it can generate revenue by itself who not do it?

Sri.

Re:Question..

[Brown]

Currently the BBC depends on the TV licence fee, and shows no commercal advertising. This is a very good thing.

Once a broadcaster starts depending on advertising for revenues, the overriding concern becomes viewer figures, rather than quality of output; thus ITV (the BBC's main commercial equivelent) shows programs like 'Celebrity Love Island' and 'TVs Naughtiest Blunders 16' at the same time as BBC shows Newsnight (fairly serious news and current affairs program).

The licence fee, despite many people not liking it, makes for independent and high-quality broadcasting; IMO arguably the best in the world.

-Chris

Re:Question..

[Anonymous Coward]

Being BBC content, there would be no advertisments anyway..

Re:Question..

[Martz]

The BBC isn't allowed under it's charter to make money from advertising. They are supposed to form a neutral point on everything, including corporate interest.

That hasn't stopped some companies muscling into the popular TV shows to get their product placed - and recently are increasingly underfire about the whole thing.

That said - if you do pay the BBC TV/Radio licence - doesn't that entitle me to use of any content that they carry? For example if Radio 1 play a song on the radio - since my licence payment has already reembursed the artist for it - shouldn't I be allowed to listen again and again?

Re:Question..

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The content is not (always) owned by the BBC, it is owned by the company that made the content. This is why, for instance, the radio shows are only availble for 7 days after broadcast. This is part of the agreement the content providers/companies that make the programmes have with the BBC. The BBC just distributes or commissions them, it does not necessarily own the rights.

Re:Question..

[MosesJones]

We have no adverts on the BBC. We pay a license fee for the right to watch TV and our reward is good quality programmes, no adverts and probably the worlds strongest news agency.

Re:Question..

[rwjyoung]

Surely if you do pay the BBC TV/Radio licence then it really depends on the terms of the licence. You are not paying for the content but only for a licence to view that content under the conditions set out in that licence. In fact it seems similar to other media licence issues where you are buying a licence for that media and not the actual media itself.
Surely it depends on the what the licence small print allows the buyer to do ?

Re:Question..

[Anonymous Coward]

Not having adverts is one of the fantastic things about the BBC. Dont you *dare* suggest it :-)

Re:Question..

[anthony_dipierro]

Once a broadcaster starts depending on advertising for revenues, the overriding concern becomes viewer figures, rather than quality of output

Would you say this has happened with PBS? My feeling is that it hasn't, but I'm not completely sure about it.

Ironically, having an overriding concern of viewer figures probably makes more sense if the program is supported by taxes than if it's supported by advertising. If everyone has to pay, then you should try to benefit the most people.

I'd also question your use of "quality". Quality according to whom? Wouldn't the best quality programming also have the most viewers? Or do you think "quality" is an empirical truth to be determined by you?

There's another issue to, and that's with the distribution mechanism. It's not like you can't distribute both a highly viewed, "low quality" show and a less highly viewered, "high quality" show. Yes, you're not going to do this is if the revenues generated by the less popular show don't exceed the costs to create the show, but if that's the case you probably shouldn't be producing that show, no matter how "high quality" you deem it to be.

Re:Question..

[wuxier]

I think to be legal, they have to have contracts with ISPs. Considering good relations some UK ISPs have with other telco/ISPs, I'm hopeful they'll open up gradually.

Re:Question..

[mei_mei_mei]

The BBC is one of the few things Britain can really be proud of, and a lot of that's because it doesn't have advertising.

Re:Question..

[Anonymous Coward]

whatever your philosophical views on this, and your opinion on the nature of quality, it's pretty much unarguable that bestsellers are bad books, box office hits are bad films, the top of the TV ratings list is populated with bad TV shows, and the music that gets to the top of the charts is mostly pretty crap.

to argue otherwise would be sophistry.

Re:Question..

[Tim Browse]

Well, except for the adverts for BBC programmes themselves. Which are sometimes even more annoying than normal ads, because they put them up during the programme. No, I do not give a flying fuck that EastEnders is on next - I'm currently watching the climactic last 3 minutes of the programme that is on at the moment! Imagine that. But luckily your whizzy animated 'On next!' banner ad has totally ruined any sense of immersion I had. Great job, Mr TV Man!

And don't get me started on DOGs :-)

Re:Question..

[Anonymous Coward]

Last year, Channel 4 axed a very long running quiz show with guaranteed -daytime- viewing figures of over 400000. So why was it axed? Because the majority of the viewers are retirees, and thus don't spend much, and thus aren't of interest to advertisers. A popular, and much liked show axed because of a viewing figure requirement.

Also, consider stuff like "the sky at night". It's not on very often, and doesn't get that many viewers, but then again, it's the only decent program about stargazing on TV. As much as only a minority watch it, we're all minorities in some respect, and the BBC makes programs to appeal not to the simultaneous mass majority, but the vast number of minorities out there. It also gaurantees variation in programming that you won't get on market-driven TV.

Finally, there's the matter of risk. The BBC can afford to make programs with no idea of how succesful it would be because its income is still guaranteed. That way, a great program which happens to be very different can come to life.

The BBC, in other words, rocks.

Re:Question..

[EvilMole]

"That hasn't stopped some companies muscling into the popular TV shows to get their product placed - and recently are increasingly underfire about the whole thing."

Ironic that The Times should complain about product placement, when it's packed full of fluff pieces about other Rupert Murdoch properties...

More importantly, the actually report is about programmes made for the BBC by third-party production companies. While, from the introduction, you'd believe that companies were paying the BBC to get their products placed, this is false - the money is going to third parties, not to the BBC, and - if the BBC found out about it - you can bet that those companies wouldn't get much business from them again.

Re:Question..

[miruku]

Currently the BBC depends on the TV licence fee, and shows no commercal advertising. This is a very good thing.

except when you need a toilet break but don't want to miss anything of the show/film you're watching :o

Re:Question..

[amembleton]

Last year, Channel 4 axed a very long running quiz show with guaranteed -daytime- viewing figures of over 400000. So why was it axed? Because the majority of the viewers are retirees, and thus don't spend much, and thus aren't of interest to advertisers. A popular, and much liked show axed because of a viewing figure requirement.

WTF? I assume you are talking about Countdown. The reason it was taken off the air was because the presenter, Richard Whiteley died. It would have been a little insensitive for Channel 4 to keep the show running regardles. Apparantly the show will be back on shortly, this time presented by Des Lynam.

Re:Question..

[Anonymous Coward]

Our reward is a regressive TV poll tax that means millionaire Greg Dyke pays the same as someone living on the poverty line (and which the BBC strongly lobbied to retain during charter negotiations). As as for programme quality unless you're willing to sit up to all hours for the Open University I don't see your claims standing up to scrutiny.

Jolly good show second rate BBC money grabbing bastards ...

Re:Question..

[anthony_dipierro]

it's pretty much unarguable that bestsellers are bad books, box office hits are bad films, the top of the TV ratings list is populated with bad TV shows, and the music that gets to the top of the charts is mostly pretty crap

Ah, yes, anything popular is crap. Now please excuse me while I go off to drink wine, eat cheese, and watch Masterpiece Theatre.

Re:Question..

[Anonymous Coward]

wine and cheese are not artistic creations. sex is popular and good too, but very rarely an artform.

and 'masterpiece theatre' is hardly a good example, is it, because it's not that popular, and secondly the reason it's a bit better than the average is entirely due to the influence of the BBC on british commercial broadcasting or consists of BBC programs made with ratings a secondary consideration.

Re:Question..

[Anonymous Coward]

the times has a virulent anti-BBC bias, for obvious reasons.

Re:Question..

[Martz]

To be honest, I found it difficult enough to find an article on this story at all - even though its less than a month old. The noise in a search for "BBC advertising" is enormous!

Every UK paper has it's bias towards the political parties - perhaps the AC would like to provide some links towards some other stories from different perspectives

I wonder how long it'll be...

[QJimbo]

Till the DRM gets cracked, it's bound to happen at some point, since apple's AAC DRM and the WMA v2 DRM (WMV as well?) have both had decryptors written.

Re:I wonder how long it'll be...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the Beeb we're talking about here. There's a reason this crap is paid for by taxes and given away for free on the web. No one with an modicum of wit would ever find these things worth paying for except at the business end of a bobby's pistol.

Re:I wonder how long it'll be...

[FidelCatsro]

"No one with an modicum of wit would ever find these things worth paying for except at the business end of a bobby's pistol."
Yeah Monty python lacks and comedy brilliance , don't get me started on Fawlty towers.
Also those dammed awful documentaries and shows like the sky at night .
Also some low rated sci-fi like Dr Who and Red Dwarf
BBC certainly is the worst .

Now I'm off , Its time for the men in white coats to give me my injections and warm coat with straps .

Re:I wonder how long it'll be...

[xtracto]

DVDJon

Where art thou?

Re:I wonder how long it'll be...

[Anonymous Coward]

wmv v2 drm is not really cracked, but can be removed thanks to WMP, it'll give you the key...

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=89243&page =16&pp=20

Re:I wonder how long it'll be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in the UK, apparently.

Re:Proprietary requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/imp/help/index.shtml#fourteen

14. When will I get iMP on Mac & Linux?
Currently, our supplier is working towards supporting a Mac and Linux version. [Top]

(And it is p2p - so it cost the beeb less)

BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC 3, BBC 4, BBC 5, BBC,6 BBC 7
BBC HEAVEN!

Re:Proprietary requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

Three cheers for the BBC using my license fee to support an entrenched monopoly, does anybody know where that is covered in their charter? How does the British public actually benefit from Windows Media and DRM, or more simply, when did public service broadcasting become public dis-service broadcasting?

TV problem

[Uukrul]

The problem with this service outside UK is that in a lot countris exists a tight TV policy. At first some TVs were banned to protect TV frequencies, but now there are a lot of political/economic causes to not change the laws.
I don't kwnow how exactly this laws work in the US, but in my country TV channels have a lot of political influence.
So we are not going to see BBC outside UK any time soon.

Re:TV problem

[hughk]

So we are not going to see BBC outside UK any time soon.

I guess these people may have a problem then!

The BBC have two channels that are on worldwide sat distribution, BBC World and BBC Prime. You won't be allowed to see them in some places like Iran, but then only if your dish is visible.

Re:TV problem

[erlorad]

Do they have satellite antennas in your country?

Re:TV problem

[pubjames]

I don't know what country you are from, but I don't think you can speak for "a lot of countries"...

Besides, we're talking internet here, not broadcast over the airwaves.

Re:TV problem

[spectrokid]

In Belgium BBC1/2 and ITV have been on cable for years.

Re:TV problem

[ScootyPuffJr]

I always believed that this was not technically legal (you don't pay a license fee) and people only picked up the channels because they are broadcast unencrypted on a satellite with coverage over much of Western Europe.

Re:TV problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you live? I used to be able to get BBC with no problem in Saudi Arabia. No one ever banned it there.

Re:TV problem

[nogginthenog]

He said cable, i.e the local cable channel broadcast BBC 1&2. It was the same when I was living as a student (I'm British) in the Netherlands. I assumed the local cable channel had made a deal with the BBC. BBC seemed quite popular with the Dutch (in general the Dutch have excelent English language skills).

Missuse of license money

[WarwickRyan]

It's nice to see that the BBC are going ahead with a pioneering distribution method, but I'm not sure this it the right way.

I can't see how distributing huge DRM-infected files, using bandwidth from the BBC's own servers, that then destroys itself in 7 days is efficient use of resources. Add to that the obvious cost of the delivery technology from Microsoft and we're looking at a potential waste of money.

Of all media organisations, the BBC are in the best place to lead the way with the use of open source technology and "risk" the use of unencrypted files.

Heck, it's easy enough for them to charge those outside of the UK for it too, by offering a proportional "license fee" to them. That would have the added benefit of helping ex-pats too.

Re:Missuse of license money

[Richard_at_work]

I can't see how distributing huge DRM-infected files, using bandwidth from the BBC's own servers, that then destroys itself in 7 days is efficient use of resources. Add to that the obvious cost of the delivery technology from Microsoft and we're looking at a potential waste of money.

I think its a great use of my money, why? Simple:

1. Frees up airtime for new shows rather than second chance viewing, cuts down on repeats during the same week which seems to be catching on on a lot of networks
2. Allows the BBC a much better idea of what people want to watch - rather than relying on proportional figures from viewership boxes, they can directly access what people are watching
3. Allows me to view the programs when I want during that 7 day period, which is great when I want to go out on the same night as my favourite show, I dont have to mess around setting the video recorder.

Even the BBC is required to protect its content, as it may not own the full rights to all its shows, since the production of those shows are often subletted to other production companies. Thus it shouldnt 'risk unencrypted files' just because you want them to. Opensource is not a be all end all solution.

Re:Missuse of license money

[hkmwbz]

Yes, it's great in theory.

But what they are doing is to use people's money - the license fee paid by the people - to support Microsoft's illegal monopoly. Yeah, it's almost a cliché by now, but by forcing people to use IE and WMP instead of relying on open, cross-browser/cross-platform technologies, they are basically forcing people back to IE and thereby contributing to cementing Microsoft's dominant position in the market.

They are apparently looking on Mac and Linux solutions in the long term. Will they force people to use a certain browser/media player there, too?

Re:Missuse of license money

[ThaReetLad]

This is one problem with DRM. Whatever system you choose is a monopoly of some kind since an open source DRM system is impossible. As for the BBC, if 90% of its customers already have windows and access to (AFAIK) the only widely installed DRM enabled video codec out there, or at least the major one, they're going to use that rather than waste vast amounts of licence payers money developing their own in house codec. Better the devil you know perhaps.

Personally I'm quite pleased that it's only available to UK residents AND that it will be DRM protected. After all, why should I pay to give the rest of the world free, high quality (or even low quality) entertainment. Furthermore, if the protection were broken they would probably be forced to stop distributing the material in order to protect their international exclusive contracts with other networks.

Re:Missuse of license money

[TheRaven64]

Well, currently they use Real to deliver content. In the long term, they will use Dirac - a CODEC they are developing, which is open source. In the medium term, I don't care what they use, as long as I can play it. If WMV gives good enough quality, then I don't mind if they decide to use it - it's not like they are going to find that the only copy they have of their content is in WMV format, and putting it in Dirac format would be impossible.

This is a proof-of-concept release, and may or may not contain any code that will end up in the final version. If IE + WMP is easy to develop the prototype for, then by all means use that rather than wasting license payers' money on something that may well be thrown away in a few months.

Re:Missuse of license money

[rfunches]

Allows the BBC a much better idea of what people want to watch - rather than relying on proportional figures from viewership boxes, they can directly access what people are watching

I'll disagree with you on that point. They may have exact numbers, but viewership boxes can be placed to record the widest range of their audience as possible; I don't live in the UK but I'm willing to bet that, like the U.S., not everyone has broadband Internet (or a computer, for that matter).

Re:Missuse of license money

[Mant]

Is there a cross platform video codec with DRM that runs on multiple players they could use?

Without the DRM they probably won't be able to do this.

Re:Missuse of license money

[acb]

Dirac is only a codec; it doesn't specify anything but the method of encoding video data; specifically, there is nothing in Dirac about DRM.

If the BBC are bound by licensing constraints to enforce conditions (prevent use by unauthorised (i.e., non-license-fee-funded) users, delete after 7 days, or other), they will need a DRM container format to lock the files in. Desktop Linux (as opposed to embedded appliance systems based on Linux) does not have any marginally secure DRM formats in the way that Windows and OSX do. Furthermore, given that a Linux media player cannot rely on the operating system protecting its memory or output from being monitored by recording processes (as both Windows and OSX can), it's unlikely that **AA-approved DRM players would appear for Linux, except in the context of trusted, closed media-playing appliances based on Linux.

As such, I suspect that the BBC's Linux iMP client will be a perpetual "we're working on it".

Re:Missuse of license money

[cortana]

But all DRM is shit... the encryption key is given to the very person that the message is being protected from... it makes no sense!

Re:Missuse of license money

[microbrewer]

DivX has a Linux and Mac Player but it is still proprietary
DivX also has a DRM solution that is sued by the Art film online rental company Greencine

http://www.greencine.com/
http://www.divx.com/divx/linux/
http://www.divx.com/divx/mac/
http://www.divx.com/corporate/solutions/drm/index. php

Re:Proprietary requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, read the article - Mac & Linux clients are coming. With your intelligence, you'd probably just want to watch Property Porn shows anyway...

Cookies...

[spacefight]

This will get them some serious headaches as lots of people delete their cookies regularly...

Your iMP registration may no longer work if you (accidentally) delete your Internet cookies. If you have deleted your cookies after installation of iMP, please uninstall and then re-install iMP. If you have used up your permitted number of installations then please get in touch with the BBC's iMP support at: Imp-help@bbc.co.uk

Re:Cookies...

[cyclomedia]

yeah but if you use ccleaner there are options to choose cookies not to delete.

but then again this beeb thingy is aimed at joe public, who deosnt know what ccleaner is, or where to get it, and will be terrified by the "WARNING" popups when you try to run it to delete stuff.

but then again, how many joe publics REALLY delete cookies on a regular basis

or know what cookies are in the first place? or classifies them as one of the nod-and-pretend-you-understand-while-actually-hopi ng-it-goes-away annoying computer buzz word acrylic thingimabobs.

i once went to install a network card in somones pc a couple of years back, the desktop was covered in junk and it was very slow and clunky and didnt like the drivers, it was windows me and when i asked him how long it had been since he last got it serviced he said...

"serviced?"

yup 4 years of hammering winme, and it was probably an upgrade from 95b for all i know, needless to say the system promptly died and refused to boot after that.

Re:Cookies...

[brown-eyed slug]

So what you're saying is this guy had a PC working for 4 years, then you installed a network card and it died. Interesting...

Re:Cookies...

[cyclomedia]

heh, that's not where it ended either. the company that had borrowed my services for the day took it away to fix for him, and then their office got broken into and all the gear was stolen, including this blokes PC. so in the end he got a shiney new one for free.

IE and WMP

[FirienFirien]

I am a mac user. By the handy debug menu, I can pretend to use Windows IE (assuming the Mac IE I have somewhere around gets denied too); I also downloaded WMP at some point when mplayer and VLC decided not to be able to play the newest wmv files.

14. When will I get iMP on Mac & Linux?
Currently, our supplier is working towards supporting a Mac and Linux version.

However, having realised I'd jumped a step in the system, I found out that I can't get in anyway, because they're doing a trial first. Points:

1). I thought the whole point of p2p was to have more people able to carry the load? Tie that in with
2). With a trial of 1000 users, the chances are damn slim that two of them will pick the same program to watch while they're both online (hence nearly everything will be downloaded from the central server during the trial anyway.
3). In response to an earlier point about the 7-day limit - this is a workable idea, because the DRM on the program being 7 days long means that it can be downloaded at any point in those 7 days - whether from the server or others - and becomes inviable after that limit. That fits with the original intention of a week-limit on viewability.

Re:IE and WMP

[TheRaven64]

I didn't RTFA, but in the past the BBC has partnered with broadband ISPs for this kind of thing to provide a distributed caching system. This makes it easy to limit viewership to people in the UK - you have to be using a UK ISP - and it makes very efficient use of the bandwidth, since only one copy per ISP leaves the BBC's server, and the ISPs then stream to their own customers (which is actually cheaper than having the customers stream to each other). At a guess, I would say that they are only running the trial in conjunction with one ISP (or maybe a small number greater than one).

Re:IE and WMP

[dchallender]

7 days is farcical It could take the best part of that to download something for many people. e.g they go to work and only have PC turned on when they are in the house, turn PC off overnight, so downloads restricted primarily to weekends, a few hours each evening. Although UK broadband connectivity is getting better a lot of people still at the end of slow ADSL lines. Viable if your PC is on 24 /7 (or appropriate good amount of time) or you can get very fast downloads, but otherwise 7 days is a killer (unless 7 days starts when download ends, which, on my reading, is not what the article implied). As this is a limited trial I think we can assume no idea of "real world" download speeds and so have to assume downloading HD prog will not be swift. As for DRM - a farce as a UK licence fee paying resident... and I'm not even going to comment on Windows / IE only aspect.
--
Dave
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

Who is this service for?

[amelith]

I'm willing to be proved wrong but this is something I just can't see a huge market for. It seems to be aimed at people who:

Watch a lot of TV ... but only watch BBC programmes ... and don't want to archive their favourite programmes

Have a fast internet connection ... but don't download stuff already via P2P

Are into new technology and gadgets ... but only Use IE and Windows ... and haven't bought a PVR

How many people out of the UK population is that? Its contradictory. People who like watching TV already have better options. If you have a PVR you never miss anything you like. Anyway, many programmes are repeated almost straight away.

In my opinion they should just bite the bullet and start releasing their own programmes under a sharing friendly license. The taxpayers have already paid for them to be made and we already have a VCR / PVR that can keep them longer than 7 days.

Ame

Re:Who is this service for?

[mauledbydogs]

I think the key point you make is 'If you have a PVR'. I don't. I also watch very little TV. The few programmes I do want to watch are invariably broadcast when I'm not around. I can envisage several reasons why this is (potentially) a very useful app: 1) You don't have a PVR or VCR (i.e. me) 2) You didn't realise a show you wanted to watch was being broadcast - so you didn't set your PVR or VCR. 3) Someone tells you about that great show they saw on the beeb last night - sounds cool, you want to check it out when you get home. Most BBC shows are not repeated straightaway. There are guidelines in place covering the frequency of repeats and digital channels (such as BBC3 and BBC4) have distinct programming agendas that mean shows from other BBC channels do not fit their editorial guidelines. On another note - other posts mention the lack of P2P on the IMP trial. There are only a few thousand users - not enough to support a proper P2P network. Once the software's properly rolled out the P2P side of the app should help the BBC off-set bandwidth costs. Mark.

Re:Who is this service for?

[Tobias Lobster]

...we already have a VCR / PVR that can keep them longer than 7 days.

What I don't have is a VCR / PVR that can record a programme broadcast yesterday that I forgot was on or didn't even know about until I got an e-mail asking if I'd seen the really good show on tv the previous evening.

I could download the show of an existing .torrent or fileshare network but that's only possible if someone else has encoded and uploaded it. My priority at this point isn't so much having a file I can keep (I'll think about that once I've watched it once) - it's to be able to watch the programme while it's still being discussed by my peers, and before they've given too many spoilers away.

Re:Who is this service for?

[thetroll123]

>Watch a lot of TV
No, watch any TV

>... but only watch BBC programmes
No, watch any BBC programmes

>... and don't want to archive their favourite programmes
This is not unusual at all. Very few people archive TV.

>Have a fast internet connection ... but don't download stuff already via P2P
Lot of people have broadband, few know about/can be bothered with existing P2P.

>Are into new technology and gadgets ... but only Use IE and Windows
Again, no. It's *have access to IE and Windows*, not *only use*.

Very weird post indeed.

Re:Who is this service for?

[Andy Davies]

Well people like me for starters...

Although I currently have to pay the TV license I can't get hold of any of the BBC's digital channels (don't get Freeview and can't have a Satellite dish)

The idea of content that self destructs after 7 days is annoying, my Tivo doesn't do this so why should content downloaded from the BBC (especially when it's DRM'd)

On the plus side I'm actually on the trial so will be having a play later.

Andy

Re:Who is this service for?

[TheRaven64]

The BBC already offers something similar for most of their radio, and some of their TV - you can stream shows up to 7 days after they aired (using Real). The difference here is that the copies are cached locally, and then expire, rather than just not being available. I would rather they didn't have the DRM, however I wouldn't mind them adding some kind of watermark indicating that the content is not allowed to be shared with anyone outside the UK.

I have used the streaming TV service a few times, and I will almost certainly use it again this Christmas - the last thing I watched on television was Doctor Who, and the next season will be simulcast via the web.

Looks good

[RalphSleigh]

Dispite the DRM/IE only, if this works as advertised I can see it being very useful. For 99% of people who only want to use it to get a show/series they missed it sounds perfect.

What about The Daily Show?

[NigelJohnstone]

"The BBC sells these shows to networks in other countries. They're not going to be interested unless they have exclusivity."

I don't think thats true. You can watch Comedy Centrals The Daily Show on the Internet:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/ index.jhtml

Yet its shown on CNN here and Comedy Channel and its coming to the UK soon:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/10/04/daily_show_to _air_in.html

So I don't see how that can be true, especially since it would be sold rather than given away free (like Daily Show). But more to the point, I *can't* get BBC here, its not available, only BBC World is available, so its not competiting in many markets with itself. They could (at minimim) sell it to markets where they don't have distribution deals.

Re:What about The Daily Show?

[dotwaffle]

Jon Stewart's going to be on UK TV? Fuck yeah!

Sorry, 21 today and feeling great!

Re:What about The Daily Show?

[glesga_kiss]

Jon Stewart's going to be on UK TV? Fuck yeah!

Yup, the new channel from Channel 4. Expect loads of reality bullshit, and The Daily Show each night at 8:30.

I'll be sticking with BitTorrent for the most part. Would never catch it outwise, I don't have a VHS/TIVO.

Re:How much did MS paid them ?

[Minicle]

Interesting that the client for this is MS based when pretty much all other BBC online content (BBC Raido) is distributed by real player clients.

Re:Proprietary requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, read the article - Mac & Linux clients are coming.

Hello Judas, will the other clients be closed source and use Windows Media and DRM? Not on any of my machines they won't pal!

you'd probably just want to watch Property Porn shows anyway...

I probably wouldn't watch anything apart from BBC3 comedy and documentries but that is hardly the point. -- Jesus

Has anybody got DVD Jon's phone number?

[gpig]

I think we have a job for him.

Left hand not knowing what the right is doing

[mccalli]

When I first heard this idea mooted, I assumed that this was the reason the Dirac codec was being worked on. I more or less assumed that the service would roll out cross-platform specifically because they used their own codec.

Instead, we get a single platform-only affair. I'm aware they claim they're working on Mac and Linux clients, but unless they're going to a) switch formats or b) strong-arm Microsoft into developing their DRM restrictions for the Mac and Linux (!) then I can't really see that claim as being believable.

My initial reaction then is one of frustration. A really nice idea, something I really want to see, but built on the wrong foundations right from the start. I doubt I'm going to be able to use this anytime soon (UK-based OS X user) despite the platitudes.

As an aside, I'm aware that this has all been done by an external contractor rather than the BBC. That figures, because if there's one media organisation anywhere in the world that really seems to 'get' the internet, it's the Beeb.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Left hand not knowing what the right is doing

[Anonymous Coward]

It stinks of the usual shit you get with companies. After Greg Dyke was replaced, this whole TV over the internet became a nasty football. A promise made by a former boss.

The BBC threw some money at a contractor and said: "make a tv distribution system like we promised". Said contractor went away, realised that building it with Windows media player/ActiveX and some Visual C/Basic etc etc was the five minute solution... even it has fuck all to do with the BBC's charter or committment to openness or hell... security. "Microsoft licensee shall speak unto Microsoft licensee."

Re:Left hand not knowing what the right is doing

[TheRaven64]

Does it say they are using WMV? WMP is perfectly capable of playing (for example) MPEG-4. It may just be that their code uses DirectShow, and hence requires WMP on Windows.

In case you haven't noticed, Dirac is not yet ready for widespread use, and so it makes no sense at all to use it for a trial system - once they have it working, reliable, and nicely packaged[1] I am sure they will start using it.

[1] e.g. As a DirectShow filter, a QuickTime CODEC and a VLC/MPlayer/GStreamer plugin.

Re:Left hand not knowing what the right is doing

[mccalli]

Does it say they are using WMV?

Yes, the linked review says they're using WMV and WMV-HD.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Left hand not knowing what the right is doing

[Alioth]

Please - send your comments to the BBC, they won't see any of us grousing on Slashdot.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_ste p1.shtml

Re:Left hand not knowing what the right is doing

[Cocodude]

I went to a job interview with the BBC R&D department and they informed me that one of the driving reasons behind the Dirac codec was so that they could use it with their p2p network. Paying out fees for using the codecs of others costs them a lot of money and it's also pretty difficult to calculate how many times each programme is downloaded (and thus pay based on number of downloads).

Thus, I'm sure that when Dirac matures, it will be used as it was the original intention.

Cocodude

Re:Proprietary requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

> Not on any of my machines they won't pal!

You have the Freedom to make that choice, and neither the BBC nor I care which choice you make.

Have a pleasant day.

Re:Proprietary requirements

[EvilMole]

"Hello Judas, will the other clients be closed source and use Windows Media and DRM? Not on any of my machines they won't pal!"

Your choice. There's no possibility whatsoever that you could get the rights holders to agree to distribute these programmes without DRM. None. Zero. Zilch. This service simply would not happen if there was no DRM involved.

So that means you have to use a DRM-supporting codec, which is commercially supported (otherwise it would cost $$$ for the BBC to do it). Care to name an alternative to Windows Media that fits the bill.

If you want to watch BBC programmes in a DRM-free digital format, record them yourself and distribute them via UK Nova - which the BBC has so far turned a blind eye to.

Protecting Content

[plnrtrvlr]

The part about all of this that is funny is that all the talk is about changing the distribution method without changing the business model. The BBC still wants to protect it's content. Every media organization out there wants to protect it's content. The world at large wants it's content/data/entertainment NOW and the distribution methods have to change to keep pace with the ever changing available technology. Well, if they change the distribution methods (and they'll have to, or else face a public that is changing the methods themselves) you will have to change your business model to take advantage of the new disrtibution methods. "Protecting your content" is simply "protecting the old business model." I have heard suggested that perhaps advertisements could be placed translucently into the corner of video: why not adopt a business model of advertising with this method and have a tag put into the ad so that it reports to a counter each time the ad is played? No longer would there be a need to "protect your content" as it would benefit the distributors to have the content shared as much as possible. Maybe you could even have a "Save and Play Full Ad" option so that if an advertiser wanted to put together an especially catchy translucent you could bring up a full screen ad and get a good chuckle: with my TiVO I find myself rewinding and playing ads all the time that catch my eye, so don't say that people wouldn't do it. I'm sure there are lots of other possible adaptations to the business model that could be made, and the first company to compell the advertisers to try one of the better methods will be able to distribute without DRM and take full advantage of modern technology (and make a killing along the way).

Re:Protecting Content

[Anonymous Coward]

no adverts on the BBC mate.

UK?

[dascandy]

13. Will internet users abroad be able to get iMP? No. The BBC will be using Geo-IP technology to restrict usage to UK users only.

I assume they mean UK proxy users, since you can't really check whether the person is or isn't in the UK.

Re:UK?

[acb]

Assuming that there exist widely available UK-based HTTP proxies, and that the BBC don't blacklist them.

Dear Beeb

[el_womble]

Excellent. The BBC is making moves to let me, a Licence Fee Payer, get at the content I've been forced to pay for in a way that is more useful to me. Well done.

But can you imagine the arguments that are going on inside the BBC at the moment?

The licence fee is pretty reasonable at the moment (well I think it is) and a large part of that is due to additional funds that are created when the BBC sells DVDs of archive and popular shows. The nice thing about DVD sales is that licence fee payers benefit, because the BBC gets a cut, but also the underpaid BBC talent gets a chance to make some money. The other source fo revenue is global syndication. I simply don't see how this won't cut into DVD sales.

I hope the BBC has the foresight to see that this really shouldn't be a problem. People are used to paying a subscription for TV, let non-uk citizens pay their $17.50 a month and let the money roll in. Sure there will be illegal copies of the shows rolling around bittorrent sites, but thats happening already.

What the BBC really need to do is get into bed with Apple on this. Just open up the archives, explain that it needs to be sold as a subscription ($15 a month has a nice ring to it), all you can eat service and let Apple do the rest.

Re:Dear Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw the BBC!

I moved to UK a year ago and I find this licensing thing annoying, The BBC is a monopoly and the licensing thing is undemocratic.

I am just a poor student with a scholarship from a poor country, WHY THE HECK should I pay for that stupid license to see TV?? and more if [something that of course I do not do because I do not have money for that] I pay for a cable or SKY service.

Screw BBC, screw license, and screw the BBC programs, which are really stupid (well... that is not exactly their fault, almost all the TV content is stupid these days).

Re:Dear Beeb

[TheRaven64]

I own a television, and therefore pay a license fee. I haven't turned on my TV since Doctor Who finished (I do watch rented DVDs of some TV shows on a projector, but I don't need a license for this). Every day, I check the local and worldwide RSS feeds from news.bbc.co.uk. Since the license fee is less than the cost of a daily newspaper, I am happy to pay it just for this service. Adding the ability to stream shows I've missed (most radio, some TV) made me even more willing to pay. Funding Dirac development, again, helped. This new service helps even more.

Even if I didn't own a TV, I would be willing to pay the license fee - I hope the government realises soon that the most valuable BBC services are not TV-related, and moves the license fee to something else.

Re:Dear Beeb

[ganache]

Monopoly??? Have you never heard of ITV, C4, C5???

Re:Dear Beeb

[dkf]

Undemocratic? Are you aware that if you took a vote of people in the UK, most would say that the license fee is basically a good thing? That's what "democratic" means. It does not mean that you're free to opt out of paying, though of course you are; you're free to not have a TV at all (a good move anyway; leaves more time for coding and slashdot.)

Re:Dear Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC has been trying to get a change in the current legislation so that they can charge Internet users the same licensing fee they charge Television owners, mainly due to TV cards and the such.

I can only see this as being a move to further justify their position on that.
Or perhaps i'm just paranoid. I don't trust the BBC when it comes to TV License. They strong arm everyone into paying it regardless of whether your TV has the capability of picking up BBC (mine has it's tuner removed so I just use it for DVD's and consoles and they STILL bug me every 2 months =/)

Re:Dear Beeb

[ln -sf head ass]

They have a point with respect to TV cards, since they already have a tuner. But the tuners can be detected by the mobile monitoring already done to look for unlicensed TVs. They have no basis whatsoever for charging Internet users a licensing fee, espeically given that they haven't really even released the content given that it's encumbered with Digital Restrictions Management (DRM).

Re:Dear Beeb

[EvilMole]

"I am just a poor student with a scholarship from a poor country, WHY THE HECK should I pay for that stupid license to see TV??"

Why should you get something for nothing? The last time I checked, free access to television wasn't regarded as a basic human right.

Re:Dear Beeb

[EvilMole]

The license fee already applies to TV tuners in computers if you use them receive broadcasts.

I can't find any reference to the BBC attempting to extend the license to internet users - can you provide one?

Re:Dear Beeb

[RotateLeftByte]

Dear AC,
  You are paying for the priveledge of watching programmes without those intensly irritating and banal advertisments. for example.
2100 Four Adverts
2102 Program Starts
2109 First Ad Break
2113 Program Resumes
2125 Second Ad Break
2128 Program Resumes
2148 Third Ad Break
2151 Program Resumes
2158 Program Ends

If I watch anything on Commercial channels I'll record it on my PVR and skip over the ads. I know that in the US, TIVO is planning of stopping this. IF that comes in here then I'll throw the TV into the recycling bin and start reading War & Peace.

If (mr AC) you don't like the BBC and the license fee, you can always go back to whence you came and continue your studies there! I'm sure you won't be missed by the rest of us.

Re:Dear Beeb

[ianpm]

"Bugging" you is not the same as making you pay though is it. They HAVE to enfoce the licence fee, its their bread and butter after all.

Also, collection issues are really the fault of Capita so really its them who need their arses kicked.

BBC kicks

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't assume that this trial is necessarily representative of the final goal. As the BBC is a publicly funded entity, there are politics like, why should UK tax payers be providing content for everyone else in the world? There is also the politics of file sharing like, why is the BBC allowing people in other countries to pirate our shows. These issues lie at the heart of the rationale for providing the service: why should the BBC lock up old shows in a vault. We paid for them. It's their responsibility to fully utilize the potential of the programs. This may mean by offering parallel 'broadcasts' or by opening up the archives. And/or something else.

I'm suggesting we be careful about treating the BBC like it is a private media conglomerate like Time-Warner-MSNBC-AOL-Haliburton rather than a publicly funded, commercial-free, national broadcast network. Will there be DRM? Maybe. Will there be Mac and Linux versions? Certainly. Will we need to use IE or WMP? Very, very doubtfully. Aside from the fact that there is no IE for Mac anymore, the BBC is developing an open source video player (or is it a codec).

(I still don't get what he problem with the universal format MP4 is. My best guess in MS didn't want a universal codec that will play on any player and has modified their 'version' of MP4 so that it doesn't work on anything. Still, you'd think it might work with WMP ;-)

In any case, the BBC kicks! If you want TV to take advantage of the technology afforded by digital communications, look to the BBC. Commercial broadcasters, in contrast, will likely take a route most resembling the RIAA and Hollywood. That's the context in which they operate, and that is their weakness. As an outsider in London, I think the BBC is one of the UK's best assets. It's like a high powered version of Canada's CBC.

Re:BBC kicks

[Anonymous Coward]

I pay my license fee to the BBC, so in some sense I 'own' everthing creative that they do. 'Own' it as tenant-in-common with all the other license fee payers.

I keep hoping the 'powers that be' will ask me, and all the millions like me, what we would like to do with these ownership rights.

I know what I'll say, if it comes to a vote. 'Let the whole world have it for free, it is already paid for.' No idea what others will say; I won't try leaning on them, a secret ballot is fine by me.

Re:BBC kicks

[GauteL]

"(I still don't get what he problem with the universal format MP4 is. My best guess in MS didn't want a universal codec that will play on any player and has modified their 'version' of MP4 so that it doesn't work on anything. Still, you'd think it might work with WMP ;-)"

Simple, MP4 is heavily patent encumbered. BBC is developing a codec which is supposed to be free of software patents. Your best guess is very, very wrong and very much against the BBC philosophy. Their codec will be open source and cross platform. They will most likely slap some form of DRM on it, but chances are they will make sure it is still cross platform.

I'm not quite sure why they couldn't just fund Ogg Theora, but there might be a good reason I'm not familiar with.

Re:BBC kicks

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care about having free BBC content. I am willing to pay a subscription for it, just like I would pay for HBO here in the States.

Why does BBC have such an objection to this model? They could make a good profit off of it, I imagine.

Why should it not be UK only?

[Mark Gillespie]

We pay good money for the BBC, it's not funded by advertisers like most other television. Why should I pay my TV licence, so people around the world can download the content for free? BBC should make the content free for UK licencepayers, and chargeable for everyone else...

Re:Why should it not be UK only?

[BaseLineNL]

We also pay for the public services, yet it's still possible to watch almost any program online, no matter if you're outside the Netherlands. One side note for foreigners is that the viewing experience does improve significantly if you learn Dutch. But there are also lots of programs in English with Dutch subtitles.

Re:Why should it not be UK only?

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously didn't read the F'ing Article.

They use GeoIP to restrict it to UK only, which pisses me off since i'm living in Austria and would love to get BBC telly here somehow.

Austrian TV *sucks*!

Re:Why should it not be UK only?

[jools33]

Well I'm an expat living in Sweden - and I'd be more than happy to pay an expat/export licence if there was such a thing - and then get access to BBC shows from overseas. Why can't the bbc create an expat licence? I'd be willing to pay more than the standard UK licence, and I'm sure that there are countless other expats around the world who would too.

Re:Why should it not be UK only?

[Darius Jedburgh]

I'm still trying to find someone to pay for the fine new episodes of Dr Who that I recently watched from the US. The BBC have a product to sell, I have the money to pay for it, the means of delivery exists, and yet I can't legally download it. This is a drastic market failure and it's pretty damn annoying!

Re:Why should it not be UK only?

[stx23]

Sky box & Freeview card will work if you really want it.

Re:Why should it not be UK only?

[Mark Gillespie]

I wish they would also. It may lower my licence fee and/or increase the quality of programs (although the BBC already has the best programming in the world IMHO).

Re:Why should it not be UK only?

[Anonymous Bullard]

Why should I pay my TV licence, so people around the world can download the content for free? BBC should make the content free for UK licencepayers, and chargeable for everyone else...

Well, first of all ideally there wouldn't be any specific TV licencing fees with all the bureacracy it (and its collection and enforcement) entails and there would be at least one tax-payer supported, neutral and unbiased source for TV programming in every country. This, however, wouldn't be acceptable to the commercial networks.

So most of us end up paying licence fees to have access to a programming source supposedly and hopefully not beholden to "third party interests". (not referring to the lib dems in this case).

OTOH that representative of the people in the UK, the UK government, would also like to spread the UK culture and political influence as far as wide as possible (this mainly applies to the "global players" which want to influence world affairs). If foreign people are actually willing to imbibe UK's culture and influence, why not let them? How much is it going to cost the UK tax payers anyway since the programming is already done? Besides, those foreigners at the receiving end are paying something in the form of network access and potentially they'll also be "torrenting" the programming to other foreigners...

Wouldn't it also be a good thing if everyone in the world had access to everyone else's programming to see how things are portrayed in that part of the world (language issues notwithstanding)?

Currently the communist party dictatorship of China is already pushing their english- and chinese-language propaganda over the internet and satellite feeds to anyone willing to swallow their version of reality. On the opposite corner are the commercial US networks which spread their unique version of the US infotainment and entertainment. I believe it's a good thing for everyone, UK licence payers included, that there are also some relatively neutral broadcasters like the BBC and the german Deutsche Welle providing other informative and cultural (national and global) points of view free of charge to anyone who's interested.

Re:Why should it not be UK only?

[Anonymous Coward]

don't get indignant, people watching for free abroad don't stop you watching it at home in any way.

what it does do of course is damage their own TV services that face competition from the BBC. so foreigners suffer, not British, which is as it should be.

Re:Why should it not be UK only?

[Larry Lightbulb]

You pay good money (61p a day isn't it?) for the right to watch TV, not to own it. When you go to the cinema do you expect that you'll own the film afterwards?

Re:Why should it not be UK only?

[Larry Lightbulb]

It's not that the BBC won't do it, it's that they're not allowed to broadcast outside of their terrestrial area, and making the programmes available via the Internet counts. The important thing, at the moment at least, is that you're living in the broadcast area and not whether you have a license.

Re:Why should it not be UK only?

[node 3]

Why should I pay my TV licence, so people around the world can download the content for free?

Because you're not a dick?

In fact, you already do this. I regularly visit bbcnews.com, which has no advertisements and which you paid for, not me.

And you know what? I appreciate it very much. Thank you, even if are angry over your 3 pence share of the cost.

I pay for services you get for free as well, and I really don't mind because it makes for a better world. Sure, I could wish my money went to some things more than others, and some times I think certain fees and taxes are too high, while others, were I to be honest, too low, but in the end it all seems to work out pretty good when run by the right people.

And yes, you are very welcome for the cool pictures from Hubble. I have no desire to charge you for the cost of invading Normandy. I hope you get plenty of use out of the Internet, and feel no need to recoup the cost of creating it.

Re:Why should it not be UK only?

[nagora]

When you go to the cinema do you expect that you'll own the film afterwards?

There's a difference: if I go to the cinema then I've paid towards the cost of the film (and the profits if it takes that much). If I don't watch a BBC programme, I still pay for it. Ownership is a fair return for the compulsory nature of the paying, IMHO.

TWW

Windows Only? Not for long, I guess...

[vhogemann]

You shoud check out http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/ to see that BBC has an Open video codec project on the go, and Java APIs to play streamed media as well. I guess that they will move from IE and WMV once their own technology is ready. After all, it makes no sense to develop a video coded if you're not planning to use it.

Re:Proprietary requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

Your choice. There's no possibility whatsoever that you could get the rights holders to agree to distribute these programmes without DRM. None. Zero. Zilch.

Their choice. There's no possibility whatsoever that I install a closed source player or DRM capable codec to view these programmes. None. Zero. Zilch.

That means that when I dump my TV, I stop paying the license fee.

Huh?

[Viol8]

"So we are not going to see BBC outside UK any time soon."

So what do you think BBC World is then?

Re:Proprietary requirements

[EvilMole]

"That means that when I dump my TV, I stop paying the license fee."

Strangely enough, that's what you're perfectly entitled to do.

I don't quite get why you don't understand that, without DRM, this service would not happen. While that means *you* miss out - which is your choice - it also means that the majority of people don't miss out on a service that provides real value to UK TV viewers.

stfu!

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the anti-DRM zealots please stfu about the files being DRM . You are as bad as the anti-GM zealots who blankly claim that all genetic modifications are bad without even considering what the modification is (which is self-evident nonsense, humans have been cultivating crops for millenia which is just a more cumbersome way of achieving the same goal) Non one is paying for this service, they are giving you content that you otherwise couldn't get hold of (or would have a ahrd time trying) on their terms. If I'm giving away things I would expect people to be happy with my terms or just ignore it. If the Beeb decide this is the best approach, then I, for one, will just be glad that I can have access to some of their archives, something which was previously not possible. I agree that DRM like that used on iTunes is not ideal, however that too has pioneered my ability to download selected music from albums and not have to be content paying £12.99 for a CD with 2 good tracks on, but I can make concessions because it is in my interest to do so.

Re:stfu!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll save time by not trying to put this in a witty way, and just spell it out for you; you are wrong, and possibly unnaturally stupid.

"Non one is paying for this service"

Wrong. Taxes and T.V. license money both go towards paying for this to be developed and maintained. Now sit down. Idiot.

"they are giving you content that you otherwise couldn't get hold of (or would have a ahrd time trying) on their terms"

Really? Last time I downloaded a complete series of my favourite show off bittorrent, it seemed very available and easily obtainable.

"I, for one, will just be glad that I can have access to some of their archives, something which was previously not possible"

So how's life under that rock you live under, ON THE MOON?! Maybe it hasn't been possible for you to get hold of these shows because you've lost the instruction manual to your television remote control?

Now how about a nice cup of; you're a fscking moron?

Re:stfu!

[EvilMole]

"Wrong. Taxes and T.V. license money both go towards paying for this to be developed and maintained. Now sit down. Idiot."

Before calling someone an idiot, I always advise people to check their facts. Such as in your case, where you seem to believe that the BBC gets tax money as well as the license fee. In fact, the only thing that the BBC does that is funded directly by the government is the BBC World Service, which isn't connected to any of this.

Re:stfu!

[germ!nation]

normally i wouldnt bite, but you truely are an idiot among us normal men.

If I have a TV i *have* to pay my License, therefore that can be considered a control. I am not paying more TV License costs due to the existence of this project.

Clearly, someone allowing you to to download something not legally is far better than having to illegally download it, of course it isn't for some sub-normal social group who supplement their failing lives by thinking that sticking one over on the law will fill some of that void.

If you had decided to read the post properly, or even familiarise yourself with this project at all, you would know that the Beeb are hoping to release their archives in the long run. Archives doesn't mean something was was shown yesterday moron.

Re:stfu!

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC does not get any tax money, I checked this out - so that's my bad, sorry. However, that doesn't change my argument. To say that no one is paying for this service is ridiculously wrong. I am paying for this service with my license fee. How much simpler could it be? Where's the confusion here?

"Archives doesn't mean something was was shown yesterday moron"

I was indeed talking about their archives, and not something that was shown yesterday. Though admittedly there may be some trouble finding certain old shows online (such as out of date documentaries for example), the fact remains that under their current DRM schemes I would be able to get nothing, new or old.

Lucky SOB's

[Celt]

Lucky bastards, I hope to god its not UK only as the BBC's programming is excellent!
Hate having to pay a TV license to RTE here in Ireland and getting nothing but shite programmes 24/7 :(

Re:Lucky SOB's

[ganache]

Not forgetting the adverts as well.

Re:Proprietary requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

it also means that the majority of people don't miss out on a service that provides real value to UK TV viewers.

I suggest you look at the BBC's charter, here's an snippet specific to the "digital revolution" taken from the summary of their response to the governments green paper.

The BBC is paid for by all and is there to serve all. Only the BBC can ensure that this is a revolution from which no one is excluded.

Now, come again. How exactly am I choosing to be excluded because I choose to use free software? My being forced to use proprietry software and DRM encumbered codecs is not a decision the BBC should be making for myself or the British public.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Or perhaps advert supported

[NigelJohnstone]

"Let the whole world have it for free, it is already paid for"

That would be one hell of an idea, but perhaps advertising supported, they would need a platform to insert the appropriate Geo advert into the download on the fly. They already run adverts on the international services, so UK could have it ad free, rest of us have to watch our local market adverts. Either way I could watch BBC stuff instead of this Fox crap and they could get more money.

Re:Or perhaps advert supported

[meringuoid]

It might actually be better if we don't charge foreigners for access.

Don't look at the BBC as a business. Look at it politically. Think cultural imperialism. The BBC is the outside world's most important window on British culture. Suppose now that they put their programming on the internet for free to the whole world. Bandwidth costs to the BBC, nil: hell, the ISPs of the world would pay the BBC fees for high-speed access to that resource.

That could do for British culture overseas what Hollywood did for America. Of course, if the BBC tried anything of the sort then Murdoch would have a fit and probably order Blair to put a stop to it...

ads for overseas?

[abigsmurf]

People keep asking why the BBC can't do ads for their programs overseas. The simple reason is it's against their charter. The biggest plus point of the BBC is that it's independant from government or from sponsors, if they start displaying ads themselves then they potentially will lose some of their independance as they take in the consideration of sponsors. Yes I know BBC programs contain ads when shown overseas but these are put in place by whoever buys the series, not the BBC so they still make the series without much outside influence.

Re:ads for overseas?

[Mindwarp]

Yes I know BBC programs contain ads when shown overseas but these are put in place by whoever buys the series, not the BBC so they still make the series without much outside influence.

And I still haven't forgiven BBC America for that abomination!

Enterprises supported by taxes . . .

[ln -sf head ass]

. . . have no buisiness using DRM on content whilst it is being paid for by taxes. UK subject paid for that content, and own it.

Re:Enterprises supported by taxes . . .

[acb]

The problem is that a lot of the content is not owned by the BBC, but licensed from rightsholders, and the licensing terms under which the BBC acquire it limit replay rights to 7 days (hence the DRM-enforced restriction).

Mind you, there are a lot of open-content idealists in the BBC, and undoubtedly there is a lot of negotiation happening behind the scenes to lift these licensing conditions.

Don't grouse here - tell the BBC what you think

[Alioth]

Don't just grouse on Slashdot about the BBC using license fee payer's money to promote a closed solution instead of developing the Internet equivalent of the open and free for all PAL tv broadcast system. Tell them why making it Windows Media Player only is a bad thing on their complaints site:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_ste p1.shtml

Make it reasonable and intelligent.

Point out that:
1. Their DRM'd system has considerably less utility than a video recorder at a much greater cost (many UK ISPs have bandwidth quotas). Point out that the utility of the BBC's iMP is so inferior compared to what the pirates offer, it will not help reduce piracy at all - it'll just be a giant waste of license payer's fees to support a crippled service.
2. The EU has convicted Microsoft of monopolistic practises specifically over Media Player - the BBC should NOT be promoting this with license fee payers money.
3. The BBC have developed their own codec. They should be creating an open solution based on this that ALL broadcasters can use - a genuine public service, rather than help consolidating a foreign monopoly.

Re:Don't grouse here - tell the BBC what you think

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: I work for the BBC.

Rather than just having a rant and complaining - perhaps tell them an alternative DRM system that is acceptable to the content producers. Thats what they are looking for.

Re:Don't grouse here - tell the BBC what you think

[figleaf]

I like Windows Media Player.
I rather have Windows Media than some format like Real.
Take off your hate cap.

Re:Don't grouse here - tell the BBC what you think

[Alioth]

It's nothing to do with hate. I like Sony televisions, but it would be a very bad thing if some new piece of BBC content would only work on Sony televisions. The BBC are doing the software equivalent of instead of using PAL, using some proprietary Sony system that can never work with any other brand of TV.

The BBC is a public service broadcaster. As a public service, they should be making a system that works with their new codec, Dirac - which is an open standard - rather than doing the equivalent of mandating that everyone uses a certain brand of television. The BBC can supply a plug in codec that can be used with Windows Media Player if you want to use Windows Media Player. Or Microsoft can provide it themselves. Or anyone else can make a media player (just like any TV manufacturer can make a TV that works with BBC broadcasts).

Re:Don't grouse here - tell the BBC what you think

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not interested in DRM.

Re:Don't grouse here - tell the BBC what you think

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you won't get the content - pretty simple.

How do you watch DVDs without a TV?

[brunes69]

That is a nice trick.

Unless you don't have to pay the license fee for computers or projectors. But if you don't, couldn't you just use a TV Tuner card?

Re:How do you watch DVDs without a TV?

[Tobias Lobster]

Unless you don't have to pay the license fee for computers or projectors. But if you don't, couldn't you just use a TV Tuner card?

The fee is to receive tv broadcasts, so if your PC or projector has no tv tuner then you don't have to pay. Put in a tv tuner and you do have to pay.

I know people who have plasma screens with no tuner. They don't have or need a tv licence, but get a fair amount of hassle from the tv licensing authority who find it very hard to believe anyone would not watch broadcast tv.

Re:How do you watch DVDs without a TV?

[squoozer]

As another poster pointed out you only have to pay the fee if you have a device capable of recieving the transmition. Hence, you would have to pay for a PC TV tuner card.

Up until the bulb blew I watched movies using a projector now I am back to using the computer :o(

Re:How do you watch DVDs without a TV?

[Evil Grinn]

I know people who have plasma screens with no tuner. They don't have or need a tv licence, but get a fair amount of hassle from the tv licensing authority who find it very hard to believe anyone would not watch broadcast tv.

Broadcast TV must be a lot better in Britain than it is in the US, for anyone to have trouble believing that someone would not want to watch it..

Re:How do you watch DVDs without a TV?

[Tobias Lobster]

Broadcast TV must be a lot better in Britain than it is in the US, for anyone to have trouble believing that someone would not want to watch it..

For the purpose of the tv license, 'broadcast' includes cable and satellite.

Excluding sport and movies the channels that are only on cable / sat tend to be the lowest quality though.

Re:How do you watch DVDs without a TV?

[aslate]

"The fee is to receive tv broadcasts, so if your PC or projector has no tv tuner then you don't have to pay. Put in a tv tuner and you do have to pay."

Not quite, if you have a device capable of receiving TV broadcasts you're not subject to the licence. It needs to be tuned as well. If you have a TV but don't have it tuned in to be able to watch BBC (Not sure about if this applies to ITV, C4 and C5, i doubt it though), then you don't pay the fee.

Re:How do you watch DVDs without a TV?

[Tobias Lobster]

As long as the device is de-tuned (all channels, not just BBC) and is not connected to an aerial then that does appear to be legal. I'd expect you'd get repeated visits from TVLA though, just to make sure it stayed de-tuned.

Unavailable Titles

[gotw]

This is all very well and good, but why can't the BBC make available the countless parts of their catalogue that are utterly unavailable on DVD/VHS or it seems anywhere else.

Two cases in point <a href=http://www.15storeyshigh.net/>15 Storeys High</a> and <a href=http://www.astleybakerdavies.com/bk.htm>The Big Knights</a>. Both high quality, original comedy programme, both with episodes unreleased. I only managed to catch the final two episodes of the underpromoted, poorly slotted second series of 15 storeys high. It's impossible to find (and even harder to actually download) on p2p networks, and impossible to buy and <i>I payed for it</i>!!

Re:Unavailable Titles

[welshwaterloo]

Hi

I know it doesn't address the underlying issue, but you might want to give uknova a whirl. Their policy is to only allow torrents of uk tv unavailable on DVD/VHS.

I loves em!

Re:Proprietary requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck yeah. And while we're at it, I want the BBC to beam every single program right into my fucking head. I don't want to piss about with this stupid visual shit; get it into my brain damnit! There is no chance I'm going to watch TV or download this iMP program. Why the fuck should I be excluded from having these programs beamed directly into my brain, as is my choice? Just like you, I'm a Licence Fee Payer and demand that the BBC instantly fucking do the impossible!

Fight the power for us all, Citizen Smith!

Re:How much did MS paid them ?

[jasoncart]

Most of the stations now have a Windows Media Player stream as well - as does most of the prerecorded video content.

Re:Proprietary requirements

[Mant]

If you choose not to use DRM that's your choice, but you can't blame the BBC for excluding you when you choose to exclude your self. You are choosing to be excluded because you choose to exclusively use free software and won't even use anything with DRM.

You may as well complaining you are being excluded because you won't buy a PAL TV and the BBC broadcast in PAL.

If they wanted software you had to pay for that would be excluding you, but if its free to use, and you won't use it on and obscure point of principle (and in the real world thats what demanding all non-proprietary non DRM is) you can't blame anyone else.

Re:I feel so lucky...

[Anonymous Coward]

And your point is?

Re:Proprietary requirements

[EvilMole]

"How exactly am I choosing to be excluded because I choose to use free software? My being forced to use proprietry software and DRM encumbered codecs is not a decision the BBC should be making for myself or the British public."

If I choose not to buy a computer, I'm also excluded. So should the BBC provide free computers for all? Of course not. If I choose to access the internet only on my Acorn Achimedes, should the BBC be expected to ensure that I can access iMP from it? Of course not. The phrase "form which no one is excluded" clearly doesn't mean "those who choose not to use the service". You have the opportunity to use the service. You choose not to, for your own (undoubtedly valid to you) reasons.

DRM

[niai]

I'm one of the lucky few who managed to get on the trial and, so far, have found it to be a positive step. I've only used it a small amount so far and have only 1 complaint. In order to download the key to watch any media files, it has to be viewed from within the BBC's player. If you try to watch something with straight WMP, it cannot download the key. After you've started watching something with the BBC player, the key has been downloaded and you are then free to watch using vanilla WMP. This makes the integration with my media software of choice (MediaPortal) less than seamless.

if in a rush

[trancemission]

http://www.uknova.com/

Re:Proprietary requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

Your choice. There's no possibility whatsoever that you could get the rights holders to agree to distribute these programmes without DRM

So you think my TV has DRM?

You are clearly a fuckwit

Odd

[RichiP]

Odd that they'd go proprietary. After all, the BBC was one of the first to Internet-broadcast their radio programs using OGG Vorbis (and continue to do so).

Re:Odd

[Neil]

RichiP wrote:

the BBC was one of the first to Internet-broadcast their radio programs using OGG Vorbis (and continue to do so).

Do you have a reference for "continue to do so"? I was under the impression that the Vorbis trials had ended some time ago and never restarted. I would love to be mistaken about this ...

Re:Odd

[nick8325]

Seems that they definitely don't: http://support.bbc.co.uk/ogg/

Kontiki doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anyway, here's the download screen. Despite the occasional bit of lag as each screen loads, it's not all that bad. Right now, the P2P system that was so hotly touted doesn't seem to actually be working - all the network traffic during the download went straight between my computer and the BBC, at around 500kbps or so. Not bad, but a little odd considering how much was made of the P2P-aspect."

BBC Shooting itself in the foot. As usual

[SmallFurryCreature]

Why? The no archiving thing. So why is this bad?

Well I don't know about other countries but both dutch tv and the bbc have made the mistake of deleting old tv series from their archives only to realize decades later that much loved programs have become lost forever.

In the netherlands it is the series "Kunt u me de weg naar hamelen vertellen" wich has most episodes missing in action. For the beeb it is early episodes of Dr Who and Dad's army.

Or maybe not. Some of these eps have been found again when viewers reported they had some old tapes from pre-vhs days. ILLEGAL copies by the standards of Fox executives but also the ONLY copies still in existance.

Sure hopefully now the BBC and other content producers know better then to delete old shows just because they need to reuse the tapes (this was the reason the dutch eps were lost, a move to new fangled magnetic tapes for recording the shows instead of film but wich were so expensive they were reused) and simply store EVERYTHING because one day a series intended to be shown just once MIGHT have become part of your countries culture.

Still wich such a well proven need for viewer made copies I would love it if one of the bbc reporters brought this point up. Can BBC execs that made this choice ensure that in future we will not regret it?

Re: Cultural Imperialism

[Dimble ThriceFoon]

agreed, a jolly good idea for that reason alone.

Good!

[Conor Turton]

The bad news? ..... and it's probably going to be UK-only.

WOOHOO. I bloody well hope so. I'd be pissed off paying my licence fee so some lardy arsed Yank can get it for free.

Re:Good!

[crawdad62]

I'm not sure I'd want it anyway. I watched "European Vacation" and all the BBC has is 13 channels about cheese. :-)

looks promising

[andrewweb]

If they make it more open once the trial is over, and also so I can stream it to the xbox/tv instead of us all having to huddle round the PC, then I'm in.

Olympics

[Numen]

It was for the Olympics.

Worth the download?

[Neebone]

I like certain programmes that the BBC have, but after downloading iMP and actually LOOKING for something to watch I've realised that the BBC have very little to offer me (note the word "me") aside from maybe Watchdog, Dead Ringers and the odd news programme. I doubt I'll be using iMP very often. Sky seems like a much more worthwhile buy (Sky One, Bravo, Sky Movies, Sky Sports, Kids Channels etc). I'll definitely be getting me Sky+ box me thinks...

Windows and IE ?

[smoker2]

Its bad enough requiring XP and Internet Explorer, but requiring ActiveX to be enabled in IE is dumb.

But, as they point out, it is usually enabled by default :\

What else is going to slip through the IE holes while you watch your favourite show ?

Royalties

[MrSteveSD]

I originally though we might be able to download the programmes and keep them, since I paid for the programme with my licence fee. Then I heard there was a royalties problem. Every time a program is shown, the actors have to be paid royalties.

Why should that be the case? When I leave my current job as a software developer, I don't expect to be paid royalties every time someone uses something I made. Surely it's not right to be paid forever for some work they were paid to do in the first place. If only we could all cut deals like this, we'd be rich.

Two Words

[Xarius]

Proxy Blacklist

Too good to be true

[pubehead]

4. What can I do with iMP? An awful lot. Not only can you download a programme once it has been broadcast, you can also: * Set the iMP application to download programmes which are coming up over the next seven days;

BBC News reports that, once again, 50 million people have won this weeks lottery draw.

Yep, they don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've only ever seen them use proprietary realplayer audio formats in the past 3 years for their internet radio, and realplayer/WMV for their internet video.

The captcha I just got seems strangely fitting here: "perverts"

UK Only

[ndansmith]

The bad news? Requires IE and Windows Media Player, and it's probably going to be UK-only.

In other words it's
for British Eyes Only

</arresteddevlopment>

Re:streaming codec only?

[Dimble ThriceFoon]

surely it will make a perfectly good video codec with the ability to rival h.264?

RE: BBC Internet Media Player

[Dimble ThriceFoon]

Dear Sirs, While I appreciate this is a beta sofware solution, and may not reflect the end product/service, I do have some grave reservations about the BBC's move into internet streamed content. 1) Why is the product limited to MS Windows components (IE & WMP)? There are many mainstream cross-platform components that would open up the service to millions of Linux/BSD/Mac users. 2) Why is all content infected with mandatory Digital Rights Management software, and why a proprietry DRM solution? While I appreciate that the BBC licenses some programs from external sources and is thus subject to restricted distribution resulting from IP rights, however much programming is internally created within the BBC and thus bounght-n-paid-for via the license fee, why then is this restricted with DRM? Here is a suggestion that I am sure the BBC is aware of, even if it may be doing its best to ignore the fact: a) The BBC is funding the creation of Dirac, an open source video codec free of license restrictions purpose designed for streaming content via the internet and high-definition video encoding to rival the new h.264 standard for HD-DVD........... use it! This should be your medium of distribution, no closed cource and restricted codecs subject to multitudinous license restrictions. It isn't ready yet, but any final BBC IMP service should be released with this codec, no other. b) Bought and paid for BBC programming should be released for public consumption, any public consumption anywhere, free of restriction. By all means restrict downloading/streaming to UK customers, but market forces will result in net-users distributing the programs for you worldwide. By all means only release it in standard widescreen format (848x480) so that your high-def DVD (1280x720 or 1920x1080) sales remain unaffected. By all means restrict release until three months after the DVD version has gone on sale. If you must use DRM for non BBC owned material then use an open source DRM solution, let there be an end to vendor lockout. But do it! By doing the above the BBC could change the world, it could detsroy the use of propriety restricted formats by the sheer volume of dirac encoded BBC programming that people all over the world would watch, and they would DEMAND that other producers release their programming in a similar format. More importantly the BBC would be acting as an advertisement for British culture and British values, cultural imperialism is a dirty word, but you see the benefits, and after all it represents a chance for Britain to claw back the world cultural mind-share that Hollywood wrested from us several decades ago. Think about it when did you last hear an RAF air-station referred to as such? How did the word 'airbase' creep into British lexicon? It happened because Hollywood captured the world cultural mind-share, dominating British cultural mind-share, even in Britain. This could change. Yours Dimble

Re:Proprietary requirements

[acb]

Actually, given the size and clout of the BBC, it is possible that they will extract DRM-free licenses from some rightsholders. That is certainly the strategy for the Creative Archive: to push for a blanket license for all rights involved in BBC-owned content which would allow such content to be distributed freely in the Archive.