Slashdot Mirror
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.
I don't live in the UK, do they plan to let non UK people get (pay) for access? Anyone from the beeb know?
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?
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.