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.
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.
He linked to a UK torrent site right from the article! He's a legal genius!
It's only an insult if it's not true.
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.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
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?
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".
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
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.
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.
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.
My city: Barcelona.
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.
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
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.
Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
"The BBC sells these shows to networks in other countries. They're not going to be interested unless they have exclusivity."
/ index.jhtml
o _air_in.html
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
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_t
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.
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.
I think we have a job for him.
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
>Watch a lot of TV
... but don't download stuff already via P2P
... but only Use IE and Windows
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
Lot of people have broadband, few know about/can be bothered with existing P2P.
>Are into new technology and gadgets
Again, no. It's *have access to IE and Windows*, not *only use*.
Very weird post indeed.
I assume they mean UK proxy users, since you can't really check whether the person is or isn't in the UK.
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.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
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.
"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.
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.
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:
e p1.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_st
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.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
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...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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.
"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.
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).
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...
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.