Slashdot Mirror


BBC Episodes Legally Available Via Peer To Peer

Kript writes "According to the BBC they are going to make a number of their shows available on the Azureus network. A number of old favorites will be available such as Red Dwarf, Doctor Who and even Little Britain."

212 comments

  1. In typical Slashdot fashion... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have not RTFA. I'm wondering if Warner Home Video will lay the hammer down on me if I want to watch Red Dwarf in this manner...being in the U.S. and Warner Home Video being the U.S. distributor of many BBC programs.

    1. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative
      I'm wondering if Warner Home Video will lay the hammer down on me if I want to watch Red Dwarf in this manner...being in the U.S. and Warner Home Video being the U.S. distributor of many BBC programs.

      You do not have an agreement with Warner not to purchase Red Dwarf from another source. If the beeb has an agreement with them not to distribute it to you, then they have something to talk about, but it doesn't involve you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by toad3k · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      There is no difference between this and downloading Warner's shows off non BBC torrent site.

    3. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There is no difference between this and downloading Warner's shows off non BBC torrent site.

      The difference is that it's a legally acquired, licensed download approved by the BBC.

      Try to RTFA next time and the student will be enlightened.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by jfengel · · Score: 1

      That's an excellent question. Warner's contract with the BBC probably makes them the exclusive US distributor. If the BBC allows downloading from the US, then they may be in violation of the contract.

      I'd love to believe that the BBC's lawyers have thought about this first.

    5. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      To quote TFA "No pricing structure for the BBC content on Zudeo has been revealed."

      So there might be a difference...

    6. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      If the BBC transferred copyright to Warner in the US (I'm not 100% sure this is possible and it's probably not done in any case), then the BBC can't authorize it any more than the torrent originator can authorize that D/L. Now, anyone who gets it would have a very strong case to plead ignorance, and if the BBC *didn't* transfer copyright then it doesn't involve anyone who downloads it.

      IANAL, blah blah

    7. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by homebrewmike · · Score: 1, Funny

      Somebody just made it to Santa's naughty list.

    8. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      SO...let me get this straight: A DRM ladened, only viewable in a single app High Def version of a low def recorded show like Dr Who can be downloaded and only played on my computer screen? WOW! I am so delighted!

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    9. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by pbhj · · Score: 1

      I'd be surprised if Warner doesn't get a license that excludes other suppliers from licensing the same material for airing within a similar time-frame (measured in years). Such a license would normally exclude the BBC from licensing themselves to show the material in a competing manner. Wonder how they'll get around their current licenses?

    10. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by redalien · · Score: 1

      The BBC's experiments in mass distribution over the net to date have all stipulated that the user must be a UK resident. If the same applies here, you will be breaking a EULA and copyright if you download it.

    11. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Wonder how they'll get around their current licenses?
      They won't. Presumably the new distribution network has measures that prevent it from working outside the UK. Hard to imagine how that would work, but it must be there, or the Beeb's licensees will make them shut it down.
    12. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      After RTFA, the Beeb spokesman stated that this peer-to-peer programme is specifically supposed to make BBC shows available to new audience members across the globe that previously had no access.The shows will also be with DRM, but will compete with other peer-to-peers through guaranteed quality.

      I doubt that the EULA will require UK residency. I also doubt that Warner will raise a stink, since the BBC has probably already vetted the legal issues. I just hope that there will be Mac and Linux clients, as well as an option to burn to DVD for home viewing/slapping the disc into the portable DVD player...

    13. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by rtyall · · Score: 2

      Although it says that Zudeo can offer HD content, it doesn't say that the BBC programs will be in HD, it says they will release high quality versions.
      Besides, as Red Dwarf was filmed in traditional film (AFAIK 35mm, seversal goog), it wouldn't be too tricky to remaster it in HD. The problem there would not be the original film quality, but the production quality of the program, effects and camerawork, meaning you've just got an expensive remake of a man in a cheap costume that's not in proper focus.

    14. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Not only that but did they shoot Red Dwarf 4:3 or 16:9? I can't see any reason to have gone 16:9 given that it was being shot for TV.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by jwo7777777 · · Score: 1

      Dear Naughty-List-Person,
      Please proceed to the coal bin and extract one medium sized lump of coal for yourself. If you wanted a diamond, that is unfortunate as you will have to provide the extreme pressure over time by yourself. Might we suggest that you place it in your own anal cavity as it seems a fitting and proper place for it.

      Thank you,

      Santa Inc.

    16. Re:In typical Slashdot fashion... by Sarisar · · Score: 1

      The beeb are normally pretty good with 'alternative mediums'. One example is Doctor Who. They had a website in it in the very first episode with one guy trying to find out who he was. They actually made the page up. As time went on and more things were mentioned they added more and more websites. They even had a ton of games to play and 'help' the doctor. Wikipedia has a link to them here.

      So I really think they will have thought this through and it should be pretty good. Of course they outsourced their IT staff to Xansa so... well I can't contractually mention my thoughts on that!

  2. Misleading Headline & Summary by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

    It won't be available for free on Azureus, it will be a DRM-infested pay-download on Azureus' pay service, Zudeo, and they haven't even decided what they're charging.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by Sancho · · Score: 1

      That's fine. p2p (and Bittorrent, specifically) solves a major bandwidth issue for content distribution. In fact, releasing these shows on common p2p services would really make it difficult to discern legal from illegal content on these services. How do I know if the Dr. Who I'm downloading is authorized or not? How do I know if BBC authorized Dr. Who at all?

    2. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's also only available in the US. Those of us in the UK, who are paying £130 to the BBC each year and funded many of these programs when they were originally made would quite like to be able to download them too, especially since the BBC Charter says they must do whatever they can to make their material available to the British public...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by mumblestheclown · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Don't worry. That won't stop future slashdot articles and comments making reference to "Now that the BBC has put its entire content into the public domain on P2P..."

      Nor will it stop people from reaching the conclusion that since the beeb has put some content on a (very limited) form a non-free P2P network that they therefore have the right to put ANY bbc content onto the P2p network of their choice.

    4. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by hal2814 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It may not be what you hoped reading the headline but it's far from misleading. The headline and article neither made mention of the file format of the download nor discussed the how free the download would be. It also didn't mention availability. You read too much into the summary and now you're mad at Slashdot that ideas you added on your own aren't available. The summary is very short on detail but the detail it provides is correct.

    5. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      p2p (and Bittorrent, specifically) solves a major bandwidth issue for content distribution.

      Yah, it solves the issue of media companies who want to charge money for content but don't want to pay for the distribution of that content. If I purchase a DVD, I am paying for the content, and the distribution of that content (getting the DVD to the store so I can purchase it) is paid by the content provider (albeit rolled into the cost of the DVD). Now, thanks to P2P I can pay the same price for the same content, only this time without a physical copy, and I have to pay for the distribution (bandwidth) myself. How is that a good deal?

      If they want to provide this content at a discount that reflects the fact that they're getting distribution of their product for free, then maybe it would be a good deal. As it is now, though, it's just content providers getting something for nothing.

    6. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      The summary is very short on detail but the detail it provides is correct.

      I didn't say it was incorrect. I said it was misleading. The implication when you say something is available via P2P is that it's available for free.

      It also says it's going to be available on Azureus, which is strictly incorrect since Azureus is a client, not a network. Correct would be to say it would be available via Azureus - but that would be incorrect too, since it will be on their new network and require their new client.

      My point still stands, and I am still correct. HTH, HAND.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      "The implication when you say something is available via P2P is that it's available for free."

      How is that the implication? P2P is a distribution method. It has nothing to do with the cost of the item. If you have been misled, then make a mental note that P2P != free or you'll be getting misled a lot in the near future since some movie studios are now partnering up with various companies who create BT clients to presumably distribute content.

      I suppose you have a point on the second comment, but when I read "Azureus network" I just took it at face value and assumed that they were referring to some sort of Azureus-controlled network I was not aware of. It gets complex since Azureus is the name of both the company and the BT client.

    8. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And incredibly misleading, I read the summary, had a double-take, went HOLY ****** clicked on the article and read a story about these shows being available in a proprietary service for money, a lot like most paid for download content, and actually completely unavailable to Azureus or standard P2P clients. P2P distribution being in the background is just a way to transfer files, a great way, so technically this is cool, but socially/politcally nothing has changed.
       
      Now if they included a BBC channel in Democracy Player for free that would be different.

    9. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least BBC produces some quality programmes for that sum.

      Here we pay ~100 EURO for mostly crap (about the only good stuff they show
      is the documentaries, many of them bought from BBC, mostly several years old).

    10. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by orasio · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or maybe it just lowers the barrier to entry of the market.
      Right now the money makers are distributors. And you get the to choose your stuff stuff mostly from distributors (you buy channel packages).
      With this kind of deal, other content providers who have no deals with big distributors could enter the game, and the competition could be over content, and maybe price, and not over distribution channels. It could be a nice thing for the guy who actually buys the stuff.

    11. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by illegalcortex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the BBC Charter says they must do whatever they can to make their material available to the British public

      Does it say "for free"? Not flaming you, just curious. Or at least, does it say "at no additional cost other than your license"? I'm also curious as to how this relates to BBC shows that air in the US on public TV at a later time. For example, they air tons of old British comedies (including that hilarious EastEnders show) that are several years out of date. Am I right in guessing these episodes aren't currently available in the UK? I wonder how that fits with the aforementioned duty.

    12. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by sheriff_p · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're most likely to end up getting them for free if you live in the UK, via the iPlayer project...

      --
      Score:-1, Funny
    13. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Patience, dear boy, patience :)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPlayer

      It IS coming - just rather slowly. It's shame that it is going to be WMP based DRM, but you have to appease the Indies/Film companies, etc, somehow.

      There is going to be the Open Archive some time next year too, with old BBC content being brought online.

      Next year is going to be a BIG year for the BBC online, should all go well. One shouldn't underestimate the complexities of a project such as iPlayer - it's probably the biggest Internet based software project in the UK at the moment, and the BBC really has to deliver correctly first time, otherwise there will (rightly) be uproar from the license fee payer.

      But hey, it's all a step in the right direction!

    14. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

      They're available in a way. Many older BBC programmes are shown on channels like UKTV Gold - which isn't freely available. So basically we've paid for the BBC to produce this content, now they've sold it to be shown on a different channel which we have to pay to receive. Bastards.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    15. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by illegalcortex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, so this isn't uprecendented.

      My main point is that there is no way for them to make the programs available to you that doesn't cost them money. This is especially true for older programs. They have to get them from the old tapes and such and convert and encode them. Then they have to distribute them somehow. Even if they used p2p, they would take a hit from being the initial seeder. Someone would need to manage all this, and IT stuff isn't cheap. So they would have to get money for this from somewhere. What are their sources of money? 1) The TV license, 2) govt money, 3) money from doing deals where people pay to see BBC programs. Both 1 and 2 are going to be coming out of the pocket of UK citizens. So you'll really just be paying to watch anyway. So they pursue #3. Assumedly, the money that is made from this is what causes your TV license to be the price it is. Or does the BBC make a profit that goes to shareholders? If not, then I would think adding new costs for making shows available to the UK for "free" would just increase the license price. And as others have pointed out, if they start putting stuff out for p2p, it makes it more likely that these files will be redistributed worldwide, eroding their ability to make deals for #3, which would think decrease their money and raise your TV license again.

      So while I wish they would make all their shows available on p2p for free with no DRM for anyone to download, I think the reality is that if this happens, it will come out of your pocket.

    16. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by k12linux · · Score: 1

      Awesome! So the BBC gets you to do some of the work of distributing their content... and you get to pay them for the right?

      If companies want to use P2P to distribute restricted content I can only think of one way it would be really accepted. Charge the customer a nominal fee for the content but don't bill it for x days... during that time credit some $ back to the customer based on the # of MB re-distributed from their PC to other paying customers. Someone with a nice fast upstream connection who is willing to leave their PC running P2P sharing files for a couple of weeks might get a final bill of a few cents or even $0. Heck maybe even better would be just to give the user a cut of each purchase based on how much of that purchase was downloaded from them. (Help pay for that 36Mb upstream FiOS connection.)

      Then again I guess they can always count on users being completely ignorant of the fact that it's *their own* bandwidth being used to distribute something the BBC is getting paid for.

    17. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by thebudgie · · Score: 1

      I wrote to them saying I only use the TV for console gaming- been waiting over 6 months for their inspection now. I doubt they will ever come...

    18. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by Threni · · Score: 1

      > It's also only available in the US. Those of us in the UK, who are paying £130 to the BBC each year and funded many of these
      > programs when they were originally made would quite like to be able to download them too, especially since the BBC Charter says
      > they must do whatever they can to make their material available to the British public...

      Heh - there's always http://www.uknova.com/

    19. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BBC has more than enough resource to run a tracker and initial seed. Most of what they put out daily is also available through digital feeds, already converted to mpeg and accessible to people online, and I don't mean the crap you can access on the main site. The access is much better quality and hidden, not available to the public, and the links move around to prevent those that previously had access from coming back or giving the links out to "friends".

      Old material is already being sold on DVDs, so converting from analogue media has already been done for the better programming.

      The BBC needs additional income to keep the empire in shape. They do not need 100s of regional offices anymore, they do not need massive replication of the same services, news being particularly wasteful. The license fee would be much reduced if the BBC was forced to go back to a zero base budget and justify its costs each year.

    20. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the price is reasonable and it's really P2P, I'd pay for these even though the DRM sucks.

      My major motivation, apart from being able to watch old BBC shows (any Ronnie Barker, "Porridge", "Open All Hours", etc.) is that it's a legal use for P2P and that screws the RIAA/MPAA's theory that all P2P is sharing of illegal files. Anything that hurts the RIAA/MPAA in their legal battles is a good thing.

    21. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      greed is not a "moral objection".

    22. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by 19061969 · · Score: 1
      "They can fuck off if they think I'm paying £130 a year..."

      Sigh - spoken like a true Brit. I feel homesick...

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
    23. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      How is that the implication? P2P is a distribution method. It has nothing to do with the cost of the item.

      *waves hands* yes yes, you and I both know what it means. However, only one of us is apparently in touch with the public. You know, like in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back? "Here is the pulse. And here is your finger, far from the pulse..." The fact is that the rest of the world considers P2P to mean "free shit I can download and hopefully not get sued for".

      The headline would have better been written "BBC Episodes to be distributed via P2P" which would have been less inciteful.

      I suppose you have a point on the second comment, but when I read "Azureus network" I just took it at face value and assumed that they were referring to some sort of Azureus-controlled network I was not aware of. It gets complex since Azureus is the name of both the company and the BT client.

      Yes, and when the product Azureus is old news, they will either have to change their name or be forgotten... but anyway, I digress. More importantly, it's not on the "Azureus Network" - there is no such thing! It's Azureus' network, but it's not called the Azureus network. It's called the Zudeo network, and you can't use the Azureus client to connect to it anyway; you need the Zudeo client. In other words, the only thing is has to do with Azureus is the company, so saying "the Azureus network" or "on Azureus" is horribly misleading and just plain wrong to boot.

      Then again, this is slashdot, where the editors don't edit...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      You'd definitely know more about it than I would, considering I know nearly zero about the internal workings of the BBC. So it seems that the answer to "why can't we get BBC shows for free in the UK?" is "all we need to do is tear down and rebuild the BBC". Good luck with that.

    25. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      Actors and creatives have to be paid which is why our BBC programmes are sold back to us. First time round the BBC picked up the tab (ie when they were first shown)

    26. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      "However, only one of us is apparently in touch with the public."

      Indeed. Only one of us has been seeing all the stories pouring in about movie studios planning to make very unfree content available over P2P.

      "it's not on the "Azureus Network" - there is no such thing!"

      No, but assuming by saying "the Azuereus Network" we mean some network owned by Azureus is no further a stretch than your original assuption that "the Azureus network" refers to the Azureus bittorrent client. That's not called the "Azureus network" either.

    27. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by Cyclops · · Score: 1
      My main point is that there is no way for them to make the programs available to you that doesn't cost them money. This is especially true for older programs. They have to get them from the old tapes and such and convert and encode them. Then they have to distribute them somehow. Even if they used p2p, they would take a hit from being the initial seeder. Someone would need to manage all this, and IT stuff isn't cheap. So they would have to get money for this from somewhere.
      eMusic seems to do that just fine, and they have a bigger cost than BBC: licensing content.

      Why is eMusic comparable? Well, they don't use DRM they use, quite simply, MP3...
    28. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by jacem · · Score: 1

      I did rtfa but I hadn't heard of Zudeo before. Is it a pay per download site? I wondered why they were bothering to DRM. I am also now wondering how a pay per use P2P system is going to work. I take it that I'm loning my bandwidth to the content company as a favor or something.

      JACEM

      --
      DOC Disinformation Obfuscation and Confusion
      The carrot to FUD's stick
    29. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by Merusdraconis · · Score: 1

      The expensive, and important part of content production is actually producing the content. The cheaper all the other crap is that isn't actually creating content, the more people can create content, and the more competition there is. The more competition there is, the less power the big boys have.

      You just want something expensive for free, don't you.

    30. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by pbhj · · Score: 1

      >>> "My main point is that there is no way for them to make the programs available to you that doesn't cost them money"

      I don't doubt your verity. Yet strangely they have enough money to finance an internationally used website made free to the rest of the world and paid for by the British TV owning public (though correct me if all BBC websites are paid for by 'World').

      Also, once the BBC is funding this commercial activity it's not going to be much more money (in terms of BBC amounts) to give free access to License fee payers.

      Finally, the BBC could just make us pay for their bandwidth (at their rates) and direct costs of maintaining the computer systems. I suspect we'd still be getting theses shows at circa 15p rather than the several quid that we pay now via DVD distribution.

    31. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by Rix · · Score: 1

      And all of those partnerships will fail within a year.

    32. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by BrokenBeta · · Score: 0

      I have a question, the answer to which I would probably know if I had iTunes or etc, which I don't.

      If you download a DRM-encrypted file, that's encoded on the server side, right? You say, "I want one copy of blah-blah-blah by blah-blah to work on this machine/player." Or something.

      That doesn't work in BitTorrent, because everyone is receiving the exact same copy of the file, the unencrypted one. How can you apply DRM over BitTorrent?

    33. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      I also notice eMusic is not very comprehensive. For example, they have nothing by Radiohead. They have three albums by Elvis Presley - one live performance and two compilations. And if you put in Elvis Costello, the only hits they have are for Karaoke. No Gnarls Barkely, no Beatles, no Rolling Stones, no Enya, no Alanis Morissette, no Death Cab For Cutie (well, once again Karaoke). Speaking of which, there are 5988 tracks with Karaoke in their name...

      While I'm glad someone out there is trying to make a go of it, I'm not really sure how it's comparable. Would this be like a BBC download site that didn't carry Doctor Who, MP Flying Circus or EastEnders?

    34. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      As far as the BBC news webpage goes, it really is no change from an development/programming/site maintenance standpoint to have the site available to just the UK or to everyone. It just takes more bandwidth costs and more server costs. Yes, I very much get your point that these are real costs. But I think it's pretty easily justified for making something like the news available worldwide as opposed to old episodes of Coronation Street.

      As far as having license fee payers just pay direct costs - that's a very difficult system to manage. It assumes you already know how many people are going to use it BEFORE they use it. Additionally, all these payments are going to incur more work on the part of accounting and payment systems. And your other suggestion of giving free access to license fee payers - how do you go about doing that? Is there some existing method by which your IP address can be tied to your License? Do we just count all traffic from inside Britain as being ok (screw those folks in the UK without tvs!)? And assuming somehow these authorized users got these feeds, what's to keep them from uploading them to worldwide p2p sites? And if this catches on, what do you think that will do to the revenue stream that comes in from re-selling these shows to other areas of the world? Do you honestly think sales of shows outside of the UK have no impact on the license amount?

      You can try to make it sound like near-zero cost, but it's just not.

    35. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I admit I don't know how the BBC's dealings go, but on American television all talent involved-actors, writers, directors- receive royalties for any reruns, syndication as well as subsequent distribution to new markets. If a profit is to be made the respective guilds are going to step in and demand a cut. I don't begrudge them, either, as syndication/DVD sales/what have you are very profitable and it's their right to make the best deal they can to get royalties in the future. But this does put a severe hamper on releasing older content, particularly in new channels like pay-to-download that weren't covered by existing contracts.

      I would have the feeling that older BBC programs (like, 1960's and 70's) were pure "work for hire" and few royalties are owed. Can't say that for sure, and I'm sure any actors or creators with any pull had some deal in place. But I would also bet that contemporary actors and writers are well represented and would not take well to the BBC distributing the programs for free. Whether you think they deserve it is one thing, but if there are contracts in place that assure future profits they would have to be honored.

    36. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by TClevenger · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I download the "Go Digital" podcast for free here in the US from the BBC website. I'm sure that the initial seeding for a show can't take much more bandwidth that weekly podcast downloads from all over the world.

    37. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by BiggyP · · Score: 1

      What's your objection? Do you feel that so much high quality programming comes out of the likes of ITV, CH5 and BSkyB that the license fee no longer has a place?

    38. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by BiggyP · · Score: 1

      please remember to make use of sarcasm tags where applicable...

    39. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by Cederic · · Score: 1

      it really is no change from an development/programming/site maintenance standpoint to have the site available to just the UK or to everyone. It just takes more bandwidth costs and more server costs.

      Given there are different UK and International versions of the site, and given the volume of international traffic, there is a significant cost associated with provision of this service beyond the UK.

      Then again, I'm happy to continue to fund it.

    40. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by Cyclops · · Score: 1
      I also notice eMusic is not very comprehensive. For example, they have nothing by Radiohead. They have three albums by Elvis Presley - one live performance and two compilations. And if you put in Elvis Costello, the only hits they have are for Karaoke. No Gnarls Barkely, no Beatles, no Rolling Stones, no Enya, no Alanis Morissette, no Death Cab For Cutie (well, once again Karaoke). Speaking of which, there are 5988 tracks with Karaoke in their name...
      How cute. You complain that mainstream bands don't usually come up there.

      On the otherhand, every month I learn of pearls that I didn't even suspect were around.

      And so what they have 6 thousand tracks with karaoke on their name? They have about 176398 albums on their "not very comprehensive" collection...
    41. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by rtyall · · Score: 1

      The moral objection may well be the fact that you're forced to pay a TV licence even if you don't watch the BBC.
      I for one only watch Sky one, (Lost and the odd rerun of Simpsons/Futurama), E4 (Smallville and Scrubs), every now and then the sports, movie and music channels, all the other content coming from DVD/PC. The last time I watched anything on the Beeb was when the world cup was on. Even then I didn't watch it at home, most of it was watched in pubs in Tenerife and the UK, a couple of them were watched at someone elses house as they had Sky HD.
      Is it really fair that I pay £130 a year for the option to watch an episode of something that may be on the air? It's bad enough that sky charges £40 a month for the odd bit of decent content wedged in between the endless amounts of advertising.

      (Probably should have <rant></rant> quotes in there somewhere.)

    42. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      If you're really not going to pay the licence fee, welcome! Check out www.bbcresistance.com - and don't be holding your breath for that TVL inspector anytime soon. They send extortion letters to everyone.

    43. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by zootm · · Score: 1

      At a guess, the file is encrypted and you need to obtain a key (or "licence", terminology is stupid) which can decrypt it, and that is what is tied to your computer.

    44. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by zootm · · Score: 1

      I think the GP's point still stands, though. As much as many of us see that content should be released without DRM limitations, and as much as eMusic is succeeding to provide such a service, it is simply not possible to have an exhaustive collection compared to DRMed sites until content providers co-operate.

      Furthermore, international licensing agreements (whether one agrees with their existence or not) can have effect on the terms under which one can licence even one's own content (in the case of the BBC). It may be that due to distribution rules, the BBC are not allowed to distribute content in certain ways. The internet is extremely poorly-covered in existing copyright and licensing law, and we all know what the new laws which are coming in to "fix" these shortfalls look like.

      Back on-topic, though, I don't think the "Who cares about mainstream bands? Check out this indie stuff!" line holds out too well in Real Life as an argument in favour of eMusic. Perhaps for "real music lovers", who are willing to go and find things which please them, but the majority of people simply don't belong to that group. They want the mainstream music that they hear on the radio and that their friends are talking about.

      The real challenge is either encourage mainstream labels/producers to drop draconian content "protection" systems (extremely unlikely), and/or to use other facets of emerging technology as a starting point for the "next" big labels.

    45. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by JimmehAH · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they have adverts on the BBC site if you look at it with a non-UK IP address.
      Or they might just be planning to.

    46. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by BiggyP · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you live on some level of hell not previously described, how the hell can anyone limit their TV watching to endless repeats of american rubbish with acres of advertising? If TV consisted of only that i'd stop watching all together.

      So, do you pay £480 per annum to sky for the privelige of watching stuff they didn't produce and which you could have downloaded from bit torrent when it aired in the US?

    47. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by illegalcortex · · Score: 1
      Actually, I tried to pick some established megabands along with some lesser known but still recognizable bands that weren't completely mainstream. I figured if I had picked bands that most people hadn't heard of, you'd just gripe about that. Of those I listed, I only really listen to Gnarls. Okay, so here goes:

      Clem Snide: no ablums
      Feist: no albums
      Coralie Clément: no albums
      Quantic Soul Orchestra: no albums
      Joseph Arthur: 1 out of 5 albums
      Kimya Dawson: 2 out of 5 albums
      Elliot Smith: 3 out of 6 albums
      Kaki King: 2 out of 3 albums

      Okay, so eMusic's not doing to hot even with the music I listen to, eh? I'm not sure what this even has to do with your original claim:

      eMusic seems to do that just fine, and they have a bigger cost than BBC: licensing content.
      Clearly, eMusic isn't just "licensing content". It appears to be licensing content that it can get fairly cheaply and leaving the rest out in the cold. While the BBC's costs are for ALL the programs it produces. Do you REALLY think this is comparable? The only comparable thing I could find is "eMusic hosts files" and "BBC should host files".

      And I brought up the karaoke thing because over half the time when I tried to search for something people have heard of, I only got back karaoke albums. Saying something like "176398 albums" and expecting it to automatically mean their album list is comprehensive is stupid without actually doing some sampling. While searching for the Beatles, I found they have 8 albums from one label of just Beatles cover tunes. Every time I search for an artist, I find at least one or two compilation albums, even when they don't have any albums of their own up there. iTunes has this crap, too, it just has all the other stuff you actually want, as well.

      So no, I can't see how you could call eMusic comprehensive by any stretching of the word. It's just not.

      I don't doubt that you find bands you never heard of that you like. But that is in no way the definition of comprehensive.
    48. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      Well, from the US I don't get any ads, even with all ad-blocking turned off. Maybe they're just planning to.

    49. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by illegalcortex · · Score: 1
      Their site says:

      The UK version gives prominence to the breadth and depth of BBC content in the UK including news, sport and weather along with UK radio and TV. You may prefer this version if you live in the UK.

      The International version gives prominence to world news, sport and weather along with the BBC's international radio and TV services. You may prefer this version if you live outside the UK.
      Playing with the site a bit (you can switch your version at the top), it appears that it just rearranges the same stories for the different versions. Just like Google News or something where you pick your topics. And the left bar navigation shows the continents, which you have to click on "World" on the regular UK page for.

      So I wouldn't call the cost differences of building/maintaining the site significant due to two versions. It appears to just be a little bit of server-side scripting that had to be done anyway to allow you to click on different categories and get only those stories. As I said before, I will agree that there is probably a decent badwidth and hardware cost for making it available outside of the UK.

      But again, I think the news is a special case. A lot of countries like the US and the UK have always funded programs to bring news into areas where they don't get a western viewpoint. The return on this investment is a lot harder to quanitify, but it is real.
    50. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by Cyclops · · Score: 1
      it is simply not possible to have an exhaustive collection compared to DRMed sites until content providers co-operate.
      Quite the opposite. The contents don't coincide, but non-DRMed sites have a lot more content (and demand).
    51. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by zootm · · Score: 1

      Quite the opposite. The contents don't coincide, but non-DRMed sites have a lot more content (and demand).

      I doubt that there's more demand for the content on non-DRMed sites, but the benefits (and lack of a "downside" compared to CDs) is likely to help them out. As for them having more content, what's to stop a DRMed site selling some DRMed tracks and some non-DRMed tracks, depending on the publisher?

      By "exhaustive collection" I meant in terms of popular, mainstream music, rather than "good" music (which I could quite believe being the case with non-DRMed sites) and sheer volume (which is something else I could believe, but obviously lots and lots of specialist or unknown artists do not a good collection make).

      I suppose there's an interesting challenge with making what is considered "indie" nowadays into the mainstream; with modern technology and so on there's less of a barrier to entry to the music-making market, so the only real challenge that remains as regards competing with major producers is marketing. I'm kinda interested to see what, if anything, happens with that.

    52. Re:Misleading Headline & Summary by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You're not loaning it, you're giving it. I mean, if they want to both attract and retain customers, they'll pass the savings on to you, but I don't see that happening. But yes, Zudeo is a network where they distribute DRM-protected HD video streams that can only be watched in their client. Wondermous!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. How hard is this? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Just how hard is it to make anything available on P2P. It just has to be digital, interesting, and you promise not to sue for distributing it. Even big companies can usually manage this much.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  4. Good for the US by smallfries · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But this is not what they promised to do. As a British Licensefee payer I expect them to open up their content on UK filesharing networks, as they promised. Offering DRM'd content to overseas markets is not part of their charter. Making money should be a secondary concern to their primary purpose - delivering good tv to a British audience.

    --
    Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    1. Re:Good for the US by camperdave · · Score: 2, Funny

      I live in a constitutional monarchy and a Commonwealth Realm, with Queen Elizabeth II as the reigning monarch. As such, she is our head of state as much as she is yours. Since the BBC derives its charter through her authority, and since her authority extends to my country, I expect the BBC to deliver good British TV to this side of the pond as well.

      We could send you episodes of Corner Gas, Holmes on Homes, and Anne of Green Gables, if you wish.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Good for the US by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 1

      Making money should be a secondary concern to their primary purpose - delivering good tv to a British audience. By making money out of the spin-offs from the broadcasts you receive for the ludicrously low price of 130 GBP the BBC is able to pay for things like 'Life On Earth' and 'Strictly Come Dancing'.

      It is beholden on the BBC to chase up any money raising venture within the confines of its charter, or, you're left with the choice between ads or rubbish.
      --
      init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    3. Re:Good for the US by Bertie · · Score: 1

      I'll happily settle for Trailer Park Boys...

    4. Re:Good for the US by kabocox · · Score: 1

      But this is not what they promised to do. As a British Licensefee payer I expect them to open up their content on UK filesharing networks, as they promised. Offering DRM'd content to overseas markets is not part of their charter. Making money should be a secondary concern to their primary purpose - delivering good tv to a British audience.

      Um, before you Brits start complaining about your beloved BBC; think alittle. You had to pay a license fee. Those in the US, the EU, and the rest of the world didn't pay the UK BBC lic. fee. If the BBC put non-DRM content into most P2P networks, it would also be downloadable to those outside of the UK. Heck, if the BBC offerred non-DRM content to those within the UK on its on special UK only P2P the content would stay within the UK for only as long it your average Britain would keep the content out of their shared folders for their other P2P programs. I live in the US and would love to see current BBC content for free. I don't blame the BBC for trying to get some money out of the US, EU and other rest of the world. I'd think that the BBC would release DRM content that would play only if you've payed your BBC lic. fee. An idea would be to offer foreigners such as myself to pay this lic. fee and be able to download BBC content.

    5. Re:Good for the US by maddskillz · · Score: 1

      How does Trailer Park Boys for Top Gear sound?

    6. Re:Good for the US by IANAAC · · Score: 1

      Making money should be a secondary concern to their primary purpose - delivering good tv to a British audience.


      But as someone living in the US who enjoys good good british tv, I'd gladly pay good money. You have some good shows that are unavailable to us. My current favorite is Catherine Tate. Yes, she's all over Youtube, but if I could download high-def episodes, all the better.

    7. Re:Good for the US by smallfries · · Score: 1

      When they started aiming at charter renewel a few years ago they came up with their original promises for releasing digital content. Sure, DRM'd crap for foreign markets is a part of that, but they also promised legal peer-to-peer downloads for UK residents. There are several ways to accomplish that.

      One difference is that the stuff that residents are interested in is not current programs. It's the back catalogue. I wouldn't mind if they distribute some kind of customised BitTorrent that is locked to uk ip addresses, and has a proxy blacklist. Putting DRM on the media would be kindof pointless, and it directly contridicts their stated aims. The back-catalogue of BBC media belongs to the British people, not the coroporation.

      Note, I'm not saying that these things are mutually exclusive. Selling current content to the overseas market is a separate concern from opening the back catalogue to free download for UK residents. Also, making the highres versions available does not affect the resale anymore than DVD rips on peer-to-peer networks do currently. It's not good - but no worse than the current situation.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    8. Re:Good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we shall happily let them do so provided your entire country gets the same manditory TV licensing crap that we all have to put up with! I'd happily ditch the BBC if I didn't have to pay their ransom fee anymore *just* for owning television. I prefer watching other channels and the series I *am* interested in that come from the BBC I can get on DVD. It'd save me a whole lot of money.

    9. Re:Good for the US by PainBot · · Score: 1

      ...and since when does the audience deserve good content ?

    10. Re:Good for the US by LevKuleshov · · Score: 1

      There's absolutely nothing in the BBC charter about their primary purpose being delivering TV to a British audience, and many of their activities patently show that -- the BBC World Service radio network for example and offering online news in 33 languages (fancy reading the news in Uzbek anyone?).

      In fact, to be precise, the charter is aimed at providing services to:

      Our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the territorial waters thereof, and on board ships and aircraft (such services being hereinafter referred to as "the Home Services") and for reception elsewhere within the Commonwealth and in other countries and places overseas (such services being hereinafter referred to as "the World Service") the Home Services and the World Service together being hereinafter referred to as "the Public Services".

      It's a nice 1950s idea that the BBC is for the people of Britain, but in an age where the audiovisual and information industries are truly globalised, is it feasible to expect the BBC to be able to maintain it's quality without dabbling in international media markets.

      --
      Conquest's 3rd Law: Every organisation behaves as if it is run by secret agents of its opponents.
    11. Re:Good for the US by D-Cypell · · Score: 2, Funny

      My current favorite is Catherine Tate. Yes, she's all over Youtube

      What a fucking liberty!!!

    12. Re:Good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fucking liberty!!!


      Izzit.

    13. Re:Good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am a boverd?

    14. Re:Good for the US by Hylander · · Score: 1

      This is BBC World, the commercial arm of the BBC, and is not governed by the charter. They buy BBC content from the public part of the BBC at "market rates" and try to make money out of it by selling it abroad. The deal they've done here is unproblematic as far as the BBC is concerned, it's just the same as selling dubbed Teletubbies episodes to Mexico or whatever.

      Providing free content in the UK is part of the public part of the BBC, which tends to move much, much slower due to the political difficulties. I expect it to happen eventually, but they won't rush into anything.

    15. Re:Good for the US by Cederic · · Score: 1


      I think you'll find that 'Life On Earth' is going to be a considerable source of profit for the BBC. A significant portion of BBC revenue comes from its Natural History unit.

      (Losing 'Strictly Come Dancing' can only be a good thing.)

      Apart from that, you're quite right. Red Dwarf is available on DVD already, so why not make it available online, and use a distribution mechanism that minimises BBC hosting costs.

      People in the UK can continue to watch it on digital TV, if they have access (most people do) or buy the DVD or wait for the DRM to get cracked, download the 'pirate' copy and bask in the knowledge they've broken the law and subverted the natural order of things. Some people enjoy this.

    16. Re:Good for the US by The+Benefactor · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to dub the Teletubbies? Its all gibberish anyway

      --
      To err is human, to arr is pirate.
    17. Re:Good for the US by kabocox · · Score: 1

      One difference is that the stuff that residents are interested in is not current programs. It's the back catalogue. I wouldn't mind if they distribute some kind of customised BitTorrent that is locked to uk ip addresses, and has a proxy blacklist. Putting DRM on the media would be kindof pointless, and it directly contridicts their stated aims. The back-catalogue of BBC media belongs to the British people, not the coroporation.

      Um, I don't see how you can restrict non-DRM content without some type of DRM control on the client to prevent "one" British guy from sharing non-DRM content worldwide. It's been years since I've seen anything current from the BBC. I'd simply be happy to see the entire collected Dr. Who, maybe Are you being served, I thinks its call Yes Minister, and the Black Adder. I can see why the BBC would want to lock that content down.

  5. Cost by MindStalker · · Score: 1

    Article implies there might be a charge for these downloads (I'm guessing an open P2P but you need to buy a key to watch it). That would suck..

    1. Re:Cost by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Then just get it off a standard torrent and don't give them anything. No one said you had to get it this way.

      What exactly "sucks" about paying for this? I can understand if it's outrageously priced, like CDs these days, but if it was a buck or two an episode it'd be cheaper than getting the DVDs and since you're not getting anything tangible, probably works out in the end.

      Might check it out myself if it's not too much; I've been meaning to see Red Dwarf for a while (since someone introduced it to me and NEVER FINISHED IT! grr...) but at nearly $40 for seasons 1 and 2 (at only about 12 episodes total) it's a bit pricey. I personally think it's worth it to compensate them something for this, I did like it and I'd like to encourage more work like this.

      DRM sucks, sure, but I don't see them ever getting rid of it. At least they're trying.

    2. Re:Cost by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Yea, I didn't mean I would mind paying for it. Just the typical pay for it seems to be heavily DRM loaded for $5. This would especially be true if its intended to be shared on p2p meaning your payment would only register it on one device.

  6. Legally available, but still drm'ed by HvitRavn · · Score: 1

    The movies will be crippled with DRM, according to the article. Also they won't be free, though TFA doesn't say anything explicitly about cost except "No pricing structure for the BBC content on Zudeo has been revealed".

  7. That's ok though by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I already have all Red Dwarf seasons on DVD, not that expensive and more than worth it :)
    But that's only my opinion.

    Smeghead ;)

    --
    This is the sig that says NI (again)
    1. Re:That's ok though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:That's ok though by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 1

      The fact that you have them all on DVD makes $MY_USERNAME very angry.

      What should we do with them $MY_USERNAME?

      What? We could not do that... Who would clean up the mess?

      --
      Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
  8. Well smeg! by everphilski · · Score: 1

    "I tell you one thing. I've been to a parallel universe, I've seen time running backwards, I've played pool with planets, and I've given birth to twins, but I never thought in my entire life I'd taste an edible Pot Noodle."
    - Lister, Demons and Angels

  9. It's a trap! by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't have a TV license. I regularly get threatening letters from the collections agency asking me to turn myself in for my heinous crime.

    They got so bad at one point that I actually wrote to them refusing to partake in any further correspondence until they sent me a civil letter. They wrote back - with a threat about how large the fine will be when they haul me in.

    The fun part? I don't have a television. But I'm not telling them that until they ask politely. Yes, it's probably stupid and it's certainly obstinate but I refuse to be intimidated.

    Now, of course, with them making a move like this I actually feel like I might *want* to give them money. It's a pretty cool thing to do and I'm proud of the BBC for being forward looking and generally a great service. So that's what this is all about folks. They are just trying to shame me into paying up. The worked out what my buttons were and pushed them. As soon as I hand over the cash, the whole thing will go away. It's a freaking trap I tell you.

    Fortunately for all of you I'm holding out for them to switch to ogg for their radio streams before I buy a TV license. You should be safe to enjoy this content for another couple of decades. My present to all of you! /tinfoilhat

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in a slightly similar situation, where I moved house recently and purchased a TV license for the new address. The thing is I keep getting letters to the old address (I get my mail forwarded) threatening me that I'd better buy a TV license or else! I haven't bothered responding yet either, just because their increasingly hysterical threats are quite funny. I've lost count of the number of times they've threatened to send someone 'round to 'catch me in the act'.

      As for this service, it's all very nice, but will only be available in the US. It should also be made available in the UK, but for free.

    2. Re:It's a trap! by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      Excuse my Westpondlander ignorance, but what the hell is a TV license?

    3. Re:It's a trap! by Nuskrad · · Score: 4, Informative

      A yearly payment that allows you to operate a TV in a premises. The costs are used to pay for BBC TV, Radio and Interactive services.

    4. Re:It's a trap! by Feanturi · · Score: 5, Funny

      what the hell is a TV license?

      It's an initiative geared to solving the problem of stray televisions wandering the streets. Apparently they cause a lot of traffic congestion, that's why you have to pay to drive in downtown London. They also like to pee on some guy named Lou. Weirdos.

    5. Re:It's a trap! by ethanms · · Score: 2, Informative
      For those of us in parts of the world unfamiliar w/ the UK's practices:

      http://www.taith.org.uk/tv/newapproach.htm (an interesting letter w/ commentary)

      http://www.marmalade.net/lime/#people (personal accounts of dealing w/ the licensing)

      Apparently these letters aren't from the BBC anymore, it's from a form of collections/enforcement agency that the BBC contracts... hired goons--

      "As a result of The Broadcast Act 1990, the BBC were made responsible for licence administration. TV Licensing is a trading name used by entities contracted by the Licensing Authority (the BBC) to administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing system. The majority of the administration of TV Licensing is contracted to Capita Business Services Ltd, with the administration of cash easy payment schemes contracted to Revenue Management Services Ltd, and marketing and public relations activities contracted to the AMV Consortium." http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/aboutus/index.jsp
    6. Re:It's a trap! by CormacJ · · Score: 2, Funny

      My dad had a long running war of letters with the licensing authority because they didn't do their research. My grandmother how lived in the house bought the TV license under her name. My dad rented the TV. At some point they did a cross check and found that while my dad was responsible for have a TV there was no TV license in his name.

      They sent him a form letter. He checked that we had a TV license and ignored it.

      They send him a follow up form letter with the section about really needing a TV license circled. He wrote "Thats correct" and send it back to the sender.

      They sent him a more strongly worded letter. The section about legal action was circled and marked "Please read". He checkmarked it, wrote "have read" and sent it back to them.

      They then sent him a letter from a lawyer, full of legalese. He was writing "do your worst" on this when my mum caught him and took the letter away and made a phone call to sort it out.

      He was all prepared to have them drag him into court and he would have taken my grandmother out to the town for a day out, taken her into the court and made her produce the license, then pointed out that the code (at the time) said "licensed at this address". They had never checked to see if the address was licensed.

    7. Re:It's a trap! by stevencbrown · · Score: 1

      I've been "caught in the act" as such.

      Wasn't nearly as frightening as their letters had said it was going to be.

      Some guy turned up a my door (in hindsight I should have told him where to go, but I was kind of thrown off that they had actually bothered to come out after 2 years of nasty letters).

      I tried to say my flat mate had one - but he checked his name in his handheld computer, and it wasn't found (always thought that was quite cool tech for 1998, but obviously realised later that he only had the subscribers in the local area he was checking, not everyone :-), so I was offered the opportunity to buy one on the spot, so I just did, didn't seem worth the further hassle to refuse.

      On the subject of not having a TV, I think the licensing authority recently got into trouble because of their hassling of people - they would note that the person didn't have a TV, and not mail them, but once a year passed, they started sending letters again. They were told by the regulator to stop that kind of stuff, which must be pretty annoying if you don't have a TV.

    8. Re:It's a trap! by austinpoet · · Score: 1

      The feral televisions in some neighborhoods are overrunning the local technofauna according to reports I heard from a guy who heard it somewhere. Luckily in the US, we have the V-chip to help ensure that our feral televisions can be neutered.

    9. Re:It's a trap! by loraksus · · Score: 1

      I heard a while back they were using devices to detect some of the transformers or whatever in a TV. Wonder if they can track LCD / Plasma TVs...
      Not to avoid fees or anything....

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    10. Re:It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time write back for them to Sod off, go soak their head in the loo and that you DARE them to come and get you.

      Tell them that they do not dare step foot in your home as they are spineless.

      That will get a response worth your time.

    11. Re:It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a guy approaches you with the words "'scuse me, mate, can I bum a fag?", I hope you understand that he is asking you for a cigarette!

    12. Re:It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do love it when people make productive suggestions.

      "I'm breaking the law, and I dare you to do something about it."

      Grow the fuck up.

    13. Re:It's a trap! by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      I heard a while back they were using devices to detect some of the transformers or whatever in a TV.

      The horizontal-deflection circuit in a CRT-based TV produces a sawtooth-shaped wave at 15.75 kHz (NTSC) and/or 15.625 kHz (PAL). This gets pumped into the horizontal deflection coil, which makes a poor-to-fair antenna for radiating this signal.

      It'd take a fairly big antenna to pick it up, so you could also listen for the TV-tuner IF (intermediate frequency), which should be a few tens of MHz (probably 38.9 MHz, from the sources I could find). There won't be a coil hanging off it to radiate it far, but I'd think a directional antenna pointed at a TV from a couple hundred feet away could pick up enough usable signal for a scanner to pick up.

      Wonder if they can track LCD / Plasma TVs... Not to avoid fees or anything....

      They don't scan the screen in the same way, but they still have a tuner that spits out an IF signal inside them. Even if you don't actually use the tuner in your TV (I don't), you have a tuner in your other equipment (VCR, cable box, TiVo, TV-tuner card in a MythTV box, etc.) if you watch broadcast or cable TV. (Satellite TV is another matter, but it's obvious from the outside if you use that.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  10. Horrendous journalism by Asmor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    From TFA: Azureus is best known for developing a BitTorrent client, or program, that allows large media files to be easily shared over the internet.

    That's just... so... gah. I mean, it's one thing when the media oversimplifies things, that at least doesn't hurt anything, but in this case they make it sound like Azureus invented bit torrent!

    Also: "...a BitTorrent client, or program..." Now this is more like the oversimplification thing, but that's just plain stupid. Was that really a neccessary clarification to make? I mean, I'm not saying that everyone out there would understand what a client is, but defining it as a program just seems unneccessary. I think the meaning of a client is at least somewhat obvious from the context.

    1. Re:Horrendous journalism by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      Actually, they don't make it sound like Azereus made BitTorrent. Notice they say "for developing a BitTorrent client", not "for developing the BitTorrent client." The latter case does imply that Azereus made it.

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    2. Re:Horrendous journalism by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Also: "...a BitTorrent client, or program..." Now this is more like the oversimplification thing, but that's just plain stupid. Was that really a neccessary clarification to make? I mean, I'm not saying that everyone out there would understand what a client is, but defining it as a program just seems unneccessary.

      The vast majority of people have no idea that a "client" is something you can have on a computer. Try talking to some real people some time.

  11. Balls of Steel by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

    I hope they make Balls of Steel available. That has to be the funniest show I've seen in months. The Bunny Boiler, Annoying Devil, Big Gay Folllwing and Alex's games are hilarious. Check YouTube out if you haven't seen the show yet.

    1. Re:Balls of Steel by jonnyelectronic · · Score: 2, Informative

      While that may have come from the UK, it did not come from the BBC.

    2. Re:Balls of Steel by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That's a Channel 4 show :) See if their 4oD service (downloadable shows) is available where you are. I think they're currently doing a beta trial.

    3. Re:Balls of Steel by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      Aggghhhh! It's limited to the UK. That would have been great. Thanks anyway. Cheers.

  12. Tag story "itsatrap" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    This is yet another attempt to curtail my rights online. Azureus has sold its soul to the content mafia and is attempting to destroy the Bittorrent community. Utorrent has also sold out to Hollywood fascists. The way I see it, corporate software is the problem here. Do you ever notice native Linux torrent clients don't have this problem? Thank the gods for *nix torrent clients, like rTorrent and Deluge. If you're still on Winblows, sorry charlie. That's what happens when you let Micro$oft and other proprietary Nazis on your box. To all the corporate whores who want a piece of my upload bandwidth to further your goals of DRM, I say "Fuck you". Fuck co-optation and selling out; your infected files will go straight to /dev/null, assholes.

    1. Re:Tag story "itsatrap" by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      I think I found the thrust of your post (it was a bit like finding the pony). Basically, the problem is that the windows BT client's wind up getting sold off because most people use windows? And the linux ones never "have this problem" because they're basically worthless to anyone with money to invest? Okay, I'm agreeing with you 100%. But then you get to the part where you said this would be fixed if people would just stop using Windows, you lost me. Wouldn't a lot of people switching to linux actually make it attractive for these kinds of buyouts? Also, I'm not sure what Hitler had to do with this...

  13. Count your blessings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting
    As a British Licensefee payer I expect them to open up their content on UK filesharing networks, as they promised. Offering DRM'd content to overseas markets is not part of their charter. Making money should be a secondary concern to their primary purpose - delivering good tv to a British audience.

    It seems to me that they're already delivering good tv to a British audience via a technology known as 'broadcast'. I would gladly trade places with you. 99% of current American television is utter mindless crap. About the only TV I watch these days is the smattering of BBC programs that PBS airs, including the BBC news, which along with the Canadian CBC news (I'm close to the border) is about the only source of reality-based news on the air in the colonies these days.
    1. Re:Count your blessings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posit: The amount of "reality" available on television is constant.
      Conclusion: The more "reality" that shows like Survivor consume, the less is available for the evening news.

      Makes sense in an eerie sort of way..;)

    2. Re:Count your blessings by owlnation · · Score: 1

      I can't say that I agree with you. I'm not sure the precise percentages, so perhaps 99% is crap, however there are many US produced TV shows that are far superior to any produced in other countries.

      Some examples out of many: My Name is Earl, Boston Legal, The West Wing, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Studio 60, Futurama, Veronica Mars, Firefly (may it rest in peace), Northern Exposure, Hill Street Blues, The Sopranos, St Elsewhere (barring the finale), M*A*S*H, Star Trek (well most franchises), Buffy, Babylon 5.... etc etc etc etc. One hour TV drama in the US is as tough as filmmaking gets - no other country can deliver that quality in that timeline season over season.

      The BBC has a handful of shows since the beginning of time that come close to some of these. It's inconceivable that the BBC could ever fund a show to the point that delivered the innovation and quality of the opening titles tracking shot to Hill Street Blues. I was working as a cameraman at the time that show debuted and my colleagues and I talked of little else the next day, that shot was groundbreaking. Similarly, the editing in Boston Legal, pure genius, nothing like it anywhere. Schlamme's direction on the West Wing cast drive and energy into verbose scripts. Don't even get me started on Joss Whedon, and I could go on.

      US TV is the best funded, has the best writers, the best performers, the best directors and the best crew. It's just the system for the most part that sucks, as Firefly proves.

      Compare if you will the two versions of "The Office". Same writer, but the US version has vastly superior production values and much better performers and much better direction. It's not simply that Gervais had the opportunity to revisit some of the writing and polish it.

      I'm British by the way, not American.

    3. Re:Count your blessings by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      Compare if you will the two versions of "The Office". Same writer, but the US version has vastly superior production values and much better performers and much better direction. It's not simply that Gervais had the opportunity to revisit some of the writing and polish it.

      Same writer? The US pilot was taken from the UK version (which had two writers, not one, as I'm sure you knew), and Gervais/Merchant wrote another episode, but apart from that, the US version of The Office has been written by the US team (with some oversight by Gervais/Merchant). Production values on a programme like this are fairly irrelevant - it's supposed to be a fly on the wall documentary, with deliberately shaky/on the fly camera-work, which both versions manage to portray without getting in the way. As for much better performers, I'd also disagree - both ensemble casts are very good in each programme.

      I'm British, and I like the UK version of The Office, but I also like the US version, which surprised me greatly as the very concept seemed doomed from the start, but they really pulled it off. I don't view one as inherently better than the other. The US episodes don't sustain the high-octane cringeworthy pain that the UK episodes did, but on the other hand, there are more episodes of the US version, and I'm not sure we could take 30+ episodes of the sort of pain and embarrassment that Gervais and Merchant produced.

    4. Re:Count your blessings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have missed the first adjective in the phrase current American television. Half the examples that you cite are 10-25 years old. Today's American TV is absolutely pathetic contrived "reality" crud that pales in comparison to the Northern Exposures, Hill Street Blues, M*A*S*H, et al, of those bygone years. And today's American television news has all the objectivity and world-view of Pravda or the Peoples' Daily.

      Your view is of the past. TV has changed over here and not for the better.

      ----------------

      By the way mods: Go ahead and mod this flamebait, my catchpa is "flames".

    5. Re:Count your blessings by superdude72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You must have missed the first adjective in the phrase current American television.

      The Wire, Deadwood, Rome, the Sopranos, Battlestar Galactica, Good Eats...

      These are just some that I like. Others could probably name a dozen more of comparable quality. Granted, Deadwood and the Sopranos will be off the air soon. Also granted, the cable subscription required to obtain these legally from basic cable + premium cable (HBO) costs at least 6 times the BBC license fee.

      Sadly, the closest US-equivalent to the BBC news is... BBC news. It's why we're going to hell in a handbasket. Even NPR doesn't compare. It doesn't do much for the credibility of a news organization when they have to begin and end each broadcast with an advertisement from their underwriters in agribusiness, defense contracting, and charitable trusts managed by the heirs of deceased robber barons.

    6. Re:Count your blessings by kubrick · · Score: 1

      There are many US produced TV shows that are far superior to any produced in other countries

      Veronica Mars and Northern Exposure, to pick a couple, are that much better than The Singing Detective, Fawlty Towers or Absolute Power? No accounting for taste, obviously.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    7. Re:Count your blessings by Enahs · · Score: 1

      Indeed, most those references are old, and the replies to yours list cable shows, such as Galactica, Deadwood, and others.

      I wish I could say I knew of a non-crap show, but I really don't. Even shows I try to catch once in a while are crap. Then again, TV has largely been crap since TV came to be. Even Galactica, my current favorite, is crap. I mean, c'mon, they didn't have any failsafes built into their 'droids? And the only way to build a networked computer system is to leave it so open that any virus broadcast over radio will work? C'mon.

      --
      Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
    8. Re:Count your blessings by The+Benefactor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wasn't Rome co-produced by the BBC and HBO?

      --
      To err is human, to arr is pirate.
    9. Re:Count your blessings by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure we could take 30+ episodes of the sort of pain and embarrassment that Gervais and Merchant produced

      We have though (in effect) if you include "Extras" - which was as far as I could see took the cringeworthy bits of The Office and relocated them, leaving behind the counterpoints (Tim/Dawn, etc) that meant that The Office was enjoyable whereas I gave up on Extras after episode 1.

    10. Re:Count your blessings by superdude72 · · Score: 1

      I believe so. And Battlestar Galactica was a coproduction with SkyOne (?) But it's first run is in the US (Or co-first-run, with the UK). So it counts. It's not like it's 10-year-old episodes of "Are You Being Served" or something.

  14. Fergit it twits by Stumbles · · Score: 1

    Well I was all set to say YIPPI till I read it will be laden with DRM snot. NO thanks shit heads.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
    1. Re:Fergit it twits by cliffski · · Score: 2

      Wow, such hostility. Are you british and upset that your licence fee funded the shows and you should have them free? or non british, and just reckon you were born with the right to have them for free anyway, while us lot pay for it?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    2. Re:Fergit it twits by Hucko · · Score: 1
      I do believe the persona was upset at the DRM, not that one had to pay for it. As someone pointed out, this is achievable with PGP. Having said that, Im Australian so

      just reckon you were born with the right to have them for free anyway, while us lot pay for it applies to me :)
      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    3. Re:Fergit it twits by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Most people who want to watch this content run Windows, so it's not a problem for them. The BBC has a duty to do everything it can to protect its programmes. It's spending public money, so it has to protect it. That's why they use DRM. That's the same reasoning that prevents them from spending millions just to create a version for Linux - they can't justify spending so much money on such an (admittedly vocal) minority.

  15. Re:They should be available by Trigun · · Score: 1

    Hmm, there seem to be a large absence of video recorders in Britain. If someone wants to make a killing, they should convert VCR's and Tivo's to PAL format. The market is ripe!

  16. oooh! by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

    Compu-a says........yes?

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  17. Why not iTunes Store? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Azureus Network and Zuedo are dubious organizations while the iTunes Store is a respectable and reputable business. Any DRM system is bad, but at least Apple system is somewhat acceptable, you can play tv shows, songs and audiobooks simultaneously on 5 computers (movies only on 3 computers). I spent about $300 on TV shows from iTunes (about 70GB), mostly brand new documentaries which are not available on DVDs yet. In general PBS shows are MUCH CHEAPER on iTunes than on DVD (usually 4 to 8 times cheaper with some exceptions)

    If BBC shows would be available on iTunes at the regular price, $1.99 per episode, I would buy some of them. I would never buy anything from Azureus or Zuedo.

    1. Re:Why not iTunes Store? by Dolohov · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that occurred to me as well -- in addition, going through iTunes would make it easy to allow the content free to viewers in the UK. (That is, with UK billing addresses)

      The price point for iTunes is rather high, though. I can't see myself paying $2 for an episode of Red Dwarf, even though it's my favorite of the ones mentioned. Perhaps Azureus is offering a more reasonable price plan?

    2. Re:Why not iTunes Store? by laffer1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The new problem is how much software can I possibly install to watch content? I happen to use iTunes so that I can watch content on my Mac and PC. I already find it inconvenient that I can not watch content in an open source operating system. Now I'm supposed to add additional bloat to my Windows install for Amazon's service, iTunes, this Azerus pay service, along with any other vendor entering the ring. I usually watch DVDs on my PC anyway so these download services are great in one sense. I no longer have to go to the store or buy and wait. (well download time) I don't have a problem with DRM that protects content in itself, but I do have a problem with the lack of versatility in devices and operating systems which can PLAY this content.

      I suppose we should just accept that not everyone likes iTunes. If you don't like windows or own a Mac, it would be rather inconvenient. Its one of the many hurdles I face with MidnightBSD and I'm sure the Linux community feels the same way.

      Still it is nice they are distributing content.

      What we really need are some new laws that force companies to make their content available on multiple services so that there isn't a monopoly. This would also have the benefit of possibly putting it into different DRM formats which might be more acceptable to some. Imagine if only walmart sold movies. That's what we get now. Amazon sells star trek episodes, but Apple does not. Apple has some exclusive content on iTunes that amazon does not have. (unbox) More competition *could* keep content prices low.

  18. Matching legal to reality by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This would be the only way to actually deal with torrents. They're here, and they're here to stay. If they crack down on torrent sites, like they try now, something new will come into existance, if nothing else, people will post torrent hashes on usenet. It's not like you could technically stop the distribution of content.

    The only way to really deal with it is to give it some leeway while trying to make some revenue, somehow, out of it all. The fact that those files will be tacked down with DRM will surely keep this from flying, but generally the idea is a good one. It could've been done with a "members only" torrent tracker (where you gotta pay the BBC to become a member), with the torrent info only available on their tracker.

    THEN it is possible to crack down on sites offering that torrent, too, because the torrent hash itself is owned by the BBC, not by someone who just "allows" others to use it. It's their 'content', so to speak.

    Yes, that could've been a success. Devaluating it by adding enough DRM to weigh it down certainly doesn't help it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Old Doctor Who Episodes by Terminus32 · · Score: 0

    We'll be in for a treat if they release all of the surviving Doctor Who episodes online!

    --
    http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:Old Doctor Who Episodes by alienmole · · Score: 1

      A huge number of them are already available. Google is your friend.

  20. Simple Solution by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    People here on Slashdot in various countries make a connection with people in countries where services are offered. For example, I live in the U.S. I've quite like to see the programs from Channel 4 that they have available online. But that's currently U.K. only and is not likely to change. (I WANT to see Green Wing's Xmas Special) So, if someone in the U.K. is willing, we can establish private VPN connections between our machines and route specific traffic overseas via the VPN. Then it would be as if I was in the U.K. and the other person was in the U.S. for various services they may want to access here. Simple.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:Simple Solution by SimDarth · · Score: 1

      Also opens up the possibility of someone in a country who doesn't cooperate with international copyright laws to open up a streaming video service and offer a sampling of international television. Of course, YouTube seems to already have a lot of that... but you could offer people the ability to stream in entire seasons of Doctor Who or Sleeper Cell or whatever.

      The global marketplace can be a wonderful thing sometimes.

    2. Re:Simple Solution by dave420 · · Score: 1

      And if they don't use geo-location via IP addresses? What if they ask for your TV license number before granting you a DRM license? Which is fair enough, I guess. Otherwise even Brits without TV licenses would get the content without paying for it.

    3. Re:Simple Solution by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Well it appears to be geolocation because many of those download services don't allow access to even the base site from outside the UK. As they charge for the downloads I don't think they will be asking for a license number. However, one other sticking point would be the method of payment. I suppose a credit or debit card from Anytown, USA would not work...

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  21. For a moment I thought the BBC had a clue... by paol · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The titles will be protected by digital rights management software to prevent the programmes being traded illegally on the internet."

    ...no, I guess not. And it goes without saying that whatever stupid DRM format they come up with will only run on windows, so I couldn't use it even if I wanted to. Back to getting BBC shows from emule for me (got to get that Top Gear fix :)

  22. Leaving Feedback? by spaceboy33 · · Score: 1

    Has anyone found a way to leave feedback with either Azureus/Zudeo or the correct BBC division over this deal? In addition to not buying their product, I'd love to let either company know that the DRM is the only thing preventing me from throwing money at them, which is true. I would have liked to do the same for the equally flawed Amazon Unbox service, but never found a way to. In addition to weak sales, hopefully enough anti-DRM feedback would help get the point across.

    1. Re:Leaving Feedback? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Just e-mail the BBC, I've found they're actually pretty good at answering e-mails. Address is on their site somewhere.

  23. Sounds awesome to me by Murrdox · · Score: 1

    iTunes movies are DRM crippled, but I still found season 2 of LOST to be worth the paltry $2.00 per episode fee when I got behind on the show and wanted to catch up. I'd like it if Apple would allow me to at least burn the episodes to a DVD so I could watch them on my DVD player, but alas I can't. The solution is simply to hook my PC up to the TV, which is a fairly simple process.

    If this service let's me download episodes of Red Dwarf for a similar or a smaller fee... I would be intrigued. I wouldn't really care if they have DRM or not, but it'd be nice to at least be able to burn a DVD for myself.

    It all depends on the pricing model, whether or not it'll be worth it to download the episodes, or just go out and buy the DVDs.

    Either way, more legal content available is a good thing.

    1. Re:Sounds awesome to me by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      The real solution (if such a thing exists) to p2p is for the companies to post at least their broadcast material ASAP with the ads still in it. Considering they have the original sources, they can post the best quality encoding at the earliest possible moment, beating out the cappers. They could even add in little bonuses every now and then (like maybe a minute of footage that was cut for time) that would make them more attractive. Some people would bother downloading the corporate version, cutting out the ads and reupping it, but they would already be behind all the others who have already seeded the ad-including version. Plus, they might have some quality loss snipping out the ads (I'm not really that clued in on editing a video once it's encoded).

      While a lot of us would skip over the ads - plenty of others would not.

      Yes, it would hurt their DVD and syndication sales. But that's a moot point as you can already get ad-free high quality copies if you are willing to watch the show the next day.

    2. Re:Sounds awesome to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, they might have some quality loss snipping out the ads (I'm not really that clued in on editing a video once it's encoded).

      In MPEG, you can cut out an entire GOP (group of pictures; a sequential set of frames) without needing to re-encode. If you need to cut on an exact frame then you need to do some extra procssing, but it wouldn't affect quality significantly.

    3. Re:Sounds awesome to me by dangitman · · Score: 1
      Except that it will (probably) only work on Windows, and is only available in the USA.

      One of the things that pisses me off the most is that during the 90s we were bombarded with propaganda about globalization, and a world without (electronic) borders. Now we live in a world where we can connect to anybody, but archaic restrictions mean that services are only available to certain countries. So, the benefits of globalization we were promised have failed to materialize - and the average citizen (of any country) is left with the worst of both worlds, while the corporate rapers take advantage of cheap labor and worldwide DMCA-like policies, but none of the benefits of electronic freedom (unless we resort to "illegal" routes.

      I'd love to contribute to artists all over the world, and pay a fair price for content. But the geographical and political boundaries prevent that from happening. There are so many people who want to participate in a global culture, and are willing to pay for it. but nationalism still rules.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:Sounds awesome to me by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      I was thinking something like that might be the case. Does this apply to any codec under MPEG, like Xvid, DivX, etc.? Wonder how it applies to WMV.

  24. Azeureus NETWORK? by DaPhil · · Score: 1

    OK, my first thought here was "damn, one of them guys who can't differentiate between protocols and client applications". But no, turns out they were talking about Zureo (http://www.zudeo.com/), a separate app/business model which may yet require payment for their service.

    So, there's two questions out for the /. crew to answer:

    1) Was this move anticipated when the Azureus app was first released? I.e. gather a following and then move on with the name?

    2) How much is a "community name" like Azureus worth these days, appearing on the news?

    -DaPhil

  25. dr. who by fermion · · Score: 1
    Depending on the cost, this might be what many of us has been waiting for: a reasonable priced way to get Dr. Who. So far the Doctor has been one show that has not been packages as a series. Rather episodes have been put together into show, and the shows has been sold as if they were feature length major movies, that is at $20 a pop. All this while other popular show, like Are You Being Served, are sold at $100 for the complete set of series.

    I hope series are going to be put together into reasonably priced packages. Sometimes it seems like the BBC has one cash generating property, and they are going to milk it for all it is worth.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:dr. who by RyatNrrd · · Score: 1

      I like the way the BBC have been releasing Dr Who: this way I can have (for example) Vengence on Varos and Revelation of the Daleks for the cost of two DVDs, without shelling out for all the chaff (IMO) like Attack of the Cybermen and The Two Doctors. Most series of Dr Who had a couple of really good stories, and a number of low-budget fillers.

    2. Re:dr. who by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      I can already just watch the BRAND NEW EPISODES on BBC America. I'm delighted to see that Christopher Eccleston is back from a yearlong hiatus and appearing in these BRAND NEW EPISODES, too.

      What?

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    3. Re:dr. who by Frobisher · · Score: 1

      Well, Doctor Who has ALWAYS been released like this. And personally I like it this way. The Restoration Team do a great job in making these releases the best they absolutely can, all that effort takes TIME, and every release has plenty of bonus features. No-one cares whether Mrs Slocombe's pussy gets the same love and attention...

  26. this is a non-starter by Yonder+Way · · Score: 1, Insightful

    From TFA: "The titles will be protected by digital rights management software to prevent the programmes being traded illegally on the internet."

    Overlooking the fact that they spelled "programs" incorrectly (this is, after all, for the US market), media outlets still don't "get it" that DRM is a non-starter with many consumers.

    1. Re:this is a non-starter by cliffski · · Score: 4, Funny

      its the bbc website. i'm glad they use british english. Can you please correct all your american websites that can't spell colour.
      Cheers,

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    2. Re:this is a non-starter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Overlooking the fact that they spelled "programs" incorrectly (this is, after all, for the US market)

      you're an idiot.

    3. Re:this is a non-starter by dangitman · · Score: 1
      No, it's "spelled."

      "Spelt" is just the way some people pronounce the word.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:this is a non-starter by dangitman · · Score: 1
      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  27. DRM? by metamatic · · Score: 0, Troll

    So near, and yet so worthless. Oh well.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:DRM? by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Looks like a shill got mod points today...

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  28. Re:They should be available by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

    I know, I know, you were mostly joking about how people in the UK don't seem to be able to record things.

    But I did want to mention that they do have TiVo in the UK.

  29. It looks like Azureus has gone commercial by Junior+Samples · · Score: 1

    I went to the Azureus networks download site: http://www.zudeo.com/

    The banner says Code name: ZUDEO powered by Azureus 3.0

    Copyright 2006 Azureus Inc

    I don't know if this is from the same people that brought us the open source Azureus Client, but it looks like it may be.

    First utorrent, now Azureus, What next.

    1. Re:It looks like Azureus has gone commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  30. Linux users not required. by raidient · · Score: 0

    "It's also only available in the US."

    It is worse than that. It is only available to Windows users. Is the BBC a subsidiary of Microsoft?

    --
    My faith is expressed through Nihilism. Do you understand?
    1. Re:Linux users not required. by UglyTool · · Score: 1
      It is worse than that. It is only available to Windows users. Is the BBC a subsidiary of Microsoft?

      Hmmm....

      After seeing this article, I checked out the Zudeo program. Seemed to me to be a decent program, and if I can get Red Dwarf, even if I have to pay something for it, then I am all for it. I downloaded the program, ran it, and watched a couple short films.

      Oh yeah... I'm running Mac OS 10.4.8, and the movies openend up in Quicktime.

      I am really sorry if you can't run it on the OS of your choice, but you shouldn't just jump to the conclusion that it is tied directly to MS, and therefore evil.

    2. Re:Linux users not required. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Windows only? I thought so too when I visited the site at work.

      I got home and went to the site in Linux, and was given a link to download the Linux client. Maybe your user-agent is screwed up.

      Here it is if you don't believe me: http://torrents.aelitis.com:88/files/Azureus_2.5.0 .0_linux.tar.bz2

    3. Re:Linux users not required. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... Not sure what the final software will be like, but I downloaded Azeureus, got some short films, watched them, etc. No problems at all from this pc, I'm running Ubuntu Edgy.. (linux)

      Btw.. The interface is very nice for a java app, fit in beautifully with my gnome desktop and ran quickly.

  31. great news for some, not so great for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as for me, my isp blocks http access to .torrent files through a transparent proxy server, so unless i tunnel through their proxy server, i won't be getting it.

  32. Oh by wonea · · Score: 1

    I read it, and thought wow! Then noticed the DRM bit, got a bit disappointed. Why can't we have a emusic for movies ?

  33. Licencing fees, TVs and Monitors. by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Does the license fee apply to monitors as well as TVs? You could just get a monitor (no tuner circuit, thus no capability of watching BBC) and use that to watch the DVDs.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Licencing fees, TVs and Monitors. by Christian+Smith · · Score: 1

      Does the license fee apply to monitors as well as TVs? You could just get a monitor (no tuner circuit, thus no capability of watching BBC) and use that to watch the DVDs.


      The license fees cover receiving broadcast television.

      http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp explains what a license is required for.

      Notably, playing a DVD through a regular TV appears to NOT require a license.
    2. Re:Licencing fees, TVs and Monitors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunatly owning that TV gives you the technology to access broadcast TV and means you have to pay up (trust me, I'm a poor student and so I asked the TV licensing people in the hopes I could get away with just playing DVDs and my games console on my TV) :(

      What worries me more is that they're starting to think it'd be ok for them to lobby about computers being able to use a TV card and thus must come under the rules aswell.

    3. Re:Licencing fees, TVs and Monitors. by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      They already are covered.

      "You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV."

      Sorry.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    4. Re:Licencing fees, TVs and Monitors. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I asked the TV licensing people

      The TV licensing people are the last people you ask for advice on this - they'll say you need a licence for just about anything, in an attempt to get your money.

      What worries me more is that they're starting to think it'd be ok for them to lobby about computers being able to use a TV card and thus must come under the rules aswell.

      A computer with a TV card counts as a TV, but a computer without such a card doesn't. However, they are trying to claim that all computers should count since they can download TV.

      The flip side of this argument is that since I do have a licence, I fail to see why I shouldn't happily download any TV I want...

  34. *nix torrent clients don't have this problem by goldcd · · Score: 1

    as not enough people use them, for anybody to even offer the makers a token ammount of money for commercializing them.
    So I suspect none of them will ever go 'to the dark side'

  35. and if your PC explodes by goldcd · · Score: 1

    taking out your backups, exactly why can't you download the same thing again merely incurring Apple's bandwidth fees?
    Possibly your bored of the documentary, why shouldn't you be allowed to sell it, as you would a DVD?
    You decide iTunes and your ipod are rubbish and you want to change to another platform - why do you have to rebuy it all again (likewise VHS->DVD)?

  36. I like the BBC by goldcd · · Score: 1

    and have no problem paying my license fee, purely on the basis of what it costs me and what I get.(although I dislike the fact I'm compelled to pay it merely for owning equipment capable of receiving the signal)
    Maybe partnering with Zudeo (or whoever) the BBC should roll the license fee out worldwide - $10 a month and you get access to their entire live and archived output. For a start it would reduce my license fee.

  37. Upload discount by Joe+U · · Score: 1

    So, will we be getting a discount by uploading to other clients? After all, it's my upstream bandwidth.

    If not, what's to stop me from blocking the outbound connections or capping them at 1 byte/sec?

    1. Re:Upload discount by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the way most bittorrent clients work (including azeurus) is that your client will upload more to clients that upload to you - so anyone who disables or gimps uploads wont be receiving much in the way of down-traffic either :)

      So, nothing to stop you doing it, except that you will be gimping your own downloads.

  38. Huzzah! by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

    Hopefully (in a future "wave") we'll finally have episodes of Blake's 7 legally available in the states (instead of either bootlegging them or getting them in a PAL VHS tape or Region 2 DVD from the UK).

    --
    Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
  39. Bollocks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think it would be worth mentioning that this is not a) available worldwide, and b) free (beer or speech).

    Nothing to see here, move on.

  40. Give them time. by jd · · Score: 1
    The USA nearly invaded the BBC studios when they started putting BBC-recorded concert recordings online for free. Sheesh, the legal wrangling and the threats were not insignificant, mostly on the grounds that the BBC was being "anticompetitive" by making stuff available for, well, people.


    At the moment, there are major attempts to define P2P as ipso facto piracy in many countries, the US included. It will also seriously impact attempts by some US companies to cripple access to British programs in the US. As crippled and as limited as this is, I fully expect major lawsuits to follow. If the older, unprofitable material was made for free, the lawyers would be sending Polonium, not cease-and-desists.


    I fully expect the BBC to migrate towards making all material below the margin of being worth selling available for free for everyone. At this time, however, there are enough media outlets abusing anti-competitive laws to guarantee their own little fiefdoms and monopolies that the BBC is probably more concerned with not getting blasted out of existence by intellectual property tyrants than it is with meeting what is likely their ultimate objective.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  41. Going to? Or have? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    They said 'going to' nearly a year ago.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  42. cracking zudeo's torrent wrapping by speculatrix · · Score: 3, Informative

    it took me just a few minutes of guesswork to avoid having to use the zudeo software at all; I didn't install it. When you click to download, it saves a .jnlp file which is just an XML wrapper around a URL containing a torrent, then download the torrent and open it with a torrent downloader (shareaza will do nicely). It will save a file called .hdmov, which you just rename so it will open with Quicktime.

    Thus who needs zudeo's spyware?

    1. Re:cracking zudeo's torrent wrapping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, so where's the announced DRM that prevents the files from being shared?

  43. Double payment?? by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 2, Insightful


    "now they've sold it to be shown on a different channel which we have to pay to receive. Bastards."

    ok, so you got to see it a few times for free (subject to licence fee) and now the BBC is trying to sell it to the rest of the world and commercial networks so they can bring in more cash to fund programming.

    Would you rather they left it in a basement and just charged more for the licence fee?

    1. Re:Double payment?? by rtyall · · Score: 1

      Well, according the BBC financial report, it seems that of the £4 Billion income, £3 Billion is provided by the licence (24 million UK homes x £11 x12 months or thereabouts), the rest is from all the other methods (ie, sales to other broadcasters, DVDs).
      I don't see it as particularly unfair for them to provide free video downloads for the UK, in much the same way that Sky currently offer, restricting the content or not. After all, the TV Licence fee we're coerced into paying should cover this.

  44. Silly AC by alienmole · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That's silly. All you have to do is actually take part in the moderation, and see the impact your own moderation has, then multiply that by the number of registered users on /., to understand that you're wrong. But you're AC, so you're just speculating out of ignorance, or a troll. If the latter, IHBT, and will HAND.

  45. bittorrent illegitimate by fyoder · · Score: 1
    From the article: BitTorrent, the company behind the original file-sharing software of the same name, has recently signed a number of deals with content providers, such as 20th Century Fox, in a bid to become a legitimate download service.


    Makes it sound like bittorrent is currently illegitimate. But they can tell she has a heart of gold. Surely she can be reformed. Just like Miss USA.

    --
    Loose lips lose spit.
  46. Re:Darling.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, crap joke admittedly, but modded redundant? Methinks that the two moderators didn't get the joke, so modded it down. What a pair of children.

    If you see this in M2, mark the original moderation as unfair. Hopefully those twats won't get points again. No one else in this discussion has mentioned Ace Rimmer, nor his catchphrase, nor the acronym, so the parents post cannot be redundant!

  47. Re:cracking zudeo's torrent - please explain by cannuck · · Score: 0

    Couyld you please explain "how to" avoid using Zudeo?