BBC Download Plans Approved

An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports that following approval from the BBC Trust (an independent oversight body) they are now allowed to release their 'iPlayer', enabling the download and viewing of BBC owned content such as Doctor Who. Unfortunately the Trust also mandated the use of DRM to enforce a 30 day playable period, and exempted classical music performances from being made available. There will now be a 2 month consultation period. According to one of the trustees, the Trust 'could still change its mind if there was a public outcry and it was backed up by evidence.'"

Comments

another option

[User 956]

According to one of the trustees, the Trust 'could still change its mind if there was a public outcry and it was backed up by evidence.'

What if there's a public outcry and it's backed up by drunken rioting?

Re:another option

[LiquidCoooled]

3 Minutes in the microwave for them?

Oh sorry, this is England not America ;)

Re:another option

[VJ42]

No, there's a public consultation, and a here's link direct to the press releasehere's the bit about DRM

This requires the BBC to develop an alternative DRM framework to enable users of other technology, for example, Apple and Linux, to access the on-demand services. So not only are they keeping DRM, they are going to try and create a DRM for Linux

Re:another option

[Yottabyte84]

I will enjoy seeing them try to protect content from users on an operating system where the administratitive users is truely all powerful. (FYI, Administrator is not the most privledged account on a Windows system)

Re:another option

[Anonymous Coward]

What if there's a public outcry and it's backed up by drunken rioting?

I believe that they call that a "football match" in Britain.

Re:another option

[CastrTroy]

I remember when a friend of mine locked himself out of his own files on an NTFS partition by messing around with the permissions. I was quite confused, as I thought that Administrator was comparable to root, which it apparently is not.

Re:another option

[blowdart]

Well remember we, as license payers, pay for the content to be made. Giving it away to the world for free would probably be in violation of their charter, and would certainly make me ask "Why am I paying this again"?

Re:another option

[smallfries]

It's quite simple - if you are British and you pay a license fee then make your views known. The feedback survey is quite short, and each section is optional. If you feel that timelimited DRM files are bullshit, especially from a license-fee funded public organisation then make your views known now!

The British slashdot readership must be large enough to make a difference here.

Re:another option

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on if Ba'al is still in control of the Trust. I am sure his plans for world domination hinge on DRM

Re:another option

[VJ42]

I've done that already, also, just before this story was posted, I submitted a story with the title: "BBC proposing DRM for Linux", and both the links from my post in it. There's not a huge amount more I can do, short of writing to my, electronically illiterate, elected representatives that is, and they have no power over the BBC anyway; they can only bring moral pressure to bear.

Re:another option

[jimicus]

Are we reading the same document?

I see:

The BBC Executive propose a strategy at launch to enforce compliance with rights which
requires users to have Windows XP (or later) as their operating system and Windows
Media Player 10 (or later) as their player. This puts a constraint on reach by excluding
Windows users with earlier operating systems as well as a minority of consumers who
choose Apple and Linux systems.

My take on that is "The Powers that Be propose Windows. We know this will lock others out." but it doesn't say anything about them taking steps to ensure that people using MacOS or Linux aren't locked out. Later on, it says something about "recommending" being more platform agnostic but nothing particularly solid.

Re:another option

[Andy_R]

If you want to make your views known, the BBC's online consultation form is here

Let's make our opinions known!

Re:another option

[VJ42]

Well, this is the bit I was going from:

This requires the BBC to develop an alternative DRM framework to enable users of other technology, for example, Apple and Linux, sounds specific, and quite self explanatory to me: the BBC is going to try and develop some form of cross platform DRM. Combined with Question 5

How important is it that the proposed seven-day catch-up service over the internet is available to consumers who are not using Microsoft software? It sounds ominous for Linux users; perhaps even "Linux DRM, or no product".

Re:another option

[Yaztromo]

Well remember we, as license payers, pay for the content to be made. Giving it away to the world for free would probably be in violation of their charter, and would certainly make me ask "Why am I paying this again"?

Ah, if only the truth were so simplistic.

I've seen such arguments trotted out from time to time, and believe me -- I feel for my friends out in the UK who have to pay for a television license. Here in Canada we have no such fee, which is the way things should be.

HOWEVER, don't for a minute assume that your TV license fee dollars are the only funds that go into producing quality BBC programming, and thus that said programming should never escape across boarders through the Internet.

You see, where you pay a license fee to the BBC to own a television in your part of the world, here in my part of the world the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is funded (in part) through tax dollars -- including my tax dollars. And yet CBC Programming (especially documentaries) is shown all around the world, including portions of which are available online.

Aside from that, let's look at one of the shows the BBC is proposing to make available online: Doctor Who. Click the link and scroll down to "Production Companies". Yes, that's right, the venerable BBC Sci-Fi series is produced in part by the CBC.

Thus, I at least have already paid for part of Doctor Who. How many other modern BBC shows are co-produced in conjunction with the national broadcasters in other (esp. Commonwealth) countries?

(Let's not also mention that the BBC already broadcasts world-wide via various cable outlets, like BBC Canada and BBC America, amongst others).

I don't argue with the complaint that the UK's TV licensing fee seems like a cash-grab to my eyes, but that's up to you and your countrymen to fix, and not something I can affect change for. However, the view that your licensing fees are the sole source of funding for popular BBC shows doesn't exactly reflect modern reality, and the desire to prevent such shows from being made available to the world for free online isn't going to put the cat back into the bag: it escaped long, long ago, and probably never should have been in there in the first place.

Yaz.

Re:another option

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine's already weighed in in favour of quality TV:

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:tUwc--ua6H4J: www.ft.com/cms/s/f9368362-a742-11db-83e4-0000779e2 340.html+site:ft.com+%E2%80%9Ctell+the+BBC+that+if +they+are+going+to+help+Channel+4+with+their+switc hover+costs,+they+had+better+drop+crap+programmes+ like+Big+Brother.%E2%80%9D&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd= 1&client=firefox-a

Re:another option

[Yottabyte84]

Indeed, the Administrator doesn't bypass file permissions, as root accounts on mose UNIX-like systems do. I know that LOCAL SYSTEM is above Administrator in terms of privs, but I don't know if it respects file premissions or not. Power Users and Administrators can elevate their privs to LOCAL SYSTEM on XP.

Re:another option

[David Horn]

*Whistles nonchalantly*

It's surprisingly easy to do that. I've, erm, seen a friend do it before. Twice. Ahem.

Re:another option

[McFadden]

've done that already, also, just before this story was posted, I submitted a story with the title: "BBC proposing DRM for Linux", and both the links from my post in it. There's not a huge amount more I can do, short of writing to my, electronically illiterate, elected representatives that is, and they have no power over the BBC anyway; they can only bring moral pressure to bear.

It's difficult to imagine how more inaccurate you could be. The BBC would like to be able to make programmes available for much longer if not indefinitely. In their original proposal they wanted a time frame of 13 weeks, which was cut to 30 days. Who cut it? Not the BBC themselves, but an organization called 'The BBC Trust', an independent body that replaced the corporation's governors at the beginning of 2007. Basically a bunch of stooges appointed by the government to make sure that the BBC no longer has the ability to be totally independent and go against the wishes of the almighty Tony Blair and his cronies. The sole purpose of this 'DRM for Linux' is to satisfy this fucking stupid 30 day rules that the Trust has forced on them.

Why did it get cut? Because of pressure from the elected representatives (i.e. the government) who due to the fact that they are in bed with big business (i.e. Rupert Murdoch etc.) didn't want to do anything that might piss off their rich buddies. In other words they exerted considerably more than just 'moral pressure'.

The BBC have released non-DRM'd mp3 copies of their radio output for ages - I have no doubt they'd like to do something similar for TV, but hey, we all know whose interests are at the heart of government these days, and it sure as hell ain't the people who elected them.

Re:another option

[mrdogi]

A pizza of diameter z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a

OK, funny at first blush. After thinking about it for a second though, I have a question. Did you s/radius/diameter/ on purpose, or was it a mistake?

Re:another option

[Hittite Creosote]

What if there's a public outcry and it's backed up by drunken rioting?

Then it would be indistinguishable from the average Friday night in a British city.

Re:another option

[l33t_f33t]

This seems like a logical extention of the 'Listen Again' service to me, a sewrvice already available to anyone across the globe.

Re:another option

[Andy_R]

oops, well spotted, unintentional mistake, now fixed.

iPlayer

[dcskier]

...they are now allowed to release their 'iPlayer'...

i love how it's 'cool' to name everything i* now. the bbc couldn't come up w/ a better name? at least something british sounding.

Re:iPlayer

[Rob T Firefly]

They do come by it honestly, though. It's a reference to "BBCi," which stands for "BBC interactive" and has been the brand name of their digital and online services since 2001.

Re:iPlayer

[Speare]

But... but... but what's wrong with Wensleydale?

Re:iPlayer

[Anonymous Coward]

... at least something british sounding.

Hmm. I don't see any spot in the word "player" to insert a random slient u however ... :)

Re:iPlayer

[dcskier]

iPlayre

Re:iPlayer

[matt me]

How about

iConform

Re:iPlayer

[gbjbaanb]

Mr Cholmondley-Warner: what's this? I hear the BBC have come up with a newfangled light entertainment device.
Grayson: Yes, Mr Cholmondley-Warner, thay have. Its called the iPlayer.
CW: How remarkable, but I must admit that it sounds rather similar to something those colonial chappies might come up with.
G: Indeed so, one almost thinks that the name was specifically chosen to stop Mr Stephen Jobs from using it in one of his modern-day thingummybobs.
CW:Well, if we're beating the Yanks at their own game, I think we can live with it.
G: Indeed! Ho ho.
CW: Yes. Ho ho.

Re:iPlayer

[Anonymous Coward]

i love how it's 'cool' to name everything i* now. the bbc couldn't come up w/ a better name? at least something british sounding.
Perhaps, but it is no longer cool to start sentences with lower case letters. In fact, it's juvenile and quite annoying.

Re:iPlayer

[DittoBox]

No, no, no! iPlayour.

Re:iPlayer

[steevc]

But why is Cholmondley pronounced Chumly?

I'll keep recording BBC TV/radio with my DVB card. Currently using ZapDVB

Re:iPlayer

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's a posh person's name, and posh people can't talk properly!

Re:iPlayer

[s-meister]

The same reason that

• St. John is pronounced Sinjun,
• Magdalene is pronounced Mawdlin
• Featherstonehaugh is pronounced Fanshaw
• Holborn is proonounced Hoeburn
• Cockburn is pronounced Coeburn and
• Grosseteste is pronounced Groet. Not 100% sure about the latter...

Historically, to separate the toffs from the plebs.

Sounds like the usual B.S.

[Kadin2048]

From TFA:

The BBC Trust, an independent body that replaced the corporation's governors at the beginning of 2007, said the on-demand plans - which also cover cable TV - were "likely to deliver significant public value".

But it agreed with broadcasting watchdog Ofcom, which said earlier this month that the iPlayer could have a "negative effect" on commercial rivals.

As a result, the trust has imposed several conditions on the BBC.

It wants the corporation to scale back plans to let downloaded "catch-up" episodes remain on users' hard drives for 13 weeks, suggesting that 30 days is enough.

Chris Woolard, head of finance, economics and strategy at the Trust, defended the decision to cut the storage time.

When people record a programme at home "if they don't look at it within 48 hours, they don't look at it at all", he said.

So basically, it's the usual -- a bunch of politicians trying hard not to piss off their corporate masters, while tossing a bone to the public here and there, just enough to keep people coming out to the next election and maintaining the facade.

Re:Sounds like the usual B.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite - its all about competition. Imagine if Microsoft bought, say, the SciFi channel and then announced it would release all programmes after they'd been shown for unlimited download... on Windows Vista only. Quite a lot of people would be reasonably annoyed and there'd be a bit of a fuss. Questions would be raised in the House (but only after a lobbyist slipped a brown envelope to some MP first, of course)

Its the same with the BBC - as its a publicly-funded body, if they released programmes the commercial channels would similarly be a little peeved.

By the way, in the UK nowadays, nobody comes out to vote because our politicians are mostly self-serving, corrupt, lying, cheating, incompetant, lazy, useless c*nts.

Re:Sounds like the usual B.S.

[RDW]

...and deeply ironic that the Trust's supposed role is to 'work on behalf of licence fee payers, ensuring the BBC provides high quality output and good value for all UK citizens'. In what way does tightening an already onerous DRM scheme provide 'good value'? Have they actually met a single 'license fee payer' who thinks this is a good idea?

Re:Sounds like the usual B.S.

[itlurksbeneath]

When people record a programme at home "if they don't look at it within 48 hours, they don't look at it at all", he said. Indeed! HE might not look at it, but I use my MythTV PVR for time shifting, and sometimes it's a long time shift. Episodes are recorded every week of the shows I DO watch (and some I might watch if they seem interesting like Modern Marvels episodes) and it's frequently more than a week before I get around to catching up on the missed episodes. But 48 hours? Where the hell did he get that number? Methinks it was produced rectally.

Re:Sounds like the usual B.S.

[Znork]

"But it agreed with broadcasting watchdog Ofcom, which said earlier this month that the iPlayer could have a "negative effect" on commercial rivals."

So. What? Since when has competition 'having a negative effect' on the competititors been a problem in a free market?

Personally, I'd like to set up a very expensive monopoly selling bottled air, and I demand that the government deal with this everpresent free air! How am I supposed to charge for air when it's free to breathe all around? How many employment opportunities are lost because I cant charge as much for the air as I'd like to?

"Chris Woolard, head of finance, economics and strategy"

Perhaps Mr. Woolard should take some care to be more concerned with what is in the interest of the taxpayers and the wealth of the nation, rather than what is the interest of some commercial entities.

Re:Sounds like the usual B.S.

[teh kurisu]

This is something that's always irked me about objections to the BBC's funding scheme, emanating from the likes of ITV and Sky - the BBC was there first! These companies entered the market with the full knowledge that they were competing against a publicly funded body. It would be like me building a road somewhere, and then complaining that all the other roads in the country get public money.

Re:Sounds like the usual B.S.

[rifter]

By the way, in the UK nowadays, nobody comes out to vote because our politicians are mostly self-serving, corrupt, lying, cheating, incompetant, lazy, useless c*nts.

Sounds like the same reason people vote less on this side of the pond. But your description of politicians is redundant, and unfairly insulting to cunts.

Re:Sounds like the usual B.S.

[Zixia]

First, if you have a personal DVR, you are probably not the target audience for this. You have the capability to record and watch shows at the moment.

Second, the article states that one of the options is for programmes downloaded that are episodic in nature won't expire until a week after the final episode has been broadcast, allowing viewers to catch up with the entire series with increased leisure.

Personally, I think this sounds good. It's not intended to create a permanent downloaded copy of the show, but act as an internet-based recorder, so that you can catch shows you missed watching on TV. It also increases personal leisure because you are no longer tied to the schedule as you would be when watching TV. With the proposed system, you can watch your favourite programmes any time of the week, as long as it has been broadcast and it's within a week of the broadcast.

Just don't view this as a way to build up a library, as this clearly isn't its function.

Re:Sounds like the usual B.S.

[Marcus Green]

About 60% of eligable voters took part in the last UK general election. That is slightly more than nobody. Prior to 92 it was closer to 70%. Participation has fallen off since 92 because the UK population is deliriously happy with the government and sees no need to vote (or something)

Re:Sounds like the usual B.S.

[petermgreen]

i thought it had fallen off because we dislike labour but don't like the tories much better, the lib dems are interesting/usefull as a third party but you get the impression that they couldn't handle things if they won.

also our system means that in many cases its simply not possible to vote for say the greens or an independentent candidate because there is simply no such candidate on the form and our constituency based system means that even when they do run they have a snowballs chance in hell of getting any seats (unlike the proportional representation european parliment where the greens usually pick up at least a couple of seats).

Windows Only

[Winckle]

Despite their commitment to mac and linux compatibility on their audio streaming, the iPlayer only runs on windows, disappointing as I'm sure even us mac users pay our licence fees.

Re:Windows Only

[Jabrwock]

I heard that the DRM used is based on WMP 10 & 11, both of which are unsupported on the mac and linux, due to MS dropping all support for Mac WMP (except through that 3rd party).

Perhaps if FairPlay utilized a similar style of DRM, although I wouldn't really want them to develop time-expiry for iTunes media...

Re:Windows Only

[slebog]

The original plans for the iPlayer were based on Windows Media. But as part of the announcement today, the Trust has said the service will have to cater for all platforms. From the press release:

Platform-agnostic approach: As proposed, the TV catch-up service on the internet relies on Microsoft technology for the digital rights management (DRM) framework. The Trust will require the BBC Executive to adopt a platform-agnostic approach within a reasonable timeframe. This requires the BBC to develop an alternative DRM framework to enable users of other technology, for example, Apple and Linux, to access the on-demand services.

Re:Windows Only

[Anonymous Coward]

That's going to be a laugh..the project is ALREADY getting to be a bit of a mess and going to miss it's 1000 user trial in April by at least a month. Shame really, seemed such a nice project at the outset...

Re:Windows Only

[turgid]

Despite their commitment to mac and linux compatibility on their audio streaming, the iPlayer only runs on windows, disappointing as I'm sure even us mac users pay our licence fees.

Maybe the agreement they signed with Microsoftback in September 2006 has something to do with this?

From the article, "The BBC has signed an agreement with Microsoft to explore ways of developing its digital services," ... and ... "To ensure that the BBC is able to embrace the creative challenges of the digital future, we need to forge strategic partnerships with technology companies and distributors for the benefit of licence payers."

I put it in my journal, but no one commented at the time...

Re:Windows Only

[blowdart]

That's probably more to do with MS's entry into IPTV with the BT Fusion project than anything else.

Re:Windows Only

[Anonymous Coward]

How do they propose to make any form of meaningful DRM available to linux users? Are they going to start requiring a TPM signed kernel or some other bogosity? If we were comfortable running black box binary software, we'd all be running Windows.

And what the hell is a realistic timeframe for doing the impossible?

Re:Windows Only

[bmsleight]

Thats why I love the BBC and I am happy pay my license fee. If the Beeb was a normal TV station, they would just take the lazy option of windows only. Name me another tv station who would do this ? Value for money.

Re:Windows Only

[jimicus]

Had you RTFA, you'd know that 2 years is "reasonable".

If we weren't comfortable running black box software, NVidia's Linux drivers would have zero downloads to date.

Re:Windows Only

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC *HAS* just taken the lazy Microsoft only approach. They've just done the "New Labour" thing and announced a public consultation about it to pretend like they are listening -- it will be ignored and/or fixed.

Re:Windows Only

[Alef]

This requires the BBC to develop an alternative DRM framework to enable users of other technology [...] to access the on-demand services. (Emphasis mine)

That sounds kind of backwards to me. More like "...to prevent users of other technology from accessing the on-demand services too much.".

Re:Windows Only

[askegg]

At least they have stated a commitment to mac and linux.

I was interested to see a advert directly after "Supernatural" the other night here in Australia that promised "free download of the episodes" (see http://supernatural.ten.com.au/). Cool I thought - the networks here are listening and responding to the demand for true on-demand viewing.

Imagine my disappointment in discovering that I must be running Windows XP with IE6 and WMP9. Nothing else will work because other players do "not support the DRM features we use to protect our content from unauthorised use". Not only that, but the access is limited "a maximum of 1 computer for download" and I can watch it "as many times as you wish within a 48 hour period". On top of this, the episodes are only available *after* they have been aired.

WTF? This is a lesson in how to take a great idea (true on-demand, customer driven technology) and cripple it to the point of being almost completely useless. If you are going to make it freely available then do so , otherwise we will continue to record the show on our PVR's and watch it whenever we like (and where ever we like if you want to transfer the files onto your laptop).

Re:Windows Only

[Nanpa]

But, from the other side of the coin, the Ten Network makes money by splitting up chunks of the show and putting paid advertising in the middle. They provide entertainment to you on the basis that they're going to at least attempt to get you to watch some advertisements, which puts money in their bank. The circle of capitalism is complete; Ten gets money, you get your entertainment, and some company gets a bit more brand recognition. Why should Ten choose to hobble their primary market by giving away their major drawcard?

Re:Windows Only

[askegg]

But that's the point - they currently *do* give it away - it costs me nothing to watch the show when it's aired. They can always leave the ads in the downloaded version to keep their current business model intact (mostly). Sure, people could edit out the ads, but guess what - this has already been happening for a long time (press fast-forward on the VCR/PVR).

Re:Windows Only

[pbhj]

>>> "The Trust will require the BBC Executive to adopt a platform-agnostic approach within a reasonable timeframe."

The suggested timeframe is 24months. What I want to know is if they push this through by saying access for non-MS users will come later, what happens if later they just ignore us.

I'm guessing that the BBC Trust says "naughty-naughty next time you initiate an DRM based video download player system make sure you do better". Indeed in the same (iPlayer PVT) document they say they'll ask after 24 months:

"What progress has been made towards offering seven-day TV catch-up over the internet on a platform-agnostic basis?"

This kinda suggests that they're expecting that a solution won't have been implemented. I can't really see how they think they're going to implement a usable and secure DRM solution for Linux and OSX in 2 years unless they are banking on claiming that a virtualised solution counts as support.

DRM vs. content distribution expansion

[adambha]

In time, the fears of DRM will subside (hopefully!) and content owners will fully embrace this new distribution medium.

Of course, they still need to generate revenues to continue operations. Perhaps the whole idea of 'commercials' or even 'advertising' as a revenue source will evolve to include other yet-un-thought-of sources much like the distribution medium.

Re:DRM vs. content distribution expansion

[User 956]

Of course, they still need to generate revenues to continue operations. Perhaps the whole idea of 'commercials' or even 'advertising' as a revenue source will evolve to include other yet-un-thought-of sources much like the distribution medium.

The British have already figured this one out. They generate revenues by billing everyone that owns a TV £135.50 per year.

Re:DRM vs. content distribution expansion

[AuMatar]

If it ends commercials, it'd be cheap at twice the price. Can I buy into this model fromt he states?

Re:DRM vs. content distribution expansion

[teh kurisu]

You have no idea how many British people just don't get this concept. Every time there's a topic on the BBC's Have Your Say board that actually concerns the BBC, you get a slew of replies demanding the abolition of the licence fee and the introduction of adverts.

Okay, so the price can be hard to stomach considering you have to pay it even if you don't watch BBC programmes... but all things considered I think it's worth it, just for that precious advert-free zone.

Re:DRM vs. content distribution expansion

[VJ42]

it'd be cheap at twice the price. Due to the current strength of the dollar, it *is* twice the price for you. Yes, I'm a smug Brit who has been buying cheap stuff from the states, hell it almost (but not quite) makes the PS3 affordable... But thank god for think geek; the UPS "brokerage" charges+import taxes are about the same price as the the stuff I'm buying.

Re:DRM vs. content distribution expansion

[RMH101]

£135/year is dirt cheap for what you get. Multiple channels of high quality TV (if you've got small kids, then Cebeebies is worth the licence fee alone - quality kids TV programming, no adverts to drive them into an I-want frenzy, with a "Bedtime Hour" cutoff at 7pm that you can build into their routine to get them to bed), multiple radio channels, the BBC website, quality investigative reporting, excellent journalism - the list goes on. UK Media would be a lot poorer if the BBC were forced into becoming an ad-driven whore like the other channels.

What's wrong with the British...

[__aaclcg7560]

Why do they have to re-invent the iWheel all over again? Why not use iTunes like everyone else?

Re:What's wrong with the British...

[Winckle]

Because we'll be getting to download all these programmes free of charge...

We pay our TV licences for a reason.

Re:What's wrong with the British...

[__aaclcg7560]

And British TV doesn't want to give Steve Jobs a cut of the licenses fee? :)

Re:What's wrong with the British...

[gbjbaanb]

We probably will now - after he sues for trademark infringement.

Worse than the alternative

[CastrTroy]

Of course, you could just record the shows with your TV tuner, and play them on your Archos, and they wouldn't expire, but why would anyone want that?

Is this for money?

[Rob T Firefly]

Maybe I'm missing something, but TFA doesn't make it at all clear whether they're planning on selling these downloads, or just giving them away. Any info?

Re:Is this for money?

[jackhererUK]

Very probably it will be free but only to UK residents. As mentioned in another comment in the UK we pay an annual license fee, which is enforced like a tax. Everyone that owns equipment capable of viewing TV has to pay it. This funds the BBC so they can't then charge for stuff and there are no adverts.

Re:Is this for money?

[badfish99]

So non-UK residents will have to get their Dr Who episodes off bittorrent, just like they do now.
Come to think of it, that will work for us in the UK too. So what's the point of the DRM?

Re:Is this for money?

[bongomanaic]

I doubt whether there is much enthusiasm for DRM within the BBC. They have shown little interest in stopping the existing sharing of their programming over P2P networks but it's difficult for them to officially endorse it. They have trialled unprotected downloads in the past, but in order to avoid legal complications with the rights-holding industries they have been restricted to current affairs and wildlife documentaries - no actors and no music.

iPlayer?

[faqmaster]

iPlayer? Sounds like it will be compatible with Apple's iSue.

Re:iPlayer?

[VJ42]

At which point the BBC will point to the fact that it's interactive (hence the i) and online services have been called BBCi since 2001.

apple to announce new iPlayer product

[duranaki]

BBC look out. You can't just use that 'i'. What were you thinking?! Don't you know that apple owns the letter 'i' now? There are 25 other perfectly good letters.

Re:apple to announce new iPlayer product

[LotsOfPhil]

There are 25 other perfectly good letters.

There are only 22. Spain has L, Portugal owns O and A. They license them (Spain to Mexico, Panama, Cuba, EL Salvador, etc.) but it is very rare to get a new license nowadays.

Time limited DRM?

[Jabrwock]

Despite their commitment to mac and linux compatibility on their audio streaming, the iPlayer only runs on windows, disappointing as I'm sure even us mac users pay our licence fees. Does any mac video player even have time-limited DRM? iTunes vids only allow you so many "licences", but once you bought it, you get too "keep" it forever (as long as you remain 'authorized')

And Windows Media Player on the mac is horribly under-supported (that 3rd party company that MS paid to keep WMP up to date isn't doing a great job).

Unlike their audio streaming (which can use Real, WMP, or QT streaming), they'd have to create a new video format & player to handle time-limited DRM. They can't just buy it from Real/MS/Apple.

Re:Time limited DRM?

[VJ42]

Unlike their audio streaming (which can use Real, WMP, or QT streaming), they'd have to create a new video format & player to handle time-limited DRM. They can't just buy it from Real/MS/Apple. That's what their Press release suggests:

The Trust will require the BBC Executive to adopt a platform-agnostic approach within a reasonable timeframe. This requires the BBC to develop an alternative DRM framework to enable users of other technology, for example, Apple and Linux, to access the on-demand services. (emphsis mine) So, yes it seems they are going to create "BBC DRM", and not only that but "BBC DRM for Linux" as well.

When the DRM is cracked....

[Anonymous Coward]

When the DRM is cracked and the programs remain for more than 30 days, I hope they will reconsider their decision and stop annoying the legitimate viewers.

Currently in the UK, if you tape a program and watch it later, you are supposed to erase the tape after a few days. Failure to do so makes the copy illegal and the act of copying a copyright offense. If that Dutch MEP nutter (Toine Manders) gets his way, and makes copyright infringement a criminal offense, then failure to erase the tape will make us all criminals.

Can I get my license fee back after 30 days?

Re:When the DRM is cracked....

[ajs318]

Copyright infringement is already a criminal offence in the UK, but Fair Dealing is a defence.

Since it's up to the courts to decide what actually constitutes Fair Dealing (i.e. you have to let yourself get taken to court, protesting your innocence; and if you get acquitted, then whatever it was that you did is now officially legal for anyone else to do), it's not in anyone's interest actually to prosecute. No jury in the land is going to send someone down for keeping a library of their favourite recorded programmes (find twelve people and you can bet your arse that two of them have video collections taped off the telly), but the rights holders don't want to risk having home taping declared legal.

British law is full of unprosecutable offences. None of them are worth bothering about, because everyone except the Queen breaks the law several times a day. The only time it might be worth worrying about is if you have committed some other, prosecutable offence, because evidence pointing to one, minor offence can be used as an excuse to search for evidence of other, more major offences. (This is often called a "blatant fishing trip" by magistrates denying a search warrant to police officers in crime drama series on the BBC.)

30-day viewing period?

[PFI_Optix]

Something tells me the majority of non-British Dr. Who fans will continue to obtain the show by less...contstraining means.

Eventually they'll figure it out: until we can download it and watch it in the viewer of our choice as often as we want when we want, we will continue to obtain copies of such content by other means than theirs.

Re:30-day viewing period?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I'm from the UK and I still torrent episodes after watching them on TV. Making avatars requires screencaps, which my TV doesn't do as well as VLC player.

Re:30-day viewing period?

[PFI_Optix]

I assume in the UK it's legal for you to capture the feed with your PC, so I fail to see a distinction between you recording it yourself and downloading it via torrent.

We Yanks, on the other hand, currently have no way to see the Doctor in a timely manner without the aid of torrents.

Re:30-day viewing period?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

It's the same for all of us, if they don't release it here the same day as else where we torrent it.

It's the media age we're living in.

Re:30-day viewing period?

[Paulrothrock]

Something tells me the majority of non-British Dr. Who fans will continue to obtain the show by less...contstraining means.

I prefer the term "alternative content distribution methods."

Eventually they'll figure it out: until we can download it and watch it in the viewer of our choice as often as we want when we want, we will continue to obtain copies of such content by other means than theirs.

Yeah, that seems to be the only way to make people happy. However, there's no way to make sure people are paying for it. Once you get a single copy out there without restrictions, it's easier for people to get it from their friends than to buy their own copy.

Re:30-day viewing period?

[itlurksbeneath]

what's the time delay between airings on the BBC and airings on Sci-Fi? I talked to somebody in London the other day and they said they are still waiting on the start of season 3 also (course, ours just ended 2 or 3 weeks ago on Sci-Fi), so I'd guess the lag isn't but a couple of months? That's a whole lot better than the lag of several years back in the Tom Baker days (yes, my "geek" card is certified and up to date).

Re:30-day viewing period?

[PFI_Optix]

I think the season ends there shortly before it starts here. I haven't been paying attention, I don't get SciFi (I refuse to pay $50 a month for 100 channels, five of which I will watch)

Re:30-day viewing period?

[CastrTroy]

If you're far enough north you may be able to pick up the CBC from Canada. I'm not sure if the episodes play the same week as they do in the UK, but I think they are pretty current.

Re:30-day viewing period?

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

...which was exactly the sort of point that I tried to make when I filled in the "consultation" form (see links above) earlier today. For example. just about any shop in the UK that sells things with plugs on (which seems to be anything bigger than a corner shop) is selling some sort of PVR, none of which have any artificial 30-day limit. It's this world (and the world of sites Youtube/torrents/whatever happens next year) that the BBC are now living in, and bits of the BBC don't seem to have grasped it yet.

If you want a laugh, have a read of the PDF of their conclusions:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/rev iew-report-research/pvt_iplayer/iplayer_pvt_provis ional_conclusions.pdf

Re:30-day viewing period?

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC have grasped the concept. It is the BBC Trust (A newly formed Quango) who have not, and who are insisting on 30 day limits and 48hour "evaporation" periods on downloads.

Re:30-day viewing period?

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

...and unfortunately, they don't seem to be a very inspiring list:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/sto ries/2006/10_october/12/trustees.shtml

I can't see any of them being particularly good at "representing my interest", never mind the rest of the public. At first glace they just looks like a bunch of serial qango-hoppers.

It'd be interesting to know how many have non-exec positions with other broadcasting and content-producing organisations?

bittorent

[pbaer]

"The BBC reports that following approval from the BBC Trust (an independent oversight body) they are now allowed to release their 'iPlayer', enabling the download and viewing of BBC owned content such as Doctor Who. Unfortunately the Trust also mandated the use of DRM to enforce a 30 day playable period"

Or you could use bittorrent. I'm not entirely sure of the legality of downloading things that you already pay a license for such as TV shows, but that's never stopped anyone before.

Re:bittorent

[dedazo]

Since only people in Britain pay the BBC telly tax, what is the status of these downloads as far as the rest of the world is concerned? I can't see the BBC Trust subsidizing bandwidth of content paid for by Britons so that people in the US or Chile or Katmandu can watch Dr Who or whatever. Are they going to use IP blocking or something?

Re:bittorent

[kfg]

Bear in mind that what "they" have been after for many years isn't even stronger copyright, but watchright. DRM is just a way of approximating that under current law, but once they get people used to the idea . . .

KFG

Re:bittorent

[parvenu74]

Why can't they set up a proper clone of the iTunes store and simply allow folks who aren't already paying the franchise fee to buy shows -- like Top Gear, for example -- for a nominal fee?

Speaking of shows for a nominal fee, does anyone know of any legality or reason why Apple can't sell BBC shows on the US iTunes store, or is it just a matter of the BBC or Apple not wanting to sell shows?

Re:bittorent

[Eddi3]

Basically, the act of downloading material you already payed for is, arguably, legal (It's a pretty vague area, but most before me have assumed it's reasonable that you could make such an arguement). The problem comes with uploading it to other people, who may not have the legal right to own the material. There are, however, alternative torrent clients which don't upload. However, I cannot promote this activity, because that's bad for the torrent ecosystem. At that point you're basically a parasite, just hogging bandwidth, and p2p systems can't work efficiently if people just hit & run like that. One such client is Bit Theif, which has no capability of uploading.

Re:bittorent

[asuffield]

Or you could use bittorrent. I'm not entirely sure of the legality of downloading things that you already pay a license for such as TV shows, but that's never stopped anyone before.

And this is precisely the argument I made in my submission to the consultation. The people who are likely to want to use this service are probably already downloading the programmes via bittorrent. In order for this service to be used, it must be competitive with the thing that people are currently doing. Opinions on the legitimacy of bittorrent are not relevant - people will use whatever is most convenient. A system that is DRM-locked and can only be played on Windows computers, instead of being burned to DVD and watched on your regular TV set, is not going to take a large bite out of the market.

The proposal is for an experiment with unproven DRM systems. The BBC should not be wasting money on such experiments. If they aren't going to use the proven systems that everybody is already using, then they should avoid the whole thing and spend money on something that we know will be worthwhile (like making decent TV programmes).

I encourage any UK license payers reading this to make the same argument.

Re:bittorent

[mpe]

Since only people in Britain pay the BBC telly tax, what is the status of these downloads as far as the rest of the world is concerned?

It is possible to pick up the BBC in other parts of Europe. Around 20 odd years ago I was able to watch BBC and ITV through a cable service in Den Hagg, Netherlands. I doubt Sealand pays any money to the BBC either. There is also plenty of BBC content available through TV-on-demand from UK cable providers.

I can't see the BBC Trust subsidizing bandwidth of content paid for by Britons so that people in the US or Chile or Katmandu can watch Dr Who or whatever.

Then either the BBC needs to get their programming on some TV stations in America and West Africa or ensure a there is a supply of DVDs/chargable downloads available.

Re:bittorent

[mpe]

Why can't they set up a proper clone of the iTunes store and simply allow folks who aren't already paying the franchise fee to buy shows -- like Top Gear, for example -- for a nominal fee?

Or even one "store" which only charges you if you can't prove that you have already paid the fee.

Re:bittorent

[boogy nightmare]

Or when you download the player you have to input your TV license Number to register it :)

Re:bittorent

[Anonymous Coward]

They already do IP based filtering. I'm a UK resident, and frequently make use of the BBC News 24 stream. Recently, I spent time in Japan, and tried to do the same. Picking up my Japanese IP address, it didn't offer me the same selection of bitrates, restricting me to the lowest one.

That system works effectively, as does the IP restriction on iTMS stopping people from using the store for a different country. I suspect they'd have no problem stopping people from outside the UK connecting on free accounts (barring the usual proxy workarounds).

Windows 2000?

[edxwelch]

What about windows 2000?

I think it's actually pronounced oi-payah

[infonography]

I just hope that it has subtitling built in. They talk funny over there.

Re:I think it's actually pronounced oi-payah

[leathered]

It's even more clever than that, it translates British to English.

dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I cant believe that ANYONE thinks DRM will change a thing, It will be broken, it always is.

Re:dumb

[badfish99]

Since these programs are transmitted in the UK without any DRM, there's no point in bothering to try to break the DRM on these downloads. People will just record the transmissions instead.

Public Verus Private.

[Irvu]

NBC is entirely a private enterprise that (in theory) compensates the public for use of its airspace adequatly via the licences for it's broadcast spectrum (read the in theory before you flame me). As such they have something of a leg to stand on when they claim private ownership and the attractions of DRM for their crap... er ... shows.

Anyway, the BBC is (at least on paper) a public enterprise oned (in heory) by the British Public and paid for via the TV Tax. Much like the Voice of America is a service funded by the American Public. As such shouldn't the content produced by the Beeb be freely available (at least to the Brits, Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish) for them to do with as they please? Didn't they pay to have it made and as such "own" it?

Or is this one of those cases where the drive to resell said content (say on BBC-America or via deals with other channels, or on DVD) that was supposed to "offset costs" now driving availability?

Re:Public Verus Private.

[Travelguy100]

Early BBC content was clearly produced and owned by the BBC. I suspect that much of the newer material is licensed with ultimate ownership retained by the various production companies. They would be the ones imposing distribution restrictions to protect their worldwide licensing revenue.

Re:Public Verus Private.

[nicklott]

The UK govt doesn't work like that. What happens is they build something with tax payer's money, attach lots of legislative strings to its output/produce then sell it off because it's "not working". Normally a government minister will then become a director of said privatised company within a couple of years.

The BBC has lots of legislative strings and the reason they can't share the content is ostensibly because it would be competitively "unfair" on the independent TV stations who don't have access to taxpayers money. Of course in the real world ITV and C4 are doing it anyway, but that sort of minor detail doesn't matter in politics.

Re:Public Verus Private.

[pnattress]

at least to the Brits, Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish

Offtopic, but just so you know, "British" is a term encompassing those three latter nationalities you mentioned (although some Northern Irish may disagree that they are British at all). I assume you meant "English" rather than "British".

Re:Public Verus Private.

[dwater]

> (at least to the Brits, Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish)

You do realise that the Welsh, Scots and (arguably) Northern Irish are 'British'. The English are also British, of course, and, as you left 'English' out of the above, it seems you think 'Brits' == 'English'. Not so.

Re:Public Verus Private.

[Irvu]

That is a very good point. It would be interesting to see how the licencing differs and how it has changed over time. I suspect that in American Television the trend is much more mixed. In the early days of TV there were many independent studios producing shows alongside the larger network studios. While many of those players are gone I suspect that others have taken their place.

The iPlayer DRM is pointless..

[David McBride]

The imposition of DRM is pointless, at least if the goal is to limit redistribution of the content. The BBC are already digitally broadcasting all of their content, classical or otherwise, from all of their broadcasting stations in clear. (Crystal Palace is even broadcasting 20Mbit/sec H.264 streams as part of the current HD trials; indeed, my understanding is that the BBC will continue to broadcast in clear when the service goes into full production.)

Presumably OFCOM want to force the BBC to use DRM (they even specified that it should be Windows DRM) in order to buoy the position of Microsoft and/or commercial broadcasters?

In any case, I guess my MythTV server will continue to be useful for some time yet.

Re:The iPlayer DRM is pointless..

[Travelguy100]

Certainly for BBC Radio. Can you provide a link for BBC Television?

Re:The iPlayer DRM is pointless..

[dave420]

It's to make sure the downloads aren't watchable any further than their terrestrial broadcasts. They are required to do everything they can to protect their broadcasts, and at the same time to ensure access to them by the public. They have to use DRM, as it's there. Suggesting it's anything to do with Microsoft is ridiculous, as there is no evidence what-so-ever to support such a claim.

Re:The iPlayer DRM is pointless..

[David McBride]

It's to make sure the downloads aren't watchable any further than their terrestrial broadcasts.

DRM isn't necessary for that; GeoIP lookups and special peering arrangements can achieve this without significant difficulty. Indeed, the MS DRM facilities don't even appear to provide an facility to restrict playback according to the computer's location. (Certainly no mention of such a facility is listed on Microsoft's DRM website.)

They are required to do everything they can to protect their broadcasts, and at the same time to ensure access to them by the public. They have to use DRM, as it's there.

Except they're not using DRM for the radio MP3 downloads, or for the terrestrial broadcasts themselves, or even (so far as is known so far) for the Internet simulcast that was referenced in the consultation document. (Presumably the simulcast will be implemented using multicast, as was available on a testing basis until comparatively recently.)

It makes no logical sense to apply DRM to only this subset of the BBC's distribution channels if the goal is to prevent redistribution of the content by end-users. (Which, arguably, the DRM won't achieve anyway.)

Suggesting it's anything to do with Microsoft is ridiculous, as there is no evidence what-so-ever to support such a claim.

I'm merely speculating. It wouldn't be entirely unrealistic; MS is clearly trying to entrench itself as the DRM provider of choice (observe the rediculous bending-over-backwards to implement DRM at every level in Vista) and the British government has has been moderately keen to be nice to Microsoft in the past. It wouldn't surprise me if Bill (who happened to be here in London yesterday for the Vista launch) had made suggestive noises in that direction.

Re:The iPlayer DRM is pointless..

[AntiDragon]

I really don't like DRM in any shape or form. However, I think there *is* a point to this.

The Beeb's public broadcasts are public only in the UK. Other countries around the world that show BBC shows (Monty Python repeats are a good example) have had to buy the rights to those shows, just like any commercial station.

This "on-demand" system is a free service - any licence payer can use it. The DRM and use of a proprietary player enables the BBC to ensure that by enabling free access to shows previously broadcast (thus exposing them for a longer period of time) they don't make it easier for non-licence payers.

In practice the DRM is likely to be easily bypassed/broken and it'll be a moot point anyway.

As an aside, doesn't anybody see a silver lining here? The BBC has basically been told they *can't* use Microsoft's DRM because it's platform specific. If I were in Redmond, I'd be gnashing my teeth at seeing such a large lock-in opportunity escape my grasp...

public outcry?

[Kanasta]

There will be no public outcry. There will be no public users. Waste my DL limits for a 30 day playable period? How about wait for the 'fixed' version on bt instead?

BBC will get no complaints, and then wonder why DLs are so low.

Re:public outcry?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The BBC have been offering a "Listen Again" service for a while now, which is very well regarded. Various popular radio shows are available for download (in Real format) for seven days after a show airs, and then they disappear from the web site. Theoretically you could keep them indefinitely once you've got them, but for many BBC shows, people are more interested in catching up on what they missed the other day/night. For that, both something open-ended like the current Listen Again service or the proposed but DRM-encumbered service would be an improvement on not having the material at all.

Feedback about DRM

[Cheesey]

From the article:

"There is a potential negative market impact if the BBC allows listeners to build an extensive library of classical music that will serve as a close substitute for commercially available downloads or CDs," it said.

The news will be a disappointment to the one million people who downloaded Beethoven's symphonies in a Radio 3 trial last year.

I downloaded those symphonies. I still listen to them. There's no DRM, my only complaint is that a higher bitrate could have been used (128k hardly does justice).

The BBC should be providing licence fee payers like myself with unrestricted digital content. If we end up building up massive libraries of free classical music, then so much the better! It is their job to educate, inform and entertain licence fee payers, not sell us CDs. They should not be concerned with "negative market impacts" - they should be providing the public service that we Brits are paying for.

Re:Feedback about DRM

[Thwomp]

The BBC should be providing licence fee payers like myself with unrestricted digital content. If we end up building up massive libraries of free classical music, then so much the better! It is their job to educate, inform and entertain licence fee payers, not sell us CDs. They should not be concerned with "negative market impacts" - they should be providing the public service that we Brits are paying for. You should make your voice heard! I plan on submitting my opinion and I urge other U.K. residents to do the same.

Re:Feedback about DRM

[peepleperson]

Completely agree. Before I start, I'll just clarify - I'm talking about native BBC content, not programmes made by third-party producers.

I've never understood how BBC DVDs (and video cassettes before them) cost the same as, if not more than, Hollywood movies. As license-fee payers, we've already paid for production once, so should only be paying for materials and distribution to own a copy.

As the method of distribution is peer to peer they should be paying us (or at least those of us with fat pipes!) to distribute it. Plus, we should be able to keep it, as if we'd bought it on DVD. All that has changed is the distribution method. Why change what we can do with the content?

Re:Feedback about DRM

[Cheesey]

Thankyou for the link, I will certainly be doing that.

Re:Feedback about DRM

[jesterzog]

The BBC should be providing licence fee payers like myself with unrestricted digital content. If we end up building up massive libraries of free classical music, then so much the better!

I'm really interested in what their reasoning could be for this, and what's meant by "classical music"? Is it orchestras performing symphonies that have been out of copyright and commoditised for a long time, or does it include individual artists performing their own individual pieces that nobody else performs?

If it's the latter, I can understand why there might be concern, even though I don't really agree with it. If it's just about orchestras performing well known pieces of music, though, I'm confused. Sometimes certain orchestras or certain performances stand out, but I'd have thought that orchestras would have everything to gain by helping classical music recordings to be distributed unrestricted as much as possible, especially if it means more people are willing to turn up at concerts from time to time.

Re:Feedback about DRM

[prefect42]

The argument, which is flawed, is that by releasing free versions played by the BBC orchestras (who are of a very high standard) you kill off the market for those pieces. Well obviously you do. Where it gets into strange ground is when they then argue this would harm the consumer as they'd no longer be able to buy the music...

Re:Feedback about DRM

[ajs318]

They're 128Kbit/s. precisely so that you won't rely on them as a main source. Real classical music bores tend to prefer LP for its unique reproductive qualities (CD necessarily has a sharp cut-off at 20kHz., which is only about 5kHz. higher than the human ear can hear); or reel-to-reel tape at 19cm./s. for home recordings (which have a cut-off somewhere between 15 and 19kHz., to avoid interfering with the stereo pilot tone at 19kHz.). The other type of classical music bores insist to have as many different recordings, performed by as many orchestras, in as many concert halls as possible.

The sort of person who buys Classical Music on LPs and CDs isn't going to be put off from buying them by the existence of 128K MP3s. Some people, on the other hand, will be encouraged to buy "proper" gramophone records by the existence of MP3s, if they discover that they like a particular piece sufficiently to care about listening to a more faithful reproduction or perhaps an alternative interpretation. The rest were never going to buy the CDs anyway.

Re:Feedback about DRM

[locofungus]

Real classical music bores tend to prefer LP for its unique reproductive qualities (CD necessarily has a sharp cut-off at 20kHz., which is only about 5kHz. higher than the human ear can hear);

Which is why they are bores, and not music lovers.

While the outside edge of an LP might have better bandwidth than a CD, the inside is far worse than CD.

On a really good LP with a first rate turntable and amp you can easily hear this by playing just the start and end of the LP. AIUI, DJs/broadcasters would never go from a track on the outside of an LP straight to a track on the inside of an LP for precisely this reason.

In tests, people were unable to distinguish between the direct mic->amp->speaker path and the same path with a A-D + D-A stage at CD quality. I cannot hear a difference either.

Up until my mid twenties at least, I could hear signals up to about 18kHz - UK CRT TVs whistle at 15.625kHz and I could easily hear it, often even in the next room. (Even today I can hear some switch mode power supplies whistling if the room is silent - the charger for my camera is one I sometimes realise I've left plugged in because I hear it - there's no light on it when there is no battery attached so it must be the sound that's making me go and check)

Since then I haven't really seen TV at all. A recent test I did (actually I was building an ultrasonic transmitter but I got curious) suggested that I could still hear up to about 16kHz[1] athough that was a lot of power into the transducer and my ear only about a foot away. I certainly don't notice any whistling when I go into shops with TVs on show although most of them are plasma or LCD now which probably don't have transformers running at 16kHz to hear.

[1] Somewhat rough because the transducer I'd grabbed out of a bits box had a resonance at 4.5kHz and as the frequency went up past about 15kHz the transducer started sounding at 1/2 the frequency and it was difficult to be sure how much was me able to hear the higher tone and how much was wishful thinking.

Tim.

Re:Feedback about DRM

[Ben Hutchings]

Not only is the bandwidth on an LP fairly low to start with, but it very quickly drops as the LP is played repeatedly. The later compact types of compact cassette are better.

iFacism

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM courtesy of the BBC.

Can they please DRM-up Johnathan Ross, strictly come dancing, Terry Wogan, Chris Moyles and the rest of the crud they broadcast under the pretext of entertainment. Thatcher hated the BBC but apparently not as much as the last 20 years of BBC management. The best original drama is made by HBO in the states, the BBC's factual programs lack focus and bite and daytime radio is appalling. Successive governments have tolerated the wartime propaganda corporation known as the BBC despite the fact that there's no longer a requirement for a national broadcaster.

Do we really need or want the BBC? What compelling reason is there for it's continued existence?

Re:iFacism

[jonwil]

I don't know if its still true but last I looked, one of the good thing about the BBC is that its news service is as close to an independent news service as its possible to get. The BBC doesn't have to bow down to any corporate masters (unlike commercial news services such as CNN, Fox News, Channel 4, ITV etc etc) and because they aren't government funded (thanks to the license fee) they don't have to bow down to the government either

Will anyone care enough?

[ronrib]

The public outcry will sound much like people not purchasing their product.

Re:Will anyone care enough?

[Stevecrox]

How can we puechase something which will be free? I'm guessing this will be like channel 4's airing of IT. You'll watch the videos in a fixed web viewer assuming your IP is from the UK.

See the thing to do would be to download it lotsa times and cost BBC money and argue that the drm forces you to keep downloaded. But then again that supports DRM and may put the Beeb off doing it. Gah how will i get my free *legal* fix of red dwarf now! I can justify spending £25 for six episodes.

Re:Will anyone care enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get the whole thing (all 8 series) on Amazon for just £57

Unnecessarily complicated

[Faffe]

Why develop their own player? It's all content produced for tax money, just put it up on the net for free. Swedish state television streams a lot of programs, unfortunately only in WMV or quicktime, but at least I don't have to download a separate player.

Licensing issues across borders Re:bittorent

[rubies]

Any digital shop front they set up would have to be restricted to the UK (I don't see any issues with this though), as some of the content is already licensed to other third parties (Top Gear, for example, turns up in strange places on cable in the US).

OT:Public Verus Private.

[Anonymous Coward]

(at least to the Brits, Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish)

That should be "English, Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish" as they're collectively all British, although many people prefer to identify primarily as one of the above. Think of the question "Are you Texan or American?"

Re:OT:Public Verus Private.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

For the record, Great Britain (informally, Britain) is the largest of the British Isles, containing the political entities England, Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the sovereign state. However, the term "British" has adopted the meaning of "of the United Kingdom". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_(termin ology) for details of the many related terms.

Already available without DRM

[ThreeDayMonk]

I really don't understand why they are bothering to put DRM on it: the entire BBC output is already available over-the-air in unencrypted digital form via digital television (MPEG2/DVB-T). Never mind the analogue hole: there's a gaping digital hole out there!

Re:Already available without DRM

[Ant P.]

The DRM is there because everyone who can recieve the over-the-air clear MPEG signal is supposedly paying a licence fee.

Re:Already available without DRM

[pbhj]

>>> "I really don't understand why they are bothering to put DRM on it"

Didn't you hear? The DG of the BBC is getting kickbacks from Billy G ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ I mean, he's collaborating with MS and if he happens to get a very high paid job with MS Europe later in his career then it's purely coincidental.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5390000.stm

Disclaimer - this post is an ironic comedic remark containing no truth and as such is not a representation of the character of any person real or imaginary that might be being overpaid as a boss in the BBC.

The classical music reasoning is worse

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The thing I found most unfortunate about the whole affair was that the reason given by the BBC Trust for not releasing the classical music: "There is a potential negative market impact if the BBC allows listeners to build an extensive library of classical music that will serve as a close substitute for commercially available downloads or CDs." [Emphasis added]

There are a lot of misconceptions about the BBC (not least how much of its funding comes from licence fees rather than other sources), but I'm pretty sure it's still supposed to be run essentially in the public interest. I don't really understand how protecting the commercial interests of classical music distributors are the expense of the public is part of that remit.

If we're talking about music that's out of copyright itself (Beethoven was the example given), and the particular recording is already being made available for the BBC to broadcast, you'd think the Beeb could negotiate some fair additional compensation for the recording orchestras in exchange for the rights to make it downloadable as well. After all, we have the Proms every year and no doubt some people record and keep those (legally or otherwise), so it doesn't seem like orchestras mind the coverage. Why not legitimise keeping the material, throw in a bit of fair compensation for the recording artists to match, and make the world a little nicer for all concerned?

Re:The classical music reasoning is worse

[owlnation]

Yes, I agree, and I think it also shows how little the BBC Trust understands the classical music market (and probably how little the BMI understands too). With the greatest respect to the musicians who recorded the the BBC free to download performances, these are not the finest examples of these pieces recorded, nor are they distributed in the most lossless format - lossless is essential for classical music.

Serious classical fans will look for and purchase the finest performances, possibly several of them - and often pay through the nose for them too (since there's little choice other than, maybe, a rare flac torrent).

The advantage of the BBC programme is that it introduced many pieces of music to a new audience, who then likely would become fans and subsequently pay to see live performances and cds of the finest recordings.

It's a shocking waste of a missed opportunity.

Re:The classical music reasoning is worse

[It'sYerMam]

Indeed. We could do with more socialism in the world, if you ask me. I agree with Russell when he argues that the quest for wealth is not always coincidental with the quest for general happiness and wellbeing.

Re:The classical music reasoning is worse

[kocsonya]

> BBC [...] I'm pretty sure it's still supposed to be run essentially in the public interest.

So is the government. Until *that* is fixed one shall not be surprised if other institutions take the "business friendly" approach.

Re:The classical music reasoning is worse

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I don't think this has much to do with socialism. I have no problem with people who make and share lots of good music receiving benefits in return. I just don't see why the audiences and the musicians should be propping up the middlemen who don't add any value to the proceedings, yet always seem to wind up taking home most of the profits.

Re:The classical music reasoning is worse

[pbhj]

>>> "so it doesn't seem like orchestras mind the coverage"

Not wanting to sound childish (and failing) but tough-titty-ha-ha if the orchestras mind. It's work for hire, the TV owning British Public is the client, they are providing work at our (distant) request.

The license fee payer owns the recording, the BBC manages that ownership for us, so why can't we listen when we want?

I'm so with you on the not protecting commercial interests. This isn't a commercial television channel. The fact that this small bit of socialist/communist action doesn't fit into a capitalist backdrop is not the license payers concern. Either stick with serving the fee payer _OR_ go for broke in the capitalist system.

Re:The classical music reasoning is worse

[jonwil]

I thought that because of the license fees, the BBC was essentially independent from the government and (unlike our own ABC here in australia) didnt have to care about the government or its "backers" (be they big corporations or otherwise)

Re:The classical music reasoning is worse

[sheepweevil]

Insisting on a lossless format just makes you sound snobbish. Show me anyone who can tell the difference between a 256 Kbps MP3 or a 8 quality Ogg Vorbis and flac consistently, in any genre of music, and I will show you a DRM scheme that doesn't screw over legitimate users.

Re:The classical music reasoning is worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Tony made sure to take care of that in the last Charter renewal by adding the "BBC Trust", a quango who's sole purpose is to hamstring the BBC and ensure that they don't do anything to embarrass the Government (Which would require another expensive whitewash) and not to do anything that might prove too damaging to Rupert Murdock and friends.

Re:The classical music reasoning is worse

[filthWisard]

Also, with many classical works, not only has the copyright expired, but some of the best performances were recorded more than 50 years ago, so are out of copyright in the UK at least. There is very little reason to pay for anything written before the late romantic period anyway, so what do the BBC trust think they are playing at?

Exempted?

[RowanS]

...exempted classical music performances from being made available...

Is that similar to the way that people in jail get exempted from leaving the jail?

Re:Exempted?

[spun]

I think it's more along the lines of how slashdotters are exempted from having sex...

Dirac?

[Dan100]

I wonder if the iPlayer will use Dirac, the open source video codec the BBC have been developing?

Re:Dirac?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it. Dirac is aimed at high quality, high definition TV - what they would call Broadcast Quality. I gather it somewhat sucks at lower resolutions and bit-rates.

One of the consultation questions

[Pop69]

"How important is it that the proposed seven-day catch-up service over the internet is available to consumers who are not using Microsoft software?"

Anybody in the UK who wants to join in the consultation can use this link http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/open-consult ations/ondemand_services.html

Re:One of the consultation questions

[ajs318]

How important is it that the proposed seven-day catch-up service over the internet is available to consumers who are not using Microsoft software?

I answered: Neither more nor less important than that the proposed seven-day catch-up service over the internet is available to consumers who are using Microsoft software. The BBC's services must remain independent of any particular proprietary technology. It is not for the BBC to act as a marketing tool for any company.

The BBC Trust has proposed setting a limit of 30 days as the amount of time that programmes can be stored on a computer before being viewed. As this is a nascent market, there is currently no clear standard on the length of the storage window. On balance, the Trust thinks 30 days is the right length of time. How long do you think consumers should be able to store BBC programmes on their computers before viewing them?

I answered: Forever.

please check the accounts and verify this ...

[pbhj]

>>> "Aside from that, let's look at one of the shows the BBC is proposing to make available online: Doctor Who [imdb.com]. Click the link and scroll down to "Production Companies". Yes, that's right, the venerable BBC Sci-Fi series is produced in part by the CBC.

Thus, I at least have already paid for part of Doctor Who. How many other modern BBC shows are co-produced in conjunction with the national broadcasters in other (esp. Commonwealth) countries? "

You may be right. But I suspect that if CBC is in the credit then they are being paid a commercial rate for their services by the BBC. In which case, even if you fund other work by the CBC then your entitlement to BBC(UK) output is non-existent.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worl dwidestories/pressreleases/2004/10_october/doctor_ who_canada.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worl dwidestories/pressreleases/2006/04_april/mip_torch wood.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwh o/2005/06/29/20283.shtml
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/05/08/british-tv -awards.html

Reading between the lines in the above reports it seems that CBC "sponsored" the production ("produced by BBC Wales in association with the CBC") by buying it early and plugging it prime-time. For example in the news report (last link above) about Doctor Who winning an award they don't mention anything about it being produced by CBC, that seems strange to me as in Wales if a Doctor Who producer wipes his nose it's all over the news reports (! eww). BBC news here also gives the impression that the show is Welsh made (Welsh nationalism is rife).

[quote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worl dwidestories/pressreleases/2006/04_april/mip_torch wood.shtml%5D Kirstine Layfield, Executive Director, Network Programming, CBC Television, commented: "CBC is proud to supplement our overwhelmingly Canadian schedule with the best of the rest of the world, and our British programming has struck a real chord with audiences here. We're delighted with the success of Doctor Who, and we're sure Torchwood will prove equally popular." [/quote]

[quote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worl dwidestories/pressreleases/2004/10_october/doctor_ who_canada.shtml%5D BBC Worldwide today concluded its first major pre-sale for the new Doctor Who series with Canadian public broadcaster, CBC Television. [/quote]

Reason for DRM

[Cheesey]

Bingo! That's a reason for the DRM.

They want to sell their programmes to broadcasters in other countries, but they know that just restricting downloads to the UK won't be enough to stop UK-based viewers downloading and redistributing shows with BitTorrent. If all the Dr Who fans in Usania have already seen the latest episode online, then the Usanian TV network will be less keen to buy it.

Although the DRM is effectively useless, as UK viewers can just capture the DRM-free signal from digital television, the DRM pays lip service to foreign broadcasters that at least something is being done to prevent their viewers getting the programmes early. Even if it is futile and will turn more UK-based viewers to piracy in order to get an unrestricted play-anywhere copy.

Re:Reason for DRM

[mpe]

They want to sell their programmes to broadcasters in other countries,

In which case they need to "get their finger out" and do the selling within a reasonable timescale.

but they know that just restricting downloads to the UK won't be enough to stop UK-based viewers downloading and redistributing shows with BitTorrent.

The primary source here is the first broadcast. (Which in some cases, notably in the US, can even be before the official airdate.) These downloads would only become an issue if they were available before broadcast.

If all the Dr Who fans in Usania have already seen the latest episode online, then the Usanian TV network will be less keen to buy it.

If they wait an excessive time then they can be sure that many of them have not even just seen the episodes, but bought the DVDs too.

Although the DRM is effectively useless, as UK viewers can just capture the DRM-free signal from digital television,

It isn't even just the UK. BBC signals can be received in parts of Eire, France, Belgium and The Netherlands.
What TV companies need to get their heads around is that the market for a TV programme in English (possibly also Arabic) is planet Earth.

Screw the public until they scream

[babbling]

They know that people won't like this. They know in advance that there could be a public outcry. Why are they trying to screw the public with a defective product until they scream?

VOA not allowed in US

[Derling Whirvish]

Anyway, the BBC is (at least on paper) a public enterprise oned (in heory) by the British Public and paid for via the TV Tax. Much like the Voice of America is a service funded by the American Public. As such shouldn't the content produced by the Beeb be freely available

The flaw in that argument is that people in the United States are forbidden from listening to the Voice of America and even transcripts of its programs are not available to ordinary citizens under the FOIA. Public Law 402:

information produced by VOA for audiences outside the United States shall not be disseminated within the United States ... but, on request, shall be available in the English language at VOA, at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination only by representatives of United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations, and by research students and scholars, and, on request, shall be made available for examination only to Members of Congress.

Re:VOA not allowed in US

[Irvu]

Save that now VOA News is available online. But even when it wasn't I don't see that as a flaw seeing as how the VOA news was provided free of charge when asked for not later "resold" to other news companies.

Plan won't work

[elronxenu]

But [the BBC trust] agreed with broadcasting watchdog Ofcom, which said earlier this month that the iPlayer could have a "negative effect" on commercial rivals

I think that's not the BBC's problem. The commercial rivals must take care of themselves - by, for example, providing higher quality content or different content. Is Ofcom asserting that there's a limit to the amount of classical music and TV shows which the economy can support? That having more choice will lead inevitably to commercial loss for these competitors? Perhaps the BBC should stop producing classical music and high quality TV programs altogether lest they damage the market share of commercial competitors? Perhaps we should limit access to the Public Domain too, since it can't be easily monopolised.

It wants the corporation to scale back plans to let downloaded "catch-up" episodes remain on users' hard drives for 13 weeks, suggesting that 30 days is enough.

Assuming (as devil's advocate) that their DRM is adequate, why limit the time that the content works? If somebody records one of these shows on their VCR, they are allowed to watch it again and again forever. Why limit a user's fair use rights for no better reason than "because it's technically possible"?

The trust also asked the BBC to explore ways of introducing parental controls to its on-demand services, as it is worried at the "heightened risk of children being exposed to post-watershed material".

TV doesn't require electronic "parental controls", so why should downloaded shows?

"There is a potential negative market impact if the BBC allows listeners to build an extensive library of classical music that will serve as a close substitute for commercially available downloads or CDs," it said.

I'm afraid they're several years too late on that point. It seems the BBC Trust hasn't been paying attention to recent events. Here are some facts to brighten your day:

• DRM doesn't work. Cross-platform DRM doesn't work even more than ordinary DRM doesn't work. The media will be read (CDs), the encryption will be broken (DVDs), the keys will be recovered (HD-DVD and BluRay), or the audio will be captured (iTunes). All DRM does is annoy ordinary people.
• All it takes is one person to remove the DRM from your content and upload to a P2P network, then the non-DRM file will spread because it's more convenient to people than the DRM file. For example, they will be able to play it in their favourite music player rather than having to use yours.
• This content is already paid-for, by the British television-owning public.
• Making the content easy to download from the source (BBC) will discourage people from making it available on P2P networks.
• Making a wide range of content available on a permanent basis will earn the BBC a lot of respect.
• The BBC is guilty of years of mismanagement of its legacy, losing historically priceless television footage. Opening up what's left (under, say, a non-commercial Creative Commons license) is one way that the BBC could make amends, as well as limiting the possibility of that travesty happening again.

Not much like VOA...

[daBass]

VOA is a State Department operation. Good or bad, at the end of the day it is a propaganda outlet aimed at foreigners.

BBC is much less controlled by the British goverment than VOA is by the Americans, which is why the TV License (not "TV Tax") is collected by an independent organisation. This way, the goverment doesn't control the BBC's purse and has very little influence over content.

Obviously, there is always going to be some influence, just like goverment has influence over any commercial station, but the way the BBC operates and is funded is entirely different from VOA.

I smell a rat

[Anonymous Coward]

There was some talk a few years back, about the UK gov't introducing a computer licence for PC owners, presumably because with multi-media you can now "watch" your PC as well as the TV.

I was contemplating ditching my TV (and the TV licence) after analogue transmissions are switched off here in the UK over the next few years. I don't really want the expense of having to buy a digital receiver box and uprated aerial or dish because I watch less-and-less TV, and personally I can live without it. I don't need a thousand channels of crap, and I own hundreds of DVDs anyway. Effectively ALL UK households HAVE to pay the TV licence because it is very difficult to prove you don't own a television. The licence is really just another (poll) tax.

If the BBC starts offering programmes over the web, then they could argue (in court) that every household in the UK with a computer should pay the TV licence, regardless of wether they own a television or not, because they can still potentially receive BBC programming.

Platform-agnostic

[Anonymous Coward]

It also says "a platform-agnostic approach", so presumably they'd have to deliver something that is both open source and portable. If they release only Linux, Mac and Windows versions then that is not platform-agnostic, it's just multi-platform. It won't help AmigaOS 4 users!

While I don't like DRM much at all, I think an open source DRM solution is superior to the existing proprietary ones if only so that it can be forward-ported to future systems. Admittedly that wouldn't do much good for time-limited BBC content, but I'm assuming that an open source and portable DRM solution would be adopted for more than just the BBC's time-limited content.

Rights, DRM and the BBC

[Bytefreak]

Q: I'm a UK citizen, pay my licence fee so why can't I just access all the content I've paid for?
A: You don't "own" the broadcast anymore than the BBC does necessarily....it's all down to rights, there's all kinds of fingers in all kinds of pies with respects to broadcast/distribution rights - if you've used an external production company to produce the content / used someone's music / an image / a certain actor they will all have rights with respect to how/when that content is used.

It's a legal minefield which usually comes with all kinds of restrictions about when and where you can use the content :-(

As I understand it, licence fee money entitles the beeb to pay for things to be produced (internally / externally), and to be shown somehow/somewhere at somepoint and that's about it.

Add in to this that you require different kinds of rights for different kinds of distribution - web + TV require two different lots of rights negotiations to take place - and it all gets very messy *really* quickly.

As for other countries accessing content, I'd hazard a guess that it's a case of UK folk having paid for the bandwidth and not being able to support the whole world downloading - the worldwide / commercial arm of the bbc could potentially syndicate paid episodes for download I guess.

Q: Why bung DRM on everything?
A: RIGHTS again (you beginning to see the picture yet) - johnny rightsholder is very cagey about digital distribution (*GASP* - everyone will be able to COPY our content - cue mouth frothing) so in order to be able to even offer it for distribution over the internet tubes a distributor *has* to make concessions to the rightsholders, otherwise you would have no content to offer = DRM + time restricted windows for viewing things. I'd hope that this is likely to change over time as people sort out the whole rights mess and we have some legal framework which accurately reflects a fair digital distribution model.

Q: Why not platform XXX?
A: I'm pretty sure this will be down to DRM requirements AND the fact that the BBC already has an infrastructure in place for transcoding / streaming WM content. Judging from the consultation results, this is likely to change if a requirement to be platform portable is enforced - maybe rolling something custom like DIRAC would be an option?

As you said License is only part of the income

[goldcd]

for the BBC. When they sell content abroad or on DVD, that brings in more money, enabling them to spend more on content production, or charge less in license fee.
Whilst they have a charter to make TV available to people who bought a license, if online streaming decreases DVD and/or foreign sales, then either the content will suffer, or they'll be asking me for more money.
My understanding for the 30 days is that a load of BBC broadcast content is produced by 3rd party production companies - who themselves re-sell the content and rights to bring in more money than the BBC paid. If the BBC streaming content indefinitely and without restriction, then this would make that single payment from the BBC the production company's only source of income, so they'd sell it to the BBC for more and we, the end users, would end up paying more again.
The 30 day rule is a compromise that will hopefully keep everybody happy - it might even be an extension of the agreements the BBC has with companies allowing it to re-broadcast material on other channels at other times around the time or original broadcast.

How ?

[Builder]

I'd really love to do this, but a number of BBC channels are not carried over the analog signal in my area. This means hooking my Sky box up to my computer, and I have _NEVER_ found a reliable way to do this.

WTF?

[RMH101]

look up "take ownership". If you have local admin, you have access to any and all files on that box.

Re:WTF?

[Yottabyte84]

Yes, you can take ownership. I knew that. My point was that under windows the Administrator account normaly respects file permissions.

I made exactly that point in the survey.

[jotaeleemeese]

The music labels are so miopic that they will spare no resource to kill a profitable bussiness that force them to deliver a quality product.

Like influencing people in positions of power to stop the spread of high culture.

What a blody shame.

CD labels should provide better products.

[jotaeleemeese]

And they should be judged by the yardstick of freely available BBC stuff.

That is very simple to solve.

[jotaeleemeese]

Any company intending to produce for the BBC should release any content in the terms requested by the BBC, which is after all who is paying those people to do the work.

The BBC is far too acomodating when it should be it the on in the driving seat.