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

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

[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

[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

[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: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: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

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: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: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.

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?"

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: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: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 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.

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.

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: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.