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

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.

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: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.

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.

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

[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: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: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: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: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: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.

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: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: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: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: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: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: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.

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.

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.