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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

[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.

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

[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

[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).

iPlayer?

[faqmaster]

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

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?

[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?

[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

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: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.

I think it's actually pronounced oi-payah

[infonography]

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

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.

[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".

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..

[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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

[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: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.

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]

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.

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.

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?