Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

12 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. another option by User+956 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:another option by VJ42 · · Score: 4, Informative
      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
      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    2. Re:another option by smallfries · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  2. Re:iPlayer by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  3. I think it's actually pronounced oi-payah by infonography · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  4. Re:Windows Only by slebog · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.
  5. Public Verus Private. by Irvu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  6. Re:iPlayer by gbjbaanb · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  7. The iPlayer DRM is pointless.. by David+McBride · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Feedback about DRM by Cheesey · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
    --
    >north
    You're an immobile computer, remember?
  9. Re:Sounds like the usual B.S. by teh+kurisu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. please check the accounts and verify this ... by pbhj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    >>> "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]