Slashdot Mirror
Anti-DRM Activists Take On the BBC
An anonymous reader writes "Activists from Binary Freedom Boston have launched a campaign calling on the BBC to release their content online without DRM or proprietary formats. You might remember the BBC asking us about this earlier and even though the public chose not to use DRM by a landslide, they still decided to use it. EMI and Amazon have already ditched DRM. How long before the BBC does?"
DRM free content? Absolutely. I have to pay my TV license every year for the BBC. For the most part, I think it is value for money. The BBC news site is worth the license fee all by itself. For comparison, I pay about a third of the cost of a license on a Slashdot subscription each year and Slashdot is less than a third of the quality.
However, I'm of the opinion that if you're going to force people to pay for a service through a tax, then the products of that government service should be free in the BSD style sense of the word. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that this needs to be codified in to law. In fact, we may already have in the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Having just read the first section of the act, you could make a questionable legal argument that if you make a request for the unDRMED content and they fail to give you that version they are in breach of the act. If you have to buy a Windows machine just to watch one of their publicly broadcast snippets I'd say that obstructs the request for the information sufficiently for it to become unlawful. No other department is free to restrict requests in that manner!
We've already paid for the service so give us the bloody content in a usable format!
Simon
Damn straight, I pay the license fee, so the damn content should be available to me for free.
"Oh boy"
But what about people who don't pay for a TV license? This will allow THEM access to shows YOU'VE paid for... What about if the only DRM is you entering your TV license code, with no restrictions on what you can do with it, bar removing the protection? For you, the media would be free, but for those without TV licenses (who have no right to the media), it's not free. The BBC has a mandate to protect the interests of the license fee payer, which means limiting the availability of the media to those folks alone, and charging others for it.
If the BBC's charter is "bringing the UK to the world"
then why is the BBC's channel on youtube geo-blocked outside the UK?
(and yes the BBC World channel is open but it does not carry the same content)
The BBC seems to be on an ugly trend lately, embracing Microsoft, DRM, geo-blocking... what's next? content censorship for viewers in China, etc?
The problem is royalties for net based distribution, the morons at equity (the union) refuse to recognize that repeat fees are unworkable in the digital age.
It will change gradually as those who stick to the outmoded royalties model find themselves without work. If these guys really want to protest - target equity
The BBC's broadcasts are already free, via satellite, in Europe. I do not pay a UK license fee but can watch BBC, and the other UK channels, via Sky and without the use of any Sky subscription. I do not think that the content being available to anyone else in the world is such a major issue. The material has already been funded and you pay for your internet access so no-one is losing money.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
The BBC has actually done this at least once in the past. A while ago, they released recordings of the BBC Orchestra playing Beethoven Symphonies Nos. 6-9 in MP3 format, for free on their website. I jumped at the chance and downloaded them, and still listen to those recordings occasionally.
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
That's because they have no way of changing that without denying license payers in the UK access to the content for free. They have to do all they can to ensure license payers get the content for free, and those without licenses don't. That's why as DRM exists, they're forced to use it, as without it, they'd be in breach of their charter. They can't have advertising-supported DRM-free content, as other content suppliers have done, as that again is in serious breach of their charter.
Amazon Unbox is as DRM infested as they come. Perhaps they've chosen to unencumber certain music tracks (no doubt to "coincide" with a price hike), but movies? No way.
I see no reason why the BBC should award a monopoly to any company and their media format for material owned by the BBC. It is not the job of the BBC to support Microsoft, Real or any other closed format exclusively.
I note with interest that the various free/open media formats are available on every platform and do not require license payments. The only reason not to use a free/open format is DRM and if that is the case here then the BBC is making a wrong choice for both technical and financial reasons.
But what about people who don't pay for a TV license? This will allow THEM access to shows YOU'VE paid for...
So what? As a license payer, I don't mind. It's a gift.
So some group of yahoo's out of Massachusetts have decided that they dont like restrictions on free content? The anti-drm argument is fine when its paid for content (If I buy it I should be able to do what I want) but free content should be distributed however the owner wants to do it. Their arguments are rather sad. The first one is that DRM doesnt work, if thats the case then why worry about it, just circumvent it and shut the hell up. The second point makes no sense, what right do you have to free content? The third point streches it about as far as it can go...you can watch anytime you want so how is the lack of being able to copy inhibiting your ability to learn? DRM is their business decision, in some cases its done to protect content that can provide revenue to the BBC such as blocking access to the Torchwood site content to those outside the area's in which its shown. The argument is made that the BBC is paid for by the public, which is true but last I checked Boston didnt pay the TV tax so IMHO they have negated their voice in the matter simply by location. I hate DRM as much as anyone but the argument made by Binary Freedom Bostom just comes across as a bunch of whining hippies who were upset that they couldnt easily record Hex.
Part of the problem is that a lot of the "BBC's" content isn't actually owned by the BBC because they just buy it in from 3rd parties (I'm talking original programming here, not stuff bought from the US etc).
The smart thing to do (depending on your attitude towards these things) would be to take the Apple-esque route and make all of the BBC-owned content available sans-DRM (but maintaining the existing geo-IP blocks for non UK users as is required) and then make everything else available DRM-encumbered with clear information explaining why this is the case and who to contact if you want to bitch about it.
To be honest, I do believe that if they had the choice, the BBC would open up all of their archives for DRM-free download to UK citizens, but it's not always as simple as that.
As a license fee payer myself, I do not care if third parties have access. Good for them!
Although some people will disagree they're more the old moaning grandparent types with their "because I had to pay you do to!" speeches. These old farts need to stop complaining and realize theres a lot of us Brits outside the country wanting to watch the BBC.
This is really what the BBC has needed for a long time. It never made any sense to me that I have to pay this license every year but if I want to watch something I missed I have to buy it on DVD? Whats the point of a yearly subscription if I can't access the content I paid to get produced.
I'm not a big TV watcher anyway as I spent most my time refreshing Slashdot. What I would really like to see from the BBC is high quality video via BitTorrent. Hell they wouldn't even need to use their own tracker they could practically host the stuff for the cost of a few internet connections.
The whole "M$ iz a monopolise" thing is getting a bit trite, don't you think? So is the whole "DRM iz evul" schtick. Just because its badly implemented by many doesn't mean it's bad. It just means that you won't get everything you want for free. Gues what? That's life. What, is having to pay for groceries infringing on some percieved right to free food?
BBC will choose the best provider for it's technology. If that's MSFT, then great! If not, then so be it. DRM can be a good thing, especially for the BBC. They can maximize their profite by using DRM properly.
It's not narcissicism if it's true!
music own you
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
That is an interesting and rather entertaining interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act.
Anyway problem elsewhere. BBC already tried to release un-DRM-ed content and got into hot water for it. More specifically they released all Bethoven Symphonies as played on BBC radio via their web site 2 or 3 years ago (I got 6-9 and missed the first 5). And they stopped. Guess why - because the rest of the music industry threatened to sue them for undercutting classical music prices.
Personally, I found the argument extremely entertaining. The quality of the recording was not anywhere near what a classical audiophile will consider worth having (considerably worse than a good FM radio broadcast) and the quality of the execution by the orcherstra (and chorus) was a total joke. One can buy a Slovak Philharmonic orchestra "present for the aunt" CD from one of those 10 quid for 20 CDs bundles with much better quality and execution. I am not even talking about going to a music store and buying a proper recording with someone like H. Karayan as a conductor. And even so, the industry went up in arms like one and the Beeb backed down.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I agree. The BBC and everyone else should stay away from M$ products. I can think of at least ten reasons why, and I wrote a rant about this a while ago on my blog site. Have a look at my rant on this.
The BBC is a state protected monopoly, a relic of a bygone modernist age. The TV License is not a tax, nor are the BBC part of the state. They are a media company guaranteed a significant income by the laws of the land, for which they in turn have to meet certain criteria in their programming and the way the business is run. But they still sell DVDs at a profit, why should they not try to milk the market any way they see fit? FYI I'm not a fan of the setup. From the start the BBC was supposed to "Educate, Entertain, and Inform." This was pre-WWII mind. The world is different now, there's no shortage of transmission technology, no use for a monopoly just to keep morale up during the depression and then the blitz. I'd happily settle for "Educate" and leave the other two to commercial programmers.
So where can I as a license fee payer download source code for this magical Microsoft DRM product?
I'm running linux on PPC.
Cheers
If people can watch the BBC legally without having to pay for it, or without the BBC being reimbursed in a way that doesn't break their charter, then people will stop paying their TV licenses, which means the BBC will get less funding, which means its quality will suffer.
I totally agree that the BBC's back-catalogue should be made available to license payers to watch, but without some sort of mechanism to ensure that viewers actually have a license fee, when such a measure is possible, then that breaks their charter.
The BBC is legally obligated to do all it can to protect the content and ensure it's only available to those who have paid their license fees. If DRM didn't exist, there would be *no* online media from the BBC. As DRM does exist, they are capable of making sure, or at least doing the best they can, that the viewers are paying their license fees (such as restricting playback to the UK, where if you have a PC capable of watching it, you must have a license).
Hosting it on BitTorrent, while making it easy for license fee payers to watch it, also makes it easy for non-paying folks, which is a no-go. People will stop subscribing to their advertising-supported non-UK BBC network, which means loss in revenue. The BBC has to do all it can to stay the BBC. Giving its content away is not going to do that, so the BBC won't. It's not their fault, it's the charter, which is in place to ensure it's as good as it can be.
The BBC should sell their licenses abroad and make a way for those licenses to enable the buyers to download and watch BBC shows, while stopping those who haven't. This isn't the RIAA we're talking about here, they actually charge a decent rate for their products, and they're not getting rich off ages-old business models. The BBC are the good guys, remember?
Why can't we easily download NPR content in a friendly format?
It seems like their audio is WMV or RP and the download links are buried. I don't want to launch a proprietary player from my browser or otherwise, thankyourverymuch.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
couldn't agree more, the bbc have a great opportunity to embrace open-ness. bbc worldwide have been profiting from the beebs content from quite some time, and i'm happy for them to continue doing so, i just want them to give me what me, my parents and my grandparents have been paying for for more than half a century.
"Last time I read the BBC's charter, maximising profit was not one of their objectives. Making culture available to the greatest number of people possible was."
Uh huh. And Microsoft's objective is to produce the worlds greatest software!
It's not narcissicism if it's true!
I have to pay my TV license every year for the BBC.
And here across the pond I have to pay the music industry for every RW-CD I buy regardless of use. But they still want to sell you the same thing twice. I think you in the UK stand a better chance of getting DRM-free BBC, than we do of getting rid of the music tax. For us Yankees just how much is your TV liscense? I might want to pay it from here, If that got me some BBC DVDs.
We are all just people.
There are plenty of ways to only allow licensees to view the content such as making them type in their license number.
Thats besides the point because NO ONE would throw away their TV just so they can watch it on their computer in the study alone. They want to watch East Enders on the big box with their family and thats never going to change whatever you make available over the web.
Simple, make people register and use their TV licence details to gain access.
It's better than locking everything with DRM.
And they were jumped on by the regulators and the BBC Trustees. The BBC had to commit to them to not do any such thing in the future.
(It was the full set of symphonies, actually).
And how do you stop those videos from being uploaded after they've typed in their TV license? That's kind of why DRM was invented. Plenty of folks don't watch TV on actual TVs but over the internet. It's getting more and more. The line between TVs and computers is getting thinner and thinner, and if they can get BBC content over the internet for free, without paying their license, they will, which will put a massive dent in the BBC's income, which will in turn put a massive dent in their programming, to the point where East Enders will be a monologue by a studio cleaner in a darkened room, lasting 15 seconds per week.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Right, but they stopped distributing them after a short period of time due to license agreements, if I remember correctly. Better than DRM, for sure, but it would be nice if there wasn't an artificial restriction of any kind.
You realize that you can record music onto a data CD-RW (which are not encumbered with a fee)? Or are you applying the term "Yankee" to Canadians, who do have to pay a license fee for CD-RW disks?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Then why the Amazon Unbox DRM on my Tivo? I "rent" a movie, it's downloaded to my Tivo automatically. I have 30 days to watch it before it's deleted from my Tivo. Once I start watching it, I have to finish within 24 hours or it's deleted from my Tivo. Those stingy rules are the reason I don't rent from Amazon Unbox other than my initial test.
But I think the BBC is not considered a public authority. It's certainly not part of the government. And technically (at least legally) the licence fee is not a tax.
Don't forget that the BBC doesn't always have the rights for some of the programming, or only has rights to broadcast within certain geographic boundaries. For example football (soccer) matches are sold in other markets as PPV whilst being free in the UK. Those broadcasters abroad will not be happy if everyone can watch those matches off of the BBC web site for free.
When the BBC channels were broadcast on the old satellite the satellite foot print meant that many european countries could also pick up the channels. In order to have some control the channels were encrypted. You could watch them for free with an appropriate access card which required you to have a UK address. Now the channels are not encrypted because they've moved to a satellite with a far smaller foot print which covers basically the UK and the Republic of Ireland plus the periphery of the European mainland.
The DRM is used to fulfil the licencing requirements of programs or content used in programs. If you download some of the podcasts there are bits missing because the BBC isn't allowed to put them in the podcast. The same must be true for other programs...
My license fee pays for this content. Why should you get it for nothing?
sigs are hazardous to your health
And those files will not be able to be shared with non-license-fee-paying folks how, exactly? Your solution is not a solution in the slightest. It certainly doesn't free the BBC from their obligations. I'm completely against DRM on music, as music is an advert for the live gigs. I support DRM when it's used as it should be, to allow media to exist where previously it couldn't.
I'm a license payer, I've tried to email them about the content not working with open formats and needed real player/WMP. I simply don't understand why they don't allow it to work with Helix player or even provide it as an ogg download so that it would be really easy to play it in linux through mplayer.
The automated response I got threatened to sue me if I told anyone the contents in a way which I'm pretty sure isn't legal (but i'm used to being threatened by the BBC...). I never got a real reply. Over the summer I was considering writing one letter a week... but it would be so much more effective if we could organise such as that every morning they had at least 200 letters on the matter...
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
What first had me wondering about this was when I heard (a couple of years back I think) that BBC would stop some international broadcasts it was doing, apparantly because it would save them money to do so. It just seems so very short-sighted.
sigs are hazardous to your health
If you pay the license fee you should not have to pay twice for the content. Funny how if you copy one song - that IP theft. If through the use of DRM you prevent millions of people for using your content (that they have already paid for) then it is ok - no-one suggests that its mass larceny. Also unbelievable how a public organization supposed to exist for the 'public good' consults with the public about DRM and then ignores them. Yeah - that really makes sense. One suggestion: Make the BBC produce all its content under a creative commons license. That would be progress!
The BBC is well watched in lots of countries in the world (hurray Dr. Who in 30 minutes!!) yet not all the viewer pay the hundreds of euros/dollars for that privilege. Right now I pay less for the beeb than when I lived and worked in London, even when nowadays BBC3 and 4 are available. Point is: they have the right to market their reputation, and if they think they need to protect it with a light DRM (comparable to Apples), well so be it. It's a treasure trove of data, and they can do with it whatever they want.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
But DRM does not stop the videos from being uploaded either. It is precicely as effective; that is to say, not at all.
Giving someone the ciphertext and the key that decrypts it is exactly the same as giving them the plaintext. It has to be, otherwise how could they watch the content?
Will they also call the BBC on their anti-semitism?
It doesn't really matter as long as the British public pay their License fees to keep the content running.
I wouldn't care if others were to view the content I paid for without paying but it wouldn't stop the British public from paying for a license since its extremely well enforced with everyone in the UK without a license being flagged up in their database.
You can run but you can't hide as they say.
No quite true. Your license is because 'you have the ability to receive TV transmissions'. Now, we all know that only the BBC benefits from this but, if I remember correctly, the BBC isn't categorically named on the license, or at least I don't think it was last time looked. Everybody in the UK who has the technical ability to receive TV transmissions (not necessarily a TV, but a recorder or some other device) is required to have a license. The fact that they might not watch the BBC is irrelevant: the license is for the capability not the actual reception. Furthermore, claiming that they will 'stop paying' the fee is incorrect just as some people today do not pay the license fee and gamble on not being caught.
In any region of Europe, there are people who live in the border regions of any 2 countries who can receive broadcasts from 2 or more countries. They are not required to pay separate license fees to different governments. In Northern France many people can get the BBC and other UK transmissions from the Channel Islands. Elsewhere, they can get French, German and perhaps 2 or more other countries' transmissions. I pay my local license fee (which is MUCH less than I was paying in the UK) and I am content with my lot.
My previous post was to counter the fact that a claim which was made that, if DRM wasn't used, the BBC's transmissions would suddenly become available to non-uk citizens. My post stated that this shouldn't be a big problem because the BBC already makes its broadcasts available to some groups outside the UK. In fact, this has UK government approval because it increases the general awareness of UK culture and issues, as well as assisting others to learn our language. There is a very close link between the government and the BBC (Who funds the BBC Monitoring Service? Which public service broadcasts are the BBC obliged to make during times of disaster and crisis?) although there is also a reasonable attempt to separate the two as much as possible. I do not think that the prevention of the reception of BBC and other UK transmissions by the large number of non-UK license paying viewers would be in the UK's greater political interest.
I do not think that the BBC should be using DRM at all. But, more importantly, they shouldn't be tying it in to a single manufacture (Microsoft) particularly when that manufacturer is currently subject to various legal proceedings in Europe. I am not making the assumption that Microsoft is guilty, but it would seem prudent not to tie one's investment to a company that 'could' be prevented from selling its software in Europe, however unlikely that might currently appear.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
That's because they have no way of changing that without denying license payers in the UK access to the content for free.
That isn't true. Until about two years ago they encrypted their broadcast and allowed UK residents to view it for free by making available smartcards to them.
However, they did so in association with the commercial TV companies (sharing their card), and apparently that deal was so expensive to them that they decided to end it.
But that does not mean there is "no way". E.g. here in the Netherlands the same (public broadcaster encrypting, cards available without subscription fee) is still being done. We have the same problem, though: the company doing the sat encryption is increasing their service fees all the time.
Here's something from me : I'm not a citizen of the UK, so i don't pay for the BBC content, yet i can watch either via satellite or via cable here in Poland. The content from my point of view is top-notch. This _IS_ the channel thats great public service : both for entertainment and educational needs. It simply blows away the local Polish public TV (for which i have to pay a tax - everyone owing a tv or radio has to even if they can't receive the channels).
;]
If i had an option to pay for the BBC and get the content without any DRM over the net i would think a split second. The mere fact that BBC allows almost all of the world to see its channels is a gift (i don't know about the US, but all of Europe and Asia gets BBC pretty easily). So rather as taking it as a british channel that the rest of the world can view for free, i would start seeing BBC in a category of citizen-of-the-world tv station.
So to all of the brits that pay for us - a big thank you! Where else could i get my Top Gear fix?
The vast majority of the British populace have a TV. Why be concerned about the tiny minority that would freeload. Of course, there is the rest of the World, but what the heck? We're doing it anyway and it works, so why not share it around. About time our country did something positive again.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
I'd really like to see the BBC move into a digital-distribution model, and making their artistic content available to the world (fee-based or not) would be both laudable and a positive reflection on the UK.
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
It won't, but the net is full of BBC shows anyway. There's probably little interest in their programming outside of the Uk anyway.
Bullshit.
That would make some sense if DRM actually worked, but it doesn't. Any DRM can be bypassed or stripped, then the result conveniently distributed by BitTorrent.
The only people for who DRM makes things harder is legitimate buyers. The pirates have it much, much better. No messing with payments, no worrying about expiration dates or it being bound to the computer, no problems with requiring a specific player. Pirates download from BT, and play it where they want, when they want, on any device or OS they want.
Corporations, take note:
Here's what I won't pay for: Anything that includes DRM. If it has restrictions, needs a specific player, can only be played on Windows, etc, I don't buy it.
Here's what I will pay for: Content in a widely playable format (DivX say), with no restrictions, delivered quickly and without hassle from servers with lots of bandwidth. Pirates have only two problems: Too many leeches and too few people seeding. Make sure I can always download what I want without having to wait and at a decent speed, and that will be worth paying for.
Most MS formats if not all are free to use on any OS in the EU (you have to download the OSS implementation of it, but its not protected by license or patents)
While I can imagine recent programming would be covered by this, a lot of the BBCs archives have little or no financial potential and can be made available.
Childrens programmes, old TV shows etc.. have been long paid for and wouldn't earn much on DVD.
Lets not forget that home taping of TV shows is the only reason some TV shows exist these days. I've seen it a few times on nostalgia shows where they have used someone's VCR recording to show a clip. The more the BBC can spread their programming the more chance it will all survive in the future.
Exactly why complain about the rest of the world viewing BBC content when they probably wouldn't have bought it anyway. As long as the British public doesn't stop paying for their license (which they can't since its mandatory then I don't see a problem. Pointless argument for DRM.
I think it would be far more valuable to Britain to venture out looking for cultural influence from outside. Don't get me wrong I am not attacking Britain, but we are long past the days of the British Empire and there is too much naval gazing and self congratulation in nations throughout the world without more pushing of their own views. Countries would have more benefit if they looked beyond themselves for their own growth.
Put it this way - I'm Irish (and that is not the motivation for my post
We have benefitted from this so on that point I agree - but don't you think it is a much better position to be in to pick and choose outside influence? Is it better than mandating into your national broadcaster that they should be pushing "the British way/view" as you put it?
That sounds more like wartime propaganda to me, and not just a little arrogant. 59 million people are only a very small slice of six billion.
I never get used to these constant resurrections
So make it a flat tax paid by all citizens, instead of a "tv license." If almost everybody's paying it anyway it doesn't actually change anything...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Speaking of the UK, do all of you still have messed up teeth? Every Brit I know has teeth that make the Bantha monster look like Cindy Crawford.
It's not narcissicism if it's true!
sigs are hazardous to your health
enough said.
Big deal I have to pay for it anyway. At least let me watch it on my Ubuntu Laptop.
They air their programs world wide, via satellite, they make extraordinarily good journalism, they're a public television and once the program's has aired, it just disappears into oblivion...That's not vey smart.
;-)
Why not let people download all their content with tools like the Democracy player? What have they to loose if more people see a fantastic BBC documentary they like? What's it to them if I wanna keep a documentary where I actually learn something?
It makes no sense to me. The content has already been paid for (by taxes of UK citizens). I mean, maybe if you're British you don't think its fair but, I think you got to look at it as a great way to divulge "brand Britain."
I think France and Germany do a much better job of divulging their country and culture than the Brits (colonialism techniques notwithstanding;-)). Germany has Deutsche Welle and the Goethe Institute, and France has always understood the importance of catering to their "francophone" audience. They know they are people that'll actually consume French products (literature, movies, a trip to Paris, etc.)
The BBC has got to loosen up that tight upper lip.
PS: We are still waiting for Dirac.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
I agree that the content should be available on the internet without DRM, and of course import and export can occur simultaneously. My point was there is a vast difference between making something available for all to enjoy and learn from and trying to actively export a point of view. If I misunderstood your intention I apologise.
I never get used to these constant resurrections
The UK Government is hoist by its own petard. If they try to change the existing license conditions to, say, a flat tax, then the other channels (ITV et al), would want to be able to claim their share of the tax. Currently, the license is tied to a technical capability i.e. the ability to receive TV transmissions whether the equipment is actually used for such a purpose or not, and not simply to fund the BBC even if that is the actual outcome. Then, if it were changed to a tax then there would be some who were being taxed who should not be - there are still some who do not own a TV simply because they do not want to - and who could claim an exemption. How would the tax be collected? By direct taxation of income? What about the unemployed, those without an income etc? The current system is actually pretty effective. They know who has a license and there are (scarce, I admit) resources to try to catch out those who abuse the system. The Government make it a law to require a license to receive specific TV transmissions, and they provide the funding collected to the BBC.
As I do not currently live in the UK I do not know what is being provided by the BBC via DRM'd data streams. But I expect it to be the same data that they broadcast via TV but simply in a different format i.e. digital. Nevertheless, the production of the data has already been funded. Those in the UK who object to someone else being able to view it are not complaining that they are being prevented from receiving the transmission because someone else is viewing it illegally, but are simply envious that something that they pay for is potentially available to others free of charge. They are still getting everything that they were always able to receive for their license fee - which, as I keep saying, is for the reception of TV broadcasts and NOT for digitally streamed information - but they begrudge anyone else getting the same product. What about the BBC World Service? It is paid for by the BBC, (i.e. the UK license payer via money provided by the Treasury to the BBC), but I'll bet it is an very small number of license payers who actually benefit directly from it. As I have also pointed out, there is great value to the 'UK PLC' in having a news service that is renowned the world over and that can be accessed by millions of people each day, or for keeping the UK's views, culture and beliefs in the forefront of many people around the world. Streamed data could have an equally valuable role to play in this - if the BBC World Service want to stream data you don't think that they would limit it to the UK do you?
The UK is not the only country to do this. Many countries transmit their programs, either national or produced specifically for the target audience, around the world. It makes a lot of sense, both politically and economically. However, the demand to receive whatever 'soap' is currently in UK vogue is unlikely to originate from overseas in any significant strength. Most expats want to keep updated on UK news and culture but don't actually give a toss about the lower end of the entertainment spectrum in my experience. I'm sure that there will be at least one person who will come straight back and correct me regarding the reception of some soap drivel as being vitally important to his life in the Algarve, Costa del Sol, Cyprus or elsewhere but I still contend that it will be a minority of those who actually enjoy what the BBC provides worldwide.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
There are a few things online. For instance, here's a video of an exciting football match.
That said the TV licensing people are very very aggressive. They seem to think a residential address not having a licence is evidence of infringement in itself.
My understanding from reading the BBC Trust consultation on all this was that they're letting the Beeb put out DRM-infected content for the moment simply to get the content out there and get people used to the service 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." Remember that DRM here does not just refer to the silly crap that gets used on iTunes and other sites - it just means that licensing is taken into account and dealt with. This could be as simple counting the number of downloads...or as cruddy as breaking all the videos and restricting access to one man called Kevin from Buttsplice, Ohio like bittorrent.com did.
It's important to bear in mind that the BBC is not the RIAA. It's a traditionally left-leaning public-minded body inhabited by a load of liberals, and it's answerable to the public.
Ladies and gentlemen... I present to you the ONE person who actually pays to read Slashdot!
Comment of the year
The comment is a bit over the top. Studies have shown that NPR is about the same as the mainstream media on the political spectrum. This seems correct to me. Its basic news coverage is not really any different from the commercial network radio's.
What sets it apart is that it still does longer and much more complex pieces, real shoe-leather journalism. That's an art that's almost lost. A relative of mine spent the late 80s and most of the 90s out of the country. When she returned, she was shocked to find that the network news had become infotainment/opinion magazines, and NPR had become what the network news used to be.
NPR is still a very formidable news organization, but it seems to me to be showing its age. Some suggest they have become averse to controversy, either because of right wing criticism or because of fear of offending their sponsors.
Personally, I think it's more like middle aged spread. They're less breaking ground than falling into the well worn mainstream media groove, talking to the same sources, repeating the same opinions, doing the same stories. The former young turks like Cokie Roberts have become old fogies. Perhaps this is the inevitable result of being enbalmed with the beltway elites for too long. Some people divine a rightward shift since the shakeup that ousted Bob Edwards. Steven Inskeep (Edwards' successor) sometimes gets criticized for asking Fox style "questions" drawn from the Republican talking points (e.g. in the run up to the 2006 midterms: "If the Democrats win isnt this a win for the far-left of your party?"). It's ironic because they gave Edwards the old heave ho to bring in "new blood", and the result is that Morning Edition sounds a lot less distinctive.
On the other hand, 91 year old Daniel Schorr is still sharp-eyed and feisty. If I were President, I'd put him on my enemies list, and you can't give higher praise to a journalist, IMO. I hope when he dies, he comes back and haunts the Oval Office.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It could be both DRM, and the documented difficulty of supporting multiple media formats. They easily triple your storage and support costs to support Realtime and Quicktime as well, and nothing else has the market penetration. And unless you've actually tried to *install* some of the amazing "Linux server" pieces of festering gob-shite (to borrow a British friend's phrase), I suggest you not underestimate the pain and cost of doing so.
If you don't believe I'm serious about the difficulty, go try to gracefully install the latest "Helix Server" from Real. It's pretty awful to install, and worse to maintain. The only way to do so is to find a pirate copy that has a competent installer wrapped around it, much as the only graceful way to insall NVidia drivers under RedHat operating systems is to get them from the Livna repository in a non-license-compatible format.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
The enforcement attempts are utterly ridiculous - I have thus far received 7 letters this year threatening me with legal action for using a TV without a license. They now want to schedule an enforcement visit to gather their evidence - I've repeatedly told them I have no intention of letting them check for TVs and that I don't have one. I wonder at what stage it moves from legitimate enforcement to harassment.
I second the agresiveness point. Being a university student (who doesn't own a TV), I am constantly being sent letters from the licencing authority (who are not the BBC).
They tell you that you are 'under investigation' and that they will visit your premises (yet to see that happen) unless you send them a letter and arrange for them to visit(!) to verify your lack of equiptment.
The letter states that potentially licence-requiring equiptment includes 'PC with a Broadcast card' and 'Mobile Phone' - the wording of the PC statement seems to deliberately use incorrect terminoogy to confuse (everybody else calls it a TV Tuner), the mobile phone statement is just as bad, since I have only seen one model of handset capable of recieving TV in this country, plus devices that are powered soley by their internal batteries at the time of recieving TV are exempt.
Then they suddenly became very friendly with Microsoft (not sure if it was connected with the change of management after Blair kicked the existing one out by saying bad things about Iraq or whether Bill came by with a sack of cash) - they developed iPlayer which was based on Windows Media Player, so now Linux and even Mac users were left out in the cold. In effect the BBC started discriminating against people unwilling or unable to pay the Microsoft Tax.
The BBC have lately promised to also make the content available on MacOS X eventually, but no dates have been fixed. In the end for it to work on the Mac they will have to offer their content either in an open DRM-free format or use Apples DRM. If they stick with the DRM route it will mean Linux and other OS users will be out of luck. FWIW (not a lot probably) here's a petition to make iPlayer cross platform (with a name like iSomething you'd expect it to work on a mac!).
> It won't, but the net is full of BBC shows anyway. There's probably little interest in their programming outside of the Uk anyway.
:-( ) in the regular German channels. IIRC Wildlife, some comedy and Dr Who sell well. IIRC the Teletubbies made a packet for the BBC worldwide. And their DVDs are in the shops. All this helps subsidize the cost of making the shows, and I guess they do not want to cut into their own market by giving it for free over the net !!
Definitely not true; here in Germany there is plenty of BBC programmer shown (dubbed
Yes, you are correct. And the FCO is funded by the Treasury. And the Treasury receive all your taxes and the money collected from TV licenses - before they give the latter to the BBC. Along with more money, which they give to the BBC. I'm not convinced that it is quite as easily separated as you suggest although I'm sure that if you were to scrutinise the books it would always appear to be easily accounted for. The 'FCO funding' (and other government department funding of various BBC functions) is a very convenient way for the funds to be blurred and I say that as someone who used to work for the UK Government in a role that had a fairly close link with the BBC WS and BBC Monitoring Service and thus knows the full value of their work. (I actually acknowledged the point regarding World Service funding elsewhere on this page but I thought I would be polite and thank you for your correction.) However, I am not suggesting that there is anything underhand here, simply the Government getting the job done by the most appropriate people for a competitive price and I wouldn't want to suggest that this is anything less than the best possible justification.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
> Absolute rubbish there is no such thing as a radio license. Do your research.
:-)
That is not uncommon mistake, I guess usually made by old farts such as myself: there *used* to be a separate BBC radio license, but it was abandoned in 1971. So, yes, you are correct, but it not a totally daft thing to say
The problem is a simple one. In the UK, in order to have the legal right to watch any television, including non-BBC television, you are obliged to subscribe to the BBC. It is compulsory, its a criminal offense not to.
It is as if, for you guys in the US, in order for you to be allowed to read any newspaper, you were legally obliged to buy a subscription to the NY Times, whether you wanted to read it or did read it or not. It is as if you are legally obliged to buy a copy of Windows in order to own a computer and run Linux or MacOS, whether you install and use it or not. Whether you even can install and use it or not. You buy computer, Mac or barebones. Fine, pay fee to MS.
Now, the BBC has no corresponding obligations back to you. And there is no way you can say, no I would like to choose an alternative supplier of TV. You cannot, for instance, say that, since the BBC does not support your chosen OS, but Sky does, you are going to subscribe to Sky instead. No, you subscribe to Sky AS WELL.
Whether the BBC does DRM is neither here nor there - its no more objectionable, nor less so, than any other company doing DRM.
What is appalling, and a total denial of human rights, is that it forces people to subscribe, whether they want or can access its content or not, so they can get to different content they do want and can access.
Now, in reply to this point, we ordinarily get people saying that the BBC is excellent. Ie they like it. They can receive its content. They want to subscribe. Its just irrelevant to the human rights issue. I should have the right to watch TV without paying for the BBC if I do not want to watch it.
Tell me again why everyone else has to be compelled to subscribe?
Maybe, but as, until fairly recently, all medical and dental treatment was free (paid for by our taxes....) it should not be surprising. Many Brits don't believe in paying a fortune to have teeth like Cindy Crawford, although many would pay a fortune to be with Cindy Crawford. Nowadays, more people are using private dental and health care so perhaps in a few decades there will be lines of Brits with gleaming smiles with the odd old bastard such as myself with a more 'traditional' look.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
...they run a real risk of becoming extinct. It's not their fault, I think we can all agree that at least a sizable chunk of their output is among the best in the world but if they carry on relying on the "TV License" they'll be the first against the wall when the IPTV revolution finally happens.
They need to adapt somehow as the Internet only has one significant border (the great firewall of China) and even that's of dubious practical implementation (trust me I had a Chinese house mate once).
Why could we not have a referendum on it? Options being...
1) Stay as is and let them defend their corner as a traditional broadcaster as long as they can remain viable.
2) Rename the "TV license" to the "BBC tax" (may as well call a duck a duck) and then...
2.1) Let them give everything away free to all, even those abroad who don't pay (may be delayed?).
2.2) Let them give recorded copies away at minimal price to cover infrastructure costs (servers & bandwidth).
2.3) Let them charge for Internet material but maintain traditional media channels TV, Radio, etc free.
2.4) some other pricing model.
3) some other ideas...
I'd be happy to pay more for higher quality original content whilst they leveraged the Internet to lower distribution costs to nil, perhaps try and put a small amount of effort into keeping it to those who payed the license fee for say 1 month but then, meh, give it away free to mankind.
Regards,
Phil (TV license payer)
Regards, Phil
The BBC are the good guys, remember?
u rtime_history.shtml/ is pretty good, but should each household pay more than £100 for this?
er... they most certainly are not the good guys.
from one year to the next they have lowered standards further and further, to the present point where their existence (and the license fee) can definitely no longer be justified.
there are hardly any current affairs or docs on anymore; instead we get shedloads of cookery, hideous karaoke, home improvement, crime dramas and suchlike
you can always pull out the "if thats what people want then..." but that won't wash. Mass media shapes as well as reflects the desires and attitudes of its audience. What happened to the optimistic days of the "Ascent of Man" or "Civilisation". repeating sitcoms again and again and again until they become "comedy classics" is not in the public service i'm afraid
credit where credit is due, http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/ino
i know people who work at the beeb and it makes a fortune from gardening mags, phone-ins, dvds etc....where does all this cash go? the uncritical and repetitive mess that is news 24?
on the drm issue, imo they shouldn't even consider it
obviously a great deal of their back catalogue will be chipmunks mating, wildebeest being chased and then eaten alive by hyenas etc. but I was really looking forward to perusing the OU archives and enjoying the sight of some of those kipper ties again. everyone around the world ought to be able to share in this guilty pleasure.
The Freedom of Information Act does apply to the BBC, however it could not be used for this purpose. Firstly there is an exclusion in FOI which says you cannot specify the format of the information - i.e. if they have it in a table you can't request a pie chart. Additionally information already published cannot be made the subject of a FOI request and there is an exclusion for information that is commercially sensitive. All in all the chances of getting the latest Dr Who are small.
The second more important part is that even after a successful FOIA request the document you have obtained is still under Crown Copyright and consequently you cannot republish it without a licence. There are some petitions on the "Dear Prime Minister" site which ask that UK Government funded publications be placed into the Public Domain by default instead - were this to ever happen it may have the desired effect on the BBC.
I'd consider the BBC to be a subscription service.
There's a big difference between "pay for an item and want the ability to play it without restriction" DRM and "pay for an item and the ability to play it while you pay your subscription".
DRM works - at least it has a purpose - for the subscription model. Just like I (in the UK) can't even view the Showtime website to check on some of the shows I've seen from the Showtime network, and HBO crack down on non-subscribers accessing their shows (although I get to see them on UK TV about a year behind), and I can't view the Battlestar Galactica extra scenes from the US Sci-Fi website (it tells me I am not in the USA therefore have no access to it - and no anonymous proxying works for some reason), I don't see why a bunch of Americans, French, Japanese should be able to get hold of unrestricted content that I as a UK citizen and a dutiful payer of the TV license in the UK have technically paid for.
After all, someone has to pay for the content at some point. It stands to reason if the content is subscription-based, some kind of rights management needs to be in place.
DRM may well be in place for BBC because they are protecting British citizens and license-fee payers' rights to the media. If you did not have to pay the license fee to download the content for free, the BBC would not get any money every year; that's what the license fee is piled into. So it has to be protected somehow.
As it says on the TV Licensing website, it's £135.50 (US$266.34) a year for a colour licence or £45.50 (US$286.00) a year for a black-and-white licence.
What a simple and wonderful idea. Of course it's true, and it's a good response to the libertarian argument. They reject taxes as inherently unjust, and therefore government itself is an oppression. That's wrong, and this explains why. If you tax everybody for a service, it must serve everybody. The costs are proportionately shared by the public, so the benefits must be too. Conservative orthodoxy has those '30s-era rules in the media on the ropes here in the U.S., and even our PBS has well, you've got to call them commercials. Plus, they're always begging for money in those disheartening fundraising weeks they constantly have to have now. Repeats are more frequent. And you know that millions see PBS news and opinion every day, right? And maybe 300,000 see O'Reilly. But he's a millionaire. Somebody tell me why. No copyright for the BBC. That makes it MORE valuable in a way only the public sector can provide. I'd say the way the public sector shouldn't primarily regulate, but it has to "compete" is by offering an open medium and an important I worked for about 15 years with the CBC, and that is a precious public asset that is different from for-profit TV. For profit organizes information completely differently: to seduce, excite and program the viewer. It corrupts networks, too: our networks are linked to a global weapons dealer (NBC), a junk bond dealer (CBS), and the Disney germ warfare operation -- whoops, just kidding. Then there's Rupert with his page three girls reading the daily propaganda. The real media revoltuion is finding programming like you google. No more dictatorial programming chiefs. And every public station should have a killer web interface for on demand over the public broadband they make their money from.
I think you'll find that $45.50 is more like US$89.43.
These old farts need to stop complaining and realize theres a lot of us Brits outside the country wanting to watch the BBC.
There's also a lot of Brits inside the country who don't give a shit about the BBC and don't want to pay the licence fee, and we're pretty pissed off that others who are viewing its content don't have to!!! By a lot, I mean at least several hundred thousand. Fuck you if you say that's irrelevant because it's a 'small percentage'.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Exactly. It's not even that difficult - the BBC channels are broadcast over unencrypted (and generally fairly high bitrate) Freeview (a.k.a. DVB-T). Just get a cheap off-the-shelf DVB-T tuner and use one of several widely-available software applications to record it to an unencumbered MPEG-TS file.
I wouldn't care if others were to view the content I paid for without paying but it wouldn't stop the British public from paying for a license since its extremely well enforced with everyone in the UK without a license being flagged up in their database.
Hahahaha. I'm not sure whether you're joking/trolling, but this is utterly ingenuous. So what? Most of the people 'flagged up in their database' don't HAVE to have a TV licence because they DON'T WATCH TV. Hard for some to believe, but true. Views like yours do provide a great excuse for the TV Licencing authority to regularly send hate/extortion mail and bullying 'enforcement officers' round to those addresses on a regular basis, though.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
ingenuous
And of course what I meant to say there was disingenuous.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Although it is possible to access Sky in Europe, I don't think it's allowed. Not that they'll try to stop you; that'd be bad for business.
So I'm guessing that the BBC allow their channels on Sky on the assumption that people who use Sky HAVE to be in the UK.
The current system is actually pretty effective. They know who has a license and there are (scarce, I admit) resources to try to catch out those who abuse the system.
Hey!! Over here!
I *ABUSE* the system, as you put it. Guess what? I watch TV without a licence. Why? Because I refuse to pay for the fucking BBC when I could happily live WITHOUT it, yet like to watch other channels. So fuck you for calling me an abuser. It's the system that sucks.
(You may detect that I feel strongly about this)
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
If the BBC decides to only serve their content under, say, Ogg Theora, how long do you think it would take before that HAD "the market penetration"?
Think about it from a end-user point of view:
end-user 1: "I want to watch the BBC on my PC/mobile/microwave oven but it doesn't work anymore" (enlightened) end-user 2: "Click here to download the program that plays it and then it works" Useful information like that spreads quickly.
There are no fundamental reasons why free video codecs, players, and servers should be a pain to install, you know :-)
If you can't install the server, hire someone who can. I'm sure the BBC would be able to find such people. The client is probably not an issue because wikipedia says (i quote) "125 millions of helix client empowered mobile phones have been shipped since 2006". It didn't say if all those clients (on e.g. Symbian mobile phones) can also play all of the media formats such as Ogg Theora, and I don't know.
The server seems to be available from RealNetworks under two different open source licenses RCSL and RPSL; I don't know the terms of those licenses but being open source it probably is possible and allowed to add Ogg Theora file format if it isn't provided already. Maybe RealNetworks demands that the modified server and client can always work with their .rm format; that would be a reasonable licensing condition, no?
Have some confidence that useful, non-evil technology can percolate through to mass-use. It happened in the past and it can happen again.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Grab your brooms! It's shenanigans!
You are reading a sig. Cancel or allow?
The BBC's main product is the BBC terrestrial broadcast. DRM measures are possible on this, such as the encryption and decoder mechanisms used by the cable companies. The BBC does not use them. Anybody can buy (or build, it's not that hard!) their own TV receiver and watch TV broadcasts in their own home. There is no authentication that the person watching TV has paid a license fee. The BBC's charter does not require DRM and DRM is not currently used.
License fees are enforced through legal means, as a deterrent - most people have TV licenses, and they know which houses don't have licenses, so they just check up on those houses from time to time to make sure that they don't have a TV, and take them to court if necessary.
There is no reason why exactly the same lightweight method would not work for the downloaded content - access could easily be limited to the UK only, and the rest can be handled by catching the handful of violators (there are not many undersea cables coming into the country, and arranging IP-address-based filters on all of them would be quite simple for an organisation with the BBC's connections).
I don't know what powers the license enforcement people have in the UK, but in Sweden, they have the same rights as any citizen, i.e. no police or other elevated powers whatsoever. The can knock on your door and ask if you have a TV, but they cannot enter your apartment. If they try to force their way in, you can file a complaint with the police, just like with any other crime.
They try to look and sound very official, often slightly threatening, so that people would think that they have some type of elevated privileges, but they don't. If you are aware of this fact, they would have a very hard time proving that you are in violation (many people think that they have to let them in, and then it is hard to deny that you have a TV if he/she sees one). I have heard of some cases where the enforcement guy actually forged a signature of an admission of owning a TV, whereby the license company would start to send invoices for the license fee. I don't know if these rumors are actually true, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are. I think that it depends a lot on the enforcer. Some are nice (yes, I have had a visit, I politely told her that I don't own a TV, and she accepted my answer without questions), while some are probably (quite a bit) less nice.
I wonder why the BBC cannot do this, when the Swedish public service television (SVT) can. SVT is financed by TV license fees, just like the BBC. Sure, they do not put up externally produced shows (such as movies and television shows), but a great amount of internally produced content is put on the web without DRM.
It is illegal to buy a decryption card if you are not a UK resident - although as you point out the law is not enforced. This is where you need a UK phone number but there are several companies who offer a service to overseas customers and who seem to advertise quite openly. I'll leave it to a UK resident to work out how that is allowed to continue. However, Sky also transmit approximately 50+ free channels (unencrypted) with includes the UK standards, three or four each from BBC and ITV.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
I wasn't pointing at you personally but thank you for your eloquently phrased reply.
Please, when you have time to take your head from up your arse, read my responses elsewhere on this page. You DON'T pay the BBC, you pay a license fee to the Government to receive ANY broadcast. You admit to watching the others and that is what your licence allows you to do. However, if you had paid the Government, you would realise that is why they can take the trouble to find you and prosecute you. The BBC don't hold a license database, the Government does. The Government does pay the BBC but it is NOT just for the broadcasts that you receive. If you bother to read some of the other posts on this page you will learn that much, which will certainly be your greatest achievement today, and probably your greatest achievement for quite some time.
Do you also perhaps avoid paying car tax, car insurance, perhaps you are also unemployed and live off state handouts? Of course, I am just guessing so you can come back with any denial or claims that you wish and I cannot verify them. But I'm so pleased that you are proud of your 'statement' and for sticking it to the Man. I wish you luck in the future and would you mind if I come to see you on visiting days in whichever prison you eventually find yourself? Gosh, I would be so pleased to meet a real freedom fighter in the flesh.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
mod parent up
The BBC should sell their licenses abroad and make a way for those licenses to enable the buyers to download and watch BBC shows
Living in the US...I would certainly pay a license fee to be able to watch Dr. Who & other series the same day or week of broadcast in either streaming mode or download it. While BBC America is nice & can see some of the shows you will see...we have to wait at least a year or more to watch it. (I know those of you overseas are crying a stream about this...since that's normal for you for US TV.)
If this would not be possible...I wish the US satellite providers would offer the BBC stations on a subscription basis...just like they do for HBO & other "premium" offerings.
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
If I go to hbo.com and try to watch clips, it knows I'm in Australia and won't let me watch. BBC news, however, which your license pays for, and I don't, is freely available. There's no real difference between that and BBC television clips being available, is there? Or BBC's world news on radio? Does it affect their production costs if I watch some of their material from here?
I personally think that the BBC are unfair in this decision. I was one of those people who wrote to the BBC trust when they did their survey asking about DRM and time limits. The BBC originally wanted the content usable for 30 days, Ofcom the regulatory body said 7 days is enough. My arguement is, that we as License fee payers, can record any show on VCR, like Red Dwarf or Dr Who. We can re-watch that as many times as we wish till the tape breaks. The BBC argument is, if you're allowed to get these shows on your computer you will never buy the box set, which is just untrue. Because people who record their shows on VCR which have much more freedom still go out and buy the box set, their logic in this respect is flawed.
To put this in an analogy would be, buying CD's (VCR) from the shop with no DRM, and buying it online with DRM, it's not going to protect the content if only half is protected. So the DRM is already bypassed in that respect, and it inconviences me the payer that I can't put my content where I like, mp3 video player etc..
I don't think this will change much that they're adding DRM to their new internet service, as many will get their shows like Dr Who by illegal means, which they have been doing for a long time. As for should people outside the Uk get content that I pay for? Unless they're paying for that content like I am the answer is no, this argument has been going on for years. I pay £130 about $255 for the privilege to watch Tv. I cannot go to ABC's site and stream Lost, likewise for C.S.I I cannot stream their shows. If I was paying money to those networks I would expect to reviece them though, but I am not. I do believe it's alot more complex then that though, with International copyright law and such but it's just an example.
who live near me have wall to wall SKY+ and probably never watch the BBC (except for possibly Eastenders if they are feeling very depressed)
They all sneer and look down at mw & my partner. We refuse to pay the Murdoch Tax (SKY, mostly owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns FOX etc)
My reason? I was a printer who got summarily dismissed when he took over the Times in the 80's.
That family is akin to the Luthor clan in Superman (IMHO)
IMHO, the Murdoch tax is far more reprehensible than the UK TV License Fee.
In Germany they have decided that PCs that can access the internet are subject to TV fees. Got quite an outrage from companies since AFAIK you're required to file your taxes electronically so they have to pay these stupid fees just because they have to fulfill another requirement.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
These are two separate problems with two separate solutions.
Problem 1: Works of the government are being locked up with DRM. Solution: remove the DRM. Problem 2: The BBC's funding model is outdated resulting in inadequate funding. Solution: fix the funding model.
Using DRM to paper over problems with the TV tax is wrongheaded.
Let people have it for free -it's not as it it makes any difference to me - I have to pay anyhow.
If I had a choice I would stop paying the BBC a license fee and would buy individual programmes occasionally. Most of what the BBC shows is crap like every other channel, to my taste, and I don't see why I should pay for the things I don't want to see, especially since that is by far the majority of what they offer.
The website is quite comprehensive but since there is no such thing as "unbiased" I'd prefer to support a variety of news websites with different views. At least that way I wouldn't be paying for someone else to propagate their own world view at the expense of all others.
This is all just my personal opinion.
I'm pretty sure it's the same here. The general strategy is to try to produce enough evidence to get a court order for a search as part of a case against you; they park outside and try to detect your TV (no idea how accurate this is...). It's getting ridiculous now... I wonder what proportion of the license fee is spent sending out millions of notices to people without TVs.
Note that the BBC are creating a free (MPL/GPLv2/LGPL, patent unencumbered) video format called Dirac. Presumably once this is developed sufficiently they will start using it for their content.
I wouldn't rely on FoI - the BBC seem to be extraordinarily reticent about anything to do with iPlayer. People who are signed up to the current "closed trial" are reminded that "all information regarding BBC iPlayer Beta is confidential". The T&Cs for its use also include an injunction "to not subject the BBC iPlayer and/or the BBC Content to any derogatory treatment or use them in such a way that would bring the BBC into disrepute".
So never mind the content, you can't even talk about the delivery mechanism, still less make fun of it!
Sky broadcasts encrypted subscription based television on Astra 2 satellites, and the BBC broadcasts unencrypted on the same satellite. Other than the fact that it's on the same satellite, and that they try to focus the signal on the UK, there isn't much difference from any of the other satellite services. You definitely do not need a subscription for the BBC channels.
I live in the UK and am forced to pay a license fee to support the BBC.
Now whilst I don't actually like being forced to pay, I don't mind paying as I love the BBC to bits (one of the few remaining things in this country I'm actually proud of) and think it's pretty good value.
Most of the planet is not paying to fund the BBC however, but gets free access to the website, radio stations and some international TV stations - I don't have a problem with this.
Some premium content the BBC produces such as documentaries (e.g. Planet Earth), drama (e.g. Rome), entertainment (e.g. Dr Who) are not released free to the world, but are instead sold to foreign networks for broadcast. The money this brings in is used to partially subsidize the production and help keep down the license fee I'm forced to pay.
If the BBC were to 'set the content free' then revenue would fall and the either the quality of output would have to be cut, or my license fee would be shoved up to subsidize the freeloaders.
Within the UK the BBC are pretty good at supplying me with free stuff, I can stream radio/tv online and my cable company can provide me with free BBC TV on demand for the last weeks programming.
Now there's still plenty more I want from the BBC (i.e. entire output ever, on demand, on every platform, whenever I want it), but they seem to be making progress towards this and I'm prepared to wait.
No one outside of Sweden understands Swedish*, so their programming has no international value. This is not the case with the BBC.
*I know that there are Swedish emigrants and that other Scandinavians can understand Swedish to varying degrees. That's probably not enough to bother them.
Profit == evil
Money == evil
Old business model == evil
Anything that
Makes (a twisted, perverted form of) sense now.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The BBC has actually done this at least once in the past. A while ago, they released recordings of the BBC Orchestra playing Beethoven Symphonies Nos. 6-9 in MP3 format, for free on their website. I jumped at the chance and downloaded them, and still listen to those recordings occasionally.
You may not have noticed the terms of service for downloading those recordings. They were online for a short period of time (10 days?). After they were no longer available online, you were supposed to destroy any local copies, too.
I'm not saying listening to the tracks now is wrong, but it is against the TOS. Some might argue that this demonstrates a need for DRM.
There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death.-Asimov
So please tell me again how they can't stop people from not paying their license because they can already stop them now.
Its easy. You ignore the letter. They send the nasty letter over and over again. Eventually someone might knock on your door and ask if you have a TV... you tell them no. They are not allowed to come into your home without and invitation. The whole thing is based on scare mongering. I do have a license... but I have friends that really do not own a TV and they have the problem of trying to convince them to check their house and stop pestering them... they will not... the letters keep coming.
The Dark Side Of The BBC State Protected Cartel
... just like 'normal' crap 'commercial' TV - TA DA!
... fascism.
Most of the BBC's (the public's) assets were sold off during the DotCom con era via no-bid 'sweetheart' deals that are being leased-back from multi-national-stock-exchange-listed owners to stay on air. The money from the asset stripping did not go into the British National Treasury, but was squandered by said BBC.
Now, if you buy BBC content on DVD, screen BBC shows or use the Beeb's archive material you pay Home Choice Ltd (NOT THE BBC), even if you are a producer making a programmes for the BBC. For instance, why does Oz's Macquarie Bank own 70-odd percent of BBC Digital? And, how much does the BBC pay Macquarie for their loan or investment (plus interest)?
Privateers Capita Business Services Ltd. out-bid the General Post Office to collect the £3billion per-year license 'fee', thus TVLicnesing Authority lost it's 'Authority' and is now just TVLicensing. The 'fee' inexplicably jumped up by £20 a few years back - then it was discovered it was to cover the 17.5% VAT (Value Added Tax) that applies to all commercial businesses once Capita took over collecting the FEE/TAX. That's appx. £500 million per year paid to Customs and Excise that is apparently written-off / deducted from Capita's annual tax liability. Nice 'work' if you can get it - huh?
According to recent decree of the National Statistics Office, said TVLicense is now a "tax" (that should be deductible from income tax, meaning a net gain of virtually zero and/or ZERO rated regarding VAT).
What used to be bureaucratic waste is now price gouging for privatised shareholders, complete with 'cost-cutting' and massive job losses - especially when interest rates go up. The thugs they use to inspect and enforce the TV Tax routinely violate the law, from: violent assault to trespass to harassment - plus TVLiceinsing employees masquerade as court officials in TLV's private courts (using public courthouses) to punish over 400,000 FEE/TAX dodgers per year, including routine jailing of single mothers. Now it's wall-to-wall cheap TV imports and inane game and chat shows plus spinning vacuous mind-war News as the norm
Guess what folks? Privatization gone wrong is
FIND: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Gentile
to learn what fascism is and where it came from.
RR
FIND:
http://tvlicensing.biz/
RR
'Quick history lesson: British Subjects have to pay a television tax, which is collected annually based on the number of televisions (and type) in each household'
Quick reality check - this is bollocks. The licence is paid per household, and isn't dependent on the number of TVs in the household.
http://milkshake.dexy.org
You only need a TV licence if you have a device capable of reciving TV signals (TV, digibox, PC TV Card etc) If you only watched TV shows downloaded off the internet, then you would not need a TV licence. You could even hook your PC up to a TV, as long as the TV was not connected to an ariel, and not tuned into any channels.
Never rub another man's rhubarb
I've never heard of the police actually conducting a raid against suspected license violators here. They have more important things to do than enforcing the TV license. Unless you actually confess to owning a TV, you are almost in the clear. Most people pay anyway, since they think it's the right thing to do.
they park outside and try to detect your TV (no idea how accurate this is...).I think that it is accurate enough to tell which building it comes from, but not enough to distinguish one apartment from another. I've heard that they sometimes do this, but I think they did it more in the past. Now they just knock on your door and try to sound like a legal authority so that you will feel obliged to let them in.
I wonder what proportion of the license fee is spent sending out millions of notices to people without TVs.Not only sending out notices, but having actual people travelling around the country knocking on peoples' doors and possibly trying to detect unlicensed TV sets. I just find the whole idea ridiculous.
On a funny side note, shortly after the new (right-wing) administration took office last fall, the press found out that the new culture minister hadn't registered for a TV license for at least 16 years. This was significant because she would be responsible for the public service television and indirectly the channeling of the TV license fees. There was a media outrage, especially by the public service television SVT, and she was more or less forced to resign just a few days later. Some time later, the TV license company reported a significant upsurge of new licensees, in the order of 35000 in a week. It is usually in the hundreds per week. :)