Slashdot Mirror
BBC Threatened Over iPlayer Format
greengrass sends us to coverage in The Register of the Open Source Consortium's threatened anti-trust challenge against the BBC over its use of Windows Media format in its on-demand service, iPlayer. From the article: "The OSC will raise a formal complaint with UK broadcast and telecoms watchdog Ofcom next week, and has vowed to take its accusations to the European Competition Commission if domestic regulators do not act. The OSC compared the situation to the European Commission's prosecution of Microsoft over its bundling of Windows Media Player with Windows."
Is this really your idea of freedom?
Copuld be Quicktime. Ugh.
How about just "not demanding" it? You are free to "do without" the content... but that's not a concept that today's society understands...
If no one wants it, it will go away. Otherwise, it also looks like a bunch of whinging.
I always thought the BBC player using MS formats was a short-term measure.
Wasn't it called Dirac or something?
liqbase
Maybe the BBC will use the OGG format, which will help to make OGG more mainstream and cause more devices to support it!
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
I see, and do you happen to be an elected government that pays for running that Website by collecting tax dollars from the people (at gunpoint if need be)? I didn't think so.
Do you run a website providing content paid for by a national TV license?
The OS landscape changing as it is now (not necessarily as fast as we'd like it), this move is valid. Personally I don't like to use Microsoft products, no exception to Windows Media Player on Mac (a bit of a bitch to find and install the proper CODECs).
I like to at least have a choice of media formats available...
Blogged about the BBC's choice of DRM a while back, Could the BBC lose respect over DRM?
ilovegeorgebush
Nothing else to do than poing fingers at a media player?
They're a major source of world news, and someone wants to start a fire because of pure hate for Microsoft?
It's not like they didn't take the time to measure out their options, they're a media broadcasting company for Christ sakes. They've been around a few decades before media player even existed, and I'm pretty sure they're wise enough to decide on their own player even if they needed to purchase it with pocket change.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
The citizens have every right to demand whatever they'd like from their government. You sound like an idiotic knee-jerk apologist for big business who just assumed that the BBC was a private company.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Nicely put.
They should just switch to Real Player, then everyone will be equally (un)happy.
step 1: in soviet russia, step 1 you step 2: over 9000 steps step 2: ??? step 3: Profit
Oddly named bittrollent asks:
Is this really your idea of freedom?
I'm not sure what the question means, but a government agency publishing things in a format that's owned by one company is pushing that company's fortune at the expense of all others. Why should governments cede control of their media and who watches it to a private company, especially a foreign one? People who pay their taxes deserve to be able to watch the results without having to pay the M$ tax.
If there's a problem with software patents involved here, the problem should be taken care of directly. Software patents lead to nonsense like this and should be abolished. There's no justifying the social cost of business method patents, which is what software patents ultimately are.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
They're going to bring a Mac client as well, which means that *everyone* will be able to watch TV. That's how they report the story.
The same way if they will use ANY format, wav, mp3, ogg, fuckit, mp4 or whatever, there is the same posibility to be sued. No format is perfect and there will always people unhappy about the used format. So stop playing games "my daddy is stonger than yours" and stop crying a river and be a man once in your life and let everybody choose the freaking format they want, be it open, close, yellow , sour or whatever they want. Freedom is NOT about what you think is better for everybody. Freedon is about accepting that people are free to do what they want even if it's not the best for the majority. So shut the f**** off. What? You pay taxes and don't want that format? So do I and I don't care in this case. Repeat after me: you are not the only one...
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
BBC: "In order to maximize public value, the BBC must balance extending access to content with the need to maintain the interests of [private] rights holder"
I have asked PBS the same following question:
How do I donate to support public media only. (Not supporting the rent paid for media data that is held in private, and strictly prohibited from public viewing without access fees during the 95 year monopoly)
The point of PBS is becoming unknown to me, with commercials for ADM, Walmart and Microsoft, and broadcasting privately owned works from companies such as Sony.
Anyone know what the public replacement of PBS and BBC is?
So if I sit in Britain & buy an NTSC TV & pay for the TV license, then BBC
should be forced to broadcast in NTSC also for me.
Assuming they need to control the content - 'cos otherwise DVD sales etc are dead, hence lost revenue, hence more expensive TV licensing in the UK, ie more tax - what SHOULD they use?
:)
m4v? Um, no.... not open enough
Ogg? No DRM
MPEG? No DRM
WMV? Tried that
Real? PleaseForTheLoveOfGodNoMoreRealSpyware
divx? no DRM?
Not much left, really....
So, OSS fan boi's, enough of the "dont use WMV" - what SHOULD they use? And things without come form of control dont count
Governments, funded by the PUBLIC should put their stuff in PUBLIC format.
and when software patents get in the way, the PUBLIC should demand that law serve the PUBLIC interest. Software patents are bogus and they are the only reason there's a format problem in the first place.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Now on the flip side, these are private enterprises and can do pretty much whatever the hell they want in terms of formats, which usually means finding a way to reach the largest audience possible while still protecting the content. But it seems to me that as conventional TV dies, from DVR's and competition from cable/sat channels, they are trying to expand viewer ship and trying to find what works online. I'm not sure anyone's got it quite figured out yet, but are trying.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
So here I am thinking that as I am forced to pay towards subsidising Microsoft!!
While using Linux I'll have to download nice mpeg4/xvid copies of broadcast BBC programs via bit torrent. Or even get a digital tuner and start providing my own. This will give me copies of the programs that will not 'time out' on me, are available in full resolution and encoded using DRM free software.
Those among my countrymen who genuinely still respect and understand the principle of the BBC will join me in this. Those that don't will continue to cough up their hard earned for no reason other than the fact that they now have more bovine tendencies in them than any real Brit could tolerate.
"I see, and do you happen to be an elected government that pays for running that Website by collecting tax dollars from the people (at gunpoint if need be)? I didn't think so."
It's the BBC, not the Government. They may have a Royal Charter, and they may receive funding from a TV licence fee (not a tax as such, it is my choice if i have a TV) the technicalities of which are set up via acts of parliment, but not government.
I am not aware of people being held at gunpoint to pay the licence fee (remember not even out Police carry guns except for a few special units).
Chris
You will forget this sig before you next see it
Not at all. PAL (which they use) is a standard not tied to any one company. WMA is a proprietary format, wholly owned and controlled by one company. Further, that company has been convicted of criminal actions in illegally forcing that format onto consumers. Do you see the distinction? The BBC should not be forced to provide any given format, but they should be required to provide a format that is not tied to and profits one given company, especially not a criminal one. The can provide WMA all they want, but only if they also support other proprietary formats from competitors; otherwise they are rewarding a monopolist for criminal acts while at the same time denying access to some citizens who have paid the same amount of money. Or, they could simply support an open format that any company is free to implement, which is probably what any tax funded organization should be doing.
should be forced to broadcast in NTSC also for me.
Uh, no. PAL is a standard format mandated by the relevant bodies. People are only asking that the BBC choose one standard, not that they support the standard that I arbitrarily decide to use tomorrow.
WMV is not encoded using any formally recognised and platform-neutral codec, and it's DRM-locked. Whatever its benefits, the BBC should know better than to place their customers at the disposal of a single commercial entity, and their social/historical legacy at the mercy of a corporate body whose sole reason for existence is profit.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Would an NTSC set be subject to the TV tax? I know that the TV tax is far reaching, and doesn't strictly speaking restrict itself to just TV owners, but with equipment that is wholly unable to deal with the signal, would that still come under the tax?
It is largely moot, as the government over there appears to be moving towards an internet tax scheme which would be based upon computer ownership rather than TV ownership. I don't know if that ever passed, but it would be much simpler to tax.
I've noticed that if there are two things that people in the UK seem to like its absurdly long ques and taxing things indiscriminately.
Have you complained about Radio 1's enhanced podcasts, only viewable on iPods?
If not, why not?
It is after all, a proprietary format, wholly owned and controlled by one company, which is why Creative and MS Mp3 players can't play the content.
The BBC is a multimedia company, experimenting and playing with many formats to see what works, and what is popular. That technological interest from a TV company should be celebrated not whined about.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
The thing is a prime example of bad bad technology. I'm fortunate enough to be a trial user. Only, I've never actually used it. I can't. I've tried and tried but it just doesn't work.
.exe. Firing up the .exe I had to reregister. Multiple times. And got no further. Some days later, an apology email from the BBC explaining that they'd sent the wrong login details.
It started badly - it refuses to accept registrations via firefox (no technology issue - just a browser check which barfs). Once I switched to IE, it let me go further - registration followed by the download of a
So I tried again, and after much mucking about, finally got in. The UI is very very bad - but I navigated to my favourite programme, which claimed it had episodes available - but once clicked stated none. So I went for my second favourite programme - same again. And so on.
So - two weeks after first receiving an invitation to give up; after switching browsers, downloading software, installing it, changing my media settings, registering multiple times, and clicking through a clunky interface multiple times, all to no avail, I gave up.
If the bbc were working in an open way - maybe, just maybe, they'd have access to a wider range of talents - or perhaps competing suppliers and technology platforms - and have delivered a usable product. As it is, we're all subject to two monopolies, who'll slowly and cumbersomely work towards a semi-acceptable solution at great cost. And in doing so, the BBC will help Microsoft maintain its hegemony - remember - it wouldn't let us use Firefox just to register and download the software.... defend that.
However much I'd love the beeb to be using a opensource version of the iPlayer, they have bigger fish to fry right now than this. The BBC Trust process has meant that the iPlayer is incredibly late, considering its been in planning for several years. More legal trouble could mean the Player never leaves beta at all - leaving the BBC even more irrelevant. In addition, each move the Beeb makes is analysed and scrutinised by a jealous commercial opposition who see new markets which the BBC has picked up and feel threatened by a well-funded, well liked public broadcasting upping the benchmark. It never used to be a problem but it has already seen the death of BBC Jam - the online schools service, leaving their education department in limbo - and has meant that iPlayer is not the product that was originally intended. The ability to download a series has been ripped out, for example.
Now the open source movement wants to harass them as well? This needs to stop. In time the BBC will realise that the Kontiki platform is poor, sucks away bandwidth without asking and renders all their material unportable. They can do that on their own terms with consultation from their users - they do not need more legal trouble which will take up time and leave the BBC even more vulnerable. The public corporation is not the for-profit corporation's bitch.
No.
If not, why not?Because I'd never heard of them and am not much of a complainer.
It is after all, a proprietary format, wholly owned and controlled by one company, which is why Creative and MS Mp3 players can't play the content.Actually, they claim to support several different company's players on the Web site. The only proprietary format I see is Realplayer. I disagree with using that format almost as much as I disagree with WMA. Both are closed and proprietary to one company instead of standards. The only difference is real has not been convicted of crimes with regard to promoting said format.
The BBC is a multimedia company, experimenting and playing with many formats to see what works, and what is popular.The BBC is funded by the government with money that is not collected as donations, but by force of law. As such, they take on more responsibilities than a wholly private company. Just as I would not support a government funded agency distributing patented GM grain to the poor to grow, I don't support locking them in to a given type of media. The BBC has a responsibility to the people and that includes supporting standard formats that we can be assured will be playable to posterity and which promote the free market.
That technological interest from a TV company should be celebrated not whined about.Would you then support the government moving to all nonstandard nuts and bolts for vehicles, whose pattern is patented by one particular company? Would you vote for a bill to fund such an endeavor? Should the government be applauded for taking an interest in new (inferior) technology like the BBC is or should they be reviled for their shortsightedness?
Your license fee is because you own ' .... an apparatus capable of receiving television broadcast transmissions...'. It doesn't specify any particular channel (BBC, ITV, Sky etc) or any particular format (PAL, NTSC etc). If you own a TV - or some device capable of receiving TV programs e.g. a video tape recorder) you need to have a license. The license fee is paid to the Government. They elect to use the money raised to partially fund the BBC providing that it complies with it charter under which it "educates, entertains and informs" and provides other public service broadcasts.
The streaming via the internet is NOT a TV broadcast, it is the transmission of a program using the internet. Your license fee is actually irrelevant in this instance and the BBC is, unfortunately, free to use any DRM or format it chooses for its internet streams. While I sympathise, and strongly agree with, your sentiment I'm prepared to bet that it will not win any legal battles in this particular case.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
Yes, a license is required for an NTSC set. See my post below, but a short quote here "Your license fee is because you own ' .... an apparatus capable of receiving television broadcast transmissions...'. It doesn't specify any particular channel (BBC, ITV, Sky etc) or any particular format (PAL, NTSC etc)." After all, converting from one format to another is relatively simple i.e. a few microchips in many video players seems to cope with the problem without too much hassle.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
You do know that WMV is just a container right? And that it is not inherently DRM-locked right? Sounds like your gripe is with the DRM and not with the use of WMV. A lot of people seem to be mixing the two up. WMV files can be encoded in a lot of different ways and with free and open-source tools. What is the problem beyond DRM?
There are over 800 million Windows machines out there, that sounds like a pretty good target to shoot for. People call me crazy though. They don't mess with you anymore after they think you're crazy.
Then how are they paying to put it on the Internet if NOT through those fees? You can't have your cake and eat it too. I'd think that the BBC would be in trouble for taking people's money by force of law, doing something with it, and then not allowing them access to said content.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
You have a choice as to whether or not you smoke cigarettes. Does that make a tax on tobacco any less a tax?
I am not aware of people being held at gunpoint to pay the licence fee (remember not even out Police carry guns except for a few special units).Try owning a TV, openly without paying your fee. Defend your right to own it without paying, to the point of offering physical resistance with a weapon to any who try to deny you your right. If you are competent enough, I guarantee it will be enforced at gunpoint.
Try owning a TV, openly without paying your fee. Defend your right to own it without paying, to the point of offering physical resistance with a weapon to any who try to deny you your right. If you are competent enough, I guarantee it will be enforced at gunpoint.
I guarantee it won't.
They can take you to court, the court can give you a whacking great fine, the court can send bailiffs around to your house to take items to pay the fine but at no point will it be done at gunpoint.
UK and ex-pats only though.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/iplayer/
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
According to the website...
"...to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV."
Clearly this is not possible on an unmodified NTSC set.
I disagree with your conclusion.
Based on your statements about the license fee, streaming via the internet is not a broadcast and that means that nobody is required to have a license to view the streamed content. The streaming service is still implemented and maintained with government funding. As such, and since it doesn't require a license fee, they should provide that service in a format that is accessible to all citizens of that government who wish to use it.
I'm not British, so i don't know exactly how the whole bbc/government relationship is set up. It is possible there are aspects of that relationship that would change my view, but based on your description and the article in the summary, that's the view i've developed.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
The BBC raises additional funding through a variety of channels. The BBC World broadcasts (not the World Service, which is paid for by FCO funding) is a separate business, as is the sale of CDs and other materials, including Videos, DVDs etc. They are also free to charge for their internet streaming because it is outside of the existing Charter and not one of the items funded by the Government.
It all seems confusing (but isn't once you understand what is happening) because everyone in Britain calls the license fee a BBC tax. It isn't. You have to have a license to receive any TV broadcast from any source in any format. That license is issued by the Government and the license fee is paid to the Treasury. The Government and the BBC have a unique arrangement. The Government funds much of the BBC operation but, in return, the BBC has specific obligations to the Government. These include the broadcasting of programs to the public (which must "entertain, educate and inform") but also include various public service broadcasts which would be of great importance during a national crisis e.g. natural disaster, war, etc. The other TV channels in the UK do not have the same obligations but they would all like, of course, a chunk of the funding that is raised by TV licenses. The Government view is (or was, I could now be out of date) that if they are willing to have their programming dictated to a certain degree and accept a similar Charter to that imposed upon on the BBC then there might be something to consider. Of course they would not accept such a degree of 'interference' and the Government is quite content to keep its current relationship with the BBC. The agreement is why the BBC puts a lot of university courses on air during the night. Very few would actually pay for them but they are required to enable the BBC to fulfill the "educate" element of its charter. Those who wish to study for a degree at home (known as the Open University (OU) in the UK) can record the programs which provide valuable additional material to that available from the other OU sources.
Whether an individual thinks that they are getting value for money varies considerably. The BBC must 'educate and inform' as well as entertain. A certain percentage of programs from the BBC are not what the average couch potato wants to watch. They might include programs on the arts, politics, science or whatever. Some criticise the BBC for this but, in fact, the BBC is simply complying with its charter. So there is a feeling amongst some (not all, by any means, and perhaps not even the majority!) that they are paying for the BBC in the form of their 'TV Tax' and they are getting programs that they don't want to watch.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
My video will record both/either NTSC or PAL. It is a trivial conversion.
If you have an 'apparatus' that is designed for the reception of 'TV Broadcasts' then you need a license. I'm not saying that it is a good law, but it is the law. Feel free to challenge it in court. Others have tried it as a defence and failed in their attempt.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
for once .. let corporations do what they want.. instead of bitchin n moanin at everything they do...
See my post immediately before your comment.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
It is after all, a proprietary format, wholly owned and controlled by one company, which is why Creative and MS Mp3 players can't play the content.
The "Enhanced Podcast" appears to be an MPEG-4 container with an AAC "track" and a still image "track."
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
Why not? BBC is actively trying to limit its listening audience it seems. Using a closed format is one more way they can deny people access to their programming:
http://www.savebbc.org/
BBC has pretty much stopped much of its shortwave transmissions.
What of all those who don't even have computers or times when you might actually need the BBC, such as when the power is out, making an internet stream useless?
BBC should stick to shortwave. For news and information, especially in hostile/remote/disconnected areas (where such information is actually NEEDED.)
The BBC supposedly use a RealMedia format for their live streaming radio services too - that doesn't stop me from using VLC to listen to it: So, the question is, are the problems with proprietry formats the publisher's fault for choosing a proprietry codec, or the codec developers fault for not allowing it to be clean-room reverse engineered?
that post was very informative. it sounds like the bbc's funding by the government isn't really germane to the download service. The rights and obligations involved in that funding seem exclusively to apply to broadcasting programs and don't consider subsequent, non-broadcast, distribution of the same content.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
1. you don't have the pay the tax on tobacco either! Bonus to you at no extra cost.
2. no-one will enforce the TV licence at gunpoint. They may well use firearms against you, but only becuase you are 'offering physical resistance with a weapon', the firearms officers who come for you won't care one jot whether you have a TV or not. The police don't use guns to enforce fees, they only use guns to enforce safety of the public from violent and dangerous lunatics...
But it is not the owning but the using of that equipment for viewing or recording television broadcasts which require a license regardless of whether it is provable or not. You can own a television set and just use it to watch dvds or play games and not have to pay the fee. They may try to slap you with a fine, thinking it an excuse but it is no breach of the law on your part, only their paranoia. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/gethelp/faqs.jsp?ques tion=1#link1
Their our biatch, ;^) nah, we love em.
Regards, Phil
Someone posting AC with good reason speculates:
if there had never been patents perhaps there would have been minimal economic motivation to create the technology that requires the format.
You might as well say there's no motivation to solve math problems. The economic motivation to create moving picture formats is as blindingly obvious as the billions of dollars people spend on TV and movies every year. The "technology" to provide those things digitally is the hardware, software simply tells it how to act and is more like math or business methods than anything else. There's more than one effort to create patent free movie formats, but it's not easy because many obvious methods have been stolen. If it were not for patents, other methods to watch the patented formats would already be available. In fact, they are available in places that don't have insane patent laws. Software patents are parasitic and the BBC's dilemma exposes that fact nicely.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Correct. But if they find any kind of aerial, antenna, satellite dish or cable connection then they will assume the worst and, in the past, have had a good success rate in court.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
Another poster has already pointed out that WMV is the worst of all available formats, so I'll leave that alone.
what free, open source video format allows you the same DRM protection that is built in to WMP? I really hope you can answer this question, because you can bet that in the production of their content the BBC has entered in to some agreements that will require some form of DRM for redistribution online.
Yet another poster has pointed out that the DRM protection built into the system is perfect, they can't watch anything at all. I really hope the person who recommended this broken technology is ready to apologize and work to fix things because you can bet that working content was part of their agreements.
Finally, we both know that digital restrictions are snake oil, especially for something that's broadcast. If the "official" broken format video is not liberated and redistributed, many other coppies of the same content taken from the air by DVRs will quickly circumvent the problems created by WMV. These solutions will be inconvenient to the taxpaying user, but they will at least work. The BBC would be better off declaring DRM a sham and nullifying all previous commitments. Governments can do that kind of thing, because they are the ultimate keepers of copyright and the public interest to begin with. When the law violates public interests, as it so obviously does here, the law is out of whack and needs to be fixed.
The best solution is to just release the content so it can be enjoyed and shared by the people who paid for it and own it. They could, if they wanted to, release a free software player. They have been working on that for a while and might as well throw patent concerns back across the Atlantic because they don't serve the BBC or their audience.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
DRM is an issue, but the underlying problem is vendor lock-in. Microsoft has already decided not to support Windows Media Player on the Mac. I won't assume malice here; I honestly think they just made a business decision. But that's the danger right there. When the vendor decides something isn't profitable any more, they no longer have any incentive to support a product, file format, what have you.
The BBC's interests are elsewhere. They need to operate in a cost-effective manner, true, but their ultimate responsibility is to promote and make accessible all things good about British culture. So even when Microsoft has long since moved on to bigger and better things than WMV, the BBC will still have a responsibility to make episodes of Brideshead Revisited and Fawlty Towers accessible to the public.
It's true that in theory third parties might be able to create more public-friendly player software or codec implementations within the WMV framework, but ultimately they will be at the mercy of Microsoft. It can change the specs arbitrarily, and effectively dictate how this format gets used. Again, I'm not necessarily assuming malice here, but Microsoft and other vendors have consistently demonstrated their willingness to force customers to upgrade for commercial reasons. Again, this gives them unnecessary leverage over the BBC's viewers, who have already paid for this service.
DRM is a worry, because this is one way that Microsoft could make the business case for continued support of a file format. If they knew that they would be paid every time someone watched a show, they might be convinced to support WMV for much longer than they might otherwise do.
But that's just one example. The bottom line is that cultural and business interests should never be closely tied, as they often work at cross-purposes to one another. The BBC's mandate is to ensure that its vast library of material remains accessible to the British public in perpetuity. MS' mandate is simply to profit this quarter, the next and the one after that, ad infinitum.
Open, vendor-neutral standards are more immune to the vagaries of business and the passage of time. This is something that's evident to the majority of people posting on this site, and there is some surprise that the BBC could have overlooked something so fundamental as this. Either that, or they've done a very poor job explaining what reasons compelled them to choose something other than the obvious course.
It's a fine target to shoot for, if you're a business. But the BBC has another target, mandated by Act of Parliament: Their target is the people of the UK and, to a lesser extent, the Commonwealth and English-speaking peoples around the world. Whether or how this coincide with the number of WMV users is coincidental and not fundamentally relevant.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
They're bad enough with the monopolies they have. I don't want my taxes spent giving them any more.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Exactly. But, because people in the UK feel as though they have already paid for the BBC through the license fee (the 'BBC tax'), they believe that they have a right to all of its products. I'm afraid that they are, quite simply, wrong. The license pays for the right to receive television broadcasts from any provider. The BBC provides what is required of it under its charter. Anything over and above that provision must be paid for from other funds. To the BBC, eventually providing streams via the internet for a price seems like a good money spinner. The need for DRM means that WMV is the obvious format but that is locking out those who do not own a Windows machine which is why the OSC is up in arms. However, there is nothing in the license or the Charter that prohibits this and the BBC can argue that they are trying to reach the greatest number of people. I dislike it because I am a linux user, but I can understand what is happening, and why.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
You missed the bit where he mentioned resisting the law with a weapon. The police will indeed follow any escalation. If you defend your TV with a knife, five of them will come at you with truncheons. If you defend it with a gun, they'll call in the gun squad. The state will win, and they will use any means necessary. It's just up to you how far you take it.
I don't understand the logic here. A company has the right to use any service or media codec they want. So why do FOSSies whine so much when a company chooses Windows Media Player or WMV?
The company weighed their choices, and chose MS's solution. So what I don't understand is why companies are allowed to choose Real, they are allowed to choose Quicktime, they are allowed to choose anything else... but why aren't they allowed to choose a Microsoft format or player?
Does anyone know why the BBC didn't end up using Dirac for this project? It's the first I've heard of the iPlayer, but I would have thought their Dirac work would have been perfect for this.
BBC 1 showed an impressive media player demonstration at MIX 07. This is obviously the direction that BBC is taking. By using Silverlight they get the advantage of DRM protected content on all platforms with impressive performance and capabilities. Using Windows Media Player now ensures that content won't need to be transcoded when a Silverlight solution is available.
Windows Media is fine for fucking around in the den on the weekend, if you like that kind of thing. It is not suitable for professional video applications. Whoever suggested BBC use this should be fired and encouraged to switch careers entirely, go run Excel somewhere.
The language of TV's -- TV's not PC's -- is H.264/AAC, if you are making video and you don't speak it, you're not saying anything. You are showing snow on your TV station. This is the replacement for both DVD and VHF.
Blu-Ray, HD DVD, iPod+iTunes, iPhone, PSP, AppleTV, and many other devices can only play H.264, it is in their hardware, they don't have a big general purpose CPU upon which you can run multiple software codecs. Google is transcoding YouTube from H.263 to H.264 for this reason and because that is the standard in professional video.
There are more TV's and phones than PC's and that will always be the case. AppleTV is a next-generation DVD player same as Blu-Ray or HD DVD except the optical drive has been replaced by a Wi-Fi "n" connection and iPhone is the same thing in your pocket, there is no going back now.
By the way, the server software for MPEG-4 streaming is free, open source, very mature, and runs on any Unix or Windows server. MPEG-4 is the standardization of QuickTime so the tools are mature. There is no content tax, there is no streaming tax, the only thing anybody pays for is the encoder and it is dirt cheap. If you're paying Microsoft so that you can not use H.264 then it boggles the mind. Especially when you consider there are more iTunes users than Windows Media Player.
This stuff was standardized in like 2002, BBC should have heard about it by now, there is this thing called the Internet. It's grim to see organizations embarrassing themselves like this, BBC should know what's going on in TV.
But they don't try and take your TV away.
They (sometimes) send an inspector - who has no legal right of entry and no powers of arrest - they can only come in if you let them in - around, if s/he spots a TV but your property isn't licensed they report you and you get taken to court. At no point do you get arrested. It's treated as a civil case.
As often as not though, they assume every household in the country has a TV and try and prosecute anyone without a license without checking to see if you need one first.
If you were let the TV license inspector in and then start threatening them with violence - that's rather different. But even then, you'd be done for assault rather than not having a TV licence.
MPEG-1 remains the ONLY video standard natively compatible with all of the media players.
Which tells you a lot about how much big software companies care about supporting MPEG standards, while in broadcast they are the only standards that matter.
Those that are broadcast and that you can record with a VCR or PVR?
Those that we, the UK taxpayers, paid to produce?
I do not want the BBC to "protect their assets", as far as I am concerned any company producing work for the BBC should be told in no uncertain terms that programmes will be distributed widely and freely. I am sure many production companies would jump to the opportunity.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.