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."
The problem is that I pay for the content via my TV licence, and I don't really like the idea of paying for a delivery method that is inaccessible to me.
(ahem posted from IE6 in windows - at work, honest!)
SURELY NOT!!!!!
"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.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
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...
Obviously they aren't or they wouldn't be going with windows media with DRM which they have no business putting into the files in the first place. They're a state-sponsored, court-enforced monopoly which anyone with a device capable of picking up their signal must fund, and they're putting out files that a significant number of the licensees can't do anything with. Obviously, they're missing the fucking point.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Nope, the BBC is *not* a government agency (At least not officially). It's supported by a complex system of licence fees and laws from the government, but it is not in itself a government/public agency.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
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.
Except they are not a company; they are a corporation paid for by government funding raised by charging all citizens for their TV license. The argument being stated here is that if I pay the license fee, surely I have a right to be able to watch their content without having to install Windows on my computer. I assume that you pay taxes and license fees in your country, wouldn't you complain if you were prevented from getting any benefit from the money raised?
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
Did you complain when BBC3 and radio 6 were transmitted in a format that made it impossible to receive with standard equipment?
The BBC is a multi format platform. They are not required to deliver all content in a form every single TV owning person can receive. Otherwise everything from RSS feeds, to DAB, to enhanced podcasts to on demand digital weather forcasts are suddenly illegal.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
While you are correct AFAIK, the BBC is effectively a government agency because if you own a device capable of receiving a terrestrial broadcast you are required to pay them the licensing fee or you will see them in court.
State-sponsored monopolies, especially mandatory ones, should be subject to the same sort of restrictions and reasoning as government itself.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
The difference is that broadcast TV signal is useable by any TV regardless of the brand. Requiring a Microsoft player on a standard run-of-the-mill PC as opposed to a player-agnostic format isn't the same as requiring new equipment for new functionality.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Then use some other MPEG-4 player.
Encryption usually works on cryptographically sound principles, like not including the key with the ciphertext. Obsfucation is the only reason DRM is at all effective, and that disappears with open source.
The BBC already broadcasts their programming, in MPEG-2 at more or less DVD quality, unencrypted, over the public airwaves, all over the UK - in the form of digital terrestrial television. This is their primary reason for existence. There is no sight or sign of DRM anywhere near it. It is utterly trivial to record this with a computer and DVB capture card, hardware which is cheaply and widely available. Most popular BBC programmes are already recorded in this fashion and posted on thepiratebay.org within 12 hours.
This is the same content that they are now releasing onto the internet. It is quite obvious that if they didn't need DRM to broadcast it over radio in the first place, they don't need DRM to broadcast exactly the same stuff again over IP. It is further obvious that the simplest thing for them to do would be to use exactly the same codec that they are already using. There is no apparent reason why they should suddenly propose a far more limited and ineffective system just because the carrier system is IP rather than radio.
It is pretty obvious that Microsoft is involved in this one somewhere, and that's almost certainly illegal.
No amount of DRM on the IP version is going to have any effect at all on the material available on TPB, because all the content is already on the net and will continue to be posted there from the digital terrestrial broadcasts (no proposals are currently being made to post any of the BBC's considerable archive of material on the net, only some of the things which are currently being broadcast). The quality is better in the terrestrial broadcasts than in the iplayer system anyway, so iplayer is never going to be used as a source for TPB when the far better DVB version is readily available. The entire proposal is retarded: they are seriously suggesting a service which is lower quality, less convenient, and already less popular than TPB, with DRM crippling thrown in just to make it entirely unwanted. It's a complete waste of time and money, because everybody with an interest will just keep using TPB instead.
Did you complain when BBC3 and radio 6 were transmitted in a format that made it impossible to receive with standard equipment?
DAB is an Open standard. If the BBC had declared they would be transmitting BBC 3 or Radio 6 in a Sony proprietary format from now on and everyone would have to buy a Sony receiver, hell yes I'd complain.
no, it is not a government agency, not even effectively. It is funded by laws passed by the government, and that's as far as it goes. Its not sponsored by the govmt, the licence fee was defined ages ago and now they cannot change it (the next review is in 2013). It has a charter describing the reason for its existence, and the restrictions that apply to it. It is run by a Trust that is charged with maintaining its independance.
a rs_licfee06.html
Here's a good set of links: http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/seminars/semin
There are plenty of cases where the price is set or restricted by the government for services that are definitely private companies (eg the post, the utilities). The only difference is that the BBC bills you on expected usage and not actual usage, but that's only because they cannot meter you picking up the tv signals. Maybe things will be different in 2012 and then we'll see the licence fee (and therefore the internet downloads) change to a subscriber basis.
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.