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."
I always thought the BBC player using MS formats was a short-term measure.
Wasn't it called Dirac or something?
liqbase
It seems that the Beeb is concerned about DRM -- it's easy to validate this argument as a content provider if it is not a free service.
What choices are out there if the main concern is vendor lock-in? What "open" DRM alternatives exist?
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
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]
You have something against the MPEG-4 standard?
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.
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
Hear hear. Mod up +About A Thousand insightful.
Stick Men
Nicely put.
They should just switch to Real Player, then everyone will be equally (un)happy.
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.
Quicktime used to be better known for mpeg-1s, if I remember correctly.
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
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.
By the same logic, someone without a DTV box should be complaining to Ofcom about the fact that they BBC is producing channels which are inaccessible to them.
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.
Any reason why they can't support multiple formats? How about Flash? Not that Flash is the best solution, long-term, but it does work natively across more platforms than either quicktime or windows media and it is installed on most web browsers.
What would be stupid is to continue supporting the microsoft monopoly and helping them expand it onto the Internet. This is about the long-term quality of computing, something microsoft is a very real threat to.
The Farewell Tour II
Quicktime's biggest use was with proprietary codecs such as Sorenson.
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.
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
Recently, the BBC did a deal with Microsoft regarding the distribution of digital content via its web sites. As usual, they trumpeted it as if it were a great breakthrough on news.bbc.co.uk. I'm sure google can find it.
Stick Men
"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.
I'm confused. Both HD-DVD and BluRay include Microsoft's VC-1 codec as a manditory-to-implement codec. So any device capable of decoding either of the two high-definition DVD formats is required to include a Microsoft codec. Why is this any different?
Even MP3 isn't an "open standard" - it's protected by a series of patents that are owned by various corporations (AT&T, Freunhoffer), so would the BBC be precluded from distributing its content via MP3s?
Then use some other MPEG-4 player.
Radios 5 through 7 aren't available on standard radio.
Radio 1's enhanced podcast broadcasts aren't watchable on Microsoft, Sony, or Creative MP3 players.
What is the market share of MS in the UK? 80 - 90% at least? So isn't 'run of the mill' actually, a Microsoft machine? A standard run of the mill TV at the moment doesn't have access to BBC3 and BBC4, does that make freeview illegal?
Also note the beeb use the Apple version of enhanced podcasts to display images in their radio show podcasts, rather than the Windows Media version, so they are hardly in bed with MS.
Either we require the BBC to broadcast in a format everyone can view, in which case we are stuck in B&W 5:4 format, or we accept the BBC pushes multimedia to the edge, which means not everything will be viewable by everyone all the time.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
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.
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.
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
If their goal is prevent people from seeing the content, then PGP/GPG would be a great plan. But their goal is to limit what people who are authorized to see the content can do with it on their own equipment, and that goal is not attainable in any robust system, open or otherwise.
So yes, open vs. closed may have nothing to do with robustness. But logically sound vs. fallacious seems like a more important factor in selecting a robust design.
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
Freeview is broadcast using DVB-T, an international standard. You can get receivers from a number of different companies from about £30 up (or hard disk based recorders for a bit more), it's built into many high-end TVs, and there are several different available receivers to watch and record it on a PC. Sure, you can't watch it on a normal TV without extra hardware, but it's cheap, probably due to having actual competition.
.m4a files of the stuff already available as MP3 but with added chapter markings and images. I don't see any technical reason why other players couldn't convert them to a format they support, though I'm not sure how many actually have the correct features...
The iPlayer, on the other hand, requires you to watch the programs on one piece of software running on one operating system produced and sold (and not cheaply) by a single company. Sure, it's currently, the most common operating system, but the two things are not comparable.
I'm not sure what the "enhanced podcasts" are. I think they're
Sun's DReaM. https://dream.dev.java.net/
Actually, Microsoft is a supporter of Net Neutrality.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
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.
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
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.
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.
In the iPlayer case, the DRM system is implemented, I think, to prevent non-UK citizens (hence not funding the BBC). The content itself would be, I believe, free. I don't mind the DRM in this case. It should be, however, in an open format (just require the BBC player to play it and make it OS-free).
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.
"A standard run of the mill TV at the moment doesn't have access to BBC3 and BBC4, does that make freeview illegal?"
.doc did.
Irrelevant. If freeview could only be viewed on one brand of TV or digital converter then the situations would be comparable. The freeview digital broadcast standard is open enough for many chip, TV and box manufacturers to make compliant boxes which encourages competition in the marketplace. Iplayer on the other hand requires you to use Windows (at first) excluding users of other OS's, and you have to remember that the licence fee pays for the programs to be produced. This means that even though I have paid an equal share of the BBC's funds I am banned from viewing the material I have already paid for while the BBC supports supports a monopoly that has been deemed illegal by the EU. Their is value in access to the BBCs archives and not being able to access it will put people off of considering alternatives in the same way that
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
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.
>>> "Either we require the BBC to broadcast in a format everyone can view, in which case we are stuck in B&W 5:4 format, or we accept the BBC pushes multimedia to the edge, which means not everything will be viewable by everyone all the time."
I know you're being facetious, but anyway, here's right back at y':
If the broadcast was in colour 4:3 then people using old B&W sets could still see a picture (almost graceful degradation).
On the main point it's not like the BBC has to include DRM to push "multimedia to the edge". Much of the content is home grown - I helped pay (begrudgingly in the most part) so why not let me view it?
Wrt what a "run of the mill" machine is - your argument has its merits but you ignore the fact that most of that 80%+ of MS machines will not have the latest OS nor latest Windows Media Player and hence is unlikely to play the latest DRM'ed WMP-only files.
And what happens when MS decide a year later to upgrade the "BBC" codec via windows update - locking all stored BBC content - and provide the retrograde codec as a backwards compatability fix for £100?
Oh yeah of course, MS would never screw over it's customers.
UK and ex-pats only though.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/iplayer/
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
How about "iPlayer" ... just have BBC write it using good portable programming practices, including strict adherence to standard interfaces, and then it will run on all the major OSes ... BSD, Linux, OS/X, Solaris, and Windows
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
A Freeview box is the national standard for terrestrial digital televsion. It is available to pretty much the entire country. Tough titties if you don't have the box.
An installation of windows media player is emphatically not a standard for media playing - anywhere, ever. If I cannot play windows media files on the platform I use, the unholy trinity of licenses, copyright and patents prevents me legally playing back these files.
Therefore I cry.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
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
VC-1 is a bit different from what you say. It is created from Microsoft's proprietary WMV codec, however it has been ratified by a standards body. Its specification is freely available to anyone who wishes to implement it, independent of Microsoft's will.
Your point on MP3 mostly stands, except for the fact that it is more or less de facto available to anyone who wishes to implement it. Certainly not as good as de jure availablility like Ogg though.
ah yes, maybe we should take away wheelchair access ramps too. i mean, if the disabled don't like it, they're free to not shop at those stores after all. brilliant!
for the rest of us who think that a public-funded media corporation should provide equal access to all users who've already paid into the content, this challenge is long overdue. considering the BBC's reputation for being a progressive organization that's usually very in touch with its viewers/users, it's actually kinda odd that they would have ignored this issue for so long.
from my understanding (from the BBC Backstage mailinglist), this has been brought up by developers before. the BBC is actually pretty good at responding to user feedback, and work closely with the open source community through BBC Backstage. they typically support using open standards, but there's a lot of pressure from content producers to lock it down and cripple its usage with DRM. so i can understand that they're in a tough position, but i have faith that they'll reach some sort of compromise that will be better than the current arrangement.
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
More to the point, you can buy a freeview box from many different manufacturers, you are not forced to buy a freeview box from a single vendor.
The BBC charges Indian cable operators for being able to broadcast some (all?) of the BBC channels in India. These operators will be pretty pissed without that DRM. Likely, the situation is the same over all the Commonwealth.
I'm confused. Both HD-DVD and BluRay include Microsoft's VC-1 codec as a manditory-to-implement codec. So any device capable of decoding either of the two high-definition DVD formats is required to include a Microsoft codec. Why is this any different?
Well, both formats require VC-1, MPEG-2, and H.264 video codecs to be implemented. VC-1, while developed by Microsoft, is a published standard from SMPTE. If you implement the published standard, movies from either physical media (that use VC-1 for video encoding) will play on your device.
This is different from using the Windows Media format because nobody else can implement it legally. No video player other than Windows Media Player can play them; and WMP is only available on Windows. This forces the BBC audience to use Windows and WMP if they want to partake of the content.
Even MP3 isn't an "open standard" - it's protected by a series of patents that are owned by various corporations (AT&T, Freunhoffer), so would the BBC be precluded from distributing its content via MP3s?
MP3 is a standard that requires licensing. However, it can be (and is) implemented by many media players and on many platforms. It isn't the same issue.
Hopefully, that helps clear up the confusion as to why the situation with the BBC isn't the same as the HD formats or MP3.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
Real Player is no longer the POS it once was and is now slimmer and spyware free.
I use it on Linux because its the only player with correct color callibration for my laptop where the colors are not too dark and are richer. I have even installed the latest version on a windows system and it showed no signs of malware and it was lean and mean compared to Quicktime and ms media player.
But the problem is DRM. DRM in itself means we can not control it so a corporation decides what we use and that is almost always IE/Windows because its what everyone else uses. Firefox can not have a chance if IE is needed to listen to music on yahoo or watch shows on the BBC.
The BBC is a tax payer funded community media. Why should it cater to DRM and pleasing MS? If they want to make revenue off of shows then fine but at least put their news portion on non drm like CNN does. You can also add drm to ogg, mp3 or any other format by scrambling it. Real media player used to advertise this and it pissed off many users but the fact is the PHB's at the BBC will refuse anything without DRM.
http://saveie6.com/
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.
Even if that had ANYTHING to do with this conversation, which it most certainly does not, microsoft only supports it because they don't own the pipes and it will cost them more to spread their monopoly to the Internet if they're forced to pay for privileged access. The fact that you even mentioned it shows that you can never understand the conversation going on nor what net neutrality is all about.
The Farewell Tour II
There was a big meeting within the last couple of years between either Gates or Ballmer and the head honchos of the BBC. Since then, the BBC's attitude towards M$ has noticeably thawed.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
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
OK so let me get this straight. The BBC is getting sued for only using WMP-DRM-ified media in its on-demand service. Right lets take a look at the rest of the on-demand world.
Channel 4's on demand service: 4oD ----- WMP-DRM-ified
five's on demand service: fivedownload -- WMP-DRM-ified
LIVINGtv's on demand service ------------ WMP-DRM-ified
Seeing a pattern? So why have these people decided to sue the BBC? Probably because the BBC have the biggest profit and the biggest market share so they'll be more inclined to pay the OSC to shut the hell up, and that's even if the OSC even win (which they probably won't).
"The OSC insists that on demand streaming, or DRM-free downloads would be more in the public interest than an OS-specific format." Too right they would. There is a tiny, tiny problem called file sharing. These DRM-free files will fly away across the P2P networks and spread, then of course the copyright companies will moan that the files infringe copyright. Besides, these so called "people that must buy a new computer to view the downloads" are still a very small proportion of the world. These people are people who are still playing pong on their teleboxes and won't be bothered about downloading shows. If you're referring to Apple Mac users, they probably have either another computer with Windows elsewhere in the house, or bootcamp set up with Windows installed, or maybe even both. Linux users can also install Windows on their computer so they'll be fine too!
All in all, it's easy to see that the OSC are complete idiots who obviously don't pay attention to the world. As a bonus comparison, here's a note of the advertising the on demand services have:
4oD - regular voice-overs and promos on channel 4, E4, more4 and occasionally Film4.
fivedownload - occasional voice-overs and promos after episodes of CSI, Prison Break and other shows.
BBC iPlayer - none
Why not focus on the services that are ALREADY FUNCTIONING!
Try looking up du jour.
Unless you're just making words up; in which case, you can habblefra for all I care...
Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
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
if it is not a free service
Uhh... it is a free service.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
Ok, here's my own list:
Channel 4 - Commercial
Five - Commercial
LivingTV - Commercial
BBC - Public funded non profit
Now do you see why people are allowed to be annoyed at their decision to lock people into using Windows to view their content? With the other services you can choose not to watch it and therefore not pay for it by watching the adverts. With the BBC we (in the UK) have already paid for it so we're allowed a greater expectation of being allowed to view it how we see best and not to be penalised for not using Windows.
Contrast this with Microsoft DRM, where only Microsoft provide an implementation, and they will only do so for some platforms. If customers want to play back Microsoft DRM'd material on their Symbian phone, for example, then they can't. A company seeing this market can't develop a player for this platform either.
There is a huge difference between having to buy something, and having to buy something from a specific company. I can buy a DVB-T decoder from a number of companies, or build my own. The same is true of TVs, radios, computers, operating systems and web browsers. In short, everything needed to access the BBC's other services.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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
Try looking up du jour.
Unless you're just making words up; in which case, you can habblefra for all I care... I don't think you're as educated as you think you are. It's Latin:
de jure - according to rightful entitlement or claim; by right.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
The BBC are funded by a tax. If I don't watch the MS DRM'd content they provide, then they get exactly the same amount of money as if I did.
There is a tiny, tiny problem called file sharing. These DRM-free files will fly away across the P2P networks and spread, then of course the copyright companies will moan that the files infringe copyright. We the license payers funded the production of these programs. It should be up to us to decide whether this is a problem. Are you going to bring up the issue of content not produced by the BBC? The solution there is simple; don't put it on the on-demand service in the first place.I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
OK, I stand corrected, de jure does exist... although that definition doesn't seem to make sense in the original post to me...
Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
If only that were true with an indoor aerial. A thin piece of paper can stop the signal!
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.
I'd recommend reading this for a good overview of how Windows Media and QuickTime grew out of the muck.
Bluray and HD-DVD will decode VC-1 if the material is encoded with VC-1. Most disks use H.264 because it's a better codec anyway and Hollywood is very skeptical about allowing Microsoft technologies to encapsulate "their" media, so it's lightly used. Most corporations have learned that any agreement with Microsoft is treacherous territory. Given the chance, they'll devour you from the inside and spit out your bones. If you examine Microsoft's history of practically any technology which is inherently interoperable, their constant effort is to distill everything work only on Windows. That's a huge problem which is working against them big time.
Microsoft found itself in a very uncomfortable situation with VC-1. They expected everyone to beat a path to their toll gate when High Definition DVDs were being developed. That didn't happen and they were the only ones who were surprised. What actually occurred was they weren't even invited to the party, so Microsoft found itself in the position of throwing the codec at standards committees, begging for ratification and it still took several years. Microsoft wanted exclusive control over the codec and that was unacceptable to those who understood the way Microsoft would eventually hold the content owners hostage. Microsoft had to provide the source code and define the royalty structure up front - something they've never had to do. This was the first time anything from Microsoft was properly standardized.
Another detractor against using Microsoft technologies was the long history of failed efforts and broken promises from Microsoft in the media business. Look at how often Microsoft has renamed existing technologies over the years because they have always culminated in some sort of train wreck. That kind of technical stability isn't something manufacturers were looking for long term. Manufacturers also had no faith in Microsoft's ability to deliver a secure product. During that time frame, the well known inverse of "Security" was "Microsoft".
The VC-1 codec is separate from Windows Media Player, literally removed from the Microsoft wrapper and offered seperately. Windows Media Player, with the possible exception of corporations which have signed exclusive deals with Microsoft, is shriveling up rapidly in favor of the MPEG4 container and H.264 codec (pronounced "QuickTime"). Many major video portals and hardware manufacturers have started shipping Flash (H.263) or MPEG4 with more on the way. Right now, Windows Media is working along side these technologies where a few years ago it was nearly alone in the field. Eventually, Windows Media may well fall away completely. The most popular format for paid media uses the interoperable and extensible MPEG4/H.264, not Windows Media (the iTunes Store).
The Windows Media Player wrapper is the shell which embodies mechanisms to track your movements, blow advertising at you, restrict your ability to view things as well as a few useful functions. Relatively, QuickTime is the crown jewel of media with far more flexibility than Windows Media could even pretend to have.
Most of the stuff on
It has less to do with technology and more to do with the behavior of the owner. The history if Microsoft is to encourage the adoption and spread of technologies they control. Once they achieve ubiquity, they pull out a gun, aim it at your head and demand more money if you intend to continue using their products. They've done it time and time again so don't even start with them. The other players in the industry have a history of ensuring interoperability and fairness. Apple has several times stood in the way of the greedy record industry who wants to cut open the golden goose... YOU. They've also applied reasonable DRM methods which essentially protect the content owners and allow the consumer to opt out at the same time. It was quite a balancing act which eventually led to the decline of DRM. That's why anything Microsoft is a bad choice.
Most of the stuff on
The original post does indeed use it in a rather strange way, but it nevertheless makes some sense. Basically, jx100 meant this:
In other words, the difference between "de facto" and "de jure" availability is that the former is by the grace of Microsoft, whereas the latter is by the force of law.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
At the end of the day, the BBC ought to be developing a solution that provides the best value for money for the British public. That most likely requires leaving things like codec development to people who actually know how to do it. The overwhelming bulk of British computer users can play WMV, and will get a more satisfactory result from it than from most (if not all) of the alternatives.
WMV can be viewed on essentially any brand of PC as well, provided Windows is installed. For the overwhelming majority of users, the choice of PC manufacturer, not OS, is the one that matters.
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.
The pragmatic wing, i.e. the 'Open Source' movement base their support for open source development on the belief that it will produce a higher quality product, at least in the long run, whereas for the 'Free Software' movement it's a matter of ideology. Richard Stallman and his followers prefer open source software that matches their ideology, even if it's technically inferior to the alternatives.
Stallman and the 'Free Software' movement are of course entitled to their views, but all the rhetoric about freedom is just a propaganda technique, like the American Cold War practice of treating capitalism and democracy as synonyms, or the Marxist practice of referring to totalitarian socialist states as 'democratic people's republics'.
At the end of the day, the FOSS advocates make some good (and also some hopelessly poor) arguments, and it's quite interesting to watch the development of the various software camps (proprietary, copyleft, fully open, etc.). The references to 'freedom', however, are just rhetoric, and shouldn't be taken seriously.
They should use nothing.
That's because as a British citizen, I pay a yearly license fee that goes towards the funding of the BBC to make TV and radio programming - something I whole-heartedly support if it keeps the BBC advert free.
Therefore, I've aleady "bought" those programs once and should therefore be free to use them as I see fit - and in an unrestricted fashion since, as a license fee payer, I'm also primarily a Linux user.
Incidentally, I happily buy BBC DVDs and video/hard-disk recorders have not killed DVD sales so far.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
It's sad that 'the Beeb' thinks that only Msft can do what they want, but worth considering WHY they might be compelled to specify DRM of some kind. For example, lots of contributors to programmes have contracts involving 'repeat fees'. Even if you change that now, it wouldn't affect 'done deals' on the vast archive.
So probably the BBC has to show respect for such contracts by somehow using 'best efforts' to control systematic redistribution (or at least being able to claim that they are trying). Sure TPB is a gaping hole, but just because expert poachers sometimes outwit the gamekeeper doesn't mean he can tell his boss he's invited the whole village to shoot free.
Think about that uncomfortable reality and THEN constructively suggest a better way.
b) Its Microsoft so said people will *never* be able to play it. MS isnt going to open their format.
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.
And in the UK the majority of cars sold are Fords. Given that only TV owners pay the Licence fee and only car owners pay road tax does that mean that the government should create roads that give an advantage to Ford owners? No. The car market is the ideal example of competition in a competitive marketplace and the price, feature set and performance of cars has improved as manufacturers fight for market share.
The OS market on the other hand has been the ideal demonstration of the dangers of monopoly with Microsoft only having to change their ways when the press starting treating Linux as a serious contender, particularly in the realm of security. Roads are platform independent and car manufacturers have a set of known, open standards to which they have to adhere. Manufacturers therefore fight it out based on reliability, feature-set and other competitive tactics. Look at Skoda if you want to see the effect. When it was a monopoly, they made this for 14 years.
It is not the job of the BBC to use licence payers money to support a convicted monopolist and so long as the licence fee provides their funds it's only right that the people who pay their wages have equal rights to access the programs they paid for with whatever brand of computer hardware/OS they choose.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
So your argument is that the BBC's current broadcasting system doesn't stop people from freely watching the content, and that's okay, but that their new iplayer system must attempt to do more to stop them because otherwise people might do exactly the same things that they are already doing, and that would somehow... no, I can't even keep going, this is just too absurd.
There is no appreciable difference between the new system and the current system, except that the current system is larger, carries even more content, has better quality, and is being systematically redistributed right now. Why is it that only the new system "must have DRM"? Why should the new system use MS crippleware when the bigger, better, more important system is open to all?
I don't think I disagree with you at all. The way I (carefully) worded it was trying to understand whatever contractual logic they might think they have, the better then to avoid the kind of lockup that seems to be proposed - investigating "So what SHOULD they use?". Big institutions are seldom truly logical, but it helps to understand what they think are their imperatives. I wonder why else they might have got into this hole. Any theories from a brave AC who works there?
I'm sorry, are you from another planet? The BBC is not a business, it's a public service operating under special charter from the UK government. They don't make disposable profits, because they don't have any owners to pay them to: every penny they make is spent directly on producing more media for the British public, and they aren't allowed to spend it on anything else. As a result, they have no real profit margins, so they have the least money available. Suing them for money is a waste of time - they are not the ones with "deep pockets", they are the ones who, by law and charter, have no pockets at all.
The OSC are not asking for money, they're asking for them to stop. No money is likely to change hands as a result of this (except to the lawyers, obviously); if the OSC win, all they will get is the injunction that they ask for.
You clearly did not read the post that you were replying to. The BBC already publishes all their content DRM-free, and it's already all available on "P2P" networks. Nobody is even so much as suggesting that this should change. This is clearly not about file sharing. It's pretty obviously about Microsoft trying to generate more lock-in to their platform, and that's a breach of anti-trust laws (and the BBC's charter, they are explicitly not allowed to promote any company or product, even if it is otherwise legal for them to do so).
Besides which, there is absolutely nothing wrong with BBC-produced content being put on P2P networks. It may not even be illegal in many cases (the BBC could certainly never justify suing any British citizen for it): much of that content has already been fully paid for by UK citizens, and nobody gets paid when the BBC screens it again, in any medium (actors get paid again for repeats on a few things, but not most of the stuff the BBC has in its archives).
Which frankly was a good thing. Before that meeting the clips and downloads on the BBC site were done in Real Media, with no other option. Recently it's been both Real and Microsoft formats. Whilst I have no doubt that won't please people here, it is at least a semblance of choice, even if they're both closed formats.
WMV suits the majority of users but it's troubling when a state funded organisation requires users to purchase a product available from just one company in order to use their services. It's even more troubling when the product in question is sold by Microsoft.
An overwhelming number of people can walk but state libraries still install wheelchair ramps to take care of the minority that can't. That's what a state organisation should doing.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
BBC programming isn't going to be available exclusively to Windows users, the BBC are just taking advantage of a new distribution channel made possible by Microsoft's DRM technology. Since Microsoft developed technology that allows the BBC to digitally distribute content that it would otherwise be legally unable to distribute digitally, thereby enhancing social welfare, it's perfectly proper to reward them.
'Free Software' is about adding restrictions on distribution, to support a particular ideology; it's got nothing to do with freedom at all.
That is not true. The FSF considers public domain software to be Free Software as well; they don't consider software to be non-Free unless it's (L)GPLd. There are even licences that the FSF considers to be Free, but which aren't GPL compatible - the Apache licence, for instance. See the gnu.org list of licences for more details on individual licences.
Now, you may argue that the GPL is about "adding restrictions on distribution, to support a particular ideology", but the FSF's concept of Free Software certainly is not.
Fair enough, but what I'm really talking about is the 'Free Software' movement, not what that movement defines as 'Free' software, if you take my point. Public domain, BSD, these were all around before there was any 'Free Software' movement.
aybe they should make the contract conditional on Microsoft offering the relevant codecs for any OS with a user base over a certain threshold. I think Microsoft could easily offer its codecs for Intel Macs, for example, and Mac OS is probably the only other platform with a large enough user base to be important. I don't know if implementing the DRM on Mac OS would be a problem or not, though.
Yeah, it would be great if the BBC made that demand part of their contract. If that happens, some good may come of this.
Yes, but the point is they can't walk, not that they don't want to walk. If someone doesn't want to use Windows, it's their own choice.
Choice is the key word here. I have two choices - buy windows or go without. That's a less than ideal situation when we're talking about a state funded broadcaster. There is no real choice, it's all or nothing and that reminds me of the response often seen when people complain about a product or service - 'if you won't like it, no-one is forcing you to use it'. I try to avoid Microsoft products for ethical reasons so that makes it difficult for me think about buying Windows. Also, it's not exactly cheap to get another computer when I know I'd rarely use it.
My idea of choice would be a situation where there are two methods of accessing the content, ideally open standards so that users can obtain the client from a range of vendors. I suppose the DRM aspect is the big stumbling block.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
It seems to me the issue here is that Microsoft developed DRM technology that allows the BBC to distribute content digitally, which it would otherwise be unable to do for legal reasons. This means Windows users benefit, but if viable solutions to the problem exist on Mac OS, and perhaps other platforms, then the ideal situation would be for the BBC to support them too. If such solutions don't exist, then there's really nothing the BBC can do for users of those platforms, given its legal obligations.
Given how obvious it is that the DRM argument doesn't hold water, I'm pretty sure that it's a red herring, intended to distract us from what is really going on. If you instead ask "Why would Microsoft want the BBC to be doing this?" then it is reasonably obvious what has happened here - they have done this so many times in the past that there's really no question as to whether they might have done it again.
How they conned the BBC into going along with it isn't immediately apparent, but it's not particularly important either.
The solution there is just provide the content they own. They don't then have to DRM it for the benefit of the copyright holders. And as I argued in my feedback to the BBC consultation why should they be offering anything that is or will shortly be available through license from the copyright holder on DVD as one example? That just makes them a competitor to a commercial service.
Providing their own content of current affairs, news and similar is surely much more public service broadcasting than shit like Eastenders.
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 BBC isn't simply "a company": it's a nationalised organisation that exists by governmental charter. Part of its charter is that it should be free from commercial influence. We're worried that the decision to use MS formats (and hence excluding a not insignificant proportion of the potential users of the service) has been based less on technical suitability for the purpose than it has on Microsoft's commercial influence.
Which is the equivalent of the state creating roads that only Ford cars can work on and then requiring all users of other cars to replace them in order to use the roads. If DRM is necessary as the BBC claims it is then it's reasonable that a player should be produced for licence fee payers that will run on all the mainstream OSs. We pay for the production of the TV programs and we are paying for the establishment of the new service and we are paying for the creation of the media player. It is not outside of the abilities of the BBC tech department to create their own platform independent media player and, if they believe it necessary, DRM system. It is not however, the place of the BBC to support a convicted monopolist in it's pursuit of dominance in a marketplace.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
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.