Slashdot Mirror
BBC Chooses Microsoft DRM Platform
bazorg writes "The BBC has chosen Microsoft's DRM technology to limit the viewing of content downloaded from their website. These downloads would allow viewers to catch up on shows that were broadcast on the previous 7 days; they would be compatible only with Windows Media Player and a new product called 'iPlayer'. This iPlayer is not yet available for platforms other than MS Windows, which caused the Open Source Consortium (OSC) to file a complaint to national and EU authorities. 'The BBC aims to make its content as widely available as possible and has always taken a platform agnostic approach to its internet services. It is not possible to put an exact timeframe on when BBC iPlayer will be available for Mac users. However, we are working to ensure this happens as soon as possible and the BBC Trust will be monitoring progress on a six monthly basis.'"
Run windows apps on Linux -- eventually, we're going to need to take this step. A standard, unified API to develop for makes it easier on companies that are already afraid that DRM violations will erode their bottom line. If Linux starts running Windows apps, I think more people will switch over, because they run Windows for the easy installation (now nearly conquered by Ubuntu) and the vast library of software guaranteed to run on it.
technical writing / development
Personally, I don't know of any off-the-shelf-and-easy-to-implement open source DRM solution the BBC could have gone for, and given the choice between using Microsoft DRM and getting an iPlayer out the door now or building something in house that could take years I can see why the BBC made the decision they did.
I'm from the UK, love the BBC, not overly keen on Microsoft. The BBC's promise to keep things under review and aim to get something for other platforms out in ~2 years is good enough for me.
Plus, I haven't heard of any rivals (ITV/Sky/Virgin) promising a non-Microsoft implementation and as far as I know the Channel4 on demand software (http://www.channel4.com/4od/index.html) doesn't even work on Vista let alone non-MS platforms.
With the resources that the BBC has available, the technological opportunities now available and the mandate that they have to serve the British public, I am consistently amazed that they continue to align themselves with multinational, license charging companies.
Shame on you BBC.
This is in no way acceptable.
The BBC's insistence to use DRM (Digital RESTRICTIONS Management -- it does sod-all for my rights) goes against their charter.
When the BBC first began, you had no choice but to build your own radio set. There was never any question that some essential part might be kept locked away out of the reach of the General Public for the specific purpose of preventing just any random person from constructing a receiver.
For the BBC to insist that their programmes only be received on one particular make of receiver (however it may be rebadged), and that an essential part (the Source Code for the decryption) be specifically denied to home constructors and experimenters, is nothing short of outrageous.
This country is becoming more and more like the former GDR every day.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Maybe, maybe not.
Microsoft DRM has been around for a good few years now and whereas the earliest versions were cracked in due course, the later versions are still fairly solid. I don't believe it's yet possible, for example, to watch DRM-protected WMV files on Linux, even if you have the W32 codecs pack installed.
I did see one sort of hack for MS DRM but it was limited in what it could do...if you had a valid DRM "licence" for the protected file you could use the hack tool to create a non-DRM copy of the file. But it couldn't unlock a file for which you didn't have a valid key.
I suppose this type of hack could theoretically be used to unlock MS-DRM protected videos on BBC *if* they use the current form of DRM which relies on you downloading a key and *if* you use the tool to unlock it before the seven days expires.
It's hardly ideal.
OTOH, a much bigger worry is this response from the BBC that "iPlayer will be available for Mac" - it's implausible that they haven't heard of Linux, so this is tantamount to a deliberate slap in the face for Linux users. And checking on progress every SIX MONTHS!? What kind of project management it that? The "don't care" kind.
Common sense prevailed at the BBC while Greg Dyke was around. Since he was pushed out it's all turning to shit again. With people like these at the wheel, television's days are surely numbered. I don't know about you lot but the only thing I watch on TV these days is Dr Who and it wouldn't kill me to give that up. Fuck 'em.
Yeah Linux was clearly referenced in the consultation documents. The fact that they've got into bed with MS and are now not even mentioning Linux stinks. The argument that only MS DRM does what they need might have been a bit more plausible if not for the sudden dropping of any mention of Linux and FOSS.
Ooooh! I know! They're trying to stop people stealing the copy of Micro Live!, where the BBC was hacked on live TV by the Cheshire Catalyst!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
first, more info http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6236612.stm.
1, how did M$ persuade them?
There were many options out there, why on earth did they go to M$? call me suspicious - but I think there is more to this announcement then meets the eye.
2, did the BBC have to pay for this tripe?
or, its bad enough that BBC is using a DRM system from M$, but please tell me that they are not paying for it out of our license money. whats the betting M$ if offering this free in order get a larger audience for their crummy codecs and 'orrible player.
3, why not stick with the embedded player they have been trialling recently?
been a few demonstration pages from the BBC with embedded movies recently (I'll see if I can hunt one down) that have worked very well, kinda of youtube style. infinitely better then the real player rubbish they had been using, totally worthless that was - but at least it worked (kind of) under Linux.
4, why DRM in the first place?
I PVR all my TV so I watch it when I want, its not like that as DRM on it. I always archive any footage I want to keep to DivX, I view it the same way as DVD-R and VHS recording of shows for personal use. My point is - if the information is sent out free of DRM then why an earth are they adding DRM for web broadcasts?
While you're being sarcastic, you might like to know that desktop Linux's share is comparable to or even exceeding Apple's share and as also reported desktop Linux's share will reach 7.5 percent by 2008. I'm not sure it is a positive step in a democracy for a 7.5% minority to be ignored by a quasi-state-sponsored broadcaster (anyone who owns television receiving equipment is required by law to buy a licence every year, even if they subscribe to pay-tv channels and never watch BBC).
Why oil price increase equals economic trouble (Score: Interesti
I think what's really galling people is that the BBC is using DRM at all.
What's really galling me is that the BBC is adding an artificial limitation which will prevent me (a licence payer) from accessing this content at all since I don't own any Windows machines (and I'm not about to buy Windows just so I can watch this content - which I can most likley download illegally in a platform agnostic format anyway). And of course, licence fee payers can't withhold a portion of their licence in response to the BBC intentionally preventing them from accessing content they have a legal right to.
There is a distinct difference between someone not being able to access the BBC website because they don't own a computer (which is fundamentally required to access a web site) and someone not being able to access some content because the BBC has explicitly excluded them through artificial means (there is no reason to _require_ a user has Windows in order to view videos - other operating systems are equally capable of playing videos).
http://blog.nexusuk.org
The BBC is a useful thing to have around, like schools and hospitals and welfare it's a good thing even if you might not use it personally.
I've got no problem with paying my licence fee so long as I am allowed to access the content. Sadly the BBC seems to be adding artifical restrictions to ensure that I can't access the content without me purchasing an expensive product from exactly one vendor with whome I have ethical problems. This is the same as saying "you can only watch TV on TVs made by Sony" - it completely removes competition from the market and this inevitably leads to an expensive poor quality product.
Also a worry is that the BBC appears to believe that being "platform agnostic" involves only supporting Windows and Mac - no mention of other platforms at all.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I did see one sort of hack for MS DRM but it was limited in what it could do...if you had a valid DRM "licence" for the protected file you could use the hack tool to create a non-DRM copy of the file. But it couldn't unlock a file for which you didn't have a valid key.
That's fine, that's all that is needed. A third-party Linux/Mac client would mimic the behaviour of the official client, and from the perspective of the BBC servers, the two would be indistinguishable. A lot of programming effort might be required to clone the Microsoft client, but now there are two good reasons to do it: (1) we want to watch BBC programmes on Linux and Mac, and (2) we don't want our video recordings to disappear after X days.
And in software patent free Europe, the BBC has no DMCA-style legal recourse (that I know of) to stop this. I suspect that the third-party client will be popular with Windows users as well as Linux/Mac/whatever users because of the optional nature of the digital restrictions.
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
Err... because Linux is better? Seriously, everyone raved about OS X, so I gave it a go. I found it horribly restricting, and it didn't suit my way of working, so I went back to Linux.
it does everything you need it to do, and -- above all -- it just works
Were that true, then maybe I'd be using it. Since it didn't do everything I needed it to, I'm not. It may well be a good option for many people. But for me, Linux allows me to be more productive. Why would I want to switch to an OS that didn't work as well as the one I'm currently using?
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
:reads summary: :looks at BBC news feed on bookmark toolbar: :right-click, delete:
BBC can fuck right off. Shame too, since their news tends to be pretty good, but I refuse to support behavior like that. I've gotten to like Reuters better of late anyway.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
The mistake you're making is the same on the BBC is: thinking in terms of different OS's/vendors. A platform such as a streaming media has no business depending on an OS/vendor. The correct way to think about it is in terms of the underlying technology. To give an example here's an often rehashed argument:
The platform can be OS/vendor based like say .doc(x) is. It depends on XML but also on Office which depends on Windows which, essentially, depends on Intel based chips. It is at the vendor's behest to support other platforms.
The alternative, ODF, also depends on XML. In addition it use various other standards such as SVG, MathML etc. There is no dependency on any particular piece of software or vendor, meaning it is easily implementable by anyone who feels like it. If, for some reason, a particular OS doesn't support one of those standardised technologies then it can be added by the creator/vendor of that OS. If this isn't possible then most likely the OS itself isnt' capable of streaming the media in the first place.
In other words: WTF?? No BBC streams on my BBC Micro???
Yes well this is the same government who has allowed the individual ITV companies to buy each other up at such a rate that we now effectively have only one, which in turn is also partly owned by one Mr R. Murdoch, who of course just happens to also own a very large portion of BSkyB.
It is not co-incidental that the quality of the output from ITV has plummeted like a stone over the same period.
The "Culture" Secretary never saw much wrong with this, oddly enough. Could it be because a lot of influential newspapers such as the Sun (Prop: R. Murdoch) happen to "support" Labour? One of lifes mysteries I'm afraid!
As much as i like OSX (using it now) it does have it's down sides relative to linux...
It's costly (to obtain legally)
Hardware to run it (legally) is costly
It's only available from one vendor (wheres your exit strategy?)
Hardware to run it is also only available from one vendor (again no exit strategy or backup plan)
The system as a whole is not as flexible as linux
The interface is inflexible - if the apple way doesnt suit you, you have no other choice
It just works, or just *doesnt* work, if something does go wrong (and granted this is rare) its very difficult to fix
That said, all the above (aside from the hardware issues) and then some, apply to windows, and to a much worse degree. And many linux applications will run just fine on OSX
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
The end users needs the have the private key that allows them to decrypt the data, otherwise they wouldn't be able to listen to the song or watch the movie.
No, you can have a trusted key in the deciphering hardware, e.g. a TV set. With another layer of encryption you can shuttle that key to the trusted vendor.
The whole thing is terribly fragile as each layer has to be perfect and trusted, especially the sellers and all their staff.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)