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.'"

Comments

Party like it's 1999

[BristolCream]

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.

Absolutely unacceptable

[ajs318]

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.

Re:They will hack it

[ralphclark]

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.

Re:They will hack it

[tolan-b]

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.

Re:What about dirac

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. From the Dirac website:

Why are you releasing Dirac Open Source?

The BBC has always advocated open standards, and has tried to use them where possible. So far, streaming has been dominated by proprietary systems and existing licensing regimes for standards-based systems have not been as attractive as they might be for large-scale broadcasting, particularly for Public Service broadcasters.

(my emphasis)

Re:Doesn't and can't exist.

[FireFury03]

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).

Re:What makes this really suck...

[FireFury03]

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.

Re:Not for Linux

[Tet]

Why people insist on running Linux when they could use OS X, I'll never understand.

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?

Here's a Reaction...

[Miseph]

: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.