Slashdot Mirror
BBC Trust Will Hear iPlayer Openness Complaints
AnotherDaveB writes with a Register story reporting that the BBC Trust has asked to meet with open source advocates to discuss their complaints over the corporation's Windows-only on-demand broadband TV service, iPlayer. The development came less than 48 hours after a meeting between the Open Source Consortium and regulators at Ofcom on Tuesday. Officials agreed to press the Trust, the BBC's governing body, to meet the OSC. The consortium received an invitation on Wednesday afternoon.
My girlfriend is constantly making these and I've noticed that the best way to adress them is to accuse her of using windows.
As long as they want to use DRM, what options do they have? Should they just not make thier material available until there is a player for everyone? It seems like that is kind of screwing everybody who uses IE and wants to see the material now.
This revolution will not be televised on my Linux computers. But maybe the effects will be.
Please feel free to sign the petition on the Government website.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/bbcmicrosoft/
Always good to raise the profile of this...
This has less to do with shafting Mac and Linux users and more to do with DRM. BBC is extremely paranoid about its content falling into the hands of consumers outside their control. Look at the website for Torchwood, you can't even view it if your outside the UK. It's not right but it fits with their approach on access to their content. Never mind that people can capture video on their PC's with a 30 dollar tuner card or record shows on dvr's. I wouldnt be surprised if more time and money went into the drm than the actually streaming process itself. Sure they loose a small but decent percentage of their viewers, but at least David wont be able to view Dr Who from the US and Billy wont be able to keep a copy.
A forced meeting is going to produce no results. All it shows is the BBC unwillingness to solve the issues.
The only reason they're meeting is so that if this does go to the court they can claim they "tried to resolve the issues".
...that the BBC download system won't work on Macs given that every BBC technical bod I know (and I know quite a few through my sister and her husband who both work in post-production there) is a complete Mac obsessive.
Of course, and it has been said a number of times before (I'm just karma whoring :P), if the BBC don't develop a product that can be used on a number of different operating systems (and I don't mean just MS Windows XP and Vista...), then they are breaking their trust to the British public. The public (well most of them) pay a TV licence (which you have to pay if you have a TV capable of receiving the broadcasts, unless you can show that you don't use it for that) for access to the BBC. The BBC makes their programs available on the Internet for people allowed to watch them (i.e. people who paid (stupid English, why isn't that word "payed"?) up). If people can't watch the shows because they don't run MS Windows, then they are being ripped off! They miss out. Of course, people who don't even own a computer miss out as well, perhaps they should get a discount on their compulsory licence?
(Usual disclaimer, I'm not British, in fact, I've never even been there. I'm also not a lawyer, or a monkey.)
I wank in the shower.
"advanced computing technology does not imply an endorsement of Western industrial civilization."
Don't kid yourself, it does.
Western industrial civilization created soe of the best things ever created by man. It has allowed us to build building that touch the sky, send a machine outside out solar system, and put men on the moon and got them home. More people have clean water, access to food, and medical care then ever in the history of mankind.
Greatest. Society. Ever.
Greatest != perfect
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I seem to remember that sun was working on an opensource DRM based on Java called Dream
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Use an open standard.
Then the market can provide a variety of players on every OS without impediment.
oh wait, it already has.
I don't think the market can solve all problems, but this one is an easy choice.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What ever happened to BBC research and development division? It seems the BBC do not innovate/invent in any way these days. BBC should come up with some sort of system that is open to all, and has some sort of DRM, not use a Microsoft product that is close to everyone apart from Windows XP users who use Internet Explorer.
It's not just he ~10% of none Windows users they are leaving out, but the other 20-25% that use alternative web browsers.
It's not paranoia, it's commercial sensitivity.
The BBC does not work in isolation. It works in partnership with other broadcasters around the world. And in making its content freely available to licence payers in the UK it has to make sure that it doesn't abuse the rights of its partners by giving away content to those outside the UK, where the rights may be shared with or even wholely owned by those partners.
Take two productions as examples.
The newest Doctor Who stories are co-developments with CBC, a Canadian broadcaster. I imagine that the BBC owns the broadcast rights in the UK, the CBC owns the broadcast rights in Canada and the broadcast rights elsewhere have been split or sold under an agreed formula.
To make Doctor Who freely available to everybody everywhere would be to the detriment of not only the CBC but to those third parties who buy the broadcast rights everywhere else.
Similarly, with Band of Brothers, which was a co-production with HBO, the BBC probably owns the UK rights, HBO the US ones and the rights elsewhere split, etc.
To expect the BBC to release all its content to everyone would be unrealistic, not least of all because securing the worldwide internet rights for all of the productions concerned would be impossible, strategically as well as commercially.
Faced with that reality, what choice does the BBC have if its going to make this content avaiable online in Britain and Britain only other than some from of rights management?
I'm all for the BBC coming up with a cross-platform solution but I don't think it's fair to hit it with the unfair charge of using DRM for DRM's sake when it's bending over backwards to make more content available to their customers (licence payers), on it's own initiative, without stepping on anybody else's toes in the process.
They're trying to be good guys here. Why blast them with both barrels over pipe dreams?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
someone will crack the DRM and the content will be put up on torrents etc...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
I'm an anarchist. I hate your civilisation, I want to destroy capitalism, states and all hierarchy.
My use of computers is an endorsement to a limited extent of technology, not "civilisation" (whatever that means...). See also my "blog" entry over at RevLeft on subject of "civilisation".
Basically, I love clean green technology (though I know computers aren't great in that regard, but the concept is great), but I hate the system of government, capitalism and so on. I'm also not interested in discussing this here, head over to http://www.revleft.com/ if you want to debate how capitalism is needed for technology (if you think it is), there are a few people who disagree.
I wank in the shower.
The logical consequence would be to require a license fee for every computer, then that way they could afford to support all the users...
Downloading programs in a way is a value added service that works beyond the TV. People complain already that they don't watch the BBC but they still have to pay the fee. Now, the fee is going to pay for even more stuff they don't use.
I think it is reasonable to go with the most cost effective solution that works for the vast majority of people to begin with. They can worry about expanding it later on when they see what the demand really is and get all the kinks worked out.
Whoever tagged this put "rupertmurdoch", who has nothing to do with the BBC. One of his companies, BSkyB, already has a on-demand service that uses Microsoft's DRM. Channel 4 also use Microsoft DRM.
I wonder why the OSC hasn't hit them also. Or is this strictly BBC because it breaks their Royal Charter?
Maybe, or maybe let's look at it this way. Taking an example of the British. They pretty much stripped their colonies naked of resources, ended it all with nice partitions in India, Cyprus, Middle East etc., and I bet the British treasury still has tons of the wealth they looted.
Now, if you have tons of money, I won't think its very hard to some up with some tall buildings. Call me a cynic, or a troll.
The BBC doesn't seem to be reporting this -- perhaps
s /6719867.stm
interested UK license-payers could submit the story to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/your_new
What ever happened to BBC research and development division? It seems the BBC do not innovate/invent in any way these days.
Bill had a word with them.
But in all honesty, why should the BBC be forced to support more open source? Shouldn't supporting open source be a choice rather than a forced rule?
http://timcol6.freehostia.com/
Hi:
I don't own a television but I do love BBC Radio. The IPlayer will mean I cannot catch up on radio shows. While I have no love for Real Audio, there must have been another solution than Windows which has always had a flavour-of-the-week development method for media. Were it not for the lack of a good Quicktime streaming codec, I'd suggest QT, but what else can be suggested for audio? MP4?
For those not aware of how British politics works: Blair (and now Brown's) government both follow what is known as the 'tabloid agenda', the most read tabloid in the world is 'The Sun' this is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Heads of the Labour government regularly meet with Rupert Murdoch, in fact Murdoch was known as the hidden member of Tony Blair's government. Don't think Brown is any better though: an interview (sadly I think that's been taken off-air so you'll have to trust me) with the editor of The Sun revealed that Rupert Murdoch often used to joke about having to visit both Number 10 and Number 11 whenever he was in the UK.
As the BBC is competition to Murdoch he would like to see it shutdown. This is natural. Unfortunately for him the BBC is not controlled by the government, but the BBC Trust is. So when the government comes out with weird statements like:
It's pretty obvious to me who's behind the complaints. The people--whom the government are supposed to serve--just want the BBC to be the best it can be, and if private media can't keep up? Then it shouldn't be in business! Particularly when considering how these words are touting 'public interest' then enforcing the use of DRM? Public interest my arse. In the words of Hugo Swire (shadow culture secetary):
So as usual, it's all big company interests. I somehow doubt that the BBC Trust will listen to the Open Source Consortium. Not that I think they shouldn't try, however it's unlikely they'll be able to remove their heads from Rupert Murdoch's arsehole long enough to listen. :)
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
Here's an idea that could make them them money and make us happier:
Why don't they use a flash based video player like NBC, ABC, etc.
If they detect that you are from the UK they show you the videos WITHOUT ADs. If you are outside the UK they show you the videos WITH ADs based on your country of origin.
Everyone gets to watch their content and they makes more money though AD revenue. A win-win in my book.
I don't have a licence (as I am not British). I am accustomed to paying for BBC content on a work-by-work basis. What would stop me and my OS from accessing this content without paying for it?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
.. of why the tagging system is broken. Rupert Murdoch has absolutely nothing to do with the BBC.
Has this got anything to do with the BBC's two-billion-GBP computer outsourcing deal with Siemens? Way back in 1999 the BBC had its own Linux-savvy wizards who did a fantastic job on the BBC website and other tasks:
/
/ 205660/bbc-completes-2bn-outsourcing-deal-with-sie mens.htm
http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/1176/1
I'd like to thank them for making sure the BBC's watch/listen pages work on my GNU/Linux/Mozilla/Realplayer computer at home. Now, it's all gone to Siemens, apparently:
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2004/10/01
Anyone inside BBC or Siemens care to comment?
...high-end video compositing, rendering and realtime animation (the ugly weather report map) are done almost exclusively on linux machines.
It's like the situation with DVD playback under linux which now plays a key part in the film making process.
The entertainment industry is full of of whining arseholes, they're still going to be whining arseholes when technology leaves them behind. The BBC needs to embrace the future or stay in the past, there are no compromises here.
There fixed. Read my post above, this has everything to do with Rupert Murdoch and other companies putting pressure upon the British government to stop the BBC providing a good on line service. The Shadow Culture Secretary confirmed this.
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
If organisations like the BBC are allowed to get away with adding restrictions like this to media that is free when broadcast in other ways, and is paid for via a compulsory licence, is it reasonable to expect the purely commercial organisations like Sony and the like to be more flexible on DRM? It ought to be possible to get the BBC to back down on DRM, even if that means some "bought in" content has to be skipped. On the basis of their charter if nothing else. This argument needs to be won, to avoid a future with even more DRM all over the place.
They did moot it but it was shot down as being impractical.
You require a license fee for a TV card of course.
Huh? What? Noggin? NOGGIN??!! Your TV interests span from Spike to Noggin?! Dude, that's seriously hard core! I bow to thee! Who needs the BBC with Doctor Who when you can have Maggie and the Ferocious Beast!
*cough*
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
It's only due to the forces of capitalism that computers have become affordable for personal ownership. Arguably sad, but most definitely true.
That's pre 7-11 thinking....
Actually, the logical solution would be for each of the BBC's subscribers to authenticate themselves to the server using their TV license a.k.a. "Something you have". To prevent abuse, the BBC could then either limit the number of streams per subscriber or restrict by IP address/subnet (i.e. everyone in the same house probably has the same IP address or subnet). Not to mention that they could embed your subscription ID or even name and address in the stream to prevent you from redistributing the content without permission.
I quite agree, I paid damn near 400 quid for my BBC microcomputer, and now they tell me the damn thing won't play their videos? Swindlers!!
For those who could hear it, Michael Grade on the Today programme just after 0730 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain) that a problem was commercial pressures being applied to an organisation that has traditionally emphasised excellence. Thus the need to "chuck something out the door or be seen to fail" is encouraging paranoid actions (c.f. Blue Peter competition fracas). In this context, there was probably a need to get something out the door, and they simply did what they could given the tools they had to hand, rather than consider their public service remit ;(
Anyway, for those who are part of the current beta programme, which started at the beginning of June, get on the forum and add to the threads that are already there!!!
He was a man who didn't know the meaning of the word "fear"; or the meaning of many other words longer than 3 letters