BBC Trust to Meet With OSC Over iPlayer

Virgil Tibbs writes "With the Launch of the BBC's iPlayer imminent, the BBC trust has agreed to hear the Open Source Consortium's concerns regarding the BBC iPlayer's tie in with Microsoft's software. The move by the BBC to use Windows Media DRM & their apparent lack of commitment towards other platforms has caused outrage in many circles and prompted several online petitions."

Comments

Re:Whats the Problem??

[RAMMS EIN]

``Why did they decide to go for a proprietary format in this case?''

The answer to that seems to be DRM. The BBC wants to put certain restrictions on the usage of the media. As we all know, the only way they can enforce these restrictions is by retaining some measure of control. To exercise this control, they need to keep secret how the media is played, or it would be possible to play the media without bypassing the control. Thus, open formats are right out.

Re:Bed partners

[Ilgaz]

NTSC isn't "owned" by anyone, it is a standard more like MPEG while Wmedia belongs to Microsoft. It doesn't work anywhere except Windows. It doesn't work fine on OS X, Linux, FreeBSD and anything handheld except WinCE devices.

Also you can transcode/convert anything from PAL to NTSC. There is nothing stopping you. There is no such thing as "PAL will only work in xxxxx brand and you will be pirating if you convert/transcode to NTSC to view on your set".

Lets say you are a foreigner interested in BBC content and you hate piracy. You download the stuff on Windows Machine you own (and paid to MS) and for example you transcode it to a standard format like H264 or pure mpeg 4 to view on Apple TV or machine. You _will_ be breaching the license very seriously. First you would be hacking the DRM and secondly you would be transcoding.

One (if British) should ask: If BBC needs to make such weird sounding, suspicious agreements with a company condemned by EU for monopoly practices (MS Wmedia), why do they need to take money from TV licensing? If they need more money, there is always cash in Adult business but even Adult sites lets people to choose their media format. :)

Re:Whats the Problem??

[Cheesey]

By making the solution Windows only, the BBC are forcing you to buy commercial software from Microsoft in order to view their programmes. This is just like saying "You must have a Sky subscription to view BBC programmes".

Because we all pay for those BBC programmes with the special TV tax, this is unacceptable. We should be able to view the programmes without having to pay for an OS. Making a version for Mac doesn't change that, as it's still not free. Where's the equivalent of "Freeview" - "no subscription required"?

I don't care about 4od or Sky because my TV licence money has not paid for them. They're Windows only? Fine, whatever, I won't watch them. But the BBC's iPlayer is different, because my TV licence money has paid for it. Even though I have the required hardware and a decent net connection, I can't use it, because I don't have Windows XP. Apparently, I need to buy more software for my "television".

(Refer to the previous version of this topic for various reasons why it's a bad thing - there isn't enough news, so there have to be repeats...)

Re:Whats the Problem??

[value_added]

Their decision to use Microsoft's proprietary formats puzzles me, because the BBC has often been in the news for actually using open formats, and they used to actually work on an open format and player, themselves. Why did they decide to go for a proprietary format in this case?

From the fine article:

the files would require DRM to ensure that they were appropriately restricted in terms of time and geographic consumption. The only system that currently provides this security is Windows Media 10 and above. Further, the only comprehensively deployed operating system that currently supports Windows Media Player 10 and above is the Windows XP operating system.

At first glance, it the above statement appears reasonable enough. The problem is life is rarely so simple. ;-) As for the OP's statement that this is normal to use a platform-specific approach:

But choosing Microsoft's DRM is not just a neutral "doing something", it is doing absolutely the wrong thing - which is far worse than "doing nothing". It would provide a huge propaganda victory for Microsoft and its DRM scheme, just at the time when even people like Steve Jobs are casting doubt on the efficacy of DRM in general. The last thing we need now is for Microsoft to be able to go around to other broadcasters and music companies and say: "See, even the famously objective BBC has chosen our DRM; this proves it's the best. Why don't you follow suit?"

If you put aside the unecessary rhetoric and narrow focus, the real issue becomes obvious, and that is that the BBC has responsibility to implement a platform agnostic (which means not only Windows users, or, for that matter, Windows plus "Mac and Linux users") approach in the face of all the issues brought about by new technology.

Re:Bed partners

[WIAKywbfatw]

Look, it's simple. If you receive TV broadcasts over the airwaves, whether by terrestrial signal, satellite or cable, then you'll need a TV licence.

But if you have a TV and don't receive any such signal - for example, if you have a TV and only have it hooked up to your DVD player and use it just to watch DVDs - then you don't need a TV licence.

Don't want to take my word for it? Phone them up yourself, ask them and they'll tell you.

Are you lying or are you clueless? Which is it?

[WIAKywbfatw]

Do you work for Sky or something? It would at least explain why you're spouting total rubbish.

A typical hour of BBC programming might have one or two 30 second trailers for upcoming programmes in it, and these trailers will be shown in the intervals between programmes: they certainly won't ever interrupt them.

There is no way that you can ever claim that there is a 24 minute programme followed by 6 minutes of ads, followed by another 24 minute programme and then another 6 minutes of ads.

Your claim that "[the BBC's] 'TV' hour is still 48 minutes" is complete and utter rubbish.

Either you're lying through your teeth or your completely clueless. Either way, I wish you'd stop making such ridiculous comments because they add nothing to the debate.

Re:Bed partners

[WIAKywbfatw]

Are you really this stupid?

1. Buy TV.
2. Do not connect the TV to an aerial or any other tuning device.
3. Use TV to watch DVDs, play console games, etc.
4. If they ask about your TV licence, tell TV licencing that you're not receiving a TV signal.

Is this really that hard for you to comprehend?

Re:Bed partners

[Macthorpe]

GP is right. Why not try ringing the licensing hotline? Or read these quotes from their website:

Under the Communications Act 2003, you need a television licence to receive or record television programmes. You don't, therefore, need a license if you don't receive or record television programmes. Another quote:

What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence?

You need to notify us in writing that this is the case and one of our Enforcement Officers may need to visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence. Source: TV Licensing FAQ, under 'General questions'.

There. YOU DO NOT NEED A LICENSE IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE TELEVISION PROGRAMMES ON YOUR TELEVISION. Can you stop being so fucking retarded now? You're making my head hurt.