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

Online petition, oh noes!

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Does anyone recall any online petition that actually caused change?

Re:Online petition, oh noes!

[EveryNickIsTaken]

I believe the DVD sales, moreso than a petition prompted the movie. Hell, high DVD sales are what prompted the return of Family Guy and the pending return of Futurama.

Re:Online petition, oh noes!

[vertinox]

There was that one cartoon by Warner Brother's that changed something because of an online petition (because it was too scary) and the issue with the road tax in the UK.

Re:Online petition, oh noes!

[yamiyasha]

I thought it was the ratings of airing said shows on adult swim?

Several Online Petitions!

[Cosmicalstorm]

I bet they're scared now!

Whats the Problem??

[Deviate_X]

The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later. They are just making downloads available to the vast majority of the people who paid for it first, this is normal.

This is like 4oD and SKY Anytime which currently only work with Windows XP (not even Vista). I'm sure they will be updatiung their software for at least Vista and Mac soon enough. It not like they said NO is it!

Re:Whats the Problem??

[RAMMS EIN]

``The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later. They are just making downloads available to the vast majority of the people who paid for it first, this is normal. ''

Normal in that it is common practice, perhaps, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem with it. The problem is that they are (currently, and that's why there _currently_ is a problem) making downloads available only in a proprietary format. This incurs all the problems with proprietary formats, including, but not limited to locking out would-be users, no guarantee of future access to data, and preventing the great capitalist mechanism of competition from doing its work.

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?

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: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:Whats the Problem??

[FrostedWheat]

The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later

The problem is that as far as the BBC is concerned 'other platforms' == 'Mac'. They've only ever referred to the Mac when talking about non-Microsoft platforms, something I believe they are doing deliberately.

Re:Whats the Problem??

[RAMMS EIN]

``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''

``At first glance, it the above statement appears reasonable enough.''

Does it? To me, "restricted in terms of time and geographic consumption" sounds awfully like censorship. That in the vicinity of news corporations makes me uncomfortable. Also, using "security" when you mean "restricting what users can do with their own files", to me, is dishonest and looks like a cover for something unpleasant.

Re:Whats the Problem??

[mccalli]

The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later. They are just making downloads available to the vast majority of the people who paid for it first, this is normal.

I simply don't believe them though. They claimed they'll report 'within two years' and have already said that timescale is unrealistically short. You also have the head of the project making anti-Apple comments, and Linux hasn't even got a mention.

By tying themselves to Windows DRM, they've closed all their options off already. Microsoft won't be porting this to any other system, so it's a dead end as far as portability is concerned. With that background, I cannot see how they'll ever make this service available on other platforms.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Whats the Problem??

[totally bogus dude]

The BBC is far more than a news corporation. They produce an awful lot of content, much of it quite good, and this is paid for by British taxpayers (primarily from TV and radio licenses, IIRC).

Thus, for the BBC to want to make their content available to British citizens is perfectly understandable; while at the same time they may be less than happy for people in other countries to be able to access this material. In particular, they sell their content to other networks (Australia's ABC shows a lot of stuff from the BBC, for example) and the value of that content would likely be greatly diminished if people in other countries can download it from the BBC before their local networks can get access to show it.

I do agree with your point about the use of the term "security" though.

Re:Whats the Problem??

[mgblst]

Does it? To me, "restricted in terms of time and geographic consumption" sounds awfully like censorship. That in the vicinity of news corporations makes me uncomfortable. Also, using "security" when you mean "restricting what users can do with their own files", to me, is dishonest and looks like a cover for something unpleasant.
 
More like licensing issues, which is something that most people don't need to think about, but when you are a huge publishing corporation with production in conjunction with other corporations from all over the world, something that you seriously need to consider. It would be illegal for some of the BBC content (like Dr Who) to be released without any restrictions.

Re:Whats the Problem??

[1u3hr]

the value of that content would likely be greatly diminished if people in other countries can download it from the BBC before their local networks can get access to show it.

Don't tell anyone, but we already do. Check, for instance, how many non-British people are posting on Doctor Who discussion forums the day after the UK broadcast.

Re:Whats the Problem??

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

total intuition and i know no facts here,

but doesn't it just reek of bribe? only takes one good bribe in the right place, sometimes...

Re:Whats the Problem??

[Chris Tucker]

the value of that content would likely be greatly diminished if people in other countries can download it from the BBC before their local networks can get access to show it.

Don't tell anyone, but we already do. Check, for instance, how many non-British people are posting on Doctor Who discussion forums the day after the UK broadcast.

Another example is "The IT CROWD". The DRMed streaming media files were ripped, stripped and on BitTorrent within hours. Followed up by the broadcast versions of each episode.

As for Doctor Who, Yep! Had each episode on the hard drive within hours after it was broadcast! Grabbed the whole of Torchwood in one gulp as well.

DRM DOES NOT WORK!

BBC would be better off if they offered a download license for a modest sum for people not in the UK.

As it stands now, ANYTHING made available on the BBC websites will be on BitTorrent almost instantly.

Re:Whats the Problem??

[junglee_iitk]

Because we all pay for those BBC programmes with the special TV tax, this is unacceptable.

This argument has been given a lot of times before and has been beaten down to death. Right now I am too tired and sleepy and cannot be bothered to find citations, but the special TV tax does NOT include distribution over internet. You (and moderators) can look at any previous discussions about this subject.

This does not mean use of DRM is any good or a decision full of foresight.

Re:Whats the Problem??

[petermgreen]

Don't tell anyone, but we already do. Check, for instance, how many non-British people are posting on Doctor Who discussion forums the day after the UK broadcast.
Helped of course by the fact that the BBC (and all the other channels that are on the "freeview" system) broadcast unencrypted digital streams which anyone in range of a transmitter can record with cheaply availible equipment.

Re:Whats the Problem??

[Virgil Tibbs]

sorry to sound a bit agressive but DRM'd media is totally feasable even if method in which it is controlled and well documented and open source or w/e.....
the thing that *must* stay secret is the key...
I'm sutre someone else can back me up on this but its a bit like symetric encryption:
the AES aencryption algorithm has been published for more than a decade... bluefish for longer... what is unique when encrypting stuff with AES is th *key* not the algorithm (or method).
if microsoft... or apple published the method that they use (or alternativly lisenced it) then their retro spective DRM schemes could be made to work on concievably any platform....

open formats are IN, encryption key is OUT.

Re:Whats the Problem??

[sharperguy]

The theory makes sense but IMHO they could save everybody (including, and especially, themselves) time and money by opting out of drm and just adding a notice to say that it is illegal to be viewed by people who have not payed TV license.

The reason is, that someone will always be able to get around the DRM and it only takes one unprotected copy of something for it to be supplied to anywhere.

Also, it is clear that this service would only be an addition to the array of less-than-legal ways of watching these programs (bittorent etc.). Putting DRM on this service wont stop that.

Re:Whats the Problem??

[RAMMS EIN]

You are absolutely correct that good encryption algorithms don't depend on the algorithm being secret. However, that is not the point here. As you correctly point out, for good algorithms, secrecy of the content rests with secrecy of the key. And the trick is, for DRM, the key can't be secret. You need the key even to do the things the DRM is meant to allow.

In a wider sense, once you have access to the actual content, you can do whatever you want with it. If the content is encrypted and you need a key to decrypt it, you must have that key even to do the things the DRM allows you to do. Once you have that key, you can also do the things the DRM is supposed to prevent you from doing. There are only two things standing in the way:

1. Obscurity. You don't know how to get at the content.
2. Legality. Copyright violations are punishable. Circumventing the DRM (even to do what you would normally be allowed to do) is punishable.

Legality obviously doesn't make it _harder_ to circumvent the DRM. If the DRM software is open source, the obscurity might be lessened (might be, because obfuscated code is hard to read no matter how open source it is).

Re:Whats the Problem??

[mdwh2]

Well, I'm a licence payer, and I'd like the content I pay for to be in an open non-DRMed format. I couldn't really be bothered if someone abroad downloads it for free.

Given that it's paid for by the citizens, the argument that they might be slightly less able to sell to other networks doesn't really hold - the whole _point_ of having a company funded by mandatory payments is to avoid all these sorts of negative decisions that the free market might cause a company to make. If they want to switch to being a company producing DRM content so it can sell to other companies, then I want my money back, because I sure don't want to be funding it for them.

Re:Whats the Problem??

[jZnat]

The "TV tax" funds the BBC. The BBC is streaming content over the Internet using their own equipment. Therefore, the "TV tax" is indeed paying for it.

Re:Whats the Problem??

[Mountaineer1024]

And you sir, completely miss the implication of the parents post.
Anything that can be played can be recorded. If it comes in over the air to the TV, it can be recorded, if it can be played on my PC in it's DRM enabled player, I can capture those images and audio with the correct software.
And it doesn't matter than 99% of the population lack the skill, knowledge and care to do so, because it only takes one person of the remaining 1% to do the work and everyone with access to the Internet benefits.

Re:Whats the Problem??

[1u3hr]

The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later.

"Later" as in at least two years. By then the infrastructure for MS DRM will be all pervasive and impossible to supplant. MS is being give a TWO YEAR (at least) monopoly in which it can use to make it impossible to change, by offering services ever more tightly intertwined with Windows. Any alternative will be in the position that competing office suites are now: it matters nothing that the alternatives are cheaper, better, more stable, the momentum of installed software and developers (developers, developers...) means the alternatives are doomed to never have a chance. All software to support this service will come out first in a Windows version, alternatives may be promised and delivered months or years later, if ever.

Re:Whats the Problem??

[Virgil Tibbs]

i'm out my depth here... i'll have to read up on it.. I still believe that what i have said but... i need to research this...

Re:Whats the Problem??

[Ganesh999]

> The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later. They are just making downloads
> available to the vast majority of the people who paid for it first, this is normal.

"Normal" how, precisely? What prior example is there of a state-owned media corporate opening its archives for general perusal?

> This is like 4oD and SKY Anytime which currently only work with Windows XP (not even Vista).

This is *not* the same - 4 & Sky are standard commercial channels, unlike the BBC. The only reasonable restriction is to confine use of the service to those who paid for it, i.e. UK citizens.

> I'm sure they will be updatiung their software for at least Vista and Mac soon enough. It not like
> they said NO is it!

There is talk about Mac users getting such a service at a "later" (unspecified) date. No mention has been made yet of other operating systems.

By law, everyone in the UK who uses a TV or TV card has to pay an annual TV licence to fund the BBC. Windows users are about to be given a greater service than other users for that fee. When this scheme begins many people (e.g. me) will be paying, essentially, for a service to which they are not given full access.

That is not fair. That is what the fuss is about.

C

Re:Whats the Problem??

[AlecLyons]

I think this is different. There is no geographic limit to broadcasting on the Internet. If television signals were broadcast around the world it would undermine the BBC syndicating programmes abroad, which would increase the pressure on funding through television licenses.

The BBC seems to believe that when broadcasting online the only way they can prevent the general population of the BBC's overseas viewers receiving the programmes is by only distributing to UK IP addresses, and using DRM to tie it to that machine. Further they believe that the only platform capable of doing this is WMV with DRM.

You can discuss the validity of these three assumptions (1> Global distribution for free would increase the cost of the license, 2>DRM is necessary to prevent this, 3>WMV is the only way to do this effectively), but as long as I believe all three are correct I think the BBC should continue what it is doing.

Re:Whats the Problem??

[bogado]

Not to mention that the 1% of tech inclined people can do simpler tools that say 10% or even more can actually do the unDRMfy process by them selves.

Coincidence?

[Elphin]

Interesting that this occurred shortly after one of the top bods in BBC new media is off to OFCOM shortly...

http://www.tomski.com/2007/06/from_bbc_to_psp_via_ wtf.shtml

Bed partners

[Skiron]

Being English, and having to buy a TV licence*, I think what the BBC are doing with licence payers money borders on being illegal. You cannot take money from people then bar them from the purpose of that licence - this is definitely MS driven with the BBC in cahoots with them (remember, the BBC is a very similar monopoly like MS and allowed to be by the Politicians 'in hand').

Nick
* Not having a TV licence in the UK is very serious - you will be hounded incessantly and even get visits by the BBC licence people late at night (MIBS). The onslaught of not having a TV licence is very similar to deliberate tax evasion, but worse.

Re:Bed partners

[adamsan]

I think they may have a get-out in that they can use money they raise from their commercial ventures like foreign sales to fund non-TV and radio ventures that the licence fee doesn't cover. DRM seems like a sensible way to preserve the income from those sales to me. Now, if they used that money to speed up development of Dirac and create their own cross-platform content protection system instead of making Little Britain clones, then we'd all be happy.

Also, I ditched my telly two years ago and after informing a lovely lady called Astrid at the TV Licensing call centre of the fact, I haven't heard a peep out of them.

Re:Bed partners

[Compenguin]

"Being English, and having to buy a TV licence*, I think what the BBC are doing with licence payers money borders on being illegal. You cannot take money from people then bar them from the purpose of that licence - this is definitely MS driven with the BBC in cahoots with them (remember, the BBC is a very similar monopoly like MS and allowed to be by the Politicians 'in hand')."

To me that seems more like complaining that the BBC doesn't work with your NTSC TV.

Re:Bed partners

[WIAKywbfatw]

You cannot take money from people then bar them from the purpose of that licence - this is definitely MS driven with the BBC in cahoots with them (remember, the BBC is a very similar monopoly like MS and allowed to be by the Politicians 'in hand').

Where to start...

Firstly, the BBC has a charter that it must abide by. While I, like you, would like to see the BBC develop its online content across as many platforms as possible (including MacOS and Linux) I think it's important to realise that making content available to everybody on every platform is not in the charter.

If the BBC were to roll out content that required a certain platform or (even platforms) then it wouldn't be in breach of its charter: if I wanted to access the content on BeOS, or OS/2, I don't have the "right" to demand that the BBC makes it happen.

While I have no doubt that it will eventually make content available on the big three (Windows, MacOS, Linux) there's nothing to stop the BBC making its first steps on one of the platforms only.

You'll notice that the BBC has several DAB-only radio stations. Well, just because I don't have a DAB radio, I'm not entitled to demand that those radio stations are made available to me via the analogue airwaves, am I?

Secondly, the BBC is not a monopoly. There are dozens of other TV broadcasters in the UK, dozens of other radio broadcasters and hundreds of news websites. The BBC may be the only one of them to benefit from the TV licence but it's not a monopoly.

Re:Bed partners

[Jeek Elemental]

dodging the tv licence is a kind of national sport here, with some bizarre side effects, usually on the humorous side tho.
In the 70/80s they would show a mysterious van with spinning dishes on the roof, which could zero in on unlicensed tvs :)
Theyll send old people whose job it is to get invited inside (yes like vampires) to verify if you have a tv.

Re:Bed partners

[The Cisco Kid]

You miss the point.

As far as your 'DAB radio' comment, sure, you need a 'DAB radio' - but you dont need any specific brand of one. The specification for that type of broadcast is fully and clearly documented, and anyone that has the appropriate skillset could build one. BBC doesnt design their content for specific brands of hardware, they comply with a public spec, and anyone is free to implement it. They should do the same with all their content, and they should be software neutral as well. They shouldnt be designing software either for one OS only, *OR* for multiple ones, they should be producing shows, and broadcasting/distributing them in formats that are publically documented that anyone can write software to display.

Re:Bed partners

[niteblade]

After reading your post I did a bit of research into the UK's TV license - insane! It's not just that you guys have a tax but it's 136 pounds (>$270) per YEAR!? That's crazy! I don't see how people put up with that type of thing.

My favorite quote from the site regarding 'cheating' (Hello 1984!):

"...We have a fleet of detector vans, plus, our enforcement officers have access to hand-held detection devices capable of detecting a magnetic field when a TV is switched on. In fact, we catch an average of over 1,000 people watching TV without a licence every day."

From the site: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp

-NB

Re:Bed partners

[Skiron]

I pay a licence fee to be 'allowed' to run a TV. Even if I have a TV/receiver that CANNOT receive BBC transmissions, I still HAVE to get a licence (of which all monies go to the BBC). So it isn't a monopoly?

OK, so I have to buy a TV licence, whether or not I receive BBC transmissions. The BBC then use MY MONEY to develop something that deliberately bars me from using it as I do not use MS software (which tself has a similar licence).

So I am in the wrong?

Bollocks.

Re:Bed partners

[nogginthenog]

There's no commercials on the BBC. Wouldn't you pay for that?

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:Bed partners

[thewils]

I'd gladly take a 50% reduction in my cable bill if it meant putting up with a couple of commercial-free channels.

Re:Bed partners

[WIAKywbfatw]

Wrong.

If you have a TV that isn't receiving either an analogue or digital TV signal then you don't need a TV licence.

For example, if you have a TV and it's only connected to your DVD player or your games console then you don't need a TV licence.

Re:Bed partners

[kazamx]

I assume that you also believe that it should be illegal for the BBC to sell DVDs? After all you have already paid, how dare they charge for the show on DVD. What about if I don't have an Internet connection? Does that mean I should be upset that the BBC is making something available that I can't access? What about if I don't have Digital radio? How dare they make channels available I can't access. Lets not forget how they are spending all that money providing digital TV channels I can't access. Ah and all those local radio stations. I live in London, why the hell am I paying for Yorkshire local radio. Alot of the content shown on the BBC does not belong to the BBC. The BBC has to get an agreement from the copyright holders before they can do anything. I see no problem with them using DRM, I would like to see the Linux/Mac comunity stop moaning and stand up and find a way to let the BBC use DRM and be able to provide access on other OS's

Re:Bed partners

[Jerry Smith]

In The Netherlands a lot of people pay EXTRA to see the BBC's 3 and 4. Can you imagine: no commercials? None at all?! Plus their web-site is grand. I WISH we had a BBC-like system. We pay through the nose (disguised in taxes nowadays) yet still have to watch STOOPID games ánd commercials.

Re:Bed partners

[Anonymous Coward]

Forty-eight minute hours? I doubt it. Episodes of Star Trek and the like run for 45 minutes on the BBC, while half-hour US/commerical programs used to run for 25 minutes, or they'd sometimes fit two in a 45 minute slot.

As a random program I could think of that was about an hour long I looked up Spooks. Season 4 is 600 minutes long. It contained 10 episodes. Give or take a little for them running full trailers and rounding the numbers on Amazon then you're talking approximately 60 minute episodes. Wikipedia lists it as 59 minutes.

Yes the BBC 'advertises' programs, but it's a "coming soon" or "something to watch tonight" for about a minute, possibly two at the most. You're likely to see more of those when their schedule needs padding a little because they're slipping forwards (e.g. it's 5:57pm and so they've got three minutes to fill before the 6pm program should start) but otherwise it's nowhere near as bad as commercial channel advertising.

Re:Bed partners

[Skiron]

Wrong again...

"You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.

If you use a set-top box with a hi-fi system or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV Licence."

I think you will find any TV that 'can't display TV programmes' cannot display anything, whether connected to a DVD games player or whatnot - if it can't display, then it isn't a TV.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp

Re:Bed partners

[TheNetAvenger]

this is definitely MS driven with the BBC in cahoots with them

Ok, how much koolaid do you have to drink to actually make this into MS's fault? I suppose if they were using iTunes instead it would be Apple's fault, right?

This is just insane. MS makes DRM protection available, it doesn't give a flying F*** if anyone uses it, and they don't try to make people use it, in fact Gate has encourage people to not use since December of last year if their business model doesn't specifically need it (Yes he was saying this a month or two before Jobs made his anti-DRM comments.)

So with that out of the way, can you give a rational reason why the BBC is using Windows based DRM? How about 97% of the desktops can access the content with no effort? How about MS Encoding tools and software for content are free? How about just making up something less insane than blaming MS for what the BBC is doing?

I don't know what is in the BBC charter, but I doubt there is any illegality in what they are doing. What you are arguing is in the realm that they must provide their services to everyone, and I don't think that is required on this level or people without a TV would have also sued them since they can't get the BBC on their tinfoil hat.

Re:Bed partners

[IBBoard]

Drat, wasn't paying attention and my new account didn't work. Basically, there's no way a BBC hour is 48 minutes unless it's an hour long programme from a commercial channel (at which point they fit it in a 45 minute slot). The advertisements aren't adverts for products, they're "coming soon" and "one to watch tonight", which ITV and other commercial channels do. So yes, there is the occasional minute or to of non-program, but it's generally matched by a minute or to of similar non-program on commercial channels, only without the commercial breaks. Incidentally, the Formula One was much better when it was on BBC, as you didn't get the situation of "welcome back, and you just completely missed something while we went to the break, and we can't show it again now because it's all under the control of the local race directory".

Re:Bed partners

[Dr_Barnowl]

They probably don't, it's some sort of Van-Eck Phreaking thing.

These days they just rely on their huge database of the UK and do a SELECT * FROM uk_address WHERE has_a_tv_license = 0;

Re:Bed partners

[WIAKywbfatw]

Wrong. If you inform the TV licence personnel that you're not receiving a TV signal then they'll tell you that you don't need a licence.

I can point to two friends who've both done so as evidence.

If you don't believe me, ring up the licensing people yourself and ask them.

Re:Bed partners

[Dr_Barnowl]

I don't think it's illegal for them to sell DVDs, but I would get major-league upset if they took technical measures to stop me recording their DVB-T transmissions. The advantage being that with enough disk space you can have a perfect broadcast quality backup of full seasons of programmes. The downside being that this is technically illegal (but I don't feel remotely guilty about it, because as someone noted, I paid for the programme to be made in the first place).

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.

Re:Bed partners

[BlueParrot]

The IP protocol is public and anybody can implement it given the technical expertise. Microsoft DRM , however, is restricted to Microsoft, not due to any technical limitation, but due to copyright law. It is more similar to the BBC releasing their shows on the internet but saying you can only download it using Pipex broadband, not NTL or BT. Similarly, for DVDs it is more similar to releasing it on DVDs, but then saying you can only use a SONY player, not a Phillips or Toshiba one.

Then we have the issue weather it is right of them to use DRM to begin with. The stated justification has been in order not to interfere with international broadcast rights. Now I wonder how difficult it would be for the BBC to limit their downloads to IPs that are located in the UK. My guess is that it would be a whole lot easier ( and more effective ) than trying to implement a software based DRM scheme that won't be cracked within a year. Furthermore, the terrestrial digital broadcast currently has no DRM on it, so it is hardly a case of preventing copyright infringement. Besides, the content has already been paid for by the license fees, so it makes no sense restricting what people can do with it within the UK.

Basically, if they are concerned about UK citizens passing on the media to non-UK citizens then a simply denying access to IPs outside the UK will do the same job as limiting the digital broadcast to the UK. Hey, here's an idea. require people to input the number of their latest license bill in order to download the content. That stops downloads from outside the UK while at the same time enforcing the license fee, and it will be a whole lot more successful than Microsoft DRM.

Bottom line is, this has nothing to do with technological limits or prevention of copyright infringement. It is a basic lock-in to Microsoft software, and is quite arguably illegal under both UK and EU legislation. If the BBC doesn't change their policy themselves, this WILL end as another anti trust case in the EU courts.

Re:Bed partners

[Skiron]

Explain how you have a TV but do not receive any signal (or your intent to NOT receive a signal).

If the device CAN you need a licence - it doesn't matter what you say/think it can do, whether it does or not. You are guilty unless _you_ can prove the device DOES NOT or is INCAPABLE of receiving the signal.

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

[Skiron]

I think you are stupid. You need a licence if the equipment CAN receive a signal - it doesn't matter if it doesn't. CAN is the key word.

"You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.

If you use a set-top box with a hi-fi system or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV Licence."

If you buy a TV-set that is capable of receiving a signal, you need a licence. Name one TV that isn't capable of displaying a TV signal? (it wouldn't be a TV otherwise, would it?)

Also note the wording... the exemption only names a 'set-top box', not a TV.

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.

Re:Bed partners

[cyber-dragon.net]

I wish we had that option in the US. I would probably watch TV again if I could get it without commercials.

Re:Bed partners

[IamTheRealMike]

There is no open specification for time-limited DRM. What you are saying the BBC should use, does not exist. What's more, it's not even clear it can exist - whilst there are open DRM systems (like AACS) they would probably not be "open" enough to please the Slashdot crowd, and besides, they aren't designed to be backwards compatible with the installed base of PCs. If and when there is a well specified, open DRM system that provides the features the BBC needs, which has well defended implementations on Windows, MacOS and Linux, then I'll support the call for the BBC to use it. Until then I think this is just an inevitable consequence of idealogical choices the free software movement has made. You can't have your cake and eat it in this case - and I say that as a Brit and a Linux user.

Re:Bed partners

[Mike1024]

I think you are stupid. You need a licence if the equipment CAN receive a signal - it doesn't matter if it doesn't. CAN is the key word. If you read The Communications Act, 2003 (2003 c 21) and subordinate legislation S.I. 2004/692 (The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations, 2004) section 9, subsection 1 you will find the following:

"television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving [...] any television programme service, If your device is not used and not installed for receiving broadcast TV (example: a TV not tuned or connected to an aerial), you don't need a license for it.

Furthermore, if you write to television licensing and tell them your TV is used for gaming/DVDs only they will stop sending you letters; and if an inspector visits and you show them the TV connected to the games console, they will say "that's fine, you don't need a license". I have verified the two preceding facts by direct experience at two different houses within the last five years.

Re:Bed partners

[Budenny]

You are missing the point. The point is not so much why they should do all these things. Maybe it is reasonable, maybe not.

The question is, why it should be necessary to compel all UK citizens who want to watch any sort of television, any of the other 80 or so channels available in the UK, to subscribe to the BBC on pain of criminal sanctions. This is what is wrong.

Various arguments are usually offered when one makes this point. Sometimes people say they like the BBC and its output. Fine, is that a reason for compelling other people to subscribe to it? I like the NYT, but I do not believe that this is a reason why everyone should have to buy it.

Sometimes people say that its a small amount of money, £120 or so a year. Yes, so what? Its not about whether its large or small, its whether I should be allowed to watch non-BBC TV, without subscribing to the BBC. £20 a year to the NYT would not be much. But I should not have to pay it as a condition of buying the Daily Mirror.

We thus arrive in the ridiculous situation where people say that they want iPlayer to work on whatever platform they choose - Mac, Linux, Amiga, BSD, whatever. They think this because they have no choice about subscribing, and so they think they are entitled to equal access to all services offered on the platforms of their choice And they are right, given the compulsion.

The BBC needs EITHER to allow the inhabitants of the UK to choose their TV programming supplier. OR, they need to make all of their services without exception available to everyone who is paying, regardless of which platform they use, or where they live. The consequences of compulsion are that you lose the freedom to act like a normal company. The BBC's current problem is that it wants to do both. It wants to be able to act like an ordinary company, raise prices at will, go into new businesses, compete with the private sector. But it also wants to have every UK citizen compelled to subscribe to it, whether they want to watch it or not, and it wants to enforce this compulsion by sending people to jail if they refuse.

This is not going to last. Sooner or later they will find, as John DeButts of ATT found, that holding the line leads to the collapse of the dam. After that, it will seem in retrospect that they should have opened the sluice gates a little. But then, it will be too late.

And, by the way, it is not the Linux or Mac user's problem. It is the BBC's problem. Figure it out, find a solution. If you can't, give them a refund and let them choose a different TV supplier. Don't bother us with your problems. We are the ones who are paying.

Re:Bed partners

[drsquare]

If you take out all the repeats (including prime-time slots showing programmes that were on last week), then I'd be surprised if the BBC averaged 15 minutes of content an hour. Take out all the reality TV crap and you're down to 5.

Re:Bed partners

[Nyeerrmm]

My interpretation, though I'm not British or particularly knowledgable on the subject, is that if they paid a BBC license fee for the tinfoil hat, they would have every right to sue.

Re:Bed partners

[stephanruby]

Furthermore, if you write to television licensing and tell them your TV is used for gaming/DVDs only they will stop sending you letters; and if an inspector visits and you show them the TV connected to the games console, they will say "that's fine, you don't need a license". I have verified the two preceding facts by direct experience at two different houses within the last five years.

Hopefully, you didn't have a device that was capable of receiving radio waves either, otherwise they would have made you pay for their radio license at least (whether or not you listened to their BBC radio station).

Re:Bed partners

[statusbar]

The real commercials are embedded into the content of the tv shows.

--jeffk++

Re:Bed partners

[Chris Tucker]

""...We have a fleet of detector vans, plus, our enforcement officers have access to hand-held detection devices capable of detecting a magnetic field when a TV is switched on. ...""

And how, pray, does the BBC detect the difference between a CRT monitor hook up to computer and a CRT TV set.

Indeed, however will they detect an LCD TV?

Re:Bed partners

[WIAKywbfatw]

Again, it's not me missing the point here. If you have a TV and it's not actively receiving a signal from a source such as an aerial, a Sky box or a cable TV connection then you do not need a TV licence.

Once more, I will suggest that you ask the TV licensing people themselves if you don't believe me. Their own website spells it out pretty clearly, and others have linked to it and quoted the relevant sections, but if you still doubt me, those others, and the TV licensing website then I suggest you do what I've said at least twice before: ring them up and ask them.

I won't hold my breath waiting for the apology.

Re:Bed partners

[mdwh2]

Not having a TV licence in the UK is very serious - you will be hounded incessantly and even get visits by the BBC licence people late at night

And just to add to this - anyone without a TV licence gets this treatment, even if they don't have a TV.

And if you're unlucky like me one time, they cock up and give you this treatment even if you have a licence.

I don't mind the TV licence, but the way they enforce it is unacceptable - if any private company tried their tactics, they'd be done for harrassment, making false claims and threatening behaviour.

Re:Bed partners

[Chandon Seldon]

There is no open specification for time-limited DRM.

That's because time-limited DRM is a technological absurdity. It can't be accomplished without perverting the very concept of a general purpose computer. The BBC has never required limitations like that before in other media (and they digitally broadcast all their content by radio waves, over the entire country, in the clear).

Requiring that particular "feature" is simply protectionist nonsense for Microsoft's benefit, and such anti-competitive requirements shouldn't be tolerated by the citizens of the UK.

Re:Bed partners

[dwater]

I look at the BBC/TV licence fee in a similar way as the national health service/national insurance - ie it's something that benefits the nation as a whole and not necessarily any particular individual.

Someone who is perfectly healthy for their entire life still has to pay national insurance so that those who aren't healthy can get health care. Similarly, someone who doesn't watch the BBC but watches TV, still has to pay the BBC licence fee so that those who do want to watch it can do so.

I expect there's something wrong with this analogy and I'm looking forward to reading about it in the following comments....

Re:Bed partners

[The Cisco Kid]

The Digital Restrictions Management *IS* the problem. If they would just make plain Mpegs (or AVI's, or whatever) available, the entire problem of having to choose what 'platforms' to support goes away.

When BBC broadcasts over-the-air, there is no requirement that only Brand X TV's are able to receive the signal, and Brand Y VCR's are unable to receive it and record it to tapes which can subsequently be copied. Why does there need to be this requirement for shows transmitted over a packet network?

Neither hardware nor data should be locked to (a) specific brand(s) of software.

Re:Bed partners

[SW6]

Hopefully, you didn't have a device that was capable of receiving radio waves either, otherwise they would have made you pay for their radio license at least (whether or not you listened to their BBC radio station).

That would be somewhat unlikely, given the radio licence was scrapped in 1971.

Re:Bed partners

[SW6]

And how, pray, does the BBC detect the difference between a CRT monitor hook up to computer and a CRT TV set.

They detect the I.F. from the tuner that is retransmitted back up the aerial.

Indeed, however will they detect an LCD TV?

Exactly the same way, as it still has a tuner.

Re:Bed partners

[Chris Tucker]

"And how, pray, does the BBC detect the difference between a CRT monitor hook up to computer and a CRT TV set.

They detect the I.F. from the tuner that is retransmitted back up the aerial.

Indeed, however will they detect an LCD TV?

Exactly the same way, as it still has a tuner.

Hmmm... So, if one were to trap that "backwash" I.F. in some manner, then the TV, no matter if it's CRT or LCD, would, effectively, be undetectable?

My knowledge of R.F. engineering is woefully weak, but would there be some manner of choke or filter that would trap that signal from reaching the outside aerial?

Re:Even more outrage...

[kryten_nl]

Maybe CowboyNeal could post a weekly mash up of all stories he found particularly interesting, instead of duping them. In case you were wondering: I don't find the additional links to linuxjournal and currybet interesting. Fewer then 200 comments, most of them obvious spam. Additionally, everyone knows that intelligent people post on Slashdot.
Don't even get me started about http://digital-lifestyles.info/

righto

[thegnu]

I imagine petitions that represent a consumer base for the target audience are the most effective. Generally, though, I think that online petitions trying to affect policy change are ineffective, because unless you have a large percentage of the population, you can assume that more than half the people disagree with the petition. Or at least don't care about it. It's nearly impossible to get enough people to affect change in the US. If a policy petition got 100 million signatures from valid addresses in the US, then maybe it would sway someone's opinion. Otherwise, forget about it.

In other words, consumer-based petitions where there are no antagonists seem most likely to succeed, since there is no hidden factor.

Uh-oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Cowboyneal mean to post this on slashdot.co.uk?

Re:Whats the Problem?? windows only forever

[peragrin]

the problem is once you use Windows DRM you can only ever use windows to decode it. MSFT doesn't allow any form of their DRM to be decrypted on non-MSFT platforms. MSFT has disconntinued windows media player for the mac and the "replacement" flip for wmv is legally barred form decoding windows DRM files.

Once you go MSFT you can never leave.

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

[WIAKywbfatw]

Not that it's relevant to your inability to tell the truth but, no, I do not agree with the idea of OS lock-in, and, yes, I do have a TV licence.

Now, do you still want to carry on claiming that the BBC shows 12 minutes of ads per hour?

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

[linuxci]

Ad free broadcasting does definitely save a lot of time. When BBC2 used to show The Simpsons they could fit it in a 20 minute slot, so two episodes on Friday would only waste 40 minutes of your times.

BBC programmes on commercial channels like UK Gold tend to run about 10 minutes longer than they do on the BBC so they can fit in ads. Remember that UK Gold is not free either, you need a Sky subscription for that.

I consider the TV licence better value than the Sky subscription although I do think the Sky+ PVR is good for the odd programmes I do watch.

Thanks to digital TV (Freeview) we do have a number of commercially funded free TV channels (in addition to the free ITV1, C4 + C5 on analogue) but due to the advertising ITV is only free if your time has no value.

In case you're wondering I do work for Sky, but it's not my job to sell their product (but I do believe they're a better offering than Virgin Media who seem to have ruined Telewest).

OSC?

[GiovanniZero]

Did anyone else see this and wonder why Orson Scott Card would meet with the BBC about the iplayer?

Re:OSC?

[PedroP35]

Yep, even made a tag about it...too many TLAs around.

What's more interesting....

[Danathar]

Is that alternate computing platforms have finally started to gain enough clout that those choosing Microsoft only solutions will have to think twice about ignoring non-windows platforms.

3 or 4 years ago choosing a windows only solution would not cause you any pain. Increasingly, for popular internet multimedia sites, choosing a Windows only solution is more likely to cause you pain.

I consider this a good thing.

Re:What's more interesting....

[iainl]

Hey, Windows-only would be a start. The iPlayer, like the competition's 4OD system, is Windows _XP_ only, so those of us with Vista machines are stuffed along with the Mac and Linux owners. Given the hassle involved in even trying to buy an XP machine now that seems perverse.

Another dupe

[1u3hr]

This story dupes BBC Trust Will Hear iPlayer Openness Complaints

And don't tell me that it's an "update" because they both source the same Register story.

in Soviet Finland

[Quietti]

Merely for informative purpose, I thought I'd mention that Finland has a similar system of nationwide compulsory TV license whose profits only go to the state-owned channels (privately-owned channels don't get a penny out of it), supported by an increasingly sizable brigade of TV permit inspectors. People who flatly don't own a TV are immediately regarded as worthy of an impromptu inspector visit and of endless phone calls to inquire why the heck they haven't been a good Finn and paid their license like everyone else. They essentially keep track of who has paid and who hasn't by comparing payment data with the civil registry data (changes of address notifications to the civil registry are compulsory in Finland).

The whole things often reaches ridiculous extents: they also keep track of cable TV subscribers and compare that to civil registry data and they get a lot of false positives because of cable-Internet subscribers. Yet, for a number of years, it simply wouldn't get into their head that customers of cable company can do business with them for non-TV related purposes; I obviously had a TV I wasn't paying a license for since I was doing business with the cable company! If I changed address and still only did business with the cable for Internet service, they'd notice a new resident at address X who hasn't paid a license and yet does business with the cable company, so one of their minions would call and sermon me about breaking the Law and, again, it simply wouldn't get into their head that the cable company offers services other than TV.

Machiavelli would sheepishly point out that all it takes for a criminal to go unnoticed in Finland is to pay their TV license, regardless of whether they have a TV or not.

Re:in Soviet Finland

[poopdeville]

Suomi sounds like a sushi dish. Coincidence? I think not.

Re:Dupe!

[RDW]

Well this just illustrates the danger of distributing DRM-free media! With properly enforced Rights Management, it would be impossible for stories to be duplicated in this way without authorisation!

On a related note, there seems to be some sort of hardware crack for obtaining unencrypted BBC media streams. Someone calling himself 'freeview' has hacked together a circumvention device (commonly called a 'freeview box', possibly a reference to the old phone phreak 'coloured boxes') that gives 24/7 access to DRM-free BBC digital content. These devices are quite widely available (try ebay.co.uk, or google for 'argos') but up to now have escaped the attention of the BBC Trust, so be careful who you tell...

an online petition!

[ednopantz]

An online petition! That should have them quaking in their boots in no time!

Software Patents?

[Virgil Tibbs]

well, this didnt exactly cause change - it kept things as they are... People put up a petition to stop software patents in the UK and it worked.... take a look at this

Re:FOSSie hypocracy

[heinousjay]

You were most likely modded down because that's one painful damn truth. I'll probably be modded down for not toeing the line. Then somebody might explain how there's a monopoly, dammit, and there just isn't any choice, even though that's not what it means, and some other bullshit. Meanwhile the hardcore FOSSies will work themselves into a lathering frenzy, lashing fiercely at their genitals as they try to get their FSF-approved loads on the biscuit early.

It's not the truth (nor is it painful...)

[Ayanami Rei]

The issue has nothing to do with FOSS. It's because the BBC is supposed to making their broadcasts available to everyone (a side effect of being a government monopoly). As such, tying the DRM to a single platform is discriminatory. OSS has nothing to do with it.

Anybody can manufacture a device to pick up terrestrial broadcasts. But only Microsoft can make the software required to view internet broadcasts? That's an issue that deserves to be corrected.

Re:FOSSie hypocracy

[JohnBailey]

The rank hypocracy of FOSSies never falls short of amazing. They continue to whine and pule how being a FOSSie is all about choice, and how people should be free to choose... but when a company or organization chooses Microsoft, that's when we find out it's not really about choice, it's really about choosing what the FOSSies want you to. Nothing hypocritical here. We want the choice to use a public service, not the product of an individual company. What choice does providing this service as Windows only offer? Windows or nothing. Not exactly a free choice. Using Windows specific software to access the service reduces choice.
And as Microsoft have no real obligation to keep supporting older versions of their operating system with the DRM mechanism that this service uses, so a service that people will come to rely on will be forced into endless upgrades if they wish to keep using it. If the BBC insists on using Microsoft software to deliver the service, thats fine. So long as they provide the means for the service to be used with other platforms as they do now with the radio and TV programs they already stream from the BBC website.

As it stands. Only those with Windows will be able to use the proposed service, but with multi platform services, there is no suggestion of cutting windows users off. Thus choice is offered. Linux, Windows, OSX, some later to be designed set top box with an internet connection built in perhaps. Its all good.