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.

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??

[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??

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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: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...

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.