Slashdot Mirror
BBC iPlayer Welcomes Linux (and Macs)
h4rm0ny writes "After previously limiting their iPlayer to only the Windows platform (as we discussed earlier here and here), the BBC's content is now available to UK-based users of Linux and Mac OS X. From their site: 'From today we are pleased to announce that streaming is now available on BBC iPlayer. This means that Windows, Mac and Linux users can stream programs on iPlayer as long as their computer has the latest version of Flash. Another change is that you do not have to register or sign in any more to download programs ...' It seems that the BBC have listened to people who petitioned them for broader support and an open format. Well, Flash isn't exactly open, but its a lot more ubiquitous than Windows Media and Real Player formats."
First post? No I did not RTFA yet. I am in such a rush to make first post which I doubt I will get it. Glas BBC iplayer welcomes Linux though.
For the purposes of just quickly catching up with a programme you've missed, in my (admittedly brief) testing since it went live, it's much more convenient to use the live streaming than have to go through all the fuss and bother of the proper Windows-based download client.
Even if there were a Mac/Linux version available, I think I'd still lean more towards the Flash service for the odd times I need it since the downloadable version will get torpedoed after seven days anyway.
It's a Unix system - I know this.
i use iplayer on windows, and while there are programmes i want to see that aren't in the catelog, i think they've done an awesome job of tv on demand given the current infrastructure of the internet.
I don't know -- I probably won't be using the service anyway, and I'm not a British citizen anyway, so I don't really feel that I have the right to complain, but it still bothers me when public services don't actually make their service free for real. I know I'd be bothered for real if my own government did something like it, at least.
For someone who is on a Linux platform without Flash (x86_64), this is no better than a Windows-only iPlayer. Yes, I know there are (kludgy) wrappers that allow you to set up the Flash plugin in Firefox, or you can run a 32-bit Firefox, but what about platforms with no supported Flash player, such as PPC Linux or ARM Linux? Does this work with libswf or Gnash? What about Solaris users or BeOS users? Is their TV license money not good enough to be able to access this programming?
Until they're using open technology, this is a hollow gesture to remove the political and social pressure on them. I just hope that the people who really care don't give up their campaign to make the BBC be open.
...and does
mplayer -dumpstream -dumpfile $outfile.ra $thestream
rip the stream like what the Real stream can be ripped? (Yes I'm talking radio, it's Radio Four Boy here and without being able to rip I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue, as I've been doing for the last few years, having migrated from the Mark II Compact Cassette Tape that worked so well throughout the 80s and 90s, life ain't gonna be worth living.) Samantha agrees - the wow and flutter of older technology is a real turn-off, although she does enjoy flicking through some favourite flash videos.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
kudos to the BBC.
Flash may not be open or perfect - but there are enough cross platform implementations to make it nearly ubiquitous. Given the choice between windows DRMware or Flash I would of made the same choice any day of the week. I am linux only at home, so I'm happy about this.
I think that this will be a lot more popular with everyone, not just Linux/Mac users. I haven't tried it myself (being a Linux geek), but by all accounts the iPlayer is a PITA. I suspect that in a couple of years time the iPlayer will be quietly dropped due to lack of interest leaving just the Flash player.
http://www.opensourceconsortium.org/content/view/80/55/
This is *not* the BBC making iPlayer available for non-Windows platforms. They are only providing a *streaming* service, instead of the ability to download programs, which is what they are using DRM for.
I have a BBC Master 512k - that is a _BBC_ Master 512k. And -I- cannot watch these _BBC_ shows on my _BBC_ computer... I can download the file just fine using the 2400 modem, but then I can't play it back! They should support open content such as MPEG1 so that everybody should be able to view the content!
Yes, this is sarcasm. There's going to be some place where they have to draw the line, and currently that line lays with whatever support Flash (sorry to hear the FLOSS coders haven't gotten to 64bit yet for Flash - maybe if somebody paid them to do the work, I wonder) and without any registration needs (which is funny, because now every British license payer is paying for Ngomo over there in Nigeria watching that show. Awesome!)... which is a line drawn quite a bit further than I would have expected, myself.
mplayer already supports dirac which makes the choice of flv a little strange. None the less, cheers.
...you can't have "more ubiquitous" or "less ubiquitous" because ubiquitous means "present everywhere" -- it actually derives from the Latin for "everywhere":
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ubiquitous
Hence something is either ubiquitous or not -- there are no gradations of ubiquity.
Try "more widespread" instead of "more ubiquitous"...
Quit with the bullshit formats and half assed attempts. If you are really that desperate to protect your precious from the Evil consumers then get it on iTunes and be done with it. I am sick of having to go to random websites and having to use the half-assed players you guys think are acceptable.
If you must have DRM in it, then have your crap in iTunes. if you are one of the few smart companies and dont care about DRM, then a podcast with a format that plays on an iPod will do nicely.
This will get the largest possible market for your video. and 320X240 is acceptable on a ipod and not desired o be traded by pirates (yarr! It's low res, off to greener lands me matyes! yarr!)
As a consumer that is interested in actually watching TV the way it should be here in 2007/2008 I dont want your website, I want it in a way I can download it and play it on my ipod or phone, not your crappy website.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It's not a gift horse. Access is restricted (at least in theory) to UK citizens, who have already paid for this service through their TV licence fees.
So now instead of being able to download and watch programs later or offline, you now can only use flash streaming. Thanks.
I wasn't about to install kontiki based software on any of my machines, even the ones with Windows on them.
Flash will suit me fine. Almost every device I have can play it in some form (except the iphone, but hopefully that's coming one day).
Many people in the UK are subject to transfer limits, and certain periods of the day when they can transfer as much as they like without this contributing to their quota. Example: I am limited to 20GB of transfers each month, but can download without restriction between midnight and 8am. With the Windows client, it is (relatively) easy to set up a schedule to start and stop the program at the appropriate times. With the streaming content, it is much more of a pain.
Just one reason amongst many why I hope this is not the end of the BBC's plan to open up the iPlayer content to other platforms, although I expect that it probably is.
This isn't really comparable to MPAA-type restrictions. In the UK there is a TV licence fee that goes to fund the BBC, this means that if you pay the fee then you have already payed to view the content. In this case the BBC is making the content available to its 'subscribers' via a different route - that's all. People overseas haven't paid the fee, so therefore the BBC doesn't feel obliged to provide access to the content (not to mention the money eventually made through global licensing agreements). The BBC also persecutes people in the UK who it feels may be 'stealing' their content (even though they may not have a TV).
Don't download it - that'll stick it to them for suggesting that there's no demand for Linux.
Of course, it will also prove their point.
Ok, what about we download the Windows version instead. Wait, no that won't work either.
I've got, go to ITV and download old episodes of Corrie. Yea! I'm off to the Rover's for a pint.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Why on earth BBC makes a system to be used from UK only ?!
"Can I download programmes from outside the UK?
The BBC uses Geo-IP technology to identify where your are based on the location of your internet service provider (ISP). This ensures that only internet users in the UK can enjoy programmes on BBC iPlayer.
If you download a programme to your laptop or a portable hard drive, you can watch this wherever you are in the world. However, you will only be able to download new programmes once you return to the UK.
Why do I need to be in the UK to use BBC iPlayer?
Rights agreements mean that BBC iPlayer is only available to users in the UK. However, BBC Worldwide is working on an international version, which we will make available as soon as possible."
Anyone notice that the volume control goes up to 11?
:p
That's for watching TV really loud
The BBC also persecutes people in the UK who it feels may be 'stealing' their content (even though they may not have a TV).
You get a fine for watching TV without a licence but calling it persecution is a bit strong. :P
In addition the programs are a source of income for BBC Worldwide. The BBC sells rights to programs to foreign channels and DVDs, etc... Downloading bittorrents of BBC programs from pirate sites is still a fairly high barrier for many people whereas going to the BBC's website is a much lower barrier. The BBC are not going to jeopardise that income, at least not in the short term.
They are lagging the real thing on purpose just to claim the multi platform changes were not needed. How hard is it to setup "World" site same time with added price?
I read your comment. What the devil are you drivelling about? MPAA? Clue: That last "A" stands for "America," which, last I looked, was several thousand miles West of here and getting further away all the time thanks to the mid-Atlantic ridge. Torrents? Honestly, do you even know what the iPlayer (with its associated Kontiki P2P back-end) and the associated Flash site are for? It's a catch-up service with a hidden agenda. Missed Eastenders? I've never missed it in my life. They could cancel it and I'd be blissfully ignorant of the loss of my ability to peer into the lives of fictional characters whose vocabulary seems to consist of the words "bloody," "fancy a shag?" "pint" and "caaa!" (cockney for cow, I'm led to believe) but should you be of that bent, you can watch it online.
The BBC have done this for one reason and ONLY one reason: To back up their ridiculous stance that anyone with a 'net connection in the UK needs a TV licence. Wouldn't want the OSS hippies to find a loophole in that, now, would we? That's it. Nothing to see here besides another money grab on the back of new media and shared resources. The reason you're not getting iPlayer if you're a "Johnny Foreigner" is because you don't pay the Beeb tax. Congratulations. I wish I didn't either.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
Here is a thought... I think its fair enough people outside the UK cant see the stream (netflix etc do it to us all the time) since we do pay the license... but what is to stop people in the uk that dont?
Remember, its illegal in the UK to use a TV without a BBC license, regardless of what channels you watch or purpose you have for using it
There is no way possible to download Flash Internet videos.
And there are especially no Firefox plugins to download them with one easy click.
the BBC isn't free. I (as an owner of a piece of equipment capable of receiving the BBC), have to pay a license fee each year (whether I actually decide to watch it or not).
Now personally I'm more than happy to pay, but it does mean it can't just be broadcast free to anybody on the planet with an internet connection.
"This means that Windows, Mac and Linux users can stream programs on iPlayer as long as their computer has the latest version of Flash."
So, we're just waiting on Adobe to release Flash for Linux/x86-64, Linux/PPC, Linux/Alpha, Linux/Sparc, Linux/ARM, etc...
*tumbleweed rolls by...*
Yeah, right. Thought so.
After all, it's not like there aren't truly cross-platform streaming formats out there. Oh no, wait, there are!
Aaaaaarrrghhhhh!!!!
AND STOP SAYING "LINUX" WHEN YOU MEAN LINUX/X86-32 . Linux is *so* much more than Linux/x86-32.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
If you are attempting to do this legally and collect money for it legally, there is no end of licensing and bargaining that has to be sorted. You only have to look at the current writers' strike in the US to see that it isn't a straightforward issue. Everyone wants their cut of the action and the laws you need to comply with are different in different countries. Plus you'd want to ensure that a sudden foreign demand doesn't swamp your site and degrade the service within the UK.
They're just starting out on this, and they do say they're working on providing access outside the UK. Give them a chance. They are lagging the real thing on purpose just to claim the multi platform changes were not needed. I don't understand your logic here. You don't think we have multi platforms in the UK?
Which allows me to watch what I want, when I want using xbmc on my TV thank-you-very-much.
I really don't get why the BBC think I would want to stream to my Mac, when I can already download whatever I want and watch it on the Mac, the TV, the iPod or wherever. OK, most people probably don't realise this yet but this is the technology they are competing with in my world.
And if I want to keep the episode of Space Pirates or some film which has been aired on terrestrial TV for the kids to watch at some point in the future, I don't want the BBC deciding that I've kept hold of it for more than 7 days and therefore they have the right to delete it from my hard drive. This is a step back from what I was able to do (and almost everyone did) using a VCR.
TODO: insert amusing, apt and clever quip here. L8r.
Please enlighten me if I'm wrong but I thought the case with flash was the same as with PDF. Adobe's viewer is closed source but the file format specification is open and can thus be implemented by open source projects, such as this: http://f4l.sourceforge.net/
So what exactly prevents those who insist on an open source app from writing one? I can understand it when people complain about specs being closed and thus making it hard to write a compatible implementation but if the specs are open, it is reasonable to say that if you want it, you write it.
German ZDF [1] uses flash only for its front page due to ill-advised web design and utilizes windows media player, quicktime or vlc browser plugins for video content. so much for actual consumer friendly solutions.
[1] http://mediathek.zdf.de/
For example, German ZDF [1] uses flash only for its front page (due to ill-advised web design) and utilizes windows media player, quicktime or vlc browser plugins for video content. so much for actual solution (one guy of the streaming company even said they would probably also offer theora the moment software patents are legal in europe).
[1] http://mediathek.zdf.de/
Exactly! I know several people who have received numerous letters accusing them of not having a TV licence and essentially breaking the law when they don't even have any TV-receiving equipment. The vans come round to check periodically, and still the letters keep coming. That sort of sounds like persecution to me - even if it is just 'freaks' who don't watch telly.
I also remember the poster campaign that showed local postcodes and how many houses there didn't have a licence as if they were automatically breaking the law!
Remember, its illegal in the UK to use a TV without a BBC license, regardless of what channels you watch or purpose you have for using it
Uhm, no. You can use a TV in the UK without a TV licence just fine. If you're not watching broadcast TV, you don't need a licence. Very simple.
You do *not*, under any circumstances, need a TV if it's connected to (for example) a games console or a computer (unless you've got a TV capture card hooked up to an aerial in the computer). There's nothing to stop you downloading TV programmes off the Internet and watching them on your TV through your computer, and you would not need a licence for that.
The problematic part is that flash won't run on anything but an Intel-compatible processor, and the "proprietary" nature of flash makes sure that no-one else can adapt flash for another kind of machine. Not everybody have or wish to use an intel PC, as ubiquitous as it may be.
sudo apt-get install swfdec-mozilla
:-)
works on ppc and amd64 with sparc64 coming soon
Is there anything in any user agreement that prohibits me renting a server in the UK, running their "UK only" iPlayer there, and retransmitting the stream over the Net to another server outside the UK for rebroadcast?
Maybe a copyright? Under UK law, don't I have a protected ability to retransmit content from one place to another for my personal consumption, the way I do in US law (if not always in US courts)?
--
make install -not war
Yes you can run it on some Linux systems, but under the terms of the EULA many are illegal.
Anyone else notice the requirment to use "Windows XP Tablet PC Edition" on Tablets, and "Windows XP Media Center Edition" on Media Centres? This is not in the least bit welcoming Linux and Mac. Yes the BBC have moved away from technical restrictions for locking out non-Windows systems. But they have now moved onto legal restrictions buried in EULAs. There is no technical reason why Flash wouldn't work on a Linux Media Centre but the BBC sought out a product that provides them the legal power to lock out Linux users.
Absolutely disgusting in my view. And what is worse the BBC Trust let them get away with it. Apparently here in the UK we don't possess competition law, even though according to OPSI we do have some, not sure if it has ever been used though.
Except it shits a brick on YouTube and every other Flash animation I throw at it in x86_64, despite the fact that the libswf people claim it works on YouTube. No, it doesn't, at least not in the Debian packages on x86_64, and yes, I have filed a bug, and no, for the past eight or so months, this hasn't been fixed.
Is that the name of some Brit super hero?
I have that. But it's not "the latest version of flash", or 100% fully compatible with it. Yet.
Yes, the developers are doing great work, and I have a lot of respect for them, and I couldn't ask for anything more from them given the hurdles and reverse-engineering they're having to surmount. But if the BBC is requiring "the latest version of Flash" then swfdec (or Gnash) just can't cut it at this time.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
Your comment implies they want to reach the largest possible market.
They don't. They only want to make this content available to the people who own the corporation (namely the licence payers). Making it available to anyone will, apparently, cannibalize their overseas markets.
The BBC in the UK doesn't work like the commercial broadcasters.
Missed Eastenders? I've never missed it in my life. They could cancel it and I'd be blissfully ignorant of the loss of my ability to peer into the lives of fictional characters whose vocabulary seems to consist of the words "bloody," "fancy a shag?" "pint" and "caaa!" (cockney for cow, I'm led to believe) but should you be of that bent, you can watch it online.
;)
Nice troll. The fact that you claim to have a) never missed Eastenders and b) have not killed yourself from the sheer depressingly transparent ficticiousness of it all and c) have not noticed that there isn't a vocabulary at all, just the universal language of shouting that merely appears to sound like language show that you have clearly not watched it in enough detail!
As an aside, are there any other soaps that use wilful misunderstanding as such an indispensible plot device?
"So you went to see Mark today?"
"Let's just say we had a little chat..."
"You know he's in hospital, right? What did you say to him?"
"Lets just say that I managed to convince him of a few... home truths"
"You're not remotely concerned that he currently has a 10% chance of survival, and even then a 90% likelihood of permanent brain damage that'll make for some more weepy stories a few months down the line?"
"Lets just say that me and Mark didn't really see eye to eye on alot of things"
"Are you saying that you attacked him?"
"Lets just say I wouldn't mind buying whoever did a pint"
"OK, I'm arresting you for the assaullt of plot device #57.285"
"What?! Leave it aht! What did I say?!"
Fucks sake, no-one in Eastenders ever speaks clearly, the entire point of the dialogue is to give everyone the wrong idea just so they can all have a hugely uneccassary fights about it a few weeks later. How anyone can watch such bilge I don't know - although I was hugely enamoured by Charlie Brooker's "Ricky's Luck" spoof spinoff (for the uninitiated, none of the things described are outside of the realms of possibility for an Eastenders character).
Disclaimer: I don't watch Eastenders, but live with someone who does.
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
There are all kinds of things they could do. And they certainly didn't seem to be opposed to people downloading things.
There are mpeg2 decoders everywhere -- it's just about as ubiquitous as Flash. And there's no reason they can't do both.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
From the Wikipedia page:
In other words, not like PDF at all.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Until they're using open technology, this is a hollow gesture to remove the political and social pressure on them. I just hope that the people who really care don't give up their campaign to make the BBC be open.
Oh, please. Your post is complaining about something imperfect, giving no credit for the fact that it is still very much better than the previous version for most people.
This version will allow many users on probably the second and third most popular platforms to view content they otherwise couldn't view at all. It will allow many people using Windows to access the content much more easily and without having to install dubious P2P software with very dubious conditions attached on their PCs (which is the reason that despite being a Windows user and a licence fee payer, I declined to use the previous incarnation of iPlayer when I missed a recording).
The fact that this is not a huge step forward for absolutely everyone who pays the licence fee does not mean it shouldn't be done just to benefit the 99+% of licence fee payers who would see an improvement. Frankly, there isn't much the BBC does that would be of interest to anything like such a high proportion of licence fee payers, and I'm impressed that they appeared to have listened to the criticism and done something reasonable and constructive about it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Nigel: You see, most blokes will be playing at 10. Youre on 10, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff...Eleven. One louder.
DiBergi: Why dont you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number, and make that a little louder?
(small pause)
Nigel: These go to 11.
The Gentoo package works okayish (about 80% of the time) on AMD64 in Konqueror, for both iPlayer and YouTube. Enough for the few times I need it. Doesn't help you on Debian however (though it probably means that it's a problem with the Debian package rather than with libswf itself).
I'm a number, not a free man!
This one can.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I used to work for TV licensing in the UK...
Strangley enough, you don't legally require a TV licence in the UK to view conent on the BBC's iPlayer
As the law stands in the UK at the moment you need a TV licence to watch live broadcast TV whether thats terrestrial, cable, online etc. If you're watching a proramme as it's being broadcast over the air, you need a licence. On the other hand time shifted content, whether streamed or downloaded, does not require a licence at all as it's not broadcast 'live'.
Watching TV on youtube, itunes, whatever, doesn't require a TV licence and neither does the iPlayer.
Flash is on the very edge of being proprietary(if, at all). Considering it can be used in linux/windows/mac/mobile/palmtop and firefox/opera/IE/etc..., it's almost more open than Java in that sense.
MS video is extremely proprietary. With all sorts of "Stop playing this we think you is a thief" gubbins on it as well.
I have used flash studio since version 4 (when it became more than just an animation tool) and it's been way ahead of the game since. (In version 4, you could even write "ajax-styley" code, communicating with a databse without reloading the page). You can even publish an exe, a projector file, a mac "executable" and a file for the web from absolutely identical code.
America, Home of the Brave.
I am not a turkey farmer.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
You're right about the BBC's tactics. It seems from their behaviour over the past couple of years that they want to charge everyone who has access to the internet. The annual tax (it has been so defined by the government) is about $270. However, collection of this tax has been outsourced to Capita plc, http://www.capita.co.uk/. They are not very good at it, and depend on propaganda put out by the BBC about electronic detection of TV sets in use. Evidence from "detectors" has never been used in court, and the technology behind them is deeply suspect. There is a growing resistance in the UK to the tax; the BBC is effectively the state broadcaster and is seen by many as manipulating the news to present the government in a favourable light. To learn more, go to http://bbctvlicence.com/.
I'll ignore the flame and respond to your (well hidden!) constructive criticisms instead: There are certainly 'degrees' of proprietaries at play here. Adobe, while often the bane of our existence, has been making more of an effort to cater [Flash] to non-Windows users than Microsoft has been making with [ANY of] their formats. So yeah, this is good news. It could always be better, but every victory has degrees.
oo
Flash is proprietary. On Linux, there was a bug in Flash 9 on some window managers where only the first click on the flash pane after it had received focus registered as a click. You had to click outside the pane in between every click, which made playing games quite difficult and annoying. They have fixed this bug in a later release, however I as a user was powerless to correct this, as control over the software lay with Adobe.
Flash is a pretty good piece of software. There are some performance issues, but it's ubiquitous and provides a single platform, and is pretty flexible. Your accolades of the software are justified. However, these technical aspects do not affect the legal status of the software.
How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
Uhm, no. You can use a TV in the UK without a TV licence just fine
You need a license if it's got a tuner. If you operate any device capable of receiving broadcast transmissions you're liable to pay the fee. Even people with monitors hooked up to satellite receivers have been successfully prosecuted for not having a license (back in the analogue days before the beeb was on satellite, so you'd have to go through 10-15 year old copies of What Satellite for a reference). If you have a monitor (and not a TV) hooked up to a games console you will probably get away with it (though I'd still be expecting you'd end up in court at some point, seeing as TVL like to threaten and terrorise people). If any device has a tuner in it (such as a VCR) you have to pay.
As for the iPlayer, if they let it stream live TV then I'll bet they will take somebody who doesn't have a TV but is using iPlayer to court and win (back when they streamed the world cup live, they were advising businesses that they better have a TV Licence if they let thier employees watch the stream). Thinking about, they don't even need iPlayer streaming live streams, as they already stream News 24 live. Worse, if they prosecute somebody and win, almost everyone with a computer and a broadband connection will be liable (oddly enough, that has been stated as a long term goal).
The TVL's site provides this:
Do I need a licence?
-
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.
-
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
No it doesn't. Repeat after me: "Nothing rips flash streams or real streams or any other stream".
At this rate, you'll be pointing out that you can just download the shows off IRC instead of going through the hassle of ripping. Remember, ripping streams is impossible and IRC doesn't exist.
The resolution seems to be about 500*300. If it was on my TV, it'd fill about a quarter of the screen. On my PC, it's about 10%. When the flash window is maximised, all sorts of horrible artefacts are visible.
This sort of poor picture quality is forgiveable if you're watching "woman falls down hole" on Youtube, but this is supposed to be proper telly, isn't it?
Jolly good show, BBC. But why the "UK residents" limitation? There are probably millions of British expats in the world, and millions of others who would like to use the Beeb's services.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
So I tested it out. Tried two programmes, both stopped streaming after going 2/3 of the way through and refused to start again. It looks nice and all, but I'm going to give it a while before I actually try watching anything on it.
How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
The volume control goes up to 11. Brilliant. :)
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, available from Packt Publishing.
Then, explain what this extension, Orbit Downloader, etc. do?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Since this lovely little address, the Beeb has been launching all sorts of things on the web. One could almost believe they're trying to make the ability to exploit the mentioned loophole even more obvious. Of course, they would never do that and then go to whoever is "culture" minister now and say "Look! Freeloaders who could be worth millions in revenue! Do something!" would they?
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
Stop saying "Linux/x86-32" when you mean "GNU Linux/x86-32" !
Only one thing to add to your already insightful post: This.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
What you describe is much more like German law. But read what you wrote again: You need a TV Licence to use [whatever] to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.
You don't need a licence just because you own a tuner. You need a licence to use the tuner. And if they have reasonable evidence that you are in fact using the TV for that purpose, then you are liable. If this is not the case, you may keep every room in your house stacked to the ceiling with various devices capable of receiving or recording broadcast television, and have no need for a TV licence whatsoever. Incidentally, your satellite example demonstrates just this; whether or not the satellite shows BBC, it is being used to watch or record TV... so there is nothing inconsistent there. The law says nothing about your choice of channel.
I appreciate that there is considerable confusion out there about this, but this is in fact how it works in the UK. That is why, when the scum come knocking, I can cheerfully show them my TV and video recorder gathering dust in the spare room. It's got a tuner, but it isn't tuned. Ergo, the goon in question has not a legal leg to stand on, has no proof of anything, and can fuck off back to the infernal pit from which it emerged. If on the other hand said goon found a TV in my living room, tuned, attached to a satellite dish and the remote control sitting on the sofa, that might constitute evidence.
OTOH, you're right about the BBC's long term goal. They do want to increase fees and fee coverage, and would love to equate internet access with TV access as other nations (like Germany) have already done. That would be because the BBC share an infinite capacity to waste huge quantities of money with sufficient greed to want to get their hands on more.
Yes, because SKY is such good value for money. Do you mind your taxes going to that shite? I know I do.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Flash's SWF file format is documented well enough that several other products and open source projects can produce it and some are capable of playing it back. The FLA unpublished save format is basically a memory dump of how the Flash program works with the project, so it's considerably harder to develop outside software to save or load that format.
I know ActionScript, but I prefer to write what little Flash stuff I do in HaXe, for example. There are also Rebol Flash dialect (RSWF), an ActionScript virtual machine assembler called flasm, swfmill, Laszlo, and more.
There are also other graphical programs for Flash publishing. Everything from the Zmag web app to SWF Quicker by SoThink and their SWF Easy.
For players, there's at least Gnash, Swfdec, SWF.max, Eltima's SWF and FLV Player, and IrfanView (which is what I use to play Flash games without opening a big memory-hogging browser).
Hell, Adobe's own Flex authoring suite for Flash is supposed to be MPL within a few months. How much more open do you people want?
*woosh*
we UK-ers have to have a government license to legally watch TV or listen to the radio!
We can listen to the radio all we like, it's just the TV part we need the license for. I phoned them and asked them to confirm this and they were quite specific.
Stick Men
VLC.
In actual fact, players for Real's format are available on quite a few platforms, and large parts have been open sourced. There's no real reason that the BBC could not have taken Real's source code and gone to town.
Xiph.org's Ogg Theora. There's your goddamn answer closed source zealots!
http://www.theora.org/
Back in they day (over 10 years ago) when things were simpler, there was an open standard for video called MPEG. There were several Free, free and closed, pay mpeg players and the files had a .mpg or .mpeg extension.
Many of the *cough* specialist *cough* image/video sites in those days used it almost exclusively, and even on Linux back in 1996 one was not left out.
So what went wrong?
Stick Men
We tend to think it's fair exchange for the fantastic programmes they've given us over the years, though, not least Blake's 7 of course ;)
And what if their programming goes to crap? What if you think it's that way now?
Sounds like 'tyranny of the majority' to me. Best to leave this to private industry where losers can be punished in the market.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Err, you're being a bit of a prat old son:
Yes, make sure the people who can watch them with regular UHF TV set can pay for them!No, to make sure only the people who have a £135 license to own a UHF TV in the UK, which funds the BBC to produce this content, can watch it.
The issue is: Content BELONGS to BBC, not a MPAA Hollywood movie company.Again, No. The BBC produces less original programming than it once did. The vast majority is commissioned from third parties and it is entirely possible that such agreements allow only for UK distribution. This allows the original production company to sell the programme or the concept overseas and reduces the cost to the BBC.
I really don't understand why people who don't live in the UK somehow think they've got the right to watch something they haven't paid for. Perhaps I am missing something...
A PC TV card is also considered a TV... the only thing you dont need to pay a license for is a B/W TV and it wasn't that long ago it was just at a reduced rate.... :-| meh
A PC TV card is also considered a TV... the only thing you dont need to pay a license for is a B/W TV and it wasn't that long ago it was just at a reduced rate.... :-| meh
Check your license, if you have a Tv that has a working tuner, you NEED a license. Monitors are not working TVs are they? I'm not sure where you think the discrepancy is here.
Why not use a normal standard format? Then we won't need Flash.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Check your license, if you have a Tv that has a working tuner, you NEED a license
No. It's got nothing to do with having a working tuner, and everything to do with being hooked up to an aerial and tuned to receive TV transmissions. I don't have a TV licence, and I have various TVs, video recorders and tuner cards. I don't *need* a licence, because I don't use them to watch broadcast TV.
I'm guessing from your spelling of "license" (sic) that you're in the US. I know it's confusing ("lol you need to pay a tax to watch TV"), but rest assured we find the situation in the US just as baffling ("lol you have to watch TV with adverts", "lol you have to pay to receive calls on your phone" etc).
no I'm from the UK... but I guess that over the years of the internet the US has infected my spelling :)
:)
I should clarify though. You are right in that you can have multiple TVs lying around and no licence, but it is for you to prove that you are unable to receive transmissions. I have the Migla TVbook pro for my macbook pro (which has a portable aerial) Try proving to the licence commission that I don't use it.
If you buy a TV from a shop and don't pay cash and your registered location has never had a TV before then rest assured you'll get a visit. We even got a visit within weeks of moving house once, we had a licence but due to the address change it flagged their system.
The best way I know of to avoid paying however is to wait until you get a visit. Tell them that they are not allowed to enter your home, and force them to go get a warrant. This gives you the time to go buy a licence since by law they can only force entry with the police. Not something I've tried before but
BTW, talking about mis-information, what do you mean we don't watch TV with adverts? It was the adverts that stopped me watching TV (and yes the BBC channels are equally as bad now!) in the first place.
Apparently it must disable the user's humor&sarcasm detector.
Assuming Orbit Downloader does not filter out Slashdot post scores, you could try looking back in the thread for "Score: 5 Funny". And then check out that post's parent post to determine why it was funny.
OK, firstly, as far as I know the BBC was under no obligation to make it's programs available to anyone over the internet. Were they not starting this off their own back?
Secondly, how many projects of this scale, that provide a public service nation-wide, were 100% effective providing 100% coverage from the outset? I can't think of any.
If people want to complain about something then complain about the poor coverage of Digital Freeview in the UK, where two houses a mere 5 metres apart can get completely different reception. What about broadband coverage? There are still areas in the UK that are lucky to get reliable dialup let alone a speedy 512K ADSL connection. Mobile phone coverage is another example, they expect you to use their approved hardware on their network, charge you for it and don't give any guarantees of coverage or signal strength. In my house two identical handsets, on two different networks receive full signal on one and low to none on the other.
I assume someone is going to say "Ah, but the BBC is a public company owned by the people". Yeah, and you could say that if I had shares in the mobile phone company then I'd own a small portion of it so they had an obligation to provide me with a better service too.
Considering this is a unique situation and this is the first attempt of such an ambitious service I think they're (BBC) doing well.
To the people who complain because they have to go out of their way to install s/w and services on their *nix systems: what do you expect? You've already gone out of your way by loading your chosen OS onto your machine because I'd be willing to bet you didn't buy it from a shop with BeOS (or whatever) loaded. If you're using a system that isn't directly supported then you should have the knowledge to either sort it out yourself or find out how to sort it out, otherwise how have you lasted so long using your chosen OS? If you find it too much of a struggle and your system doesn't meet your requirements then it's time to change to a system that does what you want/need of it.
And last of all: there are several web sites and services based in the USA that not only say for US citizens only but actively block connections from outside. This goes for radio, music downloads, video streaming etc, services that are free to people in the USA. So why should the BBC make content, that is not part of it's world-wide service, available to people outside of the UK? If you're an ex-UK resident living abroad then tough, you moved, if TV is that important to you then move back to the UK.
I'll get down off my soap box now :>
But the boot process is so long I just gave up.
So, I guess I'll use my son's Mac Mini to watch it!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I don't always run it. I only run it when needed since it would be a waste of resources if I had it running all the time.
As for your joke, I still don't get it. Please kindly elaborate it for me.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Except that... I am a British citizen, and alas I pay the BBC tax like everyone else. However I, like many thousands (if not millions) of Brits spend much of my time in other EU countries, mainly in Poland but sometimes in Hungary. How many retired people have a second summer home in Spain? How many youngsters work in sunny Greece over the summer? I am outside of the UK for most of the year, but as I maintain an address in the UK - and yes, there's a telly - I pay the license fee. This means that I cannot access content for which I have paid, whereas my Polish friends doing a tour of duty in London can, even though haven't paid a penny.
The BBC - and not just them - seem to be stuck in some Cold War timewarp that ignores the rapidly changing demographics of Europe. There are many thousands of Brits in Poland, all paying for a service they can't use. Maybe an account verification system or something would be better idea? God knows.
Oh, just to rub salt in the wound I have to pay the Polish TV tax too. It makes the BBC one look like a great deal. Polish State TV has 15 minutes of commercials every hour, normally during badly dubbed repeats of some piss poor Brazilian Soap Opera or a locally made show with production values that would make the producers of Neighbours grimace.
The more I think about, the more I'm tempted to Keith Moon the telly from the balcony and be done it.