Slashdot Mirror
BBC Brings DRM-Free Content To Linux Users
eldavojohn writes "The BBC is planning to release some of its programmes to users of GNU & Linux. You won't see Doctor Who or Dragons' Den on there anytime soon, but they have been working with Canonical & Collabora on getting this out there for Totem users. The developer blog mentions that the sheer number of options in the open source world actually makes this difficult to accomplish."
Multiplicity of platform is not a problem for free software, so I'm confused. Every distro is able to use xorg, for example, and people who want to help out go there not to a distribution. If BBC releases free software, everyone else will be able to use it. It's nice of them to dive deeper, but if the backend work to totem is free, I expect it to turn up in my favorite distribution soon. They seem to understand this:
The question then, is why they worked with a specific distro rather than upstream. The Totem plugin says it uses Dirac, that's cool.
If it weren't for the fact that the BBC is controlled, secretly, by a cabal of nefarious Italian interests who embed secret, subliminal advertisements for their nefarious ices in the Beeb's "impartial" reporting. Danger! Danger! Stop the Italian mind-control before it crushes freedom everywhere! I have modemes.
h.264 video, AAC/AC3 audio tracks, in an MPEG4 container. It'll play on almost anything modern.
Announce new content via RSS feeds.
Distribute it via BitTorrent and allow the consumers to foot the bandwidth bill for distribution.
Until it is this simple and straightforward, you're doing it wrong, BBC.
However they've offered DRM free streams and podcasts for years now, are they just intergrating these into iplayer?
Someone needs to invest in an open source DRM mechanism. You have people like the BBC who have good intentions regarding the availability of content but the lack of any DRM at all means their hands are tied when it comes to Linux.
If some of the more talented OSS devs got off their high horse, they'd realise that if they were the first to create a true secure DRM format, they would be free to shape it in a way that is best for consumers whilst still being good for content producers. Being first would mean the chances of adoption were much greater.
The developer blog mentions that the sheer number of options in the open source world actually makes this difficult to accomplish.
I call BS.
The diversity of options is only a problem if you try to specifically target a particular configuration. Doing so is dumb--In fact I can't think of any good reason to do so. (Hint: DRM is not a good reason.)
For instance, if you just have a link to a standard media file (e.g. mpeg) that the user can download, then you're done. The user can then use whatever browser they want, with whatever media player they want, and whatever operating system they want. The diversity of options is then the user's problem, not the distributors.
Invariably these "there are too many options to support" complaints arise because people have ulterior motives in wanting to target the OS/software/format more specifically (DRM, lockin, user tracking, advertising, promoting a particular OS/software/format, etc.).
(Note that I don't want the negative tone of my post to take anything away from the announcement. It is surely a good thing that they are working to make their shows available to us Linux users. That's great! But if they are truly going with a non-DRM solution, then why the heck don't they just skip the middleman and let everyone just download a simple file?)
Um pick a open and common streaming format and to hell with wasting time writing a client. They click on the episode name and let it stream.
Come on, this is so easy a webprogramming 101 student can do it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I didnt realize there was people who didnt use vlc
wud
I can see how that would apply especially to any programs the BBC uses which were produced using subcontractors who usually put their copyright notices (not the BBC's) at the end of their shows. However, the BBC puts its own BBC copyright notice at the end of all of its current affairs programs such as "Panorama" and "Newsnight".
Doesn't that imply the BBC owns the copyright to the programs? If so, why doesn't it release all of them on iplayer for longer than 7 days? Programs like Newsnight and Panorama which have a lot of analysis and detailed investigative journalism can remain of interest even long after they are first broadcast. There is a demand for watching those programs much beyond 7 days. So, why the 7 days limit on these programs?
This is a bogus issue. Just choose a STANDARD FORMAT that is openly documented and unencumbered by patents (such as OGG with Vorbis and Theora). Since this is a non-DRM project, this will work. Then let the application developers make sure their products work right.
This whole idea of standards is so that data can be produced by any of a wide range of programs, and then accepted by any of a wide range or programs. Instead of targeting their product to a specific player, they need to target it to a specific standard, open, and unencumbered format. Standards are there to avoid this very problem BBC claims to have.
Then if BBC wants to be sure a player presents their product well, they should consider contacting the developers and financially sponsoring the project.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Nice first step, but I just don't like using GTK apps if I can help it, because they look out of place. The only GTK app I really make an exception for is Firefox, and thankfully that is getting a QT4 port from Nokia.
Is there any chance someone could develop a Firefox extension, or a plugin for Kaffeine, Amarok, etc?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Um pick a open and common streaming format and to hell with wasting time writing a client. They click on the episode name and let it stream.
Come on, this is so easy a webprogramming 101 student can do it.
Well gee Lumpy. Why didn't they think of that? You'd think they've got the Beav working for them or something...
Who knew! 150 years of technology development from the industrial revolution onward. Thousands of hours devoted to Linux development, fiber optic cables run under the ocean.
All, all I tell you, so that I could listen to the lives and stories of simple country folk.
if they want to make available to the public some of their shows, why dont they simply encode it with, say, mpeg4 or theora, and it will play in totem, vlc, etc right away.
First of all, here's the feed, check it out:
http://open.bbc.co.uk/rad/uriplay/availablecontent
This is accessible to any client and comes in an open and well-documented format. The Totem plugin is just an example implementation to make use of that. I imagine there will be more clients to make use of this feed in future. You can easily write your own even, if you feel like it.
To the "just put up H.264/theora/whatever files and list the links on some website" crowd: you can assume the BBC folks have thought about this. It's not really something that's useful to everyone though: small portable devices have different requirements than desktops (e.g. use MPEGy-formats which can be decoded in hardware vs. use free formats and don't require codecs which can't easily be distributed legally). Also the RDF above is really just that, isn't it: it links directly to content with some additional information like descriptions and audio/video format.
The BBC may own the copyright to the programmes but that doesn't mean they have the right to make them available in any format. A few bars of music or a few seconds of sports coverage in a news or current affairs programme will bring the rights-holding industries and their lawyers into play. It's easier (and cheaper) just to have a uniform 7 day limit rather than pay copyright lawyers to vet the 400 hours per week of iPlayer content.
Would it be too much to ask to get BBC World Service in something other than WMP/Real format?
Right now, Vermont Public Radio has a transcoder that takes the Real and rebroadcasts it in streaming MP3, but even after donating to them, I still feel bad that the burden is on them to re-encode the stream.
I'd transcode the stream myself but, a) don't want to go to the trouble and b) suspect it's against their TOS anyway.
I'm sure the Beeb poured a ton of money into the Real platform years ago (to the extent that they may still be locked-in), but I'd really love to see such an important service be more accessible.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
http://www.getmiro.com/
It has almost all the qualities that a broadcaster could want.... except DRM.
It is open source.
It runs on Windows, *nix and Macs
It uses Bitorrent to distribute content
It use RSS feeds to provide episodes.
It supports multiple codecs.
Seems like that would be a pretty simple way to provide content for ALL platforms. It meets almost all needs except instant streaming and DRM.
And if you must have DRM figure out a way to layer it on top of a working system, rather than re-inventing yet another DRM scheme with yet another proprietary codec, player, etc. etc. etc.
Facebook is billions of individual "Skinner Boxes." And if you use it you are the pigeon!
the sheer number of options in the open source world actually makes this difficult to accomplish
That's precisely why open standards and open protocols exist. Unlike the microsoft world, wherein a protocol/standard is tied to a single vendor, you wont be locking your customers whatever you choose. So stop bothering about the number of options available to your customers.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
LOL
We already have that...it's called the iplayer downloader...
I suspect this may have something to do with the push to force anyone with broadband to get a TV license fee. Helps get rid of the "but I use Linux" defence.
The problem is that the BBC's content is only part of it.
Screenwriters, actors and content producers have contracts that enable them to have royalties.
Any musical scores or video clips within the media may have restrictive licensing that the BBC cannot control.
So it's all well and good looking at the overall BBC copyright, but there's a whole legal minefield behind this.
They probably could negotiate each part, but I bet that it'll be monsterously expensive even in the simplest cases (track down and get approval from everyone involved) and not a good use of a publically funded organisation.
n/t
Perhaps the BBC sells the rights to some of their shows to other TV channels and media outlets abroad.
If this is the case I'm not sure these companies would be so keen to pay for the rights to play the content if the BBC was also giving it away free and without any DRM.
If the BBC keeps a 7 day limit on all programs, it's simple for people to remember and it also means they may still be able to license it.
Personally though I hope the media companies end up giving up on DRM.
... So, why the 7 days limit on these programs?
Because when you've got a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail.
They already go through the "what can be made available for longer" process for radio - quite a few radio programs (including most of the main news and current affairs ones) are available as podcasts. Where there are differences it's usually where e.g. The Now Show has licensed a bit of music as the payoff for a joke, and whoever owns the dibs on that doesn't want it freely available as an MP3. It wouldn't be rocket science to do the same for e.g. Panorama - no harder than radio's Analysis (not unlike Panorama without the pictures and Paxman), which is already available.
It's a condition of the approval granted by the BBC Trust after conducting a (legally mandated) public value test. (Although series stacking is permitted within a limit of 15%.)
i didn't even know that brits had computers yet. it's fantastic news.
Yep.. After inventing them, they kinda lost interest..
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Just masquerade as an iPhone, and you get a nice high-quality .MOV file. You can download it and store it as long as you like, and play it using standard free software.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
If the BBC ever dared to allow the public at large to participate directly and fairly in such debates, I am certain the public would not agree with the BBC Trust's assessment that there is insufficient "public value" in this case to extend the 7-days limit specifically for current affairs programs.
"programs" - US spelling
"programmes" - British spelling
slashdot - a website where people from the US are in the majority, and people from Britain in the minority.
It's called the iPlayer. Check it out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/
I use it on my laptop with ubuntu all the time