Slashdot Mirror
BBC Activates DRM For Its iPlayer Content
oik writes "The BBC has quietly added DRM to its iPlayer content. This breaks support for things like the XBMC plugin as well as other non-approved third-party players. The get-iplayer download page has a good summary of what happened, including links to The Reg articles and the BBC's response to users' complaints."
DRM is bad
I, for one, don't plan on ever paying it.
Signed, a Canadian Doctor Who fan.
And then dropped their service. Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only hope to stop DRM. Act today!
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is why you don't touch DRM even a little bit. It doesn't matter if you only buy the open content and so the DRM sits there unused. The purpose for that DRM framework is to do stuff like this to you further down the line. DRM is a tool designed for the sole purpose to take stuff away from you, and you shouldn't tolerate its presence.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
A stupid decision given the BBC broadcast DRM free mpeg2 over the airwaves. A £30 USB TV card will let you record broadcast quality TV, so why do they feel that lower quality net streaming is a risk?
Thankfully, there's always bittorrent.
I am not a English resident.
All of the broadcast rights contracts are based on market exclusivity. The Beeb is obligated to make an effort not to step on the toes of broadcasters in other markets.
Still, disappointing.
There's a long discussion on this on a BBC blog.
Also, bear in mind that when the BBC says "Rights holders require us to implement DRM" that the BBC potentially is being obfuscatory, because the rights holders it's talking about may in fact be companies the BBC owns in part or in full. I.e. the BBC might be trying to hide "We want DRM". E.g. see this post from Anthony Rose giving BBC Worldwide as the prime example of the DRM-requiring rights holders.
Finally, this is from a comment I left on the linuxcentre blog:
BBC Trust is running a consultation on the BBC strategic review. One of the key questions is regarding platform neutrality. It is very important that people fill in that survey and let the Trust know how important open ly specified access is. In particular the following is important for platform neutrality:
* BBC Ondemand should *not* be built on proprietary, single-vendor technologies, such as Adobe Flash.
* BBC Ondemand should be built on multi-vendor, open, non-discriminatory standards, such as HTML5 video.
* The BBC should *not* be in the business of dictating which ondemand client implementations may access iPlayer and which may not.
These things are important both for free software, but also more generally for a healthy market. It is not in the public interest for the BBC to become the king-maker of client device implementations. Please take the time to let the Trust know your views on platform neutrality and how the current situation is bad for the greater public interest.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
I'm a bit confused by this. TFA is talking about how the author of get_iplayer is ceasing development of it in protest at the BBC's DRM actions (the clue being in the title "get_iplayer dropped in response to BBC’s lack of support for open source"). It doesn't say get_iplayer doesn't work any more, or that the BBC have prevented its use.
Indeed, I just installed it (on Ubuntu) and it appears to work just fine - I have a nicely encoded file of some quite funny children's programme that's apparently completely free of any DRM.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
This "news" is 18 days old.
And then dropped their service. Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only
I agree fully. But then, the government unfortunately doesn't, and they have guns.
Deleted
They haven't "activated" anything, there have always been restrictions on the content available via the iPlayer, both downloadable and streaming - thanks mostly to all the spanners in the "content" industry demanding time limits and (more reasonably) geographic limits.
I have to say I'm torn here; on the one hand I understand that while a lot of the content on the iPlayer is owned in whole or in part by the BBC, there's a lot that isn't and they have to play nice with the owners of that content - in this case preventing 3rd party applications from downloading or re-streaming their content outside of the above limits - but at the same time, as a licence fee payer, I want the BBC to play nice with me as well.
The BBC do a pretty good job when you compare the iPlayer to offerings from other media organisations, but I'd rather lose a few imported shows to the commercial networks if it means they can be less restrictive about what they broadcast.
with a Halicrafter's shortwave receiver and a HUGE loop antenna.
plus NPR broadcasts the BBC every night, (not sure if NPR does that nationwide)
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
So dear old Auntie Beeb has added DRM to all over their content so the dear British taxpayer has to fork over more cash to watch programmes they already paid for. Brilliant....Not.
Help feed homeless animals - Free! www.theanimalrescuesite.com
I use the OS X app iPlayer Downloader occasionally, to grab programs I missed and will want to see in a few days. Some of the content refuses to download, but others download just fine still.
You can register your disapproval with ofcom online.
Please, PLEASE do not suggest that HTML5 is an adequate solution to this problem. It is not. HTML5 is shaping up to be one of the biggest fuck-ups we've ever seen. The major vendors cannot and will not agree on standard codecs. It won't happen.
The only solution is for the BBC to offer their videos for download in completely-open formats. We're basically talking two options here:
1) As an Ogg container holding Theora-encoded video and Vorbis-encoded audio.
2) As a Matroska container holding Theora-encoded video and Vorbis-encoded audio.
That's the only sure-fire way to succeed. Anything solely browser-based is an automatic failure. We don't want to be restricted to watching videos in some goddamn awful HTML5 canvas-based video player. That will be worse than the Flash experience we're currently stuck with for many video sites.
The BBC has co-production and distribution agreements with companies all over the world. That translates directly into bigger budgets, production on locations abroad, recruitment of A-list talents, and so on.
Brighton, England--February 22, 2010-- MASTERPIECE on PBS and BBC Worldwide Sales and Distribution, Americas have announced a major co-production deal that includes a new production, with the BBC, of Upstairs Downstairs--one of the most-loved and honored television series of all time. Upstairs Downstairs will air in the U.S. in 2011 as part of MASTERPIECE 's 40th anniversary season on PBS.
The deal also includes Sherlock, a 21st-century spin on Arthur Conan Doyle's classic Sherlock Holmes novels, and three Aurelio Zen mysteries, adapted from the best-selling novels by Michael Dibden set in Italy.
Jean Marsh, who will reprise her role in the new three-part series as Rose, the parlor maid. Dame Eileen Atkins, the co-creator of the original program, will also star. Screenwriter Heidi Thomas (Cranford) is setting the new Upstairs Downstairs in the same house at 165 Eaton Place in 1936, during the period leading up to World War II.
The thrilling new Sherlock series is a fast-paced, witty take on the legendary crime drama, now set in present day London and starring Benedict Cumberbatch (Atonement, The Last Enemy) as the eponymous detective. Martin Freeman (The Office UK, Hot Fuzz) plays his loyal friend, Doctor John Watson, and Rupert Graves (God on Trial, The Forsyte Saga) is Inspector Lestrade. Co-created by Steven Moffat (Doctor Who, Coupling, Jekyll) and Mark Gatiss (The League of Gentlemen, Crooked House), the iconic details from Arthur Conan Doyle's original books remain: same address, same names--and somewhere out there, Moriarty is waiting.
Rufus Sewell (The Eleventh Hour, Middlemarch, John Adams) will star as Italian detective Aurelio Zen in three episodes based on the popular mysteries by Michael Dibden. The series is being shot on location in Italy by Left Bank Pictures, the production company behind the acclaimed Wallander television series.
MASTERPIECE AND BBC WORLDWIDE ANNOUNCE DRAMA CO-PRODUCTIONS, INCLUDING NEW UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS
The BBC are suckers. They fell for the first layer of negotiating tactics: providers said they wanted DRM. The BBC took this as an absolute not an initial position. Hardly surprising nowadays given the level of piracy: citizens being fleeced every which way. But still sad, that the BBC is in effect saying: "You must own a Dell computer to access BBC content!" or in other words shackling their information to third-parties who don't actually give a fuck about the BBC or UK citizens. Way to show your publicly funded stupidity Beeb.
Shh.
I'm ashamed to have used RSS feeds from BBC for so long; don't worry, they're gone now!
DRM is only evil when it's limiting what you can do with products you own, here it's being used to let you watch content online while still retaining much of its resale value and saving YOU money. This exactly where DRM SHOULD be used. Now you can complain that their content is not available for your platform (can't think of any off the top of my head), but then again they don't broadcast midget skat porn either, the aim of the BBC isn't to keep everybody happy, just the vast majority of us, don't like it? Then fuck off and see how you like television in a country without a license fee.
http://trac.xbmc.org/ticket/8971 adds support to use librtmp which supports RTMPE including SWF Verification and Adobe's so-called "Secure" Token authentication.
it's worth repeating that there is absolutely zero security of any kind in Adobe Flash RTMPE. everything can be obtained publicly; or is "magic constants", or is simply a complex chain of algorithms, the result of which is merely an increase in CPU usage, heat generated and money wasted, along with the dangerous illusion of security.
Hahaha. Second amendment for the win!
Man, that's desert-dry humor. Thanks for the laugh.
BTW, I think the username actaclown is still available.
What a bunch of BLITHERING BOBBLEHEADS. Now I know what the "BB" in BBC stands for. I'm in the US and I actually sent them money over the years, because they're the best news organization out there. Not any more. And their goddamn web and streaming is built on goddamn open source, and then they do this. Their mission is to provide news and accessibility to all (well, all in GB), and they do this.
I'm adding what I would have sent them to my contribution to the Pirate Party.
If you have some content that needs DRM protection, by all means knock yourself out. I'm not your target market. My equipment belongs to me, and it obeys me - not you. There is no possible method of DRM that doesn't reverse that situation. There is no possible content you might have that would change my mind about this basic primitive. In my book DRM equipment's not just substandard - it's broken. I'll fix it or it hits the bin.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
DRM music will never go away!
Can you even buy DRM'd music any more? Other than for the Zune of course. Let's not consider the trivial fringe markets. I understood it was pretty much MP3 or better everywhere now. Am I mistaken?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
One day governments will switch on DRM for all Internet traffic. Pirate music will be gone, gone with free speech.
The question is: who on earth does this help? The BBC are a public organisation, so it's not like they were losing money over it, and corporate rightsholders were perfectly happy beforehand. On top of that, it's DRM, so it's not exactly going to stop any copying in the long run, just annoy a few people and cost a shedload of money for the BBC.
I imagine this must be a decision pushed through management, because the BBC's IT department seems very savvy indeed and probably all hate DRM.
Ruppert Murdoch
And just how are they going to know whether you have equipment to receive TV set up in your house? They have no right of entry to your property, unless you choose to allow it.
If you have a CRT TV they can 'tune in' to your picture from outside your house (that's how detector vans work). See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking
I thought maybe this wouldn't work with LCD TVs but the article claims (with a referenced paper) it does in some cases - however, perhaps less reliably than with CRTs.
And by that logic, there are more important things than the BBC having a right to force anyone watching any TV to pay for the BBC, and to stick DRM on it. So by your own argument, why are they wasting time doing this, when that money and their time is better spent on health care, fighting discrimination, curing world hunger, etc?
Reread what you just wrote. You assert that DRM "allows" things, but then when you actually get down to explaining your own position, you admit that "vendors won't allow" things, and you fail to actually come up with anything that is possible with DRM and not even easier without DRM.
In other words, DRM isn't the thing which allows something. All it does, is disallow things. Vendors are the ones who try to allow things. Except when vendors decide to not allow things, people do it anyway.
That's what copyright is for, you idiot.
And DRM subverts copyright. DRM takes paying customers, tells them, "you can't watch it even if you pay," and drives them to downloading DRM-free torrents. This crap is exactly what happened in America and transformed me from a monthly-paying cable TV subscriber ino non-subscribing torrenter. I can play the bt downloads on my MythTV, just like I could record and play analog cable TV. But I can't record and play digital cable TV, because of the DRM.
Do you get it? Not only was I ok with paying, but I was doing it. They were getting my money. Then they started encrypting digital cable. The money stopped. It had to, because I was paying for stuff I couldn't watch. If the law worked the way it should, not only would I have stopped paying, but they would have had to pay back to me the month and a half where I was paying for a service that didn't work, before I finally gave up on trying to strip that DRM and cancelled.
Now UK wants to create the same disaster that is sweeping US. Hopefully their legal system will work better, and for all the people who used to be able to watch but now can't, will be prorated refunds for whatever they have paid for already but won't be able to watch.
BBC has taken a step toward reducing the number of people who pay the TV license fee. If this was caused by content producers, then those producers are taking steps toward reducing their revenue. How can that be a good idea for anyone?
If you want to protect producer rights, then de-legitimizing and eliminating DRM should be one of your top priorities.
The real problem is the incestuous relationship between the BBC and production companies.
Everybody knows everybody else, then when the BBC reaches a decision, the decision makers have an eye on future profits for their mates, former colleagues and themselves (many people that work or have worked for the BBC have production companies that do or will produce stuff for the BBC).
The default mentality is "we have to make money out of this", instead of looking after the interest of the licence payers, you know, the people that actually pay their wages and inflated bonuses.
The BBC havs enough weight to say to any producing company: "all content created for the BBC will not be encumbered by DRM".
Any company that didn't want to play ball could go elsewhere. Perhaps the cost of productions would raise substantially, but somehow I doubt it. The "creative industries" survived video and cassette tapes, CDs and poorly protected DVDs (which is the cash cow they are trying to protect by this DRM nonsense).
The BBC keeps giving this lame excuse about the poor production companies not being able to make money, reason for which the BBC is "forced" to accept their terms. Sorry, but the BBC is not paid by production companies, it is paid by the taxpayer (yes, the licence fee is a tax, lets not mince words about it), I think they need some reminding of that little oft ignored fact.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
When I tried the iPlayer about 6 months ago it already had some sort of DRM, as you could only play the recording on the machine you downloaded it to.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it