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 a tool designed for the sole purpose to take stuff away from you, and you shouldn't tolerate its presence.
No, DRM allows you to watch content. That's why it's called Digital Rights Management.
You realize with IP that there's also *producer* rights not just consumer rights?
You can't just leave the content producers out in the cold. Particularly when you're trying to convince them to pay a TV license fee.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
WTF? What's up with all these pro-drm trolls? This is a strawman and you know it. Heard of emulators? Yea, those. Like the ones that game companies tries to shut down from time to time. Same bullshit, different arena.
Just buy the iplayer. OK.
And now suppose the New York Times comes up with a device that lets one read their premium content. Just buy that, right? Then there's the DVD players, for movies on disc. And an ipod for stuff you buy off itunes. And... when does it end? Will every content provider have its own special player to see their stuff? Will one have a portfolio of devices, each for their one very narrow use?
We all know DRM doesn't work, for a myriad of reasons. The sooner content providers can grok that - deeply - and start spending time figuring out ways of monetizing their work that plays with the laws of physics rathar than against them, the better off they, and society as a whole, will be.
The progressive media has already started the "smear-campaign" against the Teaparty movement. I hope I'm wrong, but I have a funny feeling, come November, if it appears that a lot of the democrat incumbants who are up for re-election are getting trounced in the polls, that Comrade Obama, as CinC, will rustle up a nice little staged "incident", and declare Martial law.. There goes the elections, and there goes the USA down the shithole... It wouldn't take much, something on the order of Waco or the like... Then the good old USA then becomes the USSA........
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Yes. They profit from the sale of DVD's and Blu-ray. You may not like it, but they do, and they are taking steps to protect that revenue stream. If they did not have this option, I would probably not be able to freely view this content via browser as is. They would simply make everyone buy the disk when it came out.
Is BBC entirely funded by the tax-payer? Do you agree that any taxes eliminated by profits that they may make are a good thing? You can't have it both ways. I can only assume that the BBC is much like PBS in the US (public funded). PBS is a wasteland of uninteresting content here and doesn't have near the recognition of BBC. If they have a successful model that doesn't cost your tax payers too much, I personally wouldn't be so quick to criticize this move.
I was hoping for a civil dialogue, but it appears you are going to take the low road.
"Why not? And if you're not paying for the BBC, yet you can watch it, then how is that helping the BBC's profits?"
I do pay for their content. I've actually bought the entire Blue Planet series on Blu-ray. Claiming you don't understand why they are implementing DRM is a bit disingenuous, as it is designed purely to prevent unauthorized copying (regardless of how ineffective it is). If I legally can only view the stream, and not store it permanently, then I would buy the disk if I wanted to be able to go back and view it at any time. If you can freely download and save the same video from a browser, negating that purchase, it would cut into profits for sales on DVD and Blu-Ray, especially for folks who can't view it anywhere else but via the Web or on disk.
It doesn't matter where the 'fee' comes from. It is still a tax on the public. They obviously charge that to fund operations. If they lose profits from disk sales, then they would in turn need to increase fees to keep operations at the same level.
"Not to mention that no one is arguing against profits. You still have to show that DRM increases their profits."
The same question cuts both ways. Can you prove it doesn't? You seem to be trying to make me out as some sort of DRM champion, which is far from the case, as I actually dislike DRM, but I do see where it can be applied without impacting users overly much and still accomplish their goals.
No where did I suggest BBC is better due to DRM. I said that BBC is better than PBS. PBS is donation driven (no mandatory fees) where BBC appears to be funded by taxing the public.
"It costs us £145.50 a year (from April). Even if DRM does help them lower the fee, it's hardly helping if licence payers are simply instead having to pay more by buying DVDs"
You basically make my argument for me. You're stating that you currently are not buying these disks due to lack of copy protection and then question whether DRM will actually increase sales?
I think the change in attitudes happened with the switch to digital. Under the old analog copying systems, you could get a copy, but it was never very good. With the advent of digital, you can get an exact copy, and copy it an unlimited number of times.
It does make a difference. In one scenario, they are asking people who do want to keep permanent copies of the content to buy them. In your preferred scenario, everyone pays for them (via higher fees), even if they don't want to buy them.