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."

Comments

Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[nurb432]

And then dropped their service. Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only hope to stop DRM. Act today!

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[VMaN]

I don't think its optional. If you have a TV, you pay for BBC etc, like in Denmark.

ooooor am I getting it wrong?

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[OrangeTide]

Only the people who read this website actually care. DRM will never die because users are used to putting up with inconvenience and absurd costs for their media. Customers just accept anything, be it overpriced cable TV service(you pay a monthly fee, then you also have to pay per view), or an extremely disruptive level of advertising in programs.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[Sockatume]

They'll let you off if they visit and you don't have any receiving equipment set up, i.e. no cable or satellite box in your home, and no antenna connected. There was talk of them changing the licence fee so that anyone who could use the iPlayer (i.e. anyone with flash and an internet connection) would be billable though.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[TheRaven64]

I stopped paying the TV license when they introduced MS DRM on iPlayer originally (I haven't had a TV for a while, but I kept paying the license fee because I thought the online news was valuable). I'm absolutely disgusted by this. The BBC streams HD H.264 unencrypted over the air. It's absolutely ludicrous that they should DRM the online streams. If you want to pirate their content, just stick a DVB-T card in your computer, grab the streams, and upload them (optionally after transcoding). This is exactly what happens - you can get anything on iPlayer from various torrent sites at a higher quality from the OTA broadcast. So why are they adding DRM? There is absolutely no legitimate justification for it.

The BBC is a large organisation. They should not bow to pressure on this issue - if content is not available DRM free then they should refuse to license it at all, even for terrestrial broadcast.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[selven]

It's a tax supported public service (which, of course, only makes their DRM even more despicable). You can only opt out by not watching any TV channels.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[thetoadwarrior]

My plan is to get rid of my TV and only have a big ass monitor to hook up consoles onto and I do only watch DVDs and the one or two shows on the iPlayer every so often. Then I'll quit paying the licence

I'm sure there are others that do this and they want to force people to pay but once I make the switch, until I'm forced to pay I won't. I just don't use their services enough to warrant and I don't like the idea of supporting East Enders.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[miggyb]

+1 Damn shame

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[click2005]

The BBC streams HD H.264 unencrypted over the air.

They have been trying to get permission to encrypt that too.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[TheRaven64]

No they haven't - and they can't because it would break millions of deployed set-top boxes. They have been asking for permission to encrypt the channel guide metadata, but they weren't able to provide any rational justification for needing to.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[broeman]

I don't know how they are doing it in the UK, but already several European countries (e.g. Denmark, Germany) also charges for an Internet connection as well. They actually found a way to tax access to the Internet, with the reason that you have the possibility to use the state radio/television online services. Many have been wondering if binoculars will be next (watching TV from your neighbor could be a possibility of use as well).

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[growse]

Nope, you pay the fee if you watch or receive TV broadcasts as they are broadcast. Ownership of a TV doesn't come into it. It's actually very difficult for them to legally force you to pay it, as they'd have to take you to court with sufficient evidence that you watched or received TV as it was broadcast whilst not having a license.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[Turzyx]

If people can receive BBC signals via their aerials they are likely residing in the UK, and thus, more than likely pay a TV license.

The BBC has been under pressure recently to reduce its costs, I suspect subsiding non-UK free-loaders is something they are trying to eliminate. I wouldn't be surprised if they added a paid subscription to iPlayer for non-UK residents in the future.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[Zenzay42]

In Denmark they're a bit more strict. They've recently decided that you must pay license if you have ANY means of recieving TV. That means; if your mobile phone can recieve TV then you gotta cough up the money - whether you use it or not.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[TheRaven64]

The license fee is only required if you own a TV, but some of the money goes to paying for the online services. I continued paying it after I stopped having a TV, because I felt that I was getting good value for money from the BBC services that I did use, even though I was not legally obliged to pay for them. I have no objection to paying for entertainment, but I do object to my money being used to promote DRM.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[sixsixtysix]

billable would be fine, if there wasn't any ads.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[grahammm]

If people can receive BBC signals via their aerials they are likely residing in the UK, and thus, more than likely pay a TV license.

I think that you will find that the BBC signals are receivable by aerial throughout most, if not all, of the Netherlands and in many places in Northern France.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[LordVader717]

Um, yes they have. Their first priority was to apply DRM to the metadata, but they requested OFCOM to review whether encryption should be allowed. Read their original request.

While it first did indeed look as if OFCOM would stop the BBC's treacherous plans, they have since softened and it currently looks as if DRM is well on it's way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/09/ofcom

and they can't because it would break millions of deployed set-top boxes.

The BBC has a few sneaky tricks up their sleeve for that. They would start by applying it to all HD channels.
And then they'll do what they did to encourage people to switch to digital receivers in the first place: launch new channels and water down your previous service so much that everyone upgrades. As long as they still show the news they're still doing their job right?

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[auric_dude]

You need one if you watch tv live otherwise not. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology-top8/

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[Hurricane78]

Bullshit. They will care, as soon as someone switches the DRM server off. Which already happened more than once, and created massive anger, especially among Joe Sixpack types, who sued. As soon as (tabloid) newspapers notice these events, they will warn about the DRM fraud schemes. Which the Joes will read. Resulting in mass-avoidance.

The normal guy on the street luckily still thinks that he owns what he buys. Even if it’s information (e.g. movies). So if that what he thinks he owns, goes away in any way, he will sue for fraud/theft/etc, avoid them, and tell his friends to avoid them. Simple as that.

It’s the natural rule of maximum efficiency. As soon as buying DRMed stuff becomes negative compared to the other choices, it dies. Period. (The trick is to offer better choices. But that’s already in the works, as artists leave their publishers droves, as soon as they can get out. To then do their own thing, and get a multiple of the money they got before.)

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[thetoadwarrior]

If you don't have a TV or don't watch live streaming broadcasts then you don't need a licence. Of course it is hard for either side to prove that you do or don't watch live streaming broadcasts but as far as I know as long as you don't have a TV you're going to do pretty good at getting out of it.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[ydrol]

And didn't I read somewhere that you cant record/timeshift Freeview HD? As all of my TV watching is timeshifted , then that's no use to me at all. I was thinking of getting a Panasonic P42G20 with HD Freeview tuner, but it all sounds a lot less appealing than I first thought. Until you can timeshift Freeview HD I wont be buying any equipment.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[PybusJ]

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 they managed to witness you watching TV through a window then they might be able to make a case against you in court. Mostly though they rely on a system of sending threatening letters to every residential address which hasn't paid for a license.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[Antony-Kyre]

Assuming most everyone has a TV, why can't they find a progressive way of implementing the tax rather than keeping the license?

And by progressive, I don't necessarily mean a hefty tax on the rich, but perhaps, if you guys have an income tax, just increase income taxes by a flat rate across the board.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[sFurbo]

Not in Denmark, here any connection to the internet faster than 256 kbit/s (IIRC, perhaps it is 128) is taxed, even if it is a 3G connection on a cellphone. And it is quite hard to get a connection slower than that, I'm not even sure where I would go to get a dial-up connection anymore, so in effect, it is a tax on having internet connection.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[nosferatu1001]

Incorrect - the communications act 2000 extended it to include ANY live broadcast, whether you recieve it over the air or over the net.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[Teun]

That's what happened in The Netherlands, the old Radio/TV licence was done away with and the broadcasters are now paid from the regular taxes.

Now there's no more need to act on every new technological development and it saves a lot in enforcement, because it's hard to find any one that doesn't have a radio or TV it's for all purpose quite just.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[L4t3r4lu5]

anyone with flash and an internet connection

Good luck explaining to a "TV License Enforcement Representative" that you browse using Lynx.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[salmacis2]

iPlayer is for catching up on the last 7 days. I'm not a gambler, but I'd put decent money on the BBC's servers still being up in a weeks time.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[Sockatume]

There aren't any. It's the BBC.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[Ihmhi]

If something on the scale of iTunes (or hell, even a third of the size of iTunes) collapsed and created a huge DRM clusterfuck, that would probably be the turning point.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[TiggsPanther]

Unfortunately, you're dead right. One of the DRM advocates on the BBC Blogs comment thread comes over very much as being afraid that caving to the "FOSS preachers" will result in the withdrawal of content from the content providers.

Or, to put it another way, is willing to put up with a reduction in freedom as long as all his (her?) favourite programs are available for viewing.
And then in the same paragraph, will accuse FOSS advocates of being "selfish".

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[baker_tony]

For the past few years I've just had my PC connected to my TV and watch iPlayer (seldom) or downloaded TV shows.
Never have paid a TV license, never will, because I don't watch live TV.
Once the TV licensing guy came to my front door and tried to convince me that their "detectors" had "detected" me watching live TV. I called him a liar and revoked his implied right of access to the building and escorted him off the premiss. Now if he or anyone from TV licensing come to my front door they'll be trespassing.
Learn your rights, TV licensing have no more power than if I came to your front door and said I was a vaccine cleaner inspector, let me in! The TV licensing company makes its money from scaremongering.

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[sixsixtysix]

so i've learned. if it is free to access over the air, then why start charging for online...

Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out

[geekoid]

There is legitimate justification, there isn't any piratical reason for doing so.

I understand t's about the TV licence. I wouldn't mind watching shows on Hulu and include a commercial. Put the money made from the commercial into the 'TV license' bucket to offset future increases to the tv license. This way people viewing it from other countries will actually be adding to the TV license.

Yes, I know Hulu isn't available in all countries; however they could do this with other services as well, or from the BBC directly.

Yup

[symbolset]

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.

Re:Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it that DRM allows one to watch content? Surely people could watch content before DRM came around?

Re:Yup

[lalleglad]

No, it is about taking rights away from the consumer, in an attempt to enforce and manage the rights of the producer.

Unfortunately, it is often not really enforceable making people that attempts to use their fair-use rights into criminals, but still not providing the sought after control of the producers.

So, it is a loose-loose situation.

A great deal of re-thinking of the situation ought to be done.

Re:Yup

[quantumpineal]

The DRM has been on iPlayer content for a while now. i usually strip it out using Fair Use 4 WM. It's on rapidshare @ google

Re:Yup

[thetoadwarrior]

No, it allows you to watch content how they want you to watch it. We could watch it beforehand just fine.

When you want to debate whether or not it is right or not; it doesn't stop people from file sharing their content. You can record it from the TV and then share it.

What it does do is take away rights people had from the TV where you could record content and watch it when you felt like it. I know iPlayer does keep things for awhile and you don't have to watch things at the precise moment it is on but you are still limited by a timeframe and you can't keep it or transfer it to the device of your choice.

Sure you can do that if you grab it from the TV but why should people have to?

Re:Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

it is a loose-loose situation.

You mean it's extremely baggy?

Re:Yup

[jonbryce]

There was until recently no DRM on the flash video versions, and that's what get_iplayer and the xbmc plugin used. FairUse4WM doesn't work in versions of Windows later than XP, and in any case there are less programs available in wmv format than flv format.

Re:Yup

[cyber-vandal]

DRM is anything but loose. I'm assuming you mean lose.

Re:Yup

[lalleglad]

And did I write that I wanted the rights of the producer erased and leave the content provider in the cold? Please show me how you read that into it? (atarashii meagane katta ho ga ii kamoshirenai?).

It is a digital world, and the producer side, or what seems to be the defenders of the content producers have amalgamated too much political backing, actually leaving the consumers out in the cold, and I would like to move the balance the other way, even just a little.

And I am not trying to convince anyone to pay a TV license fee or any other fee. Where did I write that?
Actually, I just want content producers to concentrate on doing that, produce content and make it available on reasonable terms.

Today, too often some content is either not available or not on reasonable terms if it is.

Re:Yup

[lalleglad]

Yes, of course, but I probably should have put a smiley there :-)

Re:Yup

[PopeRatzo]

No, DRM allows you to watch content.

Oh, it allows me to watch the movies I own? I never looked at it that way. DRM in the games I bought is really there to let me play them. How nice of corporations to be so kind to me! If there was no DRM in our content we'd never be able to use it!

Now that you've removed the scales from my eyes, I will only be grateful for DRM. I'm going to compose thank you letters to the RIAA, the MPAA and the GNAA right now.

Re:Yup

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Because you say that DRM removes rights of the consumer, which rights? Redistribution and authorized playback are the rights of the producer, not the consumer. Which is important when you're trying to convince someone to pay for a TV license on materials they can easily download online.

Consumers aren't left out in the cold! They fire up iPlayer and they get the fucking video.

Re:Yup

[lalleglad]

The right to play the content on any device I see fit? At any time?

When I have bought a tune or a video the producer shouldn't care where I play it as along as it is for myself or my household. Your rights stops at my front door.

And I am still not trying to convince anyone to pay a TV license for materials and I don't "fire up iPlayer and get the fucking video". So now you want to combine the consumers usage with a specific device?

I just want to be able to purchase a CD or DVD with music or video content on it. As simple as that.

Re:Yup

[sixsixtysix]

Redistribution and authorized playback are the rights of the producer, not the consumer.

except that the consumer should have a say in this. i should be able to watch on whatever system i want. i assume ads are embedded in the stream, so they get the ad hits regardless. otherwise, you can't blame people for just torrenting the stuff.

Re:Yup

[cyber-vandal]

Sorry I'm not normally so anal - I won't do it again I promise :-)

Re:Yup

[grahammm]

But it is equally wrong to only enforce the producer's rights, especially if doing so infringes the consumer's rights.

Re:Yup

[bhtooefr]

In this case, this is the BBC, so viewers are already paying for the content in their TV fees, and the BBC isn't even allowed to show ads in the UK.

Re:Yup

[grahammm]

Amongst others the right to include (small) quotes of the work as part of critical analysis or commentary.

Re:Yup

[lalleglad]

No, that's OK, you were right and I was wrong.

And as you can see, I got two comments from it, so probably a few didn't receive the message as I had intended, and I am now wiser than before.

So, thank you for the feedback! :-)

Re:Yup

[hyc]

Aside from the fact that this isn't news, it hasn't been a problem either. The patch to add the so-called "DRM" support to XBMC was made available within a few hours of the BBC change.

http://trac.xbmc.org/ticket/8971

Re:Yup

[erroneus]

It removes the right to play back at any time and the right to transfer among different media. This has long been established as a right of the consumer. By doing this, they are removing such rights and can leverage this to get people to buy the same thing over and over and over again.

Re:Yup

[sixsixtysix]

really? that is nice! where is my usabc?

Re:Yup

[KillShill]

How about software?

Should you be able to buy a disc with software on it and use it on any device, including those which the vendor does not approve?

Re:Yup

[dryeo]

Why shouldn't you be able to do whatever you want with your bought full version copy besides distribute it?
I can see limiting upgrades to upgrading previous versions that you own.

Re:Yup

[Paul Jakma]

What if the content producers that really demanding DRM are pretty much all subsidiaries of the BBC? E.g. BBC Worldwide? BBC executives have pretty much said that BBCW is a major motivator for DRM (see my other post below).

Re:Yup

[ooshna]

No reason this should have been modded troll. its a valid point.

Re:Yup

[e9th]

Subtlety & Slashdot don't often mix well.

Re:Yup

[Kalriath]

To play devils advocate here, iPlayer is considered an extension of television over there last I saw, and there is no additional fee charged for it. The right to play back and transfer among different media does not actually exist, as it is essentially broadcast television - in fact you're explicitly denied the right to play back (more than once) and transfer.

This would be a whole different kettle of fish, of course, if the content itself was charged for and sold on a transfer of rights basis (like iTunes purchases).

Re:Yup

[DJRumpy]

I feel for the parent, as it's definitely an unpopular opinion, but in this case, it does allow streaming internet content in this instance. I don't think it was trolling, but rather just not articulated very well. Without any DRM, many vendors won't allow their streams online (at least legally). They demand these protections from the broadcasters. As much as I despise DRM, there are situations where it allow content that we normally wouldn't be allow to access. In this case, I think BBC is just in the middle and did what it had to, in order to keep it's content providers.

Re:Yup

[countertrolling]

...in order to keep it's content providers.

BBC is the content provider.

Re:Yup

[DJRumpy]

Then the same answer still applies. BBC is simply protecting it's own content and profits as they see it. Whether they are in the middle, or the producer of said content is largely irrelevant as the reasons for DRM are the same. Being from the US, I don't know what most of the content it does produce. We do see a lot of series about various topics, but they are typically free to view via Browser and also typically available via Blu-Ray or DVD. They seem to feel this gives them some sense of security, however misplaced.

I would think this would only encourage people to rip the video and save it locally rather than just viewing the stream.

Re:Yup

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

But you don't have that right. You may be given explicit permission to do so, but format shifting has by no means ever been defined as a "right."

The RIAA v. Rio case of 1999 specified that files that were already on your hard drive were free to be copied to other devices, not reconverted elsewhere for free use. DRM free media has no controls keeping you from doing whatever you want with it; from one device to another has been set into legal precedence, but one format to another has not.

I'm all for consumers rights here, but several things, until this is the law of the land, then there's no argument. There is no right for it. I advocate we change that; but also, I've noticed that when we make this our geeky political hot button issue, we're kind of ignoring the realities of the world around us. This is a first world, middle class problem. There are way more important things in life than DRM. GLBT discrimination for instance, racial profiling, health care, consumer rights(Yes, DRM included here; but consumer rights go way beyond just DRM and the DMCA), and the list goes on.

Re:Yup

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

So don't buy DRM content and if you're in the UK don't get a TV license until the BBC drops their DRM. Simple enough I'd say. Worked for music.

As a constituent in a political system, derive an argument that producer digital restrictions are harmful enough that you can campaign against your local politico and make it stick. These kinds of issues happen all the time. If it's really that bad, you can make it stick.

I support Spain's current IP system; you can redistribute all the IP you want, just don't try to make any god damned money off of it. Until that's the law of the land though, you have no *right* to be allowed to change presentation layers of digital media; particularly if it means circumventing encryption. I have no problems with people defying it in an act of civil disobedience, just never forget, that producers *do* and *should* have rights of distribution and presentation as the law stands now.

Re:Yup

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Under what law? In America, there's no such case law nor is there such laws on the books. I'm not sure what the case is in the UK, I found some articles talking about potentially codifying the right to format shift into law, but nothing about what happened with it.

Re:Yup

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

What consumer right is being violated and where was this right established?

Re:Yup

[timbo234]

Which is important when you're trying to convince someone to pay for a TV license on materials they can easily download online.

I don't think you understand what the phrase 'TV licence' means in the UK context. It's a compulsory fee (effectively a tax) charged by the government against *consumers* who own a device capable of receiving TV shows (ie. TVs, laptops, PCs etc.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom

There is no 'convincing' anyone to pay for a TV licence, it's compulsory.

Given this it's pretty reasonable for consumers to expect the BBC to make this content available how they (the consumers) want it delivered. And I can assure you that consumers don't want shitty DRM that makes the content unwatchable on certain hardware (eg. media PCs).

Re:Yup

[Capsaicin]

I would like to move the balance the other way, even just a little.

In times past Copyright and associated law (the term 'IP' is itself an ideological frame), was seen, theoretically at least, as a balancing act between the livelihood of cultural creators and the general public's right to access cultural product. You don't hear that much any more.

Apparently a new balance, that between the rights of content producing corporations, and between the rights copying technology producing corporations has been put foremost in the minds of legislators world-wide. Working within this new frame, DRM provides just the solution required to achieve "balance."

Re:Yup

[erroneus]

In the U.S., the notion of "Fair Use" has been established through the courts system by precedent. VHS vs Betamax cases helped to establish the right to shift media and other VCR related cases established the right to time shift which was upheld when challenges to TiVo and similar devices came about.

Re:Yup

[Chrisq]

Some productions are outsourced to small production companies. Also a lot of things are just brought in (think of all the American tv shows)

Re:Yup

[Hal_Porter]

The BBC doesn't need to "convince people to pay for a TV license". Anyone who has a TV or any device capable of receiving live TV broadcasts (e.g. a PC that can run iPlayer) is required by law to have a license whether you watch BBC channels or not. If you buy a TV or video recorder in the UK the retailer is obliged to tell TV licensing that you have. If you don't buy a license they will harass you until you do

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Tips%20for%20avoidng%20TVL-BBC%20harassment.htm

Re:Yup

[Molt]

No, the BBC are not allowed to show advertisements in the UK on any license-fee funded services. This is part of the charter agreement, and as it's the charter agreement which allows the BBC access to the license fee they're not going to break that anytime soon.

Re:Yup

[hawkinspeter]

I wish I could do that! The BBC has a unique way of funding - if you own equipment CAPABLE of receiving TV, you have to buy a TV License and the money goes to the BBC. That means, that effectively, there is no way I can legally not pay the BBC as long as I own a TV (even if I only watch non-BBC channels)! It's basically a form of taxation, except that there is no representation - I can't vote for the bosses of BBC.

Re:Yup

[stupid_is]

Actually, the only ads the BBC is allowed to show consist of trailers for their other shows (both radio and tv based). Commercial advertising of products is strictly verboten, although there is a certain amount of wiggle-room when it comes to sponsorship deals...

Re:Yup

[mdwh2]

Then the same answer still applies. BBC is simply protecting it's own content and profits as they see it.

Its content and profits? The BBC is already paid for by the British public (well, anyone who watches TV - whether or not they want to watch the BBC).

As a licence payer, I don't want them using DRM.

Re:Yup

[mdwh2]

Because you say that DRM removes rights of the consumer, which rights? Redistribution and authorized playback are the rights of the producer, not the consumer.

There are no consumers in the BBC's model - they're funded by the British public, whether they want to consume the BBC's material or not.

Which is important when you're trying to convince someone to pay for a TV license on materials they can easily download online.

Again, no. The BBC does not have to worry about getting people to buy its content, because it doesn't work like that. In fact, whilst people who watch non-BBC TV still have to pay the licence, it's also true that non-TV owners can watch material on Iplayer without paying for the licence. So the argument that this provides an incentive is nonsense - those people who watch TV don't need an incentive, because they have no choice (it's illegal to watch without a licence), whilst those people thinking about downloading versus using Iplayer don't have to pay anyway.

And as a licence payer, I don't want it.

Re:Yup

[mdwh2]

This is the UK, so RIAA v. Rio isn't relevant.

And are you seriously suggesting that everything be illegal, unless a court rules otherwise? I don't think so. That's not how it works in the UK.

The OP is clearly talking about the rights that he wants to have, anyway. As opposed to the rights that the BBC thinks it should have (even though we pay for it).

There are way more important things in life than DRM.

Ah yes, this card. So people can't spend time on more than one issue? And the issues you list are all trivial compared to even more important issues, such as world poverty - surely by your logic, we should only be spending time on the single most important thing in the world right?

And anyhow, what are you doing here, if you think it's not important? Surely there are more important things in life, than people on Slashdot talking about things you disagree with? What worthy causes do you spend your time on - and where's the evidence that this is more than what the OP spends his time on?

Re:Yup

[mdwh2]

So don't buy DRM content and if you're in the UK don't get a TV license until the BBC drops their DRM. Simple enough I'd say. Worked for music.

As pointed out, the BBC doesn't work like this - we don't have consumer choice like for other companies.

As a constituent in a political system, derive an argument that producer digital restrictions are harmful enough that you can campaign against your local politico and make it stick.

Um, exactly like people are doing, you mean? That's what we're talking about - you're the one saying that people shouldn't care.

Until that's the law of the land though, you have no *right* to be allowed to change presentation layers of digital media; particularly if it means circumventing encryption. I have no problems with people defying it in an act of civil disobedience, just never forget, that producers *do* and *should* have rights of distribution and presentation as the law stands now.

You're conflating what the law is, with opinions about what the law should be. Even if the law says one thing, people can still question what the law should be.

Furthermore, you don't even know what UK law is - there is no UK law, AFAIK, against circumventing encryption (at least, I don't think we've yet brought in our own DMCA equivalent, though I may be wrong). We are not governed by your Spanish law, and producers do not have some legal given right of presentation. The issue here is not one of law, but a question of the BBC using DRM, when it's funded by the licence fee.

Even where it is a question of law, are you like this on every Slashdot story? E.g., there's a story about the DMCA, and you post 50 comments telling us that that's what the law is? Yes, we know what the law is - it's the law that we're complaining about.

Re:Yup

[mdwh2]

Yes. They profit from the sale of DVD's and Blu-ray. You may not like it, but they do

Two straw men in one. Thank you for point out the obvious - yes, I know they sell DVDs. And no, it's not true that I don't like it. I've never complained about them selling DVDs etc, since that doesn't affect those of us who pay for it. The issue is when they introduce DRM as an argument for making even more money, since that does affect us.

If they did not have this option, I would probably not be able to freely view this content via browser as is.

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?

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?

What taxes eliminated by profits?

It is reasonable to call the BBC fee a tax, however this doesn't mean it's funded out of general taxation. There is a specific TV licence fee.

Not to mention that no one is arguing against profits. You still have to show that DRM increases their profits.

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.

You are seriously suggesting that the BBC is better than PBS, because of DRM? How does that account for all the decades when they didn't have DRM? How can you possibly argue that we can't criticise this move now, based on the quality of the BBC so far?

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 - they're still paying one way or the other! And the biggest point you are missing is that, since the BBC is funded by the public, its quality is not going to go down just because they don't have DRM. That's the poorest argument for DRM I've ever heard. Speaking as someone who pays for the BBC - unlike you - I don't want DRM.

Re:Yup

[geekoid]

Thanks, without you none of us could have possible determine what's important to us what issues we shouldn't pend time on~

You are a true hero~

The time shifting issue goes back before 1999. You might want to brush up before hurrying to tell us why it's not really important and that we should be worried about other stuff.

Re:Yup

[rufty_tufty]

While this is a fine argument I think the reality is a little different. Producers didn't use to require these protections from broadcasters. It seems that instead they want the most that technology will let them have - it used to be copyright law was good enough - as with all things they want to push the borders in their advantage.
Not that i think they're evil or anything, they're perfectly entitled to do as they wish with their content*, if they don't want to release that to the public then that is up to the owner of the content.

Can you imagine if broadcast radio turned up today? "You want to send out our content to anyone? You're not charging them? You don't even know how many are listening to it? They are free to record it themselves?"

*Except in this case it's the BBC, therefore it's my content, and everyone else's in the UK, so why are you restricting what i can do with what I've already paid for? Yes i know the law doesn't agree with me on this case, but after the whole Dr Who debacle of the 80s and 90s I'm bitter at how the BBC seems to be treating home recording given how much they have since profited off it.

Re:Yup

[bhtooefr]

The difference between the BBC and PBS/NPR is that paying the BBC is compulsory if you watch TV, paying PBS/NPR is voluntary.

BBC is quasi-governmental, and has some laws relating to how it can operate, PBS/NPR are not-for-profit organizations, and can operate however the hell they want (as long as the mission isn't to profit.)

The upshot of this is that PBS runs telethons every so often - basically, for a whole day, instead of content, you get fundraising. As I understand, NPR just advertises donations every now and then, although I don't listen to NPR. Also, PBS and NPR can be blatantly biased in whatever direction they want without violating any laws.

Re:Yup

[Acaeris]

I live in the UK, have a TV and can watch more channels than are available on Freeview and all legally without a license by watching it on a catchup service on the internet (I've even asked TV Licensing about it). It's 'required' if you watch or record a currently broadcasting show but not if you watch a catch up service such as ITVPlayer, 4oD, etc. There was even an article on the BBC website about whether you could watch iPlayer without a license (yes as long as it's not currently being broadcast). Admittedly this requires more work than just plugging your Sky/Virgin/Freeview/Aerial into a TV but you don't have to do it that way and the license isn't compulsory.

TV Licensing can be a huge pain in the backside when they try chasing you down but that's because their check basically involves searching for unlicensed addresses, phoning Virgin/Sky to see if you have a TV package with them, if not checking your house for an aerial (when there are a few in the area they'll send someone to quickly check). If you have either of these they pester you.

Re:Yup

[Acaeris]

Because those are the people most likely to have actually paid for the content (via license). You don't need a license for iPlayer, so there is a chance (and I'm willing to bet it's quite high) that a lot of the viewers haven't paid for the content.

Re:Yup

[JustABlitheringIdiot]

Because you say that DRM removes rights of the consumer, which rights? Redistribution and authorized playback are the rights of the producer, not the consumer. Which is important when you're trying to convince someone to pay for a TV license on materials they can easily download online.

Consumers aren't left out in the cold! They fire up iPlayer and they get the fucking video.

So by the same logic you would be entirely ok if BBC said "Oh by the way you can only watch our programming on a Panaphonic or a Sorny TV" solely b/c those models don't allow you to connect a TIVO, VCR, (insert time shifting/reproduction device here), etc.

I understand that the distribution and reproduction rights are theirs as well it should be for the original distribution (everybody deserves to paid for their work if they want to). The way I see it is that once it's out there you give up all control of it because you have two options.
1) Allow people to what they wish with the product.
2) Do not distribute your product b/c you don't like what will inevitably happen to it.

Re:Yup

[Dogtanian]

The BBC itself has to keep BBC Worldwide at arm's length as it is supposed to be a non-commercial organisation; treating it differently because it happened to be owned by the BBC might land it in commercial hot water.

I don't know how exactly that might apply to the current situation, but I do know that it's an issue in general.

Re:Yup

[mdwh2]

If I legally can only view the stream

Iplayer is already restricted to UK viewers only, so no, you can't view the stream, with or without DRM. At best, your argument is one for introducing DRM for non-UK viewers, but this shouldn't be the case for those of us in the UK.

If they lose profits from disk sales, then they would in turn need to increase fees to keep operations at the same level.

But even if that's true, if it makes no difference to how much we pay (because we either pay through DVD prices or a higher licence fee), then what's the benefit for the DRM route?

Can you prove it doesn't?

No I can't prove that unicorns don't exist. The burden is upon the one making the claim. My argument against DRM is not based on profits, it's based on the fact that I don't want DRM on content that the public is funding.

No where did I suggest BBC is better due to DRM. I said that BBC is better than PBS.

So therefore your point is irrelevant. I never claimed that they aren't better than PBS.

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 didn't agree - I said "Even if". Yes, even if this was true, how does it make it better for us consumers, if we're still paying for it one way or the other?

And FWIW, I've bought DVDs of BBC material even though I could have downloaded it.

Re:Yup

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I'm suggesting things that aren't codified as "rights" aren't rights.

In fact, the courts have decided that format shifting is *not* fair use(A&M Records vs Napster, UMG vs. MP3.com) by the way and there's no law on the books saying that format shifting *is* a right. DRM is a right held by content producers. I suggest you do not purchase from those producers if you're so bothered by it.

Re:Yup

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

You're conflating what the law is, with opinions about what the law should be. Even if the law says one thing, people can still question what the law should be.

No doubt. But people are citing "consumer rights" which clearly do not exist in law. It's entitlement thinking that simply has no basis in reality.

We are not governed by your Spanish law, and producers do not have some legal given right of presentation.

I'm suggesting the Spanish system as a basis for future ideas concerning IP laws. Actually yes they do. If you rip BluRay or DVD discs, you're violating the law.

Even where it is a question of law, are you like this on every Slashdot story? E.g., there's a story about the DMCA, and you post 50 comments telling us that that's what the law is? Yes, we know what the law is - it's the law that we're complaining about.

No, because most people know what the fucking DMCA says. There are no rights granted to consumers to rip DVDs into more portable formats, and there are no rights for consumers to break DRM. Consumers simply do not have this right. They should, but they don't and they need to be reminded of it.

Re:Yup

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Time shifting but not format shifting.

Fair Use doesn't allow you to break DRM either, that's the domain of the DMCA.

Re:Yup

[Paul Jakma]

BBC is required to be transparent and even-handed The BBC and BBCW executives are supposedly at arms length, yes. When it comes to bidding for production and other services - BBC subsidiaries are not meant to be preferred.

However, when it comes to licensing BBC content for commercial exploitation, my impression was that BBC Worldwide gets first dibs.

Finally, BBC Worldwide is also subject to the public interest goals of the BBC charter.

Re:Yup

[palindrome]

I think the point that is being made is:

A) BBC is owned by the British Public.
B) Some of the British public is not happy with how it is doing business.

We're not talking about consumer rights. We're talking about shareholders' rights.

Stupid

[gilesjuk]

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?

Re:Stupid

[Aladrin]

How much does it cost them if you download a torrent of a show that someone taped from 'the airwaves'? Nothing.

How much does it cost them if you watch the show online using their bandwidth? Not nothing.

That's a pretty big difference.

Re:Stupid

[Paul Jakma]

I believe, in addition to the usual blind-spot media execs seem to have about DRM, that there's an element of getting control over the client viewing platform. E.g. the BBC are developing a set-top-box for internet TV (Project Canvas).

Re:Stupid

[TheRaven64]

Nonsense. It costs them exactly the same amount when you watch a show online whether it is DRM'd or not. In fact, the lack of DRM reduces their bandwidth usage - you can download the file and watch it more than once, just as you can record shows from TV.

Re:Stupid

[TheRaven64]

Uh, what? iPlayer uses GeoIP so only British citizens can download directly from them anyway (and they have peering agreements with British ISPs, so they aren't paying for bandwidth anyway). People in the UK can (and do) dump the DVB streams from the BBC and upload them to torrents. I doubt that they do the same with the iPlayer streams, because they're more traceable and lower quality.

It's worth noting that get_iplayer doesn't let you do anything that you can do with a DVR anyway. You can grab digital streams via a DVR or computer with a DVB-t card and keep them forever. There is no DRM on the OTA streams, so why does there need to be on the Internet ones?

Re:Stupid

[jonbryce]

If I want to watch the program a second time, then without DRM I can play the mp4 file saved to my hard drive, whereas with DRM, I must download it again.

Re:Stupid

[Sir_Lewk]

The difference is that broadcast TV is 'broadcast' while watching something online is 'unicast'. I don't know how much it costs to run a broadcast television station, I assume it is a lot. Once you have it up and running though, one more person tuning in and watching a show isn't putting any extra strain on they system, while one more person watching something online is putting more strain on their servers.

Now, I really highly doubt they are doing this just to annoy people into watching shows over broadcast to save them money, but I think that is what the GP was trying to say.

Re:Stupid

[LordVader717]

How much does it cost them if you download a torrent of a show that someone taped from 'the airwaves'? Nothing.

Try millions and millions of pounds. Terrestrial broadcast for an entire country isn't cheap.

Re:Stupid

[Kalriath]

Except that the service is run on the same basis as broadcast television. I.e, it is actually not legal to watch it a second time. The whole point of the service is to timeshift.

The TV market is broken

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The TV market is broken

[wagnerrp]

This has absolutely nothing to do with market exclusivity. DRM exists to maintain control over the content AFTER the user has downloaded it, to prevent the user from being able to store and playback indefinitely. Market exclusivity has been handled since the inception of iPlayer by IP geolocation lockouts. You have to be using a UK-based to access the content.

Who wants DRM? Who wants platform neutrality?

[Paul Jakma]

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.

Re:Who wants DRM? Who wants platform neutrality?

[im_thatoneguy]

BBC owns the rights to many programs that they then sell to other markets.

For example the currently very popular "Life" series is a BBC program but the Discovery channel has bought rebroadcast rights.

If you can stream the iPlayer in the US because a player includes no DRM then the Discovery channel can sue the BBC for breaching their exclusive distribution rights.

This is true of all of their programs. It's the BBC's responsibility to extract as much profit as possible from foreign markets. It's part of how they fund their operations beyond local taxes. So while they may have originally had the rights to the programs they relinquish limited distribution rights to others around the world. The BBC World Service for instance is another example of this. Radio stations around the world license BBC World Service for broadcast.

Re:Who wants DRM? Who wants platform neutrality?

[Paul Jakma]

No one is arguing that the BBC not apply their geo-IP checks, as they were doing with XBMC and get_iplayer clients all along.

Re:Who wants DRM? Who wants platform neutrality?

[Threni]

> 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.

They're 'trying to hide' nothing. Whether or not the BBC owns them, they're different companies. BBC Worldwide is not the BBC, and is allowed to make a profit. They're going to be less interested in licensing and distributing BBC shows around the world if the BBC is streaming high quality shows for free around the world - it makes no point.

Re:Who wants DRM? Who wants platform neutrality?

[zmollusc]

Duh, put it in the contract. Don't sell _exclusive_ broadcasting rights of something you still broadcast yourself. Next intractable legal conundrum, please.

Re:Who wants DRM? Who wants platform neutrality?

[Paul Jakma]

Yes, BBCW exist to provide value to the public by making money from non-UK-broadcast activities. Yes, the BBCW and BBC executive are supposed to be separate and at arms length - however the BBC executive do have a direct financial interest in the BBCW, as BBCW activities generate revenue for the BBC. BBC executives have called that revenue "significant" (see blog I linked to).

Are you sure there is no difference between the BBC saying "External rights-holders require us to implement DRM" and "We're implementing DRM for BBCW"?

Re:Who wants DRM? Who wants platform neutrality?

[im_thatoneguy]

The only way though to enforce those Geo-IP checks is to have some form of DRM. I'm not saying XBMC and get_iplayer couldn't be allowed to do this. But that would require them to implement some form of DRM and compliance check on the BBC's part.

My point was though that it's disingeuous to say that "BBC owns most of the programming that they're adding DRM to." Yes they did create most of the content under DRM. But they're under a legal obligation to their customers (UK taxed citizens) to maximize their profit which means they have to protect their location checks.

The fact that UK citizens can record these same programs DRM free over the air is irrelevant since someone in the US can't record it over the air.

Re:Who wants DRM? Who wants platform neutrality?

[Paul Jakma]

How can that be true, when get_iplayer and XBMC already were subject to the geo-IP checks, carried out by BBC.

DRM does not enforce geo-IP checks. Please explain this extraordinary theory.

Works for me

[gilgongo]

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.

Re:Works for me

[Paul Jakma]

Do you have rtmpdump installed by any chance?

The BBC make available low-res streams. Totem supports these. My understanding is the higher-res streams now require rtmpdump installed to access, which is a tool that's hard for distros to ship due to anti-circumvention laws. E.g. Adobe have tried to use the DMCA to take down rtmpdump.

I.e. my understanding is that the BBCs' move only frustrates those who must shy away from all legal risk. It doesn't really stop anyone - DRM never does.

Re:Works for me

[Paul Jakma]

Oh, rtmpdump implements "SWF verification", a silly little Flash DRM support scheme, which is what the BBC have enabled on iPlayer recently.

Re:Works for me

[gilgongo]

I've not got rtmpdump installed to the best of my knowledge (at least, there's no file containing that name on my system). I've just tried this:

get_iplayer --get --modes=flashvhigh 859

Which gets a pretty large (670Mb) Flash file containing a 45-min episode of Top Gear which I assume that's hi-res (it looks it).

So again - works for me using a pretty much default install of Ubuntu 9.10.

Re:Works for me

[Paul Jakma]

interesting. does "strace -e open -f get_iplayer --get 859 |& grep rtmp" say anything? has it been built with patches to enable SWF verification support in some way?

It definitely appears broken on Fedora, where get_iplayer does not support SWF verification enabled RTMP streams.

Re:Works for me

[gilgongo]

"strace -e open -f get_iplayer --get 859 |& grep rtmp" says nothing at all. I'm using v2.41 of get_iplayer if that's any help.

I notice a comment in the source that says:

# rtmpdump/flvstreamer version detection e.g. 'RTMPDump v1.5' or 'FLVStreamer v1.7a'

I have flvstreamer installed - would that be a clue?

Re:Works for me

[Paul Jakma]

Yeah, flvstreamer is a fork of rtmpdump with the SWF verification stuff removed. My understanding is that flvstreamer shouldn't be sufficient - unless someone patched that to add back in the DRM-support bits?

Are these get_iplayer and flvstreamer packages shipped in Canonical hosted repositories? What patches are applied in the packages?

Re:Works for me

[PybusJ]

I've not got rtmpdump installed to the best of my knowledge (at least, there's no file containing that name on my system).

Do you have a file flvstreamer (which is a fork of rtmpdump used by get_iplayer)? If so it's the same thing, and if it works on the BBC's streams then it's been patched to get around Adobe's verification, so is a copyright circumvention device.

Re:Works for me

[Paul Jakma]

I can access the 640x360 stuff with flvstreamer installed, but not the 832x468 flashvhigh stuff. That needs the pseudo-DRM bits from rtmpdump methinks. You sure flashvhigh works?

Re:Works for me

[L4t3r4lu5]

I call shenanigans. Top Gear on iPlayer is an hour long. The only place I know of where it's 45 minutes is America, where they put 15 minutes of advertisements into the show. You can't even buy the full hour episodes on DVD in the US. The BBC doesn't have advertisements, so the stream from them is almost always exactly one hour.

You simply cannot be downloading from iPlayer.

Re:Works for me

[gilgongo]

I stand corrected - it's 1 hour 1 minute 6 seconds long. Dunno where I got 45mins from.

"You simply cannot be downloading from iPlayer."

Care to guess where I am downloading from then? And for bonus points: why the fuck would I be lying about it??

Re:Works for me

[gilgongo]

Here's what ffmpeg reports from the file I've downloaded using flashvhigh:

Duration: 01:01:06.02, start: 0.000000, bitrate: 1534 kb/s
        Stream #0.0(und): Video: h264, yuv420p, 832x468, 25 tbr, 50 tbn, 100 tbc
        Stream #0.1(und): Audio: aac, 48000 Hz, stereo, s16

I'm using FLVStreamer v1.8e

Maybe I should download another one to see if this isn't some bizarre DRM fluke?

Re:Works for me

[gilgongo]

"Are these get_iplayer and flvstreamer packages shipped in Canonical hosted repositories? What patches are applied in the packages?"

I got get_iplayer using "sudo apt-get install get-iplayer" in Ubuntu 9.10. I think it may have been from the Boxee repositories though, since I'm running Boxee.

Re:Works for me

[Paul Jakma]

Yeah, but maybe Ubuntu patched back in the RTMP SWF verification into flvstreamer? Otherwise, how else could get_iplayer on Ubuntu be getting access to the 'flashvhigh' iPlayer content?

Re:Works for me

[Paul Jakma]

Ok, that's weird. The flashvhigh works for me now too.

Re:Works for me

[Paul Jakma]

Do me a favour, try sampling some of the other programmes. I think you're downloading a pre-SWF verification programme.

Re:Works for me

[Paul Jakma]

Ok, it's just a distribution glitch that some stuff still downloads without SWFV. See Linuxcentre.

Re:Works for me

[gilgongo]

OK, I've downloaded some kids programme episode "World of Happy" and a documentary "Who Needs Fathers?" - both look fine and both report as 832x468 (flashvhigh).

Given the fact that nobody on this thread has been able to give an actual example of a file that *doesn't* work, I think I'm having to conclude that nothing is broken.

BTW, I'm using the --get switch on get_iplayer, I've not tried streaming, if that's significant or not.

Whoosh

[Colin Smith]

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.

 

Re:Whoosh

[Culture20]

I agree fully. But then, the government unfortunately doesn't, and they have guns.

And they made sure the peasantry didn't.

Re:Whoosh

[jabithew]

Even if we had guns, we're not exactly going to launch an armed insurrection because the BBC has asked someone to stop running an open-source iPlayer client.

Hell, the Yanks couldn't be bothered to get another revolution together for the PATRIOT act, let alone a TV licensing spat.

Re:Whoosh

[TheRaven64]

Hell, the Yanks couldn't be bothered to get another revolution together for the PATRIOT act, let alone a TV licensing spat

They are much more likely to have a revolution if someone stopped them watching TV than if Bush or Obama had declared themselves king and abolished elections.

Re:Whoosh

[PinkyGigglebrain]

The straws add up. Eventually it only takes one to break a camel's back.

The French peasants had it rough long before they rebelled, it was a bunch of little things, and a few big ones, that eventually ended up with a lot of people loosing their heads.

Eventually people will say "Enough", and seek change, if they get it without the use of force great, but if not they will still get it, it will just be messier.

Re:Whoosh

[cyber-vandal]

And of course the only way to kill people is with a gun. You can't use a knife, a club or an improvised bomb or anything like that.

Re:Whoosh

[amRadioHed]

I'm not so sure about that. A few years ago I would have agreed. However, I listen to the talk in restaurants, coffee shops, supermarket lines, and talk radio, and I hear a great deal of anger over bullshit made up by Fox and friends.

FTFY.

Re:Whoosh

[ffreeloader]

Really? Made up? Have you read any of the bill, paid any attention to the news? Before you start flaming me, I'm somebody who is going to benefit from this law, if all the assertions made by the Democrats are true, and from everything I see in it I am going to be hurt by it, not benefited.

Would you like to seriously discuss this, or did you just want to hurl an insult at Fox?

Re:Whoosh

[feepness]

The old saws about this are "don't awaken the sleeping giant" and "let sleeping dogs lie", and Obama has violated both. My prediction is: He's going to have quite a rude awakening as he has vastly underestimated the power of an awakened, riled, American citizenry.

Who we gonna vote for, the Republicans? Each side pretends to love liberty when out of power, and then embraces authority once they gain power.

The only thing that will fix things is a third party, and the only thing which will make a third party viable is instant runoff voting. That won't happen until things get really, really broken.

Which may or not may be that far off once people toss in the towel on the dollar pyramid scheme.

Re:Whoosh

[Paul Jakma]

Actually, we do have "guns".

The BBC is using various bits of free software as part of the iPlayer backend. I.e. they're happy to use code from free software developers while at the same time shutting some of those developers out.

What I wonder is whether there's any kind of way free software licences could require equal access to public services, when organisations use free software licences. A "you use our code, you don't discriminate against us" kind of clause. I've no idea if this could be worded in a legally meaningful way though... I'd definitely upgrade my code to such a licence.

(Before any says "not free", think again - free software licences do exist that restrict individual usage rights for the greater good, e.g. AGPL).

Re:Whoosh

[Antony-Kyre]

Vote your heart. Vote for the person you want, regardless of whether they're third party or not. To vote for someone because they're one of the top two popular candidates just seems wrong, if you truly don't want them.

Re:Whoosh

[amRadioHed]

Serious discussions was ruled out by the time you said Obama made him self a king. There is no point refuting such nonsense, so if it's okay with you I'm just going to stick with the mockery.

Re:Whoosh

[L4t3r4lu5]

Vote for the party, not the person.

Re:Whoosh

[aldeveron]

Why do you think a new third party would be any different that the two we have now (USA)? They are both third parties you know. The solution is active involvement and participation in the process, which is difficult and costs money.

Take the time you spend complaining about something and write a letter or spend a weekend at Wal-Mart and register people to vote.

Remember, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the ... never mind.

Al

Re:Whoosh

[geekoid]

3rd party will never happen. The way to change things is the same as it's always been. Get involved.

Re:Whoosh

[geekoid]

"Vote your heart. "

No no a thousand times NO! Vote with your brain. THINK. voting with your heart just gets people to vote what feel right without any logical decision making, without thinking about a persons past action.
Voting with your heart means people just vote whichever party the people at the church vote for. Voting with ones heart is why Neo-Cons have just about taken' over the country and shove their stupid ass religion down our throats.

Re:Whoosh

[feepness]

Why do you think a new third party would be any different that the two we have now (USA)? They are both third parties you know. The solution is active involvement and participation in the process, which is difficult and costs money.

No, they are not, they are both first parties. The key is instant runoff voting which avoids the "lesser of two evils" voting dilemma.

Take the time you spend complaining about something and write a letter or spend a weekend at Wal-Mart and register people to vote.

This is worthless under the current voting method. Adding more people to a broken system does not fix the system. Complaining to those kept in power by the current system does not change the system. I accomplish more by posting here, not that I expect that to change anything.

Remember, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the ... never mind.

I am part of the solution. Anyone not pushing for a solution to plurality voting is the problem.

But at the end of the day I do see this as inevitable as the tide. The Dems/Reps have gerrymandered their districts so heavily that the only possible end result is the massive polarization we see now. That will, like the banking crisis, come to an abrupt and messy end, and only then can we look at creating something new.

Re:Whoosh

[ffreeloader]

Ummmm... No, I didn't say Obama had made himself king. I said he "basically" had done that. That's a big difference. How did Obama "basically" do this? He, and the Democrats, knowingly ignored an overwhelming majority of US voters. If that isn't "king-like" behavior, it simply doesn't exist.

And, the fact that you do nothing but mock those who have a different opinion on things than you do show you to be arrogant. Why? You would shut down any dissent to your point of view through attempted intimidation, and your lack of respect for those with a different opinion when that opinion is based in fact.

Re:Whoosh

[ffreeloader]

Who you gonna vote for? I don't know. I know who I will vote for. I will stop abandoning my responsibility as a voter and begin carefully researching those asking for my vote. I will then vote for the candidate who most closely represents my views regardless of party affiliation. I'm an independent, and have been for a long time, but I have not always voted or done much research into candidates. That has changed.

Back in the mid 1800's voting rates were about 75% and people were very invested in their government. Europeans coming here to visit were astonished at how active the citizens were in the political process. That's what finally brought down slavery in this country, and that's what we need to get back to as a people. Politicians back then had to adapt to the will of people, not the other way around because the public educated themselves and were very involved.

Political parties were both formed and disbanded because of informed public opinion. That's the result of an informed and active citizenry, and that's how we take our country back to a truly representative republic.

Re:Whoosh

[ffreeloader]

The Dems/Reps have gerrymandered their districts so heavily that the only possible end result is the massive polarization we see now.

I'm not sure of your meaning here, but I see the real root of polarization as the viewing of power as more valuable than the good of the country. Thus the good of the country becomes secondary to policies that will buy votes, and the hard decisions required to keep our country fiscally sound are not made. All that happens is that politicians keep on spending money that we do not have to make promises of entitlements that we will not be pay for on one hand, and subordinating the rights of the individual to the power of business and government on the other.

Re:Whoosh

[Antony-Kyre]

I mean it is better to vote for someone you want, rather than voting for the lesser evil.

Re:Whoosh

[feepness]

The way to change things is the same as it's always been. Get involved.

Because, you know, being a part of the system that created this situation over the last two centuries is the sure way to change it.

Re:Whoosh

[feepness]

I'm not sure of your meaning here, but I see the real root of polarization as the viewing of power as more valuable than the good of the country. Thus the good of the country becomes secondary to policies that will buy votes, and the hard decisions required to keep our country fiscally sound are not made

That's my meaning exactly. Gerrymandering is just one element of that power-seeking policy that reinforces the polarization.

Re:Whoosh

[ffreeloader]

OK, but gerrymandering is a specific action.

It's redistricting geographic locations to take advantage of specific voter preferences. I don't see how that is a result of polarization, as gerrymandering is an effect of polarization, not the cause of it.

The cause of polarization is the lust for power to the extent that it replaces the desire to advance the cause of the nation with the desire to advance the party with no regard to the costs to the nation.

Re:Whoosh

[feepness]

It's a self-reinforcing chicken/egg thing. I'd agree the lust for power is the root. But then why lust for power? Babes/money? Daddy issues? How far back should we go?

Re:Whoosh

[ffreeloader]

Why the lust for power? How many motivations are there? Power for its own sake? The doors it opens for personal enrichment? Power to enact a political agenda? Power to force other people to do what you want them to? It doesn't really matter what the motivation is it's the end result that's the problem.

To me the solution to the problem is finding honest people who want to get involved and vote them into power. If you vote someone in and they turn out to not be who they claim to be, vote them back out. It won't take long until politicians learn that they will be held accountable for their actions.

Re:Whoosh

[feepness]

To me the solution to the problem is finding honest people who want to get involved and vote them into power. If you vote someone in and they turn out to not be who they claim to be, vote them back out. It won't take long until politicians learn that they will be held accountable for their actions.

That is definitely a solution. With all due respect I don't think it's a realistic one. From what I've seen politicians find the idea of being held accountable for their actions to be laughable.

Re:Whoosh

[ffreeloader]

They won't find it laughable to have their political careers cut short, and that's the power that we the voters have. If they don't keep their word, they're fired. If they force through laws we don't want, they're fired. Period. Politicians will not find that laughable.

Re:Whoosh

[feepness]

They won't find it laughable to have their political careers cut short, and that's the power that we the voters have.

While it's a power we have, it's not one that is used as applied to both Democrats and Republicans. One or the other, with rare exceptions, has been elected for nearly the last two centuries. So while I completely applaud your idea, I no longer have any faith that it would happen.

Re:18 day old news - old news for slow nerds

[gilgongo]

This "news" is 18 days old.

So? It needs discussing. Does the fact that it didn't happen yesterday change its significance?

They haven't activated anything

[Spad]

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.

Re:They haven't activated anything

[Paul Jakma]

The high-level usage restrictions the BBC had as policy have not changed.

The BBC *have* changed the format of the service. It now uses SWF verification. If you don't believe me, believe the BBC.

Re:They haven't activated anything

[AK Marc]

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

That they make no effort to separate out what's theirs and what's not indicates to me that they want the restrictions, that they are actively working against open standards, open source, and open (non-DRM) files. The BBC wants the restrictions on the content they own, and lie when they pretend it's other content owners that require it and they are only doing what's required of them to continue the service (notably without identifying any actual complainants, just "THEY").

Re:They haven't activated anything

[godoffsck]

They have "activated" SWF verification, while I can't see that mentioned in TFA it doesn't change the fact you're wrong. To quote the author of get_iplayer (linuxcentre forum, 19th Feb) "Seems that the BBC have switched on SWF Verification on their CDN's servers. Seems not to be a big problem at the moment as you say though. flvstreamer does not support that - only rtmpdump supports this AFAIK."

The main software problem with this is that get_iplayer uses flvstreamer and the "new" change meant that flvstreamer chocked with "no crypto" errors. I think it was possible to get a show by setting the retries right up so that it grabs a short chunk of the file before it fails, then resume and repeat. There was also a set of instructions posted elsewhere that allowed you to reconfigure get_iplayer to use rtmpdump which resolved the issue completely but wasn't a "supported" option.

The main practical problem is that the author has abandoned the software and the current main fork has been abandoned in favor of a complete rewrite (Prometheus). The main fundamental problem is the BBC seems intent on screwing over the people who pay the bills, the UK license fee payers, with DRM for no real gain.

I get the BBC the old fashioned way

[FudRucker]

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)

Re:I get the BBC the old fashioned way

[jx100]

Not everywhere, as it's a station-by-station choice.

I spent a good portion of last night listening to a number of stations listed on shoutcast, and it did seem like half of them *did* have BBC World News as their overnight programming.

Re:I get the BBC the old fashioned way

[CompMD]

What model? I use an SX-110. Works like a charm.

Reasons to Abolish the License Fee #306

[harlequinade]

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.

Re:Reasons to Abolish the License Fee #306

[InsertWitticismHere]

... what? The BBC has simply added DRM to prevent people ripping iPlayer streams. No one has to "fork over more cash to watch programmes they already paid for." In fact, one can watch iPlayer without having paid any TV License fee at all.

Instead of whining about the License fee, why not complain about the substance of the matter: that of DRM in online media?

Re:Reasons to Abolish the License Fee #306

[harlequinade]

I agree - DRM is repugnant. No doubts. As for the license fee, I moved to California in '97 so that's not my angle = My beef is the thousands who are already forced to pay this legalized extortion, then have to pay twice if they miss a show and dare to try and catch it online. The BBC is a clueless, arrogant fossil, and the license fee is both insulting, and an inexcusable joke, That's all I'm saying.

Is this entirely accurate?

[Angostura]

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.

Complain to Ofcom

[marto]

You can register your disapproval with ofcom online.

HTML5 is NOT the solution to DRM!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:HTML5 is NOT the solution to DRM!

[Paul Jakma]

As per the other /. story on H.264 v Ogg Theora, I'm of the opinion that the codec issue should not be conflated with the delivery platform issue.

Also, note "such as HTML5" does not exclude any other specifications, including any the BBC might openly specify itself.

Re:HTML5 is NOT the solution to DRM!

[bhtooefr]

The video tag isn't canvas. It's just a different kind of embed that directly accepts a URL for a video.

That video can be H.264, or it can be Ogg container, Theora video, Vorbis audio. Actually, it can be anything, but those are the two primary formats.

(Opera on *nix can use any video format for which there is a GStreamer codec installed.)

Re:HTML5 is NOT the solution to DRM!

[Amorya]

What about the BBC's own completely open codec, Dirac?

It's completely open, and any arguments against it based on low market share could also be levelled at Theora. Dirac has the advantage of offering significantly better quality compression than Theora...

Re:HTML5 is NOT the solution to DRM!

[jez9999]

Remind me why, for this specific thing (iPlayer etc.), Flash is so bad? Assuming you block it on other sites, it's guaranteed to support Spark, VP6, and H.264. There is a Linux Flash client. It runs on most mobile devices except the iPhone, and that's only because Apple are too stubborn to allow it.

Re:HTML5 is NOT the solution to DRM!

[Paul Jakma]

Because there are computers besides PCs. In addition to general purpose ones, I might want to start a build business building internet enabled set-top boxes.

I might choose to make it free software, for some reason. In which case the BBCs decision to build on flash is a problem.

Or I might be happy to use Flash. But if Adobe don't support the STB architecture I want to use, then I need to pay Adobe to do a port. Also, Adobe could charge me a royalty fee (it's very hard to find definitive information on how Adobe licence Flash to embedded systems vendors).

Basically, choosing to build the next generation of TV on top of a proprietary, single vendor technology is anti-competitive and not in the public interest. My understanding is that the BBC is not usually allowed to do such things, when it comes to broadcast technologies at least.

Upstairs, Downstairs

[westlake]

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.

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

Re:Upstairs, Downstairs

[Paul Jakma]

How does applying DRM to UK residents help? The bulk of non-residents can't access iPlayer anyway (geo-IP) and so if they're watching BBC material online they're not using the DRMed BBC stuff anyway.

Re:Upstairs, Downstairs

[harlequinade]

That's my point, Paul - Most UK residents pay the license fee. Those who choose to use iPlayer would therefore pay -twice-?? DRM is repugnant, but instead of gouging UK=based viewers for two fees, let ex-Brits now abroad [like me - been in California since '97] who can't see the shows at -all- be the source of the allegedly much=needed income. The license fee is an inexcusable joke, but sticking those forced to pay it with -another- fee if they dare to then use other technology is abhorrent,

Class-War continues.

[headkase]

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.

Re:Oh noes

[Runaway1956]

iPlayer has been broken since day one, as far as I'm concerned. "You're in America, and we refuse to play anything for you, you colonial barbarian. All content on this site is reserved for refined, sophisticated subjects of Her Majesty, the Queen, properly located within Her Majesty's Realm."

Re:Oh noes

[silanea]

Since you likely do not contribute to the funding of BBC what exactly is your complaint? That you do not get to free-ride?

Re:Oh noes

[wagnerrp]

The BBC only has distribution rights within the UK. They have sold those rights to a 3rd party in the US. They can't stream the content to you because they are legally not allowed to.

XBMC bug-fix to support SWF Verification

[lkcl]

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.

Re:XBMC bug-fix to support SWF Verification

[L4t3r4lu5]

No, there's also the added bonus of implementing DRM-circumvention technology, which is illegal in the UK. Just like installing libdvdcss2 to watch encrypted DVDs.

Thank you DMCA and media lobbyists!

(Before you rant at me regarding the UK not having the DMCA, consider: Where do you think they got the idea?)

Oh but I thought was the protect you?

[/dev/trash]

Hahaha. Second amendment for the win!

Re:Oh noes

[Runaway1956]

Perhaps I do contribute to the BBC. What makes you think otherwise? Have I ever posted anything to indicate that I do or do not contribute anything to the BBC?

Free ride? What about citizens of the UK who can't watch their favorite whatever, because the are in France, or Belgium, or wherever, on business for a day or a week?

DRM is broken, and any attempt to control content is broken. Simple as that.

Re:Oh noes

[atmurray]

Don't tell me you're having second thoughts on that old tea party of yours are you?

I've got nothing new to add

[quixote9]

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.

Re:I've got nothing new to add

[Scannerman]

I'm in the US and I actually sent them money over the years, because they're the best news organization out there. .

Interested to know how you do this, there's been some discussion about "overseas licences" for some time, But I wasn't aware anything had anything had ever been implemented.

As a BBC "shareholder" (I.e. a UK tax and license fee payer) I'm keen that they are as efficient as possible and get any revenue they can without impacting the service. I'm also keen that they don't pay quite so much in salaries (A recent article suggested that more than 100 BBC manager earn more than the prime minister, and thats not including the alleged 'talent') I actually don't see putting DRM on, or geographical access restriction onto content that they supply FREE OF CHARGE is too unreasonable. They make a lot of money selling programs to overseas markets.

That said, I travel a lot and I do find it a serious PITA when I can't see programs.

Anyway, As far as I know most of the news content is unrestricted.

Re:I've got nothing new to add

[myowntrueself]

When they caved into the IOC so that the online broadcast of the BBC world service hourly news was replaced with someone reading out "Due to rights restrictions we are unable to bring you this program", at that point it really became blindingly obvious what the 'BB' stood for.

I didn't stand for it and have never listened to the BBC world service again.

They should have flatly refused to carry news about the Olympics rather than cut the service for anyone not on a UK IP address.

Re:I've got nothing new to add

[quixote9]

This wasn't an overseas licence. This was just me sending them checks in an envelope for doing an excellent job. And I was hoping the news would stay accessible. I hardly use their streaming media at all except for some of the nature / science programming (dance of the sea dragons, the spatule-tailed hummingbird... if you haven't seen those, look them up!) but it's the principle of the thing that makes me livid.

Re:Oh noes

[jo_ham]

You can have iPlayer when The Daily Show and Colbert Report webfeeds are available again in the UK. The geo-locking of web streams is very annoying.

Re:Oh noes

[phoenixwade]

only in that it made a real mess of the harbour - what we should have don is wrapped the tea in some red wool teabags before we dropped it in to steep.

Re:Oh noes

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Hula etc don't work for my country...

Re:Oh noes

[Kalriath]

Perhaps I do contribute to the BBC. What makes you think otherwise?

Do you live in the UK and pay your TV License? No? Then you don't get the content. I don't either. I don't think this is some sort of heinous disaster. Perhaps you also think it's disgusting that I cannot browse Hulu, and neither yourself nor a UK citizen cannot browse TVNZ On Demand?

DRM is unnecessary.

[symbolset]

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.

Re:DRM is unnecessary.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

This isn't about necessity, this is about legal reality. Producers of IP DO and still have RIGHTS themselves too. They over extend themselves, they do reprehensible acts to try to enforce those rights, but, never forget that rights with consumer goods go both ways. You have the right not to run DRM content and they have the right to put out DRMed content.

Re:DRM is unnecessary.

[symbolset]

You have the right not to run DRM content and they have the right to put out DRMed content.

Quite right. I don't oppose their right to put out DRM content for the fools who sacrifice control of the equipment they bought for the ability to play it. It's a bad bargain, but fools are common. It's not for me, and it's not for anybody who's got a clue. There's no DRM that can't be broken and there's no content that can be had that's not free of it - if not by cracking the DRM then by catching the content before it's encrypted or through the analog hole.

The market for DRM'd content is the pool of idiots, and that pool gets shallower each day for video. At least in audio content we've drained that swamp.

I actually have a secret DRM system that actually works and that customers will accept that I'm hoping they'll bid at least $10m for. Until then they'll have to muddle along with charlatans who say they can deliver that but can't. It's almost magical in its simplicity.

They said that about music

[symbolset]

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?

Re:Oh noes

[Runaway1956]

"Do you live in the UK and pay your TV License?"

It hardly matters if I live in the UK and pay a license, or not. Drive through that tunnel, arrive in France, and you can no longer receive the BBC content.

Re:Oh noes

[Runaway1956]

"You can have iPlayer when The Daily Show and Colbert Report webfeeds are available again in the UK."

Wait - are you in a position to make this deal? I'm willing to take it!

"The geo-locking of web streams is very annoying."

My point exactly. In fact, it's more than annoying. The douchebags who "own" all that "IP" have gained to much power, and it's far past time they were slapped down. Instead of being slapped down, they've been pretty well promised ACTA as a reward.

Confusing

[legio_noctis]

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.

Re:Oh noes

[mjwx]

The BBC only has distribution rights within the UK. They have sold those rights to a 3rd party in the US. They can't stream the content to you because they are legally not allowed to.

And you're a colonial ruffian who's foul odour offends the sensibilities of the refined English gentry.

Re:Oh noes

[henrik.falk]

It's for U.K. TV license payers, you know.

Re:Oh noes

[dintech]

That's the same whether you use an internet connected PC or a regular TV set.

Re:Oh noes

[salmacis2]

Hulu has been broken from day one, as far as I'm concerned. "You're in the UK and we refuse to play anything for you, you dumb limey. All content on this site is reserved for kick-ass, true-bloodied Americans, hell yes, properly located in God's own country. USA! USA!"

Re:Oh noes

[ndixon]

Should have taken better care of our tea...

Re:Oh noes

[petermgreen]

OTOH with a sufficiantly big dish you can get the BBC pretty much anywhere in france.

Map at http://www.sam-radford.me.uk/astra2d.htm

Re:Oh noes

[pbhj]

I suspect the BBC could have made a lot of money with decent contracts here that reduced the initial take and allowed the BBC to sell access rights on a per show basis to ex-UK viewers.

Probably the BBC toffs still made a lot of money so don't suppose they'll care. Their actions make things look more and more like a scam all the time to me - not sure of the details but it seems the BBC commission shows from their or their friends production companies, they don't appear to employ the show makers but employ the companies (why?). Even very long running shows are bought from outside. I was surprised to find, Top Gear or Gardeners Question Time (radio show) to be bought in, that can't be economical for the British public surely.

Re:Oh noes

[baker_tony]

You do NOT need a TV license to watch iPlayer. You only need a TV license to watch live TV. Therefore, why the hell shouldn't I be able to watch iPlayer when I'm outside the UK?

Re:Oh noes

[baker_tony]

You do NOT need a TV license to watch iPlayer. You only need a TV license to watch live TV. Therefore the iPlayer is for people like me, who don't pay a TV license because I don't watch live TV!

Van Eck

[mikechant]

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.

PS

[mdwh2]

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?

Re:Oh noes

[Kleiba]

Hey, that's just for Americans to get a feel for what it is like to live in the Old Europe, trying to access hulu.com, pandora.com, great deals of youtube.com, heck even goodies like dexter's lab episodes on cartoonnetwork.

Don't defend the BBC.

[jotaeleemeese]

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.

Re:Don't defend the BBC.

[DJRumpy]

That is one opinion I strongly agree with. I believe that all content providers should be separate from the content delivery. There will always be a conflict of interest in such cases.

In the US for instance, media conglomerates own content delivery and providers, and they often combine them to the detriment of the consumer.

I can't say that I disagree with the BBC model of requiring public support in the form of a tax/fee, as it seems to give you much better quality than our somewhat equivalent PBS, but I have to agree that separating the content creators from the delivery is always a good decision to my way of thinking.

Re:Don't defend the BBC.

[Paul Jakma]

Mod parent up / +1.

Not news

[tehcyder]

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.

Re:Oh noes

[silanea]

Hint: I am not British.

Re:Oh noes

[Kalriath]

Why the hell shouldn't we be able to watch Hulu when we're outside the US? People in glass houses and all that.

Re:Oh noes

[baker_tony]

Exactly, totally agree. I'd love to watch Hulu outside UK as well.

Re:Oh noes

[palindrome]

You probably need to swing your hips more. There's a lot in the rhythm.