Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BBC Activates DRM For Its iPlayer Content

Posted by timothy on from the approved-channels dept.

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."

61 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Yup by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why you don't touch DRM even a little bit. It doesn't matter if you only buy the open content and so the DRM sits there unused. The purpose for that DRM framework is to do stuff like this to you further down the line. DRM is a tool designed for the sole purpose to take stuff away from you, and you shouldn't tolerate its presence.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Yup by lalleglad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      it is a loose-loose situation.

      You mean it's extremely baggy?

    4. Re:Yup by jonbryce · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Yup by lalleglad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Yup by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Yup by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    8. Re:Yup by lalleglad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    9. Re:Yup by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    10. Re:Yup by DJRumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Yup by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:Yup by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    13. Re:Yup by Molt · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
    14. Re:Yup by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:Yup by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

    16. Re:Yup by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    17. Re:Yup by mdwh2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  2. Stupid by gilesjuk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Stupid by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Stupid by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Stupid by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  3. Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out by VMaN · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?

  4. Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  5. Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  6. Who wants DRM? Who wants platform neutrality? by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a long discussion on this on a BBC blog.

    Also, bear in mind that when the BBC says "Rights holders require us to implement DRM" that the BBC potentially is being obfuscatory, because the rights holders it's talking about may in fact be companies the BBC owns in part or in full. I.e. the BBC might be trying to hide "We want DRM". E.g. see this post from Anthony Rose giving BBC Worldwide as the prime example of the DRM-requiring rights holders.

    Finally, this is from a comment I left on the linuxcentre blog:

    BBC Trust is running a consultation on the BBC strategic review. One of the key questions is regarding platform neutrality. It is very important that people fill in that survey and let the Trust know how important open ly specified access is. In particular the following is important for platform neutrality:

    * BBC Ondemand should *not* be built on proprietary, single-vendor technologies, such as Adobe Flash.
    * BBC Ondemand should be built on multi-vendor, open, non-discriminatory standards, such as HTML5 video.
    * The BBC should *not* be in the business of dictating which ondemand client implementations may access iPlayer and which may not.

    These things are important both for free software, but also more generally for a healthy market. It is not in the public interest for the BBC to become the king-maker of client device implementations. Please take the time to let the Trust know your views on platform neutrality and how the current situation is bad for the greater public interest.

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    1. Re:Who wants DRM? Who wants platform neutrality? by zmollusc · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  7. Works for me by gilgongo · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm a bit confused by this. TFA is talking about how the author of get_iplayer is ceasing development of it in protest at the BBC's DRM actions (the clue being in the title "get_iplayer dropped in response to BBC’s lack of support for open source"). It doesn't say get_iplayer doesn't work any more, or that the BBC have prevented its use.

    Indeed, I just installed it (on Ubuntu) and it appears to work just fine - I have a nicely encoded file of some quite funny children's programme that's apparently completely free of any DRM.

    --
    "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    1. Re:Works for me by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    2. Re:Works for me by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    3. Re:Works for me by gilgongo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    4. Re:Works for me by PybusJ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  8. Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  9. Whoosh by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And then dropped their service. Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only

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

     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Whoosh by jabithew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    2. Re:Whoosh by feepness · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  10. They haven't activated anything by Spad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. HTML5 is NOT the solution to DRM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:HTML5 is NOT the solution to DRM! by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    2. Re:HTML5 is NOT the solution to DRM! by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.)

    3. Re:HTML5 is NOT the solution to DRM! by Amorya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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...

  12. Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out by click2005 · · Score: 2, Informative

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

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

    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  13. Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  14. Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out by broeman · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).

    --

    (yes this can be compared with sex)
  15. Re:Oh noes by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  16. Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out by Zenzay42 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  17. Re:Oh noes by silanea · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
  18. Re:Oh noes by wagnerrp · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  19. XBMC bug-fix to support SWF Verification by lkcl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out by LordVader717 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  21. Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out by auric_dude · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  22. Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  23. Re:Oh noes by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  24. They said that about music by symbolset · · Score: 2, Interesting

    DRM music will never go away!

    Can you even buy DRM'd music any more? Other than for the Zune of course. Let's not consider the trivial fringe markets. I understood it was pretty much MP3 or better everywhere now. Am I mistaken?

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  25. Re:Oh noes by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  26. Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Funny

    anyone with flash and an internet connection

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

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  27. Re:Oh noes by dintech · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  28. Re:Oh noes by salmacis2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!"

  29. Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out by TiggsPanther · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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".

    --
    Tiggs
    "120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
  30. Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out by baker_tony · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  31. Van Eck by mikechant · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.