BBC Lets Viewers Buy Shows and Episodes Permanently, But No 'Extras' (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The BBC has opened a new online store which lets viewers purchase TV programs that do not expire in its iPlayer streaming outlet after thirty days, but which apparently remain stored for streaming in the same style as Amazon's video purchases. The BBC claims the extensive archive inventory is available only to UK-based viewers, though its VPN-blocking attempts do not currently seem to prevent purchases from outside the country. Additionally the BBC's high-quality disc extras do not seem to have made the jump from disc to digital, signifying possible further decline for 'value added' features such as commentaries and documentaries in the future.

Comments

bitrot

[Iamthecheese]

How permanent is permanent? I lost north of 300 novels when Nook bought e-book retailer Fictionwise. I could have downloaded and archived them one at a time I guess. Except for the ones that expired a year after purchase due to draconian DRM. Anyway the point is I no longer trust ANY DRM'd material, especially streamed content. If it's not downloadable and DRM free, you never own it.

Re:bitrot

[Jason Levine]

How permanent is permanent?

Exactly this. I was recently asked why I still buy DVDs when you can just get everything from Netflix, Amazon, etc. While I do like and use those services, there isn't a guarantee that what is on them today will always be on them*. Case in point: Back To The Future was free to Amazon Prime members a few weeks ago. Now there's a charge for it. Meanwhile, I have the DVDs and can copy the videos to a local hard drive to stream within my network.

* I was also asked why I don't just download my videos from torrent sites. While this would be getting videos permanently, I also consider this an illegal method and prefer to stick to legal methods of obtaining my video entertainment. If there is no legal method - or if the legal method is too expensive/restrictive/etc - then I'll just do without. There's plenty of other video entertainment out there.

Re:bitrot

[wonkey_monkey]

This is Oxford comma:
A, B, C, D and E vs A and B and C and D and E

There's no Oxford comma in either of your examples.

Re:bitrot

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

How permanent is permanent?

Until they decide to delete it or change the terms of service or act on a bogus DMCA request or until some executive changes his mind. That's the new definition of "permanent".

If it's not downloadable and DRM free, you never own it.

Exactly. If you don't have actual control over it then you don't own it, no matter what kind of spin they put on it.

But here's something else to consider...they act like you're getting some fantastic deal because the shows and episodes don't expire, but seriously, how useful is that? I mean, it's great that they don't expire, but how often do any of us go back and watch stuff more than once?

Yeah, there are a few things I would watch more than once, but the vast, vast majority of TV and movies that I do watch are strictly a one-time thing...how many times is someone going to re-watch a given movie or series? My guess is "almost never".

My viewing habits may be different than others but I'd bet that most of us are not going to re-watch Parks & Recreation or Dr Who or $OME_MOVIE or $OME_SERIES. I just don't have that much time to watch the new things I'm interested, the chance of me going back and watching some older series or movie are pretty damn slim.

So while it seems like it's a great thing that the shows and episodes don't expire, how much actual value does that really bring to the table? Most of the people I know with large video libraries never watch anything twice, yet they store it as if they might need it at a moment's notice. I was guilty of the same thing years ago until I realized that for all practical purposes, I never, ever went back and watched any of that stuff.

Re:bitrot

[bws111]

A, B, C, and D
A, B, C and D

The comma after the 'C' in the first example is the Oxford comma.

Re:bitrot

[kheldan]

How permanent is permanent?

If you don't get a physical copy of it, or at the very least a locally-stored, DRM-free copy, then you paid for something that may as well not even exist, because X-number of years from now when they decide the service isn't profitable enough anymore and they discontinue it, what you 'bought' will end up going away.

Re:bitrot

[Bob the Super Hamste]

But here's something else to consider...they act like you're getting some fantastic deal because the shows and episodes don't expire, but seriously, how useful is that? I mean, it's great that they don't expire, but how often do any of us go back and watch stuff more than once?

Said someone who obviously doesn't have small children.

Re:bitrot

[lgw]

I suppose each person will have to learn this the hard way, like you, before they see the benefit in actually controlling the media.

But that's not a reason to never use plans like this. Just go into it with eyes wide open - you're leasing the content, for an undefined time. If you almost never go back and watch anything more than 5 years old, for example, then this can be a good deal. For movies and music, I personally want control of the media, since I watch old stuff a lot.

For games, OTOH, I'm quite content to buy the game again in 10 years if I need to, since the percentage of old games I go back to is so low. (My favorite games are all 5+ years old, but that's maybe a dozen games, versus the 50 or so I buy each year and never return to). Buying 1% of my games again is totally worth the convenience to me.

For books, I do go back to older books occasionally, but I have ~1000 hardbacks now and I don't have any more freaking room for them. I'm content with the limitations of leasing eBooks, due to simple practical constraints.

Make each decision based on what's best for you, once you understand what you own and what you don't.

Re:bitrot

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Said someone who obviously doesn't have small children.

I did have a small child, but even then we didn't watch a lot of stuff and not repeatedly.

Some stuff, sure, but I can't recall anything we went back and watched again after more than a couple of months. (We probably did, but I don't think there was a lot of that going on.)

Admittedly we were not huge TV-consumers but we did watch stuff....Blues Clues, cartoons, a few movies here and there.

Re:bitrot

[RDW]

There's the small chance the BBC could cease to exist, of course, but then the world would have way bigger problems than a few of us Brits not being able to rewatch Doctor Who box sets.

There's a rather larger chance the BBC will not exist in its current form in the medium term, especially given some of the noises the Tory government are making. But that's not the only issue. From the T&Cs:

https://store.bbc.com/terms

'We cannot guarantee that you will be able to stream or re-download Content that's in your BBC Store account forever. Where our right to make content available has expired, you will no longer be able to stream or download that content from your BBC Store account. We'll try not to take down expired content without first notifying you that it is due to expire, so that you have the opportunity to download and playback the content through the Store Download Manager.'

If your 'purchase' is no longer available from the store, downloaded content presumably only lasts as long as the device does.

Buying must be better than torrenting

[Anonymous Coward]

If you make things too difficult to get, too pricey, or leave out too much content, I'm going to pirate it for free.

You'd think content providers would realize this, but apparently not.

Re:Buying must be better than torrenting

[AmiMoJo]

Looking at the site it's a crappy deal. Doctor Who series 9 is £21.99 for 13 episodes. If the quality is the same as iPlayer that means 720p and low bit rate. Streaming to supported devices only, no ability to watch it on my TV or download it for safe keeping.

For comparison Amazon has the BluRay of Season 8 (season 9 isn't out yet, it's still airing) for £24.95, so only £3 more. Comes with extras, easy to rip and watch anywhere, better video and sound quality.

What a joke.

Regarding VPNs

[CodeArtisan]

While the BBC pays lip service to restricting VPN access, I don't think they are wanting to implement any bans. They don't lose much (apart from bandwidth) by overseas viewers streaming on BBC iPlayer, and will likely generate extra revenue when the same viewers buy DVDs of programmes they enjoy from their local Amazon.

Extras was produced by BBC, but for HBO

[BenJeremy]

I guess HBO has the rights to that series.

intolerable.

[nimbius]

The BBC claims the extensive archive inventory is available only to UK-based viewers

As a Briton living in the states, this is an injustice. Ive furiously sipped the rest of my tea and intend to post a letter to the home office at once. I shant, cant, and wont tolerate a world where i cant loaf idly on a sunday with a sack of crisps and binge on last of the summer wine.

Re:intolerable.

[thegarbz]

Nice try American scum. But a real Briton would not have omitted the all important apostrophe while writing in the Queen's own language.

Bug BBC Worldwide

[tepples]

They don't lose much (apart from bandwidth) by overseas viewers streaming on BBC iPlayer

Other than that the BBC doesn't own the worldwide rights to all programmes available through iPlayer.

and will likely generate extra revenue when the same viewers buy DVDs of programmes they enjoy from their local Amazon.

Export of BBC-produced programmes is handled through its BBC Worldwide subsidiary. At the top of the Google Search results for bbc worldwide from a PC in the US was an ad for Hulu. (Other search engines are available.) Perhaps you could bug BBC Worldwide to set up a counterpart to iPlayer for use in countries where BBC Worldwide has not already licensed exclusive rights to a particular programme.

local copy vs streaming

[JustNiz]

Of course it is very advantageous if you're the seller, but all I can see are the extra risks, inconvenience and cost to consumers of buying stuff that you never get a local copy of, so you have to stream online each time you play it.

It completely boggles my mind why anyone would give good money for that, vs buying media that you can e.g. download DRM-free copies of, or media you can (legally thanks to fair use) rip local copies from.

Licence Fee on the way out?

[fantomas]

The BBC looking for ways to generate income now the Licence Fee is on the way out? For those not in the UK, if you watch live tv (either BBC or other), you have to (by law) buy an annual TV licence (approx 140GBP a year) - from which a large chunk gets paid to the BBC as the national television programme provider, and provides a good amount of their income.

This model is clearly under threat with the need to watch live tv declining. I moved into a new house 6 years ago and decided to save money by stopping paying for a tv licence and just watching on catch-up via the BBC and other tv players for other stations, you don't need a licence for that (the crucial definition is you need one if you're watching a live transmission). I suspect there are many like me. Gone are the days 99% of the country would need a TV licence. With the numbers declining and the BBC's commanding position declining (gone are the 1970s when there were only 3 tv channels, and our government is in favour of breaking up or selling off government run services): I think the BBC is working out how it generates money in the future and trying out some different approaches.

'Arf a mo'

[LoyalOpposition]

The BBC has opened a new online store which lets viewers purchase TV programs

Pretty sure that's "programmes."

~Loyal

worst of both worlds

[micahraleigh]

So you are PAYING money to buy something you already PAID with your taxes.

Sounds like the worst of capitalism and socialism.

"Digital"

[Dogtanian]

the BBC's high-quality disc extras do not seem to have made the jump from disc to digital

"Disc to digital"? Are you comparing it to the releases on analogue formats such as Laserdisc and CED?

Or is this just another example of the stupid and lazy misappropriation of "digital" to mean synonymous with "online" or "download" and contrast with non-online formats such as "Digital Versatile Disc" or "Compact Disc Digital-F******-Audio"? (Yes, the fact that CD was digital was one of its major selling points).

That's kind of understandable (not forgivable, but understandable) on crappy mainstream sites written by and for people who neither know nor care as much about technology as they'd like to think. (#) OTOH, I don't think it even counts as nitpicking to expect better from a site like Slashdot which is supposed to cater- at least it used to- for actual geeks and not just boys toys' gadget fetishists who think they're geeks because it's cool now and they buy a new smartphone every 18 months.

(#) I'd be willing to bet that despite the man-on-the-street's apparent increased familiarity and comfort with digital and electronic devices compared with 30 to 40 years ago, most people still don't understand as much about the underlying technology as this would suggest, and probably still wouldn't be able to explain what "digital" means.