"But any broadcast programme that people want to watch is already being ripped and distributed over just about any P2P system you care to name."
That's demonstrably false. Is yesterday's edition of "Mastermind" on UK Nova? Not yet - and it might not ever be. The same is true for a broad swathe of programmes, and especially children's programmes.
You seem to agree that there are circumstances where no DRM isn't a bad thing, and your objection appears to be when it's used to increase control. And I agree with you on both those points. But this, to me, is a classic case of providing a service that doesn't reduce the rights of users or increase the control of the copyright holders. If you want to keep a permanent copy, then there's nothing stopping you using your TV card or VCR to do so. However, if you miss the program and forget to set your PVR/VCR, then this offers you a way to see it - something you simply can't do at the moment.
It's an additional service, not a replacement - and so adds to your options, rather than reducing them.
You have the thesis: You provide the evidence. Given that I don't know who you are, I have every reason in the absence of evidence to suppose that your accusations are groundless. Given that I know a good deal about the BBC's recruitment and purchasing policies, I have very good reasons to *know* they're groundless.
"That hasn't stopped some companies muscling into the popular TV shows to get their product placed - and recently are increasingly underfire about the whole thing."
Ironic that The Times should complain about product placement, when it's packed full of fluff pieces about other Rupert Murdoch properties...
More importantly, the actually report is about programmes made for the BBC by third-party production companies. While, from the introduction, you'd believe that companies were paying the BBC to get their products placed, this is false - the money is going to third parties, not to the BBC, and - if the BBC found out about it - you can bet that those companies wouldn't get much business from them again.
Can someone mod this down, given that it's been pretty fairly established that (1) the files are seeded via the BBC's servers, rather than served from them, and (2) whether a file is DRM'd or otherwise makes no difference to if a service is peer to peer.
The idea that this is five points "insightful" just makes Slashdot mods look stupid!
In what way could delivering a service which doesn't remove anyone rights, but instead gives them additional options, "ease adoption" of removing rights that already exist? Please explain the causal mechanism.
It's like saying that having an option to buy a car in red is somehow easing the way for removing the option to buy one in silver (the most popular colour choice). That argument makes no sense.
Actually, it's never been tied to how you use it. Any household containing a device *capable* of receiving TV - including PCs with a TV tuner card - is subject to the license.
"Wrong. Taxes and T.V. license money both go towards paying for this to be developed and maintained. Now sit down. Idiot."
Before calling someone an idiot, I always advise people to check their facts. Such as in your case, where you seem to believe that the BBC gets tax money as well as the license fee. In fact, the only thing that the BBC does that is funded directly by the government is the BBC World Service, which isn't connected to any of this.
"There appears to be a widely held belief here that the BBC should not be using licence payers money to promote proprietry restrictions on media."
The BBC isn't "promoting" anything. You don't have to use this service. It's not as if they were adding some kind of broadcast flag system that prevented you from recording TV on a PVR or VCR and offering this as an alternative. They're not - this is simply an extra service, that you can choose to use or not use. Don't like the DRM restrictions? Then don't use it - instead, record the show on your PVR and do what you want with it.
"I can see where you are coming from. In house writers for the newspaper are paid for by the price of the paper and the advertising contained within. The material produced by these writer should be owed by the paper. The BBC, however, is not like this."
Actually, these days the BBC is very much like this - check out the closing credits for programmes on BBC 1 and 2, and you'll see a lot of independent productions. In fact, the BBC has a statutory requirement - set by government - for 25% of its programmes on BBC 1 and 2 to be made by independent producers.
And, exactly as in the worlds of magazines and newspapers, some of those are bought by the BBC "on spec" - pre-made, or part pre-made - while others are commissioned. And as in the world of newspapers, the BBC's rights are more limited when they buy a show or commission a show from an independent. Usually, they have first-showing rights, and have to pay set fees afterwards - just as, in journalism, a newspaper has "first use" rights, and has to pay fees afterwards.
But I guess the underlying point is simply that rights issues are complex in the media, much more complex than "who pays gets the rights". This is the landscape the BBC is having to navigate around with its online stuff.
Thankfully, the BBC, *is* providing a service where you get TV and can do what you want with it - it's called the Creative Archive.
However, the rights issues involved with the vast majority of programming mean that such an approach can't work with 80-90% of what you see on TV - and in these circumstances, iMP is a happy medium.
"How exactly am I choosing to be excluded because I choose to use free software? My being forced to use proprietry software and DRM encumbered codecs is not a decision the BBC should be making for myself or the British public."
If I choose not to buy a computer, I'm also excluded. So should the BBC provide free computers for all? Of course not. If I choose to access the internet only on my Acorn Achimedes, should the BBC be expected to ensure that I can access iMP from it? Of course not. The phrase "form which no one is excluded" clearly doesn't mean "those who choose not to use the service". You have the opportunity to use the service. You choose not to, for your own (undoubtedly valid to you) reasons.
Yes, but *you're* not the average computer user. There are tools for removing the FairPlay DRM from Apple's AAC files, but that doesn't mean they're DRM free.
DVD purchases are not DRM free in any sense. Copyng DVDs is much more of a PITA than simply giving someone a copy of a file you've already downloaded, given that this file would be a few hundred MB at most.
Well, that's debatable. The license fee is tied to television ownership, not to internet usage - so it's perfectly possible to not own a television (and so not pay the license fee) while receiving this service.
"Except they don't compete with anyone, it is amazing that the BBC's long standing culture of nepotism and corruption has managed to produce so many worthwhile programmes."
Ahh, so basically you're one of those people who hate the BBC and will look for any old stick to bash it with? Fine - that puts your previous comments in a little more context. Have you ever thought you might have got the argument the wrong way round - that the fact that the BBC produces so many worthwhile programmes (much more than "free market" ITV) is actually evidence that it's not nepotistic or corrupt? Or would that be using logic instead of your own bias?
And if you think that programme makers aren't in a competitive market, you know nothing about media.
"In the case of the BBC the license directly pays for the creation of the content. Thus it should be fair to assume that the people paying the license fee own the content. The difference is subtle but important. The public have accepted teh risk by paying the fee but don't own the product. That's got to be wrong."
That's not a great line of argument. Apply it to another medium - say newspapers. The people who buy newspapers (and the companies that advertise in them) pay for the content. Does that mean they *own* the content? No - in fact, usually the newspaper itself has only paid for a limited set of rights from the original copyright holders, the authors and photographers.
"That means that when I dump my TV, I stop paying the license fee."
Strangely enough, that's what you're perfectly entitled to do.
I don't quite get why you don't understand that, without DRM, this service would not happen. While that means *you* miss out - which is your choice - it also means that the majority of people don't miss out on a service that provides real value to UK TV viewers.
"Actually no, it shows that programme makers still haven't moved into the 21st century."
*Shrug*. Well, if you'd like to volunteer to handle the negotiations with the many thousands of rights-holders that the BBC has to deal with, your help would no-doubt be welcome. And I suspect that, if you did, we'd see a BBC iMP in time for the next century - not this one.
"Yes, copyright is held by the ex-BBC employees who (purely coincidentally) get all the contracts."
Yes, isn't it terrible the way that the BBC acts as a training ground for the majority of the TV talent in the UK. And how dare those people who got laid off when the government forced the BBC to outsource much of its programme production actually start up their own businesses to compete for the business. Shameful of them. You'd have thought they'd have just all become IT consultants instead.
This isn't a question of profit: This is a free (to UK viewers) service. It's analogous to on-demand broadcast TV - the fact that it's using distributed digital files is not important.
You're misunderstanding the point, I think. When the BBC reshows "Allo Allo", Gordon Kaye (who played Rene) gets paid an additional fee. When you sell a DVD of "Allo Allo" you know how many copies you've sold - and Gordon gets another fee, according to how many copies get sold.
Now, assume for a second that you're Gordon Kaye (or rather his agent). The BBC comes to you and tells you that it will be allowing people to download "Allo Allo" for a week. How much do you charge the BBC for that? It depends, of course, on how many people view the programme - and knowing that depends on include some kind of DRM.
"Hello Judas, will the other clients be closed source and use Windows Media and DRM? Not on any of my machines they won't pal!"
Your choice. There's no possibility whatsoever that you could get the rights holders to agree to distribute these programmes without DRM. None. Zero. Zilch. This service simply would not happen if there was no DRM involved.
So that means you have to use a DRM-supporting codec, which is commercially supported (otherwise it would cost $$$ for the BBC to do it). Care to name an alternative to Windows Media that fits the bill.
If you want to watch BBC programmes in a DRM-free digital format, record them yourself and distribute them via UK Nova - which the BBC has so far turned a blind eye to.
Slashdot Mirror
"But any broadcast programme that people want to watch is already being ripped and distributed over just about any P2P system you care to name."
That's demonstrably false. Is yesterday's edition of "Mastermind" on UK Nova? Not yet - and it might not ever be. The same is true for a broad swathe of programmes, and especially children's programmes.
You seem to agree that there are circumstances where no DRM isn't a bad thing, and your objection appears to be when it's used to increase control. And I agree with you on both those points. But this, to me, is a classic case of providing a service that doesn't reduce the rights of users or increase the control of the copyright holders. If you want to keep a permanent copy, then there's nothing stopping you using your TV card or VCR to do so. However, if you miss the program and forget to set your PVR/VCR, then this offers you a way to see it - something you simply can't do at the moment.
It's an additional service, not a replacement - and so adds to your options, rather than reducing them.
You have the thesis: You provide the evidence. Given that I don't know who you are, I have every reason in the absence of evidence to suppose that your accusations are groundless. Given that I know a good deal about the BBC's recruitment and purchasing policies, I have very good reasons to *know* they're groundless.
"That hasn't stopped some companies muscling into the popular TV shows to get their product placed - and recently are increasingly underfire about the whole thing."
Ironic that The Times should complain about product placement, when it's packed full of fluff pieces about other Rupert Murdoch properties...
More importantly, the actually report is about programmes made for the BBC by third-party production companies. While, from the introduction, you'd believe that companies were paying the BBC to get their products placed, this is false - the money is going to third parties, not to the BBC, and - if the BBC found out about it - you can bet that those companies wouldn't get much business from them again.
The license fee already applies to TV tuners in computers if you use them receive broadcasts.
I can't find any reference to the BBC attempting to extend the license to internet users - can you provide one?
Can someone mod this down, given that it's been pretty fairly established that (1) the files are seeded via the BBC's servers, rather than served from them, and (2) whether a file is DRM'd or otherwise makes no difference to if a service is peer to peer.
The idea that this is five points "insightful" just makes Slashdot mods look stupid!
In what way could delivering a service which doesn't remove anyone rights, but instead gives them additional options, "ease adoption" of removing rights that already exist? Please explain the causal mechanism.
It's like saying that having an option to buy a car in red is somehow easing the way for removing the option to buy one in silver (the most popular colour choice). That argument makes no sense.
I stand corrected - thanks for the info!
Actually, it's never been tied to how you use it. Any household containing a device *capable* of receiving TV - including PCs with a TV tuner card - is subject to the license.
"Wrong. Taxes and T.V. license money both go towards paying for this to be developed and maintained. Now sit down. Idiot."
Before calling someone an idiot, I always advise people to check their facts. Such as in your case, where you seem to believe that the BBC gets tax money as well as the license fee. In fact, the only thing that the BBC does that is funded directly by the government is the BBC World Service, which isn't connected to any of this.
"I am just a poor student with a scholarship from a poor country, WHY THE HECK should I pay for that stupid license to see TV??"
Why should you get something for nothing? The last time I checked, free access to television wasn't regarded as a basic human right.
"There appears to be a widely held belief here that the BBC should not be using licence payers money to promote proprietry restrictions on media."
The BBC isn't "promoting" anything. You don't have to use this service. It's not as if they were adding some kind of broadcast flag system that prevented you from recording TV on a PVR or VCR and offering this as an alternative. They're not - this is simply an extra service, that you can choose to use or not use. Don't like the DRM restrictions? Then don't use it - instead, record the show on your PVR and do what you want with it.
"I can see where you are coming from. In house writers for the newspaper are paid for by the price of the paper and the advertising contained within. The material produced by these writer should be owed by the paper. The BBC, however, is not like this."
Actually, these days the BBC is very much like this - check out the closing credits for programmes on BBC 1 and 2, and you'll see a lot of independent productions. In fact, the BBC has a statutory requirement - set by government - for 25% of its programmes on BBC 1 and 2 to be made by independent producers.
And, exactly as in the worlds of magazines and newspapers, some of those are bought by the BBC "on spec" - pre-made, or part pre-made - while others are commissioned. And as in the world of newspapers, the BBC's rights are more limited when they buy a show or commission a show from an independent. Usually, they have first-showing rights, and have to pay set fees afterwards - just as, in journalism, a newspaper has "first use" rights, and has to pay fees afterwards.
But I guess the underlying point is simply that rights issues are complex in the media, much more complex than "who pays gets the rights". This is the landscape the BBC is having to navigate around with its online stuff.
Thankfully, the BBC, *is* providing a service where you get TV and can do what you want with it - it's called the Creative Archive.
However, the rights issues involved with the vast majority of programming mean that such an approach can't work with 80-90% of what you see on TV - and in these circumstances, iMP is a happy medium.
"Rather, you know nothing about me."
Evidently, as you choose to hide behind being an AC.
"How exactly am I choosing to be excluded because I choose to use free software? My being forced to use proprietry software and DRM encumbered codecs is not a decision the BBC should be making for myself or the British public."
If I choose not to buy a computer, I'm also excluded. So should the BBC provide free computers for all? Of course not. If I choose to access the internet only on my Acorn Achimedes, should the BBC be expected to ensure that I can access iMP from it? Of course not. The phrase "form which no one is excluded" clearly doesn't mean "those who choose not to use the service". You have the opportunity to use the service. You choose not to, for your own (undoubtedly valid to you) reasons.
Yes, but *you're* not the average computer user. There are tools for removing the FairPlay DRM from Apple's AAC files, but that doesn't mean they're DRM free.
DVD purchases are not DRM free in any sense. Copyng DVDs is much more of a PITA than simply giving someone a copy of a file you've already downloaded, given that this file would be a few hundred MB at most.
Well, that's debatable. The license fee is tied to television ownership, not to internet usage - so it's perfectly possible to not own a television (and so not pay the license fee) while receiving this service.
"Except they don't compete with anyone, it is amazing that the BBC's long standing culture of nepotism and corruption has managed to produce so many worthwhile programmes."
Ahh, so basically you're one of those people who hate the BBC and will look for any old stick to bash it with? Fine - that puts your previous comments in a little more context. Have you ever thought you might have got the argument the wrong way round - that the fact that the BBC produces so many worthwhile programmes (much more than "free market" ITV) is actually evidence that it's not nepotistic or corrupt? Or would that be using logic instead of your own bias?
And if you think that programme makers aren't in a competitive market, you know nothing about media.
"In the case of the BBC the license directly pays for the creation of the content. Thus it should be fair to assume that the people paying the license fee own the content. The difference is subtle but important. The public have accepted teh risk by paying the fee but don't own the product. That's got to be wrong."
That's not a great line of argument. Apply it to another medium - say newspapers. The people who buy newspapers (and the companies that advertise in them) pay for the content. Does that mean they *own* the content? No - in fact, usually the newspaper itself has only paid for a limited set of rights from the original copyright holders, the authors and photographers.
"That means that when I dump my TV, I stop paying the license fee."
Strangely enough, that's what you're perfectly entitled to do.
I don't quite get why you don't understand that, without DRM, this service would not happen. While that means *you* miss out - which is your choice - it also means that the majority of people don't miss out on a service that provides real value to UK TV viewers.
"I can't see any reason why current affairs programmes should have any DRM - their resale value must be negligible"
I would expect that current affairs stuff will make its way into the Creative Archive fairly quickly.
"Actually no, it shows that programme makers still haven't moved into the 21st century."
*Shrug*. Well, if you'd like to volunteer to handle the negotiations with the many thousands of rights-holders that the BBC has to deal with, your help would no-doubt be welcome. And I suspect that, if you did, we'd see a BBC iMP in time for the next century - not this one.
"Yes, copyright is held by the ex-BBC employees who (purely coincidentally) get all the contracts."
Yes, isn't it terrible the way that the BBC acts as a training ground for the majority of the TV talent in the UK. And how dare those people who got laid off when the government forced the BBC to outsource much of its programme production actually start up their own businesses to compete for the business. Shameful of them. You'd have thought they'd have just all become IT consultants instead.
This isn't a question of profit: This is a free (to UK viewers) service. It's analogous to on-demand broadcast TV - the fact that it's using distributed digital files is not important.
You're misunderstanding the point, I think. When the BBC reshows "Allo Allo", Gordon Kaye (who played Rene) gets paid an additional fee. When you sell a DVD of "Allo Allo" you know how many copies you've sold - and Gordon gets another fee, according to how many copies get sold.
Now, assume for a second that you're Gordon Kaye (or rather his agent). The BBC comes to you and tells you that it will be allowing people to download "Allo Allo" for a week. How much do you charge the BBC for that? It depends, of course, on how many people view the programme - and knowing that depends on include some kind of DRM.
"Hello Judas, will the other clients be closed source and use Windows Media and DRM? Not on any of my machines they won't pal!"
Your choice. There's no possibility whatsoever that you could get the rights holders to agree to distribute these programmes without DRM. None. Zero. Zilch. This service simply would not happen if there was no DRM involved.
So that means you have to use a DRM-supporting codec, which is commercially supported (otherwise it would cost $$$ for the BBC to do it). Care to name an alternative to Windows Media that fits the bill.
If you want to watch BBC programmes in a DRM-free digital format, record them yourself and distribute them via UK Nova - which the BBC has so far turned a blind eye to.