Slashdot Log In
BBC Download Plans Approved
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Jan 31, 2007 04:15 PM
from the no-takebacks dept.
from the no-takebacks dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports that following approval from the BBC Trust (an independent oversight body) they are now allowed to release their 'iPlayer', enabling the download and viewing of BBC owned content such as Doctor Who. Unfortunately the Trust also mandated the use of DRM to enforce a 30 day playable period, and exempted classical music performances from being made available. There will now be a 2 month consultation period. According to one of the trustees, the Trust 'could still change its mind if there was a public outcry and it was backed up by evidence.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Anti-DRM Activists Take On the BBC 200 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Activists from Binary Freedom Boston have launched a campaign calling on the BBC to release their content online without DRM or proprietary formats. You might remember the BBC asking us about this earlier and even though the public chose not to use DRM by a landslide, they still decided to use it. EMI and Amazon have already ditched DRM. How long before the BBC does?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
another option (Score:4, Funny)
What if there's a public outcry and it's backed up by drunken rioting?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oh sorry, this is England not America
Re:another option (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:another option (Score:5, Insightful)
The British slashdot readership must be large enough to make a difference here.
Parent
Re:another option (Score:4, Informative)
Let's make our opinions known!
Parent
The classical music reasoning is worse (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing I found most unfortunate about the whole affair was that the reason given by the BBC Trust for not releasing the classical music: "There is a potential negative market impact if the BBC allows listeners to build an extensive library of classical music that will serve as a close substitute for commercially available downloads or CDs." [Emphasis added]
There are a lot of misconceptions about the BBC (not least how much of its funding comes from licence fees rather than other sources), but I'm pretty sure it's still supposed to be run essentially in the public interest. I don't really understand how protecting the commercial interests of classical music distributors are the expense of the public is part of that remit.
If we're talking about music that's out of copyright itself (Beethoven was the example given), and the particular recording is already being made available for the BBC to broadcast, you'd think the Beeb could negotiate some fair additional compensation for the recording orchestras in exchange for the rights to make it downloadable as well. After all, we have the Proms every year and no doubt some people record and keep those (legally or otherwise), so it doesn't seem like orchestras mind the coverage. Why not legitimise keeping the material, throw in a bit of fair compensation for the recording artists to match, and make the world a little nicer for all concerned?
Parent
Re:The classical music reasoning is worse (Score:4, Insightful)
Serious classical fans will look for and purchase the finest performances, possibly several of them - and often pay through the nose for them too (since there's little choice other than, maybe, a rare flac torrent).
The advantage of the BBC programme is that it introduced many pieces of music to a new audience, who then likely would become fans and subsequently pay to see live performances and cds of the finest recordings.
It's a shocking waste of a missed opportunity.
Parent
Re:another option (Score:4, Informative)
It's difficult to imagine how more inaccurate you could be. The BBC would like to be able to make programmes available for much longer if not indefinitely. In their original proposal they wanted a time frame of 13 weeks, which was cut to 30 days. Who cut it? Not the BBC themselves, but an organization called 'The BBC Trust', an independent body that replaced the corporation's governors at the beginning of 2007. Basically a bunch of stooges appointed by the government to make sure that the BBC no longer has the ability to be totally independent and go against the wishes of the almighty Tony Blair and his cronies. The sole purpose of this 'DRM for Linux' is to satisfy this fucking stupid 30 day rules that the Trust has forced on them.
Why did it get cut? Because of pressure from the elected representatives (i.e. the government) who due to the fact that they are in bed with big business (i.e. Rupert Murdoch etc.) didn't want to do anything that might piss off their rich buddies. In other words they exerted considerably more than just 'moral pressure'.
The BBC have released non-DRM'd mp3 copies of their radio output for ages - I have no doubt they'd like to do something similar for TV, but hey, we all know whose interests are at the heart of government these days, and it sure as hell ain't the people who elected them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This requires the BBC to develop an alternative DRM framework to enable users of other technology, for example, Apple and Linux,
sounds specific, and quite self explanatory to me: the BBC is going to try and develop some form of cross platform DRM. Combined with Question 5 [bbc.co.uk]
How important is it that the proposed seven-day catch-up service over the internet is available to consumers who are not using Microsoft software?
It sounds ominous for Linux users; perhaps even "Linux DRM, or no product".
Re:another option (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, if only the truth were so simplistic.
I've seen such arguments trotted out from time to time, and believe me -- I feel for my friends out in the UK who have to pay for a television license. Here in Canada we have no such fee, which is the way things should be.
HOWEVER, don't for a minute assume that your TV license fee dollars are the only funds that go into producing quality BBC programming, and thus that said programming should never escape across boarders through the Internet.
You see, where you pay a license fee to the BBC to own a television in your part of the world, here in my part of the world the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is funded (in part) through tax dollars -- including my tax dollars. And yet CBC Programming (especially documentaries) is shown all around the world, including portions of which are available online.
Aside from that, let's look at one of the shows the BBC is proposing to make available online: Doctor Who [imdb.com]. Click the link and scroll down to "Production Companies". Yes, that's right, the venerable BBC Sci-Fi series is produced in part by the CBC.
Thus, I at least have already paid for part of Doctor Who. How many other modern BBC shows are co-produced in conjunction with the national broadcasters in other (esp. Commonwealth) countries?
(Let's not also mention that the BBC already broadcasts world-wide via various cable outlets, like BBC Canada [bbccanada.com] and BBC America [bbcamerica.com], amongst others).
I don't argue with the complaint that the UK's TV licensing fee seems like a cash-grab to my eyes, but that's up to you and your countrymen to fix, and not something I can affect change for. However, the view that your licensing fees are the sole source of funding for popular BBC shows doesn't exactly reflect modern reality, and the desire to prevent such shows from being made available to the world for free online isn't going to put the cat back into the bag: it escaped long, long ago, and probably never should have been in there in the first place.
Yaz.
Parent
please check the accounts and verify this ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thus, I at least have already paid for part of Doctor Who. How many other modern BBC shows are co-produced in conjunction with the national broadcasters in other (esp. Commonwealth) countries? "
You may be right. But I suspect that if CBC is in the credit then they are being paid a commercial rate for their services by the BBC. In which case, even if you fund other work by the CBC then your entitlement to BBC(UK) output is non-existent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/wor
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/wor
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drw
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/05/08/british-t
Reading between the lines in the above reports it seems that CBC "sponsored" the production ("produced by BBC Wales in association with the CBC") by buying it early and plugging it prime-time. For example in the news report (last link above) about Doctor Who winning an award they don't mention anything about it being produced by CBC, that seems strange to me as in Wales if a Doctor Who producer wipes his nose it's all over the news reports (! eww). BBC news here also gives the impression that the show is Welsh made (Welsh nationalism is rife).
[quote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/wor
[quote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/wor
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's surprisingly easy to do that. I've, erm, seen a friend do it before. Twice. Ahem.
iPlayer (Score:2, Insightful)
i love how it's 'cool' to name everything i* now. the bbc couldn't come up w/ a better name? at least something british sounding.
Re:iPlayer (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
But... but... but what's wrong with Wensleydale?
I think it's actually pronounced oi-payah (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
iConform
Re:iPlayer (Score:5, Funny)
Grayson: Yes, Mr Cholmondley-Warner, thay have. Its called the iPlayer.
CW: How remarkable, but I must admit that it sounds rather similar to something those colonial chappies might come up with.
G: Indeed so, one almost thinks that the name was specifically chosen to stop Mr Stephen Jobs from using it in one of his modern-day thingummybobs.
CW:Well, if we're beating the Yanks at their own game, I think we can live with it.
G: Indeed! Ho ho.
CW: Yes. Ho ho.
Parent
Sounds like the usual B.S. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When people record a programme at home "if they don't look at it within 48 hours, they don't look at it at all", he said.
Indeed! HE might not look at it, but I use my MythTV PVR for time shifting, and sometimes it's a long time shift. Episodes are recorded every week of the shows I DO watch (and some I might watch if they seem interesting like Modern Marvels episodes) and it's frequently more than a week before I get around to catching up on the missed episodes. But 48 hours? Where the hell did he get that number? Methinks it was produced rectally.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So. What? Since when has competition 'having a negative effect' on the competititors been a problem in a free market?
Personally, I'd like to set up a very expensive monopoly selling bottled air, and I demand that the government deal with this everpresent free air! How am I supposed to charge for air when it's free to breathe all around? How many employment oppo
Re:Sounds like the usual B.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is something that's always irked me about objections to the BBC's funding scheme, emanating from the likes of ITV and Sky - the BBC was there first! These companies entered the market with the full knowledge that they were competing against a publicly funded body. It would be like me building a road somewhere, and then complaining that all the other roads in the country get public money.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
By the way, in the UK nowadays, nobody comes out to vote because our politicians are mostly self-serving, corrupt, lying, cheating, incompetant, lazy, useless c*nts.
Sounds like the same reason people vote less on this side of the pond. But your description of politicians is redundant, and unfairly insulting to cunts.
Windows Only (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Windows Only (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That sounds kind of backwards to me. More like "...to prevent users of other technology from accessing the on-demand services too much.".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Despite their commitment to mac and linux compatibility on their audio streaming, the iPlayer only runs on windows, disappointing as I'm sure even us mac users pay our licence fees.
Maybe the agreement they signed with Microsoft [bbc.co.uk]back in September 2006 has something to do with this?
From the article, "The BBC has signed an agreement with Microsoft to explore ways of developing its digital services," ... and ... "To ensure that the BBC is able to embrace the creative challenges of the digital future, we need
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was interested to see a advert directly after "Supernatural" the other night here in Australia that promised "free download of the episodes" (see http://supernatural.ten.com.au/ [ten.com.au]). Cool I thought - the networks here are listening and responding to the demand for true on-demand viewing.
Imagine my disappointment in discovering that I must be running Windows XP with IE6 and WMP9. Nothing else will work because other players do "not support the
Re:Time limited DRM? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Worse than the alternative (Score:2)
30-day viewing period? (Score:3, Interesting)
Eventually they'll figure it out: until we can download it and watch it in the viewer of our choice as often as we want when we want, we will continue to obtain copies of such content by other means than theirs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I prefer the term "alternative content distribution methods."
Yeah, that seems to be the only way to make people happy. However, there's no way to make sure people are paying
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Public Verus Private. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, the BBC is (at least on paper) a public enterprise oned (in heory) by the British Public and paid for via the TV Tax. Much like the Voice of America is a service funded by the American Public. As such shouldn't the content produced by the Beeb be freely available (at least to the Brits, Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish) for them to do with as they please? Didn't they pay to have it made and as such "own" it?
Or is this one of those cases where the drive to resell said content (say on BBC-America or via deals with other channels, or on DVD) that was supposed to "offset costs" now driving availability?
Re:Public Verus Private. (Score:4, Interesting)
The BBC has lots of legislative strings and the reason they can't share the content is ostensibly because it would be competitively "unfair" on the independent TV stations who don't have access to taxpayers money. Of course in the real world ITV and C4 are doing it anyway, but that sort of minor detail doesn't matter in politics.
Parent
VOA not allowed in US (Score:3, Informative)
The flaw in that argument is that people in the United States are forbidden from listening to the Voice of America [wikipedia.org] and even transcripts of its programs are not available to ordinary citizens under the FOIA. Public Law 402:
The iPlayer DRM is pointless.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably OFCOM want to force the BBC to use DRM (they even specified that it should be Windows DRM) in order to buoy the position of Microsoft and/or commercial broadcasters?
In any case, I guess my MythTV server will continue to be useful for some time yet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Beeb's public broadcasts are public only in the UK. Other countries around the world that show BBC shows (Monty Python repeats are a good example) have had to buy the rights to those shows, just like any commercial station.
This "on-demand" system is a free service - any licence payer can use it. The DRM and use of a proprietary player enables the BBC to ensure that by enabling free access to shows previously broa
Feedback about DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
The BBC should be providing licence fee payers like myself with unrestricted digital content. If we end up building up massive libraries of free classical music, then so much the better! It is their job to educate, inform and entertain licence fee payers, not sell us CDs. They should not be concerned with "negative market impacts" - they should be providing the public service that we Brits are paying for.
Plan won't work (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that's not the BBC's problem. The commercial rivals must take care of themselves - by, for example, providing higher quality content or different content. Is Ofcom asserting that there's a limit to the amount of classical music and TV shows which the economy can support? That having more choice will lead inevitably to commercial loss for these competitors? Perhaps the BBC should stop producing classical music and high quality TV programs altogether lest they damage the market share of commercial competitors? Perhaps we should limit access to the Public Domain too, since it can't be easily monopolised.
It wants the corporation to scale back plans to let downloaded "catch-up" episodes remain on users' hard drives for 13 weeks, suggesting that 30 days is enough.
Assuming (as devil's advocate) that their DRM is adequate, why limit the time that the content works? If somebody records one of these shows on their VCR, they are allowed to watch it again and again forever. Why limit a user's fair use rights for no better reason than "because it's technically possible"?
The trust also asked the BBC to explore ways of introducing parental controls to its on-demand services, as it is worried at the "heightened risk of children being exposed to post-watershed material".
TV doesn't require electronic "parental controls", so why should downloaded shows?
"There is a potential negative market impact if the BBC allows listeners to build an extensive library of classical music that will serve as a close substitute for commercially available downloads or CDs," it said.
I'm afraid they're several years too late on that point. It seems the BBC Trust hasn't been paying attention to recent events. Here are some facts to brighten your day:
Re: (Score:2)
The British have already figured this one out. They generate revenues by billing everyone that owns a TV £135.50 per year.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have no idea how many British people just don't get this concept. Every time there's a topic on the BBC's Have Your Say [bbc.co.uk] board that actually concerns the BBC, you get a slew of replies demanding the abolition of the licence fee and the introduction of adverts.
Okay, so the price can be hard to stomach considering you have to pay it even if you don't watch BBC programmes... but all things considered I think it's worth it, just for that precious advert-free zone.
Already available without DRM (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Already available without DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't you hear? The DG of the BBC is getting kickbacks from Billy G ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ I mean, he's collaborating with MS and if he happens to get a very high paid job with MS Europe later in his career then it's purely coincidental.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5390000.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Disclaimer - this post is an ironic comedic remark containing no truth and as such is not a representation of the character of any perso
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:bittorent (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The BBC have been offering a "Listen Again" service for a while now, which is very well regarded. Various popular radio shows are available for download (in Real format) for seven days after a show airs, and then they disappear from the web site. Theoretically you could keep them indefinitely once you've got them, but for many BBC shows, people are more interested in catching up on what they missed the other day/night. For that, both something open-ended like the current Listen Again service or the proposed