BBC Trial of TV Show Download Service

Little Hamster writes "Five thousand households with broadband access has been selected for a trial of the BBC's new interactive Media Player. The trial will run from September to December, and users can 'time shift' and download selected BBC TV shows, radio programmes, regional programming and feature films. After seven days, the content will be automatically deleted from the user's computers. BBC will use this trial to iron out any outstanding rights issues and resolve teething difficulties with the technology ahead of a full launch next year." The BBC Press Office has a release about this as well.

TiVo?

[astro_ripper]

So this is like TiVo, except you have less control, and the content get's deleted after a week. And people want that?

Am I missing something?

Am I missing something?

[frankthechicken]

If the BBC essentially runs a public domain service anyway, why are the shows deleted after seven days?

This ceratinly doesn't need to happen on a video recording.

Well

[metlin]

If it is available digitally, it would certainly be possible to find a way of copying it without the whole deletion procedure.

Even if its a custom media player, how long is it going to take for someone to hack it up?

From the BBC Press release

[Alranor]

The BBC's interactive media player (iMP) is a new application in development which will allow users to download tv and radio programmes from bbc.co.uk to their PC or laptop and watch or listen to them for seven days after the transmission date.

Anyone wanna bet it'll be Windows only.

Guess i'll probably end up sticking to bittorrent.

Re:TiVo?

[maharg]

yes, you don't get a free TiVo with a UK tv license

Re:TiVo?

[taskforce]

Yes, you have access to the BBC's entire library Napster style, except it's *free* (As in TV Liscence, not beer.)

TiVo I believe you can only record shows that were on and watch them later, or am I missing something?

BBC and DRM

[tdvaughan]

I was disappointed at first to see that the BBC is implementing DRM but it's worth bearing in mind that not all the content broadcast by the BBC is owned by them. Much of it comes from independent studios who license it to the BBC. So I remain hopeful that the BBC will offer its own copyrighted material to UK license payers on more permissive terms.

Re:TiVo?

[/ASCII]

This is a test. Once this is mature, you will have all of these advantages:

Watch programs that are several years old, whenever you want, without having to record them. Watch three or more programs which all originally ran at the same time. Set up playlists of arbitrary programs, i.e. 'show me season two of Buffy'.

This is all assuming the BBC continues to try and develop it's offerings. I sure hope they do.

Re:broadcasters, telecom and hardware manufacturer

[JWW]

Writers, directors, actors, yes.

Audience, no.

Re:Am I missing something?

[AKAImBatman]

If the BBC essentially runs a public domain service anyway, why are the shows deleted after seven days?

I don't think it's that simple. For one, I believe that BBC doesn't own all the shows they broadcast. (Although they do own quite a few.) As such, they are licensed to provide public distribution of the shows, but are not necessary able to just give them away. This would seem to be backed by the article's mention of Hollywood and independent studios.

In addition, it also mentions that the acting unions are "acting up"^H^H balking at the idea of Internet distribution. They don't give any details, but my guess is that actors are concerned that rampant piracy would result in lower wages and fewer acting jobs. It's probably pretty hard to convince them that if given a good for-pay alternative, the majority of people will use the convenient pay service. (The only reason why Napster ever appeared was that the music industry failed to respond to market pressures. What did they THINK was going to happen?)

Quit Complaining - And Read My Journal ;)

[TheFlyingGoat]

I've had a decent idea for legal TV distribution online in my journal for a while now. Most of the posts I see so far about this BBC service are negative. Finally a media outlet is trying to embrace technology instead of calling their lawyers every 5 minutes, and all people can do is complain. Downloadable shows will probably never be free without the show including some form of DRM or advertising... get used to it. I'd much rather have DRM or ads than no downloadable shows at all.

If you don't want the DRM or ads, get a Tivo or TV capture card and skip the commercials or edit them out.

Re:Am I missing something?

[erroneus]

If they didn't delete content, people's computers would crash. You seem to forget we're talking about the public here...

Re:Am I missing something?

[Mwongozi]

Disclaimer: The following is a guess.

The system uses a P2P network to distribute the shows. By forcing the erasure of old shows, they ensure that only the latest shows are being shared, resulting in more efficient use of bandwidth, and faster downloads.

Having said that, it's probably just because they can.

Re:Automatically deleted?

[Pakaran2]

The issue of Linux is that it simply won't be supported. Isn't that obvious?

Re:TiVo?

[Richard_at_work]

Simple - they havent paid for it to be produced, theyve paid a TV license fee, which is entirely differnet. It just so happens that the BBC receives this money, but that does not automatically mean that the viewers have all rights to the productions.

It is MY computer

[rtkluttz]

They still don't get it. DRM will still be unnacceptable.

It is MY computer and it should only delete something when I tell it to. No one else. It should not police me. It should not tell me what to do, I should tell it what to do. If I break the law using my computer, then I should be held responsible, but I should NOT be limited if I choose to use the computer in a fashion that some short sited company didn't plan on.

Re:TiVo?

[Anonymous Coward]

for the same reason that you can't walk into a hospital and take home, say, the radiology department just because you pay taxes.

the production of the programs on bbc tv is written, produced, lit, filmed, acted directed etc etc. by professionals towards whom you pay your contribution, which allows you to view THEIR WORK without adverts clogging up the airtime and invading your head.

it's not like buying a book, or another physical product. the bbc provides information: without selling things to you; without propoganda ("we are not Britain, we are the BBC" -news editor during Falklands conflict, during which the BBC got right up Thatcher's nose); and (largely) without dumbed down celebrity claptrap reality tv (a couple of exceptions) and a license fee is a contribution towards "the most important cultural institution in Britain and, arguably, the World" (ref. Modern British History, M. Garnett and R. Weight ISBN 1-844-13104-1), it is NOT a product you own, and in this era of incessant Hollywood propoganda, commercial corporate power and tabloid newspapers it is not just a service in Britain, it is vital. £120 is cheap.

and no i don't work for them.

Re:UK has a yearly TV "tax"

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer to think of it as a subscription that gets you four TV channels, seven or eight top quality national radio stations, local radio stations, a stupendously good news media organization, and high-quality production values and no advertising. It's also pretty cheap compared with the "independent" subscription services, except that with "independent" subscription channels you get to pay the fee and watch advertising as well. Great value!

Re:Am I missing something?

[wolflike]

The biggest issue is usually the music that accompanies the programs. Rights are given for a broadcast of music (theme tune, backing music, sound effect etc ) and this is very rarely owned by the BBC. eg Eastenders (bad bad bad soap) might have a cafe scene where a top40 song is on in the background. fat chance of the BBC being allowed to give this away...... BTW does anyone know when storage will be up to the job of recording everything broadcast, indexing it locally (at my flat) and letting me hold it all for as long as I want, (unselected shows can drop off after 1 week). Then I can read the reveiws and watch shows I know were good, rather than have to guess? sort of Tivo on steroids??

Re:TiVo?

[Anonymous Coward]

They moan about a fee of £100 for a year for a load of channels free of advertising. Sky costs about half that much for a month of advert-ridden shit. I know which is better value.

another incorrect use of "content"

[brre]

After seven days, the content will be automatically deleted from the user's computers.

No, after seven days the show will be deleted. Or the audio and/or video will be deleted. The content, if any, will not be deleted any more than the format, presentation, or volume.

Re:UK has a yearly TV "tax"

[smoker2]

I prefer to think of it as a subscription that gets you four TV channels, seven or eight top quality national radio stations, local radio stations, a stupendously good news media organization, and high-quality production values and no advertising.

Fine, if it was a voluntary subscription, which is isn't. Every program the BBC makes ends up on satellite, for which you pay a subscription.
Don't pretend that the BBC don't charge the satellite providers for the content either.

I think the BBC should be provided for like all the rest, i.e. they get their money from people who choose to subscribe. Using the government to force people to support a commercial service is too much.

Re:TiVo?

[gtkuhn]

An AC somewhere above posted...

[BBC is] "the most important cultural institution in Britain and, arguably, the World" (ref. Modern British History, M. Garnett and R. Weight ISBN 1-844-13104-1)

And you want season two of 'Buffy'? The world can be a sad place sometimes.