BBC Download Plans Approved 177
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.'"
Windows Only (Score:4, Informative)
Re:iPlayer (Score:5, Informative)
Re:another option (Score:5, Informative)
bittorent (Score:2, Informative)
Or you could use bittorrent. I'm not entirely sure of the legality of downloading things that you already pay a license for such as TV shows, but that's never stopped anyone before.
Re:Is this for money? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Time limited DRM? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Windows Only (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 to forge strategic partnerships with technology companies and distributors for the benefit of licence payers."
I put it in my journal, but no one commented at the time...
OT:Public Verus Private. (Score:1, Informative)
Already available without DRM (Score:4, Informative)
Re:another option (Score:4, Informative)
Let's make our opinions known!
Re:Public Verus Private. (Score:2, Informative)
Offtopic, but just so you know, "British" is a term encompassing those three latter nationalities you mentioned (although some Northern Irish may disagree that they are British at all). I assume you meant "English" rather than "British".
Re:public outcry? (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 but DRM-encumbered service would be an improvement on not having the material at all.
Re:Windows Only (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 DRM features we use to protect our content from unauthorised use". Not only that, but the access is limited "a maximum of 1 computer for download" and I can watch it "as many times as you wish within a 48 hour period". On top of this, the episodes are only available *after* they have been aired.
WTF? This is a lesson in how to take a great idea (true on-demand, customer driven technology) and cripple it to the point of being almost completely useless. If you are going to make it freely available then do so , otherwise we will continue to record the show on our PVR's and watch it whenever we like (and where ever we like if you want to transfer the files onto your laptop).
Re:another option (Score:2, Informative)
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:
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.