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.'"
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.
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:30-day viewing period? (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 for it. Once you get a single copy out there without restrictions, it's easier for people to get it from their friends than to buy their own copy.
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.
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.
Re:another option (Score:5, Insightful)
The British slashdot readership must be large enough to make a difference here.
Re:Windows Only (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like the usual B.S. (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 opportunities are lost because I cant charge as much for the air as I'd like to?
"Chris Woolard, head of finance, economics and strategy"
Perhaps Mr. Woolard should take some care to be more concerned with what is in the interest of the taxpayers and the wealth of the nation, rather than what is the interest of some commercial entities.
Re:DRM vs. content distribution expansion (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.
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.
Exempted? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:another option (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Feedback about DRM (Score:2, Insightful)
I've never understood how BBC DVDs (and video cassettes before them) cost the same as, if not more than, Hollywood movies. As license-fee payers, we've already paid for production once, so should only be paying for materials and distribution to own a copy.
As the method of distribution is peer to peer [bbc.co.uk] they should be paying us (or at least those of us with fat pipes!) to distribute it. Plus, we should be able to keep it, as if we'd bought it on DVD. All that has changed is the distribution method. Why change what we can do with the content?
Re:Already available without DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Windows Only (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:30-day viewing period? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want a laugh, have a read of the PDF of their conclusions:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/re
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.
Re:Already available without DRM (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 person real or imaginary that might be being overpaid as a boss in the BBC.
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:
Platform-agnostic (Score:1, Insightful)
While I don't like DRM much at all, I think an open source DRM solution is superior to the existing proprietary ones if only so that it can be forward-ported to future systems. Admittedly that wouldn't do much good for time-limited BBC content, but I'm assuming that an open source and portable DRM solution would be adopted for more than just the BBC's time-limited content.