grouchal writes "The BBC Trust (a semi independent regulator) has just approved the BBC's efforts to launch iPlayer (no new info on this link yet). This means that UK residents can watch broadcast BBC programs out of sync with the broadcast schedule by up to 30 days for free. The iPlayer will launch for the PC but is expected on Media Center, Xbox 360 devices in the near future. The approval also included some constraints." This would really have made my life a lot simpler when my tivo died a couple of weeks ago.
But the trust has asked the BBC to ensure that the iPlayer computer application can run on different systems - such as Apple Macs - within "a reasonable time frame".
Earlier this month BBC Future Media boss Ashley Highfield said the corporation was committed to rolling out the iPlayer on Windows PCs first of all, and then cable TV services, Apple Macs, and eventually Freeview boxes.
But the BBC said it could not commit to a two-year deadline to achieve this goal, saying it was up to the third parties concerned. (my emphasis)
iPlayer is built on top of Windows Media Player using Windows DRM - part of the BBC's stunning support for open standards and multiplatform development. Even if they do ship it for Mac the DRM issue will probably limit the programmes you can download.
I don't get the BBC at all. They make a lot of noise about how they can't release some material in some formats because it would create competition for private industry, but then they prop up the largest monopolist in software world. They also waste massively stupid amounts of bandwidth by broadcasting their archived material in e.g. RealPlayer format instead of something more compact like OggVorbis or even MP3 (take a listen to their BBC7 [bbc.co.uk] radio station), there's no need to broadcast that material in that high a quality. It makes it wasteful for most people to listen online and it creates exactly what they say they want to avoid: a very high quality digital copy that competes with commercial vendors (e.g. of books on CD).
This is a public service announcement . . . with keyboard . . .
If the BBC has committed to supporting one product above others in the market place--that is, the DRM platform in Media Player--then politely inform the BBC that you will not pay your license fee until universal access is provided. Such a blatant attempt to support a commercial organization through a government programme should be most strongly resisted. Moreover, it is only when the citizens require that government truly level the playing
from TFA "The iPlayer computer application will only be initially available to those with Windows PCs. But the trust has asked the BBC to ensure that the iPlayer computer application can run on different systems - such as Apple Macs - within 'a reasonable time frame'. "
So how long before we can get this on Linux? or the PS3?
Yes it's completely unacceptable that someone who knows absolutely nothing things they'll never ever ever make a Linux version of the iPlayer. Are you kidding me? This hasn't even been released yet (for ANY OS) and you're already lighting up the torches. Give it time, in the meantime, just use a newsreader for christ's sake. Once the program is available for OSX it's not too hard to then port it to Linux in one way shape or form.
Firstly, I think it very unlikely that the current iPlayer mechanisms would/could be be ported to Linux. They're heavily dependent on Windows DRM, which in turn is heavily dependent on the Windows architecture (complete with Windows' methods for detecting debugger operations to prevent DRM bypass). Thus, while the APIs could be replicated on Linux/OS X, the protections would be trivial to bypass. Leaving aside whether MS would permit a porting effort.
OS X probably has a better shot - since you could implement the APIs without much extra paranoia, but use the inbuilt TPM on Intel Macs to ensure the OS and running environment was in a known good state. Since you can't count on a Linux box having a TPM, you can't make reverse engineering of the DRM system more difficult.
For what its worth, the tech guys at the BBC are fully aware of Linux, and it is in their plan to support it via iPlayer. The best way of accomplishing this isn't through technical means, but political. It's important for people to understand why the BBC is using DRM. They don't want to - it just increases running costs and introduces new points of failure into an already complex system. But the programme makers (who are often not the BBC) together with the contracted personnel who produce the programs insisted that any attempt to broadcast content in the clear would count as unlimited repeat broadcast. Which is fine, but it would cost the BBC a fortune to pay out as per contractual requirements. Hence the DRM enforced limitations, which are a sort of contractual enforcement by proxy. A pretty crappy one, but one which the lawyers would accept.
It's a simple problem to state, but hard to fix at a technical level - because there's no real technical problem. Existing contracts for TV works are written in language which predates the Internet and the on-demand style of viewing. Thus, it's always expressed in terms of initial showings, repeat fees, differential media exploitation rates, etc. Recent contracts which the BBC is creating are far more encompassing of alternative distribution technologies. So the final solution is to get far more sane exploitation rights written into contracts, which accurately reflect TV watching habits of the 21st century, and to stop wishing that the Internet and its on-demand modes of use would just go away.
Of course, the ultimate stupidity of all of this is that the programmes are being broadcast in digital form completely unencrypted right now! DVB-T/C/S transmissions spit this stuff out in full resolution (whereas iPlayer doesn't) which a $200 PC card can receive and store the content on a persistent device. It's almost like the the lawyers put their fingers in their ears and sang "Lalala! Can't hear you!" when this gets mentioned.
End result: Build a MythTV box with a Freeview card. You can suck down as many channels as you like and keep it for ever. Transcode to H.264 and a 500GB hard disk will keep 6 months of programming easily.
Ultimately, there isn't anything you can do about it.
You gotta love state-run organizations.
Maybe it's just me, but I read some the positive feedback about this new program and it's sort of disturbing how grateful people are. In America, you have your choice of open source and commercial solutions to do exactly what this does, with no DRM or time limit. When the BBC decides to be so "gracious" as to allow its customers to "tape now, watch later.. but not too much l
Here in Denmark we have our public TV online already, and that plays on all operating systems, although linux is still playing in a lower resolution than under windows. All it requires is installing mplayer and getting the mplayer MS codecs (they are legal in EU).
What's the demand like for Danish TV outside of Denmark? BBC makes a stack of money selling its shows abroad so allowing non-DRMed viewing online would hurt them in the pocket.
And the people asking for money back from their TV licenses - only a small percentage of license fee payers are going to use this (in the near future) so in effect almost everybody should be getting a refund. In practice though it doesn't work that way. I don't think the BBC should spend money on Soap Operas or reality TV or... or..
Here in Denmark we have our public TV online already, and that plays on all operating systems, although linux is still playing in a lower resolution than under windows. All it requires is installing mplayer and getting the mplayer MS codecs (they are legal in EU).
That is NOT acceptable... the codec used should be non-proprietary and completely free to implement and redistribute. If it can't be distributed in Debian or Ubuntu then it's of no use to me and countless others who prefer to use free as in freedo
And a big welcome to a whole new Linux persecution complex! It's a game the whole family can play!
Step 1/ Create your own possible scenario of Linux persecution. Do not worry about any supporting evidence or factual basis.
Step 2/ Write to someone in authority complaining about it.
Here's a a fun example to get you started!
Dear Director General of the BBC,
Why, oh why, did I decided yesterday that you would never create a Linux version of iPlayer? This is unacceptable and I can't believe I'd imagine
It's still tied by DRM to the one platform so I don't give it high chances for success. I guess they have a lot of money to keep it afloat it if flounders for a while then catches on (I'm trying to avoid CmdrTaco's fate with the iPod prediction here).
But is there no MythTV or Tivo-type solution available in the Britain? I mean it's publicly funded so shouldn't people get more control over what they've paid for?
Absolutely. Best thing about Sky Plus is this: Change channels on time for the start of the programme you want to watch, then go off and do something else for 10 minutes or thereabouts. Return to TV. Rewind to beginning of programme. (Now you are 10 minutes behind the live broadcast; more if you pause or rewind it.) Fast-forward through adverts.
Worst thing about it is the time display, which by default -- and I haven't found out where to change it -- is AM/PM, not VCR-style. This frankly does my he
After months of careful preparation and a dedicated training regime, the slashdot editors have today finally reached the summit of typographical errors - screwing up the world's most recognisable acronym at the beginning of the story headline. Well done guys - you should be proud.
If anyone from the BBC is reading this, as a non-UK resident I would be happy to pay the annual licence fee if I could get access to the UK BBC channels.
If you could make it work with my Apple TV, even better!
That's the problem with building more closed systems: the BBC has to see your request to make that happen. Using open protocols or at least published APIs allow anyone interested enough to create that interface for you. For your Apple TV there are a limited number of ways for you to get what you want and I think they involve Apple and BBC deciding there's an audience that's worth serving.
I think they involve Apple and BBC deciding there's an audience that's worth serving.
I don't think that's true - I believe anyone can publish a video RSS feed that could be accessed by the Apple TV - no agreement with Apple necessary. (Of course, if you want it in the Apple iTunes, store, you would need agreement from Apple but it's not necessary to publish a compatible feed).
They should be selling this content, DRM free, to the rest of the world, hell, I think they should be selling it in the UK too, then maybe they could bring the license fee down a little to compensate. Selling their content online (for reasonable prices) would allow them to move long-term to a model where they are a content creator and licenser, not a broadcaster. However just like their archive this has been hobbled by rights issues and silly rules about 'broadcasting' on the internet for 7 days, 30 days, or
They do sell a lot of their content, to other broadcasters around the world and in the UK on satellite. They also sell their programs on DVD and radio programs on CD.
Its an alternative way of getting programs that you just missed instead of hitting something like UKNova and bittorrenting the shows.
How many times have you been talking to someone and they mentioned something that was on the previous evening and you think D'oh! I wanted to watch that. This will allow you to watch it.
They do sell a lot of their content, to other broadcasters around the world and in the UK on satellite. They also sell their programs on DVD and radio programs on CD.
I'm aware of that thanks. My point is they have an opportunity here to start selling and distributing their content online - they could sell worldwide and eventually bypass all the headaches with the physical distribution methods you mentioned (which are myriad). Instead they have created a player which will bleed money, piss off people who dow
Never? The simple addition of an 'i' in front of a word is not solely a Apple thing. I can't be fucked finding references to back up my assertions, and I am in no way a lawyer (though I once had a nice wank about a law student...), but I would be very surprised if you could trademark a single letter in such a broad range of applications. It would probably be like Intel trying to trademark '486' failing and then using Pentium from then on (and nothing to do with the fact the 486+100=485.9999999199191 on t
Even though I am a UK BBC license fee payer, I won't be able to use this service I have paid for, because I don't use Windows and in and case I'm mot prepared to accept DRM.
I'll continue downloading DRM free BBC shows via bittorrent just as I have for a while now. I have no moral objection to doing this since I've paid for the content anyway.
How long are we going to continue in a situation where the unofficial channels of content delivery are superior to the official ones? Surely it can't be forever and DRM will soon have to die?
I'll continue downloading DRM free BBC shows via bittorrent just as I have for a while now. I have no moral objection to doing this since I've paid for the content anyway.
Notice that the BBC have never pursued those who upload their programmes onto p2p except in one case, when ep1 of New Dr Who was leaked before transmission. I'd argue that, like yourself, the BBC has no moral objections to the sharing of its content after transmission. In my view the iPlayer service is aimed squarely at the everyday user
2) I have, on occasion decided to download instead of buying because it's the ONLY WAY to get content without DRM. You say "stealing" causes DRM, but I think it's the other way around. I would be perfectly prepared to pay for non-DRM'd content and I accuse anyone who disagrees with my of judging me by their own standards.
What I want to know about the digital switchover is why, given that every TV receiver will have to be replaced, did they not at the same time mandate that every receiver must be capable of accepting a smartcard for decoding? Then there would be no more need for TV detector vans and bully-boy tactics of the licence enforcement people (often used indiscriminately against non-TV-owners). If you haven't bought a viewing card, you can't watch TV. Simple as that. It would mean that the licence would be payab
The BBC produce some of the world's finest television content, and this is mostly due to the way they are funded. If the BBC relied on advertising sponsorship, programmes would end up being made to suit the advertisers. If the BBC relied on general taxation, programmes would end up being made to suit the government.
The BBC is in the pockets of nobody but viewers. If that changes, the quality of programmes WILL worsen. Look to the communist system (where factories are run for the benefit of lazy workers) and the capitalist system (where factories are run for the benefit of rich shareholders) for examples of how things can go wrong when production is tailored to anyone other than the poor sod who has to spend their hard-earned on your products.
Say you have a data center, essentially a giant MythBackend. Subscribers pay a license fee to stream TV shows, movies, etc. to a MythFrontend appliance in their living room. The license fee in turn goes to pay the networks to let you "re-broadcast" their shows. Is this essentially what they're doing?
For really good shows, you'd still want to tune in the night of broadcast in order to see it, because say for example you're just obsessed with "Lost" or whatever. But if you miss it, you could always watch it
I... want an iToilet so I can take an iDump and I can patent it and I can sell it as the youPoo... BBC iDea good or bad, I can see certain parties wanting their iCut of the iProfits for youCopyright reasons. (ducks)
Let non-UKians pay for a TV license and get access to all the online services. £135.50/year to get access to all of BBC programming and that massive back catalog? I'd certainly consider it.
Better and less bureaucratic would be a reciprocal arrangement whereby TV viewers in other countries could receive BBC programming in exchange for British licence-payers being able to watch the public and free-to-air channels in those countries.
As is pointed out in other posts, this won't benefit users of Xbox 360s, PS3s etc in the near future (reasonable timeframe?) or perhaps ever. That's just a symptom though of the underlying wrongtitude. The root cause is the Memorandum of Understanding that the BBC signed with Microsoft under which they agree to siphon a portion of the license fee straight into Bil Gates's pocket in exchange for access to 'advanced technology'. The BBC can no longer develop its own tech as it sold off its technology arm to Si
I could be wrong, but I still to remember reading they were rolling their own player, codec, format and DRM, and that they asked permission to open source everything but the DRM. Not sure what happened after that.
They might have been in the dim and distant past, but the version that's been in trial for the last two and a bit years is Windows Media Player with a bit of P2P underneath. Don't expect anything to change either. The BBC is fully Microsofted: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5390000.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Er, yes. That is indeed a video codec. Is it used in iPlayer? Not at the moment, no. The Dirac team seem to think it may "possibly" be used as the codec for a future platform agnostic iPlayer. Note "future".
Even if it were added to iPlayer WMP is a container and can handle multiple codecs so there'd be nothing to stop the BBC encoding content using its own codec and still have it viewable in WMP. The codec is much less significant than the DRM approach chosen.
Seeing as the "armed wing of the BBC" (The TV Licensing Authority) has a database with every household in the UK on it, and the name of the Licence holder for that address, it may not be that simple.
OS X as well... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OS X as well... (Score:5, Informative)
Not according to the BBC:
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6607083.s tm [bbc.co.uk]
iPlayer is built on top of Windows Media Player using Windows DRM - part of the BBC's stunning support for open standards and multiplatform development. Even if they do ship it for Mac the DRM issue will probably limit the programmes you can download.
Parent
Re:OS X as well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:OS X as well... (Score:4, Insightful)
They actually take both sides into account. I think they try to be biased towards the licence fee payer though.
Parent
Then don't pay your TV license fee! (Score:2)
If the BBC has committed to supporting one product above others in the market place--that is, the DRM platform in Media Player--then politely inform the BBC that you will not pay your license fee until universal access is provided. Such a blatant attempt to support a commercial organization through a government programme should be most strongly resisted. Moreover, it is only when the citizens require that government truly level the playing
UK Resident (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
All you have to do to view it is spoof your nationality.
I've already started practicing my accent. "'Ello guvnah. Fancy a spot of tea and a nice bit a' Stilton? 'Ow about that la'est episode of Doctor Who?"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Linux? (Score:2)
see http://www.pandia.com/sw-2004/33-bbc.html [pandia.com]
Xbox 360, PC, MEdia Center and other devices?
from TFA "The iPlayer computer application will only be initially available to those with Windows PCs. But the trust has asked the BBC to ensure that the iPlayer computer application can run on different systems - such as Apple Macs - within 'a reasonable time frame'. "
So how long before we can get this on Linux? or the PS3?
And
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At best, someone might be able to get their proprietary player running under Wine.
We should tell the BBC this is unacceptable - http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/ [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you kidding me? This hasn't even been released yet (for ANY OS) and you're already lighting up the torches. Give it time, in the meantime, just use a newsreader for christ's sake. Once the program is available for OSX it's not too hard to then port it to Linux in one way shape or form.
breathe deeply and repeat after me:
this is a good idea, let's see where they go
Re: (Score:2)
If it happens, it would be DRM, binary and non-free - that's not useful, and seeks only to harm the free software community.
Re:Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
OS X probably has a better shot - since you could implement the APIs without much extra paranoia, but use the inbuilt TPM on Intel Macs to ensure the OS and running environment was in a known good state. Since you can't count on a Linux box having a TPM, you can't make reverse engineering of the DRM system more difficult.
For what its worth, the tech guys at the BBC are fully aware of Linux, and it is in their plan to support it via iPlayer. The best way of accomplishing this isn't through technical means, but political. It's important for people to understand why the BBC is using DRM. They don't want to - it just increases running costs and introduces new points of failure into an already complex system. But the programme makers (who are often not the BBC) together with the contracted personnel who produce the programs insisted that any attempt to broadcast content in the clear would count as unlimited repeat broadcast. Which is fine, but it would cost the BBC a fortune to pay out as per contractual requirements. Hence the DRM enforced limitations, which are a sort of contractual enforcement by proxy. A pretty crappy one, but one which the lawyers would accept.
It's a simple problem to state, but hard to fix at a technical level - because there's no real technical problem. Existing contracts for TV works are written in language which predates the Internet and the on-demand style of viewing. Thus, it's always expressed in terms of initial showings, repeat fees, differential media exploitation rates, etc. Recent contracts which the BBC is creating are far more encompassing of alternative distribution technologies. So the final solution is to get far more sane exploitation rights written into contracts, which accurately reflect TV watching habits of the 21st century, and to stop wishing that the Internet and its on-demand modes of use would just go away.
Of course, the ultimate stupidity of all of this is that the programmes are being broadcast in digital form completely unencrypted right now! DVB-T/C/S transmissions spit this stuff out in full resolution (whereas iPlayer doesn't) which a $200 PC card can receive and store the content on a persistent device. It's almost like the the lawyers put their fingers in their ears and sang "Lalala! Can't hear you!" when this gets mentioned.
End result: Build a MythTV box with a Freeview card. You can suck down as many channels as you like and keep it for ever. Transcode to H.264 and a 500GB hard disk will keep 6 months of programming easily.
--Ng
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, there isn't anything you can do about it.
You gotta love state-run organizations.
Maybe it's just me, but I read some the positive feedback about this new program and it's sort of disturbing how grateful people are. In America, you have your choice of open source and commercial solutions to do exactly what this does, with no DRM or time limit. When the BBC decides to be so "gracious" as to allow its customers to "tape now, watch later.. but not too much l
Re:Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
Here in Denmark we have our public TV online already, and that plays on all operating systems, although linux is still playing in a lower resolution than under windows. All it requires is installing mplayer and getting the mplayer MS codecs (they are legal in EU).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is NOT acceptable... the codec used should be non-proprietary and completely free to implement and redistribute. If it can't be distributed in Debian or Ubuntu then it's of no use to me and countless others who prefer to use free as in freedo
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1/ Create your own possible scenario of Linux persecution. Do not worry about any supporting evidence or factual basis.
Step 2/ Write to someone in authority complaining about it.
Here's a a fun example to get you started!
Dear Director General of the BBC,
Why, oh why, did I decided yesterday that you would never create a Linux version of iPlayer? This is unacceptable and I can't believe I'd imagine
Still DRM'ed (Score:2)
But is there no MythTV or Tivo-type solution available in the Britain? I mean it's publicly funded so shouldn't people get more control over what they've paid for?
Re: (Score:2)
Worst thing about it is the time display, which by default -- and I haven't found out where to change it -- is AM/PM, not VCR-style. This frankly does my he
An historic day (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As such, most people consider both to be acceptable.
Not UK resident (Score:3, Interesting)
If anyone from the BBC is reading this, as a non-UK resident I would be happy to pay the annual licence fee if I could get access to the UK BBC channels.
If you could make it work with my Apple TV, even better!
Re: (Score:2)
Best of luck.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's true - I believe anyone can publish a video RSS feed that could be accessed by the Apple TV - no agreement with Apple necessary. (Of course, if you want it in the Apple iTunes, store, you would need agreement from Apple but it's not necessary to publish a compatible feed).
Re: (Score:2)
TV is not dead, it just deserves to die (Score:2, Informative)
However just like their archive this has been hobbled by rights issues and silly rules about 'broadcasting' on the internet for 7 days, 30 days, or
Re: (Score:2)
Its an alternative way of getting programs that you just missed instead of hitting something like UKNova and bittorrenting the shows.
How many times have you been talking to someone and they mentioned something that was on the previous evening and you think D'oh! I wanted to watch that. This will allow you to watch it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm aware of that thanks. My point is they have an opportunity here to start selling and distributing their content online - they could sell worldwide and eventually bypass all the headaches with the physical distribution methods you mentioned (which are myriad). Instead they have created a player which will bleed money, piss off people who dow
how do you do it? (Score:4, Funny)
My goodness I know. It's a wonder how we make it through the day.
iWhat? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
DRM'd pile of crap (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll continue downloading DRM free BBC shows via bittorrent just as I have for a while now. I have no moral objection to doing this since I've paid for the content anyway.
How long are we going to continue in a situation where the unofficial channels of content delivery are superior to the official ones? Surely it can't be forever and DRM will soon have to die?
Re: (Score:2)
Notice that the BBC have never pursued those who upload their programmes onto p2p except in one case, when ep1 of New Dr Who was leaked before transmission. I'd argue that, like yourself, the BBC has no moral objections to the sharing of its content after transmission. In my view the iPlayer service is aimed squarely at the everyday user
Re:DRM'd pile of crap (Score:4, Insightful)
2) I have, on occasion decided to download instead of buying because it's the ONLY WAY to get content without DRM. You say "stealing" causes DRM, but I think it's the other way around. I would be perfectly prepared to pay for non-DRM'd content and I accuse anyone who disagrees with my of judging me by their own standards.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:DRM'd pile of crap (Score:4, Insightful)
The BBC is in the pockets of nobody but viewers. If that changes, the quality of programmes WILL worsen. Look to the communist system (where factories are run for the benefit of lazy workers) and the capitalist system (where factories are run for the benefit of rich shareholders) for examples of how things can go wrong when production is tailored to anyone other than the poor sod who has to spend their hard-earned on your products.
Parent
Yay! (Score:2)
(or how long do you think it will take to hack'n'open it?)
MythTV? (Score:2)
Is this essentially what they're doing?
For really good shows, you'd still want to tune in the night of broadcast in order to see it, because say for example you're just obsessed with "Lost" or whatever. But if you miss it, you could always watch it
iThis, iThat (Score:2)
BBC could make it big(ger) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrongness upon wrongth (Score:2)
The root cause is the Memorandum of Understanding that the BBC signed with Microsoft under which they agree to siphon a portion of the license fee straight into Bil Gates's pocket in exchange for access to 'advanced technology'. The BBC can no longer develop its own tech as it sold off its technology arm to Si
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even if it were added to iPlayer WMP is a container and can handle multiple codecs so there'd be nothing to stop the BBC encoding content using its own codec and still have it viewable in WMP. The codec is much less significant than the DRM approach chosen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seeing as the "armed wing of the BBC" (The TV Licensing Authority) has a database with every household in the UK on it, and the name of the Licence holder for that address, it may not be that simple.