greengrass sends us to coverage in The Register of the Open Source Consortium's threatened anti-trust challenge against the BBC over its use of Windows Media format in its on-demand service, iPlayer. From the article: "The OSC will raise a formal complaint with UK broadcast and telecoms watchdog Ofcom next week, and has vowed to take its accusations to the European Competition Commission if domestic regulators do not act. The OSC compared the situation to the European Commission's prosecution of Microsoft over its bundling of Windows Media Player with Windows."
Well, I guess that basically leaves us with Matroska [wikipedia.org] as its at least the only public domain video format I know of. Of course that may mean only.000001% of the public will actually have the required software to see it, but at least its public!;-)
Really? What platform can you not play Windows Media on? Even my phone can play Windows Media. I would be surprised if the iPod video didn't support wmv either. Certainly easy in every linux distro out there, No problem on the Mac. All supported out of the box versus MKV which I've never even heard of let alone downloaded a codec for. This is just silly, you don't even need Windows Media encoder to create Windows Media files. The DRM is entirely optional.
Really? What platform can you not play Windows Media on?
You can't play DRM-encoded windows media anyplace you don't have windows media player. You are asking an irrelevant question, "What platform can you not play Windows Media on?", the actual question is "What platform can you not play DRM-restricted Windows Media on?" And the answer is "most places" - you can't play it anyplace that doesn't have a recent windows media player. And that turns out to be quite a few places.
Having not heard of MKV also matters a great deal, the format is not widely adopted
This matters not a jot. iPlayer is p2p software: it is a software download already. Adding a codec install to the mix is child's play.
And the BBC would want to protect it's content because it sells quite a bit of its content to other countries; plus sells DVDs of some stuff too. This money goes back into making programs.
Governments, funded by the PUBLIC should put their stuff in PUBLIC format.
and when software patents get in the way, the PUBLIC should demand that law serve the PUBLIC interest. Software patents are bogus and they are the only reason there's a format problem in the first place.
The OS landscape changing as it is now (not necessarily as fast as we'd like it), this move is valid. Personally I don't like to use Microsoft products, no exception to Windows Media Player on Mac (a bit of a bitch to find and install the proper CODECs).
I like to at least have a choice of media formats available...
MSFT dicontinued Windows Media for the Mac last year. Now in order to view WMV files one most manually download a third party codec. It does have an installation program but yea.
It also chokes on a large section of WM9 files. They do work on it, but it's hit or miss sometimes. and don't even think about DRM encrusted files.
Yeah, I don't use WMP to play WMV on Mac either. Especially since MS stopped developing the player for mac and gave it out to a 3rd party developer. So now I use the www.flip4mac.com Flip4mac plug-in and view WMV content in Quicktime.
Typically I tell clients to place video on the web in Quicktime if you're looking to hit the largest market segment with only 1 format. But from what they are saying, they want a time bomb that would disable content after x number of days and I'm not sure there is anything
RealPlayer on linux makes me somewhat happy the times I have to use it. The core is open-source (Helix DNA), and it's about on par with all the other video players in Linux. (I believe that SuSE also uses Helix instead of gStreamer). I heard the Mac player isin't stellar, but is far ahead of the Windows version
I find this interesting that they are debating the formats and everything, yet US broadcasters have found ways of streaming online (through flash video?) okay. And since these are private enterprises, I'd think they'd be even more concerned with protecting IP. Granted, there are usually a couple 30 second ads (at least with Lost) you have to set through, but none the less they've found a way.
Now on the flip side, these are private enterprises and can do pretty much whatever the hell they want in terms of formats, which usually means finding a way to reach the largest audience possible while still protecting the content. But it seems to me that as conventional TV dies, from DVR's and competition from cable/sat channels, they are trying to expand viewer ship and trying to find what works online. I'm not sure anyone's got it quite figured out yet, but are trying.
Does anyone know why the BBC didn't end up using Dirac for this project? It's the first I've heard of the iPlayer, but I would have thought their Dirac work would have been perfect for this.
In the iPlayer case, the DRM system is implemented, I think, to prevent non-UK citizens (hence not funding the BBC). The content itself would be, I believe, free. I don't mind the DRM in this case. It should be, however, in an open format (just require the BBC player to play it and make it OS-free).
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 22 2007, @04:14PM (#19613979)
Encryption usually works on cryptographically sound principles, like not including the key with the ciphertext. Obsfucation is the only reason DRM is at all effective, and that disappears with open source.
If their goal is prevent people from seeing the content, then PGP/GPG would be a great plan. But their goal is to limit what people who are authorized to see the content can do with it on their own equipment, and that goal is not attainable in any robust system, open or otherwise.
So yes, open vs. closed may have nothing to do with robustness. But logically sound vs. fallacious seems like a more important factor in selecting a robust design.
The problem is that I pay for the content via my TV licence, and I don't really like the idea of paying for a delivery method that is inaccessible to me.
(ahem posted from IE6 in windows - at work, honest!)
I don't really like the idea of paying for a delivery method that is inaccessible to me.
You pay the same TV licence regardless of whether you have a radio or freeview decoder.
Did you complain when BBC3 and radio 6 were transmitted in a format that made it impossible to receive with standard equipment?
The BBC is a multi format platform. They are not required to deliver all content in a form every single TV owning person can receive. Otherwise everything from RSS feeds, to DAB, to enhanced podcasts to
The difference is that broadcast TV signal is useable by any TV regardless of the brand. Requiring a Microsoft player on a standard run-of-the-mill PC as opposed to a player-agnostic format isn't the same as requiring new equipment for new functionality.
Freeview is broadcast using DVB-T, an international standard. You can get receivers from a number of different companies from about £30 up (or hard disk based recorders for a bit more), it's built into many high-end TVs, and there are several different available receivers to watch and record it on a PC. Sure, you can't watch it on a normal TV without extra hardware, but it's cheap, probably due to having actual competition.
The iPlayer, on the other hand, requires you to watch the programs on one piece of software running on one operating system produced and sold (and not cheaply) by a single company. Sure, it's currently, the most common operating system, but the two things are not comparable.
I'm not sure what the "enhanced podcasts" are. I think they're.m4a files of the stuff already available as MP3 but with added chapter markings and images. I don't see any technical reason why other players couldn't convert them to a format they support, though I'm not sure how many actually have the correct features...
I'd recommend reading this [roughlydrafted.com] for a good overview of how Windows Media and QuickTime grew out of the muck.
Bluray and HD-DVD will decode VC-1 if the material is encoded with VC-1. Most disks use H.264 because it's a better codec anyway and Hollywood is very skeptical about allowing Microsoft technologies to encapsulate "their" media, so it's lightly used. Most corporations have learned that any agreement with Microsoft is treacherous territory. Given the chance, they'll devour you from the inside and spit out
The citizens have every right to demand whatever they'd like from their government. You sound like an idiotic knee-jerk apologist for big business who just assumed that the BBC was a private company.
Nope, the BBC is *not* a government agency (At least not officially). It's supported by a complex system of licence fees and laws from the government, but it is not in itself a government/public agency.
Nope, the BBC is *not* a government agency (At least not officially). It's supported by a complex system of licence fees and laws from the government, but it is not in itself a government/public agency.
While you are correct AFAIK, the BBC is effectively a government agency because if you own a device capable of receiving a terrestrial broadcast you are required to pay them the licensing fee or you will see them in court.
State-sponsored monopolies, especially mandatory ones, should be subject to the same s
no, it is not a government agency, not even effectively. It is funded by laws passed by the government, and that's as far as it goes. Its not sponsored by the govmt, the licence fee was defined ages ago and now they cannot change it (the next review is in 2013). It has a charter describing the reason for its existence, and the restrictions that apply to it. It is run by a Trust that is charged with maintaining its independance. Here's a good set of links: http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/seminars/semina rs [bbccharterreview.org.uk]
If I run a website I'll put content out any damn way I please. This is a load of crap, regardless of who they are and what format they are objecting to.
I see, and do you happen to be an elected government that pays for running that Website by collecting tax dollars from the people (at gunpoint if need be)? I didn't think so.
It's not like they didn't take the time to measure out their options, they're a media broadcasting company for Christ sakes. They've been around a few decades before media player even existed, and I'm pretty sure they're wise enough to decide on their own player even if they needed to purchase it with pocket change.
Obviously they aren't or they wouldn't be going with windows media with DRM which they have no business putting into the files in the first place. They're a state-sponsored, court-enforced monop
Except they are not a company; they are a corporation paid for by government funding raised by charging all citizens for their TV license. The argument being stated here is that if I pay the license fee, surely I have a right to be able to watch their content without having to install Windows on my computer. I assume that you pay taxes and license fees in your country, wouldn't you complain if you were prevented from getting any benefit from the money raised?
I'm not sure what the question means, but a government agency publishing things in a format that's owned by one company is pushing that company's fortune at the expense of all others. Why should governments cede control of their media and who watches it to a private company, especially a foreign one? People who pay their taxes deserve to be able to watch the results without having to pay the M$ tax.
If there's a problem with software patents involved here, the problem should be taken care of directly. Software patents lead to nonsense like this and should be abolished. There's no justifying the social cost of business method patents, which is what software patents ultimately are.
The thing is a prime example of bad bad technology. I'm fortunate enough to be a trial user. Only, I've never actually used it. I can't. I've tried and tried but it just doesn't work.
It started badly - it refuses to accept registrations via firefox (no technology issue - just a browser check which barfs). Once I switched to IE, it let me go further - registration followed by the download of a.exe. Firing up the.exe I had to reregister. Multiple times. And got no further. Some days later, an apology email from the BBC explaining that they'd sent the wrong login details.
So I tried again, and after much mucking about, finally got in. The UI is very very bad - but I navigated to my favourite programme, which claimed it had episodes available - but once clicked stated none. So I went for my second favourite programme - same again. And so on.
So - two weeks after first receiving an invitation to give up; after switching browsers, downloading software, installing it, changing my media settings, registering multiple times, and clicking through a clunky interface multiple times, all to no avail, I gave up.
If the bbc were working in an open way - maybe, just maybe, they'd have access to a wider range of talents - or perhaps competing suppliers and technology platforms - and have delivered a usable product. As it is, we're all subject to two monopolies, who'll slowly and cumbersomely work towards a semi-acceptable solution at great cost. And in doing so, the BBC will help Microsoft maintain its hegemony - remember - it wouldn't let us use Firefox just to register and download the software.... defend that.
I wrote a letter to my MP about this, which was forwarded to the relevant cabinet office, and I also complained directly to the BBC. I will not be renewing my TV license the next time around either (I don't watch much TV, but until this decision, I felt it was worth paying for the other BBC services that don't legally require payment, but from which I derive value). Why do I object?
Take a look at the market for downloadable TV shows. There are two reasons for doing it:
Time shifting.
Location shifting.
The former is trivially done with VCRs, DVRs, etc. Now let's look at the second reason. How many people are going to want to location-shift their TV viewing from the big TV in their living room to their computer screen? A few maybe, mainly geeks and students (or student geeks). Now, how many are going to want to location shift to a mobile device?
My mobile phone, and any relatively recent phone, can play video. It has a 1GB memory card, which at the resolution of the screen is more than enough for a number of TV shows. I also own a Nokia 770, and an iPod (my iPod is pre-video, but the point stands). Any of these devices can play DRM-free MPEG-4 video. The 770, or a modern iPod would be a great device for putting TV shows on to watch on the bus or train (for example).
The decision to go with Microsoft's DRM is that Microsoft have the largest chunk of the desktop market, but they have very little presence in the mobile arena. There are a few MS Smartphones, and maybe a few Zunes (I don't think they're released here yet, but someone might have imported one). Now, imagine how this landscape would change if the only mobile devices that could play BBC TV for the next two years were those with a Microsoft OS. Where do you think Nokia/Sony Ericsson/etc phones would be if the Microsoft ones could play BBC TV shows but theirs couldn't? What about the iPod? There isn't much legal video content around (the iTunes store in the UK has very little). Releasing BBC shows in a Zune-friendly format would very rapidly mean that there was a lot of (taxpayer-funded) content for the Zune that wouldn't work with the iPod (or any other players).
Microsoft is already being prosecuted by the EU for attempting to use its desktop monopoly to gain a media format monopoly. It beggars belief that tax-payers' money from an EU member state would be spent re-enforcing this monopoly.
Recently, the BBC did a deal with Microsoft regarding the distribution of digital content via its web sites. As usual, they trumpeted it as if it were a great breakthrough on news.bbc.co.uk. I'm sure google can find it.
Any reason why they can't support multiple formats? How about Flash? Not that Flash is the best solution, long-term, but it does work natively across more platforms than either quicktime or windows media and it is installed on most web browsers.
What would be stupid is to continue supporting the microsoft monopoly and helping them expand it onto the Internet. This is about the long-term quality of computing, something microsoft is a very real threat to.
Assuming they need to control the content - 'cos otherwise DVD sales etc are dead, hence lost revenue, hence more expensive TV licensing in the UK
The BBC already broadcasts their programming, in MPEG-2 at more or less DVD quality, unencrypted, over the public airwaves, all over the UK - in the form of digital terrestrial television. This is their primary reason for existence. There is no sight or sign of DRM anywhere near it. It is utterly trivial to record this with a computer and DVB capture card, hardware which is cheaply and widely available. Most popular BBC programmes are already recorded in this fashion and posted on thepiratebay.org within 12 hours.
This is the same content that they are now releasing onto the internet. It is quite obvious that if they didn't need DRM to broadcast it over radio in the first place, they don't need DRM to broadcast exactly the same stuff again over IP. It is further obvious that the simplest thing for them to do would be to use exactly the same codec that they are already using. There is no apparent reason why they should suddenly propose a far more limited and ineffective system just because the carrier system is IP rather than radio.
It is pretty obvious that Microsoft is involved in this one somewhere, and that's almost certainly illegal.
No amount of DRM on the IP version is going to have any effect at all on the material available on TPB, because all the content is already on the net and will continue to be posted there from the digital terrestrial broadcasts (no proposals are currently being made to post any of the BBC's considerable archive of material on the net, only some of the things which are currently being broadcast). The quality is better in the terrestrial broadcasts than in the iplayer system anyway, so iplayer is never going to be used as a source for TPB when the far better DVB version is readily available. The entire proposal is retarded: they are seriously suggesting a service which is lower quality, less convenient, and already less popular than TPB, with DRM crippling thrown in just to make it entirely unwanted. It's a complete waste of time and money, because everybody with an interest will just keep using TPB instead.
Seeing a pattern? So why have these people decided to sue the BBC? Probably because the BBC have the biggest profit and the biggest market share so they'll be more inclined to pay the OSC to shut the hell up, and that's even if the OSC even win (which they probably won't).
I'm sorry, are you from another planet? The BBC is not a business, it's a public service operating under special charter from the UK government. They don't make disposable profits, because they don't have any owners to pay them to: every p
Glad to see this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can't play DRM-encoded windows media anyplace you don't have windows media player. You are asking an irrelevant question, "What platform can you not play Windows Media on?", the actual question is "What platform can you not play DRM-restricted Windows Media on?" And the answer is "most places" - you can't play it anyplace that doesn't have a recent windows media player. And that turns out to be quite a few places.
I have a better question or two,
Re:Glad to see this. (Score:4, Insightful)
And the BBC would want to protect it's content because it sells quite a bit of its content to other countries; plus sells DVDs of some stuff too. This money goes back into making programs.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Needs to go further. (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments, funded by the PUBLIC should put their stuff in PUBLIC format.
and when software patents get in the way, the PUBLIC should demand that law serve the PUBLIC interest. Software patents are bogus and they are the only reason there's a format problem in the first place.
Parent
The BBC shouldn't need to be told. (Score:2, Insightful)
I like to at least have a choice of media formats available...
Re: (Score:2)
It also chokes on a large section of WM9 files. They do work on it, but it's hit or miss sometimes. and don't even think about DRM encrusted files.
Re: (Score:2)
Typically I tell clients to place video on the web in Quicktime if you're looking to hit the largest market segment with only 1 format. But from what they are saying, they want a time bomb that would disable content after x number of days and I'm not sure there is anything
Blogs... (Score:2, Informative)
Real Player (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"The OSC compared the situation to the European Commission's prosecution of Microsoft over its bundling of Windows Media Player with Windows."
they just consult with the EU commission and make a new website www.bbcN.co.uk website without media player files [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No it's okay (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, from a view across the pond (Score:3, Interesting)
Now on the flip side, these are private enterprises and can do pretty much whatever the hell they want in terms of formats, which usually means finding a way to reach the largest audience possible while still protecting the content. But it seems to me that as conventional TV dies, from DVR's and competition from cable/sat channels, they are trying to expand viewer ship and trying to find what works online. I'm not sure anyone's got it quite figured out yet, but are trying.
Sign the Petition (Score:3, Informative)
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/iplayer/ [pm.gov.uk]
Where's Dirac? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems that the Beeb is concerned about DRM -- it's easy to validate this argument as a content provider if it is not a free service.
What choices are out there if the main concern is vendor lock-in? What "open" DRM alternatives exist?
Parent
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
So yes, open vs. closed may have nothing to do with robustness. But logically sound vs. fallacious seems like a more important factor in selecting a robust design.
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:5, Insightful)
(ahem posted from IE6 in windows - at work, honest!)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Hear hear. Mod up +About A Thousand insightful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You pay the same TV licence regardless of whether you have a radio or freeview decoder.
Did you complain when BBC3 and radio 6 were transmitted in a format that made it impossible to receive with standard equipment?
The BBC is a multi format platform. They are not required to deliver all content in a form every single TV owning person can receive. Otherwise everything from RSS feeds, to DAB, to enhanced podcasts to
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:5, Informative)
The iPlayer, on the other hand, requires you to watch the programs on one piece of software running on one operating system produced and sold (and not cheaply) by a single company. Sure, it's currently, the most common operating system, but the two things are not comparable.
I'm not sure what the "enhanced podcasts" are. I think they're
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd recommend reading this [roughlydrafted.com] for a good overview of how Windows Media and QuickTime grew out of the muck.
Bluray and HD-DVD will decode VC-1 if the material is encoded with VC-1. Most disks use H.264 because it's a better codec anyway and Hollywood is very skeptical about allowing Microsoft technologies to encapsulate "their" media, so it's lightly used. Most corporations have learned that any agreement with Microsoft is treacherous territory. Given the chance, they'll devour you from the inside and spit out
The beeb is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY (Score:2)
Re:The beeb is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While you are correct AFAIK, the BBC is effectively a government agency because if you own a device capable of receiving a terrestrial broadcast you are required to pay them the licensing fee or you will see them in court.
State-sponsored monopolies, especially mandatory ones, should be subject to the same s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a good set of links: http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/seminars/semina rs [bbccharterreview.org.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What BS (Score:5, Insightful)
I see, and do you happen to be an elected government that pays for running that Website by collecting tax dollars from the people (at gunpoint if need be)? I didn't think so.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
should be forced to broadcast in NTSC also for me.
Indeed, what BS (Score:5, Informative)
The "Enhanced Podcast" appears to be an MPEG-4 container with an AAC "track" and a still image "track."
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviously they aren't or they wouldn't be going with windows media with DRM which they have no business putting into the files in the first place. They're a state-sponsored, court-enforced monop
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, and that's what the complaint if for. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oddly named bittrollent asks:
Is this really your idea of freedom?
I'm not sure what the question means, but a government agency publishing things in a format that's owned by one company is pushing that company's fortune at the expense of all others. Why should governments cede control of their media and who watches it to a private company, especially a foreign one? People who pay their taxes deserve to be able to watch the results without having to pay the M$ tax.
If there's a problem with software patents involved here, the problem should be taken care of directly. Software patents lead to nonsense like this and should be abolished. There's no justifying the social cost of business method patents, which is what software patents ultimately are.
Parent
It's closed, and it's broken (Score:5, Interesting)
It started badly - it refuses to accept registrations via firefox (no technology issue - just a browser check which barfs). Once I switched to IE, it let me go further - registration followed by the download of a
So I tried again, and after much mucking about, finally got in. The UI is very very bad - but I navigated to my favourite programme, which claimed it had episodes available - but once clicked stated none. So I went for my second favourite programme - same again. And so on.
So - two weeks after first receiving an invitation to give up; after switching browsers, downloading software, installing it, changing my media settings, registering multiple times, and clicking through a clunky interface multiple times, all to no avail, I gave up.
If the bbc were working in an open way - maybe, just maybe, they'd have access to a wider range of talents - or perhaps competing suppliers and technology platforms - and have delivered a usable product. As it is, we're all subject to two monopolies, who'll slowly and cumbersomely work towards a semi-acceptable solution at great cost. And in doing so, the BBC will help Microsoft maintain its hegemony - remember - it wouldn't let us use Firefox just to register and download the software.... defend that.
Parent
Re:No, and that's what the complaint if for. (Score:5, Interesting)
Take a look at the market for downloadable TV shows. There are two reasons for doing it:
- Time shifting.
- Location shifting.
The former is trivially done with VCRs, DVRs, etc. Now let's look at the second reason. How many people are going to want to location-shift their TV viewing from the big TV in their living room to their computer screen? A few maybe, mainly geeks and students (or student geeks). Now, how many are going to want to location shift to a mobile device?My mobile phone, and any relatively recent phone, can play video. It has a 1GB memory card, which at the resolution of the screen is more than enough for a number of TV shows. I also own a Nokia 770, and an iPod (my iPod is pre-video, but the point stands). Any of these devices can play DRM-free MPEG-4 video. The 770, or a modern iPod would be a great device for putting TV shows on to watch on the bus or train (for example).
The decision to go with Microsoft's DRM is that Microsoft have the largest chunk of the desktop market, but they have very little presence in the mobile arena. There are a few MS Smartphones, and maybe a few Zunes (I don't think they're released here yet, but someone might have imported one). Now, imagine how this landscape would change if the only mobile devices that could play BBC TV for the next two years were those with a Microsoft OS. Where do you think Nokia/Sony Ericsson/etc phones would be if the Microsoft ones could play BBC TV shows but theirs couldn't? What about the iPod? There isn't much legal video content around (the iTunes store in the UK has very little). Releasing BBC shows in a Zune-friendly format would very rapidly mean that there was a lot of (taxpayer-funded) content for the Zune that wouldn't work with the iPod (or any other players).
Microsoft is already being prosecuted by the EU for attempting to use its desktop monopoly to gain a media format monopoly. It beggars belief that tax-payers' money from an EU member state would be spent re-enforcing this monopoly.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Recently, the BBC did a deal with Microsoft regarding the distribution of digital content via its web sites. As usual, they trumpeted it as if it were a great breakthrough on news.bbc.co.uk. I'm sure google can find it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What would be stupid is to continue supporting the microsoft monopoly and helping them expand it onto the Internet. This is about the long-term quality of computing, something microsoft is a very real threat to.
Re:So what SHOULD they use? (Score:5, Insightful)
The BBC already broadcasts their programming, in MPEG-2 at more or less DVD quality, unencrypted, over the public airwaves, all over the UK - in the form of digital terrestrial television. This is their primary reason for existence. There is no sight or sign of DRM anywhere near it. It is utterly trivial to record this with a computer and DVB capture card, hardware which is cheaply and widely available. Most popular BBC programmes are already recorded in this fashion and posted on thepiratebay.org within 12 hours.
This is the same content that they are now releasing onto the internet. It is quite obvious that if they didn't need DRM to broadcast it over radio in the first place, they don't need DRM to broadcast exactly the same stuff again over IP. It is further obvious that the simplest thing for them to do would be to use exactly the same codec that they are already using. There is no apparent reason why they should suddenly propose a far more limited and ineffective system just because the carrier system is IP rather than radio.
It is pretty obvious that Microsoft is involved in this one somewhere, and that's almost certainly illegal.
No amount of DRM on the IP version is going to have any effect at all on the material available on TPB, because all the content is already on the net and will continue to be posted there from the digital terrestrial broadcasts (no proposals are currently being made to post any of the BBC's considerable archive of material on the net, only some of the things which are currently being broadcast). The quality is better in the terrestrial broadcasts than in the iplayer system anyway, so iplayer is never going to be used as a source for TPB when the far better DVB version is readily available. The entire proposal is retarded: they are seriously suggesting a service which is lower quality, less convenient, and already less popular than TPB, with DRM crippling thrown in just to make it entirely unwanted. It's a complete waste of time and money, because everybody with an interest will just keep using TPB instead.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, are you from another planet? The BBC is not a business, it's a public service operating under special charter from the UK government. They don't make disposable profits, because they don't have any owners to pay them to: every p