BBC Threatened Over iPlayer Format 269
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."
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:5, Insightful)
(ahem posted from IE6 in windows - at work, honest!)
Glad to see this. (Score:5, 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.
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Insightful)
The BBC shouldn't need to be told. (Score:2, Insightful)
I like to at least have a choice of media formats available...
Re:Hmm. (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 monopoly which anyone with a device capable of picking up their signal must fund, and they're putting out files that a significant number of the licensees can't do anything with. Obviously, they're missing the fucking point.
Re:The beeb is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY (Score:5, 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.
No it's okay (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 on demand digital weather forcasts are suddenly illegal.
Re:The beeb is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY (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 sort of restrictions and reasoning as government itself.
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.
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Could be worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:2, Insightful)
DAB is an Open standard. If the BBC had declared they would be transmitting BBC 3 or Radio 6 in a Sony proprietary format from now on and everyone would have to buy a Sony receiver, hell yes I'd complain.
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.
Re:The beeb is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a good set of links: http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/seminars/semin
There are plenty of cases where the price is set or restricted by the government for services that are definitely private companies (eg the post, the utilities). The only difference is that the BBC bills you on expected usage and not actual usage, but that's only because they cannot meter you picking up the tv signals. Maybe things will be different in 2012 and then we'll see the licence fee (and therefore the internet downloads) change to a subscriber basis.
Re:No, and that's what the complaint if for. (Score:2, Insightful)
Being able to do it legally would probably take decades. Escpecially since I'm not British. Implementing a service that is less useful than piracy is just silly. Make them freely availiable, and I will happily pay for excellent shows!
I guess I should send them an email and thank them heartfully for their shows, then ask them how to pay for it. Piracy privides me with open formats in high quality and is really user-friendly. All that is missing is some way for me to plop them my cash.
Where's Dirac? (Score:3, Insightful)