Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Operating Systems Software Windows The Internet

BBC Trust to Meet With OSC Over iPlayer 125

Posted by CowboyNeal from the open-to-suggestions dept.
Virgil Tibbs writes "With the Launch of the BBC's iPlayer imminent, the BBC trust has agreed to hear the Open Source Consortium's concerns regarding the BBC iPlayer's tie in with Microsoft's software. The move by the BBC to use Windows Media DRM & their apparent lack of commitment towards other platforms has caused outrage in many circles and prompted several online petitions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BBC Trust to Meet With OSC Over iPlayer More

BBC Trust to Meet With OSC Over iPlayer

Comments Filter:
  • Does anyone recall any online petition that actually caused change?
    • There was that one cartoon by Warner Brother's that changed something because of an online petition (because it was too scary) and the issue with the road tax [wikipedia.org] in the UK.

    • well, this didnt exactly cause change - it kept things as they are... People put up a petition to stop software patents in the UK and it worked.... take a look at this [number-10.gov.uk]
  • I bet they're scared now!

  • Whats the Problem?? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Deviate_X ( 578495 )

    The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later. They are just making downloads available to the vast majority of the people who paid for it first, this is normal.

    This is like 4oD [channel4.com] and SKY Anytime [sky.com] which currently only work with Windows XP (not even Vista). I'm sure they will be updatiung their software for at least Vista and Mac soon enough. It not like they said NO is it!

    • Re:Whats the Problem?? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @10:56AM (#19859417) Homepage Journal
      ``The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later. They are just making downloads available to the vast majority of the people who paid for it first, this is normal. ''

      Normal in that it is common practice, perhaps, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem with it. The problem is that they are (currently, and that's why there _currently_ is a problem) making downloads available only in a proprietary format. This incurs all the problems with proprietary formats [inglorion.net], including, but not limited to locking out would-be users, no guarantee of future access to data, and preventing the great capitalist mechanism of competition from doing its work.

      Their decision to use Microsoft's proprietary formats puzzles me, because the BBC has often been in the news for actually using open formats, and they used to actually work on an open format and player, themselves. Why did they decide to go for a proprietary format in this case?

      • Re:Whats the Problem?? (Score:5, Informative)

        by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @11:02AM (#19859457) Homepage Journal
        ``Why did they decide to go for a proprietary format in this case?''

        The answer to that seems to be DRM. The BBC wants to put certain restrictions on the usage of the media. As we all know, the only way they can enforce these restrictions is by retaining some measure of control. To exercise this control, they need to keep secret how the media is played, or it would be possible to play the media without bypassing the control. Thus, open formats are right out.
        • sorry to sound a bit agressive but DRM'd media is totally feasable even if method in which it is controlled and well documented and open source or w/e.....
          the thing that *must* stay secret is the key...
          I'm sutre someone else can back me up on this but its a bit like symetric encryption:
          the AES aencryption algorithm has been published for more than a decade... bluefish for longer... what is unique when encrypting stuff with AES is th *key* not the algorithm (or method).
          if microsoft... or apple published the
          • You are absolutely correct that good encryption algorithms don't depend on the algorithm being secret. However, that is not the point here. As you correctly point out, for good algorithms, secrecy of the content rests with secrecy of the key. And the trick is, for DRM, the key can't be secret. You need the key even to do the things the DRM is meant to allow.

            In a wider sense, once you have access to the actual content, you can do whatever you want with it. If the content is encrypted and you need a key to de
            • i'm out my depth here... i'll have to read up on it.. I still believe that what i have said but... i need to research this...

      • Re:Whats the Problem?? (Score:5, Informative)

        by value_added ( 719364 ) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @11:27AM (#19859583)
        Their decision to use Microsoft's proprietary formats puzzles me, because the BBC has often been in the news for actually using open formats, and they used to actually work on an open format and player, themselves. Why did they decide to go for a proprietary format in this case?

        From the fine article:

        the files would require DRM to ensure that they were appropriately restricted in terms of time and geographic consumption. The only system that currently provides this security is Windows Media 10 and above. Further, the only comprehensively deployed operating system that currently supports Windows Media Player 10 and above is the Windows XP operating system.

        At first glance, it the above statement appears reasonable enough. The problem is life is rarely so simple. ;-) As for the OP's statement that this is normal to use a platform-specific approach:

        But choosing Microsoft's DRM is not just a neutral "doing something", it is doing absolutely the wrong thing - which is far worse than "doing nothing". It would provide a huge propaganda victory for Microsoft and its DRM scheme, just at the time when even people like Steve Jobs are casting doubt on the efficacy of DRM in general. The last thing we need now is for Microsoft to be able to go around to other broadcasters and music companies and say: "See, even the famously objective BBC has chosen our DRM; this proves it's the best. Why don't you follow suit?"

        If you put aside the unecessary rhetoric and narrow focus, the real issue becomes obvious, and that is that the BBC has responsibility to implement a platform agnostic (which means not only Windows users, or, for that matter, Windows plus "Mac and Linux users") approach in the face of all the issues brought about by new technology.
        • ``the files would require DRM to ensure that they were appropriately restricted in terms of time and geographic consumption. The only system that currently provides this security is''

          ``At first glance, it the above statement appears reasonable enough.''

          Does it? To me, "restricted in terms of time and geographic consumption" sounds awfully like censorship. That in the vicinity of news corporations makes me uncomfortable. Also, using "security" when you mean "restricting what users can do with their own files

          • The BBC is far more than a news corporation. They produce an awful lot of content, much of it quite good, and this is paid for by British taxpayers (primarily from TV and radio licenses, IIRC).

            Thus, for the BBC to want to make their content available to British citizens is perfectly understandable; while at the same time they may be less than happy for people in other countries to be able to access this material. In particular, they sell their content to other networks (Australia's ABC shows a lot of stuf

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by 1u3hr ( 530656 )
              the value of that content would likely be greatly diminished if people in other countries can download it from the BBC before their local networks can get access to show it.

              Don't tell anyone, but we already do. Check, for instance, how many non-British people are posting on Doctor Who discussion forums the day after the UK broadcast.


              • the value of that content would likely be greatly diminished if people in other countries can download it from the BBC before their local networks can get access to show it.

                Don't tell anyone, but we already do. Check, for instance, how many non-British people are posting on Doctor Who discussion forums the day after the UK broadcast.

                Another example is "The IT CROWD". The DRMed streaming media files were ripped, stripped and on BitTorrent within hours. Followed up by the broadcast versions of each episode.

                As
              • Don't tell anyone, but we already do. Check, for instance, how many non-British people are posting on Doctor Who discussion forums the day after the UK broadcast.
                Helped of course by the fact that the BBC (and all the other channels that are on the "freeview" system) broadcast unencrypted digital streams which anyone in range of a transmitter can record with cheaply availible equipment.
            • The theory makes sense but IMHO they could save everybody (including, and especially, themselves) time and money by opting out of drm and just adding a notice to say that it is illegal to be viewed by people who have not payed TV license.

              The reason is, that someone will always be able to get around the DRM and it only takes one unprotected copy of something for it to be supplied to anywhere.

              Also, it is clear that this service would only be an addition to the array of less-than-legal ways of watching t

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by mdwh2 ( 535323 )
              Well, I'm a licence payer, and I'd like the content I pay for to be in an open non-DRMed format. I couldn't really be bothered if someone abroad downloads it for free.

              Given that it's paid for by the citizens, the argument that they might be slightly less able to sell to other networks doesn't really hold - the whole _point_ of having a company funded by mandatory payments is to avoid all these sorts of negative decisions that the free market might cause a company to make. If they want to switch to being a c

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mgblst ( 80109 )
            Does it? To me, "restricted in terms of time and geographic consumption" sounds awfully like censorship. That in the vicinity of news corporations makes me uncomfortable. Also, using "security" when you mean "restricting what users can do with their own files", to me, is dishonest and looks like a cover for something unpleasant.

            More like licensing issues, which is something that most people don't need to think about, but when you are a huge publishing corporation with production in conjunction with

    • Re:Whats the Problem?? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Cheesey ( 70139 ) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @11:21AM (#19859529)
      By making the solution Windows only, the BBC are forcing you to buy commercial software from Microsoft in order to view their programmes. This is just like saying "You must have a Sky subscription to view BBC programmes".

      Because we all pay for those BBC programmes with the special TV tax, this is unacceptable. We should be able to view the programmes without having to pay for an OS. Making a version for Mac doesn't change that, as it's still not free. Where's the equivalent of "Freeview" - "no subscription required"?

      I don't care about 4od or Sky because my TV licence money has not paid for them. They're Windows only? Fine, whatever, I won't watch them. But the BBC's iPlayer is different, because my TV licence money has paid for it. Even though I have the required hardware and a decent net connection, I can't use it, because I don't have Windows XP. Apparently, I need to buy more software for my "television".

      (Refer to the previous version of this topic [slashdot.org] for various reasons why it's a bad thing - there isn't enough news, so there have to be repeats...)

      • Because we all pay for those BBC programmes with the special TV tax, this is unacceptable.

        This argument has been given a lot of times before and has been beaten down to death. Right now I am too tired and sleepy and cannot be bothered to find citations, but the special TV tax does NOT include distribution over internet. You (and moderators) can look at any previous discussions about this subject.

        This does not mean use of DRM is any good or a decision full of foresight.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jZnat ( 793348 ) *
          The "TV tax" funds the BBC. The BBC is streaming content over the Internet using their own equipment. Therefore, the "TV tax" is indeed paying for it.
      • I think this is different. There is no geographic limit to broadcasting on the Internet. If television signals were broadcast around the world it would undermine the BBC syndicating programmes abroad, which would increase the pressure on funding through television licenses.

        The BBC seems to believe that when broadcasting online the only way they can prevent the general population of the BBC's overseas viewers receiving the programmes is by only distributing to UK IP addresses, and using DRM to tie it to that

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FrostedWheat ( 172733 )

      The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later

      The problem is that as far as the BBC is concerned 'other platforms' == 'Mac'. They've only ever referred to the Mac when talking about non-Microsoft platforms, something I believe they are doing deliberately.

    • the problem is once you use Windows DRM you can only ever use windows to decode it. MSFT doesn't allow any form of their DRM to be decrypted on non-MSFT platforms. MSFT has disconntinued windows media player for the mac and the "replacement" flip for wmv is legally barred form decoding windows DRM files.

      Once you go MSFT you can never leave.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mccalli ( 323026 )
      The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later. They are just making downloads available to the vast majority of the people who paid for it first, this is normal.

      I simply don't believe them though. They claimed they'll report 'within two years' and have already said that timescale is unrealistically short. You also have the head of the project making anti-Apple comments, and Linux hasn't even got a mention.

      By tying themselves to Windows DRM, they've closed all their options off already.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 1u3hr ( 530656 )
      The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later.

      "Later" as in at least two years. By then the infrastructure for MS DRM will be all pervasive and impossible to supplant. MS is being give a TWO YEAR (at least) monopoly in which it can use to make it impossible to change, by offering services ever more tightly intertwined with Windows. Any alternative will be in the position that competing office suites are now: it matters nothing that the alternatives are cheaper, better, more stable, the mo

    • > The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later. They are just making downloads
      > available to the vast majority of the people who paid for it first, this is normal.

      "Normal" how, precisely? What prior example is there of a state-owned media corporate opening its archives for general perusal?

      > This is like 4oD and SKY Anytime which currently only work with Windows XP (not even Vista).

      This is *not* the same - 4 & Sky are standard commercial channels, unlike the BBC. The only reaso
  • Interesting that this occurred shortly after one of the top bods in BBC new media is off to OFCOM shortly...

    http://www.tomski.com/2007/06/from_bbc_to_psp_via_ wtf.shtml [tomski.com]

  • Bed partners (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Skiron ( 735617 ) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @10:32AM (#19859301)
    Being English, and having to buy a TV licence*, I think what the BBC are doing with licence payers money borders on being illegal. You cannot take money from people then bar them from the purpose of that licence - this is definitely MS driven with the BBC in cahoots with them (remember, the BBC is a very similar monopoly like MS and allowed to be by the Politicians 'in hand').

    Nick
    * Not having a TV licence in the UK is very serious - you will be hounded incessantly and even get visits by the BBC licence people late at night (MIBS). The onslaught of not having a TV licence is very similar to deliberate tax evasion, but worse.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by adamsan ( 606899 )
      I think they may have a get-out in that they can use money they raise from their commercial ventures like foreign sales to fund non-TV and radio ventures that the licence fee doesn't cover. DRM seems like a sensible way to preserve the income from those sales to me. Now, if they used that money to speed up development of Dirac and create their own cross-platform content protection system instead of making Little Britain clones, then we'd all be happy.

      Also, I ditched my telly two years ago and after informin
    • "Being English, and having to buy a TV licence*, I think what the BBC are doing with licence payers money borders on being illegal. You cannot take money from people then bar them from the purpose of that licence - this is definitely MS driven with the BBC in cahoots with them (remember, the BBC is a very similar monopoly like MS and allowed to be by the Politicians 'in hand')."

      To me that seems more like complaining that the BBC doesn't work with your NTSC TV.

      • Re:Bed partners (Score:4, Informative)

        by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) * on Saturday July 14, 2007 @11:15AM (#19859503) Homepage
        NTSC isn't "owned" by anyone, it is a standard more like MPEG while Wmedia belongs to Microsoft. It doesn't work anywhere except Windows. It doesn't work fine on OS X, Linux, FreeBSD and anything handheld except WinCE devices.

        Also you can transcode/convert anything from PAL to NTSC. There is nothing stopping you. There is no such thing as "PAL will only work in xxxxx brand and you will be pirating if you convert/transcode to NTSC to view on your set".

        Lets say you are a foreigner interested in BBC content and you hate piracy. You download the stuff on Windows Machine you own (and paid to MS) and for example you transcode it to a standard format like H264 or pure mpeg 4 to view on Apple TV or machine. You _will_ be breaching the license very seriously. First you would be hacking the DRM and secondly you would be transcoding.

        One (if British) should ask: If BBC needs to make such weird sounding, suspicious agreements with a company condemned by EU for monopoly practices (MS Wmedia), why do they need to take money from TV licensing? If they need more money, there is always cash in Adult business but even Adult sites lets people to choose their media format. :)

    • Re:Bed partners (Score:4, Insightful)

      by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @11:01AM (#19859455) Journal
      You cannot take money from people then bar them from the purpose of that licence - this is definitely MS driven with the BBC in cahoots with them (remember, the BBC is a very similar monopoly like MS and allowed to be by the Politicians 'in hand').

      Where to start...

      Firstly, the BBC has a charter that it must abide by. While I, like you, would like to see the BBC develop its online content across as many platforms as possible (including MacOS and Linux) I think it's important to realise that making content available to everybody on every platform is not in the charter.

      If the BBC were to roll out content that required a certain platform or (even platforms) then it wouldn't be in breach of its charter: if I wanted to access the content on BeOS, or OS/2, I don't have the "right" to demand that the BBC makes it happen.

      While I have no doubt that it will eventually make content available on the big three (Windows, MacOS, Linux) there's nothing to stop the BBC making its first steps on one of the platforms only.

      You'll notice that the BBC has several DAB-only radio stations. Well, just because I don't have a DAB radio, I'm not entitled to demand that those radio stations are made available to me via the analogue airwaves, am I?

      Secondly, the BBC is not a monopoly. There are dozens of other TV broadcasters in the UK, dozens of other radio broadcasters and hundreds of news websites. The BBC may be the only one of them to benefit from the TV licence but it's not a monopoly.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by The Cisco Kid ( 31490 ) *
        You miss the point.

        As far as your 'DAB radio' comment, sure, you need a 'DAB radio' - but you dont need any specific brand of one. The specification for that type of broadcast is fully and clearly documented, and anyone that has the appropriate skillset could build one. BBC doesnt design their content for specific brands of hardware, they comply with a public spec, and anyone is free to implement it. They should do the same with all their content, and they should be software neutral as well. They shouldnt b
        • There is no open specification for time-limited DRM. What you are saying the BBC should use, does not exist. What's more, it's not even clear it can exist - whilst there are open DRM systems (like AACS) they would probably not be "open" enough to please the Slashdot crowd, and besides, they aren't designed to be backwards compatible with the installed base of PCs. If and when there is a well specified, open DRM system that provides the features the BBC needs, which has well defended implementations on Windo

          • There is no open specification for time-limited DRM.

            That's because time-limited DRM is a technological absurdity. It can't be accomplished without perverting the very concept of a general purpose computer. The BBC has never required limitations like that before in other media (and they digitally broadcast all their content by radio waves, over the entire country, in the clear).

            Requiring that particular "feature" is simply protectionist nonsense for Microsoft's benefit, and such anti-competitive requiremen

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by The Cisco Kid ( 31490 ) *
            The Digital Restrictions Management *IS* the problem. If they would just make plain Mpegs (or AVI's, or whatever) available, the entire problem of having to choose what 'platforms' to support goes away.

            When BBC broadcasts over-the-air, there is no requirement that only Brand X TV's are able to receive the signal, and Brand Y VCR's are unable to receive it and record it to tapes which can subsequently be copied. Why does there need to be this requirement for shows transmitted over a packet network?

            Neither ha

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Skiron ( 735617 )
        I pay a licence fee to be 'allowed' to run a TV. Even if I have a TV/receiver that CANNOT receive BBC transmissions, I still HAVE to get a licence (of which all monies go to the BBC). So it isn't a monopoly?

        OK, so I have to buy a TV licence, whether or not I receive BBC transmissions. The BBC then use MY MONEY to develop something that deliberately bars me from using it as I do not use MS software (which tself has a similar licence).

        So I am in the wrong?

        Bollocks.
        • Wrong.

          If you have a TV that isn't receiving either an analogue or digital TV signal then you don't need a TV licence.

          For example, if you have a TV and it's only connected to your DVD player or your games console then you don't need a TV licence.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Skiron ( 735617 )
            Wrong again...

            "You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.

            If you use a set-top box with a hi-fi system or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV Licence."

            I think you will find any TV that 'can't display TV progra

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 )
              Look, it's simple. If you receive TV broadcasts over the airwaves, whether by terrestrial signal, satellite or cable, then you'll need a TV licence.

              But if you have a TV and don't receive any such signal - for example, if you have a TV and only have it hooked up to your DVD player and use it just to watch DVDs - then you don't need a TV licence.

              Don't want to take my word for it? Phone them up yourself, ask them and they'll tell you.

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by Skiron ( 735617 )
                Explain how you have a TV but do not receive any signal (or your intent to NOT receive a signal).

                If the device CAN you need a licence - it doesn't matter what you say/think it can do, whether it does or not. You are guilty unless _you_ can prove the device DOES NOT or is INCAPABLE of receiving the signal.

                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 )
                  Are you really this stupid?

                  1. Buy TV.
                  2. Do not connect the TV to an aerial or any other tuning device.
                  3. Use TV to watch DVDs, play console games, etc.
                  4. If they ask about your TV licence, tell TV licencing that you're not receiving a TV signal.

                  Is this really that hard for you to comprehend?

                  • Re: (Score:1)

                    by Skiron ( 735617 )
                    I think you are stupid. You need a licence if the equipment CAN receive a signal - it doesn't matter if it doesn't. CAN is the key word.

                    "You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.

                    If you use a set-top box with a hi-fi system or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or us

                    • Re:Bed partners (Score:4, Informative)

                      by Macthorpe ( 960048 ) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @01:26PM (#19860339) Journal
                      GP is right. Why not try ringing the licensing hotline? Or read these quotes from their website:

                      Under the Communications Act 2003, you need a television licence to receive or record television programmes.
                      You don't, therefore, need a license if you don't receive or record television programmes. Another quote:

                      What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence?

                      You need to notify us in writing that this is the case and one of our Enforcement Officers may need to visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence.
                      Source: TV Licensing FAQ, under 'General questions' [tvlicensing.co.uk].

                      There. YOU DO NOT NEED A LICENSE IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE TELEVISION PROGRAMMES ON YOUR TELEVISION. Can you stop being so fucking retarded now? You're making my head hurt.

                    • I think you are stupid. You need a licence if the equipment CAN receive a signal - it doesn't matter if it doesn't. CAN is the key word.

                      If you read The Communications Act, 2003 (2003 c 21) and subordinate legislation S.I. 2004/692 (The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations, 2004) section 9, subsection 1 [opsi.gov.uk] you will find the following:

                      "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving [...] any television programme service,

                      If your device is not used and not installed for receiving broadcast TV (example: a TV not tuned or connected to an aerial), you don't need a license for it.

                      Furthermore, if you write to television licensing and tell them your TV is used for gaming/DVDs only they will stop sending you letters; and if

                    • Furthermore, if you write to television licensing and tell them your TV is used for gaming/DVDs only they will stop sending you letters; and if an inspector visits and you show them the TV connected to the games console, they will say "that's fine, you don't need a license". I have verified the two preceding facts by direct experience at two different houses within the last five years.

                      Hopefully, you didn't have a device that was capable of receiving radio waves either, otherwise they would have made you

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by SW6 ( 140530 )
                      Hopefully, you didn't have a device that was capable of receiving radio waves either, otherwise they would have made you pay for their radio license at least (whether or not you listened to their BBC radio station).

                      That would be somewhat unlikely, given the radio licence was scrapped in 1971.

          • Merely for informative purpose, I thought I'd mention that Finland has a similar system of nationwide compulsory TV license whose profits only go to the state-owned channels (privately-owned channels don't get a penny out of it), supported by an increasingly sizable brigade of TV permit inspectors. People who flatly don't own a TV are immediately regarded as worthy of an impromptu inspector visit and of endless phone calls to inquire why the heck they haven't been a good Finn and paid their license like eve

    • dodging the tv licence is a kind of national sport here, with some bizarre side effects, usually on the humorous side tho.
      In the 70/80s they would show a mysterious van with spinning dishes on the roof, which could zero in on unlicensed tvs :)
      Theyll send old people whose job it is to get invited inside (yes like vampires) to verify if you have a tv.

    • After reading your post I did a bit of research into the UK's TV license - insane! It's not just that you guys have a tax but it's 136 pounds (>$270) per YEAR!? That's crazy! I don't see how people put up with that type of thing.

      My favorite quote from the site regarding 'cheating' (Hello 1984!):

      "...We have a fleet of detector vans, plus, our enforcement officers have access to hand-held detection devices capable of detecting a magnetic field when a TV is switched on. In fact, we catch an average
      • There's no commercials on the BBC. Wouldn't you pay for that?
        • I wish we had that option in the US. I would probably watch TV again if I could get it without commercials.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by thewils ( 463314 )
        I'd gladly take a 50% reduction in my cable bill if it meant putting up with a couple of commercial-free channels.
      • In The Netherlands a lot of people pay EXTRA to see the BBC's 3 and 4. Can you imagine: no commercials? None at all?! Plus their web-site is grand. I WISH we had a BBC-like system. We pay through the nose (disguised in taxes nowadays) yet still have to watch STOOPID games ánd commercials.
      • ""...We have a fleet of detector vans, plus, our enforcement officers have access to hand-held detection devices capable of detecting a magnetic field when a TV is switched on. ...""

        And how, pray, does the BBC detect the difference between a CRT monitor hook up to computer and a CRT TV set.

        Indeed, however will they detect an LCD TV?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by SW6 ( 140530 )
          And how, pray, does the BBC detect the difference between a CRT monitor hook up to computer and a CRT TV set.

          They detect the I.F. from the tuner that is retransmitted back up the aerial.

          Indeed, however will they detect an LCD TV?

          Exactly the same way, as it still has a tuner.

          • "And how, pray, does the BBC detect the difference between a CRT monitor hook up to computer and a CRT TV set.

            They detect the I.F. from the tuner that is retransmitted back up the aerial.

            Indeed, however will they detect an LCD TV?

            Exactly the same way, as it still has a tuner.

            Hmmm... So, if one were to trap that "backwash" I.F. in some manner, then the TV, no matter if it's CRT or LCD, would, effectively, be undetectable?

            My knowledge of R.F. engineering is woefully weak, but would there be some manner of ch

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by kazamx ( 1120929 )
      I assume that you also believe that it should be illegal for the BBC to sell DVDs? After all you have already paid, how dare they charge for the show on DVD. What about if I don't have an Internet connection? Does that mean I should be upset that the BBC is making something available that I can't access? What about if I don't have Digital radio? How dare they make channels available I can't access. Lets not forget how they are spending all that money providing digital TV channels I can't access. Ah and all
      • I don't think it's illegal for them to sell DVDs, but I would get major-league upset if they took technical measures to stop me recording their DVB-T transmissions. The advantage being that with enough disk space you can have a perfect broadcast quality backup of full seasons of programmes. The downside being that this is technically illegal (but I don't feel remotely guilty about it, because as someone noted, I paid for the programme to be made in the first place).
      • The IP protocol is public and anybody can implement it given the technical expertise. Microsoft DRM , however, is restricted to Microsoft, not due to any technical limitation, but due to copyright law. It is more similar to the BBC releasing their shows on the internet but saying you can only download it using Pipex broadband, not NTL or BT. Similarly, for DVDs it is more similar to releasing it on DVDs, but then saying you can only use a SONY player, not a Phillips or Toshiba one.

        Then we have the issue wea

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Budenny ( 888916 )
        You are missing the point. The point is not so much why they should do all these things. Maybe it is reasonable, maybe not.

        The question is, why it should be necessary to compel all UK citizens who want to watch any sort of television, any of the other 80 or so channels available in the UK, to subscribe to the BBC on pain of criminal sanctions. This is what is wrong.

        Various arguments are usually offered when one makes this point. Sometimes people say they like the BBC and its output. Fine, is that a rea

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dwater ( 72834 )
          I look at the BBC/TV licence fee in a similar way as the national health service/national insurance - ie it's something that benefits the nation as a whole and not necessarily any particular individual.

          Someone who is perfectly healthy for their entire life still has to pay national insurance so that those who aren't healthy can get health care. Similarly, someone who doesn't watch the BBC but watches TV, still has to pay the BBC licence fee so that those who do want to watch it can do so.

          I expect there's so
    • this is definitely MS driven with the BBC in cahoots with them

      Ok, how much koolaid do you have to drink to actually make this into MS's fault? I suppose if they were using iTunes instead it would be Apple's fault, right?

      This is just insane. MS makes DRM protection available, it doesn't give a flying F*** if anyone uses it, and they don't try to make people use it, in fact Gate has encourage people to not use since December of last year if their business model doesn't specifically need it (Yes he was saying
      • My interpretation, though I'm not British or particularly knowledgable on the subject, is that if they paid a BBC license fee for the tinfoil hat, they would have every right to sue.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by mdwh2 ( 535323 )
      Not having a TV licence in the UK is very serious - you will be hounded incessantly and even get visits by the BBC licence people late at night

      And just to add to this - anyone without a TV licence gets this treatment, even if they don't have a TV.

      And if you're unlucky like me one time, they cock up and give you this treatment even if you have a licence.

      I don't mind the TV licence, but the way they enforce it is unacceptable - if any private company tried their tactics, they'd be done for harrassment, makin

  • Uh-oh... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Didn't Cowboyneal mean to post this on slashdot.co.uk?

  • OSC? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by GiovanniZero ( 1006365 )
    Did anyone else see this and wonder why Orson Scott Card would meet with the BBC about the iplayer?

  • What's more interesting.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Danathar ( 267989 ) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @12:17PM (#19859931) Journal
    Is that alternate computing platforms have finally started to gain enough clout that those choosing Microsoft only solutions will have to think twice about ignoring non-windows platforms.

    3 or 4 years ago choosing a windows only solution would not cause you any pain. Increasingly, for popular internet multimedia sites, choosing a Windows only solution is more likely to cause you pain.

    I consider this a good thing.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by iainl ( 136759 )
      Hey, Windows-only would be a start. The iPlayer, like the competition's 4OD system, is Windows _XP_ only, so those of us with Vista machines are stuffed along with the Mac and Linux owners. Given the hassle involved in even trying to buy an XP machine now that seems perverse.
  • This story dupes BBC Trust Will Hear iPlayer Openness Complaints [slashdot.org]

    And don't tell me that it's an "update" because they both source the same Register story. [theregister.co.uk]

  • An online petition! That should have them quaking in their boots in no time!

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close