Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media The Internet

BBC Releases P2P TV Client Test 292

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the next-generation-couch-potato dept.
evildeed writes "The BBC's Internet Media Player trial started today, and a few thousand lucky UK citizens now have a copy. The good news? Legal P2P downloads of quality shows. The bad news? Requires IE and Windows Media Player, and it's probably going to be UK-only. Oh well. One of the lucky few has uploaded screenshots and a brief review." The service was first announced back in may.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BBC Releases P2P TV Client Test More

BBC Releases P2P TV Client Test

Comments Filter:

  • Before anyone asks.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by MullerMn ( 526350 ) * <andy@@@andrewarbon...co...uk> on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:03AM (#13720579) Homepage
    From http://www.bbc.co.uk/imp/help/index.shtml#fourteen [bbc.co.uk]:

    14. When will I get iMP on Mac & Linux?
    Currently, our supplier is working towards supporting a Mac and Linux version.

  • Genius, I tell you! (Score:4, Funny)

    by rincebrain ( 776480 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:05AM (#13720582) Homepage
    He linked to a UK torrent site right from the article! He's a legal genius!

  • DRM-encumbered (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ReformedExCon ( 897248 ) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:07AM (#13720587)
    I don't see how it can be considered P2P. You download the media off of the BBC's servers, not from your friends and neighbors.

    In addition, the media files themselves are DRM-encumbered, so it wouldn't even make sense to have them on a P2P network when the files would 1) stop working after 7 days and 2) may not work on other machines.

    Is this really P2P? If they are opening up the archives, why would they want to put DRM on the files?

    It doesn't make sense.

    • Re:DRM-encumbered (Score:2, Informative)

      by Musteval ( 817324 )

      From the article:

      iMP uses peer to peer distribution technology (P2P) to legally distribute these programmes.

      Somebody is wrong, and I doubt it's the BBC in regards to their own technology.

    • Re:DRM-encumbered (Score:2, Insightful)

      by porksoda ( 253218 )
      Is this really P2P?

      No.
    • The BBC claim that this utilises P2P technology. The fact that it also uses DRM is not incompatible with this - the two can live together just fine. There is no evidence at all that this does not use P2P, and you can distribute DRM'ed files over any existing P2P network. It is the player application that enforces the DRM.

      The BBC are of course hosting the files themselves on their own servers, and these are high bandwidth seeds in the P2P network.

    • Re:DRM-encumbered (Score:3, Informative)

      by MattBurke ( 58682 )
      I don't see how it can be considered P2P. You download the media off of the BBC's servers,

      Just because the BBC are seeding the files and there are very few other users in the trial to connect to (let alone any that might have the show you're after) means it's not a P2P network? So by your logic bittorrent, edonkey, winmx, etc all were never actually P2P networks until they gained X number of clients? I think not.

    • Take a look at their technology provider's page [kontiki.com] — it looks like a similar system to BitTorrent, but with a specific content (and DRM) system built on top, as opposed to just being a networking system. It's certainly P2P, from what they describe.

    • p2p means "peer to peer" not "peer to peer files you can do anything with at anytime using any software you want".

      Translation: If it comes from peers, it's p2p :)

  • When can I buy the service? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NigelJohnstone ( 242811 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:08AM (#13720593)
    I don't live in the UK, do they plan to let non UK people get (pay) for access? Anyone from the beeb know?

  • "UK only"? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:09AM (#13720596)
    Can someone please tell me how they are going to ensure only those in the UK get it?

    Oh wait, does it mean that it is legal to download it only if you're in the UK?

    • Re:"UK only"? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:47AM (#13720721)
      They have agreements with UK ISP's. It already is in place - as the odd radio broadcasts on the internet are restricted to 'UK only' for rights reasons - they then give a link to the ISP's who are good to go, and say that if you are inside the UK and your SP isn't on the list then you should get in touch with them so they can get in touch with the BBC.

      I imagine an international version will be about sooner or later for all the BBC produced material - but probably fee based. The reason is that those in the UK have already paid the fee by already having (the vast vast majority anyway)a TV licence - so I can see a fee based version run by BBC worldwide as an option for those outside the UK.
    • They'll use current (imperfect) IP geolocation stuff like everyone else.

      In future they might well simply require some form of confirmation of your tv licence details to prove that you've paid for it - which is the real goal. Restricting the downloads to UK only is only an approximation - since not everyone in the UK has a tv licence.

      • Re:"UK only"? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @07:27AM (#13720849)

        They'll use current (imperfect) IP geolocation stuff like everyone else.

        No, they wont. They will use the internal peering arrangements that they have currently setup with a large number of UK ISPs. When you gain access to BBC content through one of these ISPs, you dont actually go out onto the internet but you are routed through private peering directly onto a BBC network with content servers. You cant access these content servers any other way (currently), they are not 'public'.

        THe BBC provides highspeed peering for a large number of businesses and reasons, tehy have a pretty impressive network.

        • Re:"UK only"? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Ngwenya ( 147097 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @07:57AM (#13720945)
          They'll use current (imperfect) IP geolocation stuff like everyone else.

          No, they wont.

          I rather think that they will. I know because my wife works for the BBC and showed me a preview of the technology roadmap - which is now public, and so I can talk about it here.

          They're using GeoIP to do IP location, Kontiki to handle the P2P aspect and (at the moment) Windows WMV DRM to handle the encryption and license to view.

          I suspect that this is only the initial technology - there is no way that MPlayer/VLC/etc will implement DRM (and even if they did, they're open source, so people could just dike it out anyway).

          The DRM aspect is for due diligence - so that the Beeb can represent to the content producers (often non-BBC companies) that their content is being safeguarded against the legions of pirates, who, err.. download the stuff via DVB-{S,T,C} and then upload to Bittorrent. In other words - the guys at Kingswood Warren [BBC Tech HQ] know fine that the DRM protection is ultimately bullshit, but that they have to make some good faith effort to raise the piracy bar.

          Back to GeoIP: I tried going out to my (German-based) Web proxy, then back via a UK HTTP proxy to test whether it would work. And it did - proving nothing, BTW, except that non UK people will get access to this content anyway.

          --Ng

          • Thats interesting, because I just did a traceroute on the IP my copy of iMP connects to to login and get initial content, and the seed and login servers are on the private peered network, which is only accessable from within certain UK ISPs networks. Trying to access this IP address from a server in Canada and I get no return from it. They may use Geo IP for the p2p part, but for authentication and initial content they most certainly use content servers on the private peering only.
            • private peered network, which is only accessable from within certain UK ISPs

              So how do they get away with none of the documentation (or announcements) mentioning the limitation to certain ISPs ?

              Or is it because of trial stage is invite-only and they've limited the invites to those ISPs ?

              What happens if you go via a different UK ISP (not cennected to that network) - maybe then it falls back to Geo-IP and a different route (or different auth servers) ?

              • Quite simply, because the BBC peering offer is not limited to certain ISPs, but is open to all of them - its non selected, its just a matter of whether or not your ISP has signed up. The BBC already host content on these restricted content servers already, and last I heard something like 90% of UK ISPs had a peering arrangement that also allowed them access to the content servers.
        • To quote their FAQ:

          13. Will internet users abroad be able to get iMP?
          No. The BBC will be using Geo-IP technology to restrict usage to UK users only. [Top]

          15. What do I need to use iMP?
          FOR PC (and the High Definition tests):
          A broadband connection at home - 512kbps or higher

          So, Geo-IP and no mention of needing to use specific partner ISPs (I do vaguely remember this being a requirement for some free streaming content, possibly BBC, but that was some time ago).
    • Easy, In order to start the player you have to press the £ (pound) key. :-)

  • Question.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dotslasher_sri ( 762515 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:16AM (#13720613)
    Wouldn't it be a good idea to open up to the world and generate more revenue from advertising (free internet based content = more potential viewers)?. I know BBC is paid be the UK public and all, but if it can generate revenue by itself who not do it?

    Sri.

    • Re:Question.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Brown ( 36659 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:29AM (#13720654) Homepage
      Currently the BBC depends on the TV licence fee, and shows no commercal advertising. This is a very good thing.

      Once a broadcaster starts depending on advertising for revenues, the overriding concern becomes viewer figures, rather than quality of output; thus ITV (the BBC's main commercial equivelent) shows programs like 'Celebrity Love Island' and 'TVs Naughtiest Blunders 16' at the same time as BBC shows Newsnight (fairly serious news and current affairs program).

      The licence fee, despite many people not liking it, makes for independent and high-quality broadcasting; IMO arguably the best in the world.

      -Chris

      • Once a broadcaster starts depending on advertising for revenues, the overriding concern becomes viewer figures, rather than quality of output

        Would you say this has happened with PBS? My feeling is that it hasn't, but I'm not completely sure about it.

        Ironically, having an overriding concern of viewer figures probably makes more sense if the program is supported by taxes than if it's supported by advertising. If everyone has to pay, then you should try to benefit the most people.

        I'd also question your

    • Re:Question.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Martz ( 861209 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @07:16AM (#13720809)

      The BBC isn't allowed [bbc.co.uk] under it's charter to make money from advertising. They are supposed to form a neutral point on everything, including corporate interest.

      That hasn't stopped some companies muscling into the popular TV shows to get their product placed - and recently are increasingly underfire [timesonline.co.uk] about the whole thing.

      That said - if you do pay the BBC TV/Radio licence - doesn't that entitle me to use of any content that they carry? For example if Radio 1 play a song on the radio - since my licence payment has already reembursed the artist for it - shouldn't I be allowed to listen again and again?

    • Re:Question.. (Score:3, Informative)

      by MosesJones ( 55544 )

      We have no adverts on the BBC. We pay a license fee for the right to watch TV and our reward is good quality programmes, no adverts and probably the worlds strongest news agency.

    • Re:Question.. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mei_mei_mei ( 890405 )
      The BBC is one of the few things Britain can really be proud of, and a lot of that's because it doesn't have advertising.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:16AM (#13720614)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • DVDJon

      Where art thou?

  • TV problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Uukrul ( 835197 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:18AM (#13720624)
    The problem with this service outside UK is that in a lot countris exists a tight TV policy. At first some TVs were banned to protect TV frequencies, but now there are a lot of political/economic causes to not change the laws.
    I don't kwnow how exactly this laws work in the US, but in my country TV channels have a lot of political influence.
    So we are not going to see BBC outside UK any time soon.
    • So we are not going to see BBC outside UK any time soon.

      I guess these [bbcworld.com] people may have a problem then!

      The BBC have two channels that are on worldwide sat distribution, BBC World and BBC Prime. You won't be allowed to see them in some places like Iran, but then only if your dish is visible.

    • Huh? (Score:2)

      by Viol8 ( 599362 )
      "So we are not going to see BBC outside UK any time soon."

      So what do you think BBC World is then?
    • I don't know what country you are from, but I don't think you can speak for "a lot of countries"...

      Besides, we're talking internet here, not broadcast over the airwaves.
    • In Belgium BBC1/2 and ITV have been on cable for years.

  • Missuse of license money (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WarwickRyan ( 780794 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:20AM (#13720628)
    It's nice to see that the BBC are going ahead with a pioneering distribution method, but I'm not sure this it the right way.

    I can't see how distributing huge DRM-infected files, using bandwidth from the BBC's own servers, that then destroys itself in 7 days is efficient use of resources. Add to that the obvious cost of the delivery technology from Microsoft and we're looking at a potential waste of money.

    Of all media organisations, the BBC are in the best place to lead the way with the use of open source technology and "risk" the use of unencrypted files.

    Heck, it's easy enough for them to charge those outside of the UK for it too, by offering a proportional "license fee" to them. That would have the added benefit of helping ex-pats too.

    • Re:Missuse of license money (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:35AM (#13720680)

      I can't see how distributing huge DRM-infected files, using bandwidth from the BBC's own servers, that then destroys itself in 7 days is efficient use of resources. Add to that the obvious cost of the delivery technology from Microsoft and we're looking at a potential waste of money.

      I think its a great use of my money, why? Simple:

      1. Frees up airtime for new shows rather than second chance viewing, cuts down on repeats during the same week which seems to be catching on on a lot of networks
      2. Allows the BBC a much better idea of what people want to watch - rather than relying on proportional figures from viewership boxes, they can directly access what people are watching
      3. Allows me to view the programs when I want during that 7 day period, which is great when I want to go out on the same night as my favourite show, I dont have to mess around setting the video recorder.

      Even the BBC is required to protect its content, as it may not own the full rights to all its shows, since the production of those shows are often subletted to other production companies. Thus it shouldnt 'risk unencrypted files' just because you want them to. Opensource is not a be all end all solution.

      • Re:Missuse of license money (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hkmwbz ( 531650 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:51AM (#13720733) Journal
        Yes, it's great in theory.

        But what they are doing is to use people's money - the license fee paid by the people - to support Microsoft's illegal monopoly. Yeah, it's almost a cliché by now, but by forcing people to use IE and WMP instead of relying on open, cross-browser/cross-platform technologies, they are basically forcing people back to IE and thereby contributing to cementing Microsoft's dominant position in the market.

        They are apparently looking on Mac and Linux solutions in the long term. Will they force people to use a certain browser/media player there, too?

        • Well, currently they use Real to deliver content. In the long term, they will use Dirac - a CODEC they are developing, which is open source. In the medium term, I don't care what they use, as long as I can play it. If WMV gives good enough quality, then I don't mind if they decide to use it - it's not like they are going to find that the only copy they have of their content is in WMV format, and putting it in Dirac format would be impossible.

          This is a proof-of-concept release, and may or may not contain

          • Dirac is only a codec; it doesn't specify anything but the method of encoding video data; specifically, there is nothing in Dirac about DRM.

            If the BBC are bound by licensing constraints to enforce conditions (prevent use by unauthorised (i.e., non-license-fee-funded) users, delete after 7 days, or other), they will need a DRM container format to lock the files in. Desktop Linux (as opposed to embedded appliance systems based on Linux) does not have any marginally secure DRM formats in the way that Windows a

        • Is there a cross platform video codec with DRM that runs on multiple players they could use?

          Without the DRM they probably won't be able to do this.

  • Cookies... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spacefight ( 577141 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:23AM (#13720639)
    This will get them some serious headaches as lots of people delete their cookies regularly...

    Your iMP registration may no longer work if you (accidentally) delete your Internet cookies. If you have deleted your cookies after installation of iMP, please uninstall and then re-install iMP. If you have used up your permitted number of installations then please get in touch with the BBC's iMP support at: Imp-help@bbc.co.uk

  • IE and WMP (Score:3, Informative)

    by FirienFirien ( 857374 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:28AM (#13720647) Homepage
    I am a mac user. By the handy debug menu [macosxhints.com], I can pretend to use Windows IE (assuming the Mac IE I have somewhere around gets denied too); I also downloaded WMP at some point when mplayer and VLC decided not to be able to play the newest wmv files.

    14. When will I get iMP on Mac & Linux?
    Currently, our supplier is working towards supporting a Mac and Linux version.

    However, having realised I'd jumped a step in the system, I found out that I can't get in anyway, because they're doing a trial first. Points:

    1). I thought the whole point of p2p was to have more people able to carry the load? Tie that in with
    2). With a trial of 1000 users, the chances are damn slim that two of them will pick the same program to watch while they're both online (hence nearly everything will be downloaded from the central server during the trial anyway.
    3). In response to an earlier point about the 7-day limit - this is a workable idea, because the DRM on the program being 7 days long means that it can be downloaded at any point in those 7 days - whether from the server or others - and becomes inviable after that limit. That fits with the original intention of a week-limit on viewability.
    • I didn't RTFA, but in the past the BBC has partnered with broadband ISPs for this kind of thing to provide a distributed caching system. This makes it easy to limit viewership to people in the UK - you have to be using a UK ISP - and it makes very efficient use of the bandwidth, since only one copy per ISP leaves the BBC's server, and the ISPs then stream to their own customers (which is actually cheaper than having the customers stream to each other). At a guess, I would say that they are only running th

  • Has anybody got DVD Jon's phone number? (Score:4, Funny)

    by gpig ( 244284 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:42AM (#13720699)
    I think we have a job for him.

  • Left hand not knowing what the right is doing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:42AM (#13720703) Homepage
    When I first heard this idea mooted, I assumed that this was the reason the Dirac codec was being worked on. I more or less assumed that the service would roll out cross-platform specifically because they used their own codec.

    Instead, we get a single platform-only affair. I'm aware they claim they're working on Mac and Linux clients, but unless they're going to a) switch formats or b) strong-arm Microsoft into developing their DRM restrictions for the Mac and Linux (!) then I can't really see that claim as being believable.

    My initial reaction then is one of frustration. A really nice idea, something I really want to see, but built on the wrong foundations right from the start. I doubt I'm going to be able to use this anytime soon (UK-based OS X user) despite the platitudes.

    As an aside, I'm aware that this has all been done by an external contractor rather than the BBC. That figures, because if there's one media organisation anywhere in the world that really seems to 'get' the internet, it's the Beeb.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  • The part about all of this that is funny is that all the talk is about changing the distribution method without changing the business model. The BBC still wants to protect it's content. Every media organization out there wants to protect it's content. The world at large wants it's content/data/entertainment NOW and the distribution methods have to change to keep pace with the ever changing available technology. Well, if they change the distribution methods (and they'll have to, or else face a public that is

  • UK? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dascandy ( 869781 )
    13. Will internet users abroad be able to get iMP? No. The BBC will be using Geo-IP technology to restrict usage to UK users only.

    I assume they mean UK proxy users, since you can't really check whether the person is or isn't in the UK.

    • Re:UK? (Score:2)

      by acb ( 2797 )
      Assuming that there exist widely available UK-based HTTP proxies, and that the BBC don't blacklist them.

  • Dear Beeb (Score:5, Insightful)

    by el_womble ( 779715 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:58AM (#13720752) Homepage
    Excellent. The BBC is making moves to let me, a Licence Fee Payer, get at the content I've been forced to pay for in a way that is more useful to me. Well done.

    But can you imagine the arguments that are going on inside the BBC at the moment?

    The licence fee is pretty reasonable at the moment (well I think it is) and a large part of that is due to additional funds that are created when the BBC sells DVDs of archive and popular shows. The nice thing about DVD sales is that licence fee payers benefit, because the BBC gets a cut, but also the underpaid BBC talent gets a chance to make some money. The other source fo revenue is global syndication. I simply don't see how this won't cut into DVD sales.

    I hope the BBC has the foresight to see that this really shouldn't be a problem. People are used to paying a subscription for TV, let non-uk citizens pay their $17.50 a month and let the money roll in. Sure there will be illegal copies of the shows rolling around bittorrent sites, but thats happening already.

    What the BBC really need to do is get into bed with Apple on this. Just open up the archives, explain that it needs to be sold as a subscription ($15 a month has a nice ring to it), all you can eat service and let Apple do the rest.

    • Re:Dear Beeb (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )
      I own a television, and therefore pay a license fee. I haven't turned on my TV since Doctor Who finished (I do watch rented DVDs of some TV shows on a projector, but I don't need a license for this). Every day, I check the local and worldwide RSS feeds from news.bbc.co.uk. Since the license fee is less than the cost of a daily newspaper, I am happy to pay it just for this service. Adding the ability to stream shows I've missed (most radio, some TV) made me even more willing to pay. Funding Dirac develo

  • BBC kicks (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:59AM (#13720755)
    Don't assume that this trial is necessarily representative of the final goal. As the BBC is a publicly funded entity, there are politics like, why should UK tax payers be providing content for everyone else in the world? There is also the politics of file sharing like, why is the BBC allowing people in other countries to pirate our shows. These issues lie at the heart of the rationale for providing the service: why should the BBC lock up old shows in a vault. We paid for them. It's their responsibility to fully utilize the potential of the programs. This may mean by offering parallel 'broadcasts' or by opening up the archives. And/or something else.

    I'm suggesting we be careful about treating the BBC like it is a private media conglomerate like Time-Warner-MSNBC-AOL-Haliburton rather than a publicly funded, commercial-free, national broadcast network. Will there be DRM? Maybe. Will there be Mac and Linux versions? Certainly. Will we need to use IE or WMP? Very, very doubtfully. Aside from the fact that there is no IE for Mac anymore, the BBC is developing an open source video player (or is it a codec).

    (I still don't get what he problem with the universal format MP4 is. My best guess in MS didn't want a universal codec that will play on any player and has modified their 'version' of MP4 so that it doesn't work on anything. Still, you'd think it might work with WMP ;-)

    In any case, the BBC kicks! If you want TV to take advantage of the technology afforded by digital communications, look to the BBC. Commercial broadcasters, in contrast, will likely take a route most resembling the RIAA and Hollywood. That's the context in which they operate, and that is their weakness. As an outsider in London, I think the BBC is one of the UK's best assets. It's like a high powered version of Canada's CBC.

    • "(I still don't get what he problem with the universal format MP4 is. My best guess in MS didn't want a universal codec that will play on any player and has modified their 'version' of MP4 so that it doesn't work on anything. Still, you'd think it might work with WMP ;-)"

      Simple, MP4 is heavily patent encumbered. BBC is developing a codec which is supposed to be free of software patents. Your best guess is very, very wrong and very much against the BBC philosophy. Their codec will be open source and cross pl
  • You shoud check out http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/ [bbc.co.uk] to see that BBC has an Open video codec project on the go, and Java APIs to play streamed media as well. I guess that they will move from IE and WMV once their own technology is ready. After all, it makes no sense to develop a video coded if you're not planning to use it.

  • Don't grouse here - tell the BBC what you think (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @08:33AM (#13721116) Journal
    Don't just grouse on Slashdot about the BBC using license fee payer's money to promote a closed solution instead of developing the Internet equivalent of the open and free for all PAL tv broadcast system. Tell them why making it Windows Media Player only is a bad thing on their complaints site:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_ste p1.shtml [bbc.co.uk]

    Make it reasonable and intelligent.

    Point out that:
    1. Their DRM'd system has considerably less utility than a video recorder at a much greater cost (many UK ISPs have bandwidth quotas). Point out that the utility of the BBC's iMP is so inferior compared to what the pirates offer, it will not help reduce piracy at all - it'll just be a giant waste of license payer's fees to support a crippled service.
    2. The EU has convicted Microsoft of monopolistic practises specifically over Media Player - the BBC should NOT be promoting this with license fee payers money.
    3. The BBC have developed their own codec. They should be creating an open solution based on this that ALL broadcasters can use - a genuine public service, rather than help consolidating a foreign monopoly.

  • DRM (Score:2, Informative)

    by niai ( 310235 )
    I'm one of the lucky few who managed to get on the trial and, so far, have found it to be a positive step. I've only used it a small amount so far and have only 1 complaint. In order to download the key to watch any media files, it has to be viewed from within the BBC's player. If you try to watch something with straight WMP, it cannot download the key. After you've started watching something with the BBC player, the key has been downloaded and you are then free to watch using vanilla WMP. This makes the in

  • Odd (Score:2)

    by RichiP ( 18379 )
    Odd that they'd go proprietary. After all, the BBC was one of the first to Internet-broadcast their radio programs using OGG Vorbis (and continue to do so).

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra

Close