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."
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: (Score:2)
As for your first question, why should the BBC choose a proprietary format that 800 million computers in-use today support? That's not even worth answering, it's just plain silly particularly from a news agency trying to reach as many people as possible.
This is not a debate. You haven't actually presented a rebuttal to anything I said, you merely cast it all off as irrelevant.
The problem isn't with WMV, it's with the DRM employed. Lift the DRM and over 800 million computers out there can play the content.
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: (Score:2)
You are correct, a 200k download times 100 million potential viewers is nothing to worry about. Oh wait, that's a lot of bandwidth!
I actually don't think that is a big deal but it's more work than just deploying with WMV and the thousands of people out there that already know how the whole process works as it relates to production and encoding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you seem to have missed the point. The problem is with the DRM and not the format they chose. I don't care what content they wish to share. They should setup a site for those in Britain without DRM and a site for everyone else with it because they sell the content. Problem solved. I can understand why those in Britain would be annoyed given that they pay taxes to support the BBC and I can understand by the BBC would want DRM.
Of course if they got rid of the DRM completely and just went to an account ba
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, in a few years' time, the content will be useless if it's all Windows Media Video with DRM restrictions.
However, my response was purely to your "it's just plain silly particularly from a news agency trying to reach as many people as possible": characterising the BBC as merely a news age
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, if they were to release an open source player for their video files under a vaguely reasonable license, it doesn't really matter whether it's DRM-encumbered WMV, or anything else. Microsoft would never let them do that, which is a bit of an acid test for a medi
Re: (Score:2)
MKV isn't a codec, it's a container format. It's an open container format that supports AFAIK effectively unlimited video and audio streams, internal subtitle tracks, etc. Not ever having heard of it is irrelevant, because it's not a large download and the beeb could provide download instructions.
Yeah, but the real question is this: what restrictions exist on the use of the AFAIK codec? It's great that it can handle "effectively unlimited" streams and all that, but that doesn't do me any good if it's all bound up in patents and overly-restrictive licensing terms...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you are misinformed. First of all copying DLLs is not illegal. Second, you don't qualify what newer codecs are. Third there are hundreds of codecs you can use to encode WMV files since it is just a container like avi. Anything you can play H.264 on you can play WMV on if the WMV was encoded with H.264. If your problem is with the choice of codec then you have a valid platform gripe as not all codecs work on all platforms.
Furthermore, there are over 800 million Windows machines out there which qualifies
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny because the G5 we have in-house encodes WMV files and simply doesn't care what format the video is in. I have no trouble going to sites with Ubuntu or SUSE and playing WMV videos either. As I originally said, DRM is the issue, not the WMV itself.
As for phone support, I have the Samsung A900 as well as a Treo 700w which does have Windows Mobile. Both support it though.
Furthermore, it's not difficult for a server to give out streams in multiple formats. The Niagara SCX we employ here has no t
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.
Leave the BBC alone (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
How about "iPlayer" ... just have BBC write it using good portable programming practices, including strict adherence to standard interfaces, and then it will run on all the major OSes ... BSD, Linux, OS/X, Solaris, and Windows
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:5, Insightful)
(ahem posted from IE6 in windows - at work, honest!)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Even MP3 isn't an "open standard" - it's protected by a series of patents that are owned by various corporations (AT&T, Freunhoffer), so would the BBC be precluded from distributing its content via MP3s?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, both formats require VC-1, MPEG-2, and H.264 video codecs to be implemented. VC-1, while developed by Microsoft, is a published standard from SMPTE. If you implement the published standard, movies from either physical media (that use VC-1 for video encodi
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
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Radios 5 through 7 aren't available on standard radio.
Radio 1's enhanced podcast broadcasts aren't watchable on Microsoft, Sony, or Creative MP3 players.
What is the market share of MS in the UK? 80 - 90% at least? So isn't 'run of the mill' actually, a Microsoft machine? A standard run of the mill TV at the moment doesn't have access t
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
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. If freeview could only be viewed on one brand of TV or digital converter then the situations would be comparable. The freeview digital broadcast standard is open enough for many chip, TV and box manufacturers to make compliant boxes which encourages competition in the marketplace. Iplayer on the other hand requires you to use Windows (at first) excluding users of other OS's, and yo
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're being facetious, but anyway, here's right back at y':
If the broadcast was in colour 4:3 then people using old B&W sets could still see a picture (almost graceful degradation).
On the main point it's not like the BBC has to include DRM to p
Re: (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: (Score:2)
An installation of windows media player is emphatically not a standard for media playing - anywhere, ever. If I cannot play windows media files on the platform I use, the unholy trinity of licenses, copyright and patents prevents me legally playing back these files.
Therefore I cry.
The beeb is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY (Score:2)
Re:The beeb is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY (Score:5, Insightful)
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:2)
Having an old black and white TV in the attic will not get you in trouble, having a TV in your living room all set up but turned off on the other hand will.
Re: (Score:2)
The same could be said about cable TV companies or phone companies in most places. The BBC is no more of a government agency than any of them really. So if we are going to apply that sort of level of scrutiny to the BBC (i.e. the British Broadcasting Corporation) than all other media corporations must also be subjected to that same level of scrutiny.
While I am all for that, the BBC is currentl
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:2)
ah yes, maybe we should take away wheelchair access ramps too. i mean, if the disabled don't like it, they're free to not shop at those stores after all. brilliant!
for the rest of us who think that a public-funded media corporation should provide equal access to all users who've already paid into the content, this challenge is long overdue. considering the BBC's reputation for being a progressive organization that's usually very in touch with its viewers/users, it's actually kinda odd that they would have
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
should be forced to broadcast in NTSC also for me.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I sit in Britain & buy an NTSC TV & pay for the TV license, then BBC should be forced to broadcast in NTSC also for me.
Not at all. PAL (which they use) is a standard not tied to any one company. WMA is a proprietary format, wholly owned and controlled by one company. Further, that company has been convicted of criminal actions in illegally forcing that format onto consumers. Do you see the distinction? The BBC should not be forced to provide any given format, but they should be required to provide a format that is not tied to and profits one given company, especially not a criminal one. The can provide WMA all they want,
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If not, why not?
It is after all, a proprietary format, wholly owned and controlled by one company, which is why Creative and MS Mp3 players can't play the content.
The BBC is a multimedia company, experimenting and playing with many formats to see what works, and what is popular. That technological interest from a TV company should be celebrated not whined about.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you complained about Radio 1's enhanced podcasts, only viewable on iPods?
No.
If not, why not?
Because I'd never heard of them and am not much of a complainer.
It is after all, a proprietary format, wholly owned and controlled by one company, which is why Creative and MS Mp3 players can't play the content.
Actually, they claim to support several different company's players on the Web site. The only proprietary format I see is Realplayer. I disagree with using that format almost as much as I disagree with WMA. Both are closed and proprietary to one company instead of standards. The only difference is real has not been convicted of crimes with regard to promoting said format.
The BBC is a multimedia company, experimenting and playing with many formats to see what works, and what is popular.
The BBC is funded by the government with money that is not
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."
Re: (Score:2)
So if I sit in Britain & buy an NTSC TV & pay for the TV license, then BBC
should be forced to broadcast in NTSC also for me.
Uh, no. PAL is a standard format mandated by the relevant bodies. People are only asking that the BBC choose one standard, not that they support the standard that I arbitrarily decide to use tomorrow.
WMV is not encoded using any formally recognised and platform-neutral codec, and it's DRM-locked. Whatever its benefits, the BBC should know better than to place their customers at the disposal of a single commercial entity, and their social/historical legacy at the mercy of a corporate body whose sole reas
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that WMV is just a container right? And that it is not inherently DRM-locked right? Sounds like your gripe is with the DRM and not with the use of WMV. A lot of people seem to be mixing the two up. WMV files can be encoded in a lot of different ways and with free and open-source tools. What is the problem beyond DRM?
There are over 800 million Windows machines out there, that sounds like a pretty good target to shoot for. People call me crazy though. They don't mess with you anymore after they
Re: (Score:2)
It is largely moot, as the government over there appears to be moving towards an internet tax scheme which would be based upon computer ownership rather than TV ownership. I don't know if that ever passed, but it would be much simpler to tax.
I've noticed that i
Re: (Score:2)
It's the BBC, not the Government. They may have a Royal Charter, and they may receive funding from a TV licence fee (not a tax as such, it is my choice if i have a TV) the technicalities of which are set up via acts of parliment, but not government.
I am not aware of people being held at gunpoint to pay the licence fee (remember not ev
Re: (Score:2)
not a tax as such, it is my choice if i have a TV
You have a choice as to whether or not you smoke cigarettes. Does that make a tax on tobacco any less a tax?
I am not aware of people being held at gunpoint to pay the licence fee (remember not even out Police carry guns except for a few special units).
Try owning a TV, openly without paying your fee. Defend your right to own it without paying, to the point of offering physical resistance with a weapon to any who try to deny you your right. If you are competent enough, I guarantee it will be enforced at gunpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
I guarantee it won't.
They can take you to court, the court can give you a whacking great fine, the court can send bailiffs around to your house to take items to pay the fine but at no point will it be done at gunpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Based on your statements about the license fee, streaming via the internet is not a broadcast and that means that nobody is required to have a license to view the streamed content. The streaming service is still implemented and maintained with government funding. As such, and since it doesn't require a license fee, they should provide that service in a format that is accessible to all citizens of that government who wish to use it.
I'm not British, so i don't know exactly how
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds to me like the problem isn't technological at all then. You present a logical reason why the BBC would want DRM but it's quite an issue given how much DRM is abused these days. Technology isn't going to solve this problem though. They need to find an alternative method for funding, like perhaps and Internet tax in addition to the TV tax? I don't know, I imagine a tax on every medium they are a part of would go a long way to solving the funding issues as people invariably change which device they choo
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Big assumption here, that after an evaluation of all factors wmv was chosen as the best format overall. Maybe no discussion about formats ever took place, leaving the decision to the blokes who built the site.
>...without allowing some open source zealot to impose his software on them by legal harrassment? What a free world you want for the rest of us, twitter.
They are discussing formats not open source software. And, if
Re: (Score:2)
There aren't any. However, most US broadcasters seem happy to use IP geocoding restrictions as their form of DRM. For instance ABC does this. IP geocoding is not hard to circumvent for pe
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.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (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
Re: (Score:2)
I use it on Linux because its the only player with correct color callibration for my laptop where the colors are not too dark and are richer. I have even installed the latest version on a windows system and it showed no signs of malware and it was lean and mean compared to Quicktime and ms media player.
But the problem is DRM. DRM in itself means we can not control it so a corporation decides what we use and that is almost alwa