BBC Chooses Microsoft DRM Platform 384
bazorg writes "The BBC has chosen Microsoft's DRM technology to limit the viewing of content downloaded from their website. These downloads would allow viewers to catch up on shows that were broadcast on the previous 7 days; they would be compatible only with Windows Media Player and a new product called 'iPlayer'. This iPlayer is not yet available for platforms other than MS Windows, which caused the Open Source Consortium (OSC) to file a complaint to national and EU authorities. 'The BBC aims to make its content as widely available as possible and has always taken a platform agnostic approach to its internet services. It is not possible to put an exact timeframe on when BBC iPlayer will be available for Mac users. However, we are working to ensure this happens as soon as possible and the BBC Trust will be monitoring progress on a six monthly basis.'"
Don't worry, it will support all platforms (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean "What about all the others?" There are others? Er, when you say "Future platforms" you mean the next version of Windows, right?
We might need to go back to the drawing board on this one...
They will hack it (Score:4, Funny)
Re:They will hack it (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft DRM has been around for a good few years now and whereas the earliest versions were cracked in due course, the later versions are still fairly solid. I don't believe it's yet possible, for example, to watch DRM-protected WMV files on Linux, even if you have the W32 codecs pack installed.
I did see one sort of hack for MS DRM but it was limited in what it could do...if you had a valid DRM "licence" for the protected file you could use the hack tool to create a non-DRM copy of the file. But it couldn't unlock a file for which you didn't have a valid key.
I suppose this type of hack could theoretically be used to unlock MS-DRM protected videos on BBC *if* they use the current form of DRM which relies on you downloading a key and *if* you use the tool to unlock it before the seven days expires.
It's hardly ideal.
OTOH, a much bigger worry is this response from the BBC that "iPlayer will be available for Mac" - it's implausible that they haven't heard of Linux, so this is tantamount to a deliberate slap in the face for Linux users. And checking on progress every SIX MONTHS!? What kind of project management it that? The "don't care" kind.
Common sense prevailed at the BBC while Greg Dyke was around. Since he was pushed out it's all turning to shit again. With people like these at the wheel, television's days are surely numbered. I don't know about you lot but the only thing I watch on TV these days is Dr Who and it wouldn't kill me to give that up. Fuck 'em.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They will hack it (Score:5, Insightful)
Your phrasing means you don't know. I don't know either, and I use Linux exclusively. That shows you how important playing DRMed WMV files is.
DRM is impossible to implement correctly because it is theoretically impossible to do. The only reason any DRM system isn't cracked is because no one has cared enough yet to crack it.
The earliest versions of WMV DRM probably were just so easy to crack that someone did it without really trying, but when they fixed the most obvious holes
If WMV DRM gets used on anything people actually want to watch (like the BBC), it will be cracked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
DRM is theoretically impossible. That's true. Unfortunately, DRM that can only be inexpensively hacked with an allowed player and recapture equipment is probably entirely possible. What that means is this: It's possible to create a DRM system that will prevent people from playing videos on Linux. It'll still be possible to cra
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's fine, that's all that is needed. A third-party Linux/Mac client would mimic the behaviour of the official client, and from the perspective of the BBC servers, the two would be indistinguishable. A lot of programming effort might be requ
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a lot like the "They came for the jews, but I wasn't a jew..." argument. You can dodge the bullet for a while, but eventually, you have to take a stand. The sooner you start, the more time you'll have to find others who'll stand with you.
Mplayer + Binary Codecs (Score:2)
What makes this really suck... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What makes this really suck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay your licence and be happy that not everything in Britain is driven by commercial interests.
Re:What makes this really suck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the BBC also shows content they did not create.
Re: (Score:2)
I think maybe in this situation, complaining to the BBC might not be the most helpful. You might want to com
Re:What makes this really suck... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've got no problem with paying my licence fee so long as I am allowed to access the content. Sadly the BBC seems to be adding artifical restrictions to ensure that I can't access the content without me purchasing an expensive product from exactly one vendor with whome I have ethical problems. This is the same as saying "you can only watch TV on TVs made by Sony" - it completely removes competition from the market and this inevitably leads to an expensive poor quality product.
Also a worry is that the BBC appears to believe that being "platform agnostic" involves only supporting Windows and Mac - no mention of other platforms at all.
Re: (Score:2)
No-one's stopping you accessing the content. You will still be able to watch the shows on TV, just as you always could; some of the more popular shows are often repeated now, in fact, for those who have access to t
Re: (Score:2)
Well, actually.....I'd think if they did it right, they could write/program ONE player for the Unix style variants, and that would cover them all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An extra which I am paying for, yet have been explicitly locked out from. I should also point out that I can listen to the "listen again" stuff on Linux (ok, it's not using a Free codec, but it's actually possible to use the service) - why should TV be different?
So they should say Windows, Mac and Linux? Or should that be Windows, Mac, Linux and FreeBSD? Or Windows, Mac, Linux, F
Re: (Score:2)
So don't publish stuff they don't have the rights to on the Internet.
atleast they're moving in the right direction.
I don't consider locking out a load of people from the content they are legally entitled to, but still charging them for it to be "the right direction". Why don't they give a licence fee discount to all those people they have locked out of the service?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I _HAVE_ to pay my TV license because there is a TV sitting in my house. But for the next 6 months, I will not be on the same continent as my house. Or my TV.
The BBC are making the content available on-line, but they ARE locking me out, even though I'm paying and can't watch the initial screening. Their reason for doing so is not technical. There are no technical obstacles to making the content available to me. The
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It suprises me too and you have hit the main abuse that the BBC is making - even the OSC didn't say that the beeb was wrong for using DRM they said that it was wrong for the BBC to effectively support one company's product (Microsoft) over another one (Apple and everyone else). They did argue that D
Re: (Score:2)
Then again I dont know how the laws work in England, but I would think this would be "fair use".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not strictly true. If your hardware is never used to receive television signals, you can notify the TV Licensing people about this in writing and claim an exception. This is mentioned in their FAQ [tvlicensing.co.uk] under the "General questions" category.
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious. If you don't have an antenna outside...and let's say, no cable coming in either. Ho
Re:What makes this really suck... (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely agree that the BBC has a duty to make this available to anyone that wants it, thus choosing an open platform for it. However, I disagree with your sentiment on the BBC tax in general. The TV license is why the UK has a healthy non-commerical broadcaster that produces some very good quality material that maybe otherwise wouldn't be commercially viable. That you pay for a subscription service in addition is completely irrelevant. You still receive all the BBC channels and it is not the BBC's fault that you chose to give money to Sky or Virgin in addition.
Non-commercially funded TV is necessary as a counterweight to commercial TV, particularly as commercial media is consolidated onto fewer and fewer hands. While I won't claim that Non-commercially funded TV is non-biased, it certainly has a different bias.
If you suggest that it should rather be included as part of the regular income tax, then I might agree. The TV license makes no distinction as to people's ability to pay the license, and almost anyone has a TV. Yes, it would be unfair on the people who do not have a TV, but no system is fair to everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to be a pedant but that is actually slightly misleading.
It is only compulsory to have a TV license if you receive or record a broadcast signal (BBC or otherwise).
That said, it might be wise to de-tune the TV if you plan to allow TV Licensing to check your TV (which you are under no legal obligation to do).
Not for Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to the millions they'd get from people who use Windows?
I'm not sure I understand why everyone is outraged at the fact that the Beeb is not catering to an OS that has less than 2% of the desktop market? I'd be more outraged if we were talking OS X here, but that's not even the case.
I surmise that they need DRM because the BBC Trust requires that only TV tax-paying Britons can watch the taxpayer-funded content. If that's the case, then I don't see what the alternative
Re:Not for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the government. That means it has a responsibility to all citizens, not just the ones who use commercial OSs! Ignoring Linux (and other) users by refusing to use open standards is like ignoring disabled people by refusing to provide wheelchair access to government buildings*. Would you be equally okay with that?
Why? At this point, there's probably at least as many users of Linux as there are of OS X.
Don't use DRM, and accept that non-Britons might have access to it. It should be obvious that it's better to give it to extra people for free than to restrict it from people who already have a claim to it! After all (and here my American bias shows through), the whole point of creating a work is to show it to people, not to hide it from them; copyright and licensing is only a necessary(?) evil to begin with!
(* aside from the unfortunate implication that Linux users are "disabled," which they're not -- DRM users are the disabled ones!)
Re: (Score:2)
What if a non-evil company makes a nice set-top for me to use? Cost-a-plenty because of Microsoft tax, I bet.
What if I refuse to use Windows Media Player or iPlayer, which is bound to be fancy skin, or just embedded, with all the security issues that come with it?
What if I want to watch it through XBMC?...
It's that old chestnut 'choice' again.
So, to the BBC,
Please don't force me to use crappy software. I'm qui
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, even 7.5% is a paltry amount for the government to listen to. The only time a government listens to such a
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what?
Are you seriously suggesting that a government could get away with failing to provide a public service to 7.5% of the population? In most countries you get seats in parliament for less than t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they already have x86 hardware.
Because they like good packaging tools, like APT.
Because they like hacking the OS.
Because they can't afford an Apple.
Because they have everything they want working fine, and don't need any Apple applications.
Because they hate spaces in important file/directory names.
Because they use Linux servers and like doing development on the same platform.
Re:Not for Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
Err... because Linux is better? Seriously, everyone raved about OS X, so I gave it a go. I found it horribly restricting, and it didn't suit my way of working, so I went back to Linux.
it does everything you need it to do, and -- above all -- it just works
Were that true, then maybe I'd be using it. Since it didn't do everything I needed it to, I'm not. It may well be a good option for many people. But for me, Linux allows me to be more productive. Why would I want to switch to an OS that didn't work as well as the one I'm currently using?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's costly (to obtain legally)
Hardware to run it (legally) is costly
It's only available from one vendor (wheres your exit strategy?)
Hardware to run it is also only available from one vendor (again no exit strategy or backup plan)
The system as a whole is not as flexible as linux
The interface is inflexible - if the apple way doesnt suit you, you have no other choice
It just works, or just *doesnt* work, if something does go
Linux must run Windows apps (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You might as well have said, "Colonize Mars!"
What you're proposing is a solution that's far easier said than implemented. The WINE Project [winehq.org] has been running for a decade and a half now, and is not too much closer to full Windows support than it was when it started. ReactOS [reactos.org] has taken the approach of reimplementing Windows itself, but is similarly hampered by the complexity and fluidity of the Win32 API set.
Re: (Score:2)
I read all of your posts that I can find, and I respect your opinion. I hope the following different one can be taken in that spirit. (Argumentation should be fun, like all things in life we can make fun.)
I am not arguing from a purist position, or even an ideological one. I am speaking of practical solutions to many of the issues we are likely to face in the desktop world. I run Linux, BSD and Windows and see each as a balance of strengths and weaknesses.
Why I say Linux should run Windows applications:
Re: (Score:2)
As the person you're replying to said, what you're suggesting has been tried - the Wine project has been working on it for years and expended an impressive amount of resources on it. As a result, it's possible to run quite a few Windows apps on Linux. But - they've discovered that the basic idea of re-implementing Windows won't work in general because it's a moving target.
We'll be much better off pointing developers in the direction of stuff like WxWidgets and getting them to write cross-platform apps. It
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the alternative? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm from the UK, love the BBC, not overly keen on Microsoft. The BBC's promise to keep things under review and aim to get something for other platforms out in ~2 years is good enough for me.
Plus,
Here's a simple alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it's really not necessary. They could be selling that content on all the various online outlets worldwide for the first six months, then allow free access (with entry of a TV license code) after that and continue selling to foreign markets. Instead they broadcast it over the air for free then try to sell DVDs, and have this outlandish DRM scheme which tries
Re: (Score:2)
All of this content is already available DRM free for $0 on ThePirateBay.org, and that fact isn't going to change anytime soon. A simpler direct download (either to UK residents for free or to the world for a fee) is a service worth offering. If they make that download DRM-encumbered, they've basically just made their service worse than TPB - they shouldn't bother because it's a waste of time and will give them bad press.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Or, unless you are technically savvy enough to go to any one of many websites like http://vixy.net/ [vixy.net] and paste the address of the YouTube video into the provided box and have it automatically converted and downloaded for you.
Ah, maybe that's why the BBC didn't do that...
Party like it's 1999 (Score:5, Interesting)
Shame on you BBC.
Re: (Score:2)
I am consistently amazed that they continue to align themselves with multinational, license charging companies.
In the beeb's defense, I've been listening to World Service on Linux for years. When they have a problem with content they don't have a license to stream (typically sports), they present alternative content. It's not OSS, but realplay, however it isn't costing me a dime. They did experiment with streaming ogg, but determined that it 'didn't scale' (from email correspondence with a beeb tech).
With regard to specific content with licensing restrictions, alternative content isn't really an option. "Due
Why does the BBC need DRM? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ooooh! I know! They're trying to stop people stealing the copy of Micro Live!, where the BBC was hacked on live TV by the Cheshire Catalyst!
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that all of the BBC content is already available for free download on ThePirateBay.org, right?
All that adding DRM to their download service does is inconvenience TV license payers who use Linux. That's it. Nothing else. If they restrict downloads to UK IP addresses only, there's no reason to worry about those videos getting re-uploaded to file sharing sites because *the videos are already there*.
What about dirac (Score:4, Informative)
http://dirac.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
http://schrodinger.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely unacceptable (Score:5, Interesting)
The BBC's insistence to use DRM (Digital RESTRICTIONS Management -- it does sod-all for my rights) goes against their charter.
When the BBC first began, you had no choice but to build your own radio set. There was never any question that some essential part might be kept locked away out of the reach of the General Public for the specific purpose of preventing just any random person from constructing a receiver.
For the BBC to insist that their programmes only be received on one particular make of receiver (however it may be rebadged), and that an essential part (the Source Code for the decryption) be specifically denied to home constructors and experimenters, is nothing short of outrageous.
This country is becoming more and more like the former GDR every day.
Re: (Score:2)
The "rights" referred to in DRM are those of the copyright holder, not the end user. The end user does have rights, as well, and these ARE ignored/infringed upon by DRM technologies.
Complain? (Score:5, Informative)
two questions. (Score:2, Interesting)
1, how did M$ persuade them?
There were many options out there, why on earth did they go to M$? call me suspicious - but I think there is more to this announcement then meets the eye.
2, did the BBC have to pay for this tripe?
or, its bad enough that BBC is using a DRM system from M$, but please tell me that they are not paying for it out of our license money. whats the betting M$ if offering this free in order get a larger audienc
BBC hates DRM (Score:3, Funny)
The old days... (Score:2)
DRM'ing this content is -pointless- because it is sent over the air unencrypted first. Anyone who would download it from the website and repost it will instead just DVR it and rip it from there. It's an added step, but not much trouble at all. Especially with PC-based DVR.
So who are they really trying to protect this from? The common citizen? Most of them couldn't download the stream if you installed
BBC has been going downhill for a while (Score:3)
now going microsoft drm way. beh.
apparently whomever is directing the channel now has no wits.
TV Police (Score:2)
No surprise (Score:4, Informative)
Irrelevant (Score:2)
beat around the bush (Score:3, Insightful)
nuff said
DRM on Publicly Funded Content (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's a Reaction... (Score:4, Interesting)
BBC can fuck right off. Shame too, since their news tends to be pretty good, but I refuse to support behavior like that. I've gotten to like Reuters better of late anyway.
Free The BBC (Score:4, Informative)
I'm wondering if there's mileage in an anti-trust suit against the Beeb for this...
BBC (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't and can't exist. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what's really galling people is that the BBC is using DRM at all.
[1] It might be possible to build an "open source" DRM system, if you were only talking about 'open' software, and it was just a wrapper around some sort of hardware system that actually held the keys. But that's why I said "openness" and DRM are incompatible -- in a truly open computer platform there's absolutely no way to enforce DRM against a savvy user that doesn't want it enforced on them. The only way DRM works is if you have a 'black box' somewhere, either in software or hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't expose the keys, but any DRM system that's based on a secret implementation rather than cryptography is going to be cracked. Ordinarily, that's what's meant by a 'DRM system', and the specific keys are able to be changed.
Even more fundamental than that (Score:5, Insightful)
Even ones based on cryptography are going to be cracked, since there's no way to make a cryptographically secure DRM system. The end user has to have both the ciphertext and the key, in order to use the content at all -- therefore they can get the plaintext. It's often not exactly trivial, because the keys can be obscured, but there's no mathematical security there. It's always just a "secret implementation." Remove the secrecy and you break the system, period.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously they should stop wasting time and get back to making money for their shareholders.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you can have a trusted key in the deciphering hardware, e.g. a TV set. With another layer of encryption you can shuttle that key to the trusted vendor.
The whole thing is terribly fragile as each layer has to be perfect and trusted, especially the sellers and all their staff.
Re:Doesn't and can't exist. (Score:5, Interesting)
What's really galling me is that the BBC is adding an artificial limitation which will prevent me (a licence payer) from accessing this content at all since I don't own any Windows machines (and I'm not about to buy Windows just so I can watch this content - which I can most likley download illegally in a platform agnostic format anyway). And of course, licence fee payers can't withhold a portion of their licence in response to the BBC intentionally preventing them from accessing content they have a legal right to.
There is a distinct difference between someone not being able to access the BBC website because they don't own a computer (which is fundamentally required to access a web site) and someone not being able to access some content because the BBC has explicitly excluded them through artificial means (there is no reason to _require_ a user has Windows in order to view videos - other operating systems are equally capable of playing videos).
Re:Doesn't and can't exist. (Score:5, Informative)
We had this entire discussion on Sunday (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/22/2 08205) but to summarise:
You do not pay you licence fee to the BBC. You pay the government for the right to be able to receive television broadcasts from any source in any format. Read your licence.
The government funds part of the BBC providing it fulfills its charter and provides public service facilities for use during times of crisis.
Web streaming is NOT covered by the charter nor, therefore, by any funding provided by the government. You licence fee is totally irrelevant to this discussion
You are correct when you say that the BBC is restricting choice to those who use Windows systems - I am as unhappy with this decision as you are. However, they are free to provide web streaming in whatever format they choose with no regard to outside influence (either government or licence payers). They have chosen to stream to the largest possible user base that supports DRM (i.e. Windows). We are stuck with their decision - but from a business point of view it make sense.
DRM, or some other form of control over who can receive the data. is necessary in this instance. If they were to stream data around the world they would be breaking the terms of their own broadcasting licence and annoying other broadcasters in other countries. For example, if they are streaming coverage of the Olympic Games in near-real-time then they would be providing unfair competition to broadcasters in other countries.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is a bad thing because............?
Why shouldn't the Olympics license t
Re: (Score:2)
This is incorrect - the content they are showing was produced with licence payer's money and they are not generating any additional funds from publishing this in downloadable format. Meanwhile, the BBC website's infrastructure (which _is_ funded by the licence fee) will presumably be used to deliver this content.
We are stuck with their decision - but
Re: (Score:2)
So who is paying for the BBC's existing web streaming infrastructure? Magic money pixies?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Specifically, the BBC made a grand total of £6.9 million in profits from BBC Worldwide last year according to their official figur
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Doesn't and can't exist. (Score:5, Funny)
Can you post some footage of her, so we can see if it is going to be worth all the effort?
Re:Doesn't and can't exist. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes we do, as long as their enforcement is managed by the computer owner.
The problem here is that with DRM, computers obey the content owners' wishes, not the computer owners' wishes. The idea that my computer would refuse to permit me to do something because some third party says so is simply unacceptable.
No DRM is required to protect internal documents, ordinary permission systems would do fine. DRM is used to protect content that the owner want to publish for a wider audience, but still retain some control over. The problem is that to view the content, the key needs to be supplied, and with the key, the content can be permanently emancipated. Their so-called "solution" is to obfuscate the code in several ways so that key recovery will be harder. It is still not impossible to recover though.
Re:Doesn't and can't exist. (Score:4, Informative)
It will eventually have DRM and If I'm not mistaken, there are projects currently working on it. But the thing is, the DRM doesn't have to work by locking everything down. All it has to do is lock the content down. So it isn't exactly that open source DRM but rather DRM that will work with open source. It was explained to me that this is possible. I cannot seem to find the links to it but I remember a project who was working on a GPLed opensource product that institute DRM. It went something like a ssha encryption of the binary content and the provider generated an encrypted key based on your key which was based on your account information(from the provider). Then whatever player you were using needed a plugin that used another program to decrypt the media and stream it into the player.
I even had a discussion on slashdot [slashdot.org] with Bruce Perens where he said it was possible to lock down hardware and all with DRM in a similar manor. Of course he was talking about then non-existant revisions of the GPLv3 draft. So this might have changed. I haven't heard anything on it though.
Re: (Score:2)
Open source DRM (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Doesn't and can't exist. (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, as I understand it, the BBC has been pushed into using DRM not because providing free unrestricted content might harm the BBC's own commercial interests, but because it might harm their rivals' (eg ITV, Sky). The BBC's most recent charter review, where the government decides whether the BBC can continue to collect TV licence fee revenue, carefully scrutinised whether the BBC's free content offerings would "distort the market" (ie make it too hard for commercial rivals to compete). DRM is the price the BBC is having to pay to release its content over the internet without harming its rivals too much.
Personally, I think it's daft of the government: effectively they are telling the BBC it mustn't offer too good value for licence fee payers' money. As a licence fee payer, I'd like the best value for money possible, thankyou very much, and I don't care two hoots about ITV's or Sky's commercial interests!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
never including DRM in the first place sounds like a good solution to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC is no different to any other broadcaster when it comes to actual content - it just doesnt rely on adverts in order to be able to broadcast said content.
Re: (Score:2)