BBC Trust Will Hear iPlayer Openness Complaints 177
AnotherDaveB writes with a Register story reporting that the BBC Trust has asked to meet with open source advocates to discuss their complaints over the corporation's Windows-only on-demand broadband TV service, iPlayer. The development came less than 48 hours after a meeting between the Open Source Consortium and regulators at Ofcom on Tuesday. Officials agreed to press the Trust, the BBC's governing body, to meet the OSC. The consortium received an invitation on Wednesday afternoon.
Openness Complaints (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Pfft.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What can they really do? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What can they really do? (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't know, because it appears they didn't even bother to try and find out before rushing into a deal with Microsoft that ties them into Windows Media.
Re:What can they really do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What can they really do? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, they have a working DRM solution for almost everything you can imagine. Millions of Verizon etc. phones are using their software already to play purchased music. Of course, this happens because the WOKE UP and saw the power of open source, created Helix community offering their millions dollars worth patents for free to GPL projects.
I also heard BBC other Windows Media DRM vendor is not so happy with feedback they get from the users. Azureus'es "Media center" like version (Vuze, 3.x) already sells BBC content in Wmedia DRM. Imagine a Java 5/6 application which works exactly same on 3-4 completely different operating systems is "prisoned" to Windows DRM solution to make money. Would you be happy?
There the BBC Content: http://www.vuze.com/channel/bbc [vuze.com]
Vuze runs on anything with modern Java but can't "sell"/"rent" legal content because of the format (Wmedia DRM) is hostile to any OS other than Windows. Now they are attempting to create same thing.
There is a waiting scandal there for Professional IT media. If any left...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? Actually, by sheer luck (?), today I tried to watch a RealVideo in VLC via streaming and it did not work. MPlayer was a bitch to get working (on Windows) but eventually I got that working and it wasn't flawless. So I installed RealPlayer Enterprise (has the best settings / least spyware) and got it working. One would assume that if they 'donated' their 'millions dollars worth patents for free to GPL projects'
Re: (Score:2)
You are speaking about their codecs. No, they aren't opening codecs since there are lots of companies waiting for a working 3G/2.5G codec. Their higher bandwidth stuff are mpeg4/aac standard already.
Helix player is a complete multimedia package for Linux. You better download that thing and reply that time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure it could be done if the BBC did a deal with them instead of MS.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, what do you consider "Everyone"?
Windows and Apple?
Do you add Linux?
BSD?
Solaris?
True64?
VMS?
BeOS? (yes, apparantly people still use this)
[Insert Cell Phone OS here]?
PalmOS?
Who do you include, who do you drop?
Re: (Score:2)
Simple answer (Score:2)
Then the market can provide a variety of players on every OS without impediment.
oh wait, it already has.
I don't think the market can solve all problems, but this one is an easy choice.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the way they went is probably the most cost effective for the vast majority of people paying the license fee for the time being. People already complain they have to pay the license fee but don't even watch the BBC. How many people (in Britain who pay the license fee) that don't watch the BBC will actually download the BBC?
I think they can worry about an open standard when a proven one becomes available and they have determined
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The solution is this: don't use DRM!
Seriously, it's as simple as that. In fact, it's mathematically proven to be the only solution.
Re: (Score:2)
No. There can't be an open standard for DRM. DRM relies on obfuscation. If there was, someone would just write a program that could read/write the format and simply 'forget' the restrictions.
That's how DRM works in PDF. It's utterly pointless and only serves to give the authors the illusion that their content is protected.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
DRM means closed. Open and closed are opposites. Standards are written to encourage interoperability, DRM is anti-interoperability. The CD is an example of standards working, the MiniDisc is an example of DRM working.
The ISO standard for audio and video is MPEG-4 (Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, AppleTV, iPod, iPhone, iTunes, QuickTime) which does not specify any DRM, it's about audio and video. If you want DRM you add it separately but that mak
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not up on this stuff, but I believe I read here that all of the BBC's competitors in Britain all use Windows Media as well. I could be wrong though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sad thing is, I keep thinking of more operating systems to add to the list. HPUX, Plan9, OS/2...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Release (or cite, if it is external) the specs for the standard of the file format, along with the protocol used to communicate with the DRMd server, and preferentially a stripped down player with source code for reference and let the developers make their own players for their own platforms. It is possible to have security (DRM, for all that matters) and openness at the same time and, if it was not possible, security through obscurity would not solve the DRM problem, as CSS
Sun + Java = open DReaM (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What can they really do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well gee, seeing that the material is publicly available, and already paid for ( by a compulsory TV license ) and also already available in digital form without DRM ( through the terrestrial digital broadcast ) why exactly do they have to use DRM to begin with? I only see a few reasons:
a)"Content providers" refuse to license their shows if they don't
b)They have partnered with MS and MS refuse to develop a system that doesn't.
c)Some muppet up in management still believes it can work.
d)All of the above
None of those are valid reasons why a publicly funded company should help strengthen a monopoly that has repeatedly been convicted under anti-trust legislation. Basically what it boils down to is drop the DRM or drop the public funding. As long as the material is paid for by the public it should be available to the public.
Re:What can they really do? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What can they really do? (Score:4, Informative)
They need to DRM and limit to the UK because of syndication. While most of their shows are public broadcast in the UK they license them to other TV stations that release on a different schedule. These other channels would not want to pay the same amount if the shows were available on the internet for free before they showed them on their channels.
The same thing happens with DVD's of BBC shows. The season may be long over in the UK some times years over but the DVDs won't release until after the american syndication has aired.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On a similar note, some people would say that the BBC should also sell their DVDs at cost price, since the public pays for the programs,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that the premise -- i.e., the desire to use DRM -- is itself the flaw!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This revolution will not be televised (Score:4, Funny)
e-Petition (please sign it) (Score:3, Informative)
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/bbcmicrosoft/ [pm.gov.uk]
Always good to raise the profile of this...
Re:e-Petition (please sign it) (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it is hard to make a case that the standard paper petitions are effective, but it at least shows that the organizer is dedicated to the cause, and probably some respectable percentage of the signatories at least agree a little.
With an e-petition, the organizer spends what, all of 15 minutes working on a petition, and who are the signatories? Are they even citizens, are they the same guy 30,000 times?
I will never sign an e-petition. I may even start an e-petition to make my case to all those e-petition zealots that me, and probably a few dozen other people wont' stand for more e-petitions. We'll go so far as to enter our email addresses on a web form to show our solidarity. But then again it might just be too much work.
Finally, why in the world would I trust the organizer of an e-petition with any information about my self? Seems like a great way to harvest spammable information. If I don't have to enter any information, how do you know I'm a real person?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Firstly, you need to be a UK citizin and enter a UK postcode to use the Goverment ePetition.
Secondly, let me quote the example of the Road Charging ePetition on the same site. It forced a response from the (then) Prime Minister Tony Blair and was widely reported in the news and debated in Parliament.
See...
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2007/02 / 13/road_charge_petition_was_a_car_crash_waiting_to _happen.html [guardian.co.uk]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6349027.stm [bbc.co.uk]
for mo
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to reduce traffic is to increase the price as much as possible. This is the ONLY way that people will stop driving. You can mak
Re: (Score:2)
I know that public transport can be and is well done over there...since there is such a small land mass, and everything is close together.
But, I gotta ask...how the hell do you go shopping for things like groceries over there, if you don't have a car?? I mean, I'm a single guy..I like to cook, but, no way I could do my shopping
Re: (Score:2)
So what are you supposed to do if your job is in London, as about 20% of the jobs in England are? Buy a family home in Greater London for £700k? Public transport's not all that great (crowded, smelly, and nasty in the summer), the train prices are comparable to petrol + depreciation on your car, and it takes on average twice as long to get you where you're going.
It'd be better to e
Re: (Score:2)
blame Gordon Brown for that... when he started raiding the pension funds, those who could got their money out and got into buy-to-let... t
Re: (Score:2)
Or more generally, to increase the cost (which is not necessarily congruent to "price"). You could instead keep the price the same but decrease the convenience, for example.
I would support this kind of thing in Atlanta, GA, USA (my neck of the woods): right now the Interstates going through the city have one HOV (High-Occupancy Vehicle) lane each. I think they ought to increase that to two, not by adding an additional lane, but by
Re: (Score:2)
What about those of us who have to drive? Lets see:
1. I work about 25 miles away from home in a relatively rural area. Using public transport to get to work is going to take me over 2 hours and involve taking busses via about 3 different towns. I can't afford to buy a house near work because they are rather more expensive than where I currently live.
2. My hobbies include windsur
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point in getting people off the roads to reduce traffic. Even if traffic is reduc
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. They are evidence of negative publicity. For companies or governments that need to be concerned about public opinion, it's worthwhile to have more information that can be used to determine the popularity of an action/inaction -- this is important to protect brand image.
Much like postcard campaigns and email campaigns do have *some* impact on politician's decision-making process (or at least helping to determine where they focus the
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about drm (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not paranoia... (Score:5, Insightful)
The BBC does not work in isolation. It works in partnership with other broadcasters around the world. And in making its content freely available to licence payers in the UK it has to make sure that it doesn't abuse the rights of its partners by giving away content to those outside the UK, where the rights may be shared with or even wholely owned by those partners.
Take two productions as examples.
The newest Doctor Who stories are co-developments with CBC, a Canadian broadcaster. I imagine that the BBC owns the broadcast rights in the UK, the CBC owns the broadcast rights in Canada and the broadcast rights elsewhere have been split or sold under an agreed formula.
To make Doctor Who freely available to everybody everywhere would be to the detriment of not only the CBC but to those third parties who buy the broadcast rights everywhere else.
Similarly, with Band of Brothers, which was a co-production with HBO, the BBC probably owns the UK rights, HBO the US ones and the rights elsewhere split, etc.
To expect the BBC to release all its content to everyone would be unrealistic, not least of all because securing the worldwide internet rights for all of the productions concerned would be impossible, strategically as well as commercially.
Faced with that reality, what choice does the BBC have if its going to make this content avaiable online in Britain and Britain only other than some from of rights management?
I'm all for the BBC coming up with a cross-platform solution but I don't think it's fair to hit it with the unfair charge of using DRM for DRM's sake when it's bending over backwards to make more content available to their customers (licence payers), on it's own initiative, without stepping on anybody else's toes in the process.
They're trying to be good guys here. Why blast them with both barrels over pipe dreams?
Re:It's not paranoia... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine, but they could achieve the same results by (1) refusing to serve the content to people outside the UK, (2) requiring a "licence-fee payer" login to download anything, and (3) limiting the range of programmes available online in order to satisfy the requirements of commercial co-producers. There's no need for DRM, especially as the BBC is already using a system to restrict some content to UK users only.
Now, there is an obvious objection to (1) and (2). Someone could download a programme in the UK, then put it on Bittorrent. But that's a silly objection, firstly because that same person could capture the programme from a TV broadcast, and secondly because that person could crack the DRM. Microsoft DRM is as vulnerable to attack as any other sort of DRM.
The use of DRM in this case is basically equivalent to saying "You can't watch BBC programmes without a Sky subscription". Sure, the delivery medium is the Internet not digital satellite, and the "Sky subscription" is a "Windows XP licence", but the effect is the same - you have to pay a third party in order to watch licence-fee funded programmes. We need an equivalent of "Freeview" that will work for anyone at no cost, but because Microsoft DRM is being used, the BBC has excluded that possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
A cross-platform solution is what we need: DRM and OS lock-in are two different issues and the real issue here is OS lock-in.
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you're saying. And I agree that if the player software could run on a free OS, then that would be the Internet equivalent of "Freeview" that I mentioned at the end of my post. Licence fee payers would have access to the programmes without a requirement to pay the Microsoft tax. That solution would seem satisfactory, if not ideal.
However, the use of DRM does limit viewers to
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, Freeview is not DRM'd and uses open standards. You can grab any DVB-T tuner and receive Freeview on it (same with their DVB-S broadcasts). Why does the BBC feel the need to act differently with content delivered over IP?
Re: (Score:2)
Its digital (and analogue) terrestrial and satellite transmissions do spill over to some neighbouring countries but no more so than is avoidable.
If you have read my initial post on this subject and still don't appreciate why there is a difference between what the BBC can do over the airwaves and what it can do over IP space then you're missing the whole point.
The BBC is responsible for its actio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also very aware that we live in a world where the BBC cannot make the decision to release online downloadable content of this nature without considering the impact that it would have on others and how those others might react to it. This seems to be where most of the crowd and I differ.
There's trying to give people more and then there's trying to commit commercial suicide. Surely you can see the BBC's dilemma?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can see, the key consideration seems to be to make the archive available to it's customers (UK TV licence payers) and nobody else. Hence the need for some sort of rights management.
It's not an ideal world solution but it is a pragmatic one.
Re: (Score:2)
The key consideration is to make the archive directly available only to it's customers and no-one else. Everything good is available via bittorrent, if people are prepared to go through an illegal third-party to get tv programmes they can do so already. The BBC can restrict broadcast to the UK only using IP addresses and allow only licence fee payers in the same way that they do now. If that's not accepta
Re: (Score:2)
There's no single, make-everybody-happy option. I wish there was, but there isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor does it have exclusive rights to transmit the content in any way, including DVB. Yet the BBC don't feel the need to impose DRM on their DVB streams.
Its digital (and analogue) terrestrial and satellite transmissions do spill over to some neighbouring countries but no more so than is avoidable.
So how is this different to providing an un-DRM'd stream to UK IP addresses?
If you have read my init
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC's DVB streams are broadcast to the UK only, not to the world, and hence there's no need for any form of encryption. The limited overspill that there is is accepted as being beyond the BBC's control. Indeed, the BBC has actually done everything possible to limit it, and this has been well documented.
As I seem to have said at least twice before, the BBC doesn't act in isolation. In making the decision to make its archive available online I'm sure it h
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm again left asking what the difference is between broadcasting to the UK only over DVB and broadcasting to the UK only over IP? I'm not talking about broadcasting to the whole world.
Whereas you and others might not see a great distinction between 1) making DRM-free content over IP to the UK only that is then accessed from anywhere else in the world by proxy servers; and 2) a reco
Re: (Score:2)
As I'm not a mind reader and as I don't want to be rude I'll assume that it's the former. My apologies. Perhaps you could ask one of your colleagues at Opendium for a clearer picture than the one that I've attempted to paint?
Perhaps they could also join the dots for you
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to understand that IP streams and DVB streams can *both* be accessed via a proxy server over the internet.
Perhaps you could ask one of your colleagues at Opendium for a clearer picture than the one that I've attempted to paint?
Can I ask what my business ha
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, but they could achieve the same results by (1) refusing to serve the content to people outside the UK, (2) requiring a "licence-fee payer" login to download anything, and (3) limiting the range of programmes available online in order to satisfy the requirements of commercial co-producers.
The only way to be sure of these points, is to use DRM. How else do you do it, ask the user before the video plays?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My post must have been unclear, please allow me to clarify.
(1) The BBC is already using a system that detects your country of origin based on your IP address. If you're not connecting from the UK, you can't get certain content from their website. This is implemented by a simple security check.
(2) The "licence-fee payer" login would be checked by a BBC server before files were served. Login sche
Re: (Score:2)
No, the only way to be sure of these points is nothing. Why? Because DRM is mathematically-flawed snake oil anyway!
Trying to secure content the way the BBC wants is a lost cause. It always has been. The would would be a better place if media companies would simply realize that and move on!
Re: (Score:2)
They want to do 2 things:
Stream to UK licence holding citizens. In which case the service is free (i.e. already paid for). So they have to be able to limit this stream to valid licence holders, hence DRM.
Stream to non-UK licence holding citizens. In which case they can charge for the service but they have to be able to ensure that it is only going to those who have paid, hence DRM.
The problem, as someone has already pointed out, is not with DRM which is the solution to their problem (whether we like
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then they're failing miserably at it! "Good guys" don't use DRM. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, if you were responsible for an archive of content that you had exclusive rights to for the UK only but which you didn't have exclusive rights to for any other market then how would you go about making it available online to your exclusive market only while respecting the rights of your partners to their own markets and without getting yourself sued to oblivion and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
Re: (Score:2)
You make some good points - but I suspect that the solution which the BBC has chosen doesn't actually address the threats which they perceive. The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pointless meeting given the go-ahead (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason they're meeting is so that if this does go to the court they can claim they "tried to resolve the issues".
It's ironic... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Really surprised they didn't cut a deal with realaudio to add any missing features into their system rather than this windows
drm sillyness.
Licences are compulsay, shows should be avaliabe. (Score:2)
Re:Licences are compulsay, shows should be avaliab (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't kid yourself, it does.
Western industrial civilization created soe of the best things ever created by man. It has allowed us to build building that touch the sky, send a machine outside out solar system, and put men on the moon and got them home. More people have clean water, access to food, and medical care then ever in the history of mankind.
Greatest. Society. Ever.
Greatest != perfect
Re:Licences are compulsay, shows should be avaliab (Score:4, Insightful)
Downloading programs in a way is a value added service that works beyond the TV. People complain already that they don't watch the BBC but they still have to pay the fee. Now, the fee is going to pay for even more stuff they don't use.
I think it is reasonable to go with the most cost effective solution that works for the vast majority of people to begin with. They can worry about expanding it later on when they see what the demand really is and get all the kinks worked out.
Re: (Score:2)
You require a license fee for a TV card of course.
BBC R&D? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not just he ~10% of none Windows users they are leaving out, but the other 20-25% that use alternative web browsers.
Re:BBC R&D? (Score:4, Informative)
It's all academic anyway... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
DRM has -never- stopped determined people, only delayed them a bit. This is no different. The only thing DRM does stop is the average joe. And that only until some enterprising hacker makes a name for himself by publishing the crack.
In this case, the only people being stopped are the few non-Brits that want to watch British TV and don't know w
Re: (Score:2)
So at least we can say DRM is helping someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? All they're doing is stating a fact! The entire concept of DRM is fatally flawed, in that it simultaneously tries to provide and withold the content from the user. It should be obvious, even if you're not an expert in cryptography, that this is fundamentally, mathematically, impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You pull the off-air mpeg2 directly off something like a toppy so you get it as originally broadcast with no degradation.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks a bunch Rupert (Score:5, Insightful)
For those not aware of how British politics works: Blair (and now Brown's) government both follow what is known as the 'tabloid agenda [blogs.com]', the most read tabloid in the world is 'The Sun [thesun.co.uk]' this is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Heads of the Labour government regularly meet with Rupert Murdoch, in fact Murdoch was known as the hidden member [guardian.co.uk] of Tony Blair's government. Don't think Brown is any better though: an interview [bbc.co.uk] (sadly I think that's been taken off-air so you'll have to trust me) with the editor of The Sun revealed that Rupert Murdoch often used to joke about having to visit both Number 10 and Number 11 whenever he was in the UK.
As the BBC is competition to Murdoch he would like to see it shutdown. This is natural. Unfortunately for him the BBC is not controlled by the government, but the BBC Trust is. So when the government comes out with weird statements like:
It's pretty obvious to me who's behind the complaints. The people--whom the government are supposed to serve--just want the BBC to be the best it can be, and if private media can't keep up? Then it shouldn't be in business! Particularly when considering how these words are touting 'public interest' then enforcing the use of DRM? Public interest my arse. In the words of Hugo Swire (shadow culture secetary):
So as usual, it's all big company interests. I somehow doubt that the BBC Trust will listen to the Open Source Consortium. Not that I think they shouldn't try, however it's unlikely they'll be able to remove their heads from Rupert Murdoch's arsehole long enough to listen. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an idea that could make them money... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why don't they use a flash based video player like NBC, ABC, etc.
If they detect that you are from the UK they show you the videos WITHOUT ADs. If you are outside the UK they show you the videos WITH ADs based on your country of origin.
Everyone gets to watch their content and they makes more money though AD revenue. A win-win in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because Flash has the most horrific video format known to man?
How about a Java-based video player?
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't they use a flash based video player like NBC, ABC, etc.
Well, because then everyone is locked into using Flash.
It sounds like a great idea, but "just because everyone else is doing it" isn't really a good reason. I believe there were a lot of problems with Flash video on Linux (though I think these are largely resolved now?).
I think the crux of the issue here is they should be releasing their videos in a DRM free, open format that anyone can access on any platform in any player. If they use an open video system that anyone can make a player for, it'll work ev
Siemens outsourcing of BBC Technology (Score:4, Informative)
http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/1176/1
I'd like to thank them for making sure the BBC's watch/listen pages work on my GNU/Linux/Mozilla/Realplayer computer at home. Now, it's all gone to Siemens, apparently:
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2004/10/01
Anyone inside BBC or Siemens care to comment?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft may be the "flavour-of-the-week" as they break every anti-trust, competition and price fixing laws and offer these large corporations incentives elsewhere. Makes you wonder.
Fixed (Score:2)
There fixed. Read my post above, this has everything to do with Rupert Murdoch and other companies putting pressure upon the British government to stop the BBC providing a good on line service. The Shadow Culture Secretary confirmed this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
>> So, how would using open source benefit the users?
Because if the BBC use Windows-only tech. it means all non-windows users are obliged to buy Windows just to watch BBC stuff even if they don't want it otherwise.
>> Is the market share of Windows in Europe much lower than in the US?
Probably. Unlike most US gov. departments, Many euro governments have policies that are designed to consider Open source alternatives to just falling lock-step into line with Microsofts' monopolistic strategy.
Also do