BBC Trust to Meet With OSC Over iPlayer 125
Virgil Tibbs writes "With the Launch of the BBC's iPlayer imminent, the BBC trust has agreed to hear the Open Source Consortium's concerns regarding the BBC iPlayer's tie in with Microsoft's software.
The move by the BBC to use Windows Media DRM & their apparent lack of commitment towards other platforms has caused outrage in many circles and prompted several online petitions."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
On a related note, there seems to be some sort of hardware crack for obtaining unencrypted BBC media streams. Someone calling himself 'freeview' has hacked together a circumvention device (commonly called a 'freeview box', possibly a reference to the old phone phreak 'coloured boxes') that gives 24/7 access to DR
Online petition, oh noes! (Score:2, Interesting)
righto (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Software Patents? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's not the truth (nor is it painful...) (Score:3, Interesting)
Anybody can manufacture a device to pick up terrestrial broadcasts. But only Microsoft can make the software required to view internet broadcasts? That's an issue that deserves to be corrected.
Re: (Score:1)
The rank hypocracy of FOSSies never falls short of amazing. They continue to whine and pule how being a FOSSie is all about choice, and how people should be free to choose... but when a company or organization chooses Microsoft, that's when we find out it's not really about choice, it's really about choosing what the FOSSies want you to.
Nothing hypocritical here. We want the choice to use a public service, not the product of an individual company. What choice does providing this service as Windows only offer? Windows or nothing. Not exactly a free choice. Using Windows specific software to access the service reduces choice.
And as Microsoft have no real obligation to keep supporting older versions of their operating system with the DRM mechanism that this service uses, so a service that people will come to rely on will be forced into end
Re: (Score:1)
Don't even get me started about http://digital-lifestyles.info/ [digital-lifestyles.info]
Several Online Petitions! (Score:1)
Whats the Problem?? (Score:2, Insightful)
The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later. They are just making downloads available to the vast majority of the people who paid for it first, this is normal.
This is like 4oD [channel4.com] and SKY Anytime [sky.com] which currently only work with Windows XP (not even Vista). I'm sure they will be updatiung their software for at least Vista and Mac soon enough. It not like they said NO is it!
Re:Whats the Problem?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Normal in that it is common practice, perhaps, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem with it. The problem is that they are (currently, and that's why there _currently_ is a problem) making downloads available only in a proprietary format. This incurs all the problems with proprietary formats [inglorion.net], including, but not limited to locking out would-be users, no guarantee of future access to data, and preventing the great capitalist mechanism of competition from doing its work.
Their decision to use Microsoft's proprietary formats puzzles me, because the BBC has often been in the news for actually using open formats, and they used to actually work on an open format and player, themselves. Why did they decide to go for a proprietary format in this case?
Re:Whats the Problem?? (Score:5, Informative)
The answer to that seems to be DRM. The BBC wants to put certain restrictions on the usage of the media. As we all know, the only way they can enforce these restrictions is by retaining some measure of control. To exercise this control, they need to keep secret how the media is played, or it would be possible to play the media without bypassing the control. Thus, open formats are right out.
Re: (Score:1)
the thing that *must* stay secret is the key...
I'm sutre someone else can back me up on this but its a bit like symetric encryption:
the AES aencryption algorithm has been published for more than a decade... bluefish for longer... what is unique when encrypting stuff with AES is th *key* not the algorithm (or method).
if microsoft... or apple published the
Re: (Score:2)
In a wider sense, once you have access to the actual content, you can do whatever you want with it. If the content is encrypted and you need a key to de
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Whats the Problem?? (Score:5, Informative)
From the fine article:
At first glance, it the above statement appears reasonable enough. The problem is life is rarely so simple.
If you put aside the unecessary rhetoric and narrow focus, the real issue becomes obvious, and that is that the BBC has responsibility to implement a platform agnostic (which means not only Windows users, or, for that matter, Windows plus "Mac and Linux users") approach in the face of all the issues brought about by new technology.
Re: (Score:2)
``At first glance, it the above statement appears reasonable enough.''
Does it? To me, "restricted in terms of time and geographic consumption" sounds awfully like censorship. That in the vicinity of news corporations makes me uncomfortable. Also, using "security" when you mean "restricting what users can do with their own files
Re: (Score:1)
The BBC is far more than a news corporation. They produce an awful lot of content, much of it quite good, and this is paid for by British taxpayers (primarily from TV and radio licenses, IIRC).
Thus, for the BBC to want to make their content available to British citizens is perfectly understandable; while at the same time they may be less than happy for people in other countries to be able to access this material. In particular, they sell their content to other networks (Australia's ABC shows a lot of stuf
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't tell anyone, but we already do. Check, for instance, how many non-British people are posting on Doctor Who discussion forums the day after the UK broadcast.
Re: (Score:2)
the value of that content would likely be greatly diminished if people in other countries can download it from the BBC before their local networks can get access to show it.
Don't tell anyone, but we already do. Check, for instance, how many non-British people are posting on Doctor Who discussion forums the day after the UK broadcast.
Another example is "The IT CROWD". The DRMed streaming media files were ripped, stripped and on BitTorrent within hours. Followed up by the broadcast versions of each episode.
As
Re: (Score:1)
Anything that can be played can be recorded. If it comes in over the air to the TV, it can be recorded, if it can be played on my PC in it's DRM enabled player, I can capture those images and audio with the correct software.
And it doesn't matter than 99% of the population lack the skill, knowledge and care to do so, because it only takes one person of the remaining 1% to do the work and everyone with access to the Internet benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Helped of course by the fact that the BBC (and all the other channels that are on the "freeview" system) broadcast unencrypted digital streams which anyone in range of a transmitter can record with cheaply availible equipment.
Re: (Score:1)
The reason is, that someone will always be able to get around the DRM and it only takes one unprotected copy of something for it to be supplied to anywhere.
Also, it is clear that this service would only be an addition to the array of less-than-legal ways of watching t
Re: (Score:1)
Given that it's paid for by the citizens, the argument that they might be slightly less able to sell to other networks doesn't really hold - the whole _point_ of having a company funded by mandatory payments is to avoid all these sorts of negative decisions that the free market might cause a company to make. If they want to switch to being a c
Re: (Score:2)
More like licensing issues, which is something that most people don't need to think about, but when you are a huge publishing corporation with production in conjunction with
Re:Whats the Problem?? (Score:5, Informative)
Because we all pay for those BBC programmes with the special TV tax, this is unacceptable. We should be able to view the programmes without having to pay for an OS. Making a version for Mac doesn't change that, as it's still not free. Where's the equivalent of "Freeview" - "no subscription required"?
I don't care about 4od or Sky because my TV licence money has not paid for them. They're Windows only? Fine, whatever, I won't watch them. But the BBC's iPlayer is different, because my TV licence money has paid for it. Even though I have the required hardware and a decent net connection, I can't use it, because I don't have Windows XP. Apparently, I need to buy more software for my "television".
(Refer to the previous version of this topic [slashdot.org] for various reasons why it's a bad thing - there isn't enough news, so there have to be repeats...)
Re: (Score:2)
This argument has been given a lot of times before and has been beaten down to death. Right now I am too tired and sleepy and cannot be bothered to find citations, but the special TV tax does NOT include distribution over internet. You (and moderators) can look at any previous discussions about this subject.
This does not mean use of DRM is any good or a decision full of foresight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The BBC seems to believe that when broadcasting online the only way they can prevent the general population of the BBC's overseas viewers receiving the programmes is by only distributing to UK IP addresses, and using DRM to tie it to that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that as far as the BBC is concerned 'other platforms' == 'Mac'. They've only ever referred to the Mac when talking about non-Microsoft platforms, something I believe they are doing deliberately.
Re:Whats the Problem?? windows only forever (Score:3, Interesting)
Once you go MSFT you can never leave.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I simply don't believe them though. They claimed they'll report 'within two years' and have already said that timescale is unrealistically short. You also have the head of the project making anti-Apple comments, and Linux hasn't even got a mention.
By tying themselves to Windows DRM, they've closed all their options off already.
Re: (Score:1)
but doesn't it just reek of bribe? only takes one good bribe in the right place, sometimes...
Re: (Score:2)
"Later" as in at least two years. By then the infrastructure for MS DRM will be all pervasive and impossible to supplant. MS is being give a TWO YEAR (at least) monopoly in which it can use to make it impossible to change, by offering services ever more tightly intertwined with Windows. Any alternative will be in the position that competing office suites are now: it matters nothing that the alternatives are cheaper, better, more stable, the mo
Re: (Score:1)
> available to the vast majority of the people who paid for it first, this is normal.
"Normal" how, precisely? What prior example is there of a state-owned media corporate opening its archives for general perusal?
> This is like 4oD and SKY Anytime which currently only work with Windows XP (not even Vista).
This is *not* the same - 4 & Sky are standard commercial channels, unlike the BBC. The only reaso
Coincidence? (Score:2)
http://www.tomski.com/2007/06/from_bbc_to_psp_via
Bed partners (Score:5, Insightful)
Nick
* Not having a TV licence in the UK is very serious - you will be hounded incessantly and even get visits by the BBC licence people late at night (MIBS). The onslaught of not having a TV licence is very similar to deliberate tax evasion, but worse.
Re: (Score:1)
Also, I ditched my telly two years ago and after informin
Re: (Score:2)
To me that seems more like complaining that the BBC doesn't work with your NTSC TV.
Re:Bed partners (Score:4, Informative)
Also you can transcode/convert anything from PAL to NTSC. There is nothing stopping you. There is no such thing as "PAL will only work in xxxxx brand and you will be pirating if you convert/transcode to NTSC to view on your set".
Lets say you are a foreigner interested in BBC content and you hate piracy. You download the stuff on Windows Machine you own (and paid to MS) and for example you transcode it to a standard format like H264 or pure mpeg 4 to view on Apple TV or machine. You _will_ be breaching the license very seriously. First you would be hacking the DRM and secondly you would be transcoding.
One (if British) should ask: If BBC needs to make such weird sounding, suspicious agreements with a company condemned by EU for monopoly practices (MS Wmedia), why do they need to take money from TV licensing? If they need more money, there is always cash in Adult business but even Adult sites lets people to choose their media format.
Re:Bed partners (Score:4, Insightful)
Where to start...
Firstly, the BBC has a charter that it must abide by. While I, like you, would like to see the BBC develop its online content across as many platforms as possible (including MacOS and Linux) I think it's important to realise that making content available to everybody on every platform is not in the charter.
If the BBC were to roll out content that required a certain platform or (even platforms) then it wouldn't be in breach of its charter: if I wanted to access the content on BeOS, or OS/2, I don't have the "right" to demand that the BBC makes it happen.
While I have no doubt that it will eventually make content available on the big three (Windows, MacOS, Linux) there's nothing to stop the BBC making its first steps on one of the platforms only.
You'll notice that the BBC has several DAB-only radio stations. Well, just because I don't have a DAB radio, I'm not entitled to demand that those radio stations are made available to me via the analogue airwaves, am I?
Secondly, the BBC is not a monopoly. There are dozens of other TV broadcasters in the UK, dozens of other radio broadcasters and hundreds of news websites. The BBC may be the only one of them to benefit from the TV licence but it's not a monopoly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as your 'DAB radio' comment, sure, you need a 'DAB radio' - but you dont need any specific brand of one. The specification for that type of broadcast is fully and clearly documented, and anyone that has the appropriate skillset could build one. BBC doesnt design their content for specific brands of hardware, they comply with a public spec, and anyone is free to implement it. They should do the same with all their content, and they should be software neutral as well. They shouldnt b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because time-limited DRM is a technological absurdity. It can't be accomplished without perverting the very concept of a general purpose computer. The BBC has never required limitations like that before in other media (and they digitally broadcast all their content by radio waves, over the entire country, in the clear).
Requiring that particular "feature" is simply protectionist nonsense for Microsoft's benefit, and such anti-competitive requiremen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When BBC broadcasts over-the-air, there is no requirement that only Brand X TV's are able to receive the signal, and Brand Y VCR's are unable to receive it and record it to tapes which can subsequently be copied. Why does there need to be this requirement for shows transmitted over a packet network?
Neither ha
Re: (Score:1)
OK, so I have to buy a TV licence, whether or not I receive BBC transmissions. The BBC then use MY MONEY to develop something that deliberately bars me from using it as I do not use MS software (which tself has a similar licence).
So I am in the wrong?
Bollocks.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a TV that isn't receiving either an analogue or digital TV signal then you don't need a TV licence.
For example, if you have a TV and it's only connected to your DVD player or your games console then you don't need a TV licence.
Re: (Score:1)
"You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.
If you use a set-top box with a hi-fi system or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV Licence."
I think you will find any TV that 'can't display TV progra
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But if you have a TV and don't receive any such signal - for example, if you have a TV and only have it hooked up to your DVD player and use it just to watch DVDs - then you don't need a TV licence.
Don't want to take my word for it? Phone them up yourself, ask them and they'll tell you.
Re: (Score:1)
If the device CAN you need a licence - it doesn't matter what you say/think it can do, whether it does or not. You are guilty unless _you_ can prove the device DOES NOT or is INCAPABLE of receiving the signal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. Buy TV.
2. Do not connect the TV to an aerial or any other tuning device.
3. Use TV to watch DVDs, play console games, etc.
4. If they ask about your TV licence, tell TV licencing that you're not receiving a TV signal.
Is this really that hard for you to comprehend?
Re: (Score:1)
"You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.
If you use a set-top box with a hi-fi system or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or us
Re:Bed partners (Score:4, Informative)
You need to notify us in writing that this is the case and one of our Enforcement Officers may need to visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence.
There. YOU DO NOT NEED A LICENSE IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE TELEVISION PROGRAMMES ON YOUR TELEVISION. Can you stop being so fucking retarded now? You're making my head hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are stupid. You need a licence if the equipment CAN receive a signal - it doesn't matter if it doesn't. CAN is the key word.
If you read The Communications Act, 2003 (2003 c 21) and subordinate legislation S.I. 2004/692 (The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations, 2004) section 9, subsection 1 [opsi.gov.uk] you will find the following:
"television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving [...] any television programme service,
If your device is not used and not installed for receiving broadcast TV (example: a TV not tuned or connected to an aerial), you don't need a license for it.
Furthermore, if you write to television licensing and tell them your TV is used for gaming/DVDs only they will stop sending you letters; and if
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully, you didn't have a device that was capable of receiving radio waves either, otherwise they would have made you
Re: (Score:2)
That would be somewhat unlikely, given the radio licence was scrapped in 1971.
Re: (Score:2)
Once more, I will suggest that you ask the TV licensing people themselves if you don't believe me. Their own website spells it out pretty clearly, and others have linked to it and quoted the relevant sections, but if you still doubt me, those others, and the TV licensing website then I suggest you do what I'
in Soviet Finland (Score:2)
Merely for informative purpose, I thought I'd mention that Finland has a similar system of nationwide compulsory TV license whose profits only go to the state-owned channels (privately-owned channels don't get a penny out of it), supported by an increasingly sizable brigade of TV permit inspectors. People who flatly don't own a TV are immediately regarded as worthy of an impromptu inspector visit and of endless phone calls to inquire why the heck they haven't been a good Finn and paid their license like eve
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I can point to two friends who've both done so as evidence.
If you don't believe me, ring up the licensing people yourself and ask them.
Re: (Score:1)
In the 70/80s they would show a mysterious van with spinning dishes on the roof, which could zero in on unlicensed tvs
Theyll send old people whose job it is to get invited inside (yes like vampires) to verify if you have a tv.
Re: (Score:1)
My favorite quote from the site regarding 'cheating' (Hello 1984!):
"...We have a fleet of detector vans, plus, our enforcement officers have access to hand-held detection devices capable of detecting a magnetic field when a TV is switched on. In fact, we catch an average
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
As a random program I could think of that was about an hour long I looked up Spooks. Season 4 is 600 minutes long. It contained 10 episodes. Give or take a little for them running full trailers and rounding the numbers on Amazon then you're talking approximately 60 minute episodes. Wikipedia
Re: (Score:1)
Are you lying or are you clueless? Which is it? (Score:5, Informative)
A typical hour of BBC programming might have one or two 30 second trailers for upcoming programmes in it, and these trailers will be shown in the intervals between programmes: they certainly won't ever interrupt them.
There is no way that you can ever claim that there is a 24 minute programme followed by 6 minutes of ads, followed by another 24 minute programme and then another 6 minutes of ads.
Your claim that "[the BBC's] 'TV' hour is still 48 minutes" is complete and utter rubbish.
Either you're lying through your teeth or your completely clueless. Either way, I wish you'd stop making such ridiculous comments because they add nothing to the debate.
Re: (Score:2)
BBC programmes on commercial channels like UK Gold tend to run about 10 minutes longer than they do on the BBC so they can fit in ads. Remember that UK Gold is not free either, you need a Sky subscription for that.
I consider the TV licence better value than the Sky subscription although I do think the Sky+ PVR
Re: (Score:2)
Now, do you still want to carry on claiming that the BBC shows 12 minutes of ads per hour?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
--jeffk++
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how, pray, does the BBC detect the difference between a CRT monitor hook up to computer and a CRT TV set.
Indeed, however will they detect an LCD TV?
Re: (Score:2)
They detect the I.F. from the tuner that is retransmitted back up the aerial.
Indeed, however will they detect an LCD TV?
Exactly the same way, as it still has a tuner.
Re: (Score:2)
They detect the I.F. from the tuner that is retransmitted back up the aerial.
Indeed, however will they detect an LCD TV?
Exactly the same way, as it still has a tuner.
Hmmm... So, if one were to trap that "backwash" I.F. in some manner, then the TV, no matter if it's CRT or LCD, would, effectively, be undetectable?
My knowledge of R.F. engineering is woefully weak, but would there be some manner of ch
Re: (Score:2)
These days they just rely on their huge database of the UK and do a SELECT * FROM uk_address WHERE has_a_tv_license = 0;
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then we have the issue wea
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, why it should be necessary to compel all UK citizens who want to watch any sort of television, any of the other 80 or so channels available in the UK, to subscribe to the BBC on pain of criminal sanctions. This is what is wrong.
Various arguments are usually offered when one makes this point. Sometimes people say they like the BBC and its output. Fine, is that a rea
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who is perfectly healthy for their entire life still has to pay national insurance so that those who aren't healthy can get health care. Similarly, someone who doesn't watch the BBC but watches TV, still has to pay the BBC licence fee so that those who do want to watch it can do so.
I expect there's so
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, how much koolaid do you have to drink to actually make this into MS's fault? I suppose if they were using iTunes instead it would be Apple's fault, right?
This is just insane. MS makes DRM protection available, it doesn't give a flying F*** if anyone uses it, and they don't try to make people use it, in fact Gate has encourage people to not use since December of last year if their business model doesn't specifically need it (Yes he was saying
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And just to add to this - anyone without a TV licence gets this treatment, even if they don't have a TV.
And if you're unlucky like me one time, they cock up and give you this treatment even if you have a licence.
I don't mind the TV licence, but the way they enforce it is unacceptable - if any private company tried their tactics, they'd be done for harrassment, makin
Uh-oh... (Score:2, Funny)
OSC? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
What's more interesting.... (Score:4, Insightful)
3 or 4 years ago choosing a windows only solution would not cause you any pain. Increasingly, for popular internet multimedia sites, choosing a Windows only solution is more likely to cause you pain.
I consider this a good thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Another dupe (Score:2)
And don't tell me that it's an "update" because they both source the same Register story. [theregister.co.uk]
an online petition! (Score:2)