BBC To Create 'Catch-Up TV Player'

grouchal writes "The BBC Trust (a semi independent regulator) has just approved the BBC's efforts to launch iPlayer (no new info on this link yet). This means that UK residents can watch broadcast BBC programs out of sync with the broadcast schedule by up to 30 days for free. The iPlayer will launch for the PC but is expected on Media Center, Xbox 360 devices in the near future. The approval also included some constraints." This would really have made my life a lot simpler when my tivo died a couple of weeks ago.

OS X as well...

[BWJones (18351)]

I should also add that the BBC will also support OS X [macworld.co.uk].

Re:OS X as well...

[xoyoyo (949672)]

Not according to the BBC:

But the trust has asked the BBC to ensure that the iPlayer computer application can run on different systems - such as Apple Macs - within "a reasonable time frame".

Earlier this month BBC Future Media boss Ashley Highfield said the corporation was committed to rolling out the iPlayer on Windows PCs first of all, and then cable TV services, Apple Macs, and eventually Freeview boxes.

But the BBC said it could not commit to a two-year deadline to achieve this goal, saying it was up to the third parties concerned. (my emphasis)

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6607083.s tm [bbc.co.uk]

iPlayer is built on top of Windows Media Player using Windows DRM - part of the BBC's stunning support for open standards and multiplatform development. Even if they do ship it for Mac the DRM issue will probably limit the programmes you can download.

Re:OS X as well...

[crush (19364)]

I don't get the BBC at all. They make a lot of noise about how they can't release some material in some formats because it would create competition for private industry, but then they prop up the largest monopolist in software world. They also waste massively stupid amounts of bandwidth by broadcasting their archived material in e.g. RealPlayer format instead of something more compact like OggVorbis or even MP3 (take a listen to their BBC7 [bbc.co.uk] radio station), there's no need to broadcast that material in that high a quality. It makes it wasteful for most people to listen online and it creates exactly what they say they want to avoid: a very high quality digital copy that competes with commercial vendors (e.g. of books on CD).

Re:OS X as well...

[TobascoKid (82629)]

Personally I'd have expected the BBC Trust to represent the licence payers rather than the competition.

They actually take both sides into account. I think they try to be biased towards the licence fee payer though.

UK Resident

[Short Circuit (52384)]

This would really have made my life a lot simpler when my tivo died a couple of weeks ago.

Not really...You're not a UK resident.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Gotcha! Should be Doctor 'oo.

Linux?

[apodyopsis (1048476)]

They are also looking at releasing the whole BBC archive to viewers as well.

see http://www.pandia.com/sw-2004/33-bbc.html [pandia.com]

Xbox 360, PC, MEdia Center and other devices?

from TFA "The iPlayer computer application will only be initially available to those with Windows PCs. But the trust has asked the BBC to ensure that the iPlayer computer application can run on different systems - such as Apple Macs - within 'a reasonable time frame'. "

So how long before we can get this on Linux? or the PS3?

And

Re:

[Marcion (876801)]

Not reasonable at all, do I get cash back until they make Linux work?

Re:

[byolinux (535260)]

They'll never make a GNU/Linux version of the iPlayer. Never ever ever.

At best, someone might be able to get their proprietary player running under Wine.

We should tell the BBC this is unacceptable - http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/ [bbc.co.uk]

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Yes it's completely unacceptable that someone who knows absolutely nothing things they'll never ever ever make a Linux version of the iPlayer.

Are you kidding me? This hasn't even been released yet (for ANY OS) and you're already lighting up the torches. Give it time, in the meantime, just use a newsreader for christ's sake. Once the program is available for OSX it's not too hard to then port it to Linux in one way shape or form.

breathe deeply and repeat after me:

this is a good idea, let's see where they go

Re:Linux?

[Ngwenya (147097)]

Firstly, I think it very unlikely that the current iPlayer mechanisms would/could be be ported to Linux. They're heavily dependent on Windows DRM, which in turn is heavily dependent on the Windows architecture (complete with Windows' methods for detecting debugger operations to prevent DRM bypass). Thus, while the APIs could be replicated on Linux/OS X, the protections would be trivial to bypass. Leaving aside whether MS would permit a porting effort.

OS X probably has a better shot - since you could implement the APIs without much extra paranoia, but use the inbuilt TPM on Intel Macs to ensure the OS and running environment was in a known good state. Since you can't count on a Linux box having a TPM, you can't make reverse engineering of the DRM system more difficult.

For what its worth, the tech guys at the BBC are fully aware of Linux, and it is in their plan to support it via iPlayer. The best way of accomplishing this isn't through technical means, but political. It's important for people to understand why the BBC is using DRM. They don't want to - it just increases running costs and introduces new points of failure into an already complex system. But the programme makers (who are often not the BBC) together with the contracted personnel who produce the programs insisted that any attempt to broadcast content in the clear would count as unlimited repeat broadcast. Which is fine, but it would cost the BBC a fortune to pay out as per contractual requirements. Hence the DRM enforced limitations, which are a sort of contractual enforcement by proxy. A pretty crappy one, but one which the lawyers would accept.

It's a simple problem to state, but hard to fix at a technical level - because there's no real technical problem. Existing contracts for TV works are written in language which predates the Internet and the on-demand style of viewing. Thus, it's always expressed in terms of initial showings, repeat fees, differential media exploitation rates, etc. Recent contracts which the BBC is creating are far more encompassing of alternative distribution technologies. So the final solution is to get far more sane exploitation rights written into contracts, which accurately reflect TV watching habits of the 21st century, and to stop wishing that the Internet and its on-demand modes of use would just go away.

Of course, the ultimate stupidity of all of this is that the programmes are being broadcast in digital form completely unencrypted right now! DVB-T/C/S transmissions spit this stuff out in full resolution (whereas iPlayer doesn't) which a $200 PC card can receive and store the content on a persistent device. It's almost like the the lawyers put their fingers in their ears and sang "Lalala! Can't hear you!" when this gets mentioned.

End result: Build a MythTV box with a Freeview card. You can suck down as many channels as you like and keep it for ever. Transcode to H.264 and a 500GB hard disk will keep 6 months of programming easily.

--Ng

Re:Linux?

[Splab (574204)]

As a sibling has said, what the hell do you know?

Here in Denmark we have our public TV online already, and that plays on all operating systems, although linux is still playing in a lower resolution than under windows. All it requires is installing mplayer and getting the mplayer MS codecs (they are legal in EU).

Still DRM'ed

[Metaphorically (841874)]

It's still tied by DRM to the one platform so I don't give it high chances for success. I guess they have a lot of money to keep it afloat it if flounders for a while then catches on (I'm trying to avoid CmdrTaco's fate with the iPod prediction here).

But is there no MythTV or Tivo-type solution available in the Britain? I mean it's publicly funded so shouldn't people get more control over what they've paid for?

An historic day

[15Bit (940730)]

After months of careful preparation and a dedicated training regime, the slashdot editors have today finally reached the summit of typographical errors - screwing up the world's most recognisable acronym at the beginning of the story headline. Well done guys - you should be proud.

Re:

[prefect42 (141309)]

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/anhistoric.html [wsu.edu]

As such, most people consider both to be acceptable.

Not UK resident

[pubjames (468013)]

If anyone from the BBC is reading this, as a non-UK resident I would be happy to pay the annual licence fee if I could get access to the UK BBC channels.

If you could make it work with my Apple TV, even better!

Re:

[Metaphorically (841874)]

That's the problem with building more closed systems: the BBC has to see your request to make that happen. Using open protocols or at least published APIs allow anyone interested enough to create that interface for you. For your Apple TV there are a limited number of ways for you to get what you want and I think they involve Apple and BBC deciding there's an audience that's worth serving.

Best of luck.

how do you do it?

[potat0man (724766)]

This would really have made my life a lot simpler when my tivo died a couple of weeks ago.

My goodness I know. It's a wonder how we make it through the day.

iWhat?

[jamesl (106902)]

How long before iApple and iJobs get the iLawyers to send a iMail to BBC for an iNappropriate and possibly iNfringing use of an iWord?

DRM'd pile of crap

[MartinG (52587)]

Even though I am a UK BBC license fee payer, I won't be able to use this service I have paid for, because I don't use Windows and in and case I'm mot prepared to accept DRM.

I'll continue downloading DRM free BBC shows via bittorrent just as I have for a while now. I have no moral objection to doing this since I've paid for the content anyway.

How long are we going to continue in a situation where the unofficial channels of content delivery are superior to the official ones? Surely it can't be forever and DRM will soon have to die?

Re:DRM'd pile of crap

[MartinG (52587)]

1) copyright infringement is not theft.

2) I have, on occasion decided to download instead of buying because it's the ONLY WAY to get content without DRM. You say "stealing" causes DRM, but I think it's the other way around. I would be perfectly prepared to pay for non-DRM'd content and I accuse anyone who disagrees with my of judging me by their own standards.

Re:DRM'd pile of crap

[ajs318 (655362)]

The BBC produce some of the world's finest television content, and this is mostly due to the way they are funded. If the BBC relied on advertising sponsorship, programmes would end up being made to suit the advertisers. If the BBC relied on general taxation, programmes would end up being made to suit the government.

The BBC is in the pockets of nobody but viewers. If that changes, the quality of programmes WILL worsen. Look to the communist system (where factories are run for the benefit of lazy workers) and the capitalist system (where factories are run for the benefit of rich shareholders) for examples of how things can go wrong when production is tailored to anyone other than the poor sod who has to spend their hard-earned on your products.

BBC could make it big(ger)

[nightsweat (604367)]

Let non-UKians pay for a TV license and get access to all the online services. £135.50/year to get access to all of BBC programming and that massive back catalog? I'd certainly consider it.

Re:

[xoyoyo (949672)]

Er, yes. That is indeed a video codec. Is it used in iPlayer? Not at the moment, no. The Dirac team seem to think it may "possibly" be used as the codec for a future platform agnostic iPlayer. Note "future".

Even if it were added to iPlayer WMP is a container and can handle multiple codecs so there'd be nothing to stop the BBC encoding content using its own codec and still have it viewable in WMP. The codec is much less significant than the DRM approach chosen.

Re:

[TobascoKid (82629)]

requires a valid postal address (easily forged).

Seeing as the "armed wing of the BBC" (The TV Licensing Authority) has a database with every household in the UK on it, and the name of the Licence holder for that address, it may not be that simple.