BBC's iPlayer To Be Crossplatform 232
craig1709 writes "10 Downing Street has responded to the petition to open up iPlayer access for those on other operating systems. While the wording is confusing, near as I can tell, they say they will make the iPlayer available to users of those operating systems. 'The BBC Trust made it a condition of approval for the BBC's on-demand services that the iPlayer is available to users of a range of operating systems, and has given a commitment that it will ensure that the BBC meets this demand as soon as possible. They will measure the BBC's progress on this every six months and publish the findings.'"
It's really amusing... (Score:3, Interesting)
If I were to look, would I be likely to discover the involvement of a certain company known for pushing closed, incompatible data formats centered on it's closed operating system?
Re:VLC can play Microsoft DRM content (Score:2, Interesting)
The content available through Bittorrent etc are usualy "TV rips" that is captured via a "TV tuner card" or as direct hdtv rips from satellite or cable providers.
This is NOT the same content that we are discussing as such content is technically illegal.
Since the iPlayer service is currently (I believe) in closed beta no one will have seen the files to try with VLC, however since this is FULLY DRM'd up complete with a "dies after a certain amount of time" and would require authentication of the iPlayer servers in order to work I cannot see VLC doing ANYTHING with these files. I really would love to be wrong, but since it cannot play encrypted tracks purchased from iTunes I doubt it.
Yep I'd prefer open formats, but the BBC don't own all the rights to it's content, so I'm prepared to meet them half way. I'll accept the DRM for as long as it does not force me into using a Microsoft OS.
Old news (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Every six months? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:BULLSHIT.... even more disturbing! (Score:4, Interesting)
The BBC Trust made it a condition of approval for the BBC's on-demand services that the iPlayer is available to users of a range of operating systems, and has given a commitment that it will ensure that the BBC meets this demand as soon as possible. They will measure the BBC's progress on this every six months and publish the findings....
So, if the BBC Trust's conditions have not been met by the BBC, why is this service being allowed to operate at all? There is no need to measure 'progress' on a commitment; it is just a YES or a NO.
What if only a few distros that accept DRM in the form of proprietary drivers from some select video cards.. are able to participate in this new thingy? Will that be measured as 'available on Linux'?
It's sad to see the BBC disobeying the BBC Trust, and getting away with this nonsense. While we get to read such nice articles on... yes, the same BBC!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6325353.stm [bbc.co.uk]
The freedoms built in to the net are under attack like never before, argues regular columnist Bill Thompson.
While Bill Thompson was talking about Windows Vista, he might have as well been referring to his own employer, the BBC. Sad state of affairs, really.
Re:They should use a cross-platform application... (Score:3, Interesting)
The tough part is the DRM and frankly I think they should forget about it, or at least loosen it up so it's not so evil. Let's face it, the majority of people just want to watch the shows on the computer or their other devices, not trade them on P2P networks. I doubt the trading scene for domestic non-commissioned shows isn't massive anyway. So make the app great and make people trust the app - it should allow me to choose how many files to cache and how long to keep them for. I should even be able to "keep" a file forever in the app's cache.
Furthermore I should be able to export files to H264, MPEG-SP or similar. The app could apply a watermark during export in case the file shows up in the wild but otherwise you have a genuine unencumbered file. Watermarking would require users to register their TV licence to use the app but that should be a pre-requisite anyway.
The net result would hopefully be a damned site better than the bloody mess that the BBC have inflicted on people with the iPlayer at moment. It's extremely badly written, requiring not only Windows XP (not Vista) but also IE6 and WMP. The developers would be far better off to cut the strings with Windows for their own sanity if for no other reason.
Re:Sadly more truth than joke. (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that Kontiki (the platform forced upon the BBC as the only off-the-shelf system available that handled all the drm and p2p side of things) only runs on Windows (and evidently the version the beeb uses only works on XP). The BBC are beholden to them wrt other platforms.
I suspect some of the bright people at BBC research are working on their own system for the other platforms (maybe even to replace kontiki). It really wouldn't be an insurmountable problem (it's not as if Kontiki is Rocket Science - it's a p2p distribution platform that leverages Windows Media DRM), build in a bittorrent client, maybe license FairPlay for the Macs and look into developing some sort of close-source playback system for Linux and they're onto a winner. They could then sell it to the other media companies who want to offer a cross-platform content-delivery system.
In response to multiple threads... (Score:4, Interesting)
A: You only pay the TV license if you own TV reception equipment - whether or not that makes it a "tax" is up for debate, but it is more-or-less ring fenced for broadcasting, and doesn't (e.g.) just disappear into the Inland Revenue coffers with your income tax. (There's a side-issue with convincing the TV license stormtroopers that you don't have TV reception equipment, but that's incompetence, not the law). Actually, I'd predict that as soon as media convergence "matures" this system will collapse - I don't think extending the definition of TV reception equipment to PCs and Internet would be tolerated - big media and comms. companies are already hostile towards this system and would roll out the astroturf like mad. In a sense, by pursuing online TV in any form, the BBC turkeys are voting for Christmas.
B: The BBC is not "run" by the government - lots of effort has been made to ensure that the management from the BBC is apolitical. Of course, this is totally immune from political appointments and back-room arm twisting - not!!! - but the thought is there. Like all journalists, the BBC news service is in the business of telling ripping yarns that get the viewers in, with accuracy and objectivity distinctly optional (e.g. the recent documentary on how nasty WiFi radiation fries kids brains, in which a tinfoil-hat salesman was given an uncritical platform) and this occasionally gets mistaken for political bias.
C: As far as I am aware, the BBC has no Royal Exemption from copyright and contract law and they have to deal with rights holders - much of their content is outsourced, bought in, involves card-carrying actors or is sold overseas (with various guarantees of exclusivity).
OTOH, this is all a bit nuts, since if you bung a DVB-T (terrestrial broadcast digital TV) card in your PC you can grab Dr Who, Torchwood and Heroes in ad-free wide-screen unencrypted MPEG2 goodness anyway (and 'Who is on continual re-run on BBC3 so you can't miss it!).
Re:Sadly more truth than joke. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sadly more truth than joke. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sadly more truth than joke. (Score:2, Interesting)
Makes me wonder, why aren't they simply using Silverlight. Supports WMV, WVM's DRM, and is multiplatform (Silverlight on Windows/Mac and 100% compatible Moonlight on Linux).
Also there is no guarantee that Silverlight 2 (embraced and extended!) with having some real important functions will be released as "Moonlight 2". Where is Mono supporting
They can use _any_ DRM of their choice as long as it is true multiplatform, Real comes to mind, even Quicktime DRM is possible. What should be done is stick with true standards like mpeg4/ASP or h264 which whole industry is moving.
They are already broadcasting in mpeg 4 if they have HD broadcast. DVB-S broadcast is mpeg-2 already.
Re:Sadly more truth than joke. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a shame really. Spotlight could be cool, however as usual, all other OSs are being treated as second-class citizens. I don't know why people keep buying into the MS PR stuff about anything from MS being cross-platform. I think people would have learned/learnt already that MS doesn't really do cross-platform.
MS claims
MS Office is another good example. Office 2004 for Mac is REALLY slow on my Intel iMac since it is PPC only and runs in Rosetta. I was trying to edit a SIMPLE one page MS Word doc in Office 2004 and my CPU kept jumping and the document would flash and redraw every 2-3 seconds. MS isn't updated Office 2004 to be Universal, so as usual any non-MS user has to wait.
Remote Desktop. Another PPC-only junk. Slow and I often would get errors just trying to connect. MS finally just came out with a Universal beta for RDC for Mac. Gee thanks, I only had to wait more than a year since I got an Intel Mac. Oh, were is the Linux RDC client from MS?
MS Media Player for Mac sucks. Well, there isn't one really. MS pushed it off to some other company and there is a plugin for Quicktime. With the free plugin I have a 50/50 chance of being able to watch a WMV, if it is DRM encrusted, forget about it on Mac or Linux.
The beta MS Office 2007 converter for Mac sucks. Someone sent me an Office 2007 Word docx. I tried to convert it with the converter and just got "format not supported". Great job!
I wish MS would truly do cross-platform of a few of their products for at least Mac an Linux. MS Office for Linux would be nice. However, I would settle for an official
I seem to feel like Microsoft WANTS me to not like them unless I submit to them and become MS only. Sorry, I like to actually have choice. I don't want to use their OS for personal use, I like other OSs better. However, I think
Re:Sadly more truth than joke. (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, it is not like the BBC is a private company that is making content on their own dime. If that was the case, then people could complain but wouldn't have much of a case since they didn't pay for the content. As it is now, the BBC content is a public good, payed for by the public and should not have artificial restrictions placed on it.