Slashdot Log In
BBC Threatened Over iPlayer Format
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Jun 22, 2007 03:11 PM
from the and-watch-out-for-apple-with-that-name dept.
from the and-watch-out-for-apple-with-that-name dept.
greengrass sends us to coverage in The Register of the Open Source Consortium's threatened anti-trust challenge against the BBC over its use of Windows Media format in its on-demand service, iPlayer. From the article: "The OSC will raise a formal complaint with UK broadcast and telecoms watchdog Ofcom next week, and has vowed to take its accusations to the European Competition Commission if domestic regulators do not act. The OSC compared the situation to the European Commission's prosecution of Microsoft over its bundling of Windows Media Player with Windows."
Related Stories
[+]
BBC's iPlayer's Prospects Looking Bleak 369 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The future of iPlayer, the BBC's new online on-demand system for delivering content, is continuing to look bleaker. With ISPs threatening to throttle the content delivered through the iPlayer, consumers petitioning the UK government and the BBC to drop the DRM and Microsoft-only technology, and threatened legal action from the OSC, the last thing the BBC wanted to see today was street protests at their office and at the BBC Media Complex accompanied by a report issued by DefectiveByDesign about their association with Microsoft."
[+]
BBC's iPlayer To Be Crossplatform 232 comments
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.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
BBC Threatened Over iPlayer Format
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 269 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Iplayer is temporary? (Score:1)
Wasn't it called Dirac or something?
Glad to see this. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday November 14 2003, @03:56PM)
Re:Glad to see this. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:H2g2bob)
And the BBC would want to protect it's content because it sells quite a bit of its content to other countries; plus sells DVDs of some stuff too. This money goes back into making programs.
Needs to go further. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://lists.clickers.org/linuxsig/index.html | Last Journal: Friday November 09, @11:00PM)
Governments, funded by the PUBLIC should put their stuff in PUBLIC format.
and when software patents get in the way, the PUBLIC should demand that law serve the PUBLIC interest. Software patents are bogus and they are the only reason there's a format problem in the first place.
The BBC shouldn't need to be told. (Score:2, Insightful)
I like to at least have a choice of media formats available...
Blogs... (Score:2, Informative)
(http://beplacid.net/)
Hmm. (Score:1)
(http://www.everybodysucksbutme.com/)
They're a major source of world news, and someone wants to start a fire because of pure hate for Microsoft?
It's not like they didn't take the time to measure out their options, they're a media broadcasting company for Christ sakes. They've been around a few decades before media player even existed, and I'm pretty sure they're wise enough to decide on their own player even if they needed to purchase it with pocket change.
Real Player (Score:3, Funny)
No it's okay (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, from a view across the pond (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://czyanglican.blogspot.com/)
Now on the flip side, these are private enterprises and can do pretty much whatever the hell they want in terms of formats, which usually means finding a way to reach the largest audience possible while still protecting the content. But it seems to me that as conventional TV dies, from DVR's and competition from cable/sat channels, they are trying to expand viewer ship and trying to find what works online. I'm not sure anyone's got it quite figured out yet, but are trying.
Leave the BBC alone (Score:2, Interesting)
Now the open source movement wants to harass them as well? This needs to stop. In time the BBC will realise that the Kontiki platform is poor, sucks away bandwidth without asking and renders all their material unportable. They can do that on their own terms with consultation from their users - they do not need more legal trouble which will take up time and leave the BBC even more vulnerable. The public corporation is not the for-profit corporation's bitch.
Sign the Petition (Score:3, Informative)
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/iplayer/ [pm.gov.uk]
hmmph (Score:1)
(http://thescarletcars.blogspot.com/)
Formats... (Score:1)
Where's Dirac? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://trog.qgl.org)
PC video is for amateurs (Score:2)
The language of TV's -- TV's not PC's -- is H.264/AAC, if you are making video and you don't speak it, you're not saying anything. You are showing snow on your TV station. This is the replacement for both DVD and VHF.
Blu-Ray, HD DVD, iPod+iTunes, iPhone, PSP, AppleTV, and many other devices can only play H.264, it is in their hardware, they don't have a big general purpose CPU upon which you can run multiple software codecs. Google is transcoding YouTube from H.263 to H.264 for this reason and because that is the standard in professional video.
There are more TV's and phones than PC's and that will always be the case. AppleTV is a next-generation DVD player same as Blu-Ray or HD DVD except the optical drive has been replaced by a Wi-Fi "n" connection and iPhone is the same thing in your pocket, there is no going back now.
By the way, the server software for MPEG-4 streaming is free, open source, very mature, and runs on any Unix or Windows server. MPEG-4 is the standardization of QuickTime so the tools are mature. There is no content tax, there is no streaming tax, the only thing anybody pays for is the encoder and it is dirt cheap. If you're paying Microsoft so that you can not use H.264 then it boggles the mind. Especially when you consider there are more iTunes users than Windows Media Player.
This stuff was standardized in like 2002, BBC should have heard about it by now, there is this thing called the Internet. It's grim to see organizations embarrassing themselves like this, BBC should know what's going on in TV.
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://tommyd.beeze.com/)
It seems that the Beeb is concerned about DRM -- it's easy to validate this argument as a content provider if it is not a free service.
What choices are out there if the main concern is vendor lock-in? What "open" DRM alternatives exist?
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday May 17 2004, @01:05PM)
(ahem posted from IE6 in windows - at work, honest!)
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday August 17, @08:29AM)
The iPlayer, on the other hand, requires you to watch the programs on one piece of software running on one operating system produced and sold (and not cheaply) by a single company. Sure, it's currently, the most common operating system, but the two things are not comparable.
I'm not sure what the "enhanced podcasts" are. I think they're
Re:Could be worse... (Score:2)
(http://wakaba.c3.cx/)
Re:What BS (Score:5, Insightful)
I see, and do you happen to be an elected government that pays for running that Website by collecting tax dollars from the people (at gunpoint if need be)? I didn't think so.
Indeed, what BS (Score:5, Informative)
The "Enhanced Podcast" appears to be an MPEG-4 container with an AAC "track" and a still image "track."
Re:What BS (Score:2)
(http://wakaba.c3.cx/)
The beeb is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Tuesday August 07, @01:18PM)
Re:The beeb is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://nick.tn-uk.net/)
No, and that's what the complaint if for. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://lists.clickers.org/linuxsig/index.html | Last Journal: Friday November 09, @11:00PM)
Oddly named bittrollent asks:
Is this really your idea of freedom?
I'm not sure what the question means, but a government agency publishing things in a format that's owned by one company is pushing that company's fortune at the expense of all others. Why should governments cede control of their media and who watches it to a private company, especially a foreign one? People who pay their taxes deserve to be able to watch the results without having to pay the M$ tax.
If there's a problem with software patents involved here, the problem should be taken care of directly. Software patents lead to nonsense like this and should be abolished. There's no justifying the social cost of business method patents, which is what software patents ultimately are.
It's closed, and it's broken (Score:5, Interesting)
It started badly - it refuses to accept registrations via firefox (no technology issue - just a browser check which barfs). Once I switched to IE, it let me go further - registration followed by the download of a
So I tried again, and after much mucking about, finally got in. The UI is very very bad - but I navigated to my favourite programme, which claimed it had episodes available - but once clicked stated none. So I went for my second favourite programme - same again. And so on.
So - two weeks after first receiving an invitation to give up; after switching browsers, downloading software, installing it, changing my media settings, registering multiple times, and clicking through a clunky interface multiple times, all to no avail, I gave up.
If the bbc were working in an open way - maybe, just maybe, they'd have access to a wider range of talents - or perhaps competing suppliers and technology platforms - and have delivered a usable product. As it is, we're all subject to two monopolies, who'll slowly and cumbersomely work towards a semi-acceptable solution at great cost. And in doing so, the BBC will help Microsoft maintain its hegemony - remember - it wouldn't let us use Firefox just to register and download the software.... defend that.
Re:No, and that's what the complaint if for. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 07, @07:05AM)
Take a look at the market for downloadable TV shows. There are two reasons for doing it:
- Time shifting.
- Location shifting.
The former is trivially done with VCRs, DVRs, etc. Now let's look at the second reason. How many people are going to want to location-shift their TV viewing from the big TV in their living room to their computer screen? A few maybe, mainly geeks and students (or student geeks). Now, how many are going to want to location shift to a mobile device?My mobile phone, and any relatively recent phone, can play video. It has a 1GB memory card, which at the resolution of the screen is more than enough for a number of TV shows. I also own a Nokia 770, and an iPod (my iPod is pre-video, but the point stands). Any of these devices can play DRM-free MPEG-4 video. The 770, or a modern iPod would be a great device for putting TV shows on to watch on the bus or train (for example).
The decision to go with Microsoft's DRM is that Microsoft have the largest chunk of the desktop market, but they have very little presence in the mobile arena. There are a few MS Smartphones, and maybe a few Zunes (I don't think they're released here yet, but someone might have imported one). Now, imagine how this landscape would change if the only mobile devices that could play BBC TV for the next two years were those with a Microsoft OS. Where do you think Nokia/Sony Ericsson/etc phones would be if the Microsoft ones could play BBC TV shows but theirs couldn't? What about the iPod? There isn't much legal video content around (the iTunes store in the UK has very little). Releasing BBC shows in a Zune-friendly format would very rapidly mean that there was a lot of (taxpayer-funded) content for the Zune that wouldn't work with the iPod (or any other players).
Microsoft is already being prosecuted by the EU for attempting to use its desktop monopoly to gain a media format monopoly. It beggars belief that tax-payers' money from an EU member state would be spent re-enforcing this monopoly.
Re:Good for OGG format? (Score:1, Troll)
(http://nick.tn-uk.net/)
Re:Good for OGG format? (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Tuesday July 31, @03:01PM)
Recently, the BBC did a deal with Microsoft regarding the distribution of digital content via its web sites. As usual, they trumpeted it as if it were a great breakthrough on news.bbc.co.uk. I'm sure google can find it.
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:1)
Re:So what SHOULD they use? (Score:5, Insightful)
The BBC already broadcasts their programming, in MPEG-2 at more or less DVD quality, unencrypted, over the public airwaves, all over the UK - in the form of digital terrestrial television. This is their primary reason for existence. There is no sight or sign of DRM anywhere near it. It is utterly trivial to record this with a computer and DVB capture card, hardware which is cheaply and widely available. Most popular BBC programmes are already recorded in this fashion and posted on thepiratebay.org within 12 hours.
This is the same content that they are now releasing onto the internet. It is quite obvious that if they didn't need DRM to broadcast it over radio in the first place, they don't need DRM to broadcast exactly the same stuff again over IP. It is further obvious that the simplest thing for them to do would be to use exactly the same codec that they are already using. There is no apparent reason why they should suddenly propose a far more limited and ineffective system just because the carrier system is IP rather than radio.
It is pretty obvious that Microsoft is involved in this one somewhere, and that's almost certainly illegal.
No amount of DRM on the IP version is going to have any effect at all on the material available on TPB, because all the content is already on the net and will continue to be posted there from the digital terrestrial broadcasts (no proposals are currently being made to post any of the BBC's considerable archive of material on the net, only some of the things which are currently being broadcast). The quality is better in the terrestrial broadcasts than in the iplayer system anyway, so iplayer is never going to be used as a source for TPB when the far better DVB version is readily available. The entire proposal is retarded: they are seriously suggesting a service which is lower quality, less convenient, and already less popular than TPB, with DRM crippling thrown in just to make it entirely unwanted. It's a complete waste of time and money, because everybody with an interest will just keep using TPB instead.
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:2)
(http://www.last.fm/user/smackhero/)
ah yes, maybe we should take away wheelchair access ramps too. i mean, if the disabled don't like it, they're free to not shop at those stores after all. brilliant!
for the rest of us who think that a public-funded media corporation should provide equal access to all users who've already paid into the content, this challenge is long overdue. considering the BBC's reputation for being a progressive organization that's usually very in touch with its viewers/users, it's actually kinda odd that they would have ignored this issue for so long.
from my understanding (from the BBC Backstage mailinglist), this has been brought up by developers before. the BBC is actually pretty good at responding to user feedback, and work closely with the open source community through BBC Backstage. they typically support using open standards, but there's a lot of pressure from content producers to lock it down and cripple its usage with DRM. so i can understand that they're in a tough position, but i have faith that they'll reach some sort of compromise that will be better than the current arrangement.
Re:So what SHOULD they use? (Score:2)
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/sinistertim101 | Last Journal: Saturday March 24 2007, @12:32PM)
I use it on Linux because its the only player with correct color callibration for my laptop where the colors are not too dark and are richer. I have even installed the latest version on a windows system and it showed no signs of malware and it was lean and mean compared to Quicktime and ms media player.
But the problem is DRM. DRM in itself means we can not control it so a corporation decides what we use and that is almost always IE/Windows because its what everyone else uses. Firefox can not have a chance if IE is needed to listen to music on yahoo or watch shows on the BBC.
The BBC is a tax payer funded community media. Why should it cater to DRM and pleasing MS? If they want to make revenue off of shows then fine but at least put their news portion on non drm like CNN does. You can also add drm to ogg, mp3 or any other format by scrambling it. Real media player used to advertise this and it pissed off many users but the fact is the PHB's at the BBC will refuse anything without DRM.
Re:Typical (Score:2)
The pragmatic wing, i.e. the 'Open Source' movement base their support for open source development on the belief that it will produce a higher quality product, at least in the long run, whereas for the 'Free Software' movement it's a matter of ideology. Richard Stallman and his followers prefer open source software that matches their ideology, even if it's technically inferior to the alternatives.
Stallman and the 'Free Software' movement are of course entitled to their views, but all the rhetoric about freedom is just a propaganda technique, like the American Cold War practice of treating capitalism and democracy as synonyms, or the Marxist practice of referring to totalitarian socialist states as 'democratic people's republics'.
At the end of the day, the FOSS advocates make some good (and also some hopelessly poor) arguments, and it's quite interesting to watch the development of the various software camps (proprietary, copyleft, fully open, etc.). The references to 'freedom', however, are just rhetoric, and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Re:So what SHOULD they use? (Score:2)
They should use nothing.
That's because as a British citizen, I pay a yearly license fee that goes towards the funding of the BBC to make TV and radio programming - something I whole-heartedly support if it keeps the BBC advert free.
Therefore, I've aleady "bought" those programs once and should therefore be free to use them as I see fit - and in an unrestricted fashion since, as a license fee payer, I'm also primarily a Linux user.
Incidentally, I happily buy BBC DVDs and video/hard-disk recorders have not killed DVD sales so far.