> So what you are really saying is that as long as it is not generally known that saving streams is easy to do, then this is fig leaf to placate the rights holders.
To be less glib than I have been on here recently, erm, pretty much that is it. *I* know you can rip streams to files to keep for ever pretty easily. *You* all know you can rip streams to files to keep for ever pretty easily, probably easier and quicker than I could manage. The key people at the BBC know that too. But so long as it is *sufficiently* too much effort or too much of a secret for joe schmoe in the street, the rights-holders are kept happy. There was a great comment on The Register article about how the iPlayer was a waste of money - "It is still frustrating that instead of using their negotiating power and influence to try to make the producers see some sense, the BBC resorted to the easy option of spending millions on a useless product" Because obviously, the producers were so desperate to give their products away for free it was only the BBC negotiating stance of *not* giving stuff away for free that was a factor ;-) As I've said before, look at the radio podcasts. Where the BBC *can* give stuff away for free in a format that is economical to deliver to the *majority* of users it will. Nobody thinks DRM is safe - it just has to be "safe enough". Nobody has sold streaming as "safe" for content holders, but it is "safe enough"... And there are still rights holders for whom the DRM'd download solution isn't good enough - that is why not every programme broadcast by the BBC is in iPlayer - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
