On 13/03/2008, Ivan Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > BBC reads the Guardian.
lol :-) I CC'd Mark since I mentioned him, and this is reproduced with permission: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mark Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 13 Mar 2008 14:24 Subject: Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over? To: Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Il giorno 13/mar/08, alle ore 13:28, Dave Crossland ha scritto: > On 13/03/2008, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 13/03/2008, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> It *appears* that it has. >> >> Confirmed. >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7293988.stm Like the Guardian article this morning, this one is entirely dishonest. Describing someone changing their browser identification string to 'iPhone' as a 'hacker' and the act of changing the string as 'hacking' is ludicrous and illustrates the length BBC PR is prepared to go to cover up: 1) The triviality of the 'restriction' to the iPhone. 2) The fact that the recent months 'quick hacks' to give the world a streaming iPlayer, and an iPhone service, have *completely* invalidated the arguments BBC have repeatedly made to justify why they have not provided a platform independent iPlayer. >> Anyone know Nokia's head of legals phone number? >> Or Google's? >> Or Samsung? >> Or LG? >> Or Sony? >> Or any other mobile phone vendor? >> >> Can the BBC really hope to survive the potential legal onslaught >> these >> vendors could bring? >> The trust have already ruled iPlayer must be made platform agnostic, >> the BBC have not only failed to do this but they have now acted >> directly against it (scanning for and blocking products not from >> "approved" vendors even if they posses the technical capabilities >> needed). A very good point. The BBC's arguments are *invalid* and are now being repeated disproved by their own actions. Taking simply the 'DRM argument', recent actions have show this to be a straw-man. They are quite happy to provide DRM free to a favoured device like the iPhone, and by extension to any device so long as they decide whether to provide or not. Similarly, the 'market share' argument is bullsh*t. Care to take a stab at the relative amount of UK Linux users compared with the number of iPhone users? I rest my case. > I don't think that kind of "onslaugh" is likely. > > Instead, I think the "illegal state aid" angle that the Open Source > Consortium is pushing has another sharp arrow in its quiver :-) It would be worth mentioning that the EU have now announced wide- ranging investigations into "illegal state aid" amongst state broadcasters. If a 'poster child' was needed, one would imagine the BBC would fit the part quite well. > The BBC is happy to dish out illegal state aid to Microsoft with the > WEAK excuse that its desktop operating system is the most popular one, > and it will serve the largest market sectors first. > > And now the BBC is dishing out illegal state aid to Apple, which is > tiny player, especially in the mobile space - despite that it has good > production design and public relations departments, which makes it > appear way bigger than it is. > > But as long as the BBC managers who decide policy - which is a few > very number of individuals indeed, Ashley Highfield being the main one > AFAICT - think that the issue is popularity of platform instead of > software freedom, the BBC will continue to dish out state aid to all > the major players (I suppose Nokia will be next) and mutilate the > ability of small players and startups to compete in the market. > > I suppose that if those policy makers used a GNU+Linux computer with > only free software, they might see the problem first hand. But I will > speculate that when Jono Bacon installed Ubuntu on Ashley Highfield's > laptop a couple of weeks ago, he installed the proprietary Adobe Flash > player. Having the proprietary Adobe Flash player installed suggests > to a user that iPlayer "works" on GNU+Linux, and there is no problem > in support for users of that OS. > > To conclude, the BBC cannot roll out a platform agnostic solution that > doesn't include giving illegal state aid, because to be platform > agnostic requires free software, and when the BBC agrees to use DRM it > agrees to give out illegal state aid. In my opinion. The essential point is that the "we must roll out to one platform at a time" is a bogus argument. An Open Standards based iPlayer built to be platform independent could be implemented anywhere and everywhere. It would also ensure that the BBC no longer leave themselves open to accusations of "foul play" and "illegal state aid". Until this point is realised we will simply see many more of these cheap publicity stunts, and the branding of everyday users who simply want a useable service as "hackers". Mark > -- > Regards, > Dave > This is personal opinion only, not the views of any employers past > or present. Mark Taylor President The Open Source Consortium Bringing Free and Open Source Software to the Public Sector -- Regards, Dave Personal opinion only, not that of any employers. - 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]/
