Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 25/06/07, Graeme Mulvaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If no iPlayer is preferable to a DRM iPlayer then what's the problem, just don't use the thing - nobody is forcing you to do anything. That, however much it might be your point of view, is not a choice. I don't agree with piracy and it annoys the hell out of me when I see entire episodes of BBC programming published on places like YouTube (admittedly in bite-sized 'fair-use' chunks) - I like DRM it helps to stop lazy people from getting 'creative' and using yet another web 2.0 service to 'mash-up' everything in sight, the intention isn't to stop you creating your own original content it's to guarantee a revenue stream for the creative types who originate stuff in the first place. The BBC should be, in my humble opinion, about creating content for the use of licence fee payers. As long as no payment is received, licence fee payers should be able to watch, listen, store, forward, cut-and-paste and mash up any content that is created in their name and with their cash. It's the only way to have a licence-fee funded BBC in ten years time. If the BBC heads down the subscription model, then that's it for it. It will become just another commercial company. I want a DRM version of iPlayer now!, not being able to record and 'fairly use' the programming in my mash-ups doesn't bother me at all - if I want to nick an episode of Dr Who or run a laughter track over Newsnight then there are plenty of other places I can look for the content. The fact that I've got MPEG-2 from DVB-T versions of all the recent Doctor Who on my hard drive is not an argument FOR DRM but against it... If it works well on Vista or XP then that's great - I'm glad the BBC is focusing on delivering the iPlayer on a computing platform that will reach over 90% of its' target audience, that represents great value for money and most people in the country probably couldn't care less either way. Not if you have only Macs in your home.Do Mac users qualify some something like a digital black and white licence? This has nothing to do with freedom of choice or public service remit... its just another woe-pen source bandwagon - instead of bickering about the BBC using Microsofts' DRM, get together and come up with a suitable open-alternative - that's why the open source movement started in the first place. DRM is designed to support a payment model - it is not an sensible solution for a public service broadcaster with a licence fee! On 6/25/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25/06/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could choice in this matter mean that iPlayer is available in one configuration on a TV, and also through a cable set top box? One product. Choice of methods. If the iPlayer did that then there would be choice! I think its a mistake to concentrate on choice: If that's what is promoted, then we'll just get a cross platform DRM system, which will be even worse, because even more people will get their freedom trampled. DRM is not acceptable, and no iPlayer is preferable to a DRM iPlayer because DRM tramples our freedom. Similarly, a DRM iPlayer only for Windows is preferable to a cross platform DRM iPlayer because it will harm less people, and those people not using Windows will more likely to understand why the lack of freedom inherent in DRM is unacceptable. -- Regards, Dave - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- You can't build a reputation based on what you are going to do. -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth On 25/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Act also states: (5) In performing their duty under this section of furthering the interests of consumers, OFCOM must have regard, in particular, to the interests of those consumers in respect of choice, price, quality of service and value for money. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30021--b.htm Notice how choice is listed first. And notice how the BBC have removed choice. Is it not OFCOM's duty to correct this, so as to further the interests of consumers, and also further the interests of citizens, (it's duties as defined by the Act)? Does it define what choice means? Because choice could be interpreted to mean many things. I can certainly see that choice could certainly be defined as having a selection from more than one without using a lawyer. But that's entirely my point. The definition of choice some people on this list will use, will not necessarily be the one Ofcom believes is the correct one. Like I say, choice is subjective. I remain interested in hearing what Ofcom's response is on the matter. Could choice in this matter mean that iPlayer is available in one configuration on a TV, and also through a cable set top box? One product. Choice of methods. If the iPlayer did that then there would be choice! You must have missed the announcements that there is going to be a version of iPlayer available through a cable set top box - initially to Virgin media customers. It's been a plan that's been around for a while, and was part of the iPlayer proposals that were recently agreed by the BBC Trust.
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 26/06/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The BBC should be, in my humble opinion, about creating content for the use of licence fee payers. As long as no payment is received, licence fee payers should be able to watch, listen, store, forward, cut-and-paste and mash up any content that is created in their name and with their cash. It's the only way to have a licence-fee funded BBC in ten years time. The arguments about this have been rehashed over and over again. You are not going to persuade anyone at the BBC of the rightness of your position by posting to this list. I happen to think you're completely wrong, on pretty much every count, but I'm not going to get involved with it here because it's frankly insulting to everyone on the list who's not interested in these interminable arguments which never actually get anywhere. If you're actually interested in a meaningful debate, as opposed to meaningless posturing, then post a coherent argument on a blog, send the list the link, and we can debate it via blog posts. Then anyone who's actually interested can follow and contribute to the discussion, while those who aren't won't have to suffer it.
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 6/26/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26/06/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The BBC should be, in my humble opinion, about creating content for the
use of licence fee payers. As long as no payment is received, licence fee
payers should be able to watch, listen, store, forward, cut-and-paste and
mash up any content that is created in their name and with their cash.
It's the only way to have a licence-fee funded BBC in ten years time.
The arguments about this have been rehashed over and over again. You are
not going to persuade anyone at the BBC of the rightness of your position by
posting to this list. I happen to think you're completely wrong, on pretty
much every count, but I'm not going to get involved with it here because
it's frankly insulting to everyone on the list who's not interested in these
interminable arguments which never actually get anywhere.
If you're actually interested in a meaningful debate, as opposed to
meaningless posturing, then post a coherent argument on a blog, send the
list the link, and we can debate it via blog posts. Then anyone who's
actually interested can follow and contribute to the discussion, while those
who aren't won't have to suffer it.
You're using Gmail (a fine choice, if I may say so): press the 'm' ('mute')
key. Think of the time saved not ranting on mailing lists!
http://www.google.com/support/a/users/bin/answer.py?answer=6594query=shortcutstopic=type=
P
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 25/06/07, Graeme Mulvaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This has nothing to do with freedom of choice or public service remit... its just another woe-pen source bandwagon - instead of bickering about the BBC using Microsofts' DRM, get together and come up with a suitable open-alternative - that's why the open source movement started in the first place. You mean like the one I've already posted: https://dream.dev.java.net/ ? Why the beeb, can't use a cross-platform, open DRM scheme is beyond me, but that's totally OT. Vijay.
RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
You're kidding, right? The service on Virgin isn't the iplayer, it's implemented via Virgin's existing service that already provides BBC repeats that's been running for a couple of years now. The same document approved the service but it is NOT the iPlayer. The PC TV download version part of it, is just one aspect of iPlayer - it is not the entirity of it by any means. The intentions of iPlayer being a cross-platform product have been there for a long time - even looking at how a service could be made available on Freeview. And yes, there is a BBC catch up service currently on Virgin, using the existing Virgin video on demand infrastructure and front end. However that's not iPlayer. Cable iPlayer is pinker for starters.
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 10:00 +0100, Ian Betteridge wrote: I happen to think you're completely wrong, on pretty much every count, So you think that DRM actually _works_ for its (supposedly) intended purpose, and prevents criminals from copying content? You think that it _won't_ end up just making life hard for the honest consumer and the developers who would like to build systems around the platform (incorporating support into other devices, etc.) -- while doing almost nothing to prevent the real copyright infringement? Or do you accept the obvious facts, but still believe that the BBC should pander to the people who ask for DRM, despite the fact that the BBC have to _know_ it's just snake oil, and are being very disingenuous if they're offering it as a solution to the alleged problem. -- dwmw2 - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 26/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're kidding, right? The service on Virgin isn't the iplayer, it's implemented via Virgin's existing service that already provides BBC repeats that's been running for a couple of years now. The same document approved the service but it is NOT the iPlayer. The PC TV download version part of it, is just one aspect of iPlayer - it is not the entirity of it by any means. The intentions of iPlayer being a cross-platform product have been there for a long time - even looking at how a service could be made available on Freeview. Not on the product I betatested... You have conflated other products into the iPlayer. And yes, there is a BBC catch up service currently on Virgin, using the existing Virgin video on demand infrastructure and front end. However that's not iPlayer. Cable iPlayer is pinker for starters. -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 11:36 +0100, Ian Betteridge wrote: On 26/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 10:00 +0100, Ian Betteridge wrote: I happen to think you're completely wrong, on pretty much every count, So you think that DRM actually _works_ for its (supposedly) intended purpose, and prevents criminals from copying content? As I said, David, I'm not going to discuss it here. If you want to discuss it, post your position on a blog, let me know where it is, and we'll talk about it. Discussing this kind of stuff on a technical list is inappropriate, and just ends up with a lot of annoying posturing. I don't think it's particularly off-topic at all. We're talking about a technical measure which gratuitously prevents the kind of development and collaboration which I thought this list was supposed to promote and encourage. I say 'gratuitously' because I don't think _anyone_ has seriously claimed that DRM actually works for its intended purpose. We all know it doesn't -- that it's just snake oil which the BBC are disingenuously using to fool rightsholders into _thinking_ that something has been done about the perceived 'problem' of illegal copying. There's been strange noises made about finding a business model which 'works without DRM'. Now that I _do_ think is a complete non-sequitur. We already _have_ a business model which works without DRM. DRM doesn't affect the business model; mostly because the major threat to the business model isn't actually prevented by DRM anyway. The business model didn't fail when the RIAA failed to ban video recorders. It didn't fail when CSS was cracked and subsequently ruled 'ineffective' and thus exempt from the EU-DMCA measures. I don't think we have to worry very much about it now, either. And even if we _do_ worry, DRM isn't the answer. But if you insist, try http://advogato.org/article/918.html -- dwmw2 - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth On 26/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're kidding, right? The service on Virgin isn't the iplayer, it's implemented via Virgin's existing service that already provides BBC repeats that's been running for a couple of years now. The same document approved the service but it is NOT the iPlayer. The PC TV download version part of it, is just one aspect of iPlayer - it is not the entirity of it by any means. The intentions of iPlayer being a cross-platform product have been there for a long time - even looking at how a service could be made available on Freeview. Not on the product I betatested... You have conflated other products into the iPlayer. I haven't done anything of the sort. The BBC has a plan for a range of products which are the iPlayer. The iPlayer you are thinking of is just one part of that plan. It is true that the PC download aspect is the one that has caught the headlines. However even the PC version of iPlayer is more than just downloads - it involves streaming and podcasts too.
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 6/26/07, Matthew Somerville [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Woodhouse wrote: I don't think it's particularly off-topic at all. We're talking about a technical measure which gratuitously prevents the kind of development and collaboration which I thought this list was supposed to promote and encourage. This is a discussion list for anyone keen to build interesting new prototypes or proofs of concept with BBC content. where BBC content would presumably be that supplied by the BBC under BBC Backstage, ie. at http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/data. I don't think never-ending arguments about DRM are in the spirit - at least, I don't think anyone has mentioned a prototype or proof of concept they'd be able to do if iPlayer didn't have DRM (and of course, you'd also have to be given the right to do whatever the prototype or proof of concept was, which I doubt the BBC would easily be able to arrange). As has already been said, there is nothing stopping anyone taking a DVB stream and doing what they like with it (in accordance with the law, of course). Unless iPlayer is magically going to interfere with my Freeview signal somehow? :-) Indeed. If you're that desperate for digital DRM-free content, stick a Digital TV card into your PC and record from that. Don't forget that the iPlayer is simply an extra way to deliver content, and whether it's DRM'd or not, platform specific or not, it still increases the number of people able to watch BBC programmes - just not as much or as quickly as the zealots here would like. It's *increasing* choice - especially if, like me, you live in an area where Freeview signal strengths are poor. As I've said before, it appears that people ranting about the evils of the iPlayer have little interest in the actual content, and more in using every thread on here as an excuse to get their own little soapbox out and start shouting about their bugbear of choice. Rich. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] DVD Region 2
In last weeks 'This Week in Tech' Leo Laporte made the point that many of the BBC's titles on DVD were only available on 'Region 2' format. Region 2 works fine on in Middle East, Iceland, Western Europe, Central Europe, Egypt, French overseas territories, Greenland, Japan, Lesotho, South Africa and Swaziland,but not in North America. A trip to Amazon.com confirms this. Perhaps there isn't much of a demand for BBC content from 300 million North Americans, but Leo was indignant anyway. We recently bought the entire series of MASH on DVD, it will take perhaps six months to get through it a leisurely pace. Six months when we won't be channel hopping, using Freeview or the IPlayer
RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth On 26/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth On 26/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're kidding, right? The service on Virgin isn't the iplayer, it's implemented via Virgin's existing service that already provides BBC repeats that's been running for a couple of years now. The same document approved the service but it is NOT the iPlayer. The PC TV download version part of it, is just one aspect of iPlayer - it is not the entirity of it by any means. The intentions of iPlayer being a cross-platform product have been there for a long time - even looking at how a service could be made available on Freeview. Not on the product I betatested... You have conflated other products into the iPlayer. I haven't done anything of the sort. The BBC has a plan for a range of products which are the iPlayer. The iPlayer you are thinking of is just one part of that plan. It is true that the PC download aspect is the one that has caught the headlines. However even the PC version of iPlayer is more than just downloads - it involves streaming and podcasts too. Tell you what, you go and actually read the BBC and Ofcom documents about the service so you know what you are talking about and then repost, eh? Sorry Brian but I don't think I'll bother. I won't bother because I've read many of those documents because I've been watching iplayer as an outsider with great interest - partly because iPlayer on Cable is being built in the very team I work in! It's one of many reasons why I've taken an interest in iPlayer (another is that I'm a Linux user at home and have been keeping my eye very closely on that ball) iPlayer is exactly what I said is it. It's a range of products which covers what is mentioned in this document, and its associated documents. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/30_04_2007.html You will notice that this covers: * Seven day catch-up television over the internet * Seven-day catch-up television over cable * Simulcast television over the internet * Non-digital rights management audio downloads over the internet (aka podcasting) Its true that the iPlayer term is not hugely used in there - it is referred to as the BBC's on demand proposals. It's also true that one of the consultation documents refers to the fact that the BBC could launch a version of the iPlayer using existing services (e.g. the AV console on BBC News, the Radio Player etc) without requiring a Public Value Test. But hey, tell you what... If you still don't believe me, I suggest you wait until launch and see who turns out to be right! ;)
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 26/06/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tell you what, you go and actually read the BBC and Ofcom documents about the service so you know what you are talking about and then repost, eh? So with this level of nascent demand, we want to make BBC iPlayer as widely available as possible, across as many platforms as is feasible. We're starting with the biggest available audience – the 22 million people who are broadband connected in Britain. The next biggest audience are 3 million cable homes. After that, it's Macs, media centres, and smart handheld devices. Once we've done all that, we'll turn to the really tricky platforms: DTT via either PVRs or IP hybrid boxes. Ashley Highfield, MILIA keynote speech, 18 April 2007. Andrew knows what he's talking about.
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 26/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth On 26/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth On 26/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're kidding, right? The service on Virgin isn't the iplayer, it's implemented via Virgin's existing service that already provides BBC repeats that's been running for a couple of years now. The same document approved the service but it is NOT the iPlayer. The PC TV download version part of it, is just one aspect of iPlayer - it is not the entirity of it by any means. The intentions of iPlayer being a cross-platform product have been there for a long time - even looking at how a service could be made available on Freeview. Not on the product I betatested... You have conflated other products into the iPlayer. I haven't done anything of the sort. The BBC has a plan for a range of products which are the iPlayer. The iPlayer you are thinking of is just one part of that plan. It is true that the PC download aspect is the one that has caught the headlines. However even the PC version of iPlayer is more than just downloads - it involves streaming and podcasts too. Tell you what, you go and actually read the BBC and Ofcom documents about the service so you know what you are talking about and then repost, eh? Sorry Brian but I don't think I'll bother. I won't bother because I've read many of those documents because I've been watching iplayer as an outsider with great interest - partly because iPlayer on Cable is being built in the very team I work in! It's one of many reasons why I've taken an interest in iPlayer (another is that I'm a Linux user at home and have been keeping my eye very closely on that ball) iPlayer is exactly what I said is it. It's a range of products which covers what is mentioned in this document, and its associated documents. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/30_04_2007.html You will notice that this covers: - Seven day catch-up television over the internet This is the iPlayer as I used and tested last year - Seven-day catch-up television over cable This is the existing Telewest-desiged cable TV STREAMING repeats service that already exists and is in use. - Simulcast television over the internet Again, not the iPlayer, as you can find for yourself by clicking on this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_661/newsid_6615400?redirect=6615433.stmnews=1nbram=1bbram=1nbwm=1bbwm=1 - Non-digital rights management audio downloads over the internet (aka podcasting) podcasting isn't the iPlayer either. Its true that the iPlayer term is not hugely used in there - it is referred to as the BBC's on demand proposals. It's also true that one of the consultation documents refers to the fact that the BBC could launch a version of the iPlayer using existing services (e.g. the AV console on BBC News, the Radio Player etc) without requiring a Public Value Test. But hey, tell you what... If you still don't believe me, I suggest you wait until launch and see who turns out to be right! ;) Well, as the bottom three services HAVE already launched, I don't dig your odds. At the very least, when people moan about the iPlayer it is the Seven day catch-up television over the internet that people object to, given the very real lack of DRM on the other three... -- Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 26/06/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, as the bottom three services HAVE already launched, I don't dig your odds. Actually, podcasts are still a trial. They haven't officially launched. And I refer you to the quote I sent, where Highfield quite clearly referred to services under the iPlayer name above and beyond the service you've banged on about. Or are you going to claim that he doesn't know what he's talking about as well? In which case I fully expect you to also declare that black is white and get run over on the proverbial zebra crossing.
RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
* Seven-day catch-up television over cable This is the existing Telewest-desiged cable TV STREAMING repeats service that already exists and is in use. Actually it's a trial. I wouldn't expect people to widely know that, because it was never labelled as a trial. It launched as a trial in order to feed into the Public Value Test for On Demand services. I had a tiny, diddy involvement in its launch. iPlayer on Cable is NOT the above, as I previously said. And I can say that for the reasons I have said. I won't bother to repeat them. * Simulcast television over the internet Again, not the iPlayer, as you can find for yourself by clicking on this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_661/newsi d_6615400?redirect=6615433.stmnews=1nbram=1bbram=1nbwm=1bbwm=1 I'm afraid I don't know the official status of streamed live News 24. However live streaming of BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four have all been done. As trials. Nothing more. * Non-digital rights management audio downloads over the internet (aka podcasting) podcasting isn't the iPlayer either. Actually they're trials. In this case, it is mentioned on the Podcasting page http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/waystolisten/podcasts/ As part of a trial we're offering a selection of programmes and highlights.. . Without the recent BBC Trust agreement for OnDemand proposals, podcasts and Cable CatchUp TV would have be turned off at their trial end. But that's not going to happen because they got signed off and everyone is happy.
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 26/06/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/06/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tell you what, you go and actually read the BBC and Ofcom documents about the service so you know what you are talking about and then repost, eh? So with this level of nascent demand, we want to make BBC iPlayer as widely available as possible, across as many platforms as is feasible. We're starting with the biggest available audience – the 22 million people who are broadband connected in Britain. The next biggest audience are 3 million cable homes. After that, it's Macs, media centres, and smart handheld devices. Once we've done all that, we'll turn to the really tricky platforms: DTT via either PVRs or IP hybrid boxes. Ashley Highfield, MILIA keynote speech, 18 April 2007. Andrew knows what he's talking about. To be honest you could read this both ways, either that the iPlayer will get to 22 million people THEN there is cable, or that the cable service will have a few letters changed on the header graphic... Getting back to the subject of this email, the sense that most people understand about iPlayer is perhaps not what is being currently used inside the BBC. -- Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
Basically what you are saying here is that these trail services (and yes I know that) will all be rebranded iPlayer. Given that the BBC keeps going from BBCi to bbc.co.uk and back again it is a little difficult for people who wish to be consistant to aruge about a service when things change. Basically, I was taking the running assumption that the iPlayer was basically what was I tested as the iMP but it now has live streaming and podcasts (how?) and also a cable service as part of the description. On 26/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Seven-day catch-up television over cable This is the existing Telewest-desiged cable TV STREAMING repeats service that already exists and is in use. Actually it's a trial. I wouldn't expect people to widely know that, because it was never labelled as a trial. It launched as a trial in order to feed into the Public Value Test for On Demand services. I had a tiny, diddy involvement in its launch. iPlayer on Cable is NOT the above, as I previously said. And I can say that for the reasons I have said. I won't bother to repeat them. - Simulcast television over the internet Again, not the iPlayer, as you can find for yourself by clicking on this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_661/newsid_6615400?redirect=6615433.stmnews=1nbram=1bbram=1nbwm=1bbwm=1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_661/newsid_6615400?redirect=6615433.stmnews=1nbram=1bbram=1nbwm=1bbwm=1+ I'm afraid I don't know the official status of streamed live News 24. However live streaming of BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four have all been done. As trials. Nothing more. - Non-digital rights management audio downloads over the internet (aka podcasting) podcasting isn't the iPlayer either. Actually they're trials. In this case, it is mentioned on the Podcasting page http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/waystolisten/podcasts/ As part of a trial we're offering a selection of programmes and highlights.. . Without the recent BBC Trust agreement for OnDemand proposals, podcasts and Cable CatchUp TV would have be turned off at their trial end. But that's not going to happen because they got signed off and everyone is happy. -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 25/06/07, Graeme Mulvaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't agree with piracy and it annoys the hell out of me when I see entire episodes of BBC programming published on places like YouTube Why does it annoy you? the BBC don't mind, if they did they would have asked google to take them down. I like DRM it helps to stop lazy people from getting 'creative' and using yet another web 2.0 service to 'mash-up' everything in sight, How much do you know about basic Computer Security concepts? Lazy people can bypass DRM, there are point and click methods for striping DRM. Add to that the BBC are using an extremely weak DRM scheme. All software DRM scheme's are crackable. We know this, it's due to the workings of CPUs and the laws of mathematics, mathematics won't change live with it. A DRM scheme can only be strengthened by reducing the incentive to attack it as it WILL fall apart under an attack by a skilled attacker. How do you reduce the incentive to attack the system? Well first off you make sure the minimum amount of content is protected using that scheme. This means any bespoke scheme is stronger than an off the shelf scheme (this is the opposite of things like encryption algorithms as they are based on the assumption they can not be broken and as soon as they are sufficiently broken they are decommissioned.) Secondly you don't unnecessarily limit use. For example you don't lock it to one OS. The BBC is ignoring both those facts to intentionally weaken any protection and to lock out certain license fee payers. Odd that they always claimed it was content producers who insisted on such protections. Are the producers happy the BBC is intentionally and knowingly weakening the DRM protection for the purposes of a third parties financial gain (Microsoft's shareholders)? the intention isn't to stop you creating your own original content it's to guarantee a revenue stream for the creative types who originate stuff in the first place. The intention is to block the use of non-MS products, presumably somebody at the BBC holds shares in this company and would like to increase there wealth. Any chance of the BBC stating whether their employees are MS shareholders or not? I want a DRM version of iPlayer now! And I would like the BBC to comply with British and European law without the need to involve regulators but the BBC refuse to comply with the law. If it works well on Vista or XP then that's great - I'm glad the BBC is focusing on delivering the iPlayer on a computing platform that will reach over 90% of its' target audience, that represents great value for money and most people in the country probably couldn't care less either way. It could have got one that worked with 100% of it's target audience, and for a better value for money. Release a standard for server to client interaction (including file formats), use previously published standards (which I helpfully listed for you). Should take less than a month. Someone will pop over to sf.net and start a project wait a while and there you get a cross platform iPlayer for no money what-so-ever. How could you beat that? This has nothing to do with freedom of choice or public service remit... its just another woe-pen source bandwagon - instead of bickering about the BBC using Microsofts' DRM, get together and come up with a suitable open-alternative - that's why the open source movement started in the first place. OpenIPMP! I mentioned it a very short while ago! Did you download it, did you read the documentation, did you read what it provides? It provides time constrained DRM, that's what you wanted wasn't it? Country locking is simple to implement, assuming you used a Linux OS, simple add a rule to block all non UK IPs to iptables. If you are using a Windows server, don't bother with DRM someone will just hack the server and grab the unDRMed file anyway (see metasploit for some examples). iPlayer has been completely mismanaged. Can the BBC confirm the fool in charge of it has been fired? They certainly should be or does the BBC not considered incompetence a problem? A huge indicator that iPlayer was mismanaged is evident from the choice of Windows Media Player. The BBC trust has told you it wants platform neutral. Read the judgement! When developing a cross platform application you have to be careful to make sure you don't stupidly tie yourself to one platform. If you have to use external libraries you make sure that: 1. It is cross platform 2. You know precisely how it works and you have all the information needed to reimplement it (i.e. you need all the standards defined). 3. You make sure you can port it to other platforms and are legally allowed to do so. The Windows Media Player and MS DRM libraries manage to fail all 3 of those tests. Which moron decided that it would be a good thing to use considering the requirement for it being platform neutral? Add to that the fact an EU court has found that WMP has already been used to
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
the intention isn't to stop you creating your own original content it's to guarantee a revenue stream for the creative types who originate stuff in the first place. The intention is to block the use of non-MS products, presumably somebody at the BBC holds shares in this company and would like to increase there wealth. Any chance of the BBC stating whether their employees are MS shareholders or not? We've been rumbled! After all that tireless work getting around the pesky internal conflict of interest paperwork, UK law, and EU law surrounding purchasing using public money all it took was an uninformed poster to an external mailing list to subvert the BBC/Microsoft conspiracy! The master plan, involving thousands of brainwashed employees and regulators, to slay all alternative operating systems and make some real money has been thwarted! (In case you haven't guessed, this is a **joke**, and is all my personal, satirical, opinion. I'm writing this on a Mac, anyhow) J - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] BT 21C SDK
http://sdk.bt.com/ This has just gone live (it was beta, or something, before). Very interesting. J - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
I am also against the use of WM DRM as a matter of principle, but I think we all have to realise that the iPlayer trial is a closed, walled-garden trial, and I fully expect the setup to change once a viable alternative is developed and brought to a quality level where it's robust enough to handle everything possible (including kids and grannies all using the same service, with their various skill levels)... ... What's that, nobody else has come up with a truly-viable open framework-based system which is production level ready? Oh dear, best get paying some developers then. The biggest problem I can see with an open-standards-and-framework DRM platform is that, because it's open, by its very nature everybody can see its innards and the hackers have an even easier starting point with which to break the system, because all the base code is given to them in a silver tarball. I'd much rather see an open, platform-agnostic DRM system for the iPlayer than a WM DRM short-term solution, but at the end of the day the implementation of any DRM system is a moot issue; it is all doomed to failure. This discussion has become more embedded in the particulars of one scheme versus another when I think we're forgetting that the BBC is largely at the behest of its many rights holders - all of whom (in my opinion) bandied together and forced the Beeb to implement a solution that suited _them_, not the BBC or the Trust's list of requirements. They had to bend to the will of the rights holders and agencies, because without content, any system will flop, regardless of whether it works on machines ranging from your mum's XP laptop to your geeky flatmate's BSD cluster. What's a Corporation to do? -Original Message- From: Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 June 2007 17:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised On 25/06/07, Graeme Mulvaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't agree with piracy and it annoys the hell out of me when I see entire episodes of BBC programming published on places like YouTube Why does it annoy you? the BBC don't mind, if they did they would have asked google to take them down. I like DRM it helps to stop lazy people from getting 'creative' and using yet another web 2.0 service to 'mash-up' everything in sight, How much do you know about basic Computer Security concepts? Lazy people can bypass DRM, there are point and click methods for striping DRM. Add to that the BBC are using an extremely weak DRM scheme. All software DRM scheme's are crackable. We know this, it's due to the workings of CPUs and the laws of mathematics, mathematics won't change live with it. A DRM scheme can only be strengthened by reducing the incentive to attack it as it WILL fall apart under an attack by a skilled attacker. How do you reduce the incentive to attack the system? Well first off you make sure the minimum amount of content is protected using that scheme. This means any bespoke scheme is stronger than an off the shelf scheme (this is the opposite of things like encryption algorithms as they are based on the assumption they can not be broken and as soon as they are sufficiently broken they are decommissioned.) Secondly you don't unnecessarily limit use. For example you don't lock it to one OS. The BBC is ignoring both those facts to intentionally weaken any protection and to lock out certain license fee payers. Odd that they always claimed it was content producers who insisted on such protections. Are the producers happy the BBC is intentionally and knowingly weakening the DRM protection for the purposes of a third parties financial gain (Microsoft's shareholders)? the intention isn't to stop you creating your own original content it's to guarantee a revenue stream for the creative types who originate stuff in the first place. The intention is to block the use of non-MS products, presumably somebody at the BBC holds shares in this company and would like to increase there wealth. Any chance of the BBC stating whether their employees are MS shareholders or not? I want a DRM version of iPlayer now! And I would like the BBC to comply with British and European law without the need to involve regulators but the BBC refuse to comply with the law. If it works well on Vista or XP then that's great - I'm glad the BBC is focusing on delivering the iPlayer on a computing platform that will reach over 90% of its' target audience, that represents great value for money and most people in the country probably couldn't care less either way. It could have got one that worked with 100% of it's target audience, and for a better value for money. Release a standard for server to client interaction (including file formats), use previously published standards (which I helpfully listed for you). Should take less than a month. Someone will pop
RE: [backstage] BT 21C SDK
Ah, another person on the 21CSDK mailing list ;) Have you seen how much the access credits are priced at, though? Wow! -Original Message- From: Jason Cartwright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 June 2007 18:01 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] BT 21C SDK http://sdk.bt.com/ This has just gone live (it was beta, or something, before). Very interesting. J - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] BT 21C SDK
Very Cool. 250 texts for £10 via a API, awesome. I'm paying 6p/msg at the mo. 4p is very good value. Now placing voice calls in an app S -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 26 June 2007 18:01 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] BT 21C SDK http://sdk.bt.com/ This has just gone live (it was beta, or something, before). Very interesting. J - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] DVD Region 2
On Jun 26, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Ben O'Neill wrote: Do regions actually mean anything anymore? Most of my DVD players can play any region, only a really old Sony one enforced the regions. Ben O'Neill [EMAIL PROTECTED] True for those living in the UK. You can go to any shop and pickup a DVD player that automatically plays multi-region. Here in the US, that is not the case. It is much harder to find such DVD players. There are some listed online, but you never know the quality of them. I've seen some that work, but many of them that do not work correctly as they've been modified 'chipped' poorly to play regions other than region 1. It comes down to demand. Here folks do not want multi-region as the majority of people can already get the content they wish for in region 1. That said, I wish we didn't have regions, as I would buy content from other places around the world. Anyway, I'll stop there, otherwise this will get into a discussion about DVDs. Davinder
Re: [backstage] DVD Region 2
Here in the US, that is not the case. It is much harder to find such DVD players. Because they contravene the DMCA act? IANAL, and certainly not across american law, but I thought it expressly forbade the circumventing of content locks? Incidentally, I'm sure the only reason BBC content isn't widely distributed on DVD in the US is because no DVD releasing/licensing companies have bought the DVD distribution rights to the content in that territory. It's certainly not a mysterious conspiracy against TwiTs. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BT 21C SDK
I'm paying less I think from www.bulksms.co.uk and they have a API too On 26/06/07, Simon Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very Cool. 250 texts for £10 via a API, awesome. I'm paying 6p/msg at the mo. 4p is very good value. Now placing voice calls in an app S -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 26 June 2007 18:01 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] BT 21C SDK http://sdk.bt.com/ This has just gone live (it was beta, or something, before). Very interesting. J - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] DVD Region 2
If someone else says conspiracy do they find themselves back in Kansas? On 26/06/07, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here in the US, that is not the case. It is much harder to find such DVD players. Because they contravene the DMCA act? IANAL, and certainly not across american law, but I thought it expressly forbade the circumventing of content locks? Incidentally, I'm sure the only reason BBC content isn't widely distributed on DVD in the US is because no DVD releasing/licensing companies have bought the DVD distribution rights to the content in that territory. It's certainly not a mysterious conspiracy against TwiTs. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
RE: [backstage] BT 21C SDK
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 18:15 +0100, Simon Cross wrote: 250 texts for £10 via a API, awesome. I'm paying 6p/msg at the mo. 4p is very good value. Now placing voice calls in an app Alternatively, I think the BT Together Option 3 Anytime Plan gives you 200 texts for £7.95 -- assuming you have a landline for it, of course. And it's simple enough to send/receive using something like Asterisk or Callweaver with app_sms. Be careful of BT's SMS services though -- not only can they not send to non-UK mobile numbers, but they can't even manage to deliver to UK mobiles when they're roaming abroad. You might want to use someone more competent, if that bothers you. -- dwmw2 - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6236612.stm The charge concerns the use of Microsoft technology in the corporation's forthcoming iPlayer. On the BBC News website. Using the meaning I said! TYS On 26/06/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am also against the use of WM DRM as a matter of principle, but I think we all have to realise that the iPlayer trial is a closed, walled-garden trial, and I fully expect the setup to change once a viable alternative is developed and brought to a quality level where it's robust enough to handle everything possible (including kids and grannies all using the same service, with their various skill levels)... ... What's that, nobody else has come up with a truly-viable open framework-based system which is production level ready? Oh dear, best get paying some developers then. The biggest problem I can see with an open-standards-and-framework DRM platform is that, because it's open, by its very nature everybody can see its innards and the hackers have an even easier starting point with which to break the system, because all the base code is given to them in a silver tarball. I'd much rather see an open, platform-agnostic DRM system for the iPlayer than a WM DRM short-term solution, but at the end of the day the implementation of any DRM system is a moot issue; it is all doomed to failure. This discussion has become more embedded in the particulars of one scheme versus another when I think we're forgetting that the BBC is largely at the behest of its many rights holders - all of whom (in my opinion) bandied together and forced the Beeb to implement a solution that suited _them_, not the BBC or the Trust's list of requirements. They had to bend to the will of the rights holders and agencies, because without content, any system will flop, regardless of whether it works on machines ranging from your mum's XP laptop to your geeky flatmate's BSD cluster. What's a Corporation to do? -Original Message- From: Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 June 2007 17:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised On 25/06/07, Graeme Mulvaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't agree with piracy and it annoys the hell out of me when I see entire episodes of BBC programming published on places like YouTube Why does it annoy you? the BBC don't mind, if they did they would have asked google to take them down. I like DRM it helps to stop lazy people from getting 'creative' and using yet another web 2.0 service to 'mash-up' everything in sight, How much do you know about basic Computer Security concepts? Lazy people can bypass DRM, there are point and click methods for striping DRM. Add to that the BBC are using an extremely weak DRM scheme. All software DRM scheme's are crackable. We know this, it's due to the workings of CPUs and the laws of mathematics, mathematics won't change live with it. A DRM scheme can only be strengthened by reducing the incentive to attack it as it WILL fall apart under an attack by a skilled attacker. How do you reduce the incentive to attack the system? Well first off you make sure the minimum amount of content is protected using that scheme. This means any bespoke scheme is stronger than an off the shelf scheme (this is the opposite of things like encryption algorithms as they are based on the assumption they can not be broken and as soon as they are sufficiently broken they are decommissioned.) Secondly you don't unnecessarily limit use. For example you don't lock it to one OS. The BBC is ignoring both those facts to intentionally weaken any protection and to lock out certain license fee payers. Odd that they always claimed it was content producers who insisted on such protections. Are the producers happy the BBC is intentionally and knowingly weakening the DRM protection for the purposes of a third parties financial gain (Microsoft's shareholders)? the intention isn't to stop you creating your own original content it's to guarantee a revenue stream for the creative types who originate stuff in the first place. The intention is to block the use of non-MS products, presumably somebody at the BBC holds shares in this company and would like to increase there wealth. Any chance of the BBC stating whether their employees are MS shareholders or not? I want a DRM version of iPlayer now! And I would like the BBC to comply with British and European law without the need to involve regulators but the BBC refuse to comply with the law. If it works well on Vista or XP then that's great - I'm glad the BBC is focusing on delivering the iPlayer on a computing platform that will reach over 90% of its' target audience, that represents great value for money and most people in the country probably couldn't care less either way. It could have got one that worked with 100% of it's target audience, and for a better value for
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 26 Jun 2007, at 17:33, Andy wrote... A lot of junk that he's ranted about before at great length, probably written in the typed equivalent of green ink I would actually love you name these people at the BBC who are conspiring to defraud the public, because then they could sue you for libel and perhaps, just perhaps, that might stop you making such an idiot of yourself on public forums. To put it bluntly: iPlayer supports Windows only at the moment. Get over it. Can we please move on, now? - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 26 Jun 2007, at 20:24, Brian Butterworth wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6236612.stm The charge concerns the use of Microsoft technology in the corporation's forthcoming iPlayer. On the BBC News website. Using the meaning I said! TYS So... you're taking the writing of a non-technical journalist on BBC news over the words of both Ashley Highfield and someone working in the same team as the iPlayer/Cable project? OK! That makes sense. Did you spend the last two hours scouring the BBC web site to find any reference that proves you're right? You must be right! It's all a conspiracy! They're trying to... erm... make things! - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
Andy, if I had been the fool in charge of it, let me assure you by now I would be taking legal action against your repeated public accusations of corruption and misuse of public funds by individuals within the BBC. martin currybet.net . On 26/06/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25/06/07, Graeme Mulvaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't agree with piracy and it annoys the hell out of me when I see entire episodes of BBC programming published on places like YouTube Why does it annoy you? the BBC don't mind, if they did they would have asked google to take them down. I like DRM it helps to stop lazy people from getting 'creative' and using yet another web 2.0 service to 'mash-up' everything in sight, How much do you know about basic Computer Security concepts? Lazy people can bypass DRM, there are point and click methods for striping DRM. Add to that the BBC are using an extremely weak DRM scheme. All software DRM scheme's are crackable. We know this, it's due to the workings of CPUs and the laws of mathematics, mathematics won't change live with it. A DRM scheme can only be strengthened by reducing the incentive to attack it as it WILL fall apart under an attack by a skilled attacker. How do you reduce the incentive to attack the system? Well first off you make sure the minimum amount of content is protected using that scheme. This means any bespoke scheme is stronger than an off the shelf scheme (this is the opposite of things like encryption algorithms as they are based on the assumption they can not be broken and as soon as they are sufficiently broken they are decommissioned.) Secondly you don't unnecessarily limit use. For example you don't lock it to one OS. The BBC is ignoring both those facts to intentionally weaken any protection and to lock out certain license fee payers. Odd that they always claimed it was content producers who insisted on such protections. Are the producers happy the BBC is intentionally and knowingly weakening the DRM protection for the purposes of a third parties financial gain (Microsoft's shareholders)? the intention isn't to stop you creating your own original content it's to guarantee a revenue stream for the creative types who originate stuff in the first place. The intention is to block the use of non-MS products, presumably somebody at the BBC holds shares in this company and would like to increase there wealth. Any chance of the BBC stating whether their employees are MS shareholders or not? I want a DRM version of iPlayer now! And I would like the BBC to comply with British and European law without the need to involve regulators but the BBC refuse to comply with the law. If it works well on Vista or XP then that's great - I'm glad the BBC is focusing on delivering the iPlayer on a computing platform that will reach over 90% of its' target audience, that represents great value for money and most people in the country probably couldn't care less either way. It could have got one that worked with 100% of it's target audience, and for a better value for money. Release a standard for server to client interaction (including file formats), use previously published standards (which I helpfully listed for you). Should take less than a month. Someone will pop over to sf.net and start a project wait a while and there you get a cross platform iPlayer for no money what-so-ever. How could you beat that? This has nothing to do with freedom of choice or public service remit... its just another woe-pen source bandwagon - instead of bickering about the BBC using Microsofts' DRM, get together and come up with a suitable open-alternative - that's why the open source movement started in the first place. OpenIPMP! I mentioned it a very short while ago! Did you download it, did you read the documentation, did you read what it provides? It provides time constrained DRM, that's what you wanted wasn't it? Country locking is simple to implement, assuming you used a Linux OS, simple add a rule to block all non UK IPs to iptables. If you are using a Windows server, don't bother with DRM someone will just hack the server and grab the unDRMed file anyway (see metasploit for some examples). iPlayer has been completely mismanaged. Can the BBC confirm the fool in charge of it has been fired? They certainly should be or does the BBC not considered incompetence a problem? A huge indicator that iPlayer was mismanaged is evident from the choice of Windows Media Player. The BBC trust has told you it wants platform neutral. Read the judgement! When developing a cross platform application you have to be careful to make sure you don't stupidly tie yourself to one platform. If you have to use external libraries you make sure that: 1. It is cross platform 2. You know precisely how it works and you have all the information needed to reimplement it (i.e. you need all the standards defined). 3. You make sure you can port it to other platforms and are legally
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 26/06/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26 Jun 2007, at 20:24, Brian Butterworth wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6236612.stm The charge concerns the use of Microsoft technology in the corporation's forthcoming iPlayer. On the BBC News website. Using the meaning I said! TYS So... you're taking the writing of a non-technical journalist on BBC news over the words of both Ashley Highfield and someone working in the same team as the iPlayer/Cable project? OK! That makes sense. I was joking, obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have stuck the TYS on the end. In fact, if you read the article it refers to the Windows based catchup service as the iPlayer only in the text and all the services (excluding cable and the later services) as the iPlayer in the infobox. In fact I should really take the BBC News website as read because it is supposed to have gone though all those BBC jounalistics processes that take so many talented people to invoke. Many people I have spoken to inside and outside the BBC do indeed suggest that Mr Highfield's comments should be taken with advice. Prey oh exhalted one, tell me great oracle, whence is a simple licence fee payer supposed to know whence the definition of the iPlayer product is to be definitity found? And also why! Did you spend the last two hours scouring the BBC web site to find any reference that proves you're right? You must be right! It's all a conspiracy! They're trying to... erm... make things! Too less than ten seconds, I have RSS feeds you know! - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 26 Jun 2007, at 20:48, Brian Butterworth wrote: I was joking, obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have stuck the TYS on the end. In fact, if you read the article it refers to the Windows based catchup service as the iPlayer only in the text and all the services (excluding cable and the later services) as the iPlayer in the infobox. Ahh, an acronym I'm not familiar with! Ignore the rest of what I said then... Many people I have spoken to inside and outside the BBC do indeed suggest that Mr Highfield's comments should be taken with advice. In general, yes, but when it comes to strategy I'd suggest he knows what's going on. What's going on might not be any good, but that's another argument... Prey oh exhalted one, tell me great oracle, whence is a simple licence fee payer supposed to know whence the definition of the iPlayer product is to be definitity found? And also why! When it's actually released? - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] DVD Region 2
Leo's minor gripe was that a show that he would love to watch (Stephen Fry's QI - based on him viewing clips on youtube) wasn't available for him to buy on region1 dvd, what he didn't mention (probably didn't know) was that it's not available anywhere, its not released in the UK until middle of August. His main point was that if copyright owners were to make their programmes available worldwide for a reasonable fee then he'd gladly pay it to watch UK tv programmes. Looking on Amazon there are loads of region1 BBC series available, the most popular region1 dvd across all platforms (dvd/HD/bluray) on amazon.com is BBC's Planet Earth. Dave - Original Message - From: Richard Hyett To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:19 PM Subject: [backstage] DVD Region 2 In last weeks 'This Week in Tech' Leo Laporte made the point that many of the BBC's titles on DVD were only available on 'Region 2' format. Region 2 works fine on in Middle East, Iceland, Western Europe, Central Europe, Egypt, French overseas territories, Greenland, Japan, Lesotho, South Africa and Swaziland,but not in North America. A trip to Amazon.com confirms this. Perhaps there isn't much of a demand for BBC content from 300 million North Americans, but Leo was indignant anyway. We recently bought the entire series of MASH on DVD, it will take perhaps six months to get through it a leisurely pace. Six months when we won't be channel hopping, using Freeview or the IPlayer
Re: [backstage] DVD Region 2
Leo was voicing a more widely held perception amongst those with a higher than average level of technical knowledge. He thinks that much BBC content is not available region1 and so do lots of others. The fact that he was mistaken about Q1 is not really the point. A search on Dads Army on amazon.com reveals three DVDs, two of which are Region2 http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-0128029-8990273?url=search-alias%3Dapsfield-keywords=dads+army How many people buying DVDs understand 'regions' either in the UK or USA? How many are willing to jump the hurdle and find out? On 26/06/07, Dave Whitehead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Leo's minor gripe was that a show that he would love to watch (Stephen Fry's QI - based on him viewing clips on youtube) wasn't available for him to buy on region1 dvd, what he didn't mention (probably didn't know) was that it's not available anywhere, its not released in the UK until middle of August. His main point was that if copyright owners were to make their programmes available worldwide for a reasonable fee then he'd gladly pay it to watch UK tv programmes. Looking on Amazon there are loads of region1 BBC series available, the most popular region1 dvd across all platforms (dvd/HD/bluray) on amazon.com is BBC's Planet Earth. Dave - Original Message - *From:* Richard Hyett [EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:19 PM *Subject:* [backstage] DVD Region 2 In last weeks 'This Week in Tech' Leo Laporte made the point that many of the BBC's titles on DVD were only available on 'Region 2' format. Region 2 works fine on in Middle East, Iceland, Western Europe, Central Europe, Egypt, French overseas territories, Greenland, Japan, Lesotho, South Africa and Swaziland,but not in North America. A trip to Amazon.com http://amazon.com/ confirms this. Perhaps there isn't much of a demand for BBC content from 300 million North Americans, but Leo was indignant anyway. We recently bought the entire series of MASH on DVD, it will take perhaps six months to get through it a leisurely pace. Six months when we won't be channel hopping, using Freeview or the IPlayer
