Re: [backstage] iPlayer Today?
On 28/07/07, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andy, it would probably also be common sense to read around on the topic before insulting the majority of the BBC developers who frequent this list. I read the restrictions that the BBC *claims* it has to implement. However the section about specific implementations having to be accepted by certain people makes it sound awfully like a prohibited agreement (Section 2, Competition Act 1998 particularly in relevance to: (b) limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment;) It is the requirement to have time-windowed DRM implementation, not the ability to write cross-platform code, that is the issue. That would actually be the same issue. No iPlayer client existed when the BBC started the project. They created it. The BBC claim (possible incorrectly) that there exists no cross platform DRM solution, and yet they never considered creating it. If you find no adequate solution to your problem then most people would _at least_ consider the 2 options that all such projects have of coping with this problem. 1. Develop it yourself (in house so to speak). 2. Pay someone else to develop it for you. The FOI response shows the BBC never even _considered_ such options. At the very least that is neglegent. If the BBC had considered and rejected such solutions _with valid reasons_ then it would be a different matter. They didn't though. I assumed seems the BBC didn't develop cross platform, or platform independent when _ordered to do so_, that they did not know enough to do so. Are you saying they knew how to produce a cross platform system and refused to do so despite there obligations? At the time, the only two solutions deployed at scale on the internet were Microsoft's DRM, and Apple's Fairplay DRM. Fairplay did not include the ability to expire content, and therefore could not meet the minimum requirements for our rights at all. As above, if there is no adequate solution, you develop your own! Why is this _so_ difficult? All you really need is a format for describing restrictions (how about something based on XML) and some kind of cryptographic system. Oh and look, Java (a platform independent language!!!) has in it's standard library classes for reading XML and using strong encryption. (I think Python may have these facilities too but not being a Python expert I can't be sure). The Trust has noted the strong public demand for platform neutrality and is concerned to ensure that the BBC meets this demand as soon as possible. The Trust acknowledges the BBC's commitment to platform neutrality and has taken account of the Executive's response that a two year deadline is unworkable because success is dependent on third parties outside of the BBC's control. However, in the interest of those members of the public who will be disadvantaged until this matter is resolved, the Trust will audit the BBC's progress against this objective every six months and publish its findings. Anyone notice how complete parts of that are blatantly untrue? I assume that is a mistake and not intentional deception. because success is dependent on third parties outside of the BBC's control. Which magical 3rd parties would this be? The BBC has the option to develop it's own DRM solution. DRM is like any other program. It's just a set of instructions. When I write a new program for Linux I don't phone Linux Torvalds for his permission, I can just write it. The BBC could have done the same. Add to that the fact that Linux is happy to allow you to put code into it's kernel should it need to do privileged tasks (which DRM shouldn't actually need to do, it's more for device drivers needing to write to IO registers) So why does the BBC need a third party to develop a DRM format? (also there is now cross platform time limited DRM so what more does a third party need to do?). Oh and Chris, if you are having problems with things starting at start up that you don't want to you might want to try Spybot Search Destroy ( http://www.safer-networking.org/en/index.html ). Spybot SD can show you what's set to run at startup and disable it. There was a time when all your startup programs were in a folder in the start menu, now they can be listed in several registry locations as well so it's easy to miss one. Oh and the problem with 40D, iPlayer and Sky Anytime possibly interfering with each other could be fixed by having one single open client (by open I mean anyone can publish content on it), didn't someone at the BBC say this as well? Maybe they are indeed wiser than I give them credit for. Oh well I'm off to go and see how hard it is to actually make DRM for Linux. I am not a cryptographer though, so off the shelf crypto it has to be (which is actually considerably more secure for many reasons). Though I still don't understand why bit torrent was not usable. It's a file transfer system, it can transfer files with DRM protection and the file
Re: [backstage] Making the underground accessible to all
On Friday 27 July 2007 19:03, Dave Crossland wrote: Sun announced an intention to release Java under GPLv2. http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/ From Open Source Java Technology Quote Sheet – What People Are Saying About This Announcement -- http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/media/presskits/2006-1113/quotesheet.pdf I think Sun has well, with this contribution have contributed more than any other company to the free software community in the form of software. It shows leadership. It’s an example I hope others will follow. -- Dr. Richard Stallman, Founder of GNU Project and Free Software Foundation It is not free now. You sure? Michael. - 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] Making the underground accessible to all
On 29/07/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 27 July 2007 19:03, Dave Crossland wrote: Sun announced an intention to release Java under GPLv2. http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/ Roadmap. What are the remaining key steps that Sun and the OpenJDK community are planning ... Clearing remaining encumbrances - http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#y Remaining key steps? Remaining encumbrances? May 24, 2007 ... The majority of OpenJDK code is released under the GNU General Public License Version 2 (GPLv2). Certain source based on existing open source projects will continue to be available under their current [proprietary] licenses. ... Not all of the source code that makes up the JDK is available under an open-source license. - http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/ It is not free now. You sure? Yes. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer Today?
On 27 Jul 2007, at 16:18, James Bridle wrote: Looking forward to seeing what it looks like in XP on my Intel Mac... I installed it under Parallels on my MacBook Pro yesterday. No problems during installation (I had sorted out any WMP issues a couple of months ago when I last tried it). The video plays fine in a window, but is choppy and pixelated full screen. I would be interested to hear if it's any better under VMware Fusion. Cheers Jonathan - 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] iPlayer Today?
Oh hark, I hear the ill-informed rabid bleat of the one-issue conspiracy theorists with absolutely no interest in the BBC and its content. Again... Must be full moon soon. * sigh * Rich. On 7/29/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 28/07/07, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andy, it would probably also be common sense to read around on the topic before insulting the majority of the BBC developers who frequent this list. I read the restrictions that the BBC *claims* it has to implement. - 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] Can we have a developer mailing list?
Is there any chance of a separate developer list for discussion of APIs, services, Geek events, etc. The BBC with the encouragement from Ian Matthew are providing some great sources of information for doing mashups and organising some great events like Hackday, but this mailing list is just becoming a BBC Bashing list. Adam - 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] iPlayer Today?
The choppy and pixelated video issue is due to a lack of sufficient drivers for the Mactels to enable DirectX-accelerated hardware video rendering for video playback (hardware-accelerated DX primary surfaces are just something you take for granted until they go wrong or disappear entirely one day!) What you've described sounds like a classic case of a graphics driver running in low-acceleration mode or entirely in software acceleration mode. :/ -Original Message- From: Jonathan Tweed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 July 2007 16:40 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] iPlayer Today? On 27 Jul 2007, at 16:18, James Bridle wrote: Looking forward to seeing what it looks like in XP on my Intel Mac... I installed it under Parallels on my MacBook Pro yesterday. No problems during installation (I had sorted out any WMP issues a couple of months ago when I last tried it). The video plays fine in a window, but is choppy and pixelated full screen. I would be interested to hear if it's any better under VMware Fusion. Cheers Jonathan - 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] iPlayer Today?
On 7/29/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would actually be the same issue. No iPlayer client existed when the BBC started the project. They created it. The BBC claim (possible incorrectly) that there exists no cross platform DRM solution, and yet they never considered creating it. If you find no adequate solution to your problem then most people would _at least_ consider the 2 options that all such projects have of coping with this problem. 1. Develop it yourself (in house so to speak). 2. Pay someone else to develop it for you. Options 3, Buy an off the shelf solution and use it. Bonus points if the people whose content your licensing are happy with it and will endemnify you against someone cracking it. At the time, the only two solutions deployed at scale on the internet were Microsoft's DRM, and Apple's Fairplay DRM. Fairplay did not include the ability to expire content, and therefore could not meet the minimum requirements for our rights at all. As above, if there is no adequate solution, you develop your own! Why is this _so_ difficult? All you really need is a format for describing restrictions (how about something based on XML) and some kind of cryptographic system. If you think cryptography will solve your problem, you don't know anything about cryptography, and you don't understand your problem. Given we all know DRM's broken, yet is mandated by the people who own the content, what's better for the BBC to do? Write it's own and be responsible for fixing any breakages, or use one the content providers are happy with? Mike - 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] iPlayer Today?
I concur with Mike's sentiments - personally, I'm not entirely satisfied with the solution the Beeb has gone with, but then again, I can understand why the BBC chose what they did - and it could be worse (there are aspects of the MSDRM scheme they're using which some would describe as 'benefits', but which I don't feel are really appropriate for open discussion on this list). I believe others have mentioned it though (their attempts to strip the DRM out of the files after downloading them) and I've done it myself in the past (purchased, DRMed music in WMA format which I had to decrypt to allow me to play back on my older DAP). Put it like this: you won't hear me complaining, at least in the near future! Plus I'd rather have MSDRM than any Apple DRM scheme, hands down, if you had to push me to a decision... I'd rather have neither and work on a trust basis given that we've technically already paid to watch this content, but that's one of those arguments you can get into and never work to a resolution. Oh, and the rights owners would just laugh and go elsewhere, so that doesn't really work. On the brighter side of things, given that I'm a lazy sod, the fact that the content is deleted 7 days after you watch it is kind of handy, I had another two shows expire on me tonight and I thought hmm, I would've liked to have kept those... But then I thought never mind, I would've burnt them off to DVD-R or archived them on my fileserver and probably only watched them once or twice again in the future, so no great loss. So, my hard drive has a little more free space - for more lovely content! - as a result. ;) -Original Message- From: mike chamberlain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 July 2007 22:49 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] iPlayer Today? On 7/29/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would actually be the same issue. No iPlayer client existed when the BBC started the project. They created it. The BBC claim (possible incorrectly) that there exists no cross platform DRM solution, and yet they never considered creating it. If you find no adequate solution to your problem then most people would _at least_ consider the 2 options that all such projects have of coping with this problem. 1. Develop it yourself (in house so to speak). 2. Pay someone else to develop it for you. Options 3, Buy an off the shelf solution and use it. Bonus points if the people whose content your licensing are happy with it and will endemnify you against someone cracking it. At the time, the only two solutions deployed at scale on the internet were Microsoft's DRM, and Apple's Fairplay DRM. Fairplay did not include the ability to expire content, and therefore could not meet the minimum requirements for our rights at all. As above, if there is no adequate solution, you develop your own! Why is this _so_ difficult? All you really need is a format for describing restrictions (how about something based on XML) and some kind of cryptographic system. If you think cryptography will solve your problem, you don't know anything about cryptography, and you don't understand your problem. Given we all know DRM's broken, yet is mandated by the people who own the content, what's better for the BBC to do? Write it's own and be responsible for fixing any breakages, or use one the content providers are happy with? Mike - 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/
