Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way. On 14 June 2010 18:30, Phil Lewis backst...@linuxcentre.net wrote: So is this just going to be another region-coding like affair where 'people' release cracked firmware or just press a few magic button sequences on their remote to remove this protection? And what about those vendors who sell DVRs that have community contributed plugins (e.g. like Topfield did/does); that's just going to make a mockery of this mockworthy content protection. - Phil On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 18:21 +0100, Mo McRoberts wrote: On 14-Jun-2010, at 18:14, Alex Cockell wrote: So i'll have to buy box after box to watch content? doubtful. those which have been sold for FVHD already will have in-built support for the mechanism (it's specced by the ETSI DVB standards), but will likely need an update to get the decoding table. that is, unless they're going to use the same decoding table as Freesat (given the fact that it was claimed to have been generated from a large sample set in order to ensure optimal compression rates, it _should_ be)… M. - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
David, As we have not actually seen the real Ofcom response yet, I don't know the answers to your questions. But asking the legal position was my one and only response to the consultation, so it will be interesting to hear it. If I had the resources I would launch a judicial review, as this is an appalling situation for Auntie. On 16 June 2010 06:38, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Well as always I suspect we will argue about this until the cows come home and not resolve it. No what the BBC is doing is illegal under European law, (encrypting the broadcast - the EPG is broadcast), or at least, failing a legal opinion, in breach of the spirit of the law. Where is the mandate for the BBC to break the law. Where is the mandate for the BBC to enforce copyright or acquire control over consumers behavior through the use of intellectual property. We all know what the current political environment is with the secret ACTA etc. But that does not validate the Ofcom's or the BBC's actions. This is about the freedom of action of the individual, versus control by the intellectual property owner, whose rights are seen as more important to than public, and extend effectively forever. The BBC is in the wrong side on this fight. And I for one, am appalled at the BBC's stance. It doesn't get to be a much more fundamental principle, than freedom of speech and action, as the US constitution demonstrates. Comments Nick, anyone else ? - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 16 Jun 2010, at 07:11, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way. Deviation from the main topic - sorry - but I don't think WMC uses DigiGuide data (at least - it never used to). BDS was (and still is?) the original supplier to MS. History - that I might have a bit wrong ... BDS was owned by BBC and ITV then in 2005 became part of BBC Broadcast and is now is part of RedBee (Macquarie Bank Group). Paul - 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] Freeview HD Content Management
On 16 June 2010 07:54, Paul Webster p...@dabdig.com wrote: On 16 Jun 2010, at 07:11, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way. Deviation from the main topic - sorry - but I don't think WMC uses DigiGuide data (at least - it never used to). BDS was (and still is?) the original supplier to MS. Oh, it was Microsoft who told me that they sourced all their data from there. Either way, it doesn't use the broadcast guide, the one with the protection. History - that I might have a bit wrong ... BDS was owned by BBC and ITV then in 2005 became part of BBC Broadcast and is now is part of RedBee (Macquarie Bank Group). Paul - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
The published document is here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/statement/statement.pdf http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/statement/The legal nonsense in section 2 clearly shows how unclear the legal position is. On 16 June 2010 06:38, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Well as always I suspect we will argue about this until the cows come home and not resolve it. No what the BBC is doing is illegal under European law, (encrypting the broadcast - the EPG is broadcast), or at least, failing a legal opinion, in breach of the spirit of the law. Where is the mandate for the BBC to break the law. Where is the mandate for the BBC to enforce copyright or acquire control over consumers behavior through the use of intellectual property. We all know what the current political environment is with the secret ACTA etc. But that does not validate the Ofcom's or the BBC's actions. This is about the freedom of action of the individual, versus control by the intellectual property owner, whose rights are seen as more important to than public, and extend effectively forever. The BBC is in the wrong side on this fight. And I for one, am appalled at the BBC's stance. It doesn't get to be a much more fundamental principle, than freedom of speech and action, as the US constitution demonstrates. Comments Nick, anyone else ? - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Brian Butterworth wrote: It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way. To expand my argument (as you have seen my previous post). It is a matter of principle not expediency. They are constructing the Infrastructure of Control, and the BBC are party to this. Such control which is never in the public interest. If, as Mo pointed out, the guidelines say the 'copy never flag' should never be used. Then why does the copy never flag exist ? In fact why is the whole infrastructure, been made more complex, brittle and expensive ? We need to reject DRM in principle. The fact that it is ineffective in practice, is not a reason to tolerate this. At the risk of infringing the Manic Street Preachers copyright: If you tolerate this, then your children will be next ... Only they won't wait for your children ... Of course my use of the Manic Street Preachers lyrics is fair use, but the use of even a single frame of a protected HD content, fair use (or fair dealing) is prohibited by technology, not the law (or and the law as it is protected by technical measures). Pastor Martin Niemöller is less likely to issue an extra judicial take down notice, especially if I change the text: first they came for the pirates... The use of a single frame of protected HD doesn't breach the law, but still subject to technological measures and extra judicial enforcement. The circumvention of technological measures, to enjoy to copyright exceptions under the law, is in breach of the EU Copyright Directive. The reality is everyone breaches copyright, all the time, and copyright is subject to fair use (fair dealing) ... You make think this is exaggerated, but once you concede the principle, and create the infrastructure, Intellectual Property owners will try and extend their control. See the secret ACTA treaty from which the public are excluded, and is even outside purview of the World Trade Organisation, and which did not originally address Intellectual Property. etc. Even GM crops are just another Intellectual Property land grab, dressed up as in the Public Interest. Intellectual Property, an idea that was never justified, never served the purpose stated in the US constitution, and whose time has passed ! Pro Bono Publico - For the Public Good. - 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] Freeview HD Content Management
All I can really do with you Mo is disagree. Of course the public has a right to make an informed judgement. And all I can say is that on the blog we have linked to and exposed all sides of the argument and all the facts (including linking to your Guardian piece and blog posts - and I suspect more people read it there than would have if it was published on the blog). Anyone who is a regular reader of the blog and interested in this issue would be well informed. Again its not about the BBC not being honest. It's about the fact that some people disagree with the BBC's position. But it's a honest position, honestly held. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 23:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On 15-Jun-2010, at 22:41, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: The BBC has made its position quite clear on the blog - not once but several times. We have been straight about it as you can see from these blog posts, not just recently but as far back as April last year (see Danielle Nagler's post in the list below) - so the idea that we didn't want to talk about this is false: well, yes. the *position* was very clear. the facts - that is, what was being proposed and the nitty-gritty of how it would actually affect people - weren't, as evidenced by the many questions which went unanswered in the blog comments. Tom Watson's blog post contained inaccuracies because he was interpreting a very technical industry document without background knowledge - which was what everybody else (myself included) had to do in order to figure out what it was that was actually being proposed (how else are people supposed to know what they're dealing with?) the _position_ took priority over the facts. the BBC was very effective at communicating the position. it was abysmal at communicating the facts. the closest it came was Danielle's post back in April last year (which I linked to earlier in this thread - I was very aware of it!), and even that was rather heavy on the PR, and took some flak at the time for it. I have worked hard to get the BBC to engage with you and in my view bearing in mind the obvious sensitivities we have done this well. Even I though we couldn't publish your blog post I spent time trying to get it published in other places, encouraged you to do so and I was pleased when it was. Don't get me wrong, I do very much appreciate your efforts - please don't take this as a personal criticism, because it's not, at all - in no small part because it's not *your* job to translate engineering terms into the actual effects. I'm not sure what the sensitivities are - does the public not have a right to make an informed judgement given the facts of it? And I'm saddened that you use the word disgraceful in your email below. I believe the BBC has communicated this as well as we can. I'm sorry you're saddened, but believe me, the BBC (not you singular), could have done a lot better better. Communication on this was shoddy and haphazard, it - with the exception of Danielle's post - reeked of damage-limitation, missed out half of the stuff that people would naturally want to know, and you weren't able to find out the answer to. In fact, you had asked some of same questions, because you didn't know the answer either. I know for a fact, though, that lots of the people within the BBC who were involved in creating this whole thing would have known the answers, because if you're an expert in DVB, it's actually pretty basic stuff! (don't forget, this had already been implemented once already, and the BBC, via the DTG and DTLA, were talking to receiver manufacturers to ensure they were doing the right thing). so, to be brutally honest, if there's something you couldn't be more wrong about in this whole affair, it's this. the BBC wasn't particularly honest - it didn't lie, but it was a very very long way away from the whole truth - and I think it's unfortunate that you've been taken along for the ride. I think *you*, not to mention everybody else, deserve better than that, even if we ultimately disagree about whether the actual proposal is a good or a bad thing. M. - 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] Freeview HD Content Management
Brian Butterworth wrote: The published document is here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/statement/statement.pdf Section 2.18 Ofcom is mindful that it does not have a power to include conditions in the Multiplex B licence relating to content management per se. Ofcom may only include those conditions specified in the 1996 Act and those it considers appropriate, taking into account its duties in the Broadcasting Act 1990, the 1996 Act and the 2003 Act. None of those duties relates to the ability of viewers to deal with content once broadcast. Nor do they relate to the markets for receivers. In those circumstances, Ofcom could not impose a condition requiring content management nor could it expressly restrict the ability of a multiplex operator to implement content management. Nor can Ofcom explicitly give consent, as it is clearly ouside it remit, especially when such consent would breach the EU Law, that Public Service Television has to be broadcast unencrypted. There appears to be no evidence that Ofcom or the BBC are acting within the law. - 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] Freeview HD Content Management
On 16/06/10 07:11, Brian Butterworth wrote: It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way. And how long will the Radio Times XML service continue? Don't forget the schedule is copyright; the Ts Cs will forbid automated scraping and, if you just ROT13 them the UK DMCA will, iirc, make it a *criminal* act to put TV schedules on a computer... But not to worry, after a few generations of chains one could say this about slavery: People won't miss something they never knew they had in the first place David -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once... - 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] Freeview HD Question
Does anyone have details on how the process for getting the necessary details to officially obtain the tables/information to decode the encoded EPG data? I have seen somewhere that the stipulation was that this should be royalty free, but that doesn't exclude administration costs, and obviously there are likely to be restrictions imposed upon subsequent recording, etc by virtue of the contract the licensee has to agree to. Is any of this known or publicly available? [I know such information doesn't help for open source projects, but it would be interesting to know the level of the monetary/contractual bar to people wanting to do things officially, and what effect doing so has on their products] - 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] Freeview HD Question
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:57, Stuart Clark stuart.cl...@jahingo.com wrote: [I know such information doesn't help for open source projects, but it would be interesting to know the level of the monetary/contractual bar to people wanting to do things officially, and what effect doing so has on their products] If they did it right then it would be a help (of sorts) to Open Source projects and everybody would be happy. All that's needed is a website where there's a form that includes an all import I agree to the terms and conditions tick box and then everyone who uses an open source project could individually get their own tables. This would be pretty much identical to how a lot of Open Source projects that connect to Web Services that need a developer API key work. Scot - 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] Freeview HD Question
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:57, Stuart Clark stuart.cl...@jahingo.com wrote: [I know such information doesn't help for open source projects, but it would be interesting to know the level of the monetary/contractual bar to people wanting to do things officially, and what effect doing so has on their products] If they did it right then it would be a help (of sorts) to Open Source projects and everybody would be happy. All that's needed is a website where there's a form that includes an all import I agree to the terms and conditions tick box and then everyone who uses an open source project could individually get their own tables. This would be pretty much identical to how a lot of Open Source projects that connect to Web Services that need a developer API key work. Equally depending on any costs/restrictions a company could offer a closed binary plugin for some OS projects [depending on licensing restrictions on plugins] which can be sold to the public - for example how some non-open audio/video codecs are. But that of course would only work if the costs were reasonable (it isn't going to work if it would cost £1 million a year as the market for OS sales would never cover that cost) and the restrictions are compatible (if the license for the tables/info has requirements which would be impossible to implement as a plugin for video player X) - 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] Freeview HD Content Management
Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk writes: It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to my iPod that I've never done it. This is easy enough to automate however you like if you're using a software PVR such as MythTV -- it's the only way I listen to radio these days. I think it's a great shame that some at the BBC want to discourage this kind of development. I have a hardware PVR - I think we're a few years away from software PVRs being particularly mainstream. Whilst MythTV has come a long way, it in particular has a lot of work to do to make it work properly for the average user. I certainly hope it's got better than a year ago when I couldn't even manage to get Mythubuntu working on my home PC! I've used Linux since about 1998. I have all sorts of peripherals working. But I still have to scurry to Windows to use my TV card :( Give me a hardware PVR that sits neatly under my TV any day. - 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] Freeview HD Question
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:29, Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote: ... and then everyone who uses an open source project could individually get their own tables. only for those people who *actively* use open source. doesn't help at all with open source stacks embedded in consumer-facing products. M. - 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] Freeview HD Content Management
Brian Butterworth wrote: If I had the resources I would launch a judicial review, as this is an appalling situation for Auntie. I too don't have the resources for a judicial review, perhaps the BBC should test the legal position it's self (judicial review), or the Open Rights Group may wish to pursue it. Time for a formal complaint to the BBC complaints, followed by escalation to the Trust in the event of an unsatisfactory reply. - 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] Freeview HD Question
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:29, Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote: ... and then everyone who uses an open source project could individually get their own tables. only for those people who *actively* use open source. doesn't help at all with open source stacks embedded in consumer-facing products. Presumably those are more likely to be created/sponsored by a company (ie the hardware manufacturer) who could go along the closed/open mix method (if the OS software allowed it and the BBC license allowed it too) The costs would be interesting though - for a small company interested in starting in the market a few hundred pounds would be fine (but that would probably exclude most home users), but tens of thousands would be a much bigger problem. - 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] Freeview HD Question
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:42, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: only for those people who *actively* use open source. doesn't help at all with open source stacks embedded in consumer-facing products. I doubt it would matter much with embedded systems. I can think of three cases - 1) The company involved doesn't release the source, even though they're obligated to (which is still worryingly common) - then they just include the tables in their product (so no different from a closed source system) 2) The company release their OS components, but the 'secret sauce' is a closed source app - again, they just include the include the tables in their product like a closed source system. 3) The company's embedded system is entirely open source - on the device they include the tables, in the source tarball they don't but include instructions along the lines of Download the tables from the the BBC website and unzip them into /src/resources/epg-tables. Scot - 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] Freeview HD Question
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:12, Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote: 2) The company release their OS components, but the 'secret sauce' is a closed source app - again, they just include the include the tables in their product like a closed source system. actually, that's not a bad approach with respect to the tables themselves: /tmp/eit-decoder.sock the snag is in what conditions the tables are licensed under - because we're not just talking about a license for the tables themselves, but conditions which apply to the whole device which must be adhered to in order to use those tables (enforceable or not, I know not - but who wants to take the risk?) if they say no user-modification of the device shall be permitted, but the license for the software includes anti-TiVoisation clauses, then that's a problem - irrespective of whether the tables or the decoder app are open or closed. without seeing what the terms say in full, it's impossible to know whether there's a workable solution. there are lots of this might be okay if you work around it in *this* manner or this might cause serious legal problems, but there are very few sureties (except for the fact that somebody has to do the legwork to figure all of this stuff out, which comes at a nonzero cost). - 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] Freeview HD Question
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote: If they did it right then it would be a help (of sorts) to Open Source projects and everybody would be happy. All that's needed is a website where there's a form that includes an all import I agree to the terms and conditions tick box and then everyone who uses an open source project could individually get their own tables. This would be pretty much identical to how a lot of Open Source projects that connect to Web Services that need a developer API key work. That's an interesting point, and it's possible that something like that could be done. But the BBC would require as part of the download agreement that you had appropriate content management on the device, wouldn't they? And that's the part that is really a problem - forcing content management into the ecosystem. Adam
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Question
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:30, Adam Bradley a...@doublegeek.com wrote: But the BBC would require as part of the download agreement that you had appropriate content management on the device, wouldn't they? I would be very surprised if that wasn't part of the T C's, but then it's not much different from how Last.fm's T C's state that you won't use their API to write software that downloads their radio streams. While there's nothing really stopping people from violating the TCs that they agreed to, there's also little to stop people from illicitly cracking the system anyway. If there's a legal way to get the tables then at least there's a way for people to play along with the system as opposed to having to go down the illicit route from the get go. Scot - 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] Freeview HD Content Management
On 16 Jun 2010, at 08:15, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: On 16 June 2010 07:54, Paul Webster p...@dabdig.com wrote: On 16 Jun 2010, at 07:11, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way. Deviation from the main topic - sorry - but I don't think WMC uses DigiGuide data (at least - it never used to). BDS was (and still is?) the original supplier to MS. Oh, it was Microsoft who told me that they sourced all their data from there. Either way, it doesn't use the broadcast guide, the one with the protection. WMC started using the broadcast EPG with Freeview when the Vista 'TV pack' update came out. Using a live EPG was a requirement of getting the Freeview+ certification IIRC. On DSAT I'm fairly sure it follows the EIT now/next info but does not populate the full guide with it, as it usually records programmes correctly that have started late/overrun due to sports events. -- Gareth Davis | Production Systems Specialist World Service Future Media, Digital Delivery Team - Part of BBC Global News Division * 500NE Bush House, Strand, London, WC2B 4PH * bbcworldservice.com http://bbcworldservice.com/ - 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] Freeview HD Question
Now, if the bbc would consider rolling out a library like this under the LGPL One of these for the epg, but release the source under a bsd-like licence to distro suppliers so they can compile to tgt architectures and release through Partner-type repos... Use that as a proof of concept for a Universal iPlayer Plugin for Totem, VLC, native players... Well, I can dream, can't I... - Original message - On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:30, Adam Bradley a...@doublegeek.com wrote: But the BBC would require as part of the download agreement that you had appropriate content management on the device, wouldn't they? I would be very surprised if that wasn't part of the T C's, but then it's not much different from how Last.fm's T C's state that you won't use their API to write software that downloads their radio streams. While there's nothing really stopping people from violating the TCs that they agreed to, there's also little to stop people from illicitly cracking the system anyway. If there's a legal way to get the tables then at least there's a way for people to play along with the system as opposed to having to go down the illicit route from the get go. Scot - 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/
