Re: Re: New Website
It's possible you misunderstood my point. There will be no arguing or defence. I am simply stating it is illogical to believe there is any form of 'defence' when another programme has received a cease and desist whilst already fulfilling the criteria of obscurity, non use of iPlayer and not being that visible. Those concerns can be addressed of course, 'just in case', but it is far more important that get_iplayer be used as intended in line with the BBC's guidelines. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
Shouldn't the 'as far as I'm aware' side of things be looked into? It'd be a shame for the new forums and any associated sites to be shut down for using a logo To put my concerns into context; I help admin a site for vintage radio control cars and they were recently threatened with legal action for selling reproduction stickers copied from stickers that have been out of print for nearly 30 years I dare say the Beeb have a good case against a site (or sites) using their logo to assist people to download their content If the option was pack it in altogether or we sue you for using the logo, what would you do? I've used G_iP since the po-ru downloaded stopped working, it'd be catastrophic to lose G_iP too I live in an area with sub 1m broadband, so G_iP is vital for stuff I missed with the Sky box On 17 Jul 2013, at 01:20, Square Penguin he...@squarepenguin.co.uk wrote: To address a few points: iplayer in URL: There is nothing wrong with having 'iplayer' in the URL as far as I am aware. The site does not generate revenue (which is key) or seek to dilute the trademark. Legal precedent for this is well established. Check out 'ryan air sucks' for just one notable example that's still alive after 8+ years, if stagnant. Use of Logo: That is get_iplayer's logo and always has been as far as I am aware. It is on the front page of this mailing list. If someone would like to do another one I'd be more than happy to use it, but if the BBC decides to go after get_iplayer, it won't be over the logo. The name: get_iplayer is called get_iplayer. It has iplayer in the name. If we are concerned that the use of 'iplayer' is the reason the Beeb would shut it down, we should change the name of the software itself. Radio Downloader did not avoid takedown by avoiding the use of 'iplayer'. Visibility of get_iplayer: The previous guide has seen thousands, actually tens of thousands of unique visitors and has been sat on the front page for months under very popular search terms such as 'iplayer guide'. Additionally, the software has been available for many many years and the Beeb is well aware of it. It's important to note that Radio Downloader didn't have any protection from takedown by 'hiding under a rock' and nor (logically) would get_iplayer. I am happy to use the squarepenguin.co.uk URL and change the logo if someone provides one, but ask yourself if you think it would truly make any difference in light of Radio Downloader? ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Re: New Website
The BBC can request the take down of the site and I'd make necessary adjustments to address the concerns and put it back up. I'm happy to address them before it gets to that stage. However, that is going to have no effect of get_iplayer, the programme, itself. I have simply created a site that mirrors already available content and added a forum. I am not 'in charge' of get_iplayer or its removal, no one is actually. It's open source, though we're lucky enough to have a maintainer. Rest assured, any move by the BBC against the site in order to remove get_iplayer would be futile as I would have absolutely no way of removing it. Further, all the content is available elsewhere, less the forums, so it wouldn't be a particularly effective move if they wished to limit access to info either. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Re: New Website
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Square Penguin he...@squarepenguin.co.uk wrote: Use of Logo: That is get_iplayer's logo and always has been as far as I am aware. It is on the front page of this mailing list. If someone would like to do another one I'd be more than happy to use it, but if the BBC decides to go after get_iplayer, it won't be over the logo. That IS true that it's always been the logo, perhaps it's time for a change? Look at the two side by side: BBC Iplayer logo http://hotline.ccsinsight.com/_images-article/iPlayer.png Get_iplayer logo http://getiplayer.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/get_iPlayer-Forums.jpg I'm not a legal expert but I am in business and I'd be fairly sure they could come after you. TC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/business.shtml 2.1.3 the names, images and logos identifying the BBC, its licensors or third parties and their products and services in BBC Online Services and/or BBC Content are subject to copyright, design rights and trade marks (registered and unregistered) of the BBC or any other relevant third party or licensor. http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/additional_iplayer.shtml 2.9 You do not have the right to use any BBC Content or BBC mark/logo on your device or elsewhere except as provided on BBC iPlayer or through the BBC iPlayer Download Application. But also, the Beeb have massively deep, almost bottomless pockets. They pissed away £1bn (that's £100,000,000) on a totally failed IT project, paid directors £tens of millions more than their contracts required, and have already spend £2m just on Newsnight: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-reveal-full-cost-dropping-savile-story-annual-accounts-are-published The newsnight investigation cost £2.4 million which included £101,000 to cover the legal and related costs of Helen Boaden who was heavily criticised in the report. To come after GIP would be a tiny drop in the ocean for BBC lawyers who will be on close to £5,000 *PER HOUR*. Can you afford that? ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
I would suggest a total re-design of the logo with its own identity. Or no logo at all ! On 17/07/13 09:04, Jonathan H wrote: On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Square Penguin he...@squarepenguin.co.uk wrote: Use of Logo: That is get_iplayer's logo and always has been as far as I am aware. It is on the front page of this mailing list. If someone would like to do another one I'd be more than happy to use it, but if the BBC decides to go after get_iplayer, it won't be over the logo. That IS true that it's always been the logo, perhaps it's time for a change? Look at the two side by side: BBC Iplayer logo http://hotline.ccsinsight.com/_images-article/iPlayer.png Get_iplayer logo http://getiplayer.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/get_iPlayer-Forums.jpg I'm not a legal expert but I am in business and I'd be fairly sure they could come after you. TC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/business.shtml 2.1.3 the names, images and logos identifying the BBC, its licensors or third parties and their products and services in BBC Online Services and/or BBC Content are subject to copyright, design rights and trade marks (registered and unregistered) of the BBC or any other relevant third party or licensor. http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/additional_iplayer.shtml 2.9 You do not have the right to use any BBC Content or BBC mark/logo on your device or elsewhere except as provided on BBC iPlayer or through the BBC iPlayer Download Application. But also, the Beeb have massively deep, almost bottomless pockets. They pissed away £1bn (that's £100,000,000) on a totally failed IT project, paid directors £tens of millions more than their contracts required, and have already spend £2m just on Newsnight: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-reveal-full-cost-dropping-savile-story-annual-accounts-are-published The newsnight investigation cost £2.4 million which included £101,000 to cover the legal and related costs of Helen Boaden who was heavily criticised in the report. To come after GIP would be a tiny drop in the ocean for BBC lawyers who will be on close to £5,000 *PER HOUR*. Can you afford that? ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Re: New Website
One hundred mil is only a billion in the States ;) in civilised society, it's one thousand million. Apologies for earlier confusion on my part re Radio Downloader allowing people to circumvent geo restrictions, I was thinking of Beebify... Amusing when you consider what likely popped into your inbox from them today! Chris On 17 July 2013 09:04:03 Jonathan H lardconce...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Square Penguin he...@squarepenguin.co.uk wrote: Use of Logo: That is get_iplayer's logo and always has been as far as I am aware. It is on the front page of this mailing list. If someone would like to do another one I'd be more than happy to use it, but if the BBC decides to go after get_iplayer, it won't be over the logo. That IS true that it's always been the logo, perhaps it's time for a change? Look at the two side by side: BBC Iplayer logo http://hotline.ccsinsight.com/_images-article/iPlayer.png Get_iplayer logo http://getiplayer.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/get_iPlayer-Forums.jpg I'm not a legal expert but I am in business and I'd be fairly sure they could come after you. TC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/business.shtml 2.1.3 the names, images and logos identifying the BBC, its licensors or third parties and their products and services in BBC Online Services and/or BBC Content are subject to copyright, design rights and trade marks (registered and unregistered) of the BBC or any other relevant third party or licensor. http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/additional_iplayer.shtml 2.9 You do not have the right to use any BBC Content or BBC mark/logo on your device or elsewhere except as provided on BBC iPlayer or through the BBC iPlayer Download Application. But also, the Beeb have massively deep, almost bottomless pockets. They pissed away £1bn (that's £100,000,000) on a totally failed IT project, paid directors £tens of millions more than their contracts required, and have already spend £2m just on Newsnight: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-reveal-full-cost-dropping-savile-story-annual-accounts-are-published The newsnight investigation cost £2.4 million which included £101,000 to cover the legal and related costs of Helen Boaden who was heavily criticised in the report. To come after GIP would be a tiny drop in the ocean for BBC lawyers who will be on close to £5,000 *PER HOUR*. Can you afford that? ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
With all due respect as a humble and grateful user of GIP - yes, you probably could comply with any of the BEEBs potential compliance requirements on your new website. My simple point is that even if the FAQs and dissemination of GIP remains, you are still posing a risk of the BEEB reacting by making it impossible for the GIP program itself to function on their website. A pyrrhic victory indeed - and to the detriment of the thousands of current legitimate users. The expat users I agree, are already in a dodgy position, but a VPN is also increasingly used by many UK residents with privacy concerns. I know that the issues are complex, but poking a hornets nest doesn't seem to be a hellava good way to sort them out... Oldtimer43 *** -Original Message- From: Square Penguin Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 7:56 PM To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Re: New Website The BBC can request the take down of the site and I'd make necessary adjustments to address the concerns and put it back up. I'm happy to address them before it gets to that stage. However, that is going to have no effect of get_iplayer, the programme, itself. I have simply created a site that mirrors already available content and added a forum. I am not 'in charge' of get_iplayer or its removal, no one is actually. It's open source, though we're lucky enough to have a maintainer. Rest assured, any move by the BBC against the site in order to remove get_iplayer would be futile as I would have absolutely no way of removing it. Further, all the content is available elsewhere, less the forums, so it wouldn't be a particularly effective move if they wished to limit access to info either. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
On 17/07/13 09:22, Square Penguin wrote: I appreciate that you are able to recognise the emotional nature of your reaction. Logo: I may need to make this point again - I didn't make the logo. It's from Phil Lewis' original site. It's still there now if you want to take a look. As I said, if someone provides a new one I'd be willing to use it, but is that going to be the concern of the BBC? It seems that the underlying point is that many here believe their use of get_iplayer to be illicit and it is much more logical and important to take steps to address that fact first. Popularity/Visibility: I am sorry to break the news to people here but get_iplayer is popular and visible. This mailing list is visible and easy to find, new users find it almost everyday and countless numbers find and use the programme every day too. No doubt the BBC is very well aware of get_iplayer hitting its servers and has a clear idea of how large it is. The 'visibility' ship has sailed. The implied sentiment (one you are not necessarily making but others are) that new users should be discouraged so that the old timers can continue to enjoy the spoils is, frankly, repellent. get_iplayer is a free (in all senses) and open source tool created for everyone to use. Respecting that, and the BBC's usage terms, is at the core of its use. I accept that people react to change, most can't accept it. I will NOT accept that new users should be discouraged and get_iplayer hidden away. That is a fundamental point of principle that goes to the heart of open source software and my position on that is immovable. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer And you are prepared to override the concerns expressed here because of your interpretation of the principles of what you call open source software and to impugn the motives of those who have raised what I think are very reasonable concerns about your actions ? Was there discussion anywhere of what you were intending to do before you did it ? If not how does that equate with the principles of open source software ? In terms of what is not acceptable I DO NOT ACCEPT your right to put a project at risk because or your perception of the needs of existing and new users. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
I'd agree with the point about the logo, even though it's been around a long time, it feels like the kind of thing that the BBC could get shirty about - especially on a web page that looks professional ( In the sense of looking good, rather than looking like it's asking for money!) Unfortunately my artistic skills are rather limited. For the rest of it, I'd say you address these points pretty well in the FAQ - i.e. that get_iplayer has /the same/ geographical limitations as the BBC site, and that it does not circumvent DRM. I think you should stamp on any discussions in the forums that attempt to talk about subverting the limitations that the BBC imposes, make it clear that it's a 'helper application' for their existing website, rather than anything subversive. Something in the FAQ that re-iterates the message you posted here, and a prominent message in the forums ( and some policing ) perhaps? And after all that - lovely web page, should be really useful. On 17/07/2013 09:22, Square Penguin wrote: I appreciate that you are able to recognise the emotional nature of your reaction. Logo: I may need to make this point again - I didn't make the logo. It's from Phil Lewis' original site. It's still there now if you want to take a look. As I said, if someone provides a new one I'd be willing to use it, but is that going to be the concern of the BBC? It seems that the underlying point is that many here believe their use of get_iplayer to be illicit and it is much more logical and important to take steps to address that fact first. Popularity/Visibility: I am sorry to break the news to people here but get_iplayer is popular and visible. This mailing list is visible and easy to find, new users find it almost everyday and countless numbers find and use the programme every day too. No doubt the BBC is very well aware of get_iplayer hitting its servers and has a clear idea of how large it is. The 'visibility' ship has sailed. The implied sentiment (one you are not necessarily making but others are) that new users should be discouraged so that the old timers can continue to enjoy the spoils is, frankly, repellent. get_iplayer is a free (in all senses) and open source tool created for everyone to use. Respecting that, and the BBC's usage terms, is at the core of its use. I accept that people react to change, most can't accept it. I will NOT accept that new users should be discouraged and get_iplayer hidden away. That is a fundamental point of principle that goes to the heart of open source software and my position on that is immovable. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
On 17 July 2013 at 09:49 michael norman michaeltnor...@gmail.com wrote: In terms of what is not acceptable I DO NOT ACCEPT your right to put a project at risk because or your perception of the needs of existing and new users. Well said, that man. -- TQ via webmail ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
On 17/07/13 10:01, Square Penguin wrote: I discussed the matter directly with get_iplayer's maintainer, who is fully on board. It has struck me throughout this discussion that he has not said so, unless I have missed something. I have already said I am prepared to use another logo and use another URL if the community truly believes that will make a difference. I repeat what I said before, that the community should have been asked before the event, and I have no evidence that you did so. But I will be providing the guides for people. That won't change. I found your guide most useful and was grateful for it. The project is not at risk through any action of mine, it is at risk through its very nature. I am simply mirroring content that is widely available. Even the logo. I for one think that there is enough evidence from posts to this list that a number of people think that the project may be at risk through actions of yours ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer . ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
I have already said I am prepared to use another logo and use another URL if the community truly believes that will make a difference. I repeat what I said before, that the community should have been asked before the event, and I have no evidence that you did so. The logo is, as the Yanks say, confusingly similar -- it incorporates the stylised i play icon device and uses an identical shade of pink plus echoes the instantly recognisable BBC blocks, right down to spacing. It's dangerously close to attracting the wrong kind of attention. The project is not at risk through any action of mine, it is at risk through its very nature. I am simply mirroring content that is widely available. Even the logo. I for one think that there is enough evidence from posts to this list that a number of people think that the project may be at risk through actions of yours. I believe a few people have tried that defence when being sued for sharing MP3s which were already widely available elsewhere, it didn't go down so well in court. Even if you didn't originate the logo, it's still arguably infringing and worthy of a CD -- and with a .co.uk domain, you are an easy target. Jonathan H. wrote: Well, was it spam? I've not heard of Beebify before; when I clicked the link I saw a very easy one-click method of downloading a working wmv copy of a BBC programme. Spam is disruptive unsolicited commercial electronic mail messages simultaneously to a number of e-mail addresses. For me, this was a useful message posted to an appropriate list in which there had been recent discussions about difficulties downloading certain programmes. AFAIAC, any extra method that works is welcome. I think we may have different definitions of spam :) Sent from a no-reply address: spam Sent without opt in (at least for me): spam Commercial advertising on a private mailing list, hijacking its subscriber list: spam It's unwelcome and unwanted. The important distinction here also is that Beebify is willingly and intentionally providing a method for accessing georestricted, DRMed content to those who do not have rights to do so. I've use GIP for many years and love it. It continues to exist in part because of the community support and the BBC's tacit acknowledgment that it is for the licence payer community. Beebify is a different kind of beast and it is prudent for the GIP guides and the GIP project to continue to distance themselves from it. Critically Beebify actively seeks to profit from other people's IP (massive no-no) through its own subscription model: As a kindness to infrequent BBC-TV viewers, acquiring one PlayRights per day is free. Or subscribe for unlimited use. Oh, and this: Watching TV used to be a shared social experience, and our hope is that Beebify with its simple downloading will encourage viewers to form groups where files downloaded by one person are then shared locally - thus considerably reducing bandwidth for the BBC servers and for viewers' own Internet pathway. Where to start, really... Perhaps he's already invited the crack team of IP lawyers round for preemptive tea, biscuits and a group viewing of the White Queen to appease them prior to lawsuits? From an earlier message to this list in March: Pair Beebify with Hola.org's (still in beta) free unBlocker for Windows, the promising new peer2peer network facilitating BBC access, and this is a very simple solution to downloading and watching BBC shows from anywhere in the world. P2P proxy mechanism for circumventing georestrictions on accessing and searching available content: check The server side of Beebify's architecture was designed on the pemise that it must access the BBC servers in the same manner as any other user, giving the BBC the option of blocking every one of its users including Beebify - or blocking no one. Infringing the GPL: check (https://github.com/dinkypumpkin/get_iplayer/blob/master/LICENSE.txt) The website (client) side of Beebify respects the shortcomings of BBC's DRM system by allowing the easily downloaded files to be played in Windows Media Player from anywhere in the world - by utilising Hola.org's unBlocker, another proxy or a VPN solution. Important in the design was making Beebify simple enough for a computer novice to use. Further circumvention of DRM, contravening iPlayer terms of service: check Beebify's developer might as well stand outside NBH with a massive I allow the world to infringe the BBC's intellectual property rights, WHATCHAGONNADOABOUTIT? poster. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Re: New Website
TBH I had reservations about the logo before launching the site and I hear the concerns raised here. As a result, I have replaced it with the worlds worst logo ever. But it'll do for now and it site specific, signifying that the site is the get_iplayer forum site and not get_iplayer itself. I believe someone was concerned of a 'control grab', whatever that is, so now there is a little distinction. The URL would take longer and is still perhaps questionable as 'iplayer' is in the software name, but I'm willing to shift it to squarepenguin.co.uk to make people feel better. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Re: New Website
On 17 July 2013 09:22, Square Penguin he...@squarepenguin.co.uk mailto:he...@squarepenguin.co.uk wrote: The implied sentiment (one you are not necessarily making but others are) that new users should be discouraged so that the old timers can continue to enjoy the spoils is, frankly, repellent. get_iplayer is a free (in all senses) and open source tool created for everyone to use. Respecting that, and the BBC's usage terms, is at the core of its use. Sadly, I was initially guilty of this sentiment, although I recognised it and came to the same conclusion: making it hard for people to use just because I am able to use it (and somehow that might protect a tool I use from attack) is unfair on others. GiP should do everything it can to be a legitimate alternative to the official tools, at least in spirit if not fully matching the BBC T's C's. The BBC should recognise the demand for such a tool, and I'd even go so far as to say they should actively assist at a technical level where it would be useful (eg in terms of documentation or improvements to APIs), or at the very least not discourage capable BBC staff from contributing to what is a valuable open source tool. I have no idea what official position the BBC has on GiP (if any) but given the money it can apparently spend on software development without getting anywhere it should embrace FOSS wholeheartedly. The BBC isn't just a supplier to me as a UK citizen but it is part owned by me as a licence payer too. However, whatever the bureaucratic issues at the BBC, limiting access to the tool to techies so that I might be able to continue to use it for longer is just not a fair solution. I agree with others that changing the domain and logo would be no bad thing but the basic idea of providing useful information about a useful tool to a wider audience is the baby that should not get thrown out with the bathwater. Mark -- Mark Rogers // More Solutions Ltd (Peterborough Office) // 0844 251 1450 Registered in England (0456 0902) @ 13 Clarke Rd, Milton Keynes, MK1 1LG ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
On 17/07/13 11:06, Square Penguin wrote: TBH I had reservations about the logo before launching the site and I hear the concerns raised here. And your reservations were shared where exactly. As a result, I have replaced it with the worlds worst logo ever. But it'll do for now and it site specific, signifying that the site is the get_iplayer forum site and not get_iplayer itself. Oh dear Mummy someone took my nice logo away I'll show them and put up something really horrid they won't like. I believe someone was concerned of a 'control grab', whatever that is, so now there is a little distinction. Who said that and where ? The URL would take longer and is still perhaps questionable as 'iplayer' is in the software name, but I'm willing to shift it to squarepenguin.co.uk to make people feel better. How gracious of you. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer . ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
When Sky or Virgin et al create a Set Top Box, they negotiate licensing fees with the content providers. Their subscription numbers are clearly known, and thus the 'reach' of the media is clearly known, and for what duration. All of this is built into the negotiated price for the content, and everybody is happy. The moment a set top box's security is breached, there's a problem. The content providers no longer have faith in the Sky / Virgin to limit the distribution of the media and either a) Withdraw the content or b) command higher feeds or sometimes c) demand compensation. Of course, they know some people will manage to breach the security or facilitate copying in some way. But they are counted as negligible losses. IF the perception of a loss (say via get_iplayer) changes, then the content providers will ask the BBC to audit their systems and estimate the usage of get_iplayer. If the BBC can tell how many are using it, they'll most likely be asked to patch the loopholes and stop its use. If the BBC can't tell hoe many are using it, they'll definitely be asked to patch the loopholes and stop its use. There is no outcome where the content provider says ok, just leave it be. The principle and intent of the site is absolute great making get_iplayer easier to use (it's still not easy for old timers!), and hopefully, via a few developers, improving the tool in functionality and maintainability. I don't think (or I hope) nobody wants to keep get_iplayer as some secret toy for themselves. I think it's a genuine concern that the 'dream' of get_iplayer being widely used and even condoned / or duplicated by the BBC is a pipe dream. Anything that puts their content at risk of being copied illegally is a risk, and results in lost revenue for them. Anything that puts their partner's content at risk also puts them at risk of being held liable in whole or in part for losses. We just don't want to lose get_iplayer, so some of us are wary of potential risk, however well intentioned. Sadly it's like stepping through a minefield... the moment you touch a tripwire with the BEEB or a content provider, there's no stepping back from it. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
michael norman michaeltnor...@gmail.com wrote: On 17/07/13 11:06, Square Penguin wrote: TBH I had reservations about the logo before launching the site and I hear the concerns raised here. And your reservations were shared where exactly. There's no reason why SP's reservations should have been shared anywhere. And, with free, open-source software, any of us - or anyone else - is free to do anything we like with it. Nobody has to ask anyone's permission first. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
re Mr Normans comments. If it looks like a Troll and smells like a Troll .. On 17. juli 2013, at 12:43, Jeremy Nicoll - ml get_iplayer jn.ml.gti...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk wrote: michael norman michaeltnor...@gmail.com wrote: On 17/07/13 11:06, Square Penguin wrote: TBH I had reservations about the logo before launching the site and I hear the concerns raised here. And your reservations were shared where exactly. There's no reason why SP's reservations should have been shared anywhere. And, with free, open-source software, any of us - or anyone else - is free to do anything we like with it. Nobody has to ask anyone's permission first. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
On 17/07/13 11:43, Jeremy Nicoll - ml get_iplayer wrote: michael norman michaeltnor...@gmail.com wrote: On 17/07/13 11:06, Square Penguin wrote: TBH I had reservations about the logo before launching the site and I hear the concerns raised here. And your reservations were shared where exactly. There's no reason why SP's reservations should have been shared anywhere. And, with free, open-source software, any of us - or anyone else - is free to do anything we like with it. Nobody has to ask anyone's permission first. Lets be clear here you are saying that anyone, anywhere has the right to do exactly what they like with free or opensource software without reference to any other individual anywhere ? ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
If the licence terms permit it, yes. On 17 July 2013 11:58:58 michael norman michaeltnor...@gmail.com wrote: On 17/07/13 11:43, Jeremy Nicoll - ml get_iplayer wrote: michael norman michaeltnor...@gmail.com wrote: On 17/07/13 11:06, Square Penguin wrote: TBH I had reservations about the logo before launching the site and I hear the concerns raised here. And your reservations were shared where exactly. There's no reason why SP's reservations should have been shared anywhere. And, with free, open-source software, any of us - or anyone else - is free to do anything we like with it. Nobody has to ask anyone's permission first. Lets be clear here you are saying that anyone, anywhere has the right to do exactly what they like with free or opensource software without reference to any other individual anywhere ? ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
On 17 July 2013 11:58, michael norman michaeltnor...@gmail.com wrote: On 17/07/13 11:43, Jeremy Nicoll - ml get_iplayer wrote: michael norman michaeltnor...@gmail.com wrote: On 17/07/13 11:06, Square Penguin wrote: TBH I had reservations about the logo before launching the site and I hear the concerns raised here. And your reservations were shared where exactly. There's no reason why SP's reservations should have been shared anywhere. And, with free, open-source software, any of us - or anyone else - is free to do anything we like with it. Nobody has to ask anyone's permission first. Lets be clear here you are saying that anyone, anywhere has the right to do exactly what they like with free or opensource software without reference to any other individual anywhere ? For their own use then basically yes. However if they distribute the software to others they must follow the terms of the license. Of course if they use the s/w to do something illegal or infringe someone else's rights then that is a different matter. Colin ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
I think the question is this: 1) How can make iplayer easier to discuss? Do you mean get_player and BBC iplayer both or just get_iplayer ? 2) How can we make it easier to download / find? Assuming you mean get_player my latest google search gives me the old Linuxcentre link and SQ's guide. Downloading and finding is not difficult from there. SQ's guide has all you need. AFAIK most Linux distros have packages available SQ's guide and githead docs tell you about Windows. 3) How can we achieve the 1) and 2) without increasing risk? If you accept the need for more discussion of get_iplayer other than this list then I suppose you set up a forum as SQ recommends. 4) What is an acceptable level of risk? Don't do anything to raise the profile of get_iplayer to the extent that the BBCs lawyers get involved 5) What are the realistic risks? and what are overhyped risks? 6) What are the consequences of misjudging 5) ? Your own posts have gone a long way to answering both. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
David thebrilliantmist...@gmail.com wrote: Some points: 1) Open Source does not mean free. The two are often confused. Absolutely, but the home page at http://getiplayer.co.uk/ explicitly says that get_iplayer is both 'free' and 'open-source', so the distinction doesn't matter here. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: New Website
But with respect, GIP is not for the purposes of circumventing international copyright law, however dismal your country's television. I have the same complaints about a lot of UK telly! If we explicitly or implicitly encourage the use of GIP to operate outside of copyright law, the whole thing will be taken away from us permanently. On 17 July 2013 00:37:54 Xtra terryandshe...@xtra.co.nz wrote: Please can I join in those GIP users urgently requesting that the new GIP website change its provocative use of both the name and logo of the BBC? The desire to help newbies with GIP is admirable and the website is brilliant, but putting the entire project at risk of legal intervention is a potential disaster. Have you all forgotten about Radiodownloader so soon? As an expat, availability to the BBC is the only thing that saves my sanity from the truly appalling lightweight crap that is free-to-air TV here. Even pay TV here is now going down the same gurgler.. Perhaps those actually in the UK don't realise the truly unique value of advert free, quality programmes in todays world. Please, please, take down the red flags before the Bull notices OldTimer43 ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Re: New Website
To address a few points: iplayer in URL: There is nothing wrong with having 'iplayer' in the URL as far as I am aware. The site does not generate revenue (which is key) or seek to dilute the trademark. Legal precedent for this is well established. Check out 'ryan air sucks' for just one notable example that's still alive after 8+ years, if stagnant. Use of Logo: That is get_iplayer's logo and always has been as far as I am aware. It is on the front page of this mailing list. If someone would like to do another one I'd be more than happy to use it, but if the BBC decides to go after get_iplayer, it won't be over the logo. The name: get_iplayer is called get_iplayer. It has iplayer in the name. If we are concerned that the use of 'iplayer' is the reason the Beeb would shut it down, we should change the name of the software itself. Radio Downloader did not avoid takedown by avoiding the use of 'iplayer'. Visibility of get_iplayer: The previous guide has seen thousands, actually tens of thousands of unique visitors and has been sat on the front page for months under very popular search terms such as 'iplayer guide'. Additionally, the software has been available for many many years and the Beeb is well aware of it. It's important to note that Radio Downloader didn't have any protection from takedown by 'hiding under a rock' and nor (logically) would get_iplayer. I am happy to use the squarepenguin.co.uk URL and change the logo if someone provides one, but ask yourself if you think it would truly make any difference in light of Radio Downloader? ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
RE: Re: New Website
First time contribution here, but could I respectfully suggest that the points made below, whilst theoretically arguable, would almost certainly be ruinously expensive even to deploy in any sort of legal context. (Declaration of interest: I am a lawyer, although not practising in IP) Consequently, they afford only theoretical, rather than real, protection. In these matters, discretion may be the better part of valour...unless one has particularly deep pockets. -Original Message- From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Square Penguin Sent: 17 July 2013 01:20 To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Re: New Website To address a few points: iplayer in URL: There is nothing wrong with having 'iplayer' in the URL as far as I am aware. The site does not generate revenue (which is key) or seek to dilute the trademark. Legal precedent for this is well established. Check out 'ryan air sucks' for just one notable example that's still alive after 8+ years, if stagnant. Use of Logo: That is get_iplayer's logo and always has been as far as I am aware. It is on the front page of this mailing list. If someone would like to do another one I'd be more than happy to use it, but if the BBC decides to go after get_iplayer, it won't be over the logo. The name: get_iplayer is called get_iplayer. It has iplayer in the name. If we are concerned that the use of 'iplayer' is the reason the Beeb would shut it down, we should change the name of the software itself. Radio Downloader did not avoid takedown by avoiding the use of 'iplayer'. Visibility of get_iplayer: The previous guide has seen thousands, actually tens of thousands of unique visitors and has been sat on the front page for months under very popular search terms such as 'iplayer guide'. Additionally, the software has been available for many many years and the Beeb is well aware of it. It's important to note that Radio Downloader didn't have any protection from takedown by 'hiding under a rock' and nor (logically) would get_iplayer. I am happy to use the squarepenguin.co.uk URL and change the logo if someone provides one, but ask yourself if you think it would truly make any difference in light of Radio Downloader? ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
