BBC's iPlayer To Be Crossplatform 232
craig1709 writes "10 Downing Street has responded to the petition to open up iPlayer access for those on other operating systems. While the wording is confusing, near as I can tell, they say they will make the iPlayer available to users of those.'"
Platforms (Score:5, Funny)
Sadly more truth than joke. (Score:3, Insightful)
Timelines for other platforms
There will be a Vista version of BBC iPlayer available this year. We are actively working on Mac and cross platform support.
It shows where their priority is
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Give me one good reason why Vista *shouldnt* be their top priority.
Re:Sadly more truth than joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's wrong to use a propriatory format. If they used an open format for the system, producing a "iplayer" application for each OS wouldn't be important.
Re:Sadly more truth than joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
I do think it's important... how would using an open format prevent everyday people from using the material? Seems to me it would enable _more_ everyday people to use the material by allowing them to use whatever player they are already familiar with rather than having to learn a propriatory one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most open formats have players already available for all the major platforms (and quite a few minor ones), so it seems your fear is unfounded.
Maybe you meant that it would be bad to use a format for which there is no *preinstalled* player - well AFAIK you can't play the BBC's iPlayer content with any preinstalled player anyway, that requires you install the iPlayer so they are already breaking this part of
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OK, I see we're talking at cross-purposes, and in any case this is an interesting subject so I'm going to expand a lot of my earlier comments here.
When I say I have no problem with open formats, I mean I have no problem in principle with using documented, standardised formats for which anyone with the programming knowledge may write a player.
However, this comes into conflict with another requirement here, which is that the BBC's other commitments mean it can't just stick Ogg files of all its programmes
Re:Sadly more truth than joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have yet to see any reasonable explanation as to why content delivered over IP needs to be DRM'd whilst the same content delivered over PAL, DVB-T, DVB-C and DVB-S can be delivered unencrypted (and the BBC have actively pushed for this).
it dramatically reduces the market for BBC shows abroad.
This is completely bogus - the BBC can filter by IP address to restrict the downloads to UK residents which would lead to a similar state of affairs as their free to air broadcasts.
Firstly, you already pay the licence fee for the existing facilities. It's not going up significantly to support the new offerings, so you're not losing out.
The money doesn't magically appear from somewhere - this is being funded by licence fee money and that means either the licence will need to be increased or the funds are being diverted away from existing facilities.
I should also point out that the licence fee _has_ increased significantly over the past decade, in part to pay for new services such as the digital channels, increased web content, etc.
Secondly, even if you do, it's not intentional. The BBC distributes vast amounts of content in many media, and almost no-one benefits from all of it. Where do you draw the line on how far they must go to be making a reasonable attempt to allow access to those entitled to it?
No, you're right, I don't access all the BBC's content. However, I *could* if I wanted, without being required to buy specific software to do so. The BBC does not artificially prevent certain groups of people from accessing their other content.
it's not your licence fee that is paying for the content. Licence fees represent a surprisingly small part of the BBC's income.
In that case the BBC won't mind if we abolish the licence fee.
(Note: I'm actually pro-licence fee, but if you're going to claim my licence fee doesn't pay for anything then there seems to be no reason for me to pay it)
If you significantly undermine that revenue stream, we won't need to have this conversation in five years
Noone is suggesting the BBC undermine their revenue stream. All I am suggesting is that they provide the content _to the british public_ in an open format over IP. This really is no different to what they are already doing, which is providing the content in an open format over PAL, DVB, DAB, FM and AM.
Noone is discussing copyright here. The discussion is regarding DRM. If you have DRM you don't need copyright and if you have copyright you don't need DRM.
some other proportionate incentive to support the system instead of screwing it.
How about the content producers not trying to screw over the consumers all the time. At the moment, illegally copied material is _higher quality_ than the legitimately paid for material, because you don't have to deal with DRM, region controls, unskippable content accusing you of being a criminal, etc. Is it any wonder people infringe the copyright?
But the main problem with copyright infringement on-line isn't the hardcore geeks who can circumvent DRM in their sleep, it's the casual copiers.
I think that assertion is just plain wrong. The geeks crack the DRM and post the un-DRM'd versions on bittorrent trackers. You don't need to be a geek to use a torrent client. If you make the average user jump through hoops, you won't do anything to stop the geeks posting the content in unDRM'd format, but you will push the masses to getting the illegal un-DRM'd version instead of the official one.
Re:Sadly more truth than joke. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to troll, don't be so obvious about it. Don't write something that everyone can instantly see is an Aunt Sally. Make it at least seem as if you're making a reasonable point.
Using an open format wouldn't stop 'everyday people' from watching or listening to the material. It would make it easier for them. They could use either the BBC's own player, or a range of other players from other providers. They could watch the material not just on their Windows computer running the BBC's software, but also on their phone, their MP3 player, their television via a set-top box.
This isn't just a win for strange nerdy people who want to roll their own media player, or Un-American[1] traitors who choose not to run Windows. It's a win for 'everyday people'.
1: Yes, of course I'm un-American. I'm Scots.
Re:Sadly more truth than joke. (Score:5, Informative)
I think it's wrong to use a format that is integrated into the "most popular operating system" and can't easily (and possibly not legally) be used on anything else.
Re:Sadly more truth than joke. (Score:4, Insightful)
And here I was thinking that Vista was a whole new operating system. I'm sure that's what the nice people at Redmond have been saying.
I can understand them wanting to support XP first, certainly. Describing Vista as "popular" however would seem to be a bit of a stretch. You might just about get away with "probably going to become widely deployed OS, someday". Not exactly a reason to prioritise support however.
Especially seeing as - as has been pointed out elsewhere, if they'd used an open format the problem would not have arisen. It's a bit like cutting off a fellow's leg, and then telling him there are people ahead of him in the queue for prosthetic limbs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sadly more truth than joke. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Makes me wonder, why aren't they simply using Silverlight. Supports WMV, WVM's DRM, and is multiplatform (Silverlight on Windows/Mac and 100% compatible Moonlight on Linux).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps, but the BBC content is free. The DRM exists just to expire the content. Not tat it works, I just crack it with fairuse4wm.
Makes me wonder, why aren't they simply using Silverlight. Supports WMV, WVM's DRM, and is multiplatform (Silverlight on Windows/Mac and 100% compatible Moonlight on Linux).
Adobe products are multi platform, Silverlight/Moonlight is not. Can you create content on Linux/OS X? Just a bribed Novell coded plugin doesn't make difference.
.NET 2.x ?
Also there is no guarantee that Silverlight 2 (embraced and extended!) with having some real important functions will be released as "Moonlight 2". Where is Mono supporting
They can use _any_ DRM of their choice as long as it is true multiplatform, Real comes to mind, even Quicktime DRM is possible. What should be done is stick with true
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a shame really. Spotlight could be cool, however as usual, all other OSs are being treated as second-class citizens. I don't know why people keep buying into the MS PR stuff about anything from MS being cross-platform. I think people would have learned/learnt alrea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that Kontiki (the platform forced upon the BBC as the only off-the-shelf system available that handled all the drm and p2p side of things) only runs on Windows (and evidently the version the beeb uses only works on XP). The BBC are beholden to them wrt other platforms.
I suspect some of the bright people at BBC research are working on their own system for the other platforms (maybe even to replace kontiki). It really wouldn't be an insurmountable problem (it's not as if Kontiki is Rocket Sci
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sadly more truth than joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
As some other posters have pointed out, this entire debate is framed incorrectly - they're asking the wrong questions.
NEWSFLASH to the BBC from the world
The BBC shouldn't be trying to make the Internet into broadcast television, but turning from broadcast television and using the Internet to distribute, via the channels already available - (XBox, unbox, iTMS, YouTube etc). The future for the BBC is not in broadcasting, but in content production. Unfortunately the BBC Trust has no fucking idea about the internet, and the BBC is not enlightening them. Why not? The BBC doesn't even depend on advertising, this should be a perfect situation for them to lead the way. Instead they're leading everyone in precisely the wrong direction, egged on by the Trust.
People would gladly pay for these shows in the right format. If you don't have the licensing rights to sell online, get them; you seem to manage to for DVDs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, people already paid for the content through forced taxation. Why should they have to pay again or have the content that they paid for be locked up?
Seriously, it is not like the BBC is a private company that is making content on their own dime. If that was the case, then people could complain but wouldn't have much of a case since they didn't pay for the content. As it is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly this joke has a lot of truth in it. From [bbc.co.uk]
Timelines for other platforms
There will be a Vista version of BBC iPlayer available this year. We are actively working on Mac and cross platform support.
It shows where their priority is
Cider I say... Yes, they will ship a x86 Cider (commercial WINE) thing which still uses MS Wmedia and its DRM. Only difference is, it will be named
.app or .i386 and claim to be multiplatform.
:)
It will be easy to figure out, just watch OS X version, if it releases as "Intel only" , it is WINE
Happy prisoning yourself to non standard formats while even Real networks moved to Mpeg 4 on high bandwidth BBC guys!
Every six months? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Every six months? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These kids at
On the first 6 month reporting time I would ask for extra two weeks to prepare my report!
Re: (Score:2)
You're kidding right?
We're no longer in the days when people develop their own codecs and players from scratch. Start with any number of open source programs that are already cross-platform and tailor it to suit their needs. VLC, for example, already runs on Windows, OS X, BeOS, all kinds of Linux, WinCE, all kinds of BSD, Solaris, QNX, etc. Perhaps they also need some kind of server component, but they could standardize on the server platform as that doesn't need to be cross-platform. How long would the modifications take
Re:Every six months? (Score:5, Funny)
Month 1
Week 1: Debate which OS/Distro to develop on.
Week 2: Submit recommendations/analysis to superiors.
Week 3: Wait
Week 4: Submission was going to be revised. Resubmit. Hope that it is okay this time.
Month 2
Week 1: Accepted. Determine the priority of the modules to port.
Week 2: Make new test scenarios with regards to the target environment.
Week 3: Buy development pc/server, install the target OS/distro. set it up.
Week 4: Manager decides to do team building at the beach.
Month 3
Week 1: Start to port the code to the new environment.
Week 2: same as Week 1
Week 3: Employees all got common cold.
Week 4: Coding Finished.
Month 4
Week 1: Run Tests and modify code as necessary.
Week 2: Continue testing and make initial builds.
Week 3: Install initail build on test server and demo it.
Week 4: Continue the iterations until an acceptable build was made.
Month 5
Week 1: Had the QA run the build on their tests.
Week 2: QA tests the build and determines if the video would no longer play after a few weeks.
Week 3: QA waiting for the two week expiration of video. CEO resigns.
Week 4: QA test completed, bugs logged, dev goes into cramming.
Month 6
Week 1: QA runs tests as necessary.
Week 2: Management determines product is good even with active bugs.
Week 3: Marketing announces the launch date of the product.
Week 4: Dev copies the exe from his bin...
Month 7
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The UK government certainly are absolutely awful where IT projects are concerned, but in this case it's not really fair to blame them since the BBC is autonomous in this respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't every six weeks be more appropriate? How long does it take to make a player cross-platform?
It will take a LOT since they didn't choose a true multiplatform server/client structure such as Real, Quicktime at first hand.
If I was a British citizen and paying to BBC, I would ask a full govt. investigation for this "iPlayer" scandal. In fact, doesn't UK have respected IT media to dig this?
If you hate Real, Quicktime is there. I am sure Apple wouldn't miss the chance to ship Quicktime framework for Linux using this as excuse. Both Real and Quicktime are MPEG standard based products these days, there i
Only measuring, not enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
[John Cleese mode=on]
6 months: "Not done yet? Carry on."
12 months: "Still not cross platform? Jolly good."
18 months: "What, no Linux so far? You chaps are putting on a fine show."
And so on
Re:Only measuring, not enforcement (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
should make for an amusing day
"lets go for a short walk"
Though I suppose there's nothing to stop him turning cleese mode off sometime in the future...
Anyway, I've never been much of a cleese (python) fan - too silly for me. Faulty Towers is about my limit.
BTW, what's so special about my UID?
[1] having said that, an infinite loop still has an 'end', as signified by the '}' belo
BULLSHIT (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:BULLSHIT.... even more disturbing! (Score:4,....
So, if the BBC Trust's conditions have not been met by the BBC, why is this service being allowed to operate at all? There is no need to measure 'progress' on a commitment; it is just a YES or a NO.
What if only a few distros that accept DRM in the form of proprietary drivers from some select video cards.. are able to participate in this new thingy? Will that be measured as 'available on Linux'?
It's sad to see the BBC disobeying the BBC Trust, and getting away with this nonsense. While we get to read such nice articles on... yes, the same BBC!! [bbc.co.uk]
The freedoms built in to the net are under attack like never before, argues regular columnist Bill Thompson.
While Bill Thompson was talking about Windows Vista, he might have as well been referring to his own employer, the BBC. Sad state of affairs, really.
Re: (Score:2)
How is the BBC going to port Windows Media to Linux, and more specifically non-x86 platforms? Worse still, how will they decide which platforms get ports? How about AmigaOS, or RiscOS? *BSD? AppleTV? Cowon A2?
What I can't understand is why DRM is required at all, when broadcast TV has no DRM and can be freely recorded and s
Re: (Score:2)
Not news. Certainly not good news (Score:2, Funny)
I have searched the BBC Trust Website for any evidence of a change of heart, and found none.
This is exactly the same response they gave in the original approval for the iPlayer service.
Full text of the decision from April this year can be found here [bbc.co.uk]. From this document:
They should use a cross-platform application... (Score:2)
Besides the more well-known wxWidgets and Qt, there is also ZooLib [zoolib.org], which is written in C++ and has the MIT license.
I've been a ZooLib developer for seven years, and think it's the best thing since sliced bread. I'm using it to build Ogg Frog [oggfrog.com], a Free (GPL) audio application. One reas
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The tough part is the DRM and frankly I think they should forget about it, or at least loosen it up so it's not so evil. Let's face it, the majority of people just want to watch the shows on the computer or their other device
Java requires a huge runtime (Score:2)
A minimal java app plus runtime download is tens of megabytes. A minimal zoolib download, which requires no runtime, is a half meg or so, and, once most of ZooLib's codebase is linked in, grows very slowly as new functionality is added to the app.
It was never intended as cross platform (Score:2)
Let's see:
1. The "requirement" that it be cross-platform is 2 years, replaced with a 6-monthly audit. Come on, this is a media player FFS. And it's not as if it will have to play 101 different types of media. The problem is reasonably well understood - using cross platform libraries a rough beta could probably be thrashed out inside 2-3 months.
2. The initial beta on the BBCs websit
It's really amusing... (Score:3, Interesting)
If I were to look, would I be likely to discover the involvement of a certain company known for pushing closed, incompatible data formats centered on it's closed operating system?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it's up to them - they negotiate the distribution rights when they negotiate the contracts with the content producers. They already negotiate for un-DRM'd PAL distribution in the UK, un-DRM'd DVB-S distribution in the UK, un-DRM'd DVB-T distribution in the UK and un-DRM'd DVB-C distribution in the UK. Why can't they negotiate for un-DRM'd IP distribution in the UK too?
Also, they are insisting on DRMing a
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC doesn't manufacture televisions or write software for digital radios. It just picks a standard that any manufacturer can use, and leaves the rest to the market. Quite why it should be involved in writing software for domestic computers is totally beyond my comprehension.
All they need do is to pick from one of the squillions of codecs already available, or at worst define their own, and the job is done. If they need to restrict content by geography, there is a wealth of geo
Just difficult, not Impossible (Score:2)
Seeing as Apple now use x86 and Linux runs on it there is no reason why the Windows DLLs couldn't be embedded into iPlayer allowing it to run on these platforms. It works for me with mplayer and the DLLs anyway. So that's the technical.
I suspect that as iPlayer is still a beta they are testing the network side of the code with the largest section of the audience first and will sort out something with Microsoft to run DRMed Windows Media on other x86 platforms - legally.
I do wish all the zealots would rememb
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, that kind of sounded like I was calling the parent a zealot - that was not my intention. The post was actually refreshingly free of zealotry and seemed really quite balanced - in contrast to the bulk of comments about the BBC/iPlayer who seem to think that they can change the reality of the situation by just repeatedly shouting "Put it out in a DRM free format! Waah!".
Open source (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask a brit for the rundown but I'm under the impression that there's a pretty good end run around the whole "public money" problem.
There's a corporation that collects the money, and although they have special powers in law, they're not government employees.
It's not "compulsory" to register a television that you don't watch the BBC on, but you have to explain why you don't want to watch the BBC, and you have to allow an inspector into your house to prove that your tv is incapable of receivi
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Technically you would still need a license if all you owned was a video recorder but had no screen to watch it on.
Under the Communications Act 2003, you need a television licence to receive or record television programmes. This applies if they are received by a satellite, cable or land based transmitter. If you are watching any satellite service, controlled
Re: (Score:2): (Score:2)
The system as a whole has to be incapable of receiving broadcasts, not the individual components thereof. A receiver with a working antenna that can demonstrably receive broadcasts would count as such as system, but the antenna without a device capable of receiving, or a receiving device without an antenna do not require a license.
"Even a video recorder which has a tv reciever in it is subject to the law."
Only if there is a working
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. Only if they get a court warrant and accompanying police officer. Otherwise, they get a door slammed in their face.
Re: (Score:2)
Opening a door does not count as an invitation to enter, and employees of the TVL have no more right of entry to your premises than newspaper delivery boys, so one can open the door, tell them to leave, and then close it again.
"they can spot fine you for not co-operating"
They have no more ability to spot-fine people than the milkman has for not cooperating with him. Even the police can't spot-fine for refusing to let them in, and cannot use force to enter private premises unl
Re: (Score:2)
Entry is _never_ required in the UK without warrant, and in such cases, there must be a police officer in attendance. Somebody sending you a letter claiming otherwise doesn't change this one whit or iota.
"you have refused an appointed officer the chance to inspect your equipment to prove licensed within the law"
TV licensing people are not appointed officers of
Re: (Score:2)
Getting such an order does however require evidence, and the fact that you haven't paid for a TV license isn't evidence that you require one, so it can't be used to get a search warrant. They're basically in a catch-22 situation: if they have no evidence beyond the fact that you haven't got a TV license, and you refuse to let them in to gather tha
Well... (Score:2, Funny)
done and done. (Score:3, Funny)
I hate to say it, but that demand has already been meet. Via Bittorrent. Everyone who knows the phrase "Vote Saxon" will agree with me.
Re: (Score:2)
I suddenly hear drums... and I live in the US. Parent is right.
-:sigma.SB
Re: (Score:2)
A masterful post indeed
:-)
Re: (Score:2)
Old news (Score:2, Interesting)
walking away from dinosaurs (Score:2)
Why;
they have dumbed tv down to the point of no return (along with the other uk channels, especially the now dismal ch4)
even the dumb content is nowhere near as good as it used to be (apart from radio 4)
they have failed utterly to conceal their cynical e
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In response to multiple threads... (Score:4, Interesting)
A: You only pay the TV license if you own TV reception equipment - whether or not that makes it a "tax" is up for debate, but it is more-or-less ring fenced for broadcasting, and doesn't (e.g.) just disappear into the Inland Revenue coffers with your income tax. (There's a side-issue with convincing the TV license stormtroopers that you don't have TV reception equipment, but that's incompetence, not the law). Actually, I'd predict that as soon as media convergence "matures" this system will collapse - I don't think extending the definition of TV reception equipment to PCs and Internet would be tolerated - big media and comms. companies are already hostile towards this system and would roll out the astroturf like mad. In a sense, by pursuing online TV in any form, the BBC turkeys are voting for Christmas.
B: The BBC is not "run" by the government - lots of effort has been made to ensure that the management from the BBC is apolitical. Of course, this is totally immune from political appointments and back-room arm twisting - not!!! - but the thought is there. Like all journalists, the BBC news service is in the business of telling ripping yarns that get the viewers in, with accuracy and objectivity distinctly optional (e.g. the recent documentary on how nasty WiFi radiation fries kids brains, in which a tinfoil-hat salesman was given an uncritical platform) and this occasionally gets mistaken for political bias.
C: As far as I am aware, the BBC has no Royal Exemption from copyright and contract law and they have to deal with rights holders - much of their content is outsourced, bought in, involves card-carrying actors or is sold overseas (with various guarantees of exclusivity).
OTOH, this is all a bit nuts, since if you bung a DVB-T (terrestrial broadcast digital TV) card in your PC you can grab Dr Who, Torchwood and Heroes in ad-free wide-screen unencrypted MPEG2 goodness anyway (and 'Who is on continual re-run on BBC3 so you can't miss it!).
Nothing changes (Score:2)
Technically speaking it's not difficult to have something working on pretty much every OS by the end of today, so long as yo
Poor petition with the wrong target (Score:2)
Re:Are petitions fun? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:VLC CANNOT PLAY IT (Score:2)
If that's true, then why petition only to obtain a different type of lock?
That's like complaining about being locked in a room full of posionous scorpians, and petitioning to be locked in a room full of posionous snakes, please. If you are going to be so incredibly brave, and sign a petition, why not request to not to be locked up at all?
Re:VLC CANNOT PLAY IT (Score:5, Insightful)
As a UK citizen I acknowledge that the BBC is restricted as to what it CAN provide by those who in turn supply it.
What I do not accept is the "Use Microsoft watch BBC" "Use linux/mac and you are shit out of luck".
Essentially HANDING microsoft a FREE selling point - "You can't watch the BBC on anything else", AND PAYING THEM OUT OF OUR LICENSEE FEE.
Convicted Felon (Microsoft) : 1
License Payers : 0
Re:Convicted Felon vs License Payers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Each household with a TV HAS to pay a license fee - it is illegal not to.
This funding is the passed onto the BBC (with additional government/public funding).
The actions of the BBC are regulated by the BBC Trust on "OUR" behalf.
They have been informed that a Microsoft lock in is unacceptable by US and are refusing to do anything concrete.
The PM was petitioned to step in and tell the BBC / the BBC Trust to solve the cross platform issue.
The response - The BBC Trust is on the ca
Thanks for the Informative post (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DRM is not required to limit the broadcast to the UK only - that can be done simply by filtering based on IP address. I don't really see a big difference between broadcasting un-DRM'd content to UK residents over IP (which they allegedly "can't" do), and broadcasting un-DRM'd content to UK residents over DVB (which the BBC campaigned for the ability to do and have be
Re:Convicted Felon vs License Payers (Score:4, Informative)
Everyone in the UK pays TV tax. Said tax goes to the BBC.
See the problem? The BBC has to provide people with the content.
This isnt your standard DRM case.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The letter of the law used to be that if your household contains any device that is CAPABLE of receiving terrestrial analogue or digital broadcasts, you were obliged to have a license. That is, even if you have an unplugged VCR in your loft, you should be paying (realistically, I'm sure any enforcer would turn a blind eye to this).
There does seem to have been a change however -- 1 [tvlicensing.co.uk] says that you can notify
Linux based DRM is impossible (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
VLC can play Microsoft DRM content (Score:2)
That is virtually NOT true. Pirates share content sans DRM, so the media people download plays just fine on the VLC player. But if you are right, then a petition to require support of multple operating systems would still leave open the insanity of every single company requiring you to install their version of a media player. If you include audio and text files
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The content available through Bittorrent etc are usualy "TV rips" that is captured via a "TV tuner card" or as direct hdtv rips from satellite or cable providers.
This is NOT the same content that we are discussing as such content is technically illegal.
Since the iPlayer service is currently (I believe) in closed beta no one will have seen the files to try with VLC, however since this is FULLY DRM'd up complete with a "dies after a certain am
Re: (Score:2)
The iPlayer is an opportunity to get it MADE LEGAL - all that is needed is the cross platform support, and then you won't need to break the law to download your tv.
Now if we only had a similarly simple way of changing the drugs/speeding laws.......
Be careful what you wish for... you may get it (Score:2)
If that happens then they will have a monopoly on the iPlayer, and then every other company would have to come out with their own proprietary version of a DRM media player. If you include audio and text files, your average computer might be required to maintain hundreds of different proprietary players, hardly worth petitioning for that utopia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The BBC unlike most other broadcasters if funded by UK residents paying an annual license fee.
What I object to is the misuse of OUR funding by paying a convicted felon for what is essentially a MONOPOLY lock into their technology.
What was it Microsoft were convicted TWICE for (once in the USA and once in the EU) ?
Ahhh yes being a monopoly.
You also fail to cover MAC users - cross platform is not just about linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The RM Nimbus was an overpriced PC clone which sold because it was accompanied with leaflets saying "We're specialists in education! Let us do everything for you!" (and RM still exist today, selling overpriced PC clones accompanied with leaflets saying "We're specialists in education! Let us do everything for you!". You'd be amazed how effective such a business plan is in the UK).
The BBC computer was commissioned b
MPEG-4 is patented, and forbids Open Source... (Score:2)
May I suggest the un-patent-encumbered Theora [theora.org] instead?
I know what I'm talking about, as I'd like to support MPEG-4 audio in Ogg Frog [oggfrog.com] - MPEG-4 is also known as AAC, the Apple iTunes "native" format. I've researched it, and I can't support it because I live in the US, which recognizes software patents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is it with people on slashdot thinking the world owes them everything?
If the BBC was american, they would probably ban foreigners from even accessing their site, let alone watching their content.