As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The BBC's FREE ondemand service.Windows Only?

124

Posts

  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Okay, so I shouldn't have said they would be explicitly condoning piracy. What I meant is that, if they released DRM-free video (as opposed to their radio, which isn't the same thing since you don't need a license fee to listen to BBC Radio),

    Ironically this proves my point. The license fee payer directly PAYS for the radio. Anyone who listens to BBC Radio without a license is the equivalent of a pirate. Adding DRM to ensure that only license fee payers have access to the content of BBC radio is both impractical and a waste of money. It would also be easiy subverted. So what did the BBC do? Not give a fuck about it, and just broadcast it DRM free. Strangely the world didn't end.
    it would cause an increase in piracy.

    It may do for radio - but no one cares. Almost everyone in the UK pays a license fee. The vast amount of piracy wouldn't be piracy. If anything the not-pirates (via torrents or whatever) could be seen as reducing the BBCs broadcast costs. Allowing for more production of TV shows.
    The BBC would be seen to be not taking steps that they easily could to prevent this.

    No one looks at radio and thinks that. And for the people they serve what should be "prevented" isn't wrong.
    This would lower their revenue from DVD sales, and sales of rights to UKTV and foreign networks.

    Which is a negligible amount of the Beebs revenue. And the vast majority of world wide sales of BBC produce goes to fund the BBC's presence in other countries. If american pirates send the american BBC (run independently of the BBC) bust. Why should that bother the BBC? It's their fault. To damage the british users experience for the sake of that is ridiculous.
    Then they would have to put the license fee up, or start making cheaper and worse programming.

    It would take a £5 raise in the yearly rate to match the DVD/licensing profits in total. For free avi downloads I really don't believe many would argue.
    I don't see how this is a favourable outcome for much of anyone.

    It's better for the public. And unlike a profit driven company the BBC has one single directive. To do what is best for the public.

    Lave II on
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Copyright law provides the legal tools to deal with piracy, but if you're releasing DRM-free content, then it's not going to be practically possible to enforce copyright laws, is it? I'm not saying the BBC necessarily have any legal need to DRM-protect their content. But they have to protect their interests in further sales of those programmes to DVD and international firms and to UKTV who might not be too happy with them providing such easily-pirated copies of the shows they want to buy.

    No. They. Don't. If you recorded something of the radio, then sold it for money then the BBC would have the right to sue you. They wouldn't lose because they didn't add DRM to digital Radio.

    Jeaz.

    The BBC's mandate is to produce content for license fee payers to enjoy. It is not their mandate to make lots of money from secondary sales.

    To survive into the coming decades the BBC will have to focus on it's first mandate. Producing content for the public. And not on charging them again.

    DVD sales shouldn't survive just because they did previously.

    Regardless, there is no evidence that the BBC would lose all DVD sales. Lots of people like the whole package thing.

    Lave II on
  • Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Considering the fuss that's kicked up every time the BBC tries to put the license fee up by any amount, I think that a hell of a lot of people would argue, notably those without the internet. And 5% is just (apparently) the DVD sales, also there's the revenue from the Flextech channels buying their shows (Virgin-whatever-they're-called now - UKTV Gold and the like) and the money they make from BBC America (run separately, but I assume they pay the BBC for the rights to those shows) and anyone else they sell their stuff to. Say (though I don't like messing around with essentially arbitrary figures) that's more like 10%. I think a great many people (not least me) would be annoyed at a 10% increase on top of the inflationary increases that happen anyway for the sake of the ability to view their poor-quality internet copies of shows in a marginally more convenient way.

    The BBC don't add DRM to their radio (though they also don't let you download it; it's only available as streaming content) may be a waste of time to them, because there are no legal restrictions on who can listen to BBC Radio - you don't legally have to own a license. This is of no relevance to the situation in TV.

    Edit:
    No. They. Don't. If you recorded something of the radio, then sold it for money then the BBC would have the right to sue you. They wouldn't lose because they didn't add DRM to digital Radio.
    Of course the BBC don't lose the legal right to sue you if they haven't added DRM. But they'll lose the ability to, because how can you catch it? That's what DRM's for.

    I don't disagree that perhaps the BBC should shift its concentration to a model more focused on providing the content to users freely and conveniently. But it's a much bigger argument you're then making than just "the iPlayer shouldn't have DRM in it".

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Considering the fuss that's kicked up every time the BBC tries to put the license fee up by any amount, I think that a hell of a lot of people would argue, notably those without the internet. And 5% is just (apparently) the DVD sales, also there's the revenue from the Flextech channels buying their shows (Virgin-whatever-they're-called now - UKTV Gold and the like) and the money they make from BBC America (run separately, but I assume they pay the BBC for the rights to those shows) and anyone else they sell their stuff to. Say (though I don't like messing around with essentially arbitrary figures) that's more like 10%. I think a great many people (not least me) would be annoyed at a 10% increase on top of the inflationary increases that happen anyway for the sake of the ability to view their poor-quality internet copies of shows in a marginally more convenient way.

    The BBC don't add DRM to their radio (though they also don't let you download it; it's only available as streaming content) may be a waste of time to them, because there are no legal restrictions on who can listen to BBC Radio - you don't legally have to own a license. This is of no relevance to the situation in TV.

    It's of complete relavance. People who don't fund the radio have free access to it and the world didn't end.

    For the sake of argument lets say that a impossibly huge quarter, or even half of the BBC's revenue comes from secondary sources. DVD sales, or licensing.

    Even in that situation the correct thing for the BBC to do is provide DRM free perminant downloads. I paid for Dr Who to be made. Me. The BBC then made the program on my behalf.

    As such I can watch that program. Not once. Not only within a period of 30 days. I payed for it. It is as much mine as anyone elses. Over my lifetime I (hope) to fund the BBC myself for 60 odd years. Thats a lot of content thanks to me.

    There is no reason that the BBC should limit my views abitarily.

    This is the first time the BBC can technologically give everyone the content they made for keeps. Before the best they could manage is to stream it to you.

    Thats no longer the case. And to believe the status quo should remain so, is close minded.

    Lave II on
  • Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Well, there'd have been nothing to stop the BBC in the past providing you with DVDs of any show you want in return for a small charge to cover postage and the disc and admin. They didn't. So this isn't the first time it'd have been technologically feasible. To pick a random example, they sell Red Dwarf DVDs that are specifically marketed as just the programmes and no extras. They're cheaper, but not to the point that they're not making a profit from selling you just the content that you funded. Perhaps this shouldn't be the case. But that would be a huge change in the way the BBC operates, far bigger than just stripping DRM from the iPlayer. I'm not against it, and I won't argue with it as a position. I'm not in favour of maintaining the status quo for its own sake. But I think it's a separate (well, overlapping but much larger) debate to this one. Make a good thread for D&D though.

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Edit:
    No. They. Don't. If you recorded something of the radio, then sold it for money then the BBC would have the right to sue you. They wouldn't lose because they didn't add DRM to digital Radio.
    Of course the BBC don't lose the legal right to sue you if they haven't added DRM. But they'll lose the ability to, because how can you catch it? That's what DRM's for.

    I don't disagree that perhaps the BBC should shift its concentration to a model more focused on providing the content to users freely and conveniently. But it's a much bigger argument you're then making than just "the iPlayer shouldn't have DRM in it".

    Why do they care if they catch you? Here's an idea. The TV license naturally extends to PC's. Hell in a decade it will be hard to tell the difference between a TV and a PC anyhow - so to survive the BBC will have to do that. You pay a license fee, you get the content. You don't and you're in the UK - then you are such a small percentage it's not worth their time (like with radio) coming after you. You live abroad and you pirate it - then that has no relavance to the (correct) funding model of the BBC.

    I've never mentioned the iPlayer. I was talking about how there is no reason the Beeb couldn't just host .avi files on a server.

    There are always exceptions though. DRM on the iPlayer for the Xmas showing of Harry Potter can be argued for. And would no doubt be essential. Otherwise the BBC won't obtain rights to it.

    Lave II on
  • Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Lave II wrote: »
    Why do they care if they catch you? Here's an idea. The TV license naturally extends to PC's. Hell in a decade it will be hard to tell the difference between a TV and a PC anyhow - so to survive the BBC will have to do that. You pay a license fee, you get the content. You don't and you're in the UK - then you are such a small percentage it's not worth their time (like with radio) coming after you. You live abroad and you pirate it - then that has no relavance to the (correct) funding model of the BBC.

    I've never mentioned the iPlayer. I was talking about how there is no reason the Beeb couldn't just host .avi files on a server.

    There are always exceptions though. DRM on the iPlayer for the Xmas showing of Harry Potter can be argued for. And would no doubt be essential. Otherwise the BBC won't obtain rights to it.


    I imagine the percantage that's "not worth bothering about" would rise considerably if the BBC made it so extremely easy to get away with license-fee evasion. But I guess I should stop arguing here. As I said above, I don't disagree with this perhaps being how the BBC should run. But it's not a state of affairs that could be reached simply by removing DRM from the iPlayer or hosting .avi files on the website. It'd be a giant shift in how the corporation operates.

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Well, there'd have been nothing to stop the BBC in the past providing you with DVDs of any show you want in return for a small charge to cover postage and the disc and admin. They didn't. So this isn't the first time it'd have been technologically feasible. To pick a random example, they sell Red Dwarf DVDs that are specifically marketed as just the programmes and no extras. They're cheaper, but not to the point that they're not making a profit from selling you just the content that you funded. Perhaps this shouldn't be the case. But that would be a huge change in the way the BBC operates, far bigger than just stripping DRM from the iPlayer. I'm not against it, and I won't argue with it as a position. I'm not in favour of maintaining the status quo for its own sake. But I think it's a separate (well, overlapping but much larger) debate to this one. Make a good thread for D&D though.


    For the BBC to have made and shipped request DVDs on demand and at cost, would be a huge, huge operation. And at best the DVDs would cost more or less the same as that of comercial releases. Thats not the best use of their time. Though inprinicple, they could have done that. But it isn't comparable to the cost of a license payer P2P network that can share their content is it?

    Again, I'm not talking about the iPlayer, I'm talking about the long term future of the BBC.

    Regardless of their actions they are facing huge, huge changes in how they run. Do you really think you'll have a seperate PC and TV in a decade or so? They'll be equivalent things.

    Most companies that make money from sales have a very difficult future when it comes to working out how to profit from making hughly pirated shows. The BBC is in the novel situation where it's mostly immune from that problem. (non-)Piracy itself can be an easy way for them transmit their shows.

    Cutting the minor, independent arms of the BBC that make money from secondary sales may be the only way to save the BBC itself.

    EDIT: That giant shift you mention is coming regardless. All I'm saying is the one way out that would work. But I totally agree it's a much bigger issue than the DRM in the iPlayer. But it's the future of the iPlayer that will shape whether the BBC is still here in fifty years.

    Lave II on
  • Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Alright, but even if the BBC decided you were right, they should stop worrying about their commercial ventures, and concentrate solely on making programmes and distributing them to their license-payers. If they release shows DRM-free, they still have to make sure they're then limited to people who've paid their license. They could extend the license fee to apply to computers as well. But then every student in a halls o residence with a laptop in their room is liable. Every office is liable. People who don't want to watch the BBC and as such don't have a TV suddenly become liable because of their PC. A whole lot of people become liable to pay it who don't necessarily want to receive the service. This will cause a lot of very righteous indignation.

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited August 2007
    According to the BBC's 2005-2006 Annual Report,[22] its income can be broken down as follows:

    * £3,100.6 m licence fees collected from consumers.
    * £620.0 m from BBC Commercial Businesses.
    * £260.2 m from the World Service, of which £239.1 m is from grants (primarily funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office), £15.8 m from subscriptions, and £5.3 m from other sources.
    * £24.2 m from other income, such as providing content to overseas broadcasters and concert ticket sales.

    So 3,240 million from the public vs 24 million from selling the rights abroad. Massive Piracy abroad isn't a problem their then.

    And 620 million from the other commerical ventures. Which is more than I guessed - but as a sizeable amount of this is magazines (Radio Times, Dr Who Magazine et al) and Toys (Dr Who, Teletubbies, Tweenies) again as well as books (Again massively successful Dr Who books, and show tie in books). Then it looks like DVD sales (which would not collapse completely) could be easily weathered.

    Lave II on
  • GlalGlal Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Now take into account that 100% piracy is retardedly retarded stupid big.
    I don't even know what this sentence means.
    The scenario you were talking about was based on 100% piracy, which is so mindnumbingly unrealistic you might aswell say "yeah, if it rained herring, it might actually affect BBC's revenue".
    And regarding your comment about being seen as supporting piracy...

    Glal on
  • Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User
    edited August 2007
    I took "providing content to overseas broadcasters" to mean stuff the BBC specifically make for other people, rather than selling the rights to shows. But anyway, my point isn't just that the BBC can't take the loss from DVD sales and overseas sales. There's also the loss from people who stop paying the license in Britain since they can so very easily download the content anyway and nobody can feasibly catch them. And small percentages are misleading; they make a bigger difference than the number might suggest.

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Alright, but even if the BBC decided you were right, they should stop worrying about their commercial ventures, and concentrate solely on making programmes and distributing them to their license-payers. If they release shows DRM-free, they still have to make sure they're then limited to people who've paid their license. They could extend the license fee to apply to computers as well. But then every student in a halls o residence with a laptop in their room is liable. Every office is liable. People who don't want to watch the BBC and as such don't have a TV suddenly become liable because of their PC. A whole lot of people become liable to pay it who don't necessarily want to receive the service. This will cause a lot of very righteous indignation.

    Now this I agree on. This is a HUGE problem. But I see this as the inevitable future for the BBC - so they need to work out a way where people accept this. And I think DRM free .avi files of all shows is the only way to do that.

    Currently £3 billion in license fee revenue means they must have about 30 million licenses issued. Thats one for evey two people - which sounds about right. Now if you consider that most households already have a license, multiple tvs and multiple pcs, then the change should go smoothly.

    It is only 1 licensee per household after all.

    Clearly Work PCs and School PCs would have to be excluded in the same way that if you have a a flatscreen showing information about your shop or whatever today - you don't have to pay a fee.

    But then it wouldn't be a real issue because most of their employees would already be covered by a license after all. In the same way that my household license means I can watch my portable TV game gear add-on on the bus. Or at my desk.

    Currently a PC that has a TV capture card needs a TV license as they can access the TV broadcasts. This woud be extended to include all TVs that can access the Internet.

    But your right - it's a huge issue to convince people of that. But I'm convinced it's the only way for the BBC to survive the next twenty years or so.

    Lave II on
  • Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Well, I guess I'll leave this discussion here then. We've probably veered pretty far off-topic by now. Maybe a Future of the BBC topic would be fun in D&D though.

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    I took "providing content to overseas broadcasters" to mean stuff the BBC specifically make for other people, rather than selling the rights to shows. But anyway, my point isn't just that the BBC can't take the loss from DVD sales and overseas sales. There's also the loss from people who stop paying the license in Britain since they can so very easily download the content anyway and nobody can feasibly catch them. And small percentages are misleading; they make a bigger difference than the number might suggest.

    The BBC only produces one thing for anyone that isn't firstly for the UK population. Thats the "World Service" and is funded from the £240 in grants the government give the BBC to provide unbiased news and information to the rest of the world.

    Why? Because the UK is awesome. And realises how essential people in some parts of Africa and Asia find this info.

    Also, people today can really, really easily access content for free. Just don't buy a license but still watch TV. But if you do the TV licensing agency will nag and nag, and threaten and threaten.

    To be honest my proposal is far better - because as it stands you could by a PC - dowload all your shows of the interweb, and when TVL come knocking you can demonstrate your lack of a TV.

    By making the PC the new TV, you avoid this issue.

    Lave II on
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Well, I guess I'll leave this discussion here then. We've probably veered pretty far off-topic by now. Maybe a Future of the BBC topic would be fun in D&D though.

    That would be a good idea. Though how the BBC adapts to new tech is pretty apropriate for G&T.

    And it is my thread - so it can't be that off topic :)

    I think you made some great points, I disagreed - but then thats why they were interesting!

    I hope I didn't come accross aggresive - it's just I love the BBC, and it could easily die in the next decade or so if it doesn't handle "The Future" very well.

    Lave II on
  • Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User
    edited August 2007
    No no, not agressive at all. Good discussion. Handn't realised it was your thread to begin with. I'm a big BBC fan myself, so I hope it does last well into the future.

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Having just read the last few pages from when I last logged off, interesting stuff here, great discussion guys!

    I would like to just say that I currently do not have a TV license, I am living on my own atm, but will be house sharing with 3 other people come start of next accademic year, and we will split the cost of one then. I own a TV and I use it to watch DVDs and play video games on, I do not watch any Television broadcasts on it. According to the TV licensing Agencies own literiture it is a grey area as to whether or not what I am doing is illegal, in some contexts it says that owning a TV without a license and having it turned on is illegal, in other contexts it says that watching programming without a license is illegal. Does anyone know a definitive answer as to whether or not it is legal? (I am perfectly happy that it is moral, and if they come to my door accusing me of watching tv I will happilly take them to court, I just don't know if a precident has been set in court yet)

    This situation is absurd really, since as said hundreds of people watch licensed content on PCs and get away with it. It's like the rules were made up in the 80's and haven't adapted to the times. The A/V hardware you own should not impact your legal rights.

    LewieP on
  • GlalGlal Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I heard some really D: stories about how people get almost harassed into getting a TV licence, with the companies sending threatening letters about sending someone to inspect your home if you own a TV but not a licence (as many console gamers might).

    Glal on
  • Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User
    edited August 2007
    My general experience is that if you haven't got a license, they send you a steady stream of increasingly threatening letters (regardless of whether you own a TV at all) then never do anything about it. I suppose they must sometimes do something about it though, or word would have got out by now.

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    *Phoenix Down*

    So me, and a lot of other people signed a petition to to government to force the BBC to make it's iplayer compatible with all OSs. The response can be seen here - http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page13090.asp

    "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to prevent the BBC from making its iPlayer on-demand television service available to Windows users only, and instruct the corporation to provide its service for other operating systems also."

    Details of petition:

    "The BBC plans to launch an on-demand tv service which uses software that will only be available to Windows users. The BBC should not be allowed to show commercial bias in this way, or to exclude certain groups of the population from using its services. The BBC say that they provide 'services for everyone, free of commercial interests and political bias'. Locking the new service's users into Microsoft Windows whilst ignoring those members of society who use other operating systems should does not fit in with the BBC's ethos and should not be allowed."

    Government's response -

    The Government set up the BBC Trust to represent the interests of licence fee payers, and to ensure good governance of the BBC. The BBC Trust has responsibility for ensuring that the correct degree of scrutiny is given to all proposals from the BBC Executive for new services (such as the iPlayer) and any significant changes to existing services. To fulfill this duty, the Trust conducted a Public Value Test on the BBC Executive's proposals to launch new on-demand services, including BBC iPlayer. This included a public consultation and a market impact assessment by Ofcom. In the case of the iPlayer, following the consultation, the Trust noted the strong public demand for the service to be available on a variety of operating systems. The BBC Trust made it a condition of approval for the BBC's on-demand services that the iPlayer is available to users of a range of operating systems, and has given a commitment that it will ensure that the BBC meets this demand as soon as possible. They will measure the BBC's progress on this every six months and publish the findings.


    Does this mean that the government will ask the BBC nicely every 6 months until it decides to do something?

    LewieP on
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited September 2007
    LewieP wrote: »
    The BBC Trust made it a condition of approval for the BBC's on-demand services that the iPlayer is available to users of a range of operating systems, and has given a commitment that it will ensure that the BBC meets this demand as soon as possible. They will measure the BBC's progress on this every six months and publish the findings.


    Does this mean that the government will ask the BBC nicely every 6 months until it decides to do something?

    Hmm, I've not got this email yet, cheers Lewie.

    So unless they support other operating systems they will lose the right to provide on-line services. This is great news! It forces the Beeb to support other OSes. Awesome.

    Looks like it will take yonks, but better late than never.

    Lave II on
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Looks like a platform independant flash based streaming service is in the pipeline.
    At the end of the year users of Windows, Mac or Linux machines will be able to watch streamed versions of their favourite TV programmes inside a web browser, as well as share the video with friends and embed programmes on their own websites, sites such as Facebook and blogs.

    Good news. Now they need to work on letting everyone download content.

    LewieP on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    LewieP wrote: »
    Looks like a platform independant flash based streaming service is in the pipeline.
    At the end of the year users of Windows, Mac or Linux machines will be able to watch streamed versions of their favourite TV programmes inside a web browser, as well as share the video with friends and embed programmes on their own websites, sites such as Facebook and blogs.

    Good news. Now they need to work on letting everyone download content.

    I really hope the quality isn't too shitty. Plus I get the general impression that they're going this way because they don't think the proportion of Linux/Mac machines using the service will be particularly high:
    The BBC wrote:
    But Mr Highfield said the BBC had not committed to offering the iPlayer to Mac and Linux users who want to download and keep content on their machines for a limited period.

    He said: "We need to get the streaming service up and look at the ratio of consumption between the services and then we need to look long and hard at whether we build a download service for Mac and Linux

    "It comes down to cost per person and reach at the end of the day."

    I'm kind of curious as to how this turns out actually. It seems to me that the iPlayer service will primarily appeal to techie folk, among whom I'd think Linux/Macs would make up a higher proportion of the userbase than the general computer-using population.

    japan on
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    japan wrote: »
    I'm kind of curious as to how this turns out actually. It seems to me that the iPlayer service will primarily appeal to techie folk, among whom I'd think Linux/Macs would make up a higher proportion of the userbase than the general computer-using population.

    Exactly, my blog has over 2/3 of visitors using Firefox, and a big proportion (about 15% iirc) using linux. Web sites for geeks attract geeks.

    LewieP on
  • SzechuanosaurusSzechuanosaurus Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    Lave II wrote: »
    Also, people today can really, really easily access content for free. Just don't buy a license but still watch TV. But if you do the TV licensing agency will nag and nag, and threaten and threaten.

    Heh. No. They come to your house, read you your rights and unless you pay right there and then will take you to court. Even if you do pay right there and then, they make it perfectly clear they may still take you to court anyway.

    Szechuanosaurus on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    LewieP wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    I'm kind of curious as to how this turns out actually. It seems to me that the iPlayer service will primarily appeal to techie folk, among whom I'd think Linux/Macs would make up a higher proportion of the userbase than the general computer-using population.

    Exactly, my blog has over 2/3 of visitors using Firefox, and a big proportion (about 15% iirc) using linux. Web sites for geeks attract geeks.

    Hey, I'm a statistic!

    :P

    I use Opera on Linux, so for most sites that track UserAgents, I'm probably in a column all of my own.

    japan on
  • darleysamdarleysam UKRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    does this just apply to tv shows, or is radio covered too? And since i've not been keeping tabs or have the desire to read through the thread, when does it all start up (or has it already), is it restricted to 7 days, and in general.. can someone get me up to date on the whole situation?

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    darleysam wrote: »
    does this just apply to tv shows, or is radio covered too? And since i've not been keeping tabs or have the desire to read through the thread, when does it all start up (or has it already), is it restricted to 7 days, and in general.. can someone get me up to date on the whole situation?

    Radio shows have long been available for download either by podcast (permanent record), or through listen again/on demand listening (7 days usually)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio

    TV shows are currently available to watch through the iPlayer beta service that runs on XP (Vista with hacks). You can download a selection of bbc produced content 7 days after they are aired and then must be watched within 30 days (once you start playing them you have 7 days to finish watching).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/


    Additionally the bbc have signed up with wifi providers the cloud to offer free access to all of bbc.co.uk
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7045123.stm

    And additional bbc news offers this guide to stripping DRM from files downloaded from iPlayer
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6944830.stm

    Rook on
  • darleysamdarleysam UKRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Cool. Basically, there's a show on Radio 4 on friday that i might want to listen to outside of the 7 days, and was wondering if that's a possibility or not. I guess that puts it into 'maybe'.

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • UnicronUnicron Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Well there are multiple ways to "rip" the stream if you're so inclined, google is your friend but IIRC one of the easier ways is using VLC to play/record the stream.

    Unicron on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • darleysamdarleysam UKRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    yeah, i didn't want to go into questionable methods (which i would assume those would be, although no different to sticking a tape in and recording it from a radio).

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    darleysam wrote: »
    Cool. Basically, there's a show on Radio 4 on friday that i might want to listen to outside of the 7 days, and was wondering if that's a possibility or not. I guess that puts it into 'maybe'.

    There's an A-Z listing of all the radio 4 broadcasts available through "listen again" here.

    japan on
  • darleysamdarleysam UKRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    japan wrote: »
    darleysam wrote: »
    Cool. Basically, there's a show on Radio 4 on friday that i might want to listen to outside of the 7 days, and was wondering if that's a possibility or not. I guess that puts it into 'maybe'.

    There's an A-Z listing of all the radio 4 broadcasts available through "listen again" here.

    the show i want is the Friday Play (it's some version of OK Computer, which could suck, or could be awesome), which i know is available for the following week, but i don't know what happens after that. Ideally, i'd like to be able to keep it (if it's good), to listen to other times. If there's a bbc-provided service for that, then good news everyone!

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    There's no podcast for the Friday Play, unfortunately. As has been mentioned, there are numerous ways of recording the stream, though. I think once the seven days are up, you're out of luck (I missed the "outside the seven days" part of your earlier post).

    japan on
  • darleysamdarleysam UKRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    No worries, and that appears to be a shame. Hmmm.

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • UnicronUnicron Registered User
    edited November 2007
    An interview with the head of technology for BBC got posted on /. earlier. Interview here, commentary here and here.

    I really hope they get their arse in gear over this, both as a Linux user and as someone who enjoys seeing public money being spent properly.

    Unicron on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Someone should totally get me fully up to date on the iplayer.

    LewieP on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    LewieP wrote: »
    Someone should totally get me fully up to date on the iplayer.

    There's a Windows only download service, you get wmv files that self-destruct.

    There is also a flash streaming service that works with anything that has Flash 9, but the videos are only available for a limited period after they've been broadcast.

    Then there's the beta iPhone player, which uses un-DRMed mp4, usable by anything with an editable user-agent.

    japan on
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    japan wrote: »
    LewieP wrote: »
    Someone should totally get me fully up to date on the iplayer.

    There's a Windows only download service, you get wmv files that self-destruct.

    There is also a flash streaming service that works with anything that has Flash 9, but the videos are only available for a limited period after they've been broadcast.

    Then there's the beta iPhone player, which uses un-DRMed mp4, usable by anything with an editable user-agent.

    So is there some kind of firefox extension that makes it think my PC is an iphone, and from there I can download everything off it in DRM free mp4.

    Coz that would be hawt.

    LewieP on
Sign In or Register to comment.