GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
What do you think about their argument for why they have DRM? To tell you the truth, makes sense to me.
What I wouldn't like is DRM used to lock hardware to specific software.
Not only is there the DRM issue, but this iPlayer only works with winblow$ and if that's not bad enough, they say it could take more than 2yrs to make it accessible on other platforms!! Yeah right
The argument is ridiculous and makes no sense whatsoever. If I remember correctly, the BBC broadcasts television shows. Shows which can easily be recorded at the time of broadcast.
Some of my favorite stupid executive trick quotes:
Quote:
Once viewed in entirety, programmes will be automatically deleted.
"The rights holders - the people that make the programmes, from Ricky Gervais to the independent producers that account for up to a third of our programming - simply wouldn't have given us the rights to their programmes unless we could demonstrate very robust digital rights management."
Why would I download something that will auto-delete after I watch it? That would force me to download it again if I wanted to watch it a second time.
The rights holders are so terminally stupid - and greedy - as to require DRM to be applied to something that had already been broadcast over the open air ways? How does that make the least bit of sense?
Windows media player only? Microsoft is not the only one responsible for building their world-wide monopoly.
The only thing stupider than this whole concept is the idea that anyone would be stupid enough to participate in it.
Once upon a time there was a limited use DVD format known as DivX (no, not the MP4 video codec - it was a DVD that "self destructed" after x number of playbacks). It no longer exists because it failed miserably in the market place.
This will fail too.
Yet another British invention - like the integrated circuit, computers, and jet engines - that will fail, yet become wildly successful elsewhere because its shortcomings will be recognized and corrected.
Dragineez, I feel the issue with downloading something over and over being a problem will disappear as internet connections become faster. This might happen soon.
Also, this might work because these are just TV programmes, how many of us record a TV programme and watch it over and over? Movies and music on the other hand is different, we want to be able to keep it and listen to it time and again. So I'm saying it just might work and I really don't care about the DRM cause it's a free service.
Again for music and movies, which I pay for, I should be able to keep it for as long as I want and transfer it to any device I want.
Quote:
Yet another British invention - like the integrated circuit, computers, and jet engines - that will fail, yet become wildly successful elsewhere because its shortcomings will be recognized and corrected.
The justification for the DRM ? Ok I can sort of see that, because the actual rights owners might "kick up" at not being able to control stuff as much as they'd like.
But to use something provided by MS ??? Yeah, like the BBC have that kind of money to waste! I'm sure they could have come up with something that'd qualify under the F/OSS more cheaply.
Plus, the crap excuse about having to use iPlayer because it reaches the largest number of users is just that. Crap.
It's far easier for them to liaise with the F/OSS community to get one of "our" players and then port it to work under windows than the other way round, hell, even if they insist on proprietary players, use bloody realplayer. At least thats available to just about everyone in one form or another.
regards
John
p.s. Ok, others, who are far more knowledgeable than me, might have a better view/solution, but this using of MS based DRM software just stinks! Hopefully theres enough knowledge within the UK based linux world (there sure is outside the UK, but it's the BBC we're referring to here) to produce a "crack" and make them look like the fools that they are appearing to be!
bigjohn I agree, them using MS DRM is a bit fishy. Also they promised to roll out the player on other platforms but they only specifically mentioned Mac. Obviously we won't be seeing MS DRM ported to Linux.
That's nothing new, i've long ago noticed that Linux gets rarely a mention when companies talk about making their products/services available to "other platforms". Just take a look at their 'Click Online' programme, any coverage of Linux or Open Source is over in less than 5 minutes! They may as well call the programme 'Micro$hite Online' as that's mostly what they promote the use of.
That's nothing new, i've long ago noticed that Linux gets rarely a mention when companies talk about making their products/services available to "other platforms". Just take a look at their 'Click Online' programme, any coverage of Linux or Open Source is over in less than 5 minutes! They may as well call the programme 'Micro$hite Online' as that's mostly what they promote the use of.
I've seen Click a couple of times on BBC World, it's not that good.
lawl...
is it bbc news or everything? There's a BBC America, and I usually like their shows, so if it's everything, and opened worldwide...
I'm not so sure... all I know is that it's something like 400 hours of TV, no clue what the channels or programmes are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-bbc-to-unveil-plans-for-massive-online-programme-archive
The BBC will this week announce plans for a massive online program archive. Speaking to paidContent.org, a BBC spokesperson confirmed a report in the Sunday Observer that the corporation aims to put “nearly a million hours” of its rich TV, radio and even paper documents archive online. The broadcaster already has begun digitizing vast amounts of content, though the issue of rights clearance with program-makers for such an undertaking frankly sounds like a nightmare.
The BBC spokesperson said future media and technology director Ashley Highfield will announce the plans at the MipTV conference in Cannes, France, on Wednesday. “The ambition is to unlock the BBC’s content,” she said. “There will be a trial lasting six months but, as yet, there is no date for that. We will make it available to a wide array of testers to see how they use it. It will ultimately sit together with the Creative Archive. It will be free, yes - as with everything, there will be certain costs associated with worldwide distribution, but there are no details on that yet.”
Such an undertaking is likely to require the approval of the broadcaster’s BBC Trust governing body, which has recently struck off the BBC’s iPlayer on-demand web video plans and its Jam education network. But the trust may find it harder to justify a block on a project that would make available wartime radio excerpts, nature documentary footage and classic dramas the British public has already paid for once under the license fee. The lack of detail on the business model means that, while free to UK users, it is unclear whether the project will be ad-funded either in Britain or overseas, even if it is available outside the UK.
Asked whether the new proposition would integrate with the similar-sounding Creative Archive plans (to offer material that can be “re-mixed” by the public) or with the iPlayer web interface (that would let viewers catch up on the last week’s shows and store them for 30 days), the spokesperson said it would ultimately sit alongside the Creative Archive, though that was a somewhat different proposition, and the iPlayer plans have yet to win Trust approval anyway.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
and if that's not bad enough, they say it could take more than 2yrs to make it accessible on other platforms!! Yeah right 
