| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
BBC iplayer
Downloaded the beta software for the BBC iplayer.
Seems very similar to channel4's 4od software but it seems with the BBC software that the entire program has to be downloaded before viewing whereas the channel 4 software allows streaming. Anyone used the BBC software and got any comments. Geoff Lane |
BBC iplayer
I find iPlayer excellent. The advantage with iPlayer is that the
downloaded file is on your computer so you are able to view the programme again within the time limit without having to be on-line. In a recent message, Geoff Lane wrote ... Downloaded the beta software for the BBC iplayer. Seems very similar to channel4's 4od software but it seems with the BBC software that the entire program has to be downloaded before viewing whereas the channel 4 software allows streaming. Anyone used the BBC software and got any comments. Geoff Lane -- David G4DMP Leeds, West Yorkshire ------ |
BBC iplayer
Geoff Lane wrote:
Anyone used the BBC software and got any comments. It should be humanely put down now, or the BBC should license someone else to run a proper download service with the content properly paid for by downloaders - like itunes does it. The 'Free' service is doomed IMO.... (enjoy it while you can) -- Adrian C |
BBC iplayer
David Pratt wrote:
I find iPlayer excellent. The advantage with iPlayer is that the downloaded file is on your computer so you are able to view the programme again within the time limit without having to be on-line. True but the channel4 4od allows download or streaming so one has the choice. Personally, I'm not sure I'd fancy waiting for a 250MB+ size file to download before viewing it. Geoff Lane |
BBC iplayer
In message , Adrian C
wrote . The 'Free' service is doomed IMO.... (enjoy it while you can) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6944176.stm -- Alan news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com |
BBC iplayer
True but the channel4 4od allows download or streaming so one has the
choice. You'll have a choice with iPlayer in a later phase. |
BBC iplayer
"Geoff Lane" wrote in message ... Downloaded the beta software for the BBC iplayer. Seems very similar to channel4's 4od software but it seems with the BBC software that the entire program has to be downloaded before viewing whereas the channel 4 software allows streaming. Anyone used the BBC software and got any comments. It looks rubbish compared to the Channel 4 player and there's less on it. It wont let you resize the viewing window even to 2x so to be able to see anything you have to watch it gull screen. Even worse when you do go full-screen it used Software Overlay because the Hardware Overlay is not released by the tiny viewing window when it changes to the stand alone Media Player so the motion isn't as smooth because you can just about see it rendering on scene changes. Geoff Lane |
BBC iplayer
"Adrian C" wrote in message ... Geoff Lane wrote: Anyone used the BBC software and got any comments. It should be humanely put down now, or the BBC should license someone else to run a proper download service with the content properly paid for by downloaders - like itunes does it. The 'Free' service is doomed IMO.... And this is made worse by the fact that neither player or 4oD allow you to limit the bit rate at which you are downloading or uploading data like the torrent downloader do, or set a time window when uploading/downloading should be allowed or stopped. The 4oD player still uploads data to other users even when you exit it and won't stop until you delete the programme of your hard drive, so if you have a data transfer limit set by your ISP it will exceed it an about a day at the rate its going which is as much as your internet connection can take. (enjoy it while you can) -- Adrian C |
BBC iplayer
Agamemnon wrote:
"Adrian C" wrote in message ... Geoff Lane wrote: Anyone used the BBC software and got any comments. It should be humanely put down now, or the BBC should license someone else to run a proper download service with the content properly paid for by downloaders - like itunes does it. The 'Free' service is doomed IMO.... And this is made worse by the fact that neither player or 4oD allow you to limit the bit rate.... No. The problem is that the content is not secure. Microsoft's digital rights management is extremely flawed, and is in bad need of strengthening. Shoring up the security infrastructure is something that will burn a lot of cash to stop the cat and mouse game with hackers and those that want to re-distribute the BBC's programs illegally worldwide. Indeed, programme makers are not going to have their work freely redistributed on the internet without asking for even more money up front (Millions) or being provided (as proven by the want of the big film studios for DVD-HD and Blueray) with even more expensive and 'uncrackable' protection systems. Because of this, programme standards are just going to fall - and eventually there won't be anything worth watching let alone download. Also, only the well healed PC users are taking part in this trial. Those fortunate with fast broadband and having some technical knowledge about installing programs. Probably less than 2% (air plucked figure) of the population. Think about it, this is not fair. The BBC should have these services freely accessible to _all_ if it has the capability to do so. If not, as is plainly the case here, then it should collect funds e.g. subscriptions, so that the other 98% can enjoy BBC services without detriment. These funds could be spent on a high definition streaming service with someone like Akamai Technologies, rather than belts and braces downloading through peer-to-peer which encorages piracy. IMO They should stop iPlayer now and wait until competant technical authorities (for the BBC isn't even that nowadays) have established a proper working standard (and maybe burned someone elses money doing so) and then think about how this could work to the advantage of license payers. Trying to be the worlds first is not such always a sensible idea! -- Adrian C |
BBC iplayer
Shoring up the security infrastructure is something that will burn a lot
of cash to stop the cat and mouse game with hackers and those that want to re-distribute the BBC's programs illegally worldwide. Anyone with a video capture card, a DVD recorder or a VHS can do this already. A security infrastructure achieves nothing. The BBC has to face the fact that it is a "free to air" broadcaster whether it likes it or not. |
BBC iplayer
"Adrian C" wrote in message
... Geoff Lane wrote: Anyone used the BBC software and got any comments. It should be humanely put down now, or the BBC should license someone else to run a proper download service with the content properly paid for by downloaders - like itunes does it. The 'Free' service is doomed IMO.... BBC iPlayer is doomed to failure because it uses DRM. It will be many years before a practical version of BBC iPlayer exists, because they will have to go through a slow process of trial and error, attempting every possible means of restricting access to TV programmes, before they learn that access restrictions must be abandoned completely for a practical system to exist. No one with power or influence at the BBC has the vision or foresight to see that access to BBC TV programmes via the internet has to be unrestricted. The BBC must take that risk, and in a few years from now it will, for the simple reason that there will be too much competition from other sources of internet TV which are free, flexible, do not require registration, and do not install software designed to stop you opening files on your hard drive. DRM deserves no more respect than a rootkit. Music download businesses have begun to abandon DRM, because they realise that they must take the risk of selling unprotected downloads or they won't sell anything. The BBC also will have to abandon DRM for much the same reason. |
BBC iplayer
"Geoff Lane" wrote in message
... David Pratt wrote: I find iPlayer excellent. The advantage with iPlayer is that the downloaded file is on your computer so you are able to view the programme again within the time limit without having to be on-line. True but the channel4 4od allows download or streaming so one has the choice. Personally, I'm not sure I'd fancy waiting for a 250MB+ size file to download before viewing it. As the BBC is using p2p technology, your actual bandwidth usage could be much higher than that. Assuming a 1:1 upload/download ratio, a 250MB file would require 500MB of data transfer. As some quasi broadband suppliers like BT have a monthly usage limit of 1GB, you are not going to get too many programmes that way. Some rival ISP's also throttle download speeds severely after the first 3GB usage per month. (kim) |
BBC iplayer
In message , kim
wrote As the BBC is using p2p technology, your actual bandwidth usage could be much higher than that. Assuming a 1:1 upload/download ratio, a 250MB file would require 500MB of data transfer. As some quasi broadband suppliers like BT have a monthly usage limit of 1GB, you are not going to get too many programmes that way. Some rival ISP's also throttle download speeds severely after the first 3GB usage per month. Some ISP target P2P transfers for throttling irrespective of a monthly limit. -- Alan news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com |
BBC iplayer
In article , Stephen wrote:
DRM deserves no more respect than a rootkit. Music download businesses have* begun to abandon DRM, because they realise that they must take the risk of* selling unprotected downloads or they won't sell anything. The BBC also will* have to abandon DRM for much the same reason. The recorded music business has held onto the same pathetic fantasy since the invention of tape recording - that it will somehow be possible to invent a technology that will permit the punters to listen to the music but not copy it. Every time a new technology or home recording format is invented, they waste their money and our patience on another vain attempt, not realising that fundamental principles are against them. It should be abundantly clear that any music playback system must produce a simple decoded analogue audio signal at some point in the system or nobody will hear it, and if it's good enough to be pleasing to listen to, then it'll be good enough to make an equally pleasing copy by simply using a recording system with an analogue input. This might be a little more trouble than clicking things on a screen with a mouse, but if somebody really wants to make a copy of something they will always be able to do it. But the numbskulls in charge have failed to realise this for about three generations, so we shouldn't expect them to be any wiser in the future. Rod. |
BBC iplayer
Stephen wrote:
Shoring up the security infrastructure is something that will burn a lot of cash to stop the cat and mouse game with hackers and those that want to re-distribute the BBC's programs illegally worldwide. Anyone with a video capture card, a DVD recorder or a VHS can do this already. A security infrastructure achieves nothing. The BBC has to face the fact that it is a "free to air" broadcaster whether it likes it or not. FWIW The BBC already does some "free to air" content worldwide on 'You tube'. As long as a license fee _has_ to be paid, the BBC _has_ to have protection schemes in place so that unlicenced viewing is prevented. No way round that, other than scrapping the licence and then there won't be anything worth watching left! DRM is flawed. With home operating systems moving to supporting virtulisation, maybe a secure OS-independant answer may materialise. The BBC should wait until there is something better, or start charging for the facility and properly compensated (maybe then remove DRM, yes like record companies are doing). Whoever said this should be a free for all was a bit short sighted climbing into bed with Mr Gates. -- Adrian C |
BBC iplayer
Adrian C wrote:
Stephen wrote: Shoring up the security infrastructure is something that will burn a lot of cash to stop the cat and mouse game with hackers and those that want to re-distribute the BBC's programs illegally worldwide. Anyone with a video capture card, a DVD recorder or a VHS can do this already. A security infrastructure achieves nothing. The BBC has to face the fact that it is a "free to air" broadcaster whether it likes it or not. FWIW The BBC already does some "free to air" content worldwide on 'You tube'. As long as a license fee _has_ to be paid, the BBC _has_ to have protection schemes in place so that unlicenced viewing is prevented. No way round that, other than scrapping the licence and then there won't be anything worth watching left! DRM is flawed. With home operating systems moving to supporting virtulisation, maybe a secure OS-independant answer may materialise. The BBC should wait until there is something better, or start charging for the facility and properly compensated (maybe then remove DRM, yes like record companies are doing). Whoever said this should be a free for all was a bit short sighted climbing into bed with Mr Gates. The software world is littered with organisations that have regretted climbing into bed with Mr Gates. I don't see the Beeb being any different. -- Immunity is better than innoculation. Peter |
BBC iplayer
"Adrian C" wrote in message ... Stephen wrote: Shoring up the security infrastructure is something that will burn a lot of cash to stop the cat and mouse game with hackers and those that want to re-distribute the BBC's programs illegally worldwide. Anyone with a video capture card, a DVD recorder or a VHS can do this already. A security infrastructure achieves nothing. The BBC has to face the fact that it is a "free to air" broadcaster whether it likes it or not. FWIW The BBC already does some "free to air" content worldwide on 'You tube'. As long as a license fee _has_ to be paid, the BBC _has_ to have protection schemes in place so that unlicenced viewing is prevented. You don't have to have a TV licence in order to download the iPlayer and programmes, or should I say, they don't check in any way that you have a licence ... or have I missed something? |
BBC iplayer
In message , DubDriver
wrote You don't have to have a TV licence in order to download the iPlayer and programmes, or should I say, they don't check in any way that you have a licence ... or have I missed something? You have missed something http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp -- Alan news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com |
BBC iplayer
"Alan" wrote in message
... In message , DubDriver wrote You don't have to have a TV licence in order to download the iPlayer and programmes, or should I say, they don't check in any way that you have a licence ... or have I missed something? You have missed something http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp That only applies to TV cards in a PC. (kim) |
BBC iplayer
On 19/08/2007 15:56, Alan wrote:
You have missed something http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp I think the operative phrase is "as they are being shown", but iPlayer allows downloads *after* they air on TV, no? |
BBC iplayer
"Alan" wrote in message ... In message , DubDriver wrote You don't have to have a TV licence in order to download the iPlayer and programmes, or should I say, they don't check in any way that you have a licence ... or have I missed something? You have missed something http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp The point was not so much that you do or don't have to have a licence but .... the question was if they there is any check that you do have a licence. There is no request for your address either during the sign-up, when downloading the player or programmes (just your name and email address). This was in reply to Adrian C saying "As long as a license fee _has_ to be paid, the BBC _has_ to have protection schemes in place so that unlicensed viewing is prevented." Their sign-up / DRM does not constitute a protection scheme that prevents unlicensed viewing. |
BBC iplayer
This was in reply to Adrian C saying "As long as a license fee _has_ to be paid, the BBC _has_ to have protection schemes in place so that unlicensed viewing is prevented." Their sign-up / DRM does not constitute a protection scheme that prevents unlicensed viewing. Nor is that the intention. DRM is used because that's what the rights holders require. Without it, the BBC would not get the rights to make content available at all. |
BBC iplayer
"dB" wrote in message
... This was in reply to Adrian C saying "As long as a license fee _has_ to be paid, the BBC _has_ to have protection schemes in place so that unlicensed viewing is prevented." Their sign-up / DRM does not constitute a protection scheme that prevents unlicensed viewing. Nor is that the intention. DRM is used because that's what the rights holders require. Without it, the BBC would not get the rights to make content available at all. Uh? I thought the BBC were the rights holders since they made the programmes in the first place? (kim) |
BBC iplayer
In article ,
kim wrote: "dB" wrote in message ... This was in reply to Adrian C saying "As long as a license fee _has_ to be paid, the BBC _has_ to have protection schemes in place so that unlicensed viewing is prevented." Their sign-up / DRM does not constitute a protection scheme that prevents unlicensed viewing. Nor is that the intention. DRM is used because that's what the rights holders require. Without it, the BBC would not get the rights to make content available at all. Uh? I thought the BBC were the rights holders since they made the programmes in the first place? but there are also performers' rights, authors' rights, musicians' rights and, if the programme is bought in, owners' rights. -- From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey" Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
BBC iplayer
" Nor is that the intention. DRM is used because that's what the rights holders require. Without it, the BBC would not get the rights to make content available at all. Uh? I thought the BBC were the rights holders since they made the programmes in the first place? You though wrong. A very large percentage of programming is made by independent production companies, and it is they who own the rights. |
BBC iplayer
dB wrote:
This was in reply to Adrian C saying "As long as a license fee _has_ to be paid, the BBC _has_ to have protection schemes in place so that unlicensed viewing is prevented." Their sign-up / DRM does not constitute a protection scheme that prevents unlicensed viewing. Nor is that the intention. DRM is used because that's what the rights holders require. Without it, the BBC would not get the rights to make content available at all. The content has already been transmitted DRM free, and anyone with elementary equipment and technical knowledge can make DRM free copies of that content. OK, it may be watermarked, but that's not the point. -- Immunity is better than innoculation. Peter |
BBC iplayer
Nor is that the intention. DRM is used because that's what the rights
holders require. Without it, the BBC would not get the rights to make content available at all. The content has already been transmitted DRM free, and anyone with elementary equipment and technical knowledge can make DRM free copies of that content. Indeed, which makes the insistance on using DRM pointless, but the rights to broadcast a programme and the rights to make a programme available for download are not the same. The BBC are stuck between a rock and a hard place: either offer programmes with DRM, pay considerably more to obtain rights for not using DRM (which would not be considered as a good use of licence fees), or don't bother at all. |
BBC iplayer
On 18 Aug, 18:20, Alan wrote:
In message , Adrian C wrote . The 'Free' service is doomed IMO.... (enjoy it while you can) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6944176.stm Or, to put it another way, the ISPs sold bandwidth that they didn't have on the assumption that no one would ever use it. Now their customers are trying to use the bandwidth, the ISPs are getting really upset. Mind you, when you compare the cost of a real dedicated 24/7 unrestricted 2Mbps connection with "2Mbps broadband", you can see what you're really getting with the latter, and it ain't the former! I wonder how the cost of everyone watching TV this way compares with the cost of everyone getting a Freeview PVR which can buffer 7 day's worth of TV? (or a fraction of it, by making an intelligent choice for you). I suspect the latter is much cheaper, DRM-free, and fantastically better quality. Cheers, David. |
BBC iplayer
On 19 Aug, 13:21, Roderick Stewart
wrote: In article , Stephen wrote: DRM deserves no more respect than a rootkit. Music download businesses have begun to abandon DRM, because they realise that they must take the risk of selling unprotected downloads or they won't sell anything. The BBC also will have to abandon DRM for much the same reason. The recorded music business has held onto the same pathetic fantasy since the invention of tape recording - that it will somehow be possible to invent a technology that will permit the punters to listen to the music but not copy it. Every time a new technology or home recording format is invented, they waste their money and our patience on another vain attempt, not realising that fundamental principles are against them. It should be abundantly clear that any music playback system must produce a simple decoded analogue audio signal at some point in the system or nobody will hear it, and if it's good enough to be pleasing to listen to, then it'll be good enough to make an equally pleasing copy by simply using a recording system with an analogue input. This might be a little more trouble than clicking things on a screen with a mouse, but if somebody really wants to make a copy of something they will always be able to do it. But the numbskulls in charge have failed to realise this for about three generations, so we shouldn't expect them to be any wiser in the future. If the disc costs £10, the DRM costs 1p per disc, and the presence of DRM forces an extra sale about 1 time in 100, that's a 10x return on investment for using DRM. The BBC is an interesting case. If it really is our content, that we've paid for, maybe they should give it to us. The loss in revenue from lost DVD sales (if any) would lead to a rise in the licence fee, but I'm guessing it would be tiny, and easily justified by the service we would receive in return. However, there are some serious problems. Firstly, though we've "paid" for the content, the contracts the BBC has made on our behalf to acquire the content has not made it legally ours, or there's, to give away. Contracts that took this form would be more expensive. Too much more? We should be told. Secondly, why should we pay for content, for it to be given away to everyone in the world? Currently, overseas sales bring revenue into the BBC and reduce the licence fee. Giving it away would put an end to this. Finally, some content isn't originated at the request of the BBC - it's simply bought in. Most movies, sports, and foreign TV drama would never be sold to the BBC if they were simply going to give it away again. Either we accept DRM, an internet blackout on such content, or the BBC stops showing such content. Given these issues, I can see why they're going what they're doing. Why tackle all those issues head on (for what is still a "test" service) when there's an easier solution? I would hope that, if iPlayer really takes off, they can be more radical in the future. Cheers, David. |
BBC iplayer
|
BBC iplayer
On 20 Aug, 11:25, Roderick Stewart
wrote: In article . com, wrote: The recorded music business has held onto the same pathetic fantasy since the invention of tape recording - that it will somehow be possible to invent a technology that will permit the punters to listen to the music but not copy it. Every time a new technology or home recording format is invented, they waste their money and our patience on another vain attempt, not realising that fundamental principles are against them. [...] If the disc costs £10, the DRM costs 1p per disc, and the presence of DRM forces an extra sale about 1 time in 100, that's a 10x return on investment for using DRM. The notion that preventing people from copying recordings (even if it were possible) will actually force them to buy copies is an act of faith on the part of the recording industry. Like any act of faith, not only is it unprovable, but there are plenty of indications to the contrary, such as the many instances where familiarity through the availability of an illegal copy has actually prompted the desire to own an original. Such examples are often quoted. I have a few myself. However, it would be folly to suggest that giving content away would have no impact on the sales of that content. Is everyone in this world really so honest that, if they're given (or can obtain) a copy of a movie or CD they were thinking about buying at a vastly reduced price (e.g. free), they will still go out and buy it at full price? Unless you actually believe that, then it follows that DRM will stop _someone_ from copying something, that will stop at least _someone_ from receiving it for free, and that will cause at least _someone_ to buy it. Hence it will generate at least some extra revenue. Actually believing the mantra that "every copy is a lost sale", and that the equivalent amount of money could be recouped by preventing the copying is utter nonsense necause it is banking on phantom money that never existed, so it is sheer folly to waste real money in pursuit of it. Of course every copy isn't a lost sale. There isn't $2bn (or whatever) out there just waiting to be spent on legitimate CDs and DVDs if only piracy were stamped out. (If there is, it's not sitting in my back account!) However, there is clearly a commercial benefit to be gained from not giving the stuff away. If the cost of DRM (and I have no idea how much Microsoft charge for it) is less than the increased revenue due to using it, then people will use it. This is all way OT, since the BBC are not in this position. Cheers, David. |
BBC iplayer
"
writes: If the disc costs £10, the DRM costs 1p per disc, and the presence of DRM forces an extra sale about 1 time in 100, that's a 10x return on investment for using DRM. But how many sales does it lose through people not buying discs with DRM? |
BBC iplayer
"
writes: I wonder how the cost of everyone watching TV this way compares with the cost of everyone getting a Freeview PVR which can buffer 7 day's worth of TV? (or a fraction of it, by making an intelligent choice for you). I suspect the latter is much cheaper, DRM-free, and fantastically better quality. One potential problem with that (and I do have a Freeview PVR) is that at some times there is nothing you wish to watch (record) on any channel, but at other times 4 or 5 channels might be showing programmes which you might like to watch. But the PVRs can, at most, record 2 channels while letting you watch a third live (with the restriction that the channel you are watching live must be on the same MUX as one of those you are recording). |
BBC iplayer
On 20 Aug, 13:44, Graham Murray wrote:
" writes: I wonder how the cost of everyone watching TV this way compares with the cost of everyone getting a Freeview PVR which can buffer 7 day's worth of TV? (or a fraction of it, by making an intelligent choice for you). I suspect the latter is much cheaper, DRM-free, and fantastically better quality. One potential problem with that (and I do have a Freeview PVR) is that at some times there is nothing you wish to watch (record) on any channel, but at other times 4 or 5 channels might be showing programmes which you might like to watch. But the PVRs can, at most, record 2 channels while letting you watch a third live (with the restriction that the channel you are watching live must be on the same MUX as one of those you are recording). Current PVRs also have nowhere near the disc space required to store 7 days TV. There are semi-affordable HDDs that do though. It's been possible to record an entire mux for several years on PCs, so there's no hardware issue there - infact in hardware terms that datarate has been possible longer than we've had DTT! As for tuners, I guess some people manage to find content they want on more than 2 or 3 muxes at once, but the planning assumption in the UK is that half the muxes are unimporant since they won't be available from relay transmitters. So I think we're quite close to this being a reality. Google BBC PVR Pandora to find out what BBC R&D have already produced. Sony had a prototype that recorded 7 channels at once, but I can't find the link to that. Cheers, David. |
BBC iplayer
|
BBC iplayer
In article , Graham Murray wrote:
If the disc costs £10, the DRM costs 1p per disc, and the presence of DRM forces an extra sale about 1 time in 100, that's a 10x return on investment for using DRM. But how many sales does it lose through people not buying discs with DRM? None, I should think. Most people won't have a clue what "DRM" is, or whether any particular disc has it. Personally I buy discs based on whether they contain the particular performances I want to hear, and it seems a reasonable assumption that most people do the same. Rod. |
BBC iplayer
On 20 Aug, 22:30, Roderick Stewart
wrote: It will only generate "extra" revenue if the sales you imagine have been "forced" by its non-availability outnumber the sales prompted by its availability. Would you care to outline a reliable objective method for measuring these quantities? Of course not, but through various audio/hacker forums, I've observed the spread of DRM on audio CDs. It wasn't introduced on all titles in all territories at the same time. It was introduced piecemeal. One plausible explanation is that the record companies were testing the water, and assessing the impact it had. I haven't bought a "pop" CD in years, but from what I read, DRM is now widespread on such CDs. This suggests the impact the record companies saw justified the price of applying it. I admit there are other explanations, but this is a plausible one. "They are numbskulls and spent money on something that brought them zero benefit in any way" is less plausible, though possible of course. A lot of things happen because someone in some company has to be seen to be doing something. Lots of people create/perpetuate jobs for themselves where no actual useful work exists for them to do! Cheers, David. |
BBC iplayer
|
BBC iplayer
Graham Murray wrote:
One potential problem with that (and I do have a Freeview PVR) is that at some times there is nothing you wish to watch (record) on any channel, but at other times 4 or 5 channels might be showing programmes which you might like to watch. But the PVRs can, at most, record 2 channels while letting you watch a third live (with the restriction that the channel you are watching live must be on the same MUX as one of those you are recording). Sure, but how often is this a problem in practice? On the few occasions when there have been three things on that I want to record, one or more was also scheduled for later that day/week. I think that maybe twice in three years have I resorted to recording a third programme on the PC's tv card or (heaven forfend!) the VCR. (I never watch anything live anyway - can't stand the adverts, either the commercial ones or the BBC ones :-( ). André Coutanche |
BBC iplayer
On 21 Aug, 11:57, Roderick Stewart
wrote: In article .com, wrote: I haven't bought a "pop" CD in years, but from what I read, DRM is now widespread on such CDs. This suggests the impact the record companies saw justified the price of applying it. I admit there are other explanations, but this is a plausible one. All that indicates is that the record companies *believe* it has an effect, which doesn't prove a thing. The number of people who believe something tells us nothing whatsoever about whether or not it is true, unless they can offer some credible rational evidence-based argument in support of whatever it is that they believe. The case can be argued hypothetically either way, but without quantitative evidence there is no hope of being sure which is the dominant effect. When I see such evidence I'll start believing things, but so far there has been nothing more than the naive orthodoxy of vested interests. It is very easy to believe that everyone in a high powered job earning more than you must be a complete idiot, and that you could do the job better yourself. However, I would suggest to you that, just possibly, the record companies looked at quantitive data such as sales, applied DRM to different titles in different territories, and performed some kind of analysis to judge the effect of applying the protection. It's on record that they monitor p2p traffic too, so it's likely they measured the number of seeds and copies. I don't know if the data itself has been published. Most record companies are American public companies - a surprising amount of data is released by them, simply because of legal obligations to do so. It could, of course, be blind belief. The real commercial world isn't always (ever?) rational. However, there's a bottom line, and someone in most companies will question expenditure which does not generate any return. Cheers, David. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:36 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com