| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
I am interested in using BBC iPlayer but I'm a paranoid git and don't want a
PC than can connect to the rest of the world on the same network as my home PCs. So I was considering putting a firewall between the "iPlayer PC" and the other PCs but the question is then... Q/ Is there a way for one of my secure PCs to play the content stored on the iPlayer PC? This would also be a way of using a laptop to play the content but leaving a regular desktop connected for downloads. And clearly the only reason to do this is to get the hi-quality playback so please, not suggestions to use the "live" feeds ;-). Thanks, Paul DS. |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
Paul D.Smith wrote:
Q/ Is there a way for one of my secure PCs to play the content stored on the iPlayer PC? This would also be a way of using a laptop to play the content but leaving a regular desktop connected for downloads. Not possible. The "hiqh quality" download file will intentionally only play back on the Windows Media machine that downloaded it. -- Adrian C |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In article , Adrian C wrote:
Q/ Is there a way for one of my secure PCs to play the content stored on the iPlayer PC? This would also be a way of using a laptop to play the content but leaving a regular desktop connected for downloads. Not possible. The "hiqh quality" download file will intentionally only play back on the Windows Media machine that downloaded it. That seems a bit like only being able to read a book in the bookshop where you bought it. Thank goodness old-tech still works as it always did. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In message en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart writes In article , Adrian C wrote: Q/ Is there a way for one of my secure PCs to play the content stored on the iPlayer PC? This would also be a way of using a laptop to play the content but leaving a regular desktop connected for downloads. Not possible. The "hiqh quality" download file will intentionally only play back on the Windows Media machine that downloaded it. That seems a bit like only being able to read a book in the bookshop where you bought it. Thank goodness old-tech still works as it always did. Unless I'm misunderstanding things, you want to download and save a BBC iPlayer TV programme on one PC, and play it back on another? I have no problem doing this. Download on this machine, transfer to wife's laptop via CD / DVD / memory stick, and play it on DRM-enabled WMP11. Of course, it still expires in the usual way. -- Ian |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message .myzen.co.uk... In article , Adrian C wrote: Q/ Is there a way for one of my secure PCs to play the content stored on the iPlayer PC? This would also be a way of using a laptop to play the content but leaving a regular desktop connected for downloads. Not possible. The "hiqh quality" download file will intentionally only play back on the Windows Media machine that downloaded it. That seems a bit like only being able to read a book in the bookshop where you bought it. Actually it's the same as only being allowed to read the book in the library that you borrowed it from HTH tim |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In article , Ian Jackson wrote:
Unless I'm misunderstanding things, you want to download and save a BBC iPlayer TV programme on one PC, and play it back on another? I have no problem doing this. Download on this machine, transfer to wife's laptop via CD / DVD / memory stick, and play it on DRM-enabled WMP11. Of course, it still expires in the usual way. What demented mind invented the concept of technology that is deliberately designed to stop working after a time limit, and only to work in a restricted way while it does? Have we room for this nonsense in our world of waste? I have a copy of a book published in 1832 and with the beautiful copperplate signature of one of my great^n grandmothers written in the days before the railways, before electricity, before photography, and a great many other things. It's still perfectly readable and hasn't "expired" after more than a century and a half. I daresay I will expire myself before it does. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In article , Tim..... wrote:
That seems a bit like only being able to read a book in the bookshop where you bought it. Actually it's the same as only being allowed to read the book in the library that you borrowed it from OK... but whichever it is, isn't technology supposed to enable us to do things better? If not, what's the point of it? Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In message en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart writes In article , Ian Jackson wrote: Unless I'm misunderstanding things, you want to download and save a BBC iPlayer TV programme on one PC, and play it back on another? I have no problem doing this. Download on this machine, transfer to wife's laptop via CD / DVD / memory stick, and play it on DRM-enabled WMP11. Of course, it still expires in the usual way. What demented mind invented the concept of technology that is deliberately designed to stop working after a time limit, and only to work in a restricted way while it does? Have we room for this nonsense in our world of waste? I have a copy of a book published in 1832 and with the beautiful copperplate signature of one of my great^n grandmothers written in the days before the railways, before electricity, before photography, and a great many other things. It's still perfectly readable and hasn't "expired" after more than a century and a half. I daresay I will expire myself before it does. Rod. iPlayer downloads were made to expire in order to set a challenge for the hackers to come up with something to stop them expiring (which, I believe, was done soon after the BBC started iPlayer). -- Ian |
Digital Restriction Management
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:49:54 +0000, Roderick Stewart asked:
isn't technology supposed to enable us to do things better? If not, what's the point of it? It appears that you do not understand the philosophy behind the ill-named Digital Rights Managment system (DRM), or as Richard Stallman better calls it Digital Restriction Management http://www.youtube.COM/watch?v=8p9IU4zp7mU Another reason why Open Source Software is preferable to proprietary closed source software. |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
Paul D.Smith wrote:
I am interested in using BBC iPlayer but I'm a paranoid git and don't want a PC than can connect to the rest of the world on the same network as my home PCs. So I was considering putting a firewall between the "iPlayer PC" and the other PCs but the question is then... Q/ Is there a way for one of my secure PCs to play the content stored on the iPlayer PC? This would also be a way of using a laptop to play the content but leaving a regular desktop connected for downloads. And clearly the only reason to do this is to get the hi-quality playback so please, not suggestions to use the "live" feeds ;-). Thanks, Paul DS. If you are running Vista or Media Centre on the downloading PC then you could run a Media Centre Extender to play the downloaded file (such as an XBox360) on their own network. However - it does seem you are being overly cautious, presumably you are behind a router (firewall #1) and you could put another firewall on the PC, providing you configure them correctly and update them and your AV/Spyware software regularly then the chances of you getting 'hacked' are minute (assuming you are not running Symantec). |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
....snip...
However - it does seem you are being overly cautious, presumably you are behind a router (firewall #1) and you could put another firewall on the PC, providing you configure them correctly and update them and your AV/Spyware software regularly then the chances of you getting 'hacked' are minute (assuming you are not running Symantec). You are probably right. However I'm a programmer and in 20 years of being overly cautious I've never had a virus "in the wild" on any PC I own. I already have both firewalls and anti-virus software on all my PCs but the fact is that I have a large amount of work related stuff on my home PC and I need to keep any risks to the absolute minimum. Currently I control when my PC connects "out" but with iPlayer I effectively say "connect out whenever you feel like it". To me, iPlayer is a grade 1 target for hackers because of the distributed nature and I want to make sure that if they do get my PC, it's just the one they get ;-). Oh, and yes I've overly paranoid ;-). Paul DS |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
Care to explain? most routers have firewalls, I can use any pc to listen to
the stream. Brian -- Brian Gaff - Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! "Adrian C" wrote in message ... Paul D.Smith wrote: Q/ Is there a way for one of my secure PCs to play the content stored on the iPlayer PC? This would also be a way of using a laptop to play the content but leaving a regular desktop connected for downloads. Not possible. The "hiqh quality" download file will intentionally only play back on the Windows Media machine that downloaded it. -- Adrian C |
Digital Restriction Management
I think some of the most stupid things occur though. I mean, some bbc pod
casts have content and music removed due to the rights being uk only for that content. So, if I want to hear the whole show, I have to listen on the stream, what used to be called listen again. No real problem other than I have to record the stream in real time which is a pain in the brain. If I were abroad though, I'd get that message that the bbc cannot allow you to listen outside of the UK, as a friend in the Irish republic found out recently. I noticed, by the way that Amazon are making a selling point of thier mp3s that there is no drm. Of course there seem to be any number of bits of suftware floating about to defeat DRM, though I'd not know how good these are. Brian -- Brian Gaff - Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! "J G Miller" wrote in message ... On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:49:54 +0000, Roderick Stewart asked: isn't technology supposed to enable us to do things better? If not, what's the point of it? It appears that you do not understand the philosophy behind the ill-named Digital Rights Managment system (DRM), or as Richard Stallman better calls it Digital Restriction Management http://www.youtube.COM/watch?v=8p9IU4zp7mU Another reason why Open Source Software is preferable to proprietary closed source software. |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Ian Jackson wrote: Unless I'm misunderstanding things, you want to download and save a BBC iPlayer TV programme on one PC, and play it back on another? I have no problem doing this. Download on this machine, transfer to wife's laptop via CD / DVD / memory stick, and play it on DRM-enabled WMP11. Of course, it still expires in the usual way. What demented mind invented the concept of technology that is deliberately designed to stop working after a time limit, and only to work in a restricted way while it does? Have we room for this nonsense in our world of waste? The mind which wanted to be able to still sell the series DVD box set, but wanted to allow people to catch up for 30 days for free. For 30 days after the broadcast you can watch the downloaded content. They're not however, going to give it to you perpertually though. They make significant amounts from the DVDs - which helps fund programme production. D |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
Paul D.Smith wrote:
...snip... However - it does seem you are being overly cautious, presumably you are behind a router (firewall #1) and you could put another firewall on the PC, providing you configure them correctly and update them and your AV/Spyware software regularly then the chances of you getting 'hacked' are minute (assuming you are not running Symantec). You are probably right. However I'm a programmer and in 20 years of being overly cautious I've never had a virus "in the wild" on any PC I own. Me too and me neither - but your method is a little like Ann Widdecombe bragging that she's never had and STD. I already have both firewalls and anti-virus software on all my PCs but the fact is that I have a large amount of work related stuff on my home PC and I need to keep any risks to the absolute minimum. Currently I control when my PC connects "out" but with iPlayer I effectively say "connect out whenever you feel like it". Not necessarily - you can watch the iPlayer stuff in a browser then close the browser/turn off/disconnect the PC afterwards. To me, iPlayer is a grade 1 target for hackers because of the distributed nature and I want to make sure that if they do get my PC, it's just the one they get ;-). The online iplayer is Flash - you may say that flash is a target for hackers but then if you had a firewall and knew what you were doing then you can easily see what connections it makes. The offline files are WMV so the player you use is what ever you choose (that is DRM compatible). Oh, and yes I've overly paranoid ;-). To be honest - you really are, the trouble is that it really isn't warranted. Paul DS |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
|
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In article , David Hearn wrote:
What demented mind invented the concept of technology that is deliberately designed to stop working after a time limit, and only to work in a restricted way while it does? Have we room for this nonsense in our world of waste? The mind which wanted to be able to still sell the series DVD box set, but wanted to allow people to catch up for 30 days for free. For 30 days after the broadcast you can watch the downloaded content. They're not however, going to give it to you perpertually though. They make significant amounts from the DVDs - which helps fund programme production. So it's greed then. Try to make something more *apparently* valuable, not by making it better but by making it worse to restrict its availability. It' a good job the world of technology hasn't always had this attitude or we'd never have invented anything at all. I wonder how it will progress from here? Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
Brian Gaff wrote:
Care to explain? most routers have firewalls, I can use any pc to listen to the stream. I'm on about downloading DRM'd video from the webpage, not streaming. There is a link to do that and the downloading PC needs peer-to-peer software installed to do it. Once the file is on the disc it has to be played back _only_ on Windows Media Player, which will refuse to do so after a time period has passed. I thought this was limited to the machine that did the download (shows how through my 'testing' was), but Ian J. is correct - you can fritter the files across to another machine, let it install the DRM license keys and then act as the playback device. I fully expect that over time the BBC will waste another fortune out of licence payers cash increasing the security of this DRM solution, for what? IMO they should have made it downloadable on subscription or per show payments. -- Adrian C |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message .myzen.co.uk... In article , Tim..... wrote: That seems a bit like only being able to read a book in the bookshop where you bought it. Actually it's the same as only being allowed to read the book in the library that you borrowed it from OK... but whichever it is, isn't technology supposed to enable us to do things better? If not, what's the point of it? But it does It enables you to do something that you couldn't do before. I don't see that it is reasonable to complain that the provision of this completely new, FREE, service comes with some restrictions (which are there for comercial reasons). tim |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
....snip...
Am I missing something here? (Probably, as I know very little about iPlayer, and how it works) I assume your 'precious' (not being sarcastic here) PC is already connected to the internet, and connects out any time you open a browsing session. What's the difference between that, and starting an iPlayer 'viewing' session...? As I understand it, the iPlayer hi-def stuff uses a peer-to-peer network which means that no only will it go and request stuff, but it permits other peers to request stuff from it. It does this so that it can share parts of programs around the web and save any individual PC's bandwidth. This also increases download speeds because the program/film is being sources from multiple uploads from multiple other peers in the network (and don't forget upload speed is normally much less than download speed). When I surf, I manually enter the web address of the site I want to see - I know which computer I'm connecting to. I block every attempt from any outside PC to connect to me, with a very small number of known exceptions which I control. But whilst iPlayer is peering, I have no idea which other PCs are going to connect to me to ask my PC to source the film I've just watched, they just do! Paul DS. |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
Me too and me neither - but your method is a little like Ann Widdecombe
bragging that she's never had and STD. Interesting metaphor except inappropriate. I can "poke" known computers and be safe. It's the idea of the iPlayer peer-to-peer network allowing any old PC to "poke" me that I don't like. I already have both firewalls and anti-virus software on all my PCs but the fact is that I have a large amount of work related stuff on my home PC and I need to keep any risks to the absolute minimum. Currently I control when my PC connects "out" but with iPlayer I effectively say "connect out whenever you feel like it". Not necessarily - you can watch the iPlayer stuff in a browser then close the browser/turn off/disconnect the PC afterwards. But this is only the low-def stuff. For hi-def I need to be part of the peer-to-peer network. Sorry, but with 20/20 hindsight I didn't make it clear I wanted to do this. |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
|
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:40:40 +0000, Paul D.Smith wrote:
But whilst iPlayer is peering, I have no idea which other PCs are going to connect to me This is true while you are downloading is it not? to ask my PC to source the film I've just watched, they just do! Why is it a problem for you if other PC's download from you, just as you do? |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In article , Tim..... wrote:
That seems a bit like only being able to read a book in the bookshop where you bought it. Actually it's the same as only being allowed to read the book in the library that you borrowed it from OK... but whichever it is, isn't technology supposed to enable us to do things better? If not, what's the point of it? But it does It enables you to do something that you couldn't do before. I don't see that it is reasonable to complain that the provision of this completely new, FREE, service comes with some restrictions (which are there for comercial reasons). It doesn't enable me to use the technology to the true extent of its abilities. Unlike older technology, which was developed under the philosophy that an improvement or innovation should increase its ability to do things, a lot of modern technology includes things that are deliberately designed not to work, even though the equipment is fundamentally capable of it. I find myself unable to view deliberately making technology that won't work, even though it could, as anything other than seriously warped. The fact that it is done for "commercial reasons" (i.e. greed) may be an explanation but it is not an excuse. We should be seeking ways to regulate this kind of practice as a much more effective way of battling waste than re-using a few plastic bags. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:30:41 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote: In article , Tim..... wrote: It doesn't enable me to use the technology to the true extent of its abilities. Unlike older technology, which was developed under the philosophy that an improvement or innovation should increase its ability to do things, a lot of modern technology includes things that are deliberately designed not to work, even though the equipment is fundamentally capable of it. Exactly, like region-coding on DVDs and Blu-Rays, which is specifically designed to allow copyright owners to charge what different markets will stand. If all their prices were fair in the first place, there would be no point in doing this. I find myself unable to view deliberately making technology that won't work, even though it could, as anything other than seriously warped. The fact that it is done for "commercial reasons" (i.e. greed) may be an explanation but it is not an excuse. We should be seeking ways to regulate this kind of practice as a much more effective way of battling waste than re-using a few plastic bags. Exactly. Books don't become unreadable just because they've been carried over the Atlantic in someone's personal luggage on an airliner, so why should DVDs and Blu-Rays? The Sony Walkman MD Net can upload music via USB, so why can't it download your band-practice of this morning the same way? The list is endless. It's a corporate version of 1984, double-speak, double-think, and all. There is a fundamental conflict of interest in having copyright holders also be the controllers of the means of reproduction, and this leads at best to inefficient development of technology, at worst to the sort of corporate malpractice that Sony are so renowned for - deliberate crippling of technology, rootkits on customers' PCs, etc. Such firms should be forced to split along the lines of the conflict of interest. |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
On Dec 10, 2:12*pm, "ChrisM" wrote:
In message , Paul D.Smith Proclaimed from the tallest tower: ...snip... Am I missing something here? (Probably, as I know very little about iPlayer, and how it works) I assume your 'precious' (not being sarcastic here) PC is already connected to the internet, and connects out any time you open a browsing session. What's the difference between that, and starting an iPlayer 'viewing' session...? As I understand it, the iPlayer hi-def stuff uses a peer-to-peer network which means that no only will it go and request stuff, but it permits other peers to request stuff from it. *It does this so that it can share parts of programs around the web and save any individual PC's bandwidth. *This also increases download speeds because the program/film is being sources from multiple uploads from multiple other peers in the network (and don't forget upload speed is normally much less than download speed). Ahh, point taken. If the iPlayer software uses peer-to-peer technology(I didn't know this!), and, I guess, requires some holes poked in the firewall to allow this software to function(??) then it IS definitely more of a security risk than normal browsing. is it possible to just block the peer-to-peer in-bound stuff at your firewall, so that you can download stuff, but stop other computers connecting to you... -- Regards, Chris. (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me) You can configure iPlayer to download but not allow uploads, i.e. non P2P mode, in the advanced settings, or whatever they call it. |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
You can configure iPlayer to download but not allow uploads, i.e. non
P2P mode, in the advanced settings, or whatever they call it. Oh err. Sounds very handy. Thanks for that. Paul DS. |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
... Erm, I have heard of paranoia, but this seems ridiculous. Surely, every site knows who has connected with it, so I just don't get the problem. Brian See my comments about the peer-2-peer network. The issue is that as part of these you have no idea which other PCs are directed to your PC whilst it acts as a peer in the network (with connections being negotiated by "big brother" in the middle). Paul DS. |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote: In article , David Hearn wrote: What demented mind invented the concept of technology that is deliberately designed to stop working after a time limit, and only to work in a restricted way while it does? Have we room for this nonsense in our world of waste? The mind which wanted to be able to still sell the series DVD box set, but wanted to allow people to catch up for 30 days for free. For 30 days after the broadcast you can watch the downloaded content. They're not however, going to give it to you perpertually though. They make significant amounts from the DVDs - which helps fund programme production. So it's greed then. rant warning Not quite. 'Greed' is a 'necessary' condition, but not by itself a 'sufficient' one. :-) As common for the people who run/own the 'meeja biz' the behaviour really requires some suitable mix of greed, ignorance, and idiocy. Plus having no real concern for either the source authors or the end audience. So you could add in some 'arrogance' or 'selfishness' I guess. :-) It seems somewhat idiotic to try to force downloads/streams to self-destruct in the same world where millions routinely record the same broadcast material using home DVD recorders, etc. Another by-product of the behaviour is that those who don't use chosen software/OS combinations are - so far as the meeja types are concerned - locked out of accessing the streams/downloads that are 'protected' as they are denied the software, etc, required. The result is to inconvenience - and treat as potential criminals - the end users, whilst doing nothing much about commercial scale piracy. Also to apply pressure to buy and use the 'approved' systems. My own view is that a public funded body like the BBC should only broadcast material whose decoding can be done using open source software. (This is a different issue to the question of maybe distributing 'keys' of some kind to 'permit' decoding.) However as should be obvious, the process has no concern for the wishes of the end user. They are primarily seen as a source of funds and/or justification for the pay of the people running the meeja companies. :-) Witness also countless parallel examples. CDs clipped and level compressed to death. Endless attempts to 'copy protect' LPs, CDs, etc that were doomed to failure. 'Nag' screens at the start of DVDs that treat every purchaser as a criminal, plus threats to rip your legs off if you dare to misbehave. etc... I have often wondered if people are encouraged to home record films and TV series just to avoid being treated like a naughty child and forced to sit though a nag screen when they want to watch something. If so, I guess it may serve the idiots who add these to commercial products right. But alas, I fear that the real cost would be for the authors and performers. The meedja company moguls will just top slice their nice salaries from the pile, regardless. /rant Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In article , Java Jive
wrote: Exactly, like region-coding on DVDs and Blu-Rays, which is specifically designed to allow copyright owners to charge what different markets will stand. If all their prices were fair in the first place, there would be no point in doing this. Interesting as an example of an anti-competitive practice that should IMHO also be illegal under international trade rules. But for some curious reason is accepted. Maybe because of the way the rules are chosen by big business interests largely based (politically) in the large developed countries. :-) Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In article , Jim Lesurf wrote:
It seems somewhat idiotic to try to force downloads/streams to self-destruct in the same world where millions routinely record the same broadcast material using home DVD recorders, etc. It seems completely idiotic to try to force any kind of programme material to self-destruct. Books weren't made to self-destruct, gramophone recordings weren't made to self-destruct, audio cassettes weren't made to self-destruct, filmstrips and tape/slide programmes weren't made to self- destruct, cine film (cellulose nitrate notwithstanding) wasn't made to self-destruct, video cassettes weren't made to self-destruct, lasediscs weren't made to self-destruct, CDs and DVDs weren't made to self-destruct, clay tablets and stone carvings weren't made to self-destruct, and civilisation as we know it did not come to an end as a result, so why should anyone in their right mind think there is a valid reason to make digital material self-destruct, other than "just because we can"? The people who built the pyramids and the Parthenon presumably wanted their culture to survive as long as possible, so what was it that suddenly changed with the invention of digital bitstreams? Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In article , Jim Lesurf wrote:
Exactly, like region-coding on DVDs and Blu-Rays, which is specifically designed to allow copyright owners to charge what different markets will stand. If all their prices were fair in the first place, there would be no point in doing this. Interesting as an example of an anti-competitive practice that should IMHO also be illegal under international trade rules. But for some curious reason is accepted. Maybe because of the way the rules are chosen by big business interests largely based (politically) in the large developed countries. :-) Likewise the jiggering of potentially universal electronic equipment such as phones and broadband routers so that it will only work with one company's service. This sort of thing might give a short-term advantage to one company (which is presumably why it happens), but a ridiculous amount of useful stuff must be thrown away as a result, not to mention the sheer waste of human effort employed simply undoing other human effort through the vast network of unofficial "unlocking" services that has sprung up as a result. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote: In article , Jim Lesurf wrote: It seems somewhat idiotic to try to force downloads/streams to self-destruct in the same world where millions routinely record the same broadcast material using home DVD recorders, etc. It seems completely idiotic to try to force any kind of programme material to self-destruct. Books weren't made to self-destruct, gramophone recordings weren't made to self-destruct, audio cassettes weren't made to self-destruct, filmstrips and tape/slide programmes weren't made to self- destruct, cine film (cellulose nitrate notwithstanding) wasn't made to self-destruct, video cassettes weren't made to self-destruct, lasediscs weren't made to self-destruct, CDs and DVDs weren't made to self-destruct, clay tablets and stone carvings weren't made to self-destruct, and civilisation as we know it did not come to an end as a result, so why should anyone in their right mind think there is a valid reason to make digital material self-destruct, other than "just because we can"? perhaps because the person possessing it hadn't paid anything ;-) -- From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey" Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote: In article , Jim Lesurf wrote: Exactly, like region-coding on DVDs and Blu-Rays, which is specifically designed to allow copyright owners to charge what different markets will stand. If all their prices were fair in the first place, there would be no point in doing this. Interesting as an example of an anti-competitive practice that should IMHO also be illegal under international trade rules. But for some curious reason is accepted. Maybe because of the way the rules are chosen by big business interests largely based (politically) in the large developed countries. :-) Likewise the jiggering of potentially universal electronic equipment such as phones and broadband routers so that it will only work with one company's service. and that is because that "one company" has subsidised the purchase price. They see no reason that this subsidy should help their competitors. -- From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey" Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote: In article , Jim Lesurf wrote: It seems somewhat idiotic to try to force downloads/streams to self-destruct in the same world where millions routinely record the same broadcast material using home DVD recorders, etc. It seems completely idiotic to try to force any kind of programme material to self-destruct. Books weren't made to self-destruct, gramophone recordings weren't made to self-destruct,.. [snip] ...stone carvings weren't made to self-destruct, and civilisation as we know it did not come to an end as a result, so why should anyone in their right mind think there is a valid reason to make digital material self-destruct, other than "just because we can"? Well, as far as I can tell... rant warning again! The people wo do this have zero interest in 'civilisation'. They have no interest in either the people who create the source material or the end users who wish to enjoy it. Their central interest is simply in trying to get more money and control for themselves. Everyone else is a body to crawl over on their way up. The change is that they now see 'technical mechanisms' which they feel can be exploited to maximise their personal wealth and level of control/status. It is irrelevant to them if the results seem absurd, or the mechanisms often turn out to be flops or counter-productive in the long run. Thus we have 'loudness wars' with pop/rock CDs, and all the other symptoms of people who - based on a mix of ignorance, greed, etc - will do whatever they (or a consultant with am impressive suit) tells them will maximise their personal wealth, etc. It does not enter their consciousness to think that people might actually prefer (and buy more in the long run) products that are not crippled by these symptomatic manifestations. They don't care about 'the long run'. They are simply grocers who treat everything they encounter as something to buy and sell in a way that maximises their immediate personal income. Witness also the repeated attempts by the meeja companies to get copyright on recorded performances extended. Often using others as their glove puppets. The excuse trotted out is that the poor performers from 50+ years ago will 'lose income'. Curiously failing to note that larger amount might then not be the sole ownership of the large companies involved. (And that many of the older recordings may have been made for a single performance fee.) The reality is that if someone hasn't already made a decent amount from a 50 year monopoly on a performance, then it seems likely that either they never will, of that the company involved wasnae bothering to even put the recordings on sale. Witness here the large back catalogues of some companies that leave countless recordings unavailable for decades. I have belonged to the Barbirolli Society for many years, and been involved in trying to get older recordings re-released. As an example, this morning I received some 'new' CDs of commercial recordings issued for the first time on CD. We've had CD for well over two decades! Yet it falls to the Society and few keen people to get these re-issued. They then repay easily the production costs - and where relevant the copyright costs paid to the recording 'owner'. The 'spur' here does seem to be the UK limit of 50 years on recorded performance copyrights. Hence the companies know that if they don't make the source tapes available and use them for re-issues, then someone else can do a re-issue based on the best recorded versions they can find. This didn't bother them much when Al Bowley or Nat Gonella was at stake. But as the limit moves towards the 60s they are getting worried. I'm fairly sure that most music enthusiasts could mention equivalent examples in their favourite fields of music. Also: (since I am ranting again :-) )... Anyone bought any Gregory Peck films on DVD originally made under the banner of the independent company he and some other actors set up to avoid being controlled by the large studios at the time? Take 'To Kill a Mockingbird' as an example or 'On The Beach'. Are they *actually* 16:9 anamorphic despite what it may say on the case? I have tried three different 'issues' of Mockingbird. None of them are more than letterboxed into 4:3 or plain 4:3 despite the covers claiming otherwise. None of them have any address for the companies that made them. So is the situation with film on DVD any better than for music?... Can the copyright owners be bothered to put on sale decent quality reissues? I am all for the creators and performers getting a decent income and copyright for a sensible time. But I don't personally regard that as an excuse for companies to exploit the material forever more. Indeed, I'd limit essentially all copyrights to something like 50 years even for authors - despite have my own published work. if you can't make income from it in that time I can't see the point of hanging on. And the spectre of copyright can blight any republishing of interesting material when the author is missing, the publisher has vanished, and no-one can work out who 'owns' the copyright. That can be a right PITA for both enthusiasts and academics alike. I can see the point of keeping copyrights in terms of ensuring reissues don't misrepresent the original. But not for 'income' after some decades have passed. /rant Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
rant warning again!
The people wo do this have zero interest in 'civilisation'. They have no interest in either the people who create the source material or the end users who wish to enjoy it. Dunno really its a commercial world out there... Their central interest is simply in trying to get more money and control for themselves. Everyone else is a body to crawl over on their way up. Not all the time Jim.. There are some good guys and gals out there.. The change is that they now see 'technical mechanisms' which they feel can be exploited to maximise their personal wealth and level of control/status. It is irrelevant to them if the results seem absurd, or the mechanisms often turn out to be flops or counter-productive in the long run. Thus we have 'loudness wars' with pop/rock CDs, and all the other symptoms of people who - based on a mix of ignorance, greed, etc - will do whatever they (or a consultant with am impressive suit) tells them will maximise their personal wealth, etc. Well a few stations I've heard recently have seemingly backed off the processing a bit but a few more bits on DAB wouldna go amiss;).. Which seems it might happen;).. It does not enter their consciousness to think that people might actually prefer (and buy more in the long run) products that are not crippled by these symptomatic manifestations. They don't care about 'the long run'. They are simply grocers who treat everything they encounter as something to buy and sell in a way that maximises their immediate personal income. What... Have you got 'agin Grocers, or do you really mean supermarkets?.. -- Tony Sayer |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In article , Charles wrote:
Likewise the jiggering of potentially universal electronic equipment such as phones and broadband routers so that it will only work with one company's service. and that is because that "one company" has subsidised the purchase price. They see no reason that this subsidy should help their competitors. Exactly. The company only sees a short term advantage to themselves, not the annoyance to others and the large scale waste. I bought a replacement mobile phone for my granddaughter this afternoon for less than a tenner in Carphone Warehouse. Although it was bought for use on a particular network using an existing SIM card, the phone itself is not network locked and could be used on any of them. So it can be done. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In article , tony sayer
wrote: rant warning again! The people wo do this have zero interest in 'civilisation'. They have no interest in either the people who create the source material or the end users who wish to enjoy it. Dunno really its a commercial world out there... That would explain behaviour that actually makes good commercial sense. But not when it is based on idiocy combined with greed. :-) Their central interest is simply in trying to get more money and control for themselves. Everyone else is a body to crawl over on their way up. Not all the time Jim.. There are some good guys and gals out there.. Yes. I know there are many people in the music, broadcasting, etc, areas who are excellent, talented, and motivated by producing superb material. However they weren't who I was ranting about. I was ranting about the dumb bunnies who inflict things like clipping, nag screens, futile 'content protection', etc, on the end users (and, indeed, on the products of the creators/performers, perhaps without their informed consent or agin their preferences). It does not enter their consciousness to think that people might actually prefer (and buy more in the long run) products that are not crippled by these symptomatic manifestations. They don't care about 'the long run'. They are simply grocers who treat everything they encounter as something to buy and sell in a way that maximises their immediate personal income. What... Have you got 'agin Grocers, or do you really mean supermarkets?.. I am really referring to a mentality and needed a sensible label to distinguish the people I was referring to from those who do have skill, talent, and care about the material and the customers. Feel free to give them some other name-label. :-) However my charge level for ranting has essentially now been run down, so I am happy to stop. :-) Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote: In article , Charles wrote: Likewise the jiggering of potentially universal electronic equipment such as phones and broadband routers so that it will only work with one company's service. and that is because that "one company" has subsidised the purchase price. They see no reason that this subsidy should help their competitors. Exactly. The company only sees a short term advantage to themselves, not the annoyance to others and the large scale waste. I bought a replacement mobile phone for my granddaughter this afternoon for less than a tenner in Carphone Warehouse. Although it was bought for use on a particular network using an existing SIM card, the phone itself is not network locked and could be used on any of them. So it can be done. Of course it can be done. I suspect that the phone was second-hand and the subsidy had already been 'paid back'. If you want to save resources then the only solution is for there to be only one company in any particular field - there will then be no duplication of effort. Is that what you want? -- From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey" Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:00 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com