BBC iplayer

"Alan" wrote in message
news
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.

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.

"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)

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

"
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rod.