get_iplayer dropped - BBC acting like Pay-TV network

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Adrian C
saying something like:

Arguing that it should be free because the work done on linux platforms
is 'free' is just blowing a smoke screen around the plain fact that some
people get upset about DRM methods getting in the way of their desire
for unfair and dishonest use of media. i.e. archiving it off and
distributing the content out of the UK's shores.

Doesn't matter - there's always a workaround for me to record and keep
what I like, outside of the UK. The Beeb should recognise this and offer
a yearly offshore viewing licence for the likes of me - I'd happily pay
a few quid and there are thousands like me.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:15:56 +0000, Paul Martin wrote:

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:15:11 +0000, Adrian C wrote:

Encryption wasn't around at the infancy of television broadcasting.
That situation will no doubt change though

The technology of protection of copying of broadcast programs on the
unencrypted DTV platform has been available for years ...

http://fpc.state.GOV/documents/organization/45183.pdf

That's not a technological solution but a legislative one.

So which part of the transmission of the broadcast copy flag left
to the discretion of the broadcaster is a legislative solution?

On 2010-03-10, Adrian C wrote:
On 10/03/2010 15:35, wrote:

We're in a bizarre situation in the UK where it's only OfCom who are
keeping broadcasts "open", against a BBC who want to make them as
proprietary as regulations will allow. Now remind me - where will
OfCom be in a few months time?

Sorry, don't agree. The BBC has a right to protect it's investment (on
behalf of licence payers) in developing programmes and (mad as it is)
it's iplayer hosting platform.

Arguing that it should be free because the work done on linux platforms
is 'free' is just blowing a smoke screen around the plain fact that some
people get upset about DRM methods getting in the way of their desire
for unfair and dishonest use of media. i.e. archiving it off and
distributing the content out of the UK's shores.

What about those who get upset about DRM methods getting in the way of
their desire for fair and honest use of media they have already
paid for?

--
David Taylor

Hi,

Grimly Curmudgeon schreef:
Doesn't matter - there's always a workaround for me to record and keep
what I like, outside of the UK. The Beeb should recognise this and offer
a yearly offshore viewing licence for the likes of me - I'd happily pay
a few quid and there are thousands like me.

The problem is that they cannot really do this, unless they offer the
same for all EU citizens; turning the BBC into a "pan-European" broadcaster.

I think not that the British Parliament would agree with turning the BBC
into a "European" public broadcaster instead just the national
broadcaster for the UK.


Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

Adrian C wrote:


FAIR USE has many interpretations. Actually, it is impossible, unless ye
are very rich, to actually PAY for media.

ALL the time you are buying a license to watch it, not own.

- For TV the licence paid is for viewing and time shifting for a short
period.

Who says so. As far as I'm concerned, we the licence fee payers fund the
BBC, and so fund everything that the BBC has produced. In effect we paid
for it to be produced, so doesn't that mean that we own it?

Richard E.

Kristoff Bonne writes:

The problem is that they cannot really do this, unless they offer the
same for all EU citizens; turning the BBC into a "pan-European" broadcaster.

Why would it? Surely there is a difference between 'broadcasting to the
EU' and 'broadcasting to the UK, but allowing anyone in the EU to
watch/listen to the broadcast'? Does it not depend more on the 'target
audience' rather than where it can be received? To become a pan-european
broadcaster, the BBC would have to target its output to the whole of
Europe.

I think not that the British Parliament would agree with turning the BBC
into a "European" public broadcaster instead just the national
broadcaster for the UK.

It has always been possible to receive BBC radio, especially originally
the 'Light Programme' and latterly Radio 4, in much of Europe. Many
places in the Netherlands and some in Northern France can receive and
watch BBC analogue TV. As far as I am aware, the government have never
objected to this.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:00:43 +0000, Mike Henry
wrote:

In , Mark
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:50:06 -0000, "Paul D.Smith"
wrote:

I admit to using it so that I
can "listen again" on an MP3 player. Probably this is technically illegal
but I consider I'm within the spirit of the law as I'm using it for personal
use with a few days, not archiving, not distributing etc. etc.

We have a crazy case where such behaviour is illegal but it is never
enforced.

Eh? Why would either of you think it's "illegal" (ie, a *criminal*
offence)? At the most it would be a mere breach of copyright - a civil
offence, if the owner could prove losses, which is somewhat unlikely. I
think you've been conditioned into thinking it's a criminal offence by the
media continuously (and deliberately) misusing the i-word.

Maybe I used the wrong word. I know this is a civil offense so
perhaps you can inform me of the correct terminalogy?

When it's a large company against an individual then it's, in
practise, up to the individual to prove their innocence, rather than
the other way around.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

In article , Mark
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:00:43 +0000, Mike Henry
wrote:

In , Mark
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:50:06 -0000, "Paul D.Smith"
wrote:

I admit to using it so that I can "listen again" on an MP3 player.
Probably this is technically illegal but I consider I'm within the
spirit of the law as I'm using it for personal use with a few days,
not archiving, not distributing etc. etc.

We have a crazy case where such behaviour is illegal but it is never
enforced.

Eh? Why would either of you think it's "illegal" (ie, a *criminal*
offence)? At the most it would be a mere breach of copyright - a civil
offence, if the owner could prove losses, which is somewhat unlikely. I
think you've been conditioned into thinking it's a criminal offence by
the media continuously (and deliberately) misusing the i-word.

Maybe I used the wrong word. I know this is a civil offense so perhaps
you can inform me of the correct terminalogy?

The technical term is still "illegal" ie "against the law"; but as it is a
civil offence, the police won't get involved.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Richard Evans wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, we the licence fee payers fund the BBC, and so
fund everything that the BBC has produced. In effect we paid for it to be
produced, so doesn't that mean that we own it?

IANAL. But neither are you ;-) .

I think the concept of legal personality is at least one of the factors
here. The BBC as an entity can own things, just as a limited company can.
Just because you're a shareholder in a limited company doesn't mean that you
own everything it produces.

André Coutanche

"Paul D.Smith" wrote in message
...
They've taken the same approach with BBC HD. Freesat (and I assume
Freeview HD) compliant STBs try to stop you recording content
unencrypted from BBC HD. There are flags in the stream to control this
- they could easily tell the boxes to encrypt Mad Men and films, while
letting The Proms be recorded without encryption. But they don't.

Not sure I follow. Just because the BBC created something themselves
(e.g. The Proms) and didn't buy it in (e.g. Mad Men) doesn't mean they
want to give you unlimited rights to do what you want with it. It is not
an issue for most people that they can only watch a recorded program via
the PVR they used to record it. You and are are extreme outliers in
knowing ways of doing more - in some cases ;-).

Of course you could argue "I paid for the BBC so the content is mine" -
but that's a different debate.

Paul DS.


And I refuse to fund The BBC and yet The BBC allows people who don't want to
fund The BBC access but denies people who do want to fund The BBC access.

Crazy people.