get_iplayer dropped - BBC acting like Pay-TV network

On 11 Mar, 14:34, "Paul D.Smith" wrote:
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.

"Most" people who are PVR users have Sky+. AFAIK this doesn't restrict
BBC HD recordings in any way. It's Freesat and Freeview HD boxes that
do/will. I'm not sure if this is ironic, or just taking the p**s!

I agree that most people don't need the functionality - but those that
do won't think much to this trend.

Still, give it a few years, when people discover the neat feature that
when the PVR dies, all your BBC HD recordings are unplayable on any
other device (even if they remain physically intact).

*You and are are extreme outliers in knowing ways of
doing more - in some cases ;-).

Indeed - but where we lead...

Cheers,
David.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 06:57:25 +0000, Graham Murray wrote:

It has always been possible to receive BBC radio, especially originally
the 'Light Programme' and latterly Radio 4, in much of Europe.

And since the BBC went FTA on Astra 28,2 East, it has been possible to
receive BBC radio and television across much of Western Europe, provided
you have a satellite dish and clear view to the south south east.

In fact the possible area of reception is larger than that for
198 kHz LF.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:15:11 +0000, Adrian C
wrote:

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

Fine. That licence entitles me to watch or listen to the content on
any device capable of doing so. So I'll just use my Freesat HD box to
watch BBC HD on my component-fed HDTV...

... What's that? I'm not allowed to? Why not?

The BBC requires a secure DRM platform to allow people downloading to
external devices. At the moment some platforms are better at this
requirement than others.

Completely disagree. By that argument the BBC should have been the
first in court suing Sony over their new Betamax invention. As it
happens that folly was left to the Hollywood studios, and, by the way,
THEY LOST!

That's for historical reasons.

Yes, and since historically you have always been able to watch and
record free-to-air broacasts on any equipment you see fit, I expect
that to remain the case until free-to-air broadcasts end.

What's good for the goose...
--

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:15:11 +0000, Adrian C
wrote:

On 11/03/2010 10:33, Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:15:47 +0000, Adrian
wrote:

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.

But rather more people get upset about DRM methods getting in the way
of their FAIR USE of the material which they have ALREADY PAID FOR via
the licence fee.

Quite, if you don't like the way the BBC chooses to do business you
don't have to pay for their product. Er . . . G

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.
- For DVD (Video, Blueray etc..) the license paid (via the "purchase")
is the ability for you to keep and watch whenever you like (with other
conditions)

The costs of these license are different. You are not paying for a DVD
type license with your BBC license fee! Attempting to justify that is
akin to condoning piracy, simply because an archived recording makes a
failure on the viewer to buy the item on DVD etc..

The stuff I archive is not and probably never will be available on DVD

Hi Graham,

Graham Murray schreef:
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'm sorry but I'm a afraid I expressed me a bit wrong.

What I wanted to say it this:
The most logical audience for this kind of service would be British
ex-pats (and something where you might still have an interest in an
Parliament for); however EU legislation does not allow discrimination
based on nationality.
This means that you would need to offer the service for EVERYBODY who
lives in the target-area where you offer the service.

So, say you are offering this service in France, you would not offer it
to (say) some 10.000 British expats overthere, but to 60 million
inhabitance of France (99.999% of them being French nationals).

If you look at this from the perspective of getting something like this
throu parliament, this does is quite a bit of different viewpoint.
:-)




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.

True, but, to be honest, the number of people listening to BBC radio via
LW or MW is very minimal. The only exception might be the world-service
on 648 Khz (as that is a radio-station specifically aimed at an
international audience)

Concering receiving the BBC TV. The very large majority of viewers of
the BBC channels in Belgium (+99 %) do that over cable or IPTV.

The BBC is actually making money by selling access to some of its
channels to cable, satelliet and IPTV-operators in some countries (like
Belgium and the Netherlands). Belgacom (the IPTV-operator in Belgium)
offers BBC ONE, BBC TWO, BBC THREE/CBBC, BBC FOUR/CEEBEEBIES, BBC
entertainment, BBC HD and BBC world.

Besides that, the BBC selling individual programs to other channels.
Their nature programs, Dr. Who, top of the pops, top-gear, Keeping Up
Appearances, coupling, blackadder, 'allo 'allo, etc. etc. all bring in
lot of money; also in the form of DVD-sales.


Selling access to all this content and their TV-channels directly to
endusers via the iPlayer could pottentially undermine all this revenue.

So I do not think that the BBC is really THAT much interested in this.



Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

Richard Evans wrote:

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,


Absolutely.

Under copyright law, you need a licence to carry out restricted acts.
Restricted acts include copying, modifying and public performance - NOT
using for the intended purpose. Consider a book - you buy a legitimate
copy, so you have the right to use it for the intended purpose
(reading).
However, unlike most forms of IP, broadcasts can be copied (recorded) to
be watched or listened to later.

TV companies broadcast to the public, so they need permission (licence),
for which the copyright owner can charge. They can then cover this cost
through a fee to the viewers (BBC), advertising (ITV), or have the balls
to charge both (Sky).


The TV licence is not really a licence, they call it that so that they
can claim that TV is free. If you watch TV broadcasts, you have to pay
a set periodic charge to the BBC - so it is really a subscription. The
difference between the BBC and Sky is that Sky admit to charging and
only let those who pay view the service, while the BBC call their
service free, make it easy to steal, then whine when people watch
without paying.

This misdirection obviously causes confusion, with all kinds of
strange beliefs (someone I know refused to believe that a licence
was not required for TV ownership).
The "licence" fee is payment for the right to receive TV broadcasts -
nothing else. It is not for "time-shift" recording rights, as those
are legally allowed by copyright law and the BBC cannot deny or offer
such rights. If the licence fee was finished, the right to record for
later viewing would continue.


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?


No, we don't own those rights any more than we own the BBC buildings and
equipment or, for that matter, the assets of any other business who we
buy something from.


It should also be noted that the BBC do not produce everything
themselves. Apart from the shows which they commission (giving them
the copyright), they also buy in shows and films. Whenever ITV,
Channel 4 or Channel 5 manage to outbid the BBC on a show, the BBC
squeal and whine like Leona Lewis "singing".

They are also trying to take over the Internet with a large bloated Web
site. Much of what is on that site is available on other sites. They
even have medical pages. Have they not heard of the NHS or Bupa, or are
they also trying to compete with them too? There has to be a limit to
what they are allowed to do, otherwise we will end up with the BBC
(government puppets) running all media and charging the massive costs
to the public.

The best thing about the BBC are their own shows:
Dragons' Den, The Real Hustle, Dr Who, East Enders, etc.
All great shows for their target audiences, but TRH and Dragons' Den are
also great public information and educational TV. But if any other PSB
wanted to take the shows on, the BBC should do a deal and throw the
funding into something else new.


Peter.

"Paul D.Smith" wrote:

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.


The question is whether their investment is repaid by a single showing.
Consider the number of repeats. A show is repeated several times in a
week, often twice a night several times. It will be repeated again
every few weeks, once again, possibly several times in a week. Then
they can sell it on to a station like Dave TV, and possibly also other
countries. Then they sell the shows on DVD.

If the BBC show it once (or repeat for one week), then release it for
anyone to download any time, how will they fill all those other hours
of TV and find a station to buy up rights to repeats? Who will buy
the DVDs if a show can be downloaded for free?

The BBC spend a fortune on a few high paid presenters and enforcing an
outdated "licence" system, so they struggle for money and beg the
government to screw more from the public. The government will not
increase the TV tax, as the BBC would just throw it around and demand
more increases until very few people could afford it. So the BBC have
to get all they can out of each show.


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.


If you was investing as a business partner, maybe. But you are paying
for a service consisting of whatever they are showing at any point in
time. The fee only covers part of the cost, so they may wish to recover
the rest through endless repeats, DVD sales and licensing to other
broadcasters as they feel fit.

Unless we are willing to allow the "licence" fee to go up beyond the
reach of the average person, with the BBC becoming the rich-man's TV,
then we have to accept that the BBC will retain and protect IP rights.
I believe that they should also protect broadcasts from viewing by those
who have not paid the fee. The idea of calling it "free", purposely
allowing it to be watched by people who have not paid (and cannot afford
to pay) for this "free" service, then chasing those "criminals" is
ridiculous and barbaric.
Either admit that it is not free and protect it like any business
protects products from theft, or accept that the poor will "steal" the
"free" service.


Peter.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:51:59 +0000, Bandwidth wrote:


If the BBC show it once (or repeat for one week), then release it for
anyone to download any time, how will they fill all those other hours
of TV and find a station to buy up rights to repeats? Who will buy
the DVDs if a show can be downloaded for free?

But it already *can* be downloaded for free - if you have a Topfield
or similar you can transfer the recording to your computer, and at a
higher quality than the downloads. So they're "stopping" nothing.

Here's a question about repeats I genuinely don't know the answer to.

I was once in a Radio broadcast, for which I received a fee. When it
was repeated I received a repeat fee.

When these TV programmes are repeated over and over, do the
participants (including overpaid presenters) get further fees? Or does
the money just go to the company who "owns" the programme?

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:49:16 +0000, Bandwidth wrote:

The best thing about the BBC are their own shows:
Dragons' Den, The Real Hustle, Dr Who, East Enders, etc.

Dragon's Den (BBC version) is a co-production between SONY Pictures and
BBC Manchester. Although the network production center is BBC Manchester,
the program is recorded in the *South East* of England at Pinewood
Studios.

By comparison, Dragon's Eye is a wholly BBC produced program and is
far more interesting and informative.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:45:54 +0000, Albert Ross
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:51:59 +0000, Bandwidth wrote:


If the BBC show it once (or repeat for one week), then release it for
anyone to download any time, how will they fill all those other hours
of TV and find a station to buy up rights to repeats? Who will buy
the DVDs if a show can be downloaded for free?

But it already *can* be downloaded for free - if you have a Topfield
or similar you can transfer the recording to your computer, and at a
higher quality than the downloads. So they're "stopping" nothing.

Here's a question about repeats I genuinely don't know the answer to.

I was once in a Radio broadcast, for which I received a fee. When it
was repeated I received a repeat fee.

When these TV programmes are repeated over and over, do the
participants (including overpaid presenters) get further fees? Or does
the money just go to the company who "owns" the programme?

I wondered about that a few days ago. I found a news item from a few
years ago about presenters wanting to be treated the same as actors and
to get repeat fees. I haven't discovered the outcome of the discussions.

http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/3562

TV agents join forces to insist on repeat fees for presenters

Published Wednesday 11 August 2004

Television’s most powerful presenters’ agents, representing stars
such as Jonathan Ross and Mark Lamarr, have formed a united front to
demand repeat fees for their clients, in a move which could
potentially cost the industry millions of pounds.

John Thoday, managing director of Avalon, which represents Frank
Skinner, and Ross’ agent Addison Cresswell are among a list of
high-profile agents who have signed a letter to the BBC, demanding
new contracts which will gain their clients extra fees for repeats
or sales of their work.
....
A signatory of the letter explained that until about seven years
ago, presenters worked on contracts similar to those used by actors,
which allowed them to benefit when their work was repeated. These
have now been faded out and it has become the norm for broadcasters
to offer agreements which stipulate the presenter loses all rights
in the programme after receiving their initial fee.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)