BBC Have Broken GetIPlayer

Yellow wrote:

The whole issue of copyright is a stupid mess and I, as ever, fail to
see why I cannot listen to content I have paid for as and when I
choose, in whatever format I choose.

What on earth do you want to do that you think is not now allowed?

The law should be changed to allow that above all over considerations
and it should be changed now.

Unless you're being deliberately obscure about what you want to do, it
has been.

But you are being deliberately obscure, aren't you?

In article , lid
says...

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 20:18:05 +0000, Yellow wrote:

The whole issue of copyright is a stupid mess and I, as ever, fail to
see why I cannot listen to content I have paid for as and when I choose,
in whatever format I choose.

The law should be changed to allow that above all over considerations
and it should be changed now.

Part of the problem, for Radio 3 anyway, is that performing artist
contracts cover the fee paid for the initial broadcast performance and
additional repeat fees that are payable each time a program or work they
perform in is repeated.


How is that a problem?

They can be paid each time it is broadcast if that is the arrangement
the BBC has entered into with the artist, but that has nothing
whatsoever to do with how many times (or not) an individual listens to
their recording of that broadcast.


* That was certainly the case when I was involved writing Orpheus (the
Radio 3 music planning system), which had tracking initial and repeat
performances woven right through it. However, I admit that was quite a
while back and things could have changed since then.

In article , says...

On 01/11/14 20:18, Yellow wrote:

The whole issue of copyright is a stupid mess and I, as ever, fail to
see why I cannot listen to content I have paid for as and when I choose,
in whatever format I choose.

But you can listen to content that you have paid for. But you can only
legally listen to content that you have paid for.

I think there might be a typo in that somewhere.


But there isn't a law
that forces a content owner to sell what you want at the price you choose.

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

I've just created a government petition which [...] would require
all government and government- or publically-funded institutions to
use Open Source software and Open Data standards wherever
reasonably possible

I think that's Government 'policy' anyway. Just that the gap between theory
and reality seems to have put it into the 'political aspiration'
classification so far as the real public bodies are concerned.

http://computerweekly.com/news/2240227473

In article , Java Jive
wrote:
You need to tell GIP where your external binaries are, for example: gip
--ffmpeg path --prefs-add gip --prefs-show

OK. Must confess I don't know what 'gip' is! :-)

However for me getting the 'raw' flv is precisely what I wanted. My purpose
in experimenting with get_iplayer was to in future obtain some raw files
from the iplayer to compare with the ts I get from Freeview HDTV versions
of the same programmes. Doing it this way would be me also try using
different conversion arrangements.

My initial tests were with R4 and R4ex because I have more experience with
audio and so could easily check the results to ensure I was getting files I
could analyse and compare.

That said. I was impressed by how quick and convenient the process was -
until the BBC broke it. So if the problems are sorted out I may use it
again for audio in future.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

In article , Andy
Furniss [email protected] wrote:
Bernard Peek wrote:
On 01/11/14 15:25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Bernard Peek
wrote:


To be clear: Are you saying that if I buy a FreeviewHDTV and watch
FreeviewHD the spdif/optical audio output of the TV will not give any
output?

I'm not sure. It's something that you should check before you buy. The
rule is that an HDMI device is not allowed to output a high-quality
signal to any device that is not HDMI compliant.


I think TVs will output from HD receivers OK over s/pdif maybe Dolby
bitstream as well as 2ch PCM - people do connect up their surround amps.

The TV I have in mind certainly has a handbook that tells you how to
connect the optical audio output to be able to listen. I plan to buy from
John Lewis who I think have a no-quibble return policy anyway. But I
suspect the makers of the TV would be in legal trouble with what they say
in the handbook if the TV falls silent when you dare to watch HD material
on their HD/FreeviewHD set. Particularly as the transport stream is not
encrypted.

It's possible that the optical output will only deliver a degraded
signal. You would need to check whether the audio system that you want
to feed it into is HDMI compliant.

s/pdif is nothing to do with HDMI and HDMI is not the same as HDCP
anyway (not all HDMI equipment does HDCP)

Indeed. The whole point of an spdif optical/coax output is to provide audio
to audio equipment that doesn't have HDMI at all. If the TV socket doesn't
work the set is mis-described.

So again, for clarity: if anyone has a current set that fails in this way,
please say.


Of course you can buy HDMI capture kit :-)

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/uk/products/intensity

Thanks. Interesting.


Me thinks Jim just wants his telly to spit pcm out of s/pdif which it
probably will.

Indeed. One of my concerns is that the set will output lpcm spdif stereo
even when a broadcast, etc, is 'surround'. No interest in grabbing *video*
at this stage. If I'd wanted it, I'd have recorded the ts stream by other
means.

Again, my reading of the handbook(s) for the Panasonic set I have in mind
is that it will. If it doesn't I'll ask John Lewis to take it back. I was
just puzzled by what Bernard said. It seems crazy if true, but then large
commercial companies often do crazy things on the basis that they are so
big their mere customers will shut up and put up with it.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

On 02/11/14 01:13, Yellow wrote:
additional repeat fees that are payable each time a program or work they
perform in is repeated.

How is that a problem?

The ideal for the artist is to get paid every time that their
performance is listened to, as that represents their real market value.
There are technical and PR problems in actually achieving that. To
get the best compromise, they enter into an agreement with the BBC that
says that the public may only access the contents for a limited time
after a broadcast and that they will be paid for each broadcast.

Copyright and performing rights law backs up this arrangement by
requiring the BBC to give explicit permission for the public to record
the material and making it illegal to defeat technical protection measures.

If you want to keep listening to a performance, each repeat of that
performance has a value to you. The artist wants to receive some of
that value, in monetary form. (Not to mention their agents, recording
companies, etc.)

The original business model for radio broadcasts was as advertisements
for the vinyl or polycarbonate versions, which were priced based on
their being repeatedly performed.

I don't particularly like some of the consequences, like the
privatisation of popular culture (if you sing the latest hit to your
friends, you are infringing the copyright or performing rights, but the
West is now an intellectual property based economy.

Incidentally, one of the things that annoys me is when adverts for DVDs
talk about owning copies. You don't own the copy. You only own the
medium. You can't play the DVD to your local social club without a
further licence, and you can't copy it for your friends.


They can be paid each time it is broadcast if that is the arrangement
the BBC has entered into with the artist, but that has nothing
whatsoever to do with how many times (or not) an individual listens to
their recording of that broadcast.

Yellow wrote:

The whole issue of copyright is a stupid mess and I, as ever, fail to
see why I cannot listen to content I have paid for as and when I
choose, in whatever format I choose.

But the argument goes that you haven't paid for it. You've paid for
the right to listen to / watch it in ways specified up front.

It's the same with computer softwa you don't own Windows: the
licence gives you various rights to use it, and those rights are
limited. You can't copy it, install it on multiple machines, etc,
except as specified in the licence. (The legal enforceability of some
of these constraints might be challenged, but that is a different
issue.)

With downloaded music, my understanding is that you've paid for the
right to listen to it and make copies for your own use on other media
players, but you can't sell it on, you can't give it away, etc.

I'm not saying I agree with all this; simply that the copyright law
means you don't "pay for" content, you pay for various rights to use
that content in certain limited ways.

--
SteveT

David Woolley wrote:

If you want to keep listening to a performance, each repeat of that
performance has a value to you. The artist wants to receive some of
that value, in monetary form. (Not to mention their agents, recording
companies, etc.)

Exactly. That's why each time someone borrows a book from a library,
the author gets a payment.

--
SteveT

Jim Lesurf wrote:

To be clear: Are you saying that if I buy a FreeviewHDTV and watch
FreeviewHD the spdif/optical audio output of the TV will not give any
output?

It definitely gives an output because I feed mine into my amp, which
outputs the multi-channel sound as intended. However, any *video*
output - if available at all - is in SD. As far as I know, none of the
video outputs work when HD material is being received.

--
SteveT