iPlayer cross-platform. What should the BBC do?

AdamSee

AdamSee

AdamSee

Associate
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
1,758
Location
Winchester
Those who use the iPlayer, know that the download portion isn't available to non-windows users. The main reason is due to the use of windows DRM technology which isn't available cross-platform (albeit DRM v1 is available on OS X via WMP9).

Can an open source DRM - that works on Linux, Mac & Win - provide the same protection that is facilitated by a Windows DRM?
 
Can they not restrict the iPlayer to a UK IP address? I'm not sure it would solve all problems, but since most people have a television licence, they kinda pay for it..
 
It's already restricted to UK IP addresses and, interestingly enough, you don't need a TV license to use the iPlayer as it doesn't offer live content.

DRM is there to protect the right holders of the program. Imagine if you could have all of Doctor Who on your computer available for free, legally. They'd be a huge decline in DVD sales and it wouldn't be prudent of the BBC to decrease their revenue, nor do the BBC always hold the distribution rights from the programs on iPlayer. Therefore some form of protection, most probably, will always be in place for the foreseeable future.
 
Very true, people can stream and they aren't missing out on much at the moment.

However, later on in the year, HD content will be available to download. Can you imagine how Linux & Mac users would then feel if they were missing out on this? Myself included.
 
Last edited:
fini said:
Why disadvantage the many (Windows users) because of the few (Linux users)?
Click to expand...

You may as well ask why build disability access ramps for services such as libraries, museums etc. People should have equal access to services etc. As far as I can tell the BBC is kinda in the public domain and is supposed to provide content for a wide variety of people (providing subtiles, audio description etc) - rights to access such content should not and never should be restricted to group that happens to be the majority :) It is not unreasonable to assume that not all people will have access to a Windows os - either through choice or other reasons :)
 
Personally, I think DRM is unnecessary, it only purpose is to protect peoples salaries, if all the actors and TV presenters not to mention football players suddenly started falling below the poverty line there may be some argument for DRM. As it is all these people get paid well over the odds for there work and have the perception of some divine right to earn loads of money.

Employees are nearly always the biggest cost of business.

Make the products cheep enough and the advantage of buying your product from a massive data centre with a backbone connection will be enough to sway most people away from tying up there internet connection for hours over p2p.
 
cb_linus said:
You may as well ask why build disability access ramps for services such as libraries, museums etc.
Click to expand...
It's not the same at all. It was suggested that a service should not have been launched until they could work the DRM angle out for Linux - which is probably nigh on impossible and thus a service would never be launched at all. It was thus a choice between launching a service then and annoying the few or launching a service potentially years in the future to appease them. Disability access ramps are easy to install and do not slow down the construction of a building. As such you're not holding an entire building to ransom waiting for disability work to be finished that could take years - which is what you'd metaphorically be doing if the BBC had waited for a Linux version to be ready before launching the Windows version.
 
^maybe not, and your view is of course valid :) but what I'm pointing out is that it is important to consider the feelings of the few. I'm basically trying to explore an answer to your original question, unless of course it was rhetorical :p ;) :)
 
At least they could create alternative embedded player (without file download) for other platforms or something.
 
Im not quite sure what you guys are talking about atm, im currently reading. Is this about retaining DRM rights on content downloaded from the BBC site. Do you mean most methods of downloading the content on said site would breach DRM laws?
 
All download content from the iPlayer site is DRM protected, using a windows DRM. For a user to play the content they have to obtain a license. Either from the server or the one that is bundled in the download.

The issue is not whether the content (e.g. a Doctor Who episode) remains protected using a DRM, as it must do. Instead the question is whether other DRM systems are available on other platforms (as windows DRM is only available on windows), allowing users to be able to play the content.
 
To be honest, if you can't use the download service, the streaming service is just as good in my opinion.

OK it may not have the same quality as the download version but it's still better than anything on alluc.org or what tvlinks had. Also, for me it's pretty fast and on my 4mb connection I can watch things pretty much immediately. And since that works fine in vista (obviously) I fail to see the problem.

In fact, what's the use of the downloadable content when it expires after seven days anyway just like the streaming content? (correct me if I'm wrong though).

Someone explain the advantage of the download apart from possibly better quality (I assume this is the case as a vista user I haven't been able to d/l) :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom