Comments on: Number 10 responds to iPlayer petition… http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/ Protecting your rights in the digital age Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:14:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: SWEETLOUIS http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-164493 SWEETLOUIS Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:19:49 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-164493 The only alternative would have been to delay the Windows version until the Mac and Linux versions become available. The only alternative would have been to delay the Windows version until the Mac and Linux versions become available.

]]> By: Sam Stokes http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-114578 Sam Stokes Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:16:09 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-114578 "Incrimidating" is an awesome word. “Incrimidating” is an awesome word.

]]> By: Ken http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-112032 Ken Tue, 18 Sep 2007 01:53:48 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-112032 That should be "‘licence’ is the noun" Whoops! That should be “‘licence’ is the noun” Whoops!

]]> By: Ken http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-112031 Ken Tue, 18 Sep 2007 01:52:39 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-112031 It's LICENCE fee - 'license' is the verb, 'license' is the noun. The issue is one that would be alien to people in the US, so why the American spelling? It’s LICENCE fee - ‘license’ is the verb, ‘license’ is the noun. The issue is one that would be alien to people in the US, so why the American spelling?

]]> By: Dynamo_ace http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-107072 Dynamo_ace Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:16:37 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-107072 The whole of the BBC's technology department is a mess. It is naive on tech news and uses technoligies that are incrimidating and damaging. They need to change this as technology becomes a bigger part of life. The whole of the BBC’s technology department is a mess. It is naive on tech news and uses technoligies that are incrimidating and damaging. They need to change this as technology becomes a bigger part of life.

]]> By: Sam Stokes http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-106345 Sam Stokes Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:40:35 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-106345 Maybe the "BBC Trust" setup actually makes the BBC more risk-averse. You'd think an organisation with a government-guaranteed revenue stream (not to mention a lucrative TV licensing scheme that's backed by national statute) would be willing to take a few risks in order to innovate, but maybe any kind of risk fails the BBC Trust's "Public Value Test". I suppose you could argue that the BBC getting sued for "contributory copyright infringement" is not in the public interest... Maybe the “BBC Trust” setup actually makes the BBC more risk-averse. You’d think an organisation with a government-guaranteed revenue stream (not to mention a lucrative TV licensing scheme that’s backed by national statute) would be willing to take a few risks in order to innovate, but maybe any kind of risk fails the BBC Trust’s “Public Value Test”. I suppose you could argue that the BBC getting sued for “contributory copyright infringement” is not in the public interest…

]]> By: Chris Walker http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-106298 Chris Walker Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:59:20 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-106298 "They also chose to perceive the two requirements as mutually exclusive, rather than using their sizeable software development workforce to design a DRM standard that could be implemented on any platform and promoting it enough to make it worthwhile to do so." Call me cynical, but I believe that the reason they didn't do this was because they would ultimately be responsible for any breach in the DRM system. As it stands, they've passed this responsibility on to Microsoft. “They also chose to perceive the two requirements as mutually exclusive, rather than using their sizeable software development workforce to design a DRM standard that could be implemented on any platform and promoting it enough to make it worthwhile to do so.”

Call me cynical, but I believe that the reason they didn’t do this was because they would ultimately be responsible for any breach in the DRM system. As it stands, they’ve passed this responsibility on to Microsoft.

]]> By: Richard Overton http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-106043 Richard Overton Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:18:18 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-106043 It goes beyond the iPlayer. The BBC really needs to sort out the content licensing as it's a complete mess. For example, I have happily paid my TV License for 18 years but as I am currently overseas I am blocked from listening to much of the Beeb's audio content including streamed sports commentaries. Compare that with the fact that I can listen to four channels of streamed Virgin Radio music here with no restrictions. My local ISP even peers the data so that it doesn't even count on my monthly download allowance. The Beeb can and should do better in this area. It goes beyond the iPlayer. The BBC really needs to sort out the content licensing as it’s a complete mess. For example, I have happily paid my TV License for 18 years but as I am currently overseas I am blocked from listening to much of the Beeb’s audio content including streamed sports commentaries. Compare that with the fact that I can listen to four channels of streamed Virgin Radio music here with no restrictions. My local ISP even peers the data so that it doesn’t even count on my monthly download allowance. The Beeb can and should do better in this area.

]]> By: Sam Stokes http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-106013 Sam Stokes Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:55:26 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-106013 The alternative would have been to make cross-platform availability a fundamental requirement of the design, rather than an afterthought; to build something that relies (as Becky says) on documented standards, not on a piece of proprietary software available only on one platform. The argument is that the Beeb had an even more fundamental requirement - to protect the rights of their content providers, although it's unlikely that DRM can actually achieve that - but they chose to let that requirement override platform-independence. They also chose to perceive the two requirements as mutually exclusive, rather than using their sizeable software development workforce to design a DRM standard that could be implemented on any platform and promoting it enough to make it worthwhile to do so. They could even have used their clout - as Apple have recently started doing - to convince their content providers to let them release the content in DRM-free formats, which makes platform-independence a lot easier as they could have just chosen an existing standard format. Their choices were no doubt made to get something to market more cheaply and quickly, but while for a normal corporation that would be disappointing but excusable, for one funded by the state it is harder to swallow. The alternative would have been to make cross-platform availability a fundamental requirement of the design, rather than an afterthought; to build something that relies (as Becky says) on documented standards, not on a piece of proprietary software available only on one platform.

The argument is that the Beeb had an even more fundamental requirement - to protect the rights of their content providers, although it’s unlikely that DRM can actually achieve that - but they chose to let that requirement override platform-independence.

They also chose to perceive the two requirements as mutually exclusive, rather than using their sizeable software development workforce to design a DRM standard that could be implemented on any platform and promoting it enough to make it worthwhile to do so.

They could even have used their clout - as Apple have recently started doing - to convince their content providers to let them release the content in DRM-free formats, which makes platform-independence a lot easier as they could have just chosen an existing standard format.

Their choices were no doubt made to get something to market more cheaply and quickly, but while for a normal corporation that would be disappointing but excusable, for one funded by the state it is harder to swallow.

]]> By: Chris Walker http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-105872 Chris Walker Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:54:17 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/09/06/number-10-responds-to-iplayer-petition/#comment-105872 "As the Open Source Consortium have argued, what the Trust’s provisions fail to acknowledge is the significant competitive advantage this lag time gives the purveyors of the only operating system currently supported by the iPlayer - Microsoft." But surely the only alternative would have been to delay the Windows version until the Mac and Linux versions become available? That wouldn't do anybody any good. “As the Open Source Consortium have argued, what the Trust’s provisions fail to acknowledge is the significant competitive advantage this lag time gives the purveyors of the only operating system currently supported by the iPlayer - Microsoft.”

But surely the only alternative would have been to delay the Windows version until the Mac and Linux versions become available? That wouldn’t do anybody any good.

]]>