Re: Who's money?

"If that's the case, then as as Linux user, shouldn't I get some kind of rebate on the license fee? Given that I pay for my TV License and find that I'm paying for a service I can't use. (And no doubt the license fee will skyrocket along with the BBC bandwidth costs)"

My Nan doesn't even have a PC, should she get a rebate as she can't even use the BBC website yet alone any version of the iPlayer?

I don't listen to the radio, can I get a rebate for that?

I've never watched any of the BBC digital channels, when should I be expecting my rebate for them?

Just because you pay the license fee doesn't mean that they have to automatically provide you with every single service that it pays for, it's your responsibility to make sure you have the equipment to take advantage of it, whether that is buying a digital box, a radio, a pc, or even a copy of windows. They make it avaliable, but at every stage you have to get the right equipment to use it, and if you can't, then tough luck.

What's wrong with Real Player DRM?

OK OK, let me rephrase that, what's right with Real Player (in general), but doesn't it do DRM protected content and there is a Windows, OS/X and Linux port?

Mac vs. Linux

Just a minor point, they should create a linux version before a Mac version. Although I'm about to hugley simplify this the guts should still hold.

If you have a working linux implementation of a product as modern Max OSX is based around BSD so the main issues would only then be cleaning up the interface and changing the installer for those who like to point and click.

Java?

Okay, I know I said Java, but think of it this way.. you write it once on a Java platform, it works on pretty much any OS that supports JVM, that includes Windows, Mac OSX and Linux, not forgetting Solaris, *BSD, etc.

How many O/s do you support

I've already seen comments from people saying that their Spectrum/Amiga or otherwise should be supported. Can I also throw in my washing machine as I've not seen that o/s listed.

More seriously, while I don't know the ins and outs of how well Linux distros support DRM, perhaps the statement that the beeb should be making is that they aim to support all modern o/s with a regular user base on their web site of over x amount will be supported, where the DRM capabilities of that o/s allow.

I cannot see why anyone would be able to argue against this definition. Then it's just down to seeing if the beeb can AFFORD to support that many distros. If they can't then really, they shouldn't have bothered in the first place.

The smart way to design software

Even though the share of Linux desktop users is still rather small, I think the smartest way to go about designing software is to start developing Open Source and then port to Windows and Mac, like VLC for example. That way, you'll surely save a lot of money, because, right now, the poor dev have to basically start from scratch, that Windows code being unusable.

Forget about the speccy, let's get it to work on the ZX81!! Who needs colour anyway?

Just a little bemused

Firstly, Speccies won't have the capability to decode full frame rate DRM'd video. Video out isn't the best, but should be good if it could happen.

OSC aren't saying make it available for Linux. Or GNU for that matter.

They want it available for Win98, WinVista, Mac, GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, BSD, oh the list could go on.

The complaint is that the BBC are using a DRM that will be ported to a non-MS system the day hell freezes over (although I believe this did happen when Sun started selling AIX, or was it IBM and Solaris?).

BBC should use a DRM that is proven to be tough (nothing against DRM in this case) and have a binary that is widely available. Most of us couldn't give a t'penny piece for the software, we can write that.

Also, the complaint comes in because I reckon in a couple of months time I'll be an illegal user of the service because this wonderful MS DRM will be cracked so everyone can enjoy the media. Why can't I use it legally.

And the final point....

3 users? 11500+ more like. And, thats just the complaints in the UK not the world remember.

Open source is not a religion. Everyone and everything does not have to respect its rights .

And can someone explain why we should have to be so respectful of people's religous rights. We should no more repsect them then people's desire to have iPlayer ported to their old A3000 Acorn...

Easy Answer

Well I'm just going to replace my TV with a monitor, and use iPlayer and the SKY TV Internet player, and cancel my TV license hence no TV tuners in use :)

Re: The smart way to design software

They can't make it Open Source, if it's Open Source then they have to provide the source, which means people can disable the DRM, meaning there will be no content as the content providers won't license it (We're not just talking the people who make the programs here, but the people with other interests in it, i.e. for any music used - That's why lots of DVDs of old TV series have been delayed).

They can make it closed source on Linux, but they won't be able to use any existing OSS code to speed the development, because that would make it a requirement for the rest of it to be OSS then. So wherever they start the development from, they are starting from scratch (well, the same point, develop inhouse or license other parts).

@Paul RE:RE Whose Money

Oh, FFS!

You are completely missing the point, aren't you?

Your 'nan' doesn't have a computer, so she cannot use the BBC web site? If she DID buy a computer she would be able to buy ANY computer (Windows, Linux, Mac, etc, etc) and use the BBC web site.

You don't listen to radio, but, if you WANT to listen to the radio you can go out and buy any FM or DAB radio from ANY manufacturer and listen.

You have never watched any BBC Digital channels, but you can go out and buy any DVB-T STB and watch them if you want. (incidentally, if you cannot, currently receive Freeview in you area I think you SHOULD be entitled to a rebate).

Can you spot what web pages, FM radio, DAB and DVB have in common? Yes, that's right, STANDARDS. They all work to common, published and recognised STANDARDS. I can buy a Freeview STB from any manufacturer and it works. I can buy a DVB-T card for my computer and view Freeview programmes under Window OR Linux.

Standards. Get it? Standards!

If iPlayer worked to PUBLISHED standards then clients can be written by anyone with access to those standards. Windows, Linux, Mac, PS3 Wii, XBox, etc, etc,etc.

As it is we have total lock-in to ONE platform (PC) ONE operating system (Windows XP) and ONE application (WMP). That, IMHO, is totally unacceptable.

Would you listen to yourselfs!

All this debate when in reality there is very little if anything worth watching *once* on the BBC let alone twice. Who exactly is going to be bothered downloading anything to watch again... but only within the time dictated by an outdated, outmoded service run by the biggest bunch of wishy-washy, money wasting drama queens ever created in Bullshit Britain. PULLLLEASSSE... tell me which brain matter challenged individuals (other than employees of aforementioned crap organisation) will choose this method over the "record" button on their video recorder/ pvr.

Really, it is yet another money wasting exercise from start to finish in the fantasy world known as the "BBC".

Consider the consequences

I'm pretty annoyed that every time I see an article regarding the BBC there is inevitable BBC bashing and cries to scrap the license fee and make the BBC go commercial.

Do people not consider the consequences? Do they not realise that the BBC is one of the last bastions of the semi-free* press? Do people want another Fox news?

The reason any channel is the way it is is because people watch the tripe they put on. Just because the BBC also broadcasts similar rubbish does not mean that the license fee should be scrapped, I am much happier paying £100 for the BBC to be "independent"* and produce probably the best news feeds* (via News 24, radio, and website, not just the TV that I wont be able to watch on my Linux desktop) in the world.

The day we lose the BBC will be a very sad day, so please stop calling for it's premature death.

(* I realise the BBC is not always perfect, but it has always seemed to be a lot more on the ball than a lot of the other "news" outlets and, having seen Fox news, I am glad it is not another of Rupert Murdoch's outlets).

What this is really about...

There are a number of people who choose not to own a TV, and therefore don't pay the license fee, like me. If this goes through, the BBC is going to say..

"You own a PC? Oh well in that case, PC's can now be used to access BBC content online. License please!"

This whole thing is actually funny

In a black comedy sort of way.

I use Windows XP, Windows Vista (because I am forced to do so at the day job), and several different distros of Linux.

When I want to get some work accomplished, I use Linux. When I am playing games - or ripping "DRM"* encumbered content to unencrypted, unprotected content - I use Windows. Later on I may play that ripped content on one of my Linux systems.

* - "Digital Rights Management" is a Marketing falsehood. It's actually "Technology User's Rights Denial System," also known as "TURDS."

License fee

The BBC's web services, web site, streaming (audio) media etc. etc. are not covered by the license fee. The license fee covers broadcast television media. Not radio any more, this is cross funded by the license fee, but you don't have to have a license to use the services.

Streaming television media is narrowcast, it is not covered by the license fee, the beeb don't have to guarantee you can use it (in fact they don't have to guarantee you can get broadcast, there are still places that you can't get it in the UK.) Now, it appears that they are going to make streaming video available to Windows and Mac PCs. Great. This is a bonus. They may or may not be able to get it to work on Linux. This would be more of a bonus.

A few other points:

Yes, the BBC were always going to support Mac OSX, just not at launch.

The DRM is a major issue, it's the only reason that the content owners will allow them to re-transmit their content. It has taken a year for the Beeb to negotiate this with the content providers.

DRM doesn't (as yet) work on FOSS OSes, because the driver of the output device is also Open Source, therefore anyone with a fair amount of programming experience can write a piece of software to grab the output of the DRM stage before it is output to the output device. This sort of thing is vastly more difficult on a closed source system.

Hehehe

We all have the luxury of access to a computer. Not every person does and some of those people will nevertheless be license payers.

They can't access the BBC website that they help to pay for, they deserve a rebate, right?

They might not have a freeview box, so they miss out on BBC3 etc. They deserve another rebate, right?

They might not own a radio, or may ONLY own a radio, they deserve yet another rebate, right?

Not all BBC services are available for all license payers who can't/won't pay for the necessary kit and never have been. Obviously, that’s not entirely fair but it's the only pragmatic way to roll-out the services that the majority of us can enjoy.

Analogy for Penguin lovers

As mentioned above, the whole debate that the BBC could only transmit to Samsung TV's is comparable to me not being able to get Freeview. I've paid for the ariel, and a set-top-box - but the signal is just too crap. Thus no BBC Three for me.

Just suppose we tweaked the above, so everyone COULD get Freeview, but only if the ariel was manufacturered by "company A". 90% or so the UK already has a compatible company A arial, even though it's a bit more expensive it's just the standard that's occured (through whatever means! ;-)

Now whilst these additional services (channels such as BBC Three and Four) are out for the vast majority of people in the UK, non-compatible company A arial households can still get the two standard BBC channels - but just not the Freeview ones, without getting a company A arial.

Would there be an outcry? Probably not.

Additionally, as mentioned above, the license fee pays for the BBC to provision BBC One and BBC Two on analogue TV. That's directly what you get back for your £12 a month. However the BBC also have other services, mainly funded by the licence fee, that includes Freeview/Digital only channels, FM Radio stations, DAB radio stations and various other media for us to watch/listen to.

Open sauce does have it's limitations; unless something like HDMI over HDCP was implemented for Linux (I hear cries of 'over my dead body'!) then whilst it maybe possible to implement some type of DRM on Linux, there will be a greater chance of it being cracked as at some point the output will need to go through some code which is open source.

And lets face it, Windows or Mac - there's no DRM yet anyway that can't be cracked; so imagine what the content owners are thinking about running DRM on a OPEN SOURCE system!

Finally, has anyone listened to the Jimmy Carr joke: "WANTED: Small minority to ruin it for the rest of us"

That's the 5% of home users that have Linux by the way.

just coz it runs of Linux it might not be Open Source

what's to stop the BBC simply producing a monolithic commercial closed source app that runs on Linux. Maybe one flavour (say Ubuntu or perhaps Linspire). Maybe with a minimum system spec of a dual core pentium, 4GB RAM and a high end GPU... they'll have done what they promised and the Open Sauce movement will have gained.... nothing apart from wasting some money.

I look at stats for web traffic on a couple of fairly busy sites I'm involved in and Linux users are about on a par with OS/2... but we still test in a couple of flavours because if something doesn't work right in some bleeding edge version of Firefox in an unstable branch of the OS we get more complaints (fired off by the same 12 people out of user base of over 1/2 a million) that our service is crap (interestingly if you look at a subset of users paying for premium content we have more on Win95 than all Linux flavours combined so IMO they're just a bunch of freeloaders anyway. Let 'em use BitTorrent)

Lets all bow down and thank the %5 Linux users.

Lets all bow down and thank the %5 Linux users.

Posted Thursday 26th July 2007 02:37 GMT

1. Linux is a moderating influence. Keeping prices down at Microsoft. Think about it, Microsoft is now only charging you $100 for a $10 piece of software, without Linux they probably would be charging you $400 for that same $10 software.

2. Linux is a positive influence. If you only had Microsoft. Then you would be had by Microsoft. Microsoft has never innovated, realistically only coming up with new products in response to outside pressure and influence. Remember the crap that was Windows ME! The other day they announced a new world changing product, a touch screen display in a coffee table. It is to laugh...

3. Linux people are only asking for what is reasonable. Standardization. It is reasonable to be able to open files on any computer and be able to read them, display them, play them. Microsoft gets no benefit from reasonableness, hence new Word program that creates files that older Word programs cannot view. (Word a $10 program can be easily be replaced by programs that costs pennies.)

Explaining standardization is tough. How to explain. TV's in a various countries running on 110 or 220 volts or the local standard equivalent. Standard sized auto/truck tires that can go on either a Ford or a Toyota or a ????. Petrol that doesn't mess up your engine. Does anybody complain about the costs of these standardizations. No! because standardizations lower costs......

BBC need to require standardizations to lower it costs and to provide all it valuable users better service.

not commercial, subscription

The opponents of the license fee are not advocating that the BBC goes commercial, funds itself via advertising or whatever. Most of them probably want the BBC to be subscription funded and without advertising. Most of them are probably perfectly willing to subscribe. They just want subscription to be voluntary.

What they object to is that anyone in the UK who wants to watch TV is at the moment obliged by law to subscribe to the BBC. Even if you enjoy the BBC and would subscribe to it if to do so were voluntary, this is deeply troubling to anyone with a conscience. Why should millions of people who do not want to subscribe to it and are not interested in watching it, be forced to do so, just so I can enjoy what I like?

I do not, after all, demand that every time someone buys the Guardian or the Mirror they pay a fee to the News of the World or the Independent, just because I enjoy reading them. I do not demand that every rock concert shall pay a subsidy to my favourite chamber ensemble or jazz trio. I don't expect every tourist to Malaga to pay a subsidy to my favourite bed and breakfast in West Wales. Tesco does not pay a subsidy to Morrisons, because I prefer Morrisons.

The question about the license fee is, what is so different to justify making people buy stuff they do not want, as a condition of buying what they do want?

platform independant

Instead of making it work on each operating system why not just make it platform independent. ATM this can be easily achieved using Java.

DRM will not work on Linux

There is no way that DRM will work on Linux. The two are fundamentally incompatible.

It's very nice that the BBC is going make the iPlayer eventually work on Linux, however when this happens only a subset of programmes will be available as the programme makers will not trust the Linux community. (Linux not being part of the "Trusted Computing" framework).

Simple facts. Release programmes in XP/Vista/Mac format and the copyright will be safe. Release to the Linux community and the programmes will be on BitTorrent within minutes.

Personally, I still have a VHS recorder and am happy to set the timer.

Jeeze, what a lot of fuss. Here are some FACTS:

Hot air and misinformed opinion.There's so much of it in this discussion it could power a small city.

Why whine about OS choice?

The BBC chose a solution with the available DRM facilities to keep the content owners happy on day 1, and the biggest catchment of licence payers - over 80% of UK PC users currently have XP 32bit.

Why whine about not being able to use it 'cos you're a Linux user/Mac fanboy AND a licence payer?

Do you suppose the BBC should only ever do something new if they can guarantee that every last licence payer will benefit from the off? Get real. Think about the digital switchover for a start. They should be obliged to keep the analogue signal on-air because some poor sods in the middle of nowhere can't get a digital signal? I think not. Smell the coffee folks.

Why whine about the application?

The BBC didn't WRITE the iPlayer, they are using an EXISTING application (the same one as Sky, Channel 4 and others). Writing one from scratch would have seen the BBC crucified for spending licence money on systems development when a working alternative was readily available.

Why whine about the use of Microsoft components?

Along the way, the iPlayer solution uses Sun Solaris, Linux and Windows server components, to deliver content to an end user client application which runs under XP 32bit. Anybody got any complaints about using Solaris or Linux servers?

Why whine about the use of DRM?

Download some content. Remove the DRM. Transcode to another format if you have processor cycles to waste. Watch using DivX Player, VLC or whatever you like, whenever you like, for as long as you like.

Now stop trying to make yourself feel more pleased with yourself by writing cobblers on here and GET A LIFE.

No technical reason for this not to happen.

I can tell you that the video format plays in VLC and mplayer.

Also the DRM has been cracked already.

Trust me when I say I know this because I have legally tested it.

You know what I mean. ;-)