5 ms·

I don't understand what you mean either. The BBC had to protect the content they were delivering or content creators likely wouldn't allow it on the service. P

I don't understand what you mean either. The BBC had to protect the content they were delivering or content creators likely wouldn't allow it on the service. Presumably they shut down RTMP streams because open source clients were delivering content outside the UK. Seems reasonable to me.

Paul_S 11y ago
They don't have to, but they want to. They could say they will not accept content that requires DRM, just like GOG does. BBC is state funded so it should be easier for it (easier than for a for profit company like GOG) to not be evil.
- pidg 11y ago
  Having actually spoken to some of the people who work on this stuff at the BBC, they don't want to. They want to make as much quality television accessible to as many people as possible. In fact, internal systems already exist for accessing any BBC programme from the last (n) years. There's also a system for schools and universities that gives you access to the last year or so of programming. It's pressures from external production companies that prevent these from being rolled out to the public. However, there will always be rights issues until the state has complete ownership over all TV production - which is never going to happen. (Also - what's 'evil' about content creators wanting to protect their intellectual property and income?)
  - exodust 11y ago
    Content creators care about publishing schedules and expiry dates - how long the content is available on iPlayer. That's their primary concern. What exactly is DRM protecting them against? It's not geo-blocking, that's done on the server. There's no "download button" that suddenly appears on iPlayer if the content isn't encrypted. So please remind me what protective benefits DRM brings the rights holders and content creators? Keep in mind, it's trivial to screen capture video on any half-decent computer. Anyone "determined" enough simply needs screen capture software and then hit record.
- jamespo 11y ago
  Actually I'm surprised they don't require some sort of login for iplayer rather than just limiting by Geo-IP, allowing VPN-using non-license-fee-payers to get the content.
  - noarchy 11y ago
    There are plenty of people who watch TV in the UK without paying the license fee, to say nothing of the Internet. I'd bet that the percentage of non-license payers who use iPlayer is higher, due to cord-cutting.
  - rikkus 11y ago
    They would also get the option to charge non UK residents for access. There must be good reason they don't do this but it would certainly mean UK residents could access content while abroad without having to pretend they were at home and stop non UK residents 'cheating'. Would love to hear from the BBC if this is being considered.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      Because if they did it would contribute the the view that they are not much more than yet another commercial TV station...
- Doctor_Fegg 11y ago
  The BBC is not state-funded. The BBC is funded by the licence fee, which is not compulsory. If you don't have a TV and don't watch live broadcasts online, you don't have to pay it. (I don't.)
JupiterMoon 11y ago
Given that they effectively are the content creator for a large proportion of their programming they could easily provide DRM free downloads of their self-produced or self-commissioned programming. They choose not to because they want to sell the rights to the programs later. Given that they are largely state funded there is an argument that we as UK citizens are being double charged for content when we (1) pay our license fee for the BBC and (2) later have to purchase a Netflix membership to view older programming.
- JamesBaxter 11y ago
  I don't think they do create a lot of the programming, I thought they mostly licensed it from production companies. I can't find stats on it. Can anyone else?
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    My [cynical] view is that people in the BBC tend to work through a production company so they can profit from the BBC rather than the BBC producing the show as a public producer that merely pays wages. They can then lock up IP in their own company rather than being the BBC's work-for-hire employees. Shows like Gardeners Question Time (GQT) are stalwarts of BBC programming. The BBC could easily produce it, or commission it from a production company on the basis that it's made direct in to the public domain [in copyright terms]. But that would presumably result in less money to the producers/talent. There was scandal some time back that BBC were paying "talent" upwards of £1 million per series to do a single show a week. Thing is at the time the talent of course were also the owners of the production company for their show and so the BBC were paying their company some greater amount. The BBC promotion of such independent production companies makes them world ranking sellers whilst there seems no reason that such shows couldn't be produced with only a name change and done under the BBC as producer. Shows like Graham Norton aren't exactly ground breaking, you get an ex-hospital radio presenter (or whoever) to chat inanely with people who are there to popularise their latest book; you get the interviews because who doesn't want to advertise their film on primetime BBC, it's not rocket science. Why can't the BBC own a show like that? Why isn't Mr Norton, or whoever, employed by the BBC and hired out if they're in demand for other shows? In short it all seems like a huge nepotistic mess of old-boy networks, and smoke and mirrors rather than a corporation that works for the people using their taxes and license fee money. As if the divisional managers in a corporation got together and said, hangabout we can make our divisions private enterprises and charge the parent company double to do what we do now?? But I'm probably completely mistaken ...

Paul_S 11y ago

They don't have to, but they want to. They could say they will not accept content that requires DRM, just like GOG does. BBC is state funded so it should be easier for it (easier than for a for profit company like GOG) to not be evil.

pidg 11y ago
Having actually spoken to some of the people who work on this stuff at the BBC, they don't want to. They want to make as much quality television accessible to as many people as possible. In fact, internal systems already exist for accessing any BBC programme from the last (n) years. There's also a system for schools and universities that gives you access to the last year or so of programming. It's pressures from external production companies that prevent these from being rolled out to the public. However, there will always be rights issues until the state has complete ownership over all TV production - which is never going to happen. (Also - what's 'evil' about content creators wanting to protect their intellectual property and income?)
- exodust 11y ago
  Content creators care about publishing schedules and expiry dates - how long the content is available on iPlayer. That's their primary concern. What exactly is DRM protecting them against? It's not geo-blocking, that's done on the server. There's no "download button" that suddenly appears on iPlayer if the content isn't encrypted. So please remind me what protective benefits DRM brings the rights holders and content creators? Keep in mind, it's trivial to screen capture video on any half-decent computer. Anyone "determined" enough simply needs screen capture software and then hit record.
jamespo 11y ago
Actually I'm surprised they don't require some sort of login for iplayer rather than just limiting by Geo-IP, allowing VPN-using non-license-fee-payers to get the content.
- noarchy 11y ago
  There are plenty of people who watch TV in the UK without paying the license fee, to say nothing of the Internet. I'd bet that the percentage of non-license payers who use iPlayer is higher, due to cord-cutting.
- rikkus 11y ago
  They would also get the option to charge non UK residents for access. There must be good reason they don't do this but it would certainly mean UK residents could access content while abroad without having to pretend they were at home and stop non UK residents 'cheating'. Would love to hear from the BBC if this is being considered.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Because if they did it would contribute the the view that they are not much more than yet another commercial TV station...
Doctor_Fegg 11y ago
The BBC is not state-funded. The BBC is funded by the licence fee, which is not compulsory. If you don't have a TV and don't watch live broadcasts online, you don't have to pay it. (I don't.)

JupiterMoon 11y ago

Given that they effectively are the content creator for a large proportion of their programming they could easily provide DRM free downloads of their self-produced or self-commissioned programming. They choose not to because they want to sell the rights to the programs later. Given that they are largely state funded there is an argument that we as UK citizens are being double charged for content when we (1) pay our license fee for the BBC and (2) later have to purchase a Netflix membership to view older programming.

JamesBaxter 11y ago
I don't think they do create a lot of the programming, I thought they mostly licensed it from production companies. I can't find stats on it. Can anyone else?
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  My [cynical] view is that people in the BBC tend to work through a production company so they can profit from the BBC rather than the BBC producing the show as a public producer that merely pays wages. They can then lock up IP in their own company rather than being the BBC's work-for-hire employees. Shows like Gardeners Question Time (GQT) are stalwarts of BBC programming. The BBC could easily produce it, or commission it from a production company on the basis that it's made direct in to the public domain [in copyright terms]. But that would presumably result in less money to the producers/talent. There was scandal some time back that BBC were paying "talent" upwards of £1 million per series to do a single show a week. Thing is at the time the talent of course were also the owners of the production company for their show and so the BBC were paying their company some greater amount. The BBC promotion of such independent production companies makes them world ranking sellers whilst there seems no reason that such shows couldn't be produced with only a name change and done under the BBC as producer. Shows like Graham Norton aren't exactly ground breaking, you get an ex-hospital radio presenter (or whoever) to chat inanely with people who are there to popularise their latest book; you get the interviews because who doesn't want to advertise their film on primetime BBC, it's not rocket science. Why can't the BBC own a show like that? Why isn't Mr Norton, or whoever, employed by the BBC and hired out if they're in demand for other shows? In short it all seems like a huge nepotistic mess of old-boy networks, and smoke and mirrors rather than a corporation that works for the people using their taxes and license fee money. As if the divisional managers in a corporation got together and said, hangabout we can make our divisions private enterprises and charge the parent company double to do what we do now?? But I'm probably completely mistaken ...