Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Entertainment

BBC Discusses PVR Software, Creative Archive Plans 216

Posted by simoniker from the americans-want-to-pay-license-fee-too dept.
Fidigit writes "You may have heard something about the BBC Internet Media Player {iMP) - a computer-based PVR for the BBC's TV and radio content, 'only... available to UK broadband users', which'll use P2P to shuttle content around between downloaders. Now we hear the iMP content will distributed using DRM, using Microsoft's DRM technology, 'in a break with the BBC's long-standing support of Real.'" The previously mentioned BBC Creative Archive is also discussed - apparently its content "...will be downloaded using a similar application, but will not be restricted by DRM, enabling people to re-edit it, or use it to make other programmes" - the content "will not be the complete BBC archive", but an example given of the initial content is "nature programmes".
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BBC Discusses PVR Software, Creative Archive Plans More

BBC Discusses PVR Software, Creative Archive Plans

Comments Filter:

  • Good Idea (Score:3, Funny)

    by OPTiX_iNC ( 691070 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @06:49AM (#8395878) Homepage Journal
    If you have all the p2p people dowloading the legit programs, then they don't have time to download all the illegal stuff.

    What about the jackass who decides to rename his entire porn collection to titles of children's shows?

    • Re:Good Idea (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dogers ( 446369 ) * on Thursday February 26, 2004 @06:57AM (#8395909)
      I speak only out of logic here, not facts, so take this as you will..

      Most P2P programs which break down files into chunks would have some sort of hash on the individual chunks, which are compared to others or a central tracker (a la bittorrent) - you cant rename file and try to share them, as your data will continually be corrupted to other users.

      Of course, the more basic P2P apps, like the old gnutella (& co) simply worked off the name and downloaded from a single user, whereby renaming would let you download rubbish, thinking it was something else!

      eMule/Donkey/whatever has a has for the files and even if the filenames the same, if the hash doesnt match, that users file is not lumped in with all the others that do match - its returned as an extra result in the search box.

  • Grrrrrrr (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @06:52AM (#8395887) Homepage
    The BBC is funded esentially by general taxation.

    No problem with them limiting content to the UK (and turning it into a revenue service outside the UK, as they do with BBC North America) but WTF do they think they should be restricting content? We paid for it after all.

    For example the BBC has not embraced Open Source, even for their own in house products, even under a non-commercial-use-only license. They are an organisation that could do such things free from commercial considerations, yet refuse to. It's infuriating.

    They do the same thing with their programming - because of the way they are funded they could offer interesting and different programming _NOT_ reality crap that is available on the commercial channels anyway. And they even have adverts (self promotion) now - and at a louder volume in the same irritating commercial TV style.

    Well, I don't care, I don't have a TV and I'll just carry on stealing the few things I want to watch anyway. Groening et al can contact the BBC for their royalties, since if they could find their ass with both hands I'd be getting the content (legally) from them instead.

    • Re:Grrrrrrr (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      >No problem with them limiting content to the UK (and turning it into a revenue >service outside the UK, as they do with BBC North America) but WTF do they think
      >they should be restricting content? We paid for it after all.

      They're restricting it to people who paid for it, dumbass. How would YOU do it?

    • Re:Grrrrrrr (Score:5, Insightful)

      by trash eighty ( 457611 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @07:10AM (#8395948) Homepage
      so you pay the TV licence then even though you don't have a TV?

      • Re:Grrrrrrr (Score:4, Informative)

        by mr_tommy ( 619972 ) <tgraham@g m a i l . c om> on Thursday February 26, 2004 @07:37AM (#8396038) Journal
        No - you dont. If you buy a TV to watch broadcasted television from BBC / ITV / SKY you must have a license, otherwise you are breaking the law. If you buy a TV simply to watch DVDs then you do not have to get a license. However, License inspectors would be highly sceptical if they were to find an aerial lying around....

        • Re:Grrrrrrr (Score:4, Informative)

          by Inda ( 580031 ) <slash.20.inda@spamgourmet.com> on Thursday February 26, 2004 @07:46AM (#8396067) Journal
          That's not true. My old landlord would be in the shit every other week in regards to watching VHS only on his TV. He had no aerial but the tuner was capable of picking up signals so he had to pay - so they kept telling him. He had the option to remove the tuner (not practical) or pay the tax.

          He paid because the hassle was not worth the &#163;100+ licence fee he might have saved.

          It is a tax, not a service.
          • Either he or the people in the TV licensing Authority he talked to are lying. You do not need a TV license just because you have a tuner. This site [jifvik.org] describes it in detail, including a letter from the TVLA [jifvik.org] saying explicitly that you only need to detune your television and make sure it isn't connected to an aerial.

        • Re:Grrrrrrr (Score:5, Informative)

          by Echemus ( 49002 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @07:59AM (#8396096)
          The license is on the tuner not on the viewing device.

          For example, if you purchased a computer monitor and a DVD player and connected them to each other, you would not be required to own a TV license to use them together, as you do not have a method of viewing "television". If you bought a regular TV you would.

          In another example, if you had a black and white television and a VCR, you would have to own a colour television license, as the VCR is able to receive colour television, even though you cannot view it.

          A further example would be if you owned a TV Tuner card for your computer, irreguardless of whether it was physically in the computer or not you would be required to own a TV License.

          In cases where you do not own a Television Tuner, you are usually invited to sign a document saying that you do not, otherwise the TV Licensing authority will assume you are dodging paying your TV License fee and fine you accordingly. (This agreement also has the clause, like the license, that you must inform them when you move)

          • Re:Grrrrrrr (Score:5, Interesting)

            by turgid ( 580780 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @09:28AM (#8396457) Journal
            In cases where you do not own a Television Tuner, you are usually invited to sign a document saying that you do not, otherwise the TV Licensing authority will assume you are dodging paying your TV License fee and fine you accordingly. (This agreement also has the clause, like the license, that you must inform them when you move)

            You sign the damned form and send it to them. A fortnight later you get a letter saying "thankyou for informing us that you do not need a TV license now sign the form to declare it formallly." It's the same damned form. You send it away.

            A week later a nice lady from TV Licensing phones you and announces that you've sent a form saying you don't need a TV license. She asks you why. You tell her. She asks "are you sure?". You assure her. She asks whether you'd mind signing a form. She'll send you one in the post.

            So you get the same form again, in the post, inviting you to sign.

            You phone them to explain. They say "just fill it in and sign it anayway." You protest but reluctantly agree.

            A month later a man from TV licensing knocks on your door when you're in the middle of cooking your dinner.

            He says, "You don't have a TV license!" And grins.

            "That's right," you reply cheerfully, "I don't have a TV set!"

            "Really?" He says, "why's that?"

            "Because there's nothing on it I wan't to watch and I'd rather spend the 100-odd pound license fee on bits for my computer.

            He agrees, muttering about the lack of quality TV content and leaves.

            So you move house. A week later they put up a billboard poster across the road saying "3 adresses in don't have TV licenses."

            No, this is not Soviet Russia or 1984. This is late 1990/early 2000's England, UK etc.

            Now tell me we're not going to hell in a hand basket.

            • I was fed up of being hassled for not having a TV license. The form I had to fill in suggested I sent a solicitors letter as evidence the TV had been got rid of!

              I regularly got letters which hinted darkly that representatives could be in my area soon...

              I phoned the licensing authority to make a formal complain and ask for compensation for waiting in for these representatives who never showed up!

              They phone back (yes!) and said they would put me on a list so I wouldn't get hassled again for a year. (is th
              • The thing is, I can't see why they are so fastidious in following it up. One of my friends pointed out that I could probably keep a car untaxed (although not now) and uninsured and never be questioned at all by anyone.

            • When I was at University, you could see that they'd mass mailed harrassing letters to all the students, even though none of us had TVs. IIRC, the wording wasn't even along the lines of an informative "if you have a TV you need a licence", but more "We know you have a TV and must pay up for face prison!".

              When later on I did have a TV, and a licence, they still sent me harrassing letters! Presumably this was a mistake in their database, but I'm not the only one I know that this has happened to.

              I have no p

              • Wow, being from Canada this discussion blows my mind!

                You've got to wonder if they're spending all the revenue from the TV licences trying to enforce the policy.
                • You've got to wonder if they're spending all the revenue from the TV licences trying to enforce the policy.

                  Quite. I also wonder how much of it finds its way into the hands of the record companies i.e. via the Radio 1 playlist. That's right kids, we pay the record companies through this regressive (and virtually mandatory) tax to advertise thier shoddy wares (techno handbag disco music e.g. Kylie, Saints Alive, Pope Idle) at us.

                  Is there something fundamentally wrong here?

          • No, only if you use said tuner to receive UK originated broadcasts. A TV with tuner that's not tuned in and doesn't have an ariel plugged in is perfectly fine with no TV License. If you own a TV tuner card then there is no need for a license, unless you use it to receive UK originated TV programs.

            TVL can't fine you without evidence, nor do they have any right to enter your property without a search warrent served by the police.
        • There was a great episode of the Young Ones about this. The telly inspector comes round and sees Vivian with a power cable hanging out of his mouth.

          "You at the telly, didn't you?"

          "It's a toaster!"

          Then the inspector-man goes to the bathroom, shouting "I can wait! I know how... to wait!"

        • I had a big argument with a woman in Tescos when I bought my first DVD player a few years ago. She made me fill in one of those "you're buying TV reception equipment" forms even through it was a DVD *player*. I pointed out that it couldn't receive TV programs so what she was doing was wrong. She said but you need a TV to watch the DVDs. I said I didn't as it had Composite, S-Video and RGB outputs. She said it was company policy. I said it was bollocks. But as I already have a TV licence I filled it i

      • Re:Grrrrrrr (Score:3, Informative)

        by twilight30 ( 84644 )
        Ease up man.

        He has to pay it, even if he doesn't have a TV [tv-l.co.uk], if he has a TV tuner card in his machine. Also, if he is a tenant in a flat with others, he has to pay the license [tv-l.co.uk], because the fee is allocated on 'separately occupied places'.

        Have you seen the penalties? [tv-l.co.uk] Up to a thousand quid? Christ.

        • A small clarification (Score:5, Interesting)

          by T-Kir ( 597145 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @08:03AM (#8396105) Homepage

          I think it is if you have anything capable of recieving any active TV signals, and only if the device actually works... and if you don't have a license they have to prove the something was receiving TV signals (i.e. with their tracker van).

          If you live in a flat with other tenants, and you have independant contracts with the landlord, then you have to have a TV license if you wanna watch TV irrelevant of the other tenants. If all the tenants are on a sharing contract, then only on TV license is needed for the whole building (or area covering shared accomodation).

          I for one have first hand experience with the TV licensing people. On my uni industrial placement (internship), I lived in a flat on an individual contract. I didn't have a TV nor did I want one (boy did that free up my time for doing other things I tell you!), but I got a threatening letter from TV licensing nearly every 2 months... they threatened me by saying that you don't have a license, they'll get a warrant to check on me... blah blah. I was just waiting for the time they actually followed through with one of those threats just to be able to explore the option of being able to sue them... I know that they can trace a signal to individual rooms, and I was happy in the knowledge that I did not have anything capable of recieving TV signals (my PC video card wasn't VIVO either).

          Although I'm not sure on the precise details, but I think the TV license is illegal under European law... but with the UK being half in and half out of the EU depending on whether it suits the government at the time, not much can be done about it. The BBC's charter is up for renewal in 2006, and they've been hit hard by the Hutton report (those who say that will have no bearing on the charter renewal, yeah right!). Plus the license fee continually goes up in frickin price.

          Just my 0.02, not going to the licensing gestapo though ;-)

          • I'm pretty sure the TV license isn't illegal -- after 5 yrs in London I moved to Italy (where I am now) and here they have similar arrangements.

            Better bimbos on Mediaset than ITV, though :)
          • from http://www.tv-l.co.uk/ [tv-l.co.uk]:
            If you use or install television receiving equipment to receive or record television programme services you are required by law to have a valid TV Licence.

            So that means it just needs to be installed - even if the TV was never plugged in - you would need to pay for a licence

            • Re:A small clarification (Score:3, Informative)

              by lga ( 172042 ) *

              If you use or install television receiving equipment to receive or record television programme services you are required by law to have a valid TV Licence.

              The TV licenceing website is lying. Complaints have been made about it to the advertising standards authority, and an MP called Andrew Carey complained about it in the house of commons. This is easy to check, there are numerous websites with information about the TV licence.

              Some links to get you started:
              Abolish the TV licence [tvlicensing.biz]
              C.A.L. [spiderbomb.com]
              Broadband and [kevinboone.com]

    • Hm. I sympathise with your line of thinking.

      Nonetheless I think they'd be hard-pressed to use open source stuff on a widespread basis. Remember when they used to stream Radio One using ogg [bbc.co.uk]?

      They refuse to do things free of commercial considerations because at the end of the day and notwithstanding their highblown language, they still have to think about the all-mighty pound.

      'OK,' I hear you say, 'you sure about that?'
      Yes [google.com], I'm [bbc.co.uk] sure [digitalspy.co.uk].

      Really sure. [216.239.59.104]

    • Re:Grrrrrrr (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26, 2004 @07:17AM (#8395965)
      Not true. The beeb uses a lot of open source, and has even released some software as open src, including a nice little web ticketing system and a more portable PXE booter.


      I do wish that people would do a little research before going off on bordering right-wing murdoch style rants, especially ones so ill-informed.


      Also, be aware that there are several sources of technology advocacy within the BBC, the engineers in R+D at Kingswood Warren are a lot more open to open src software than the less technically astute creative types (who are brilliant in their own way, but not always best placed to make such decisions).


      The BBC /HAS/ embraced open src for in-house products, and indeed some of the cutting-edge production tools used are based in part on Linux, even. It's just that if you ask people who don't really understand it, obviously they won't be able to give you an accurate picture, no matter how helpful they want to be; try asking one of the engineers to help with moody lighting and you'll get about as far :-)


      Rather than merely writing off things you know nothing about, a little background research might be an idea.

    • For example the BBC has not embraced Open Source, even for their own in house products, even under a non-commercial-use-only license. They are an organisation that could do such things free from commercial considerations, yet refuse to. It's infuriating.

      There used to be [slashdot.org] a unit at Kingswood Warren that worked extensively using OSS. They even had a webcam here [No longer working] with a great big inflatable Tux in the background. Then the unit got sucked into the Beeb's commercial arm, moved elesewhere and

    • They do the same thing with their programming - because of the way they are funded they could offer interesting and different programming _NOT_ reality crap that is available on the commercial channels anyway.

      That's odd, because most of the stuff I see coming out of the BBC is interesting and different programming. Especially, as another poster said, BBC4.

      But you wouldn't know that, since you don't have a TV.
      • That's odd, because most of the stuff I see coming out of the BBC is interesting and different programming. Especially, as another poster said, BBC4.

        But you wouldn't know that, since you don't have a TV.

        I have a TV. I watch the BBC. But only 1 and 2, because that's all they deem fit for international distribution. BBC 4 is one of them digital thingamajiggies that you can't receive unless you get a digital tuner, or you have cable, and digital doesn't travel very far over the channel.

        So yes, all the inte
    • Unfortunately in the world of television there are all sorts of restrictive contracts with actors and content providers, for example repeat fees, and making programmes freely distributable might infringe those. (I don't work in broadcasting but this seems fairly obvious.)

      I think it would be best if the BBC could avoid getting tangled up in such contracts, but that would mean paying more up front, and I don't think the organization is ready to gear itself towards free content. They're still thinking of mak

  • At least this will stop people calling me a pirate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrRTFM ( 740877 ) * on Thursday February 26, 2004 @06:55AM (#8395899) Journal
    Most of the people at work (non IT - all over 34yrs) look at me funny when I mention I listen to music on my PC - even though its ripped from CD's i purchased years ago. The notion that I have "MP3's" makes me look suspect (sheez - imagine if I had ripped everything to OGG !).

    Downloadable Nature shows - now that's a Good Thing - Once the average person understands that "you are not a pirate if you download music/videos", then its a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

    • I was looking at some comp magazine, PC Weekly or one of those mags, can't recall, but I remember seeing like a two page fold out - which would have equaled 4 pages - with an MS advertising touting how easy it is for you to share music. "Microsoft where do you want to go after you by our product, rip mp3's, share them, and then get arrested because you didn't know it was illegal. But don't let that stop you from buying our products. After all clarifying the legalities of music sharing is not our job" would

    • Re:At least this will stop people calling me a pir (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ben Hutchings ( 4651 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @07:52AM (#8396082) Homepage
      In the UK it is illegal to make MP3s from your own CDs. The copyright exceptions for "fair dealing" don't cover nearly as much as the US's "fair use".

      • Re:At least this will stop people calling me a pir (Score:4, Informative)

        by Quaryon ( 93318 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @09:31AM (#8396477)
        To clarify - any copying is illegal under UK law, there's nothing special about MP3s. Technically, making a cassette copy of a CD you own for a walkman or for the car is equally illegal.

        Since no-one prosecutes for making tapes for the car, I suspect it's unlikely (although entirely possible) that anyone would prosecute you for ripping CDs you own to MP3.

        Q.
        • To clarify - any copying is illegal under UK law, there's nothing special about MP3s.

          There are cases where whole-sale copying is allowed without explicit permission, such as time-shifting TV programs using a VCR.

          Technically, making a cassette copy of a CD you own for a walkman or for the car is equally illegal.

          Agreed.

  • apparently its content "...will be downloaded using a similar application, but will not be restricted by DRM, enabling people to re-edit it, or use it to make other programmes" - the content "will not be the complete BBC archive"

    So in short: the BBC will put the "BBC Creative Archive" online, composed of BBC programs (well, slightly crippled, it's not all of the BBC's archive) using Microsoft's DRM technology (only a bit crippled, as the DRM part of the technology is disabled).

    In short, it really seems t

  • At last! Digital quality BBC recordings.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Channard ( 693317 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @06:56AM (#8395902) Journal
    Maybe leading to the creation a distributed archive of sorts, because the BBC doesn't exactly have a great track record of keeping its own archives, having wiped a great many programmes from its own archives. I can see it now - 'BBC appeals to PVR owners after short sightedly deleting every episode of Dr Who in archives'

    • Re:At last! Digital quality BBC recordings.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @07:00AM (#8395919)
      the BBC doesn't exactly have a great track record of keeping its own archives, having wiped a great many programmes from its own archives.

      Well no, those records were naturally wiped out when Lister found them after his million-year stasis.
    • I think the main reason for wiping of programmes was to do with the cost of tapes. They were just so expensive in the 1960s/1970s, and at that time, people didn't have nostalgia about TV (partly because tons of good programmes were being made, rather than soaps/reality garbage that we get now).

      • Re:At last! Digital quality BBC recordings.. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @08:42AM (#8396226)
        I think the main reason for wiping of programmes was to do with the cost of tapes.

        I read recently (no citation, I'm afraid, but it was probably on a BBC site) that the old film (rather than video) was literally piled up in a building and was a fire risk. As the perceived value of these old programmes was zero, they were trashed (not reused). With most of the ephemera, they were right. They weren't to know the cult status some like Dr Who would achieve years later, and selling video was also years in the future (ironic for an SF show to suffer from the lack of thinking forward).

    • Maybe leading to the creation a distributed archive of sorts, because the BBC doesn't exactly have a great track record of keeping its own archives,

      For those Slashdotters that don't know, the BBC committed the outrageous sin of recording over much of the live shows of "Pete and Dud", Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. Peter Cook was nothing short of a comic genius, and for the BBC to have destroyed much of his work when he was at his peak is a crying shame.

      (Note that other than this outrage, I think the BBC
      • Don't forget, though, that media was very, very expensive in those days, and the shows were considered ephemeral - look at topical humour like Drop The Dead Donkey, for instance. When shows are rebroadcast, a short (typically 15 seconds) summary of the news current around that episode's original air date is broadcast before it, so that audiences aren't left totally bewildered by the "in-jokes".

  • "Shuttle Content" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rholliday ( 754515 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @06:56AM (#8395903) Homepage Journal
    So it will be P2P, but do you think they should use some sort of BitTorrent-esque protocol to make the process even easier?

  • You have to be kidding (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Walkiry ( 698192 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @06:56AM (#8395904) Homepage
    So they use P2P so that I can send part of the contents to people with MY bandwidth (baid by me on a monthly basis), but comes with Digital Restrictions Management so that I cannot actually use it as I want?

    Yeah right, that'll happen.
    • ipf/ipchain/$* or chmod it. I don't see what the big deal is.
    • I may be wrong here, but I understood the DRM aspect not to stop you from making copies etc, but to stop you placing non-BBC content, or edited content (eg. porn) on the system.

      Last thing the BBC wants is for you to distribute kiddie porn and pretend that its the latest episode of some children's programme. With the 'DRM signing' you wouldn't be able to do that.
      • No, you don't need DRM to do that. An ordinary crypto signature would do.

        The article specificlly says that content will be forcibly deleted (deactivated) after a certain number of days, one example they gave was 2 days. It takes crippled hardware and stupid DRM games to try to enforce a rule like that.

        Of course like any DRM attempt, it is an inherently flawed goal. It is flat-out impossible to prevent an owner from opening his own property and directing it NOT to delete. They can merely make it inconviene

    • What's the problem? If you don't want to use the BBC content, don't run their P2P software. If you do, then realise that all the money and effort they've invested in the material is being given to you for the "small price" of having to reshare the content.

  • Remember children... (Score:3, Funny)

    by turgid ( 580780 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @07:04AM (#8395928) Journal
    If you don't use DRM your computer is insecure and is at risk from viruses, trojans, hackers, paedophiles, terrorists and illegal copyright violators.

  • offcourse (Score:5, Funny)

    by selderrr ( 523988 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @07:04AM (#8395930) Journal
    but an example given of the initial content is "nature programmes".

    great ! More pr0n... Now who said the BBC is conservative ?
    • When I read "nature programmes," the first thing I thought of was Coupling, Season 2, Episode 2, where he's talking about the BBC trying to embarass him with nudity. :)

  • So many channels so little time. (Score:3, Offtopic)

    by Moderation abuser ( 184013 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @07:12AM (#8395958)
    Any one else noticed that the quality of productions on the BBC has fallen off drastically the last couple of years? Coincided with the explosion in the numbers of channels.

    • Yeah, because quality programmes such as Dead Ringers, Little Britain and Nighty Night, all three of which are new shows that the BBC has come up with in the last couple of years are just figments of my imagination.

      At least two of those three debuted on BBC3, one of those new digital channels, and it's hard to imagine that all three would have been made if the BBC still had only two channels.

      So that's three great new shows and those only touch one genre (comedy). I think perhaps you're writing off the BBC
    • I think the BBC's main problems are its complete inability to produce funny comedy (Coupling, My Family, Mad About Alice make me physically ill), unimaginative and dull drama output, its complete lack of new ideas and a general reliance on cheap TV (DIY, gardening etc).
      Not exactly worth 114GBP/year.
      • I think the BBC's main problems are its complete inability to produce funny comedy

        The Office [bbc.co.uk]?

        • OK, I'll give you that one. Of course, it's not on any more, hasn't been replaced, and Ricky Gervais is now helping on the US version.
          The Fast Show quality dropped and is gone, the last few Alan Partridge series were awful. Only Fools and Horses died a horrible, unfunny death. The last series of Red Dwarf had about three laughs in the entire series. The talent seems to be leaching out of the BBC. Even the Simpsons episodes they show are old ones that have been on a million times.
    • The best things about the BBC are BBC2 and Radio 4. Everything else (perhaps excluding BBC4 and Radio 3) are drivel, and in my opinion should not be funded by the television license.

      BBC TV news has become very "dumbed down" in recent years and very tabloid. The news casters often have a very poor grasp of the language, unlike days of old.

      BBC science programmes have been subject to dumbing down recently. I watched a Horizon a few weeks ago. It was about something nominally interesting. However, it was so bad

      • I miss Tomorrow's World (specifically from the 1990 era).

        I agree entirely about the serious science programs like Horizon being very dumbed down and non-informational. I think the only good science series I've seen on the beeb in recent years is Rough Science (and that isn't really a serious science show)

    • Re:So many channels so little time. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @08:17AM (#8396147)
      Any one else noticed that the quality of productions on the BBC has fallen off drastically the last couple of years?

      No, not really. Memory has the effect of compressing things from the past together (like how you only remember all the good songs from the last decade, and not all the crap), so it probably just seems that way.

  • Yay for DRM! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by skinfitz ( 564041 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @07:18AM (#8395970) Journal
    This is very very good news - lets hope that DRM is used to only allow TV License owners to experience the content thus causing we few people who do not need a TV License constantly receiving threatening letters. [marmalade.net]

  • Good and bad (Score:4, Insightful)

    by claudebbg ( 547985 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @07:23AM (#8395988) Homepage
    I'm a bit jealous because it won't be available outside UK (well, I understand the legal mess it would be, but BBC is a real reference outside UK, and I'd be glad to watch legally some of their programs).
    The good point is, at last, somebody big understood what P2P could bring technically. As they are close friends with Real and its network, it means a lot for the future if this experiment works fine.
    The really bad point is this MsDRM. It means no standard and even no cross-platform; it means no freedom for the player (I don't really appreciate WMPlayer and usually watch wm file using VLC which brings me many more functions I like).
    When will big company understand that opening their offer to as many customers/users as possible is a good thing? If you've got a shop, you try to make it accessible to anybody, with or without a car, with or without disabilities; you try to be opened as much as you can!
    Why the technical options are not the same (and it's so easier with the Internet and the standards than with real world places)?
    Why consider all the Internet users/customers as thiefs? Imagine a shop where you are systematically checked walking out, will you come back?
    Why can a UK citizen rip/mix/burn as much BBC programs as he want from his TV plug but not from his IP plug?
    I hope they will change their mind with the time (for example after the experiment!) but I know they have also to face the rights owners (producers, agencies) who are certainly a bit less interested in what final users experience
  • This article is revealing of a future I envision, where P2P is not seen as a pirate's haven, but a tool for highly efficient delivery and marketing of digital media. I don't need to explain this to ./ers, but imagine set-top PC's (or Media Centers as MS likes to call them) communicating and sharing music / movies / TV eps with each other, like how you send IM / email messages to friends and family.

    The lines between fair use and "piracy" would be thin in this scenario, but I don't think most people want to
    • I forgot to mention DRM.

      I don't think people would care about it as long as it isn't overly restricting or inconvenient. Not too many people complain about Apple's DRM due to this reason. Do the contrary, and a lot more people will be using the pirate networks. On the internet, Quality of service is more important than restrictions that will eventually be cracked.

      When fair use is outlawed, outlaws will practice more than just fair use.

  • BBC and Redmond (Score:3, Interesting)

    by martin ( 1336 ) <maxsec.gmail@com> on Thursday February 26, 2004 @07:37AM (#8396041) Journal
    There's a whole internal discussion going on inside the BBC about them being a MS house.

    Remember when PalmOS devices where 'banned' from the network, they closed down Kingswood Warren and moved everyone to Maidenhead to be with the MS based content team, stopped the OGG streams...

    Of course all the computers you see on live telly (non-current news items with phone-ins) always have those ever so pretty Apples rather than ugly PC's!!!

  • Governments giveth, and taketh away... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mariox19 ( 632969 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @07:47AM (#8396069)

    I always wonder how governments can complain about monopoly and unfair advantage on one hand, and then purchase from these "monopolies" on the other. Isn't that what's going on here?

    Take U.S. v Microsoft. The United States government is a huge customer. If they decide to place a bunch of PC's on the desks of their departments, and all those PC's run Windows, that more than anything helps foster Microsoft's continued dominance. Why don't they standardize all documents in XML, or plaintext. No! See how many times you're asked to submit something in Word format.

    Goverments could just as easily begin converting to open source, or begin a Linux initiative; they could require a certain number of computers be Macintosh; or they could choose to buy something other than the Microsoft Office suite. Now, the British government is going to switch to MS, dumping Real. All these actions encourage the same company they complain about.

    Am I the only one who sees conflict and hypocrisy?

    • Now, the British government is going to switch to MS, dumping Real. All these actions encourage the same company they complain about.

      The BBC is not part of the British government. It may have funding provided by the government, but it is an independant body.

  • Hehe (Score:4, Funny)

    by FrostedWheat ( 172733 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @08:34AM (#8396190)
    using Microsoft's DRM technology

    Phew, for a second there I thought they where going to restrict the content.

  • Creative Archive a long way off (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PhillC ( 84728 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @09:18AM (#8396397) Homepage Journal

    Although there's been a lot of announcements recently about the BBC's Creative Archive, I can't really see it being launched for at least a couple of years.

    One of the major issues with distributing BBC aired programmes, via the Internet, is rights management. A lot of BBC produced programmes use material that is not actually owned by the BBC. It may have been commissioned from independant produces who retain some rights over it, or even purchased from other broadcasters. For example, the BBC archive has no World War II footage. That's because the BBC didn't start broadcasting until the 1950's. So every time you see a documentary on the BBC that has original WWII footage incorporated, that material has been purchased from a 3rd party (say Pathe [britishpathe.com] for example). So clearing all material from all BBC shows is going to be a total headache! This may be in part why only a portion of the archive, and not the whole thing, is going to be initially available online.

    The other issue is of course digitising all that content. It's a big ask and not going to happen overnight. The whole process of getting the tapes from the Windmill Road archive, selecting the content that you want to use, encoding that content (let's hope for MPEG4 but most likely to be MPEG2. Although Creative Archive doesn't have to be broadcast quality for personal use, only VHS quality, they'd be crazy not to encode at a higher quality so that content could be re-used in a digital format for other projects), cataloguing that content with all relevant keywords and metadata and then publishing the content. As for storage we're talking several (tens) terabytes at least.

    I think building the website itself if going to be the easy bit!

    Creative Archive is a project I'd love to work on as I think it's going to be quite exciting, but the shear scale is also quite enormous.

  • Why not make a home stereo that plays mp3s, and has a hard drive? A 20GB HDD would hold, what? 4000 songs?

    Of course you could use your PC for this, but who wants their stereo clutered with a keyboard, mouse, and monitor?

    Of course you would need a way to get the mp3s on the HDD. Network?

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @10:12AM (#8396767)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • [tinfoilhat on]
    So, about the same time this comes out, the BBC publishes a whitewash of Microsoft's security problems (also available here on Slashdot.)

    Is this a coincidence? Or are they hoping to make everyone feel better about their support for Microsoft?

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close