iPlayer/DRM Podcast & Interview
There has been about the iPlayer and ( even good!). I have done a couple of interviews with and to try and move on the dialogue from why we needed to make the decisions we did, to where we go from here, and to how we intend moving forwards towards universal access to our content in the UK. These are intended to open more meaningful conversation based on a mutual understanding of the issues and practicalities we face.
I'd be interested in your thoughts, so please do comment - either on this post or, if you are a subscriber, via the .
Ashley Highfield is Director, 91Èȱ¬'s Future Media and Technology
Comments
A couple of comments.
Once installed, iPlayer has worked quite well under XP. And the issue with finding a suitable cross-platform DRM solution is frankly understandable. Just as my time is valuable, your content (and the content you "lease" or "option" from independent producers/other broadcasters) is valuable to you too.
The (interim) measure of using Flash-based video streaming leads to a couple of questions:
(1) Can you confirm that you'll be streaming at a lower quality than the iPlayer downloads?
(2) And it'll only work while online ... no smart caching going on?
I suspect the answers are (1) yes, lower to be real time and (2) yes, online only.
But with a tiny bit of effort, you could make online streaming really usable!
Less so around drama, but when it comes to current affairs the web-based chattering classes (blogosphere) like to post and comment about current affairs. Panorama, Andrew Marr, Politics Show, regional current affairs etc.
More and more postings include ripped 2 minute clips (via capture cards and the odd camera stuck in front of a TV) that have been uploaded to YouTube and then embedded in posts.
You could make it easy for the online community to embed the Flash content in their posts and webpages AND CRUCIALLY, make it easy for them to set the start and stop markers.
That way, you - the 91Èȱ¬ - control the content, and can make it unavailable once the 28 days are up, but inside those four weeks (when the content is topical) everyone else can crop it to the portions they want to illustrate their point without resorting to ripping and uploaded (violating your copyright, but not overly stressing you).
Have I gone on too long? One last point then.
When will iPlayer get the series stacking feature. It was signed off by the Trust, but hasn't made its way through to the perpetual beta ... that's the point when iPlayer will start to take the strain currently occupying my Tivo!
Thanks for starting the conversation. Hope to hear back from you.
Ashley,
You seem to be under the impression that an open source DRM system would be inherently less secure than a proprietary one. Please take the time to speak to some techies within the 91Èȱ¬ and ask them to explain to you why that simply isn't the case.
Dave...
I echo the comments which Alan in Belfast left regarding being able to embed flash content easily within blogs. So much of the content the 91Èȱ¬ offers up offers a springboard for bloggers - not necessarily to criticise the 91Èȱ¬ but more to comment on current affairs or drama and entertainment generally.
Hi Ashley, where did you get the figure of only 4-600 Linux users using bbc.co.uk (reported here:
It seems a little low; is it a mistake in the reporting perhaps?
I think that you should have checked your facts before stating that 400-600 people used GNU/Linux. How about having a chat with Martin Belam? - he works for the 91Èȱ¬.
0.0041*17*10^6=69700 users.
Never mind, you were only incorrect by 2 orders of magnitude.
To me the question is not whether the Linux figures are accurate or not. It is simply that the 91Èȱ¬ is creating different classes of user. No longer are we all licence fee payers and therefore entitled to the same service, we are now divided into those who use MS technology and those, who for whatever reason, do not.
By doing this the 91Èȱ¬ is aligning itself with the commercial imperatives of Microsoft and in so doing is eroding any case it may have for the retention of the licence fee. After all if I do not get the same level of service why should I pay the full fee? Excuses such as "Apple refuse to licence MS technology" are irrelevant. Why should they? It is your iPlayer and you should make it available to all. Or are you not in charge?
It's a pity you don't seem to publicly reply to any blog posts. If you did it would instill more confidence in me that it was worth me adding my two penneth.
never the less:
after your latest and greatest assertion about gnu+linux users, I would suggest that an interview with slashdot or groklaw could persuade many people in that community, who while you may assert as not being as important as the windows xp users, still are extremly vocal -see the defective by design protests for info.
What are your reasons for not getting interviews with slashdot or groklaw?
I used to visit the 91Èȱ¬ all the time, enjoyed the concerts very much. Now there is very little reason to visit the website as I can't hear anything available. Could it be a "cart and horse" problem perhaps? If you don't provide content which is usable on a Linux system, why would any Linux users bother with your website?
It's actually difficult to be enthusiastic or optimistic about any of this:
What happened to the 91Èȱ¬?
My modest suggestion would be to put the iPlayer 2 project (which I've just invented) as a £1/4 million open source bounty and watch the solutions flow in. Why I have some ideas myself!
DRM is a waste of time full stop as long as you have to provide a way to show the content there is bound to be a way to rip whatever you are hearing / seeing.
It's as annoying as serial codes and the dozens of other problems the entertainment industry has created for genuine paying users.
While I would always prefer and open source solution where appropriate; I do believe that this is the real issue here.
It isn't about open source vs proprietary solutions, it is about cross-platform solutions.
Personally, I do not care whether the 91Èȱ¬ iPlayer or DRM system is open source or proprietary. I care little about who develops it. What is the most important issue is that it is cross platform.
I am not a Microsoft basher, and am not intending to 'bash' Microsoft here, but they are a massive company built around a proprietary OS and the promotion of that OS. It is not in their commercial interest to make their DRM system work on any platform other than their own (Windows). It is in their commercial interest to provide services and software that exclusively promoted their products and to tie their customers into their products. This is simply good business sense.
I think it is nieve of the 91Èȱ¬ to think any differently and to ever expect a cross platform DRM from Microsoft.
The many millions of pounds spent by the 91Èȱ¬ with Microsoft could have been better spent on the development of alternative cross-platform solutions.
That said, I also agree with other posters here in pointing out that DRM is in fact inherently flawed anyway. The whole concept just does not work. As David Sandilands mentioned previously, if the media is played on a computer it can be recorded DRM free on that same computer with relatively little effort. So DRM will never, and can never, prevent the pirates.
Dear Mr. Highfield
I grew up in a former British colony. Though no more a political super power, the "Empire" has a lasting influence on our subcontinent. The two pillars of that structure being the Common Wealth and 91Èȱ¬, I personally have a high esteem of the journalism practiced by 91Èȱ¬.
Unfortunately the developments around 91Èȱ¬ during the last couple of years were disturbing. My guess ist that, like in many other places, some "big talk only" culture taking upperhand over the hard-working perfectionists you used to have.
Any way, that alone is not a crime. But as a IT professional and an academic, who is heavily engaged in Free Software and "Knowlege as a public wealth" I was never able to understand the line 91Èȱ¬ was taking: propriotary formats, DRM, that again binding you to a world-wide monopoly. The most recent one being the iPhone debacle.
Now dear Sir, as a highly paid manager of that noble institute, you are expected to have an expert openion. Instead of that you demonstrated to the whole world you lack even the slightest common sense!
You were clueless to believe for a second that there are only 600 Linux users in UK who visit the 91Èȱ¬ homepage! Would you go exploding if the doctor says your blood pressure is 6 bar?
Hugh's comment is spot-on, actually. Where he suggested that a 1/4 million Open Source project would get this done much more efficiently. The Open Source Community would *love* a challenge like this, for such a good cause. Specify it right, and you'd get a universal solution, that complies with standards, and suits *everyone* --- yes, even Windows users, and companies with copyright interests.
Instead, you're alienating the people who *truly* want to help do it right. It's a very unwise person, who confuses friends and enemies.
Coming rather late to this issue, I still think it is worthwhile commenting on the supposed insignificance of Linux users. I echo those who say there are more of us than you suppose, and we want our license fees honoured.
A further point I wish to raise is that the DRM system is making educational use of iPlayer materials very difficult. Schools and colleges cannot go down the 'ripping' route, we must be legal. Then moving files from one classroom to another, saving programmes for the relevant moment in the syllabus and sharing material with colleagues all become impossible.
91Èȱ¬ expends so much effort in its schools and educational programmes, yet the whole iPlayer thing is disconnected from the sector. A little bit of joined up thinking would be appreciated.
My argument is simple; if it is perfectly legal for a licence payer to make a vhs tape of anything the bbc broadcasts and retain that tape for its lifetime, why the heck is it fair to *force* content expiration, especially for one off bbc programs such as live music shows that it is damn hard to get a copy of (if possible) elsewhere.
why oh why should we have to fight this absurd drm trash because people are persistently overly worried about the flow of revenue. y'know what? if the content is good enough and released in dvd format then it will get purchased because enough people will always pay for the genuine article. if it is not that type of content then it has already been paid for when it was created!
i understand that movies and such are licensed from another provider and so licensing is more understandable, but for bbc content?
it is like saying 'you cant look at todays news tomorrow even if you save it onto your computer cos we wrote that and we got rights'
its pathetic
"My argument is simple; if it is perfectly legal for a licence payer to make a vhs tape of anything the bbc broadcasts and retain that tape for its lifetime"
Very simple. It isn't legal to do this under UK law. You're only allowed to record on VHS for reasonable timeshifting purposes. Keeping something is illegal. Always has been. It isn't legal *at all* to record content available on demand in the UK, as it's not a scheduled broadcast.
"i understand that movies and such are licensed from another provider and so licensing is more understandable, but for bbc content?"
Even if it's 91Èȱ¬ content it licences something from another provider - music, writers, agency footage etc. It says in one of the Backstage podcasts that they're not able to locate a single 91Èȱ¬ programme they own all rights to.