____/ dapunka on Tuesday 21 August 2007 13:34 : \____
> On 21 Aug, 01:49, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [lots of stuff about BBC iPlayer tied to Windows, and DRM]
>
> I was reading the BBC's iPlayer-related message board, and was struck
> by the large number of people (license-payers, no less!) complaining
> about the fact the iPlayer beta is only XP-compatible (though there
> are apparently ways of making it work with Vista and Apple - ways
> which don't seem to work for everybody). There were Vista-users
> saying it's ridiculous for the beta to be XP-only when Vista's been
> around for ages. Apple users were incensed that the BBC was ignoring
> their small but significant numbers. There were even a few Linux
> users asking "What about us?"
>
> There were some comments to the effect that this is "only the beta",
> and that the BBC Trust has said iPlayer must be platform-independent
> within two years or something like that. But the DRM question is
> there. How can iPlayer be truly platform-independent, and therefore
> compatible with Linux, if it incorporates DRM?
>
> Some posters there said "Forget iPlayer, use MythTV" and "I can use my
> Virgin TV Drive to record programmes off Freeview with no problem".
> And I did a bit of googling, and found USB TV sticks for £30 that
> enable you to watch and record Freeview programmes on your PC. So who
> cares about iPlayer and its DRM hell?
Those who have already paid 130 million dollars/pound for it (and that cost
will be exceeded).
Also those that might see ISPs charging more money.
Also those who are sick of DRM being attempted while many large companies
return to their senses and drop it.
It's about lock-in, not protection.
> The answer is: all UK TV license holders, and UK taxpayers. Or at
> least, we should. The BBC is spending a lot of money on this iPlayer
> project - money it gets from the license and from the government.
> This is public money, so why should it be used to benefit a small
> number of private companies and digital rights owners?
Oh, I typed the above before I read the subsequent paragraph. There are so many
more aspects to this that can be slammed and criticised. I do what I can via
E-mail and I see /heaps/ of abuses, including the pending introduction of
poison like Silverlight. There's also Photosynth (originally for Linux), which
Microsoft shoves into the BBC's budget. It then uses the MSBBC for free PR
rides. It recently did the same thing with NASA, which is also covered by tax
money.
> The BBC should either drop the DRM idea and make sure the iPlayer is
> truly platform-independent, or it should forget about the iPlayer
> altogether. After all, as I already noted, there seem to be plenty of
> devices around that can deliver digital TV content to our computers
> with no strings attached.
After all these investments, XP users will be fuming to see iPlayer go. It
needed to be axed at the very start. I read something in the Inquirer 10
months ago before it all began. I got it into the front page of Digg and
posted it here. People didn't believe this. I remember Spike telling me that
there are RealPlayer options and that the BBC would not betray us. But that
was the BBC. Now there's the MSBBC. It has been corrupted. Pure and simple.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Previously-unsurpassed exposure makes carnation-faced men
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
