On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:10:50 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ Kier on Sunday 30 December 2007 12:47 : \____
>
>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:19:29 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> ____/ Kier on Sunday 30 December 2007 00:04 : \____
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:29:16 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>> ____/ Kier on Tuesday 25 December 2007 23:10 : \____
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree, Kier. Merry Christmas. Please don't perceive this 'vendetta'
>>>>>>>> as something that's directed at yourself. These discussions hopefully
>>>>>>>> help resolve the issues that exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, that's certainly what disscussion groups are meant for ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We know for a fact that it's the pressure from the public and 2 lobbying
>>>>>> groups that had iPlayer available for other platforms. Pressure helps. If
>>>>>> it weren't for the call for action, everything other than Windows would
>>>>>> be totally ignored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There will be no iPlayer for non-Vista platforms. There is an adobe-based
>>>>> streaming solution, but apparently it is limited in many respects.
>>>>
>>>> So far. The problem is DRM.
>>>
>>> Yes, it's a problem. Everyone wants DRM *DEAD*, except Microsoft. It said it
>>> out loud. The problem is not the use of DRM, which by the way can work on
>>> Linux too.
>>
>> I want it dead, too, but it isn't going to die overnight. And in a service
>> where *free* downloads of stuff like shows of the calibre of Doctor Who
>> are offered, there *has* to be some way of preventing people who aren't
>> entitled to them (i.e non licence-fee payers) from ripping off the content
>
> Yes. However:
>
> Experience suggest that they who want to 'steal' content will do this easily
> (e.g. with screengrabbers), so only legitimate end users will suffer. The BBC
> kills preservation, which is ironic given is profile.
>
> Remember:
>
> Music DRM has just officially died. All 4 major labels have given up and
> they'll sell DRM-free media for the same cost, which immediately renders DRM
> moot. The same ought to go for video because there is little difference. IOW,
> the days of DRM in general seem numbered. Encryption is made for security, not
> access control (so-called 'enablement').
>
>>>>> The pressure on the BBC forced the realisation of an alternative
>>>>> streaming solution for non-Microsoft non-Vista users, but it's very much
>>>>> the 2nd-class citizen, and will never have the 10s to 100s of millions
>>>>> thrown at it which the iPlayer had, because there is no way, politically,
>>>>> that the BBC could get away with a c*ck-up of such awesome proportions
>>>>> a second time in such short order.
>>>>
>>>> How do you *know* all this? Or is it just guesswork?
>>>
>>> By the way, the BBC said that next year the iPlayer (download service) would
>>> be available for other platforms "such as the Mac" (quoting from memory).
>>> Promises are not deeds, but we shall see. You still know who gets the big
>>> money out of this fiasco.
>>
>> So you're just guessing. Come on, Roy, you've got to do better than this.
>> Keeping pressure on the BBC to fulfill its promise for a Linux version is
>> fine, but blithely stating they aren't going to do what they've said they
>> will, without any way of proving that they won't, isn't very smart.
>
> I can see your point, but do remember that saying "pretty people, BBC, please
> give us a Linux version" isn't quite as effective as exposing Erik Huggers
> roots in the Microsoft antitrust case. It's the revelation of corruption that
> gets their knickers in a wedgy. Only then will they try to quiet down
> resistance to deliberate lock-in, which they gradually do.
>
>>>>> Microsoft do not care - they have our money, including Kier's, and they
>>>>> will offer nothing in return.
>>>>
>>>> Proof, man, proof. You can't keep saying this stuff without offering
>>>> actual evidence.
>>>
>>> *LOL* Hasn't the BBC /already/ said that 130 million pounds were spent on
>>> that binary blobs that is essentially spyware (it is!) and is inferior to
>>> streaming solutions?
>>
>> It may have spent the money, but where does it say it is spyware? That's
>> your *opinion*. Not a fact. You've got to back these assertions up with
>> *facts*, man.
>
> No, it's a fact, Kier. The iPlayer sends a lot of personal information whenever
What *can* it know? Not all that mcuch.
> you access a video. That's a fact. *What* information is actually sent you
> cannot tell because it's a binary blob. I'll find you the references if you
> want them. I can't recall where exactly I read this, but it was a very
> reliable source. Vista, by the way, is no exception. XP with WGA likewise.
It's only spyware if no one knows about it. As for the iPlayer, I would
imagine it's attempting to be sure you're not outside the UK when you
access the content. It's only supposed to be available for licence-fee
payers.
Binary blobs, while not ideal or desirable, are *not* automatically evil.
--
Kier
--
Kier
|
|
