大象传媒

It's ironic that the effect of closing down access to the iPlayer streams by Open Source projects like XBMC will likely increase the incidence of people downloading the torrents that are already available.

I don't know what the intended effect of switching on SWF Verification was meant to be. However if it was to reduce the ripping of streams and distribution of 大象传媒 content I'm fairly sure it will achieve the exact opposite.

I assume this puts the kibosh on streaming iPlayer in the web browser via the Gnash plugin as well?

Thanks for mentioning The Reg article... but does the 大象传媒 have no comments/response to add?

Sorry, but when you say 'Smartphone app', will this be available on anything but Iphones?

It would seem incongruous with the service charter for one business to be favoured in this matter, and if this is, as appears to be, the case, I for one will oppose this. If you start bowing to one businesses needs, you deserve to be owned by Murdoch.

"Sorry, but when you say 'Smartphone app', will this be available on anything but Iphones?"

Maybe you should try actually reading it. Especially the bit about Android, Blackberry and other platforms.

I cannot see the difference between using iPlayer on a Nintendo Wii and any of the devices which are excluded by the SWF Verification change.

There is a technological difference (Wii uses Flash), but there is no functional difference (all can play through a television, use a remote control, and are essentially set-top boxes).

Someone from the 大象传媒 needs to be quite explicit about the reasons for this move. Which devices and software is this move intended to lock out? Using a functional, non-technology, non-software vendor specific description, which devices are acceptable to the 大象传媒 and/or their content providers?

Is the issue with set-top boxes versus browser based usage on a PC? Is the Wii a set top box? Using the Wii for iPlayer is explicitly condoned according to the iPlayer help site, and Nintendo currently have a high value ad campaign centred around such use.

Some clarity please. Politician style phrases like "iPlayer has always used content protection in order to provide UK audiences with the most compelling content" is meaningless waffle. What relationship does content protection have with the compelling or otherwise nature of the content. This implies only that content providers (presumably only those offering compelling programming) are unwilling to provide content for delivery to non-broadcast/on-demand set-top boxes. So we are again back with the functional definition of the Nintendo Wii.

So lets get back to basics and have a clear, functional definition of what is and is not a permitted viewing device. As a functional description, this should not favour or even mention any specific software vendor, operating system or platform.

Oh 大象传媒!!! The iPlayer plugin for XBMC was one of the greatest innovations since iPlayer itself! Sure, if you want to close the door on it, I can understand ONLY if you provide support for Xbox / XBMC in it's place??

"I cannot see the difference between using iPlayer on a Nintendo Wii and any of the devices which are excluded by the SWF Verification change."

Err... my understanding is the Wii iPlayer has a shed load of content protection, and indeed encrypts the streams using some proprietry Nintendo system.

It's "excluded" by virtue of having actual proper DRM on it already.

Also notable that the Wii doesn't get an awful lot of content that the PC version does...

There are separate issues here, so let's separate them,

1. Mode of use

Some content providers presumably do not wish for their content to be viewable "on-demand" on a television using a set-top box under existing contracts.

In this respect, the definition of the Wii is very important, as it is functionally equivalent to the devices being excluded.

2. Protection from piracy

As pointed out several times, this change does not stop piracy. It doesn't even stutter it. The SWF Verification change is easily circumvented by ne'er-do-wells. Even a switch to Adobe's stream encryption (rtmpe) would not dent the problem of piracy. Fundamentally DRM is broken concept when the viewing device is an open platform such as a PC or Mac - you only need to look at iTunes (heavily DRM'ed) to see that this is so. DRM only (almost) works for systems closed in both hardware and software.

3. In conclusion

This is about excluding some classes of device and some platforms, and locking users in to specific technology. The piracy argument is moot because the pirates will continue unhindered, and the only people being punished are the legitimate users.

I feel that this is about content providers stamping their feet because they didn't realise people could watch content through a TV, and the 'new delivery channel' dollar signs faded from their eyes. This is why I feel it is important to understand why the Wii is considered to be acceptable.

This is how I read the .swf/protection format debate:

The fact is, the 大象传媒 can and will do what ever it feels it needs to do, be it because of their own internal policy or that of their external providers, if we do not like it then - put simply - tough, iPlayer is not considered a core activity (yet)...

The problem with DRM is that it is a flawed concept. Because the means of decrypting the content must be delivered to the end user it will always be susceptible to reverse engineering and, therefore, circumvention. As far as I know there are no DRM systems that have survived for more than a few months before being circumvented.

A second problem with DRM is that it causes a lot of collateral damage. It often causes a lot of problems for legitimate users, either preventing the protected content from playing on their device or, in some cases, actually damaging them (as in the case of the Sony "rootkit" CD protection fiasco).

Finally, it actually does very little to prevent "piracy". Indeed it can often benefit "professional" pirates. If a certain DRM system defeats a home user then they are more likely to obtain a pre-ripped version from a "knock-off Nigel" or from BitTorrent rather than buy a legitimate copy that, because of DRM, cannot be transferred to their (say) portable player, PC, etc.

Yes, I know said "fair use" is still illegal in the UK (though not in the US and most of the rest of the EU) but, hopefully, that will soon change. A surprising 3 out of 5 people in a poll by NCC (for youGov) didn't realise that copying for personal use is illegal in the UK! A view probably bolstered by the plethora of devices that aid such copying (often by the self same companies that vehemently protest about that sort of thing).

Quite ironic that directly under item on "Have Your Say", which has removed the popular "recommended" feature, you link to The Register, a news site that not only permits users to comment on and rate almost all articles, but also permits the up and down voting and replying to comments made.

In short, a fine example of what the 大象传媒 should be providing to its users rather than the currently castrated "Have Your Say"

@ Nick Reynolds

Once again, the important points have been missed, and I think in particular this post reveals a lack of understanding of the problems.

The first point you miss is that it is not possible for the 大象传媒 to distinguish between iPlayer accessing content and piracy app XYZ. In fact piracy app XYZ will have been updated on the 18th to become impervious to this change. Unless you move away from the Adobe stack this will always be the case. And since Flash is currently the only realistic way to reach a wide audience across PC and Mac within the UK... this isn't going to a change that is imminently feasible.

However, non-piracy app ZYX is now crippled, because the developers do not want to act like piracy app XYZ.

> I'm told that most of iPlayer is built on open-source
> products, so this isn't about the 大象传媒 being anti open
> source.

Well yes you are, what you are basically saying that that you are happy to benefit from Open Source, taking with one hand, then slapping the same Open Source developers and users with the other. I imagine in fact that some of the same code is involved. Maybe the original contributors should amend the licence to lock out the 大象传媒 on the basis that they are not operating within the spirit of the licence? I know that would never happen but the concept does tweak my irony bone.

Bottom line, if I am within the UK, and I'm not a pirate, I should be able to use whatever device I choose to access 大象传媒 content, whether it be broadcast, on-demand or some yet to be conceived delivery method, so long as in doing so,

* I don't represent a higher financial burden on the corporation or it's ability to deliver services;

* the device I use doesn't bring the 大象传媒 into disrepute;

* that the device I use doesn't change the 大象传媒's editorial message;

* the device I use doesn't permit me to use content with different rights, for example outwith the condoned period.

As the device I was using was entirely derivative in terms of asset presentation and editorial, those points can be ticked off. The device I was using didn't allow me to view or retain content outwith the 7-day period - tick! And so on...

I will not be forced to line the pockets of Nintendo, Sony or Apple in order to enjoy the same experiences as UK residents who do own one of these devices! That's what I call technological lock-in, and commercial bias.

If you're really pro-open source and genuinely want to address the issue of piracy, why not discuss it with some developers and work towards making Open Source offerings acceptable to everyone? As it will be Open Source, it will be free (as in beer). It would be a fool's errand however, as the pirates will still pirate using closed-source software, modified Wiis, PS3s, Sky boxes, Freeview HD boxes, VCRs, .... need I go on?!

@ Nick Reynolds

Appreciate you trying to look deeper into this, but as many before me have said, whatever the 大象传媒 think they are doing, you are just pushing away the good guys and not touching the bad guys!

I too can no longer use my legitimate 3rd party plugin to STREAM iplayer content. The important word here is STREAM, as in the content is not stored, and when the 大象传媒 remove it after 7 days then I cannot play it any more.

If I really want to keep content then I can simply use an off the shelf DVR or freesat+ box and record it and keep for however long I want! But the point here is that many people have invested in a simple slick solution (XBMC, MediaPortal, Windows Media Centre) and do not wish to use any other method, which we are entitled to!

Why should we be forced into going the Flash or Wii route when what we were doing was all above board! Surely this is a breach of your promise to the british public and a complaint be filed ???

I would really like to hear what the 大象传媒 thinks it has gained from this!

What the 大象传媒 have really gained from this is negative PR and a significant step AWAY from anti-piracy concerns.

The people who were using the XBMC plugin, whether regularly or (like me) as an occasional one-off, were using it because it provided a nice, legal alternative to grabbing missed shows via torrent - or watching live TV when the aerial's bust. Yet actually at the TV, not at the keyboard.

iPlayer is a great idea. And I think it's probably doing a pretty decent job or reducing people's usage of torrents. But it's still tied to the computer desk. And if your TV and armchair/sofa is your preferred viewing location, it's not exactly ideal.

The thing about this plugin, though, is that it appeals to the build-it-yourself types. And if you already have an HTPC setup, or just a spare bit of computer hardware knocking around, it means being able to access the iPlayer in the correct place (TV). And even when using it at a PC, if you already have XBMC, it can use the hardware (if available) for video decoding, and not be reliant on Flash.
Sometimes it's just a case of "use what works with what you already use". And if XBMC is a preferred media player, why step outside it?
Especially when, if brutally honest, it works just as well (if not better...) with otherwise-acquired material. And if you use the one piece of software for playing DVDs, DVD rips, fanfilms, home videos and.... ummm... "domestically unavailable television programming", who wants to have to fire up a different (and possibly inferior) media player just to catchup on TV?

I guess it comes down to one thing. Does the 大象传媒 just want to pay lip-service to providing a legal alternative for downloading missed TV? All the while putting in restriction that the tech-savvy can (but often don't really want to) easily bypass.
Or do they want to genuinely make the iPlayer more convenient than "other means", and make it THE way of watching programs after-the-fact?

Make it easier to download legally, and most people will be too lazy to use other methods. Otherwise, that same laziness will means that if the easier approach is to grab a torrent... well, you get the picture. People will use the "path of least resistance" - so it's in the 大象传媒's best interests that the iPlayer IS the least-resistant path. (And on as many platforms as possible.... but that's another argument)

Of course, I'm preaching to the converted here. But hopefully someone in 大象传媒 Upper Management will realise that relaxing this restriction would actually do a great deal to discourage casual piracy.
(And the non-casuals are a lost cause anyway)

Way up above someone said "DRM only (almost) works for systems closed in both hardware and software.". This I think is the key to the debate and action of the 大象传媒. They are sold on the idea of having a set-top box they can licence and control. They are doing this for the new HD TV project, where they are pushing Ofcom to approve DRM which can only be decoded by a licensed box.

So I think that bringing in DRM on the iPlayer content is just a precursor to licensing the use of that DRM to specific box makers. Thus blocking out completely PCs and other hardware which could play the streams.

What say you 大象传媒? Is this your game? Are you being pushed by studios and content providers to do this? And have you no guts to say NO to them? And are you prepared to get into bed (again) with a proprietary technology, this time from Adobe, last time from Microsoft?

21. At 5:50pm on 01 Mar 2010, Doge wrote:

Are you [the 大象传媒] being pushed by studios and content providers to do this [deploy DRM content management]? And have you no guts to say NO to them?"

Do you have a wish for only subscription, BskyB etc, to be offered such content by the studios, that is the question you need to ask yourself before jumping up and down to much over this.

Sometimes a little drop of unpalatable medicine keeps even worse ailment away...

@Boilerplated

That approach didn't serve Neville Chamberlain very well.

On a serious note, the 大象传媒 is probably the only global broadcaster that has a realistic chance of standing up to the big content producers and igniting a mainstream debate on open formats and sensible copyright reform. Encouraging projects like the Iplayer viewer for XBMC is only one of the many ways they could go about doing this but unfortunately it appears 大象传媒 Management lack the courage to pursue such a progressive agenda.

#23. At 8:38pm on 01 Mar 2010, gpuk wrote:

"@Boilerplated

That approach didn't serve Neville Chamberlain very well."

Assuming you are referring to my comment @ #22, I think you have miss read history and his "Peace in our time" speech in 1938.

"On a serious note, the 大象传媒 is probably the only global broadcaster that has a realistic chance of standing up to the big content producers and igniting a mainstream debate on open formats and sensible copyright reform."

Rubbish, you might have had a point if the 大象传媒 was the only broadcaster, even if there was only the 大象传媒 and ITV but as soon as you start talking about BSkyB and any number of other satellite broadcasters - and they do not need to even be UK based, nor use UK based up-link facilities, just have a subscription sales outlet in the UK - your argument flies out of the window, it only needs one of these broadcasters to say "Yeah, we can do business on those terms [use DRM content management], being sole broadcaster for your content will be very marketable"...

@Boilerplated

I think you may have missed the point of my post. It was a not too subtle attempt at pointing out your suggestion resembles very closely the arguments used by Chamberlain et al. for pursuing a policy of appeasement in the 1930s. The "Peace in [sic] our time" speech you reference is actually an excellent example of the failure of appeasement. You may wish to read up on it a bit more (even Wikipedia has a basic article).

You may have also have missed my second point. The 大象传媒 is likely the only broadcaster that has a chance of reigning in big content producers due to the unique combination of the way it is funded, its global reach and the quality of its output. Big content producers cannot simply exclude the 大象传媒 in favour of more commercially orientated broadcasters, this notion simply isn't credible.

If you don't believe the 大象传媒 is as strong as I'm suggesting, you may wish to read up on James Murdoch's MacTaggart lecture for a view of how serious a threat the commercial broadcasters view the 大象传媒.

#25. At 10:30am on 02 Mar 2010, gpuk wrote:

"@Boilerplated

I think you may have missed the point of my post. It was a not too subtle attempt at pointing out your suggestion resembles very closely the arguments used by Chamberlain et al. for pursuing a policy of appeasement in the 1930s. The "Peace in [sic] our time" speech you reference is actually an excellent example of the failure of appeasement. You may wish to read up on it a bit more (even Wikipedia has a basic article)."

I have a better grasp of the true meaning of those events than you do, in the context of our exchange.

"You may have also have missed my second point. The 大象传媒 is likely the only broadcaster that has a chance of reigning in big content producers due to the unique combination of the way it is funded,"

What an utterly daft thing to say, you prove that not only do you not know anything about the media industry but that you don't even bother open your eyes to what is on the TV screen or listed in the TV listings! Of course if you are correct, that would explain why BSkyB has what, 10 film channels plus many more PPV & VOD film channels, has rights to sole or first rights various sporting events, has sole rights to various US productions etc, then we have other satellite broadcasters who offer unique content that no other broadcaster is even offered - sorry but you have just proved how utterly clueless you are about all this....

If you don't believe the 大象传媒 is as strong as I'm suggesting, you may wish to read up on James Murdoch's MacTaggart lecture for a view of how serious a threat the commercial broadcasters view the 大象传媒."

Why would I wish to take lessons from someone who would dearly like to be the sole, monopolistic, media company in the UK if only the law and regulators would allow, sorry but a lot of the steam he let off against the 大象传媒 in that speech can also be directed at his own (daddies) News International empire.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

This is indeed a totally stupid thing to do - the 大象传媒 are checking the IP numbers so only people living in the UK would be able to see the material - so what does it matter if they stream the IPlayer in a way they want to?
When the 大象传媒 prevents this the result is undoubtedly that a lot of people are going to digitally record programs of the air and then upload it to the internet and get spread all over.
Good move 大象传媒.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

Quite ironic that directly under item on "Have Your Say", which has removed the popular "recommended" feature, you link to The Register, a news site that not only permits users to comment on and rate almost all articles, but also permits the up and down voting and replying to comments made.

In short, a fine example of what the 大象传媒 should be providing to its users rather than the currently castrated "Have Your Say"

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The 大象传媒 Trust is running a consultation how on the way the 大象传媒 makes its content and programmes available on-demand (such as via the 大象传媒 iPlayer).

The starting assumption for this review is that the 大象传媒 must control, and so must develop, every player for every platform.

Can I suggest that anyone interested in open standards complete the survey and disabuse them of this notion?

Please take the opportunity to point out that, as a public service broadcaster, the 大象传媒 shouldn鈥檛 be developing a few proprietary, closed, commercial solutions.

The consultation can be found at:
/bbctrust/consultations/departments/bbc/on-demand-syndication/consultation/consult_view

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?