Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
RMS is right. Again.
Posted May 7, 2013 6:49 UTC (Tue) by TRS-80 (subscriber, #1804)
Who has a right to free BBC?
Posted May 7, 2013 9:44 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
If the BBC is required to give either category of people access, then I wonder if it can be argued that any DRM scheme will shut out some part of that population and therefore can't be used.
Posted May 7, 2013 11:10 UTC (Tue) by gowen (guest, #23914)
When I travel in contintental Europe, many of my BBC podcasts fail to download, and instead I get a recorded message telling me that its not available outside the UK (many do still work - particularly those that don't use content not owned by the BBC (i.e. not music programming) - and much pure-BBC output is provided free to the rest of the word).
Posted May 9, 2013 10:29 UTC (Thu) by madhatter (subscriber, #4665)
"The BBC exists to serve the public interest.
The BBC’s main object is the promotion of its Public Purposes.
The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows—
(a) sustaining citizenship and civil society;
(b) promoting education and learning;
(c) stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
(d) representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
(e) bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
(f) in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.
The licence fee, however, is to be paid by "Everyone in the UK who watches or records TV as it is broadcast ... This includes TV on computers, mobile phones, DVD/video recorders and other devices". This is taken from http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/strategy/licence_fee/licence_fee.html.
It's a matter of practice that the BBC tends to ignore constituents who are not licence-fee payers. I've been grumbling at the BBC for years to give me a free-software-based way of accessing the content that my licence fee is paying for; but when no response was forthcoming, I gave up my television, stopped paying the licence fee, used only free software to download and view iplayer content, and am still acting lawfully and am still part of the BBC's constituency.
Posted May 9, 2013 14:14 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
Care to elaborate which software, and how?
Posted May 10, 2013 15:44 UTC (Fri) by gerv (subscriber, #3376)
Posted May 11, 2013 1:54 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted May 11, 2013 14:17 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Posted May 7, 2013 13:21 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
I suspect this is as much about BBC management positioning the BBC for a possible future without the licence fee. The BBC is locking up the market as much it can now - using the public's own money - in order to ensure the rosiest possible outlook should it have to be run on a commercial basis at some stage in the future.
If you're a geek (esp in the UK), if you dislike DRM, know that the BBC is not a friend.
Posted May 7, 2013 15:16 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (guest, #50784)
With various production agreements and a degree of internal privatisation (common in the British public sector and amongst its imitators), one would be forgiven for having the feeling that such commercial activity is a form of looting done for the benefit of various well-connected individuals. Such beneficiaries of BBC commercialisation/privatisation want DRM to maximise their licensing opportunities.
Meanwhile, absurd region-limited content licensing agreements made by the BBC itself mean that, for example, the lazy option of picking music tracks from a catalogue, for whatever production it is that needs a soundtrack, brings with it the "need" to impose DRM in case someone watching a wildlife programme outside Britain gets to hear some music they shouldn't be "allowed" to hear.
Naturally, the BBC could fund genuinely (re)distributable content and spread the wealth around a bit, but then such an exercise wouldn't put money into the pockets of various established beneficiaries of the BBC's kindness (to put it diplomatically).
Posted May 7, 2013 15:37 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
Further, the BBC itself often has a financial stake in the companies it commissions from. I gather it is in fact standard BBC practice. This of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, perhaps. However the BBC does often uses the argument that its hands are tied on DRM because of 3rd party rights-holders, while conveniently failing to mention that:
a) The BBC has a significant financial stake in many of these 3rd parties (BBC Worldwide is wholly BBC owned!)
b) The BBC is the one commissioning these programmes, paying for them, and writing the contracts!
The BBC is not as cuddly as its public image suggests.
Posted May 7, 2013 10:11 UTC (Tue) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds