I'll not reply to all of that, but one thing is worthwhile saying...
On 3/19/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The iPlayer will have crap on it, in part because of this: the content > providers do not want their content to be visible where you shouldn't > get it; so you should only get EastEnders in Brazil on the TV network > that's bought the show (and thus contributed to the BBC's programming > fund), not from the BBC iPlayer. I'm aware of this. The BBC already restrict certain content to IP addresses which they believe to be in the UK (strangely not including my home, since despite the RIPE database clearly stating that my networks are in the UK, the BBC at one point believed I was in Sweden.) It's an entirely different form of restriction though. The main substantive difference is in the cost/benefit analysis. It costs little, except for occasional user having their IP address misclassified, which is easily remedied. And it delivers on the benefits to which it aspires -- it successfully prevents users outside the UK from directly receiving the content in question. Without having other unwanted side-effects and preventing other legitimate use.
I think we both agree. IP restrictions (generally) work, and they are forms of DRM, however you look at it (it's a rights management tool). However, this only works for streaming media; not for downloadable files. There is no point putting geolocking on a downloadable, otherwise DRM-free, file; since it takes one person to copy it to a non geo-locked host, and the world has it. That's why you can watch Channel 4 and STV live on the internet within the UK; but why individual programmes are still not downloadable; and similarly, that's why Joost offers streaming but no downloads. Incidentally: I'd be delighted to have Joost host all BBC programmes for a 7-day period; and it would seem to be the best option, given that it's (moderately) cross-platform, and presumably possible to geolock too. No Linux yet, mind. -- http://james.cridland.net/
