subject:"RE\: \[backstage\] BBC Ofcom complaint raised"


On 02/07/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


It is partially P2P... It's the nature of the Kontiki client. You download
content and it comes primarily off the BBC servers, but I've noticed
connections to other peers whilst downloading content. I've also noticed
Kontiki uploading content to other peers when it's just been sitting idle
(and it doesn't matter whether the iPlayer library app is sitting in the
tray or not loaded, the khost and kservice services run 24/7 unless you
manually kill them).

Not something I really care about, but for people on limited bandwidth
plans
it's an issue - something I raised on the forums, suggesting a do not use
my connection to upload to peers or similar in the Kontiki app (can't
remember my exact wording now), or at least a funtion to disable the P2P
nature of the platform.




The cost of licence fee payer's bandwidth being used for uploading was
calculated by Ofcom and used and approved by the BBC Trust .. I think they
made out it was about 10p a month...  they didn't compute CPU time, just
bandwidth costs.


They are partially right... ;)


 -Original Message-
 From: Gordon Joly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: 02 July 2007 19:08
 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
 Cc: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk; Brian Butterworth
 Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

 At 16:35 +0100 2/7/07, Brian Butterworth wrote:
 Interesting?
 
 http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/118819/what-have-they-done-to-th
 e-bbc-ipla
 yer.htmlhttp://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/118819/what-have-they-do
 ne-to-the-
 bbc-iplayer.html


 The iPlayer is the BBC's peer-to-peer download service...

 Doh!

 Peer to peer?

 Gordo

 --
 Think Feynman/
 http://pobox.com/~gordo/
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]///
 -
 Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To
 unsubscribe, please visit
 http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
   Unofficial list archive:
 http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/





--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised


On 02/07/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


At 19:49 +0100 2/7/07, Christopher Woods wrote:
It is partially P2P... It's the nature of the Kontiki client. You
download
content and it comes primarily off the BBC servers, but I've noticed
connections to other peers whilst downloading content. I've also noticed
Kontiki uploading content to other peers when it's just been sitting idle
(and it doesn't matter whether the iPlayer library app is sitting in the
tray or not loaded, the khost and kservice services run 24/7 unless you
manually kill them).

Not something I really care about, but for people on limited bandwidth
plans
it's an issue - something I raised on the forums, suggesting a do not
use
my connection to upload to peers or similar in the Kontiki app (can't
remember my exact wording now), or at least a funtion to disable the P2P
nature of the platform.

They are partially right... ;)



OK. But doesn't that mean the BBC is no longer a *broadcaster* in the
pure sense, and in the sense defined in the BBC Charter and elsewhere?




That's ridiculous.  TCP/IP was deliberately designed as a peer-to-peer
network and NOT a one-to-many broadcast system.


Gordo


--
Think Feynman/
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]///
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/





--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised


http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051080


On 03/07/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




On 02/07/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 At 19:49 +0100 2/7/07, Christopher Woods wrote:
 It is partially P2P... It's the nature of the Kontiki client. You
 download
 content and it comes primarily off the BBC servers, but I've noticed
 connections to other peers whilst downloading content. I've also
 noticed
 Kontiki uploading content to other peers when it's just been sitting
 idle
 (and it doesn't matter whether the iPlayer library app is sitting in
 the
 tray or not loaded, the khost and kservice services run 24/7 unless you
 manually kill them).
 
 Not something I really care about, but for people on limited bandwidth
 plans
 it's an issue - something I raised on the forums, suggesting a do not
 use
 my connection to upload to peers or similar in the Kontiki app (can't
 remember my exact wording now), or at least a funtion to disable the
 P2P
 nature of the platform.
 
 They are partially right... ;)
 


 OK. But doesn't that mean the BBC is no longer a *broadcaster* in the
 pure sense, and in the sense defined in the BBC Charter and elsewhere?



That's ridiculous.  TCP/IP was deliberately designed as a peer-to-peer
network and NOT a one-to-many broadcast system.


Gordo

 --
 Think Feynman/
 http://pobox.com/~gordo/
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]///
 -
 Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
 please visit
 http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
 list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/




--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv





--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-07-03 Thread Ian Betteridge


On 03/07/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051080




I've got to take exception to this bit:

So you can transmit worldwide to tens, thousands, millions or
multi-millions of people for a few hundred pounds, compared with the BBC's
annual £157 million spend on traditional broadcasting.

I don't have any recent figures to hand, but in 2004 the estimated cost of
BBC Online's bandwidth was about £2.4 million per year - and that, remember,
was mostly just web pages. iPlayer is going to increase the BBC's bandwidth
costs by a huge amount - and a whole lot more than a few hundred pounds,
even given a highly-efficient peer-to-peer system. Given its reach - Ofcom
estimates it will provide 3% of all viewer hours by 2011 - I suspect that,
actually, on a per-viewer-hour basis, it's not going to be as cost-effective
as broadcast TV.

Plus you have to think of the bigger picture. Can consumer ISPs cope with
the potentially-vast increase in P2P traffic? How will those 10Gb caps on
free ISPs cope? Will ISPs just end up de-prioritizing P2P traffic on their
core networks, so that at periods of peak demand they don't suffer service
disruptions?

Basically, even if the cost of broadcast via P2P systems is lower to the
BBC, it may not be lower overall when you take into account both the cost to
the consumer and to ISPs. Effectively, what the BBC is doing is shifting its
broadcasting costs on to the consumer and ISPs

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised


On 03/07/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On 03/07/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051080



I've got to take exception to this bit:

So you can transmit worldwide to tens, thousands, millions or
multi-millions of people for a few hundred pounds, compared with the BBC's
annual £157 million spend on traditional broadcasting.

I don't have any recent figures to hand, but in 2004 the estimated cost of
BBC Online's bandwidth was about £2.4 million per year - and that, remember,
was mostly just web pages. iPlayer is going to increase the BBC's bandwidth
costs by a huge amount - and a whole lot more than a few hundred pounds,
even given a highly-efficient peer-to-peer system. Given its reach - Ofcom
estimates it will provide 3% of all viewer hours by 2011 - I suspect that,
actually, on a per-viewer-hour basis, it's not going to be as cost-effective
as broadcast TV.




The whole point of using peer-to-peer networks is that after the first copy
is grabbed from the initial seeder, all other clients grab their blocks
from other peers, not the initial seed.  The clients are designed to collect
the least-available blocks from the network first, which causes them to no
longer be the least available.

I'm excluding the costs of providing the files in the first place, just the
cost of providing each file to the network for the first time.





Plus you have to think of the bigger picture. Can consumer ISPs cope with
the potentially-vast increase in P2P traffic? How will those 10Gb caps on
free ISPs cope? Will ISPs just end up de-prioritizing P2P traffic on their
core networks, so that at periods of


peak demand they don't suffer service disruptions?



Of course.  One advantage of peer-to-peer networks of this type is that the
clients can grab files from the clients that appear closest on the
network, which means the communications are often local, metropolitan,
national well before they go onto the slower international links.

TCP/IP is specifically designed to share bandwidth, and that's what it will
do.  The job of your ISP is to provide you with bandwidth - that is their
job.  Remember just because you have some crappy copper providing slow
ADSL to your home, the backbone fiber network has an unlimited speed and
capacity (in theory).


Basically, even if the cost of broadcast via P2P systems is lower to the

BBC, it may not be lower overall when you take into account both the cost to
the consumer and to ISPs. Effectively, what the BBC is doing is shifting its
broadcasting costs on to the consumer and ISPs



Thus everyone moaning about the iPlayer  If we are paying for
distribution, the BBC's restrictions are offensive!


--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised


You seem to be using a different network to me.  I'm sorry to trouble you.

On 03/07/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Tuesday 03 July 2007 13:56, Brian Butterworth wrote:
  a few seconds without any meaningful damage). If you were designing a
  protocol from scratch for bandwidth efficiency and considering quality
of
  service, it would look very different from TCP/IP.
...
 What utter rubbish.

It's not actually. TCP is first and foremost designed for reliable in
order
delivery, not timeliness or efficiency. Implementations do aim to help
with
the latter 2 and some systems will preferentially through away UDP rather
than
TCP packets when forced to make the choice, in order to avoid TCP
retransmissions (assisting TCP's efficiency).

But then your next statement isn't wrong either:

 The whole reason the internet exists is TCP/IP.

The widespread availability of TCP/IP has very little to do with
efficiency
of link usage. (which is viewed as good enough generally speaking) For
high
bandwidth links TCP is extremely inefficient which is why protocols like
SCTP
are under development (and integrated into some OSs) to use different
models
for ramping up bandwidth usage.

The widespread availability of TCP/IP is far more about relative ease of
implementation. Indeed this seems to be a general principle in internet
protocols. Unless a basic, half working version of a protocol can be
implemented over the course of a few days by a few talented individuals,
it generally gets replaced by a simpler more effective protocol. (I'm not
talking about a version you'd want to use for a service, just a version
that's a starting point)

Over time the replacement protocol often gets more baroque (as happened
with
TCP/IP), until it becomes worth replacing with something more appropriate.

FTP giving way to HTTP is a prime example of this. There are always
others.
Often the approach that wins is the one that is simplest to implement.
Even today, many web servers will still understand an HTTP/0.9 request.

You have to also bear in mind that inadequacies of TCP for certain
applications is why protocols like RTP, etc have been created. Sometimes
this relates to efficiency, sometimes QoS.

Assuming that TCP is the most *efficient* way of using a link isn't really
valid. It's efficient enough and _relatively_ simple which is what counts.

A detailed description of the issues affecting TCP/IP can be found here:
  * http://preview.tinyurl.com/fn3wz
(redirects to a Cisco website)

It's a few years old, but covers the core issues affecting TCP/IP
efficiency.

Regards,


Michael.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/





--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-07-03 Thread Michael Sparks

On Tuesday 03 July 2007 17:05, Brian Butterworth wrote:
 You seem to be using a different network to me.  I'm sorry to trouble you.

*blink*

You disagree with Cisco as well then?


Michael.

 On 03/07/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Tuesday 03 July 2007 13:56, Brian Butterworth wrote:
a few seconds without any meaningful damage). If you were designing a
protocol from scratch for bandwidth efficiency and considering
quality
 
  of
 
service, it would look very different from TCP/IP.
 
  ...
 
   What utter rubbish.
 
  It's not actually. TCP is first and foremost designed for reliable in
  order
  delivery, not timeliness or efficiency. Implementations do aim to help
  with
  the latter 2 and some systems will preferentially through away UDP rather
  than
  TCP packets when forced to make the choice, in order to avoid TCP
  retransmissions (assisting TCP's efficiency).
 
  But then your next statement isn't wrong either:
   The whole reason the internet exists is TCP/IP.
 
  The widespread availability of TCP/IP has very little to do with
  efficiency
  of link usage. (which is viewed as good enough generally speaking) For
  high
  bandwidth links TCP is extremely inefficient which is why protocols like
  SCTP
  are under development (and integrated into some OSs) to use different
  models
  for ramping up bandwidth usage.
 
  The widespread availability of TCP/IP is far more about relative ease of
  implementation. Indeed this seems to be a general principle in internet
  protocols. Unless a basic, half working version of a protocol can be
  implemented over the course of a few days by a few talented individuals,
  it generally gets replaced by a simpler more effective protocol. (I'm not
  talking about a version you'd want to use for a service, just a version
  that's a starting point)
 
  Over time the replacement protocol often gets more baroque (as happened
  with
  TCP/IP), until it becomes worth replacing with something more
  appropriate.
 
  FTP giving way to HTTP is a prime example of this. There are always
  others.
  Often the approach that wins is the one that is simplest to implement.
  Even today, many web servers will still understand an HTTP/0.9 request.
 
  You have to also bear in mind that inadequacies of TCP for certain
  applications is why protocols like RTP, etc have been created. Sometimes
  this relates to efficiency, sometimes QoS.
 
  Assuming that TCP is the most *efficient* way of using a link isn't
  really valid. It's efficient enough and _relatively_ simple which is what
  counts.
 
  A detailed description of the issues affecting TCP/IP can be found here:
* http://preview.tinyurl.com/fn3wz
  (redirects to a Cisco website)
 
  It's a few years old, but covers the core issues affecting TCP/IP
  efficiency.
 
  Regards,
 
 
  Michael.
 
  -
  Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
  please visit
  http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. 
  Unofficial list archive:
  http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised


I didn't say that.  I'm sorry, I'm too busy to rebut your message in full.
I can do it later...

On 03/07/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Tuesday 03 July 2007 17:05, Brian Butterworth wrote:
 You seem to be using a different network to me.  I'm sorry to trouble
you.

*blink*

You disagree with Cisco as well then?


Michael.

 On 03/07/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Tuesday 03 July 2007 13:56, Brian Butterworth wrote:
a few seconds without any meaningful damage). If you were
designing a
protocol from scratch for bandwidth efficiency and considering
quality
 
  of
 
service, it would look very different from TCP/IP.
 
  ...
 
   What utter rubbish.
 
  It's not actually. TCP is first and foremost designed for reliable in
  order
  delivery, not timeliness or efficiency. Implementations do aim to help
  with
  the latter 2 and some systems will preferentially through away UDP
rather
  than
  TCP packets when forced to make the choice, in order to avoid TCP
  retransmissions (assisting TCP's efficiency).
 
  But then your next statement isn't wrong either:
   The whole reason the internet exists is TCP/IP.
 
  The widespread availability of TCP/IP has very little to do with
  efficiency
  of link usage. (which is viewed as good enough generally speaking)
For
  high
  bandwidth links TCP is extremely inefficient which is why protocols
like
  SCTP
  are under development (and integrated into some OSs) to use different
  models
  for ramping up bandwidth usage.
 
  The widespread availability of TCP/IP is far more about relative ease
of
  implementation. Indeed this seems to be a general principle in
internet
  protocols. Unless a basic, half working version of a protocol can be
  implemented over the course of a few days by a few talented
individuals,
  it generally gets replaced by a simpler more effective protocol. (I'm
not
  talking about a version you'd want to use for a service, just a
version
  that's a starting point)
 
  Over time the replacement protocol often gets more baroque (as
happened
  with
  TCP/IP), until it becomes worth replacing with something more
  appropriate.
 
  FTP giving way to HTTP is a prime example of this. There are always
  others.
  Often the approach that wins is the one that is simplest to
implement.
  Even today, many web servers will still understand an HTTP/0.9
request.
 
  You have to also bear in mind that inadequacies of TCP for certain
  applications is why protocols like RTP, etc have been created.
Sometimes
  this relates to efficiency, sometimes QoS.
 
  Assuming that TCP is the most *efficient* way of using a link isn't
  really valid. It's efficient enough and _relatively_ simple which is
what
  counts.
 
  A detailed description of the issues affecting TCP/IP can be found
here:
* http://preview.tinyurl.com/fn3wz
  (redirects to a Cisco website)
 
  It's a few years old, but covers the core issues affecting TCP/IP
  efficiency.
 
  Regards,
 
 
  Michael.
 
  -
  Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
  please visit
  http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
  Unofficial list archive:
  http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/





--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-07-03 Thread Ian Betteridge



On 3 Jul 2007, at 13:56, Brian Butterworth wrote:


I think you will find that there is a longer window due to series  
stacking.


I think you'll find that applies to 15% of the total content, which  
means for the majority of content, it's not there. And in fact this  
may make things worse, not better.




TCP/IP is specifically designed to share bandwidth, and that's what  
it will do.


Sharing bandwidth is not the same as sharing bandwidth in the most  
efficient way for particular applications.





TCP/IP on its own is actually incredibly inefficient at sharing  
bandwidth. Because all TCP/IP packets are created equally, it  
doesn't know the difference between a packet containing voice data  
(which needs to get to its destination promptly) and one containing  
email data (which can be delayed by a few seconds without any  
meaningful damage). If you were designing a protocol from scratch  
for bandwidth efficiency and considering quality of service, it  
would look very different from TCP/IP.



What utter rubbish.


You might say that, but I think it really just demonstrates that you  
don't know what you're talking about.  There's a very good reason why  
protocols like MPLS have been developed to correct TCP/IP's failings.  
TCP/IP was designed for two things: simplicity and resilience. It's  
great at both of them. But that doesn't make it either bandwidth- 
efficient or capable of providing QoS.


The whole reason the internet exists is TCP/IP.  Otherwise we would  
all be stuck with our 64k synchronous stuff that the Telcos wished  
us to use.


So? This is completely irrelevant to what I posted. Please actually  
apply an argument, instead of doing your standard thing of making an  
ideological statement and trying to bend the facts around it.






It's still better to understand the nature of the network, rather  
than fight against it!


And this is exactly what I mean by an ideological statement. You've  
decided that TCP/IP is the be-all and end-all of protocols, and it is  
therefore superior and must be used for everything. Thankfully,  
people working on core backbones don't agree with you, otherwise in a  
few years time QoS would have fallen apart for voice and video.


MPLS exists between the traditional levels 2 and 3 of the TCP/IP  
network model precisely to correct its failings as protocol,  
particularly for time-sensitive data like streamed voice and video.




There is no real limit to the speed data can be flashed down a  
fibreoptic cable - the limitation is the equipment, which can (and  
has for decades) been improved by Moores Law.


This is just a silly, meaningless statement. It's like saying there's  
no limit to the amount of data you can broadcast via radio -  
theoretically (almost) true, but in practical terms bull.


The best networks currently being planned should hit 800Gbit/second  
throughput eventually. And that bandwidth will be limited to  
traffic between academic and research establishments. As soon as you  
hit one of the hundreds of thousands of T1/DS3 circuits which form a  
vast chunk of the backbone of the internet - and will for many, many  
years to come - you're screwed.






Sky will be dead in five years time, Moores Law will make IP  
delivery more capable than satellite - don't forget that Sky  
doesn't own the satellites, the uplinks, the encyption/subscription  
system.


You think Sky will  only do satellite broadcast? How quaint.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-07-03 Thread Ian Betteridge



On 3 Jul 2007, at 17:31, Brian Butterworth wrote:

I didn't say that.  I'm sorry, I'm too busy to rebut your message  
in full.  I can do it later...


Brian, I'd really rather you didn't bother. You're obviously far too  
interested in making ideological points than contributing to a  
meaningful discussion of anything. I'm certainly not going to bother  
replying to anything you say - it's pointless. You're not prepared to  
listen.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-07-02 Thread Gordon Joly




Let the people speak!

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/iplayer/

Gordo

--
Think Feynman/
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]///
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-07-02 Thread Peter Bowyer


On 02/07/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Let the people speak!

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/iplayer/


What a complete waste of time. Just like the huge majority of such
things. Let Mr Brown get on with running the country, and let the BBC
Trust run the BBC. Please.

--
Peter Bowyer
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-07-02 Thread Brian Butterworth


Interesting?

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/118819/what-have-they-done-to-the-bbc-iplayer.html


On 02/07/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




On 02/07/07, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On 02/07/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
  Let the people speak!
 
  http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/iplayer/

 What a complete waste of time. Just like the huge majority of such
 things. Let Mr Brown get on with running the country, and let the BBC
 Trust run the BBC. Please.



Yes!  Gordon's already stolen £600 million from the BBC!  (or the pockets
of licence fee payers or from YOUR licence fee!)


--
 Peter Bowyer
 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 -
 Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
 please visit
 http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
 list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/




--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv





--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-07-02 Thread Richard Lockwood


Not really.  Journalist is surprised that beta software doesn't work
as well as he would like it to isn't really a story.

As we all know, Alpha means Doesn't work, beta means still doesn't work.

Cheers,

Rich.

On 7/2/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Interesting?

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/118819/what-have-they-done-to-the-bbc-iplayer.html


On 02/07/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 On 02/07/07, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote:
  On 02/07/07, Gordon Joly  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
   Let the people speak!
  
   http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/iplayer/
 
  What a complete waste of time. Just like the huge majority of such
  things. Let Mr Brown get on with running the country, and let the BBC
  Trust run the BBC. Please.



 Yes!  Gordon's already stolen £600 million from the BBC!  (or the pockets
of licence fee payers or from YOUR licence fee!)


  --
  Peter Bowyer
  Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  -
  Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
 Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
 




 --
 Please email me back if you need any more help.

 Brian Butterworth
 www.ukfree.tv



--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv



--
SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073

Registered address:
4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-07-02 Thread Gordon Joly


At 19:49 +0100 2/7/07, Christopher Woods wrote:

It is partially P2P... It's the nature of the Kontiki client. You download
content and it comes primarily off the BBC servers, but I've noticed
connections to other peers whilst downloading content. I've also noticed
Kontiki uploading content to other peers when it's just been sitting idle
(and it doesn't matter whether the iPlayer library app is sitting in the
tray or not loaded, the khost and kservice services run 24/7 unless you
manually kill them).

Not something I really care about, but for people on limited bandwidth plans
it's an issue - something I raised on the forums, suggesting a do not use
my connection to upload to peers or similar in the Kontiki app (can't
remember my exact wording now), or at least a funtion to disable the P2P
nature of the platform.

They are partially right... ;)




OK. But doesn't that mean the BBC is no longer a *broadcaster* in the 
pure sense, and in the sense defined in the BBC Charter and elsewhere?


Gordo

--
Think Feynman/
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]///
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-07-02 Thread vijay chopra


Tell that to Google  ;p

Vijay.

On 02/07/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


beta means still doesn't work.

Cheers,

Rich.

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-27 Thread Ian Betteridge


I can't imagine that a Mac mini produces much heat... would something like
that or the Zonbu be a solution?

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-27 Thread Kim Plowright


Mac mini - not so much heat
LCD monitor / powerbrick for LCD monitor / powerbrick for macmini -
quite a lot of heat.

On 27/06/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I can't imagine that a Mac mini produces much heat... would something like
that or the Zonbu be a solution?


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-27 Thread Andy


On 26/06/07, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Andy, if I had been the fool in charge of it, let me assure you by now
I would be taking legal action against your repeated public
accusations of corruption and misuse of public funds by individuals
within the BBC.


Ah nuts, I must not have noticed the end of democracy, when did that happen?
In a democracy does one not have the right to question and criticise
public officials and public organisations?

Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights allows for a
freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions,
and to receive and *impart* information and *ideas*.

It was an idea, I imparted it, is it not protected under my human rights?

However I admit I may have been incorrect, but I had ran out of other
explanations for the BBC's actions and got left with sheer
incompetence or conspiracy. I discounted the first option.

I am sorry if you where offended. Claiming that someone in the BBC may
be a MS shareholder was way too far. I apologise for that. I am
actually sorry.

I still stand by my claim that WMP DRM is not a portable solution though.

Quick question: if someone was to produce a Linux (or other OS)
iPlayer style client and server application that provided DRM
protection* based on time limiting and there was some level of country
limiting** would the BBC use it? (I would actually be genuinely
interested in an answer to this question.)


(*protection used loosely here due to previously stated immovable laws
of mathematics)
(** Determining country is not perfect. Language settings don't
necessarily determine where the user is located just what they speak.
OS may also be told a different country to where it is. IP checks can
be fooled by proxies. Should be good enough though.)

Andy

--
Computers are like air conditioners.  Both stop working, if you open windows.
   -- Adam Heath
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-27 Thread Tom Loosemore


Quick question: if someone was to produce a Linux (or other OS)
iPlayer style client and server application that provided DRM
protection* based on time limiting and there was some level of country
limiting** would the BBC use it? (I would actually be genuinely
interested in an answer to this question.)


YES!
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-27 Thread Ian Forrester

Alright alright,
 
Ok this is getting a little out of hand. think of this as a virtual slap :)
Can we give this a rest for a while? There's a lot of other interesting things 
happening which are not being discussed.
 
For example did you guys see Google's Image based news service - 
http://www.google.com/news?imv=1. I specially like the Chinese version - 
http://www.google.com/news?imv=1ned=cn
 
Lets also not forget Hackday too soon! There's some video of the hacks being 
presentated here - http://blip.tv/posts/?topic_name=hackdaylondon
 
We have quite a few things coming soon at Backstage including a new site and 
much more.

Ian Forrester

This e-mail is: [ x ] private; [  ] ask first; [  ] bloggable

Senior Producer, BBC Backstage
BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
p: +44 (0)2080083965


 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian 
Betteridge
Sent: 27 June 2007 17:39
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised


On 27/06/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 


Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights allows 
for a
freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold 
opinions,
and to receive and *impart* information and *ideas*.


If you're saying that particular people within the BBC (or anywhere 
else) were corrupt, that would be libelous were you to name them - and Article 
11 doesn't give you carte blanche to libel someone without legal recourse.

RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-27 Thread Christopher Woods

ooo, videos!

  _  

From: Ian Forrester [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 27 June 2007 18:26
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

Alright alright,

Ok this is getting a little out of hand. think of this as a virtual slap :)
Can we give this a rest for a while? There's a lot of other interesting
things happening which are not being discussed.

For example did you guys see Google's Image based news service -
http://www.google.com/news?imv=1. I specially like the Chinese version -
http://www.google.com/news?imv=1 http://www.google.com/news?imv=1ned=cn
ned=cn

Lets also not forget Hackday too soon! There's some video of the hacks being
presentated here - http://blip.tv/posts/?topic_name=hackdaylondon

We have quite a few things coming soon at Backstage including a new site and
much more.

Ian Forrester

This e-mail is: [ x ] private; [  ] ask first; [  ] bloggable

Senior Producer, BBC Backstage
BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
p: +44 (0)2080083965

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Betteridge
Sent: 27 June 2007 17:39
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

On 27/06/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights allows for a
freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions,
and to receive and *impart* information and *ideas*.

If you're saying that particular people within the BBC (or anywhere else)
were corrupt, that would be libelous were you to name them - and Article 11
doesn't give you carte blanche to libel someone without legal recourse.

RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-27 Thread David Woodhouse

On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 18:25 +0100, Ian Forrester wrote:
 I specially like the Chinese version -
 http://www.google.com/news?imv=1ned=cn

Ironic that you can't get at it from China, really. :)

-- 
dwmw2

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised


On 25/06/07, Graeme Mulvaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


If no iPlayer is preferable to a DRM iPlayer then what's the problem, just
don't use the thing - nobody is forcing you to do anything.




That, however much it might be your point of view, is not a choice.



I don't agree with piracy and it annoys the hell out of me when I see
entire episodes of BBC programming published on places like YouTube
(admittedly in bite-sized 'fair-use' chunks) - I like DRM it helps to stop
lazy people from getting 'creative' and using yet another web 2.0 service
to 'mash-up' everything in sight, the intention isn't to stop you creating
your own original content it's to guarantee a revenue stream for
the creative types who originate stuff in the first place.



The BBC should be, in my humble opinion, about creating content for the use
of licence fee payers.  As long as no payment is received, licence fee
payers should be able to watch, listen, store, forward, cut-and-paste and
mash up any content that is created in their name and with their cash.
It's the only way to have a licence-fee funded BBC in ten years time.

If the BBC heads down the subscription model, then that's it for it.  It
will become just another commercial company.




I want a DRM version of iPlayer now!, not being able to record and 'fairly
use' the programming in my mash-ups doesn't bother me at all - if I want to
nick an episode of Dr Who or run a laughter track over Newsnight then there
are plenty of other places I can look for the content.




The fact that I've got MPEG-2 from DVB-T versions of all the recent Doctor
Who on my hard drive is not an argument FOR DRM but against it...



If it works well on Vista or XP then that's great - I'm glad the BBC is
focusing on delivering the iPlayer on a computing platform that will reach
over 90% of its' target audience, that represents great value for money and
most people in the country probably couldn't care less either way.




Not if you have only Macs in your home.Do Mac users qualify some
something like a digital black and white licence?



This has nothing to do with freedom of choice or public service
remit... its just another woe-pen source bandwagon - instead of bickering
about the BBC using Microsofts' DRM, get together and come up with a
suitable open-alternative - that's why the open source movement started in
the first place.




DRM is designed to support a payment model - it is not an sensible solution
for a public service broadcaster with a licence fee!




 On 6/25/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On 25/06/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On 25/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   Could choice in this matter mean that iPlayer is available in one
   configuration on a TV, and also through a cable set top box?  One
 product.
   Choice of methods.
 
  If the iPlayer did that then there would be choice!

 I think its a mistake to concentrate on choice: If that's what is
 promoted, then we'll just get a cross platform DRM system, which will
 be even worse, because even more people will get their freedom
 trampled.

 DRM is not acceptable, and no iPlayer is preferable to a DRM iPlayer
 because DRM tramples our freedom. Similarly, a DRM iPlayer only for
 Windows is preferable to a cross platform DRM iPlayer because it will
 harm less people, and those people not using Windows will more likely
 to understand why the lack of freedom inherent in DRM is unacceptable.

 --
 Regards,
 Dave
 -
 Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
 please visit
 http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
 list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/




--
You can't build a reputation based on what you are going to do.





--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth
On 25/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

On 25/06/07, Andrew Bowden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote: 

 The Act also states:
  (5) In performing their duty under
this section of furthering the
  interests of consumers,  OFCOM must
have regard, in
 particular, to the
  interests of those consumers in
respect of choice, price,
 quality of service and value for
money.
 
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30021--b.htm
 Notice how choice is listed first. And
notice how the BBC 
 have removed choice. Is it not OFCOM's
duty to correct this, 
 so as to further the interests of
consumers, and also further
 the interests of citizens, (it's
duties as defined by the Act)?

Does it define what choice means?
Because choice could be interpreted 
to mean many things.

 
 
I can certainly see that choice could
certainly be defined as having a selection from more than one without
using a lawyer.

But that's entirely my point.  The definition of
choice some people on this list will use, will not necessarily be the
one Ofcom believes is the correct one. 
 
Like I say, choice is subjective.  I remain interested
in hearing what Ofcom's response is on the matter.
 

Could choice in this matter mean that iPlayer is
available in one configuration on a TV, and also through a cable set top
box?  One product.  Choice of methods. 

 
 
If the iPlayer did that then there would be choice! 

You must have missed the announcements that there is going to be a
version of iPlayer available through a cable set top box - initially to
Virgin media customers.  
 
It's been a plan that's been around for a while, and was part of the
iPlayer proposals that were recently agreed by the BBC Trust.

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised


On 26/06/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



The BBC should be, in my humble opinion, about creating content for the
use of licence fee payers.  As long as no payment is received, licence fee
payers should be able to watch, listen, store, forward, cut-and-paste and
mash up any content that is created in their name and with their cash.
It's the only way to have a licence-fee funded BBC in ten years time.




The arguments about this have been rehashed over and over again. You are not
going to persuade anyone at the BBC of the rightness of your position by
posting to this list. I happen to think you're completely wrong, on pretty
much every count, but I'm not going to get involved with it here because
it's frankly insulting to everyone on the list who's not interested in these
interminable arguments which never actually get anywhere.

If you're actually interested in a meaningful debate, as opposed to
meaningless posturing, then post a coherent argument on a blog, send the
list the link, and we can debate it via blog posts. Then anyone who's
actually interested can follow and contribute to the discussion, while those
who aren't won't have to suffer it.

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-26 Thread Paul Makepeace


On 6/26/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On 26/06/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 The BBC should be, in my humble opinion, about creating content for the
 use of licence fee payers.  As long as no payment is received, licence fee
 payers should be able to watch, listen, store, forward, cut-and-paste and
 mash up any content that is created in their name and with their cash.
 It's the only way to have a licence-fee funded BBC in ten years time.



The arguments about this have been rehashed over and over again. You are
not going to persuade anyone at the BBC of the rightness of your position by
posting to this list. I happen to think you're completely wrong, on pretty
much every count, but I'm not going to get involved with it here because
it's frankly insulting to everyone on the list who's not interested in these
interminable arguments which never actually get anywhere.

If you're actually interested in a meaningful debate, as opposed to
meaningless posturing, then post a coherent argument on a blog, send the
list the link, and we can debate it via blog posts. Then anyone who's
actually interested can follow and contribute to the discussion, while those
who aren't won't have to suffer it.



You're using Gmail (a fine choice, if I may say so): press the 'm' ('mute')
key. Think of the time saved not ranting on mailing lists!

http://www.google.com/support/a/users/bin/answer.py?answer=6594query=shortcutstopic=type=

P

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-26 Thread vijay chopra


On 25/06/07, Graeme Mulvaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




This has nothing to do with freedom of choice or public service
remit... its just another woe-pen source bandwagon - instead of bickering
about the BBC using Microsofts' DRM, get together and come up with a
suitable open-alternative - that's why the open source movement started in
the first place.



You mean like the one I've already posted: https://dream.dev.java.net/ ?
Why the beeb, can't use a cross-platform, open DRM scheme is beyond me, but
that's totally OT.

Vijay.

RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

 


You're kidding, right?
 
The service on Virgin isn't the iplayer, it's implemented via
Virgin's existing service that already provides BBC repeats that's been
running for a couple of years now.  The same document approved the
service but it is NOT the iPlayer.  

 
The PC TV download version part of it, is just one aspect of iPlayer -
it is not the entirity of it by any means.  The intentions of iPlayer
being a cross-platform product have been there for a long time - even
looking at how a service could be made available on Freeview.
 
And yes, there is a BBC catch up service currently on Virgin, using the
existing Virgin video on demand infrastructure and front end.  However
that's not iPlayer.  Cable iPlayer is pinker for starters.

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-26 Thread David Woodhouse

On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 10:00 +0100, Ian Betteridge wrote:
 I happen to think you're completely wrong, on pretty much every count,

So you think that DRM actually _works_ for its (supposedly) intended
purpose, and prevents criminals from copying content?

You think that it _won't_ end up just making life hard for the honest
consumer and the developers who would like to build systems around the
platform (incorporating support into other devices, etc.) -- while doing
almost nothing to prevent the real copyright infringement?

Or do you accept the obvious facts, but still believe that the BBC
should pander to the people who ask for DRM, despite the fact that the
BBC have to _know_ it's just snake oil, and are being very disingenuous
if they're offering it as a solution to the alleged problem.

-- 
dwmw2

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised


On 26/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




 You're kidding, right?

The service on Virgin isn't the iplayer, it's implemented via Virgin's
existing service that already provides BBC repeats that's been running for a
couple of years now.  The same document approved the service but it is NOT
the iPlayer.


The PC TV download version part of it, is just one aspect of iPlayer - it
is not the entirity of it by any means.  The intentions of iPlayer being a
cross-platform product have been there for a long time - even looking at
how a service could be made available on Freeview.




Not on the product I betatested...  You have conflated other products into
the iPlayer.


And yes, there is a BBC catch up service currently on Virgin, using the

existing Virgin video on demand infrastructure and front end.  However
that's not iPlayer.  Cable iPlayer is pinker for starters.





--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-26 Thread David Woodhouse

On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 11:36 +0100, Ian Betteridge wrote:
 On 26/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 10:00 +0100, Ian Betteridge wrote:
   I happen to think you're completely wrong, on pretty much every
   count,
 
  So you think that DRM actually _works_ for its (supposedly) intended
  purpose, and prevents criminals from copying content?
 
 As I said, David, I'm not going to discuss it here. If you want to
 discuss it, post your position on a blog, let me know where it is, and
 we'll talk about it. Discussing this kind of stuff on a technical list
 is inappropriate, and just ends up with a lot of annoying posturing. 

I don't think it's particularly off-topic at all. We're talking about a
technical measure which gratuitously prevents the kind of development
and collaboration which I thought this list was supposed to promote and
encourage.

I say 'gratuitously' because I don't think _anyone_ has seriously
claimed that DRM actually works for its intended purpose. We all know it
doesn't -- that it's just snake oil which the BBC are disingenuously
using to fool rightsholders into _thinking_ that something has been done
about the perceived 'problem' of illegal copying.

There's been strange noises made about finding a business model which
'works without DRM'. Now that I _do_ think is a complete non-sequitur.
We already _have_ a business model which works without DRM. DRM doesn't
affect the business model; mostly because the major threat to the
business model isn't actually prevented by DRM anyway.

The business model didn't fail when the RIAA failed to ban video
recorders. It didn't fail when CSS was cracked and subsequently ruled
'ineffective' and thus exempt from the EU-DMCA measures. I don't think
we have to worry very much about it now, either. And even if we _do_
worry, DRM isn't the answer.

But if you insist, try http://advogato.org/article/918.html

-- 
dwmw2

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth

On 26/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


You're kidding, right?

 
The service on Virgin isn't the iplayer, it's
implemented via Virgin's existing service that already provides BBC
repeats that's been running for a couple of years now.  The same
document approved the service but it is NOT the iPlayer.  


The PC TV download version part of it, is just one
aspect of iPlayer - it is not the entirity of it by any means.  The
intentions of iPlayer being a cross-platform product have been there for
a long time - even looking at how a service could be made available on
Freeview.



Not on the product I betatested...  You have conflated other
products into the iPlayer. 

I haven't done anything of the sort.  The BBC has a plan for a range of
products which are the iPlayer.  The iPlayer you are thinking of is just
one part of that plan.
 
It is true that the PC download aspect is the one that has caught the
headlines.  However even the PC version of iPlayer is more than just
downloads - it involves streaming and podcasts too.

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-26 Thread Richard Lockwood


On 6/26/07, Matthew Somerville [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

David Woodhouse wrote:
 I don't think it's particularly off-topic at all. We're talking about a
 technical measure which gratuitously prevents the kind of development
 and collaboration which I thought this list was supposed to promote and
 encourage.

This is a discussion list for anyone keen to build interesting new
prototypes or proofs of concept with BBC content. where BBC content would
presumably be that supplied by the BBC under BBC Backstage, ie. at
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/data. I don't think never-ending arguments
about DRM are in the spirit - at least, I don't think anyone has mentioned a
prototype or proof of concept they'd be able to do if iPlayer didn't have
DRM (and of course, you'd also have to be given the right to do whatever the
prototype or proof of concept was, which I doubt the BBC would easily be
able to arrange).

As has already been said, there is nothing stopping anyone taking a DVB
stream and doing what they like with it (in accordance with the law, of
course). Unless iPlayer is magically going to interfere with my Freeview
signal somehow? :-)


Indeed.  If you're that desperate for digital DRM-free content, stick
a Digital TV card into your PC and record from that.  Don't forget
that the iPlayer is simply an extra way to deliver content, and
whether it's DRM'd or not, platform specific or not, it still
increases the number of people able to watch BBC programmes - just not
as much or as quickly as the zealots here would like.  It's
*increasing* choice - especially if, like me, you live in an area
where Freeview signal strengths are poor.

As I've said before, it appears that people ranting about the evils of
the iPlayer have little interest in the actual content, and more in
using every thread on here as an excuse to get their own little
soapbox out and start shouting about their bugbear of choice.

Rich.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth

On 26/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth


On 26/06/07, Andrew Bowden
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


You're kidding, right?

 
The service on Virgin isn't the iplayer,
it's implemented via Virgin's existing service that already provides BBC
repeats that's been running for a couple of years now.  The same
document approved the service but it is NOT the iPlayer.  


The PC TV download version part of it,
is just one aspect of iPlayer - it is not the entirity of it by any
means.  The intentions of iPlayer being a cross-platform product have
been there for a long time - even looking at how a service could be made
available on Freeview.



Not on the product I betatested...  You have
conflated other products into the iPlayer. 

I haven't done anything of the sort.  The BBC has a plan
for a range of products which are the iPlayer.  The iPlayer you are
thinking of is just one part of that plan.
 
It is true that the PC download aspect is the one that
has caught the headlines.  However even the PC version of iPlayer is
more than just downloads - it involves streaming and podcasts too.


Tell you what, you go and actually read the BBC and Ofcom
documents about the service so you know what you are talking about and
then repost, eh?

Sorry Brian but I don't think I'll bother.  I won't bother because I've
read many of those documents because I've been watching iplayer as an
outsider with great interest - partly because iPlayer on Cable is being
built in the very team I work in!  It's one of many reasons why I've
taken an interest in iPlayer (another is that I'm a Linux user at home
and have been keeping my eye very closely on that ball)
 
iPlayer is exactly what I said is it.  It's a range of products which
covers what is mentioned in this document, and its associated documents.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/30_04_2007.html
 
You will notice that this covers:

*   Seven day catch-up television over the internet
*   Seven-day catch-up television over cable
*   Simulcast television over the internet
*   Non-digital rights management audio downloads over the internet
(aka podcasting)

Its true that the iPlayer term is not hugely used in there - it is
referred to as the BBC's on demand proposals.  It's also true that one
of the consultation documents refers to the fact that the BBC could
launch a version of the iPlayer using existing services (e.g. the AV
console on BBC News, the Radio Player etc) without requiring a Public
Value Test.
 
But hey, tell you what... If you still don't believe me, I suggest you
wait until launch and see who turns out to be right! ;)

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised


On 26/06/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Tell you what, you go and actually read the BBC and Ofcom documents about
the service so you know what you are talking about and then repost, eh?




So with this level of nascent demand, we want to make BBC iPlayer as widely
available as possible, across as many platforms as is feasible. We're
starting with the biggest available audience – the 22 million people who are
broadband connected in Britain. The next biggest audience are 3 million
cable homes. After that, it's Macs, media centres, and smart handheld
devices. Once we've done all that, we'll turn to the really tricky
platforms: DTT via either PVRs or IP hybrid boxes.

Ashley Highfield, MILIA keynote speech, 18 April 2007.

Andrew knows what he's talking about.

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

On 26/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

--
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth
On 26/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

You're kidding, right?

The service on Virgin isn't the iplayer, it's implemented via Virgin's
existing service that already provides BBC repeats that's been running for a
couple of years now. The same document approved the service but it is NOT
the iPlayer.

The PC TV download version part of it, is just one aspect of iPlayer -
it is not the entirity of it by any means. The intentions of iPlayer being
a cross-platform product have been there for a long time - even looking at
how a service could be made available on Freeview.

Not on the product I betatested... You have conflated other products
into the iPlayer.

I haven't done anything of the sort. The BBC has a plan for a range of
products which are the iPlayer. The iPlayer you are thinking of is just one
part of that plan.

It is true that the PC download aspect is the one that has caught the
headlines. However even the PC version of iPlayer is more than just
downloads - it involves streaming and podcasts too.

Tell you what, you go and actually read the BBC and Ofcom documents about
the service so you know what you are talking about and then repost, eh?

Sorry Brian but I don't think I'll bother. I won't bother because I've
read many of those documents because I've been watching iplayer as an
outsider with great interest - partly because iPlayer on Cable is
being built in the very team I work in! It's one of many reasons why I've
taken an interest in iPlayer (another is that I'm a Linux user at home and
have been keeping my eye very closely on that ball)

iPlayer is exactly what I said is it. It's a range of products which
covers what is mentioned in this document, and its associated documents.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/30_04_2007.html

You will notice that this covers:

- Seven day catch-up television over the internet

This is the iPlayer as I used and tested last year

- Seven-day catch-up television over cable

This is the existing Telewest-desiged cable TV STREAMING repeats service
that already exists and is in use.

- Simulcast television over the internet

Again, not the iPlayer, as you can find for yourself by clicking on this
link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_661/newsid_6615400?redirect=6615433.stmnews=1nbram=1bbram=1nbwm=1bbwm=1

- Non-digital rights management audio downloads over the internet
(aka podcasting)

podcasting isn't the iPlayer either.

Its true that the iPlayer term is not hugely used in there - it is referred

to as the BBC's on demand proposals. It's also true that one of the
consultation documents refers to the fact that the BBC could launch a
version of the iPlayer using existing services (e.g. the AV console on BBC
News, the Radio Player etc) without requiring a Public Value Test.

But hey, tell you what... If you still don't believe me, I suggest you
wait until launch and see who turns out to be right! ;)

Well, as the bottom three services HAVE already launched, I don't dig your
odds.

At the very least, when people moan about the iPlayer it is the Seven day
catch-up television over the internet that people object to, given the very
real lack of DRM on the other three...

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised


On 26/06/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


  Well, as the bottom three services HAVE already launched, I don't dig
your odds.




Actually, podcasts are still a trial. They haven't officially launched.

And I refer you to the quote I sent, where Highfield quite clearly referred
to services under the iPlayer name above and beyond the service you've
banged on about. Or are you going to claim that he doesn't know what he's
talking about as well? In which case I fully expect you to also declare that
black is white and get run over on the proverbial zebra crossing.

RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

 

*   Seven-day catch-up television over cable

This is the existing Telewest-desiged cable TV STREAMING repeats
service that already exists and is in use.

Actually it's a trial.  I wouldn't expect people to widely know that,
because it was never labelled as a trial.  It launched as a trial in
order to feed into the Public Value Test for On Demand services.  I had
a tiny, diddy involvement in its launch.
 
iPlayer on Cable is NOT the above, as I previously said.  And I can say
that for the reasons I have said.  I won't bother to repeat them.




*   Simulcast television over the internet

Again, not the iPlayer, as you can find for yourself by clicking
on this link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_661/newsi
d_6615400?redirect=6615433.stmnews=1nbram=1bbram=1nbwm=1bbwm=1 


I'm afraid I don't know the official status of streamed live News 24.
However live streaming of BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four have all
been done.  As trials.  Nothing more.

*   Non-digital rights management audio downloads
over the internet (aka podcasting)

podcasting isn't the iPlayer either.

Actually they're trials.  In this case, it is mentioned on the
Podcasting page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/waystolisten/podcasts/
As part of a trial we're offering a selection of programmes and
highlights.. .
 
Without the recent BBC Trust agreement for OnDemand proposals, podcasts
and Cable CatchUp TV would have be turned off at their trial end.  But
that's not going to happen because they got signed off and everyone is
happy.

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised


On 26/06/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On 26/06/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Tell you what, you go and actually read the BBC and Ofcom documents
 about the service so you know what you are talking about and then repost,
 eh?



So with this level of nascent demand, we want to make BBC iPlayer as
widely available as possible, across as many platforms as is feasible. We're
starting with the biggest available audience – the 22 million people who are
broadband connected in Britain. The next biggest audience are 3 million
cable homes. After that, it's Macs, media centres, and smart handheld
devices. Once we've done all that, we'll turn to the really tricky
platforms: DTT via either PVRs or IP hybrid boxes.

Ashley Highfield, MILIA keynote speech, 18 April 2007.

Andrew knows what he's talking about.




To be honest you could read this both ways, either that the iPlayer will get
to 22 million people THEN there is cable, or that the cable service will
have a few letters changed on the header graphic...

Getting back to the subject of this email, the sense that most people
understand about iPlayer is perhaps not what is being currently used inside
the BBC.


--

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

Basically what you are saying here is that these trail services (and yes I
know that) will all be rebranded iPlayer.

Given that the BBC keeps going from BBCi to bbc.co.uk and back again it is
a little difficult for people who wish to be consistant to aruge about a
service when things change.

Basically, I was taking the running assumption that the iPlayer was
basically what was I tested as the iMP but it now has live streaming and
podcasts (how?) and also a cable service as part of the description.

On 26/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

- Seven-day catch-up television over cable

This is the existing Telewest-desiged cable TV STREAMING repeats service
that already exists and is in use.

Actually it's a trial. I wouldn't expect people to widely know that,
because it was never labelled as a trial. It launched as a trial in order
to feed into the Public Value Test for On Demand services. I had a tiny,
diddy involvement in its launch.

iPlayer on Cable is NOT the above, as I previously said. And I can say
that for the reasons I have said. I won't bother to repeat them.

- Simulcast television over the internet

Again, not the iPlayer, as you can find for yourself by clicking on this
link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_661/newsid_6615400?redirect=6615433.stmnews=1nbram=1bbram=1nbwm=1bbwm=1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_661/newsid_6615400?redirect=6615433.stmnews=1nbram=1bbram=1nbwm=1bbwm=1+

I'm afraid I don't know the official status of streamed live News 24.
However live streaming of BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four have all
been done. As trials. Nothing more.

- Non-digital rights management audio downloads over the internet
(aka podcasting)

podcasting isn't the iPlayer either.

Actually they're trials. In this case, it is mentioned on the Podcasting
page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/waystolisten/podcasts/
As part of a trial we're offering a selection of programmes and
highlights.. .

Without the recent BBC Trust agreement for OnDemand proposals, podcasts
and Cable CatchUp TV would have be turned off at their trial end. But
that's not going to happen because they got signed off and everyone is
happy.

--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-26 Thread Andy


On 25/06/07, Graeme Mulvaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I don't agree with piracy and it annoys the hell out of me when I see entire
episodes of BBC programming published on places like YouTube


Why does it annoy you? the BBC don't mind, if they did they would have
asked google to take them down.


I like DRM it helps to stop lazy people from
getting 'creative' and using yet another web 2.0 service to 'mash-up'
everything in sight,


How much do you know about basic Computer Security concepts? Lazy
people can bypass DRM, there are point and click methods for striping
DRM.

Add to that the BBC are using an extremely weak DRM scheme. All
software DRM scheme's are crackable. We know this, it's due to the
workings of CPUs and the laws of mathematics, mathematics won't change
live with it.

A DRM scheme can only be strengthened by reducing the incentive to
attack it as it WILL fall apart under an attack by a skilled attacker.
How do you reduce the incentive to attack the system?

Well first off you make sure the minimum amount of content is
protected using that scheme. This means any bespoke scheme is stronger
than an off the shelf scheme (this is the opposite of things like
encryption algorithms as they are based on the assumption they can not
be broken and as soon as they are sufficiently broken they are
decommissioned.)

Secondly you don't unnecessarily limit use. For example you don't lock
it to one OS.

The BBC is ignoring both those facts to intentionally weaken any
protection and to lock out certain license fee payers. Odd that they
always claimed it was content producers who insisted on such
protections. Are the producers happy the BBC is intentionally and
knowingly weakening the DRM protection for the purposes of a third
parties financial gain (Microsoft's shareholders)?


the intention isn't to stop you creating your own
original content it's to guarantee a revenue stream for the creative types
who originate stuff in the first place.


The intention is to block the use of non-MS products, presumably
somebody at the BBC holds shares in this company and would like to
increase there wealth. Any chance of the BBC stating whether their
employees are MS shareholders or not?



I want a DRM version of iPlayer now!


And I would like the BBC to comply with British and European law
without the need to involve regulators but the BBC refuse to comply
with the law.



If it works well on Vista or XP then that's great - I'm glad the BBC is
focusing on delivering the iPlayer on a computing platform that will reach
over 90% of its' target audience, that represents great value for money and
most people in the country probably couldn't care less either way.


It could have got one that worked with 100% of it's target audience,
and for a better value for money. Release a standard for server to
client interaction (including file formats), use previously published
standards (which I helpfully listed for you). Should take less than a
month.

Someone will pop over to sf.net and start a project wait a while and
there you get a cross platform iPlayer for no money what-so-ever. How
could you beat that?


This has nothing to do with freedom of choice or public service remit... its
just another woe-pen source bandwagon - instead of bickering about the BBC
using Microsofts' DRM, get together and come up with a suitable
open-alternative - that's why the open source movement started in the first
place.


OpenIPMP! I mentioned it a very short while ago! Did you download it,
did you read the documentation, did you read what it provides? It
provides time constrained DRM, that's what you wanted wasn't it?

Country locking is simple to implement, assuming you used a Linux OS,
simple add a rule to block all non UK IPs to iptables. If you are
using a Windows server, don't bother with DRM someone will just hack
the server and grab the unDRMed file anyway (see metasploit for some
examples).

iPlayer has been completely mismanaged. Can the BBC confirm the fool
in charge of it has been fired? They certainly should be or does the
BBC not considered incompetence a problem?

A huge indicator that iPlayer was mismanaged is evident from the
choice of Windows Media Player. The BBC trust has told you it wants
platform neutral. Read the judgement!
When developing a cross platform application you have to be careful to
make sure you don't stupidly tie yourself to one platform. If you have
to use external libraries you make sure that:
1. It is cross platform
2. You know precisely how it works and you have all the information
needed to reimplement it (i.e. you need all the standards defined).
3. You make sure you can port it to other platforms and are legally
allowed to do so.

The Windows Media Player and MS DRM libraries manage to fail all 3 of
those tests. Which moron decided that it would be a good thing to use
considering the requirement for it being platform neutral?

Add to that the fact an EU court has found that WMP has already been
used to

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-26 Thread Jason Cartwright

 the intention isn't to stop you creating your own
 original content it's to guarantee a revenue stream for the creative types
 who originate stuff in the first place.
 
 The intention is to block the use of non-MS products, presumably
 somebody at the BBC holds shares in this company and would like to
 increase there wealth. Any chance of the BBC stating whether their
 employees are MS shareholders or not?

We've been rumbled!

After all that tireless work getting around the pesky internal conflict of
interest paperwork, UK law, and EU law surrounding purchasing using public
money all it took was an uninformed poster to an external mailing list to
subvert the BBC/Microsoft conspiracy!

The master plan, involving thousands of brainwashed employees and
regulators, to slay all alternative operating systems and make some real
money has been thwarted!

(In case you haven't guessed, this is a **joke**, and is all my personal,
satirical, opinion. I'm writing this on a Mac, anyhow)

J

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-26 Thread Christopher Woods

I am also against the use of WM DRM as a matter of principle, but I think we
all have to realise that the iPlayer trial is a closed, walled-garden trial,
and I fully expect the setup to change once a viable alternative is
developed and brought to a quality level where it's robust enough to handle
everything possible (including kids and grannies all using the same service,
with their various skill levels)...

... What's that, nobody else has come up with a truly-viable open
framework-based system which is production level ready? Oh dear, best get
paying some developers then. The biggest problem I can see with an
open-standards-and-framework DRM platform is that, because it's open, by its
very nature everybody can see its innards and the hackers have an even
easier starting point with which to break the system, because all the base
code is given to them in a silver tarball.

I'd much rather see an open, platform-agnostic DRM system for the iPlayer
than a WM DRM short-term solution, but at the end of the day the
implementation of any DRM system is a moot issue; it is all doomed to
failure. This discussion has become more embedded in the particulars of one
scheme versus another when I think we're forgetting that the BBC is largely
at the behest of its many rights holders - all of whom (in my opinion)
bandied together and forced the Beeb to implement a solution that suited
_them_, not the BBC or the Trust's list of requirements. They had to bend to
the will of the rights holders and agencies, because without content, any
system will flop, regardless of whether it works on machines ranging from
your mum's XP laptop to your geeky flatmate's BSD cluster.

What's a Corporation to do?

 -Original Message-
 From: Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: 26 June 2007 17:34
 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
 Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
 
 On 25/06/07, Graeme Mulvaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I don't agree with piracy and it annoys the hell out of me 
 when I see 
  entire episodes of BBC programming published on places like YouTube
 
 Why does it annoy you? the BBC don't mind, if they did they 
 would have asked google to take them down.
 
  I like DRM it helps to stop lazy people from getting 'creative' and 
  using yet another web 2.0 service to 'mash-up'
  everything in sight,
 
 How much do you know about basic Computer Security concepts? 
 Lazy people can bypass DRM, there are point and click methods 
 for striping DRM.
 
 Add to that the BBC are using an extremely weak DRM scheme. 
 All software DRM scheme's are crackable. We know this, it's 
 due to the workings of CPUs and the laws of mathematics, 
 mathematics won't change live with it.
 
 A DRM scheme can only be strengthened by reducing the 
 incentive to attack it as it WILL fall apart under an attack 
 by a skilled attacker.
 How do you reduce the incentive to attack the system?
 
 Well first off you make sure the minimum amount of content is 
 protected using that scheme. This means any bespoke scheme is 
 stronger than an off the shelf scheme (this is the opposite 
 of things like encryption algorithms as they are based on the 
 assumption they can not be broken and as soon as they are 
 sufficiently broken they are
 decommissioned.)
 
 Secondly you don't unnecessarily limit use. For example you 
 don't lock it to one OS.
 
 The BBC is ignoring both those facts to intentionally weaken 
 any protection and to lock out certain license fee payers. 
 Odd that they always claimed it was content producers who 
 insisted on such protections. Are the producers happy the BBC 
 is intentionally and knowingly weakening the DRM protection 
 for the purposes of a third parties financial gain 
 (Microsoft's shareholders)?
 
  the intention isn't to stop you creating your own original content 
  it's to guarantee a revenue stream for the creative types who 
  originate stuff in the first place.
 
 The intention is to block the use of non-MS products, 
 presumably somebody at the BBC holds shares in this company 
 and would like to increase there wealth. Any chance of the 
 BBC stating whether their employees are MS shareholders or not?
 
 
  I want a DRM version of iPlayer now!
 
 And I would like the BBC to comply with British and European 
 law without the need to involve regulators but the BBC refuse 
 to comply with the law.
 
 
  If it works well on Vista or XP then that's great - I'm 
 glad the BBC 
  is focusing on delivering the iPlayer on a computing platform that 
  will reach over 90% of its' target audience, that represents great 
  value for money and most people in the country probably 
 couldn't care less either way.
 
 It could have got one that worked with 100% of it's target 
 audience, and for a better value for money. Release a 
 standard for server to client interaction (including file 
 formats), use previously published standards (which I 
 helpfully listed for you). Should take less than a month.
 
 Someone will pop

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6236612.stm

The charge concerns the use of Microsoft technology in the corporation's
forthcoming iPlayer. 

On the BBC News website.  Using the meaning I said!  TYS


On 26/06/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I am also against the use of WM DRM as a matter of principle, but I think
we
all have to realise that the iPlayer trial is a closed, walled-garden
trial,
and I fully expect the setup to change once a viable alternative is
developed and brought to a quality level where it's robust enough to
handle
everything possible (including kids and grannies all using the same
service,
with their various skill levels)...

... What's that, nobody else has come up with a truly-viable open
framework-based system which is production level ready? Oh dear, best get
paying some developers then. The biggest problem I can see with an
open-standards-and-framework DRM platform is that, because it's open, by
its
very nature everybody can see its innards and the hackers have an even
easier starting point with which to break the system, because all the base
code is given to them in a silver tarball.

I'd much rather see an open, platform-agnostic DRM system for the iPlayer
than a WM DRM short-term solution, but at the end of the day the
implementation of any DRM system is a moot issue; it is all doomed to
failure. This discussion has become more embedded in the particulars of
one
scheme versus another when I think we're forgetting that the BBC is
largely
at the behest of its many rights holders - all of whom (in my opinion)
bandied together and forced the Beeb to implement a solution that suited
_them_, not the BBC or the Trust's list of requirements. They had to bend
to
the will of the rights holders and agencies, because without content, any
system will flop, regardless of whether it works on machines ranging from
your mum's XP laptop to your geeky flatmate's BSD cluster.

What's a Corporation to do?

 -Original Message-
 From: Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: 26 June 2007 17:34
 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
 Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

 On 25/06/07, Graeme Mulvaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I don't agree with piracy and it annoys the hell out of me
 when I see
  entire episodes of BBC programming published on places like YouTube

 Why does it annoy you? the BBC don't mind, if they did they
 would have asked google to take them down.

  I like DRM it helps to stop lazy people from getting 'creative' and
  using yet another web 2.0 service to 'mash-up'
  everything in sight,

 How much do you know about basic Computer Security concepts?
 Lazy people can bypass DRM, there are point and click methods
 for striping DRM.

 Add to that the BBC are using an extremely weak DRM scheme.
 All software DRM scheme's are crackable. We know this, it's
 due to the workings of CPUs and the laws of mathematics,
 mathematics won't change live with it.

 A DRM scheme can only be strengthened by reducing the
 incentive to attack it as it WILL fall apart under an attack
 by a skilled attacker.
 How do you reduce the incentive to attack the system?

 Well first off you make sure the minimum amount of content is
 protected using that scheme. This means any bespoke scheme is
 stronger than an off the shelf scheme (this is the opposite
 of things like encryption algorithms as they are based on the
 assumption they can not be broken and as soon as they are
 sufficiently broken they are
 decommissioned.)

 Secondly you don't unnecessarily limit use. For example you
 don't lock it to one OS.

 The BBC is ignoring both those facts to intentionally weaken
 any protection and to lock out certain license fee payers.
 Odd that they always claimed it was content producers who
 insisted on such protections. Are the producers happy the BBC
 is intentionally and knowingly weakening the DRM protection
 for the purposes of a third parties financial gain
 (Microsoft's shareholders)?

  the intention isn't to stop you creating your own original content
  it's to guarantee a revenue stream for the creative types who
  originate stuff in the first place.

 The intention is to block the use of non-MS products,
 presumably somebody at the BBC holds shares in this company
 and would like to increase there wealth. Any chance of the
 BBC stating whether their employees are MS shareholders or not?


  I want a DRM version of iPlayer now!

 And I would like the BBC to comply with British and European
 law without the need to involve regulators but the BBC refuse
 to comply with the law.


  If it works well on Vista or XP then that's great - I'm
 glad the BBC
  is focusing on delivering the iPlayer on a computing platform that
  will reach over 90% of its' target audience, that represents great
  value for money and most people in the country probably
 couldn't care less either way.

 It could have got one that worked with 100% of it's target
 audience, and for a better value

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised


On 26 Jun 2007, at 17:33, Andy wrote...




A lot of junk that he's ranted about before at great length,  
probably written in the typed equivalent of green ink


I would actually love you name these people at the BBC who are  
conspiring to defraud the public, because then they could sue you for  
libel and perhaps, just perhaps, that might stop you making such an  
idiot of yourself on public forums.


To put it bluntly: iPlayer supports Windows only at the moment. Get  
over it.


Can we please move on, now?
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised



On 26 Jun 2007, at 20:24, Brian Butterworth wrote:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6236612.stm

The charge concerns the use of Microsoft technology in the  
corporation's forthcoming iPlayer. 


On the BBC News website.  Using the meaning I said!  TYS


So... you're taking the writing of a non-technical journalist on BBC  
news over the words of both Ashley Highfield and someone working in  
the same team as the iPlayer/Cable project? OK! That makes sense.


Did you spend the last two hours scouring the BBC web site to find  
any reference that proves you're right? You must be right! It's all  
a conspiracy! They're trying to... erm... make things!

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

2007-06-26 Thread Martin Belam


Andy, if I had been the fool in charge of it, let me assure you by now
I would be taking legal action against your repeated public
accusations of corruption and misuse of public funds by individuals
within the BBC.


martin
currybet.net


.

On 26/06/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 25/06/07, Graeme Mulvaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I don't agree with piracy and it annoys the hell out of me when I see entire
 episodes of BBC programming published on places like YouTube

Why does it annoy you? the BBC don't mind, if they did they would have
asked google to take them down.

 I like DRM it helps to stop lazy people from
 getting 'creative' and using yet another web 2.0 service to 'mash-up'
 everything in sight,

How much do you know about basic Computer Security concepts? Lazy
people can bypass DRM, there are point and click methods for striping
DRM.

Add to that the BBC are using an extremely weak DRM scheme. All
software DRM scheme's are crackable. We know this, it's due to the
workings of CPUs and the laws of mathematics, mathematics won't change
live with it.

A DRM scheme can only be strengthened by reducing the incentive to
attack it as it WILL fall apart under an attack by a skilled attacker.
How do you reduce the incentive to attack the system?

Well first off you make sure the minimum amount of content is
protected using that scheme. This means any bespoke scheme is stronger
than an off the shelf scheme (this is the opposite of things like
encryption algorithms as they are based on the assumption they can not
be broken and as soon as they are sufficiently broken they are
decommissioned.)

Secondly you don't unnecessarily limit use. For example you don't lock
it to one OS.

The BBC is ignoring both those facts to intentionally weaken any
protection and to lock out certain license fee payers. Odd that they
always claimed it was content producers who insisted on such
protections. Are the producers happy the BBC is intentionally and
knowingly weakening the DRM protection for the purposes of a third
parties financial gain (Microsoft's shareholders)?

 the intention isn't to stop you creating your own
 original content it's to guarantee a revenue stream for the creative types
 who originate stuff in the first place.

The intention is to block the use of non-MS products, presumably
somebody at the BBC holds shares in this company and would like to
increase there wealth. Any chance of the BBC stating whether their
employees are MS shareholders or not?


 I want a DRM version of iPlayer now!

And I would like the BBC to comply with British and European law
without the need to involve regulators but the BBC refuse to comply
with the law.


 If it works well on Vista or XP then that's great - I'm glad the BBC is
 focusing on delivering the iPlayer on a computing platform that will reach
 over 90% of its' target audience, that represents great value for money and
 most people in the country probably couldn't care less either way.

It could have got one that worked with 100% of it's target audience,
and for a better value for money. Release a standard for server to
client interaction (including file formats), use previously published
standards (which I helpfully listed for you). Should take less than a
month.

Someone will pop over to sf.net and start a project wait a while and
there you get a cross platform iPlayer for no money what-so-ever. How
could you beat that?

 This has nothing to do with freedom of choice or public service remit... its
 just another woe-pen source bandwagon - instead of bickering about the BBC
 using Microsofts' DRM, get together and come up with a suitable
 open-alternative - that's why the open source movement started in the first
 place.

OpenIPMP! I mentioned it a very short while ago! Did you download it,
did you read the documentation, did you read what it provides? It
provides time constrained DRM, that's what you wanted wasn't it?

Country locking is simple to implement, assuming you used a Linux OS,
simple add a rule to block all non UK IPs to iptables. If you are
using a Windows server, don't bother with DRM someone will just hack
the server and grab the unDRMed file anyway (see metasploit for some
examples).

iPlayer has been completely mismanaged. Can the BBC confirm the fool
in charge of it has been fired? They certainly should be or does the
BBC not considered incompetence a problem?

A huge indicator that iPlayer was mismanaged is evident from the
choice of Windows Media Player. The BBC trust has told you it wants
platform neutral. Read the judgement!
When developing a cross platform application you have to be careful to
make sure you don't stupidly tie yourself to one platform. If you have
to use external libraries you make sure that:
1. It is cross platform
2. You know precisely how it works and you have all the information
needed to reimplement it (i.e. you need all the standards defined).
3. You make sure you can port it to other platforms and are legally

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised


On 26/06/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



On 26 Jun 2007, at 20:24, Brian Butterworth wrote:

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6236612.stm

 The charge concerns the use of Microsoft technology in the
 corporation's forthcoming iPlayer. 

 On the BBC News website.  Using the meaning I said!  TYS

So... you're taking the writing of a non-technical journalist on BBC
news over the words of both Ashley Highfield and someone working in
the same team as the iPlayer/Cable project? OK! That makes sense.



I was joking, obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have stuck the TYS on the
end.  In fact, if you read the article it refers to the Windows based
catchup service as the iPlayer only in the text and all the services
(excluding cable and the later services) as the iPlayer in the infobox.

In fact I should really take the BBC News website as read because it is
supposed to have gone though all those BBC jounalistics processes that take
so many talented people to invoke.

Many people I have spoken to inside and outside the BBC do indeed suggest
that Mr Highfield's comments should be taken with advice.

Prey oh exhalted one, tell me great oracle, whence is a simple licence fee
payer supposed to know whence the definition of the iPlayer product is to be
definitity found?  And also why!


Did you spend the last two hours scouring the BBC web site to find
any reference that proves you're right? You must be right! It's all
a conspiracy! They're trying to... erm... make things!

Too less than ten seconds, I have RSS feeds you know!


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial
list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/




--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised