Re: So what does this really mean

[Alan Milewczyk]

On 16/09/16 22:30, David Cantrell wrote:

On 2016-09-16, 21:03, michael norman wrote:


Are we not OT with this ?


Hi, welcome to the internet. It's a place where people talk about 
things and there is topic drift. I'm afraid that if you don't learn to 
put up with it you're going to get very upset very quickly.


(Why is this the only one out of hundreds of mailing lists I'm on 
where people care so much about topic drift?)



Because some people are just too anal about some things? ;-)

It's a bit rich of the complainant as his comment encouraged some of the 
OT comment, although it's probably OK if it's from him! :-(


Happy weekend all.

A


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: So what does this really mean

[RS]

From: David Cantrell



Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 20:44


Have you seen the quality of TV programming in Italian and German? THAT is 
why they want English content, and also why their own content is not worth 
protecting.


Yes, although only FTA.  I don't agree that it is all bad or even mainly 
bad, and in German the choice is wide.  However if there is such an EU-wide 
demand for English language television let's fund it on an EU-wide basis. 




___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Audio encoding changed, truncated audio files

[RS]

From: Vangelis forthnet



Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 23:53



Interestingly, all the HAF modes have been removed.



NO, they have not! You are using GiP 2.95, the "haf"
radiomodes were implemented in 2.96+ :



https://github.com/get-iplayer/get_iplayer/wiki/release296#3-combined-dash-haf-and-hlsaac-modes-now-default-for-radio-programmes-dash-preferred



ergo:

[therefore for those who don't speak Latin]

perl get_iplayer-296w.pl --type=radio --pid=p045j35r -i | FindStr "modes:"


modes:  original: 
dashhigh1,dashhigh2,dashstd1,dashstd2,dashmed1,dashmed

2,dashlow1,dashlow2,flashaacstd1,flashaacstd2,flashaaclow1,flashaaclow2,hafhigh1

,hafhigh2,hafstd1,hafstd2,hafmed1,hafmed2,haflow1,haflow2,hlsaacstd1,hlsaaclow1



whereas:



perl get_iplayer-295.pl --type=radio --pid=p045j35r -i | FindStr "modes:"


modes:  original: 
dashhigh1,dashhigh2,dashstd1,dashstd2,dashmed1,dashmed

2,dashlow1,dashlow2,flashstd1,flashstd2,flashlow1,flashlow2,hlsstd1,hlsstd2,hlss
td3,hlslow1


Thank you for clarifying this.  I had thought v2.96 was mainly about 
changing defaults.  I thought it had caused a lot of unnecessary confusion, 
and I don't like the idea of removing Flash support in v2.97, and that is 
the reason I have stayed with v2.95.


When I read your analysis and looked again at the v2.96 release notes I 
concluded that HAF support was new in v2.96 and that was something I had 
missed and that was the reason I had been unable to see the HAF modes 
with --info.


Re-reading the release notes yet again I realised that I had still got it 
wrong.  What has happened (I think) is that for radio HLS has been renamed 
HAF, but for television it is still HLS.  That does not explain why I could 
not see what v2.96 calls hafhigh as hlshigh in v2.95, or what hlsaacstd and 
hlsaaclow mean in v2.96, except they are said to be old HLS audio modes 
required for clips.


Maybe I am just more stupid than all the other readers of the list and 
everyone else understands it perfectly.  Even so, I have to ask for whose 
benefit these changes are being made.


I also did not understand the argument that removing the aactomp3 option 
made maintenance easier.  It was not many lines of code.  The --command 
and --preset alternatives are more transparent, but why should users be put 
to the inconvenience of changing?



The "timeadded" part actually informs you
of when that specific audio programme first
populated your local "radio.cache" file;
it has nothing to do with the actual time
that audio file was uploaded/modified
by the BBC on their CDNs!
E.g., if I "--info" on my machine:



perl get_iplayer-296w.pl --type=radio --pid=p045j35r -i | FindStr timeadded



I get:



timeadded: 10 days 20 hours ago (2016-09-04T02:18:08+00:00)



(this specific radio show was
firstbcast: original: 2016-09-03T06:00:00+01:00)


Yes, I have misunderstood timeadded.  If I had thought it through properly, 
if it had been edited the version would be editorial rather than original. 
I am not sure why I would want to know when an entry was added to the cache. 
However mixing up metadata generated by the BBC with records of functions 
perfomed by get_iplayer in a notation used by the BBC is a recipe for 
confusion.


There is a saying, "Don't shoot the messenger ..."  As always I am grateful 
to you for explaining it all to me.  Please don't think for a moment that I 
am criticising you.





___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: So what does this really mean

[Roger Bell_West]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:30:39PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
>(Why is this the only one out of hundreds of mailing lists I'm on where
>people care so much about topic drift?)

You've asked this before. I can only assume you mostly favour lists
that encourage general chat as well as the subject they're about.

Your experience is not mine.

R

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: So what does this really mean

[David Cantrell]

On 2016-09-16, 21:03, michael norman wrote:


Are we not OT with this ?


Hi, welcome to the internet. It's a place where people talk about things 
and there is topic drift. I'm afraid that if you don't learn to put up 
with it you're going to get very upset very quickly.


(Why is this the only one out of hundreds of mailing lists I'm on where 
people care so much about topic drift?)


--
David Cantrell | Pope | First Church of the Symmetrical Internet

People from my sort of background needed grammar schools to
compete with children from privileged homes like ... Tony Benn
 -- Margaret Thatcher

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: So what does this really mean

[michael norman]

On 16/09/16 20:44, David Cantrell wrote:

On 2016-09-16, 19:16, RS wrote:


I am not convinced by the argument that European copyright licences
would be much more expensive because 38% of the EU population speak
English as an additional language.   People want to watch television in
their mother tongue.  13% of the EU population have English as their
mother tongue, the same as Italian.  For German the figure is 18%.
German broadcasters are very liberal at making their television channels
freely available.  The Italians make SD RA1, RAI2 and RAI3 available
unencrypted.


Have you seen the quality of TV programming in Italian and German? THAT
is why they want English content, and also why their own content is not
worth protecting.

At the risk of being told some people don't want to live in the country 
as me, exactly what does this have to do with GIP even tangentially ?  I 
thought we were discussing access to BBC content ?


Are we not OT with this ?

I just ask.

M

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: So what does this really mean

[David Cantrell]

On 2016-09-16, 19:16, RS wrote:


I am not convinced by the argument that European copyright licences
would be much more expensive because 38% of the EU population speak
English as an additional language.   People want to watch television in
their mother tongue.  13% of the EU population have English as their
mother tongue, the same as Italian.  For German the figure is 18%.
German broadcasters are very liberal at making their television channels
freely available.  The Italians make SD RA1, RAI2 and RAI3 available
unencrypted.


Have you seen the quality of TV programming in Italian and German? THAT 
is why they want English content, and also why their own content is not 
worth protecting.


--
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig

  NANOG makes me want to unplug everything and hide under the bed
-- brian d foy

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: So what does this really mean

[RS]

   From: Jim web
   Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 18:03



One hope of remaining in the EU is that the EU has been moving towards a
'no boarders' approach to broadcasting.


Unfortunately the Television without Frontiers Directive does not go far 
enough.  Even so, as a national broadcaster funded by what is in effect 
although not in law a tax, the BBC ought to be upholding the law.  To agree 
national copyright licences is an unlawful partitioning of the Single 
Market.  Far from promoting the Single Market, the UK broadcasters have been 
going in the opposite direction by leasing satellite transponders with 
narrower and narrower beams.


I am not convinced by the argument that European copyright licences would be 
much more expensive because 38% of the EU population speak English as an 
additional language.   People want to watch television in their mother 
tongue.  13% of the EU population have English as their mother tongue, the 
same as Italian.  For German the figure is 18%.  German broadcasters are 
very liberal at making their television channels freely available.  The 
Italians make SD RA1, RAI2 and RAI3 available unencrypted.






___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: So what does this really mean

[Jim web]

In article <20160916160554.ga26...@bytemark.barnyard.co.uk>, David
Cantrell  wrote:


> If a tiny number of geeks can circumvent the restrictions by using VPNs,
> or hiring a server in the UK, or using VLC to watch a DVD, that really
> doesn't matter. What matters is blocking the masses.

Yes. And blocking mass copying of any material. Although that can be
detected by other means. But everyong involved knows perfectly well that
some 'leakage' will occur. It simply isn't practical or cost effective to
try to block *all* unlicensed access. Just to keep the levels down to what
is low enough to avoid it causing the BBC problems.

FWIW the people I know who live outwith the UK would be happy to pay the
fee for full access to the BBC as within the UK. And people I know inside
the BBC would be pleased if this could be arranged. Might significantly
increase their income. But at present the BBC aren't *allowed* to do this. 

One hope of remaining in the EU is that the EU has been moving towards a
'no boarders' approach to broadcasting. This is the stop companies like
Sky, etc, from charging people different amounts in different locations.
The change would probably have allowed the BBC to choose to offer access to
people across Europe in exchange for paying the fee. However this
presumably can't happen because the BBC will be excluded.

All still OT, though. 8-]

Jim

-- 
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: So what does this really mean

[David Cantrell]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 04:39:53PM +0200, Dave Widgery wrote:

> I realise that there is are rites issues and it is not just the BBC or tv, 
> they tried region coding dvds it doesn't work, with gobal movement of people 
> the whole rites thing needs a rethink.

Actually it does work. It doesn't need to be 100% effective, it just
needs to be *sufficiently* effective.

Many years ago, for example, I worked for the BBC on some very early
Olympic online streaming. The International Olympic Committee were happy
if our geographic blocking had an error rate of 10%. That is, if someone
from outside the area we had rights for tried to access it they were
happy with a 90% change of them being blocked.

If a tiny number of geeks can circumvent the restrictions by using VPNs,
or hiring a server in the UK, or using VLC to watch a DVD, that really
doesn't matter. What matters is blocking the masses.

-- 
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

There is no one true indentation style,
But if there were K would be Its Prophets.
Peace be upon Their Holy Beards.

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: So what does this really mean

[Paul Thornett]

"I find your idea of all these expats who would pay for the BBC or
anything else quite risible.  These are the same people who have left
UK to avoid paying irritating things like taxes and BBC licence fees."
Actually, many of us married people from overseas; then it becomes a
difficult decision as to which country to live in. I find the
assertion contained in Michael Norman's statement above totally
offensive.
Mind you, a country filled with people of his ilk is not one I would
wish to live in.

Regards,

Paul Thornett


On 17 September 2016 at 01:21, michael norman  wrote:
> Rites ? What ? Rights surely.
>
> Strikes me all the BBC is trying to do is make sure, on trust, that those
> who access its content pay for it.
>
> The BBC pays for rights to its programming same as any other broadcaster
> does one way or another, that has to be paid for.  Worldwide rights are not
> available in any universe I can think of.
>
> I find your idea of all these expats who would pay for the BBC or anything
> else quite risible.  These are the same people who have left UK to avoid
> paying irritating things like taxes and BBC licence fees.
>
> M
>
> On 16/09/16 15:39, Dave Widgery wrote:
>>
>> I realise that there is are rites issues and it is not just the BBC or tv,
>> they tried region coding dvds it doesn't work, with gobal movement of people
>> the whole rites thing needs a rethink.
>>
>> But none the less I am sure some accommodation could be included in the
>> rites to allow nationals of the country that have been granted the rites to
>> have access to the programming even if they currently aren't in the
>> territory of the county in question at the time.
>>
>> On 16 September 2016 16:11:12 CEST, Dave Liquorice 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:51:00 +0200, Dave Widgery wrote:
>>>
 Whatever blocks the bbc and other broadcasters put there will always
>>>
>>> be a

 way past the system,  so why not accept this and look at ways to
>>>
>>> increase

 revenue from the millions of British people who would quite happily
 contribute but forced to find ways around the system if they want
>>>
>>> quality

 tv.
>>>
>>>
>>> One word "rights".
>>>
>>> I wonder how much the BBC would have to spend to get worldwide rights
>>> on all
>>> their content? Assuming the worldwide rights are available in the first
>>>
>>> place.
>>>
>>> I wonder how much the BBC would have to pay in rights violations if
>>> they
>>> didn't get worldwide rights?
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> get_iplayer mailing list
> get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: So what does this really mean

[michael norman]

Rites ? What ? Rights surely.

Strikes me all the BBC is trying to do is make sure, on trust, that 
those who access its content pay for it.


The BBC pays for rights to its programming same as any other broadcaster 
does one way or another, that has to be paid for.  Worldwide rights are 
not available in any universe I can think of.


I find your idea of all these expats who would pay for the BBC or 
anything else quite risible.  These are the same people who have left UK 
to avoid paying irritating things like taxes and BBC licence fees.


M

On 16/09/16 15:39, Dave Widgery wrote:

I realise that there is are rites issues and it is not just the BBC or tv, they 
tried region coding dvds it doesn't work, with gobal movement of people the 
whole rites thing needs a rethink.

But none the less I am sure some accommodation could be included in the rites 
to allow nationals of the country that have been granted the rites to have 
access to the programming even if they currently aren't in the territory of the 
county in question at the time.

On 16 September 2016 16:11:12 CEST, Dave Liquorice  wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:51:00 +0200, Dave Widgery wrote:


Whatever blocks the bbc and other broadcasters put there will always

be a

way past the system,  so why not accept this and look at ways to

increase

revenue from the millions of British people who would quite happily
contribute but forced to find ways around the system if they want

quality

tv.


One word "rights".

I wonder how much the BBC would have to spend to get worldwide rights
on all
their content? Assuming the worldwide rights are available in the first

place.

I wonder how much the BBC would have to pay in rights violations if
they
didn't get worldwide rights?





___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

RE: So what does this really mean

[Dave Widgery]

I realise that there is are rites issues and it is not just the BBC or tv, they 
tried region coding dvds it doesn't work, with gobal movement of people the 
whole rites thing needs a rethink.

But none the less I am sure some accommodation could be included in the rites 
to allow nationals of the country that have been granted the rites to have 
access to the programming even if they currently aren't in the territory of the 
county in question at the time.

On 16 September 2016 16:11:12 CEST, Dave Liquorice  wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:51:00 +0200, Dave Widgery wrote:
>
>> Whatever blocks the bbc and other broadcasters put there will always
>be a 
>> way past the system,  so why not accept this and look at ways to
>increase 
>> revenue from the millions of British people who would quite happily 
>> contribute but forced to find ways around the system if they want
>quality 
>> tv.
>
>One word "rights". 
>
>I wonder how much the BBC would have to spend to get worldwide rights
>on all 
>their content? Assuming the worldwide rights are available in the first
>
>place.
>
>I wonder how much the BBC would have to pay in rights violations if
>they 
>didn't get worldwide rights?

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

RE: So what does this really mean

[Dave Liquorice]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:51:00 +0200, Dave Widgery wrote:

> Whatever blocks the bbc and other broadcasters put there will always be a 
> way past the system,  so why not accept this and look at ways to increase 
> revenue from the millions of British people who would quite happily 
> contribute but forced to find ways around the system if they want quality 
> tv.

One word "rights". 

I wonder how much the BBC would have to spend to get worldwide rights on all 
their content? Assuming the worldwide rights are available in the first 
place.

I wonder how much the BBC would have to pay in rights violations if they 
didn't get worldwide rights?

-- 
Cheers
Dave.



___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: So what does this really mean

[Jim web]

In article <975c5a4d-a8e2-46cc-83f2-d33f9024e...@gmail.com>, Dave
Widgery
 wrote:
> I just wish the bbc would stop wasting money trying to stop the
> unstoppable

They know full well that they can't ensure total compliance, and that real
life is complex. Their aim is to ensure people have been told, and to
minimise the levels of dodging to the point where it has little impact.

Frankly, if someone wants to watch the BBC TV output they should pay if
they can. I am a keen supporter of the 'free' software, etc, movement. But
the point there is that the authors, etc, *intend* the output to be free.
Whereas the BBC relies on the Fee to pay for it's operations and generation
of the content.

However this is really OT, and old ground being reploughed...

Jim

-- 
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

RE: So what does this really mean

[Dave Widgery]

I just wish the bbc would stop wasting money trying to stop the unstoppable, ex 
pats who are not allowed to pay for a licence and I think the majority would, 
and the people who pay for a licence but spend many months of the year abroad 
who are denied access to tv that they pay for.

Whatever blocks the bbc and other broadcasters put there will always be a way 
past the system,  so why not accept this and look at ways to increase revenue 
from the millions of British people who would quite happily contribute but 
forced to find ways around the system if they want quality tv.

Dave

On 16 September 2016 09:03:57 CEST, Simon Morgan  wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org] On
>> Behalf Of The Kernel
>> Sent: 16 September 2016 05:45
>> To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
>> Subject: Re: So what does this really mean
>> 
>> On 15/09/16 15:23, Simon Morgan wrote:
>> > However it isn't a requirement to have a licence for on-demand
>> > ITVPlayer programmes or other sources such as Netflix.
>> 
>> My point exactly
>> And that really the detail is unclear
>> And quite frankly, enforcement will be near impossible in some cases
>> 
>
>Well the detail is clear enough for me - I need (and have) a licence.
>Enforcement is altogether a different matter. While there are veiled
>talks
>about techniques being developed, in reality it relies on honesty which
>may
>be a commodity in short supply.
>
>If there was to be some form of logon required for online access then
>one
>would hope that the developers of get_iplayer could accommodate this.
>
>Rgds
>Simon Morgan
>
>
>___
>get_iplayer mailing list
>get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
>http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

RE: So what does this really mean

[Simon Morgan]

> -Original Message-
> From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org] On
> Behalf Of The Kernel
> Sent: 16 September 2016 05:45
> To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: So what does this really mean
> 
> On 15/09/16 15:23, Simon Morgan wrote:
> > However it isn't a requirement to have a licence for on-demand
> > ITVPlayer programmes or other sources such as Netflix.
> 
> My point exactly
> And that really the detail is unclear
> And quite frankly, enforcement will be near impossible in some cases
> 

Well the detail is clear enough for me - I need (and have) a licence.
Enforcement is altogether a different matter. While there are veiled talks
about techniques being developed, in reality it relies on honesty which may
be a commodity in short supply.

If there was to be some form of logon required for online access then one
would hope that the developers of get_iplayer could accommodate this.

Rgds
Simon Morgan


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer