As a British citizen, part of my national identity is associated with the BBC. Being an institution, the BBC is known for its size, cutting-edge journalism (such as Planet Earth) and extensive use of technology – both with open and closed (proprietary) solutions. Indeed, it has used Unix throughout its backbone IT services for years (and perhaps recently GNU/Linux too) so it is not a stranger to the better solutions in IT (biased opinion free of charge). Recently, the Digital TV market here in the UK has taken off, and the ‘new kid on the block’, is On-Demand TV. As you may know, Channel 4 has recently released its On-Demand service (named 4-OD) and in obvious fashion, the BBC has for a while been investigating its choices in the On-Demand front.
There area a lot of decisions involved in organising such a service, but one that interests me is the choice of format the BBC service will use to provide the Video to PC users. As it stands, the BBC is deciding to use DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) techniques to control the use of content provided by its On-Demand service (source: BBC Trust On-Demand Consultation). Furthermore, it has been stated that in order for the BBC’s ‘iPlayer’ (the application used to stream and view the BBC’s On-Demand content) will have the following system requirements (source: BBC Governor’s Archive [PDF]):
- Windows XP
- Windows Media Player 10 (thus, Windows DRM 10)
I don’t like this, one bit. As a GNU/Linux user, I am unable (as well as unhappy) to have to use Windows Media Player (Microsoft’s unreliable and DRM ridden video & audio player). This doesn’t stop here, either. If you’re a Mac user, you’re outta luck too. You can’t use Windows Media Player either (why would you want to?) and this means we’ll be left high and dry when the BBC’s On-Demand services are available.
This isn’t as shallow as not being able to use the ‘iPlayer’ (Apple rip-off anyone?) either. It’s about freedom of choice. It’s about not having to use one operating system because the content I want to view, won’t allow me to. Perhaps the biggest gripe of mine on this subject is that it’s the BBC – that wonderfully talented, highly respected, age-old organisation – that are suggesting this. For me the BBC is more than this. It is public sector. It stands for the public interests. It is paid for by the British (law-abiding) public – including myself.
There are media formats that can be used that would not use DRM (no-one likes DRM, even Steve Jobs, the Apple CEO). OGG Vorbis, the FOSS audio format could be used to provide audio. The BBC has its own open source video codec, named Dirac, in development – so why not use this? They do realise that as soon as they release restricted content through Windows Media, it’ll be cracked immediately. Right?
I am already frustrated enough as a non-windows user as the content currently provided by the BBC (such as news streams and radio archive) is offered only in Real Player format. This is a horrible piece of software (again, biased opinion free of charge), which is similar to Windows Media Player – bloated, unreliable and furthermore, proprietary. The Linux client is worse even; it doesn’t run on 64bit architectures very well which means i’m outta luck again.
If you’re a non FOSS advocate reading this, I bet you’re thinking “well it’s your choice to use non-mainstream software and operating systems” – wrong! My choice of operating system and web browser should not hinder my online experience. I should be able to view anything, regardless of codec. I can view images and read text can’t I? Why should video and audio be any different? The answer is that companies such as Microsoft are using their industry leverage and cashflow to encourage organisations like the BBC into using their codecs for the bigger picture. That is, if the majority use proprietary codecs it’ll keep the fat-cats in the Movie industry happy (they seem to think DRM means their movies won’t get pirated – wrong angle, try working WITH the pirates…). Secondly, GNU/Linux doesn’t get its desktop usage because the codecs are closed standards, which means it takes more time for the changes to be reverse engineered and then programmed. Last, but certainly not least: Microsoft get to boast about who uses the software, which in turn boosts adoption – which lets them boast which…you get the idea. Basically, it increases their chances of a monopoly.
So, what’s the situation? Well, all in all I feel as a paying customer, the BBC is not taking my interests (and those of countless other non-Windows users) into account. According to Linux Journal, non-Windows users make up 25% of the BBC’s users – isn’t that bad business sense?
If worse comes to worse, i’ve decided i’ll cancel my TV License Direct Debit and keep the TV unplugged. Afterall, I have cable in my shared accommodation.
I love the BBC, but not that much.
(This site is now result 10 when you search the web for placid through Google!)
2 Comments
Actually Placid, the decision to use MS mediaplayer formats wouldn’t be so bad: mplayer does an excellent job of playing said content(as long as it isn’t DRMed). however, after a quick view of the site, i noticed that the links use a java script redirection and don’t actually link directly to the media files, making it somewhat rather difficult to use mplayer. even my firefox extension for downloading flash content from pages was of no help(it only showed me the js link).
indeed, earlier this evening i hit up NBC’s (National Broadcasting Company, a major network here in the land of the yanks) and was very much surprised i was actually able to watch the episodes on the site in firefox on my debian workstation(my last attempt some couple of months ago was rather fruitless :/ ).
Now, about Jobs, i have to take his public statement with a grain of salt: it’s easy to complain someone else has forced you to place DRM on music files when you have an almost-monopoly on downloadable music, and often, shifting blame onto another entity is indeed a common business practice here in the states.
Mr. Gates, on the other hand, has publicly stated some couple years ago that the next version of the windows operating system(if you can all it that) would be a “Dgital Rights Management Platform” and it has manifested as Vista(wow).
i hate to say it mate, but FOSS’ only salvation is going to be Microsoft’s ever-increasing draconian measures (cue star wars jokes about the more the emperor squeezes…). it is going to require the masses finally realizing that they are no longer in control of what they thought was their rightful property before a critical mass is reached and they start to consider alternatives.
the only things that those of us who have already moved on to, how did you put it? ah yes, better IT solutions are things such as:
-refraining from buying that windows only game and keeping that windows partition around for just such occasions(although, logically, if one thinks about it, if all one uses one’s computer for is a toy, well then hey, windows is perfect for you)
-refusing to run windows software such as Microsoft Offal, erm i mean Office, with WINE(although i can understand that at times there are legitimate reasons to do so)
-don’t pirate software, especially microsoft products. high rates of pirated MS software implies there is a demand for it. when i used to pirate software years ago(before i turned away from the dark side), i did so not because of the actual software, but because of the software’s perceived value(if it cost more i wanted it; the more expensive it was raised my status among my peers). but this works two ways: if we wish for corporations to respect the copyright terms set out by OSI approved licenses, then we ourselves should respect the copyright(s) of closed source houses and allow them to either adapt to the changing software landscape or go the way of the dodo bird.
-have the courage to stand by these principles and convictions(i make my family pay for any MS software they want installed so that they will understand the costs involved with such proprietary software and i encourage them to read the EULAs that accompany said applications so they are aware of what rights they have just had taken away from them). If we as community say one thing and yet our actions are another, then, again, we give legitimacy to a broken development model and software that is intentionally defective by design.
if we wish for a freer Information Society, then we must be willing to make some sacrifices. we must be willing to deny ourselves something in the hope that one day we may have that something without being told how we can use it.
in closing, i’d like to leave you all with something to ponder which i myself have found to be very profound:
Beware he that would withhold Information/Knowledge from thee, for in his heart he doth dream himself thy master.
Algorn, Thanks for the reply.
I think you almost proved my point yourself with regards to mplayer & BBC content. I know I can use mplayer (perhaps the best piece of software ever written? :) ) as, but as you said yourself “as long as it isn’t DRMed” – I rest my case on that one.
My gripe isn’t with using the ‘iPlayer’, but with the content that the iPlayer provides. As I have previously stated, the player will require Windows & Windows Media – both of which are technologies I do not wish to use.
Jobs’ statement is of course a dumpy subject. He wouldn’t say it if he really though anyone would react. In all fairness, it has: http://defectivebydesign.org/actions/open_letter/steve_jobs.
Who better to quote when you’re making a point than an industry leader? :)
Anyone who reads EFF or RMS’ stories would know that Vista was really about DRM – one big set of shackles for the user, as it were. To enforce the use of WM & XP from the BBC means they’re technically endorsing these corporate approaches (OK that’s a nice take on it, in fairness they’re probably doing this because they know the majority of their audience uses Windows) – but it’s this sort of angle I don’t want associated with the BBC. It’s a broadcasting (albeit the top of) corporation, publicly funded; which means it should take an approach to services that all its customers can benefit from. Again, my choice of operating system and web browser should not determine what I can and cannot use (let’s face it, the BBC apparently has quite a lovely relationship with MS, which means they have a vested interest in this format decision). Without sound like a broken record: I can read the text, see the images and click the links under Linux; what’s different about audio & video (apart from teh fat-cats and their copyrights). There’s money to be made with audio & video, so that’s why we’ve arrived at these crossroads I believe.
YES this is a double-edged sword. Whilst I should be respected as a user of alternative software, I should also respect the rights of the artists and their work (that includes music & TV shows) – but not at the extent of me just wanting to sit down for half an hour, and watch a rerun of my favourite ‘Little Britain’ episode!
“Beware he that would withhold Information/Knowledge from thee, for in his heart he doth dream himself thy master.” – i’ll remember that quote, it’s awesome.
Thanks for reading :)
Post a Comment