I was trying, unsuccessfully, to change the default program for .mov files to be Mplayer instead of Movie Player: I kept getting the message 'cannot add application to application database' when I tried to change the default 'Open with' program (via right-clicking on the relevant file and selecting Properties -> Open With). Anyway, for some reason my ~/.local directory was set to root ownership. Resetting it to my user level ownership allowed me to make the change.
Ahhh, Linux: every day's a journey into the unknown :-)
Monday, May 07, 2007
Sunday, May 06, 2007
BBC. Downloads, and DRM #2
Received, to my astonishment, a response from the BBC trust re DRM. See below. Obviously, it's the content providers pushing for the DRM. Equally obviously, it's doomed to fail, like DVD regionalisation, FairPlay, the last Windows DRM Sky was using on their broadband service that got hacked...
Thank you for your email of 30 April 2007 to the BBC Trust regarding the BBC’s on-demand proposals. I am responding on behalf of the Trustees as I work in the Trust Unit which provides advice and support for the BBC Trust.
The Trust shares your view that BBC content should be available to all users, regardless of which operating system they have on their computer. Trustees noted the strength of feeling on this issue evident in the public consultation on the BBC's on-demand proposals.
As you are aware, under the BBC's current plans, one element of the on-demand proposals - catch-up television over the internet - will be available in the first instance only to users of Microsoft software. The Trust is requiring the BBC to make seven-day catch-up television available on a platform neutral basis within a reasonable timeframe.
I am sorry that you feel disappointed in the length of time required but there are real practical difficulties to achieving platform neutrality immediately.
The issue arises because of the necessity to apply digital rights management to enforce a time-based restriction on viewing. This restriction is a condition of third parties (such as independent producers and the music business) who hold rights in BBC content. Without their agreement, content could not be offered on-demand at all. Currently, only Microsoft's DRM system meets the requirement for a time-based restriction on viewing.
In order to achieve platform neutrality, the BBC is looking at possible DRM solutions which will work across different operating systems. But when these will be available is completely in the hands of the companies developing them, and not a factor the BBC can control.
So the Trust has taken the decision that, in the meantime, to allow the BBC to go ahead with seven-day catch-up television over the internet just with Microsoft DRM. The Trust's view is it is preferable to provide a service of significant public value now, to a majority of users, rather than wait until full platform neutrality can be achieved. But Trustees understand how frustrating this is in the meantime for people using other operating systems.
The Trust accepts the BBC Executive's assurance that it is fully committed to platform neutrality and working hard to achieve this. The Trust will hold the BBC Executive to account by auditing its progress every six months.
You can find more information on this issue on the Trust's website at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/closed_consultations/ondemand_pvt_faqs.html
I hope this information is useful to you.
Yours sincerely
Rebecca Asher
BBC Trust Unit
Thank you for your email of 30 April 2007 to the BBC Trust regarding the BBC’s on-demand proposals. I am responding on behalf of the Trustees as I work in the Trust Unit which provides advice and support for the BBC Trust.
The Trust shares your view that BBC content should be available to all users, regardless of which operating system they have on their computer. Trustees noted the strength of feeling on this issue evident in the public consultation on the BBC's on-demand proposals.
As you are aware, under the BBC's current plans, one element of the on-demand proposals - catch-up television over the internet - will be available in the first instance only to users of Microsoft software. The Trust is requiring the BBC to make seven-day catch-up television available on a platform neutral basis within a reasonable timeframe.
I am sorry that you feel disappointed in the length of time required but there are real practical difficulties to achieving platform neutrality immediately.
The issue arises because of the necessity to apply digital rights management to enforce a time-based restriction on viewing. This restriction is a condition of third parties (such as independent producers and the music business) who hold rights in BBC content. Without their agreement, content could not be offered on-demand at all. Currently, only Microsoft's DRM system meets the requirement for a time-based restriction on viewing.
In order to achieve platform neutrality, the BBC is looking at possible DRM solutions which will work across different operating systems. But when these will be available is completely in the hands of the companies developing them, and not a factor the BBC can control.
So the Trust has taken the decision that, in the meantime, to allow the BBC to go ahead with seven-day catch-up television over the internet just with Microsoft DRM. The Trust's view is it is preferable to provide a service of significant public value now, to a majority of users, rather than wait until full platform neutrality can be achieved. But Trustees understand how frustrating this is in the meantime for people using other operating systems.
The Trust accepts the BBC Executive's assurance that it is fully committed to platform neutrality and working hard to achieve this. The Trust will hold the BBC Executive to account by auditing its progress every six months.
You can find more information on this issue on the Trust's website at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/closed_consultations/ondemand_pvt_faqs.html
I hope this information is useful to you.
Yours sincerely
Rebecca Asher
BBC Trust Unit
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
BBC, Downloads, and DRM
Wrote to the BBC Trust yesterday complaining about their decision to make content downloads available only on Windows platforms (and only Windows XP and later!). Even though they've set a two year limit for the BBC to support other platforms, I still think it's pretty outrageous.
Anyway, on the remote chance that anyone's reading this, and the even remoter chance that they give a rat's ass about the decision, here's what I wrote.
I have been disappointed to read of the Trust's decision to back the BBC Executive's decision to apply Windows' DRM protection to catch-up TV downloads.
Although, as a Linux user, I am obviously disappointed that an institution like the BBC should be seen to be lending such high profile support Microsoft, I am more concerned that the BBC is building its on-line service rather on a foundation of sand.
The primary reason given for choosing a DRM system (i.e. to make available downloads on a fair play basis to ensure playback quality is maintained), though laudable, will almost certainly end up losing content providers - including the BBC - revenue. If the downloads are of good enough quality to be copied to DVD an played back on a TV, then they will be. There is no doubt, at all, that the Windows DRM system will be hacked/broken within a very short space of time. Microsoft has a dismal record in content protection - indeed they are unable to protect their own latest operating system from widespread piracy. To exclude a significant minority of potential on-line service users through restrictions (however temporary) to Windows Media is therefore misguided at best. It is simply amazing that the industry believes that Windows DRM will succeed where DVD protection failed.
To concentrate on the quality of playback fundamentally misunderstands why the internet catch-up service should exist. People who use the BBC's (excellent) internet radio Listen Again feature do not give two hoots about the AM quality of the audio signal, and anyone used to viewing video on YouTube, GoogleVideo and the like certainly isn't watching for the quality of the video. For on-line video, what would be prized above all would be the sheer convenience of just being able to watch a programme one thought one had missed, or had never known went out. That, and the pure serendipity of being able to browse BBC programming, maybe watch a few minutes of something before moving on. This will not be possible if one has to download a file before playing any of it out. It is a great shame to restrict the opportunities for content browsing by restricting it to a download-only service. It is almost counter to what the internet is all about.
Video streaming would have been a much better choice of delivery mechanism. The quality of the video could be considerably sacrificed to fulfil this requirement, and no-one would complain. Given that most will view it on monitors at close quarters, the video window size need only be small to be perfectly satisfactory. This would remove the need for DRM, since there would be little point recording material played out for viewing on a PC monitor since it would be all but unwatchable on a TV. It would allow the content to be available on all platforms if the MPEG-4 coding standard were chosen, which would in turn reduce the bandwidth requirements for both consumers and the BBC.
The two year window to make playout available on Apple and Linux PCs is just silly - Steve Jobs is trying to persuade industry executives to drop DRM (from audio, admittedly, but shows where his thinking lies), and Open Source Linux will never support DRM on principle - so the BBC cannot win there.
Anyway, I don't really know why I'm writing this since I doubt it will have any effect. I just wanted to let you know that I think the Trust & Executive have made a mistake, and to express my disappointment.
Anyway, on the remote chance that anyone's reading this, and the even remoter chance that they give a rat's ass about the decision, here's what I wrote.
I have been disappointed to read of the Trust's decision to back the BBC Executive's decision to apply Windows' DRM protection to catch-up TV downloads.
Although, as a Linux user, I am obviously disappointed that an institution like the BBC should be seen to be lending such high profile support Microsoft, I am more concerned that the BBC is building its on-line service rather on a foundation of sand.
The primary reason given for choosing a DRM system (i.e. to make available downloads on a fair play basis to ensure playback quality is maintained), though laudable, will almost certainly end up losing content providers - including the BBC - revenue. If the downloads are of good enough quality to be copied to DVD an played back on a TV, then they will be. There is no doubt, at all, that the Windows DRM system will be hacked/broken within a very short space of time. Microsoft has a dismal record in content protection - indeed they are unable to protect their own latest operating system from widespread piracy. To exclude a significant minority of potential on-line service users through restrictions (however temporary) to Windows Media is therefore misguided at best. It is simply amazing that the industry believes that Windows DRM will succeed where DVD protection failed.
To concentrate on the quality of playback fundamentally misunderstands why the internet catch-up service should exist. People who use the BBC's (excellent) internet radio Listen Again feature do not give two hoots about the AM quality of the audio signal, and anyone used to viewing video on YouTube, GoogleVideo and the like certainly isn't watching for the quality of the video. For on-line video, what would be prized above all would be the sheer convenience of just being able to watch a programme one thought one had missed, or had never known went out. That, and the pure serendipity of being able to browse BBC programming, maybe watch a few minutes of something before moving on. This will not be possible if one has to download a file before playing any of it out. It is a great shame to restrict the opportunities for content browsing by restricting it to a download-only service. It is almost counter to what the internet is all about.
Video streaming would have been a much better choice of delivery mechanism. The quality of the video could be considerably sacrificed to fulfil this requirement, and no-one would complain. Given that most will view it on monitors at close quarters, the video window size need only be small to be perfectly satisfactory. This would remove the need for DRM, since there would be little point recording material played out for viewing on a PC monitor since it would be all but unwatchable on a TV. It would allow the content to be available on all platforms if the MPEG-4 coding standard were chosen, which would in turn reduce the bandwidth requirements for both consumers and the BBC.
The two year window to make playout available on Apple and Linux PCs is just silly - Steve Jobs is trying to persuade industry executives to drop DRM (from audio, admittedly, but shows where his thinking lies), and Open Source Linux will never support DRM on principle - so the BBC cannot win there.
Anyway, I don't really know why I'm writing this since I doubt it will have any effect. I just wanted to let you know that I think the Trust & Executive have made a mistake, and to express my disappointment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)