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.