« What really happened in the desert | Main | Dingaling Du Jour »
It's that they think people are too stupid to catch it.
Read this article about the latest BBC hire in the Beeb's IPlayer division.
Now, by itself, not really a big deal. Hiring someone for that post with that kind of experience makes sense. Microsoft as the source is no better or worse than Apple or Google. However, now read these three paragraphs:
A central area of potential co-operation is the BBC iPlayer project, for which the BBC Trust last week gave final approval following an open consultation. The proposition will use Microsoft Windows Media digital rights management to restrict playback of programming to within a specific time window from first transmission.In its consultation, the BBC Trust received responses from thousands of members of the public. Over 80% of them said they thought it was very important that the catch-up service was not simply limited to users of Microsoft software. The BBC Trust will require the corporation to achieve platform neutrality within a reasonable timeframe but it has not specified a timeframe.
Microsoft recently announced a new initiative, Silverlight, which will enable playback of media protected with Windows Media digital rights management on Apple OS X computers, which goes some way to providing cross-platform compatibility.
Now, I know I'm a cynic, but somehow, I'm seeing the only !MS platform support being done via Silverlight, and when Linux users who pay taxes for the Beeb get left out in the cold the Beeb will throw up its hands and say "We have to protect our IP, and Microsoft hasn't released a Linux plugin. Whattya gonna do?" When the Windows version of Silverlight gets features that "alas, require Windows", (This is speculation, based on Microsoft's rich history of fucking over the !MS OS user base with regard to Windows Media. WiMP 10/11 Mac anyone? WiMP anything Linux? Right.), the Beeb's going to say "Well, gotta have the DRM, sorry guys, go yell at Redmond."
<sigh>
The BBC should at least try to hide the degree to which they're fellating BallmerGates.
Technorati Tags: Bullshit, Microsoft, TEH STOOPUD
Posted by John C. Welch at 01:38 | Permalink
Comments
You really should change "the BBC" for "Ashley Highfield" in most of the above... the man has clearly fallen hook, line and sinker for the Redmond line on this. And there are an awful lot of people within the BBC who know just how wrong-headed he is.
Posted by: Ian Betteridge | May 8, 2007 2:38 AM
Thought about that, but if it's all about one person, then the organization will ignore it more. If people start making the BBC's corporate life suck because of this idiocy, then it's a bit harder for them to ignore it.
Posted by: John C. Welch | May 8, 2007 7:03 AM
Just playing El Pedanto for a second, but I believe the BBC isn't payed for by taxes, but by a TV license: they're not compulsory in this country (UK), although the TV License authority likes to pretend otherwise.
I don't have a TV: more accurately, I have a TV, wii, DVD player, computer, but no arial. You only legally require a license to receive transmissions. My experience of opting out of paying for one was frustrating and painful. The automatic response is to assume guilt, and they couldn't quite seem to grasp why I was frustrated by/opposed to their constant attempts to arrange an inspection of my home during my working hours.
Posted by: Tom Hillman | May 8, 2007 11:40 AM
Tom, it's "aErial". Took me a second to figure out that you weren't being hassled over a missing font :-)
I was under the impression that the Beeb was a kind of pseudo government agency and therefore at least partially tax-supported?
Posted by: John C. Welch | May 8, 2007 11:48 AM
John
The BBC is funded almost exclusively via the licence fee, with the exception of the BBC World Service.
The cost of the licence, however, _is_ set by the Government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/
The spending of this money is overseen by the BBC Trust, who are meant to check that we are getting our money's worth. :)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/
In theory, if you never watch the BBC, listen to the radio, etc. you don't have to pay the licence, as Tom implies. But good luck with that...
There is an urban myth that they find people watching without paying the fee using 'detector vans' that are packed full of electronic gizmos that can pin down an unregistered TV set to the room it's being used in; the truth in 99.9% of cases is that when you buy a TV you have to give them your name and address, and they match it up with known licence-payers in a database at the back-end.
HTH
Posted by: Andrew Warwick | May 8, 2007 1:43 PM
Thanks for the info Andrew. That's um...that's kinda fucked up. Almost like a "voluntary but not really" weird version of PBS over here.
Posted by: John C. Welch | May 8, 2007 3:54 PM
I'm actually on the BBC's side on this one. If you read through the stuff on the byzantine maze of copyright holders for the media they're streaming, you can see why they ended up making the decision they did.
Mono have already stated that they'll have a Silverlight Linux plugin
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070507-mono-developers-to-bring-silverlight-to-linux.html
Posted by: Nigel Kersten | May 8, 2007 10:55 PM
(Aerial - thanks, John, I knew I was getting it wrong, but couldn't quite get there)
I'd like to say that I think the BBC's funding structure, whilst wierd as hell, is actually a fantastically good thing. It keeps them free of commercial interest (apart from their own: self-fluffing adverts and sound bites seem to abound on the radio (which I listen to at work, not at home ;) )). What I do think is dodgy is the presumed-guilty attitude the licensing authority have.
Posted by: Tom Hillman | May 9, 2007 11:04 AM
I know about the Mono work Nigel, however, that creates some questions:
1) Will the plugin require Mono? It shouldn't, but that's not clear.
2) What's the delta between MS releasing new versions, (Which I have EXTREME doubts about for !MS platforms), and releasing the new source for those versions, and then what's the delta for the new Mono release?
3) Support sources?
4) What happens when, (yes, i'm cynical), MS starts pumping up the Windows Silverlight featureset, and somehow, none of those make it out to the public code or the !MS versions? WM and !MS have not been a great idea in MS's view.
There's a TON of issues with silverlight that make it something that I'd not recommend spending any real time or money on until MS's shown that it's going to survive for more than one initial GM release.
Posted by: John C. Welch | May 10, 2007 11:04 AM
