Presumably they shut down RTMP streams because open source clients were delivering content outside the UK. Seems reasonable to me.
BBC is state funded so it should be easier for it (easier than for a for profit company like GOG) to not be evil.
In fact, internal systems already exist for accessing any BBC programme from the last (n) years. There's also a system for schools and universities that gives you access to the last year or so of programming. It's pressures from external production companies that prevent these from being rolled out to the public.
However, there will always be rights issues until the state has complete ownership over all TV production - which is never going to happen.
(Also - what's 'evil' about content creators wanting to protect their intellectual property and income?)
What exactly is DRM protecting them against? It's not geo-blocking, that's done on the server. There's no "download button" that suddenly appears on iPlayer if the content isn't encrypted. So please remind me what protective benefits DRM brings the rights holders and content creators?
Keep in mind, it's trivial to screen capture video on any half-decent computer. Anyone "determined" enough simply needs screen capture software and then hit record.
I can't find stats on it. Can anyone else?
Shows like Gardeners Question Time (GQT) are stalwarts of BBC programming. The BBC could easily produce it, or commission it from a production company on the basis that it's made direct in to the public domain [in copyright terms]. But that would presumably result in less money to the producers/talent.
There was scandal some time back that BBC were paying "talent" upwards of £1 million per series to do a single show a week. Thing is at the time the talent of course were also the owners of the production company for their show and so the BBC were paying their company some greater amount. The BBC promotion of such independent production companies makes them world ranking sellers whilst there seems no reason that such shows couldn't be produced with only a name change and done under the BBC as producer.
Shows like Graham Norton aren't exactly ground breaking, you get an ex-hospital radio presenter (or whoever) to chat inanely with people who are there to popularise their latest book; you get the interviews because who doesn't want to advertise their film on primetime BBC, it's not rocket science. Why can't the BBC own a show like that? Why isn't Mr Norton, or whoever, employed by the BBC and hired out if they're in demand for other shows?
In short it all seems like a huge nepotistic mess of old-boy networks, and smoke and mirrors rather than a corporation that works for the people using their taxes and license fee money. As if the divisional managers in a corporation got together and said, hangabout we can make our divisions private enterprises and charge the parent company double to do what we do now??
But I'm probably completely mistaken ...