BBC blocks open source video players | Hacker News Reader

BBC blocks open source video players

arstechnica.com

40 pointsanigbrowl15 comments

Isn't the BBC funded by the taxpayer? Is it even legal to block the public from receiving something they paid for? Seems like flash is forcing them to go against their charter.

EDIT: Yup, definitely against its charter. I think its reasonably practical to provide a streaming method other than flash. Right now there is one way to access streaming content, not a "range of ways".

"The BBC must do all that is reasonably practicable to ensure that viewers, listeners and other users (as the case may be) are able to access the UK Public Services that are intended for them, or elements of their content, in a range of convenient and cost effective ways which are available or might become available in the future. These could include (for example) broadcasting, streaming or making content available on-demand, whether by terrestrial, satellite, cable or broadband networks (fixed or wireless) or via the internet." [1]

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_...

A rather pointless action considering that they host DRM-free H.264 versions of the same videos that are trivially downloadable (they're used on the iPhone site).

All of the files are downloadable and free of DRM. This only affects people trying to watch live via non-adobe software. Who have now all found out that it's better to just download and totally ignore the limitations imposed by the BBC.

Very nice when combined with the mandatory TV-licensing fees that the BBC gets. Might as well just cut out the middleman and give your money right to Adobe.

I don't know the details of the streaming algorithm, but if a key is only needed at the beginning, why not setup a web service that lets a real Flash client running in a VM handle starting the stream? A Free player would query this webservice (perhaps multiple times) to get the right keys, and then just stream manually.

Or, just download the TV show off Bittorrent or Usenet instead of getting it legally. (LOL @ anti-piracy measures. Have any ever worked?)

Come on. The BBC is ridiculously good value for money. I'd happily pay 10 times the license fee. If they want to waste a miniscule proportion of it on Adobe, I'll let them off that one.

It takes a 2 second search on google to find out how to download videos from iplayer (The H.264 versions they host).

The TV license is already £142 a year, or about £12 a month. I think even that is expensive never mind suggesting paying them £120 a month whether you watch the BBC channels or not.

When you compare what you get from Sky (if you are into sports and movies and the US shows on Sky 1), the BBC license fee is steep enough.

That said, they do provide a good service, and wouldn't be able to if it was not for the license fee model, but it does annoy me that I cannot opt out of watching BBC and waive the license fee and yet still watch Sky Sports becasue its a against the law!

> I'd happily pay 10 times the license fee.

What's stopping you?

Seriously.

I'm pretty sure that they'd take more money. Or, you could pay the tax for some folks who owe the tax but doesn't watch the BBC.

Meh, just grab http://github.com/threedaymonk/iplayer-dl and then download anything from iPlayer that you want in an open(ish) format (MPEG 4 or MP3).

DMCA takedown notices? Why can't such software simply be hosted and run outside the US? I'm in Ukraine, for example, and I'd be happy to host any DMCA-violating software.

The U.S. DMCA seems have been causing enough trouble of unnecessary kind that I'm seriously wondering about that, too.

By now, there should have been at least one web service for hosting software threatened by DMCA, possibly distributed over a number of countries with reasonable copyright legislation.

What's the catch?

At least on Linux, the original Flash plugin simply writes the .flv video file to

  /tmp/Flash*

where I've successfully just cp'ied to some other place anything I've ever wanted.

another reason to not like flash.

Flash becomes the enemy when they add anti-download features in response to what the industry wants?

I think it's the baseless threats of lawsuits against those implementing something that is claimed to be an open spec that puts them in that category.

Flash isn't the enemy. Flash is just an enemy-sympathizer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com