The Free Software Foundation (FSF), a Boston-based open source software lobby group, is planning to petition British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to highlight the role of software giant Microsoft Corp. in the British Broadcasting Corporation's digital media strategy; this move comes as concern slowly mounts amongst software developers, rival technology firms and broadcasters about the MS's role in the development of digital media services at the BBC, which is funded by a universal license fee in Great Britain and is required to provide "public service" programs and services. The iPlayer, BBC's on-demand Internet TV software launched only July 27, 2007, came under great criticism for being Windows XP only, though the BBC promises that the player will eventually be available on other platforms including Linux and Apple's OSX.
In a statement by the FSF, the lobby alleges that "the BBC should have chosen free and open standards that work well and are available today. They should have chosen off-the-shelf software that costs nothing and that you have complete control over. Instead, they have given Microsoft complete control. BBC programming is in the hands of a U.S.-based corporation, and the BBC has given up the fight for open access."
In a statement by the FSF, the lobby alleges that "the BBC should have chosen free and open standards that work well and are available today. They should have chosen off-the-shelf software that costs nothing and that you have complete control over. Instead, they have given Microsoft complete control. BBC programming is in the hands of a U.S.-based corporation, and the BBC has given up the fight for open access."
However, the BBC says that in order to guarantee that the rights of third-party producers making programs and services for the BBC are protected, it must employ digital rights management, stating that "a third of our programming is made by independent producers who insist that we protect (their intellectual property) because their future depends on distributing it outside the seven-day rights window. The same goes for BBC-originated content, allowing us to maximize value for money to license payers. The BBC must strike a balance between providing free access as part of the service funded by the license fee, and exploiting the secondary value of the content commercially in order to generate revenue to invest back into services that benefit the license payer."
The FSF has posted a petition, which has already garnered over 13,000 signatures, on the Prime Minister's website and plans to mount protests outside two BBC offices next week. The lobby wants a total break in ties between the Microsoft and the BBC. MS has not yet commented on the petition.
View: Full Story on SiliconValley.com
The BBC obviously feels the need to protect the large amount of content (very good content) that they produce each year while still being able to provide an open service.
Even though the system may have started with Windows XP only (It is the most used operating system on the planet, right?) the system will eventually be opened up to other platforms. And Microsoft are hurting themselves as well - Windows XP only (what about Vista?)
I should also like to point out that the Free Software Foundation comes from Boston and is an American lobby group. I think the British can take care of themselves without other countries trying to interfere with services offered by their OWN government!!!
If the BBC wants to use Microsoft to provide a DRM service then they obviously have their reasons, which should be respected above all else.
I don't watch the bbc, I watch live sport on satellite, but I still have to fund the bbc.
BBC if they wish to do all this stuff is to start advertising on bbc1 & bbc2 to fund their activities.
All the other tv stations and radio stations that are not connected with the bbc have to and they are more succesful.
Firstly, the BBC is NOT a government organisation.
Partnering with Microsoft in the first place was complete lunacy. They simply do not provide the service that the BBC requires. It has nothing to do with vindicating Microsoft, it's simply the case that the idiots responsible for the iPlayer signed up a company to provide a service that they simply cannot deliver.
The only plausible partner for this project was Real Networks, because they support pretty much every platform out there, to the point where it would even be quite easy to launch a mobile phone version of iPlayer, which, given that the UK's mobile networks are beginning to provide "all you can eat" 3G tarriffs, could have been fantastic.
The BBC's original plan was to develop its own, open source codec to build the iPlayer around, this project was obviously a disaster and they probably realised that writing a video codec isn't exactly easy. The ONLY logical partner for this was clearly Real Networks. The BBC should have started by offering the iPlayer to the widest range of platforms possible as a starting point, and then could have added additional support for things like Windows Media later on, not the other way around.
If Apple, yes. Apple is not really any better than Microsoft, it is even more totalitarian and greedy in some ways. The only difference is that Microsoft is a monopoly and is able to abuse its monopoly powers to blackmail the entire computer industry and influence politics. This incident with the BBC is just one example.
Google wouldn't do something like this, Google uses open standards.
They can't deliver? So I take it the iPlayer is just a figmant of my imagination?
The real issue here is the fact that the BBC is such a broadreaching platform in the UK that partnering with Microsoft is essentially shutting out any opportunity for free-software based solutions to gain any market traction. Boo hoo, the early bird catches the worm!
It doesn't matter if it's free software, it just should use open standards.
I don't think it's such a hard concept to grasp (yet for some reason a lot of people here don't seem to get it).
RealPlayer uses mp4/aac now - its an openstandard.
Regarding alternative operating systems - Real is willing to recompile their 'closed codecs' for anyone willing to ask - if you have an operating system and want to port it, you can port the opensource components and Real will compile the closed components.
That is the difference. If Microsoft were willing to create some sort of platform independent player - Java based for example, then I'd say 'good for Microsoft' but the fact is they're simply using this relationship with the BBC to push their Windows monopoly further - "if you want to gain access to public facilities, you have to be running Windows".
Don't be such an idiot; There is a world of difference. MSNBC is a private, publicly listed company - they're answerable to their shareholders. The BBC is a public broadcasting network which is tax payer funded - it is answerable to the tax payers who fund it.
Get a clue. If you don't understand what the article is about then don't comment on it.
Get a clue. If you don't understand what the article is about then don't comment on it.
ever think maybe the comment was a sarcasim?
ive seen people rating software worse and even listed it as a negative aspect the software wasnt open-source, hell!
you don't like BBC's decision? too bad, go cry then.
f*** dammit, where do we live...
IMO a free software foundation should also stand for freedom of choice which to pick!
Glassed Silver:mac
They're all for that as long as MS isn't involved
Yes I know it's a double standard BUT Stalman and Bill have been running this feud since the 80's
ive seen people rating software worse and even listed it as a negative aspect the software wasnt open-source, hell!
you don't like BBC's decision? too bad, go cry then.
f*** dammit, where do we live...
IMO a free software foundation should also stand for freedom of choice which to pick!
Glassed Silver:mac
This is not about having an open source player (I have to agree that some people just keep NAGGING about making things open source, and won't use anything closed source.), it's about creating a music player that is cross-platform.
True, the BBC player is still in beta, which is an excuse, but since they're using ActiveX, I slightly doubt they'll make it work on other platforms any time soon.
ive seen people rating software worse and even listed it as a negative aspect the software wasnt open-source, hell!
you don't like BBC's decision? too bad, go cry then.
f*** dammit, where do we live...
IMO a free software foundation should also stand for freedom of choice which to pick!
Glassed Silver:mac
This is not about having an open source player (I have to agree that some people just keep NAGGING about making things open source, and won't use anything closed source.), it's about creating a music player that is cross-platform.
True, the BBC player is still in beta, which is an excuse, but since they're using ActiveX, I slightly doubt they'll make it work on other platforms any time soon.
uhm, they actually do can use ActiveX on Windows, and other technologies on other platforms...
Glassed Silver:mac
There is gonna be a damned OSX and Linux version and the Windows version makes use of Windows functionality, what's the damn the problem?!
This BOSTON based company don't pay the license fee so they just go and f*** off
And is it possable to have open source DRM?
-Spenser
Hit: it's not about products, just about using open standards.
Geez
what wrong with them, they lost the chance, just being sore loosers!
real player is crap on the bbc website, i'd rather have wmp ....plus they will bring it to other platforms, so im not bothered!
Aren't there more important things to protest about than this?
What did you expect them to be concerned about? Mortgages?
(*Please note, a linux freak is *not* every linux user. Just the ones that persist in saying it's totally better than Windows, Religion or Sex. Which would be okay, if any of these people had experienced those three items, to any great extent...)
(*Please note, a windows shill is *not* every windows user. Just the ones that persist in saying it's totally better than Linux, Religion or Sex. Which would be okay, if any of these people had experienced those three items, to any great extent...)
Here's a good idea "Boston-based open source software lobby group", why don't you let the people who actually have to pay the tax worry about it and go make a donation to a political party.
Last edited by jesseinsf on 05 Aug 2007 - 10:08
Couple of points:
1) I love how much the tech press (and by extension a lot of commenters who seem reluctant to grasp the bigger picture) are making of the FSF being US-based. This glosses over the fact that a massive number of its associate members are based in Blighty (and many more in Europe generally).
2) I do think the simple fact that the "anointed one" is MS should be largely left aside in the discussion (although it won't be, for obvious reasons...) Let's simply say "a software vendor who'll require any user to purchase their entire software stack from the bare iron up, if they want to use this service, for reasons that cannot be shown to be of a technical nature". I'd be just as displeased if the vendor in question was, for example... um... y'know, one of those other vendors who do that sort of thing
3) Personally I don't much care if it's open source or not (although there's no actual reason why it can't be...) but I care about competition and about avoiding vendor lock-in. The vendor of the core DRM technology should be willing to license that tech to competitors. They can do so in a "black-box" format that gives away none of their trade secrets, and the license can uphold their IP rights, and they only lose out if a competitor (through their own skills of innovation) builds a better product around it. The customer (the Beeb) should also demand terms in their user license, whereby if the vendor is no longer able to provide or maintain the core tech any more, they agree to turn over the IP to either the customer or a competitor named by the customer and willing to operate under the same terms. No, a customer doesn't have any god-given right to such terms, but the Beeb should damn well be demanding them, or building the thing themselves.
4) Finally, to the guy who said the Beeb should resort to adverts (I assume you meant so that the license fee could be scrapped?) ... NOOOOO! I'm more than willing to pay (not that I don't wish it was a bit less pricey of course
Mmm... too wordy?
The BBC is acting with common sense, nothing more.
Prime Minister Brown: I am part of the war in the middle east, I have people trying to blow up my country, and I am trying to caught them. I don't think I should think of anything other things instead of protecting my country men, why are you wasting my time with this crap ?
Yeah it goes back to the point will the PM every give a rats a** , If I were him would be like "set that on the table over there , I'll get to it later"
open source zealots are just like that, they don't satisfy with promoting it... they want to force everyone to using it.
"the BBC should have chosen free and open standards that work well and are available today. They should have chosen off-the-shelf software that costs nothing and that you have complete control over. Instead, they have given Microsoft complete control. BBC programming is in the hands of a U.S.-based corporation, and the BBC has given up the fight for open access."
Where does it say anything about not getting anything from MS?
They are just asking the BBC to use free and open standards, and MS could provide a solution based on those if they wanted.
The iPlayer is absolute s***. If they had accepted the one MS made for them it would be so much better. Plus it would have had more chance to be cross compatible from the outset.
If they had accepted the MS one, this whiney ass statement would be more acceptable.
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
Ill be watching you...
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.