Sign It!

TV and radio are great information and learning resources. They should be shared internationally in a non restricted format. I know there is the feeling that in the UK we pay the license fee and therefore the content should not be broadcast outside the UK, but please think of all us Brits currently living abroad. We still have to pay local license fees, so why can’t programs be shared across borders. Some foreign language channels in the UK might even help us become more integrated into Europe. The free broadcasting of quality BBC content across the world should be something we can be proud of.

At a time when more and more companies are moving away from DRM (and it is about time), it is surprising to see the BBC choosing the wrong battle.

The role of the BBC is often quoted as being ‘inform, educate and entertain’ - using DRM simply reduces the audience and limits our ability to use the content as we see fit.

I DISAGREE with the BBC's choice of forcing me not to watch the BBC and I have so MANY UK Nationals I Support that have difficulty viewing content from their home country BBC because of this DRM CRAP BILL [SHOVES DOWN OUR THROAT] SELLS

My 12 year old daughter LOVES DrWho
I enjoy Coronation Street

yet the BBC will not let us enjoy these from our linux computer

no drm then
no priceless documentaries

you did not need to spend 130 million ounds with microsft

you could have saved the cash and said clients use videolan on ANY system in the world

steve

No DRM. GNU/Linux and Unix support. Because there's no good reason why not.

It's not just DRM. The BBC are using the Windows Media Server protocol (by default) for at least some of their higher-quality video clips and streams. This does not work with video players and plugins which are based on xine-lib.

There is a workaround: fetch the .asx file (you'll find its URL in the source of the player page or the frame which describes the, er, "currently-playing" media), grab the stream URL from within that and replace the protocol field with mms and feed that to your preferred media player. (Or just use the lower-resolution version or the Real codecs.)

(Any help on getting xine-lib talking to WMServer should be directed to the xine-devel mailing list.)

I'm finding it interesting that an organization like the BBC who claim to be taking an "open" approach to things, are deciding to use DRM (which isn't exactly "open" by any standard) to restrict access to content which anyone with access to a VCR or a computer with an analogue/DVB TV tuner can obtain a 1:1 raw copy of over the air without restriction, yet also release a fair amount of software as open source (Dirac, Kamaelia and Media Dispatch being a few). I don't view/listen to much of the BBC's media content, but I do use their open source software and web content, and I use Linux, so where would that leave me?

As a BBC licence payer I expect to be able to watch or listen to any BBC content my licence fee pays for. I now realise that as a British free software user I can't do this. Perhaps I should ask for a reduction of my fee to compensate?

What happened to the audio streaming via free technology project the BBC was running a short while back? - cancelled.

The BBC should not act like any other run-for-profit organisation but be run for the good of all British people. The use of proprietory American DRM technology is not the way to go.

How can a trusted broadcaster behave like this in the emerging open world!!

Wake up BBC, we are not in the dark ages when only few had access to information. This is plain injustice to the audience of BBC services since a lot more of us are using web based channels.

DRM is the tear jerk reaction of a couple of corporations to protect their unlawful interests and greed. Instead of foresight and willingness to change it reeks of protectionism and control

No self respecting joe dirt would like to dictated upon how to use the devices he bought with his hard earned money.

I wholeheartedly agree with this letter

At best this looks like the BBC is inept and cannot sort out an alternative to pushing inferior Microsoft products. Why do some senior executives at the BBC seem to love Microsoft so much? Surely the BBC should not only BE above obvious favouritism but also be SEEN to be above such dubious practices.

Did anyone see the 30-minute advert for Vista that the BBC broadcast this year? The BBC claimed it was a documentary but the journalism was so shoddily lacking any intelligent discussion of the alternatives that it was a disgrace. They kept on about the wow factor but didn't even mention that Linux has a much more impressive GL desktop implementation than Microsoft.

I do not trust the BBC any more.

I already said 'goodbye' to the BBC when I unplugged the aerial and cancelled my license three years ago. I haven't missed shows about decorating, 'celebrities' or 'real life', and I won't miss not watching the same garbage that is now being spewed out across the internet.

We should thank the BBC for prompting us to free ourselves from the corporate propaganda that is modern television. If you really have to watch something on a little glowing box, try out the masses of community made programs and films that are often freely available through the internet, or better still make some yourself.

Say goodbye to Murdoch and his nasty little crew and say goodbye to the BBC, who provide nothing challenging, provoking or worthwhile anymore; let the greedy, rich corporations crumble into dust while the rest of us rescue what's left of our brains and go back to reading and talking to one another.

I feel incredibly strongly on this issue. So much so that I have sold my television and cancelled my TV Licence. Yes, my library's going to be seeing an awful lot more of me.

To me, for a national broadcaster to lock themselves into a proprietary technology that not only affects the viewers rights, but also leaves the broadcaster unable to provide a service to vast swathes of the population such as myself (as a Linux user) is an absolute disgrace.

There are plenty of truly free alternatives available, you have taken a conscious decision to alienate a great many British people who you are supposed to serve.

Under these circumstances I am unable to fund you further.

Regards,

Mark Wilkinson

Dear BBC,

Please advise of best location to dump my television. I'm running Linux and will be damned if I have any taxable equipment in my house after this slap in the face. Would the front steps of Broadcasting House be convenient for you?

Yours,
An Ex-Licence Fee Payer

of another new digital divide. Many providers such as Five and ITV take the lazy way out and use the MS excuse without researching alternatives such as RealNetworks.

The best way to proceed is to complain loudly and publicly. Taxpayers money should not be used in such a fickle manner.

If I'm paying the tax which allows them to write iPlayer, I should be able to view the results.
DRM is pointless, and it's central premise (we can show the show to the TV, but stop the TV from showing it to you) is flawed *esp* if you are showing the content 'free' over the air anyway.

I have helped many people on a low income, who have been given an old computer with no operating system installed. This group of people can't afford to buy a Microsoft system on a stretched budget and GNU/LINUX was the answer. However the BBC's proposed DRM content will not be available to this large worldwide group.
No news/education for the people who need it. Doesn't make much sense. This is contradictory to the governments vision that all households will have access to internet content in the near future.

Questions need to be asked if the BBC is climbing into bed with Microsoft a la DRM. I have to live on a small pension and depend upon open source software for my computing needs. Why does a public corporation try to cajole elderly people to part with their money to swell Bill Gates already-overstuffed pockets by purchasing his products ? This is a disgrace and those responsible for such decisions should be held to account for their actions. I feel that this is discriminatory.

Absolutely disgusting, first we get ripped off with the amount of the TV license then we get told we can only play the content we want to download on particular machines. Why they choose to stand alongside Microsoft i don't know. I use Ubuntu, so it's a no go for me. We pay the money to make these shows, the bosses reap all the big pay benefits, what do we get? DRM. Thanks BBC.

You don't need a license if you are not receiving broadcast signals: http://www.tvlicensing.biz/

Come on BBC, use an open source platform to broadcast your media. I have a TV which my son uses for his playstation and wii, I cannot even receive a TV signal where I live. But alas as I own a TV i must pay for a licence which I cannot benefit from. The least I expect is that I can use the media that you broadcast which I legally own as a fee payer to be available to me in a way I can use as I please. It is my property even before you broadcast it, so gimme back my stuff. Wise up BBC.

I have to agree with others that as a user of free software, I am disappointed that I am prevented from viewing and listening to files the BBC provides online due to the use of DRM and proprietary file formats.

The BBC offers a great deal of worthwhile content, but when DRM crippled or presented in proprietary formats it is unavailable to me.

In addition I am unable to take actions that are legal with content that is DRM crippled. As are my children, e.g. as part of school projects or learning to use digital content editing/creating/mashing software.

Take a look at the history of Art, as one example, if no one could have made use of what had gone before, in legal, innovative ways where would we be?

Leave the people free to use your (our!) content and take action against those who's use is inappropriate.

As a user of free software, I am dismayed that I am unable to view and listen to files BBC provides online, due to the use of DRM and proprietary file formats. The BBC offers a great deal of worthwhile content, but in proprietary formats it is useless to me.

I'm not just talking about material that the BBC makes available at no charge. I'd be perfectly willing to buy premium content from the BBC, or buy paid subscriptions to programs, if the files came in open formats.

Please reconsider your position on DRM, based on the reasons given in this open letter.

I'm glad this is getting so much attention.

It's totally against the BBC's public service remit to discriminate in favour of those who've bought from certain large US companies.

For audio, there's Ogg Vorbis.. However, I'd be interested to hear what codec people would prefer the BBC to use for video.

I foresee a counter-argument being: what good, mature, non-proprietary video encoding/decoding algorithms are out there, popularly supported?

Regarding Dirac - last I heard, this wasn't at a sufficiently mature stage of development (and certainly doesn't have a wide userbase).

While Real, Windows Media and Adobe FLV are proprietary and evil, they do at least have popular support and can even be made to work to some extent on Linux (on x86 at least).

Thoughts?

Your letter is great! The BBC has been ADMIRABLE in its way of using net and web technologies.

In our age where money has become motivator, goal and yardstick, I keep hoping that the BBC will not give into that trend completely.

That's what DRM is about. Let's hope that decision makers at the BBC will be aware of their responsability towards us, 'the public'.

By requiring the usage of DRM-infested proprietary technologies, the BBC is effectively forcing anybody interested in viewing its content to do several things:

• Surrender their digital rights and freedoms, including those guaranteed by free operating systems such as GNU+Linux.
• Conduct business within a finite list of (unethical) big corporations.
• Accept being treated like a potential thief, regardless of reality.

Considering that, for the millions of people who own televisions in the UK, supporting the BBC is mandatory, the BBC's decision to use proprietary DRM technologies amounts to forced acceptance of DRM on behalf of all UK citizens. What's next? Making opposition to DRM--even if this opposition is purely symbolic/passive--a crime? The more I hear, the more I believe George Orwell was some sort of prophet.

Document format is the most important decision when storing / producing content. I cannot easily read my 15 year old college work produced in Wordstar / Word 2.0 as these formats are no longer supported and are undocumented, will they be readable in another 50. Public ISO standards are the only way to ensure document accessibility into the future...

Ruairi

I live in a country in South-East-Asia.
The BBC is my way of staying in touch with Europe and its superb culture. The BBC is doing an extraordinarily good job to make this possible through its radio3 on-demand internet broadcasts.
Given the time difference between Britain and my place of residence, the on-demand services is the obvious choice for me.
Will DRM make it impossible to listen to the BBC in the future? If this is true, that day would be a very sad day indeed. I just hope it will not happen.

Ironically there is a recent article on the BBC (Click) website about Linux (though it seems to be written by someone struggling with the concepts). The article even suggests that it's "all about choice". Maybe the person writing the article has not heard of the BBC's choice of DRM - maybe they don't even use Gnu/Linux?!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6733501.stm

The use of proprietary software and digital rights removal (DRM) systems restrict me, a license payer for the past 30 years, from access to the content I have paid for.
I do not use Windows on my computer and as such i have no access to some of the content, there is a player for Real media but it is certainly inferior to the Windows version. There are better more compact protocols available that are free in all senses of the word that are receivable by users of all operating systems. There are also players for DRM encumbered streams that completely ignore the DRM restrictions and allow the streams to be recorded and replayed at will.
It thus seems that the BBC is paying license payers money to use unjustifiably expensive software that does not provide any benefits to content owners, the BBC or listeners and viewers. This cannot be justified and should cease.

I think it is great that the BBC should use DRM in their content. I already enjoy paying the BBC tax and want to pay the Microsoft tax.
However, I would like to discuss the possibility of extending the BBC's scheme. My children currently enjoy loaning books from the local public library. I already pay a tax to fund the library but I would like it if I had to pay a big corporation who could help me open the books. Of course I am quite happy to force my children to read these books in one single room only - of the corporations choosing. Can anyone help?

If a public body proposed a similar scheme for books the 'free' world would be up in arms!

I'm a great believer in the success of offerings that genuinely offer a better service. Sadly, the BBC's proposal is poor, with limited platform support and playback that times-out. I for one will not be using the service, I'll just stick with my DVD recording device.

Like many others, I too gave feedback in the BBC's consultative process, which seems to have been ignored. It seems the BBC has sold it's soul to Microsoft. I hope it was worth it, because I will be looking elsewhere for downloadable content.

I fought the same battle with EMI several years ago over their CD "anti copy protection" that rendered products unplayable in a number of machines I use. They were informed by me after several email interchanges that I would never buy a CD from their catalogue that was encumbered by any sort of DRM protection, and I have held to that. As an owner of several thousand CDs, it was not an insignificant choice.

Now EMI have reversed their position having realised the futility of their stance.

Come on BBC - you're better than this, and to encumber your wonderful catalogue of titles with DRM that so badly restricts consumers rights is an appalling decision to make, in my opinion.

I do *not* want to be tied to some proprietary format, and I *will* make the choice to not do so.

Peter Shaw
New Zealand

I've noticed lots of other comments from users who want to view BBC content in their own countries. While I fully support the removal of DRM from BBC content, I don't support the distribution of that content outside of the United Kingdom. The BBC is funded by license-payers within the UK, and we pay this rather extortionate fee to enable us access to the content. I don't feel that users outside of the UK, who are not paying such fees, should have access to BBC content that is not specifically licensed for distribution in those countries.

There has been lots of debate recently about the way in which apple has recently broken from its DRM strategy - only to then release it's non-DRM tracks with embedded information about the user.

Rather than come up against more fierce critisism, I believe this style of DRM is exactly the type we ought to be utilising in the fight against piracy. If I were to download a tune on itunes - then my DRM issues would only be on when it was impossible to play it on my chosen hardware - with the new apple stuff I can do it.

The BBC face an alternative problem. DVD releases (and the UKTV re-broadcasting of old BBC favourites are no doubt bringing in a nice revenue stream. In order for the license fee not to go up even further, then the BBC cannot afford to lose it's revenue stream. They therefore intend to use DRM to restrict the time files last on a user's computer, and to prevent transfer to any other devices.

In my opinion, the BBC should either be prepared to release the content freely (after all, we've already paid for it with our licenses anyway) or not at all. I don't agree with any half-baked method that allows one (fast reducing) segment to utilise the national service, at the expense of millions of other users. (Apple and Linux).

I myself use all three - but the two that are connected to TVs that are likely to use this service is the mac-mini in the front room - and my Linux Server.

I am a UK TV licence payer and a Linux user. I also gave my voice in the protest f the DRM before it was implemented. Use of the DRM is a treachery to the principles of the BBC and a disservice to us, the licence payers.
It is just like only letting white people or people in a smoking into the public libraries - use of DRM is an arbitrary reduction of the fair use rights of us, the subscribes. We paid for that content and we should have the ability to use it in the ways we want to use it without breaking the law.

Currently people wanting to watch a Doctor Who episode or the latest Panorama on their cheap portable video player are forced to download it off the Bittorent and not all shows are available there. And also, paying licence payers are bashed for downloading shows for which they paid already and likened to drunk, murdering pillagers (aka pirates) even by the BBC executives. That is wholly unacceptable!

As a Licence payer and Linux user, I approve of the letters intent and I oppose DRM.
DRM only hurts people legitimately using the content - pirates will simply remove it.
The BBC must remain accessable to all.

The BBC is a state sanctioned monopoly. Microsoft is a private monopoly. The BBC is breaching EU anti-trust laws by requiring that it's license payers are required to pay Microsoft tax in order to view it's content. If the BBC is to adopt such a policy, then it's license payers should have the right to opt out of the BBC's license fee.

The BBC and its behaviour with regard to DRM is not the only issue that we should be protesting against!
What about the push towards digital TV ? Sure we are being told that its a better picture, higher quality etc! But what about the deeper implications?
For every digital device that has an electronic identification, it can by some means, be enabeled or dis-abled remotely. George Orwell's "Big Brother" is here now and is watching, silently, quietly and getting more powerfull.
Mr Gates taught the worlds big businesses how to dictate what we can and can't do with our lives! All through the advance of digital technology! Is the BBC any different? I don't belive so!
I am obliged by law to contribute money by way of licence fees to enable the BBC to continue its use of DRM whether I like it or not. I don't!

The thin veneer of 'content protection' provided by DRM is a sham for all to see. Its is blatantly clear that DRM is a 'lock in' technology that only really benefits the DRM technology vendor. The 'lock in' paradigm is obsolete and vendors who use this business model are short sighted and ultimately doomed to failure. By using DRM you will be willingly and knowingly hindering the adoption of universal solutions. In the long run this will only serve to stifle innovation and degrade the user experienced. Stop wasting license payers money on this pointless and futile technology.

DRM is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

By choosing DRM the BBC has created an unnecessary dependency on commercial software. This is completely unacceptable for an organisation funded in the way the BBC is.

The BBC exists to provide a public service. I believe that the majority of my fellow British citizens would agree that restricting access to their content using DRM is unacceptable.

I'd wholly support the removal of DRM from media. Quite why the BBC chose to use proprietary formats is beyond me, when open-source alternatives are of such high quality.

If this solution is to discourage people from using bit torrent then it is doomed to fail because it is actually less convenient to use.

If I miss a programme then I just download it using Bit Torrent, watch it, then delete it. I'm just using it like a video recorder to see a programme I already have a license to see. I find this system very easy to use.

The BBC solution is no use to me at all because it won't work on Linux and I have no intention of installing Windows just to use it. In fact, I just wiped Vista off my new laptop because it is a useless pile of bloat that was wasting my hard disk space with crippled demo-ware that does virtually nothing useful out-of-the box compared to a fresh install of PCLinuxOS.

Soon the world' children will have those nifty $100 laptops. They run Linux. The kids should be able to watch BBC programming.

The BBC is paid for already, there is no need to the BBC to align itself with Microsoft or any other corporate entity. The BBC should align itself with the people. The people are the reason the BBC exists, they are what the programming is created for, they deserve better.

Open up the content, release it to the world. Not only the rich world with their PC's and Mac's, but also to the poor world that runs Linux.

Thank You, I know you will do the righ tthing, I'm only saddened that it will have taken this long for you to realize you previous mistakes. We will forgive if you choose the correct path.

What is the point of doing the consultation and then ignore the conclusions?

Your BBC, Your Say???

Yeh, can't get no radio on my PC (Linux Box, and no RealAudio on Linux is _not_acceptable_), don't have a radio, only place I can listen to radio is in car.

This is a poor business decision, and one which is strange. for years the BBC have been supplying online video content of certain BBC programmes such as Click and panorama, which as a non windows user, i can access quite happily.

In the UK, it is a criminal offence not to have a TV licence, this lience doesn't "pay" for the BBC, but it does fund it. If we as british public don't pay for the richet to recieive TV via an frequency antenna, we go to jail. So we pay for the programming. the BBC are then obilged to provide programmes to a charter, providing information and entertainment, accross formats, and when it does, the formats should be available to all.

I understand that a high number of PC users use Windows by standard, however not everyone does, for this reason, they are not supplying content i have already paid for, in a format i can view.

Whatever, i think it would be a BRAVE man, to step forward, and do the right thing at the BBC, ans provide DRM free content, in an open format, which can be enjoyed, across multiple platforms, including phone, pc, and future devices..

Having worked for Auntie Beeb for a few years, its hardly suprising they went for this option, blinkers all round.

The choice of Microsoft Windows Media Player is discriminatory against Linux, BSB and Mac users.

The use of DRM is working against the charter where it states that the BBC has a role in bringing Britain to the world.

The use of DRM also penalises UK license payers who have in effect already paid for BBC content.

The first day that service was released I went to check it out but when I realised it uses DRM I didn't bother for both practical(can only use on windows and only on media player? no thank you.) and ideological reasons(if I'm being asked to pay for something then I should own it..)

The BBC's decision to employ a proprietary form of digital rights management flies in the face if its charter as well as its responsibility to both British citizens as well as to new consumers all around the world of the fine materials that the BBC produces. DRM restricts legitimate and lawful usage of that material and in fact in some cases, criminalizes it.

DRM doesn't really work and can never actually work. Ironically, were it to work better, it would be even more insidious.

The BBC has a long and proud history of freely distributing cultural content, news, the arts and frankly, freedom and decency. Please do not now mar that fine and enviable record with a wrong headed and self defeating DRM strategy.