Round up: Thursday 11 March 2010
Post categories: round up
| 18:02 UK time, Thursday, 11 March 2010
The kerfuffle around the ±«Óătv's move into mobile apps continues with New Media Age's story . In the piece David Newell of the Newspaper Publishers Association criticised the:
'±«Óătv Trust's "current attitude and inaction... when they know that the ±«Óătv will be launching such apps in direct competition with commercial operators' paid-for or ad-funded apps for their online services."'
to which a ±«Óătv Trust spokesman, replied:
'"Following some initial concerns they raised, we invited the NPA to write to us explaining their concerns...We've received their letter and will look forward to discussing it with them."'
Now the chairman of the NPA, an organisation obviously used to having the last word, has added this response in the story's comments:
'...May I point out that the online service licence was written before the launch of the Apple app store. How it can cover services and markets unknown when it was written is a topic we look forward to discussing with the Trust when we manage to find a slot in their very crowded diaries.'
Ben Goldacre, he of fame, has been petitioning the ±«Óătv :
'I'm trying ...to persuade the ±«Óătv to give meaningful weblinks in their online science and health articles, at the moment they link to journal homepages, and university homepages, which are absurdly uninformative and unhelpful.'
You can read the response from the ±«Óătv and Ben Goldacre's response to that on .
There's more on this at the .
The latest happening in the is the :
'The events of the past two weeks (, , here and here) have clarified the ±«Óătv's stance on allowing interoperability with open-source iPlayer clients. I have therefore decided to withdraw get_iplayer with immediate effect...'The ±«Óătv iPlayer is built on many open-source products and yet, in this case, they have failed to let open-source clients access the very same service. The ±«Óătv have clearly not followed the spirit of open-source here.'
Going against the tide of comments () on blogs and Twitter is :
'Licence fee payers no longer liable or subsidising insurance for the theft of material by get_iPlayer's users.'
And finally, as they say, the excellent R&D blog has some new posts that might interest you: Ambisonics and Periphony [part 1] (on three-dimensional sound) and A Touch Less Remote: Part 1 of 6 (on multi-touch devices).
Paul Murphy is the Editor of the Internet blog. The picture shows the switchboard at Television Centre as it was in 1960.
Comment number 1.
At 12th Mar 2010, Stuart Ian Burns wrote:What I'm not sure about in relation to the linking issue is why the ±«Óătv don't just do both. Link to the wider website and label it as such and then also link the article/section/page in question. Posting a link to Nature on its own without context isn't particularly user friendly given that there are hundreds upon thousands of articles on there to be searched through to find the right one. It would be like posting a link to a blog to comment on a post but not actually bother linking directly to that post. Years even hours down the line that's irrelevant.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 12th Mar 2010, Mr F Pathman wrote:I take exception to this blog post. You are labelling everyone who uses (or now, USED) third party applications to watch your content, as a thief. I have already explained to you that most of us, myself included, used these applications legitimately and are now completely unable to watch ±«Óătv programmes.
In my particular case, if you provided a way for me to actually watch your content on my computer, that wasn't laden-down with so much useless "encryption" that it takes so long for my computer to process that I can actually count each frame of video as it appears, there would be no need for these applications. As it is, videos via the iPlayer are unwatchable.
Besides, you've looked on the comments sites, so you know full well that the people who illegally steal and distribute your content do so by recording the programmes directly from Freeview. What steps have you taken to prevent that happening?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 12th Mar 2010, Paul Murphy wrote:# 2 Mr F Pathman wrote:
I take exception to this blog post. You are labelling everyone who uses (or now, USED) third party applications to watch your content, as a thief.
Daer Mr F Pathman,
As the author of this post I just want to make it clear that I don't believe that in quoting thephazer's tweet I was labelling you or anyone else who'd used third party applications as a thief, I simply wanted to point out that someone had expressed an alternative viewpoint.
Best wishes
Paul Murphy
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 12th Mar 2010, cping500 wrote:Not only does the ±«Óătv not like linking but they don't like linking to pdf's. This is because 'not everybody has the facility to read pdfs,' in some obscure part of 'House Rules'
At the MOMENT I agree about not linking to all academic articles.... it will confuse users confronted with a demand to pay. However the article and author quoted should be mentioned in such a way as to make a search possible.
If an 'open' source is available it should be linked.
If the ±«Óătv uses another news source for the information this should be made clear 'Reuters reported'....
Reporters should always check their sources actually exist! (as people report that they sometimes don't.
The ±«Óătv should purchase accesses to the academic article databases for internal use.
If this happens to me I will make a formal complaint.
By the way does not the ±«Óătv have and information staff /librarians?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 12th Mar 2010, Mo McRoberts wrote:@cping500:
All journals have (accessible) abstract pages, even if the paper itself requires payment. If the ±«Óătv can’t link to that for some obscure bizarre reason, they shouldn’t link to the site at all. Just linking to, say, the front page of the University of Glasgow (just because one of the people involved in authoring the paper is based there) is nonsensical —Ěýsurely that is far more confusing a situation than a paywall?
“If this happens to me I will make a formal complaint.”
If what happens to you?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 12th Mar 2010, naddieuk wrote:I have an oldish computer and an unreliable connection to the Internet. I used to attempt to watch the ±«Óătv Iplayer on the Flash website and also using the official ±«Óătv Downloads, however, due to either too much encryption, otherwise slow connection, I had many problems viewing programmes. I had to either wake up very early in the morning to watch on Flash player, otherwise, I had a lot of very slow videos when downloading. Ever since I discovered get_iplayer, I had managed to watch the videos as intended. It has been a godsend, no more of the computer desperately trying to unencrypt the file and play the video in the dreadful Windows Media Player. I could just watch it in VLC. The other advantage was that I could watch it in Linux with no problems at all while doing my studies without having to switch to Windows to watch the programmes.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 13th Mar 2010, TV Licence fee payer against ±«Óătv censorship wrote:5. At 10:09pm on 12 Mar 2010, Mo wrote:
"All journals have (accessible) abstract pages, even if the paper itself requires payment. If the ±«Óătv can’t link to that for some obscure bizarre reason, they shouldn’t link to the site at all. Just linking to, say, the front page of the University of Glasgow (just because one of the people involved in authoring the paper is based there) is nonsensical"
Disagree, much can be learnt from the 'corporate' public pages of an otherwise inaccessible (pay for access) website, even if just the mission statement, linking directly to abstract pages that might not actually back up points being made in the ±«Óătv article is more likely to confuse that being directed to the relevant organisations home page - but I do agree, those who are significantly interested in an article will know how and be able to find the relevant web page anyway so perhaps it would be better to drop any links rather than hand unthinking users a (what is for them) useless link on a plate...
"surely that is far more confusing a situation than a paywall?"
No, as there will be some who might well be confused enough to actually think they need to pay and what is more some might even believe that it is the ±«Óătv who are asking for money. When people can get taken in by email Phishing is it any wonder that some inexperienced surfers - possibly were English is not their first or even second language - might not actually understand the difference between internal links and external links.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 13th Mar 2010, Hymagumba wrote:linking directly to abstract pages that might not actually back up points being made in the ±«Óătv article is more likely to confuse that being directed to the relevant organisations home page
That's probably Goldacre's intention. Given his distaste for bad science journalism the intention is likely to be that if the author has to link to the article they can't do sensationalist stories like "all buses give you cancer says survey" without the article which doesn't really say that being prominently linked.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 13th Mar 2010, Hymagumba wrote:By the way, can I ask about this article:
I've noticed the beta.bbc.co.uk homepage is now being tested but the graun is suggesting that it's to do with the big revamp mentioned on this blog last month.
Given the similarity of the new page to the old page and the lack of similarity to the new site graphics are the guardian getting mixed up or is this homepage meant to compliment the new styles?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 13th Mar 2010, stogie wrote:Imagine if the ±«Óătv tried to tell us that broadcast TV could only be watched with one brand of TV, a ±«Óătv badged TV from a single manufacturer. No matter that it's not the best, or doesn't work at all in your house. No matter that other brands are available and work fine.
Imagine if the ±«Óătv tried to tell use that anyone using a video recorder was committing theft. No matter that they're not redistributing shows, you just want to watch them.
An Atom based machine can play the iPlayer's HD content completely smoothly using the best software available, yet using the ±«Óătv's player it can only do a reasonable job at a quarter of the resolution, 640x360. Even then, it's still not smooth it suffers from little hesitations. There is no way such quality would pass for broadcast, so why on earth do the ±«Óătv imagine it will do for the internet? Just because low quality is good enough for youtube clips doesn't mean it will do for TV shows.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 13th Mar 2010, TV Licence fee payer against ±«Óătv censorship wrote:#10. At 1:50pm on 13 Mar 2010, stogie wrote:
"Imagine if the ±«Óătv tried to tell us that broadcast TV could only be watched with one brand of TV..//.."
Poor analogy, what they are saying is that the 'TV' (in this case a computer) needs to embody certain technologies (the required software), how is this any different from telling poeple that they need a PAL spec. TV, or are you suggesting that the ±«Óătv should transmit not only in PAL format but both SECAM and NTSC as well...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 13th Mar 2010, stogie wrote:#11. At 4:46pm on 13 Mar 2010, Boilerplated wrote:
"how is this any different from telling poeple that they need a PAL spec"
The difference is that you don't need to license something from Adobe to use PAL. Something that only achieves a quarter of the resolution of the best implementations, and is not available for all types of TV.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 13th Mar 2010, TV Licence fee payer against ±«Óătv censorship wrote:12. At 5:45pm on 13 Mar 2010, stogie wrote:
"#11. At 4:46pm on 13 Mar 2010, Boilerplated wrote:
"how is this any different from telling poeple that they need a PAL spec"
The difference is that you don't need to license something from Adobe to use PAL."
WRONG, you have to licence a TV in the UK to use it (as a receiver), so there is no difference...
Sorry but your analogies are dancing on a pinhead, especially as even free(ware) software (or the code within) is almost universally licensed, often under the GNU GPL license etc.
Or is your hyperbolic rage against licensing just aimed towards companies like Adobe or Microsoft?...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 13th Mar 2010, stogie wrote:#13. At 6:56pm on 13 Mar 2010, Boilerplated wrote:
"WRONG, you have to licence a TV in the UK to use it (as a receiver), so there is no difference..."
You have to have a licence to view in real time over the internet too. The difference is that for broadcast TV this allows you to use any receiver, but for the internet you can only use the iPlayer software the ±«Óătv provides.
The ±«Óătv have written players for a great many platforms, I'm looking at the list now, several dozen.
A good effort, but a better use of our licence money would be for the ±«Óătv to use open standards for streaming internet content, allowing people to use whatever the best player is for their platform.
Even with all the platforms supported, I have an ARM based machine which isn't supported at all, and an Atom based machine which does work but at much lower quality than the best software available would achieve.
"Sorry but your analogies are dancing on a pinhead"
The analogy is apt, if open standards weren't used for broadcast we'd have much the same situation there too. Limited choice and poorer quality.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 14th Mar 2010, TV Licence fee payer against ±«Óătv censorship wrote:In reply to a rant made @#14:
"The difference is that for broadcast TV this allows you to use any receiver, but for the internet you can only use the iPlayer software the ±«Óătv provides.
..//..
Even with all the platforms supported, I have an ARM based machine which isn't supported at all"
Back to my point about television standards, you made your choice, just as someone would have no valid reason to complain if they tried using a SECAM or NTSC television in the UK. I would like to use Apple Mac's Final Cut video editing software but I have to accept that unless I buy into the Apple Mac brand I can't do so.
In life one should choose/make ones bed very carefully as it will be you who lies in it, no one else...
"Limited choice and poorer quality."
Tuff diddles then. It's the ±«Óătv's content (or for which they are agents for), they can and have done what they wish with regard to accessing it, or would you prefer to dance on that pinhead of 'principle' of yours regarding open standards[1] and thus not even have access to iPlayer.
I also notice that you didn't reply to my point about the fact that even free(ware) software (or the code within) is almost universally licensed, often under the GNU GPL license etc.
So I guess that your hyperbolic rage against licensing is just aimed towards companies like Adobe or Microsoft and not the principle of software/hardware licensing.
[1] which are not always of better quality and or choice.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 14th Mar 2010, stogie wrote:#15. At 09:32am on 14 Mar 2010, Boilerplated wrote:
"In life one should choose/make ones bed very carefully as it will be you who lies in it, no one else..."
That's rather the point, less choice. Open protocols would have allowed more people to keep using old devices that they had before there was an iPlayer. When they do have to buy something new they would be able to buy a cheaper machine if they wanted.
"I also notice that you didn't reply to my point about the fact that even free(ware) software (or the code within) is almost universally licensed, often under the GNU GPL license etc."
Well no, it's a straw man. I think the iPlayer should be based on open standards and protocols. It pretty obviously doesn't follow that I'm against all licences, or against GNU, Adobe, Microsoft or anyone else.
"So I guess that your hyperbolic rage against licensing is just aimed towards companies like Adobe or Microsoft and not the principle of software/hardware licensing."
My "hyperbolic rage", said without irony. You have to laugh. So you're just going to make up my opinions, I'll leave you to it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 14th Mar 2010, Mo McRoberts wrote:“Poor analogy, what they are saying is that the 'TV' (in this case a computer) needs to embody certain technologies (the required software), how is this any different from telling poeple that they need a PAL spec. TV, or are you suggesting that the ±«Óătv should transmit not only in PAL format but both SECAM and NTSC as well...”
In keeping with your analogy: imagine if PAL could actually only be implemented in full by one TV manufacturer (Sony, for example). The ±«Óătv would never have been permitted to use it had that been the case.
There’s a huge difference between “adhering to a common specification” and “only available from a single vendor”.
I’m not even going to get into your bizarre confusion of software licensing versus the TV Licence regime versus standards (with or without patent licensing), except to note that it’s a horrible muddled conflation of several different — and to an extent unrelated — things.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 15th Mar 2010, TV Licence fee payer against ±«Óătv censorship wrote:#16. At 9:40pm on 14 Mar 2010, stogie wrote:
"Well no, it's a straw man.
Yes, your hyperbolic rage is.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 15th Mar 2010, TV Licence fee payer against ±«Óătv censorship wrote:#17. At 10:25pm on 14 Mar 2010, Mo wrote:
There’s a huge difference between “adhering to a common specification” and “only available from a single vendor”.
Whilst there is also a huge difference between "can only be purchased from a certain vendor" and "It's available from only one vendor but at no cost".
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 15th Mar 2010, Alex Cockell wrote:@19 - and what if the one vendor then stops updating said software? People are still left high and dry.
Common open spec would be a better bet for all...
One way forward would be to provide a process whereby alternative presentation solutions could be whitelisted.
THIS is what is being asked for.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 15th Mar 2010, TV Licence fee payer against ±«Óătv censorship wrote:#20. At 7:46pm on 15 Mar 2010, Alex C_o_c_k_ell wrote:
"@19 - and what if the one vendor then stops updating said software? People are still left high and dry.
..//..
THIS is what is being asked for."
That would depend on what the content owners decide to do with their content, even if there was a third party alternative the content owners still might not want their content accessable via such software. You can ask for all the tea in china if you like but if the content owners do not want you to have a single tea leaf...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 17th Mar 2010, Peter Wray wrote:I have been using iplayer together with get_iplayer for some time now and I consider it a perfect partnership. Doing this means I can listen to ±«Óătv radio programmes in my car which is the best uninterrupted time to enjoy the fantastic content the ±«Óătv provides. Sadly now I cannot do this. I am deeply disappointed and beg the ±«Óătv to reconsider.
I am quite happy to respect the rights of content producers who need to be properly rewarded for their work so I make sure I listen to all content within 28 days of broadcast.
Pete
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 17th Mar 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Peter - have you tried the ±«Óătv's podcasting service?
Also see this comment.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 20th May 2010, talat wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)
Comment number 27.
At 24th May 2010, hd2010 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 27)
Comment number 28.
At 24th May 2010, hd2010 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 28)