Date : Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:48:03 +0200
From : rick@... (Rick Murray)
Subject: Micro Men (Formerly "Syntax Era") trailer
Anders Carlsson wrote:
> Ah, you too?
Yup. :-(
> I even went as far as trying different proxies, but didn't get one to work
> since it is streaming a Flash video.
I just spent half an hour looking into this, it seems most people want
proxies and IP address changers in order to hide some nefarious activity
(like being locked out of some service, or dumping a billion spam in one
easy session).
A flat proxy won't do it, I think because the flash player might try
direct socket access to the BBC that isn't covered by normal proxy
settings. It looks like a VPN is necessary.
The one that seems to fit the bill is http://www.ukivpn.com/ but you
will have to decide if ?8/month or ?67/year is worth it. Ignore the
US/Canada, there is a European option but I'd imagine US/Canada are
their main markets as at least a bit of Europe has the ability to
receive BBC via satellite.
For me, I don't think I'd pay eight euros to watch a company I don't
know for a promo of a TV programme. For other BBC material, I either
watch/record it, look for a repeat, or say sod it and look on YouTube.
While that is "dubious", the fact is I would be happy to subscribe to
some sort of BBC/ITV based service. If the licence fee is about ?150
pounds (I don't actually know what it is these days), that's about ?13 a
month. I'd pay ?10-?15/month for direct access to DOWNLOADABLE
programmes from ITVplayer and BBC iPlayer. The downloadable is
important, as I don't feel my setup can hack doing both quality AND
streaming at the same time. Would the BBC prefer reasonable people (for
there will always be idiots screaming about the BBC offering a
subscription service, like they never heard of BBC Prime!) to sign up
and choose their programming, or to look for it from other sources?
On a related note, it is an interesting situation looking at recent
legislation aimed at P2P networks and file sharing. Stupid France put in
place a rather unclear law which seems to support DRM and fly in the
face of their concept of having interoperability for music/video files
in other players.
The origin of this bollox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
European legislature description:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Copyright_Directive
The French law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI
While I don't condone people who download movies (either DVD rips or CAM
versions), I find it hard to condemn it because STILL the practice
continues of using Region Coding in DVDs and also some games machines.
Why is this bad? Disparity in release dates of titles, disparity in
included extras, disparity in pricing.
I can understand a dub in Flemish may take extra time, but why should
this prevent an English language original being available for people who
wish to watch it in its original language?
Why did my Am?lie DVD cost *more* than the French original, and only
contain the one disc, not the original two? Sure, it was both subtitled
and an English language commentary included, but this was pretty
inevitable as it was one of the films destined to do well in the
international market. It's just a shame that JP Jeunet referred to the
extras disc on numerous occasions and it wasn't provided.
Doesn't the idea of releasing a (US) region 1 disc earlier and cheaper
than the subsequent (European) region 2 disc fly in the face of existing
legislation for anti-competitive practice? Was region coding simply an
attempt to sucker more cash out of more affluent countries?
I guess somebody with deep wallets is cosying up to government people in
order that DRM measures are getting ever increasing legal protection -
note in the French DADVSI, thanks to Vivendi/Universal sucking up to
Sarko, there are quite heavy penalties for those making available
software designed to circumvent copy protection methods. Now, can we
perhaps have some legislation that makes region coding illegal? DRM is
one thing, but it is somewhat ironic how the movie studios keep saying
how we end-users don't play fair when they don't play fair themselves.
It is also ironic that the very systems designed to prevent piracy are,
in part, a large part of why "piracy" happens. For example, I frequently
rip my own DVDs. The legality of this is debatable, however the way I
see it I should be entitled to watch the content for which I have paid.
Not so with my TV and stupid ****ing macrovision. I am not willing to
put up with the top quarter of the picture tearing to a rhythm. So I rip
my DVDs.
It's only a short hop from that to ripping other people's DVDs (like
borrowed ones, rental ones, etc). Then on to looking for content
on-line. I believe a number of P2P networks require a two-way to try to
work around problems of leaching. So, cool, there's all those things I
copied off my friends. And suddenly tens of thousands of titles can
become available in a way short length of time.
It is, I guess, inevitable. Just like you used to see knock-off
videotapes at open-air markets, nowadays people can do it digitally. For
the better end user, for people such as myself, how much nicer would it
have been to just buy/rent a disc, stick it in the player, enjoy the
film. I was pushed into the domain of copying the disc by the very lame
systems implemented to prevent me copying the disc. And now that is
going to be classed as illegal. Can I sue under a sale-of-goods act that
the disc is obviously defective? It isn't my DVD player, the other one
does macrovision in the exact same way. It isn't my telly, I can watch
unprotected DVDs and a few hundred TV channels without incident. It is
these damn copy-protected discs. Or maybe I can just carry on ripping
them and claim the interoperability clause?
Or maybe the studios, the BBC, and all producers in the realm of digital
content should get a frigging clue and realise that, like electricity,
people will look to the path of least resistance. It wasn't missed by
the world that iTunes-Store moved away from DRM. They probably made the
connection that piracy will happen. It is more sensible to get cash from
people who are happy to pay for the music, rather than stringent
conditions and artificial limitations that push users towards illegality
in order to make THEIR life simpler. I have several MP3 players. Some
support DRM, some don't. The DRM versions are different. I don't have
any DRM tracks, so no comment on how well this works in practice. I
carry my Zen with me now, so it is imperative that my music work on both
that and WinAMP (via the same SD card).
This might have seen a long and rambling post. And yes, it was. The
point, however, is that companies really ought to wake up and start
looking to how to make things a little simpler for the end user rather
than for themselves. Torchwood episodes are about 58 minutes, and about
320Mb. I found some with a few minutes of searching. Don't need 'em,
already watched it. But it proves the point. With fast broadband I could
have the five-part series downloaded in time to sit down and enjoy this
evening. Wouldn't it be so much better if you could subscribe to a BBC
offering? That way we gain (access to the content) and the BBC gains (in
not getting ripped off) and everything is nice and legit.
Sorry for the length of the post, but this is one of the things that
really irks me. Much like the cluelessness of American websites when you
tell them your country is France (or the UK) and it replies that your
"zip code" is incorrect. <sigh!>
Best wishes,
Rick.
--
Rick Murray, eeePC901 & ADSL WiFI'd into it, all ETLAs!
BBC B: DNFS, 2 x 5.25" floppies, EPROM prog, Acorn TTX
E01S FileStore, A3000/A5000/RiscPC/various PCs/blahblah...