BBC Have Broken GetIPlayer

[Java Jive]

http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/get_iplayer/2014-October/006240.html

<quote>
The BBC have removed the programme data feeds used by get_iplayer, so
search and PVR functions no longer work. There is no programme
information to cache, and it was the cache that supported search and
PVR functions. There is no fix available at this time. You can still
download individual programmes via PID or URL.

http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/tv/feeds
</quote>
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

[Davey]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 21:45:39 +0000
Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/get_iplayer/2014-October/006240.html
>
> <quote>
> The BBC have removed the programme data feeds used by get_iplayer, so
> search and PVR functions no longer work. There is no programme
> information to cache, and it was the cache that supported search and
> PVR functions. There is no fix available at this time. You can still
> download individual programmes via PID or URL.
>
> http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/tv/feeds
> </quote>

Whew. Since I use one or other of those methods, that's ok. And I'm
using the Humax and iPlayer to do the job more and more. My normal
procedure using get_iplayer is to find the URL with iPlayer, and then
use get_player to download it.

--
Davey.

[alexd]

Yeah, for you perhaps, but the only way I've ever used it is to Google the
name of the program and get-iplayer the resulting URL, followed by some
bafflement as it doesn't work, and then do it again with --type=radio

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
09:32:20 up 3 days, 4 min, 5 users, load average: 0.88, 0.56, 0.46
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
from malice

[Brian Gaff]

One assumes then this is a cock up rather than a service 'improvement'
I do wish people would subscribe to the old proverb, if it aint broke don't
fix it.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:vqn25ap4r2jusv3os...@4ax.com...

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <m2rtmh$c9i$7...@n102.xanadu-bbs.net>, Davey

As luck would have it, I just started trying out get_iplayer this morning!
For experiments I tried the series of historic 'Sherlock Holmes' recordings
that are under way on R4extra. The PID method seems fine but I've hit a
puzzle.

One program 'Study in Scarlet' (pid b04lsjkv) simply tells me

No programmes are available for this pid with version(s): default

This is using

get_iplayer --type=radio --pid bo4lsjkv --output "<directory name>"

I've tried adding the --radiomode=better / best / etc. But get exactly the
same failure report.

I've also tried using O instead of 0, etc, but that fails more simply with

Failed to get version pid metadata from iplayer site.

So I assume the pid is correct but for some reason the file isn't labelled
as 'default', etc.

Anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Or is this another sign that the BBC have
been moving the deckchairs?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Davey]

I had the same problem a couple of weeks ago, and I never found the
answer. It's as though they want to make it harder and harder to find
the programme you want. I tried a day or so later, and it worked.
This morning, I opened iPlayer on my Humax, and for BBC4 for the
whole of yesterday, it showed only one programme, and that one was not
available to view.
Huh? I just checked with the PC, an hour after the Humax attempt, and
all of yesterday’s programming is there. This is nuts.

--
Davey.

[Dave Farrance]

Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> ...There is no fix available at this time. You can still

>download individual programmes via PID or URL.

Gah. The iplayer feature on my TV is cumbersome to the point of being
unusable, and if I pause a programme, then I've got a 50-50 chance of
being able to resume it, if I return a few minutes later. With
get_iplayer, I was previously able to search on the category "science",
pick out the PID of an interesting programme, download that to my network
drive, and play that on my TV via the RASPBMC media player on the
Raspberry Pi. All with just a few key-clicks using aliases that I'd set
up on my computer.

Anybody know how to find the PID number? I see that I can search the
iplayer website for the complete URL of a title, but if I download using
that with get_iplayer, then I end up with a filename like:
"BBC_iPlayer_Feeds_-_b01lxyzc_default.mp4"

[Java Jive]

The 8-character code in the URL is the PID, so for that below it's ...
b01lxyzc
... and ...
get_iplayer --pid b01lxyzc -g
... should retrieve it. I don't know whether the PID will find the
metadata to name the file properly, but I suspect not. My suspicion
is that this was held in the *.cache files.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:14:58 +0000, Dave Farrance
<DaveFa...@OMiTTHiSyahooANDTHiS.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "BBC_iPlayer_Feeds_-_b01lxyzc_default.mp4"

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <09a45al77j4eq7t3e...@4ax.com>, Dave Farrance

<DaveFa...@OMiTTHiSyahooANDTHiS.co.uk> wrote:
> Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> > ...There is no fix available at this time. You can still download
> >individual programmes via PID or URL.

> Anybody know how to find the PID number? I see that I can search the
> iplayer website for the complete URL of a title, but if I download using
> that with get_iplayer, then I end up with a filename like:
> "BBC_iPlayer_Feeds_-_b01lxyzc_default.mp4"

The last part of the URL of the relevant iplayer webpage is the pid. If I
use get_iplayer I'm not applying any conversions and get a file with a name
similar to the above, but filetyped ".flv"

So I've just been using FF to find the page I'd normally use to play the
item. That shows a URL like

www.bboc.co.uk/programmes/b007znn3

and the pid for it is b007znn3. So I then use --pid b007znn3 to obtain it
with get_iplayer.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <m2t8kj$us4$3...@n102.xanadu-bbs.net>, Davey

<da...@example.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:13:26 +0000 (GMT) Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> >
> > So I assume the pid is correct but for some reason the file isn't
> > labelled as 'default', etc.
> >
> > Anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Or is this another sign that the BBC
> > have been moving the deckchairs?
> >
> > Jim
> >

> I had the same problem a couple of weeks ago, and I never found the
> answer. It's as though they want to make it harder and harder to find
> the programme you want. I tried a day or so later, and it worked.

OK, thanks. I'll try again in a day or two.

I guess some of the details only get sorted out as and when those involved
notice or get around to it!

[Tim Watts]

On 30/10/14 11:49, Davey wrote:

> I had the same problem a couple of weeks ago, and I never found the
> answer. It's as though they want to make it harder and harder to find
> the programme you want.

Netflix: Excellent streaming quality, always works and fairly easy to
get around their catalogue by browsing or searching.

iPlayer: Getting harder IME to find anything and the streaming seems to
drop off randomly. It's only for Dr Who that I even pay my license
(technically I don't even need to as I only watch it in catch-up mode on
iPlayer - but ethically...)

I'm *this* close to dumping the BBC as I find I can always find Netflix
content and it's cheaper.

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 29/10/14 21:45, Java Jive wrote:
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/get_iplayer/2014-October/006240.html
>
> <quote>
> The BBC have removed the programme data feeds used by get_iplayer, so
> search and PVR functions no longer work. There is no programme
> information to cache, and it was the cache that supported search and
> PVR functions. There is no fix available at this time. You can still
> download individual programmes via PID or URL.
>
> http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/tv/feeds
> </quote>
>

To fix this someone will have to obtain from the BBC a Nitro API key. In
the context of what get_iplayer does, I suspect that request will be
denied. Further more I can see the PID label one day disappear under a
level of encryption. Approaching a dead end, me thinks :(

--
Adrian C

[Dave Farrance]

If you do, don't forget to remove TV aerials, and maybe even disassemble
tuners from TVs, else the men in the detector vans and jobsworth judges
will pile on more grief than you'll want to deal with.

[Tim Watts]

Well, none of that is legally necessary.

But you are right, they will harass me to death because they are bastards.

[Martin Gregorie]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 21:45:39 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

> <quote>
> The BBC have removed the programme data feeds used by get_iplayer, so
> search and PVR functions no longer work. There is no programme
> information to cache, and it was the cache that supported search and PVR
> functions. There is no fix available at this time. You can still
> download individual programmes via PID or URL.
>

If its all so totally borked at the Beeb, why is my Logitech Touch
working better and faster than ever?

OTOH I don't give a stuff about TeeVee. Don't have one. Don't want one.
Too much dross and not enough good stuff to justify the cost.

Radio is the best.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <10o9ib-...@squidward.dionic.net>, Tim Watts

Since my main content interests in the iplayer context tend to be concerts
on Radio 3 and various programmes on Radios 4/4extra I have my doubts I'd
prefer 'Netflix' myself. Personally, I'm happy to pay the license fee just
to have such things.

FWIW I do like Dr Who... but mainly of the era of Troughton/Hartnell than
nowdays. (Although I liked Tennent as the Doctor.)

[Brian Gaff]

This has also broken the Webbie blind persons I player lists as well. They
obviously don't give a shit about us do they? They did this once before and
soon put it back when we all complained. Surely this is quite automatic in
any case?
The snag with the current site is that there seems no way to just get a
listing of audio described tv shows on the current incarnation. Sure you
can tab down the page every time and see if it is, but life is far too short
for this, they have to sort this out.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:vqn25ap4r2jusv3os...@4ax.com...
>

[Brian Gaff]

Have they actually done this deliberately then, or as I said earlier is it
another cock up. I am effectively now completely without I player as I
relied on the audio described sorting on Webbie to find those shows. I
simply scrolled down the list and played what I wanted as it took me
straight to the actual page and set the accessibility settings
appropriately.
Now there are no lists.

Bloody cheek of it!

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

"Martin Gregorie" <mar...@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote in message
news:m2tevg$ibl$1...@dont-email.me...

[dave]

On 30/10/14 16:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Have they actually done this deliberately then, or as I said earlier is it
> another cock up. I am effectively now completely without I player as I
> relied on the audio described sorting on Webbie to find those shows. I
> simply scrolled down the list and played what I wanted as it took me
> straight to the actual page and set the accessibility settings
> appropriately.
> Now there are no lists.
>
> Bloody cheek of it!
>
> Brian

It's a deliberate action, though whether it breaks get_iplayer by design
is less certain.

http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/tv/feeds
--
Dave

[Davey]

I tried Netflix for a one-month trial, and found that they offered very
very little that I wanted. I had no problems using get_iplayer then, of
course, but the cost of Netflix was certainly no value to me.

--
Davey.

[Folderol]

Hmmm. That link suggests to me they are actually trying to be inclusive. They
specifically mention 'enthusiasts'.

--
W J G

[Dave Farrance]

Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

>... get_iplayer --pid b01lxyzc -g
>... should retrieve it. I don't know whether the PID will find the
>metadata to name the file properly, but I suspect not. My suspicion
>is that this was held in the *.cache files.

You're right -- it does not.

Ho hum, I feel a bash script coming on.

So, I want to open Firefox to the iplayer page containing the programme,
then just click an icon in the taskbar that triggers an examination of
Firefox for the relevant information, downloads the programme and gives
it a suitable filename.

Icon linked to this script, set visible shell mode, with work directory
set as wanted:

#!/bin/bash
# Get iplayer video info from Firefox and save video to work dir
fail() { echo "Error: $*"; exit 1; }
[[ ! -f /usr/bin/xdotool ]] && fail "install xdotool"
[[ ! -f /usr/bin/xclip ]] && fail "install xclip"
ffid=$(xdotool search --name 'Mozilla Firefox') # Firefox id
[[ -z "$ffid" ]] && fail "Can not find Firefox window"
xdotool key --window $ffid ctrl+l ctrl+c # get Firefox URL
url=$(xclip -o)
[[ "$url" != *bbc.co.uk/iplayer* ]] && fail "Not an iplayer URL"
pidname=${url#*episode\/}
pid=${pidname%%\/*}
title=${url##*\/}
echo "PID: $pid Title: $title"
read -p "OK to download? [Yn] " yn
[[ "$yn" = [nN]* ]] && fail "canceled by user"
mkdir -p tvr
get_iplayer --modes=best -o tvr --pid "$pid"
suffix=$(ls -1 tvr/BBC_iPl* | head -n1 | grep -o '[.][a-z0-9]*$')
mv tvr/BBC_iPl* "$title$suffix"
rmdir tvr

[dave]

This one rather less so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/posts/Introducing-Platform-API

especially Comment 6:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/posts/Introducing-Platform-API?postId=120679555#comment_120679555
--
Dave

[Folderol]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:32:28 +0000

You're right. That's not just bad, it's downright arrogantly bad :(

--
W J G

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <20141030174811.315d00be@debian>, Folderol

Well, "does not sanction" may or may not mean "is determined to prevent
people from using it or anything similar in future".

It may mean "you're on your own, chum, when it comes to working around our
changes". Maybe they had no choice but to switch off due to cuts, etc.
What that means in practice in the end, dunno. Its pretty negative and not
exactly friendly, though. :-/

I'm also curious about what Brian seems to be saying. i.e. That this fouls
up access for the blind. If so, the BBC might be running into legal
trouble.

The messages seem a bit contradictory at this point. Is 'nitro' linked
to dropping the previous feeds or not? What made anyone think it
made sense to drop the feeds months before any 'replacement', or is
this just an absence of joined up management? Was it an absolute
impossibility to extend the use of the old system until the new one
was a success? It does seem risky in engineering terms to break
what you had before a 'replacement' is actually in use and works OK.

Whatever, its bound to prompt a lot of compliants. Wonder what R4's
'Feedback' email pile will look like in the next few days. :-)

I emailed someone I know to ask about this. They are on holiday. Hmmm.
Maybe they decided this was a good time to be away from the office... ;->

All that said, probably best at present to give this a while to let
the situation clarify. Not 'sanctioning' something that has worked
may not mean that the new system won't provide a basis for a decent
alternative. For all we know at present, the eventual replacement
might turn out to be much *better* as a basis of a 'son-of-get-iplayer'
system in the future.

[Chris Davies]

Folderol <gen...@musically.me.uk> wrote:

> dave <da...@cyw.uklinux.net> wrote:
>> This one rather less so.

>> especially Comment 6:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/posts/Introducing-Platform-API?postId=120679555#comment_120679555

> You're right. That's not just bad, it's downright arrogantly bad :(

It's a necesary position for the BBC. It cannot be seen publicly to
be supporting anything that could (easily) allow for programmes to be
stored outside the permitted 7/30 day period. Get_iplayer honours that
restriction, but as the programmes are broadcast - and therefore stored -
without DRM it's potentially a sticking point.

The BBC doesn't sanction the use of get_iplayer, but it hasn't so far
actively attempted to close it down[*].

I haven't read much about Nitro but unless it provides end-to-end
encryption it isn't necessarily a complete show-stopper. Or is it...?

Chris


[*] More than once

[Adrian]

In message <545ebd8...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> writes

>Since my main content interests in the iplayer context tend to be concerts
>on Radio 3 and various programmes on Radios 4/4extra I have my doubts I'd
>prefer 'Netflix' myself. Personally, I'm happy to pay the license fee just
>to have such things.
>

I didn't think you needed a licence for radio programmes, unless you
listen to them on a TV.


Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

[Tim Watts]

Yes - the UK catalogue is pants.

OTOH if you add on UnblockUS, you can get all of the netflix catalogues
on demand :)

[Martin Gregorie]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:31:49 +0000, Adrian wrote:

> In message <545ebd8...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> writes
>>Since my main content interests in the iplayer context tend to be
>>concerts on Radio 3 and various programmes on Radios 4/4extra I have my
>>doubts I'd prefer 'Netflix' myself. Personally, I'm happy to pay the
>>license fee just to have such things.
>>
>>
> I didn't think you needed a licence for radio programmes, unless you
> listen to them on a TV.
>

You don't AFAIK, but in some ways I rather wish there was one: it would
at least give those receiving the license fee some incentive to take more
notice of their listeners.

[Frederick]

On 29/10/14 21:45, Java Jive wrote:
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/get_iplayer/2014-October/006240.html
>

> <quote>
> The BBC have removed the programme data feeds used by get_iplayer, so
> search and PVR functions no longer work. There is no programme
> information to cache, and it was the cache that supported search and
> PVR functions. There is no fix available at this time. You can still
> download individual programmes via PID or URL.
>

> http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/tv/feeds
> </quote>
>
Yes, this is very annoying. Someone I know has a smart TV, and they
changed the way that works to, so now they can't get radio on it either.

SWIM tried to download some of The Code (That BBC4 Australian program
where there's that slightly weird guy who uses all those linux commands
in the first episode.) , using the url yesterday evening and it seems to
not work using get_iplayer now either.

Is there a HTML5 version of the iplayer website? I kind of relied on
get_iplayer so I didn't have to install proprietary flash.

[Brian Gaff]

Why is the question surely? What possible harm was this doing?
The problem I now have is that i can still see lists of the main channels
but all the special sorted lists have gone away, including the audio
described one which was a list similar to exporer, a one line description of
each audio described show, which when pressed took you to the page and set
the ad flag as well so all you had to do is click the embedded flash object
and hit play button.


Now I do not know which items have ad in, say the bbc1 list, but say I
know, like dr who. I cannot find a simple checkbox on the page to set ad on,
its always off by default. Is there one there? There is a link but that
throws you off the page for the player to another page with lots of episodes
on it an still not obvious way to turn on ad.

They seriously need to have a simple way to turn this on and off on the page
itself.
Anyone know how to do this from the keyboard?

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

"Frederick" <fake...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7PqdneAOY9xxZs_J...@bt.com...

[Roderick Stewart]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie
<mar...@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:

>>>
>> I didn't think you needed a licence for radio programmes, unless you
>> listen to them on a TV.
>>
>You don't AFAIK, but in some ways I rather wish there was one: it would
>at least give those receiving the license fee some incentive to take more
>notice of their listeners.

It hasn't been necessary for many years to buy a licence to listen to
radio, and I'm not even sure about the use of a TV receiver, since the
TV licence is for the reception of TV broadcasts and is not required
simply to own a TV set.

I suppose it boils down to what level of pedantry they apply to the
definition of a Freeview radio broadcast. Is it radio because it's
radio, regardless of the transport medium, or do they count it as a TV
broadcast that just happens to be sound only?

If it's the transport medium that determines the matter, rather than
the absence of pictures, then what's an internet "radio" broadcast?

Rod.

[dave]

On 31/10/14 08:03, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Why is the question surely? What possible harm was this doing?

According to the blog I referred to earlier, the hosting contract for
the parts of iPlayer including this feed expired. Presumably the Nitro
project which was supposed to be the replacement was delayed, but the
money saved by cancelling the old contract had already been spent so it
couldn't be renewed.

Typical management incompetence, in other words.
--
Dave

[alexd]

dave (for it is he) wrote:

> According to the blog I referred to earlier, the hosting contract for
> the parts of iPlayer including this feed expired.

The BBC have so much of their own internet infrastructure, including peering
with other ISPs, yet they outsource the hosting? That's a bit WTF-y by
itself, but the idea that the people who were hosting it refused to extend
the contract is unbelievable. Presumably the BBC didn't ask, or didn't want
to extend the hosting contract.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
10:09:06 up 4 days, 41 min, 5 users, load average: 0.39, 0.47, 0.44
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
from malice

[alexd]

I would happily pay for a radio-only license.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)

10:11:48 up 4 days, 44 min, 5 users, load average: 0.88, 0.57, 0.48

[Bernard Peek]

On 30/10/14 19:02, Chris Davies wrote:
> Folderol <gen...@musically.me.uk> wrote:
>> dave <da...@cyw.uklinux.net> wrote:
>>> This one rather less so.
>>> especially Comment 6:
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/posts/Introducing-Platform-API?postId=120679555#comment_120679555
>
>> You're right. That's not just bad, it's downright arrogantly bad :(
>
> It's a necesary position for the BBC. It cannot be seen publicly to
> be supporting anything that could (easily) allow for programmes to be
> stored outside the permitted 7/30 day period. Get_iplayer honours that
> restriction, but as the programmes are broadcast - and therefore stored -
> without DRM it's potentially a sticking point.
>
> The BBC doesn't sanction the use of get_iplayer, but it hasn't so far
> actively attempted to close it down[*].

For which we should be duly thankful. I think it's clear that it's
unreasonable to expect the BBC to build new systems that allow people to
hold on to downloaded content longer than the limits imposed in its own
iPlayer. So while the API will quite possibly be made available to
open-source developers I expect that it will only allow them to build
new interfaces to the same data that iPlayer delivers.


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

In search of cognoscenti (again)

[Davey]

What is unreasonable is that the iPlayer provided by the BBC doesn't
work for storing content, and if it does, then they 'fix' it soon
afterwards, so that it's useless again. The reason I use get_iplayer is
because I can never get their 'Desktop', or whatever it's called this
month, to work.

--
Davey.

[Bernard Peek]

On 31/10/14 10:59, Davey wrote:


>> For which we should be duly thankful. I think it's clear that it's
>> unreasonable to expect the BBC to build new systems that allow people
>> to hold on to downloaded content longer than the limits imposed in
>> its own iPlayer. So while the API will quite possibly be made
>> available to open-source developers I expect that it will only allow
>> them to build new interfaces to the same data that iPlayer delivers.
>>
>>
>
> What is unreasonable is that the iPlayer provided by the BBC doesn't
> work for storing content, and if it does, then they 'fix' it soon
> afterwards, so that it's useless again. The reason I use get_iplayer is
> because I can never get their 'Desktop', or whatever it's called this
> month, to work.

I've never really had many problems with iPlayer but haven't used it
much since I found get_iplayer. I was always able to save downloaded
material for up to 30 days.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <m2vn9l$tjk$2...@dont-email.me>, alexd <trof...@hotmail.com>
writes

>Martin Gregorie (for it is he) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:31:49 +0000, Adrian wrote:
>
>>> I didn't think you needed a licence for radio programmes, unless you
>>> listen to them on a TV.
>>>
>> You don't AFAIK, but in some ways I rather wish there was one: it would
>> at least give those receiving the license fee some incentive to take more
>> notice of their listeners.
>
>I would happily pay for a radio-only license.
>

I'm pretty sure that, at one time, the TV licence was essentially for
the reception of 'images', and the sound was simply part of the package.
Of course, in those days, anyone receiving only TV sound was a rarity.

However, these days, although you don't need a TV licence to receive
digital radio via a non-recording set-top box, I'm not sure that it is
made clear whether or not a TV licence is indeed required for TV
sound-only (eg if the receiver is incapable of displaying or recording
images).
--
Ian

[Davey]

You are lucky. Whenever I tried to install 'iPlayer Desktop', it would
fail, for one reason or another, but get_iplayer did the job. Maybe I'll
try again now, and see what happens. Watch this space.
--
Davey.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <Pc81s6E1...@ku.gro.lloiff>, Adrian <bul...@ku.gro.lioff>
wrote:

> In message <545ebd8...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> writes
> >Since my main content interests in the iplayer context tend to be
> >concerts on Radio 3 and various programmes on Radios 4/4extra I have my
> >doubts I'd prefer 'Netflix' myself. Personally, I'm happy to pay the
> >license fee just to have such things.
> >

> I didn't think you needed a licence for radio programmes, unless you
> listen to them on a TV.

My point was that although I *do* watch TV as well, I'd be quite happy to
pay the fee even if I didn't whilst the BBC produces the radio programs
that interest me. So far as I'm concerned the Proms broadcasts alone
justify the fee!

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <m2vjal$hl4$1...@dont-email.me>, dave <da...@cyw.uklinux.net> wrote:
> On 31/10/14 08:03, Brian Gaff wrote:
> > Why is the question surely? What possible harm was this doing?

> According to the blog I referred to earlier, the hosting contract for
> the parts of iPlayer including this feed expired.

Which raises questions like:

They presumably knew well in advance when this would expire. So what
advance notice did they give to warn those relying upon it so they could
make plans for the change?

> Presumably the Nitro project which was supposed to be the replacement
> was delayed, but the money saved by cancelling the old contract had
> already been spent so it couldn't be renewed.

> Typical management incompetence, in other words.

If so, its a classic problem I've seen many times.

Some years ago our local theatre decided they wanted a nice new building.

Error 1 was to demolish the old theater before work started on the new one.
This lead to the predicatable result. The contractors stopped work partway
though construction and demanded more money or they'd go bust and walk
away. Thus dramatically increasing the cost and the period before the new
building was finished and opened.

Error 2 was for the new building to be a grand and large one. So both the
building and running costs were high. Despite only having much the same
number of seats.

I and others predicted problem 1: The constuction delays and added costs
and their reason. We also predicted well before time the next problem. That
as soon as there was any kind of 'downturn' in the economy the new building
would become a financial anchor.

A year or so the theatre went bust and dark. It has now been 'rescued' by
being taken over by the local University on a long lease at trivial cost.
Time will tell if our next prediction will come true.

That as time passes the theatre will be used less and less for public
shows, plays, etc, and eventually become a University facility which the
public have forgotten. And we have no local theatre.

That may seem a negative prediction. But some of us have seen how the Uni
has treated other local projects. So remain wary. Time will tell...

WRT the BBC and get_iplayer. They clearly have no duty to help maintain it
as a program. Not their project or responsibility.

But if it is the case that a number of fee payers have come to regularly
rely on something like get_iplayer then the BBC do have some responsibility
to take that into account. Particularly if for some specific groups like
those with a sight problem, what they have ceased was important in helping
them access content. So if they've taken something away they do need to
provide something equivalent in terms of accessibility to content. Be
interesting to see what they come up with. I doubt that a 'solution' tied
to going via commercial gatekeepers would be equivalent. Particularly if it
means having to pay a third party rather than an openly/freely accessible
method.

[AnthonyL]

I'm sure management were totally taken by surprise when the project
was not completed on time.

What I don't get is all the DRM/30 day limit stuff. I can record onto
PVR and if I wish (on my Toppy) download those recordings onto my
computer or buy a TV card and set my computer to record and keep those
recordings as long as I want.

What's the limit for other than to annoy?

--
AnthonyL

[Davey]

I go to the BBC iPlayer website, and choose a programme, in this case
yesterday's Life Story. I select Download, and it asks me if I already
have 'iPlayer Download' installed. I say 'No, install it now', it then
offers me the choice of Windows or Mac, but no Linux.
I go to 'Installation Help', which leads to several more options, all
of which eventually end up back where they started, even when choosing
'Linux' as the platform. Bloody useless.

--
Davey.

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 31/10/14 12:57, Davey wrote:

> I go to the BBC iPlayer website, and choose a programme, in this case
> yesterday's Life Story. I select Download, and it asks me if I already
> have 'iPlayer Download' installed. I say 'No, install it now', it then
> offers me the choice of Windows or Mac, but no Linux.
> I go to 'Installation Help', which leads to several more options, all
> of which eventually end up back where they started, even when choosing
> 'Linux' as the platform. Bloody useless.
>

Adobe DRM software is not installable on Linux, so neither is "iPlayer
Download". This is not likely to change until the BBC gets out of bed
with Adobe. Something a public body should never have done?

--
Adrian C

[Steve Thackery]

AnthonyL wrote:

> What's the limit for other than to annoy?

Copyrights, basically. Broadcasters buy certain rights to material
from the programme makers. Those rights may, or may not, include
making it available on their on-demand service. If it's allowed to be
on-demand, there is usually a time limit.

As far as I know, this is all determined by the deal the broadcaster
does with the copyright holder (i.e. how much money they are willing to
spend).

--
SteveT

[Max Demian]

"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k3eJ$SMmN3...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...

I think you'd get away with it if you had a Freeview box wired to an audio
system and not a screen in sight. More difficult if you had anything like a
computer screen in the room, even if it didn't take the output from the STB.

--
Max Demian

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <cbh7of...@mid.individual.net>, Bernard Peek

<b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:


> I think it's clear that it's unreasonable to expect the BBC to build
> new systems that allow people to hold on to downloaded content longer
> than the limits imposed in its own iPlayer.

Understandable, but depends on the precise interpretation of "allow",
etc...

Given the generally aggressively paranoid attitude to IPR in the 'meeja
companies' its quite understandable that the BBC would not wish to design a
system with the conscious aim of allowing people to easily make and keep
copies in perpetuity. And I assume the BBC will be faced by the well-suited
legal eagles from said meeja companies who want to maximise their income
without too much regard for mere viewers whose cash they want. You can
probably estimate their POV from the idiotic nag screens on DVDs, etc.

However the reality is that the BBC can't actually stop people from
recording. e.g. it is trivially easy to connect a digital recorder via USB
or spdif or indeed HDMI and record the audio if you know how to do so.
Given this is possible for a clued and kitted home user, it isn't going to
be a problem for serious commercial pirates. Particularly as they also can
get live broadcast access via Freeview, satellite, etc.

Hence the BBC must know they have to face up to the reality that home users
will at times make and keep recordings. Indeed, without this a lot of the
old material they have regained (and now make income from!) would remain
totally lost.

So in reality their main interest is - or IMHO should be - to make a system
that is good for their fee-payers veiwers/listeners without going 'too far'
and actively helping commercial pirates, etc. They can't get this perfect,
so should be erring on the side of not making life harder than necessary
for their millions of fee payers. Without them, they'd have no broadcasts
to worry about!

Its also worth wondering what commercial value a copy of something like an
old BBC radio documentary might have. e.g. The recent R3 item on Joan
Littlewood. It, and items like it, will be of interest to some people. But
unlikely to be a source of a boom in commercial piracy. So treating all
material as if it were a world mass-market blockbuster would be rather an
over-reaction.

> So while the API will quite possibly be made available to open-source
> developers I expect that it will only allow them to build new interfaces
> to the same data that iPlayer delivers.

That may be fair enough if it allows people to access the material as they
wish. All depends on the details. The main problem at present seems to be
the way the feeds were cut off with no warning before any alternative was
on offer.

What I'm curious about is:

1) if access via pid or url will remain possible for get_iplayer or some
derivative and allow recordings to be made.

2) how the BBC will provide a text-based system that those with vision
problems, etc, can use to find items on a search basis that suits the user,
and then access them easily.

I also wonder how many people this is going to annoy who have become used
to what has now been broken. Might be more people than the BBC thought.

[Chris Davies]

Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> 1) if access via pid or url will remain possible for get_iplayer or some
> derivative and allow recordings to be made.

Some patches are available on the mailing list. (See the thread
"get_iplayer search and PVR functions no longer work - no fix available"
from the last couple of days.)

> I also wonder how many people this is going to annoy who have become used
> to what has now been broken. Might be more people than the BBC thought.

Get_iplayer has never been an officially acceptable way to retrieve and
watch content from the BBC, and I can understand that given the rights
ownership of that content. Me, I'm trying to work out how to express
my frustration without setting myself up for a straight "don't use
get_iplayer" type response.

I've listened to more radio, and a greater variety of it, in the last
few years via get_iplayer than since my teens.

Chris

[Martin Gregorie]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:17:47 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

>
> I think you'd get away with it if you had a Freeview box wired to an
> audio system and not a screen in sight. More difficult if you had
> anything like a computer screen in the room, even if it didn't take the
> output from the STB.
>

There used to be a radio-only license, but it got canned on the grounds
that it didn't bring in much revenue and was even harder to enforce than
a TV license.

My understanding is that the TV license is, or was until recently, only
needed if you have an RF tuner capable of receiving broadcast or cable
TV. IOW, the license is only needed to watch programs as they are
broadcast.

Since the Beeb and other UK TV sources covered by the license don't
currently stream TV channels at the same time as they are broadcast, you
don't need a license to watch TV off the 'net or recorded media.

[charles]

In article <m30ksk$59n$1...@dont-email.me>,

Not quite true. You can watch live tennis via the BBC website. And
watching Satellite is also a licensable activity. I know you said "RF
tuner" but some people don't consider that covers satellites.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[Peter Duncanson]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:44:50 +0000, Adrian Caspersz <em...@here.invalid>
wrote:

It might be much more costly for the BBC to "go it alone".


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

[Steve Thackery]

Jim Lesurf wrote:

> However the reality is that the BBC can't actually stop people from
> recording. e.g. it is trivially easy to connect a digital recorder
> via USB or spdif or indeed HDMI and record the audio if you know how
> to do so.

Jim, I thought the HDMI output was encrypted for HD material,
preventing recording the picture or sound. Is that wrong?

--
SteveT

[Brian Gaff]

Apparently there is a new system coming called Nitro, now would you not
expect the bbc to actually leave stuff that works up and running until the
new system is in place and software writers can adopt it? I wonder if the
name is a joke, as I was thinking they need some kind of explosive up their
arses to stop screwing up what works fine.
Sounds like job creation scheme to me.
brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

"Steve Thackery" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:PcWdnTDy8_zoBM7J...@bt.com...

[Martin Gregorie]

Its an RF signal, innit? So, OF COURSE its covered, and ignorance of a
law or contract clause has never been an valid excuse for breaking it.

[Vir Campestris]

On 31/10/2014 18:37, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> My understanding is that the TV license is, or was until recently, only
> needed if you have an RF tuner capable of receiving broadcast or cable
> TV. IOW, the license is only needed to watch programs as they are
> broadcast.
>
> Since the Beeb and other UK TV sources covered by the license don't
> currently stream TV channels at the same time as they are broadcast, you
> don't need a license to watch TV off the 'net or recorded media.

AIUI you can watch BBC live over the net, and you do need a licence to
do it.

Andy

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:32:54 +0000, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>However, these days, although you don't need a TV licence to receive
>digital radio via a non-recording set-top box, I'm not sure that it is
>made clear whether or not a TV licence is indeed required for TV
>sound-only (eg if the receiver is incapable of displaying or recording
>images).

It's incapable of displaying images when it's tuned to a channel that
isn't broadcasting any.

Rod.

[Adrian Caspersz]

Yes, I remember such comments at the time.

Still, given now that they have managed to implement some kind of 30-day
lockdown on Android & Apple devices using Inside Secure's Fusion
Platform DRM, I think that Adobe is now not needed - but probably still
being paid for :-(

--
Adrian C

[Martin Gregorie]

OK, I stand corrected on that point: I didn't know the BBC simultaneously
streams broadcast TV, but my main point is valid. You do need a license
for the broadcast signal no matter how its received, but you don't for
any stored program that you choose to watch/listen to after the broadcast
has been presented to the viewing/listening public.

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 31/10/14 20:11, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Apparently there is a new system coming called Nitro, now would you not
> expect the bbc to actually leave stuff that works up and running until the
> new system is in place and software writers can adopt it? I wonder if the
> name is a joke, as I was thinking they need some kind of explosive up their
> arses to stop screwing up what works fine.

Their previous API was called Dynamite ...

> Sounds like job creation scheme to me.

Bankers, it's all bankers :-(

--
Adrian C

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <PcWdnTDy8_zoBM7J...@bt.com>,

Yes. The basic problem is that many of the large 'copyright owners' are run
by suits who remain obsessed with 'mechanical' ways to 'protect copyright'.

If you're old enough you may remember 'Magic Alex' and all the others who
kept 'inventing' ways to prevent/detect when people were taping their LPs
onto cassette. Any engineer would have explained why being able to prevent
this *without* degrading the sound was a fantasy.

These days the equivalent is all the ways they try to stop people copying
digital material. None of the systems totally prevent copying. Most of them
simply annoy and inconvenience most *paying* listeners/viewers.

The BBC engineers know this perfectly well. But the problem is that the
suits and managers who arrange to buy the ability to show films, etc,
don't. So impose limitations that simply annoy people and don't plug the
hole in the copy protection fantasy.

[Murff]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 23:49:05 +0000, Martin Gregorie wrote:

> OK, I stand corrected on that point: I didn't know the BBC
> simultaneously streams broadcast TV, but my main point is valid. You do
> need a license for the broadcast signal no matter how its received, but
> you don't for any stored program that you choose to watch/listen to
> after the broadcast has been presented to the viewing/listening public.

I do have a TV, but it isn't connected to anything other than a DVD
player and a couple of games consoles. When I bought it, the shop wanted
me to fill in a form... and a letter duly arrived from the TV tax people
telling me, somewhat rudely, that I had just bought TV reception
equipment but that I didn't have a licence. So on telling them I'd bought
video display equipment and quoting them the bit of their rules that said
I wasn't liable for their tax, they huffily "retained the right" to barge
into my house and make sure I wasn't telling porkers.

Some months later, I was cooking some flash-fried venison top-loin
(extracted from a local Roe), plus chips, and a light red-wine sauce...
when the doorbell went. It was a bloke from the TV tax office:

"Do you have TV"
"Yes"
"We have no record of a licence"
"I don't need one"
"Can I check"
"Yes, but I'm cooking this, and I'm not going to ruin it for you. You can
wait there if you like"

So I left him standing in the kitchen looking increasingly hungry. Then
relented and took him to where younger son was being horrid to some
aliens. I asked younger son to show the TV to the tax bloke.

The bloke came back to the kitchen a couple of minutes later, and
admitted that there was no antenna connection. He started on the usual
stuff about needing to get a licence if I wanted to watch anything live...

... and was somewhat puzzled when I pointed out that I didn't see the
attraction in paying for the privilege of having my time dictated by
someone else' broadcasting schedule. With things like iPlayer, 4od and so
on I could get things as and when I wanted. And with US download sites,
anything I might want from there, typically months before it got to this
side of the Atlantic. So why should I want to pay his tax ?

He went away hungry. Dinner was nice.

--
Murff...

[Yellow]

In article <vnvcibx...@news.roaima.co.uk>, chris-...@roaima.co.uk
says...

Me too.

I like listening to Radio 4 and Radio 4 Extra content in my car and
get_iplayer allows me to snaffle last weeks shows as MP3s and put them
on a memory stick. I then have comedy shows and plays to listen to as I
sit in the usual morning and evening traffic jams.

I pay my TV licence, I am not selling the content to anyone else and
fail to see any harm in my activities and without this method of storing
BBC shows I would simply not be able to listen to them.

In fact, I fail to see why the BBC won't let me do this directly,
without having to use get_iplayer!

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <vnvcibx...@news.roaima.co.uk>, Chris Davies

<chris-...@roaima.co.uk> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > 1) if access via pid or url will remain possible for get_iplayer or
> > some derivative and allow recordings to be made.

> Some patches are available on the mailing list. (See the thread
> "get_iplayer search and PVR functions no longer work - no fix available"
> from the last couple of days.)

I just got caught up in this because I happened to install and start using
get_iplayer on the morning of the change! However I found that - with one
exception - using it via pid worked fine with no need for the lost feeds.
For my purposes that's fine as I normally listen via the webpage interface.
i.e. just go to the .../programmes/<pid> page and use that. So I was
experimenting partly for audio comparisons and in preparation to doing some
HDTV analytical comparisions - FreeviewHD ts tsreams versus getting the
iplayer ones, in the future. If pid continues to work, I'm OK.

*BUT* the risk that get_iplayer and things like it may be put out of
operation does bother me for various reasons. e.g. that many people may be
relying on it. Perhaps particularly those with special requirements like a
searchable and speakable text base. So the feeds clearly *do* matter to
many people, even though I personally haven't needed them. Hence it seems
bad to me for the BBC to remove them with no notice and no replacement.

> > I also wonder how many people this is going to annoy who have become
> > used to what has now been broken. Might be more people than the BBC
> > thought.

> Get_iplayer has never been an officially acceptable way to retrieve and
> watch content from the BBC, and I can understand that given the rights
> ownership of that content.

Yes. Understood and agreed. Its not their job to consciously aid or promote
either home recording or commercial piracy. But AIUI nor is it their job to
go out of their way to *block* it. Although they may have to take some
steps to keep suits happier to help them get in some material to broadcast.
Their charter, etc, require them to make and broadcast material to educate,
inform, and entertain. So far as I know, it doesn't make being an active
anti-piracy agency a primary responsibility in the same way.

> Me, I'm trying to work out how to express my frustration without setting
> myself up for a straight "don't use get_iplayer" type response.

The response I'd make is to ask for what alternative is on offer that does
the same things and meets some requirements I'd expect the BBC to accept.

e.g. Having already paid for BBC-produced/commissioned items my access
should not really require me to *buy* any other - particularly non-UK -
commercial items or software beyond what I already have. Nor act as a leak
for any info on me to anyone *other* that BBC direct and only.

And for any software to be open enough that we can check and verify this.
[1]

The point is that as fee payers we already paid for the BBC's content and
access to it. And the legal reality in the UK is that 'home taping' *is*
now permitted within specified conditions. You can make and keep recordings
for personal purposes of convenience, etc.

People buy DVD+/-R discs and use them to home record films, etc, etc. No
matter how much the suits grind their teeth, this is happening and will
happen. And so on. If they think that means they can/should charge more for
a TV screening, that's for them to bicker about.

> I've listened to more radio, and a greater variety of it, in the last
> few years via get_iplayer than since my teens.

I can certainly see why it and similar programs are very handy for many
people. I don't doubt the BBC know that. The problem is the clash of
cultures between suits/lawyers and engineers. The engineers are practical
realists as they know the final test is if the bridge falls down or not.
The suits and lawyers rely on their own myths to keep their jobs. Alas, the
suits and lawyers using think they are running things. :-)

Jim

[1] I know, BTW, that some people at the BBC are not deliriously happy with
methods like flash. They've used it as a result of the clash between suits
and engineers I've referred to. In effect, it was a way to get the show on
the road. They do plan to change to other methods. How much better they
will be in practice, or when, I dunno...

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <JoOdnTmiGIfWQM7J...@bt.com>, Steve Thackery

I'm pretty sure you'd be able to find an HDMI box that outputs something
else like spdif. Even if it is called a 'TV set'. :-) But my main point is
that there are many ways to skin this cat, depending on the details. These
range from the 'so bleeding obvious even suits should know' class like
using a DVD recorder (then rip the disc if wanted) to ways like using a TV
dongle to capture ts streams for video+audio through using fixes like an
ALSA tee or Audacity to record audio. I lost count of all the ways someone
could make copies years ago. The idea that some kind of perfect lockdown on
iplayer would do more than annoy normal users is a fantasy pushed by
lawyers eager to go on being employed by dumb suits who are easily
panicked.

So measures like 'encrypting' HDMI just annoys and inconveniences many
people without actually preventing someone with a clue from making copies
*if that's what they want to do*. There are other paths though the woods.
Largely 'mechanical' copyright protection is an employment scheme for suits
and lawyers. I guess engineers just sigh and go along with the gag, knowing
the reality full well but also realising there's no point arguing.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <MPG.2ebee65f2...@News.Individual.NET>, Yellow

<no...@none.com> wrote:
> In article <vnvcibx...@news.roaima.co.uk>, chris-...@roaima.co.uk
> says...
> >
> > Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > > I also wonder how many people this is going to annoy who have become
> > > used to what has now been broken. Might be more people than the BBC
> > > thought.

[snip]

> I like listening to Radio 4 and Radio 4 Extra content in my car and
> get_iplayer allows me to snaffle last weeks shows as MP3s and put them
> on a memory stick. I then have comedy shows and plays to listen to as I
> sit in the usual morning and evening traffic jams.

> I pay my TV licence, I am not selling the content to anyone else and
> fail to see any harm in my activities and without this method of storing
> BBC shows I would simply not be able to listen to them.

My POV is similar although my details differ. Particularly for material
made by the BBC or commissioned by them. We paid for it.

> In fact, I fail to see why the BBC won't let me do this directly,
> without having to use get_iplayer!

I guess the problem stems from when the BBC want to 'buy' the right to be
able to screen things like feature films made by large media companies.
This is slightly different to the above as the BBC don't own the material
in the same way and are asking in effect "can we just show it once or
twice, please?"

The company lawyers then duly obsess about controlling who can access, how
and when, and also use the ways something might be <gasp!> copied to try
and hike the price *and* want to see the BBC 'clamp down' on such awful
behaviour by paying customers.

No doubt in particular they'll be wanting to prevent non-UK people watching
since they'll be planning to flog the same material in other countries. As
can be seen from DVD and BD 'regions', they like this trick of divide and
rule.

All this puts the BBC in a stress between trying to get the material to
show at a reasonable cost and allowing their fee paying viewers/listeners
to do so as suits the viewer/listener. I have some sympathy for the BBC
here as they want to keep down procurement costs as well as maximise how
much they can make the results accessible. But in the end, its our fee
money that pays the BBC.

IIRC one small-scale example of another kind was that the 'format' rights
to 'Desert Island Discs' was owned by the family of the original creator.
As a result for some years it and old issues were off limits for the full
iplayer treatment. Since then the BBC I guess have established that their
normal commissioning contract allows them to make stuff they commission
available as suits via 'listen again', etc. But chasing up old rights was
presumably a PITA for the BBC lawyers. In some ways I suspect the
Radio4extra listen again is as much a triumph of BBC lawyers as engineers!

[Bernard Peek]

On 01/11/14 09:40, Jim Lesurf wrote:


>> Jim, I thought the HDMI output was encrypted for HD material, preventing
>> recording the picture or sound. Is that wrong?
>
> I'm pretty sure you'd be able to find an HDMI box that outputs something
> else like spdif.

To the best of my knowledge HDMI encryption hasn't been broken yet so as
yet you cannot get an HD signal out from any HDMI device. There are ways
of getting and recording SD signals though.




--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

In search of cognoscenti (again)

[Bernard Peek]

On 31/10/14 17:33, Jim Lesurf wrote:


> Yes. The basic problem is that many of the large 'copyright owners' are run
> by suits who remain obsessed with 'mechanical' ways to 'protect copyright'.

I think you will find that they are obsessed with effective methods of
protecting copyright. I doubt they care much whether the method is
digital or clockwork.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <545fae9...@audiomisc.co.uk>,

Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> However I found that - with one
> exception - using it via pid worked fine with no need for the lost feeds.

That was the case a few days ago, Just now I tried again and for three R4 /
R4ex items chosen at random simply using the programme file pid or URL
failed.

So does this no longer work at all?

I'll see if I can find any fix, but a pointer here would be welcome.
Otherwise I'll have to abandon trying out get_iplayer and conclude its a
deceased waterfowl.

Jim

[David Woolley]

On 01/11/14 14:03, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> material
> made by the BBC or commissioned by them.

I would expect that the price for transfer of copyright, or at least the
right to sub-licence with no additional royalties, for a commissioned
work, would be higher than that for a limited licence to make it
available over the air, in the UK, and available to UK users of iPlayer,
for a 30 days.

[Andy Furniss]

Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 01/11/14 09:40, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>
>>> Jim, I thought the HDMI output was encrypted for HD material, preventing
>>> recording the picture or sound. Is that wrong?
>>
>> I'm pretty sure you'd be able to find an HDMI box that outputs something
>> else like spdif.
>
> To the best of my knowledge HDMI encryption hasn't been broken yet so as
> yet you cannot get an HD signal out from any HDMI device. There are ways
> of getting and recording SD signals though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection#Circumvention

Of course you need the right hardware, far easier just to get eg. bluray
by software.
As for sat I guess there are ways but don't know what they are.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <cbkah8...@mid.individual.net>, Bernard Peek

<b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> On 31/10/14 17:33, Jim Lesurf wrote:


> > Yes. The basic problem is that many of the large 'copyright owners'
> > are run by suits who remain obsessed with 'mechanical' ways to
> > 'protect copyright'.

> I think you will find that they are obsessed with effective methods of
> protecting copyright. I doubt they care much whether the method is
> digital or clockwork.

I think you will find that by 'mechanical' I meant any form of automatic
process rather than human actions like physical intervention or legal
threats. :-)

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <m32sng$29n$1...@dont-email.me>, David Woolley

Yes, that may well be so. However the BBC have said they want to move
towards having a long term archive accessible on line of 'all' their old
material. Or at least as close as proves practicable. I've heard this
expressed in programmes like 'Feedback' more than once. It understandably
means more cost for some items.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <cbkabd...@mid.individual.net>, Bernard Peek

<b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> On 01/11/14 09:40, Jim Lesurf wrote:


> >> Jim, I thought the HDMI output was encrypted for HD material,
> >> preventing recording the picture or sound. Is that wrong?
> >
> > I'm pretty sure you'd be able to find an HDMI box that outputs
> > something else like spdif.

> To the best of my knowledge HDMI encryption hasn't been broken yet so as
> yet you cannot get an HD signal out from any HDMI device. There are
> ways of getting and recording SD signals though.

To be clear: Are you saying that if I buy a FreeviewHDTV and watch
FreeviewHD the spdif/optical audio output of the TV will not give any
output?

The answer to that question does matter as I'm currently planning to buy
such a TV sometime soon!

And is it really the case that no TV or studio engineers can buy or use any
box at all that will rip digital audio from HD HDMI?

[Java Jive]

Downloading TV using the --pid option seems to be working ATM, I can't
comment on radio, but will be trying that later.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 14:49:43 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> So does this no longer work at all?

--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:27:45 +0000 (UTC), Murff <mu...@warlock.org>

wrote:

>> OK, I stand corrected on that point: I didn't know the BBC
>> simultaneously streams broadcast TV, but my main point is valid. You do
>> need a license for the broadcast signal no matter how its received, but
>> you don't for any stored program that you choose to watch/listen to
>> after the broadcast has been presented to the viewing/listening public.

It's ironic that when you're watching a broadcast "live" these days,
you're almost always watching something that isn't really live at all,
but has been recorded, i.e. stored, but just not by you. What this
effectively means is that the need for a licence depends on nothing
more than whose hard drive has been used to store it. Bonkers.

>I do have a TV, but it isn't connected to anything other than a DVD
>player and a couple of games consoles. When I bought it, the shop wanted
>me to fill in a form... and a letter duly arrived from the TV tax people
>telling me, somewhat rudely, that I had just bought TV reception
>equipment but that I didn't have a licence. So on telling them I'd bought
>video display equipment and quoting them the bit of their rules that said
>I wasn't liable for their tax, they huffily "retained the right" to barge
>into my house and make sure I wasn't telling porkers.

They don't have that right in the first place, and are probably
breaking some law if they claim that they have. Unless they turn up
with a warrant or court order (and a police officer as well, I think),
they can't enter your premises without your permission. How much you
enjoy telling them this and how politely you do so is up to you.

Rod.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <ab0a5ad6l2a5usuaj...@4ax.com>, Java Jive

<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> Downloading TV using the --pid option seems to be working ATM, I can't
> comment on radio, but will be trying that later.

Can anyone say: If you get a webpage like

.../programmes/<pid>

with a browser like FF, where in the files that provide this is the name
or details of the file to be transferred for the stream?

I'm wondering if they've totally changed the syntax of the stream's
filename and so get_iplayer can't find them any more.

I did experiment with the radiomode to try versions other than 'default'.
But no success.

Or with luck I just hit a temporary snag.

[Dave Royal]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:46:31 +0000, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> Can anyone say: If you get a webpage like
>
> .../programmes/<pid>
>
> with a browser like FF, where in the files that provide this is the name
> or details of the file to be transferred for the stream?
>
> I'm wondering if they've totally changed the syntax of the stream's
> filename and so get_iplayer can't find them any more.
>
> I did experiment with the radiomode to try versions other than 'default'.
> But no success.

I've been successfully downloading radio programs with commands like
get_iplayer --pid=b04mbm2p --raw

I use raw 'cos it's quicker - especially on a Raspberry Pi. I play it with VLC

This comes down as
BBC_iPlayer_Feeds_-_-_b04mbm2p_default.flv
which I have been renaming manually.

Hopefully the partly repaired version (due tomorrow) will restore the file name.
<http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/get_iplayer/2014-October/006369.html>
--
(Remove any numerics from my email address.)

[Java Jive]

I can only say what I've just tried, which was The News Quiz ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r9yq
... but I found I'd given the above programme PID, so GIP listed all
the episodes it found (a great many going back years) together with
their PIDs and asked me to choose one of the episode PIDs, or else to
use ...
--pid-recursive
... to download them all.

As it then went straight on the next programme, I can't comment
further for a while.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:46:31 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Can anyone say: If you get a webpage like
>
> .../programmes/<pid>

[Java Jive]

I've just created a government petition which, if accepted, (well
let's dream for a while) would require all government and government-
or publically-funded institutions to use Open Source software and Open
Data standards wherever reasonably possible, specifically mentioning
Ofcom (no, I've not forgotten the transmitter radiation patterns), and
the BBC, C4 and other recipients of PSB funding.

I'll link to it if and when it gets put out to signatories.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:55:19 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> So in reality their main interest is - or IMHO should be - to make a system
> that is good for their fee-payers veiwers/listeners without going 'too far'
> and actively helping commercial pirates, etc. They can't get this perfect,
> so should be erring on the side of not making life harder than necessary
> for their millions of fee payers. Without them, they'd have no broadcasts
> to worry about!

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <7_mdndzLCO_ogcjJ...@brightview.co.uk>, Dave
Royal

<da...@dave123royal.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:46:31 +0000, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > Can anyone say: If you get a webpage like
> >
> > .../programmes/<pid>

[snip]

> I've been successfully downloading radio programs with commands like
> get_iplayer --pid=b04mbm2p --raw

> I use raw 'cos it's quicker - especially on a Raspberry Pi. I play it
> with VLC

> This comes down as BBC_iPlayer_Feeds_-_-_b04mbm2p_default.flv which I
> have been renaming manually.

Interesting. I'd been getting flv without using the --raw. Maybe my setup
is odd. It commented that it didn't use ffmpeg or avconv as if warning me
of something it was sniffy about.

Come to think of it, I may not actually have avconv installed on that
laptop. And I installed ffmpeg in its own useland directory to keep it
apart. I *thought* avconv was installed and that get_iplayer wasn't
converting using it because I hadn't asked it to. Since I wanted to examine
the raw files that's what I'd wanted anyway!

I found that Audacious would play the flv's OK.

> Hopefully the partly repaired version (due tomorrow) will restore the
> file name.
> <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/get_iplayer/2014-October/006369.html>

OK, thanks for that.

I installed get_iplayer from the Mint repositories (tend to use synaptic).
So the question would now be if I should remove that and do a more direct
install once the changes are in place and known to work. I'll leave this a
few days and see what others get and how things develop. Using the laptop
as this is all 'experiment' from my POV anyway.

[Java Jive]

You need to tell GIP where your external binaries are, for example:
gip --ffmpeg <path> --prefs-add
gip --prefs-show

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 18:20:36 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Come to think of it, I may not actually have avconv installed on that
> laptop. And I installed ffmpeg in its own useland directory to keep it
> apart. I *thought* avconv was installed and that get_iplayer wasn't
> converting using it because I hadn't asked it to. Since I wanted to examine
> the raw files that's what I'd wanted anyway!

[Java Jive]

Now downloading NQ fine ...

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 17:57:56 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>
> As it then went straight on the next programme, I can't comment
> further for a while.

[Bernard Peek]

On 01/11/14 15:25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <cbkabd...@mid.individual.net>, Bernard Peek
> <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>> On 01/11/14 09:40, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>
>>>> Jim, I thought the HDMI output was encrypted for HD material,
>>>> preventing recording the picture or sound. Is that wrong?
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure you'd be able to find an HDMI box that outputs
>>> something else like spdif.
>
>> To the best of my knowledge HDMI encryption hasn't been broken yet so as
>> yet you cannot get an HD signal out from any HDMI device. There are
>> ways of getting and recording SD signals though.
>
> To be clear: Are you saying that if I buy a FreeviewHDTV and watch
> FreeviewHD the spdif/optical audio output of the TV will not give any
> output?

I'm not sure. It's something that you should check before you buy. The
rule is that an HDMI device is not allowed to output a high-quality
signal to any device that is not HDMI compliant. I don't know whether an
optical interface can enforce that. HDMI devices are allowed to output a
degraded signal. That's standard-definition video and two-channel
CD-quality audio.

It's possible that the optical output will only deliver a degraded
signal. You would need to check whether the audio system that you want
to feed it into is HDMI compliant.

>
> The answer to that question does matter as I'm currently planning to buy
> such a TV sometime soon!
>
> And is it really the case that no TV or studio engineers can buy or use any
> box at all that will rip digital audio from HD HDMI?

If such a device exists it's not sold to ordinary consumers. If it
existed the manufacturer would have to sign a license agreement to get
access to the codes required to get official access.

The device would probably need to use a purpose-built chipset.
Manufacturing that chipset would be risky. First it might result in
criminal charges ibin the USA. Second Intel has said that they will sue
any company that makes such a chipset.

Probably the best you could hope for would be a device with an HDMI
input and multi-channel analogue audio outputs or two-channel digital
audio out.

[Bernard Peek]

On 01/11/14 18:06, Java Jive wrote:
> I've just created a government petition which, if accepted, (well
> let's dream for a while) would require all government and government-
> or publically-funded institutions to use Open Source software and Open
> Data standards wherever reasonably possible, specifically mentioning
> Ofcom (no, I've not forgotten the transmitter radiation patterns), and
> the BBC, C4 and other recipients of PSB funding.

Depending on just how the petition is worded HDMI might well qualify as
an open data standard. The government is certainly not going to pass any
legislation that adds to Auntie's running costs.

[Yellow]

In article <545fc42...@audiomisc.co.uk>, no...@audiomisc.co.uk
says...

The whole issue of copyright is a stupid mess and I, as ever, fail to
see why I cannot listen to content I have paid for as and when I choose,
in whatever format I choose.

The law should be changed to allow that above all over considerations
and it should be changed now.

[Martin Gregorie]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 20:18:05 +0000, Yellow wrote:

> The whole issue of copyright is a stupid mess and I, as ever, fail to
> see why I cannot listen to content I have paid for as and when I choose,
> in whatever format I choose.
>
> The law should be changed to allow that above all over considerations
> and it should be changed now.
>

Part of the problem, for Radio 3 anyway, is that performing artist
contracts cover the fee paid for the initial broadcast performance and
additional repeat fees that are payable each time a program or work they
perform in is repeated.

* That was certainly the case when I was involved writing Orpheus (the
Radio 3 music planning system), which had tracking initial and repeat
performances woven right through it. However, I admit that was quite a
while back and things could have changed since then.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Bernard Peek]

On 01/11/14 20:18, Yellow wrote:

> The whole issue of copyright is a stupid mess and I, as ever, fail to
> see why I cannot listen to content I have paid for as and when I choose,
> in whatever format I choose.

But you can listen to content that you have paid for. But you can only
legally listen to content that you have paid for. But there isn't a law
that forces a content owner to sell what you want at the price you choose.

[Andy Furniss]

Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 01/11/14 15:25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <cbkabd...@mid.individual.net>, Bernard Peek
>> <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>> On 01/11/14 09:40, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> Jim, I thought the HDMI output was encrypted for HD
>>>>> material, preventing recording the picture or sound. Is that
>>>>> wrong?
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure you'd be able to find an HDMI box that outputs
>>>> something else like spdif.
>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge HDMI encryption hasn't been broken
>>> yet so as yet you cannot get an HD signal out from any HDMI
>>> device. There are ways of getting and recording SD signals
>>> though.
>>
>> To be clear: Are you saying that if I buy a FreeviewHDTV and watch
>> FreeviewHD the spdif/optical audio output of the TV will not give
>> any output?
>
> I'm not sure. It's something that you should check before you buy.
> The rule is that an HDMI device is not allowed to output a
> high-quality signal to any device that is not HDMI compliant.

Well I sort of know what you are saying WRT current blu-ray players, sat
boxes and TVs that behave according to restrictive specs, but using HDMI
instead of HDCP is misleading.

I have an HDMI device running open software (my PC) connected to my TV
and of course it can output whatever it likes - including full HD. The
same would be true of any camcorder etc.

> I don't know whether an optical interface can enforce that. HDMI
> devices are allowed to output a degraded signal. That's
> standard-definition video and two-channel CD-quality audio.

I think TVs will output from HD receivers OK over s/pdif maybe Dolby
bitstream as well as 2ch PCM - people do connect up their surround amps.

> It's possible that the optical output will only deliver a degraded
> signal. You would need to check whether the audio system that you
> want to feed it into is HDMI compliant.

s/pdif is nothing to do with HDMI and HDMI is not the same as HDCP
anyway (not all HDMI equipment does HDCP)

>> The answer to that question does matter as I'm currently planning
>> to buy such a TV sometime soon!
>>
>> And is it really the case that no TV or studio engineers can buy or
>> use any box at all that will rip digital audio from HD HDMI?
>
> If such a device exists it's not sold to ordinary consumers. If it
> existed the manufacturer would have to sign a license agreement to
> get access to the codes required to get official access.

Of course you can buy HDMI capture kit :-)

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/uk/products/intensity

>
> The device would probably need to use a purpose-built chipset.
> Manufacturing that chipset would be risky. First it might result in
> criminal charges ibin the USA. Second Intel has said that they will
> sue any company that makes such a chipset.

Yea I know you mean HDCP when you say HDMI - there are probably chips
that do it from china who don't give a flying what intel say.

Historically it was possible to strip HDCP as a side effect of choosing
the right HDMI splitter - though they did tend (from what I've read) to
get taken off sale in the US once word got out.

> Probably the best you could hope for would be a device with an HDMI
> input and multi-channel analogue audio outputs or two-channel digital
> audio out.

Me thinks Jim just wants his telly to spit pcm out of s/pdif which it
probably will.

[Norman Wells]

Yellow wrote:

> The whole issue of copyright is a stupid mess and I, as ever, fail to
> see why I cannot listen to content I have paid for as and when I
> choose, in whatever format I choose.

What on earth do you want to do that you think is not now allowed?

> The law should be changed to allow that above all over considerations
> and it should be changed now.

Unless you're being deliberately obscure about what you want to do, it
has been.

But you are being deliberately obscure, aren't you?

[Yellow]

In article <m33ibc$d9m$2...@dont-email.me>, mar...@address-in-sig.invalid
says...

>
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 20:18:05 +0000, Yellow wrote:
>
> > The whole issue of copyright is a stupid mess and I, as ever, fail to
> > see why I cannot listen to content I have paid for as and when I choose,
> > in whatever format I choose.
> >
> > The law should be changed to allow that above all over considerations
> > and it should be changed now.
> >
> Part of the problem, for Radio 3 anyway, is that performing artist
> contracts cover the fee paid for the initial broadcast performance and
> additional repeat fees that are payable each time a program or work they
> perform in is repeated.

How is that a problem?

They can be paid each time it is broadcast if that is the arrangement
the BBC has entered into with the artist, but that has nothing
whatsoever to do with how many times (or not) an individual listens to
their recording of that broadcast.

[Yellow]

In article <cbl1t4...@mid.individual.net>, b...@shrdlu.com says...

>
> On 01/11/14 20:18, Yellow wrote:
>
> > The whole issue of copyright is a stupid mess and I, as ever, fail to
> > see why I cannot listen to content I have paid for as and when I choose,
> > in whatever format I choose.
>
> But you can listen to content that you have paid for. But you can only
> legally listen to content that you have paid for.

I think there might be a typo in that somewhere.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <rr7a5alaisc9qor58...@4ax.com>, Java Jive

<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> I've just created a government petition which, if accepted, (well let's
> dream for a while) would require all government and government- or
> publically-funded institutions to use Open Source software and Open Data
> standards wherever reasonably possible, specifically mentioning Ofcom
> (no, I've not forgotten the transmitter radiation patterns), and the
> BBC, C4 and other recipients of PSB funding.

I think that's Government 'policy' anyway. Just that the gap between theory
and reality seems to have put it into the 'political aspiration'
classification so far as the real public bodies are concerned. i.e. Nice to
say, but no need to actually *do* much.

I suspect we'd have more effect if everyone affected wrote to the BBC Trust
and to 'Feedback'. At least that would air the issue. Who's the chairbody
of the relevant Commons select committee? MPs love getting stacks of mail
about an issue they can bash the BBC over. 8-] The problem is avoiding
sounding like nerds rather than the general public who've lost something
they value enough to make a fuss about.

[Andy Burns]

Jim Lesurf wrote:

> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> I've just created a government petition which [...] would require

>> all government and government- or publically-funded institutions to
>> use Open Source software and Open Data standards wherever
>> reasonably possible
>

> I think that's Government 'policy' anyway. Just that the gap between theory
> and reality seems to have put it into the 'political aspiration'
> classification so far as the real public bodies are concerned.

http://computerweekly.com/news/2240227473

[David Woolley]

On 02/11/14 01:13, Yellow wrote:
>> additional repeat fees that are payable each time a program or work they
>> >perform in is repeated.
>
> How is that a problem?

The ideal for the artist is to get paid every time that their
performance is listened to, as that represents their real market value.
There are technical and PR problems in actually achieving that. To
get the best compromise, they enter into an agreement with the BBC that
says that the public may only access the contents for a limited time
after a broadcast and that they will be paid for each broadcast.

Copyright and performing rights law backs up this arrangement by
requiring the BBC to give explicit permission for the public to record
the material and making it illegal to defeat technical protection measures.

If you want to keep listening to a performance, each repeat of that
performance has a value to you. The artist wants to receive some of
that value, in monetary form. (Not to mention their agents, recording
companies, etc.)

The original business model for radio broadcasts was as advertisements
for the vinyl or polycarbonate versions, which were priced based on
their being repeatedly performed.

I don't particularly like some of the consequences, like the
privatisation of popular culture (if you sing the latest hit to your
friends, you are infringing the copyright or performing rights, but the
West is now an intellectual property based economy.

Incidentally, one of the things that annoys me is when adverts for DVDs
talk about owning copies. You don't own the copy. You only own the
medium. You can't play the DVD to your local social club without a
further licence, and you can't copy it for your friends.

[Steve Thackery]

Yellow wrote:

> The whole issue of copyright is a stupid mess and I, as ever, fail to
> see why I cannot listen to content I have paid for as and when I
> choose, in whatever format I choose.

But the argument goes that you haven't paid for it. You've paid for
the right to listen to / watch it in ways specified up front.

It's the same with computer software: you don't own Windows: the
licence gives you various rights to use it, and those rights are
limited. You can't copy it, install it on multiple machines, etc,
except as specified in the licence. (The legal enforceability of some
of these constraints might be challenged, but that is a different
issue.)

With downloaded music, my understanding is that you've paid for the
right to listen to it and make copies for your own use on other media
players, but you can't sell it on, you can't give it away, etc.

I'm not saying I agree with all this; simply that the copyright law
means you don't "pay for" content, you pay for various rights to use
that content in certain limited ways.

--
SteveT

[Steve Thackery]

David Woolley wrote:

> If you want to keep listening to a performance, each repeat of that
> performance has a value to you. The artist wants to receive some of
> that value, in monetary form. (Not to mention their agents, recording
> companies, etc.)

Exactly. That's why each time someone borrows a book from a library,
the author gets a payment.

--
SteveT

[Steve Thackery]

Jim Lesurf wrote:

> To be clear: Are you saying that if I buy a FreeviewHDTV and watch
> FreeviewHD the spdif/optical audio output of the TV will not give any
> output?

It definitely gives an output because I feed mine into my amp, which
outputs the multi-channel sound as intended. However, any *video*
output - if available at all - is in SD. As far as I know, none of the
video outputs work when HD material is being received.

--
SteveT

[Steve Thackery]

Steve Thackery wrote:

> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
> > To be clear: Are you saying that if I buy a FreeviewHDTV and watch
> > FreeviewHD the spdif/optical audio output of the TV will not give
> > any output?
>
> It definitely gives an output because I feed mine into my amp, which

> outputs the multi-channel sound as intended. However, any video

> output - if available at all - is in SD. As far as I know, none of
> the video outputs work when HD material is being received.

Actually I want to rethink that. I *think* the audio output is as
broadcast, but I realise now I don't have any way of actually checking
that. So I apologise for sounding certain - I'm not sure now how to
find out for sure.

--
SteveT

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <D8mdnRgUiPhKycjJ...@brightview.co.uk>, Andy

Furniss <spam@spam> wrote:
> Bernard Peek wrote:
> > On 01/11/14 15:25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >> In article <cbkabd...@mid.individual.net>, Bernard Peek
> >> <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:

> >>
> >> To be clear: Are you saying that if I buy a FreeviewHDTV and watch
> >> FreeviewHD the spdif/optical audio output of the TV will not give any
> >> output?
> >
> > I'm not sure. It's something that you should check before you buy. The
> > rule is that an HDMI device is not allowed to output a high-quality
> > signal to any device that is not HDMI compliant.

> I think TVs will output from HD receivers OK over s/pdif maybe Dolby
> bitstream as well as 2ch PCM - people do connect up their surround amps.

The TV I have in mind certainly has a handbook that tells you how to
connect the optical audio output to be able to listen. I plan to buy from
John Lewis who I think have a no-quibble return policy anyway. But I
suspect the makers of the TV would be in legal trouble with what they say
in the handbook if the TV falls silent when you dare to watch HD material
on their HD/FreeviewHD set. Particularly as the transport stream is not
encrypted.

> > It's possible that the optical output will only deliver a degraded
> > signal. You would need to check whether the audio system that you want
> > to feed it into is HDMI compliant.

> s/pdif is nothing to do with HDMI and HDMI is not the same as HDCP
> anyway (not all HDMI equipment does HDCP)

Indeed. The whole point of an spdif optical/coax output is to provide audio
to audio equipment that doesn't have HDMI at all. If the TV socket doesn't
work the set is mis-described.

So again, for clarity: if anyone has a current set that fails in this way,
please say.

> Of course you can buy HDMI capture kit :-)

> https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/uk/products/intensity

Thanks. Interesting.

> Me thinks Jim just wants his telly to spit pcm out of s/pdif which it
> probably will.

Indeed. One of my concerns is that the set will output lpcm spdif stereo
even when a broadcast, etc, is 'surround'. No interest in grabbing *video*
at this stage. If I'd wanted it, I'd have recorded the ts stream by other
means.

Again, my reading of the handbook(s) for the Panasonic set I have in mind
is that it will. If it doesn't I'll ask John Lewis to take it back. I was
just puzzled by what Bernard said. It seems crazy if true, but then large
commercial companies often do crazy things on the basis that they are so
big their mere customers will shut up and put up with it.