BBC to cease allowing downloads to PCs

[Davey]

I saw this on the Red Button this morning. The main reference was to the
BBC iPlayer 'app', but will it also mean the end of get_player?

--
Davey.

[Jeff Layman]

On 14/02/2024 10:28, Davey wrote:
> I saw this on the Red Button this morning. The main reference was to the
> BBC iPlayer 'app', but will it also mean the end of get_player?

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68283165>

--

Jeff

[Graham J]

So the question is: how can one get a PC or Mac to pretend that it is a
tablet or phone?

--
Graham J

[Malcolm Loades]

On 14/02/2024 10:28, Davey wrote:

> I saw this on the Red Button this morning. The main reference was to the
> BBC iPlayer 'app', but will it also mean the end of get_player?
>

My first thought too.

I expect we'll have to wait and see.

Malcolm

[Java Jive]

On 14/02/2024 10:28, Davey wrote:
>

> I saw this on the Red Button this morning. The main reference was to the
> BBC iPlayer 'app', but will it also mean the end of get_player?

In the GetIPlayer mailing list, the suggestion & hope is that it will
not make any difference, because GiP works using data directly from the
iPlayer website, not via any BBC application downloadable to a PC.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

[Jeff Layman]

Would it be possible to get something like VLC to record the stream?

I'd missed this (originally announced a few months ago), and wonder if
the BBC announcement has anything to do with it:
<https://www.techradar.com/streaming/what-is-freely-the-new-bbc-itv-and-channel-4-smart-tv-platform-explained>

--

Jeff

[Jeff Layman]

On 14/02/2024 10:28, Davey wrote:

> I saw this on the Red Button this morning. The main reference was to the
> BBC iPlayer 'app', but will it also mean the end of get_player?

On reflection, wouldn't this thread be better discussed in
uk.tech.digital-tv?

--

Jeff

[Woody]

Read the link above. I may have got it wrong but as I see it you will
still be able to stream on a desktop or laptop - and AIUI VLC should be
able to read and store that stream - but you will not be able to
download it.
However tablets and phones <will> still be able to download. If so then
surely when you have downloaded it you could eamil it to yourself on
your desktop or laptop and still be able to watch it on them - possibly
through VLC?

Is this policy change due to workload as Auntie have said, or could it
be that M$ and/or Apple are just demanding more moolah to keep using
their software?

[Abandoned Trolley]

> However tablets and phones <will> still be able to download. If so then
> surely when you have downloaded it you could eamil it to yourself on
> your desktop or laptop and still be able to watch it on them - possibly
> through VLC?
>

Are the iPlayer downloads in a proprietary format which can only be
decoded by the iPlayer app ?

[Abandoned Trolley]

> However tablets and phones <will> still be able to download. If so then
> surely when you have downloaded it you could eamil it to yourself on
> your desktop or laptop and still be able to watch it on them - possibly
> through VLC?

Alternatively ... you might be able to play the download on your phone
and "cast" it to your smart telly ?

[Davey]

I doubt that that is the case for the stream downloaded by get_iplayer,
but that doesn't mean that that stream will still be available.

--
Davey.

[Davey]

Possibly. You have my permission, as the OP, to move it.

--
Davey.

[Davey]

That assumes that you have both a 'smartphone' and a 'smart' telly. Mine
are less than Mensa quality, but they do what I need perfectly
adequately, as does get_iplayer. A quick dose of Handbrake, and the
resulting file is ready to be played via the Humax.

No go here.

--
Davey.

[Abandoned Trolley]

>
> That assumes that you have both a 'smartphone' and a 'smart' telly. Mine
> are less than Mensa quality, but they do what I need perfectly
> adequately, as does get_iplayer. A quick dose of Handbrake, and the
> resulting file is ready to be played via the Humax.
>
> No go here.
>

it's possible that neither of us are in the "target demograph" for this
sort of thing :-\

[Theo]

I think get_iplayer just pretends to be the website playing videos, and
saves the data as it's streamed rather than playing on the screen.

I think the announcement is not that they are removing any functionality
from the platform, but that they're retiring their Windows and Mac apps,
which are the current way users download programmes on desktop machines. So
they're retiring desktop downloading because they're retiring the apps that
currently do it. I think that also used DRM of some kind, and maybe that
DRM is being retired too.

I don't *think* get_iplayer would be affected, but I've yet to see any
comment from anyone involved with the project. There were a couple of
tickets on their Github issue tracker, but they seem to have some kind of
trigger-happy robot which closes tickets without comment.

Theo

[NY]

"Theo" <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:+Nn*2i...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

> I think get_iplayer just pretends to be the website playing videos, and
> saves the data as it's streamed rather than playing on the screen.
>
> I think the announcement is not that they are removing any functionality
> from the platform, but that they're retiring their Windows and Mac apps,
> which are the current way users download programmes on desktop machines.
> So
> they're retiring desktop downloading because they're retiring the apps
> that
> currently do it. I think that also used DRM of some kind, and maybe that
> DRM is being retired too.
>
> I don't *think* get_iplayer would be affected, but I've yet to see any
> comment from anyone involved with the project. There were a couple of
> tickets on their Github issue tracker, but they seem to have some kind of
> trigger-happy robot which closes tickets without comment.

I don't think it's as simple as GiP pretending to be a website playing
videos because it is able to download at much faster than real time - a
1-hour programme does not take 1 hour to download as if the server was
serving video at the normal 25 or 50 fps.

You'd think that GiP would be publicising either that there will be no
effect or else that they are scratching their heads trying to think of a
workaround.

[Theo]

NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Theo" <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:+Nn*2i...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> > I think get_iplayer just pretends to be the website playing videos, and
> > saves the data as it's streamed rather than playing on the screen.
> >
> > I think the announcement is not that they are removing any functionality
> > from the platform, but that they're retiring their Windows and Mac apps,
> > which are the current way users download programmes on desktop machines.
> > So
> > they're retiring desktop downloading because they're retiring the apps
> > that
> > currently do it. I think that also used DRM of some kind, and maybe that
> > DRM is being retired too.
> >
> > I don't *think* get_iplayer would be affected, but I've yet to see any
> > comment from anyone involved with the project. There were a couple of
> > tickets on their Github issue tracker, but they seem to have some kind of
> > trigger-happy robot which closes tickets without comment.
>
>
> I don't think it's as simple as GiP pretending to be a website playing
> videos because it is able to download at much faster than real time - a
> 1-hour programme does not take 1 hour to download as if the server was
> serving video at the normal 25 or 50 fps.

I think that's controlled by the browser. Normally the browser gets sent a
chunk of video to play, and when it's almost done it asks for the next bit.
While a video is playing you can look in the browser's developer tools and
see these requests. get_iplayer just doesn't bother waiting for the chunk
to 'play', it just asks for the next bit straightaway, and possibly asks for
multiple bits at once.

> You'd think that GiP would be publicising either that there will be no
> effect or else that they are scratching their heads trying to think of a
> workaround.

I'm not sure there is much of a 'they' - I don't know if any devs use the
mailing list. But they appear to have a robot which just auto-closes most
opened issues as invalid, which seems pretty hostile to me:
https://github.com/get-iplayer/get_iplayer/issues?page=2&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed

Theo

[NY]

On 16/02/2024 18:15, Theo wrote:
> NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> You'd think that GetiPlayer would be publicising either that there will be no effect or else that they are scratching their heads trying to think of a workaround.

>
> I'm not sure there is much of a 'they' - I don't know if any devs use the
> mailing list. But they appear to have a robot which just auto-closes most
> opened issues as invalid, which seems pretty hostile to me:
> https://github.com/get-iplayer/get_iplayer/issues?page=2&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed

That's a problem with a lot of free software - they are not very
responsive to suggestions or bug reports.

I use a package called TVHeadend as a personal video recorder (PVR) on
my Raspberry Pi. It is very good but has one glaring weakness: if you
schedule recordings that overlap and you have insufficient tuners to
service those recordings, it only tells you (using an "up yours" type of
response) at the instant that it tries to make the recording which
fails, instead of at the time when you request the programmes and are
therefore at the computer.

I suggested an enhancement request that they validate the recordings at
the time that they are requested, based on the number of overlapping
programmes and the rules for which tuners will be used for each. I was
rather miffed that my request was closed as "impossible to do" (and "you
are stupid even to ask for it") because there are some circumstances
when this may be true (with SatIP recordings), even if other software
(eg NextPVR) manages it perfectly well. So they say "we won't perform
the check for anyone because it can't be done for a few people".

[Davey]

My Freeview Humax tells me that there is a conflict when I make the
reservation, so it is possible. It even offers a suitable alternative,
if one is available. So it is possible.

--
Davey.

[Chris Green]

NY <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 16/02/2024 18:15, Theo wrote:
> > NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >> You'd think that GetiPlayer would be publicising either that there will
> be no effect or else that they are scratching their heads trying to think
> of a workaround.
> >
> > I'm not sure there is much of a 'they' - I don't know if any devs use the
> > mailing list. But they appear to have a robot which just auto-closes most
> > opened issues as invalid, which seems pretty hostile to me:
> > https://github.com/get-iplayer/get_iplayer/issues?page=2&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed
>
> That's a problem with a lot of free software - they are not very
> responsive to suggestions or bug reports.
>

My experience is quite the opposite, open source software usually has
far more responsive maintainers than proprietary software.

--
Chris Green
·

[Theo]

NY <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 16/02/2024 18:15, Theo wrote:
> > NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >> You'd think that GetiPlayer would be publicising either that there will be no effect or else that they are scratching their heads trying to think of a workaround.
> >
> > I'm not sure there is much of a 'they' - I don't know if any devs use the
> > mailing list. But they appear to have a robot which just auto-closes most
> > opened issues as invalid, which seems pretty hostile to me:
> > https://github.com/get-iplayer/get_iplayer/issues?page=2&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed
>
> That's a problem with a lot of free software - they are not very
> responsive to suggestions or bug reports.

TBH I have some sympathy with that: those things are invitations for them to
do extra work for free. It depends on how much time and energy they have to
spend on the project - those things are limited, while the potential number
of exhortations for them to do free work is unbounded.

If somebody comes along and is willing to do (some of) the work, then that's
a different matter.

> I suggested an enhancement request that they validate the recordings at
> the time that they are requested, based on the number of overlapping
> programmes and the rules for which tuners will be used for each. I was
> rather miffed that my request was closed as "impossible to do" (and "you
> are stupid even to ask for it") because there are some circumstances
> when this may be true (with SatIP recordings), even if other software
> (eg NextPVR) manages it perfectly well. So they say "we won't perform
> the check for anyone because it can't be done for a few people".

I wouldn't presume to understand their software better than them: maybe it
complicates how things work internally, or maybe it's confusing for users to
not work in some circumstances. Sometimes the costs outweigh the benefits.

But at least you got an answer, rather than a robot auto-closing your ticket
with INVALID.

Theo

[AnthonyL]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 23:18:33 +0000, Davey <da...@example.invalid>
wrote:

Indeed my fairly ancient Topfield with MyStuff* installed will tell me
of conflicts and would re-program to a +1 or next day if that existed
and if there is an overlap it asks for a resolution.

Lazy programming if that is not catered for.

* all written and supplied free by volunteers.


--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?