Ok the post didn't work the first time hence the leading open bracket...I was wondering about the source of the 10,000 download figure?

My point about VHS is that it represents an entirely different distribution model and for that reason is not valid to this debate. I agree that the concept of personal storage is relevant. And yes if a publicly funded broadcaster is putting out digital content, then there is no physical impediment to stop people from dumping that stuff on the net. DRM as a system is not going to stop that.

What is a broadcaster to do? Lets assume a couple of possible scenarios. They could do nothing. Let users take the stuff and spread it around willy nilly. No costs involved really and some audience gained perhaps, after all ppl still watch stuff on TV. Long term its a looser but short term its financially neutral.

Hosting stuff on your own website is a cost. Even if the content is notionally free to you as the host, there are overheads. The costs are much smaller than running a broadcast service but those things are already paid for. The returns for commercial operators are less spectacular than what they currently enjoy with their existing models and competition for advertising naturally drives down prices. But the world is going download so you need to do something. DRM is the straw broadcasters are clutching, thinking it might help them to survive.

For public broadcasters the issue is maintaining your brand more so than balancing the books although obviously free downloads impacts program sales on dvd. So in providing a free service to the public, like iPlayer, it is reasonable to expect them to attach conditions. I don't think the conditions are fair and reasonable and if our national broadcaster adopted a similar platform I would refuse to use it. After all I can use a pvr program and do whatever I like with the content, pretty much without fear of retribution.

The argument that all content from a public broadcaster should be hosted by said broadcaster without any conditions attached is appealing but unlikely to be attractive to the supplier. I think it is more important to lobby for a good quality service that respects the broadcasters brand, is platform neutral and provides a reasonable shelf life for stored programs. As I said before, my observation is that iPlayer fails miserably because it isn't platform neutral and you don't have a reasonable shelf life (and because it comes from microsoft).

david

Cory, twice you have touted the user stat (

I agree with your objections to iplayer, although I also think the VHS analogy is overly simplistic to the point of being misleading. Legally the BBC does have some obligations with regard to copyright and as a large media organisation they must play by some of those rules, hence DRM. The BBC could choose to be adventurous but its an unlikely expectation of such a conservative organisation. DRM in itself is no more evil than the internet, it is how it employed and what rights exactly are being managed. Giving viewers the right to store and replay material they might otherwise watch for free is an example. Attempting to restrain them from profiting from storing and redistributing material is another example.

In the days of VHS, copies were crappy, tapes wore out and distribution was haphazard. Not that youtube is brilliant but the distribution is huge. BBC could easily give everything away via the internet except that probably haven't got such rights for all their content and they likewise would like to see certain minimum standards applied to their material, as well as maintaining the BBC identity.

There are plenty of options out there, choosing microsoft's solution just happened to be the worst possible outcome for the paying public.