The following was sent to the contacts listed on the Bell Media press release from 2016.
Ever since this deal it has been harder to legally stream Doctor Who in Canada. While space.ca previously offered episodes, it is now locked down and requires login via a legacy cable package. While Crave is mentioned for previous seasons after they were taken off of Netflix, a Crave subscription (even the add-on package) doesn't enable legal streaming of new episodes.
Bell finally folded HBO Canada into Crave to make that content available for legal streaming, and clearly it needs to do the same with SPACE rather than driving people away from legal streaming options.
I have been paying for the full seasons of Doctor Who through Google Play. Episodes are often late and in the case of the latest episode from New Years it didn't show up at all. I found the Google Play option on my own, and Space has been unwilling to even disclose this legal streaming option when asked multiple times. All legal options for Canadians should be advertised clearly on the space.ca website!
With the exclusive license comes a responsibility for Bell to protect Doctor Who copyright in Canada. You have been doing a horrible job and have been inducing infringement.
See also: https://mcormond.blogspot.com/2016/10/bell-has-no-class.html
Showing posts with label Doctor Who. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Doctor Who. Show all posts
Saturday, January 5, 2019
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Space (Bell) has no Class when it comes to protecting copyright
To say I am a fan of the Doctor Who universe would be an understatement.
I've been watching since childhood. In preparation of the 50th anniversary in November 2013 I did a re-watch of every episode since 1963. I purchased the DVD of every story available in DVD format, listened to the soundtrack for those where video has been lost, and in one case listened to the audio book of the novelization. I have all the DVD's for spin-offs Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures, many CD's of audiobooks and soundtracks, and am a subscriber to many audio play series via Big Finish (Doctor Who main range pre-paid through to October 2019). I even get a daily briefing from Doctor Who News sent to my email.
I heard the rumors, read the announcements, watched the trailers and interviews, and was eagerly anticipating the launch of spin-off Class. While I would prefer to have watched Saturday when the first episodes were released, I've become familiar with having to wait until the next day to stream from Space.ca which is where the BBC points fans from their Class website. When all I could see from the Space show page for Class last night was rave reviews and a trailer, I started to look for details.
On the Facebook page for Space a representative wrote the following when asked about streaming options.
Telling people to "sit down, shut up, and get a cable package" whenever fans ask for legal streaming options doesn't drive them to cable. For those who have modernized away from cable television they have a few options for the programming they want to watch.
Did I mention I was a big fan of the Doctor Who universe? Not watching the show or waiting months for the DVD release (or possibly even longer for it to eventually show up on poor services like CraveTV) are not options I'm willing to tolerate for this show.
This leaves me with only two options:
More than that, I am a fan of the Doctor Who universe and wish it to continue for another 50 years -- well beyond how long I'll be on this planet.
This is why I find what Space (Bell) is doing so offensive. Rather than informing fans of legal streaming/download options they are driving them to unauthorized/illegal streaming/download options. In this Bell is not the victim, but the perpetrator of contributory copyright infringement.
Lobbiests from intermediaries like Bell and their subsidiaries like Space, HBO Canada and CTV lobbied the government heavily during the last copyright revision process to get more power for them to blame fans for infringement these companies are causing. They mutated the "inducement" concept where those like Bell who induced infringement would be liable for contributory infringement to a quite different "enablement" where only those who enable unauthorized access are liable.
The claim was the worst contributory copyright infringers in Canada were entities like ISOHunt, when I have always believed that dishonor belonged to Bell and similar companies like Roger, Telus and their subsidiaries.
In the ministerial briefing documents for the new Minister of Heritage Honourable Mélanie Joly included discussion of blocking the use of VPN's to bypass region restrictions to otherwise legally access content. This blocking only increases infringement, and if anything Canadians should be assisted in cross-border shopping for content when Canadian distributors are blocking and/or hiding legal options.
One obvious suggestion to massively reduce copyright infringement in Canada is to have copyright holders, such as the BBC, be forced to pursue all business and legal avenues against contributory infringers like Bell before they are allowed to avail themselves of Canadian Copyright law against private citizens. This should include our Notice and Notice system, so citizens are not harassed when they are induced to infringe by Canadian re-distributors.
On February 23, 2016 Bell Media and BBC Worldwide North America announced a multi-platform exclusive agreement. I first became aware of the agreement when past seasons of Doctor Who were announced to be removed from Netflix Canada starting on September 15. Essentially, Bell is removing legal streaming options for fans of the Doctor Who Universe, forcing services like Netflix to block lawful cross-border shopping for content, and is refusing to advertise legal alternatives.
Clearly Bell is not a partner to BBC that is doing what it can to protect BBC's copyright in Canada, but the perpetrator of contributory infringement. If BBC wishes to protect its copyright in Canada it should amend its agreement with Bell to demand they offer and advertise legal streaming options. If Bell isn't willing to fix this problem, BBC should revoke their exclusive license and offer non-exclusive licensing to non-infringers.
While less than Doctor Who, I am also a fan of Game of Thrones which is distributed by HBO Canada. HBO Canada is also owned by Bell. I have waited months (nearly a full year for some seasons) to watch GoT when the DVD was finally released because I was told that Game of Thrones wasn't available for legal streaming in Canada. I was shocked to learn this weekend that GoT was available for legal streaming in Canada, only hidden by HBO Canada/Bell.
There was even a series of articles on the CBC talking about how "upset" Bell was claiming to be that people were going to unauthorized streaming sites. They claimed to be upset people were cross-border shopping and accessing legally in the USA from HBO GO using VPNs, and upset that people were going to infringing sites. In none of the interviews of Bell representatives were legal streaming options mentioned that were not tied to a cable package.
Given I was shocked to learn that HBO Canada is offering many HBO programs, including GoT, on Google Play, I thought to look for Class. It is available, with a "More from Space" on the page listing other Space programming available for legal streaming/download (Supernatural, Doctor Who, Orphan Black, Being Human).
I paid $17.99 ($2.49 per episode, $23.99HD or $17.99SD), and last night watched the first two episodes. This is one of those services where new episodes are delivered to me as they are released weekly.
You would have to purchase more full seasons this way than I have time to watch in order to compare to going backward in time and getting a useless cable package. This is especially true when added to a Netflix subscription.
Why was this not mentioned on the Space.ca website? Like Bell's HBO Canada website, Space has an obligation to HBO, BBC and fans to inform Canadians about all legal options, with all legal streaming options being prominently listed on the official Canadian website being a minimum.
It seems obvious to me that Bell, as a BDU and owner of broadcasters, is in a conflict of interest when it comes to the legal distribution in Canada of copyrighted works. They are far more interested in trying to abuse BBC and HBO's popular titles to protect their cable business than they are in protecting BBC or HBO copyright or maximizing revenue streams for their partners.
It is long past time for HBO, BBC, and other copyright holders to go after Bell and their subsidiaries and demand change. If Bell continues to disrespect creators rights then licensing should be revoked and offered to entities that have far more respect.
In the case of HBO and BBC they should be offering HBO GO and BBC iPlayer directly to Canadians, avoiding relying on dishonest Canadian re-distributors.
For copyright holders which don't have their own streaming service, and want to offer their content on a service based on fixed monthly fees for a wide variety of programming, Netflix has demonstrated it can do that well and protect the interests of creators.
It was uncomfortable purchasing GoT and Class from Google Play knowing that Bell subsidiaries would be getting a cut. It is disturbing to be a CraveTV customer, and I'm doing it mostly to be participating in government consultations and interacting with policy makers while having experience with the so-called "Canadian" brands the government seems to want to force on us.
There are few ways for me to offer feedback. One thing I have done is refuse to get interested in shows which are produced by Bell. One example, produced in association with BBC America and Bell Media's Space, is Orphan Black.
Orphan Black is shot on location in Toronto, and is promoted by many as "Canadian Content". I find it embarrassing that "Canadian Content", especially in the SciFi/Fantasy area I'm most interested in, has become synonymous with a close association with one of Canada's contributory infringers.
While I know that Orphan Black is a show I would enjoy, I refuse to watch it because of its close association with Bell Media.
This is also why I don't want to see cross-subsidies where services such as Netflix or Google Play would be levied in order to allegedly "promote Canadian Content". I don't for a second believe these levy systems, designed for the broadcast era, would be promoting Canadian content but subsidizing Canada's top contributory infringers as they block Canadian stories from being easily and legally accessed by Canadians.
The CanCon quota system was designed to protect audiences from intermediaries (broadcasters, etc) who were favoring cheaper foreign content over Canadian.
Any tax policies, including levies, should have a similar aim. Intermediaries which are blocking Canadians accessing content of their choice -- including but not exclusively Canadian content -- should be prohibited and/or levied. Intermediaries which are promoting access to Canadian content (whether headquartered in Canada or elsewhere) should be subsidized.
CanCon should not be treated as a form of unconditional welfare handout, all too often granted to wealthy intermediaries who already largely exist due to government largess. CanCon should be public policy serving the interests of Canadian citizens and accountable to Canadian taxpayers. Most Canadian taxpayers are audiences, and the policy should be focused on bringing audiences what we want -- including convenient access to new Canadian authored and produced content.
We must not expand an outdated broadcast-era policy which would tax/levy services like Netflix to subsidize companies like Bell and their subsidiaries. We should subsidize services like Netflix which make content conveniently and cheaply available to Canadians, and taxing/levying contributory infringing intermediaries like Bell which are trying to filter access.
I've been watching since childhood. In preparation of the 50th anniversary in November 2013 I did a re-watch of every episode since 1963. I purchased the DVD of every story available in DVD format, listened to the soundtrack for those where video has been lost, and in one case listened to the audio book of the novelization. I have all the DVD's for spin-offs Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures, many CD's of audiobooks and soundtracks, and am a subscriber to many audio play series via Big Finish (Doctor Who main range pre-paid through to October 2019). I even get a daily briefing from Doctor Who News sent to my email.
I heard the rumors, read the announcements, watched the trailers and interviews, and was eagerly anticipating the launch of spin-off Class. While I would prefer to have watched Saturday when the first episodes were released, I've become familiar with having to wait until the next day to stream from Space.ca which is where the BBC points fans from their Class website. When all I could see from the Space show page for Class last night was rave reviews and a trailer, I started to look for details.
On the Facebook page for Space a representative wrote the following when asked about streaming options.
Space Unfortunately, episodes of Class will not be available on space.ca. If you are a Bell, Rogers or Telus customer, you can watch past episodes OnDemand now!I've asked on Twitter, hoping to get a more relevant response:
The infuriating "reply" I received was:. @SpaceChannel @bbcclass How do you legally stream in Canada? I can't find it on the space.ca site or the SPACE GO app..— Russell McOrmond (@russellmcormond) October 24, 2016
@russellmcormond Episodes of Class are not available on space.ca. If you are a Bell, Rogers or Telus customer, you can watch OnDemand now.— Space (@SpaceChannel) October 25, 2016
Cable vs Streaming
Streaming is a replacement for cable in the same way that automobiles were a replacement for horse drawn carriages and indoor plumbing was a replacement for outhouses. It is a one-way modernization that once someone makes the transition they will not be interested in going backwards.Telling people to "sit down, shut up, and get a cable package" whenever fans ask for legal streaming options doesn't drive them to cable. For those who have modernized away from cable television they have a few options for the programming they want to watch.
- Legal streaming/download options
- Later release on DVD or second-run streaming services like CraveTV
- Don't watch the show
- Unauthorized/illegal streaming/download options
Did I mention I was a big fan of the Doctor Who universe? Not watching the show or waiting months for the DVD release (or possibly even longer for it to eventually show up on poor services like CraveTV) are not options I'm willing to tolerate for this show.
This leaves me with only two options:
- Legal streaming/download options
- Unauthorized/illegal streaming/download options
I find infringing Doctor Who related copyright offensive
I am an author of software and non-software copyrighted works, so understand the importance of respecting author rights. I spent more than a decade active with the copyright revision process (including hosting digital-copyright.ca) trying to protect the rights of independent creators like myself.More than that, I am a fan of the Doctor Who universe and wish it to continue for another 50 years -- well beyond how long I'll be on this planet.
This is why I find what Space (Bell) is doing so offensive. Rather than informing fans of legal streaming/download options they are driving them to unauthorized/illegal streaming/download options. In this Bell is not the victim, but the perpetrator of contributory copyright infringement.
Lobbiests from intermediaries like Bell and their subsidiaries like Space, HBO Canada and CTV lobbied the government heavily during the last copyright revision process to get more power for them to blame fans for infringement these companies are causing. They mutated the "inducement" concept where those like Bell who induced infringement would be liable for contributory infringement to a quite different "enablement" where only those who enable unauthorized access are liable.
The claim was the worst contributory copyright infringers in Canada were entities like ISOHunt, when I have always believed that dishonor belonged to Bell and similar companies like Roger, Telus and their subsidiaries.
In the ministerial briefing documents for the new Minister of Heritage Honourable Mélanie Joly included discussion of blocking the use of VPN's to bypass region restrictions to otherwise legally access content. This blocking only increases infringement, and if anything Canadians should be assisted in cross-border shopping for content when Canadian distributors are blocking and/or hiding legal options.
The BBC should be forced to go after Bell, not Canadians
Copyright keeps coming up in the Canadian Content in a Digital World Consultations and Canada will be starting another round of copyright revision consultations soon.One obvious suggestion to massively reduce copyright infringement in Canada is to have copyright holders, such as the BBC, be forced to pursue all business and legal avenues against contributory infringers like Bell before they are allowed to avail themselves of Canadian Copyright law against private citizens. This should include our Notice and Notice system, so citizens are not harassed when they are induced to infringe by Canadian re-distributors.
On February 23, 2016 Bell Media and BBC Worldwide North America announced a multi-platform exclusive agreement. I first became aware of the agreement when past seasons of Doctor Who were announced to be removed from Netflix Canada starting on September 15. Essentially, Bell is removing legal streaming options for fans of the Doctor Who Universe, forcing services like Netflix to block lawful cross-border shopping for content, and is refusing to advertise legal alternatives.
Clearly Bell is not a partner to BBC that is doing what it can to protect BBC's copyright in Canada, but the perpetrator of contributory infringement. If BBC wishes to protect its copyright in Canada it should amend its agreement with Bell to demand they offer and advertise legal streaming options. If Bell isn't willing to fix this problem, BBC should revoke their exclusive license and offer non-exclusive licensing to non-infringers.
Bell is hiding legal options
Space is not the only subsidiary of Bell which is the exclusive distributor of popular content where fans will gain access to unauthorized alternatives when legal options aren't made available or known to them.While less than Doctor Who, I am also a fan of Game of Thrones which is distributed by HBO Canada. HBO Canada is also owned by Bell. I have waited months (nearly a full year for some seasons) to watch GoT when the DVD was finally released because I was told that Game of Thrones wasn't available for legal streaming in Canada. I was shocked to learn this weekend that GoT was available for legal streaming in Canada, only hidden by HBO Canada/Bell.
There was even a series of articles on the CBC talking about how "upset" Bell was claiming to be that people were going to unauthorized streaming sites. They claimed to be upset people were cross-border shopping and accessing legally in the USA from HBO GO using VPNs, and upset that people were going to infringing sites. In none of the interviews of Bell representatives were legal streaming options mentioned that were not tied to a cable package.
Given I was shocked to learn that HBO Canada is offering many HBO programs, including GoT, on Google Play, I thought to look for Class. It is available, with a "More from Space" on the page listing other Space programming available for legal streaming/download (Supernatural, Doctor Who, Orphan Black, Being Human).
I paid $17.99 ($2.49 per episode, $23.99HD or $17.99SD), and last night watched the first two episodes. This is one of those services where new episodes are delivered to me as they are released weekly.
You would have to purchase more full seasons this way than I have time to watch in order to compare to going backward in time and getting a useless cable package. This is especially true when added to a Netflix subscription.
Why was this not mentioned on the Space.ca website? Like Bell's HBO Canada website, Space has an obligation to HBO, BBC and fans to inform Canadians about all legal options, with all legal streaming options being prominently listed on the official Canadian website being a minimum.
It seems obvious to me that Bell, as a BDU and owner of broadcasters, is in a conflict of interest when it comes to the legal distribution in Canada of copyrighted works. They are far more interested in trying to abuse BBC and HBO's popular titles to protect their cable business than they are in protecting BBC or HBO copyright or maximizing revenue streams for their partners.
It is long past time for HBO, BBC, and other copyright holders to go after Bell and their subsidiaries and demand change. If Bell continues to disrespect creators rights then licensing should be revoked and offered to entities that have far more respect.
In the case of HBO and BBC they should be offering HBO GO and BBC iPlayer directly to Canadians, avoiding relying on dishonest Canadian re-distributors.
For copyright holders which don't have their own streaming service, and want to offer their content on a service based on fixed monthly fees for a wide variety of programming, Netflix has demonstrated it can do that well and protect the interests of creators.
I don't want to subsidize a contributory infringer
Given I don't think of Bell as a legitimate Canadian source of programming, but a contributory infringer of programming I'm a fan of, it is very hard for me to stomach being a customer. Like paying money to a ransomeware scam artist, it repulses me to be financially rewarding bad behavior.It was uncomfortable purchasing GoT and Class from Google Play knowing that Bell subsidiaries would be getting a cut. It is disturbing to be a CraveTV customer, and I'm doing it mostly to be participating in government consultations and interacting with policy makers while having experience with the so-called "Canadian" brands the government seems to want to force on us.
There are few ways for me to offer feedback. One thing I have done is refuse to get interested in shows which are produced by Bell. One example, produced in association with BBC America and Bell Media's Space, is Orphan Black.
Orphan Black is shot on location in Toronto, and is promoted by many as "Canadian Content". I find it embarrassing that "Canadian Content", especially in the SciFi/Fantasy area I'm most interested in, has become synonymous with a close association with one of Canada's contributory infringers.
While I know that Orphan Black is a show I would enjoy, I refuse to watch it because of its close association with Bell Media.
This is also why I don't want to see cross-subsidies where services such as Netflix or Google Play would be levied in order to allegedly "promote Canadian Content". I don't for a second believe these levy systems, designed for the broadcast era, would be promoting Canadian content but subsidizing Canada's top contributory infringers as they block Canadian stories from being easily and legally accessed by Canadians.
Modernize Canadian Content policy
Canadian Content policy should return to its roots of ensuring that Canadians can access stories told by fellow Canadians.The CanCon quota system was designed to protect audiences from intermediaries (broadcasters, etc) who were favoring cheaper foreign content over Canadian.
Any tax policies, including levies, should have a similar aim. Intermediaries which are blocking Canadians accessing content of their choice -- including but not exclusively Canadian content -- should be prohibited and/or levied. Intermediaries which are promoting access to Canadian content (whether headquartered in Canada or elsewhere) should be subsidized.
CanCon should not be treated as a form of unconditional welfare handout, all too often granted to wealthy intermediaries who already largely exist due to government largess. CanCon should be public policy serving the interests of Canadian citizens and accountable to Canadian taxpayers. Most Canadian taxpayers are audiences, and the policy should be focused on bringing audiences what we want -- including convenient access to new Canadian authored and produced content.
We must not expand an outdated broadcast-era policy which would tax/levy services like Netflix to subsidize companies like Bell and their subsidiaries. We should subsidize services like Netflix which make content conveniently and cheaply available to Canadians, and taxing/levying contributory infringing intermediaries like Bell which are trying to filter access.
Monday, September 19, 2016
Cultural protectionism doesn't protect Canadian culture #DigiCanCon #BecauseIts2016
Since the 1950's there have been some Canadians who believe that in order to protect the culture of Canada we need to restrict Canadian's access to culture from outside of Canada. Concepts such as CanCon has existed in positive forms such as government funding for Canadian creators, but has also existed in negative form such as restrictions on what Canadians can access of non-Canadian creativity.
While the restrictions may have made sense in the 1950's in a pre-Internet era, the restrictions simply don't make sense any more. Like a number of other modernizations we have seen recently, the reasons why we should eradicate these restrictions comes down to that simple slogan: because it's 2016.
We need to modernize how we think about CanCon, and who the target of regulations should be.
In a broadcast era we had the problem that there were intermediaries that programmed what people could see and when. As it was not Canadians themselves that are making these choices, requiring that broadcasters not only offer Canadian creativity to Canadians as well as helping to fund it was and remains appropriate. As broadcasting was limited in spectrum we were talking about substituting one thing for another, and the promotion of Canadian content required the demotion of non-Canadian content. I continue to support a CanCon quota system for broadcasting, which like broadcasting itself is a legacy policy for a legacy content delivery platform.
With modern streaming services that limited bandwidth restriction doesn't exist. A full catalogue of content can exist, domestic and foreign for every market, and it would then be citizens choosing to watch what they want. In this scenario a quota system would be counter-productive, unless the distributor themselves became a barrier to access by not being willing to license and offer Canadian content to Canadian clients.
That does not suggest a free-for-all, just an appropriate directing of the regulation at the correct entity. If a streaming service available to Canadians wishes to offer a full catalogue of Canadian content, but some third party is blocking licensing, then that third party should be the target of regulation. If that means intervening in exclusive licenses in order to ensure that Canadian content is available to Canadians on the platforms and devices of their choosing, and at the same time as other Canadians, then that is an appropriate modernization of CanCon rules.
While the quota system of CanCon regulations was perceived of as a broadcast issue, broadcasting is increasingly a technology of the past. We need to look towards other gatekeepers who restrict Canadian's access to Canadian creativity. We need to recognize this applies far more to the limited shelves of companies like Walmart than it does Netflix.
Region encoding is an example.
DVD's have a region code encoded in them, the theory being that a DVD released in one region of the world can only be played in that same region of the world. Due to free trade rules this never worked, as it was always legal for Canadians to import both a DVD player from another region and DVDs released in that other region. In fact, I have a DVD ROM drive set to region code 2 to allow me to access any European disks I have been interested in.
In 2001 I filed a complaint with the competition bureau about DVD CSS which was a system which allowed what I continue to believe is a cartel known as the DVD CCA which exists to tie the selling of DVD encoded content with "authorized" devices where that cartel can impose what features can exist on those devices. In a phone call from the bureau I was told they did a "relevant market" analysis and found that there was no price issues with DVD players. He suggested that licensed DVD players would need to be expensive for there to be a competition issue. He also suggested that since most movies are released in DVD Region 1 (North America), that there was also no barrier to trade.
I continue to disagree with the department's evaluation and believe that region encoding and the tied selling between DVD players and DVD disks should be disallowed under competition law. This encoding can't be used in countries like India where DVD players are purchased (often by relatives) from all over the world, and thus a DVD with any region restriction is likely to not work for a good percentage of the country.
Moving forward to 2015 and while the content delivery platforms have modernized, the government policies have not. I say 2015 as that was when I heard that Department of Canadian Heritage officials wanted to target the use of virtual private networks (VPN) to bypass regional restrictions.
The delivery technology isn't DVDs, but streaming services like Netflix. And unlike with DVDs we aren't in the same region as the United States, and a large percentage of Canadians are using technology to "cross boarder shop" to access content that is legally available in the United States but has some (many believe illegitimate) contractual restriction against accessing from Canada.
This is not copyright infringement any more than buying a DVD from a US rather than Canadian retailer isn't copyright infringement. This is something I do every so often, buying DVD's from Amazon.com rather than Amazon.ca as the "Canadianized" versions of some titles have French content replacing specific DVD extras I'm interested in. Since cross-boarder shopping is the norm with DVDs, there isn't content which is available in the USA where the rights-holder and/or distributor haven't bothered to also make available to Canadians.
If we are to take what the Competition Bureau said at face value, they would be appropriately regulating against these restrictions in streaming services. Thus far they have remained silent. The department of Canadian Heritage is pointing the opposite way, which is that rather than going after those who are denying Canadians access to culture they are contemplating legal protections for the perpetrators.
The federal government must reverse course on this. They need to not only clarify that it is legally protected to use VPNs to bypass invalid region restrictions, but regulators must appropriately go after those attempting to restrict Canadians access to culture in the first place. Because it's 2016, not 1956!
There was also Star Lost (CTV, Canada) as a child, and more recently the Star Gate multi-series franchise (which I hope we haven't seen the last of) and the 2000's Battlestar Galactica out of Vancouver Film Studios. The 1996 Doctor Who: The movie was also filmed in Vancouver.
While the restrictions may have made sense in the 1950's in a pre-Internet era, the restrictions simply don't make sense any more. Like a number of other modernizations we have seen recently, the reasons why we should eradicate these restrictions comes down to that simple slogan: because it's 2016.
CanCon
We need to modernize how we think about CanCon, and who the target of regulations should be.
In a broadcast era we had the problem that there were intermediaries that programmed what people could see and when. As it was not Canadians themselves that are making these choices, requiring that broadcasters not only offer Canadian creativity to Canadians as well as helping to fund it was and remains appropriate. As broadcasting was limited in spectrum we were talking about substituting one thing for another, and the promotion of Canadian content required the demotion of non-Canadian content. I continue to support a CanCon quota system for broadcasting, which like broadcasting itself is a legacy policy for a legacy content delivery platform.
With modern streaming services that limited bandwidth restriction doesn't exist. A full catalogue of content can exist, domestic and foreign for every market, and it would then be citizens choosing to watch what they want. In this scenario a quota system would be counter-productive, unless the distributor themselves became a barrier to access by not being willing to license and offer Canadian content to Canadian clients.
That does not suggest a free-for-all, just an appropriate directing of the regulation at the correct entity. If a streaming service available to Canadians wishes to offer a full catalogue of Canadian content, but some third party is blocking licensing, then that third party should be the target of regulation. If that means intervening in exclusive licenses in order to ensure that Canadian content is available to Canadians on the platforms and devices of their choosing, and at the same time as other Canadians, then that is an appropriate modernization of CanCon rules.
While the quota system of CanCon regulations was perceived of as a broadcast issue, broadcasting is increasingly a technology of the past. We need to look towards other gatekeepers who restrict Canadian's access to Canadian creativity. We need to recognize this applies far more to the limited shelves of companies like Walmart than it does Netflix.
Regional restrictions
For better or for worse, Canada is a free trade country. That is, except when there is an often arbitrary and inconsistent exception. Access to creativity is one of those odd areas where there are inconsistencies as we are in a period of transition.Region encoding is an example.
DVD's have a region code encoded in them, the theory being that a DVD released in one region of the world can only be played in that same region of the world. Due to free trade rules this never worked, as it was always legal for Canadians to import both a DVD player from another region and DVDs released in that other region. In fact, I have a DVD ROM drive set to region code 2 to allow me to access any European disks I have been interested in.
In 2001 I filed a complaint with the competition bureau about DVD CSS which was a system which allowed what I continue to believe is a cartel known as the DVD CCA which exists to tie the selling of DVD encoded content with "authorized" devices where that cartel can impose what features can exist on those devices. In a phone call from the bureau I was told they did a "relevant market" analysis and found that there was no price issues with DVD players. He suggested that licensed DVD players would need to be expensive for there to be a competition issue. He also suggested that since most movies are released in DVD Region 1 (North America), that there was also no barrier to trade.
I continue to disagree with the department's evaluation and believe that region encoding and the tied selling between DVD players and DVD disks should be disallowed under competition law. This encoding can't be used in countries like India where DVD players are purchased (often by relatives) from all over the world, and thus a DVD with any region restriction is likely to not work for a good percentage of the country.
Moving forward to 2015 and while the content delivery platforms have modernized, the government policies have not. I say 2015 as that was when I heard that Department of Canadian Heritage officials wanted to target the use of virtual private networks (VPN) to bypass regional restrictions.
The delivery technology isn't DVDs, but streaming services like Netflix. And unlike with DVDs we aren't in the same region as the United States, and a large percentage of Canadians are using technology to "cross boarder shop" to access content that is legally available in the United States but has some (many believe illegitimate) contractual restriction against accessing from Canada.
This is not copyright infringement any more than buying a DVD from a US rather than Canadian retailer isn't copyright infringement. This is something I do every so often, buying DVD's from Amazon.com rather than Amazon.ca as the "Canadianized" versions of some titles have French content replacing specific DVD extras I'm interested in. Since cross-boarder shopping is the norm with DVDs, there isn't content which is available in the USA where the rights-holder and/or distributor haven't bothered to also make available to Canadians.
If we are to take what the Competition Bureau said at face value, they would be appropriately regulating against these restrictions in streaming services. Thus far they have remained silent. The department of Canadian Heritage is pointing the opposite way, which is that rather than going after those who are denying Canadians access to culture they are contemplating legal protections for the perpetrators.
The federal government must reverse course on this. They need to not only clarify that it is legally protected to use VPNs to bypass invalid region restrictions, but regulators must appropriately go after those attempting to restrict Canadians access to culture in the first place. Because it's 2016, not 1956!
What is Canadian Culture, and who gets to decide?
While this might bother some people, Doctor Who (BBC, UK) and Star Trek (Paramount/CBS, USA) had (and continue to have) a much greater influence on who I am as a Canadian than Hockey Night in Canada.There was also Star Lost (CTV, Canada) as a child, and more recently the Star Gate multi-series franchise (which I hope we haven't seen the last of) and the 2000's Battlestar Galactica out of Vancouver Film Studios. The 1996 Doctor Who: The movie was also filmed in Vancouver.
Even when Canadians are interacting with creativity from outside of Canada, or creativity that was created in Canada but given foreign branding, they are still Canadians. Why do some people believe it is their right to choose what Canadians consider to be their culture?
With a small percentage of indigenous peoples as an exception, we are a nation made up of immigrants and their descendants. The influence of other countries on what it is to be Canadian doesn't stop when people set foot on Canadian soil. This influence will be ongoing, and we will adopt parts into ourselves and then project that outward as our own culture.
Trying to apply a quota system beyond the narrow situations where it is not individual Canadians citizens that are deciding what they are accessing is in my mind a denial of who we are as a country, and how our culture is formed and continues to grow.
An earlier discussion paper from the Department of Heritage indicated that, "The way forward is not attempting to regulate content on the Internet, but focusing on how to best support Canada's creators and cultural entrepreneurs in creating great content and in competing globally for both Canadian and international audiences. "
A recent Globe and Mail article goes further to suggest that we will be going a different direction than restricting Canadians access to content. If she follows through we will be subsidizing and promoting Canadian content, and taking the first step in trying to be "platform agnostic". Hopefully that will include recognizing that Cable (BDUs) and modern streaming services aren't in the same market, and can't be seen as substitutions.
Will we finally let some of the outdated polices be a part of our heritage, rather than ongoing restrictions on our culture?
An earlier discussion paper from the Department of Heritage indicated that, "The way forward is not attempting to regulate content on the Internet, but focusing on how to best support Canada's creators and cultural entrepreneurs in creating great content and in competing globally for both Canadian and international audiences. "
A recent Globe and Mail article goes further to suggest that we will be going a different direction than restricting Canadians access to content. If she follows through we will be subsidizing and promoting Canadian content, and taking the first step in trying to be "platform agnostic". Hopefully that will include recognizing that Cable (BDUs) and modern streaming services aren't in the same market, and can't be seen as substitutions.
Will we finally let some of the outdated polices be a part of our heritage, rather than ongoing restrictions on our culture?
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
CraveTV not competitive with Netflix, or even DVD's
In early April I subscribed to CraveTV to evaluate it, and 6 months later I'm less happy with it.
The next most convenient way to watch CraveTV was to run an HDMI cable across the living room floor to connect the Chromebook with the TV. I say next most convenient as CraveTV is not at all convenient. The web interface hasn't improved since my last posting. I still find myself having to do a search for things which are already in my "cravings" in order to choose the right episode to show next, as the interface often doesn't accurately select the next unwatched episode.
This is in obvious contrast with Netflix and Youtube. Both are from modern Internet-era companies that work hard to ensure their services work on as many devices as possible. While I like to cast from my Chromebooks, there are apps built into our Samsung Smart-TV which are convenient enough to use for my wife who doesn't like to fiddle around with tech like I do.
The Netflix interface has improved in the last 6 months, with the remote control for the casting feature now a bar on the bottom which allows you to continue to browse the site for other content in that same tab while still able to control the episode currently being viewed on the Chromecast device. Both Netflix and Youtube have enabled the CEC features of the Chromecast so my Samsung TV's remote control pause button works, meaning I don't even have to touch my Chromebook (and get it out of sleep mode) to control it once I have started an episode.
Netflix's recommendation engine is continuously improving, and I find I'm always being suggested to watch shows I would actually want to watch. Not surprisingly, it properly sends me to the next unwatched episode and keeps accurate records of my viewing which the site allows me to look through later (and even edit to remove content I don't want to influence the recommendation engine).
Netflix and CraveTV can't really be directly compared as they aren't in the same league. Netflix is an industry leader, and is used as examples in technical talks all the time. As a part of the industry working on (much smaller) sites I view presentations such as The Seven (More) Deadly Sins of Microservices which mention the advanced work that companies like Netflix are doing. I don't think anyone ever expects to be watching a new media technology presentation and hear Bell or one of the companies it owns mentioned. Bell will always be the smaller company in the smaller market offering less to its clients than larger competitors in larger markets can.
Because the service is inconvenient I tent to watch a minimum of shows on CraveTV. One set of TV series not legally available elsewhere in Canada is series based on DC comics such as Arrow, Flash and DC's Legends of Tomorrow. While these are broadcast in Canada around the same time as they are in the US, streaming is delayed. US Netflix recently made a deal where these CW shows will be arriving on Netflix eight days after the season finale airs.
In Canada there is an exclusive license with Bell, so the shows are broadcast on Bell's CTV and blocked from Canadian Netflix. If you wanted to use CraveTV as an alternative to Netflix you are out of luck as the content isn't made available near broadcast time.
CraveTV subscribers were recently sent an email announcing that the previous seasons of Arrow, Flash and DC's Legends of Tomorrow would finally be released on September 9. This is not surprisingly after the DVD releases:
These 3 DC universe shows start the next seasons soon, and I will see if I can stomach watching via the broadcaster site given how long it will be before it is available for proper streaming in Canada. It will require that I binge-watch the previous season that is only being released this month.
My experience with the interfaces on broadcaster websites has been poor, and I'm lucky if I can get them to work on any of the devices I own.
Normally the only show I care enough about to stomach the outdated broadcaster experience is Doctor Who which I both watch on Space.ca and then watch on DVD (which are made available in parts weeks after they air on TV). Doctor Who is a show that is available on CraveTV, but given how inconvenient it is I am unlikely to ever watch that way: I buy the DVDs. I did watch episodes via Netflix, but it seems Bell got another exclusive streaming license and Doctor Who will be unavailable via Canadian Netflix on September 15.
I'm not willing to even consider watching on Cable, Satellite or that oddball IPTV service that Bell offers (that is somehow regulated by the CRTC as a BDU rather than a streaming service). Asking a modern Internet-era viewer to use a BDU is like forcing someone who is used to indoor plumbing to use an outhouse. In this case it is a service that costs considerably more and still stinks.
Technical
I wrote in the earlier article how CraveTV worked on few of the devices that I owned, but that at least it would work with my regular Chromebook and the Chromecast. This didn't last long, as an upgrade of Chrome OS which made cast functionality native to the browser later in June was incompatible with CraveTV. I would have thought CraveTV would fix their site relatively quickly, but the problem persists.The next most convenient way to watch CraveTV was to run an HDMI cable across the living room floor to connect the Chromebook with the TV. I say next most convenient as CraveTV is not at all convenient. The web interface hasn't improved since my last posting. I still find myself having to do a search for things which are already in my "cravings" in order to choose the right episode to show next, as the interface often doesn't accurately select the next unwatched episode.
This is in obvious contrast with Netflix and Youtube. Both are from modern Internet-era companies that work hard to ensure their services work on as many devices as possible. While I like to cast from my Chromebooks, there are apps built into our Samsung Smart-TV which are convenient enough to use for my wife who doesn't like to fiddle around with tech like I do.
The Netflix interface has improved in the last 6 months, with the remote control for the casting feature now a bar on the bottom which allows you to continue to browse the site for other content in that same tab while still able to control the episode currently being viewed on the Chromecast device. Both Netflix and Youtube have enabled the CEC features of the Chromecast so my Samsung TV's remote control pause button works, meaning I don't even have to touch my Chromebook (and get it out of sleep mode) to control it once I have started an episode.
Netflix's recommendation engine is continuously improving, and I find I'm always being suggested to watch shows I would actually want to watch. Not surprisingly, it properly sends me to the next unwatched episode and keeps accurate records of my viewing which the site allows me to look through later (and even edit to remove content I don't want to influence the recommendation engine).
Netflix and CraveTV can't really be directly compared as they aren't in the same league. Netflix is an industry leader, and is used as examples in technical talks all the time. As a part of the industry working on (much smaller) sites I view presentations such as The Seven (More) Deadly Sins of Microservices which mention the advanced work that companies like Netflix are doing. I don't think anyone ever expects to be watching a new media technology presentation and hear Bell or one of the companies it owns mentioned. Bell will always be the smaller company in the smaller market offering less to its clients than larger competitors in larger markets can.
Content
Netflix content is offered as soon as the copyright holders allow it to. In the case of Netflix original content that is immediate in all markets which is why many of us prefer Netflix original content to third party content. With third party content you often have region restrictions where content is available in one region but not another. Canada is often excluded, sometimes by copyright holder who don't see the market as big enough to bother with, and sometimes by one of the "Canadian" BDUs getting exclusive licensing which block Canadian access. These restrictions are something which the CRTC and Competition Bureau should be looking into, but that is a conversation for a different time (IE: VPNs are a solution, not a problem -- Canadian legislation and regulators should be helping, not hindering).Because the service is inconvenient I tent to watch a minimum of shows on CraveTV. One set of TV series not legally available elsewhere in Canada is series based on DC comics such as Arrow, Flash and DC's Legends of Tomorrow. While these are broadcast in Canada around the same time as they are in the US, streaming is delayed. US Netflix recently made a deal where these CW shows will be arriving on Netflix eight days after the season finale airs.
In Canada there is an exclusive license with Bell, so the shows are broadcast on Bell's CTV and blocked from Canadian Netflix. If you wanted to use CraveTV as an alternative to Netflix you are out of luck as the content isn't made available near broadcast time.
CraveTV subscribers were recently sent an email announcing that the previous seasons of Arrow, Flash and DC's Legends of Tomorrow would finally be released on September 9. This is not surprisingly after the DVD releases:
- DC's Legends of Tomorrow: Season 1 DVD Release Date August 23, 2016
- The Arrow Season 4 DVD release August 30, 2016
- The Flash: Season 2 DVD Release Date September 6, 2016
Can CraveTV compete with other Bell provided services?
I am a modern content viewer, and don't enjoy programming delivered to me one episode per week. I prefer to watch shows a season at a time, and then move to the next show. I have been watching the DC universe series differently as there are some crossover episodes and I have wanted to watch episodes in an order that makes the crossovers make sense.These 3 DC universe shows start the next seasons soon, and I will see if I can stomach watching via the broadcaster site given how long it will be before it is available for proper streaming in Canada. It will require that I binge-watch the previous season that is only being released this month.
- Flash: Season Premiere: Tuesday, October 4 at 8E on CTV
- Arrow Season Premiere: Wednesday, October 5 at 8ET/PT on CTV Two
- Legends of Tomorrow Season Premiere: Thursday, October 13 at 8E on CTV Two
My experience with the interfaces on broadcaster websites has been poor, and I'm lucky if I can get them to work on any of the devices I own.
Normally the only show I care enough about to stomach the outdated broadcaster experience is Doctor Who which I both watch on Space.ca and then watch on DVD (which are made available in parts weeks after they air on TV). Doctor Who is a show that is available on CraveTV, but given how inconvenient it is I am unlikely to ever watch that way: I buy the DVDs. I did watch episodes via Netflix, but it seems Bell got another exclusive streaming license and Doctor Who will be unavailable via Canadian Netflix on September 15.
I'm not willing to even consider watching on Cable, Satellite or that oddball IPTV service that Bell offers (that is somehow regulated by the CRTC as a BDU rather than a streaming service). Asking a modern Internet-era viewer to use a BDU is like forcing someone who is used to indoor plumbing to use an outhouse. In this case it is a service that costs considerably more and still stinks.
Friday, October 2, 2015
More trivially obvious ways to reduce copyright infringement
Contrast the following DVD pre-releases:
Doctor Who: Series 9 Part 1
This title will be released on November 3, 2015.
Doctor Who is currently airing on Space television (Currently owned by Bell Media) on Saturdays, with the rest of the first half airing later this October - with the DVD of those episodes being made available the week after. As someone who doesn't have cable and isn't a customer of a BDU for Internet, I can also watch the episodes the day after they air on cable streamed from the space.ca website. Past seasons starting from 2005 through to last years's Christmas special are all available on Netflix.
Personal: I'm watching via the website each week, and will be purchasing the full season DVD when it is released. If last year is any indication, it will be available in December prior to the airing of the Christmas special (which will be available early in the new year).
Game of Thrones: Season 5
This title will be released on March 15, 2016
Game of Thrones season 5 aired from April 12 to June 14, 2015. It is only available directly via HBO, in Canada exclusively licensed to HBO Canada, which is also owned by Bell Media. It is not available unbundled from Cable or Satellite as a streaming service.
While I would have no idea why anyone would want to infringe copyright on modern Doctor Who given how readily available it is in a wide variety of legitimate formats, I fully understand why people would infringe the copyright of Game of Thrones. In the case of Game of Thrones you are forced to choose between 3 inappropriate options:
- Watch on Cable/Satellite : The tied selling of the Game of Thrones to an unrelated and unnecessary separate service (Cable or Satellite TV) is something that should be declared illegal under Canada's Competition Act. If not, then it should be considered fair dealings under Copyright Law given under "effect of the market" fans aren't provided a legitimate market.
- Infringe copyright
- Wait nearly a full year after release, an illogical delay that can only be explained by HBO trying to drive people to the other two options. They may want to immorally force people to the tied selling, but just as legitimately are forcing people to copyright infringement.
Personal: I'm waiting for the DVD release, but will watch with someone else if they have acquired it via some other means. I may not be willing to choose either of the first two options myself, but am willing to watch the show with someone else who has.
I know that orthodox copyright lobbiests try to paint a picture where innocent copyright holders are being attacked from all sides by the evil world, but reality is quite different. The easiest way for copyright holders to reduce the vast majority of non-commercial copyright infringement is to stop the self-inflicted pain: business practises which induce fans of their works to infringe as legitimate methods to pay are not offered.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Broken Broadcaster streaming websites
If you haven't tried to use them, you might wonder why the websites that Canadian broadcasters (or most often, the BDUs that own them) offer isn't a substitute for the subscription services I've been asking for. You might ask why I would be willing to pay the BBC to watch Doctor Who when I could watch it for "free" by going to Space.ca/doctorwho. The problem is these BDU/Broadcaster provided streaming websites are so poorly implemented that even if they were commercial free I would still prefer to pay for a working subscription service.
I have become used to well designed content distribution services like Netflix and YouTube which work well on all the devices that I own. I prefer to watch television on my television, which means my Samsung Smart TV, BoxeeBox or Chromecasts. I sometimes like to watch mobile with my ASUS Transformer tablet (Android), my Nexus 4 smartphone, or one of the variety of Chromebooks in our family. The place I least like to watch television is on my desktop computer, although both Netflix and YouTube work perfectly fine on my desktop computers running Ubuntu Linux.
You also don't need to be highly technical to watch Netflix or YouTube on a television, while the contortions you have to do to watch television via legacy websites is something I'll never be able to train the rest of my family to do.
To contrast with the easy to use Netflix or YouTube services, during the recent Doctor Who season I tested Space.ca on all my devices, and have only been able to view on my desktop computer. Bell even provided an application in the Android App Store, and yet I gave up trying to watch on my Android phone or tablet given how painfully it is constantly pausing to catch up with the video. Bell can try to blame my non-Bell Internet connection, but given I see the problem with their service and not with Netflix or YouTube it is clear the problem is with them.
This month I watched Broadchurch season 1 via Netflix, and when looking up Broadchurch on Wikipedia found that Season 2 is being shown by Showcase starting this month. I watched the first episode this afternoon.
While the Shaw provided streaming service for Showcase is better than the Bell provided streaming service for Space, I would still prefer to pay to subscribe to a properly designed service.
The Showcase website doesn't work on mobile devices as they seem to still be dependent on Adobe Flash which even Adobe themselves recognize is inappropriate for a streaming service and no longer provide for mobile or other such devices. While Shaw Communications has some apps in the Android app store , non seem to be for accessing content on their streaming service.
I tried viewing on my Samsung Smart TV, only to have the video stop with error notices about the browser running out of memory. I only seem to be able to watch a couple commercials and a few minutes of an episode.
The website "worked" on the BoxeeBox, Chromebook and my Ubuntu Desktop, but it is painful to watch. The video quality is low, and you can see video encryption artifacts nearly all the time. Sometimes the video would pause for a moment, but nowhere near as bad as the Bell streaming service on their Android app.
The most distracting aspect is how the commercials have been poorly implemented. The video would pass the moment where you can tell the commercial was intended to be inserted, and then start the next scene. You would get a few seconds into the dialog and the screen resolution would change and over a (sometimes frozen, sometimes video continuing) screen you would hear the commercial, and then finally the video from the commercial would start. The commercial would play, and then there would either be a few more seconds of the scene from the TV episode, a blank screen, or possibly the little "loading" circle spinning in the middle of the screen. Eventually a second commercial would manage to get loaded, and you just cross your fingers hoping you didn't loose too much of the dialog from the first scene after what should have been the commercial break.
This reminded me of the RogersOnDemand online service from years back, which also implemented commercials so poorly it made the service not worth using.
I might try to watch this season of Broadchurch on the Shaw provided service. I got hooked on the show on Netflix, and while I would prefer to pay to access via a properly implemented streaming service, the second season isn't available that way yet. While I understand why other people might take the third option (unauthorized download site), I will stick with putting up with a crap website or not bothering to watch at all.
When I watch television or movies, I want to get into what I am watching and not be constantly having to do technical contortions or be reminded about the poor technology platform. This is something I've never seen done correctly by any of the Canadian broadcasters (or now the BDUs that own them).
Lets see if I make it to the end of the season before I give up and wait for the season to be released on Netflix. I waited to watch Season 1 when it was finally made available on Netflix in December 2014, and maybe I will enjoy the series more if I wait until Season 2 is finally licensed for Netflix -- maybe December 2016?
I have become used to well designed content distribution services like Netflix and YouTube which work well on all the devices that I own. I prefer to watch television on my television, which means my Samsung Smart TV, BoxeeBox or Chromecasts. I sometimes like to watch mobile with my ASUS Transformer tablet (Android), my Nexus 4 smartphone, or one of the variety of Chromebooks in our family. The place I least like to watch television is on my desktop computer, although both Netflix and YouTube work perfectly fine on my desktop computers running Ubuntu Linux.
You also don't need to be highly technical to watch Netflix or YouTube on a television, while the contortions you have to do to watch television via legacy websites is something I'll never be able to train the rest of my family to do.
To contrast with the easy to use Netflix or YouTube services, during the recent Doctor Who season I tested Space.ca on all my devices, and have only been able to view on my desktop computer. Bell even provided an application in the Android App Store, and yet I gave up trying to watch on my Android phone or tablet given how painfully it is constantly pausing to catch up with the video. Bell can try to blame my non-Bell Internet connection, but given I see the problem with their service and not with Netflix or YouTube it is clear the problem is with them.
This month I watched Broadchurch season 1 via Netflix, and when looking up Broadchurch on Wikipedia found that Season 2 is being shown by Showcase starting this month. I watched the first episode this afternoon.
While the Shaw provided streaming service for Showcase is better than the Bell provided streaming service for Space, I would still prefer to pay to subscribe to a properly designed service.
The Showcase website doesn't work on mobile devices as they seem to still be dependent on Adobe Flash which even Adobe themselves recognize is inappropriate for a streaming service and no longer provide for mobile or other such devices. While Shaw Communications has some apps in the Android app store , non seem to be for accessing content on their streaming service.
I tried viewing on my Samsung Smart TV, only to have the video stop with error notices about the browser running out of memory. I only seem to be able to watch a couple commercials and a few minutes of an episode.
The website "worked" on the BoxeeBox, Chromebook and my Ubuntu Desktop, but it is painful to watch. The video quality is low, and you can see video encryption artifacts nearly all the time. Sometimes the video would pause for a moment, but nowhere near as bad as the Bell streaming service on their Android app.
The most distracting aspect is how the commercials have been poorly implemented. The video would pass the moment where you can tell the commercial was intended to be inserted, and then start the next scene. You would get a few seconds into the dialog and the screen resolution would change and over a (sometimes frozen, sometimes video continuing) screen you would hear the commercial, and then finally the video from the commercial would start. The commercial would play, and then there would either be a few more seconds of the scene from the TV episode, a blank screen, or possibly the little "loading" circle spinning in the middle of the screen. Eventually a second commercial would manage to get loaded, and you just cross your fingers hoping you didn't loose too much of the dialog from the first scene after what should have been the commercial break.
This reminded me of the RogersOnDemand online service from years back, which also implemented commercials so poorly it made the service not worth using.
I might try to watch this season of Broadchurch on the Shaw provided service. I got hooked on the show on Netflix, and while I would prefer to pay to access via a properly implemented streaming service, the second season isn't available that way yet. While I understand why other people might take the third option (unauthorized download site), I will stick with putting up with a crap website or not bothering to watch at all.
When I watch television or movies, I want to get into what I am watching and not be constantly having to do technical contortions or be reminded about the poor technology platform. This is something I've never seen done correctly by any of the Canadian broadcasters (or now the BDUs that own them).
Lets see if I make it to the end of the season before I give up and wait for the season to be released on Netflix. I waited to watch Season 1 when it was finally made available on Netflix in December 2014, and maybe I will enjoy the series more if I wait until Season 2 is finally licensed for Netflix -- maybe December 2016?
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Evidence suggests broadcasters like the BBC don't want our money
Some copyright holders and their lobbyists claim the reason people infringe Copyright is because they don't want to pay, and that copyright infringement is the largest single problem reducing their revenue potential. Evidence I've seen in my decades involved in the copyright revision process suggested neither are true, and that barriers put up by the copyright holders are the largest incentive to infringe and the largest barrier to revenue potential.
The BBC is an example of a broadcaster I would like to pay money and subscribe to (not only for Doctor Who), but that continues to put up barriers to me doing so. I am not a subscriber to a BDU, which is one of the common tied sales used by broadcasters. What potential customers like myself want for television and movie content is a subscription service like Netflix which isn't tied to any specific BDU or Internet provider, and which works on enough devices that it works on devices which we own. It's not just millennials that value Netflix more that broadcast or cable.
The BBC already have the technology in place, but thus far refuse to make the service available for their own "business" reasons. Within the UK the BBC iPlayer offers a streaming service that works on nearly as many devices as Netflix does (I didn't see my Boxee Box), but this service is not made available outside the UK.
There is a separate iPlayer for BBC Worldwide, but it is tied to Apple controlled devices. I have sent feedback at least once a year for a few years about this problem, and this year someone in the "BBC iPlayer (Global) Team" sent the following nonsense:
In other words, Apple lied to them about the capabilities of their encrypted media platform suggesting that the restriction the BBC was requesting is possible or even reasonable. This dishonesty, as well as their total disrespect for the property rights of technology owners, are a few of the reasons why I will never be a customer of Apple. Content delivery which is tied to the use of Apple devices is effectively unavailable to me.
There are now rumors that the BBC may be removing content from Netflix. While this wasn't their latest seasons of shows, I have enjoyed viewing old seasons of shows which I didn't access in some other way closer to the air date. Given the nonsense response from the iPlayer Global team I bet out-of-touch broadcasters like the BBC are behind the recent useless attempts at geoblocking by Netflix. While this business problem created by copyright holders like the BBC can't be solved by technology, Neftlix is forced to do a bit of theater to distract copyright holders into thinking they are doing everything they can. I get the impression that Netflix as a company is more honest than Apple, and won't outright lie to copyright holders about the capabilities of encrypted media systems.
The reality is that in whatever regions the BBC refuses to make their content available in a way that returns revenue to the BBC are regions where the viewing of BBC content won't return revenues to the BBC. It is entirely unreasonable for the BBC to be putting up barrier to receiving money, and then whining when they don't receive that rejected money.
These types of barriers are typical. Copyright holders put up one barrier after another for people to access their content through mechanisms authorized by them, driving people to access that content using easier unauthorized mechanisms. While the solution to eradicating these unauthorized mechanisms has always been to reduce the barriers to the authorized mechanisms, copyright holders continue to try to pass the buck elsewhere for their self-inflicted problems.
---
Jan 16, 2015 update:
There are further reports about Netflix US removing Doctor Who and other BBC Programmes.
And later in the same day there were reports that Netflix Renews Deal for ‘Doctor Who,’ ‘Luther,’ More BBC Series
The BBC is an example of a broadcaster I would like to pay money and subscribe to (not only for Doctor Who), but that continues to put up barriers to me doing so. I am not a subscriber to a BDU, which is one of the common tied sales used by broadcasters. What potential customers like myself want for television and movie content is a subscription service like Netflix which isn't tied to any specific BDU or Internet provider, and which works on enough devices that it works on devices which we own. It's not just millennials that value Netflix more that broadcast or cable.
The BBC already have the technology in place, but thus far refuse to make the service available for their own "business" reasons. Within the UK the BBC iPlayer offers a streaming service that works on nearly as many devices as Netflix does (I didn't see my Boxee Box), but this service is not made available outside the UK.
There is a separate iPlayer for BBC Worldwide, but it is tied to Apple controlled devices. I have sent feedback at least once a year for a few years about this problem, and this year someone in the "BBC iPlayer (Global) Team" sent the following nonsense:
The BBC iPlayer UK and the BBC iPlayer Global are two separate entities. The UK iPlayer is available on Android and via the UK BBC iPlayer website, The global iPlayer is only available on Apple devices at this time as they are able to enforce licensing rights on a region by region basis while other providers have been unable/unwilling to enforce such actions.
In other words, Apple lied to them about the capabilities of their encrypted media platform suggesting that the restriction the BBC was requesting is possible or even reasonable. This dishonesty, as well as their total disrespect for the property rights of technology owners, are a few of the reasons why I will never be a customer of Apple. Content delivery which is tied to the use of Apple devices is effectively unavailable to me.
There are now rumors that the BBC may be removing content from Netflix. While this wasn't their latest seasons of shows, I have enjoyed viewing old seasons of shows which I didn't access in some other way closer to the air date. Given the nonsense response from the iPlayer Global team I bet out-of-touch broadcasters like the BBC are behind the recent useless attempts at geoblocking by Netflix. While this business problem created by copyright holders like the BBC can't be solved by technology, Neftlix is forced to do a bit of theater to distract copyright holders into thinking they are doing everything they can. I get the impression that Netflix as a company is more honest than Apple, and won't outright lie to copyright holders about the capabilities of encrypted media systems.
The reality is that in whatever regions the BBC refuses to make their content available in a way that returns revenue to the BBC are regions where the viewing of BBC content won't return revenues to the BBC. It is entirely unreasonable for the BBC to be putting up barrier to receiving money, and then whining when they don't receive that rejected money.
These types of barriers are typical. Copyright holders put up one barrier after another for people to access their content through mechanisms authorized by them, driving people to access that content using easier unauthorized mechanisms. While the solution to eradicating these unauthorized mechanisms has always been to reduce the barriers to the authorized mechanisms, copyright holders continue to try to pass the buck elsewhere for their self-inflicted problems.
---
Jan 16, 2015 update:
There are further reports about Netflix US removing Doctor Who and other BBC Programmes.
And later in the same day there were reports that Netflix Renews Deal for ‘Doctor Who,’ ‘Luther,’ More BBC Series
---
Feb 24, 2023 update:
An automated bot at Google flagged this article as violating their SPAM policy. This is a reminder of the problem with trying to use AI as an editor.
This is a policy governments should be looking very closely at, removing any third party intermediary liability to ensure it is authors and not intermediaries that are responsible for content.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Doctor Who fans must wait or be forced into an "infringe or be infringed" decision by BBC
The following is a comment I added to a Kasterborous editorial: iTunes, BBC? Really?
This is not a question of money for me — I have spent $thousands$ in recent years on my love of Doctor Who, and I’m more than willing to pay extra to get early access to these episodes before the DVD’s come out. Unfortunately BBC didn’t give me that option, so I will need to either wait for the DVD’s or get the episodes from an “unauthorized” source.
I am not a customer of Apple, nor will I ever be. I’ve spent more than a decade of my life as a political activist in support of IT property rights. As I discussed in a recent submission to the Canadian government on this issue http://c11.ca/brief , Apple is one of the worst infringers of IT property rights. They also actively lobby for legalizing and legally protecting infringements of IT property rights.
While Apple is a direct infringer, inducing people into infringing situations puts the BBC in the same league for those of us trying to protect these property rights as ISOHunt and PirateBay does for copyright infringement.
I agree it is great news that these stories were found, and great news that the BBC decided to make individual episodes available before they have completed the DVD sets. It is clearly bad news that they decided to make an exclusive distribution deal with such a highly controversial company.
I can understand people who may opt out of allowing their own property rights to be infringed, and instead infringe the copyright of others — DRM has never reduced copyright infringement, and in nearly every anecdote I have heard of has encouraged people to infringe copyright.
BTW: The “International” iPlayer is a similar failure by the BBC. Having this be Apple infringing devices only excludes those of us who use computers that are owner-secured rather than controllable by third parties. I am more than willing to pay a subscription fee to access iPlayer in Canada, but BBC hasn’t yet offered that to me at any price.
We live in a time where the importance of cyber-security will be increasing, and yet all these direct (by apple) and contributory (by BBC) infringements of IT property rights only decreases security by creating back-doors where non-owners control computers.
This is not a question of money for me — I have spent $thousands$ in recent years on my love of Doctor Who, and I’m more than willing to pay extra to get early access to these episodes before the DVD’s come out. Unfortunately BBC didn’t give me that option, so I will need to either wait for the DVD’s or get the episodes from an “unauthorized” source.
I am not a customer of Apple, nor will I ever be. I’ve spent more than a decade of my life as a political activist in support of IT property rights. As I discussed in a recent submission to the Canadian government on this issue http://c11.ca/brief , Apple is one of the worst infringers of IT property rights. They also actively lobby for legalizing and legally protecting infringements of IT property rights.
While Apple is a direct infringer, inducing people into infringing situations puts the BBC in the same league for those of us trying to protect these property rights as ISOHunt and PirateBay does for copyright infringement.
I agree it is great news that these stories were found, and great news that the BBC decided to make individual episodes available before they have completed the DVD sets. It is clearly bad news that they decided to make an exclusive distribution deal with such a highly controversial company.
I can understand people who may opt out of allowing their own property rights to be infringed, and instead infringe the copyright of others — DRM has never reduced copyright infringement, and in nearly every anecdote I have heard of has encouraged people to infringe copyright.
BTW: The “International” iPlayer is a similar failure by the BBC. Having this be Apple infringing devices only excludes those of us who use computers that are owner-secured rather than controllable by third parties. I am more than willing to pay a subscription fee to access iPlayer in Canada, but BBC hasn’t yet offered that to me at any price.
We live in a time where the importance of cyber-security will be increasing, and yet all these direct (by apple) and contributory (by BBC) infringements of IT property rights only decreases security by creating back-doors where non-owners control computers.
Monday, June 10, 2013
One Hurt Doctor theory isn't going to happen.
Since we have been told that John Hurt would be playing an incarnation of The Doctor in the 50'th Anniversary Special in November, there has been speculation as to which number he would be.
There is the idea that he is the doctor previous to William Hartnell, meaning that William was not the first incarnation -- just the first one called "The Doctor".
There is the idea that Hurt plays the incarnation who fought the Time War, situating him between Paul McGann and Christopher Eccleston. This still means Matt Smith is the 11'th "Doctor", but as with the first theory he isn't the 11'th incarnation of that Gallifreyan.
There was the idea that Hurt is playing The Valeyard, an incarnation of The Doctor somewhere between the twelfth and so-called "final" regeneration. Earlier this month we learned that this option isn't happening as Big Finish announced Trial of the Valeyard as a new audio play. We know that Big Finish is in constant communication with Cardif to ensure that stories don't overlap, so it's impossible that Hurt is playing the Valeyard in November with Big Finish releasing a Valeyard story in December.
I am also wondering how interesting Hurt playing an as-yet-unknown future incarnation would be for fans. There needs to be some link to what we already know..
I don't buy into the idea that there can only be 13 doctors (12 regenerations) given so much has changed since then. We already saw The Master offered additional regenerations (The 5 Doctors), so we know this was under the control of the Time Lords who no longer exist to enforce that limitation.
One future incarnation theory that would be interesting is an incarnation who steals a body the way that The Master did in Keeper of Traken (He stole Nyssa's father's body, having run out of regenerations). A theft of a body in order to gain additional regenerations would be something that would "solve" the silly 12 re-generations problem and would also be something done NOT in the "name of the Doctor".
Thoughts?
There is the idea that he is the doctor previous to William Hartnell, meaning that William was not the first incarnation -- just the first one called "The Doctor".
There is the idea that Hurt plays the incarnation who fought the Time War, situating him between Paul McGann and Christopher Eccleston. This still means Matt Smith is the 11'th "Doctor", but as with the first theory he isn't the 11'th incarnation of that Gallifreyan.
There was the idea that Hurt is playing The Valeyard, an incarnation of The Doctor somewhere between the twelfth and so-called "final" regeneration. Earlier this month we learned that this option isn't happening as Big Finish announced Trial of the Valeyard as a new audio play. We know that Big Finish is in constant communication with Cardif to ensure that stories don't overlap, so it's impossible that Hurt is playing the Valeyard in November with Big Finish releasing a Valeyard story in December.
I am also wondering how interesting Hurt playing an as-yet-unknown future incarnation would be for fans. There needs to be some link to what we already know..
I don't buy into the idea that there can only be 13 doctors (12 regenerations) given so much has changed since then. We already saw The Master offered additional regenerations (The 5 Doctors), so we know this was under the control of the Time Lords who no longer exist to enforce that limitation.
One future incarnation theory that would be interesting is an incarnation who steals a body the way that The Master did in Keeper of Traken (He stole Nyssa's father's body, having run out of regenerations). A theft of a body in order to gain additional regenerations would be something that would "solve" the silly 12 re-generations problem and would also be something done NOT in the "name of the Doctor".
Thoughts?
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Social media a better Doctor Who monster than WIFI
I'm a big fan of science fiction, and my favorite is Doctor Who. One thing I do find annoying is when science fiction is too light on the science part, and perpetuates the general lack of scientific knowledge of our "modern" society. Like constantly spelling quality with a "K", science fiction lacking in credible science makes us less intelligent while good science fiction can help us better understand ourselves, science, and how we interact with technology.
While we don't know how to travel in time or as quickly in space, it is not that aspect of science fiction like Doctor Who that bothers me. I am bothered when science fiction takes a real-world technology and makes it into something it can't be, or stories which aren't internally consistent with how science would work in the fictional world created.
Two recent Doctor Who episodes are examples of good and bad science: The Bells of Saint John is the most recent television episode(11'th Doctor), and Babblesphere is the most recent audio drama from the Destiny of the Doctor joint range from Big Finish and AudioGo.
In The Bells of Saint John the monster was WIFI, controlled by The Great Intelligence. Someone would be trying to connect to the Internet and find hotspot names like "┓┏ 凵 =╱⊿┌┬┐". After connecting your computer would be broken into and the operators able to spy on you through your webcam and other such features of newer computers and mobile devices. This part is plausible relying on the lack of security on many of these devices (partly due to bad government policy that makes security our devices harder and less legal, but we can get into that later).
Then magically a robot with a spoon head shows up that reminded me of the Nodes from Silence in the Library, which then download someones brain. The Doctor refers to this spoonhead node as a walking WIFI base station, trying to make some direct connection between the WIFI link which hacks the computer and the spoonhead nodes which are hacking people's brains. The script can say there is some connection between WIFI and this robot that was teleported in, but that doesn't makes the science plausible or consistent. WIFI is a real-world technology with real-world limits which shouldn't be just waived away by the writer (Steven Moffat, same as for the Library -- funny how some of the tech seemed familiar even if far better written in the Library).
The more science fiction makes things like WIFI out to be magic, the less the general public will understand and be able to differentiate between real-world threats and imagined ones. This not only encourages people to see boogeymen where they don't exist, but also to not recognize the real problems that do exist (like the government policies making network and other computer security harder and less legal).
Babblesphere is set in a future human settlement where social media technology goes bad. Initially we have helmets people would put on in order to interact with a virtual reality environment, which was eventually replaced with a chip people would embed and never be disconnected. A computer AI program was written to moderate social media forums, and this AI program in typical "I, Robot" fashion takes over and stops anything that gets in the way of what it believes to be its job. For example, rather than just ejecting boring participants from the forums it would use the implant to murder them by electrocuting their brain. Chip implants are made mandatory by the AI program, but people don't realize the AI has taken over and thinks that this is the government of the colony creating the laws.
This is all plausible futuristic technology as well as plausible (if frightening and infuriating) inappropriate reactions to the technology by humans. Nearly all the colonists have voluntarily had the implants, never questioning whether there could be any risks or like current society asking who controls the implants (who is writing the software that ultimately will control their lives). This is like current politicians increasingly passing laws which allow non-transparent software to unaccountably control more and more of our lives: eventually putting politicians out of work as the most important policies will be authored as software and not laws. While it is insane to allow third parties like device manufacturers to be in control of our private communications devices like cell phones (IE: like anti-circumvention clauses in "copyright" laws), it is beyond insane (time to lock up the politicians insane) to allow unaccountable and non-transparent software to be embedded in medical technology.
It is only an extreme minority of the colonists that needed the implants to be mandatory, with the majority of the colonists treating those who didn't as terrorists for wanting to have "private thoughts". "If you have nothing bad to hide, why have secrets" is a sentiment shared by far too many in our society, and why the colonists outlawed private thoughts. You can read this type of dangerous thinking in Hansard quite often ("Lawful access" anyone?), and is something we as a society have to become more aware of and more vigilant against. Not surprising the same people who think that citizens don't deserve any privacy are the first to believe that those in "authority" (government officials, police, military, etc) should have more privacy and less accountability/transparency. Common sense dictates that there are at least the same percentage of "bad actors" within these authorities as there are in the general public. Add to that the fact that power corrupts and we clearly need to have greater scrutiny of authorities than the general public.
While The Bells of Saint John is great and exciting drama, it is in my mind poor science fiction while Babblesphere is all thumbs up for both the science and the fiction. While Bells makes us mildly curious about who Clara will turn out to be, Babblesphere entertains as well as encourages its listeners to think about real-world issues with our human interactions with science and tech.
While we don't know how to travel in time or as quickly in space, it is not that aspect of science fiction like Doctor Who that bothers me. I am bothered when science fiction takes a real-world technology and makes it into something it can't be, or stories which aren't internally consistent with how science would work in the fictional world created.
Two recent Doctor Who episodes are examples of good and bad science: The Bells of Saint John is the most recent television episode(11'th Doctor), and Babblesphere is the most recent audio drama from the Destiny of the Doctor joint range from Big Finish and AudioGo.
Spoilers, Sweetie
In The Bells of Saint John the monster was WIFI, controlled by The Great Intelligence. Someone would be trying to connect to the Internet and find hotspot names like "┓┏ 凵 =╱⊿┌┬┐". After connecting your computer would be broken into and the operators able to spy on you through your webcam and other such features of newer computers and mobile devices. This part is plausible relying on the lack of security on many of these devices (partly due to bad government policy that makes security our devices harder and less legal, but we can get into that later).
Then magically a robot with a spoon head shows up that reminded me of the Nodes from Silence in the Library, which then download someones brain. The Doctor refers to this spoonhead node as a walking WIFI base station, trying to make some direct connection between the WIFI link which hacks the computer and the spoonhead nodes which are hacking people's brains. The script can say there is some connection between WIFI and this robot that was teleported in, but that doesn't makes the science plausible or consistent. WIFI is a real-world technology with real-world limits which shouldn't be just waived away by the writer (Steven Moffat, same as for the Library -- funny how some of the tech seemed familiar even if far better written in the Library).
The more science fiction makes things like WIFI out to be magic, the less the general public will understand and be able to differentiate between real-world threats and imagined ones. This not only encourages people to see boogeymen where they don't exist, but also to not recognize the real problems that do exist (like the government policies making network and other computer security harder and less legal).
Babblesphere is set in a future human settlement where social media technology goes bad. Initially we have helmets people would put on in order to interact with a virtual reality environment, which was eventually replaced with a chip people would embed and never be disconnected. A computer AI program was written to moderate social media forums, and this AI program in typical "I, Robot" fashion takes over and stops anything that gets in the way of what it believes to be its job. For example, rather than just ejecting boring participants from the forums it would use the implant to murder them by electrocuting their brain. Chip implants are made mandatory by the AI program, but people don't realize the AI has taken over and thinks that this is the government of the colony creating the laws.
This is all plausible futuristic technology as well as plausible (if frightening and infuriating) inappropriate reactions to the technology by humans. Nearly all the colonists have voluntarily had the implants, never questioning whether there could be any risks or like current society asking who controls the implants (who is writing the software that ultimately will control their lives). This is like current politicians increasingly passing laws which allow non-transparent software to unaccountably control more and more of our lives: eventually putting politicians out of work as the most important policies will be authored as software and not laws. While it is insane to allow third parties like device manufacturers to be in control of our private communications devices like cell phones (IE: like anti-circumvention clauses in "copyright" laws), it is beyond insane (time to lock up the politicians insane) to allow unaccountable and non-transparent software to be embedded in medical technology.
It is only an extreme minority of the colonists that needed the implants to be mandatory, with the majority of the colonists treating those who didn't as terrorists for wanting to have "private thoughts". "If you have nothing bad to hide, why have secrets" is a sentiment shared by far too many in our society, and why the colonists outlawed private thoughts. You can read this type of dangerous thinking in Hansard quite often ("Lawful access" anyone?), and is something we as a society have to become more aware of and more vigilant against. Not surprising the same people who think that citizens don't deserve any privacy are the first to believe that those in "authority" (government officials, police, military, etc) should have more privacy and less accountability/transparency. Common sense dictates that there are at least the same percentage of "bad actors" within these authorities as there are in the general public. Add to that the fact that power corrupts and we clearly need to have greater scrutiny of authorities than the general public.
While The Bells of Saint John is great and exciting drama, it is in my mind poor science fiction while Babblesphere is all thumbs up for both the science and the fiction. While Bells makes us mildly curious about who Clara will turn out to be, Babblesphere entertains as well as encourages its listeners to think about real-world issues with our human interactions with science and tech.
Monday, March 11, 2013
AudioGO and Big Finish even easier for audio-books than eMusic
Back in May 2008 I offered my thoughts on three services that offered Cory Doctorow's Little Brother as an audio book. Audible didn't work at all, Zipidee worked but was less than ideal, and eMusic was the best of the three.
As part of the 50'th anniversary celebrations of Doctor Who I have decided to go where I've never been before, and check out some of the Doctor Who audio-books. AudioGO offers Doctor Who, Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures that are based on TV Soundtracks, readings of novelizations, as well as original stories. Big Finish offers many original science fiction audio dramas for Doctor Who, Stargate and Sherlock Holmes.
It goes without saying that like eMusic both offer unencrypted (AKA: DRM-free) audio in vendor-neutral audio formats, which in this case included MP3. I discussed my unwillingness to access or pay for DRM-infected audio-books in the 2008 article. I suspect given these services have a focus on science fiction that they recognize that discouraging purchases from more science and technology literate customers would be strongly against their best interests.
Big Finish solves the problem of offering multiple files as part of a single title by offering ZIP files for download. After purchasing they offer a "Download MP3" and "Download Audiobook" option for each title, allowing you to download the title again if necessary. The MP3 option offers a ZIP file with a series of MP3 files (multiple tracks for a given title), a JPEG cover image, and a PDF of the current issue of Big Finish' Vortex magazine. The Audiobook option replaces the series of MP3 files within the ZIP file with a single m4b file (Note: for listening on my Android phone I rename the file to .m4a to use the built-in audio app rather than downloading a dedicated Audiobook app).
AudioGO offers "Download with Manager", "Download in Browser" and a "Listen online" for purchased titles.
The download manager is a Java application which requires that Java be installed on the desktop, but runs well on the OpenJDK that ships standard with Ubuntu Linux. It is much simpler, cleaner and interoperable than the platform-specific binary that eMusic uses for a download manager. I hope that eMusic will consider upgrading to a Java application for this purpose.
The "Download in Browser" attempts to use JavaScript to handle multiple downloads. While this and downloading each file separately works, it didn't work as well as the Java download manager. This option will be great for those who don't have (or don't want to have for many legitimate security reasons) a Java interpreter on their computers.
The "Listen online" makes use of HTML5 (with Flash for legacy browsers) for an audio player that lists each track/chapter to allow you to jump to a specific track.
Overall the experience with these two services have been great so far. I only finished my watching of the DVD's of the classic series a week ago, so will now be spending time checking out more of the audio adventures. Check out my Doctor Who and Me page for a list of what I've purchased/watched/etc. Always looking for Who recommendations if you have them.
As part of the 50'th anniversary celebrations of Doctor Who I have decided to go where I've never been before, and check out some of the Doctor Who audio-books. AudioGO offers Doctor Who, Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures that are based on TV Soundtracks, readings of novelizations, as well as original stories. Big Finish offers many original science fiction audio dramas for Doctor Who, Stargate and Sherlock Holmes.
It goes without saying that like eMusic both offer unencrypted (AKA: DRM-free) audio in vendor-neutral audio formats, which in this case included MP3. I discussed my unwillingness to access or pay for DRM-infected audio-books in the 2008 article. I suspect given these services have a focus on science fiction that they recognize that discouraging purchases from more science and technology literate customers would be strongly against their best interests.
Big Finish solves the problem of offering multiple files as part of a single title by offering ZIP files for download. After purchasing they offer a "Download MP3" and "Download Audiobook" option for each title, allowing you to download the title again if necessary. The MP3 option offers a ZIP file with a series of MP3 files (multiple tracks for a given title), a JPEG cover image, and a PDF of the current issue of Big Finish' Vortex magazine. The Audiobook option replaces the series of MP3 files within the ZIP file with a single m4b file (Note: for listening on my Android phone I rename the file to .m4a to use the built-in audio app rather than downloading a dedicated Audiobook app).
AudioGO offers "Download with Manager", "Download in Browser" and a "Listen online" for purchased titles.
The download manager is a Java application which requires that Java be installed on the desktop, but runs well on the OpenJDK that ships standard with Ubuntu Linux. It is much simpler, cleaner and interoperable than the platform-specific binary that eMusic uses for a download manager. I hope that eMusic will consider upgrading to a Java application for this purpose.
The "Download in Browser" attempts to use JavaScript to handle multiple downloads. While this and downloading each file separately works, it didn't work as well as the Java download manager. This option will be great for those who don't have (or don't want to have for many legitimate security reasons) a Java interpreter on their computers.
The "Listen online" makes use of HTML5 (with Flash for legacy browsers) for an audio player that lists each track/chapter to allow you to jump to a specific track.
Overall the experience with these two services have been great so far. I only finished my watching of the DVD's of the classic series a week ago, so will now be spending time checking out more of the audio adventures. Check out my Doctor Who and Me page for a list of what I've purchased/watched/etc. Always looking for Who recommendations if you have them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)