On 6/15/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet
from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet.


It's not worse, but it's not much better.

The BBC charter is not to do a little bit better than it did before,
but to give the best value it possibly can. It's not doing the best it
can, and this isn't good enough.


Obviously DRM free content is even better, but it's not feasible right
now.


It is feasible right now, for some content, if not all.

The sentiment here seems to be that no one likes DRM, no one wants
DRM, and no one believes it works, but a) the "rights holders" need to
be lied to and b) they hold all the cards.  I don't think this is the
case, but even so, what's being done to fix this?

Some DRM-free content available is better than no DRM-free content.
The more DRM-free content which is widely available, the more pressure
it puts on those who would use DRM, not to.

The BBC has many thousands of hours of programming which it holds
sufficient rights to enable it to published on the Internet, DRM-free.
If DRM is so distasteful, then why isn't this being done? Surely the
BBC should be taking steps to move towards a DRM-free world, if that's
what it believes in, which is what has been reported here.

It needn't cost any money, and we could start really simple: all local
news casts, all weather reports, all House of Commons footage -- dump
it to the Internet Archive and  Google and anyone else who will take
it.

Just get it out there.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Reply via email to