Ha. I don't think you were premature. Who knew?
I was utterly shocked that they were up-to-speed.
Like who hit them with the sanity stick, huh?!
PHIL :)
Tim Cowlishaw wrote:
Hi Phillip,
Thanks for the comments, I wrote those points after having read only
the abstract of the OFCOM paper, so wasn't fully aware of the subject
- clearly a lot of the points are (a) very vague and (b) already
covered by the OFCOM doc, as a result of my being slightly premature
in writing them . I think that emphasising the public benefit of
liberal licensing is definitely the way to go.. .I'll add more when
i've finished reading the paper!
Cheers,
Tim
On 3/9/07, *Philip Merrill* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
I've worked on a reply to this for the Digital Media Project
(dmpf.org <http://dmpf.org>)
so I've read the main document, the personal visions, and the Chitty
16-pager pretty carefully. I'm certainly happy to help discuss the
material or locate references that might be useful. I'll at least
start
by commenting on the Wiki stuff, but please direct me wherever I
can be
of use. (By the way, before I was asked to draft the DMP reply, I
encouraged Nicholas Bentley to reply on his own. Some of you may
know him.)
> Technology facilitates a shift from a consumption-based model
for the
media to a participatory one - ongoing trend towards this - blogs,
youtube, etc, PSB should encourage rather than stifle mass
participation.
This is so consistent with the new approach described that it fails to
reply to anything. Frankly, they were smart to suggest this, but they
need help to get results.
> PSBs should represent the public interest when commissioning
programmes - All new programme content should be commissioned with
terms
as such that they can be distributed without DRM and under the
most-liberal-possible licence
You mean PSPs with two P's. (I know it is hard to talk seriously in a
regulatory context about a Sony portable device's acronym; I keep
thinking about my son's stupid games and UMD disks.) As far as public
interest, I'd look at the phrase "public service" and argue that
liberal
licensing provides the best value for the taxpayer. People should use
all they can, and part of the commissioning process can generate new
content that supports very liberal licensing (their idea as well
as what
we want). The authors like to use the phrase "share aware" meaning
that
content tells you what you are allowed to do with it (instead of mute
content encumbered with technological restriction measures but no
concept for reuse).
> PSBs should represent the public interest in dealings with the
government (similar to British Library's policy on DRM)
This has many implications and is too vague. For example, a political
action component is definitely envisaged for this.
http://www.openmedianetwork.org.uk/contentandvision/act.htm
<http://www.openmedianetwork.org.uk/contentandvision/act.htm>
Also, the whole proposal is really not DRM-friendly (disclaimer:
Digital
Media Project (dmpf.org <http://dmpf.org>) is DRM, we're not the
Beckman Center at
Harvard, we're like the opposite).
Also, you said PSBs and not PSPs. I'd elaborate the list of what
public
service/interest issues are involved for the complex participative
environment proposed (although actually they claim to make NO
"proposals" in the sense of Ofcom jargon). I think there are a
number of
different ones, and then there is the later potential to handle three
things separately: news, children's programming, and the Regions and
States. I think a good Free Culture Wish List would be received very
receptively. At worst, they'll end up with lots of free stuff if the
document's vision is put into practice, but there might be parallel
channels that are more restricted, and there will probably be
restrictions on non-UK users esp. shaking us foreigners down for
much-needed revenue.
> Investment in technical infrastructure and educational programmes to
broaden participation in the media and facilitate a conversational,
participatory model.
Again, if you go through it you'll see that they say they want to
commission not just content but enabling tools, technology or
education
for participation. They are really great! Until page 45, I didn't find
one thing I disagreed with. So I would parse out two wish lists here,
one for technical infrastructure and another for programme types.
But be
warned that these folks really shine when it comes to describing
diverse
program types for public service digital media. In the work-up
sessions,
it looks like everyone had to contribute at least 8 sites or something
and then propose a make-believe new idea of their own. The URLs are on
their http://www.openmedianetwork.org.uk/
<http://www.openmedianetwork.org.uk/> website
Anyway, I don't mean to criticize. I'd like to live in the better
world
a UK PSP can give me, even way out here in California.
Speaking of which, I'll bet some of you might want to comment on the
suggestion that the PSP cannot be London based or it will be
sucked into
old crusty ways of thinking. Personally, I think the whole thing could
be run online with fun periodic events travelling across the UK.
And if
someone can't be there, no matter, they can be there virtually or else
join in the discussions and online comments after-the-fact. But they
really seem to want to stay out of London!
PHIL :)
http://home.earthlink.net/~veyr/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eveyr/> for gory details
Tim Cowlishaw wrote:
> (those on the fc-uk list see forwarded messages below- we're
discussing
>
> That sounds fantastic to me.. I've got a wiki page up on the fc-uk
> site with a couple of preliminary thoughts (However, I think these
> might be irrelevant as after reading more of the document i think i
> may have initially misunderstood the scope of the consultation -
> expect retractions and revisions to these!). Just had a read through
> Saul's blog entry and theres' loads of good stuff in there too,
so as
> I think our positions are all pretty much aligned, presenting a
> 'united front' in this respect would be a great idea.
>
> Wiki page here: http://www.freeculture.org.uk/OfcomPsbResponse
>
> Cheers!
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 3/9/07, * Michael Holloway* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:
>
> Nice suggestion, Rufus.
>
> ORG has not yet planned to submit on this. In fact we're
feeling a
> little overwhelmed by the many ongoing consultations. Perhaps
> there could be a joint submission from ORG, OKFN and FC-UK? I
> could certainly get some eyes to look over draft material, and
> encourage contributions from our advisers and supporters too.
>
>
> On 3/9/07, *Rufus Pollock* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:
>
> Dear Saul,
>
> As I know the deadline for a response on the OFCOM
Public Service
> Publisher is looming (March the 23rd I believe) I was
> wondering whether
> we at the OKF/OKFN should send something in. Given that you
> wrote a
> response (in addition to the long blog post) perhaps we
could
> use that
> as the basis (or as is) for an OKFN response. It would
also be
> good to
> put something up as I know that Free Culture UK are thinking
> of drafting
> something and perhaps ORG might do too.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rufus
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
<http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael H Holloway
> +44 (0) 7974 566 823
>
> http://www.openbusiness.cc/
> http://www.openrightsgroup.org
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
<http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>fc-uk-discuss mailing list
> fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org <mailto:fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org>
>http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
>
>
_______________________________________________
fc-uk-discuss mailing list
fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org <mailto:fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org>
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss>
_______________________________________________
fc-uk-discuss mailing list
fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
