Exactly! I think what we need to do now is congratulate them on this, and gently try and steer them down the sort of 'sane' path they're advocating (as clearly there'll be plenty of submissions from other 'interested parties' doing the opposite). Still, that'll teach me to write stock responses to things without looking at them properly. :)
Also had one slightly crazy idea... when they put out invitations to tender for the role of this new PSP body, would it be feasible for representatives of the free culture / open knowledge community in the UK to put in a proposal to actually do the work? cheers, Tim On 3/9/07, Philip Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ fc-uk-discuss mailing list fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
