[backstage] Live football score data
Morning all, I suspect the answer to this is no, but is there a BBC feed of live football score data - ie the data that provides the live scores on a Saturday and Sunday? I've had a look around but can't find one - am I just being dim, or is this something that's bought in from a third party and hence not available for reuse? Cheers, Rich. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Live football score data
Morning all, I suspect the answer to this is no, but is there a BBC feed of live football score data - ie the data that provides the live scores on a Saturday and Sunday? I've had a look around but can't find one - am I just being dim, or is this something that's bought in from a third party and hence not available for reuse? AFAIK, that's exactly the case (applies to most sports stuff, not just football). Thought that was probably the case, but the being dim option is always a definite possibility! Cheers, R. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Live football score data
Hi Jacqueline, Thanks for that - I suspected that was probably the case. Cheers, R. On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Jacqueline Phillimore jacqueline.phillim...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Hi Richard, The BBC buys the data from PA and we use their feeds to populate the BBC Sport Online results pages. I think we may use another data source as well. So yes, there are rights around what we can make available to the public. J -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Richard Lockwood Sent: 20 June 2011 08:55 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Live football score data Morning all, I suspect the answer to this is no, but is there a BBC feed of live football score data - ie the data that provides the live scores on a Saturday and Sunday? I've had a look around but can't find one - am I just being dim, or is this something that's bought in from a third party and hence not available for reuse? AFAIK, that's exactly the case (applies to most sports stuff, not just football). Thought that was probably the case, but the being dim option is always a definite possibility! Cheers, R. - 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/ - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Ping...
I had got used to Chrome doing my spell checking (but no grammar check as yet...) and I've just got myself an Asus Transfomer with a fresh helping of Android Ice Cream Sandwich and .. no spell checker in the browser. The check's in the post. Cheque, surely? Do you need a spell chequer? :-) R. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Green Ink.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I can at least translate what David's saying; ME ME ME ME ME!!! I WANT IT ALL! FOR NOTHING!!! ME ME! GIVE IT TO ME! I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR ANYTHING, EVER!!! ME ME ME!!! IT'S MY RIGHT TO HAVE EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING FOR EVER AND EVER, AND I'LL CRY IF I CAN'T!! That's pretty much the gist of it. Cheers, Rich. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 17 June 2010 17:10 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Green Ink. Nick, has been drinking the BBC kool aid, and thinks we have a weak case. Well I have submitted a complaint to the BBC suggesting the following five actual or stated intention of the BBC, in public documents, to prima facie case of breaking the law. 1. State Aid. 2. Public Service Obligations 3. Extra Judicial enforcement by a public body 4. Oligopolistic Dominance, and Anticompetitive Parallel Behaviour 5 Vertical Discrimination I could do better with more time. Nick how do you like our case now ? Extract: 1. Summary. The BBC's case is that it is in the public interest to submit to and engage in anticompetitive parallel behaviour in breach of it's own legal obligations and competition law (which is not justified by copyright). This ignores the violation of several principles enshrined in law: legal obligations and competition law. And exceptions to copyright under the law. But most worrying of all, intellectual property is continuing to be used to justify the eroding and rights and violating principles that appear in the European Convention on Human Rights[13] Universal Declaration of Human Rights[12] or a written constitution (like the US constitution[11]): freedom of speech and expression, intrusions into the publics autonomy, privacy, property and extra-judicial enforcement of arbitrary restrictions. By contrast: Breech of copyright is a Tort (civil wrong), only in exceptional cases a criminal offence (that is changing as more draconian laws are passed), a loss has to be established, for which damages may be awarded, by the courts. The BBC is clearly taking disproportionate action, by creating the infrastructure for control of the public by special interests and violating the law, in exchange for illusionary short term gains. - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Fwd: Slashdot| Apple's Trend Away From Tinkering
Apologies - Apple Hardware rather than Macs. Although Macs *are* primarily consumer hardware. The amount of tinkerability has always been several degrees of magnitude below that of a PC. Cheers, R. On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 01:29, Richard Lockwood richard.lockw...@gmail.com wrote: Use a PC. Macs are consumer hardware - and it's never been suggested that they're anything else. Er, eh? Are we talking about the same thing, here? _iPads and iPhones_ are consumer hardware, no shadow of a doubt. OTOH, Apple has quite regularly suggested that Macs aren't necessarily consumer-focused. I don't think most consumers would care that 10.5 was certified UNIX, for example (or even know what that means, for that matter). Don't forget, the vast majority of people want their computer to just work - and that means: email, web browsing, basic word processing and maybe a spreadsheet. Oh, and handling their digital photos. And maybe their home videos. That I’ll agree with, though. It's only people on this list who give more than a pico-shit* about making it do something interesting and different. To be honest, it's worth bearing in mind that a) It's still very early days for iPhone OS - Apple has a backwards-compatibility nightmare with Mac OS X, and doesn't want to fall into the same trap where it has the opportunity to do things cleanly - things get added when Apple can figure out how to do them in a way which it is happy with (cf. Copy Paste, and also a few of the features appearing in 3.2) b) It's a first-generation device c) Apple won't be the only people producing tablets which work d) If all of this is as wildly successful as people seem to be predicting/Apple would like, they'll have no choice but to open things up I reckon this will happen before long, though: http://nevali.net/post/363412864/unlock-in M. - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Fwd: Slashdot| Apple's Trend Away From Tinkering
Use a PC. Macs are consumer hardware - and it's never been suggested that they're anything else. Don't forget, the vast majority of people want their computer to just work - and that means: email, web browsing, basic word processing and maybe a spreadsheet. Oh, and handling their digital photos. And maybe their home videos. It's only people on this list who give more than a pico-shit* about making it do something interesting and different. Cheers, Rich. * the SI unit of caring On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Ian Stirling backstage...@mauve.plus.com wrote: Tim Dobson wrote: Thoughts on postcard? My postcard only has tickboxes for 'wish you were here', 'having a lovely time' and 'Had a lovely time at iDisney', all the rest of the card is too slippery to write on, what do I do? - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] New prototype
Cool... :-) Cheers, Rich. On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Tim Coysh tjcr...@gmail.com wrote: Hello BBC Backstage, In the last few weeks I have been working on a simple system, similar to Chris Riley's trackplaying, of showing the currently playing song on BBC Radio and providing some information about the song and artist. I have never sent an email to a mailing list before, but I am hoping this would be the best way of telling BBC enthusiasts about my site. The site is currently designed to be user-friendly, and uses a simple design and interface. In addition to the main feature of showing the currently playing song, I have compiled a list of all songs which have been 'scrobbled' to the BBC Radio 1 last.fm account (Which is where the information is retrieved) since its creation in 2005. This could hopefully prove to be very useful in finding 'trends' of songs played etc. Depending on the amount of use this gets, I will create a database for the other radio stations as well. I am fairly new to web programming, only starting last year. I was hoping this website could be a way to expand my website programming knowledge and so far its proved to be very good at that. The site is located at http://www.radio1now.co.cc Thanks, Tim Coysh - 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/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
Hopefully it'll leave Firefox well and truly in the bin where it belongs. Must admit I always preferred IE for everyday use (and advocated it very strongly for non-geek users), but I'm an absolute Chrome convert. It. Just. Works. And its Javascript engine is blisteringly quick. Cheers, Rich. On FF on OS X, and if I see another Chrome ad on Youtube or Google homepage I'll cry. Interested to see where this might leave Mozilla in the long run - as a matter of interest, can anyone tell me if FF's default Google homepage is whoring itself similarly? - 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/
Re: [backstage] Changes to the list
You work for Twitter and I claim my five pounds. Cheers, Rich. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Phil Lewis backst...@linuxcentre.net wrote: I should have added that you are granted 7 days to view the message and after which it will become unreadable. You also must always obtain an auth token before reading (it only lasts 30 seconds) - unless of course I choose to take my authorisation server down. I believe that this will stop undue proliferation of my message and therefore increase future message popularity and revenue. On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 15:35 +0100, Mo McRoberts wrote: On 20-Oct-2009, at 15:26, Phil Lewis wrote: [REDACTED] I’m sorry, I would have replied to your message, but it required quoting it, and I’m not sure I was granted the appropriate redistribution rights. M. Produced for the BBC Backstage Mailing List by Mo McRoberts’ fingers. © MM MMIX . All rights reserved. - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
It is my genuine position. Abolishing copyright would achieve exactly what I want. This is what it all boils down to whenever the let's abolish copyright for the good of society. It's actually about let's abolish copyright for my own personal benefit. You simply don't want to have to pay for anything, and I'm guessing you don't produce anything creative, hence you don't benefit from copyright. It's the me, me, me, me, me! argument again - have you been down the pub with Dave Crossland too often? ;-) Cheers, Rich. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Richard Lockwood wrote: It is my genuine position. Abolishing copyright would achieve exactly what I want. This is what it all boils down to whenever the let's abolish copyright for the good of society. It's actually about let's abolish copyright for my own personal benefit. You simply don't want to have to pay for anything, and I'm guessing you don't produce anything creative, hence you don't benefit from copyright. It's the me, me, me, me, me! argument again - have you been down the pub with Dave Crossland too often? ;-) It's why not do a thought experiment, after all there are several million people on the Internet, who intend to practice it. The attempts to prevent them are the real danger to society. Lord Mandeleson, and the French want to throw out the Magna Carta, and the whole legal system to maintain it. Content Vendors want to lock down every piece of consumer electronics. and impose huge costs on society. None of that makes any sense whatsoever. Rich. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:23 AM, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Alia Sheikh wrote: Dave, So we can have this discussion in only a manner which is determined by yourself? Children count, pictures of dogs count, pictures of someone's gran or bank statement or a tree counts. If your arguments hold tight then they hold tight for all examples. Hard to have a discussion when people threaten to take their ball away and not play anymore. Which signifies no more than the end of this discussion with you perhaps, but thought it worth mentioning in case the negative reactions to that statement were just whistling past. Alia If you wish to talk about personal images use the example of adults, a spouse for example. Or personal information. Involving children is like using the word Nazi, it is designed to close down debate, because of the moral panic surrounding the issue. No. That's just you realising you're just digging yourself deeper and looking for a way out. Rich. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
No. That's just you realising you're just digging yourself deeper and looking for a way out. See Michael Smethurst's post, it is a topic in in itself and does not solely rely only upon copyright. Now you're just randomly quoting bits of messages and dropping in irrelevant soundbites. You appear to be failing the Turing test. Rich. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:16 PM, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Richard Lockwood wrote: None of that makes any sense whatsoever. It made sense to me, several million people in the UK fileshare without regard to copyright. But the proposed cure (Three strikes), which bypasses the legal system is worse than the problem. Why didn't you just say that then? Instead of trying to couch your reply in meaningless and obfuscating rhetoric and gobbledegook? Rich. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Dear David, You are getting less and less reasonable with each posting you make. I assert that you are a dickhead of the highest order and are going straight into my trash folder. If you could off a bit quicker, that would be much appreciated. Best regards etc, Rich. On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Deirdre Harvey wrote: We don't call them all laws. No and not all fish are sharks, but sharks are fish. But the particular law of copyright, imposes more costs than benefits and should be abolished. That is your contention, it is not a fact. Yes, and I am defending that contention. Easy as that, eh? Just pass a few privacy laws... they never impinge on the freedom of people and their right to access certain information, do they? No but it is off topic, in that copyright is not a good tool for privacy etc. Whose freedom? Not Martin Belam's freedom to protect his work from unauthorised copying obviously. Martin Belam's Freedoms should not impose on freedoms of others, where that happens we have social conventions, laws, judges etc. I just think copyright is a bad law and we should review (abolish) it. - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Google Wave
As would I. On one hand I'd like an invite, on the other I'd rather gouge my eyes out than have one. The way Google pass their invites out is very clever-clever in building up a market, but it marks them out as c***s. I've worked with all kinds of Google stuff and been to various Google conferences over the years but this time I don't get an invite, whereas I have friends who couldn't give the square root of f*** all about Google who've been granted an invite. F**k 'em and the horse they rode in on. R. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Changing the long running threads (don't think I'm not watching) Now Google Wave invites are out there and more of you have had a chance to play with wave. What do people think? And why is no one building a decent client for it? Am I the only excited person? I think most everyone else is embarrassed to admit they'd quite like an invite. I'd quite like an invite. Main thing I'm positive about so far, is that XMPP deserves serious attention and this will help it get some... cheers, Dan - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Fixing the iPlayer support in Plex
Have a look at the XBMC iplayer plugin which you should be able to leverage. I think you mean use. Or possibly reuse. You do not, under any circumstances, mean leverage. That's utterly meaningless. We have words in English to cover most eventualities without misusing buzzwords. Cheers, Rich. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Autonomo.us] Skype, out?
In those days, of course, everything cost sixpence, was made of wood and lasted forever. (Cue Dvorak's Symphony for the New World in the background) :-) R. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Nico Morrisonmicroni...@gmail.com wrote: Hey - I sent my then girlfriend a loveletter on paper punchtape, ASR-33 Teletype controlling a PDP-11 that ran a Motorola satnav receiver on the survey boat I was on in Papua New Guinea in 1971, it was probably an 11-23 and we booted it manually with switches until it could see the paper tape. She got someone in the Singapore office to dump out the paper tape and it must have worked as we married and had kids. I am of the blase camp as well in this respect - 'plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose' - try that in Google translate. Nico Morrison 2009/8/6 Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv 2009/8/6 Tim Dobson li...@tdobson.net Brian Butterworth wrote: The first version of Unix I used was on a PDP11! When I started doing system admin for Unix I learnt both System V and BSD. I used XWindows on Sparcstations! So, I have a rather blaze attitude to new versions of something I have known for a more than a few decades. Sorry... Gah. I always feel young round here. I can hardly ever join in discussions on vintage computing :( [snip] I agree with your points, but dispute that it's not nearly there. I dislike this article for several reasons but http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/06/linux_ubuntu_blog.html if the catalyst has to be the publicity from claiming the UK has 400 linux users, so be it! ;) LOL. And we all know where AH is now. And what he spent his BBC expenses on. Now there are certainly issues encountered there, but he still makes some good points. How about a BBC Micro 2012 Edition...? FMT need another impossible tech project. Be more exciting than Bang Goes The Theory. If exciting means more likely to cause flame wars on backstage than iplayer then yes. :P The world does not need new gnu/linux distros IMHO. Yes, consumers probably like stability over endless choice in this department. Tim :) - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - 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/
Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Autonomo.us] Skype, out?
Right. I think that sums it up. If I tell my Mum that, she'll look at me as though I'm from Mars. To be honest, as a non-Linux user, but experienced computer user, I have no idea what the hell DEB or RPM are. If that's the best sell you can do, it just demonstrates that desktop Linux still isn't ready for the day to day computer user. Cheers, Rich. On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Andrew Bowdenandrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Most Linux software is now available in DEB or RPM format. There's some smaller packages that aren't, and commercial companies have a habit of not fitting in. But frankly most modern distros take an RPM and DEB and know exactly what to do with it so that the user need do little more than click on the file. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Autonomo.us] Skype, out?
Don't worry about Dave, he's just trolling again. Cheers, Rich. On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Alun Rowealun.r...@pentangle.co.uk wrote: No doubt some palms will be crossed with silver (or equity). The business case for open standards has to be thought through ingreat depth before embracing it. Also Skypes network has been around for a longtime! On 3 Aug 2009, at 17:10, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote: Proprietary software and centtalised network services strike again... Regards, Dave -- Forwarded message -- From: Nathan Willis nwil...@glyphography.com Date: 3 Aug 2009, 4:05 PM Subject: [Autonomo.us] Skype, out? To: autonomo.us discussion mailing list disc...@lists.autonomo.us Seems like this would be a good opportunity to discuss the free alternatives: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/if-skype-goes-who-would-fill-gap-106880 Executive summary: eBay is in an acrimonius patent lawsuit with a company called Joltid that owns a patent on something used by Skype; Joltid is claiming that eBay violated their license and has terminated it, a situation that if upheld by the court would force them to deactivate Skype. Highly doubtful that that will come to pass, but I suppose you never know. Nate -- nathan.p.willis nwil...@glyphography.com aim/ym/gtalk:n8willis flickr.com/photos/willis Alun Rowe Pentangle Internet Limited 2 Buttermarket Thame Oxfordshire OX9 3EW Tel: +44 8700 339905 Fax: +44 8700 339906 Please direct all support requests to it-supp...@pentangle.co.uk Pentangle Internet Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 3960918. Registered office: 1 Lauras Close, Great Staughton, Cambridgeshire PE19 5DP Discuss mailing list disc...@lists.autonomo.us http://lists.autonomo.us/mailman/listinfo/discuss This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Messages sent to and from us may be monitored. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy version. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide
Maybe I've missed the point here, but: script type=text/javascript document.write(screen.width+'x'+screen.height); /script Or is that not reliable? Cheers, R. On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Brian Butterworthbriant...@freeview.tv wrote: Hi, I've been looking at adapting some sites to work better on mobile devices. I can do the stripping down everything to text and minimal graphics and so on, that's the easy bit. Does anyone know of anything reliable that can tell me the width in pixels of the device? I was hoping that Glow would cover this, but it does't. -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - 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/
Re: [backstage] Clay Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable
As ever, the answer, and the future lies somewhere inbetween. While 'bloggers can, and do pass opinion, and produce stories based on primary news stories, they don't have the resources to become those primary news sources. The BBC, The Times, Reuters etc do have the resources. There have been a couple of articles in the press recently which raise the question of trust: Who do you trust more, an unaccountable 'blogger, or the BBC? Dave C will have you believe that a 'blogger is more trustworthy because he's free - but he's unaccountable to anyone. The whole concept of unbiased reporting doesn't apply to 'bloggers. The rise of Citizen journalists is probably unstoppable, but the decline of real, accountable journalists has been massively overstated. Cheers, Rich. On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, James Ockenden james.ocken...@gmail.comwrote: I think this is a false dilemma. Guys in my office have phones with 8MP cameras. My 18-month old phone has a 5MP camera. I suspect a good lens and skill with photoshop is vastly more important than the photographer being professional. Sure, some kid with a 10MP phone can take a 300dpi front-page-sized picture of a UFO crashing down into the village green – but when the alien crawls out and asks to speak to Gordon Brown for the first time, do you, as a news editor, send the kid with the phone, or perhaps someone who has a bagfull of experience, a ladder, good elbows, and a record of never ever fg up? - 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/
Re: [backstage] The BBC as sheep... and irresponsible ones too
Can I just point out that I *didn't* write that. That was David's comment. Thanks, R. On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Mr I Forrester mail...@cubicgarden.com wrote: Richard Lockwood wrote: In this day and age it *is* important to teach people about electronic security. This story completely fails to do so. - 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/
Re: [backstage] The BBC as sheep... and irresponsible ones too
Um - what are you suggesting as an alternative? Alright, even with a hole drilled through it, it's still possible to get some data back - the tinier bits you can smash your drive into, the less chance there is of anyone getting the data back in any meaningful form. It's more a question of who would WANT to spend the hours putting a drive back together just to get access to your £500 overdraft facility - ie a question of trouble / worth. Me, I reformat them, smash 'em up with a lump hammer and stick 'em in the general metal recycling at the local recycling centre, on the basis that it's more trouble than it's worth to get data back, just to get my bank details, or my Second Life password.; Where's your problem? R. On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM, David Greaves da...@dgreaves.com wrote: So here we are, a month after Which? gave out the same dumb advice the BBC follows: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_791/7910045.stm Sensationalist pillock :) I can't wait for someone to be seriously hurt trying to drill through a hard drive. FWIW: http://16systems.com/zero/index.html David -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once... - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] BBC5.TV
OMFG - TEH CONSPIRISSY TEHEORISTS R OUT IN FORSE Arseholes. R. On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: http://bbc5.tv found via Michael I find this quite interesting... http://bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/?q=terms-conditions THE FOUNDERS OF BBC5.TV AGREE THAT AS THE BBC IS NOT ADHEREING TO FAIR EDITORIAL GUIDELINES, IT IS THEREFORE PARTIALLY DEFUNCT. THE FOUNDERS OF BBC5.TV HAVE THE UPMOST RESPECT FOR THE STAFF WHO WORK FOR THE BBC. THEY ARE SOME OF THE MOST HIGHLY SKILLED JOURNALISTS ON THE PLANET. THERE ARE HOWEVER AGENTS OF MALVECENCE EMBEDDED WITHIN THE BBC, AND OTHER NEWS ORGANISATIONS, WHO COMPROMISE THE TRUTH TO COVER HIDDEN AGENDAS. BBC5.TV IS AN INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION COLLECTIVE SET UP TO HELP ALL THE VOIDS CREATED BY CENSORED, DISTORTED AND BANNED JOURNALISM. BBC5.TV IS NOT JUST A SUBVERSIVE DIG AT THE BBC. THEY ARE BY NO MEANS THE WORST OFFENDERS. IF THE BBC DO DECIDE TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION THEN WE WILL SIMPLY REBRAND. Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [] private; [] ask first; [x] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)1612444063 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] The BBC as sheep... and irresponsible ones too
When it boils down to it, you *can* retrieve old data from a zeroed disc. It's a case of is it worth it?. In the case of criminal investigations - maybe it is. In the case of chasing your overdraft, probably not. The problem with the BBC's story is that they fail to make this clear. Cheers, R. On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:27 PM, David Greaves da...@dgreaves.com wrote: Richard Lockwood wrote: Um - what are you suggesting as an alternative? Read the 2nd URL. In this day and age it *is* important to teach people about electronic security. This story completely fails to do so. Excerpt from that URL: Legitimate data recovery firms know that recovering data from a zeroed hard drive is impossible. They will not take the challenge. Lastly, it is noble and just to dispel myths, falsehoods and untruths. Whilst it is true that someone with a scanning electron microscope or the ability to build a HDD and the associated electronics by hand could theoretically recover some data from a wiped disk I think (as you do) it's reasonable to assume that a crook buying HDDs on eBay isn't likely to be operating at this level. I actually applaud the BBC/Which? research that found these un-deleted disks and I grant you that most people are not capable of deleting files properly and need to be educated. However, by promoting myths the problem is made worse. A far better approach would have been to recommend any one of the numerous 'disk wipers' such as: http://www.dban.org/about There are charitable organisations all over the world who can reuse IT equipment and despite caveats the BBC are promoting waste and pollution - the junk will be put in the council bins and go to landfill - not be disposed of properly. It's more a question of who would WANT to spend the hours putting a drive back together just to get access to your £500 overdraft facility - ie a question of trouble / worth. Agreed, but as the report showed - destroying them is *hard* and dangerous. Simply erasing them is cheap and a lot safer! *AND* you can donate them to charity. Me, I reformat them, And this is the flaw in your plan and the BBCs. Reformatting does not erase data. The BBC completely failed to say: You may think that reformatting works - you really need to use a special disk eraser such as dban - otherwise you could find your second hand sale costing you more than you could imagine. Where's your problem? I hope that answers you? David -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once... - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Make the primary operating system used in state schools free and open source
Mm. Very interesting. If something as simple as a petition will make Windows free and open source, why has no-one thought of it before? Why do the idiots who start these petitions never have any kind of grasp of grammar? Or proof reading? Would you take anyone seriously who turned up on your doorstep dribbling from the mouth, telling you it's all bout the lu1z? No. Nothing to see here - move along now... Cheers, Rich. On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Mr I Forrester mail...@cubicgarden.com wrote: Seen this in my mailbox a few times today, sure you will all find this interesting... We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the primary operating system used in state schools free and open source http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/nonMSschools/ - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Make the primary operating system used in state schools free and open source
I allege that the advantages of switching to Free Software *can* outweigh the costs (sic) of support, teaching, and third party staff upgrading their skills to more open, flexible and studiable systems. ;-) I like the use of the word allege. Can you demonstrate it? Cheers, Rich. - 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/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
Hey Ian - just stick it on a terabyte USB external hard drive, invest in some bubble wrap and a strong cardboard box, and organise a mailing loop... Then folk can copy what they want and post it onto the next user Bit lo-tech, I know, but given broadband speeds in some parts of the country, probably quicker than Bit Torrenting it. :-) Cheers, Rich the Luddite (Or have I missed the point?) On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Wow thanks guys. I don't want to get into a discussion about the footage per-se because that's not the important thing. So to answer the points about the packaging. I didn't know Tar was just a way to pack together files with no compression. Now tar.gz makes sense to me :) The reason why we would like to Tar the files together is because of things like subtitles, artwork, cuts of music, other metadata pieces, etc. We're not just talking a collection of video files. I guess we're also thinking about the 5% of the audience who would actually do a remix with the raw project files. This would be on going rather that a one off, so we need the ability to handle everything from low rez 3gp files to ultra high rez animations at stupid frame rates Delivery, Seems BitTorrent, P2Pnext (tribler) and the internet archive are the best solutions by a long way. I did speak to people about how we pass footage around internally and the answer was via hard drives. There was some thought in the past about having drop off points in major cities where you can get all the footage in one go by bringing your 1TB drive for example. Sneakernet, or what ever they now call it. Licensing, I think we'll use something like CC-BY-NC (although I totally understand the arguments against NC, Dave) CC-BY-NC-SA is tempting due to the nature of the content. I do wonder how we keep the licence in tack even when the assets are broken up and reused? Maybe we should be looking into watermarking or some adobe xmp type system? This would also be useful for figuring out reach. Lots to think about... But once I got the footage cleared and sorted you guys will be first to know. We're planning to be as open as possible about the whole experience. Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [] private; [x] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Jim Tonge Sent: 19 January 2009 23:59 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute +1 BitTorrent +1 MP4 - 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/ - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] DOGs on the BBC TV online streams?
That's a pretty extreme form of tattooing - where'd you get it done? Cheers, Rich. On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Jim Tonge jim_d_to...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I've grown to love the BBC logo we've burned into our plasma. jim - 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/
Re: [backstage] BNP mashups
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Certainly. Dave is forever banging on about how if information can be copied it *should* be copied and shared - not just free software, but anything; music, films etc, regardless of the wishes of the original creator of that information - all in the name of freedom and friendship. So I find it ironic that he's so pleased that the Google mashup using BNP data has been taken down. I'm intrigued to know what he believes is more important - his beloved freedom, or personal privacy (especially as that information is now in the public domain). That confuses means with ends. What you do with information isn't excused by the fact that you are using information in doing it. - Rob. - I don't see any confusion at all. It's simply a question of where does Dave draw the line between you must share and copy this and you must not share and copy this. He's previously given the very strong impression that there was no line, and you must share and copy everything. Rich. - 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/
Re: [backstage] BNP mashups
And it was published, by an ex-member of the BNP. (Obviously despite a high court injunction, but when it comes to little things like, say, the law, you don't think it applies to you when copying stuff, do you?) So where's your problem? It's published, it's in the public domain. Rich. On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/11/19 Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]: That surprises me Dave. After all, you're always bleating on about how just because information can be copied, it should be copied, and how there's no such thing, morally, as copyright any more, and how all information should be free. Unpublished information is clearly different to published information. - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] BNP mashups
It's your argument, not mine Dave. It's just amusing to see you squirm when it doesn't quite fit what you think you should see as your personal beliefs. Har, and indeed, har. Rich. On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/11/19 Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]: And it was published, by an ex-member of the BNP. (Obviously despite a high court injunction, but when it comes to little things like, say, the law, you don't think it applies to you when copying stuff, do you?) So where's your problem? It's published, it's in the public domain. I'm glad to hear you think publishing works means they are in the public domain. I just think they should be redistributable verbatim. Har har. Cheers, Dave (Personal opinoin only) - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] BNP mashups
More than your oft-vaunted personal concept of freedom? Just to clarify: I do not support the BNP, do not agree with their foundational concepts, but think they have a right to exist and a right to privacy - as MS says, privacy matters. Cheers, Dave - - 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/
Re: [backstage] BNP mashups
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Tim Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Lockwood wrote: Dave Crossland wrote: Just to clarify: I do not support the BNP, do not agree with their foundational concepts, but think they have a right to exist and a right to privacy - as MS says, privacy matters. More than your oft-vaunted personal concept of freedom? I don't really see what the right to privacy has to do with free software or, indeed, freedom in general. Perhaps you could clarify... Tim Certainly. Dave is forever banging on about how if information can be copied it *should* be copied and shared - not just free software, but anything; music, films etc, regardless of the wishes of the original creator of that information - all in the name of freedom and friendship. So I find it ironic that he's so pleased that the Google mashup using BNP data has been taken down. I'm intrigued to know what he believes is more important - his beloved freedom, or personal privacy (especially as that information is now in the public domain). Rich. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Zingzing
I hate horizontal scrolling. That's hate spelled L.O.A.T.H.E. As does the rest of the world, surely? While it's now four years old, www.tvplanner.co.uk - nothing clever, nothing whizzy, it just works. Cheers, Rich. On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Phil Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I came across this site the other day, I don't think anyone has mentioned it before... It's an interactive TV guide, all done without Flash. The search is AJAX and searches after each keypress, and it looks good too. http://www.zingzing.co.uk/ clever, but rather annoying to use for me at least. tvguide.co.uk all the way! ;) - 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/
Re: [backstage] Zingzing
Oh, and ZingZing doesn't work. I search for Mock the Week and it highlights a load of Sin City episodes. And then shows me Mock The Week being on ITV3. Maybe I'm missing something terribly clever, but if I can't make it work immediately, what chance has my mum? Or any other real user Bag o' shite. Anyone can make a whizzy interface. If it doesn't work - well - who cares? Cheers, Rich. On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hate horizontal scrolling. That's hate spelled L.O.A.T.H.E. As does the rest of the world, surely? While it's now four years old, www.tvplanner.co.uk - nothing clever, nothing whizzy, it just works. Cheers, Rich. On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Phil Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I came across this site the other day, I don't think anyone has mentioned it before... It's an interactive TV guide, all done without Flash. The search is AJAX and searches after each keypress, and it looks good too. http://www.zingzing.co.uk/ clever, but rather annoying to use for me at least. tvguide.co.uk all the way! ;) - 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/
Re: [backstage] BBC Job
Apart from all the aliens. Cheers, Rich. On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Looks nice these days on Torchwood... 2008/7/31 Dave Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] Its Job ref 449771, should mention that the job is based in Cardiff. *Dave Simons* BEng MSc DBA MIET MBCS** Technology Specialist - Control Systems / Arbenigwr Technoleg - Sustemau Rheoli** *BBC Cymru Wales*
Re: [backstage] Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:40:58 +0100
Have you ever considered your freedom, or do you thrive off being facetious? Yes. I regular consider my freedom. My freedom to consider, carefully think about and, where appropriate amend my views. My rights to not be hectored, badgered and lectured at, at every possible opportunity, by people who consider their views (or rather, views that they've taken verbatim from a third party) the only possible moral stance, and by people who use inflammatory and emotive words such as evil in entirely inappropriate circumstances. How about you? Rich.
Re: [backstage] Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:40:58 +0100
No Dave. The main thing *for you* is that you preserve *your* perceived freedom. For a lot of us, that isn't the main thing at all. Please stop making sweeping statements as though your world view is the only one. If you don't want to use non-free software, then don't. Don't go trying to impose your restrictions on the rest of us. You don't want to code with AIR, then don't. Simple solution. As ever Dave, it's all about *you*, and what *you* want. Rich. On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/7/4 simon [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ben's suggestion to allow the people to choose their RIA flavour whether it be AIR, gears or whatever is very sensible. Surely the main thing is that a good idea gets built. Surely the main thing is that we preserve our freedom to understand and share the software we use to do our computation. Using software running on other people's servers to do _our_ computation also tramples our freedom, and this is becoming more common with RIA technology. If your software would keep us divided and helpless, please don't write it. We are better off without it. We will find other ways to use our computers, and preserve our freedom. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7487060.stm Cheers, Dave Personal opinion only. - 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/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:40:58 +0100
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Fred Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri Jul 4 11:59:45 2008, Richard Lockwood wrote: If you don't want to use non-free software, then don't. Don't go trying to impose your restrictions on the rest of us. You don't want to code with AIR, then don't. Simple solution. But it is suggested that this competition be _only_ provided to people who use non‐free software. It's not a simple solution, if people choose not use Adobe AIR they cannot enter the competition. Mummy, the big boys won't let me play!!! You've made your bed - now lie in it. R.
Re: [backstage] Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:40:58 +0100
You may not. A certain Mr Crossland does. R. On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Fred Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri Jul 4 10:24:29 2008, Richard Lockwood wrote: Have you ever considered your freedom, or do you thrive off being facetious? Yes. I regular consider my freedom. My freedom to consider, carefully think about and, where appropriate amend my views. My rights to not be hectored, badgered and lectured at, at every possible opportunity, by people who consider their views (or rather, views that they've taken verbatim from a third party) the only possible moral stance, and by people who use inflammatory and emotive words such as evil in entirely inappropriate circumstances. How about you? Rich. I have no taken my views verbatim. After researching free software I found that the freedoms set out by GNU fit in line with my ethics outside of software. I do not assume my views are the only possible stance, but I do believe people who do not share my views to be immoral. Try to remember that by telling people what you think their views are doesn't make them so. -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:40:58 +0100
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Fred Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri Jul 4 15:16:03 2008, Richard Lockwood wrote: On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Fred Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri Jul 4 11:59:45 2008, Richard Lockwood wrote: If you don't want to use non-free software, then don't. Don't go trying to impose your restrictions on the rest of us. You don't want to code with AIR, then don't. Simple solution. But it is suggested that this competition be _only_ provided to people who use non‐free software. It's not a simple solution, if people choose not use Adobe AIR they cannot enter the competition. Mummy, the big boys won't let me play!!! You've made your bed - now lie in it. R. So it's okay to exlude people because of their beliefs? No. It's OK to exclude people if they've made a practical decision knowing that decision may exclude them. In effect, if they exclude themselves. R.
Re: [backstage] Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:40:58 +0100
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/7/3 Matt Barber [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] If we ran a competition which required the final prototype to be in Adobe Air, how would people feel about that? No problem with that. There is a large problem with that - Adobe Air is proprietary software, so it ought to be boycotted. You boycott it Dave, if it makes you happy. The rest of us can carry on living in the real world. It's using a new technology and product to encourage development, and the technology is available to end users easily and with little effort, on multiple platforms. But it tramples our freedom and community, which are more important. No Dave, you're thinking of Godzilla. Rich.
Re: [backstage] Backstage's future plans
Hope you're feeling better Ian; can I make a request please? Can we have some captal letters at the start of sentences in the text on the green background please? Please?? Cheers, Rich. The New Backstage Website is not publicly available at - welcomebackstage.com as a beta. Please be gentle and bear in mind it needs alot more work (I'm quite sick at the moment, I' m .
Re: [backstage] Backstage's future plans
Thankyewverrmush. :-) Cheers, Rich. On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Capital letters? Why? :) No only kidding, will see what I can do Richard Lockwood wrote: Hope you're feeling better Ian; can I make a request please? Can we have some captal letters at the start of sentences in the text on the green background please? Please?? Cheers, Rich. The New Backstage Website is not publicly available at - welcomebackstage.com http://welcomebackstage.com/ as a beta. Please be gentle and bear in mind it needs alot more work (I'm quite sick at the moment, I' m . - 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/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] Mashed : Hack Moyles - Audio segmentation with RTMP
I find the easiest way to skip the boring bits in the Moyles podcast is to simply not download it. Cheers, Rich. On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/6/18 Alia Sheikh [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So last week there was some discussion on this list about writing an app that let you skip the boring bits of a podcast, and I mentioned that we had some code that would let you do just that. We're making that code, some demo apps and some open source applications available that will let you use mp3 tags to enhance audio with images, chapters and descriptive text. We are also providing enhanced versions of the Chris Moyles podcast for you to play around with. A very useful feature for the Moyles podcast would be a button to press to skip the boring bits between the music... I'll get my coat. -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee - 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/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] Thinking Digital conference
Or, translated; Yes. Spam. Could you off a bit quicker than that please? R. On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 10:41 AM, TRYPHENA BRADE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *no not spam*, it was forwarded several times to get a contact in backstage as we are enquiring for the first time as follows: Thank you for the information and website. We want to add a video or video clips to your website for MUSIC IN GENERAL ALSO GOSPEL MUSIC-SOUL-RB. WE HAVE SPEAKER TOO FOR GOSPEL. Finaly, I.T. COMPUTING VIDEOS ON I.T. Please forward the instructions how to go about it. -- Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:19:49 +0200 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: FW: [backstage] Thinking Digital conference Is this spam? 2008/5/23 TRYPHENA BRADE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: FW: [backstage] Thinking Digital conference Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 08:39:15 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Thinking Digital conference Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 08:16:31 + Thank you for the information and website. We want to add a video or video clips to your website for MUSIC IN GENERAL ALSO GOSPEL MUSIC-SOUL-RB. WE HAVE SPEAKER TOO FOR GOSPEL. Finaly, I.T. COMPUTING VIDEOS ON I.T. Please forward the instructions how to go about it. regards Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 12:13:15 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Thinking Digital conference Hi All, Backstage is sponsoring a few a events around the thinking digital conference, if your up in the North East of England and want to hang out (lobbycom), chat with some great speakers. Drop into the Sage in Gateshead. We're running a geekdinner on Friday night which leads nicely into the BarCampNorthEast which is this weekend. For you guys who can't make it, we're putting the videos up online very fast. Actually I've put up the first session videos already. http://blip.tv/topics/view/thinkingdigital Enjoy and hope to see you in Gateshead soon Cheers - 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/ -- Messenger's gone Mobile! Get it now!http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl001001ukm/direct/01/ -- Messenger's gone Mobile! Get it now!http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl001001ukm/direct/01/ -- Get Started! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl001010ukm/direct/01/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 -- Messenger's gone Mobile! Get it now!http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl001001ukm/direct/01/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] Thinking Digital conference
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 2:52 PM, TRYPHENA BRADE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for a DECENT reply. We AIM to: - host videos on BBC - the Thinking Digital site Thanking you in advance Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 14:20:08 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Thinking Digital conference Tryphena, if you could perhaps reword your initial post, so as we could understand what you are actually trying to acheive, we might be able to help. Are you talking about hosting your videos on BBC or the Thinking Digital site? Clarity and brevity will get you everywhere. - 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/ -- Get Started! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl001010ukm/direct/01/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
On 06/05/2008, Helen Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone who earns 14K per annum pays 1% of their income in TV Licensing, someone who earns 140K pays only 0.1%, (assuming both own a colour television), (figures not exact). Anyone else think that is a little bit unfair? Wouldn't a proportional or progressive tax be fairer? NO! Perhaps you could explain your thoughts. Are you a high earner? I know not whether Helen is a high earner. It doesn't matter - her position is quite right. The license fee is precisely that - a one off fee. It is not a tax. If you don't want to use the service, don't pay. Is there any evidence that high earners consume more output from the BBC than low earners? If I go to Morrisons this evening to buy four bottles of Timothy Taylor Landlord (other supermarkets and beers are available), do they ask me at the checkout how much I earn before deciding how much to charge me? No. Well then - it's exactly the same with the TV license. If you want to even it up, why not put a charge, or an annual license on each device capable of viewing BBC content? (Waits for Dave Crossland to start spitting feathers) That way, the wealthy with a TV in every room will pay more, as they will (probably) be consuming more output. :-) Cheers, Rich.
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
If I go to Morrisons this evening to buy four bottles of Timothy Taylor Landlord (other supermarkets and beers are available), do they ask me at the checkout how much I earn before deciding how much to charge me? No. Well then - it's exactly the same with the TV license. But there's no British Supermarkets Corporation supermarket that you are required pay 140 a year to in order to obatain a supermarket licence so that you could legally go shopping at any supermarket (whether it's a BSC public service supermarket or a private one like Morrisons), backed up with the threat of a 1000 pound fine or jail time for anyone who goes shopping but doesn't have a licence. It wasn't the greatest analogy, I'll admit, but it's valid - the British Supermarkets Corporation is irrelevent. If I want to watch TV, I have to pay for it. Once. No matter how much I use it. Also - and this is the point - there's no evidence that rich people use more of it than poor people. If I'm rich, why should I have to pay more for the same level of use of a non-essential good than someone who is less well off? If you want to even it up, why not put a charge, or an annual license on each device capable of viewing BBC content? (Waits for Dave Crossland to start spitting feathers) That way, the wealthy with a TV in every room will pay more, as they will (probably) be consuming more output. That assumes that wealthy people will have more TVs per room than people on lower incomes, and I doubt that's true. Seeing as TVs are fairly low cost (and used TVs can be picked up for next to nothing) you can't equate TVs per room with wealth. Besides, it would be a nightmare to implement, requiring even more draconian invasions of people's privacy than the current system. Far better to go the simple option and fund the BBC straight from normal taxation, like most other public services. Scot Not necessarily TVs per room, but number of devices that are capable of receiving TV? (Computers, laptops, whizzy phones etc) Possibly. And if you were to make it a value based tax, even more so. (Big -off plasma screens, home cinema equipment). It's unworkable, certainly, but less so than a sliding scale of TV license. Funding the BBC from normal taxation seems at first sight like a reasonable solution - but then it's a public service that you genuinely can opt out of (unlike the NHS, or policing (say)). Would you be able to opt out of part of your tax? (I'm well aware that even now it's a pain if you don't have a TV to have threatening letters coming through the door from the licensing authority - but you don't HAVE to buy a license.) The license fee is probably the worst and least fair way to fund the BBC, apart from all the others that have been dreamed up. :-) Cheers, Rich.
Re: [backstage] US TV on iPlayer
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/4/28 Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why would you want to watch them on the iPlayer when you could have downloaded them as torrents from the US a whole year before? Allegedly It may be considered quaint, but some of us like to stay within the law. Afterall, if I don't respect the copyrights of others, why should they respect mine ? (cf open source software I release both at work and home) That's why I said Allegedly. Let's face it, copyright is heading toward the status of bunk, isn't it? Um. No. Much as a lot of people might like it to be, no, it isn't. Cheers, R.
Re: [backstage] Anyone got a Eee PC 2G Surf/Linux CD?
OK, a toy computer for £229. Small attractive black brick, just Error 17, desperately seeking an installer CD. Need only .GZ. GSOH. I just bought a 2.2GHz Dual core, 3 Gig RAM, 1Tb hard drive desktop PC for (inc VAT and delivery) for three and a half hundred quid. That included a £100 graphics card. It'll come with Windows Vista something or other - but I can just wipe the drives and install whatever I like. I have the legit media. If I desperately need a laptop (RSI beckoning), I reckon I can get one for about the same price, with a massively higher spec than an E. Apart from being fashionable, why would I want one? Why not leave them for the original target market? Cheers, Rich. (Grumpy and a bit pissed)
Re: [backstage] Telegraph Developer Weekend
It's just you. Cheers, Rich. On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Frances Berriman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it just me, or does the URL to the sign-up page mentioned at the end of the post just 404? Afternoon all. We (The Telegraph) have announced a Developers Weekend 26th-27th April at our Victoria offices (opposite Google). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/labs2008 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/Default.htm/Telegraph+Developer+Weekend+2008 Hope to see you there. Seán - 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/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 21/03/2008, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And of course there are places (such as libraries and schools) that actually have the right to retain copies as long as they want, and the BBC is, perhaps illegally, preventing this! Just playing Devil's Advocaat for a moment, while schools and colleges have the right to retain copies, is there any clause that says they have the right to make those copies by hacking the iPlayer, or by any other downloading method? Surely, provided they can still make those copies by conventional means (PVR, VHS, DVD Recorder etc), the BBC isn't doing anything illegal? The argument is more subtle. If schools have a right to retain a programme obtained by the iPlayer, it is unlawful for the programme supplied by the BBC to delete the programme from a computer at the school, and for the DRM to deactivate the programme. But the schools don't have a specific right to retain a programme obtained by the iPlayer - they have a right to retain a copy of the programme - and the sections of the act quoted below specifically refer to broadcast and cable. Not streamed, nor downloaded. If it were so, if the school used software that removed the DRM from the file, it could argue that it were forced to do so, as the DRM breached the school's right to retain copyright broadcasts. Again, it doesn't breach any such thing. Cheers, Rich. The Act specifically says that a tribunal should be considering ... if any [charges] ... should be paid for a licence, [as] the owners of copyright ... in the broadcast or cable programme have already received, or are entitled to receive, payment in respect of their inclusion. The Copyrights and Patents Act says: 131 Licences for educational establishments in respect of works included in broadcasts or cable programmes (1) This section applies to references or applications under this Chapter relating to licences for the recording by or on behalf of educational establishments of broadcasts or cable programmes which include copyright works, or the making of copies of such recordings, for educational purposes. (2) The Copyright Tribunal shall, in considering what charges (if any) should be paid for a licence, have regard to the extent to which the owners of copyright in the works included in the broadcast or cable programme have already received, or are entitled to receive, payment in respect of their inclusion. - 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/
[backstage] BBC Home Page broken
12.05 GMT - it's looking a little, shall we say, untidy. :-) http://www.bbc.co.uk/ Cheers, Rich. - 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/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
Yes. They should asterisk that out. St**e J*bs. Cheers, Rich. On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sean DALY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's The Register on the subject, with an offensive title. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/12/iplayer_linux_stream_download_hack/ On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/03/2008, Ivan Pope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks. And if I might make so bold - why do they do this? Presumably it's because they want to send Flash to a PC, and MP4 only to phones. Unfortunately user agent sniffing isn't really designed to do what they are trying to do. They would generally have to have a list of all phones user agents and whether they support Flash or MP4 and serve accordingly. There are better ways of doing this. For instance the user agent (i.e your phone) can chose itself by being given multiple options via a 300 response code. Or check what the browser/phone actually wants, i.e. check the Accept header to see if it wants .flv or .mp4 Or use the fallback of HTML object tags. Present a Flash object tag and inside it put the HTML for MP4. If flash is not present the browser should fallback to what's inside the tag (may fail if Flash is present but incompatible, or wrong version). Of course most methods fail at some point so provide a link to the user to override possible incorrect choices. User Agent sniffing is certainly not a good solution if there is no user override for correcting it's mistakes. It is certainly bad accessibility wise. What is it specific about the iPhone that this feed needs to be limited to iPhones? Nothing, it's just their way of separating PC and phone, if it isn't an iPhone they assume it's a PC. Similar to some sites that assume if a web browser is not IE it's Firefox/Netscape. Or, to put it another way, if it wasn't sniffing my phone, could I watch this feed on my N95 (insert any other capable phone or phone app here) If your phone supports MP4 and HTTP then it should be fine. For now fake user agent. In the long run complain to the BBC or the BBC Trust. (This is NOT platform agnostic as requested by the trust, specifically scanning for a certain product and delivering them better content is extremely risky). As I said it shouldn't take more than 10 minutes for the BBC to correct. If they are doing things server side then just alter there code to server MP4 if user agent is iPhone, OR if a certain argument in the URL is set. Something like: ?php $version = 'flash'; if (isset($_GET['force'])) $version = $_GET['force']; else if (isIPhone()) $version = 'mp4'; else $version = 'flash'; if ($version == 'flash') // serve flash stuff here else if ($version == 'mp4') // server mp4 here else echo 'Unrecognised version!!!'; ? And then add links with force=flash and force=mp4 so the user can correct mistaken user agent sniffing. Combining this with some of the other above methods would be even better. But unless the BBC wants to actually hire me I'm not going to do their jobs for them! Of course that code may not work, I haven't done PHP for over 3 years but it is the basic idea. Andy -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - 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/ - 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/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX - 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/
Re: [backstage] One-day Conference To Help Web Developers Address Accessibility in Web 2.0
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, We're involved in abilitynet's one day conference - www.abilitynet.org.uk/accessibility2 So who's actually going to this then? Cheers, Rich. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
I find filtering his mail directly into trash helps. That is a mature approach to dealing with mailing lists; thanks :-) It's a mature way of dealing with trolls on mailing lists, yes. R. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
That's never bothered Dave before. If you don't inhabit the fantasy world that is Davetopia, you must be related to the anti-Christ. He'll a one issue troll, who'll quite happily try insult anyone who disagrees with his zealot tendencies. I find filtering his mail directly into trash helps. Rich. On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 26 February 2008 15:24:05 Dave Crossland wrote: It feel uncomfortably like you're avoiding thinking about ethical aspects of your profession. I think that's an incredibly unfair thing to say. Just because someone doesn't share your personal views doesn't mean that they don't think about the ethical aspects of their work. Michael. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Radio 1 Top 40 Feed
I did a similar one ages ago - http://www.hyperactive-stage.co.uk/chartfeed/feed.asp - but it didn't provide as much data, just artist and title. Cheers, R. On Feb 11, 2008 1:31 PM, Andy Mace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Chaps, This has probably been done before, but i was bored with a hangover on Saturday. I knocked together this little beauty.. http://chino.welcomebackstage.com/~andy.mace/r1top40.php Have a look.. tell me what you think.. I'm sure i can find somewhere to house it permanently if so required. Andy *Andy Mace* iTV Operations Engineer *BBC Future Media Technology *# BC5 B4, Broadcast Centre, 201 Wood Lane, W127TP ( 0208 008 2346 (x82346) ( 07766 043 100 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] Request Frequency
Why not database the data the first time it's grabbed in a time period of your choice - per hour or per day maybe. Then it's far fewer requests. On this I run a cron job every morning: http://www.sdldev.co.uk/weather/map_big.asp Cheers, R. On Feb 7, 2008 3:45 PM, Rob Dunfey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'm writing an application that displays weather at various locations throughout the world on a digital globe, similar to Google Earth. I use the BBC Weather GeoRSS feeds to grab the weather info for each location, this involves making a web request for each of the 278 locations I display on the globe. I would like to share this app with people but for each person i share it with, another 278 requests are made. Is this considered acceptable behavior? If 200 people used this application just once, that would be in excess of 55,000 hits? Is this acceptable? All the best, Rob -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
And sure enough, Martin hits the nail on the head. (And, for the benefit of Dave, no, he's not confusing an ethical position with a religious one - you obviously missed the bit that says with a few word changes. Perhaps parts of your monitor are obscured with froth?) RIch. On 12/30/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29/12/2007, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An excellent quote which I will endeavour to use in 2008 every time the zealots start drowning out the conversation. though I suspect you will be met with similar content to almost the first reaction to that article: It's sad to see that Linus Torvalds, one of the leading figures in the Free Software movement, doesn't really care for freedom. Here's the full comment: It's sad to see that Linus Torvalds, one of the leading figures in the Free Software movement, doesn't really care for freedom. And it's even sadder that he resorts to insults, saying that those who *do* care about freedom are frothing-at-the-mouth. I think it's also dishonest for Linus to see only the people who like to have control over their computers as ideological. Linus' own view that users should *not* have control over their computers is just as ideological, and Linus is actively pushing his own ideology on other people. Personally I disagree with Linus. I find that freedom means control over your own computer and I believe that all computer users have a right to be free and in control. I think the point about proprietary restrictions are conscionable if the software has some convenient feature being an ideology that Torvalds pushes is interesting. it's also applicable, with a few word changes, to religion too Are you confusing an ethical position with a religious one? --
Re: [backstage] Interview with Anthony Rose - Podcast
Bangs head on desk: *http://tinyurl.com/2fppy9* Rich. On 12/14/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 14/12/2007, Matthew Cashmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so like all other BBC Content it can't be used in any commercial sense What about those BBC DVDs that are sold commercially, don't the likes of HMV/Amavon etc. sell them for commercial profit? See BBC content *can* and *is* used commercially. MP3 works on everyone's computer with free (as in cost) software You could only possibly know that if you had accessed and scanned the software of every single computer in the world. I sure as hell didn't authorise you to do that with my computer. Are you admitting to Unauthorised Access under the Computer Misuse Act? What is a BBC employee doing scanning the software on users PCs without telling them? Is this why iPlayer's source is secret, do you have a function in there for this purpose? it just works for everyone No it doesn't. Can't play an MP3 with this machines default media player. and we're more than happy for people to take the podcast and re-encode them to what-ever format people want. Fine, point me to the original raw quality audio file and it will be done. but do not feel our time is best spent encoding into separate formats when we know MP3 will work for everyone. Nice to see the usual lies resurface. Computers can do the transcoding for you. try: oggenc podcast.wav (insert correct filename) Odd how you claim taking 3 seconds to type a command is too long (shorter if you use tab auto-complete). And yet you wrote a long email justifying your choice not to do that. In the time you took to write that email you could probably have typed that command 52 times, (1 a week for an entire year), if not more. Or you could save even more time by using some kind of script connected to cron. How much does the BBC pay people to do the work of small shell scripts? Maybe you should make them redundant and replace them with scripts saving enough money to buy that really expensive free software the BBC claims it can't afford. (I was actually told the BBC would have to increase the license fee to stream in Ogg because of the cost of the software). Andy
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
It was only one idea, I'm sure that there are others. who knows, one of them might even including resurrecting the noble art of journalism as a public service rather than to make money. So can you give us any indication of when the technologists will have completed the prototype of the journalist that doesn't need food or shelter? Apparently it's already with us. It's called a 'blogger. Can't generally write for toffee, doesn't check facts, confuses opinion with truth, is credulous as hell, and has nothing worth saying, but hey - if you want everything for free... ;-) Cheers, Rich.
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Journalists in terms of national newspapers and national broadcasters aren't needed in modern society. We could easily and happily do without them. Really? Why's that then? Rich.
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
You are Dave Crossland in a different hat, and I claim my five pounds. We are different people; that £5 belongs to me. Hmm. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... :-) Rich.
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
No. Banging on and on and on and on about the same tired, laboured point is wrong - and simply blindly quoting Richard Stallman doesn't make it any more likely to have people agree with your narrow viewpoint. You are Dave Crossland in a different hat, and I claim my five pounds. This is where our opinions diverge. Ah, so continually banging on and on about the same laboured point is OK is it? I, obviously, have some strong view points on freedom and politics. I join /discussion/ groups so that I can /discuss/ the issues that interest me. Yes, I see that. Please note the difference between discussion and repeatedly banging on. When a /discussion/ starts that involves freedom or politics I find that I like to join in the /discussion/ by weighing in with my opinion. That, after all, is the point of a /discussion/ list. Fine, but note that weighing in with is not neccessarily a synonym for repeatedly banging on about. Discussing is a two way process. Standing on a soapbox and shouting LISTEN TO ME! is not. (There's something wrong with your keyboard BTW - it's putting quote marks out as slashes) I only /discuss/ things that interest me when there is direct relevance to the /discussion/ at hand. If a newbie asks how can I get foo driver to work with linux you won't find me correcting his use of the word linux to include gnu but you will find me correcting someone who says tescos should sell and market linux pcs. See the difference? Yes. How is this relevant? When someone accuses me of banging on about something really they are saying I have heard your opinion before, don't like it and can't be bothered discussing it. No. They're saying You've made exactly that point before, there's no need to keep repeating it - it's not going to get any more valid or true the ninth time you make it, and you're certainly not going to convince anyone to change their minds. You're far more likely to alienate people. To which I have two suggestions: 1) Leave the /discussion/ list you're on. 2) Move to the next message, trash the message and move on. 3) Filter all email with freedom in the body into /dev/null and be done with it. That's three. Like the Spanish Inquisition this... I have a suggestion too. Why not limit making the exact same point to, ooh, three times per day, per discussion list? That way it comes across less like bullying. Stop throwing you're weight around because you can't be bothered /discussing/ something on a /discussion/ list. I hope you're not suggesting I have any weight to throw around. I just find bullies, extremists and zealots of any descripton intensely annoying, especially in what's generally a friendly environment. Rich.
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
My fourth suggestion would be that perhaps the discussion you want to have is not on topic for a list. As such continuing the discussion you want to have may be off topic for most list members. On this list the noise is the signal and you are invited to use filters. Noise. Note noise. Not Shouting. On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope you're not suggesting I have any weight to throw around. I just find bullies, extremists and zealots of any descripton intensely annoying, especially in what's generally a friendly environment. Richard, the world is full of people who are going to disagree with you - calling them bullies, extremists and zealots is only going to get you so far. Disagreeing is fine - continually banging on without being prepared to listen is not. Look up zealot at dictionary.com, then tell me it's not an unearned epithet. As you only seem to be throwing around ad hominems the discussion is over. I'll take this as realising you can't realistically argue your point any more and are taking your bat home. (However, I'm not convinced you're not going to come back, jabbing a finger into a metaphorical table, shouting and another thing...) /me bows out Bye. Rich.
[backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/27/bbc.itv?gusrc=rssfeed=technology No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an interesting idea nontheless. Cheers, R. (Waits for this news to descend into DRM-Bad, Free-Good!! ranting...)
Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
And that's already been pointed out... Sorry! :-) Cheers, Rich. On 11/27/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um - that wasn't me. My line was: No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an interesting idea nontheless. That was the end of my contribution on this. You've mistaken someone else's quote for me. No problem, but just putting the record straight. :-) Cheers, Rich. On 11/27/07, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really need to be careful with your language Richard BBC management did not refuse to comply with the Trust's previous ruling snip
Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Um - that wasn't me. My line was: No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an interesting idea nontheless. That was the end of my contribution on this. You've mistaken someone else's quote for me. No problem, but just putting the record straight. :-) Cheers, Rich. On 11/27/07, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really need to be careful with your language Richard BBC management did not refuse to comply with the Trust's previous ruling Both management and the Trust have agreed that the Player will be platform neutral (indeed the management's position has always been that the Player will be platform neutral) - the only question is how and when Kangaroo is a commercial proposition from BBC Worldwide - and these usually don't take as long to approve From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andy Sent: Tue 11/27/2007 2:29 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an interesting idea nontheless. How can this possible go live in a few months? (2008 starts in a few weeks if I am not much mistaken). The trust haven't even approved it. And the BBC has refused to comply with it's previous ruling. Need I remind you the BBC Trust said you must be Platform Neutral? So will Kangaroo* be Platform Neutral? If not it looks unlikely the trust will sign off on it given their previous comments about the iPlayer (was there ever a huger waste of money? Except maybe the Dome). Is it going to be standards based (only way to actually be platform neutral as some platform consist mainly of custom designed hardware which need to know the precise operating details to get high performance.)? Are we going to be allowed to improve it, bug fix it, security scan it, verify it's not a trojan etc.? Nice to see a complete lack of detail though, now where did I put my document on making an FOI request, (technically a written request here would most likely count, after all it's written, has a name and has an address.) (Waits for this news to descend into DRM-Bad, Free-Good!! ranting...) I see no mention of DRM in either article, neither do I see the term Digital Rights Management. Helpfully the BBC have made sure to hide every single even slightly technical detail from view. What precisely are you hiding? The only vaguely technical detail appears to be that it is designed to work over broadband, wow I couldn't have guessed that! What platforms are we talking about? Is it going to be truly platform neutral or is the BBC going to have to rewrite the old iPlayer to comply with your regulator (or as appears to be the intended plan refuse to comply with the regulator) What protocols and formats will be used? Will it be as awfully as 4OD and iPlayer, using up peoples bandwidth with no control what-so-ever (BitTorrent clients have supported throttling for years)? Odd how the BBC can have such a huge development time, such a huge spending and still end up with a vastly inferior product when compared to free alternatives. Will it permit user written extensions? Will it support third party access via Open API's? Andy * Is the name Kangaroo meant to be some joke about bouncing back after the disaster that was the first offerings? -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - 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/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] tiresias PC fonts released under the GPL
Not everyone thinks it's great though - there's a rebuttal/ critique here http://screenfont.ca/fonts/today/Tiresias/ As much as I regard Joe Clark to be an asshole Now - who was talking about Ad Hom earlier? Or is this just abuse? R.
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Nutritionists and Dietitians are just artisans of couse, whereas we programmers are computer scientists, no? Dietitians have real courses of study, and qualifications from respectable institutes of learning. Nutritionists don't. (See Gillian McKeith / Patrick Holford etc...) Listen to advice from a qualified dietitian. Don't take it from a self-proclaimed nutritionist. Not on topic, or relevant for this forum, but an important distinction. Cheers, Rich.
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Basically the author is saying that anyone who has strong opinions is committing the equivalent of rape. Now, ignoring the highly inappropriate analogy to forced sexual penetration, I think that you could sum this up as having strong opinions and sticking by them is wrong. which is clearly brain-dead. No. Banging on and on and on and on about the same tired, laboured point is wrong - and simply blindly quoting Richard Stallman doesn't make it any more likely to have people agree with your narrow viewpoint. You are Dave Crossland in a different hat, and I claim my five pounds. Rich.
Re: [backstage] BBC Podcasts Including Music
Forget popularity, think about principle. It is worth noting that often these things turn around on the head of a pin. If we were having this discssion in 1985, someone would have pointed out that *no one ever got* *sacked for buying IBM. Everyone was happy with the popular 3270 terminals connected to proriatory mainframes.* ** *Then came the minicomputer running Unix with RAID disks and VT220 terminals.* ** *There are plenty of other examples of this. Dave is 100% correct to say that being popular today is a poor way of determining the future.* ** No. Being popular is not *a poor way* of determining the future. Being popular is *not necessarily a good way* of determining the future. These are not the same thing. In Davetopia everything is black and white - popular = bad. In the real world, things are less clear cut. Popular has no place on the scale between good and bad. Rich.
Re: [backstage] BBC Podcasts Including Music
On Nov 19, 2007 10:08 PM, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19/11/2007, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You see, I just somehow knew that giving away content including music for free, forever, at the point of delivery, to anyone, regardless of whether they had paid their Licence Fee or lived in the UK, *still* wasn't going to be good enough for some. Martin, I am not interested in for free. I'm happy to pay money for things I value, and often do. I'm interested in freedom, and I'm sorry that the difference between libre and gratis, as the two unrelated concepts are known in French, hasn't been clear to you. Rubbish. Utter rubbish. You've never made a convincing argument for this - it IS all about not having to pay for stuff, as I think we established a couple of weeks ago. You throw in spurious arguments and unrelated points, hoping that people will think that they back up your argument, but they don't. You want it all for free. Whether you're prepared to pay a nominal sum at some point is neither here nor there - you want it to be made available for no money whatsoever. Don't for one moment think that anyone believes otherwise. Rich. Rich.
Re: [backstage] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
On Nov 9, 2007 12:02 PM, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 9, 2007 11:07 AM, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 09/11/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can't deliberately invoke Godwins law: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html So the silliness is set to continue. Please vijay, RFC 1149 and 2549 clearly state that referenced hyperlinks included within the message body should be indented by no less than two U+0020 (SPACE) characters. I think you'll find that's two fewer. ;-) Cheers, R. Whoops - fewer than two. :-) R. -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
On Nov 9, 2007 11:07 AM, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 09/11/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can't deliberately invoke Godwins law: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html So the silliness is set to continue. Please vijay, RFC 1149 and 2549 clearly state that referenced hyperlinks included within the message body should be indented by no less than two U+0020 (SPACE) characters. I think you'll find that's two fewer. ;-) Cheers, R.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
And it appears the Linux community has managed to ignore what he has to say and has organised a let's shout him down louder and louder until someone takes some notice of us party. No positive suggestions, just bleat bleat bleat we hate you... As ever. Cheers, R. Ashley has posted an update: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/linux_figures_1.html
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Absolutly. Not all Linux users are the same at all. I know some who are perfectly happy to accept that they've made their own decision about which OS to use, for whatever reason, and realise that because of that choice, they're going to have to make some sacrifices which may or may not outweigh the advantages. There are some on this list. The community that shouts the loudest is the one that doesn't realise this, and shouts; Bleat, bleat, me me me, bleat, I want it and I'll cry if I can't have it, bleat bleat, Slashdot, bleat bleat boo hoo IT'S NOT FAIR!!! at every perceived injustice, or slight on their beloved OS. They're the ones who royally p*** me off. I realise that that isn't every Linux user (by a long way), and I apologise for appearing to tar them all wth the same brush. Cheers, Rich. On 11/5/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always hate that term community in this sense - because not all Linux users are the same after all. And I've seen plenty of Mac fans do similar things (usually when someone is critising their beloved Apple!) Anyway, where's the Windows community in all this ;) -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Richard Lockwood *Sent:* 05 November 2007 14:50 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again And it appears the Linux community has managed to ignore what he has to say and has organised a let's shout him down louder and louder until someone takes some notice of us party. No positive suggestions, just bleat bleat bleat we hate you... As ever. Cheers, R. Ashley has posted an update: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/linux_figures_1.html -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 11/6/07, Tim Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 05/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This always makes me laugh, whether it's Firefox users or Linux users. Because you *can* change the UA in my favourite software, it automatically follows that 30% of reported visitors *are* faking it. (Sounds of straws being grasped) At no point have I stated 30% etc and you know that. Try backing up what you say with facts rather than a bit of fiction that everyone 1/2 believes. Oh please. Don't try and dismiss the point by picking up on one obviously illustrative statistic. Of course you never mentioned 30%. But you're claiming that the actual figures for Linux use are much higher than the evidence shows. You're choosing the kind of figures you want, concocting a theory to fit those figures, and then passing it off as fact. You're not a homeopath are you? Rich.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
On 11/1/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 01/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sharing artistic works is NOT a central tenet of friendship. Of course it is. You can't possibly be friends with someone unless you copy stuff off them. I mean how could you possible be a friend due to things like shared interests, conversation or any other social activities. Did you not know nobody in the world had friends till the dawn of Internet File Sharing, they all sat around on there one speaking to no one. It wasn't until file sharing that friendship existed how could you not know that? (^^ I would hope I don't need to point this out but that was meant sarcastically.) Seriously if all your friendships are based solely on what artistic material you can acquire from a friend I think you might need to reconsider your concept of friendship. Anyone who knows me, (and most of the people on this list as well ;)) would know that I am certainly not the most pro-copyright person around. And yet even I disagree with the statement that friendship is based on file sharing. Of course media does have an impact on friendship. I watch DVDs I legally own with friends. Of course they are getting access to the media content and aren't paying anything, but *severely* doubt that is the kind of sharing that Rich is objecting to. Good grief. Andy and I agree on something. :) Suggesting they should do smething else to finance making more music (which you'll then copy free of charge) is also, frankly, patronising. Are you saying people shouldn't suggest alternative business models, or are you saying his are patronizing, or are you saying that just because someone can present an alternative revenue stream it doesn't alter the morality of copying? The latter. Surely a rational business must at least consider alternative models for making revenue. Absolutely. Few people would disagree that the way people consume music and films is a constantly changing process, and over the last few years the rate of that change has increased massively. For some bands it's no possible for them to run their own affairs to a much greater extent than in the past, running the band as a business as opposed to just being an artist working for and being paid by a record company. However, for some bands, this isn't an option, and the traditional model will very often work better. To quote the Broken Family Band in the Guardian (http://tinyurl.com/23xn6f); I'll bet that without Razorlight they'd all be f***ed for jobs. I wouldn't let Johnny Borrell do my photocopying. :-) Right - let's move on. Cheers, Rich.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
Sharing artistic works between friends is one of the central tenets of friendship. Ask anyone under 20 if they've got a laptop, and if they do, if they have copies of music from their friends. Its almost certain that they will. No - it isn't! Ask 'em. Seriously. On the way to work or something. Please? Deliberate misunderstanding for the sake of shoring up your increasingly feeble argument. Yes, they'll have music - sharing artistic works is NOT a central tenet of friendship. You keep parroting this line as though it backs up your argument - it's no more true now than it was the first time you mentioned it. How many times - friendship has nothing to do with pirating music and films. Again - just because you can (and do) doesn't mean that it's morally right. The law isn't an authority on ethics. That something is illegal doesn't mean it is wrong. You don't have the automatic right to redistribute someone else's artistic endeavours. You do, because the ultimate point of copyright is to benefit audiences, its not for the sake of publishers, or authors. People tend increasingly to reject and disobey the copyright restrictions imposed on them for their own benefit which highlights this. Civil disobedience, while it has a noble tradition, isn't always right. Copyright restrictions aren't imposed purely for the benefit of the consumer - they're also there to protect the rights of the artist. Those rights that you want to do away with. Copyright restrictions _are_ imposed purely for the benefit of the public - That's rubbish. The copyright on a work is automatic to the creator of that work. they're only there to protect the interests of the artists in so far as the artists' interests align with the public's. When they diverge, the public trumps the artists. So yes, I want want to do away with the rights that no longer work in my favor, and I'm willing to engage in civil disobedience until the law catches up. Ah yes - you finally admit it's about things not being in your favour. Not about your woolly concept of freedom, but about you gaining benefit at the expense of the artist. The attitude that it is morally wrong to redistribute copies came about because of copyright legislation written for a bygone era. It used to be in the public's benefit to prohibit redistribution, because only businesses could do it. But now the public can do it, its not in our favor to prohibit it, and the attitude that it is morally right to redistribute copies has come about. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. You *can* stab your neighbour to death with a breadknife. Doesn't make it morally right. You're saying that once an artist has sold one copy - to you - you have the right to spread that as far and wide as you like, for free. In theory, that artist may never sell another copy, but the whole world's got their music. If they can find an audience that appreciates them, they will sell other copies, despite that their audience can listen without paying before hand. And they will sell tickets for gigs. And they will sell branded kit. And when businesses want to use their music for promotion, those businesses will pay them royalties. Not relevant. This isn't about suggesting how artists can replace the income stream you're taking away from them. It's about your ludicrous claim that you have the moral right to copy their music. Suggesting they should do smething else to finance making more music (which you'll then copy free of charge) is also, frankly, patronising. So that single artist will not starve, and friends will not have an important new aspect of friendship trampled on. How many times do I have to say it - you want everything to be free in order for you not to have to pay for it. That's tautologous? Yes, but continuous repetition seems to be the only way to get any point through to you Dave. You want it to be made your legal right to have everything for nothing. I don't think that not *having* to pay, and *being able* to pay, are mutually exclusive. We can have both. Yes - but being able to pay isn't part of it. I just said it is, bro But that isn't part of your argument. Your argument is that music / films should be (and in your mind, are) freely copyable. Your argument isn't that music / films should be copyable, only if the person receiving the copy is able to reimburse the artist in some way. You want free. Gratis. Costing you no money. Making out that you wouldn't do that, that you personally would actually reimburse the artist is both irrelevant and sounds like backtracking. And don't call me bro. Rich.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
Is this not what would happen with iPlayer? Hello Jim, I enjoyed Spooks on iPlayer last night, Really Jason? I'll go and watch that on my iPlayer, cable catchup, or whatever without the hassle of cracking the DRM out of the WMV file and working out how to get it off your computer via a slow ADSL upload speed or taking our laptops to the pub. That is the nasty situation that the DRM in the iPlayer tries to set up, yes. How the is that a nasty stuation? Come on - in simple terms, without getting on the ALL DRM IS EVIL - FREE FREE - I WANT IT FOR NOTHING soapbox, how it it a nasty situation. I can understand the frustrations of those who can't run iPlayer - but that's a different discussion. Rich.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
On 10/30/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 30/10/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave doesn't mean sharing. Dave means stealing and redistributing for free. When he says sharing, Dave always means stealing. Dave wants everything for nothing. This is simply untrue: non-commercial redistribution allow a lot of scope for business, without trampling friendship, neighborlinesses and community. But that's not what you advocate. I just said something, and you're telling me that is not what I am saying? WTF? You say it allows a lot of scope for... etc. But what you always bang on about when this subject comes up is your unalterable right to copy what you want, when you want. You don't say you should be able to make limited 'fair use' copies for... - no, you repeatedly state that it's your right to do anything you want with any creative material, and that the original creators have no moral right to deny you that. You then try and make it sound warm and fluffy by going on to state, with no justifiation, that giving away other people's creativity is one of the central tenets of friendship - and if anyone has the temerity to disagree, they're horrid, unfriendly people. You advocate the wholesale copying and redistributing, however and whenever you feel like it. Your arguments have got absolutely nothing to do with neighbourliness and community, and everything to do with wanting to enjoy the fruits of someone elses work without giving anything in return. Magnatune.com dude. I'm not saying you *don't* ever buy music. Once you've bought it though - you want to copy it and give it to other people so they don't have to pay for it. Usually when I say free, I am referring to freedom, not price. That's rubbish. Utter, utter rubbish. The last 6 months or so I have been _very_ careful to say zero price when I mean free-as-in-beer. Toss. It's about money pure and simple. You might have convinced yourself that it's not - but when it boils down to it, you want to be able to pirate music and flms so you or your mates don't have to pay for them. You copy a CD and give it to your mate, that's all about money No, its about friendship. See? You're doing it again. or rather it's all about not wanting to pay money. Your friend may think that CD's overpriced and so wouldn't pay the (say) ten quid asking price, but he wants it badly enough to get you to copy it. For free. Perhaps he'll go to a gig by the band or send them money in some other way, and there is nothing stopping anyone from doing that. But now it is possible to make copies of digitally encoded information for friends, that is now a basic aspect of friendship. Prince, Radiohead, and many up-and-coming bands, understand this. The writing has been on the wall for over a decade. If you were talking about making up mixtapes, or burning a couple of tracks to a CD and say listen to this - it's fantastic, you should go and get the album, I'd say you have a point. But you're not. You're suggesting that everyone has the right to copy anything and everything, when, how and where they like, not for personal backups, or to play in the car when they've got the CD at home, or to get their mates into their new favourite band, but to give to their friends so they can avoid paying any money for it. Prince and Radiohead can afford to give away their music (they still got paid for it, don't forget) - and it's their choice. I have no problem if you want to copy any of the music on my band's site and give it to your mates either, but I'm not a struggling band trying to make a living from it. If I was, and I chose not to grant you that right, that's my perogative. The business model of the music business *is* changing, you're quite right, but that doesn't automatically give you the right to take away one large proportion of a band's income. Of course one copy doesn't equal one lost sale - that's a specious argument - but it *does* equal one *potential* sale. Maybe ten illegal copies equate to one lost sale, maybe five copies do - but whatever the ratio, it's still going to be a loss of revenue, a proportion of which would've gone to the band. (Whether that proportion is 100% for a DIY indie band, or 5% for an Sony BMG slave, it doesn't matter. It's a loss of revenue.) It's not an intellectual freedom that you're arguing No, because that's to do with modification, which is only neccessary for functional works, not artistic ones. Now you're grasping at straws / trying to derail the argument. A moral freedom / an intellectual freedom - whatever. You don't have that right. it's a purely financial gain that you're after. He's quite likely to buy you a beer, or fix your dripping tap for nothing at some point in the future. Right - other aspects of friendship. Or do you never buy friends beers and charge them
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
On 10/31/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 31/10/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not saying you *don't* ever buy music. Once you've bought it though - you want to copy it and give it to other people so they don't have to pay for it. And what precisely is wrong with people wanting to copy stuff. Are you denying you copy things? Did you not copy this message (From you ESP's server to your machines RAM, then probably to the hard disk, maybe into RAM again, onto a display unit)? (there was a time when the UK Patent Office claimed that displaying something constituted copying) If I buy a CD for £9 (seems about the going rate for a CD on HMV.com) then that's extremely over priced if I am buying the medium (blank CD's are a few pence). If however (as many argue) I am paying for the information encoded onto the disc itself (you would probably call that creativity, I don't because if I could encode creativity itself onto a disc then I would be a very rich man) then why should I not take it off the disc and put the data somewhere else? Why is it so morally wrong for me to transfer something I have payed for from it's transmission medium (CD) and place it on another storage device I may own, e.g. PC hard drive, MP3 player, Network Streaming Server, Cassette, etc. (I may or may not posses all of those btw.) It's not. If you'd read the rest of the email, rather than picking and choosing quotes that appear to help you make your moral point, you'd've found the following: You're suggesting that everyone has the right to copy anything and everything, when, how and where they like, not for personal backups, or to play in the car when they've got the CD at home, or to get their mates into their new favourite band, but to give to their friends so they can avoid paying any money for it. It's the last bit that's important. There's nothin morally repugnant about copying for your own use - of course there isn't. Copying and giving away is another matter entirely. Rich.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
your unalterable right to copy what you want, when you want. You don't say you should be able to make limited 'fair use' copies for... - no, you repeatedly state that it's your right to do anything you want with any creative material, File sharing between friends is essential for friendship, which is a long way back from anything you want. As several people have already pointed out, this is nonsense. and that the original creators have no moral right to deny you that. You then try and make it sound warm and fluffy by going on to state, with no justifiation, that giving away other people's creativity is one of the central tenets of friendship - and if anyone has the temerity to disagree, they're horrid, unfriendly people. Sharing copies is how the youth of today roll, bro. Its self evident. Now you're backtracking wildly. Just because something can be done and done fairly easily doesn't make it your inalienable right to do it. Magnatune.com dude. I'm not saying you *don't* ever buy music. Once you've bought it though - you want to copy it and give it to other people so they don't have to pay for it. Please look at www.magnatune.com and note that their business model allows you to copy all their music and give it to other people so they don't have to pay for it for the own personal listening. But if they want to use the music commercially, or modify it, they have to license those rights. I've looked at Magnatune, and frankly, there's a good reason for them saying you can copy their tracks for free. However, that's a matter of personal taste. If you were talking about making up mixtapes, or burning a couple of tracks to a CD and say listen to this - it's fantastic, you should go and get the album, I'd say you have a point. But you're not. You're suggesting that everyone has the right to copy anything and everything, when, how and where they like, not for personal backups, or to play in the car when they've got the CD at home, It is inarguable that they should have those fair use rights, and this is a central problem of DRM, since it tramples them. Yes. Agreed. or to get their mates into their new favourite band, but to give to their friends This is arguable, and I have a position that differs from the law to date. But the law isn't an authority on ethics. For example, in living memory in places in the USA, it was illegal to sit at the front of a bus if you were black. That something is illegal didn't mean it is wrong. Ooh - naughty naughty, likening something you don't agree with to racism. This isn't the same and you're trying to bring in more emotive arguments now. so they can avoid paying any money for it. I'm all in favor of sending money to artists whose work we value, and there are many schemes that can be arranged to make this convenient. They aren't yet implemented on a large scale. But this doesn't back up your stated belief that you have the right to copy and give away. I think it will happen, because it has to: friend-to-friend sharing is an unavoidable effect of the Internet, and here to stay. Again - just because you can do something doesn't give you the moral right to do it. But the paying money happens after getting copies of the music, not before, like it was in the 20th century. But you're not backing your argument up. I've agreed that the business model is changing, and will probably change more. The point is that you believe you have the right to copy anything and everything, and you're not backing it up at all. a struggling band trying to make a living from it. There is no right to make a living: Most of us cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else. I never said there was that right. I said that you're removing one revenue stream from a band trying to make a living. Everyone has the right to *try* to make a living. But that is the wrong answer because it accepts your implicit assumption: that without cutting up friendship and community, artists cannot possibly be paid a penny. Supposedly it is all or nothing. Removing one revenue stream. There are obviously other revenue streams. Live gigs (although this isn't an option for some artists), merchandise etc. However, the concept of selling records is critical to most professional bands. The business model of the music business *is* changing, you're quite right, but that doesn't automatically give you the right to take away one large proportion of a band's income. Its changing because we have that right, and we are exercising it. No. You're trying to stomp all over it by not paying for goods and services. (I appreciate that a digital download may not technically be defined as a good, but you know what I mean) It's a loss of revenue. Buggy whips suffered
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
On 10/31/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have yet to recieve an answer to the BBC's false claims, why is this? The BBC claimed: There is no open source digital right managment All I have to do to prove this false, is to demonstrate that 1 Open Source DRM solution exists. You must therefore disprove that all the following exist: http://www.sidespace.com/products/medias/ Media-S is an open-source development project that aims to create an open Digital Rights interface for the creation, playback, and management of multimedia files. Because of its open nature, Ogg Vorbis http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/will be the first format to be protected by this initiative. Og Vorbis is an audio format, isn't it? So that's no good. And the project aims to. Now, I'm not spending my afternoon looking through code but that imples it's not finished / ready yet. Everything's in future tense. So we can discount that. https://dream.dev.java.net/ Hmm. Looks much the same. A white paper from two years ago, and the declaration that DReaM is an initiative to develop open Digital Rights Management (DRM) solution for multiple domains. An initiative to develop..., not a fully fledged system... Scratch that then. http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp Looks better, but a quick browse of the forums seems to indicate a lot of people (and as it's a project in deveopment, I'm guessing most of these people are pretty clued up on techy matters) are having a lot of problems even getting it to work at all. So that's your three alternatives dealt with. Rich.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
Not it isn't. You failed to show either of the only 2 things needed: 1) That the software is not Open Source. 2) That the software is not DRM. What was stated was that there is no open source digital rights management. Your points about completion, grammar, usability are irrelevant in proving or disproving the given statement as they have nothing to do with the statement. Surely is fit for purpose and actually works now is a requirement. And all three fail dismally. Rich.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
On 10/31/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 31/10/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and that the original creators have no moral right to deny you that. You then try and make it sound warm and fluffy by going on to state, with no justifiation, that giving away other people's creativity is one of the central tenets of friendship - and if anyone has the temerity to disagree, they're horrid, unfriendly people. Sharing copies is how the youth of today roll, bro. Its self evident. Now you're backtracking wildly. Just because something can be done and done fairly easily doesn't make it your inalienable right to do it. Sharing artistic works between friends is one of the central tenets of friendship. Ask anyone under 20 if they've got a laptop, and if they do, if they have copies of music from their friends. Its almost certain that they will. No - it isn't! How many times - friendship has nothing to do with pirating music and films. Again - just because you can (and do) doesn't mean that it's morally right. It is inarguable that they should have those fair use rights, and this is a central problem of DRM, since it tramples them. Yes. Agreed. GREAT SUCCESS http://funkyheart.com/images/stories/Borat/highfive.gif I have a position that differs from the law to date. But the law isn't an authority on ethics. For example, in living memory in places in the USA, it was illegal to sit at the front of a bus if you were black. That something is illegal didn't mean it is wrong. Ooh - naughty naughty, likening something you don't agree with to racism. This isn't the same and you're trying to bring in more emotive arguments now. I'll rephrase: The law isn't an authority on ethics. That something is illegal doesn't mean it is wrong. I am advocating something that is not legal, but is not wrong. Can we get you banged up for incitement to commit a crime then? so they can avoid paying any money for it. I'm all in favor of sending money to artists whose work we value, and there are many schemes that can be arranged to make this convenient. They aren't yet implemented on a large scale. But this doesn't back up your stated belief that you have the right to copy and give away. I don't think that not *having* to pay, and *being able* to pay, are mutually exclusive. We can have both. Yes - but being able to pay isn't part of it. You want to be allowed to have everything for nothing. You're backtracking now, and saying well, obviously I'd allow the poor struggling artist some crumbs from my enormous savings - whatever *I feel is fair - but in Davetopia you don't. You just redistribute, for free, that which isn't yours to give. But the paying money happens after getting copies of the music, not before, like it was in the 20th century. But you're not backing your argument up. I've agreed that the business model is changing, and will probably change more. The point is that you believe you have the right to copy anything and everything, and you're not backing it up at all. The reason the business models are changing is because we have the right to copy anything and everything. NO. You ing don't! The business model of the music business *is* changing, you're quite right, but that doesn't automatically give you the right to take away one large proportion of a band's income. Its changing because we have that right, and we are exercising it. No. You're trying to stomp all over it by not paying for goods and services. (I appreciate that a digital download may not technically be defined as a good, but you know what I mean) It's a loss of revenue. Buggy whips suffered terrible losses of revenue when cars came along and STOLE their POTENTIAL SALES. The horror. Specious comparison. That would be a good argument if you were comparing 1970s prog rock bands and punk, crooners and rock 'n' roll, or even vinyl pressers and CD manufacturers, where one thing supercedes another, but in this case it doesn't hold up. We're talking about you advocating simply giving away the results of someone else's work. Publishers, like record companies, suffered terrible losses of revenue when the public got hold of the internet and came along and STOLE their POTENTIAL SALES. One thing supercedes another. Yes - when music is available directly from the artist via the internet, the record companies suffer. But again, that's not what you're saying. You're saying that once an artist has sold one copy - to you - you have the right to spread that as far and wide as you like, for free. In theory, that artist may never sell another copy, but the whole world's got their music. You're doing that talking from arse thing again. You don't have the automatic right to redistribute someone else's artistic endeavours. You do
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
On 10/29/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 29 October 2007 18:47, Dave Crossland wrote: ... Asking people to agree not share with friends and betray their community is evil :-( No, it's not. Yes it is. Not sharing is a bad thing. If I had a bag of sweets, and didn't hand them round my friends, that would be wrong. If I'd bought a CD of the new Reynolds Girl's Best Of... compilation (contender for shortest album in the world), and a friend asked if he could listen to it, I'd have to be really mean to say no. That's sharing, and as I always tell my three year old daughter, it's good to share. However, Dave doesn't mean sharing. Dave means stealing and redistributing for free. When he says sharing, Dave always means stealing. Dave wants everything for nothing. Rich.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
Its a bit like saying we'll design a transport system for able-bodied people first (as they are the majority) - and gradually roll out to others - this is also thought to be morally wrong, as well as a poor design decision. No - it's like designing a transport system, then later on adapting it so people who've cut their own legs off can use it. Using analogies to argue this point is like using a fish to power a nuclear reactor. :-) Cheers, Rich.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
On 10/30/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 30 October 2007 10:35, Richard Lockwood wrote: .. Not sharing is a bad thing. If I had a bag of sweets, and didn't hand them round my friends, that would be wrong Dave said: Asking people to agree not share with friends ... is evil Sharing is axiomatically good in our society at present, since sharing is something everyone teaches their children. However is asking someone not to share something *evil* ? No. It isn't. (opinion, obviously) Michael. -- (It should be clear that the above is completely personal opinion) It should also be made clear that that quote from me has been used completely out of context - I was making the point that copying someone else's work when they've specifically asked you not to, and giving it away is theft - it is NOT sharing. Rich.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
Dave doesn't mean sharing. Dave means stealing and redistributing for free. When he says sharing, Dave always means stealing. Dave wants everything for nothing. This is simply untrue: non-commercial redistribution allow a lot of scope for business, without trampling friendship, neighborlinesses and community. But that's not what you advocate. You advocate the wholesale copying and redistributing, however and whenever you feel like it. Your arguments have got absolutely nothing to do with neighbourliness and community, and everything to do with wanting to enjoy the fruits of someone elses work without giving anything in return. Usually when I say free, I am referring to freedom, not price. That's rubbish. Utter, utter rubbish. You copy a CD and give it to your mate, that's all about money - or rather it's all about not wanting to pay money. Your friend may think that CD's overpriced and so wouldn't pay the (say) ten quid asking price, but he wants it badly enough to get you to copy it. For free. It's not an intellectual freedom that you're arguing - it's a purely financial gain that you're after. He's quite likely to buy you a beer, or fix your dripping tap for nothing at some point in the future. Making a copy for your friend is not stealing. Thinking of information as property i a mirage. You're talking out of your arse, parroting fashionable views you've read elsewhere without an original thought or point of view. Your real worry is that if you have to pay for anything it'll affect the amount you can pay into your pension plan. Face it - you're just backing a system which ensures you can get the maximum return for the least input - but you're telling yourself that you're a footsoldier in some imaginary intellectual war. Get over it and pay for stuff like everyone else. Rich.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
On 10/30/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 30 October 2007 14:07, Richard Lockwood wrote: It should also be made clear that that quote from me has been usedcompletely out of context - I didn't mean to quote you out of context - my apologies. I thought they were two separate points. Point 1 being that sharing is generally a good thing, and that not sharing is generally bad. (which I agree with) Apology accepted - no problem, misunderstandings happen. :-) Cheers, Rich.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
That's rubbish. Utter, utter rubbish. You copy a CD and give it to your mate, that's all about money - or rather it's all about not wanting to pay money. Your friend may think that CD's overpriced and so wouldn't pay the (say) ten quid asking price, but he wants it badly enough to get you to copy it. Rich. I disagree, any time I've given or received a copied tape\CD the other party wouldn't have bother to buy it him\herself. Indeed most of the time it's been offered before the receiving party has even heard more than one track(hey do you want a copy of this!). Personally, if I've liked the tape\CD I've gone and bought the original because I'm the type of geek who likes having the original jewl case. There is one exception; mix-tapes, if you can tell me how I can buy the rights to the mix-tape that my best friend gave me aged 11 so I could hear some new bands, feel free to tell me. The same goes for the mix-CD I gave to my ex-girlfriend should I have bought her the rights for them first? Not exactly romantic is it? Fortunately we have fair dealing laws though... Vijay. Morally, I have no problem with people knocking up mix tapes, samplers etc to give to their mates. If it encourages people to listen to music they've not encountered before, then all to the good. However, Dave's holier-than-thou attitude of it's my moral right to copy anything as often as I like, and I'll have it for free, without a thought for anone else is what really grates. Whether you refer to it as copyright infringement, manufacture of pirated goods or theft, I don't give a toss. Unless the creator of a work specifically grants you the right to copy that work, you don't have that right. End of. Rich. -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
There probably is. And no. I would sell my house and all my possessions to help the BBC. Cheers, Rich. On 10/12/07, dantes inferno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a campaign anywhere to abolish the license fee? Anyone want tostart one? On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 17:12 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote: Well, like it or not big corps are often the gatekeepers sat between the audience masses and content owners. That doesn't seem to be changing (*cough* Google). J And there you have the case in point. Auntie, for better or worse, is the best we have. Radio, television, and now Internet. BBC Worldservice is a world brand, because of the quality and the veracity of the content. It never had to sell itself, it just was on the only voice of authority and truth that reason so many nations in the world. The masses can have the mass media. I want quality. At the moment for me that means Radio 4. I don't do telly at the moment. Public service broadcasting (the BBC, Channel 4 etc) cannot and should not compete in the market place. Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - 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/ - 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/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] New Developer Focused List
Why would you be sending SVG in an email? Cheers, Rich. On 10/4/07, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew, usualy chaos registering, perhaps not helped by your instructions? seems majordomo doesn't like html, neither do I, but it's currently the only way to send SVG and majordomo doesn't like anything in the subject line and best wishes Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet With either subscribe backstage-developer [your email] Or subscribe backstage-developer [your email] - 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/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX - 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/
