RE: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
The BBC decided not to celebrate 70 years of television that started at Alexandra Palace in 1936 that is in 2006. Or did I miss something? IIRC the Heritage site was revamped and greatly extended. http://www.bbc.co.uk/heritage/index.shtml 70 years is an odd one though - 75 seems a slightly more obvious one to celebrate which would be my guess as to why not much was done. - 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 Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
Gordon Joly wrote: The BBC decided not to celebrate 70 years of television that started at Alexandra Palace in 1936 that is in 2006. Or did I miss something? The face-sucking-alien that used Alexandra Palace episode of 'Doctor Who', shown last summer? (Although I would understand if you'd blotted that one out, as it wasn't exactly the zenith of writing for the new series.) I'm sure it was no more of a coincidence that we had an Ally Pally episode in 2006 than that the two-part episode about Satan was broadcast on days that straddled the date 6/6/6. -- Frank Wales [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/
Re: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
At 09:53 + 6/2/07, Peter Bowyer wrote: On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The BBC decided not to celebrate 70 years of television that started at Alexandra Palace in 1936 that is in 2006. Or did I miss something? IIRC the Heritage site was revamped and greatly extended. http://www.bbc.co.uk/heritage/index.shtml 70 years is an odd one though - 75 seems a slightly more obvious one to celebrate which would be my guess as to why not much was done. There was a doco in Alan Yentob's 'Imagine' series which featured a load of old people wandering around a deserted Ally Pally saying how different it looks. And Lord Reith's daughter saying how he hated television and didn't show up to the opening night. Peter I missed that. Thanks! 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/
RE: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
In order to help me, once they are written I'm going to publish the first chapter or two under a creative commons licence, and post it on my website. This will also have the side benefit of telling me if anyone else thinks I'm any good. If instead of publishing on my website, I could submit previous short stories to the BBC for a possibility of a reading on a BBC radio station (probably BBC 7, though I'd personally like BBC radio 4). [Kim Plowright] So, here's a dumb question, that I'm going to ask anyway because sometimes they get interesting answers. Why on earth do you need the BBC for that? What does the chance at getting a 'BBC' reading give you that, say, podcasting the chapters yourself doesn't? What does the BBC add in that scenario? Anything more than Legitimisation? (I'm thinking of Cory Doctorow's 'publish for free and podcast for free to drive sales' model here.) (Also, I think there's a nice little idea for a site for aspiring writers in this; and Open Source Audio Books Podcast project.)
Re: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
On an individual basis, it gives exposure, and feedback and helps new talent. If the BBC editors decide that one of my short stories should be broadcast, then I can go to a publisher and say Publish me, the BBC thinks I'm good enough to broadcast (maybe I could go to BBC books, and say your colleges on the radio think I'm god, what about you?). More importantly, on a wider institutional and societal basis it builds a base and understanding of free (libre, not gratis) culture, and longer term, all these DRM happy media types will see how pointless restrictions like DRM are as their careers were launched by free media, it's the same principle used in education get 'em young. If you build the idea of freedom into the careers of content providers they won't be so quick to take it away from others, and be able to sleep soundly without it. On an individual note, I will be publishing the first chapter of the book I'm writing under a creative commons licence, once I finish writing you'll be able to read it online, for free (both senses) and as a thank you for taking the time you'll get given the right to make (and sell) derivative works, give copies to friends and basically do what you like with it, just so long as you acknowledge my authorship. On 05/02/07, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In order to help me, once they are written I'm going to publish the first chapter or two under a creative commons licence, and post it on my website. This will also have the side benefit of telling me if anyone else thinks I'm any good. If instead of publishing on my website, I could submit previous short stories to the BBC for a possibility of a reading on a BBC radio station (probably BBC 7, though I'd personally like BBC radio 4). [Kim Plowright] So, here's a dumb question, that I'm going to ask anyway because sometimes they get interesting answers. Why on earth do you need the BBC for that? What does the chance at getting a 'BBC' reading give you that, say, podcasting the chapters yourself doesn't? What does the BBC add in that scenario? Anything more than Legitimisation? (I'm thinking of Cory Doctorow's 'publish for free and podcast for free to drive sales' model here.) (Also, I think there's a nice little idea for a site for aspiring writers in this; and Open Source Audio Books Podcast project.)
Re: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
On Monday 05 February 2007 17:27, vijay chopra wrote: If instead of publishing on my website, I could submit previous short stories to the BBC for a possibility of a reading on a BBC radio station (probably BBC 7, though I'd personally like BBC radio 4). I don't think that scales. Nanowrimo has shown that many, many, many people can write a novel in a month - far more than the BBC 7 or Radio 4 staff could read in a reasonable time frame, let alone arrange for someone to give a reading for a reasonable subset of them. You never know though, there maybe someone reading this thread thinking ooh, that's a nice idea :) Then again, you could probably scale it if you had some form of peer review system in place, and you took all the short chapters in a standard form and automated the production of a monthly on-demand printed journal... Personally, I think the idea of a podcasting your own reading strikes me as better, but there can be things done around that to give exposure, (again such as a recommendation engine of sorts, maybe). In this case, examples' case, I think there is a better option for you. ... On an individual note, I will be publishing the first chapter of the book I'm writing under a creative commons licence, once I finish writing you'll be able to read it online, for free (both senses) and as a thank you for taking the time you'll get given the right to make (and sell) derivative works, give copies to friends and basically do what you like with it, just so long as you acknowledge my authorship. What stops you publishing your book yourself? It's quite simple to do on lulu.com for example - I've bought a few books from there and the quality is higher than you might think. (especially given there is ranking and rating of books there) You don't have to charge for a download if you like (and indeed a number of books on lulu.com *do* have a free download option). More concretely - grab the open office book templates, copy and paste in your text, format using a free font [1], and then upload the resulting PDF with an embedded license stating which of the particular CC licenses you feel is free enough[2], add a charge if you like. Strictly speaking if you really want to enable derivatives you'll need to find a way to have the ODF file as a downloadable as well, though the preview may be suitable for that. Then also pick a print format (hardback, paperback, pocketbook etc), and pick whether you want to have a profit from your book or not. (If you don't it makes lulu.com into a really fancy shared printer) [1] http://goldfndr.home.mindspring.com/urw.html [2] Lulu requires the books to stipulate a license. I know Cafepress do this as well, although I've found Lulu easier to work with. (eg for making personalised notebooks) Regards, Michael. -- Michael Sparks, Senior Research Engineer, BBC Research Kamaelia Project Lead, http://kamaelia.sourceforge.net/Home All the opinions above are mine, and mine alone, and certainly not my employers opinions :-) - 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 Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
The BBC decided not to celebrate 70 years of television that started at Alexandra Palace in 1936 that is in 2006. Or did I miss something? Since 1995 the Palace has been a Grade II listed building. It was designed to be The People's Palace and later nicknamed (allegedly by Gracie Fields) Ally Pally, and in 1936 became the headquarters of world's first regular public high definition television service, operated by the BBC. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Palace In 2007, the BBC is a small fish in a big sea, and the quality of output may not be the most important factor. If you want to chat, upload music, moving or static images in the early 21st Century, just imagine a world in which the BBC is not your first choice. Gordo (formerly of the Robert Elms Chat Room, a previous service of BBC Radio London). -- 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/
action serials (was Re: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals)
Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You never know though, there maybe someone reading this thread thinking ooh,
that's a nice idea :) Then again, you could probably scale it if you had some
form of peer review system in place, and you took all the short chapters in a
standard form and automated the production of a monthly on-demand printed
journal...
What I think would work (and what I'm going to fund when I'm
incredibly rich) is writing to an objective.
You set a framework, say an action serial (such as Dick Barton) or a
class-romance ('Only A Factory Girl' by Rosy M Banks being an example),
and get people to contribute to it.
This would work a bit like open source software where most people (but
only just) contribute to existing projects. Releases would be
contiguous wholes. You could have multiple releases of a single work
if people came up with sufficiently good plot versions.
I think there's loads of scope for this. I find it difficult to code
while listening to Jon Udel for example. I probably could code while
listening to 'Dick Barton Special Agent', 'The Red League' or 'The
Further Adventures of Mellors' (well, maybe not that one).
There's loads of scope as well for dramatising the results.
I don't think the BBC needs to get involved. But a forum *like* this
does.
--
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs
-
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 Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
The day the BBC sells its airwaves to the highest bidder in this way is the day they betray the public's trust. You misunderstand, I wasn't advocating that they sell to the highest bidder, merely expressing the view that there are so many people wishing to be on the BBC that the BBC wouldn't even have to pay them, but would be able to charge artists to appear. So the only thing I got wrong was saying 'highest bidder', rather than 'any bidder'? If you finished reading the paragraph, you would have read this: I wasn't advocating this system, just using it to illustrate the BBCs bargaining power. The BBC should do the opposite, and start a channel (Radio\TV\online, it doesn't matter) only showing free(libre) content and watch the artists flock to see who can create the best stuff for free, just to get on the BBC. please don't misrepresent me. If the BBC set up a truly public broadcasting service (use BBC 3 and/or BBC 4 during the day, for example), open to anyone to submit works (on the condition that it is released under a copyleft\creative commons style licence), then showed the best, after all the usual editorial controls. I believe that you would see some big players come forward to take advantage of the service. At the same time it opens the power of the BBC to lesser known artists, independent studios and even totally independent artists (a bit like a book publisher who accepts unsolicited manuscripts). You then give all this work away, and launch the careers of a new generation of TV stars, who can then , in turn, charge fees for their services. A rare example of a virtuous circle.
RE: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
Surely the whole point of DVD regions is that it was a non-legal way of implementing the ability to restrict international free trade. I'm not saying that it's illegal, but the implementation of DVD regions was not to provide any governmental body with a set of requirements, but for the DVD producers to implement a non-democratic system of restrictions. And it's the same with DRM - there is no legal requirement to use them, they are simply being forced on the consumer by bodies such as the BBC that claim (presumably because Microsoft has advised them this) they are required. Copyright is supposed to be a legal balance between the producer and the consumer and DVD regions and DRM are an industry attempt to not play take their ball home with them. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Bowden Sent: 02 February 2007 09:23 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals Frank Wales Andrew Bowden wrote: If everyone - and I mean everyone - made their DVD player multi-region, it would be far harder to justify making region-encoded DVDs. DVD region coding rides on the coat-tails of different international video standards, so I think pressure against DVD region coding could never become very severe. It's not enough that your DVD player be multi-region in order to watch out-of-region discs, your TV also has to know what to do with the signal. At least in North America, it's quite hard to find multi-standard TVs, so a multi-region DVD player could play a UK DVD, for example, but the TV wouldn't display it because PAL wouldn't make sense to it. Yeah, well North America is another thing, however region 2 is an entirely different matter - and it's a big region. Last time I bought a TV (four years ago IIRC) it was hard to find one that wasn't NTSC compatable in that price range. Now that was a £300 model. A couple of years later when I had to buy a new DVD player, I got a £70 model (DVD/VHS combi) which was towards the budget end - again NTSC compatable seemed to be the norm. Looking at Comet's website right now, NTSC is available on the cheapest DVD player, and whilst not on the cheapest TVs, is on a 20 model at the £79.99 price mark. Of course, many will still have non NTSC compatable equipment so it will take time. Interestingly, you do get some NTSC region 2 DVDs already. For some reason, season 1 of Sex and the City is NTSC! http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-City-Region-NTSC-Format/dp/B5I BA0/sr=8-14/qid=1170408000/ref=pd_ka_14/202-6428698-3405436?ie =UTF8s=dvd - 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.17/661 - Release Date: 30/01/2007 23:30 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.17/661 - Release Date: 30/01/2007 23:30 - 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 Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
On 02/02/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely the whole point of DVD regions is that it was a non-legal way of implementing the ability to restrict international free trade. That's right, and this is summarised in the memorable phrase, code is law :-) And it's the same with DRM - there is no legal requirement to use them, they are simply being forced on the consumer by bodies such as the BBC that claim (presumably because Microsoft has advised them this) they are required. Do you know any references for this Microsoft advice? Perhaps we could make some http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/ requests? :-) Copyright is supposed to be a legal balance between the producer and the consumer I'm not sure where you got that idea, but no, that's not what it is supposed to be :-) Instead of a balance, its more accurate to think of a trade-off - this may seem like semantic nit-picking, but the words we think with define what we intuit, Sapir-Whorf and all that. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html explains in detail. -- Regards, 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] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
On 01/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: offer very little on demand, or use DRM - Tom L, the other week. Would you prefer DRMed content on Linux, or just the current video offerings? I'd like all of it in a 'free' format right now please isn't possible, at least not right now. all is a key word, though. If the BBC decides to waste money on DRM at the behest of panicked proprietors, that's a dumb decision, but it does not mean that the BBC cannot make a better decision for works where the proprietary interests have no influence. I believe that the BBC should return to the British public all the work it holds the all copyrights over, since the public have already paid for those works. If that is not all of what the public currently perceive to be the BBC's, that's fine - we've been misinformed. People seem to think that since they've paid a license and see something on the BBC, they paid for it in full already. If that's not the case in all cases, let us know. But some of the time, that is the case. There are two issues in 'returning to the public' here, of code and culture. Of culture, I mean placing it under a free culture license. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_movement Of code, I mean producing it in a free software format. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software A free culture license implies a free software file format. It is something of a paradox for a free culture work to only be available in a proprietary format. But also, what the BBC publishes today in restrictive culture licenses, but non-drm formats - eg, the podcasts in MP3 format - should also be available in free software formats, such as OGG alongside MP3. Yes, IMO all DRM will never achieve its goal of complete rights management its probably impossible. This makes much more sense if you use the more accurate term, restrictions management. Sapir-Whorf and all that :-) The point is that it's control is 'good enough' for the people who own the content. That isn't pointless. But it is unethical for the owners to restrict people in this way. The law allows us to restrict each other, and some businesses do whatever the allows them to do to make money, but this does not make what they do the right thing to do. The law has allowed us to restrict other people in the past, and the restricted eventually overturned those unjust laws. Some of them even died in the course of those struggles. I guess the benefit of this struggle for freedom is that the only way we'll die is from old age :-) Lets also remember that iPlayer is version 1.0 - the first stab. Let let it evolve and see where it goes. I like it that the BBC has been letting us _involve_ and _change_ where it goes, in the Backstage projects. -- Regards, 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] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
vijay chopra wrote: The day the BBC sells its airwaves to the highest bidder in this way is the day they betray the public's trust. You misunderstand, I wasn't advocating that they sell to the highest bidder, merely expressing the view that there are so many people wishing to be on the BBC that the BBC wouldn't even have to pay them, but would be able to charge artists to appear. So the only thing I got wrong was saying 'highest bidder', rather than 'any bidder'? If you finished reading the paragraph, you would have read this: I wasn't advocating this system, just using it to illustrate the BBCs bargaining power. The BBC should do the opposite, and start a channel (Radio\TV\online, it doesn't matter) only showing free(libre) content and watch the artists flock to see who can create the best stuff for free, just to get on the BBC. Are you an artist? Have you put on a show? Have you performed music live? Have you been on stage? Have you ever put on or been a part of a amateur (or professional) dramatics production? (if you haven't you should it's great fun :-) Given your comments here, I think it might help inform your arguments better too) The only way you can create something for free is either to have a sponsor, have someone else pay for it, or do it as a sideline (which is often what Amateur Dramatics is). The most common example is amateur dramatics and musicals. Have you been in such a beast? Does it match a professional production for quality? (they can in many respects, but there are advantages to the audience being a significant distance, and from theatre acoustics. They're often equally *fun* as a result) If the BBC set up a truly public broadcasting service (use BBC 3 and/or BBC 4 during the day, for example), open to anyone to submit works (on the condition that it is released under a copyleft\creative commons style licence), then showed the best, after all the usual editorial controls. This is vaguely similar to something ITV is doing with ITV Local[1] - something they spoke about at TV from the Nations Regions in Salford a couple of weeks ago. (Incidentally, there was a suggestion to rename User Generated Content to Home Made instead, largely because the latter has nicer connotations. The example given was I like Home Made Jam - wouldn't be so sure about User Generated Jam. [1] http://www.itvlocal.tv/ They allow content to be uploaded, and make that available online. They're not taking the step of broadcasting it, and as I understand it, the quality is nowhere near good enough for regular programming. (Some is extremely high quality, but still not near the quality people expect to see broadcast) They did also mention that they *do* try to hook people up with sponsors as well, although it sounds like that's quite hard due to the niche level of audience. Channel 4 is doing something very similar with something called fourdocs: http://www.channel4.com/fourdocs/about/about.html (And incidentally some of these *DO* get shown on Channel 4 apparently. I've not seen one on Channel 4 personally, but I'm happy to believe the person who said it :-) As a result, I don't think your ideas are *totally* off the wall, but I think there's some strong logistical arguments to deal with. I think stipulating the specific license though would be difficult. Having a more flickr approach where a small selection of licenses, including CC style licenses is more doable. The question that spings to mind though there is why isn't that on youtube? Why isn't that on google video, or Bix, or ... (after all there's lots of these sites) As alluded to, the model you propose for the BBC of people essentially paying for space on the airwaves is /similar/ to how amateur theatre works. The difference is that Amateur Theatre *has* to make its money back from ticket sales in order to cover the cost of the theatre venue costs, promotion, costumes. etc. (and yes, even rights payments have to happen depending on what show is being put on) None of this is cheap, and a significant number of productions like this run at a loss, even if there is a reasonable size audience. On free to air TV how do you propose such groups would actually make an income to be able to put their shows on TV? (bear in mind, I'm not actually talking about paying anyone who performs, or makes the sets, or lights the show. You really do need to think about that though) Putting on a show takes effort, love and money. Move it from the theatre where the sets can be relatively crude to a low quality small video, and you instantly have increased costs due to being able to see more detail. The costume costs and makeup costs go up. Make it suitable for broadcast, and the costs go up even further. Make it HD, and you essentially need to completely recreate perfectly the scene. So, in your model of the content producer pays the BBC how DO you go about covering these costs, so that you get it for free? (And let's just
RE: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
I believe that you would see some big players come forward to take advantage of the service. At the same time it opens the power of the BBC to lesser known artists, independent studios and even totally independent artists (a bit like a book publisher who accepts unsolicited manuscripts). You then give all this work away, and launch the careers of a new generation of TV stars, who can then , in turn, charge fees for their services. A rare example of a virtuous circle. Great idea. They could call it Young Filmmaker Of The Year. Get Michael Rodd to judge the entries. Or maybe Film Network? That's got a nice ring to it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork/ And you could do something similar for music, and call it... I dunno, well, the bands would all be unsigned, wouldn't they? - 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 Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland Sent: 02 February 2007 12:29 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals On 02/02/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely the whole point of DVD regions is that it was a non-legal way of implementing the ability to restrict international free trade. That's right, and this is summarised in the memorable phrase, code is law :-) And it's the same with DRM - there is no legal requirement to use them, they are simply being forced on the consumer by bodies such as the BBC that claim (presumably because Microsoft has advised them this) they are required. Do you know any references for this Microsoft advice? Perhaps we could make some http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/ requests? :-) http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/09_september/28/ microsoft.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/10_october/28/cu rriculum_technology.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/03_march/21/high field.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/highfield_rts2.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/grade_natpe.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/thompson_edinburgh05.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/highfield_bcmc.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/highfieldft.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/highfield_ft.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/highfield_westminster.shtm l http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2004/12_december/13/d c.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/highfield_edinburgh.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/05_may/11/search .shtml Copyright is supposed to be a legal balance between the producer and the consumer I'm not sure where you got that idea, but no, that's not what it is supposed to be :-) Instead of a balance, its more accurate to think of a trade-off - this may seem like semantic nit-picking, but the words we think with define what we intuit, Sapir-Whorf and all that. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html explains in detail. -- Regards, 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: 01/02/2007 14:28 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: 01/02/2007 14:28 - 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 Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
This is vaguely similar to something ITV is doing with ITV Local[1] - something they spoke about at TV from the Nations Regions in Salford a couple of weeks ago. (Incidentally, there was a suggestion to rename User Generated Content to Home Made instead, largely because the latter has nicer connotations. The example given was I like Home Made Jam - wouldn't be so sure about User Generated Jam. [1] http://www.itvlocal.tv/ They allow content to be uploaded, and make that available online. They're not taking the step of broadcasting it, and as I understand it, the quality is nowhere near good enough for regular programming. (Some is extremely high quality, but still not near the quality people expect to see broadcast) They did also mention that they *do* try to hook people up with sponsors as well, although it sounds like that's quite hard due to the niche level of audience. Channel 4 is doing something very similar with something called fourdocs: http://www.channel4.com/fourdocs/about/about.html (And incidentally some of these *DO* get shown on Channel 4 apparently. I've not seen one on Channel 4 personally, but I'm happy to believe the person who said it :-) The BBC is also moving into this area - content from the Comedy Soup website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedysoup/ will be included in a new BBC Three comedy show called Comedy Shuffle http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/comedyshuffle/ And if you scour the depths of the free-to-air channels on Sky, you'll often find little homemade stuff, that often looks like it's been lifted from YouTube, with the associated poor quality video that goes with it! Open Access TV is also a place where people can buy timeslots and put their programming on air - there is a cost, however if you can get some, you get the ad revenue. It's often a place where you'll find poor quality copies of copyright-expired programming, however sometimes you'll find something random and bizairre late at night for someone who has forked out the couple of thousand pounds needed. - 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 Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
Oops, hit return with finger on control at same time http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onemusic/unsigned/ The url I was trying to paste in. The interesting thing with this kind of stuff is the editorial effort it takes to create a compelling service for the people who are just watching stuff in this world (the old wikipedia 1:10:100 ratio thing). Yes, you can hand that off to the wisdom of crowds, and let the best stuff float to the top; but if you have a genuine meritocracy with Joe Filmmaker's unsolicited three minute short film competing with the latest Life on Mars... Joe Filmmaker's stuff won't get seen, so he won't necessarily get the benefit of the exposure. Out of interest, did anyone follow the CopyBot brouhaha in Second Life? It's a really interesting case study of Open Source philosophy meeting regular people's creative usage on the internet... -Original Message- From: Kim Plowright Great idea. They could call it Young Filmmaker Of The Year. Get Michael Rodd to judge the entries. Or maybe Film Network? That's got a nice ring to it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork/ And you could do something similar for music, and call it... I dunno, well, the bands would all be unsigned, wouldn't they? - 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 Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
Are you an artist? Have you put on a show? Have you performed music live? Have you been on stage? Have you ever put on or been a part of a amateur (or professional) dramatics production? (if you haven't you should it's great fun :-) Given your comments here, I think it might help inform your arguments better too) Actually, in my spare time I'm writing a book; if I could submit the first couple of chapters, an abridged version, or perhaps a short story, to a unit at, say BBC 7, so they could look at it and air a reading (if they think it's good enough), I'd be delighted. I'd then easily get a publisher, and the sales it generates would more than make up for the time invested in writing the whole book. As alluded to, the model you propose for the BBC of people essentially paying for space on the airwaves I've never proposed this model, just used it as an example of the barging power of the BBC. My model would be that of people like me and you, submitting works to a unit at BBC 3 and\orBBC4 who go through the stuff, pick out the best and air it under a Creative commons style licence, these people, once they've aired some their work, will then be in a position to charge for it as they do now as they've established a demand for it. So, in your model of the content producer pays the BBC how DO you go about covering these costs, so that you get it for free? (And let's just assume for the moment, we're not even talking about paying the actors, because in amateur dramatics people don't get paid normally either) If you have an answer, I'd personally be interested. (As I suspect many amateur dramatics societies around the country would be) My answer is once you've shown that you're actually quite good, you can demand payment for your services, but you won't be afraid of DRM free media, since it launched your career; the public will pay for good work, what they don't like is second rate tosh, that big media companies put out because they are in such a strong position, they don't have to do any better [c.f. Hollywood and Windows Vista] [1] I don't see why it has to be the BBC - flickr for example isn't BBC owned, but we could show any appropriately CC licensed pictures from there. Because what I've outlined above is true public service broadcasting, and that's what I pay my licence fee for, not yet-another-reality-tv-clone However I can't see how your model of only expired copyright media or having content providers *pay* the BBC would result in a service that people would want to watch. At no point did I say only, and I didn't advocate anyone paying the BBC, the rest of the BBC operation goes on as normal, whilst new artists and companies spring up taking advantage of the BBCs Free media platform, none of whom need DRM in order to sleep at night. I personally like shows like Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, Backyardigans and so on. None of which are cheap. How do they get made if they have to pay for space? What's their income? Currently in the traditional way, but the next pilot (script written in a basement somewhere) could get it's break on a free BBC platform, and will generate investment that way. The authors won't worry about DRM as it's proven counter-productive, and they got their break without it.
RE: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
I personally like shows like Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, Backyardigans and so on. None of which are cheap. How do they get made if they have to pay for space? What's their income? Currently in the traditional way, but the next pilot (script written in a basement somewhere) could get it's break on a free BBC platform, and will generate investment that way. The authors won't worry about DRM as it's proven counter-productive, and they got their break without it. I don't feel you're actually thinking through the economics here, or maybe skipping steps because you think they're obvious and so I'm obviously missing somethin. So I'll leave it at that, with one last point in case you want to fill in what I'm missing :) Incidentally whilst you're mentioning DRM here, I wasn't (you mentioned broadcast - there's no DRM there so it's irrelevent). I was questioning how you thought programmes would get made in the first place, since - you had appeared to propose that content providers give their content to the BBC to broadcast either for free or would pay for such a thing: You wrote: After all, there are many companies that would pay to be on the BBC -- http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/msg03106.html You wrote: The BBC should do the opposite, and start a channel only showing free(libre) content and watch the artists flock to see who can create the best stuff for free, just to get on the BBC. -- http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/msg03118.html You wrote: (use BBC 3 and/or BBC 4 during the day, for example) (not possible on freeview, but maybe on Satellite or cable. Maybe. Depending on space.) -- http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/msg03135.html I clearly misunderstood your intent there, my apologies, so I'll be quiet :-) If you can articulate the economics better so I can understand, I might pipe up again, but otherwise, I just can't understand your economic model. Michael. -- These views are mine, and mine alone, don't confuse them with my employers :) winmail.dat
RE: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
As an aside, television (at least in the US) was originally produced by sponsorship, with entire shows Brought To You By X; sponsorship is back on the rise again here, as is product placement. With both models, the more people who see your show (which you can measure by interview or poll, rather than actual counts), the better for you in terms of value to sponsors and product placers. It's an excellent, mostly internet-ready model, where interstitial ads aren't... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Sparks Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 10:48 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals I personally like shows like Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, Backyardigans and so on. None of which are cheap. How do they get made if they have to pay for space? What's their income? Currently in the traditional way, but the next pilot (script written in a basement somewhere) could get it's break on a free BBC platform, and will generate investment that way. The authors won't worry about DRM as it's proven counter-productive, and they got their break without it. I don't feel you're actually thinking through the economics here, or maybe skipping steps because you think they're obvious and so I'm obviously missing somethin. So I'll leave it at that, with one last point in case you want to fill in what I'm missing :) Incidentally whilst you're mentioning DRM here, I wasn't (you mentioned broadcast - there's no DRM there so it's irrelevent). I was questioning how you thought programmes would get made in the first place, since - you had appeared to propose that content providers give their content to the BBC to broadcast either for free or would pay for such a thing: You wrote: After all, there are many companies that would pay to be on the BBC -- http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/msg03106.html You wrote: The BBC should do the opposite, and start a channel only showing free(libre) content and watch the artists flock to see who can create the best stuff for free, just to get on the BBC. -- http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/msg03118.html You wrote: (use BBC 3 and/or BBC 4 during the day, for example) (not possible on freeview, but maybe on Satellite or cable. Maybe. Depending on space.) -- http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/msg03135.html I clearly misunderstood your intent there, my apologies, so I'll be quiet :-) If you can articulate the economics better so I can understand, I might pipe up again, but otherwise, I just can't understand your economic model. Michael. -- These views are mine, and mine alone, don't confuse them with my employers :) - 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 Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
On 02/02/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I personally like shows like Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, Backyardigans and so on. None of which are cheap. How do they get made if they have to pay for space? What's their income? Currently in the traditional way, but the next pilot (script written in a basement somewhere) could get it's break on a free BBC platform, and will generate investment that way. The authors won't worry about DRM as it's proven counter-productive, and they got their break without it. I don't feel you're actually thinking through the economics here, or maybe skipping steps because you think they're obvious and so I'm obviously missing somethin. So I'll leave it at that, with one last point in case you want to fill in what I'm missing :) I'll explain my thinking with respect to things I've done\am doing. I'm in the process of writing a SF novel, previously I've written a short story or two, and have never even tried to get them published, with my work in progress, I'm going to try. In order to help me, once they are written I'm going to publish the first chapter or two under a creative commons licence, and post it on my website. This will also have the side benefit of telling me if anyone else thinks I'm any good. If instead of publishing on my website, I could submit previous short stories to the BBC for a possibility of a reading on a BBC radio station (probably BBC 7, though I'd personally like BBC radio 4). The benefits of exposure on the BBC would almost certainly gain me a publisher, along with a healthy advance for any future work; I would also gain confidence so I'd also make sure than all my currently unpublished works were given CC licences so they were seen and read by people other than me. I'd make money on all future works, and as making my work free (libre, not gratis) gave me my break to start with, I wouldn't be hesitant in making sure that all my works were freed once I felt I was able to let them go. Incidentally whilst you're mentioning DRM here, I wasn't (you mentioned broadcast - there's no DRM there so it's irrelevent). I was questioning how you thought programmes would get made in the first place, since - you had appeared to propose that content providers give their content to the BBC to broadcast either for free or would pay for such a thing: As for high budget TV shows, the process would be somewhat similar to the above, except that the production companies making these shows would air pilots and maybe a couple of shows until it's move from BBC 3 (for example) to BBC 1 for free, and make money on the rest of the series (and subsequent series) this would provide a huge incentive to make quality programming as opposed to reality-tv-clone number 42 as they will be required to make an initial investment in the show. If I come up with the next greatest idea for a TV programme, I send it to one of these production companies they say look at this great idea and take a risk on making a pilot to get on BBC 3, and poll to see the audience response. I'm not asking for all BBC content to be copyleft, just trying to inject a copyleft ethos into the the way things are done, that way production companies and rights holders etc. wouldn't be so insistent on things like DRM in iPlayer, and people would be freer to take existing media, and make new things from them; think mashups, but with BBC audio and video. At the moment media people jealously guard their rights, if they got their start in media life by giving up their rights perhaps they wouldn't mind people using parts of their work to make something new. I clearly misunderstood your intent there, my apologies, so I'll be quiet :-) If you can articulate the economics better so I can understand, I might pipe up again, but otherwise, I just can't understand your economic model. No problem, I hope I've been clearer above. If you see any gaping economic holes in my above utopian ideal, feel free to point them out, but I hope it's obvious that I haven't actually calculated any numbers or anything, it's just an idea. :-) Vijay
RE: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
Hi Jeremy, From your first link: This requires the BBC to develop an alternative DRM framework to enable users of other technology, for example, Apple and Linux, to access the on-demand services. They do realise that this will be virtually impossible, don't they? any iPlayer client that offers DRM for Linux will be replaced by a client that offers a DRM free experience within days, if not hours. It'll be a double-whammy since the DRM free version will be ported to Windows as well, a DRM free Linux version probably wouldn't be. More licence fee money down the drain there. Any DRM system will be hacked regardless of platform. GNU/Linux is no exception. Does that make any Linux DRM potentially any less secure than a Windows version? I doubt it myself. Work has already been done in this area - for example, Sun's DReaM project (https://dream.dev.java.net/) - 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 Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
Any DRM system will be hacked regardless of platform. GNU/Linux is no exception. Does that make any Linux DRM potentially any less secure than a Windows version? I doubt it myself. I totally agree, however I think spending money developing DRM is a waste of licence payers money because, as we seem to agree, it will be defeated and thus ultimately pointless.
RE: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
I totally agree, however I think spending money developing DRM is a waste of licence payers money because, as we seem to agree, it will be defeated and thus ultimately pointless. There's levels of security that DRM (and similar) provides, and as long as that level is deemed appropiate enough, then I suspect DRM will continue. An interesting parallel that always springs to my mind on this one is region encoding on DVDs. It's possible to make almost any DVD player multi-region - often for consumer units, by merely entering a simple series of key presses. The first question you could ask is - why do they bother? The more interesting question however is - how many people actually bother? I didn't until just before Christmas when I finally bought a region 1 DVD. Most people I know haven't. If everyone - and I mean everyone - made their DVD player multi-region, it would be far harder to justify making region-encoded DVDs. The level of people doing it though, isn't enough. The powers that be are therefore happy with the limits. - 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 Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
vijay chopra wrote: When will media corporations realise that p***ing off their customers is not the best way to make money, Well, they're still making money despite suing the public, treating them all like criminals, and claiming that skipping adverts on commercial TV is stealing the programmes. So, I think we have a long way to go yet before they wise up. and definitely not something a public service broadcaster should be doing. Serving the public includes bringing the best available material to them, not just whatever can be distributed without copying restrictions. Right now, and probably for many years to come, much of the best content will only be available from those who fear that uncontrolled computer copying will reduce them to busking for alms. Just like the eminently defeatable locks on your house help you to sleep at night, so DRM helps some media people sleep at night. Consequently, if the choice becomes 'DRM-protected content' or 'test card', I vote 'DRM-protected content', with the following proviso: make sure that the rights that the DRM protects includes the rights that I, as the consumer, have in handling that content. It seems to me that the BBC is one organization that might actually keep the public in mind in any DRM system they invent, so I strongly support the idea that it's something the BBC should be involved with. Few other broadcasters in the world have the clout, and the technical wherewithal, to act as advocates for the public in this debate; they should not stay out of it. DRM doesn't serve the public in any way shape or form, the BBC should say to content producers give us licence to show your media DRM free, or we won't broadcast you, it shouldn't give in to their demands. I take it you haven't spent much time negotiating with programme makers, then? In general, my way or the highway isn't a winning strategy to get talented people to work with you, especially when they're scared of what the future might hold for them. Afterall, there are many companies that would pay to be on the BBC, you should exploit that position to promote free(libre) media. The day the BBC sells its airwaves to the highest bidder in this way is the day they betray the public's trust. -- Frank Wales [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/
Re: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
Andrew Bowden wrote: If everyone - and I mean everyone - made their DVD player multi-region, it would be far harder to justify making region-encoded DVDs. DVD region coding rides on the coat-tails of different international video standards, so I think pressure against DVD region coding could never become very severe. It's not enough that your DVD player be multi-region in order to watch out-of-region discs, your TV also has to know what to do with the signal. At least in North America, it's quite hard to find multi-standard TVs, so a multi-region DVD player could play a UK DVD, for example, but the TV wouldn't display it because PAL wouldn't make sense to it. For what are probably comedy reasons, DVD region 2 includes the UK (PAL), France (SECAM) and Japan (NTSC). This, combined with the economics of manufacturing, has probably dictated that UK DVD players be more capable (and therefore more hackable) than for other regions, since DVD players bound for region 2 already have to be able to cope with every video standard in the world, plus dog. (I'd be interested in real data that supports or contradicts this supposition, by the way.) This is different from the situation with MP3 players, for example, where there is a world-wide standard on how to go from bits to audio that isn't hamstrung by history. Consequently, I think lessons from DVD region coding have limited applicability to how DRM might work out in other areas. -- Frank Wales [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/
Re: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 20:30 +, vijay chopra wrote: I would rather the BBC aired all that stuff with expired copyright, When we show repeats the viewers aren't happy :( all that copyleft\creative commons talent, and gave exposure to new talent who are willing to show me how good they are without dictating how I use what I've seen. There's a lot out there without riling on the traditional content providers. The old distribution model is fataly flawed in the new age. Maybe. Yes, probably. Who knows? But the BBC isn't about to scrap movies, sport, US imports and productions from indies. In fact, certainly with the latter, they (we) are going to do a lot more commissioning. And indies like their re-use rights and money (as do actors, etc) No, I haven't, but from my prospective I can see there are hundreds of independent and small artists, and even many of the Big companies who would do what ever it takes to be associated with the BBC. So, in a multi-channel age (as you've mentioned) people are willing to 'do what ever it takes to be associated with the BBC.'? They aren't, believe me. so many people wishing to be on the BBC that the BBC wouldn't even have to pay them, but would be able to charge artists to appear. Payola? I *think* that's still illegal. I wasn't advocating this system, just using it to illustrate the BBCs bargaining power. The BBC should do the opposite, and start a channel (Radio\TV\online, it doesn't matter) only showing free(libre) content and watch the artists flock to see who can create the best stuff for free, just to get on the BBC. Why should the BBC do that? There are loads of ways to get free/ libre content all over the Web/ pirate-or-RSL radio/ etc. I really get where you're coming from, all my computers at home are entirely osi/ fsf approved (Debian, BSD, blah) - but as someone who works in the BBC, I can see that as laudible as your aims are, they aren't going to happen just yet. The more important question is (for me at least is) - do we want people using Free (beer/ speech) operating systems like GNU/Linux, the BSDs, open solaris, etc etc, to be able to use their computers to watch BBC content on demand without hacks involving Wine, qemu, VM, etc, etc? If so, at the moment at least, that's going to involve a measure of DRM. As sad and possibly flawed as DRM is, it certainly *isn't* incompatable with free software. If the answer is 'no DRM on free OSs' then I think the question is wrong. It might be 'no DRM at all', but I think there are better places to argue that (the CC lot, Cory, your MP, PACT, etc etc) Regards George (disclaimer - I work for the BBC) - 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 Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
On 02/01/2007 08:30 PM, vijay chopra wrote: I would rather the BBC aired all that stuff with expired copyright, all that copyleft\creative commons talent, and gave exposure to new talent who are willing to show me how good they are without dictating how I use what I've seen. I would rather the BBC didn't become YouTube. The day the BBC sells its airwaves to the highest bidder in this way is the day they betray the public's trust. You misunderstand, I wasn't advocating that they sell to the highest bidder, merely expressing the view that there are so many people wishing to be on the BBC that the BBC wouldn't even have to pay them, but would be able to charge artists to appear. So the only thing I got wrong was saying 'highest bidder', rather than 'any bidder'? Just like the eminently defeatable locks on your house help you to sleep at night, so DRM helps some media people sleep at night. ??? Are you serious, if the lock on my door was as easy to break as DRM, I would be up all night with a baseball bat under my pillow, I wasn't suggesting the locks and DRM are of equivalent strength, merely that locks and DRM can both serve the purpose of allowing people to avoid worrying so much about something they fear. Most real-world locks are actually pretty bad, but they still work because few people test them to see if they're really steel or simply tinfoil. are these media people so stupid as to believe that DRM gives more protection against copyright infringement than giving a quality product that people want to pay for? I don't believe the choice is between 'do a good job' or 'protect it with DRM'. I believe it's between 'publish it without any notional protection and risk losing control of it', 'publish it with some protection that the average customer will tolerate and hopefully keep some control of it', and 'don't publish at all until we see what the real risks and benefits are'. This last option is also known as 'last-mover advantage', and is traditionally favoured by established players in a changing market, especially if they can run to their Daddy in the legislature for help in retarding change until they retire to just outside of Seattle. For the avoidance of doubt, as a card-carrying member of the FSFE and a supporter of the EFF, I am *not* pro-DRM; but, as a member of the human race with a modest degree of pragmatism and a finite life-span, I believe that cramming the live-free-of-DRM-or-die mantra down the unbelievable number of throats that my fellow Earthicans possess is the argumentative way to re-build our world in true digital glory. In some ways, DRM is a comfort blanket that the young digital age is using to get through difficult growing pains; the trick is to make sure it doesn't get dragged into adulthood, covered in drool and cat hair. -- Frank Wales [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/
Re: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
Hi Jeremy, From your first link: This requires the BBC to develop an alternative DRM framework to enable users of other technology, for example, Apple and Linux, to access the on-demand services. They do realise that this will be virtually impossible, don't they? any iPlayer client that offers DRM for Linux will be replaced by a client that offers a DRM free experience within days, if not hours. It'll be a double-whammy since the DRM free version will be ported to Windows as well, a DRM free Linux version probably wouldn't be. More licence fee money down the drain there. Seriously, who's made the decision to try and create a Linux DRM? And if they have any technical knowledge whatsoever, why are they proposing such a money wasting scheme? Hell, Sony poured millions into the Blu-Ray DRM, and that's (along with HD-DVD) been already cracked; I certainly hope that Auntie isn't spending that amount of money on such a pointless endeavour.
