You're saying the global market is more important than everyone being able
to download BBC content for free.
Hmm, I don't think I was saying that.
What I'm saying is that when the BBC paid for Paul Jackson Productions
to make series I, II, and III of Red Dwarf, the people who made it
(not the
Maybe we should try and get more BBC managers here.
How do you know there not watching this already? Seriously!
Watching, maybe. But are they participating? Not so far as I've seen.
i thoroughly resemble that remark
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe,
Thanks, Martin, for the explanation - appreciated and understood.
In an era where we now have IP video delivery (and such delivery will
increase in the future) then what is the point of the BBC? If Paul Jackson
Productions can produce Red Dwarf IV, why not just sell it direct on the net
(every
Hi Frank,
Check mate for all of us, at the moment.
Yes, I am sure that the BBC would prevail if they took such a case to
court. at the same time, the potential for irreversible harm to the public
persona of the Corporation would be rather large. I am certain that none of us
has the right
In an era where we now have IP video delivery (and such
delivery will increase in the future) then what is the point
of the BBC? If Paul Jackson Productions can produce Red Dwarf IV
I'm going to put my Dwarf hat on and quote the production of Red Dwarf.
Series 1 (IIRC) was produced by BBC
Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frankly, this is not a simple issue. It's nowhere near a simple issue.
And it's getting more complicated by the day.
When I hear of a simple issue I reach for my revolver.
--
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier
I'm also concerned that the licence fee is used to support the BBC's
net activities - it gives the BBC a huge advantage over other net
companies who don't get public money to support their online ventures.
You may be interested in this...
Market Impact Assessment of BBC's Online Services
Congratulations to Azureus.. the first to get their foot in the door.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6194929.stm
Anyone know how much they paid?
Personally, I am a little sad. I would have thought that the BBC could have
done this for themselves. Instead of using a DRM model from
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Bowden
Sent: 20 December 2006 10:07
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
Frankly, this is not a simple issue. It's nowhere near a simple issue.
And it's getting
Josh at GoUK.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks, Martin, for the explanation - appreciated and understood.
In an era where we now have IP video delivery (and such delivery will
increase in the future) then what is the point of the BBC? If Paul Jackson
Productions can produce Red Dwarf IV,
Inside or outside the UK, the story is that right now any member of the
public with a connection and PC can see that content for free.
Illegally.
a show that was - in part - paid for by the same license fee
Wrong. Usually, I believe, the licence fee purchases the right for the
programme
it doesn't mean that each of us, individually, has the *right* to
unfettered access to whatever they (the BBC) produce.
I think that's a difficult position for the BBC to sustain. Maybe it's ok in
terms of material the BBC produces, but not in terms of material the BBC
broadcasts.
Once a
The
BBC could never have made Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the best TV *ever*
in my opnion and yes, I can justify that).
I rest my case. If Buffy is the best TV that can be made by commercial
television companies, they need to be outlawed. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is
the worst television show
This is maybe going a bit off-topic for this list?
In an era where we now have IP video delivery (and such delivery will
increase in the future) then what is the point of the BBC?
It is very good question, and one that there was a lot of debate on in
the run-up to the charter renewal
I am talking specifically asking for non-technical managers
to be involved here. At least to some extent. I expect those
people to think that they've already made up their minds. But
they probably haven't really heard the wealth of different
opnions there are on the subject.
Its outside
But not everyone has the resources to publish and distribute - unless you
consider YouTube to be an acceptable delivery system. Neither does every
consumer have the ability to watch video delivered over the internet. You
forget that not everyone is a geek - a common problem on this list of late.
Mmmm, think we're getting to an age where we need to reassess
what tv quality programming is and what it means. We're not
heading to a TV age, so the concept of TV programming will
probably not be terribly relevant in a few years or so.
The concept of TV programming may disappear because
No clearer indication of the difference between these two models
can be found than in the sudden profusion of TV-based premium-rate
phone scams, I'm sorry, phone-in pay-to-guess-the-answer quiz
programmes; the BBC has no such offerings, nor would I expect
them to have any, because they're just a
- you can get 8m people around the TV for a shared experience watching
Strictly Come Dancing and Doctor Who, but there are few (if any)
videos on YouTube with an aggregation of 8 million eyeballs on them
The shared experience thing is a red herring. 20 years ago, some shows would
have got 15 or
Luke Dicken [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Its outside the backstage remit for that kind of thing to be
officially happening here though surely. I mean, I doubt there's
anyone here who objects to this kind of discussion, sharing viewpoints
and arguing is a good thing, but as someone has already
How exactly is this discussion off-topic?
Backstage.bbc.co.uk :
Build what you want using BBC content
backstage.bbc.co.uk is the BBC's developer network to encourage
innovation and support new talent. Content feeds are available for
people to build with on a non-commercial basis.
Join the
On 20/12/06, Nic James Ferrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe we should try and get more BBC managers here.
How do you know there not watching this already? Seriously!
Watching, maybe. But are they participating? Not so far as I've seen.
i
Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nic what kind of stuff are talking about doing? Which Lawyers are
you worried about? BBC or others? Can you give me an idea.
Sure. One thing I'd like to do would be to:
- take the BBC realvideo feeds (say newsnight)
- convert them into something
Nic James Ferrier wrote:
Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the other, we're just a
natural resource to be harvested and sold off like so
many varieties of attentional baked-beans; any benefits
we might get are a side-effect of the process.
I realise you said it was very crude but I
Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I rest my case. If Buffy is the best TV that can be made by commercial
television companies, they need to be outlawed. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is
the worst television show I've *ever* seen.
Then either you are not watching enough television or you
Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*May* be more likely, but most don't, unless you class football or
reality cop shows or 'Ironside' repeats as niche markets. Just
as most commercial retailers *may* be more likely to serve niche
markets, but most don't;
MTV.
the commercial imperative
I was at a European Broadcasting Union earlier this called Beyond Broadcast.
Almost every single presentation and discussion had some rights
element/thicket/headache/crisis/meltdown to it. The BBC Beethoven download a
couple of years ago was almost scuppered because although it was a BBC
27 matches
Mail list logo
