On Nov 8, 2007 10:42 AM, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course this is a blog so not exactly a reference source:
http://joyofsox.blogspot.com/2007/11/mlb-game-downloads-still-inaccessible.html
So this DRM system seems to have lasted 2003-2006. Then a year later you
lose
any
Sorry for the delay in replying but I've had a toothache!
Right...
You can divide the kind of material that is currently shown on television
into five broad types:
- True live, which a content that is actually live, or is non-archive
material introduced by live presentation. This would be the
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 21:52 +0100, Andy Leighton wrote:
Steady on - why not Z80, OK a bit limited but the Z8 was 32bit and
about the same time as some of those above? Basically some of the
listed processors above are dead for general-purpose computing in the
home and they are used by a
On 6/15/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've obviously not read the numerous posts explaining in some detail
why it *isn't* currently feasible
Must have missed that one. Can you show in detail the point at which
it says you MUST use
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You really are a fucking twat, aren't you?
Rich.
Resorting to personal insults because you can't win an argument?
What is so wrong with suggesting you publish said agreements?
If they are published and I missed it, then I am sorry but
On 16/06/07, mike chamberlain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the actual facts are...
1. Rights holders insist on time limited DRM solution.
2. Only Microsoft supports a time limited DRM.
3. Therefore, in order to conform to point 1, BBC have to use
Microsoft based DRM.
I accept axiom 1.
On Saturday 16 June 2007 12:43, Andy wrote:
To be neutral on platform the BBC's iPlayer will need to run on
every platform that has existed, that does exist, or will exist in the
future
Picking out this one point, this is bogus, unless you are suggesting that
iPlayer should run on a ZX81 (In
On 16/06/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Platform neutrality means it should not favour any one specific system.
That's not what platform neutral means. It means it shouldn't favour
any specific system or systems.
If there was a war between 4 nations, (called A, B, C, D) would you
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 10:19 +0100, mike chamberlain wrote:
1. Rights holders insist on time limited DRM solution.
2. Only Microsoft supports a time limited DRM.
3. Therefore, in order to conform to point 1, BBC have to use
Microsoft based DRM.
I would phrase it slightly differently.
1.
On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:04, Andy wrote:
Platform neutrality means it should not favour any one specific system.
That's not what platform neutral means. It means it shouldn't favour
any specific system or systems.
Huh???
I wrote:
me it should not favour any one specific system.
you it
Depending on the kind of media there are other ways of making money
other than charging for things that are copyable.
Music:
Charge for Live performances/concerts
Charge for physical merchandise
OK. So if I can't perform live (due to terrible stage fright (see
XTC), disability or any other
Software:
Charge for support
Charge for bespoke software
Charge for custom modifications.
Now this is a model we know works because there's a multiple of
companies in the OpenSource world. So it's a no brainer.
Music:
Charge for Live performances/concerts
Charge for physical merchandise
I think - as do many others, it seems - that people pirate because they want
interoperability, convenience of consumption on their own terms, and the
quality is often better to boot.
Yes, yes, and yes. Don't forget though, that a lot of people pirate
because they want the convenience of not
Musical revenues are not something I know huge amounts, but
this seems
to me to be a model which drives the musicians very very hard. To
earn money to live they have to perform - and they'll need
to do it a LOT.
But to prepare their next album, they'll need to stop performing
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:38:16AM +0100, Andrew Bowden wrote:
Music:
Charge for Live performances/concerts
Charge for physical merchandise
Musical revenues are not something I know huge amounts, but this seems
to me to be a model which drives the musicians very very hard. To earn
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. So if I can't perform live (due to terrible stage fright (see
XTC), disability or any other reason), what do I do?
And if I develop RSI or another disability that prevents me doing my job?
There is a reason we have a benefit for
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your name and logo's would still be covered by Trademark and similar
protections. Misrepresenting the source of a good is surely illegal
isn't it?
Oh - so visual intellectual property is fine, but recorded isn't?
Trademark law is
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Lockwood
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 3:32 PM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?
On 6/15/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 10:19 +0100, Mr I Forrester wrote:
I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while,
and want to ponder this question to the backstage community...
We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well
lets just say for this
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 10:15 +0100, Richard Lockwood wrote:
I think - as do many others, it seems - that people pirate because they want
interoperability, convenience of consumption on their own terms, and the
quality is often better to boot.
Yes, yes, and yes. Don't forget though, that a
On 15/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only a few years ago, the BBC renegotiated its contract with BSkyB to
_remove_ DRM from its satellite broadcasts. That's why I can receive BBC
content on my DVB-S card without having to muck about with a Dragon CAM
and a Solus card. Well
I think the whole discussion about alternative business models and even
philosophical discussions about the nature of copyright are irrelevant
and counterproductive. You don't need to be a revolutionary to observe
that DRM is worthless and causes far more pain to consumers than the
supposed
On 6/15/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet
from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet.
It's not worse, but it's not much better.
The BBC charter is not to do a little
Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the
internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC
over the internet.
Because it's not free of charge -- it's our license fee that's going
to pay for the useless DRM
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've obviously not read the numerous posts explaining in some detail
why it *isn't* currently feasible
Must have missed that one. Can you show in detail the point at which
it says you MUST use MICROSOFT DRM? I would really like to know
Stephen Deasey wrote:
The BBC has many thousands of hours of programming which it holds
sufficient rights to enable it to published on the Internet, DRM-free.
If DRM is so distasteful, then why isn't this being done? Surely the
BBC should be taking steps to move towards a DRM-free world, if
Andy wrote:
Must have missed that one. Can you show in detail the point at which
it says you MUST use MICROSOFT DRM? I would really like to know so I
can email my MEP about this matter. In case they want to add the BBC
as an accessory to whatever they are prosecuting Microsoft for today.
Name
I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the
internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC
over the internet.
Because it's not free of charge -- it's our license fee that's going
to pay for the useless DRM technology, even if we don't use it. I
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:49:10PM +0100, Andy wrote:
don't know about and aren't complete yet. Running on x86, intel/AMD 64
bit, PowerPC, Motorola 68k, Sparcs, Alpha, Arm, MIPS, PA-RISC, s/390,
and CPU architectures that are unknown to the BBC or incomplete.
Steady on - why not Z80, OK a bit
On 6/14/07, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while,
and want to ponder this question to the backstage community...
We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well
lets just say for this thread that DRM
Hi Ian,
What happens next? .. well most that you listed below is already
happening somewhere.
In my opinion, this is what happens next..
Your whole office, and anybody interested in the positive future of
the BBC, goes to the DG, or whomever now, and demands a budget to put
as
On 14/06/07, Stephen Deasey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Creating an artificial scarcity of bits and charging for them is just
a round about way of charging for a genuinely scarce resource: the
time and effort of creators. Because the scarce bits model no longer
works, creators will have to
On 14/06/07, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...What happens next?
Hopefully we will actually see some innovation!
Depending on the kind of media there are other ways of making money
other than charging for things that are copyable.
Software:
Charge for support
Charge for bespoke
Andy wrote:
On 14/06/07, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...What happens next?
Hopefully we will actually see some innovation!
I think there's actually a more pertinent question, which is this: Why
are people currently paying for things that they could get for free?
For example,
People are basically honest, and agree
with the idea that artists should get paid.
LOL. Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha.
I think there's actually a more pertinent question, which is this: Why
are people currently paying for things that they could get for free?
Even more pertinently, why are
@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?
People are basically honest, and agree with the idea that artists
should get paid.
LOL. Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha.
I think there's actually a more pertinent question, which is
this: Why
are people currently paying
At 15:56 + 20/2/07, Matthew Cashmore wrote:
Sorry this took longer than planned but the video of the DRM Podcast
is now available - the low quality version is here
http://blip.tv/file/152907http://blip.tv/file/152907
Again it's a Creative Commons Attribution licence.
One small step for
On 19/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Going into a cinema with a camcorder...
That cinema rips on peekvid.com are palatable isn't something HD
salesmen and industry professionals seem to really understand, eheh
:-)
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion
TinyURL to save the copy-paste-linebreak fixing for the huge 4OD url
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ycud7p
On 15/02/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/02/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like the negative relationship can go even further :-)
Imagine if your local library imposed DRM on the books it lent you,
you'd only be able to read them in certain places with certain light
sources. Why do you accept unreasonable restrictions (even paying for
the privilege) on music that you'd never except with the written
word?
Well
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Bowden
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:39 AM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes
Imagine if your local library imposed DRM on the books it lent you,
you'd only be able to read them in certain
On 11/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote:
On Saturday 10 February 2007 22:28, Tim Thornton wrote:
Your machine will do what you tell it to. It's just that there are
secrets you can't access.
Regarding the point above, that's the issue here. Whilst you're happy
with
owning a computer that will
On Saturday 10 February 2007 22:29, Tim Thornton wrote:
[ lots of interesting material ]
Having read /some/ of this now, it might useful to repeat in back to help
others in the thread understand the basic ideas, or to allow me to be
corrected if I've misunderstood :-). (The DRM use case will
On 11/02/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ignoring the DRM usecase or restricting your computer scenarios, having a
secure location for helping check system integrity and protecting the
contents of your harddrive, is useful.
Sure.
When you lose the ability to sign things yourself,
On 11/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just reread one of RMS' musings on treacherous computing, and some
of what he describes is terrible. But that's not what is on offer!
If it was designed to stop your computer
from functioning as a general-purpose computer why can I
On 10/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your machine will do what you tell it to. It's just that there are
secrets you can't access.
So if you tell it to access those secrets, and it won't, how is it
doing what you tell it to, again?
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the
On Friday 09 February 2007 18:26, Tim Thornton wrote:
...
I can trust your computer not to reveal my secrets to you,
Do you not see how this is a bad thing - how this can be abused?
I buy a car. It does what I tell it (well it would if I drove). I buy
a hammer it bangs what I want to bang. I
On 09/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote:
Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe it to be orthogonal to DRM. In the trusted computing
space,
your secrets are secret, as are mine. I can trust your computer not
to
reveal my secrets to you, and you can trust that I can't get at
On 09/02/07, vijay chopra wrote:
There's not a single benefit that treacherous computing brings that
cannot
be solved another way, in your example you can hold secrets via any
number of numerous encryption methods, my home PC has a whole
encrypted
partition for data security. Why do I need a
On 10/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote:
On Friday 09 February 2007 18:26, Tim Thornton wrote:
...
I can trust your computer not to reveal my secrets to you,
Do you not see how this is a bad thing - how this can be abused?
I buy a car. It does what I tell it (well it would if I drove). I buy
a
On 10/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote:
The TPM was designed with this in mind, and each TPM has its own
keys.
Because they're internal to the TPM and can't be extracted by
software,
you can have confidence in the TPM's authenticity.
This is wy off topic, but how does a remote third party
Oh, and where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit
to the computer's owner?
It's a benefit to me, in that I subscribe to an online music library for
less than I used to spend on CDs. I have more music, and more money - I
call that a benefit.
That requires neither treacherous
Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, in the PC space it's only constrained if you want it to be. Most PCs
sold today have a TPM, which is rarely used (I've only met one person so
far who uses their TPM, and I work in the industry). You need to enable
it. You can use it to constrain your
On Saturday 10 February 2007 22:28, Tim Thornton wrote:
...
Regarding the other longer mail, many thanks for that - I'll read up on the
references. I'd made some assumptions about the system, but hadn't realised
that there were some keys I was unaware of the the TPM and the fact that
there is
On 10/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote:
You work in the industry and you've only met one person who uses
it. So why are firms still putting it in their products? Surely a
motherboard would be cheaper without it?
Of course it's cheaper not to install a TPM, but it's chicken and egg -
to take
On 08/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote:
Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, this /is/ an implementation problem, and can be overcome with a
trusted hardware element on the platform. At that stage, the hoop
will be more than simply running some code.
Do you work for ARM?
I do, but
Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nic said:
I don't want a constrained comptuer because I don't trust the computer
maker to be open and above board about the precise way the computer is
constrained.
What do you feel may be hidden?
What do you feel a company might not hide?
I think
I welcome it. Having a region of my computer that is independent of the
regular computer gives me confidence that I can hold secrets on my PC.
The whole purpose of trusted computing in its widest sense is to provide
an environment where anyone can have trust. There are many uses for it,
often
On 2/9/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit to the computer's owner?
If content-owners* require DRM to be able to release content for use on your
computer (currently the case in the BBC iPlayer, and/or Channel 4's
on-demand plater,
I've been half following this thread, but Mr Steve Jobs over
at Apple has just released this statement today regarding DRM.
Thought it might be an interesting read.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
-
Seems he agrees with some guy called Bill Gates:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Cridland
Sent: 28 January 2007 22:27
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] DRM
On 1/26/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL
On 1/26/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The flip side is that every format you add, has some extra setup costs of
various magnitudes, and when belts have to be buckled because it's public
money, why spend it when you're satisfying most people now. After all, how
many people are not
One might argue that the BBC should make their radio stations available in
as many different ways as possible, to satisfy as many users as possible:
after all, we pay for it.
The flip side is that every format you add, has some extra setup costs of
various magnitudes, and when belts have to
James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Though looking at the big screen on the wall, the vast majority of users
seem content with Windows Media (over 80% of our online listeners right
now).
Do you think those of us who aren't content should complain more?
I complain sometimes but
Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Though looking at the big screen on the wall, the vast majority of users
seem content with Windows Media (over 80% of our online listeners right
now).
Do you think those of us who aren't content should
On 1/23/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously guys why the need for DRM, I've only just reconciled myself that
I'm not going to get radio in ogg format
You can get plenty of radio in Ogg Vorbis format. Try
www.virginradio.co.uk/listen (hit the online tab for all the variants).
James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Though looking at the big screen on the wall, the vast majority of users
seem content with Windows Media (over 80% of our online listeners right
now).
Do you think those of us who aren't content should complain more?
I complain sometimes but mostly
On 25/01/07, Nic James Ferrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Though looking at the big screen on the wall, the vast majority of users
seem content with Windows Media (over 80% of our online listeners right
now).
Do you think those of us who aren't content
On 25/01/07, Nic James Ferrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you think those of us who aren't content should complain more?
I complain sometimes but mostly the reaction from people here is
sorry - it is like it is - get over it
I don't see any point complaining given that.
Given hdkeys.com
All my personal point of view, as usual
Seriously guys why the need for DRM, I've only just reconciled myself
that I'm not going to get radio in ogg format, and will have to put up
with real player as long as I want Radio on demand; now this?!
Most BBC stations have a Windows Media stream as
Hi Jason,
Does anyone know what the requirements of the rights holders are
within this particular area?
I would love to see a list, then another legal solution may become
available.
RichE
On 24 Jan 2007, at 08:43, Jason Cartwright wrote:
All my personal point of view, as usual
--- Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If you come up with a solution to distribute content
that satisfies all
the requirements of the relevant rights holders then
there is whole
industry of people willing to give you money.
Otherwise, its Windows
Media Player DRM all the way if you
Does anyone know what the requirements of the rights holders are
within
this particular area?
I would love to see a list, then another legal solution may become
available.
I'm no expert on this, but if you want a start, you can find here
details of the BBC's Terms of Business with
DRM doesn't exist on my planet... but then nor does BBC TV
according to the BBC. Talk about restricting culture, it seems
at every level. I don't believe that DRM is to stop the customer
or help the original Rights owner. but it sure allows some
control factor from the distributor.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glyn Wintle
Sent: 24 January 2007 09:17
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] DRM
--- Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you come up with a solution to distribute content
Brendan Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If someone can come up with a massively scaleable way of watermarking
content for individual users as they stream or download content, and
(just as importantly) a fraud-detection system of some sort that notices
clips on YouTube, BitTorrent etc and
A decent, per-user watermarking system is seriously something that would
perk up the interest of a lot of people both inside the BBC and in the
wider media community. Thanks for the link, that article is an
interesting description of the tech. I think the people here who are
right into this
Hi Vijay,
Believe it.. I can hear the clunky wheels starting up.
From the halls of the British Corporation.. yes we need DRM to
satisfy the owners of the work that is to be re-produced, without it
we could never get a licence, or the content etc.etc.etc..
DRM doesn't
vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I notice that the Beeb is going to put Digital restrictions management in
it's upcoming online, TV on demand service via iPlayer:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6290745.stm
For this reason it has recommended that the BBC's on-demand service reduces
79 matches
Mail list logo
