Hi all, I'm new too the the backstage mailing list, but it seems to be
the appropriate place to make a request to use BBC content for my final
year degree project. What I would like to use are the sports scores
feeds that power the football live videprinter and cricket latest
scores (if such feeds
That's great thanks Jon ( England Domestic scores are just fine
to build a prototype, England have a tour coming up), now I just
need to find a football feed, I think the BBC must have one too update
their live videprinter, if not i'll have too look elsewhere. If they
can't supply me with a live
Found it, here's a link to the archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/msg00806.html :)
On 19/10/05, Kosso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, smilies aside. Did the guy finally find out what those pay grades pay?
And are we allowed to say? Surely we are?
:P
On 10/19/05, Andrew
No offence, but I wish people would stop using the AJAX acronym, Ajax
is a dutch football team, the 'new' acronym is just another way of
saying look I can use _javascript_ i.e something people have been doing
for years /rant (sorry 'AJAX' is one of my pet annoyances) That
aside it looks like a
is not going anywhere, in fact there is a plethora ofbooks which will be released soon enough with AJAX as the title.Iactually think it's fine and is useful for quickly understanding the
underlying processes. Chris Gilbert wrote: On 19 Oct 2005, at 14:26, vijay chopra wrote: just another way of saying
Indeed. I fully understand what AJAX is, after all it stands for
asynchronous _javascript_ and XML, however as Jakob and Graeme have
said, it's just a flashy new label for technology that's been around a
long time. For some reason it's acquired a new acronym. I admit I was
being facetious when I
I agree, prototypes has a google labs feel to it (although stuff google has in beta is as good as most peoples finished product); we need an equivalent to their'graduates' section, for fully operational products.
Vijay
On 29/10/05, Davy Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Folks,I am looking to
Shame; even thought I hate DRM, I know that PHBs love it, and if they cant work it, it means the Beeb might scram iMP :(On 13/11/05, Dave Whitehead
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems BBC may have a problem with the iMP trial,
apparently it's possible to get round the DRM thus taking away the
for free, there is less of a reason to crack the codecs, although someone is always going to try it. Adam vijay chopra wrote:
Shame; even thought I hate DRM, I know that PHBs love it, and if they cant work it, it means the Beeb might scram iMP :( On 13/11/05, *Dave Whitehead*
[EMAIL PROTECTED
issue? I'm also testing on winXP.
Hope I've been of some help
Vijay
On 16/12/05, Mario Menti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/16/05, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great idea, but for some reason it dosn't work in firefox. At first I
thought it didn't work, but checked in IE and found
Digg is very overrated, the comment in particular is innane and lacks content. Gavin, as for your site, I think it's a good idea; go for it.
On 23/01/06, Duke Frizzle Puff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I would just use
digg.com.
Hi, does the BBC have any plans to release the Daq engine so I can build 'mydaq'? I can think of a few uses I mightlike to put it to.
Thanks
Vijay.
On 27/01/06, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I shall suggest that to the editorial team - I think we wanted to keepit a bit hidden until we
That's a shame, thanks for askingaround though. And if it is released, we'll be the first to know, right? ;-)
On 30/01/06, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vijay - I'm not aware of any plans to open-source it, but I'm askingaround.
Cool. Why not release it as a beta to us here on backstage, and we can help find the bugs, tidy up the code etc. Just an idea, but it should sit well with the ITguys, and then all you need to do is convince the execs.
Thanks for your efforts.
Vijay.
On 30/01/06, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good work, I'll have to try it out later, but I've been looking for somthing like this, so thanks, and keep up the good work.On 09/02/06, Mario Menti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another late night, another IM bot...Someone suggested off-line it would be nice to have an IM bot that pushes news to
I'm still at uni, so I havn't tried it yet, but there's no way it can be worse or more bloated than the official BBC 'breaking news' application; espicially as I keep google talk running anyway.
On 09/02/06, Kirk Northrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vijay chopra wrote: Yeah, I've seen the breaking
I couldn't see your TV listings bot as online when I used GTalk , however when I tried using it, it worked fine. Hope that helps.On 09/02/06, Mario Menti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/9/06, Kirk Northrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bot doesn't seem to work for me - always offline?That's odd,
We're also interested in compiling a top 10 list of web feeds the BBC *should* make available have so nominations for that are gratefully received.
thanksJem, backstage.bbc.co.ukI know there are a bunch of coprright issues, but I'd love to have live sports results feeds, espicially for football as
On 19/01/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd imagine threaded conversations (which I think is what you are
suggesting) are difficult from a usability perspective, as well as
technically.
Remember this system is probably the first time many users have used a
messageboard, and this
On 19/01/07, Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are numerous discussions about the licence fee and other issues
relating the BBC's purpose, activities, and funding on the BBC Points of
view message board.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951574
There is also a bbc.co.uk
Can't they just hire some GPUs from mediatemple?
I don't think they have the money, and the budget will probably go down (in
real terms) due to the new licence fee settlement.
--
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL
PROTECTED][mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
*On Behalf Of *vijay chopra
*Sent:* 19 January 2007 11:48
*To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukhttps://mail.google.com/mail?view
its web services.
J
--
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *vijay chopra
*Sent:* 19 January 2007 13:36
*To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
*Subject:* Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
I didn't mean to try and drag you
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
from 13 weeks the planned amount of time
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 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
You may also be very interested in the OFCOM PSP document
The OFCOM DS and OFCOM DS Lite is outselling the OFCOM PSP by miles
though...
*Sorry*
*Ducks*
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...
I'm now taking bets on how soon BBC DRM is cracked.
Seriously, do the people who wrote that paragraph seriously think that they
can better
The Trust will require the BBC Executive to adopt a platform-agnostic
approach within a reasonable timeframe. 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.
Can anyone tell me if
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
Thank you for doing a good job here,
Thankfully Auntie is leading the way in this area, now that's done, it can
be used as a preident to move and adhere to open standards in all the BBCs
online activities. Once the whole of *.bbc.co.uk/* validates, perhaps you
can standrdise on multimedia
I wondered about that aswell, most of the work is out of copyright, so why
shouldn't the BBC (or anyone else) give it away for free? And the gibberish
about markets is a red herring, it's not the BBCs job to support the market
(whatevr OffCom says) it's the BBCs job to serve the public. All the
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
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
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
Hi Matthew,
Thanks for the link; I'd never seen the creative archive before, and I
agree, it's a step in the right direction, but I'm not a big fan of the
licence. For example clause 2.2.7 requires me to attach the creative archive
logo to any derivative works and the UK only clause is
That's not web 2.0 in a nutshell, these describe it much more clearly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA8NKzPvNBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pOkaC4eHsE
Yes, I'm cynical about the whole concept of adding javascript and a nice
logo to a geocities site, and calling it web 2.0. In reality web
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
It depends what you mean by failed Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is circumvented
by simply burning your tracks to CD, then ripping to MP3. I'd count that as
a failed DRM mechanism, as it's essentially useless. If the BBC implements
DRM that's as good as Fairplay, I'll be happy (as long as they don't
On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And yet it's still used...
Doesn't that say something?
It says that record execs are stupid, but we all knew that already.
On 08/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The purpose of being good enough to satisfy the people that own the rights
to the content - and therefore being able to release the content in this
manner.
Satisfy them to what end? The current arrangement temporarily satisfies
media
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
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
On 13/02/07, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Yep - the BBC doesn't even own the Daleks...)
The BBC owns *half* the daleks - specifically, the look and visual
identity. The estate of Terry Nation owns their behaviour.
So - if you want to use a picture of a dalek, you approach the
Just finished listening to it, well worth my time; thanks for the good job,
and it seems that the BBC now finally has some fully free content (even if
it's only one podcastl; what makes a downloadable audio file into a podcast
anyway??) that's available under a recognised copyleft licence. The
On 13/02/07, John Wesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. I spent a good few minutes looking for an RSS feed with the
podcast in it (there are loads of RSS feeds on the site) before just giving
up and grabbing the ogg.
The MSM (including the BBC) is guilty of doing this all the time,
Yep, just saw the news on /. : HD-DVD and Blu-Ray Protections Fully Broken
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/1724238 , so how much is the
Beeb going to put into DRM, more than Sony and Toshiba etc.
On 13/02/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just ran into this story over at Wired:
So I'm watching the World Business Report on BBC World and there's a story
about Google being attacked by media conglomerates about copyrighted videos
on YouTube. Apparently the BBC have decided to get their AP feed from
Nintendo these days...
On 22/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave,
The fact you deliberately linked to the print version of Vanity Fair -
thus removing the chance of the publishers to earn money from your visit
from advertising, and/or effectively market the other content on their
website, is very
On 23/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely the content wouldn't exist to link to without the adverts being
present - paying for the publishing of the content.
Ad blocking is short-sighted and selfish - you are costing the publisher
money and preventing more content being
On 26/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and bandwidth
then you should pay for it on their terms. Not a big ask. If the banner
or whatever payment terms they have annoys you, then don't go back.
If you don't want me to
On 26/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a point of interest, larger website owners *do* pay for the serving of
the ads (as well, in most cases, as the advertiser).
Incidentally, I have written stuff (for one of my websites) which blocks
website content if the ads don't load.
On 26/02/07, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26/02/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and
bandwidth
then you should pay for it on their terms. Not a big ask
On 26/02/07, Scot McSweeney-Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
vijay chopra wrote:
Try offering content that people want instead, and ask them to show
support by clicking on the ads;
I think asking people to click on the ads is against the Google's
Adsense policy.
https://www.google.com
On 26/02/07, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I completely disagree. The ToU of my website could preclude its use in
the way you're proposing. I can take proportionate steps to enforce my
ToU - which in this case could include preventing your proposed use.
Peter
--
Peter Bowyer
Email:
On 27/02/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth,
however, you're Adblocked.
If a site's a waste of bandwidth, what are you doing visiting
in the first place?
Making his evaluation? Don't criticise
On 27/02/07, Sebastian Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not really, why do I need to see a sites ads to evaluate it's content?
Because the ads are an intrinsic part of the site's content. That's what
the owner of the content has decided comprises the full work, and
therefore that's what you
On 27/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/27/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL
PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to
white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put
On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doesn't. Depends whether the ad is good enough for you to click on.
Not seen one yet - doubt I ever will.
Yet more proof that this list is not indicative of the general internet
users (which is understandable).
Adverts get clicks and
On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I
request, there is no obligation on me to request it all.
The deal your informally entering into with Slashdot is that in order to
pay for your request taking up thier
On 28/02/07, Jakob Fix [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something we're lacking in the UK is a Pandora ( http://pandora.com/)
like
service; indeed, I had to put an American Zip code in to continue to use
it,
it seems there is a gap in the market for someone to fill.
what about last.fm by the
On 01/03/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a film company can't produce a film and make money from it
through its own distribution model, then in the end it will
stop making films. There are plenty of people who would like
to make money doing what they like, but can't find a way
On 01/03/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.vecosys.com/2007/03/01/google-adds-traffic-flow-reports-but-there-is-a-better-way/
Google Maps adds a traffic info layer. Looks rather good, but it's US only
at the moment.
Example:
On 02/03/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Might interest some people here.
*http://www.youtube.com/BBC* http://www.youtube.com/BBC
*http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=bbcworldwide*http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=bbcworldwide
Which a third to come in the form of a BBC World
On 06/03/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And that's before you've got an operating system installed - even Linux
isn't without its legalities (GPL etal)
Actually, you can use GPL'd software without agreeing to the GPL; however as
the GPL gives you Certain rights, the software
Following the news that C-Span has adopted a Creative Commons style license
(http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/08/1723243), I'd just
like to ask who holds the licence to BBC parliament recordings?
As can be seen at big set piece events such as PMQs Sky, ITV and BBC etc all
seem
public service aspect to being able to keep a copy on my hard drive and
point to it when a politician backtracks and tries to pretends\he didn't say
something.
Vijay.
On 08/03/07, Matthew Somerville [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vijay chopra wrote:
As can be seen at big set piece events
On 09/03/07, Matthew Somerville [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vijay chopra wrote:
notice the distinct lack of downloadable video content. Is there any
possibility of a Video version of the Today in Parliament podcast?
As others have pointed out, parliamentlive.tv might be what you're looking
On 09/03/07, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(no need for a petition, TBH -
I think all parties are pretty willing to experiment in this area),
I was beaten to it anyway: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/nocrowncopyright/, :-D
Thanks for the link though, I had no idea that TWFY had an
On 28/03/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect you already know this, and perhaps your question is
rhetorical. I'll answer it anyhow :-). Some browsers had different
interpretations of the standards and render pages radically differently
from each other. Testing to the
On 31/03/07, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31/03/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then maybe there is something to your conspiracy theory. Seem as the
BBC's stats disagree with the BBC news articles. Something is not
quite right wouldn't you agree?
Either:
1. Browser stats are
On 25/05/07, Colin Moorcraft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I only got it once. Discrimination?
Ofcom will hear of this...
- Colin
Good luck with that; I tried to complain to Ofcom about the recent Panorama
on WiFi (The whole thing was blatently misleading, factually wrong and
biased), but
I _suspect_ they just fob people off and ignore complaints they
dislike. Or maybe I was unlucky and the two people I communicated with
didn't do their job properly?
Nope, that's normal; I used that site to complain about the changes to the
606 message boards, I was directed to a URL that I'd
On 12/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah yes. An insecure-by-design DRM scheme. Well that's useful, isn't
it.
Can't be worse the defective by design DRM we have now
A Digital Rights Management system that doesn't actually allow
you to manage anything.
You've just
Actually the ones who are watching again on their PCs are already getting
it DRM free:
via bittorrent or eMule etc.
and just find a non-techie friend who wants their Fairplay encumbered music
to work on their non-apple MP3 player; then tell me that people don't want
DRM free content.
Vijay.
On
There are many media people living in their London-centric bubble
(a.k.amedia-land) who as Andy's email said, are totally ignorant of
the basics of
modern technology. That isn't an insult, but a fact simply by virtue of the
fact that much of the general population couldn't tell you how a PC works
In which case, there's no point in taking this conversation further, for
two reasons. First, you're also ethically opposed to the existence of the
BBC - an organisation which exists because copyright material exists,
I thought the purpose of the BBC was to inform, educate and entertain.
none
On 16/06/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16/06/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are many media people living in their London-centric bubble
(a.k.amedia-land) who as Andy's email said, are totally ignorant of the basics of
modern technology. That isn't an insult
On 16/06/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 16 June 2007 18:13, vijay chopra wrote:
They don't need to know how a PC works, but I'll bet many couldn't even
pass an ECDL or CLAIT course (reflecting society as a whole); I wouldn't
claim to be able to plan a city without
AFAIK bypassing DRM or other copy protection is perfectly legal in the UK
and most of Europe; afterall, in itself it's not a breech of copyright.
Thankfully we don't have an equivilent of the American DCMA so the media
centre hackers have nothing to fear.
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
Vijay.
On
to
music).
Vijay.
On 18/06/07, Tim Cowlishaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm also NAL, (and have a terrible memory for these things),but doesn't
the EU Copyright Directive include some sort of anti-circumvention language
a la DMCA?
Cheers,
Tim
On 6/18/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ACSS decryption code? :)
You mean 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640 ?
In english that's; thirteen undecillion, two hundred fifty six decillion,
two hundred seventy eight nonillion, eight hundred eighty seven octillion,
On 19/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 18:41 +0100, vijay chopra wrote:
On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ACSS decryption code? :)
You mean 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640 ?
No, that's just a decryption key
On 19/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vijay chopra wrote:
On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I totally agree, however seeing as I have no intention of breaking the
spirit of the law (I may be breaching a technicality) I have
On 19/06/07, Andy Leighton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 07:31:03PM +0100, vijay chopra wrote:
On 19/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vijay chopra wrote:
On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
legal ways
On 21/06/07, Adam Bowie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/21/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:47 +0100, Adam Bowie wrote:
A single solution would be sensible in the long run.
No. A selection of _open_, interoperable solutions would be sensible.
As a
On 25/06/07, Graeme Mulvaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has nothing to do with freedom of choice or public service
remit... its just another woe-pen source bandwagon - instead of bickering
about the BBC using Microsofts' DRM, get together and come up with a
suitable open-alternative -
Tell that to Google ;p
Vijay.
On 02/07/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
beta means still doesn't work.
Cheers,
Rich.
On 13/07/07, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See also http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/12/bbc_osc_meeting/
And the inevitable slashdot dupe:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/14/1312236
On 24/07/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More seriously, if there's no announcement about (at the least) a
release date for a version for Mac by the end of the year, they may
have a point, but at the moment I still say the BBC are doing
absolutely the right thing, given the
On 24/07/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, to summarise; we couldn't implement the player on all popular
platforms then (which we realise is a problem), but we are working to
do it now, and we'll get the system out to the majority of users now,
hitting our initial target launch
On 25/07/07, Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We really don't mind talking about this...
thanks
Jem
I know that you guys don't mind talking Jem; the intent of my FOI request
was to get full, detailed *documentation* behind many of the important
decisions behind iPlayer.
I have to say
On 25/07/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You won't get anything, the FOI Act makes provision for the witholding of
documentation relating to commercial negotiations.
The whole point of the BBC is that it's not a commercial entity (at least
domestically). Besides, if I don't
Hi Dave,
Sun opened Java a while ago: http://www.sun.com/2006-1113/feature/
it's free now.
Vijay.
On 27/07/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Another glimpse at the future of television:
http://www.rulecam.net/ted/
(Free software under MIT/X11 style licensing, although its
On 01/08/07, Paul Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The choice of the BBC not to use these is almost certainly because of the
ability to hack them. Imagine if they released a system based on something
open and it got hacked within 3 days?
There's already a hacked version of iPlayer, it's
On 01/08/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/08/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not advocating eye patches and peg legs here, but personally I don't
see
a moral difference between getting something that's available on demand
free
from iPlayer via other means
On 02/08/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
secondly who buys a PVR that DRMs your recording?!
My friends tell me that their Sky+ boxes are highly restrictive.
Again, who (that is assuming sanity) buys the ridiculously overpriced
monstrosity that is Sky+ ?
On that note, what
On 02/08/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, now that Sky have dropped their £10/pm fee for the Sky+ features for
all customers, the V3 box has gone down in price too and it won't be much
longer until it's £30/40/free! I'd love to have a TiVo setup for Sky, but
that idea died
You missed the goings on at DefCon:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/03/232227from=rss ,
Though technically that was last week, it's the funniest (tech related)
thing I've seen in ages.
Vijay
On 10/08/07, Matthew Cashmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or rather 10 things that made us
PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/08/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You missed the goings on at DefCon:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/03/232227from=rss
,
Though technically that was last week, it's the funniest (tech related)
thing I've seen in ages.
Vijay
Indeed
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
