Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
Strange,In my view the copyright law was written to make sure that the creator was paid their dues.. this argument is all about not using any of the content because no one knows who to pay and how much to pay. The creators will therefore lose money from other new streams of revenue it isn't about posturing, look at the music business, non-copyrighted music is beginning to be used instead.On 3 Nov 2005, at 13:38, Graeme Mulvaney wrote:This argument sounds similar to the debats rattling around about the rights to broadcast the 1996 and 2000 olympic games on-line. The ultimate solution was for the rights holders to designate the Internet as a novel communications stream and to auction rights for it accordingly. There's no point beating the BBC up about it - it's out of their hands - hell, even Google had to accept that no amount of posturing will get around copyright. On 11/3/05, Kim Plowright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's also complicated by the fact that there aren't just rights in theTV programme, there are all kind of underlying rights (ie, copyright on things that appear in programme) that might need to be cleared as well.Literary - a script, for drama; poetry, quotations, song lyrics, bookreadings etcWorks of art - might include buildings, logos etc, plus Photographs (and photographs of works of art have two sets of copyright...)Stagings - I think, called grand rights - for things like choreographyetcMusic rights - both in the composition, and the performancesTypography - ie, the layout of an edition of a book, even if the original text is out of copyright.An interesting case in point is the Daleks - the BBC owns the rights inthe way they look, but the estate of Terry Nation owns the rights in thecharacter and the way they behave. So if you wanted to use the image of a dalek you'd have to clear the rights with the BBC, but if you wantedto animate it to make it move and go 'Exterminate!' you'd also need toclear with the estate. http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/ownership.htm"Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (includinga photograph) lasts until 70 years after the death of the author. Theduration of copyright in a film is 70 years after the death of the last to survive of the principal director, the authors of the screenplay anddialogue, and the composer of any music specially created for the film.Sound recordings are generally protected for 50 years from the year of publication. Broadcasts are protected for 50 years and publishededitions are protected for 25 years. For copyright works created outsidethe UK or another country of the European Economic Area, the term ofprotection may be shorter. There may also be differences for works created before 1 January 1996."So - even if the broadcast copyright has expired, it's no guarantee thatthe underlying rights have...-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gordon JolySent: 02 November 2005 22:23To: [email protected]: [email protected]; Andrew BowdenSubject: RE: [backstage] Backstage - StagnantAt 12:57 +0100 26/10/05, Andrew Bowden wrote: > > Are there old shows in your archive that have had their>> copyrights expire? If so, there's no reason they can't be placed>> up right now, other then potentially bandwidth. (To which I'd say >> that you should offer them via torrent -- you keep running the>> tracker and a single seed, and let the mob> > effect take care of the rest.)>>IIRC it takes 50 years for the copyright to expire so that puts us in >1955.It is not a copyright issue, per se. It is a rights issue. Digitalrights.Here is an succinct description of "The duration of copyright" from http://tyler.hrc.utexas.edu/uk.cfmThe time period for copyright has grown continually longer over thelast three centuries. Many think it is now absurdly long. In Britainthe Copyright Act of 1842 introduced the idea of post mortem copyright protection; it established a copyright period of 42 yearsfrom the date of first publication or 7 years after the author'sdeath, whichever was the longer. The Copyright Act of 1911 extendedthe period to 50 years after an author's death; and the European Union Directive on Term of Copyright (adopted by the UK on 1 January1996) further extended the standard period to 70 years p.m.a. Thus in2004 works by authors who died in 1934 or any year thereafter remain "in copyright".Gordo (born 1955)--"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/[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/[email protected]/-- You can't build a reputatio
Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
This argument sounds similar to the debats rattling around about the rights to broadcast the 1996 and 2000 olympic games on-line. The ultimate solution was for the rights holders to designate the Internet as a novel communications stream and to auction rights for it accordingly. There's no point beating the BBC up about it - it's out of their hands - hell, even Google had to accept that no amount of posturing will get around copyright. On 11/3/05, Kim Plowright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's also complicated by the fact that there aren't just rights in theTV programme, there are all kind of underlying rights (ie, copyright on things that appear in programme) that might need to be cleared as well.Literary - a script, for drama; poetry, quotations, song lyrics, bookreadings etcWorks of art - might include buildings, logos etc, plus Photographs (and photographs of works of art have two sets of copyright...)Stagings - I think, called grand rights - for things like choreographyetcMusic rights - both in the composition, and the performancesTypography - ie, the layout of an edition of a book, even if the original text is out of copyright.An interesting case in point is the Daleks - the BBC owns the rights inthe way they look, but the estate of Terry Nation owns the rights in thecharacter and the way they behave. So if you wanted to use the image of a dalek you'd have to clear the rights with the BBC, but if you wantedto animate it to make it move and go 'Exterminate!' you'd also need toclear with the estate. http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/ownership.htm"Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (includinga photograph) lasts until 70 years after the death of the author. Theduration of copyright in a film is 70 years after the death of the last to survive of the principal director, the authors of the screenplay anddialogue, and the composer of any music specially created for the film.Sound recordings are generally protected for 50 years from the year of publication. Broadcasts are protected for 50 years and publishededitions are protected for 25 years. For copyright works created outsidethe UK or another country of the European Economic Area, the term ofprotection may be shorter. There may also be differences for works created before 1 January 1996."So - even if the broadcast copyright has expired, it's no guarantee thatthe underlying rights have...-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gordon JolySent: 02 November 2005 22:23To: [email protected]: [email protected]; Andrew BowdenSubject: RE: [backstage] Backstage - StagnantAt 12:57 +0100 26/10/05, Andrew Bowden wrote: > > Are there old shows in your archive that have had their>> copyrights expire? If so, there's no reason they can't be placed>> up right now, other then potentially bandwidth. (To which I'd say >> that you should offer them via torrent -- you keep running the>> tracker and a single seed, and let the mob> > effect take care of the rest.)>>IIRC it takes 50 years for the copyright to expire so that puts us in >1955.It is not a copyright issue, per se. It is a rights issue. Digitalrights.Here is an succinct description of "The duration of copyright" from http://tyler.hrc.utexas.edu/uk.cfmThe time period for copyright has grown continually longer over thelast three centuries. Many think it is now absurdly long. In Britainthe Copyright Act of 1842 introduced the idea of post mortem copyright protection; it established a copyright period of 42 yearsfrom the date of first publication or 7 years after the author'sdeath, whichever was the longer. The Copyright Act of 1911 extendedthe period to 50 years after an author's death; and the European Union Directive on Term of Copyright (adopted by the UK on 1 January1996) further extended the standard period to 70 years p.m.a. Thus in2004 works by authors who died in 1934 or any year thereafter remain "in copyright".Gordo (born 1955)--"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/[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/[email protected]/-- You can't build a reputation based on what you are going to do.
RE: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
It's also complicated by the fact that there aren't just rights in the TV programme, there are all kind of underlying rights (ie, copyright on things that appear in programme) that might need to be cleared as well. Literary - a script, for drama; poetry, quotations, song lyrics, book readings etc Works of art - might include buildings, logos etc, plus Photographs (and photographs of works of art have two sets of copyright...) Stagings - I think, called grand rights - for things like choreography etc Music rights - both in the composition, and the performances Typography - ie, the layout of an edition of a book, even if the original text is out of copyright. An interesting case in point is the Daleks - the BBC owns the rights in the way they look, but the estate of Terry Nation owns the rights in the character and the way they behave. So if you wanted to use the image of a dalek you'd have to clear the rights with the BBC, but if you wanted to animate it to make it move and go 'Exterminate!' you'd also need to clear with the estate. http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/ownership.htm "Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (including a photograph) lasts until 70 years after the death of the author. The duration of copyright in a film is 70 years after the death of the last to survive of the principal director, the authors of the screenplay and dialogue, and the composer of any music specially created for the film. Sound recordings are generally protected for 50 years from the year of publication. Broadcasts are protected for 50 years and published editions are protected for 25 years. For copyright works created outside the UK or another country of the European Economic Area, the term of protection may be shorter. There may also be differences for works created before 1 January 1996." So - even if the broadcast copyright has expired, it's no guarantee that the underlying rights have... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gordon Joly Sent: 02 November 2005 22:23 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Andrew Bowden Subject: RE: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant At 12:57 +0100 26/10/05, Andrew Bowden wrote: > > Are there old shows in your archive that have had their >> copyrights expire? If so, there's no reason they can't be placed >> up right now, other then potentially bandwidth. (To which I'd say >> that you should offer them via torrent -- you keep running the >> tracker and a single seed, and let the mob > > effect take care of the rest.) > >IIRC it takes 50 years for the copyright to expire so that puts us in >1955. It is not a copyright issue, per se. It is a rights issue. Digital rights. Here is an succinct description of "The duration of copyright" from http://tyler.hrc.utexas.edu/uk.cfm The time period for copyright has grown continually longer over the last three centuries. Many think it is now absurdly long. In Britain the Copyright Act of 1842 introduced the idea of post mortem copyright protection; it established a copyright period of 42 years from the date of first publication or 7 years after the author's death, whichever was the longer. The Copyright Act of 1911 extended the period to 50 years after an author's death; and the European Union Directive on Term of Copyright (adopted by the UK on 1 January 1996) further extended the standard period to 70 years p.m.a. Thus in 2004 works by authors who died in 1934 or any year thereafter remain "in copyright". Gordo (born 1955) -- "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/[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/[email protected]/
RE: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
At 12:57 +0100 26/10/05, Andrew Bowden wrote: > Are there old shows in your archive that have had their copyrights expire? If so, there's no reason they can't be placed up right now, other then potentially bandwidth. (To which I'd say that you should offer them via torrent -- you keep running the tracker and a single seed, and let the mob > effect take care of the rest.) IIRC it takes 50 years for the copyright to expire so that puts us in 1955. It is not a copyright issue, per se. It is a rights issue. Digital rights. Here is an succinct description of "The duration of copyright" from http://tyler.hrc.utexas.edu/uk.cfm The time period for copyright has grown continually longer over the last three centuries. Many think it is now absurdly long. In Britain the Copyright Act of 1842 introduced the idea of post mortem copyright protection; it established a copyright period of 42 years from the date of first publication or 7 years after the author's death, whichever was the longer. The Copyright Act of 1911 extended the period to 50 years after an author's death; and the European Union Directive on Term of Copyright (adopted by the UK on 1 January 1996) further extended the standard period to 70 years p.m.a. Thus in 2004 works by authors who died in 1934 or any year thereafter remain "in copyright". Gordo (born 1955) -- "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/[email protected]/
RE: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
Firstly I'd echo Tom's sentiment: >> Strange behaviours surface when you see bbc.co.uk at the end of your email >> address; fear of bringing opprobrium to the BBC due to saying the wrong >> thing in public can cause otherwise eloquent BBC employees to clam up. I'm normally happy to shout to the rooftops about what we've been doing, but I find myself a bit nervy posting to this list because I know firstly that it is populated by a load of very intelligent people, and secondly because anything I say, typos and all, is being instantly pinged into the in-boxes of some of the colleagues and peers that I respect the most. SO I don't want to say anything stupid. >> - The front page archive. --- One of the objectives of Backstage this year is to make as many of the submitted prototypes live on bbc.co.uk as we can. The homepage archive is the first of these and going live next week. Matthew submitted the idea to backstage, we liked it, we contracted (and paid) him to do the work to make it live on bbc.co.uk. We'd like and want to do more of this and are looking hard at some other contenders. The hold ups aren't the strength of your ideas or how they've been presented and I hope that Tom's mail has given you a little bit more background in terms of what we think we need. Hurdles are sometimes rights, and tricky infrastructure stuff but mostly its persuasion and reassurance which as Tom has said perhaps we've been doing too much behind closed doors. Maybe we should have been more forthright about saying that we *were* doing this. It has been an interesting challenge not just on the legal/contract side but on the product development side. The work to get it running for the BBC rather than outside the BBC is being done in my production group. Turning a prototype into a beta service with a BBC URL is something we are doing for the first time, and suddenly all sorts of considerations come into it. Here is just one example, if we know that we are about to do a one-off special version of the homepage, which will cause the archive to register every single thing on the page changing, and that breaks the templates the archive is published in, that isn't a problem for us if it is a backstage prototype hosted externally. Once we are doing it *as the BBC* however, suddenly someone emailing my team "Your homepage archive didn't work properly over the weekend" becomes an email we have to answer. So does that mean the templates of the homepage archive have become or should become, a design constraint on the homepage itself? So leaving aside the infrastructure considerations, these kind of product development decisions are things we frankly haven't done before. And they have been fun - I wrote up an initial draft of how to turn the 'prototype' into a 'beta product', and one of my Assistant Producers looks to have done a great job with Matthew in getting it up and running for us. ! But that has all taken time, and the work has had to be prioritised against the other work in my production area. We've also been working on generating some new, and hopefully useful feeds - I take on board the point about asking you what the BBC wants. When we have them properly running on live I'll remember to be vocal about what I was hoping might come out of them all the best, martin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeremy Stone Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant Could you /please/ start sending us some sort of > ongoing status things on the competition. We have a short list of three for the (3) prizes and we're now arguing the toss about who's gonna win. There's some legal fine detail that we've just sorted. So we just need to get in touch with the individuals first and then we'll announce it to the list and site. This took longer than I'd hoped. Partly because Ben was away and partly because I was crap. That said I'll say again we were genuinely taken aback with the quality of the prototypes submitted and will feedback in greater detail what we liked and what blew us away to the list/site again. I've dropped a note offlist to Leo from MightyTV and I'll do the same to the rest of you who entered. > > giving weekly status reports Ok we'll give it a go. For now here's whats on the slate.. Tom has filled in as admirably as ever on the bigger picture but here's some more detail. - RSS / APIs -- Data, data, data. I know this is the key to making backstage work for a lot of you and the BBC still has a limited range of data that we can offer for all sorts of reasons. However, centrally we now have some l
RE: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
That is a Good Question, the answer to which is a matter for debate as part of the current review of our charter- here are some links from which you should get an idea of the complexity of the rights/BBC archive argument. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22further+consideration+of+how+t he+BBC+can%22&meta= http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2004/08_august/02 /pact.shtml http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1522351,00.html http://www.equity.org.uk/journal/display_journal.asp?PageClick=4 http://technovia.typepad.com/technovia/2005/10/have_we_got_lic.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of flotsky Sent: 26 October 2005 13:01 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant >3) Enough of me telling you want the BBC wants from you. What else do >you want from us? > >-Tom Something I don't totally understand is why new content is still being produced under the contracts/agreements etc that prohibit it being shared and used as the BBC now aims to? Of course it is a lot harder to apply that desire to your archives of tv,radio and online content, but surely any new programmes/content being made now could be signed to a new agreement that allows for the "ripping,sharing and remixing" philosophy that the BBC seems now to want to do? Graeme - 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/[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/[email protected]/
RE: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
Could you /please/ start sending us some sort of > ongoing status things on the competition. We have a short list of three for the (3) prizes and we're now arguing the toss about who's gonna win. There's some legal fine detail that we've just sorted. So we just need to get in touch with the individuals first and then we'll announce it to the list and site. This took longer than I'd hoped. Partly because Ben was away and partly because I was crap. That said I'll say again we were genuinely taken aback with the quality of the prototypes submitted and will feedback in greater detail what we liked and what blew us away to the list/site again. I've dropped a note offlist to Leo from MightyTV and I'll do the same to the rest of you who entered. > > giving weekly status reports Ok we'll give it a go. For now here's whats on the slate.. Tom has filled in as admirably as ever on the bigger picture but here's some more detail. - RSS / APIs -- Data, data, data. I know this is the key to making backstage work for a lot of you and the BBC still has a limited range of data that we can offer for all sorts of reasons. However, centrally we now have some live test feeds of the popular links within search, jobs, tickets, BBC press releases, complaints, the BBC front page and tv pages. These are relatively small projects but the idea for converting them came from suggestions on the list. So thanks for the suggestions. Various other content feeds seem to be popping up every few days from the rest of bbc.co.uk so we'll let you know as soon as we find out. We'll also be testing out some of the potential changes to News RSS formats on backstage in the next week or so. This is because you lot in the past have been consistently helpful in feeding back ideas, spotting errors and suggesting stuff so we wanted to share them with you first. For now here are the test feeds for jobs and the press office. http://www.bbc.co.uk/home/test/jobs.xml http://www.bbc.co.uk/home/test/pressoffice.xml - The front page archive. --- One of the objectives of Backstage this year is to make as many of the submitted prototypes live on bbc.co.uk as we can. The homepage archive is the first of these and going live next week. Matthew submitted the idea to backstage, we liked it, we contracted (and paid) him to do the work to make it live on bbc.co.uk. We'd like and want to do more of this and are looking hard at some other contenders. The hold ups aren't the strength of your ideas or how they've been presented and I hope that Tom's mail has given you a little bit more background in terms of what we think we need. Hurdles are sometimes rights, and tricky infrastructure stuff but mostly its persuasion and reassurance which as Tom has said perhaps we've been doing too much behind closed doors. - Creative Archive Placements. -- This has come up on the list a couple of times in the past week so I'm pointing/cross posting you to this announcement from our colleagues working on the Creative Archive project. http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/news/archives/2005/10/artistic_archiv.html They have just announced two 4 month placements (funded by Arts Council England and hosted by the BBC). An advert turned up in the Guardian last Monday for artists, creatives, developers who "will have the opportunity to develop their professional career by undertaking research and producing new art works that creatively reuse sound and television materials from the BBC Archives. The placements offer specialist support and hosting by the BBC. Each of the successful artists will be eligible for a bursary of £10,000." There are 2 placements. One for Unlimited Distribution and one for Unrestricted Access. http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/browse/arts-and-heritage/arts-and-antiques/vacancy-1026018-1.html http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/browse/arts-and-heritage/arts-and-antiques/vacancy-1026018-2.html Basically you will get the chance to play about with the BBC archive. Leave the Likely Lads alone please. - So Jim and Graeme and the rest of you who have contributed to these threads, thanks for the welcome feedback about what we could and should be doing and are not doing. It's a welcome reality check. Thanks for nudging us along. ta Jem, backstage team - 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/[email protected]/
Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
>3) Enough of me telling you want the BBC wants from you. What else do >you want from us? > >-Tom Something I don't totally understand is why new content is still being produced under the contracts/agreements etc that prohibit it being shared and used as the BBC now aims to? Of course it is a lot harder to apply that desire to your archives of tv,radio and online content, but surely any new programmes/content being made now could be signed to a new agreement that allows for the "ripping,sharing and remixing" philosophy that the BBC seems now to want to do? Graeme - 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/[email protected]/
RE: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
> Are there old shows in your archive that have had their > copyrights expire? If so, there's no reason they can't be > placed up right now, other then potentially bandwidth. (To > which I'd say that you should offer them via torrent -- you > keep running the tracker and a single seed, and let the mob > effect take care of the rest.) IIRC it takes 50 years for the copyright to expire so that puts us in 1955. Unfortunately that's an era when the majority of programmes were broadcast live and not recorded so what's in the archive would be very limited. And all that works on the assumption that the copyright hasn't been extended in some way. I'm no expert on copyright law, nor have no idea what's in the archives, nor indeed how actors fees and things work on copyright expired programmes either! There's a couple of stations on satellite which reshow 1920s-1940s (mostly USA originated) programmes which are out of copyright. > What are the relevant contract terms for the other ones? How > much would it cost users if every time they downloaded a > show, they paid the full royality on it? There are likely > plenty of shows people would download that way. (I'd assume > that there isn't Crown Copyright involved, and if there were > isn't the Crown free to allow you to give away copies of > Her[1] material?) Now as I say, I'm no expert (I'm a layman who takes a casual interest in these things), but the other issue is that the BBC often doesn't have online rights for most of its earlier programming - hey, when BBC7 launched, they didn't even have the rights to broadcast via digital, huge tranches of programming. It took them quite some time before they could open up the archive for broadcast on digital, and even longer before they could offer it on the BBC Radio Player online. These are all complex issues, and alas they take time. It all depends on what contracts have been signed and with who - especially when it comes to actors. There's one famous actor (I forget who, but he often appears on ITV) who won't let people show any clips of programmes from the 60s and 70s that he appeared in. And that's just television! Ask anyone who has ever worked in the area of programme rights and they'll tell you that it is (alas) a very complicated, and very murky world. And it's a world that's pretty hidden from you or I, but steps out from the shadows when people like yourself, rightly ask start asking the questions, "why can't we do this?", "why don't you do that". Unfortunately the answer is (more often than not) pretty depressing reading :( - 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/[email protected]/
Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
>>Are there old shows in your archive that have had their copyrights >>expire? If so, there's no reason they can't be placed up right now, >>other then potentially bandwidth. (To which I'd say that you should I thought even shows out of copyright might still need releases from the performers involved. - 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/[email protected]/
Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
>Does anyone want to volunteer up something to chew over? Have you (or anyone) tried the Mood News TTS podcast? Not had any feedback yet :-( Thanks, Davy Mitchell - 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/[email protected]/
Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 02:23 +0100, Tom Loosemore wrote:
> There are several reasons (some sound, some not-so-sound) why we've
> not yet managed to make more APIs available. All I can ask for is
> (yet more) patience. We do have some tasty new stuff in the works - a
> BBC programme archive catalogue API, for instance - although the
> postcoder API probably isn't going to be as sexy as we'd dearly wish,
> for all the usual dull rights-related reasons. Before he set off on
> his hols, Ben was hopeful about weather, but the truth is you never
> really know what fresh problems are going to hit until the 'go live'
> button is just about to be pressed (and sometimes only after that...).
>
> The benefits of 'open media' are second nature to many people on this
> list, but it still an alien concept to most rights holders, be they
> inside or outside the BBC. Much of our work has focused on selling
> an open media model inside the BBC - probably too much of our time,
> seeing how we've neglected the very people we should be serving
> first (you lot).
>
> Our lack of engagement and communication with all of you on this list
> is exceptionally bad form, for which I apologise on behalf of the BBC.
One thing: Could you /please/ start sending us some sort of ongoing
status things on the competition. Even if every day you send a mail
that says "we've looked at these 5 prototypes, and the winner today is
'foo'", then when you run out of prototypes to take a first look at, run
second-stages, etc, until you get to a winner. That's how the quiz
shows do it, and there's no reason not to emulate them.
Really, I think as much as giving weekly status reports is considered to
be Evil with a capital E, they wouldn't go amiss. If we don't know what
you're doing, it's difficult to find ways to help you do what we want
you to do, or even understand why it is that you seem to get nothing
done. I suspect you /are/ getting a lot done, we just aren't hearing
about it.
> Maybe we really have 'gone a bit native'. Strange behaviours surface
> when you see bbc.co.uk at the end of your email address; fear of
> bringing opprobrium to the BBC due to saying the wrong thing in
> public can cause otherwise eloquent BBC employees to clam up. Ask us
> questions - there are lots of BBC people on this list.
I quite understand; suddenly when I became management at a web forum I
frequented, all the things I cursed the Gods for made sense. (Yes, I do
mean the Gods; the site in question is perlmonks.org.)
> 1) What is the BBC's Internet Strategy?
>
> It's here, in strategy-speak powerpoint.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/newmedia/bbccoukstrat.ppt
> or here, or horridly exported html
> http://www.tomski.com/bbcstrategy/bbccoukstrat.htm
>
> To summarise, the BBC's internet priorities are:
>
> i) On Demand ('How can we make our programme available on demand?')
Well, this really seems pretty easy. Give us URLs. Duh. I know, I
know, now the scepter of "rights" bears it's ugly head. My first
question is "what are the rights"?
Are there old shows in your archive that have had their copyrights
expire? If so, there's no reason they can't be placed up right now,
other then potentially bandwidth. (To which I'd say that you should
offer them via torrent -- you keep running the tracker and a single
seed, and let the mob effect take care of the rest.)
What are the relevant contract terms for the other ones? How much would
it cost users if every time they downloaded a show, they paid the full
royality on it? There are likely plenty of shows people would download
that way. (I'd assume that there isn't Crown Copyright involved, and if
there were isn't the Crown free to allow you to give away copies of
Her[1] material?)
[1] -- (Or is it Its, since the Crown in question will outlive it's
present holder? I'm afraid I'm not up on the protocol involved, not
having been born to this culture.)
Could you set up a dvd-on-demand program? Users go through the catalog,
say "I want this, this, and this", you burn a DVD, and in the mail it
goes. On a contractual basis, it's the same as the DVDs the BBC already
offers of many of it's shows. It's not as simple as just downloading,
for anybody (except possibly people who don't know how to watch movies
on their computer), but it gets around any rights issues, except with
contracts so old as to have no clause dealing with selling copies of the
material rather then broadcasting it.
-=- James Mastros
-
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/[email protected]/
Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
Richard Edwards wrote: As an example, this week Sky News re- launched, even as a normal event there should be a complete re-design of the BBC news site by now. Thats quite interesting; why _should_ there be a complete re-design? What factors are in play to make that a mandatory event? There was one defining point for me during the competition, before the summer, there was a lot of discussion about copyright. I don't think copyright is really an issue. The data is available in all sorts of non BBC feeds, you just have to look for them. The issue is, I feel, more fundamental - so far the BBC backstage project has been more of a technical gimmick without any clear mission statement or purpose. Watching people develop new ways to display news content, or TV content is only interesting to a point; being shown where Romford is on a map is interesting to an even smaller degree. The BBC backstage project needs to give itself a proper mission and goal - just making data available and waiting to see what people do with it isn't really inspiring or useful. - 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/[email protected]/
RE: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
Title: Message >I think a key thing is feedback - and this needs to happen quickly to keep the flow of conversation / development going. Hmn, yeah, sorry. I think Ben's holiday came at a slightly unfortunate time, bless his cybergoth socks. Come home, Ben! We (bbc and nonbbc folk) aren't wonderful about giving feedback on people's prototypes on the list. Does anyone want to volunteer up something to chew over? Also - what about an open 'ideas' conversation on list? A bit of general chat about one of Tom's Topics might help us all spark off each other? As a non-coder I'm always happy to look over stuff and provide the 'why don't you think about it in this completely impossible to impliment way' sort of input. I get the feeling that conversations tend to spin off between individuals rather than staying on-list and providing grist to all... There may be some more stuff being released from our department (drama and entertainment) to you lot soon. I'll poke our chaps at this end... I'll also try and write a similar thought-provoking bit to Tom to try and get some non-factual ideas kicking around... k -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leo LapworthSent: 26 October 2005 08:53To: [email protected]: Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant On 26 Oct 2005, at 02:23, Tom Loosemore wrote: - Any radical innovation in PVR EPGs. I'd love to hear from anyone playing with Digital TV & Radio - be that with Freeview versions of the MythTV open source EPG or Topsfield 5800s ( see http://www.toppy.org.uk/ ) The pandora/promise.tv 7-day PVR started life as a Myth TV-based prototype we commissioned (see http://www.promise.tv ) In short, bring internet thinking to Digital TV & radio - it's fun, and the collision between the two worlds is bound to lead to some tasty new stuff emerging. Isn't that http://www.mightyv.com/, at least a start of that ? We already work with eyeTV and have plans for others (maybe a MythTV plugin), in fact we have lots of ideas, but we want to find out about the competition results before motivating our selves to take it further. I think a key thing is feedback - and this needs to happen quickly to keep the flow of conversation / development going. Cheers Leo
Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
On 26 Oct 2005, at 02:23, Tom Loosemore wrote:- Any radical innovation in PVR EPGs. I'd love to hear from anyone playing with Digital TV & Radio - be that with Freeview versions of the MythTV open source EPG or Topsfield 5800s ( see http://www.toppy.org.uk/ ) The pandora/promise.tv 7-day PVR started life as a Myth TV-based prototype we commissioned (see http://www.promise.tv ) In short, bring internet thinking to Digital TV & radio - it's fun, and the collision between the two worlds is bound to lead to some tasty new stuff emerging. Isn't that http://www.mightyv.com/, at least a start of that ?We already work with eyeTV and have plans for others (maybe a MythTV plugin), in fact we have lots of ideas, but wewant to find out about the competition results before motivating our selves to take it further.I think a key thing is feedback - and this needs to happen quickly to keep the flow of conversation / development going.CheersLeo
Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
Hi Jim et al
Fear not, Jim, your post won't be read the wrong way. I want to
thank you for sending it, Backstage is mostly my fault, and your
email stung - in a good way. I hope you'll have provide the kick up
the posterior that helps ensure henceforth reality matches rhetoric.
There are several reasons (some sound, some not-so-sound) why we've
not yet managed to make more APIs available. All I can ask for is
(yet more) patience. We do have some tasty new stuff in the works - a
BBC programme archive catalogue API, for instance - although the
postcoder API probably isn't going to be as sexy as we'd dearly wish,
for all the usual dull rights-related reasons. Before he set off on
his hols, Ben was hopeful about weather, but the truth is you never
really know what fresh problems are going to hit until the 'go live'
button is just about to be pressed (and sometimes only after that...).
The benefits of 'open media' are second nature to many people on this
list, but it still an alien concept to most rights holders, be they
inside or outside the BBC. Much of our work has focused on selling
an open media model inside the BBC - probably too much of our time,
seeing how we've neglected the very people we should be serving
first (you lot).
Our lack of engagement and communication with all of you on this list
is exceptionally bad form, for which I apologise on behalf of the BBC.
Maybe we really have 'gone a bit native'. Strange behaviours surface
when you see bbc.co.uk at the end of your email address; fear of
bringing opprobrium to the BBC due to saying the wrong thing in
public can cause otherwise eloquent BBC employees to clam up. Ask us
questions - there are lots of BBC people on this list.
Whatever, it's clear that the consequences of staying schtum on a
list such as this outweighs the risks outlined above.
So sod it, I for one am going to deliver a BBC.co.uk core dump:
1) What is the BBC's Internet Strategy?
It's here, in strategy-speak powerpoint.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/newmedia/bbccoukstrat.ppt
or here, or horridly exported html
http://www.tomski.com/bbcstrategy/bbccoukstrat.htm
To summarise, the BBC's internet priorities are:
i) On Demand ('How can we make our programme available on demand?')
ii) Context ('How can we aggregate public service media produced by
the BBC and by others in new and valuable ways? How can we help
people navigate round it all given the paradox of choice?')
iii) Engagement ('Our website is successful, but still feels like
Ceefax v2.0 - how can we turn bbc.co.uk into a true many to many
public service media environment, while still keeping hold of the
values which have made the BBC what it is today etc etc'
iv) Ubiquity ('How can we get our content everywhere people might want it?')
2) Ideas which get me going, and might persuade me to splash some
cash, include:
- Brand new ways of aggregating, navigating, annotating, searching
and generally getting to grips with 1,000s of TV & Radio programmes
in an online environment (not just the web - anything IM-related
would rock). Trust me, have no poverty of ambition with this stuff.
The more bonkers the better. Nothing is sacrasanct, including
channels, the schedule and especially the traditional EPG grid.
- The bbc.co.uk homepage: It's always been an awkward compromise.
Please tell us how to make it better. Please. Less has got to be more.
I'm glad to report progress implementing one simple but powerful idea
from backstage - a BBC homepage archive will go live "soon" as a
result of this prototype:
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/prototypes/archives/2005/07/bbc_homepage_ar.html
and yes, he did get paid.
- Local, local, local. New, clever ways to tag & aggregate as wide a
range of BBC content as poss, even in the absence of geocoding. The
challenge here isn't so much the aggregating (postcodes, anyone?),
it's more about scraping existing content and making educated
guesses about the localities for which any given url is relevent.
You've done some awesome stuff integrating BBC content with Google
Maps, but I just know it's possible to go much, much further.
- Any radical innovation in PVR EPGs. I'd love to hear from anyone
playing with Digital TV & Radio - be that with Freeview versions of
the MythTV open source EPG or Topsfield 5800s ( see
http://www.toppy.org.uk/ ) The pandora/promise.tv 7-day PVR started
life as a Myth TV-based prototype we commissioned (see
http://www.promise.tv ) In short, bring internet thinking to Digital
TV & radio - it's fun, and the collision between the two worlds is
bound to lead to some tasty new stuff emerging.
3) Enough of me telling you want the BBC wants from you. What else do
you want from us?
More than the usuals
-Tom
Hi,
Please don't read this in the wrong way but is the backstage project
becoming stagnant?
A few months ago there was a lot of hype and it sounded promising
but for me personally
Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
if you look at the way they've rehashed their schedule Sky News is actually moving closer to the News 24 editorial style - having more 'programming' and less rolling news. On 10/26/05, Richard Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps my analogy misled you.The BBC, as a television network has continually moved forwarditself. Most of the high points were when creative genius invented a certain quality for the public to consume. be it in news,entertainment or information on the web.It is not a competitionbetween Sky and the BBC as you say. but re-branding happens inboth organisations. So how can the BBC in one infant area lead the way now? It is myopinion that copyright and access to certain information and contentgo hand in hand. Whether it can be free and used as such isdetermined by those very contracts. A few days ago there was a discussion about using the Met office feeds. as far as I saw,once the price that they charge for their service was mentioned thenthe ideas dried up.It is interesting that this is a public corporation yet the nearest the actual designers and programmers get to having all that supportis basically to give away your project should it be any good.I think a balance of being actually able to access expensivecontent ... BBC services for your itch if you like, and having the programmers supported in their ventures, in any way, is prettyimportant. I can think of a million things to do with old programmes,just like the original dance beats of the late eighties and ninetiescame from earlier songs looped or sampled by artists who were just in to music. Those programmers took action to use that content.This can be a brilliant place for ideas, but ultimately those ideasseem to me mostly attached to the control and distribution ofdata . would be great to hear from the corporation, what have they actually got than can be used now?RichOn 25 Oct 2005, at 22:06, J.P.Knight wrote:> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Richard Edwards wrote:>>> I somewhat agree. I am not a programmer but I watch the mails here >> for a clue as to where people want things to go. The BBC have>> incredible resources yet there seems to be more innovation of the>> Apple Discussions board. As an example, this week Sky News re- >> launched, even as a normal event there should be a complete re->> design of the BBC news site by now. Eh? Why would Sky News being re-launched (which was such massive > news in and of itself that this was the first I'd heard of it!)> cause a complete redesign of the BBC news website? I can imagine> it working the other way round, but why would a leading UK web news > service change its distinctive look-n-feel just because a wannabe> has tried to rebrand itself? As Duncan says, it is a two way street here. My thing is music,>> but I see Backstage as a programmers BBC3.. I think it should >> be serious, and therefore needs it's own copyright contract and>> possibly some kind of fee structure for both sides. Oh no! That sounds like it will just drift down the commercial route. > Those of us who just want to play with BBC services and scratch a> developmental itch will be back to square one. If folk want money-> exchanging-contracts with the BBC, please do it in smoke filled > rooms and not on backstage.>> As for the bursty nature of this mailing list, it probably depends> on many factors, including (but not limited to) folks' free time,> competition dead lines, sudden bouts of ideas and folk bouncing new > ideas off each other. I don't think we've seen a "killer app" yet> that creates a constant background of postings.>> Jim'll> -> 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/[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/[email protected]/-- You can't build a reputation based on what you are going to do.
Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
Perhaps my analogy misled you. The BBC, as a television network has continually moved forward itself. Most of the high points were when creative genius invented a certain quality for the public to consume. be it in news, entertainment or information on the web.It is not a competition between Sky and the BBC as you say. but re-branding happens in both organisations. So how can the BBC in one infant area lead the way now? It is my opinion that copyright and access to certain information and content go hand in hand. Whether it can be free and used as such is determined by those very contracts. A few days ago there was a discussion about using the Met office feeds. as far as I saw, once the price that they charge for their service was mentioned then the ideas dried up. It is interesting that this is a public corporation yet the nearest the actual designers and programmers get to having all that support is basically to give away your project should it be any good. I think a balance of being actually able to access expensive content ... BBC services for your itch if you like, and having the programmers supported in their ventures, in any way, is pretty important. I can think of a million things to do with old programmes, just like the original dance beats of the late eighties and nineties came from earlier songs looped or sampled by artists who were just in to music. Those programmers took action to use that content. This can be a brilliant place for ideas, but ultimately those ideas seem to me mostly attached to the control and distribution of data . would be great to hear from the corporation, what have they actually got than can be used now? Rich On 25 Oct 2005, at 22:06, J.P.Knight wrote: On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Richard Edwards wrote: I somewhat agree. I am not a programmer but I watch the mails here for a clue as to where people want things to go. The BBC have incredible resources yet there seems to be more innovation of the Apple Discussions board. As an example, this week Sky News re- launched, even as a normal event there should be a complete re- design of the BBC news site by now. Eh? Why would Sky News being re-launched (which was such massive news in and of itself that this was the first I'd heard of it!) cause a complete redesign of the BBC news website? I can imagine it working the other way round, but why would a leading UK web news service change its distinctive look-n-feel just because a wannabe has tried to rebrand itself? As Duncan says, it is a two way street here. My thing is music, but I see Backstage as a programmers BBC3.. I think it should be serious, and therefore needs it's own copyright contract and possibly some kind of fee structure for both sides. Oh no! That sounds like it will just drift down the commercial route. Those of us who just want to play with BBC services and scratch a developmental itch will be back to square one. If folk want money- exchanging-contracts with the BBC, please do it in smoke filled rooms and not on backstage. As for the bursty nature of this mailing list, it probably depends on many factors, including (but not limited to) folks' free time, competition dead lines, sudden bouts of ideas and folk bouncing new ideas off each other. I don't think we've seen a "killer app" yet that creates a constant background of postings. Jim'll - 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/[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/[email protected]/
Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Richard Edwards wrote: I somewhat agree. I am not a programmer but I watch the mails here for a clue as to where people want things to go. The BBC have incredible resources yet there seems to be more innovation of the Apple Discussions board. As an example, this week Sky News re-launched, even as a normal event there should be a complete re-design of the BBC news site by now. Eh? Why would Sky News being re-launched (which was such massive news in and of itself that this was the first I'd heard of it!) cause a complete redesign of the BBC news website? I can imagine it working the other way round, but why would a leading UK web news service change its distinctive look-n-feel just because a wannabe has tried to rebrand itself? As Duncan says, it is a two way street here. My thing is music, but I see Backstage as a programmers BBC3.. I think it should be serious, and therefore needs it's own copyright contract and possibly some kind of fee structure for both sides. Oh no! That sounds like it will just drift down the commercial route. Those of us who just want to play with BBC services and scratch a developmental itch will be back to square one. If folk want money-exchanging-contracts with the BBC, please do it in smoke filled rooms and not on backstage. As for the bursty nature of this mailing list, it probably depends on many factors, including (but not limited to) folks' free time, competition dead lines, sudden bouts of ideas and folk bouncing new ideas off each other. I don't think we've seen a "killer app" yet that creates a constant background of postings. Jim'll - 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/[email protected]/
Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
Jim, I somewhat agree. I am not a programmer but I watch the mails here for a clue as to where people want things to go. The BBC have incredible resources yet there seems to be more innovation of the Apple Discussions board. As an example, this week Sky News re- launched, even as a normal event there should be a complete re-design of the BBC news site by now. There was one defining point for me during the competition, before the summer, there was a lot of discussion about copyright. I am sure that there are loads of ideas on both sides, but until the BBC themselves get organised, most of the content is locked under the control of the owner. In my opinion that never leads to innovation I can watch complete TV channels, "live" from the US and only old programmes. I can listen to any radio on the planet, but I can't make a podcast using any copyrighted music.. well for a start the BBC owns most of the Mechanical rights to the music historically played on Top of the Pops. At least in the 70's and 80's all artists re-recorded their work just for that show. As Duncan says, it is a two way street here. My thing is music, but I see Backstage as a programmers BBC3.. I think it should be serious, and therefore needs it's own copyright contract and possibly some kind of fee structure for both sides. I don't mean that people have to pay, but there needs to be some incentive. If there is a future for the BBC's own content then they need to tell us more about what we can have access to not just wait till guys this side ask. Plus if the programmers are going to put in the hours there needs to be a light at the end of the tunnel. After all if I wrote a TV show I would know that I could get the BBC to get involved with all the technical aspects of filming. they would still pay me as well, plus give me a contract for any future uses. I just want to watch all the BBC channels live on the web. now that would be excellent. Rich On 25 Oct 2005, at 18:02, James wrote: Hi, Please don't read this in the wrong way but is the backstage project becoming stagnant? A few months ago there was a lot of hype and it sounded promising but for me personally I havent seen much in the way of new "things" for the developing community to use. Yes, the feeds are great but to some extent they were already out there and if we're honest it was only a matter of time before people began to use them without the BBC's consent. We are yet to see anything of the API's which have been "to follow soon" for months now and there has been little implementation or word of it from any of the numerous prototypes that have been put out. As a group I've also noticed that messages are sparse and recently more about petty points than anything interesting to developing. I think the concept of the backstage is great but I for one would like to see a more active, engaging approach from the BBC and I think there is only so many places one can take an RSS XML feed... How about some ideas from the BBC about things they would like to see? How about real life ideas which they potentially want to implement? Any thoughts on this? Jim. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/[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/[email protected]/
Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
I have to agree with you that at times the list has been very quiet, and some new prototypes or feeds would help fix that. However, that means that people have to make new prototypes or feeds. There are a lot of "Ideas" on the Backstage site, but the problem with them is that a lot are suggestions to the BBC about what content could be put out there, and only a few are ideas about what to do with what is there. Some of those could be developed though. Ben/Jem, any chance of splitting the ideas section into two parts under that kind of split (for BBC and for developers)? It would make it better for everyone. Personally I would like to make a new prototype, and there is something that I started a while ago but never finished. Might try and finish it over the next few days/weeks. It would be nice to get some ideas from people who aren't developers (and therefore won't be restricted by the "that's not possible" thoughts), and BBC staff would be as good as anyone for that. There may also be ideas that Ben/Jem/anyone else involved in Backstage have been hiding from us, so they could be good too. There is also the option of trying to come up with a backstage open source project, where we try to make something for the BBC, but the problems with that are that it may not get used (not so much of a problem if it is something general) and that it may be seen as the BBC getting work done for free (although not the people making it, but from people who aren't familiar with the whole idea of volunteering code/time for a project for what would effectively be commercial use, even when that was clearly stated at the start). Backstage does seem to vary greatly in activity, with massive peaks at key points (around the launch and competition deadline for example) and very low activity in between. It would be nice to have more activity all the time ... It has been suggested in the past that universities be invited to encourage students to participate in Backstage. Has there been any progress about that? Duncan James wrote: Hi, Please don't read this in the wrong way but is the backstage project becoming stagnant? A few months ago there was a lot of hype and it sounded promising but for me personally I havent seen much in the way of new "things" for the developing community to use. Yes, the feeds are great but to some extent they were already out there and if we're honest it was only a matter of time before people began to use them without the BBC's consent. We are yet to see anything of the API's which have been "to follow soon" for months now and there has been little implementation or word of it from any of the numerous prototypes that have been put out. As a group I've also noticed that messages are sparse and recently more about petty points than anything interesting to developing. I think the concept of the backstage is great but I for one would like to see a more active, engaging approach from the BBC and I think there is only so many places one can take an RSS XML feed... How about some ideas from the BBC about things they would like to see? How about real life ideas which they potentially want to implement? Any thoughts on this? Jim. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
[backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
Hi, Please don't read this in the wrong way but is the backstage project becoming stagnant? A few months ago there was a lot of hype and it sounded promising but for me personally I havent seen much in the way of new "things" for the developing community to use. Yes, the feeds are great but to some extent they were already out there and if we're honest it was only a matter of time before people began to use them without the BBC's consent. We are yet to see anything of the API's which have been "to follow soon" for months now and there has been little implementation or word of it from any of the numerous prototypes that have been put out. As a group I've also noticed that messages are sparse and recently more about petty points than anything interesting to developing. I think the concept of the backstage is great but I for one would like to see a more active, engaging approach from the BBC and I think there is only so many places one can take an RSS XML feed... How about some ideas from the BBC about things they would like to see? How about real life ideas which they potentially want to implement? Any thoughts on this? Jim. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
