On 02/01/2007 08:30 PM, vijay chopra wrote:
> I would rather the BBC aired all that stuff with expired copyright, all
> that copyleft\creative commons talent, and gave exposure to new talent
> who are willing to show me how good they are without dictating how I use
> what I've seen.
I would rather the BBC didn't become YouTube.
> >The day the BBC sells its airwaves to the highest bidder in this way
> >is the day they betray the public's trust.
>
> You misunderstand, I wasn't advocating that they sell to the highest
> bidder, merely expressing the view that there are so many people wishing
> to be on the BBC that the BBC wouldn't even have to pay them, but would
> be able to charge artists to appear.
So the only thing I got wrong was saying 'highest bidder',
rather than 'any bidder'?
Just like the eminently defeatable locks on your house help you
to sleep at night, so DRM helps some media people sleep at night.
??? Are you serious, if the lock on my door was as easy to break as DRM,
I would be up all night with a baseball bat under my pillow,
I wasn't suggesting the locks and DRM are of equivalent strength,
merely that locks and DRM can both serve the purpose of allowing
people to avoid worrying so much about something they fear. Most
real-world locks are actually pretty bad, but they still work
because few people test them to see if they're really steel or
simply tinfoil.
are these "media people" so stupid as to believe that DRM gives more protection
against copyright infringement than giving a quality product that people
want to pay for?
I don't believe the choice is between 'do a good job' or 'protect it with DRM'.
I believe it's between 'publish it without any notional protection and
risk losing control of it', 'publish it with some protection that the
average customer will tolerate and hopefully keep some control of it',
and 'don't publish at all until we see what the real risks and benefits
are'. This last option is also known as 'last-mover advantage', and
is traditionally favoured by established players in a changing market,
especially if they can run to their Daddy in the legislature for help
in retarding change until they retire to just outside of Seattle.
For the avoidance of doubt, as a card-carrying member of the FSFE
and a supporter of the EFF, I am *not* pro-DRM; but, as a member
of the human race with a modest degree of pragmatism and a finite
life-span, I believe that cramming the live-free-of-DRM-or-die mantra
down the unbelievable number of throats that my fellow Earthicans possess
is the argumentative way to re-build our world in true digital glory.
In some ways, DRM is a comfort blanket that the young digital age is
using to get through difficult growing pains; the trick is to make sure
it doesn't get dragged into adulthood, covered in drool and cat hair.
--
Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
