Hi there,

Is this not a step in the right direction?

http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/

Unfortunately we have to actually make things work, and whilst many of us here 
at the beeb would love nothing more than to release all of our content, like 
we've done above, the people who own the rights don't want us to... so we're 
back to Toms point of having to make a stark choice... release what we can 
using accepted* DRM, or don't release anything... surely it's better to move 
things on in terms of making the content available via the iPlayer, than to not?

* By the rights holders.

m


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Richard P Edwards
Sent: Fri 02/02/2007 19:09
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
 
Hi Dave,

Yes, it was a mistake on my part that I hit reply and the previous email didn't 
end up on the list. Apologies.
As I said at the beginning, it will be interesting to see why anyone believes 
that DRM is needed on BBC products. So far I have seen no clear reason 
whatsoever, apart from as you say, a defensive legal willingness to support an 
old model. Still, I get the feeling that my wish to have access to the BBC 
archive for free use to remix its content is as yet a dream. :-)

All the best
RichE

On 2 Feb 2007, at 16:49, Dave Crossland wrote:


        Hi Richard!

        (I notice you didn't reply to the Backstage mailing list, perhaps in 
error?)

        On 02/02/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


                I totally agree that DRM is not a complete answer, but neither 
is
                giving it all away for nothing.


        Copyright was originally an industrial regulation on printers, and I
        see no reason why it cannot continue as an industrial regulation. The
        public now have copying machines. It is impossible to change that
        fact, and unethical to deny it. Copyright law as it is today is
        totally broken by this, in as much as it treats the public in an
        unjust way.

        But business is adaptable (even if some businesses are not...) and the
        public is a relatively small market.

        Let me try and break down "Giving it all away for nothing"...

        "Giving." If you put up a micropayment (ie, paypal) tip jar and put
        good copywriters to task on making good 'sales' copy and include those
        words everywhere they are appropriate, you'll find that people like to
        give back to things that they appreciate.

        "it all." Although a poor quality version on YouTube available the day
        it is finished is good enough for a lot of people, that is not the
        whole thing. The thing is spread out across time and space. Physical
        containers of the work - collectors editions and top
        packaging/mechandise -  are still worth paying for. I have never
        bought a DVD for myself, because I've only ever downloaded films, but
        I've bought a load as presents for other people. A burnt off CD
        doesn't quite do the same trick :-)

        "away." It is true that you don't have as much control as you used to,
        and that the public will inevitably end up remixing what you did with
        something else, and maybe even making some money off all the ads on
        their webpage when their remix becomes popular. You're never going to
        see any of that cash, but, as an industrial regulation, copyright can
        still work. An Ad agency, for example, won't be able to get away with
        using your work like that, without getting a copyright license.

        "for nothing." Don't confuse no money with no thing. What you get by
        allowing people to fileshare is 'mindshare' or 'social capital.' Ask
        PR companies about how valuable that can be.

        I think that all paid knowledge work will become custom work, paid for
        because someone wants something done for them for another purpose. Ie,
        moving from a profit center in its own industry to a cost center of
        another industry. This is fuelled mainly by the falling costs not only
        of the costs of distribution, but of production. Everyone becomes a
        producer of all every kind of information once the tools and time to
        know the tools become cheaply/widely available enough.

        -- 8< --
        1. Playing live. You can never replicate a live show so this is great
        for fans, artists and managers. At a certain point you can make a
        fortune. Major record companies are now trying to get a piece of
        bands' live incomes as they realise they are on the wrong hobby horse.
        2. Merchandise. If it's good it will sell.
        3. Synchs. You get paid loads for putting your music on adverts and 
films.
        4. A record deal. You still need one but it's an engine room for the
        rest of the business.
        -- 8< --
        - 
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/01/if_you_want_to_get_ahead_get_a.html


                Perhaps I can make money selling bikes.


        Depends how good your chinese is... :-) Selling non-technologisable
        consumables like freshly prepared food is probably your best bet :-)

        If, in 20 years time, there is not enough money to be made in 'content
        creation,' because the price of production and distribution have
        fallen so far that everyone is not only famous for 10 minutes but is
        their own media magnate, then it will be a shame that $100m films are
        not made any more.

        Kind of like it is a shame that massive, massive landscape paintings
        of the countryside are not made any more, because photography killed
        painting about 100 years ago.

        People still do business, and we still have Art, and even a few Art
        Stars still obtaining mega patronage.

        There will always be plenty of ways to make money.


                <Snip>
                    Most people will be helpless to do anything about that, 
other than
                > feel bad about themselves for not understanding whats going 
on and
                > thinking computers are shit.

                This happens to most people I know that use Windows, on a 
regular
                basis.! :-)


        This is a real shame - I find work for myself helping people like this
        discover free software :-)

        With any popular GNU+Linux distribution, there are lively online
        communities of users who will explain what went wrong, and how to
        avoid it. Mailing lists, web forums, chatrooms, so on. The world can
        be a friendly place :-)


                So, any other options? How about an attached "cookie", or can I 
tag
                an mp3 file.... that allows me to know where my files are on 
the net,
                be it music or video.....


        Such spying is clearly of interest to advertisers, but its just not
        possible. Well, files on the public net is perhaps possible.

        If you 'tag' your music, you can use search engines to find it more
        easily. And if you run the BitTorrent tracker yourself, you can get
        statistics on its use.

        But these are just vague indicators of real use: If I download a music
        file and transfer it to my portable player, and then from that to a
        friends computer, you'll never know.


                I could play for hours watching their
                journey around the world on Google Earth, watching all my 
"users"
                enjoying my gift.


        This is so passive... Wouldn't it be better to be conversing with your
        fanbase on a messageboard like the BBC is doing with the Backstage
        mailing list? :-)

        -- 
        Regards,
        Dave



Reply via email to