I think you make some very valid points there Richard, I just want to show that the BBC is trying very hard to move in a direction that enables the user to have as much control as possible. The News Quiz is a good example - we release the News Quiz via a podcast feed with no DRM at all - but it's only 'live' during the series... once the series is over the feeds go dead - but not the files you've downloaded. This area is highly emotive - I don't think we'll ever find an answer that will make everyone happy, or for that matter will be the best solution for the BBC or the user, or the rights holder... but give us some points for trying! :-) m
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard P Edwards Sent: 05 February 2007 15:10 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer" Hello Matthew, Yes, obviously this is a step in the right direction.... I looked at that site as soon as it was first released. Which was before I knew anything about GeoIP and the BBC's re-negotiated terms of agreement with PACT, last May, even before the fuss over the Met Office's weather feeds. The UK only clause completely barred and censored me from that content. This is definitely an interesting journey, fraught with difficulties, and I think that it is really important for you at the BBC to realise and take in to account some of what is discussed here..... after all it is only a discussion. If my perception is biased or incorrect, then I apologise. Still, there is clearly a collision of two worlds. One being the freedom of data on the net, worldwide.... the other being how a public corporation controls such data, and who the BBC's "shareholders" are in that decision. I have learnt much during my time following backstage, and most of it has involved finding possible ways to circumvent the controls that you have put in place..... not that I would consider using the data illegally for financial reward at this moment, but I am now very aware that it is possible. I think that Lord Puttnam could do with some more information regarding the possible pitfalls, especially with using the iPlayer. In my experience, as soon as you release the data, whether it be on iPlayer with DRM or not, one has to be totally clear about how it may be "abused" and to what extent the BBC will defend such abuse.... as Devil's advocate, how would the BBC sue me and twenty thousand others publicly on behalf of the Rights Holders and make the case for supporting such a waste of money? I think we are all aware from the RIAA's experience of the limitations of that course, and so perhaps it is right to see the opposing perspective... especially where content that the BBC does own copyright for is concerned. I do think that the positive "social capital" is definitely worth considering. All the best RichE On 4 Feb 2007, at 21:42, Matthew Cashmore wrote: 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
