Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"

[Richard P Edwards]

Matthew,

You all get about 8 out of 10 for trying.... and I am sure that there  
are some who have a clearer idea than I as to which course the BBC is  
on. ;-)
I think that it has been proven that the internet side of the BBC is  
just being viewed as an extension of the normal UK' centric  
Corporation of old. At least that is how it is publicised lately.  
Sadly, as with any large organisation, there is also another truth  
behind the scenes...... hence some of the unusual difficulties.
It has been explained to us here many times that the Rights Holders  
have the final say..... but if one reads the PACT version, it is  
clear that they are fighting hard to get the best deal available, yet  
still realise that they have a way to go.So it is true that the BBC  
are defending their position on that side as well. We also know that  
the BBC has content that they "own" 100% of the copyright.
The main problems are therefore all because of how the BBC is  
"selling" its own wishes for its future.... whether to the public  
directly, or government, or the Rights Holders.
Yes, there are commercial interests, but the BBC isn't viewed (yet)  
as a commercial business, so what Apple or Microsoft do can be viewed  
as of little consequence. Although, if you all are paid by Siemens,  
then I suppose you get an extra point for thinking like a commercial  
entity.
We all have a certain faith in Auntie, but don't take it for granted.  
The way that bits have been sold off and licensed to the highest  
bidder, or favourite ex-employee... and the closeness of those at the  
top, try a Wiki of Tessa Jowell, lead one to a very different picture  
of what is apparently happening there.
I still believe that the BBC has the power to be a worldwide source  
of important free speech, but please don't get lost in all the  
tinkering whilst the world moves on..... you may find that the  
producers and audience change direction and suddenly that position  
will become untenable.
I'm sure that all this was discussed before the World Service radio  
was released, and again before the actual web-site was put  
online..... now you guys have the brilliant opportunity with the  
"crown jewels".
It actually is quite easy to take the position that the BBC can  
broadcast freely worldwide, as Second Life has shown... I don't  
recall the public or bands complaining when the Scottish concert was  
broadcast there last year. In fact I recorded that concert from the  
net for viewing later, and it led me to buy the Snow Patrol album, as  
they say, job done :-)
The end point is that it is highly complicated for you all to start  
from a position of "enabling" the "user" to have as much "control" as  
possible...... I don't want to be enabled, I don't even want to be a  
user or have any control.... I just want to watch my favourite shows  
on the net when I wish..... if not, I will go and watch/use someone  
else's, and buy the DVD directly from the independent if I hear of a  
show that I have missed. But hey, in that case you, the BBC, make 15%  
profit for doing nada :-)
All the best
RichE

On 5 Feb 2007, at 16:20, Matthew Cashmore wrote:

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:owner- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard P Edwards
Sent: 05 February 2007 15:10
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
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: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
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