> if the BBC did try to use it's muscle, it could just get accused
> of bully-boy tactics by the industry who could then complain to
> the government etc - such things have happened in the past)
I thought the BBC was answerable to the Board of Trustees, not the
Government. Or is it a Government mouthpiece afterall?
the people who just decided what the BBC should do over the next 10
years looked very much like a Government to me
and the man who decided how much money the BBC should get over the
next 6 years looked very much like Gordon Brown
and the person currently busy appointing the next Chair of the BBC
Trustees looks just like that Tessa Jowell woman who runs the
Department of Culture Media & Sport
the BBC is a construct formed by political will, and exists so long as
that political will remains
as is only right and proper in a democracy.
if you want the BBC to move on from being a broadcaster (which it
looks to me like you do!), then engage in the wider political debate
about media policy.
> And IMHO the whole industry is pretty much following music.
> The music model is a known quantity. Non-DRM is less so.
> Ergo the industry goes with the known quantity.
The BBC is meant to do what 'the industry' doesn't, though. Otherwise,
what's the point?
Not true. The BBC is not there to do whatever the industry doesn't do.
Never has been.
What's the point, then? Well, the point of the BBC is that, by
informing, educating and entertaining everyone in the UK, the
population of the UK gains both individually and collectively to an
extent greater than the BBC's negative market impact
Read the charter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/
Bests
-tom
-
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]/
