Hi Kim! On 03/04/07, Kim Plowright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Dave lab66 lol :-)
I'm sure you make similar good points in your email but it> has come through with little whitespace and is near illegible. Might be> a problem with your client?
Didn't do anything unusual, guess GMail messed it up... Thanks for telling me! Here it is again: The point about this Apple/EMI deal is that they have costed out the"cost" of non-DRM. This is very significant, and something MilesMetcalfe suggested in the DRM Podcast. Since there's no transcript, here's my understanding of what Miles was on about: The BBC was in a unique position to be the first to challengeentertainment businesses on their assumption that they cannot makemoney without DRM. How? Calling their bluff by asking to cost it out, and negotiate overreal figures. Apple/EMI have beat them to it, but as Tom Loosemore said at the startof the DRM podcast, the BBC dropped the ball on strategic future mediavision some time ago. In a capitalist system, everything has a price, even intangibles. Sowhat is the precise figure of the risk that non-DRM formats poses toproducers? Specifically, at what price would they sell the BBC the rights topublish online in non-DRM formats? It makes sense for the BBC to offer non-DRM formats because it ispublicly funded, and restricting the public isn't good. It makes sense for the BBC to seriously ask how much this would cost,because it is publicly funded and can actually pay a reasonablepremium for such non-DRM rights. So far, this has not been discussed anywhere openly. All we have fromApple/EMI's no-DRM publishing is a 130% price, and a higher bitrate. The higher bitrate is a misdirection, as someone else already said inthis thread. The price is still significant, though. The BBC is paying rightholders to be able to publish things in the DRMiPlayer, they could pay them 130% of that cost and have no DRM. Sounds like that hundreds-of-thousands budget figure bandied about todevelop "Open Trust Model DRM" or whatever it was, could be betterspent on these 30%s. Prices are ultimately set by what the market can bear, and whenproducers have talked about the price of non-DRM content before, namedvast sums that the market simply would not bear. The BBC needs to be prepared to call their bluff on this. If I can buy a DVD of a whole series for £20, watch any episode asmany times as I like, convert any ep to a format that will play on myiPod, and even share duplicate copies of the discs with my friendsusing software that comes with the operating system, then somethinglike £5 per showing per person is clearly a nonsense figure that themarket simply won't bear. Even with tards like Ian out there :-D The thing about putting it into numbers is that they can be tested. £5per showing per person can be put to the test in the market, as anexperiment. If the public engages at this price point, amazing. Ifthey don't, either the price has to come down, or a better service hasto be provided. I'll be interested to see what happens to the 130% price, if it goesup or down. The other thing about putting it into numbers is that it examines theassumption that producers should be paid for things that haven'thappened yet. Performers are by their nature egotistical, and tend tooverestimate the size of their audience. The risk that they are successful, and non-DRM files will hurt theirincome, must be considered next to the risk that they areunsuccessful, and they will have no income at all. The other group who are influential in the BBCs use of DRM is the BBCTrust. For them to mandate DRM seems to be the tail wagging the dog. Surely the "public value test," that the trust is meant to evaluateBBC activities with, is failed by DRM, since DRM provides no value tothe public at all? Its possible that, despite this Apple/EMI deal, television productioncompanies will never take part in any non-DRM discussions. The BBC has said it is committed to new talent, though, so if thisreally turns out to be the case, the BBC can either become an elitistinstitution propping up the old established players, or make good onits commitment and start giving new talent the exposure that theyneed, on the new terms that they will no doubt be comfortable with. And pay them 30% more than the big boys! -- Regards,Dave - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
