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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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/

Reply via email to