Hi Andrew!

Thanks for chipping in with this, it reflects very much what Tom
Loosemore said in the Backstage DRM Podcast - that BBC DRM was a
regrettable but neccessary evil, done only at the behest of the
production companies who feed the BBC.

On 12/06/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

independent production companies, foreign broadcasters etc
wish to commercially exploit the programmes they have
made (and they are allowed to do this), and they wish to exploit them
online as well as on cable and satellite channels, or foreign media.

Restricting the availability of the BBC downloaded version allows them
to do that.  If a BBC downloaded version was available to all forever,
it would destroy their commercial exploitation online.  So to restrict
the availability, you /currently/ need Windows DRM.

The worldwide public are non-commercially sharing everything that can
be encoded digitally. The production companies are out of touch with
this simple fact, and they need to know that the idea they can
restrict the public availability of their copyrighted works is a
flawed one. The BBC can play a role in helping them understand this;
it is failing to do so.

One way that I favor is to tell them to get on with trying to exploit
their works online themselves, let them deal with the fiasco of trying
to do DRM, themselves, and build up demand from the public for the BBC
to provide works through the Internet with public notices that point
the finger at the rights holders. Then, when the rights holders
realise that DRM is a bad idea, the BBC can step in with a
DemocracyPlayer/tvnanny.org/etc style solution and save the day with
something truly marvelous.

I won't go any further into the "rights" and "wrongs" of those
discususions.  I just thought I'd explain why it is like it is so it is
all out in the open.

I appreciate it! :-)

--
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/[email protected]/

Reply via email to