On 15/06/07, Stephen Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the BBC were to think more strongly about going down the route of free online downloads of all material, I'm sure that a public consultation, perhaps on a wiki based format may come up with some revenue generating ideas which have not been considered already.
I think you're missing the point a bit. The BBC can think what it likes, and it doesn't matter - what matters is what the rights holders think, and unless you can persuade them that they won't lose money, the BBC's hands will be tied. To reiterate: the BBC cannot do free, un-DRM'd downloads unless either it pays them a huge sack of money or people like you and I demonstrate to them that no-DRM doesn't equal no money. The BBC has no magic wand it can wave to make no-DRM happen. With regards to the sport aspect, I'm not so sure the BBC would lose
coverage of the Olympics etc. After all, the olympics is supposed to encompass the world, and hence a freely available catalogue of the games might well add value to the bid to get the games rather than reduce.
I can assure that navigating that argument through the IOC would be... well, an *interesting* task. Virtually *all* the IOC's income is from TV coverage of the games. Anything that could potentially reduce that by one cent wouldn't even get close to a hearing. Perhaps a bit rambling, but just wanted to say that free content may not
kill the commerciality of programmes entirely.
You're right, it doesn't and it won't. But arguing that at the BBC is a waste of breath, because they're not the people you need to persuade.
