> I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the
> internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC
> over the internet.
Because it's not free of charge -- it's our license fee that's going
to pay for the useless DRM technology, even if we don't use it. I
don't like paying more money to make something less useful.
So you don't want the content under any circumstances unless those
circumstances are *precisely* the ones you want. I see.
Your license fee hasn't actually gone up because of this, has it? You
haven't got an extra bill, saying "Cost of you paying for our DRM
system: 17p" have you? You've been (I hope) paying your license fee
for years, funding all kinds of activities that the BBC gets up to (I
personally object to having to pay for Strictly Come Dancing, but we
don't have the option to pick and choose the bits of the BBC our
license fee goes to).
During this discussion I've been growing increasingly more convinced
that those arguing against the BBC putting their content out with DRM
actually have no interest whatsoever in the actual content of that
content (if you see what I mean), rather, they're simply using it as
an excuse to start dropping the name "Richard Stallman*", regrinding
their axes on "freedom", and bashing Microsoft.
Rich.
* I propose an amendment to Godwin's Law - anyone mentioning Richard
Stallman automatically gets laughed out of the room and loses the
argument on the basis that they're more than likely to be simply
parroting currently fashionable views that they once read in "Wired".
**
** Please note that this is meant to be a humourous aside, and not the
point of this post. Ranty replies to this bit of the post will be
laughed at.
-
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/
