On 31/07/07, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 31 July 2007 19:50, Dave Crossland wrote: > > There are efforts to make unauthorised sharing of television as easy > > as possible though, such as http://www.rulecam.net/ted/ and this makes > > a mockery of highly restricted systems that abuse the public's rights, > > You're saying that "unauthorised sharing" is a right?
No no, sorry if I was unclear. Suppose I have epilepsy. With restricted media, I cannot have software that removes flashing scenes from videos that make video safe to watch for me. With unrestricted media, I can. Where can I get unrestricted media? If I am a computer novice, or not well connected in the underground, I can't get any. Why are the restrictions in place? To prevent unauthorised file sharing by the less savvy. Therefore, to remove the restrictions, increasing unauthorised file sharing by the less savvy is one strategy - that complements others, such as lobbying the government as you suggest. Civil disobedience can be effective; women and racial minorities are the poster children for effecting change in this way. > iPlayer does something that "TED" doesn't do: it specifically > enables people to get at content perfectly legally, without breaking the law For an unacceptably narrow sense of "get at," - so narrow it would be better if it didn't exist. Restricting people by requiring proprietary software is wrong and the BBC should not do 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]/
