Might as well add in this one too...
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/BroadcastnowBlogEntry.aspx?BlogEntryID=155
On 17/10/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I meant to say, perhaps Backstage would have more "success" if we could
> commercially exploit the BBC content and give Auntie 20% instead of doing it
> for free and giving the Beeb 100% of nowt. ("I ask for nothing"/"You shall
> have it in abundance")
>
> On 17/10/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I get the feeling that today is the end-of-the-BBC day: BBC.com users
> > "unequivocally" believed advertising would reduce their trust in the BBC
> > brand, so we now hear that..
> >
> >
> > Ads set for BBC.com website
> >
> >
> > http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2193103,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=4
> >
> >
> >
> > *Mark Sweney and Tara Conlan Wednesday October 17, 2007
> > MediaGuardian.co.uk <http://www.mediaguardian.co.uk/>*
> >
> >
> > BBC News and BBC Worldwide have agreed a deal that paves the way for
> > advertising on the corporation's international website, BBC.com.
> >
> > The BBC Trust is discussing today giving the green light to plans to
> > allow adverts on BBC.com.
> >
> > But MediaGuardian.co.uk <http://mediaguardian.co.uk/> has learnt that
> > last week BBC News and BBC Worldwide, the corporation's commercial arm that
> > oversees BBC.com, came to an arrangement that is being put to the trust
> > this afternoon.
> >
> > According to sources, Worldwide has agreed to pay a minimum guaranteed
> > income to the public service broadcasting part of the BBC.
> >
> > In return Worldwide gets the rights to use BBC news content for
> > commercial gain and a licence to exploit the BBC brand commercially.
> >
> > Worldwide will also cover the loss of around £4m a year the BBC's
> > international news website gets from the Foreign Office in grant-in-aid.
> >
> > On top of that, Worldwide has guaranteed a percentage of revenue raised
> > from BBC.com advertising will go back to BBC news. It is not known what
> > the percentage is.
> >
> > Last year the National Union of Journalists was told that the figure
> > would be around 20% but it is thought the actual percentage is less than
> > that.
> >
> > Opponents of the move to allow advertising on a BBC website have sent a
> > round robin message to staff and a message to the BBC Trust, claiming that
> > deal does not benefit BBC news as much as first thought.
> >
> > They claimed that while BBC.com ad revenue would be in dollars, costs to
> > BBC news would be in pounds, leaving the financial benefit to the
> > corporation's public service broadcasting arm open to exchange rate
> > fluctuations.
> >
> > However, other sources denied BBC news is unhappy with the agreement as
> > "all the major advertising firms work in dollars" and all major companies
> > have to "hedge against market fluctuations".
> >
> > BBC executives are keen for advertising on BBC.com to go ahead to help
> > fill the gap left by a lower-than-expected licence fee.
> >
> > Although the terms of the deal have been hammered out, BBC Worldwide
> > cannot proceed with the proposals without the approval of the BBC Trust,
> > which has already deferred the decision once.
> >
> > The trust asked senior management for more information on editorial
> > safeguards, how revenues would be fed back to the BBC and how the site fits
> > with Worldwide's wider strategy.
> >
> > But it is understood that BBC Trust chairman Sir Michael Lyons is keen
> > to resolve the issue and sign it off today.
> >
> > Last month MediaGuardian.co.uk <http://mediaguardian.co.uk/> revealed
> > that BBC Worldwide sidelined research that found that US audiences would be
> > turned off by advertising on the international BBC website.
> >
> > According to a source involved in the research, a study commissioned by
> > the corporation in late 2005 on the US west coast found that BBC.comusers
> > "unequivocally" believed advertising would reduce their trust in the
> > BBC brand.
> >
> > Further research, conducted in key US cities including New York and
> > Boston, drew the same conclusions.
> >
> > However, the BBC subsequently focused on later research studies that
> > were more positive about the likely response to adverts on the international
> > version of its website.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 17/10/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thus...
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil_(cryptography)
> > >
> > >
> > > On 17/10/2007, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 17/10/2007, Glyn Wintle < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > The BBC could avoid all this mess if it eschewed DRM and instead
> > > > employed
> > > > > standard formats.
> > > >
> > > > The problems of DRM and Cross Platform are entirely separate
> > > > concepts.
> > > > Evidently the BBC has hoodwinked you. Ah large media companies
> > > > trying
> > > > to con the public, why does this seam like a bad dream?
> > > >
> > > > Implementing DRM at the OS (here I really mean lower level OS, i.e.
> > > > the kernel, or wherever else you put the proper access control
> > > > stuff)
> > > > layer on an untrusted machine is pointless, the user has hardware
> > > > access and can drop down to that level. If you are going to allow
> > > > them
> > > > to go under your DRM "protection", why not place it at the
> > > > application
> > > > layer? (most if not all DRM schemes do this, note that simply being
> > > > shipped with the OS doesn't place an application in the OS layer
> > > > security wise).
> > > >
> > > > So OS layer DRM is absolutely useless, now you have a 3 choices (4
> > > > if
> > > > you count no DRM):
> > > > 1. Implement DRM at the Hardware Layer, using tamper-proof hardware
> > > > (has it's own problem hinged on key distribution, or getting trusted
> > > > data to the hardware).
> > > > 2. Accept it's going to be insecure and implement at the Application
> > > > layer.
> > > > 3. define an open standard (based on otgher standards, HTTP, XML
> > > > TV-Anytime etc.) and let implementers worry about it.
> > > >
> > > > Selecting option one means the BBC will have to have a conversation
> > > > with the likes of Intel, AMD and hardware manufactures, who will no
> > > > doubt laugh them out of the office. It would them have to wait years
> > > >
> > > > for the old hardware to be replaced (or you could produce an
> > > > external
> > > > add on, but production of these would be tricky, who gets to produce
> > > > it, without interfering in the market. If anyone can produce it have
> > > > you compromised security be releasing decoding keys, etc.)
> > > >
> > > > Option 2 can (and does) "work" irrespective of Operating System. (by
> > > > work I mean is implementable, it may also may attacks harder but in
> > > > no
> > > > way offers what a security expert would consider secure).
> > > >
> > > > Option 3 certainly works, it's worked for HTTP, Email and numerous
> > > > other technologies (too many to mention)
> > > >
> > > > The BBC have never answered why they simple did not use a standard
> > > > that would reach all platforms. It can be done. Why does the BBC pay
> > > > OUR money to join standards committees (W3C, ETSI) if they are not
> > > > going to use the standards produced?
> > > > (Easier, Faster, Cheaper, Compliant with regulators, I see no
> > > > downside, unless you work for Microsoft (or know someone who works
> > > > there))
> > > >
> > > > > This is not a technology problem
> > > >
> > > > Cross Platform development was a technology problem, it's been fixed
> > > > in many different ways. Unfortunately the BBC is either too
> > > > incompetent or too corrupt to use any of the fixes developed by the
> > > > likes of the IETF, IEEE, ISO etc.
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open
> > > > windows.
> > > > -- Adam Heath
> > > > -
> > > > 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]/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Please email me back if you need any more help.
> > >
> > > Brian Butterworth
> > > www.ukfree.tv
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Please email me back if you need any more help.
> >
> > Brian Butterworth
> > www.ukfree.tv
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Please email me back if you need any more help.
>
> Brian Butterworth
> www.ukfree.tv
>
--
Please email me back if you need any more help.
Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv
