It's not about imposing the BBC's ethics on everyone else. But the BBC does have a code of ethics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/ But those ethics are about how we make things, not how they are distributed. The BBC's position is that to serve licence fee payers we make it available as widely as possible as freely as possible within what's practical and the law. For the BBC DRM is not a principle, it's a tactic. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Sparks Sent: 21 November 2007 21:16 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC Podcasts Including Music On Wednesday 21 November 2007 00:16:13 Dave Crossland wrote: ... > on this issue like that; merely that they should not contribute to the > problem by only using proprietary or patent-encumbered formats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2#Patent_holders You won't be watching TV after digital switchover and don't watch DVDs ? > Universal access is the ideal, but the iPlayer attacks that ideal > because it is proprietary and DRM. So if the BBC makes the current > iPlayer work in GNU/Linux in the interest of universal access, that > will be tragic. Promoting proprietary software and inflicting DRM on > people is unethical. OK, consider this: > Promoting proprietary software and using DRM is unethical. > Promoting proprietary software and using DRM is ethical. > Promoting taxing the rich more than the poor is unethical. > Promoting taxing the rich the same proportion as the poor is unethical. > Promoting everyone the same numerical amount because it > proportionately taxes the poor more is unethical. > Promoting taxing the poor more than the rich is unethical. > Promoting marriage as the only valid environment to bring up children > is ethical Promoting marriage as the only valid environment to bring > up children is unethical Promoting marriage between more than two > individuals is unethical Promoting marriage between more than two > individuals is ethical Promoting marriage between people of only the > same sex is ethical Promoting marriage between people of only the same > sex is unethical Promoting abortion is ethical in all cases Promoting > abortion is unethical in all cases Promoting abortion is ethical in > the case of rape Promoting abortion is unethical in the case of rape > Promoting belief in a particular (pick a religion)'s god(s) is ethical > Promoting belief in a particular (pick a religion)'s god(s) is > unethical Making cookery programmes featuring fat people really > enjoying high calorie chocolate cakes, puddings and desserts is > unethical Making cookery programmes featuring fat people really > enjoying high calorie chocolate cakes, puddings and desserts is > ethical I'm pretty sure that you could probably find proponents for all of those ethical stances. Each proponent could probably find some instance of BBC output to shout about (cf the Jerry Springer The Opera debacle). Do we really want the BBC to be the nation's arbiter on ethics? Whose ethics matter? The "tyranny of the majority" or protection of minorities ? Where does it stop? You want a publically funded body consisting of unelected employees telling the public what's *ethical* ? I'm personally uneasy with where that route leads... Other opinions are available. The BBC is currently required by the rights holders to use DRM. Banging on about your own personal ethics is all well and good, but the BBC aren't the ones making the rules about content here. Unless you want the BBC performing criminal acts, or not doing something the audience appears to want. Michael (personal comments) - 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]/ - 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]/
