On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Thomas Leitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pay £££££££ for a license to freely distributre individual bits of content. > Spend many months > dealing with each different holder of those rights... you've probably guessed > that there isn't one > mammoth, single "rights holder", or distribute it in a "protected" form to as > many people as > possible. A format which obviously doesn't satisfy the vocal minority.
One thing I've always found unconvincing is the way the BBC bleats "but the production companies won't let us distribute the content DRM-free!". The BBC has major clout - it could say "from now on, all production contracts we sign HAVE to allow DRM-free redistribution". It could refuse to pay megabucks for that. Given the piss-poor state that ITV is in at the moment, what would the rights-holders do? Take their bat and ball and go where exactly? The rights-holders need the BBC just as much as the BBC needs them - if not more. -- Ian Partridge City of Southampton Orchestra - http://www.csorchestra.org Next concert 5th April - Elgar: Enigma Variations - 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]/
