On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Scot McSweeney-Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Iain Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Similarly, if Channel 4 want to DRM all their media then it's entirely >> their choice because they don't have my money and they aren't funded >> by what amounts to a tax. If I was a Channel 4 shareholder I might >> raise the same issues of DRM at an AGM > > I don't think C4 have shareholders, they're a public broadcaster like the > BBC (just advertising funded, not tax funded). IIRC, they were originally > funded by what amounted to a tax on the ITV companies. > > This page http://www.channel4.com/about4/overview.html has this - > > "The Corporation's board is appointed by OFCOM in agreement with the > Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport." > > So it looks like C4 is shareholder-free.
Wow, every day is a school day. I never realised that. Even so, none of my money is going towards Channel 4 so I don't feel like it's any of my business how they digitally distribute their programming. This is entirely aside from the fact that DRM as a technology is moribund and I think it's very foolish for any company to invest seriously in it, especially one that is already broadcasting its content in a better format unencrypted and in a manner which is a lot harder to track than over IP. We already linked to XKCD in this thread didn't we? Oh yes, I see that we did :) - 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]/
