Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
dave - this is a wild exaggeration. The suppliers that you dislike so
are companies who provide content for the BBC for licence fee payers to
enjoy. Their interests have considered just like everyone else's.
No the BBC needs to consider the interests of the licence fee payers.
Any residuals are trivial compared with core funding and the purpose of
the BBC.
If supplies do not wish to deal with the BBC they are free to pursue
that option.
Enforcement of copyright especially through technical measures, is not
the role of the BBC, especially for third party content.
The public service role of the BBC requires unencrypted broadcasts by law.
The public have funded (at least in part) the creation of the material.
and should be free to use it, how they choose, and when they choose
without DRM or other restrictions.
Copyright is enforced by the state not the BBC.
The following is speculative:
The doctrine of first sale should apply to content (in my view), even
where copyright applies, and the US courts appear to agree.
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/10/06/software_ownership_ruling/
"One major consideration in that was the fact that the studio did not
have the right, as it did in other agreements, to demand the return of
the print."
By analogy the BBC cannot demand the return of the TV signal. It is
mine, to sell if I wish (as long as I only sell my copy once ?).
Also:
"The court’s decision today is not based on any policy judgment.
Congress is both constitutionally and institutionally suited to render
judgments on policy; courts generally are not," the Court ruled.
"Precedent binds the court regardless of whether it would be good policy
to ignore it."
A similar relationship exists between the BBC and the parliament (law).
-
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]/
