A delayed reply, but: On 16-Jun-2010, at 08:42, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
> All I can really do with you Mo is disagree. > > Of course the public has a right to make an informed judgement. And all > I can say is that on the blog we have linked to and exposed all sides of > the argument and all the facts (including linking to your Guardian piece > and blog posts - and I suspect more people read it there than would have > if it was published on the blog). Anyone who is a regular reader of the > blog and interested in this issue would be well informed. So, why is the case that: 1) no mention of the plan to scramble the EIT on Freeview HD as it is on Freesat was made on the blog, or anywhere else except a letter to Ofcom, until _after_ the issue was publicised by third parties? 2) why the explanation of what was actually going to happen (in the 2009-09 post) included from a technical perspective a link to a general Wikipedia page on lookup tables (not even on Huffman coding!), but not a link to the letter from Ofcom; no explicit statement that it was the same scheme as was employed by Freesat 3) why the following falsehood was included: "The only actions that may be prevented, and only for certain programmes, are retransmitting the content in HD over the internet or, in some cases, from making more than one digital copy of the highest-value content onto Blu-ray." 4) why were many of the (serious) questions posed on that first post never answered, and quite a few of the subsequent questions never really answered either? 5) why the second post (2010-01) states "networked distribution and viewing of HD content in the home is allowed" without mentioning that restrictions apply to what devices the content can be transferred to over the network (or, indeed, ordinary interconnect cables)? 6) given the following (from the 2010-01 post): "Indeed, the proposed Freeview HD content management approach is so 'light-touch' that some have argued that it is not worth having. But, this misses a key point - almost any copy protection system can be circumvented (if you put enough effort into it) - and that it is never going to be possible to prevent the determined pirate from lifting content. However, it is still really important to make sure that the unapproved copying and internet distribution of high value broadcast content doesn't become so easy that people don't think twice about doing it." …do the BBC and third-party rightsholders have ANY evidence *at all* which suggests that Joe Public were about to start doing this, rather than relying on the "determined pirates" who get on with it unabated today (go and look at a BitTorrent network for recordings from Sky HD, for example - there are plenty about, and their content protection measures are FAR more stringent than anything Freeview or Freesat will have) -- why would anybody except a determined pirate _bother_? Honestly, what have they got to gain from it? 7) Given that this affects _the whole of Freeview HD_, why is it only those who are "a regular reader of the blog and interested in this issue" who deserves to be well-informed? Indeed, one of the Public Purposes "Emerging technologies" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/purpose/public_purposes/communication.shtml) states: " 5. Work in partnership with other organisations to help all audiences understand and adopt emerging communications technologies and services. [...] The BBC will: • Work to support the media literacy of all of its audience. • Aim to be a trusted guide to new technologies for audiences. • Work with the wider industry to provide clear messages around benefits of emerging technologies. " Where was the BBC's role in fulfilling that aspect of this Public Purpose throughout this? Do you honestly think the BBC Internet Blog was it? > Again its not about the BBC not being honest. It's about the fact that > some people disagree with the BBC's position. But it's a honest > position, honestly held. No. Don't be so bloody ridiculous. Do you think I'm so incredibly stupid that I can't tell the difference between "I disagree with the position" and "I find the manner in which you've conveyed this information to be wholly unacceptable"? It may be honestly held -- I don't doubt that for a second -- but the devil's in the detail, and _that_ hasn't been anything close to being honestly conveyed. And, yes, I'm still irritated by this, in part because it continues today with the Android/iPlayer debacle. More misdirection and a refusal to put the cards on the table. M. PS. The Guardian post got a handful of readers, as far as I know - it was pretty much snuck in there, and people had all of 24 hours to read it and the consultation and respond to it. I have an inkling a fair chunk of its readers came from my own Twitter feed. Perhaps that was still better than a post on the blog, perhaps not, I honestly don't know. As I said, I have no particular beef with you on that! - 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]/
