On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 16:43, Nick Reynolds-FM&T <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mo, > > I am going out this evening so will be away from a computer. > > However I thought I would try and give you a quick response to some of > your questions. > > 1. Because I didn't know it was happening until after it was mentioned > by third parties. I'd point out that one of those third parties (Tom > Watson) corrected his first blog post about the subject as he admitted > was inaccurate.
Nick, you're responding as though I'm criticising _you_. I'm not. It's not your responsibility to know that this stuff was being sent to Ofcom and make sure that the public were properly informed of it. However, it *is* the BBC's responsibility to make this happen (and when that kicks off, _then_ it becomes your problem). Tom Watson having to correct his post is something I answered back when we were talking about this previously - he wouldn't have had to do that if clear and accurate information had been published by the BBC *in the first place*! > 2. Possibly because it wasn't published on the internet. I certainly > can't find it on OFCOM's website now. It was published -- that's how people managed to respond to it :) Graham Plumb would certainly have known where it was (and indeed, would have had a copy of it -- you could have hosted a copy yourselves!). It wasn't easy to find on Ofcom's site, because it was pitched at the broadcasting industry, not the public (even though it concerns every potential customer of Freeview HD!) It _should_ be here: http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/other-issues/bbc-multiplex-enquiry/ But Ofcom have completely reorganised their site in the last couple of weeks, so I have no idea where it might have gone now. > 3. Is this a falsehood? I'd like to know more. Yes, which is why I wrote the post which ended up in the Guardian: there are lots of things it prevents -- or at least seeks to -- so saying "the only thing you won't be able to is X" is false. > 4. We answered most of those questions in subsequent blog posts and > comments. A big part of the frustration on the part of the commenters was because questions weren't being answered. And, again, this isn't a criticism of you because I know you were trying to get answers, but ultimately a lot of quite clear and direct questions never had any followup at all. > 5. Don't know the answer to this one. Will check. Thanks -- appreciated. > 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to > keep honest people honest. If pirates choose to do certain things then > that is their responsibility not the BBCs. If we had no content > protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing > anything they want. The point is: what evidence was there that honest people *needed* technological measures to keep them honest? If they're honest, but do something in an "unsupported" way, perhaps with a cheap imported receiver, or an HD television which doesn't support the protected path, are they still honest? You're contradicting yourself when you say "if we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want": first, this is not true, because copyright law applies whether or not content protection is applied, and second, both Graham's post and your statement there says that you're not targeting the pirates in the first place. > 7. I'm not in charge of the BBC's Media Literacy strategy. I am only in > charge of the blog. I do my best to make it as accurate and impartial as > possible. Indeed, and again, much of this is not criticism of the BBC Internet Blog specifically, but of the organisation's broader policy and communication strategy as it relates to this issue. The Internet Blog is obviously a part of that, but it's not the be-all and end-all. > 8. "...but the devil's in the detail, and _that_ hasn't been anything > close to being honestly conveyed." > > I disagree - we have linked to and included all the detail that is > publicly available and tried to dig out as much as we can, and we will > continue to try and dig out more with an honest intent. I think *you* have tried to, certainly. I don't think you've managed it nearly as well as you could have if those providing the explanations and content had been as upfront as they could have - if they had, the questions above wouldn't exist :) > We do not spin or misdirect on the Internet blog. > > I am saddened by your assertion that we do. I'm as sure as I can be that you have no intention of doing so, but with the best will in the world, you don't *write* the posts, and do you? M. - 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]/
