Um, it's not weview, it's YouView, (though no, I'm no fan of the name or the branding) and copyright for content of a website is usually vested in the website owner- I'd doubt you'd find much different on most commercial company web sites, and YouView is a commercial joint venture (albeit with a PSB partner). Your points regarding the marketing spend are open to debate, butif this is going to be a success and bring IP TV to most UK livingrooms then yeah, it will need selling. A good idea won't sell itself.
a On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Woods <chris...@infinitus.co.uk > wrote: > > > Yeah, and I *love* the way that the jv is kicking the foss community in > the teeth over t&c... > > The least they could do is give something back! Actually, correct me if I'm > wrong, but haven't they got to make the source code available? > > I've already been on the phone to them about possibly opening the stack so > homebrew kit could receive and make use of the environment... The foss > community could even help. > > This bit? > > "All copyright, trade marks, design rights, patents and other intellectual > property rights (registered and unregistered) in and on YouView.com and > YouView Content belong to YouView and/or YouView’s licensors. Please respect > copyright." > > If they intend for that to cover the entirety of FOSS contribs, that's > particularly cold. Not a fan of what's being done there at all. > > What I dislike almost as much is this revelation in that previously linked > article: > > "The seven partners in the project have each committed to contribute £4.5 > million per year over the next four years to fund the platform, much of > which will be spent on marketing." > > It doesn't need marketing to death, it needs a rock solid, intelligently > designed and truly innovative UI and 'experience' (getting floaty now) to > make it stand out from the noise. This project needs to excel and I fear it > won't if "much" of the funding from the various parties ends up being spent > on bus adverts and stupid Flash banners. They need to put their money in, > leave it to experts to come up with the innovations and then let it simmer > instead of hawk it and each want a piece of the pie (to the inevitable > detriment of the entire project). > > Also WeView was a poor choice of name don't ye think? From a syllabic > approach (sorry, I'm a linguist), "TV" is just about universal. "SeeSaw" > wasn't great but still has some cross-linguistic compatibility. "We" and > "View" can be quite complex syllables to pronounce if you don't speak much > English and it evokes existing brands too much (Wii, Freeview etc). "WeV" > just sounds stupid if you use the abbreviated form. (Would it become > 'watching the Welly'?) Everybody's just going to call it "on demand" anyway, > if they don't stick with Canvas... I quite like Canvas, particularly the > concepts it evokes (plus it's a good name to 'say') > -- Ant Miller tel: 07709 265961 email: ant.mil...@gmail.com
