Ah, I stand corrected (or clarrified)- the JV is Not For Profit. Not a charrity though. And they will have paid someone to make content for their website so (for instance) we needn't expect images of DR Who used to be considered fully rights free.
a On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Ant Miller <ant.mil...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > -- Ant Miller tel: 07709 265961 email: ant.mil...@gmail.com
