[backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backs tage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] £1.2 billion question (or RE: [backstage] BBC Bias??? Click and Torrents)
The purpose of being good enough to satisfy the people that own the rights to the content - and therefore being able to release the content in this manner. I also forgot to say: You implicitly elevate the people that own the rights to the content above the public. This isn't cool. No it's not cool. However if you don't have rights holders who are happy, you would get nowt. What's better - a moral highground with nothing, or no moral highground but with everything?I'd presume people here would say the former, whilst I suspect the majority of the general public would say the latter. The pages of Broadcast magazine are full of articles about the trade negotiations between the BBC/ITV/C4 and PACT - the organisation which represents independent television. It's unfortunate therefore that Broadcast's articles are subscription only, as it would be interesting to put the URLs here so that people can get a vague idea of the process that led us to where we are, and how much PACT want to protect the content created by its members. It would add a different perspective to this discussion which - really - is going round in circles now. winmail.dat
RE: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
It is also complete obliviousness to reality. In fact, Steve Job's first blog post at http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ is nicely timed for this debate - carefully outlining why platform agnostic DRM is doomed. Here's hoping, because if/once the music industry (who are after all, the pioneers in this field) drop the idea, the more likely it is that others will follow. Then this debate will finally end :) winmail.dat
Re: [backstage] barcamplondon2: Proof of Identity
Presumbly because it goes against the concept of everything being free and shareable. Richard Stallman says... (goes off into tedious rant...) ;-) Cheers, Rich. On 2/8/07, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why is this a problem? they're only making sure no scalywags get in. On 2/8/07, Jonathan Chetwynd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: barcamplondon2: Proof of Identity Ian Nat and Jason, I'd like to make it clear that if you are intending to demand proof of identity beyond a 'named' ticket, I shan't be attending. whilst recognising that tickets are non-negotiable, I don't wish to be part of some corporate/state security racket. regards Jonathan Chetwynd BT security have been instructed not to allow you in without a BarCampLondon2 ticket with your name on it. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- John Griffiths email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] blog: http://www.red91.com - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 08/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote: Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, this /is/ an implementation problem, and can be overcome with a trusted hardware element on the platform. At that stage, the hoop will be more than simply running some code. Do you work for ARM? I do, but I'm posting as an individual. If so maybe you have a different perspective on these things but it I think we all agree on the logic: DRM requires constrained computer hardware No, strong DRM requires a hardware element to be constrained. the difference between you and Dave (and me! and Stallman!) is that you are not worried about having a constrained computer. I welcome it. Having a region of my computer that is independent of the regular computer gives me confidence that I can hold secrets on my PC. The whole purpose of trusted computing in its widest sense is to provide an environment where anyone can have trust. There are many uses for it, often directly beneficial to the owner, and DRM is only one. In fact, it's not the strongest use case in my opinion. I don't want a constrained comptuer because I don't trust the computer maker to be open and above board about the precise way the computer is constrained. What do you feel may be hidden? And there's the rub. They won't trust us. So we won't trust them. The rub is that they/I don't trust large codebases to be bug free, so if you have secrets (do you have a PGP key?) you need somewhere protected to keep and manipulate them. Are we off-topic yet? ;) Tim -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Pipes
Has everyone already seen http://pipes.yahoo.com/ ? -- Kevin Hinde BBC News Interactive 020 8752 5209 0771 501 2424 aim:kwdhinde
Re: [backstage] Pipes
This looks very interesting - could be very useful for me dave On 09/02/07, Kevin Hinde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has everyone already seen http://pipes.yahoo.com/ ? -- Kevin Hinde BBC News Interactive 020 8752 5209 0771 501 2424 aim:kwdhinde - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
On 09/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is also complete obliviousness to reality. In fact, Steve Job's first blog post at http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ is nicely timed for this debate - carefully outlining why platform agnostic DRM is doomed. Here's hoping, because if/once the music industry (who are after all, the pioneers in this field) drop the idea, the more likely it is that others will follow. I thought the BBC is meant to be a leader, not a follower. The issues at play are standard issues in the broadcast arena - what has been negotiated with the BBC is broadly the same as what's been negotiated with ITV and with Channel 4. And probably will be for Five. This really isn't just a BBC issue (indeed if the BBC did try to use it's muscle, it could just get accused of bully-boy tactics by the industry who could then complain to the government etc - such things have happened in the past) And IMHO the whole industry is pretty much following music. The music model is a known quantity. Non-DRM is less so. Ergo the industry goes with the known quantity. Of course the music industry has greater experience. And it has its views on whether it's working. And it seems today, that Warner Music aren't going to drop DRM yet. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6344929.stm winmail.dat
Re: [backstage] Pipes
yep, and when i can login to their system i will use it to mess around with my rss feeds. ;-) all the best, John. On 2/9/07, Kevin Hinde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has everyone already seen *http://pipes.yahoo.com/*http://pipes.yahoo.com/? -- Kevin Hinde BBC News Interactive 020 8752 5209 0771 501 2424 aim:kwdhinde -- John Griffiths email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] blog: http://www.red91.com
Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes
Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nic said: I don't want a constrained comptuer because I don't trust the computer maker to be open and above board about the precise way the computer is constrained. What do you feel may be hidden? What do you feel a company might not hide? I think the attitude that led to the Sony fiasco last year is all too prevalent. It's not particularly evil, it's quick fix that leads people to do stupid things. If I don't control my computer then I don't control those things. It's a philosophical issue I grant you. But it's an important one I think and the crux of the DRM issue. The rub is that they/I don't trust large codebases to be bug free, so if you have secrets (do you have a PGP key?) you need somewhere protected to keep and manipulate them. So you don't trust code bases to be bug free so you have to trust a corporation to not abuse your trust in a constrained computer? Are we off-topic yet? ;) Oh yes. Do you think anyone's noticed? -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes
I welcome it. Having a region of my computer that is independent of the regular computer gives me confidence that I can hold secrets on my PC. The whole purpose of trusted computing in its widest sense is to provide an environment where anyone can have trust. There are many uses for it, often directly beneficial to the owner, and DRM is only one. In fact, it's not the strongest use case in my opinion. There's not a single benefit that treacherous computing brings that cannot be solved another way, in your example you can hold secrets via any number of numerous encryption methods, my home PC has a whole encrypted partition for data security. Why do I need a so called trusted hardware element at all. Oh, and where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit to the computer's owner? Vijay
Re: [backstage] barcamplondon2: Proof of Identity
Hi Jonathan and others. I'm sorry to give you the wrong impression. The event is so popular we've had to take a different tack this time. If you or anyone else really wants to come to the event without any ticket or anything then fine. The idea was ours not BT's. Cheers Ian Tom Scott wrote: Personally, I'd quite like whatever electronic equipment I bring *not* to be free and shareable with anyone who happens to wander in... :) -- Tom Richard Lockwood wrote: Presumbly because it goes against the concept of everything being free and shareable. Richard Stallman says... (goes off into tedious rant...) ;-) Cheers, Rich. On 2/8/07, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why is this a problem? they're only making sure no scalywags get in. On 2/8/07, Jonathan Chetwynd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: barcamplondon2: Proof of Identity Ian Nat and Jason, I'd like to make it clear that if you are intending to demand proof of identity beyond a 'named' ticket, I shan't be attending. whilst recognising that tickets are non-negotiable, I don't wish to be part of some corporate/state security racket. regards Jonathan Chetwynd BT security have been instructed not to allow you in without a BarCampLondon2 ticket with your name on it. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- John Griffiths email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] blog: http://www.red91.com - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] £1.2 billion question (or RE: [backstage] BBC Bias??? Click and Torrents)
No it's not cool. However if you don't have rights holders who are happy, you would get nowt. What's better - a moral highground with nothing, or no moral highground but with everything?I'd presume people here would say the former, whilst I suspect the majority of the general public would say the latter. Rubbish, the BBC could have had their cake and eaten it just by threatening to tell the content providers to shove off. The rights holders want their material on the BBC, probably more than the BBC wants any particular piece of content. If the BBC had said we'll do this DRM free, or we won't even broadcast it the BBC would have got DRM free. They wouldn't have ended up with nothing. rights holders = every active and retired actor in the country, every composer in the country, every professional musician in the country, every freelance presenter, every freelance cameraman, every freelance director, every photo stills library, every independent TV company (to whom we're obliged by our charter to commission 25% of tv), every record label, football clubs, the estate of Sir Roy Plumley etc etc etc Telling them all to shove off is not a realistic option right now. See the para from Government's BBC Charter Review Green Paper at the bottom of this post to understand this political reality. Now, in the long term I'm convinced that acquiring the rights to make content available for re-use in perpetuity is a public value maximising strategy for anyone engaged in public media in a wholly networked environment. As does OFCOM, as can be seen by their proposing a commercial, attribution, sharealike Creative Commons licence for their putative 2012 Public Service Publisher (PSP) concept. But it's far from obvious that this is the right approach *now*. 2012 is a generation away. Even ignoring the political reality, implementing such a 'shove off' strategy today isn't necessarily the right thing to do today. Buying all rights, globally, in perpetuity means each unit of stuff would cost (lots) more than we pay for UK broadcast rights. Lots more. So the BBC would have to make far less stuff. And cos it makes less, it'd be harder to make sufficiently diverse range of stuff so that we offer stuff of value to *everyone* in the UK - including, BTW, the 40% of people in the UK who've never been on the internet, and the 97% who've never watched TV on the net. Seriously, the best way to have an impact on this debate is to respond to OFCOM's PSP discussion document A new approach to public service content in the digital media age . http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/pspnewapproach/ The consultation on the above discussion doc is open to anyone, and closes on 23rd March. I *highly* recommend those of you who care about this issue read about the Public Service Publisher, and respond in as much detail as you can manage to OFCOM's request for feedback on their ideas. The views of an informed digitally-savvy bunch such as those on the backstage list is utterly vital, and will be hugely welcomed. Welcome to the world of policy. The BBC really has lived these arguments over the past five or six years (ideas for a BBC Public Licence were all over the web and some newspapers back in 2002 http://web.archive.org/web/20021220040855/http://azeem.azhar.co.uk/archives/000178.html ) We didn't follow the DRM'd iPlayer strategy lightly. Today, in Feb 2007, it's DRM or nowt. So please put the 'DRM is evil' placards down for a moment. We know. http://www.lllj.net/blog/archives/2006/01/06/how-can-drm-be-good/#comment-7373 Start working to change UK public policy instead. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/pspnewapproach/ Bests -Tom * Fom http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/pdf_documents/bbc_cr_greenpaper.pdf The BBC said in Building Public Value - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes
On 2/9/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit to the computer's owner? If content-owners* require DRM to be able to release content for use on your computer (currently the case in the BBC iPlayer, and/or Channel 4's on-demand plater, and/or XFM's MiXFM personalised radio service), then the additional content you are able to access is a benefit you would not get were your computer unable to deal with DRM. You are, of course, free not to use such services; and if enough people don't and tell the industry why, then the industry will be forced to listen. * content owners in this case is not the BBC, but musicians, actors, scriptwriters, production companies, and others who have a vested interest in Content Restriction And Protection. -- http://james.cridland.net/
Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
if the BBC did try to use it's muscle, it could just get accused of bully-boy tactics by the industry who could then complain to the government etc - such things have happened in the past) I thought the BBC was answerable to the Board of Trustees, not the Government. Or is it a Government mouthpiece afterall? the people who just decided what the BBC should do over the next 10 years looked very much like a Government to me and the man who decided how much money the BBC should get over the next 6 years looked very much like Gordon Brown and the person currently busy appointing the next Chair of the BBC Trustees looks just like that Tessa Jowell woman who runs the Department of Culture Media Sport the BBC is a construct formed by political will, and exists so long as that political will remains as is only right and proper in a democracy. if you want the BBC to move on from being a broadcaster (which it looks to me like you do!), then engage in the wider political debate about media policy. And IMHO the whole industry is pretty much following music. The music model is a known quantity. Non-DRM is less so. Ergo the industry goes with the known quantity. The BBC is meant to do what 'the industry' doesn't, though. Otherwise, what's the point? Not true. The BBC is not there to do whatever the industry doesn't do. Never has been. What's the point, then? Well, the point of the BBC is that, by informing, educating and entertaining everyone in the UK, the population of the UK gains both individually and collectively to an extent greater than the BBC's negative market impact Read the charter http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/ Bests -tom - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] £1.2 billion question (or RE: [backstage] BBC Bias??? Click and Torrents)
On 2/1/07, Stephen Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What needs to be developed is new distribution systems, not excuses for old methods, nor seeing any form of global market as a problem. If content is available at a fair price globally and simultaneously, the advertising markets and audiences should greatly expand. Fair price - nice phrase, except we need to state who it's fair to. For example - the music companies want internet broadcasters to pay the equivalent of 0.1p per track per listener to play a song on interactive internet radio (a service like the US's Pandora, for example). That means that, typically, an internet radio station will pay 1.3p an hour per listener (if they play 13 songs an hour). All fine so far; and it appears, at first glance, quite fair. But after 30 years of commercial broadcast radio in this country, experience appears to suggest that we can expect an equivalent revenue of 2p per listener per hour. Further, broadcasting interactive internet radio isn't cheap: it demands unicast streams (which currently can cost more than 1p per listener per hour in bandwidth charges); and that's before we factor in the cost of staff for the station, and the fact that a radio station which reaches a few thousand people isn't even going to get on the advertising orders when compared with stations with many millions of listeners. So, as it currently stands, the 'fair price' ends up meaning that the costs to run an internet radio station far outweigh any possible revenue from it. Yet the content owners clearly believe that the rights costs are fair (unless you're claiming that the record companies want to stop ANY broadcasting on the internet). The 'global' issue is one here, too. Webcaster rates in the US are very different, and in some areas of the world, there are no rates at all. Currently, internet radio is a global phenomenon; but I'm unaware of any time where the UK record companies have earnt money from broadcasts emanating from non-UK places on the internet. I focus mainly on visual arts, TV and movies, as due to product placement and adverts, these offer the most viable free distribution options with current methods of funding. I think the internet should be looked upon as a place to expand the free to air television market, with funding provided solely through site and media advertising. I do not view this as wishful thinking, and do not think that bittorrent downloading precludes this. All the above problems currently occur without any DRM at all: precisely the kind of environment you're looking for - and, as you can hopefully see, it's anything BUT viable. Should content owners suggest similarly 'fair' pricing for broadcasters for on-demand content to place on BitTorrent, then it simply won't happen. However, a system like Joost - which uses Content Restriction And Protection to a certain degree, since you can only stream not download, has more of a chance, potentially. I do realise who you work for, but don't think that is hugely relevant to the debate. As mentioned in my last email, I'm not saying that people like you do not exist in commercial companies, merely that research is seen more as an interesting aside and future possibilities, as opposed to something that can be realised within the next year or so. You didn't say that at all. What you actually said was that media institutions were not forward-looking and had nobody with any say who understood new technologies - and who I work for and who funds this mailing list is highly relevant to that, since it shows that you're, to put it bluntly, wrong. To claim that nobody within the media is looking to the future is ever-so-slightly insulting, you know. In fact, I challenge you to a fight. Outside, now. -- http://james.cridland.net/
