RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
This is an interesting point. The BBC seem to be creating a platform where I have to obtain the equipment (the iPlayer software) from a single vendor - the BBC - why? Accepting for the moment the use of DRM and Microsoft DRM (amply covered in other threads!), why must I use the BBC iPlayer to download the BBC content? As far as I am aware, iPlayer will use the Kontiki platform (as used by Sky Anytime and Channel 4 On Demand). Why can't the BBC release a toolkit/API to allow us to build a player (UI) on top of this stuff - perhaps the BBC will? Why don't the other companies? Why don't you all get together and create a 'UK standard'? As things stand, it seems to me that watching 'stuff' from a multiplicity of sources on a PC is going to be a usability nightmare. Pete Cole -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Deirdre Harvey Sent: 27 February 2007 13:10 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? fair point (although the Welsh argument is a canard), but there is a difference between creating content for a new channel, albeit one that is not available without purchasing new equipment, and creating a new platform that is only available if you buy that equipment from a particular vendor. e.g. if subscribing to sky was the only way to see BBC3 BBC4 I think you'd be entirely right. Deirdre Harvey :: Producer BBC jam Irish Versioning :: 3rd Floor :: Stockman House :: Belfast BT2 7EE Tel. 02890 338121 :: Ext. 38121 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 27 February 2007 12:46 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? This is all my personal point of view. I can't receive digital TV, so I'd like a refund on money spent to make BBC3 and BBC4. Oh, and I can't read welsh so could TV Licencing please send me a cheque for the money spend on http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/ J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Gardner Sent: 27 February 2007 12:07 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. - 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/ - 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] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 08:45:37PM +, James Cridland wrote: On 2/26/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even more - lowering the CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet user has no opportunity to click. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_Through_Rate Depends if you ever click ads... Doesn't. Depends whether the ad is good enough for you to click on. Not seen one yet - doubt I ever will. There is a value to the brand owner for you to see the ad even if you don't click on them. And how do you know whether the media owner has a CPM or CPC deal for this particular ad anyway? As a consumer of the content on the website I don't care whether the media owner has a CPM or CPC deal. -- Andy Leighton = [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ - 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] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
Doesn't. Depends whether the ad is good enough for you to click on. Not seen one yet - doubt I ever will. Yet more proof that this list is not indicative of the general internet users (which is understandable). Adverts get clicks and people make money from it. LOTS of money - for instance Google made $1.2bn from Adsense (Google Ads on non-Google sites) last quarter. This is primarily Pay-Per-Click money, I'd imagine. Jason - 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] Coders needed for BBC Weather New Media
Again Faulty URLS. Me thinks your http://jobs.bbc.co.uk guy/gal should have a read at this. http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blog/welldesignedurlsarebeautiful/ I know ASP doesn't lend itself to composing beautiful URL but there are many a solutions for working around this. On 2/27/07, Kathryn Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, I seem to have messed up with the tinyurls I gave in my previous post. Here are the links in their gory splendour: * https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=HqSpVAxKiZLqNnZifjobid=13564,2395596535key=1658236c=653525135614pagestamp=sehoeqelevzzvayuna *https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=HqSpVAxKiZLqNnZifjobid=13564,2395596535key=1658236c=653525135614pagestamp=sehoeqelevzzvayuna * https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=EnPmSXuHfWInKkWfcjobid=13563,3448980234key=1658236c=653525135614pagestamp=seyhulndvpljmxynbh *https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=EnPmSXuHfWInKkWfcjobid=13563,3448980234key=1658236c=653525135614pagestamp=seyhulndvpljmxynbh *Kathryn Schmitt* *Senior Developer* *BBC Weather Centre* 2026 Television Centre T: 020 82259448 M: 0771 7582482 *www.bbc.co.uk/weather* *www.bbc.co.uk/climate* -- Otu Ekanem (web) http://www.ekanem.de (talk) http://twitter.com/io2 (pics) http://flickr.com/people/doubleoh2 +44. 793. 959. 5637
RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Cridland On 2/26/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even more - lowering the CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet user has no opportunity to click. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_Through_Rate Depends if you ever click ads... Doesn't. Depends whether the ad is good enough for you to click on. Ads are crap so I won't click on them ever is a rubbish argument. You will click on ads if they are relevant. There is a value to the brand owner for you to see the ad even if you don't click on them. And how do you know whether the media owner has a CPM or CPC deal for this particular ad anyway? Well okay, I'm still waiting for the ad that ads some value to me. And I've been waiting a long time! Because ultimately when I'm looking at, say, Media Guardian (for example), I have a purpose and the purpose is to read the content. I'm not in an information seeking mode so the ads are not of any value to me. On the other hand (and to contradict my earlier message), I have clicked on sponsored links on Google because they occassionally help me find things I want (usually when I'm trying to buy something). I guess, if I was reading a review of something and I wanted to buy it, I might click on an ad that was related to purchasing that item. However personally, that activity is almost non-existant in my internet life. (Of course then there's the promotions for another section of a site, which mascarade as adverts which are a different argument!)
RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
I think Jason makes a very good point in his mail below: advertising does work. This is especially true with the context based ads served by companies like Google where when you visit websites you can usually find ads that are relevant to what you are already looking at. They are just the same as going to Google and doing a search from the home page: Google serves up fairly relevant ads and links. On a regular Google search, I will normally look at the ads first rather than at the search results, especially if I am looking to buy a product or a service. I also carry ads on some websites I run, and have got to say that the ads served to the websites are relevant and people clearly do read and respond to the ads. I am an advertiser as well through Google and am very happy with the business that the ads generate. Of course, some people refuse to click on ads and don't ever want to see them - but, from experience, I'd say that such people are in a minority. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:21 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated) Doesn't. Depends whether the ad is good enough for you to click on. Not seen one yet - doubt I ever will. Yet more proof that this list is not indicative of the general internet users (which is understandable). Adverts get clicks and people make money from it. LOTS of money - for instance Google made $1.2bn from Adsense (Google Ads on non-Google sites) last quarter. This is primarily Pay-Per-Click money, I'd imagine. Jason - 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] Coders needed for BBC Weather New Media
The choice of scripting language on the server doesn't mean the URLs have to be any particular way, usually. Its perfectly possible to get nice looking URLs using IIS/ASP. View-Source fans and usability bods should note that jobs.bbc.co.uk is nothing to do with the BBC technically - its managed by some external company. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Otu Ekanem Sent: 28 February 2007 09:25 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Coders needed for BBC Weather New Media Again Faulty URLS. Me thinks your http://jobs.bbc.co.uk guy/gal should have a read at this. http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blog/welldesignedurlsarebeautiful/ I know ASP doesn't lend itself to composing beautiful URL but there are many a solutions for working around this. On 2/27/07, Kathryn Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, I seem to have messed up with the tinyurls I gave in my previous post. Here are the links in their gory splendour: https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=HqSpVAxKiZLqNnZifjobid=13564, 2395596535key=1658236c=653525135614pagestamp=sehoeqelevzzvayuna https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=HqSpVAxKiZLqNnZifjobid=13564 ,2395596535key=1658236c=653525135614pagestamp=sehoeqelevzzvayuna https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=EnPmSXuHfWInKkWfcjobid=13563, 3448980234key=1658236c=653525135614pagestamp=seyhulndvpljmxynbh https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=EnPmSXuHfWInKkWfcjobid=13563 ,3448980234key=1658236c=653525135614pagestamp=seyhulndvpljmxynbh Kathryn Schmitt Senior Developer BBC Weather Centre 2026 Television Centre T: 020 82259448 M: 0771 7582482 www.bbc.co.uk/weather www.bbc.co.uk/climate -- Otu Ekanem (web) http://www.ekanem.de (talk) http://twitter.com/io2 (pics) http://flickr.com/people/doubleoh2 +44. 793. 959. 5637
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On a related DRM tip, I just thought I'd chip in with some comments my wife made last night. We download podcasts from the BBC, and from Virgin Radio (thanks Mr Cridland!), but obviously it is all talk related, not full track music content. My wife asked me Are there any podcasts from XFM or something like that, where they just play you the new cool tunes? and then she said the immortal words that no anti-DRM zealot ever wants to hear... I wouldn't care if I could only listen to it once and it just blew up So there you go, you have to keep in mind that the people on this list are not representative of the public in general, whether it is about clicking web adverts, or avoiding DRM like the plague. As a consumer my wife is savvy enough to understand the concept of DRM - and she just doesn't *care* that it restricts her use and re-use of downloaded material. She's just interested in downloading time-shifed radio programmes with full music tracks in it, and being able to listen to it once. - 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] Ad Blocking
On 27/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/27/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put it back on the black list Ah. Other people might get irritated with the ads and therefore not go back to Slashdot. Instead, you want to get the content, but not want to let them have any chance of earning revenue from it. It's akin to stealing chocolate from the store because you believe the prices are 'over-high'. It's unethical. It's indefensible. It's wrong. You know it - I know it - we all know it. Your only ethical option is to Not Visit. Full-stop. Stop stealing, and stop boasting that you're stealing. My first instinct was to write something very unBBC here (think hallucinogenic drugs), but that would be an abuse of the list, so I wont. Instead I'll defend myself rationally. Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all. To use your metaphor, the shop store might be offering it's broken chocolate free (there's a shop near me does this), I don't have to take it. Secondly I contribute back to slashdot because I meta-moderate, moderate and submit stories regularly, I also partake in the public beta of discussion 2 and drink from the fire hose; what I spend in time doing that out ways any benefits they get by my downloading and ignoring ads Interestingly, we did some experiments on Virgin Radio's website with flash overlayz (you know, those horrid things that get in the way of content). I said to the sales manager: We'll do those, fine. The first complaint we get, we'll remove them from the site. She agreed. I believed that we'd get the first complaint within the first hour of the first day. We're still waiting for that first complaint, nine months later. The moral of the story? Complain, people. Please. If you don't complain, I can't tell the sales manager to take her crappy overlayz and shove them where the sun doesn't shine because our visitors don't want them. I've never visited Virgin Radio's site (I don't listen to Virgin Radio) but if I did and saw flash overlays in my way I'd either leave and not come back, or (if there's content I like) remove them with my ad blocker; why should I help some random company make money from their site if they don't have basic skills for good web design. The only time I complain is if companies put the W3C compliant logo on their page and it doesn't validate as that's false advertising, If there's only a couple of mistakes I'll even send a fix. However, I should rush to point out - we no longer carry overlayz, because we believe nobody likes them. If only someone had complained, we'd have acted earlier. (Please give feedback about anything you see on that site to www.virginradio.co.uk/contact_us/?to=techies and I or one of my team will reply). Again it's not the public's responsibility to fix your site design to make it profitable; that's you and your line managers job (put a focus group together or something), however as you've asked, if I open my sidebar, instead of resizing the page, I get a scroll bar; this is highly annoying and next to the main picture box (the one that changes with the rollovers) I have a second black box that seems to do nothing at all (yes I turned my adblocker off). Also in Opera (previous comment's were about firefox) your rollovers don't work, though the black box disappears (I haven't checked it in IE). I'll send you that through your feedback form for you as well. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doesn't. Depends whether the ad is good enough for you to click on. Not seen one yet - doubt I ever will. Yet more proof that this list is not indicative of the general internet users (which is understandable). Adverts get clicks and people make money from it. LOTS of money - for instance Google made $1.2bn from Adsense (Google Ads on non-Google sites) last quarter. This is primarily Pay-Per-Click money, I'd imagine. Jason You probably have a point, but i've never seen an advert that I've found relavant to my needs; then again I've never bought anything due to a TV or Radio ad either. I've clicked on many ads though; they help generate revenue for many of my favourite FLOSS projects. Vijay.
[backstage] Want a quick bit of beta-testing fun?
If you're a Virgin Radio VIP, go to *http://www.virginradio.co.uk/listen/*http://www.virginradio.co.uk/listen/and click the link marked participate in our beta (it's just under the Listen live now link if you're logged in). All feedback is very welcome: please use the link you'll find within the player, so issues all get logged. It goes live tomorrow! ;) If you're not a VIP and really don't want to register, please GTalk me ( james.cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and I'll give you another way in. -- http://james.cridland.net/
RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking
Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all. The deal your informally entering into with Slashdot is that in order to pay for your request taking up thier resources you are served an advert. If you don't like this 'deal' then you shouldn't request the content. Secondly I contribute back to slashdot because I meta-moderate, moderate and submit stories regularly This contribution is of little or no monetary value - and hence doesn't pay for thier salaries/bandwidth/servers etc etc. Know anyone that makes a living from Amazon's Mechanical Turk service? it's not the public's responsibility to fix your site design Bugs happen, no matter how good your management/coders/testers are. Best to have a feedback from the end user. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 28 February 2007 11:00 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking On 27/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/27/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put it back on the black list Ah. Other people might get irritated with the ads and therefore not go back to Slashdot. Instead, you want to get the content, but not want to let them have any chance of earning revenue from it. It's akin to stealing chocolate from the store because you believe the prices are 'over-high'. It's unethical. It's indefensible. It's wrong. You know it - I know it - we all know it. Your only ethical option is to Not Visit. Full-stop. Stop stealing, and stop boasting that you're stealing. My first instinct was to write something very unBBC here (think hallucinogenic drugs), but that would be an abuse of the list, so I wont. Instead I'll defend myself rationally. Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all. To use your metaphor, the shop store might be offering it's broken chocolate free (there's a shop near me does this), I don't have to take it. Secondly I contribute back to slashdot because I meta-moderate, moderate and submit stories regularly, I also partake in the public beta of discussion 2 and drink from the fire hose; what I spend in time doing that out ways any benefits they get by my downloading and ignoring ads Interestingly, we did some experiments on Virgin Radio's website with flash overlayz (you know, those horrid things that get in the way of content). I said to the sales manager: We'll do those, fine. The first complaint we get, we'll remove them from the site. She agreed. I believed that we'd get the first complaint within the first hour of the first day. We're still waiting for that first complaint, nine months later. The moral of the story? Complain, people. Please. If you don't complain, I can't tell the sales manager to take her crappy overlayz and shove them where the sun doesn't shine because our visitors don't want them. I've never visited Virgin Radio's site (I don't listen to Virgin Radio) but if I did and saw flash overlays in my way I'd either leave and not come back, or (if there's content I like) remove them with my ad blocker; why should I help some random company make money from their site if they don't have basic skills for good web design. The only time I complain is if companies put the W3C compliant logo on their page and it doesn't validate as that's false advertising, If there's only a couple of mistakes I'll even send a fix. However, I should rush to point out - we no longer carry overlayz, because we believe nobody likes them. If only someone had complained, we'd have acted earlier. (Please give feedback about anything you see on that site to www.virginradio.co.uk/contact_us/?to=techies and I or one of my team will reply). Again it's not the public's responsibility to fix your site design to make it profitable; that's you and your line managers job (put a focus group together or something), however as you've asked, if I open my sidebar, instead of resizing the page, I get a scroll bar; this is highly annoying and next to the main picture box (the one that changes with the rollovers) I have a second black box that seems to do nothing at all (yes I turned my adblocker off). Also in Opera (previous comment's were about firefox) your rollovers don't work, though the black box disappears (I haven't checked it in IE). I'll send you that through your feedback form for you as well. Vijay.
RE: [backstage] Coders needed for BBC Weather New Media
Apologies again for that. As Jason rightly points out, the jobs website has been outsourced, and is not indicative of the way we like to do things. I will continue to feed these problems back to the people who might be able to do something about it. In the meantime, if anyone *is* interested in learning more about the jobs going in my team you can do so by searching for job reference numbers 727187 and 727190. The link to search is under CURRENT JOBS in the left hand nav. The closing date is midnight, but if you are interested in either position and can't finish the application form in time then please drop me a line. Thanks, Kass Kathryn Schmitt Senior Developer BBC Weather Centre 2026 Television Centre T: 020 82259448 M: 0771 7582482 www.bbc.co.uk/weather www.bbc.co.uk/climate From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Otu Ekanem Sent: 28 February 2007 09:25 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Coders needed for BBC Weather New Media Again Faulty URLS. Me thinks your http://jobs.bbc.co.uk guy/gal should have a read at this. http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blog/welldesignedurlsarebeautiful/ I know ASP doesn't lend itself to composing beautiful URL but there are many a solutions for working around this. On 2/27/07, Kathryn Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, I seem to have messed up with the tinyurls I gave in my previous post. Here are the links in their gory splendour: https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=HqSpVAxKiZLqNnZifjobid=13564, 2395596535key=1658236c=653525135614pagestamp=sehoeqelevzzvayuna https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=HqSpVAxKiZLqNnZifjobid=13564 ,2395596535key=1658236c=653525135614pagestamp=sehoeqelevzzvayuna https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=EnPmSXuHfWInKkWfcjobid=13563, 3448980234key=1658236c=653525135614pagestamp=seyhulndvpljmxynbh https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=EnPmSXuHfWInKkWfcjobid=13563 ,3448980234key=1658236c=653525135614pagestamp=seyhulndvpljmxynbh Kathryn Schmitt Senior Developer BBC Weather Centre 2026 Television Centre T: 020 82259448 M: 0771 7582482 www.bbc.co.uk/weather www.bbc.co.uk/climate -- Otu Ekanem (web) http://www.ekanem.de (talk) http://twitter.com/io2 (pics) http://flickr.com/people/doubleoh2 +44. 793. 959. 5637
[backstage] Freesat
Sorry if this isn't the best place to ask this question, but maybe somebody here knows - is Freesat proposing to launch a set of channels on a different satellite, or is it just an alternative EPG to Sky's? I've looked at the consultation paper, but it doesn't go in to any of the technical details (though I think it might mention MHEG somewhere). cheers Scot - 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] Ad Blocking
Jason Cartwright wrote: Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all. The deal your informally entering into with Slashdot is that in order to pay for your request taking up thier resources you are served an advert. If you don't like this 'deal' then you shouldn't request the content. Slashdot probably isn't the best example - I think they expect a lot of ad blocking (considering who there audience is) and so their business model probably takes that more into account than other sites might (which is why you can subscribe to slashdot and get a few perks besides not seeing ads). Scot
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all. The deal your informally entering into with Slashdot is that in order to pay for your request taking up thier resources you are served an advert. If you don't like this 'deal' then you shouldn't request the content. No one informed me of this deal, I've signed nothing obliging me to hold to it. I reiterate, if you don't want end users doing what they like with your content on their PCs, don't put it on a public network. It's up to me what my client displays and how it renders it, if you don't like it, use a private network with terms of use forbidding ad blockers. Secondly I contribute back to slashdot because I meta-moderate, moderate and submit stories regularly This contribution is of little or no monetary value - and hence doesn't pay for thier salaries/bandwidth/servers etc etc. Know anyone that makes a living from Amazon's Mechanical Turk service? On the contrary, if no one meta-moderated, moderated or submitted stories etc. OSTG (the owners of slashdot) would either have no site to operate, or have to employ an army of people to do it for them. I'm saving them quite a lot of money, combined with purchases I've made from other OSTG sites (I've bought stuff from Think Geek), overall they have made money from me, despite my blocking of their ads. I have no ethical qualms about it. it's not the public's responsibility to fix your site design Bugs happen, no matter how good your management/coders/testers are. Best to have a feedback from the end user. J True, and for Public service sites (Government, Local government, the BBC etc.) and non-commercial sites, I'll give it help, after all it's my money being spent. However I see no need to help a commercial site (radio stations, newspapers etc.) make money, and unless they have good content to draw me in as a regular reader, I'll see no need to help the with their UI design. Secondly, they are providing me with a service for free; what right do I have to complain? I help admin a forum for a firefox extension (I'm not the dev, but I've been using it since the beginning, and giving my time is my way of donating to the project); we get millions of complaints (often rude or abusive) about the extension, despite the fact that the dev is giving away his time and effort away for free, yet people expect more from him than they do if they had paid for the software (of course constructive criticism and feature requests are welcome, but RTFM before coming to the forum with trivial requests please). FYI it's the Wizz RSS news reader that I'm involved in: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/424/
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 28/02/07, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is there a way you could implement it that doesn't compromise the public at the expense of the people with the temporary monopoly rights? There is a hidden assumption here: that the monopolists are elevated to the same level of importance as the public. This is not true. I recommend reading http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html for a full explanation of why the public is more important than the monopolists. -- Regards, Dave - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 28/02/07, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wouldn't care if I could only listen to it once and it just blew up Separating fools from their freedom is wrong. The fact that the fools participate voluntarily does not excuse it. DRM is a predatory scheme that creates subjugation. Even if most people don't recognize this as a problem, the free software movement does, and is trying to end the problem. People who don't value freedom are entitled to their views. The free software movement values freedom, and it acts on its own views, not theirs. It never set out to make them happy: It set out to give them freedom. -- Regards, Dave - 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] Ad Blocking
Ok Vijay. You win. Everybody block those evil adverts, and those fools who educate and entertain me everyday (for free) can sod off down the dole office. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 28 February 2007 12:27 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all. The deal your informally entering into with Slashdot is that in order to pay for your request taking up thier resources you are served an advert. If you don't like this 'deal' then you shouldn't request the content. No one informed me of this deal, I've signed nothing obliging me to hold to it. I reiterate, if you don't want end users doing what they like with your content on their PCs, don't put it on a public network. It's up to me what my client displays and how it renders it, if you don't like it, use a private network with terms of use forbidding ad blockers. Secondly I contribute back to slashdot because I meta-moderate, moderate and submit stories regularly This contribution is of little or no monetary value - and hence doesn't pay for thier salaries/bandwidth/servers etc etc. Know anyone that makes a living from Amazon's Mechanical Turk service? On the contrary, if no one meta-moderated, moderated or submitted stories etc. OSTG (the owners of slashdot) would either have no site to operate, or have to employ an army of people to do it for them. I'm saving them quite a lot of money, combined with purchases I've made from other OSTG sites (I've bought stuff from Think Geek), overall they have made money from me, despite my blocking of their ads. I have no ethical qualms about it. it's not the public's responsibility to fix your site design Bugs happen, no matter how good your management/coders/testers are. Best to have a feedback from the end user. J True, and for Public service sites (Government, Local government, the BBC etc.) and non-commercial sites, I'll give it help, after all it's my money being spent. However I see no need to help a commercial site (radio stations, newspapers etc.) make money, and unless they have good content to draw me in as a regular reader, I'll see no need to help the with their UI design. Secondly, they are providing me with a service for free; what right do I have to complain? I help admin a forum for a firefox extension (I'm not the dev, but I've been using it since the beginning, and giving my time is my way of donating to the project); we get millions of complaints (often rude or abusive) about the extension, despite the fact that the dev is giving away his time and effort away for free, yet people expect more from him than they do if they had paid for the software (of course constructive criticism and feature requests are welcome, but RTFM before coming to the forum with trivial requests please). FYI it's the Wizz RSS news reader that I'm involved in: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/424/
RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking
You know, I'm with you here. I was just about to write a good ol' retort to the frankly ridiculous assertions by Vijay. But then I realised some people refuse to engage in sensible discourse. Oh and remind me - which plug is it for free access to the public internet ? tom From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 28 February 2007 13:02 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking Ok Vijay. You win. Everybody block those evil adverts, and those fools who educate and entertain me everyday (for free) can sod off down the dole office. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 28 February 2007 12:27 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all. The deal your informally entering into with Slashdot is that in order to pay for your request taking up thier resources you are served an advert. If you don't like this 'deal' then you shouldn't request the content. No one informed me of this deal, I've signed nothing obliging me to hold to it. I reiterate, if you don't want end users doing what they like with your content on their PCs, don't put it on a public network. It's up to me what my client displays and how it renders it, if you don't like it, use a private network with terms of use forbidding ad blockers. Secondly I contribute back to slashdot because I meta-moderate, moderate and submit stories regularly This contribution is of little or no monetary value - and hence doesn't pay for thier salaries/bandwidth/servers etc etc. Know anyone that makes a living from Amazon's Mechanical Turk service? On the contrary, if no one meta-moderated, moderated or submitted stories etc. OSTG (the owners of slashdot) would either have no site to operate, or have to employ an army of people to do it for them. I'm saving them quite a lot of money, combined with purchases I've made from other OSTG sites (I've bought stuff from Think Geek), overall they have made money from me, despite my blocking of their ads. I have no ethical qualms about it. it's not the public's responsibility to fix your site design Bugs happen, no matter how good your management/coders/testers are. Best to have a feedback from the end user. J True, and for Public service sites (Government, Local government, the BBC etc.) and non-commercial sites, I'll give it help, after all it's my money being spent. However I see no need to help a commercial site (radio stations, newspapers etc.) make money, and unless they have good content to draw me in as a regular reader, I'll see no need to help the with their UI design. Secondly, they are providing me with a service for free; what right do I have to complain? I help admin a forum for a firefox extension (I'm not the dev, but I've been using it since the beginning, and giving my time is my way of donating to the project); we get millions of complaints (often rude or abusive) about the extension, despite the fact that the dev is giving away his time and effort away for free, yet people expect more from him than they do if they had paid for the software (of course constructive criticism and feature requests are welcome, but RTFM before coming to the forum with trivial requests please). FYI it's the Wizz RSS news reader that I'm involved in: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/424/
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
-Original Message- From: Deirdre Harvey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 February 2007 12:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? If there's a demand for that kind of service, is there a way you could implement it that doesn't compromise the public at the expense of the people with the temporary monopoly rights? ... And I just realised I didn't answer your final question. In all honesty, I can't think of a workable solution right now, it's a tough one to solve (captain obvious to the rescue!) Give me a while to come up with something... Must add though, when I wanted to timeshift radio in the past (when I was but a nipper), I always found a C90 worked quite well - at least for 2 or 3 months until I somehow managed to completely destroy them. I suppose the question I should ask you back is, IS there a demand for that specific kind of service? We can theorise on different ways to implement a time-limited, managed platform for content distribution and consumption, but the existing systems such as Listen Again work pretty well imo, and pop music is so repeated on network radio there's no real need to offer timeshifted playback of those kind of shows, you'd be creating supply where there is no demand. Or is there demand? Have I completely misinterpreted what you're saying? Feel free to correct / educate / dissect what I've said. - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It never set out to make them happy: It set out to give them freedom. Who would have thought a conversation about the concept of people watching TopGear a couple of days late could end up at this melodramatic line? Who would have thought the BBC would try to stop people watching Top Gear 8 days late? -- Regards, Dave - 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] Freesat
Sorry if this isn't the best place to ask this question, but maybe somebody here knows - is Freesat proposing to launch a set of channels on a different satellite, or is it just an alternative EPG to Sky's? The plan appears to be to just re-use what's already on the satellites, but put different EPG round 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/
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 28/02/07, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't think of a workable solution yeah, me neither. so is it ok to say to someone you can't have what you want because even though it's technically possible it is not ethically possible? I don't know. Please explain why permitting the public to store and redistribute works is not ethical :-) -- Regards, Dave - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 28/02/07, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't think of a workable solution yeah, me neither. so is it ok to say to someone you can't have what you want because even though it's technically possible it is not ethically possible? I don't know. Please explain why permitting the public to store and redistribute works is not ethical :-) Hi. I'm a DVD rental store owner. [1] You've just paid me £5 to hire my DVD. Yay! You've taken it home, copied it and given it to a mate. That means they won't come to my DVD store [2]. Boo! :-) [1] Actually I'm not. I work for the BBC. [2] which I don't actually work in - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Anyone who understands the rights and commercial impact issues. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland Sent: 28 February 2007 13:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It never set out to make them happy: It set out to give them freedom. Who would have thought a conversation about the concept of people watching TopGear a couple of days late could end up at this melodramatic line? Who would have thought the BBC would try to stop people watching Top Gear 8 days late? -- Regards, Dave - 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] Want a quick bit of beta-testing fun?
On 28/02/07, Jakob Fix [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Something we're lacking in the UK is a Pandora ( http://pandora.com/) like service; indeed, I had to put an American Zip code in to continue to use it, it seems there is a gap in the market for someone to fill. what about last.fm by the Audioscrobbler people? positively based in the uk, it seems: http://www.last.fm/about/contact/ -- cheers, Jakob. Just had a look at them, and they look good, and much more fully featured than Pandora in many respects though they don't have a pause button (the FAQ says this is because of licensing reasons, surprise surprise), and the personal radio station aspect is only available to subscribers, but they've got a very good price (£1.50\month), so I'll look into it, and may take them up. Thanks for the link! Vijay
RE: [backstage] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/default.stm
And whilst asking, how does the Beeb choose the FROM THE BLOGOSPHERE comments? A journalist reads the blogosphere, and chooses something. - 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] Manchester leg of university tour
Hey, If there's any north-western people on the list, there's going to be an evening version of the uni talk. If you're interested, sign up on the event-wax page; http://geek-up.eventwax.com/admin/bbc-backstage-talk Talk will start around half six, pub afterwards! If you want any more info, give me an email. A massive thanks to the folks at Backstage for hanging around that day! Daniel Morris | Web Developer BBC Entertainment : Manchester : New Media int. 01 44217 ext. 0161 244 4217
Re: [backstage] Manchester leg of university tour
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Daniel Morris wrote: If there's any north-western people on the list, there's going to be an evening version of the uni talk. If you're interested, sign up on the event-wax page; http://geek-up.eventwax.com/admin/bbc-backstage-talk Is the signup for this supposed to be a login box with no way to create an account? Cheers Sam -- I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me. - Noel Coward - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Andrew Bowden wrote: That means they won't come to my DVD store [2]. Boo! They might never have come though. -- Kirk - 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] Ad Blocking
vijay chopra wrote: As a final note, as a result of this conversation, I decided to check out the subscription price at slashdot, at $5 (£2.62) I ended up buying one... decide for yourself what that says about me. It says I reply to every single e-mail on this list with an inane and largely useless point which is like 'Me too' but slightly more wordy Sorry Vijay, but it's just bugging me now. -- Kirk - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Can someone explain how copyright itself is ethical? Maybe I should explain why it is in itself immoral. Why do things cost money? What is the purpose of price? Economics would say Price is used to distribute scarce resources Where a scarce resource is one which has a finite limit. This reflects the fact that if I own a resource, such as a tonne of coal, no other person can posses that exact same tonne. I can also not grant someone that tonne of coal and still have it. Not everyone can have as much coal as they desire as there is not an infinite supply of coal. So what happens when I buy something? Well for a tangible good, that is a scarce resource, I surrender a sum of money, (or an item if we are using a bartering system), and in return the seller surrenders the item I am buying, at which point he ceases all ownership of the item. Is Television and Film content a scarce resource? Well can one person own the same thing, can it be provided in infinite supply. I shall look at this from the technical prospective of is it physically possible, not the legal view point, the legal interference with markets shall be handled later. Especially with Digital content the resource is NOT scarce. It can be duplicated without loss. Files can be transferred unaltered. This is very useful, if some bits got flipped in your program it could do weird and even dangerous things. If we can duplicate the content an infinite amount of times then why does it require a price? Everyone can posses a copy of the media. Now what happens why I buy media, I surrender money as before, and now what does the seller (assuming copyright holder here, they at some point perform the sale even if only to someone who sells on the item) surrender? Well they give me copy of the media, but wait they still have the original, so they surrender nothing? Even if you take into account possession of rights (an artificial property and not a natural one), do they give me the right to copy, relicense, distribute this item, no they do not (normally), thus they have in fact surrendered nothing. The media producers are clearly getting a free lunch here, they can sell the same thing again and again, never having to give up any of there own possessions but requiring others to surrender their items in exchange. Does this seem moral, equitable or right? Lets go a little further. We can safely assume that some of this media content provides pleasure to people or enhances their life in some way. Now copyright itself provides a way of withholding something that would improve someones quality of life. Would someone like to justify why it is acceptable to withhold what something that would improve someones life when it would cost nothing to grant them it? The purpose of copyright is to inflict suffering on people by withholding things from them for no good reason. I thought the human race had got past the stage where it thought it acceptable to inflict suffering on people for their own perverse pleasure? evidently not. Let us not forget that there is no natural need for copyright, we could function fine without it. It is only through government legislation that such a thing exists. I am actually very interested to know the exact figure spent on iPlayer and DRM, sorry if its already been mentioned I missed the start of this thread. Has the BBC published this information or do I need to make an official request under he Freedom Of Information Act. Can someone at the BBC explain why they chose a one platform approach, this was never actually covered. A lot was said about the BBC having their arm forced by rights holders (this I doubt, the BBC is one of the most powerful broadcasters in the world). Did the rights holders dictate it must be a Windows only solution? If so could you forward me a copy of it, I would like to contact my MEP, the European Union prosecuted Microsoft over media player before didn't they? So why Platform Specific, the technology exists to write cross platform applications easily and simple. Has the BBC not heard of Java or Python? A java Application will generally run unmodified on any OS as it is run via the Java VM (this is not a full virtual machine like VMWare by the way). I know this because I have written applications on Windows and run them on Linux and vice versa, with no changes what so ever. As for DRM, well the rights holders are NOT mandating a secure unbreakable DRM are they? If they are then by using MS DRM you are violating your agreement, its a software DRM which can be broken. The operation of an x86 processor is a known quantity, I can examine your binary code and determine every instruction it is executing. Thus it must be breakable. There are even higher level attacks, such as writing a VM which runs the iPlayer, and instead of sending content to the screen it captures it in a file. So seems the DRM scheme need not be secure why can't the BBC generate a cross platform one, it would tag a few minutes, use XML
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 2/28/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The claim is partly misleading because the word loss suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the store's stock of DVDs were burned, or if the money in the till got torn up, that would really be a loss. I'm sorry, but this sentence is patent bollocks. To define loss in these narrow terms is utter nonsense. In just about every definition, loss can mean being deprived of something, regardless of whether you physically possessed that thing in the first place. By all means keep arguing about the pros and cons of DRM, but spare us stupidities like this please. Cheers, Mario.
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 28/02/07, Mario Menti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In just about every definition, loss can mean being deprived of something, regardless of whether you physically possessed that thing in the first place. What loss are rights holders taking? -- Regards, Dave - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
_ From: Mario Menti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 February 2007 22:59 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? On 2/28/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The claim is partly misleading because the word loss suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the store's stock of DVDs were burned, or if the money in the till got torn up, that would really be a loss. I'm sorry, but this sentence is patent bollocks. To define loss in these narrow terms is utter nonsense. In just about every definition, loss can mean being deprived of something, regardless of whether you physically possessed that thing in the first place. By all means keep arguing about the pros and cons of DRM, but spare us stupidities like this please. Cheers, Mario. I have to agree that this line of thought is not without its own flaws, but you have to agree that the term loss has been manipulated somewhat by the incumbent film and TV studios; they've subtly changed its meaning from that of a physical loss to that of a loss of potential income on their intellectual property. This is where we begin to get very abstract here with our definitions of 'loss' and 'theft'. So it's not complete nonsense, it's interesting to see how the classical definition of loss has been altered by the studios to fit their way of speaking - reminds me of past RIAA publications where they've mentioned xyz millions of dollars lost through piracy - when in fact it's not REALLY loss, it's just money they thought they would be getting whilst relying on a predetermined profit curve (basically, they're not factoring into the equation that people won't continue to purchase at the same rate they may initially, or a service selling content might lose 'cool' factor and become less profitable... Or, as I suspect they're actually doing, they're taking an average of figures over the past 10 years and then using those as a basis for their loss - when in fact the music industry has been in decline for a long time, and the Internet has NOT been the sole cause of its wider financial downturn). I'm not saying unlicensed redistribution of content isn't to blame at least in part, but the industry does have this habit of twisting the truth, flipping and adjusting the wording and meaning somewhat to meet its own ends. I've done a lot of research into the music industry as part of my Uni course so I know I'm not talking completely out my arse here. Thus, the industry's argument for slapping rights restrictions onto everything in sight is largely based on these continuing assertions that they are losing money through piracy which they would otherwise be receiving into their coffers, and these assertions are in turn originated on financial data and trends which tend to not factor into account these new forms of distribution. We had a lecture from two people at our Uni late last year; one person from EMI and one person from the IFPI. Even though it wasn't billed as a this is why piracy is bad and killing the music industry lecture, it was exactly that - but during the QA session I asked a few pointed questions. One included, why don't you change your price points to price pirates out of the market, follow a business model like allofmp3 where you give the customers MP3s or their own choice of formats, for a fixed price per megabyte, and there we go - the unlicensed distributors can't survive in that kind of market, where it's just as easy for the consumer to go legit as it is for them to break the law... To which the man from the IFPI answered, because we just can't, we don't, trust our consumers. I was basically stonewalled, they didn't even acknowledge that any model aside from the current one would work. I thought it was a very arrogant approach, they presented loads of stats, figures, past trends, statistical analysis of Internet bandwidth usage etc... And it was all based on the assumption that users only 'steal' music because it's part of their mindset now. So, for me, this entire matter boils down to trust; the industry's lack of trust for consumers, and in turn, consumers' lack of trust in their rights restriction schemes. They alter the meaning of established words, and somehow they manage to lobby the US Government to codify their 'modified' meanings in law! That's what really riles me, and why I don't like DRM. I won't trust a 'trust' mechanism which is run by untrustworthy people, and it's also why I don't entirely agree with the industry's version of 'loss' due to x or y reasons. If only it were clear cut enough that by not purchasing music, you were directly depriving artists of a large amount of revenue from what would otherwise be a unit sale, but in reality that's so infrequently the case. Even before the advent of Internet sharing, it was the same for many artists - large advance, then work
