Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Gnash-dev] EFF: Adobe Pushes DRM for Flash
i'd agree with that - having just joined the list, i did wonder what i was letting myself in for! On 2 Mar 2008, at 20:52, Matt Barber wrote: Time after time I see threads on here turn into nasty flames, it's a shame because the people involved usually have intelligent, well mannered opinions, and that's what I'd like to read... Everyone has indifferences but can't we enjoy and discuss each other's opinion rather than reject it? Just seems to be a lot of good points put down and replaced with arguments on this list lately and maybe it's time for everyone to take a step back and try to be a little more.. I don't know, calm maybe? Just a thought..
Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Gnash-dev] EFF: Adobe Pushes DRM for Flash
Time after time I see threads on here turn into nasty flames, it's a shame because the people involved usually have intelligent, well mannered opinions, and that's what I'd like to read... Everyone has indifferences but can't we enjoy and discuss each other's opinion rather than reject it? Just seems to be a lot of good points put down and replaced with arguments on this list lately and maybe it's time for everyone to take a step back and try to be a little more.. I don't know, calm maybe? Just a thought..
Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Gnash-dev] EFF: Adobe Pushes DRM for Flash
This is NOT to replace HTTP delivery in order to enforce DRM in the flash > player. It is! :-) No, it isn't. But your off-key one-note tune has already taken up too much of my time. Your failure to acknowledge the social problem of DRM - the BBC acknowledges DRM but whines "we can't help it, its not our fault" - and your lack of shame at being called on promoting it marks you out as non-serious in my opinion. Ok, you've convinced me that... ...you can't admit you made a mistake. And that debate to you is everyone saying "yes, you know what Dave? You're absolutely right" whenever you speak. If I don't appear to believe that DRM is a cause of society's problems as you would appear to wish me to, then it's fine that you don't think I'm serious, sometimes I don't take myself seriously either. Perhaps there's a lesson there? You can reply to this if you like, but from this moment on, I have prioritsed reading your mail behind hacking my arm off with a rusty saw. Good luck with the revolution. S. On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 01/03/2008, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > This is NOT to replace HTTP delivery in order to enforce DRM in the > flash > > player. > > It is! :-) > > > As far as the flash player goes, this FMS 3 requirement is only > > about streaming MP4 container (h264/aac) into the flash player as > detailed > > in the bullet points of this article: > > > http://www.kaourantin.net/2007/08/what-just-happened-to-video-on-web_20.html > > The blog post of an Adobe employee is unlikely to make explicit the > way the DRM in FMS is going to play out. Adobe does not want to raise > awareness of its DRM capabilities. > > > You will still be able to use progressive download for MP4 and flv video > > files into flash. In fact, stuff I've made does it every day. > > Today you can't use progressive download for the iPlayer Flash video, > but the DRM is not _yet_ (afaik) turned on for iPlayer. Will it be > turned on? > > > Of course, Adobe may turn off HTTP support by releasing a version of the > > Flash Player that requires a handshake with their proprietary server > before > > it delivers video, but I'm sure they realise that would be incredibly > stupid > > as the ubiquity of the flash player is in a large part down to the low > > barrier it has on delivering video content. > > I agree that Adobe is unlikely to remove the HTTP functionality, but > that doesn't mean that the BBC and other FMS users will make use of > that functionality - the BBC already doesn't - and Adobe are already > providing them with DRM features that they are not yet using. > > > Adobe Media player article is, clearly, correct since it is written by > > people who know about the product they're talking about. > > So beef about that all you like. > > The phrase, > > > > protected download-and-play > > sounds like classic DRM to me. > > > > Adobe's rich history of document protection technology > > AKA: Adobe's on going attempts at DRM > > > > Adobe Media Player plans to offer > > > content publishers a range of protection options, including streaming > > > encryption, content integrity protection and identity-based > > > protection. > > "Streaming encryption" is about "replacing HTTP delivery in order to > enforce DRM in the flash player." > > > But don't spread misinformation that supports your insistence on > focussing > > on what flash player isn't, rather than what flash player is. > > In fact, I think you can replace "flash player" in the above sentence > with > > almost any tech for some of the conversations on this list. > > > > I make stuff people use. I don't sit around waiting for other folks to > make > > stuff so I can tell them why they're wrong to make it that way and this > kind > > of grandstanding drives me nuts > > Your failure to acknowledge the social problem of DRM - the BBC > acknowledges DRM but whines "we can't help it, its not our fault" - > and your lack of shame at being called on promoting it marks you out > as non-serious in my opinion. > > -- > 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] Fwd: [Gnash-dev] EFF: Adobe Pushes DRM for Flash
On 01/03/2008, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is NOT to replace HTTP delivery in order to enforce DRM in the flash > player. It is! :-) > As far as the flash player goes, this FMS 3 requirement is only > about streaming MP4 container (h264/aac) into the flash player as detailed > in the bullet points of this article: > http://www.kaourantin.net/2007/08/what-just-happened-to-video-on-web_20.html The blog post of an Adobe employee is unlikely to make explicit the way the DRM in FMS is going to play out. Adobe does not want to raise awareness of its DRM capabilities. > You will still be able to use progressive download for MP4 and flv video > files into flash. In fact, stuff I've made does it every day. Today you can't use progressive download for the iPlayer Flash video, but the DRM is not _yet_ (afaik) turned on for iPlayer. Will it be turned on? > Of course, Adobe may turn off HTTP support by releasing a version of the > Flash Player that requires a handshake with their proprietary server before > it delivers video, but I'm sure they realise that would be incredibly stupid > as the ubiquity of the flash player is in a large part down to the low > barrier it has on delivering video content. I agree that Adobe is unlikely to remove the HTTP functionality, but that doesn't mean that the BBC and other FMS users will make use of that functionality - the BBC already doesn't - and Adobe are already providing them with DRM features that they are not yet using. > Adobe Media player article is, clearly, correct since it is written by > people who know about the product they're talking about. > So beef about that all you like. The phrase, > > protected download-and-play sounds like classic DRM to me. > > Adobe's rich history of document protection technology AKA: Adobe's on going attempts at DRM > > Adobe Media Player plans to offer > > content publishers a range of protection options, including streaming > > encryption, content integrity protection and identity-based > > protection. "Streaming encryption" is about "replacing HTTP delivery in order to enforce DRM in the flash player." > But don't spread misinformation that supports your insistence on focussing > on what flash player isn't, rather than what flash player is. > In fact, I think you can replace "flash player" in the above sentence with > almost any tech for some of the conversations on this list. > > I make stuff people use. I don't sit around waiting for other folks to make > stuff so I can tell them why they're wrong to make it that way and this kind > of grandstanding drives me nuts Your failure to acknowledge the social problem of DRM - the BBC acknowledges DRM but whines "we can't help it, its not our fault" - and your lack of shame at being called on promoting it marks you out as non-serious in my opinion. -- 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/
[backstage] A day in the life of a BBC Backstage widget
I posted here in September, talking about a BBC Weather widget I'd written using BBC Backstage data. If you're interested how it's done, I've just dropped a blog about it. (I believe "dropping a blog" is the new vernacular.) http://james.cridland.net/blog/2008/03/02/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-widget/ Hope some here find this useful. Geeks may like to see the picture which accompanies it, which shows my Asus Eee desktop. Comments (here or on the blog) are welcome. About the widget, not really about the Asus. (Which is very good, by the way). -- http://james.cridland.net/ | http://www.mediauk.com/ Media UK is a Not At All Bad Ltd production. http://notatallbad.ltd.uk/legal_info/
Re: [backstage] BBC Podcasts Programme Guide...
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Carlos Roman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry, I don't work on iPlayer team so don't know if there is one or > not. Maybe someone else on the list could. > It's the desire of the iPlayer team to have an RSS feed on every page of the new UI, which is due end April and which will include both TV and radio programmes. It's all coming together... (grin) j
