Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
2009/10/7 David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk Billy Abbott wrote: Mo McRoberts wrote: I might be being dim, but I can’t see an angle to this where the rights holders actually get what they want (anything which even impedes pirates) without fundamentally altering the conceptual landscape of free-to-air receiving equipment in the UK. I've always assumed that they don't want to impede the pirates, but instead want a way to pursue them legally and then make an extra profit. It's the people who can't break the law, the consumer electronics companies who will be required to obtain a licence who will be affected. It is a legal trigger. Conditions placed on them (Consumer Electronics), will impact the consumer, due to built in restrictions in the equipment, imposed by a licence holder (DTVA). This will alter the landscape of free-to-air, circumventing the intention of the law. You can't build a PVR, or even a TV without an EPG. And as was suggested, this will allow the DTVA to control innovation, in this field, by authorising products (and charging for a licence? aka profit). I suppose it depends on if the BBC asks for a payment for the licence. It could simply provide it for free to anyone who signs the agreement. This would allow the BBC to assert the control over the consumer that the foreign powers want. But common law does now allow a contract to override the provisions of Primary legislation. It would be hard for the BBC to have a contractual hold over all Freeview HD receivers and not violate the rights of citizens. There are rights in law to time-shift, and for educational establishments (and certain others) for archive and reuse. There is also the right for public free-to-air broadcasts to be retransmitted in the EU, and this system would violate that too. It's such a shame that Ofcom didn't give us time to work all this out. I would have gone about it earlier, but I was having my shoulder operated on... This exactly the public interest, that the law was intended to protect. And why the metadata (EPG), should be regarded as part of the signal, (it is broadcast) that must be unencrypted for public service broadcasting. QED. - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 06:41, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: It's the people who can't break the law, the consumer electronics companies who will be required to obtain a licence who will be affected. It is a legal trigger. Conditions placed on them (Consumer Electronics), will impact the consumer, due to built in restrictions in the equipment, imposed by a licence holder (DTVA). This will alter the landscape of free-to-air, circumventing the intention of the law. I’ve taken the view to this point that, rather than being about control of the CE sector, this is more to do with trying to appease stroppy rights-holders without having a huge amount of tangible impact (though there would be collateral damage). The alternative view is, as you suggest, that it’s a bid to seek control of the consumer electronics space by way of holding a key which everybody needs. I’ve steered away from this conclusion, because I actually think attempts at placating rights-holders are more likely the root cause -however- it’s worth noting that the Project Canvas proposals suffer from precisely the same problems (in fact, they’re worse). The BBC did state in the letter to Ofcom that the license would be zero-cost, so that part’s not an issue. Obtaining a license would require agreeing to certain conditions, however, including non-disclosure, honouring the copy-control attributes of the HD channels, and prohibiting user modification. This is incompatible with DVB code _built on_ software licensed under many open source licenses, which CE manufacturers have been increasingly embracing over the past decade. After all, what’s the point in licensing a commercial DVB stack or expending the massive RD costs in rolling your own, when a perfectly good one is there already? It’s the same reason the creators of the transcoding platform behind iPlayer didn’t write their own filesystem (last I knew, much of it runs on OpenSolaris w/ZFS on x86_64 boxes), and why BBC Online didn’t write its own web server to power bbc.co.uk, and so on. In real terms, the intention and motivation behind it are almost immaterial: the end result is the same either way. I know for a fact that several of the responses to Ofcom from technically-knowledgeable people (both inside and outside of the broadcast industry) pointed all of this out, noting the futility of the approach with respect to piracy. And why the metadata (EPG), should be regarded as part of the signal, (it is broadcast) that must be unencrypted for public service broadcasting. EPG data is subject to regulation and a licensing regime itself. I don’t know, though, how in particular the various obligations of the BBC relate to this. It’s entirely possible that there’s a loophole. M. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Instead of doing that I will follow your example and pimp up my personal blog where I give my current personal thoughts on this in July of last year: http://nickreynoldsatwork.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/freedom-open-source-s how-me-how/ But my blog does have comments enabled! From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 06 October 2009 19:25 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ... You could post your comments here, just for now 2009/10/6 Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net Hi Nick, On 6-Oct-2009, at 18:55, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Pity. I would have left a comment. The effort required to enable comments is unfortunately more than it's worth expending (and an awful lot of people dislike all of the available comment system options for tumblr), but I really am all ears. Either here, via e-mail to me, or a post on your own blog (do you have one? apart from the bbc.co.uk thing, I mean)-whatever suits. If it's worth saying, I'd like to hear it-especially if it's constructive criticism (or juicy gossip...) The same obviously applies to anybody else, of course. Cheers, M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Mo McRoberts wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 06:41, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: It's the people who can't break the law, the consumer electronics companies who will be required to obtain a licence who will be affected. It is a legal trigger. Conditions placed on them (Consumer Electronics), will impact the consumer, due to built in restrictions in the equipment, imposed by a licence holder (DTVA). This will alter the landscape of free-to-air, circumventing the intention of the law. I’ve taken the view to this point that, rather than being about control of the CE sector, this is more to do with trying to appease stroppy rights-holders without having a huge amount of tangible impact (though there would be collateral damage). The alternative view is, as you suggest, that it’s a bid to seek control of the consumer electronics space by way of holding a key which everybody needs. I’ve steered away from this conclusion, because I actually think attempts at placating rights-holders are more likely the root cause -however- it’s worth noting that the Project Canvas proposals suffer from precisely the same problems (in fact, they’re worse). The BBC did state in the letter to Ofcom that the license would be zero-cost, so that part’s not an issue. Obtaining a license would require agreeing to certain conditions, however, including non-disclosure, honouring the copy-control attributes of the HD channels, and prohibiting user modification. This is incompatible with DVB code _built on_ software licensed under many open source licenses, which CE manufacturers have been increasingly embracing over the past decade. After all, what’s the point in licensing a commercial DVB stack or expending the massive RD costs in rolling your own, when a perfectly good one is there already? It’s the same reason the creators of the transcoding platform behind iPlayer didn’t write their own filesystem (last I knew, much of it runs on OpenSolaris w/ZFS on x86_64 boxes), and why BBC Online didn’t write its own web server to power bbc.co.uk, and so on. In real terms, the intention and motivation behind it are almost immaterial: the end result is the same either way. I know for a fact that several of the responses to Ofcom from technically-knowledgeable people (both inside and outside of the broadcast industry) pointed all of this out, noting the futility of the approach with respect to piracy. And why the metadata (EPG), should be regarded as part of the signal, (it is broadcast) that must be unencrypted for public service broadcasting. EPG data is subject to regulation and a licensing regime itself. I don’t know, though, how in particular the various obligations of the BBC relate to this. It’s entirely possible that there’s a loophole. M. You know what is really ironic, I think they intended to use 'Trade Secret' law, to trigger the licence, but when you make the codes to decompress the EPG secret, it is encryption, and requiring an NDA (to protect the secret, as required by law) excludes Open Source/Free Software. Of course you should ask why they want a meaningless restriction as part of the standard, and that is to trigger a licence, which can have any number of conditions including restricting the functionality of the equipment produced by the licencees (Consumer Electronics). Controlling the functionality of the Consumer Electronic product is seen (by the rights holders) as key to restricting the public access to broadcast content. No analog hole, HDMI only (encrypted, trusted) output etc. This is definitely not in the public interest. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:44, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Controlling the functionality of the Consumer Electronic product is seen (by the rights holders) as key to restricting the public access to broadcast content. No analog hole, HDMI only (encrypted, trusted) output etc. Except the idea of closing the untrusted path only works if you work on the premise that the nefarious types who illegally share copyright material only care about breaking one specific set of laws (copyright infringement) and won’t just work around the trusted path by modifying their kit or cobbling together some equivalent. This is sheer fantasy, really—it’s pretty much entirely incompatible with (a) an open market, and (b) broadcasting (as opposed to simulcasting to millions of people individually). I can’t think of an adjective which sums it up more adequately than “crazy”. M. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
The rights-holders will have to answer the first part. This is sheer fantasy, really—it’s pretty much entirely incompatible with (a) an open market, and (b) broadcasting (as opposed to simulcasting to millions of people individually). They don't want an open market, they have enjoyed a monopoly through broadcasting (limited bandwidth/broadcasters) and through copyright. They don't wish this to change. Regardless of the potential of new technology for increasing the public utility. (Gains for the public). If the HD signal is encrypted or licenced, then this can carry over to the Internet where simulcasts, would be encrypted or otherwise restricted. This is all about maintaining the rights-holders monopoly of content distribution, and possibly charging on a pay-per-view model. Pro Bono Publico For the good of the public ! - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:43, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: They don't want an open market, they have enjoyed a monopoly through broadcasting (limited bandwidth/broadcasters) and through copyright. They don't wish this to change. Regardless of the potential of new technology for increasing the public utility. (Gains for the public). Not quite what I meant by “open market”. There was never a requirement in the past for CE makers to join logo/licensing programmes to ensure their kit worked—they just followed the specs. That wasn’t limited to CE makers, either, which is how things like MythTV came to exist. FTA isn’t that “anybody can receive the broadcasts [if they buy from one of our approved manufacturers]” it’s “anybody can receive the broadcasts provided what they have adheres to the open specs”. If the HD signal is encrypted or licenced, then this can carry over to the Internet where simulcasts, would be encrypted or otherwise restricted. It’s harder when you’ve got Internet-based delivery, because you have to hand over both the crypto mechanism and the decryption key to something which is primarily under user control—it’s not a “black box” in the same way that an STB or TV is. But, it’s not something those doing Internet-based delivery don’t often attempt to do (look at iPlayer Desktop, for example). M. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
I agree technical schemes and disproportionate legal threats are inefficient ways to combat illicit copying, and work should be done to make copying licit. However, the rights holders are not bad guys in the scenario, they represent (for better or worse) people making a living through creation. How can they be compensated fairly for their work? A watermarking scheme which counts downloads or views, and apportions revenues accordingly? That would possibly mean a shift away from overcompensation of big names and a reduction of middlemen, not bad things. Or perhaps the public should just settle for lots more mediocrity. Sean. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:43 PM, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: The rights-holders will have to answer the first part. This is sheer fantasy, really—it’s pretty much entirely incompatible with (a) an open market, and (b) broadcasting (as opposed to simulcasting to millions of people individually). They don't want an open market, they have enjoyed a monopoly through broadcasting (limited bandwidth/broadcasters) and through copyright. They don't wish this to change. Regardless of the potential of new technology for increasing the public utility. (Gains for the public). If the HD signal is encrypted or licenced, then this can carry over to the Internet where simulcasts, would be encrypted or otherwise restricted. This is all about maintaining the rights-holders monopoly of content distribution, and possibly charging on a pay-per-view model. Pro Bono Publico For the good of the public ! - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Mo McRoberts wrote: Not quite what I meant by “open market”. There was never a requirement in the past for CE makers to join logo/licensing programmes to ensure their kit worked—they just followed the specs. That wasn’t limited to CE makers, either, which is how things like MythTV came to exist. FTA isn’t that “anybody can receive the broadcasts [if they buy from one of our approved manufacturers]” it’s “anybody can receive the broadcasts provided what they have adheres to the open specs”. Yes even a certification scheme, is likely to exclude Myth TV etc. No hardware to certify, and the source code is constantly modified. It’s harder when you’ve got Internet-based delivery, because you have to hand over both the crypto mechanism and the decryption key to something which is primarily under user control—it’s not a “black box” in the same way that an STB or TV is. But, it’s not something those doing Internet-based delivery don’t often attempt to do (look at iPlayer Desktop, for example). If internet delivery is the primary delivery mechanism, then it is likely to be a STB style black box, or built into the TV, at the consumer end. I think this is the intention, of the rights-holders. I would not be surprised if they attempted to exclude open hardware (PC's). - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
-Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts I can't think of an adjective which sums it up more adequately than crazy. Time for me to unlurk :-) I'm pretty sure everyone knows by now that no-matter what DRM system is in place, it can be circumvented. But in the end that doesn't really matter - it's all just a case of being seen to be doing one's best to protect investments. Someone isn't going to finance content for you if you can't promise you'll do your utmost, through agreements with 3rd parties (e.g. broadcasters) and all the technical and legal measures available to you, to protect their investment, however futile that may be. That isn't crazy - if you were investing in a risky venture, you'd still want promises that those you were investing in would try to minimise risks. However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be Free software friendly? Chris - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:04, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: How can they be compensated fairly for their work? A watermarking scheme which counts downloads or views, and apportions revenues accordingly? That would possibly mean a shift away from overcompensation of big names and a reduction of middlemen, not bad things What, in your mind, are they being (additionally) compensated for? Bearing in mind that in this context, the broadcasts are being made to about 50 million people freely over the airwaves and the rights-holders are already paid for this. Anybody within that group of 50 million has already been compensated on behalf of through the commissioning process. If a significant proportion of the downloaders of your FTA UK content are themselves within the UK, as a rights-holder I’d be asking myself why they’re having to resort to illicit means to obtain content they already had rights to receive and time-shift. Then I’d try to fix it. Once you start going outside of the UK, things are more complicated. One thing is critically evident as things have changed over the past few years: artificial geographically-based restrictions are doomed to failure. If you have to wait weeks, or even months (and sometimes years) to get the same content legally in your region, the rights-holders have shot themselves in the foot. The broadcast industry would do well to learn from the mistakes the music industry made: artificial scarcity, legal threats, hyperbole and DRM only actually achieve the intended results for a painfully short period of time. M. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:33, Chris Warren ch...@ixalon.net wrote: Someone isn't going to finance content for you if you can't promise you'll do your utmost, through agreements with 3rd parties (e.g. broadcasters) and all the technical and legal measures available to you, to protect their investment, however futile that may be. That isn't crazy - if you were investing in a risky venture, you'd still want promises that those you were investing in would try to minimise risks. No, it _is_ crazy. What isn’t crazy is saying “look, it’s free to air. it’s available to virtually everybody in the UK, and that’s the purpose of the broadcast. that’s why we’re commissioning it.” Similarly, dispelling the myths that the technical measures do _anything_ except harm legitimate users would be a good start. Those wishing to misappropriate the investment are not those who are in any way affected by the DRM. Seriously. I don’t know of any other way to explain this. _All_ DRM does is harm the relationship with your customer. That’s it. It’s not “doing your utmost” at anything if you know already it’s futile. That’s just called wasting everybody’s time and money, including the people who ultimately pay for the output in the first place. However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be Free software friendly? The solution is not to attempt to implement a system which only achieves the opposite of the intended effect. DRM and anything “open” cannot by definition mix in any useful fashion: DRM relies solely on things being kept secret, which is pretty much the opposite of anything which is actually open ;) The solution is the one which has served free-to-air broadcasting very well for many decades: you accept the realities, or you don’t play ball. It really, honestly, truly, isn’t any more complicated than that provided you’re actually in possession of the facts (and I realise many of the people engaging in negotiations actually aren’t). M. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
My understanding is that the BBC's strategy is to treat the UK and rest-of-world markets differently, with a profit orientation on the World side. Technical geolocalisation solutions are indeed doomed to failure in my view. Those sly devils at Google showed me a sponsored link last week promising international access to UK iPlayer through a proxy. As a former musician and record producer, you'll have no pity from me for the rapacious vultures of the music biz :-) But I'm speaking generally about digital disruption. The free-to-air model is now the free-to-world model. I'm actually much more worried about newspapers. Sean. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:04, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: How can they be compensated fairly for their work? A watermarking scheme which counts downloads or views, and apportions revenues accordingly? That would possibly mean a shift away from overcompensation of big names and a reduction of middlemen, not bad things What, in your mind, are they being (additionally) compensated for? Bearing in mind that in this context, the broadcasts are being made to about 50 million people freely over the airwaves and the rights-holders are already paid for this. Anybody within that group of 50 million has already been compensated on behalf of through the commissioning process. If a significant proportion of the downloaders of your FTA UK content are themselves within the UK, as a rights-holder I’d be asking myself why they’re having to resort to illicit means to obtain content they already had rights to receive and time-shift. Then I’d try to fix it. Once you start going outside of the UK, things are more complicated. One thing is critically evident as things have changed over the past few years: artificial geographically-based restrictions are doomed to failure. If you have to wait weeks, or even months (and sometimes years) to get the same content legally in your region, the rights-holders have shot themselves in the foot. The broadcast industry would do well to learn from the mistakes the music industry made: artificial scarcity, legal threats, hyperbole and DRM only actually achieve the intended results for a painfully short period of time. M. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:56, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: My understanding is that the BBC's strategy is to treat the UK and rest-of-world markets differently, with a profit orientation on the World side. Technical geolocalisation solutions are indeed doomed to failure in my view. Those sly devils at Google showed me a sponsored link last week promising international access to UK iPlayer through a proxy. Oh, you can do it. People will pay if the product’s of a good standard and not subject to ridiculous delays and impediments. Personally, I’m in favour of liberalising some of the restrictions upon BBCW (provided it doesn’t impact negatively upon the FTA efforts within the UK). People often resort to downloads because they -have- to in order to get the output they want on their terms, rather than because it's free. (Anecdotal personal example: I’m more than capable of downloading films from BitTorrent, and have a dim view much of the movie industry, but I rent movies from iTunes instead—it’s fast, it’s easy, it’s convenient, and it doesn’t cost the earth). As a former musician and record producer, you'll have no pity from me for the rapacious vultures of the music biz :-) the daft thing is, much of it’s been so depressingly predictable from very early on. so much of it’s been avoidable. But I'm speaking generally about digital disruption. The free-to-air model is now the free-to-world model. I'm actually much more worried about newspapers. The newspapers are fixable. Perhaps not -as- newspapers in many cases (though you’ll prize my magazine subscriptions from my cold, dead hands), but by becoming far more efficient at collating and redistributing news and—most importantly—the expert commentary on it; the latter being something news.bbc.co.uk only provides minimal amounts of. Free-to-air _can_ be free-to-world, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that it WILL be—that more depends upon the content than anything else (and it doesn’t have to be FTA in the first place, of course). The only real solution, though, is to capitalise on the overseas markets: business models wholly reliant upon it being difficult and uneconomical for consumers (on whichever side of the law) to ship content from one side of the world to the other weren’t ever going to last forever. That was the monopoly period—the breathing space to develop the models and form the alliances and dip toes in waters—which as with any other, has a limited lifespan. M. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
It is also worth highlighting that the Societies involved in protecting the rights of music producers have also lagged well behind the technical innovations which have subsequently opened up new areas of distribution... both legal and illegal. Their methods for trying to defend the rights have actually alienated the public, as well as some of those same serious investors. I am sure that PACT and the BBC could learn much from the recent experience of the physical music business. Whilst arguing for detail, they lost the battle. Sadly, as the whole model has been distorted by industry self interest, the golden goose, along with the bolting horse, have disappeared anyway, over the horizon to pastures new. :-) Richard Edwards On 7 Oct 2009, at 14:13, Mo McRoberts wrote: As a former musician and record producer, you'll have no pity from me for the rapacious vultures of the music biz :-) the daft thing is, much of it’s been so depressingly predictable from very early on. so much of it’s been avoidable. - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Please. Only conspiracy theories allowed here. Move along:) However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be Free software friendly? Sounds good in all seriousness, would be interested to take part in *that* discussion. Alia Chris Warren wrote: Time for me to unlurk :-) I'm pretty sure everyone knows by now that no-matter what DRM system is in place, it can be circumvented. But in the end that doesn't really matter - it's all just a case of being seen to be doing one's best to protect investments. Someone isn't going to finance content for you if you can't promise you'll do your utmost, through agreements with 3rd parties (e.g. broadcasters) and all the technical and legal measures available to you, to protect their investment, however futile that may be. That isn't crazy - if you were investing in a risky venture, you'd still want promises that those you were investing in would try to minimise risks. However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be Free software friendly? Chris - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 15:07, Alia Sheikh alia.she...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote: However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be Free software friendly? Sounds good in all seriousness, would be interested to take part in *that* discussion. Unfortunately, that discussion isn’t really one which is at all technical in nature—it’s broadly a matter of legal and business strategy. Not quite so interesting to the kinds of smart people who tend to have an interest in the technical stuff! There’s some cross-over, though… ;) - 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] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Mo McRoberts wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 15:07, Alia Sheikh alia.she...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote: However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be Free software friendly? Sounds good in all seriousness, would be interested to take part in *that* discussion. Unfortunately, that discussion isn’t really one which is at all technical in nature—it’s broadly a matter of legal and business strategy. Not quite so interesting to the kinds of smart people who tend to have an interest in the technical stuff! There’s some cross-over, though… ;) It is an interesting issue. Also known as why everything you know about copyright is wrong ! It needs a new thread and perhaps a new day, but please start without me, (I won't be able to resist commenting) You may find my views radical as my suggested title implies. - 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] free london's data event
Help us free London's Data Saturday 24th October 2009 10.00 am London's Living Room City Hall The Queens Walk London SE1 2AA The Greater London Authority is currently in the process of scoping London's DataStore. Initially we propose to release as much GLA data as possible and to encourage other public agencies in London to do the same and we'd like your help! We want the input of the developer community from the outset prior to making any decisions on formats or platform. We would therefore like to invite interested developers to City Hall so that we can talk to you about what we want to do, get your views, and seek your input on the best way to deliver for London. On the day we'll be running a requirements specification workshop and a high level technical design session to explore how we might do this in a way that makes sense for the end users - you. The event will take place in London's Living Room at 10 am on the morning of Saturday 24th October. If you would like to attend please register your interest. http://freelondonsdata.eventbrite.com/ -- Brendan Quinn | Technology Transfer Executive | BBC Research Development Broadcast Centre BC4 B6, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane London W12 7TP brendan.qu...@bbc.co.uk | +44 20 800 85097 | +44 7900 847 358 - 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] Google Wave
Changing the long running threads (don't think I'm not watching) Now Google Wave invites are out there and more of you have had a chance to play with wave. What do people think? And why is no one building a decent client for it? Am I the only excited person? Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer, BBC RD 01612444063 | 07711913293 ian.forres...@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] Google Wave
On 7-Oct-2009, at 17:20, Ian Forrester wrote: Changing the long running threads (don't think I'm not watching) Now Google Wave invites are out there and more of you have had a chance to play with wave. What do people think? And why is no one building a decent client for it? Give it time… the people most likely to do this may not even have access to the preview yet ;) Am I the only excited person? Nope. It shows a huge amount of potential (although it’s quite buggy at the moment). IM+Email+Docs+…stuff, all built on XMPP? I’ll take three! (I’m finding it quite buggy at the moment, though). I’m nevalic...@googlewave.com, should anybody feel the need. A search for “with:public” is quite a good place to start for those who are new to it. M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - 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] free london's data event
Ah London's got no chance :) I think theres something bubbling up which is similar but with support from the local and regional government agencies in Greater Manchester. Like they say, Manchester does today what London does tomorrow ;) Secret[] Private[x] Public[] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer, BBC RD 01612444063 | 07711913293 ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Brendan Quinn Sent: 07 October 2009 17:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] free london's data event Help us free London's Data Saturday 24th October 2009 10.00 am London's Living Room City Hall The Queens Walk London SE1 2AA The Greater London Authority is currently in the process of scoping London's DataStore. Initially we propose to release as much GLA data as possible and to encourage other public agencies in London to do the same and we'd like your help! We want the input of the developer community from the outset prior to making any decisions on formats or platform. We would therefore like to invite interested developers to City Hall so that we can talk to you about what we want to do, get your views, and seek your input on the best way to deliver for London. On the day we'll be running a requirements specification workshop and a high level technical design session to explore how we might do this in a way that makes sense for the end users - you. The event will take place in London's Living Room at 10 am on the morning of Saturday 24th October. If you would like to attend please register your interest. http://freelondonsdata.eventbrite.com/ -- Brendan Quinn | Technology Transfer Executive | BBC Research Development Broadcast Centre BC4 B6, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane London W12 7TP brendan.qu...@bbc.co.uk | +44 20 800 85097 | +44 7900 847 358 - 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] Google Wave
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Changing the long running threads (don't think I'm not watching) Now Google Wave invites are out there and more of you have had a chance to play with wave. What do people think? And why is no one building a decent client for it? Am I the only excited person? I think most everyone else is embarrassed to admit they'd quite like an invite. I'd quite like an invite. Main thing I'm positive about so far, is that XMPP deserves serious attention and this will help it get some... cheers, Dan - 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] free london's data event
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 17:18, Brendan Quinn brendan.qu...@bbc.co.uk wrote: We want the input of the developer community from the outset prior to making any decisions on formats or platform. We would therefore like to invite interested developers to City Hall so that we can talk to you about what we want to do, get your views, and seek your input on the best way to deliver for London. You do know that quite a fair chunk of the developer community is going to be at BarCampLondon7 on the weekend of the 24th... -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ - 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] Google Wave
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 17:20, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Now Google Wave invites are out there and more of you have had a chance to play with wave. What do people think? And why is no one building a decent client for it? Am I the only excited person? I had a Wave Sandbox account for some time. Thought it was very 'meh'. Blogged about it here: http://tommorris.org/blog/2009/08/08#When:15:50:47 -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ - 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] Google Wave
As would I. On one hand I'd like an invite, on the other I'd rather gouge my eyes out than have one. The way Google pass their invites out is very clever-clever in building up a market, but it marks them out as c***s. I've worked with all kinds of Google stuff and been to various Google conferences over the years but this time I don't get an invite, whereas I have friends who couldn't give the square root of f*** all about Google who've been granted an invite. F**k 'em and the horse they rode in on. R. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Changing the long running threads (don't think I'm not watching) Now Google Wave invites are out there and more of you have had a chance to play with wave. What do people think? And why is no one building a decent client for it? Am I the only excited person? I think most everyone else is embarrassed to admit they'd quite like an invite. I'd quite like an invite. Main thing I'm positive about so far, is that XMPP deserves serious attention and this will help it get some... cheers, Dan - 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/
