[backstage] BBC Trust approves Project Canvas ...
Following on from discussion last september: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/25/project-canvas-bbc-trust -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon 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] Freeview HD Content Management
On 16/06/10 07:11, Brian Butterworth wrote: It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way. And how long will the Radio Times XML service continue? Don't forget the schedule is copyright; the Ts Cs will forbid automated scraping and, if you just ROT13 them the UK DMCA will, iirc, make it a *criminal* act to put TV schedules on a computer... But not to worry, after a few generations of chains one could say this about slavery: People won't miss something they never knew they had in the first place David -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon 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] iPad
Dan Brickley wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: So, what does everyone think? Would make a very luxurious smart and expensive remote control, or if you stuck legs on it, a very very small multi-touch table. Apparently that's not all it does: http://rah.posterous.com/apple-ipad-commercial-1 -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon 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] BBC iPlayer and the Nokia N900
Tim Dobson wrote: The default Maemo browser is essentially Firefox 3.5+ which supports video / (not natively H.264 though, but that's a different debate). With regards to DRM, well, I think some people are generally coming round to the idea that it may not be the be all and end all. We'll have to see what happens, but it wouldn't surprise me if 2010 was the year video DRM got dropped as DRM for audio and in music has been in the last year or two... Heh, what's ironic is that the next Maemo device is likely to have a very solid and secure DRM capability :) http://wiki.maemo.org/MaemoSecurity David (A Maemo/Mer dev) -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon 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/
[backstage] BBC programme about Open Source being made ?
I heard (from a colleague in the US) that the BBC were making a programme or series about open source. Anyone here know anything about it or anyone involved? David -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon 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] Google Chrome OS
Ian Forrester wrote: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html Ok so what do people think? For me Google is certainly on a home run at the moment, Wave anyone? From reading the link above, it seems like it will be something like I saw at Minibar a while back but can't find now. So a boot straight into a browser using a small Linux kernel. I was hoping it would be a X11 environment to compete with Gnome, KDE, Fluxbox, etc. If you want an X11/Linux environment for small form-factor mobile devices with a focus on touch-ability then have a look at Mer. http://wiki.maemo.org/Mer FWIW I'll be talking about it at the UKUUG : http://summer2009.ukuug.org/Talks -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon 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] Shower Radios
Some advice : Be careful! My wife said wouldn't it be nice... in a very innocent tone. Anyway, a bit later: http://www.flickr.com/photos/96141...@n00/2192513428/ She's very persuasive! David PS This is on topic as you can easily hear it in the shower too. Ian Forrester wrote: I use to have a Gromit Shower radio for listening to podcasts in the shower via a FM Transmitter. Now I have a speaker extended into the on-suite bathroom from my computer. But back to choice on shower radio, I wouldn't bother with the Mpeg3 part as I've always found them frustrating and it cuts down your choice by a lot. Get a decent Shower radio and setup the FM Transmitter on the sly for her. Nothing says I love you like a guy willing to install a FM transmitter for his love one. ;) Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [] private; [] ask first; [x] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)1612444063 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Alan Pope Sent: 22 April 2009 12:11 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Shower Radios 2009/4/22 Zen zen16...@zen.co.uk: What is the need for a radio in the shower anyway? Why not just leave a radio or mp3 player outside the shower and turn the volume up? Indeed, I once received a combined solar/wind-up radio for my birthday, which lived on the window-sill in our bathroom. A quick wind of the handle (45.5 turns) before leaping in the shower would result in enough loud music for 20 mins or so. Longer with lower volume. Amusingly we'd tend to let the winder expire rather than turn the radio off. Frequently we'd be sat downstairs later in the day and have the bejeezus scared out of us by voices from upstairs. Caused by the sun blazing through the window, waking the radio up via the gift of solar power. Fun fun. Cheers, Al. - 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/ -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon 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] The BBC as sheep... and irresponsible ones too
Mr I Forrester wrote: Richard Lockwood wrote: Actually I wrote: In this day and age it *is* important to teach people about electronic security. This story completely fails to do so. :) There is something you could argue the BBC should be doing around this. There was a suggestion that Webwise 2.0 could be perfect for this... It has the potential to add more detail than you would want in a story. This: http://www.bbc.co.uk/webwise/askbruce/articles/security/cleandrive_1.shtml is a step in the right direction. David -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon 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] The BBC as sheep... and irresponsible ones too
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: David Greaves wrote: So here we are, a month after Which? gave out the same dumb advice the BBC follows: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_791/7910045.stm Sensationalist pillock :) I can't wait for someone to be seriously hurt trying to drill through a hard drive. FWIW: http://16systems.com/zero/index.html I'm not an expert, but from my understanding of the theory, that challenge isn't offering anything like enough money. $500 is less than recovery companies charge for a normal recovery. I would have thought at least $10,000 is more like what you would need to offer, maybe more. Ah, you didn't allow for the value of the coveted title... King (or Queen) of Data Recovery You'd need something like a magnetic force microscope, snip plot worthy of MacGyver... Err, that would be the point... And given that your plot would even work, how many spods on eBay have access to a magnetic force microscope? Obviously the word spods includes BBC reporters (note, not journalist) incapable of entering wiped disc recovery scanning electron paper into Google and getting as the second hit: http://sansforensics.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/overwriting-hard-drive-data/ Which makes a mockery of the whole thing (as do any number of other references that are not obtained from companies making a living from BS). For the lazy: The forensic recovery of data using electron microscopy is infeasible. David -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon 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/
[backstage] The BBC as sheep... and irresponsible ones too
So here we are, a month after Which? gave out the same dumb advice the BBC follows: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_791/7910045.stm Sensationalist pillock :) I can't wait for someone to be seriously hurt trying to drill through a hard drive. FWIW: http://16systems.com/zero/index.html David -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon 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] The BBC as sheep... and irresponsible ones too
Richard Lockwood wrote: Um - what are you suggesting as an alternative? Read the 2nd URL. In this day and age it *is* important to teach people about electronic security. This story completely fails to do so. Excerpt from that URL: Legitimate data recovery firms know that recovering data from a zeroed hard drive is impossible. They will not take the challenge. Lastly, it is noble and just to dispel myths, falsehoods and untruths. Whilst it is true that someone with a scanning electron microscope or the ability to build a HDD and the associated electronics by hand could theoretically recover some data from a wiped disk I think (as you do) it's reasonable to assume that a crook buying HDDs on eBay isn't likely to be operating at this level. I actually applaud the BBC/Which? research that found these un-deleted disks and I grant you that most people are not capable of deleting files properly and need to be educated. However, by promoting myths the problem is made worse. A far better approach would have been to recommend any one of the numerous 'disk wipers' such as: http://www.dban.org/about There are charitable organisations all over the world who can reuse IT equipment and despite caveats the BBC are promoting waste and pollution - the junk will be put in the council bins and go to landfill - not be disposed of properly. It's more a question of who would WANT to spend the hours putting a drive back together just to get access to your £500 overdraft facility - ie a question of trouble / worth. Agreed, but as the report showed - destroying them is *hard* and dangerous. Simply erasing them is cheap and a lot safer! *AND* you can donate them to charity. Me, I reformat them, And this is the flaw in your plan and the BBCs. Reformatting does not erase data. The BBC completely failed to say: You may think that reformatting works - you really need to use a special disk eraser such as dban - otherwise you could find your second hand sale costing you more than you could imagine. Where's your problem? I hope that answers you? David -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon 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] BBC iPlayer download on Linux and Mac using AIR
Mr I Forrester wrote: No one seems to have picked up on the launch of the iPlayer download AIR application for Windows, Linux, OSX. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/12/introducing_iplayer_deskto.html I wonder why? maybe I should save it for a personal blog post... We can't make it work /me ducks You clearly didn't read the iPlayer caching thread - such an obvious title too ;) I made an attempt at a subject change about 3 days ago. My experience: I went to http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ Then I went to the Labs. It says You are signed up for BBC iPlayer Labs. Start using iPlayer labs features. I did find http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/where_to_get_iplayer/ (the linux clicky doesn't take me anywhere useful) After about 200 clicks I gave up on finding a download of any kind. Then it just plays online and has nothing helpful to say about working offline. I didn't find anything on the BBC to tell me what to do. Now I guess I need to go elsewhere for AIR and then it will magically work - but where? A quick post to the BBC Linux support system (aka Backstage) and I went here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/install/bbc_iplayer_desktop (Thanks Alan!) But despite having flash 10.0.12 it doesn't offer AIR and this page: http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/AIR_for_Linux:Release_Notes tells me that my version of Linux (Debian, you may have heard of it) isn't supported. Ah well. Back to MythTV... and at least I can watch Strictly again with that. Merry Xmas all David -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon 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] not quite in the Backstage spirit?
Sam Mbale wrote: I'm a consumer of BBC content in it's various forms. It is an institution am proud to be related to since kindergarten. The BBC logo is embedded in my subconcious.. I almost had a BBC tattoo but I settled for a Blue Peter badge and a T-shirt (hinting on a free t-shirt). On a serious note, the BBC is like a nanny, you never forget the lessons learnt and you always wear the nanny's name with pride. My point is that there has to be a middle way where the BBC allows it's fanboys or girls to wear the logo and still protect it's integrity as a supernanny. We do not want extremists to use the logo as they did with the British flag. My suggestion is a Powered by BBC logo. Same problem... sounds like the BBC power it. How about Friend of the BBC type logo? Standard recognisable BBC logo with a 'friend' flash of some description... Clearly suggests an association and not a responsibility. David -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon 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/
iPlayer on Linux Re: [backstage] iPlayer caching
Andy wrote: 2008/12/18 Andy stude.l...@googlemail.com: When is the actual platform neutral iPlayer coming out? Apparently this is the platform neutral version The cross-platform nature of Adobe AIR means the iPlayer will work with Open Source and Apple Mac computers out of the box on 18 December, said Mr Rose. It fulfilled the Trust's demand that the iPlayer be platform neutral, he said. Can someone here by me a better dictionary for Christmas, that doesn't match with what I thought neutral ment? The most appropriate definition for neutra I found is not supporting or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest[1]. Whats the BBC's definition of neutral? Can someone please explain how this is not favouring certain platforms? I run Debian. It's a fairly popular distro, some of you may have heard of it. But iPlayer doesn't appear to work on my system :( I went to http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ Then I went to the Labs. It says You are signed up for BBC iPlayer Labs. Start using iPlayer labs features. I did find http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/where_to_get_iplayer/ After about 200 clicks I gave up on finding a download of any kind. Then it just plays online and has nothing helpful to say about working offline. I didn't find anything on the BBC to tell me what to do. Now I guess I need to go elsewhere for AIR and then it will magically work - but where? I did get Our servers are too busy. Please try again later. a lot though. David -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon 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] Microsoft says it 'has always preferred' DRM-free content
Aleem B wrote: BBC is a public service so the issues don't really translate to Microsoft/DRM which is inclined to support DRM so it can sign deals with labels and sell their music players. Unless the BBC uses MS solutions with their DRM systems that aren't turned off. Which IIRC it did. MS has a lot of employees - many have never liked DRM, many would bet their future on it. En-masse I thinkg MS tends towards the latter rather than the former. Even this interview which purports to show a bias to DRM-free concludes with this quote from 'the exec': ultimately we'll come up with another generation of DRM where you don't have to [go through such contortions, Your original mail (and subsequent follow up) is classic flamebait http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamebait--something you should avoid altogether. Brian's original point contained a relevant news link and the email equivalent of a raised eyebrow. You suggested he was being alarmist. His follow-on avoided a flamewar and pointed to a neat catalogue of previously stated views. Your response was to try and inflame the thread. Please don't do that. David - 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/
Old thread, new News... Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]
Remember this old thread... (see below) Now, in the context of What could *possibly* go wrong look at this: Google News farce triggers Wall Street sell-off http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/10/online_news_farce_drops_united_stock/ Note the bit at the end: Update The Tribune Company has now said that traffic to the Sun-Sentinel's archive pushed the old bankruptcy article onto the most viewed section of the paper's web site. David (Who's feeling rather smug) David Greaves wrote: Peter Bowyer wrote: On 08/01/2008, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally I would rather the most read/most emailed reflected exactly what the user was doing, and wasn't most emailed stories from the last 7 days excluding the also in the news section because we are the BBC and we want our readers to look very serious all the time Not on the front page. IMHO The front page of the BBC news should not have 4 year old stories appearing on it 'by mistake'. In the entertainment section, see also section etc etc then yes. The front page should be current. If it *is* now current for some bizzare reason then re-report it. That misses the point - a casual reader (and even some regular readers) can be misled by those links pointing to old news. The 'Most Emailed' links are presented under a headline 'Most Popular Stories Now', and next to a section 'Around the world now' (on the page I'm looking at) which implies that the stories are current. Indeed. It was only last week I realised that 'Most Popular Stories Now' was a link and wasn't actually a section title!!! It's a fine objective to show real data (although dubious when it reflects 'gaming'), but it must be clear to the reader what the context is of what you're showing. And I note that the 'See Also' stories in the sidebar *are* date stamped. So is it a technology problem? (I could accept that See Also are edited into the story manually and the dates are re-keyed) David - 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/
[backstage] BBC News : It's not the Gates, it's the bars
Not seen this pop up on the list: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7487060.stm Not so much the message which not everyone agrees with - but I am impressed to see the point-of-view coming from a mainstream source :) David - 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] BBC News : It's not the Gates, it's the bars
Dan Brickley wrote: David Greaves wrote: Not seen this pop up on the list: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7487060.stm Not so much the message which not everyone agrees with - but I am impressed to see the point-of-view coming from a mainstream source :) Richard Stallman is a mainstream source now? Damn I overslept the revolution again... Well, you certainly missed the point... The BBC (not the FSF) are putting forward Mr Stallman's opinion for wider consideration. Given the impact linux has had, it's about time the 'philosophical' approaches (plural) to it were given a wider airing. Good to see. David - 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] BBC E-mail: It's not the Gates, it's the bars
Fred Phillips wrote: On Fri Jul 4 08:39:26 2008, David wrote: ** It's not the Gates, it's the bars ** Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, on the departure of Bill Gates. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/technology/7487060.stm Meh, doesn’t really say anything new. It’s good that free software is getting some exposure from the likes of the BBC, even if it is a little hypocritical. True but look at the license for the article - how many articles does the BBC News produce under a CC license? David - 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] As it's friday...
Yes monty_python_toneStop that at once. Do you hear me? shrillStop itextra_shrillNow/extra_shrill/monty_python_tone Parse error: malformed joke. David Thomas Leitch wrote: I'm sorry, but that's a bit distasteful... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 6/20/2008 4:07 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] As it's friday... I was feeling really depressed. Just wanted to kill myself so that it would all be over. I decided to call one of the toll free help lines. I got connected to a call center in Pakistan. I told them I wanted to commit suicide. They got all excited, then asked if I could drive a truck... -e On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Matt Barber wrote: Thought a tasteless joke was in order: Why did the girl fall off the swing? Because somebody threw a fridge at her Any others? (should probably get my coat...) - 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] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
Richard Lockwood wrote: If you want to even it up, why not put a charge, or an annual license on each device capable of viewing BBC content? Or, more reasonably, per-person (unless you know people who watch 2 devices at once?). Or make it PAYG? With a flat fee option? Discounted with a family plan? How much would that come out to a year? Oh wait... - 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] DVB-H finally gets formal adoption by the EC (oh and vista SP1!)
Andrew Bowden wrote: The public don't know what they want! ;) Problem is they'll settle for naff quality because they don't realise exactly what kind of quality can be achieved from the technology, they merely accept the broadcasted quality because they don't believe they can do anything about it, and there we have it. If you ask the early adopters what the quality was like at start as opposed to today, they all take our standpoint (it's rubbish now). TV pictures are a similar one. You wouldn't believe the number of people who can watch 4:3 signals on Freeview, stretched out to 16:9 on a naff LCD and think it's the best picture they've ever seen. Yet it makes me cringe every time. But try telling people that you're right... ;) And lets not forget that we've now got a culture growing whereby teenagers listen to music via appalling mobile loudspeakers on buses (well that is until I loom over then and threaten to ram the confounded thing down their throat anyway! ;) Funny thing that - I'm sure I recall a study that said that size is more important than quality for enjoying video. [I suspect volume is more important for enjoying music.] Note, enjoying, not appreciating. As we, err, 'mature'; some of us learn to appreciate as well as enjoy. I have a 240cm screen that plays standard def pictures blown up to widescreen - it's fantastic! Sure I notice the fuzz and some artefacts if I look careully - but it behooves me not to. Anyhow, personally I'm stuck until I can get a non-DRM HD signal into my Linux Myth PVR. David - 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] DVB-H finally gets formal adoption by the EC (oh and vista SP1!)
Steve Jolly wrote: David Greaves wrote: Anyhow, personally I'm stuck until I can get a non-DRM HD signal into my Linux Myth PVR. I assume satellite isn't an option for you? Actually - brain fart... sorry ;) I'm mainly aware of the Sky HD channels which are completely OT here :) I do get BBC HD from a freesat - I have some Planet Earth and Heroes AFAIK. I need to transcode them to something playable though - my frontend isn't up to the job at the moment... David - 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] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
As an ardent FOSS supporter : Well said :) [really - no sarcasm] If only people would make real-world, rational and pragmatic arguments about FOSS then this adversarial stuff would be less strident. The argument (IMO) should be about the use of an open standard, not Adobe vs Gnash. If your OS/device/whatever can't do published standards then tough. OTO if the BBC supports and promotes proprietary standards (cf Microsoft OOXML) then that's more of an issue. In that case I think the BBC (and any organisation capable of reviewing the behaviour of vendors for the past 15 years) would be well advised to consider the competitive landscape. Vendor lock-in is a well understood strategy that provides little, if any, benefit to the purchasing organisation in the medium/long term. Only if failure is expected does planning for the long-term makes no senses. I know (and care) little about Chief Systems - however the story is reasonable. The BBC are providing a service that Adobe has a veto over - they (Adobe) can *prevent* entrepreneurs from starting up with linux-based devices. (Tivo anyone?) I think that *that* is the reason that the BBC have a duty to counterbalance their support for Adobe/Flash with support for more open alternatives. Dave's argument would (IMHO) have been better phrased in these terms than by asking for a hand-out. David Richard Lockwood wrote: Quite. I seem to remember Mr Crossland arguing vehemently when the iPlayer beta came out that the BBC shouldn't be spending money on it because it didn't benefit all users. Pot, kettle, etc. Rich. On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Adam Leach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope the BBC does not spend licence fee money on the development of Gnash. This money should be spent to benefit the majority of the license payers, not just a very small group. I'm sure once Gnash has got the capability to run the flash used on the BBC website they will happily support it. Adam On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 22:19 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi, It seems Gnash is attracting a lot of funding and direct support these days... When will the BBC support access to the Flash-based parts of its websites with free software by helping the Gnash project? -- Forwarded message -- From: James Northcott / Chief Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 4 Mar 2008 21:45 Subject: [Gnash-dev] Gnash, Flash, Adobe, and cash To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello, My business partners and I are currently working on a Linux-based application that requires Flash playback. Adobe has specifically excluded our application from bundling a Flash player under the terms of their free distribution license, and our efforts to negotiate some sort of paid licensing agreement have stalled. At this point, we are looking for alternatives, and it would seem that helping Gnash would be a viable option for us. This leads me to ask the following questions: 1. What is stopping the Gnash team from fully implementing the Flash 9 file format? Where could we help the most? I understand there are some legal issues with those who have agreed to the Adobe EULA making contributions to Gnash. I'm also sure that there are manpower issues, as well as funding issues. I would appreciate someone taking the time to explain where the largest issues lie. We have some programming resources available, although we have no experience with the Gnash codebase at all, as well as a potentially large number of sample Flash movies that play correctly in the Adobe player but not in Gnash. 2. What kind of monetary investment would be necessary to significantly speed up Gnash development? I realize that this may be a difficult question to answer, but we are quite serious. We were prepared to pay Adobe to license their player, but this seems to have hit a dead end - could our contribution to Gnash help speed up development, and if so, how large a contribution would be required to overcome the blockers for Flash 9 support? We understand the open source model, and we are not interested in owning the copyright or changing the license of the Gnash code. We are simply willing to pay to get Flash 9 playback in our product, if this ends up being within our budget. I appreciate any feedback you have for me. James - 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] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
Richard Smedley wrote: On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 15:55 +, Jason Cartwright wrote: Pretty much all display advertising on the web is done in Flash (where rather a lot of money is spent, apparently) Yes, I'd noticed other people's computers seemed to carry umpteen more ads than mine on most websites ;^) puzzledThe internet has adverts?/puzzled https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865 David - 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] What would you love to see coming out of BBC Vision in the near future?
Ian Forrester wrote: Hi All, I was hoping to get a brainstorm of ideas for APIs and Feeds you would love to play with in the near future, while focusing on Vision/TV I got most of the obvious stuff like, - A reference page or service for all programmes (/programmes in XML) - keywords Anything more? I'm not sure of the scope of the above points... Given concepts like crossover and product placement it may be worth looking at in-program timing of generic 'objects'. eg: 25:00-26:23 Music: Band:Ah-ha Track:Take On Me Album:... 25:00-26:23 Actor: Bruce Lee Character: Benny 25:00-26:23 Product: Coca Cola 25:00-26:23 Actual Location : Slough GPS-coords:39729358734652 25:00-26:23 Fictional Location : Monaco for *that* famous scene :) This does not need to be commercial - I could see it being used to identify concepts in educational material too. Who does this? Well, collaborative approaches could be used (FreeDB/CDDB worked), some companies would provide product/media info (would need guidelines), some programme makers would find it added value (education) - heck maybe an actor's agent would provide the data as part of the service (or the actor themselves if they were on the 'bronze' package ;) ) Clearly this works when it's about providing meta-information rather than links to a page. Those come from the apps using the meta-data. Tied to this (and many of the other points raised) would be a UUID system for uniquely identifying objects, resolving duplicates and possibly establishing relationships. Clearly one or two minor issues to resolve but... David - 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] HD-DVD / Blu Ray
Ian Forrester wrote: I don't know guys, it may have been said multiple times but the only winner in this battle must be the online services. However I'm still left wondering when the general public will get their head around non-physical media. People seem to like the look and feel of physical media like CDs, Vinyl, DVDs. Are you sure it's a physical thing? Could it be that the early adopters saw the flaw in the plan? Why rent something that you could buy for the same amount or less? Why be dictated to about how many times and how quickly you could watch/hear something? So I bought a 100 Projector - and I should watch Pirates of the Carribean sitting on a stool in front of the PC screen in the study? You want me to listen to music on those tinny speakers? Car listening is verboten? So I need this program for that show, this other program for this tune, I need to upgrade my OS and then I can't play the game I bought last month - bugger off! I'm buying a DVD/CD/games console. Granted the public don't understand all/most of this - but there is *so* much wrong... What works for me: * Squeezebox : sleek and small. Plays mp3s that I rip and archive. * CDs : Higher quality than mp3, no DRM (it matters to me), integrated backup, lend/shareable. * MythTV frontends : small dedicated box in the lounge/bedroom - plugs into TV. Watch anything anytime. Download shows that have been broadcast and mis-recorded. * DVDs : High quality films/sound. Compact, work on my TV-box. Buy and anticipate. Plan and watch with friends. Integrated backup. lend/shareable. What doesn't work for me: * DRM music recorded at low bitrate that I can't listen to in the car or on my last-gen portable player or when the company goes under/changes it's mind. * Film download/playing applications that make the lounge feel like the office * Being told what I can do with something I bought * Not being able to buy a 2nd-hand CD/LP from the dawn of time What other non-physical/intangible items do people buy? Is online so different? * e-tickets * insurance * club/gym membership David - 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] BBC TWO Programme timings
Caveat: I'm an amateur in this area who knows a bit because I run a MythTV system. Be polite if you correct me. Brian Butterworth wrote: I am saying that if the BBC knows that a programme is scheduled at 2202-2232 then it should deliver that data correctly to the EPG providers. Doesn't the EPG offer an advance 'target schedule' (as per Radio Times/TV Times of old) to the nearest 5 minutes and a supplemental 'as broadcast' delivered via the EIT (or whatever the OTA/OTC technology is). Maybe an EIT/HTTP gateway would appear to be useful but I don't think it's that simple. Should an EPG even include 'as broadcast' information? I'd say not. From a UI point of view I see an EPG as being a coarse grained forward planning system for use by humans. The EIT can fine-tune a system to interpret an EPG but not 'change' it. Say I ask my PVR to record Dr Who on Thursday night at 7pm (1) - if a plane crashes at Heathrow at 6:30pm and there is live coverage; Dr Who is cancelled. So when I go and look at the EPG I see Dr Who has gone - what's up with that then? Am I an idiot? I'm sure it was there... Actually I still want to see the original EPG data supplemented with broadcast data. A different scenario is that the storyline in a show shows events that are deemed inappropriate (eg showing 'Airplane' the week of 9/11) so the schedule is changed a couple of days in advance - the EPG should change and may make mention in the comments of replacing previously scheduled programmes. (1) OK, for the record: I actually say 'record Dr Who whenever it's on and just get one copy of each episode - go sort it out' and watch it when it appears in my list. That's the benefit of geeky OSS for you though. The BBC - and all the other broadcasters - don't publish the exact start times of programmes anywhere. As I mentioned, the way your Freeview box knows that Newsnight has started at 2232 is because at 2232, a flag goes up somewhere saying oh, hey, you know that programme that we said was on at 2230? It's starting in a few seconds, so if you want to record it, now would be a good time to start. It's how things worked in the damp string days of analogue with PDC, and it's how it continues to work with DVB Event Information Tables. broadcasters - don't publish the exact start times of programmes anywhere, which is not quite So they don't publish it - they broadcast it - for free!! Using the same technology you use to pick up the TV signal. In a well defined manner. The buggers! Your beef seems to be with the fact that your media player of choice is using a listings guide that's based on the same information that's provided to the newspapers for their listings pages, rather than a service with live-updating cues, such as the one provided over the air with DTT. That seems quite like trying to have it both ways. See above - I think there are 2 ways for 2 different things. In summary: blame Microsoft, not the BBC. Always good. I'm not trying to BLAME anyone here, I'm trying to find out where the EPG information gets nobbled and make an attempt to get some to acknowledge mistakes and provide accuracy in the data. The data isn't any more of a mistake than any Gantt chart in existence. It's an estimate with well bounded error bars (+/- 5 minutes). Surely you don't go back and lie about the estimates you gave people do you? As far as I can tell with the Media Center, the DVB-T reception (or DVB-S as an alternative) is too abstracted from the PVR functions. ***WHAT*** So basically: My PVR is too brain-dead to pick up information from a different software component and would all broadcasters, all over the world stop broadcasting changes live, over the air with the programmes and move to a centralised, polled. unicast model so we don't have to change our code? Although that does sound like Microsoft software engineers. Whilst speaking to them wrt a major UK Telco they would often seem to wonder if we could just change the PSTN to fit the way their instant messenger application worked... Can you feel the sympathy? grin David - 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] Lol
Probably posted before - http://lol.ianloic.com/bbc - 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] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]
Peter Bowyer wrote: On 08/01/2008, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally I would rather the most read/most emailed reflected exactly what the user was doing, and wasn't most emailed stories from the last 7 days excluding the also in the news section because we are the BBC and we want our readers to look very serious all the time Not on the front page. IMHO The front page of the BBC news should not have 4 year old stories appearing on it 'by mistake'. In the entertainment section, see also section etc etc then yes. The front page should be current. If it *is* now current for some bizzare reason then re-report it. That misses the point - a casual reader (and even some regular readers) can be misled by those links pointing to old news. The 'Most Emailed' links are presented under a headline 'Most Popular Stories Now', and next to a section 'Around the world now' (on the page I'm looking at) which implies that the stories are current. Indeed. It was only last week I realised that 'Most Popular Stories Now' was a link and wasn't actually a section title!!! It's a fine objective to show real data (although dubious when it reflects 'gaming'), but it must be clear to the reader what the context is of what you're showing. And I note that the 'See Also' stories in the sidebar *are* date stamped. So is it a technology problem? (I could accept that See Also are edited into the story manually and the dates are re-keyed) David - 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] Adobe EULA
Have you seen: http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_duet.html Architecture: http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?Jive It's a wifi remote control (and mp3 player). Although it's not a device to use iPlayer on, it's *very* interesting from a control point of view - especially because it's 'open'. Some guys are thinking of voice control already... SlimDevices/Logitech are a good example of commercial OSS - maybe you should invite them over sometime? David PS I assume you all know about AlienBBC Mr I Forrester wrote: Interesting post with lots to reply back on...but can you post a better formatted version :) What you using, Outlook or something ;-) Cheers Ian - 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] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]
I think someone missed the point here... Or am I wrong? David Original Message Subject: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch] Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 13:55:54 - From: NewsOnline [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for your comments. We do not control who decides to email our pieces. Sometimes when another website mentions them, they are viewed again. However, we need to rely on the wisdom of our viewers to check the date stamp. We have over 3 million stories archived and could not put a mark on all of them. Regards BBC News Website http://news.bbc.co.uk/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 January 2008 11:45 To: NewsOnline Errors Subject: Feedback [NewsWatch] From: David Greaves Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Country:UK COMMENTS: Your 'most emailed' list has: Self-cert mortgages could skew market at number 3. It's very misleading to have this 4 year old story linked to on the front page of the BBC news - especially since the time of year corresponds. Maybe you should consider a background image, like a watermark, that says 'old news - check the date of this story' for stories over a certain age (6-months or a year). David Greaves, UK URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3478635.stm - 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] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]
Steve Jolly wrote: David Greaves wrote: I think someone missed the point here... Or am I wrong? If I explain that all the stories on the BBC news website are barely more than static HTML, would that explain why adding watermarks to them all would be difficult? If the site was backed by some kind of new-fangled CMS then it would be an extremely sensible suggestion. :-) (thank you - it was meant to be sensible) Fair enough - but this is awe+reverenceThe BBC News/awe+reverence So getting it right (and not misleading) should trump the mere impossible :) IIRC some time ago (months/years) there was something vaguely fraudulent/misleading/prankish that was backed by an out-of-context but genuine BBC story whose date was not obvious. And it still doesn't excuse the front page dynamic links being 'gamed' to point to a years old piece. I expect 'most emailed' to be limited to stories from the last few days. David - 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] uk_rt XMLTV listings stopped updating on 19th Dec
Mr I Forrester wrote: Strange will email some people Thanks - the data runs out on 31 Dec... 2008 just doesn't exist ;) We heard via some forum somewhere that there was a server upgrade happening - I guess something broke. As an aside - there are a lot of MythTV users (and I'm sure others) who *really* appreciate this service. If there's any way to pass on a Thank You then please do so :) David - 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] uk_rt XMLTV listings stopped updating on 19th Dec
Hi XMLTV/Backstagers Looking here: http://xmltv.radiotimes.com/xmltv/ It's clear there have been no updates since the 19th Dec. It would be awfully seasonally spirited if someone were to kick someone to kick something :) Merry Christmas - and hopefully a TV-ish New Year. David - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
vijay chopra wrote: To the person who said GPLv3 is more idealistic: having reflected on it over night, I've realised that my position is in fact more idealistic than that of the FSF, and as a result GPLv3 is not (as claimed) more idealistic than GPLv2 but less so as it is more restrictive. I think rather than 'more idealistic' it's better to say that your ideals differ *a little*. IMH(umble)O: GPLv3 cares about making the code available and, if forced to, would rather not benefit people who won't share than allow them not to share. You care about making your code (re-)usable, but, if forced to, would rather benefit people who won't share than prevent your code from being used by them. A respectable position that I think you share with Linus. I wonder if, rather like racism and feminism, has the tide turned enough so that we can compromise on the hearts and minds? Or do we still need positive discrimination? David - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Noah Slater wrote: On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: benefit people who won't share than prevent your code from being used by Why would you want to benefit selfish people? To do so would be truly unselfish - to turn the other cheek. To teach by example in the face of adversity :) However when you are but one in an armed horde it *can* be foolish and ultimately futile. David PS If you thought that was a religious sentiment then think again. - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
vijay chopra wrote: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GPLv3 cares about making the code available and, if forced to, would rather not benefit people who won't share than allow them not to share. You care about making your code (re-)usable, but, if forced to, would rather benefit people who won't share than prevent your code from being used by them. I think that you've hit the nail on the head here. A respectable position that I think you share with Linus. Thankfully. I think the kernel is 'safe' - it's reached a point where Tivoisation (and MS/Intel Trusted Computing et al) *probably* won't topple it. A bit like feminism in the west. Positive discrimination has always been wrong, indeed in this country (UK) it's illegal* and rightfully so; as you seem to imply GPLv3 is a kind of positive discrimination for software and unneeded. It is just an analogy and, on consideration, I don't think 'positive discrimination' is quite right. However, like discrimination, we do need to legislate for 'fair' behaviour - the approach where I treat people as my equal in this community but I don't require them to treat me (or others) as their equal doesn't always work without legislation. GPLv3 is the legislative approach. GPLv2 is the other cheek approach. David - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
vijay chopra wrote: They comply with the rules, you don't like what they do, so you change the rules. There's nothing stopping you changing the rules any time you see a behavior you dislike Sounds reasonable to me :) They abided by the rules, not the spirit. Funnily enough other people do this too... in the US, Guantanamo Bay abides by (avoids) the rules of the Geneva Convention (by declaring the inmates 'illegal combatants') and their constitution (by careful geo-location of the camp). So that makes it OK then :) [I wonder if Godwins law will ever be extended to include Bush? Please.] Tivo are restricting YOUR freedom to run the program for any purpose. You buy a Tivo, it runs free software - except that Tivo won't let you exercise your freedoms under the GPL. It won't let you run modified GPL licensed software on your own computer, which in this case is a Tivo. Actually TIVO complied with the GPLv2 thus my rights under the GPL were unaffected. Yes, and? Having spotted this, the FSF decided that the rules needed to be more explicit for the future. GPL2 = idealistically driven but loose enough for pragmatists. GPL3 = idealistically driven and a bit tight for some pragmatists. Are you really arguing that you should be free to oppress people if you desire? similarly I will defend TIVOs rights to run free software in any way. No-one/nothing (including GPL3) stops that. But what about *my* 'right' to modify run the GPL software that I got via Tivo? Oh, I can't. Tivo saw to that. Tivo are free to use BSD licensed software. IIRC the spirit of that license is designed to support their use. But no, they *chose* to use GPL and to run counter to the spirit. The idealists didn't like that so they tried to stop it for the future. David - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Ian Forrester wrote: Can I just say, wow a debate on GPL v3 about a year after everyone else talked about it? :) Like good coffee, it's percolating... - 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] How long should copyright last?
Brian Butterworth wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/nov/29/comment.intellectualproperty [Caveat - US-law biased] Well, if we're linking... Bruce Schneier links to a Law Review article about the a day in the life of a normal person (no p2p filesharing etc, just you or me) in the US: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/law_review_arti.html There is nothing particularly extraordinary about John’s activities. Yet if copyright holders were inclined to enforce their rights to the maximum extent allowed by law, barring last minute salvation from the notoriously ambiguous fair use defense, he would be liable for a mind-boggling $4.544 billion in potential damages each year. Yes, that's right. Over $4 billion a year. One of the many interesting blog posts is: An example is that in the paper (p543/7) John replies to an email including parts of the email he's replying to. Most people (myself) would think that that was fair use. However, clear case law is given in the paper which shows that since the email you have received is an unpublished work (sending private correspondence doesn't count as publishing) you have very restricted fair use rights and that these won't be enough to allow you to include excerpts from the mail. This means that it's quite likely that email forwarding is unlicensed copying and thus illegal. So, should we DRM email programs? Bruce: When laws are this far outside the social norms, it's time to change them. David PS: That's one huge problem with DRM - it can't use common sense. - 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] BBC Podcasts Including Music
The BBC does have to obey the law. Including copyright law. But the BBC does not have to do things that extend the law. I saw a bus shelter yesterday which had a it is illegal to smoke in this bus shelter sign on it in Churchill Square, Brighton yesterday. However, the shelter's design has only a single side, which makes it not qualify for the smoking ban. The BBC's use of DRM to protect content beyond what the law actually states is a sort of legal creep which, like the sign on the bus stop, claims that the law requires something which it does not. Which is technically an offense... Nick Reynolds-AMi wrote: what do you mean by is technically an offence. Dunno - but that sentence was the least interesting part of an otherwise relevant post. I don't know what possessed you to pick on it!! - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
James Ockenden wrote: Brian, I also missed the very subtle changes to the page- but I would say, hyperlinking scientists and headaches etc every other word is gonna give the reader sore eyes and thousands of hours of lost work as they educate themselves in mass trivia. So, if we discount the risk of destroying the UK economy due to 'too many links' :) What I once considered was a low key link. And one that had multiple targets. Clicking a word (or even an area?) brings up a menu of links (not mouseover - that's too distracting. Of course on mouseover you may flash a tiny pair of muddy boots as a popup or turn the cursor to boots, or visually activate a muddy-boots icon in the sidebar or) Of course that was about 8 years ago in pre-ajax days - now we have ajax/javascript dropdowns it makes more sense. - 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] iPlayer under wine
Stuart Ward wrote: All I just found this project on sourceforge to sort out running the iPlayer under wine. http://bbciplayerlinux.sourceforge.net/index.php/Main_Page At which point they can replace the DRM library calls with stubs and ... - 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] BBC Podcasts Including Music
Sean DALY wrote: From a technical standpoint, how simple can it be to design a DRM system compatible with the copyright law of the world's 20 biggest markets? You have got to be kidding - right? Whole chunks of the judicial system has a hard enough time determining the copyright law of ONE market! It's one reason why they misrepresent the truth. It's easier to say copying is illegal than copying is illegal unless .. ... ... .. . .. ... . . ... .. . .. ... . . ... .. . .. ... . . ... .. . .. ... . . ... .. . .. ... . . ... .. . .. ... . . ... .. . .. ... . . ... .. . .. ... . . David - 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] BBC Podcasts Including Music
Nick Reynolds-AMi wrote: Is there such a thing as legal creep? It's either legal or it isn't. Indeed - under certain jurisdictions copying music is legal. 'Fair Use'. However the music industry would have you believe that it is always illegal. That would be legal creep - no, it doesn't change the law. Yes it does impact our perception of the law so when they lobby the government to make it illegal to copy *any* music (eg to copy a CD to an mp3 player), we, as a society, are already conditioned to that as a status quo and don't object; we lose our rights. David - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Re: iPlayer on Vista now?
Dave Crossland wrote: On 20/11/2007, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MS free at home for 4 years now :) I hope one day you'll be free of all proprietary software :-) My BIOSes are closed source. So is the nvidia driver in 2 of my machines. And I have a commercial game (NeverWinter Nights for linux from BioWare) Errr. That's it AFAIK. I actually threw out my original XP disks and licenses (bought in the MS store on campus in Seattle for $10 - a work obligation; but they lost the bid) this weekend in a tidy-up. David PS My car stereo runs linux - and, for this one, it's not GNU/linux! - 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] BBC Podcasts Including Music
Brian Butterworth wrote: On 20/11/2007, *David Greaves* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Crossland wrote: On 20/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19/11/2007, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You see, I just somehow knew that giving away content including music for free, forever, at the point of delivery, to anyone, regardless of whether they had paid their Licence Fee or lived in the UK, *still* wasn't going to be good enough for some. Why? Without the sinister copyright laws, this would be a natural state of affairs. Please explain :-) No, please don't. Before 1710 there wasn't any copyright law. Didn't stop William Shakespeare, or Plato coming up with good shit. Copyright law is simply a way of (temporarily) restricting supply of a good to unnaturally (in economic terms) force up the price. There's no point me explaining, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law etc Yes, that's clear now. Thanks :) - 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] BBC Podcasts Including Music
Jason Cartwright wrote: Of course, this won't happen (it be being popular, IMHO), because nobody cares what format they consume their content in - they just care that it works (which MP3 does). As proved by the BBC OGG trial years and years ago. You are right. It's true that people don't care. Until they do. And then it's too late. And that's the problem. Crowds are morons - we all know it. Would you seriously get a bunch of people off the street to select a media format. They won't have a clue. Of course if you do a simple, short-term and capitalist analysis then mp3 makes a lot of sense. You cash in before the crowds realise you're ripping them off. Unless, of course, you're supposed to be acting in the best long term interest of the crowds. Unless you have a sense of responsibility. Unless you have the intelligence and domain knowledge to analyse the problem better than the man off the street (who may well, however, be a master builder who can design and build a glass wall that holds the entire front of your house up - so they're not morons individually - they just rely on *you* doing your job right and not building a digital solution that collapses in a few years. In the building trade they're called cowboys). Another analogy that might make sense: audio quality on CDs. http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/dynamics/dynamics.htm The music is already lost. Seriously. Even if DRM still works in 30 years - the noise will be there but the sweetness of the music is already gone. Short term profit has destroyed our future heritage. Could you see the BBC sound engineers doing this? Do they have a *huge* amount respect? David - 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] BBC Podcasts Including Music
Dave Crossland wrote: On 20/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19/11/2007, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You see, I just somehow knew that giving away content including music for free, forever, at the point of delivery, to anyone, regardless of whether they had paid their Licence Fee or lived in the UK, *still* wasn't going to be good enough for some. Why? Without the sinister copyright laws, this would be a natural state of affairs. Please explain :-) No, please don't. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Re: iPlayer on Vista now?
Tim Dobson wrote: On 20/11/2007, Gary Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://iplayersupport.external.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/bbciplayer.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=14cat_lvl1=1 That page is *very* interesting, any users of ubuntu, debian or other GNU/Linux based OS's here? /me *proudly raises hand* MS free at home for 4 years now :) Perhaps someone can explain what this means: GNU/Linux operating system can use the Crossover plug-in to play Windows Media files. For more information about this contact your GNU/Linux supplier or source. because to me it seems that the person who wrote it doesn't have a clue about what they are on about. There are _so_ many problems with this sentence, it's hard to know where to start pointing out it is wrong; has the writer even used a GNU/Linux based OS. p.s. Kudos for using GNU/Linux though! At least *that* bit of terminology is correct. It's true but irrelevant? David - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Re: iPlayer on Vista now?
Tim Dobson wrote: an excellent summary of a complex and political situation I run GNU/Linux too, the Debian version which also provides an alpha GNU/Hurd OS using the Debian branding. David - 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: [Fsfe-uk] Interview: Ashley Highfield on BBC's DRM'd iPlayer
davehaveyouanyideahowdifficultitistoreadyouremailstheylookquiteinterestingbutthelackofformattingandgeneralrunningtogetherrreallymakeslifedifficultforsomeofusonthelistDavid Dave Crossland wrote: On 19/11/2007, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also you can comment here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/groklaw_interview.html Good point :-) Ashley said, Well, they started from the principle of, We just don'tknow the way this market is going to develop. We don't want any of ourcontent to be made available. A lot of the rights holders are not atall familiar with this world. They are often writers, or directors, orproducers—and for them, **they can see that this world hasopportunity, but they also see that it has great risk of underminingtheir current business.** And so this is something that we've had totake them on a journey with. And the initial point was, yes,convincing them that **the content was well-protected, that once theyunderstood enough about copyright and digital rights management towant to be assured that the content would be available free within theUK but not freely copying available outside the UK.** And we hadauditors in to demonstrate that that was the case. This reminded me of something Eben Moglen said athttp://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2420/stories/2007101950761.htm : What's happening is that, at one and the same time, the digitalrevolution is offering capitalists the undreamt of **possibility thatthey can continue to charge large prices for goods that have no costof manufacture and distribution.** That is the bonanza. That isperfection for capitalism. Profit becomes the whole of the price. It'sa very great dream for them. At the same time, they are facing the **possibility of complete ruinif we move to a voluntary distribution system in which they no longerown anything** but perform services to creators. Because then, indistributing culture, they must compete with children and lovers andpeople who distribute culture just because they want to. So there is acompetitive crisis building. On the one hand, their pay-off matrix shows in the positive side somevery large numbers. And on the negative side, their pay-off matrixshows equally large negative numbers. **There is no saddle point inthis game,** the game theoreticians would say. The game itself doesnot give you an optimum strategy. There are two possibilities: they have superior force, and so theycoerce the game to the cells in which they win. Or we have superiorforce in which case they must change their way of doing business.Unfortunately, there is really no choice in the middle. The middlebecomes hard to hold because the ends are so attractive. So, international capital at one and the same time sees that it hasopportunities beyond its wildest dreams and it has challenges thatmight put it out of business. This produces that same uneasiness thatbeset capital when it first encountered the communist movement in themiddle of the 19th century. And so I took the moment at which itencountered communism and I changed a few words to show how it worksat the opening of the 20th century. And the spectre of freeinformation that haunts capitalism now is like the spectre ofcommunism that haunted it in the 19th century with just one exception;this one works. The communists of 1867 were writing about somethingthat they hoped to do. We are writing about the spreading out ofsomething we have already done. This one is already showing that itcan happen. Interesting times :-) -- 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/
[backstage] DRM duration?
Of course this is a blog so not exactly a reference source: http://joyofsox.blogspot.com/2007/11/mlb-game-downloads-still-inaccessible.html So this DRM system seems to have lasted 2003-2006. Then a year later you lose any downloads. Yep, this is the kind of thing that makes honest consumers want to stay within the law. David - 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/
Etiquette and TCP (was Re: [backstage] Use of Tinyurl in Emails)
Brian Butterworth wrote: Yes, I am sure you do. That's your opinion. I'm sure I probably don't agree with it as I'm sure that I regard etiquette as something for Mrs Beeton and the 1950s. Uh huh. And yet you hold an attachment to a 12 year old RFC codifying behaviour in a time of 9600b modems? Also, I don't hold good manners as being anything other than a particular social affectation. But that's just my opinion. Let me put this in terms you *may* understand... Good manners and polite behaviour (etiquette) are the CRC of effective communication. In fact I think you'll find they are the difference between an unreliable UDP storm and a reliable TCP stream. I suggest you seriously think about that point. Of course you can critique it but I think there's something in it. I've been writing about netiquette since the early 1990s, and the RFC is the codified version of it. It's a published and widely distributed set of rules. It's a shame you have yet to grasp the difference between knowledge and enlightenment. Whilst it seems that no-one actually agrees with it in it's entirely, it is at least a published and relevant definition. So is the Koran. So? The usual retort to this kind of argument is to provide another reference link that trumps my definition... if no-one has one, can we let this discussion rest? There are times when being accused of being a geek is a compliment. This isn't one of them. David - 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] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
Matthew Somerville wrote: David Greaves wrote: You want an 8am train from Cardiff to Birmingham? http://www.traintimes.org.uk/8:00/cardiff/birmingham The requested URL /8:00/cardiff/birmingham was not found on this server. Hmm, works fine here. ;-) Ho Ho!! Been using the site for years BTW :) sigh people are so complicated... Well, all you had to do was ask. ;) OK : Could you please simplify people - all of them. Make them understand what I wanted them to understand when I first thought of the idea. Cheers. Just in case...I meant that if you (or I) think of an idea or a hierarchy in a nice logical way like so: The reason it's as it is by default, by the way, is because URLs are hierarchical, and it's pretty pointless to supply a time without a from or a to (whereas cutting any bit off a default URL returns what you'd expect). then some silly bugger like me will think about it in an entirely different way: (see above URL) The front page gives the manual, such as it is. I think it is an excellent solution - however it's a solution to a different problem. I think your URL is actually a user interface; ie designed to be a primary data entry mechanism for a search or similar (which is cool). Most URLs are not really designed for humans to use. They are essentially simply uncompressed tinyURLs. Many URLs are actually informative but a quick look at the 33 pages I have open: * line-noise 18 * grokable 15 I don't think I could, with any certainty, have typed the displayed URL into *any* of them to get what I was seeing. They're not data entry fields. Another site I've done, http://landmarktrust.dracos.co.uk/ uses a key=value URL structure, so that it doesn't matter in what order the variables are presented. Yep, IIRC I used that for BTexact's site a few years back. I notice the URLs in http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ are not so easy to comprehend (not a criticism - just an example of a more complex problem that doesn't succumb). TinyURL is clever - it's small and easy to *transcribe*. Well, unless you can get 1 and l, or O and 0 confused. :) Oh, I'm sure it can be improved. (Yes, it astonishes me that things like MS product keys (not seen one for a couple of years but...) still use 0s and Os - and the only difference in the printed version is the roundedness of the font) Anyhow... URLs are clearly primarily designed as a machine readable bookmark - either to a process point (sessions) or an information heirarchy/database location (wikis, shops, blogs, forums, datastores) They are, in the main, no longer expected to be typed. (What % of urls that you visit do you actually type - shortcuts *not* included!) For the rare occasion we need to type (transcribe) then I'd suggest that tinyURLs are a better UI than informative URLs. They have less chance of transcription error (both because they're shorter and because the user doesn't think they know how to spell). Interesting discussion :) David - 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] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
Brian Butterworth wrote: I've read all this with interest and it brings up some interesting points. The original subjects is with regard to emails, where there is a limit of 78 characters for some (older) systems. True - also if they are visible (and long) they can interfere with readability. I get [use Perl] stories and they look like this: One of the implications of the work on [0]Test::Harness 3.0 is that [1]Test::Harness::Straps will no longer exist as part of Test::Harness. For new applications you are encouraged to use TAP::Harness / TAP::Parser. The awkwardness of Straps was one of the reasons to embark on a rewrite of Test::Harness and the new code should make it far easier to write ad-hoc testing applications. Links: 0. http://search.cpan.org/~andya/Test-Harness-2.99_04/ 1. http://search.cpan.org/~petdance/Test-Harness-2.64/lib/Test/Harness/Straps.pm 2. http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg09192.html Which probably has limited 'mass market' appeal but is suitable for text only emails. The other use for short URLs is where they have to be physically typed in because they are on a hard copy. Exactly - newspapers, TV shows, paper mail. Another use, which I don't think anyone has mentioned, for short codes is on mobile phones and other devices with poor input devices. Good one. David - 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] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
Adam wrote: What does everyone else think. bbc.com/2e5u8e David PS it's smaller than tinyurl and it's a use for bbc.com too... (unless it's used internationally) - 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] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
Martin Belam wrote: though i suspect the problem (and usage of tinyurl) is that to get one of those nice urls hooked up, you gotta email someone a request, who needs to get approval from a manager Heh, heh, that's not even the half of it ;-) Of course: *that's* why tinyurl is used... Never ascribe to technical incompetence that which can be explained by management bureaucracy. David - 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] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Matt Hammond wrote: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:54:03 -, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Hammond wrote: The statements attributes to Ashley Highfield seem to talk about *users* (eg. measured as unique cookies) whereas the other numbers we're comparing against here are being described as usage and hits. Just thought I'd point it out before we get in a mess :-) Still comparing apples and apples though: We have 17.1 million users of bbc.co.uk in the UK ... and around 400 to 600 are Linux users. So there does appear to be a mess somewhere... If the usage profile of those linux users is broadly comparable to those of the other platforms you're probably right. One other thought: Ashley Highfield's comments may only relate to the main www.bbc.co.uk site - excluding BBC news. Historically the news have run and managed a separate operation iirc (though that may now be changing). Site stats were (are still?) collected separately for the two. What if, like myself, other linux users tend to visit news.bbc.co.uk but not www.bbc.co.uk? I just visited www.bbc.co.uk. I can see why no-one would visit that page other than to browse for links... I wonder if linux users probably are more tech savvy and may use deep-links automatically whereas more PC users may tend to go to the home page. In either case I strongly suspect that the picture he's portraying is highly misleading although it *may* even be technically true. Whether it was deliberately misleading I couldn't say. I suppose my opinion will depend on whether he corrects himself or lets the misunderstanding stand. It was certainly a derogatory remark to make about the size and implied importance/relevance of the linux community. David - 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] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters
Andrew Bowden wrote: I am a Linux monkey, but to be honest, I have yet to find Linux particularly good for basic video editing. There are tools out there like Kino which do work very well if you're using a DV source, but I'm generally not and I've not always had much joy with converting files and then opening them in Kino. Have you seen avidemux? From an editing PoV it only really offers concatenation and cutting - fine for commercial editing and trimming - not so hot if you want to insert a sequence into a stream. It does convert various formats quite well - my wife uses it in her Myth to DVD workflow David - 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] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Matt Hammond wrote: The statements attributes to Ashley Highfield seem to talk about *users* (eg. measured as unique cookies) whereas the other numbers we're comparing against here are being described as usage and hits. Just thought I'd point it out before we get in a mess :-) Still comparing apples and apples though: We have 17.1 million users of bbc.co.uk in the UK ... and around 400 to 600 are Linux users. So there does appear to be a mess somewhere... David (Who, with his wife, accounts for 2 users) - 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] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
Dave Crossland wrote: On 31/10/2007, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: File sharing between friends is essential for friendship ??? I'll try again: File sharing is an definitive part of friendship in the 21st century, in parts of the world with high density access to computers. Example: Your friend sends you an instant message, Have you seen [random-artistic-work]? and you reply No, but send me a copy and I will. and they initiate the file transfer, or send you the torrent file. Your argument as a justification for ethical validity doesn't hold up. In certain parts of the world acid and heroin are de rigeur. In others so is gang culture, knives and violence. So that's OK then? It was peer pressure wot made me do it m'lord. Can I go now? sigh Not only that - you present a deranged and unreasonable face for anti-DRM and you've managed to change the subject and lose an opportunity to demolish the BBCs purported reasons behind iPlayer DRM. You're not a Microsoft shill are you? Seriously? If not then I suggest you go onto the web and lookup 'Advocacy' - there's a lot of good stuff - much of it freely shareable. David - 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] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
I'll reverse these comments :) Andrew Bowden wrote: I have a PVR which has a USB port on it - which is great cos I can take files off the PVR if I want to and keep a copy of them. However it's nowhere near as simple as just copying the files and burning them to DVD thanks to the fact that difficult tech barrier that Andrew 'defeated' snipped My point? it's not always as easy to take an off air broadcast and put it online. To do it, most people would have to have a little dedication and a little time. Security through effort does actually work in many ways. :) Yeah - that's because you're too much of a tech geek to spend £60 on this: http://www.dvdrecorderworld.com/news/448 grin It records Freeview to DVD at the push of a button. Did you get the £60 price tag? OK they haven't automated ripping the DVD and creating a torrent - not so hard though. From which.co.uk: The ideal combination is a PVR with a DVD recorder. Dec '05 http://tinyurl.com/yot3a6 Oh look: http://www.dvdrecorderworld.com/news/443 (April '07) (The irony is that it's a Sony product!!) The only security being achieved is the security Microsoft will feel as the BBC helps them try to establish a dominant position in the home entertainment market. A far more interesting comment came from David McBride who wrote: First, the BBC are _already_ broadcasting all of their content, digitally and in the clear, in the form of RealPlayer streams, terrestrial radio and (HD) television broadcasts and also via internet multicast. Why is it useful to apply DRM to this one distribution channel, when anyone can ignore it and instead obtain a 20Mbit/sec HD digital copy encoded in a standard, well-defined encoding by pointing an antenna at Crystal Palace? You ask Why is it useful... Maybe one should ask *Who* is it useful to to apply DRM to... ? a) The 'Rights Holders' are frantically grasping at the water as it slips through their fingers. It feels useful to them as it will 'stem the flow'. They've already lost this fight though (see comments above about Crystal palace and £60 recorder, also see bittorrent, Sony vs Betamax [yes, a US ruling but...], iTunes drm-free music, oh, and the public). b) Microsoft see an incredible opportunity to appear to be 'doing the right thing' and so use the rights holders as 'independent' salespeople. It's *vital* for their strategy to 'own' multimedia as an aspect of ubiquitous (PC) technology. They of course can't actually deliver DRM (see: the internet). c) The BBC don't have a grasp on the bigger picture where it counts (though judging by the comments about ex-MS people within the project - maybe they do?) They have sold out the public by allowing MS to manipulate them. It's not their fault - MS are incredibly powerful and capable. The 'business' people at the top of Microsoft will simply annihilate the bigwigs at the BBC (or the govt) when it comes to technology strategy. They just know which buttons to press in more ways than one. You're right it's a shame that the BBC couldn't say Hmmm this is the UK. We already *broadcast* mpegs free-to-air - let's not essentially give a chunk of BBC Centre to MS for nothing. David PS: A note to finish: Yes, I have a huge respect for the Open Source philosophy. I am not, however, fundamentally opposed to capitalism, copyrights, patents etc. I am opposed to rampant greed, oppression and bullying - and I don't think those traits makes good business (or social) sense in the long term. - 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] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
Andrew Bowden wrote: I'd like to, cos my TV capture card might get some Linuxy usage then. But I haven't got the time or desire to try and set it up. If you find the desire then I'll try and help. David - 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] An interview with Mark Taylor, Pres. of UK Open Source Consortium
~:'' wrote: David, my apologies as it seems that once again my comments lack some clarity. where are the easy-to-use tools? Ubuntu and Gnome are hardly mainstream... the most significant issue is that no open source project outside possibly wikipedia is truly popular. NB wikipedia is not an application or tool. Jonathon are you just trolling or are you serious? Apache? Linux? Ant? OpenOffice? Mozilla/Firefox? These OS applications are popular *because* of their user interfaces (although for some the UI is an API or config file). David - 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] New TV Listing Design
Mr I Forrester wrote: http://radar.oreilly.com/Picture%2052.html Full story - http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/09/throng_unveils.html I saw this while browsing my rss aggregator. Seems like a decent design for a TV Guide. I was wondering how it would work if placed on one of those really long interactive smile mit timelines. Tee hee - an EPG that tells me about the *broadcasters* schedule - how quaint :) Luckily I have an EPG that tells me about *my* schedule... Although we watch a lot of TV (up to 2-3hrs/day) I don't think we've watched a single show 'live' for about 3 years - and maybe just a handful of shows within an hour of the broadcast time. And, come to think of it, it would have been that 'Strictly Come Dancing' cruft ;) Interestingly, although you may question the channel/program aspect, I am well aware of the channels we like - Hallmark, Sci-Fi, Five, Five US, BBC1+2, C4, Sky One etc I do wonder how useful a guide like that is when all you have in your sweaty mitts is an infra-red remote control with left/right/up/down and enter... Still, it's probably intended for Web use, not TV use. That's another thought that sprang in (coffee must have been good this morning); I don't think we've watched TV on a general purpose PC (ie in the study with other gui windows visible) other than to edit out adverts to make DVDs... Anyhow - that's offtopic enough... we can't be having that so... back to the scheduled discussion ;) David PS A 1.2Tb PVR with diskless clients in the bedroom and TV room - sweet. I seriously don't know how we'd manage to go back to 'normal' TV. - 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] Linux Port of iPlayer
Err. They are not 'reverse engineer, de-compile, disassemble, alter, modify, or create derivative works from AFAICS They are modifying Wine to correctly respond to the API calls that the iPlayer makes. Hmm... wonder what this does to the DRM David Brian Butterworth wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayerbeta/tandc.shtml ... 12. You agree: # to not attempt to, or assist any other person to *reverse engineer*, *de-compile*, *disassemble*, *alter*, duplicate, *modify*, rent, lease, loan, sub-licence, make copies, *create derivative works from*, distribute or provide others with the BBC iPlayer Library in whole or part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms and to the extent permitted by law; I think Google call this the usual yar di dar... On 22/08/07, *vijay chopra* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly where in the T Cs does it say thou shalt not port iPlayer to another platform? (If someone point's out a clause in the EULA, I shall point and laugh). Personally I'd think that Auntie would be glad for the help, the Beeb is comitted to making iPlayer platform neutral, right? Vijay. On 22/08/07, *Brian Butterworth* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doesn''t this break the TCs ? On 22/08/07, *Sean Dillon* [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can't recall seeing this posted here, but then again it might have gotten lost in all the noise or I may have been too bone idle to actually remember what I've read. http://bbciplayerlinux.sourceforge.net/index.php/Main_Page http://bbciplayerlinux.sourceforge.net/index.php/Main_Page BBC iPlayer on Linux project Wiki This is a project to bring the BBC iPlayer to the GNU/Linux and *BSD/Mac OSX Operating Systems. The BBC has been heavily criticised for not providing iPlayer on Mac OSX or Linux. This is something that the iPlayer on Linux project hopes to fix. Although initially this project aims to put the iPlayer on Linux, porting (via wine) to BSD/Mac OSX is a very simple task. Seán - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv http://www.ukfree.tv/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv http://www.ukfree.tv - 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] BBC iPlayer Protest tommorow, Tuesday 14th, 10:30AM, White City
Ian Forrester wrote: Yep we were there along with about another 20 people. So were they making a point or trying to make a difference? David - 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] BBC iPlayer Protest tommorow, Tuesday 14th, 10:30AM, White City
Brian Butterworth wrote: Thanks. I thought I was being humorous - it would be deeply ironic if pictures of a protest outside Auntie's TV HQ about DRM were copyrighted... They are copyrighted. They are also licensed. Anti-DRM isn't anti-copyright. Most anti-DRM sentiment opposes the: You may only watch this film/production: * once (if you fell asleep - tough! Powercut - tough!) * if you don't skip the commercials * using the original non-1-7yr-old proof disc * on a hi-res screen *if* it's made by Acme * with people who are immediate members of your family (but no more than 3 at once) * at a time we the licensees decide * on the original PC you had 4 years ago when you bought the disc * for as long as we're in business (Google Video anyone? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6944292.stm) Sigh. David - 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] More iPlayer protesting
Christopher Woods wrote: I mean, come on, hands up who here on the list uses Linux as their primary OS. Me. And (FWIW) my wife (her choice). I'm three years sober ;) David PS We can't even dual-boot anymore. - 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] Web Service For Terror Alert Level?
Well: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3396 Or, by far and away my favourite: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1501 If you really care... http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/britain_adopts.html A terror alert that instills a vague feeling of dread or panic echoes the very tactics of the terrorists. There are essentially two ways to terrorize people. The first is to do something spectacularly horrible, like flying airplanes into skyscrapers and killing thousands of people. The second is to keep people living in fear with the threat of doing something horrible. Decades ago, that was one of the IRA's major aims. Inadvertently, the [Home Office] is achieving the same thing. So way to go government and media - sigh. David - 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] DVD Region 2
Kim Plowright wrote: Here in the US, that is not the case. It is much harder to find such DVD players. Because they contravene the DMCA act? Possible but more likely because the 'popular' stuff is released on Region 1 and the yanks (as a mass market) are so insular they think there be dragons over the sea... (over the state line in many cases!) What's the commercial driver for the multi-region player market in the rest of the world? Oh yes - availability of pop-culture drivel (yeah, I enjoy some of it too!) is earlier and cheaper in Region 1. So what's the driver _in_ Region 1? David - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
David Woodhouse wrote: On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 18:41 +0100, vijay chopra wrote: Sure I will, you can't copyright a number, and I'd like to see anyone try and sue me for posing one. We digress but I'm dubious about that argument. You can represent _anything_ with 'just a number'. I could buy a DVD, decrypt it and send the entire thing to this list in hex form, calling it 'just a number'. Would that make it OK? Context. Grepping a compressed backup of my personal photo archive and coming across that number vs a reply quoting just the text 'ACSS decryption code?' One is not illegal, the other has a high chance of being found to contravene some law or other in certain totalitarian regimes ;) It's not about the number per se, it's about the information. Incidentally, who thinks the law should allow protection of this type of information beyond trade secret - if an organisation is dumb enough to expose it's PKI keys then they deserve no legal protection. However if someone breaks into a company HQ and steals a trade secret then they should be allowed to prosecute them for theft of a trade secret. David - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
vijay chopra wrote: On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I totally agree, however seeing as I have no intention of breaking the spirit of the law (I may be breaching a technicality) I have no qualms in using any software to break copy protection to make personal backups, and supply it to others if requested. I regularly get told by friends and family my computer won't let me copy this DVD my reply is either to do it for them, or give them a CD with the appropriate tools on it. I doubt that the BPI is likely to come after me as a pirate (Argghh!) as I only back up for personal use, and only use file sharing services in legal ways. The only thing I have downloaded unlawfully is an out of print RPG book, that I would be happy to pay for, if only I could find someone selling it! Interesting business model called The long tail in Wired a while back. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail_pr.html The flipside to that is when does it become a normal number again? I translated the ACSS decryption key back into base10 if I were then to perform various other mathematical functions on it would it stop being the ACSS key? What if I needed that number for another purpose? I'm not saying that posting an entire DVD in hex is OK, just asking questions. Like I said, context. You posted that number and even quoted the words ACSS decryption code. Problems with laws arise when you start enforcing them rigidly :) Technology has no common sense. It's a bit like speeding. Technically doing 31mph in a 30 zone is illegal. No policeman would ever stop you (just) for that. DRM, being technological, cannot turn a blind eye to the law. The law is supposed to be a bit fuzzy. David - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
Sean Dillon wrote: vijay chopra wrote: Besides, if there are meeja prima donnas and wannabe luvvies (on this list or otherwise) that believe that DRM is a long term, workable solution to this problem, then I couldn't care less if they get their egos bruised a little, and don't see why anyone else should care either. With the utmost respect there are a couple of techie prima donnas here as well who could do with being dragged into the real world of commercial media production and distribution. With even more respect than anyone has shown anywhere ever (phew) The 'real world' for commercial people is usually this quarter's profit. The 'real world' for techies doesn't even have money, never mind profit. Getting them to play together is hard - the problem is that the commercial people control the money and therefore control the balance of power. They *think* that controlling the balance of power makes them right. They are wrong. I'm seeing a shift in some businesses to allowing the CTO to control technical funding - driven by business requirements - not business 'proposals'. David - who has been privileged enough to be a commercial product manager and a technical architect :) PS I have no idea about 'the real world' for marketing luvvies - thank goodness! - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
Dave Crossland wrote: So you're saying that _not_ filesharing is betraying friends and neighbours? Certainly. Because it's morally correct to share something that is not diminished by sharing? Correct! So where is the balance? I believe you're referring to the commonly-held misconception that there is a copyright balance. Please read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html to understand why this concept is mistaken. No, not copyright balance. Economic balance. Or do you believe that the content creator (and as Michael pointed out, colleagues) doesn't deserve recompense? Deserve, no. Authors do not inherently deserve the right to control the publics use of their work; I didn't ask that - I asked if they deserve recompense. those rights are given to them by the public, and were intended to be given only in so far as that they benefitted the public. No, quote: Rather, it does this to modify their behavior: to provide an incentive for authors to write more and publish more. Society (and therefore I) has a moral obligation to uphold its end of the bargain - ie limit unpaid sharing. Corporate corruption of governments has weakened democracy very badly, and the way copyright is used against the public interest is an example of this wider problem with global society. Agree 100%. eg Disney are, wrt copyright, completely hypocritical bastards. I am similarly sickened by the situation in schools where rights holders are coming down on music clubs and essentially preventing musical performances. Authors need to find new business models that do not harm the public; they do exist, and there is a lot of money to be made in pursuing them. But they need society as a whole to agree to an approach. And for the past 40 years (or so) the predominantly physical transport of media has lead to a status-quo. Whilst it's appealing to rip it out roots and all - it's not pragmatic. So we have copyright - a legal tool used by the GPL. It's not going away. DRM, or rather LESS - is the issue. And I object to having to pay for each of these things. I object to paying for a new copy because my old player died. I'm glad to hear we agree on all of these things. We're closer than I think you think :) You're right, try: For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF MORALLY SOUND PEOPLE*, which is more likely to work? Morally sound people share with their friends. Morally sound people would accept their societal obligations and contribute to the artist to a societally accepted degree (yes, driven by capitalism) and then obtain the media, possibly electronically from a friend. Neither. Talk to teenagers - file sharing is here to stay. If your argument is that we raise morally bankrupt children then so be it. Teenagers however, are not the vast majority of people. No, but with the baby boom generation about to retire, en masse, young people are assuming positions of power previously unavailable. These young people have grown up with computers (although not the Internet) and understand that file sharing is a good thing to do. This has little to do with file sharing and more to do with economics and license enforcement. David - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 12/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DRM is very simple to implement, simple put an XML header at the front of the media file detailing what can or can not be done with content. Job Done. So it can be bypassed but then all software implemented DRM has that flaw there is nothing that can be done about it feasibly. (unless you are going to convince Intel and AMD to change their entire chip design to add a feature none of their customers want, I'll wait while they laugh you out of their office). Oh, this trivial solution fits in very well indeed with the 'educate the masses' and make them feel bad about violating licenses. Of course if you politely tell them you can't do an error-correcting copy of that scratched DVD that your 3 year old tried to insert into the plant pot. Please buy (yet) another original. Then I suspect they'll tell you to piss off. If however you say making a copy of this DVD for your own use (eg in case of damage) is OK but it is wrong to give it away or sell it. Please don't do that. Then you are actually treating the consumer as a reasonable person. For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF LAW ABIDING PEOPLE*, which is more likely to work? OK, you're right - well, which is more likely to work with a more balanced economic model? - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
Dave Crossland wrote: Hi David! On 12/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If however you say making a copy of this DVD for your own use (eg in case of damage) is OK but it is wrong to give it away or sell it. Please don't do that. Then you are actually treating the consumer as a reasonable person. No, you're attacking their civic spirit and the nature of friendship, and that's not cool. No one self-respecting is going to agree to betray their friends and neighbours like that. So you're saying that _not_ filesharing is betraying friends and neighbours? Because it's morally correct to share something that is not diminished by sharing? So where is the balance? Or do you believe that the content creator (and as Michael pointed out, colleagues) doesn't deserve recompense? The 'rules' of our society include exchanging money for products and services. In the media area we used to buy physical records and tapes, now I like to think we buy a right to listen/watch for us and our family. As a rabid anti-DRM person I do not object to paying to listen/watch - it costs money to create this stuff and I expect to contribute. I do however object to having to pay Microsoft/Apple/Sony to listen/watch. I also object to not being able to listen/watch on my home-made gizmo. I want to listen/watch my media in my car; I want to innovate and listen/watch in my bath... And I object to having to pay for each of these things. I object to paying for a new copy because my old player died. For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF LAW ABIDING PEOPLE*, which is more likely to work? Neither. Talk to teenagers - file sharing is here to stay. By saying law abiding, you're invoking the law as an authority on ethics, which is ill-conceived. The law is, at best, at attempt to achieve justice. Often, if doesn't: law abiding people moved to the back of the bus. You're right, try: For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF MORALLY SOUND PEOPLE*, which is more likely to work? If your argument is that we raise morally bankrupt children then so be it. Teenagers however, are not the vast majority of people. David - 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] London.pm / BBC Backstage Perl Teach-In Day
James Cox wrote: On 8 May 2007, at 15:05, David Greaves wrote: Dave Cross wrote: If you're contemplating signing up for this, then you're too late. All 50 places went in less than 48 hours. We're currently taking names for a waiting list, but I really wouldn't hold out too much hope of many of the people on that list getting places. And they say that Perl is dead :-) 'They' clearly use frameworks ;) hah! every language has it's place and value. i like frameworks - but still love being able to hack text with some one-liner magic... :) still though, learning perl 'properly' would probably make my toes curl. :P The thing you need to know about perl is that it was invented by a linguist. And I'm being very serious indeed (both about Larry's background and that, IMHO, that knowledge influences how you approach perl beyond a certain level). The book 'Advanced Perl Programming' is one of the best language books I've ever read. The documentation for perl should be compulsory reading - if the language doesn't do what the docs say then you can file a bug *knowing* that it's a bug in the language - I once found a bug in perl itself and I was insanely proud. And any language that lets you decide how to (simply) implement the most flexible OO known to man is incredible. If perl's depths don't astonish you then you're not a hacker. Don't get me wrong, it's not for everyone or everything - flexibility isn't what you give a crowd of code monkeys you just inherited from an outsourcing deal! (ie 95% of today's IT sigh). David - 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] London.pm / BBC Backstage Perl Teach-In Day
Dave Cross wrote: If you're contemplating signing up for this, then you're too late. All 50 places went in less than 48 hours. We're currently taking names for a waiting list, but I really wouldn't hold out too much hope of many of the people on that list getting places. And they say that Perl is dead :-) 'They' clearly use frameworks ;) David - 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] London.pm / BBC Backstage Perl Teach-In Day
Dave Crossland wrote: On 08/05/07, Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And they say that Perl is dead :-) No, just braindamaged. http://www.underlevel.net/jordan/erik-perl.txt etc ;) (Ah, (criticism (from '(a lisp programmer) (- (praise indeed!))) - 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] TVA Feeds
Are you aware of XMLTV? Or are you especially interested in the TV-Anytime format? David Ben Hall wrote: This might sound silly to some of you on the list, but is it possible to access the TV listings data for other channels as well? Like ITV, C4, C5? Thanks Ben On 04/05/07, Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The feeds at http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/feeds/tvradio/ seem to stop on the 28th April. Any chance that someone could prod whatever needs prodding? Cheers, 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/ - 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] list test and Hack Day
Kim Plowright wrote: Dear sweet evil Jesus on a pogo stick, don't start that up again! LOLS Ah, before my time and this is the first time I'd seen this writeup (or any writeup as considered). Refers the honourable gentlemen to archive URL below. Suggests he takes a look. You know, just so he understands what might be under the corner of the rug he's about to pick up. http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ Ah. Guess I'd better not mention ad blocking either then ;) I think I'll go and feed my penguins... David - 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] list test
Richard Lockwood wrote: Naaah - everyone's just drawing breath for the next round of opinionated shouting about DRM, open source, free beer or whatever... ;-) Cheers, Rich. This might help: A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection Or How Microsoft destroyed the Mulitmedia PC Executive Executive Summary The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history Executive Summary Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called “premium content”, typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry. It's quite a long piece and gets quite technical - I'm not in a position to critique it but the references and arguments appear sound. http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html David - 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] list test and Hack Day
Tom Scott wrote: This might help: A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection Or How Microsoft destroyed the Mulitmedia PC Dear sweet evil Jesus on a pogo stick, don't start that up again! :D Ah, before my time and this is the first time I'd seen this writeup (or any writeup as considered). Damn, was looking forward to seeing the response; especially from this kind of environment... David - 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] Hack day in London
Mr I Forrester wrote: Cocoon is awesome but very much ahead of its time In that case the pure XML CMS I wrote for BT using Cocoon, Velocity (and Bugzilla with XMetal as the 'workflow') back in early 2002 must have been positively visionary! Ah, good times! David - 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] xmltv.radiotimes.com
Kim Plowright wrote: I've let the head of New Media at BBC Worldwide Magazines know about this, by the way. Kim Thanks Kim, much appreciated :) For information I sent an email off to Nick on another list (about Myth TV - an opensource PVR) saying: It would be interesting to know if you and your contact are responsible for this? It would be nice to have a reliable contact for when this kind of situation occurs again. Clearly the RT person may not want hordes of screaming Myth users complaining everytime there's a problem with their ISP so maybe we could set up an XMLTV_RT community contact list - maybe in conjunction with the xmltv guys. The RT person could subscribe or, more likely, problems are reported to the list and 2 or 3 of the list admins have the RT contact details. If the problem is real then the list admins could approach RT to notify them if the problem doesn't get resolved in, say, 2-3 days. This list could be put in our wiki, the XMLTV source/docs and RT could even put them in http://xmltv.radiotimes.com/xmltv/ Also Peter Bowyer wrote: Seconded. It would be interesting to get a comment on what went wrong, though - and an indication if there's a better way of reporting problems specific to the xmltv feed - I got the feeling that the generic address probably doesn't reach the right people. Of course I could be wrong, maybe my mail there was the only one they got and they immediately jumped up and mended things. No, I too wrote a polite email and got a boilerplate. See the message above too. David - 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] xmltv.radiotimes.com
Hi I just joined the list to find out about the xmltv feed :) When I got a couple of emails I found the link to the archives. The last message about this seems to be on the 29th when the site came back on air. However, as people probably realise the data isn't being updated anymore. Does anyone have a clue? Thanks David - 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] xmltv.radiotimes.com
On 03/04/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have a clue? Peter Bowyer wrote: No more than you I guess So for those xmltv users here on the BBC backstage I saw this message from Nick in another couple of lists and thought it worth forwarding here - cc'ing Nick out of politeness. Nick Morrott wrote: I just spoke to the Radio Times and am in the process of hopefully making more 'permanent' contact. The Radio Times are aware of this issue, which I was told is a temporary issue and should be resolved. The Radio Times could not state that the listings will definitely be updated again before they run out on the 10th April 2007 but do hope they will be - they currently have staff absences which are likely contributing to this issue. So I guess the bottom line is hang in there :). If you're a DVB user, read up on swapping over to the DVB EIT listings in the interim if the RT listings do in fact run out on April 10th. Cheers, Nick Hope this helps David - 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/
