Re: [backstage] Canvas - Open Source Consortium
On 13/09/2010 23:11, Scot McSweeney-Roberts wrote: On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 21:22, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: The Google TV box (Logitech Revue) is an addition to your set top box, so it does not integrate with Free To Air TV and may be unable to access UK catch-up content. But it's also getting installed directly into televisions and there will probably be a DirectTV box in the US - it's not hard to imagine DVB-T2 boxes running Google TV. As for TV's having Google TV built in, the same or more expensive models for the UK market (Treasure Island) will have Canvas built in, but I don't see many Google TV with DVB2 been sold in the UK (offered in retailers), unless Google can supply UK Free To Air content, as it is broadcast (Google (UK) TV). As long as we're getting broadcaster solutions to internet problems then that's just not going to happen. The distributors and broadcasters not only want to stop you copying content, and redistributing it (or even making fair use of it) but their absolute control also extends to segmenting markets (e.g. DVD region codes) to ease distribution and marketing; to maximise the capture of the consumer surplus and seek monopoly (oligopoly) rents. Prices and access (exclusive deals) vary between markets. The distributors already use GeoIP or billing addresses to attempt to restrict access on the internet to services (including the BBC), and while iplayer, ITV player, and SEE SAW TV may be an option (Full Fat Flash), the experience will be much more awkward than just using Canvas, which will dominate the UK Free To Air market and retailers. As Andrew said competition is not regarded as desirable in a World TV market. (Although Sky's monopoly on sport is been reduced) Yes you can use Google TV (with iplayer et al) but few will do so, hook up your PC to your TV and use iplayer or watch TV on your laptop (some will), it is just not as seamless an integration as a dedicated or built in product (Scott for example has a preference for integrated TV's). We see still see: Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, Britain's got Talent, Masterchef remade in every market for cultural reasons (not just language), even if like the UK/Australia/New Zealand (USA ?) the cultural differences are not that great (and Masterchef Australia is available on 'Watch' (BBC Pay TV) if you have not had enough of the BBC UK version). Some people may want a subscription to a US product (Google TV (USA)), for early access to US content, or content otherwise behind SKY's pay wall, but will you be allowed to ? Or will there be a Google TV (UK) in which case it may have DVB-T2, and be Canvas or only offer UI interface differences which may appeal to Scott ? Competition between user interfaces, already exists have the options of a Virgin Vbox or Sky (OpenTV) (you may have to subscribe to an additional content package or service and they also require different delivery technology). Except that, the Canvas joint venture wishes to control branding, there is no reason why the Canvas user interface should not be completely skin-able (some elements are replaceable by the OEM, so a Sony TV will also have Sony branding) or even replaceable (download the UI of your choice). TV integration , Users Interface, only if you buy an alternative bundle, (which may or may not be available). Yes, well maybe ? But a truly open solution (user selectable/modifiable), competition: red in tooth and claw (and price and access), control over your own hardware, privacy. The Powers That Be (TPTB), say NO! (or the TPTB say: the computer says NO!) - 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] Canvas - Open Source Consortium
http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-canvas-complaint-5-comes-from-open-source-software-fans/ The OSC is a small body, with 23 members from small development and consultancy firms, and it’s objection is largely philosophical - that Canvas isn’t “open” in the same way Unix and Linux lovers regard “open”. http://www.opensourceconsortium.org/downloads/project_canvas/project_canvas_consultation_response.pdf Accordingly, Project Canvas should all the application programme interfaces (“API”s) and use and publish unencumbered open standards so as to enable anyone to provide “Project Canvas ready” client solutions on any platform. Personally, I believe the BBC is breaking the Law, and have complained to the OFT (twice) and the BBC (twice) via their web form which has on both occasions lost my complaint. Bizarrely, the OFT does not consider my complaint important enough to pursue, when it has international and nation implications. To quote the OSC. http://www.opensourceconsortium.org/downloads/project_canvas/project_canvas_consultation_response.pdf Project Canvas in its current form is going to lead to the BBC having unprecedented influence in the market for computer hardware and software. It would appear complaints from the public are to be dismissed by 'The Powers That Be'. - 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] Canvas - Open Source Consortium
On 13/09/2010 13:39, Tim Dobson wrote: Gah, this makes no sense in the context of what Canvas actually is. If you're going to bitch and moan, at least bloody do it coherently. +1 A sense of outrage always makes me incoherent too. So what is Canvas ? A black box under the control of a Joint Venture, who extends the monopoly interest of the rights holders and using the power of rights holders and the Joint Venture members (including a large public institution) to distort the consumer electronics market in the UK. In violation of competition law. A project that wishes to monitor and control a device paid for and therefore owned by the consumer, through encryption and DRM, removing all consumer control and violating European Law and the Human Rights act in the process ? A project that will exclude more open devices like PC's, and restrict public access to publicly funded content. I guess the above is not how the BBC would describe 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] Canvas - Open Source Consortium
To be honest, I'm unconvinced by Project Canvas. It's difficult to see how a UK only system is going to compete in this day and age. What does it do that a Google TV box can't do? Why would a manufacturer make a Canvas box instead of something that they can sell in most of the world (or even all of the world with the right components)? All it does is remind me of the BBC Micro Vs PC Compatibles. This is not my field and I have not been following the details of the implementation of Canvas: The Google TV box (Logitech Revue) is an addition to your set top box, so it does not integrate with Free To Air TV and may be unable to access UK catch-up content. While it has minimum hardware specification, DVB-T2, 32Mb local storage etc, this may be modularised commodity hardware. Revue/Boxee may be cheaper. Canvas to a large extent is a software stack. Core, UI and Marlin DRM will all be closed to the user. Any user HTML, Java/action script would appear to be limited to extensions (e.g. games), or accessing internet content (excluding UK Free to Air catchup etc). If not totally closed like the PS3. Commodity(ish) hardware with access to UK Free to Air TV catch up, is much more like BT, Sky, Virgin services than Google TV (US orientated). Even Google TV is a black box with HDMI (in/out), what I imagine the Open Source Consortium would like (and certainly I would) is a PC with a DVB-T2 USB tuner, allowing an open source implementation of Canvas, which of course would cause an issue with Marlin (unauthorised and insecure (user modifiable) clients). Or better still a simple URI and python/perl/ruby/curl script to access or download Canvas, Free To Air TV catchup content (including HDTV). - 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
I know users of the site who have had nasty letters from solicitors telling them to pay £300+ for a single album they torrented, etc. So I think users may notice a difference in that regard. Yes these guy's are saints. But as they say in Britain, “where there’s muck, there’s brass”, and that’s enough to attract more lawyers and more rightsholders to this most profitable of honeypots. It has been well documented that other lawyers previously involved in this type of work, such as ACS:Law, have been heavily reported both to the government and to organizations such as the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA). Indeed, ACS:Law have proven record-breaking in this respect. http://torrentfreak.com/yet-more-lawyers-jump-on-turn-piracy-into-profit-bandwagon-100712/ This is just extortion. But then Nick is on the side of the real crooks as the courts have demonstrated, ever herd of Celador, well it wasn't the pirates who tried to cheat them of 270 millions. This week, the big case involved a TV show, rather than a movie, with the famed gameshow Who Wants To Be A Millionaire suddenly becoming Who Wants To Hide Millions In Profits. A jury found the whole Hollywood Accounting discussion preposterous and awarded Celador $270 million in damages from Disney, after the jury believed that Disney used these kinds of tricks to cook the books and avoid having to pay Celador over the gameshow, as per their agreement. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml So, back to our original example of the average musician only earning $23.40 for every $1,000 sold. That money has to go back towards recouping the advance, even though the label is still straight up cashing 63% of every sale, which does not go towards making up the advance. The math here gets ridiculous pretty quickly when you start to think about it. These record label deals are basically out and out scams. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml These are the big time crooks, that Nick should be concerned about. He even uses the slippery slope argument, on that basis I am sure he is frightened of the dark... As for the Artists: The really interesting thing is, of course, that these aren't Baen books, they're DAW---another publisher---so it's 'name loyalty' rather than 'brand loyalty.' I'll tell you what, I'm sold. Free works. I've found that to be true myself; every time we make a few songs available on my website, sales of all the CDs go up. A lot. And I don't know about you, but as an artist with an in-print record catalogue that dates back to 1965, I'd be thrilled to see sales on my old catalogue rise. http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html Free Works ! And don't miss the Courtney Love from 2000, URL in Techdirt story, on how an 11 million grossing band makes zero income, at least if they were established artists they would have made a quarter of a million. Keep Honest People Honest ! Honest People don't need to be kept honest, but they can see the law is an ass, and choose to ignore it. Unless the BBC and the crooks get to impose 'Technical Protection Measures' for their extortion rackets. - 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] Audio levels on iPlayer material (again)
Christopher Woods wrote: I posted a while back asking about why iPlayer videos start loud then get quieter a few seconds later... A Normalisation stage post encoding ? Obviously that won't help where the 'correction' is made within the programme. Grandmother, Eggs, How to suck ? - 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] Audio levels on iPlayer material (again)
Jim Tonge wrote: Unless I'm (quite possibly) misunderstanding you here David, I think he was just highlighting a valid issue. I wasn't trying to be critical of anyone, just making a suggestion, while well aware that the BBC has people with far more expertise in this area than I. I wasn't aware that Christopher [Woods] works for the BBC Sorry for any misunderstanding :( - 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] Audio levels on iPlayer material (again)
At the risk of making things worse, normalisation is a technical term, perhaps the correct term I was looking for is replay gain. The BBC 'normalises' it's output to ensure everything is at the same apparent sound level (relative to other output). I was suggesting that some sort of automatic gain control is deciding that the output is too loud and automatically reducing the gain for the rest of the output. This may be particular to the iplayer output, the original or could be the result of many stages of processing (e.g normalising and already normalised input). But then I am sure the staff at the BBC are well aware of this, and it may not be the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_normalization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_Gain Replay Gain works by first performing a psychoacoustic analysis of an entire audio track to measure peak levels and perceived loudness. The difference between the measured perceived loudness and the desired target loudness is calculated; this is considered the ideal replay gain value (the target loudness of most Replay Gain utilities is 89 dB SPL --- 6 dB higher than the Replay Gain specification and SMPTE recommendation[1]). Usually, the gain value and the peak value are then stored as metadata in the audio file, allowing Replay Gain-capable audio players to automatically attenuate or amplify the signal so that tracks will play at a similar loudness level. This avoids the common problem of having to manually adjust volume levels when playing audio files from albums that have been mastered at different levels. Should the audio at its original levels be desired (e.g., for burning back to hard copy), the metadata can simply be ignored. - 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] Audio levels on iPlayer material (again)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_Gain No native support is available for Amarok 1, but a Replay Gain script is available for Amarok's script manager. As it is an external script, however, there will be a slight lag between the start of a track and the volume adjustment. This is particularly noticeable when a track starts with a peak loudness. - 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] Digital Economy Bill
A glimmer of hope ? BT and TalkTalk may go to court to try and overturn the Digital Economy Act - passed just before Parliament was dissolved for the election. Two of the largest ISPs in the UK want the High Court to confirm that the Act is legal and that disconnecting persistent file sharers does not infringe basic rights. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/08/digital_economy_repeal/ - 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] Digital Economy Bill
Bad new as well I just came across the following: Our content protection requirements have to cater for the widest possible number of content providers, including giving reassurance to those looking to support pay-per-view and subscription access to film, said Canvas's chief technology officer Anthony Rose. While it considered letting broadcasters pick their own DRM providers, Canvas decided everyone taking part should use the same system, opting for open-standards based Marlin. Developed over the past five years by Intertrust, Panasonic, Philips, Samsung and Sony, Marlin is used widely in Japan and by Sony for its PlayStation Network. http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/359287/project-canvas-looks-to-open-standards-for-drm - 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] Big Game Fishing
If at first you fail: I have re-submitted a modified (shortened and simplified) complaint to the BBC and look forward to learning about the limits of my understanding of the law with regard to public service obligations the human rights act and the copyright design and patents act. The competition part has gone to the OFT, but the subject is not the BBC. This time I have recorded a submit ID from the final URL - 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 web complaints form ate my complaint.
If like me you were waiting for the official response to my complaint about BBC HD Content Protection. It appears that the BBC web form has eaten my complaint. It is for this reason (and others), I hate web forms. It may have been the cut and paste or the length of the text. Perhaps I should complain about the complaints system. I am now reviewing my options, about how to submit a revised complaint. - 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 web complaints form ate my complaint.
Nick, My complaint consists of the following: * The Ofcom statement is a dogs dinner full of logical and legal fallacies. * What the BBC is proposing breaches the law (illegal and against BBC policy). (Public Service Obligations, Human Right Act, Competition Law). This is the only complaint likely to be effective at this stage. Also: * Extending copyright and technical enforcement is not in the public interest. * The Digital Economy Act is the one that people would most like to repeal. In fact, the topic with the most support is, Repeal the Digital Economy Bill, which has 181 comments and just under 900 votes in its favour. http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1720512/voters-clamour-ditch-digital-economy-act As you know I am not a legal expert. I am also having a problem complaining to the 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] The web complaints form ate my complaint.
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Hi David - my suggestion would be that rather then complaining to the BBC or OFCOM you take your complaint to your MP or the BBC Trust. Complaining to the BBC is the first stage in taking the issue to the BBC Trust. (two responses then escalate to the Trust) It would be nice to see the BBC Management accept the error of their ways. A complaint to the Office of Fair Trading on competition law is always an option. There are significant consequences to breaking competition law. - 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 web complaints form ate my complaint.
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: But this isn't an editorial complaint - it's a complaint about broader policy issues - I think the Trust is best. You can only appeal to the Trust if you have been through the full complaints process of the BBC, or TV Licensing, or the Digital Switchover Help Scheme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/complaints_appeals/appeal_trust.shtml At least they provide an email address and not a web form. - 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 web complaints form ate my complaint.
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/drm/ http://forums.reghardware.com/post/675054 I can't believe The Register hasn't picked up on this. The proposed 'DRM' is entirely harmless and here's why. Scrambling the EPG does NOT prevent the video itself being recorded, it will still be broadcast FTA unencrypted and indeed there are other alternative sources of guide data. The BBC isn't stupid, it _knows_ this and the only conclusion is that they are trying to appease rights holders with a slight of hand. Now I hesitate to bring this up in a public forum where it might undermine what the BBC are trying to achieve, but this backlash against risks the same thing. The developers of MythTV, myself included, are entirely unconcerned by this move because technically it's so laughable and therefore so obviously not what it appears to be. The BBC tech guys are as smart as they come, we deal with them on regular basis, and they are engineering the Emperors Clothes of DRM - a solution which appeases everyone. It's really quite beautiful and we should be lending them our complete support. I am aware of all of the above, At some point we need to stop appeasing the content providers and start fighting back. - 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 Trust approves Project Canvas ...
Mo McRoberts wrote: Without the Canvas UX, you're not permitted to access any Canvas content. 4.62. Further, the Trust understood that, since the core technical specification for Canvas would be published, it would be open to manufacturers and platform operators either to adopt the Canvas core technical specification and the UI or (if they preferred) to develop their own UI with the Canvas core technical specification. 4.72. One stakeholder asked for clarification as to whether fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access would be available to all industry operators - that is including manufacturers, not just platform operators. The Trust confirms that its understanding of the open nature of the core technical specification is such that it shall be available to all industry operators including manufacturers. The Trust expects the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory principle to apply to all those seeking to license the core technical specification. 4.74. Approval is made on the understanding that the Canvas joint venture will be governed by the following principles: * the Canvas core technical specification will be made available to third parties on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis; and http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/canvas/canvas_conclusions.pdf I am still reading the above document. - 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 Trust approves Project Canvas ...
Alex Cockell wrote: Yeah, but would that include the Mythtv project and other open source projects? Would the Linux community be able to build their own gear? And have access to everything? Yes. you might even get access to the Canvas UI if you request it. It is a legal obligation for the BBC (and other public service broadcasters) to make it's services available to the public and act in a non-discriminatory way to all third parties (in my view). See sections 4.62, 4.72 and 4.74 http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/canvas/canvas_conclusions.pdf I think this is sufficient to require the specification to be public. Mo disagrees, we will know for certain in less than 20 days time. For instance, will there be scope for, say, a Canvas pvr to save out to a NAS frame on the local network? There is no (longer) any method of enforcing the standard (No NDA) outside reasonable conditions to access to the server (compliance with protocols), if you wish (the software) to ignore the content restrictions, then you can, interface with NAS, blu-ray writer (ignoring the copy flag), or any other media or device. I don't renmember having to find 5 grand to look at the PAL definition... You should not be required to join any organisation this time. - 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 Trust approves Project Canvas ...
Mo McRoberts wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:03, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: It is a legal obligation for the BBC (and other public service broadcasters) to make it's services available to the public and act in a non-discriminatory way to all third parties (in my view). ^ In *your* view, based upon your reading of the obligations handed down to the corporation. If only it were ever that easy. The BBC has to be careful of it's legal obligations. I think the context has changed. The BBC was under pressure to lock down the specification to ensure all TV receiving equipment implemented content protection. This encountered unanticipated legal complications, so the pressure for lock down is removed. The BBC can therefore be much more 'open' with the core specification. (and even the UX). the fact is, the BBC considers the DTG to be a non-partisan organisation, and so (despite the exorbitant costs of membership) very likely considers it to be a satisfactory vehicle as far as 'non-discriminatory' is concerned. As project Canvas already releases information (and has provided a schedule for further releases) to the industry for peer-review, why the requirement to publish the specification within 20 days of approval. http://www.projectcanvas.info/index.cfm/news/?mode=aliasalias=Project-Canvas-releases-further-information-to-industry-on-technical-specifications Peer review is different from publishing the interim or final standards. The D-Book is only available to full members (of the DTG). http://www.dtg.org.uk/publications/books.html an entirely artificial cost barrier is not generally deemed to be 'discriminating' by the BBC, even if in real terms it actually is. See sections 4.62, 4.72 and 4.74 http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/canvas/canvas_conclusions.pdf I think this is sufficient to require the specification to be public. Mo disagrees, we will know for certain in less than 20 days time. actually, no: it's not that I disagree. I'd be over the moon if you were right. I don't think the BBC agrees with you, though. I may be reading too much into sections: 4.62, 4.72 and 4.74. But I would expect an 'open' core standard to be open and available to the public and for this to be the BBC's intention. The costs of publishing a specification (as a text document or pdf) on a web site are low, comparable with the costs associated with handling individual complaints, about discrimination and lack of access. p.s As you are aware I am not actively involved in Digital Television development. I am not a legal expert and cannot give formal legal advice. - 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 Trust approves Project Canvas ...
Ian Stirling wrote: Earlier there was mention made of a 'cost recovery'. Cost recovery does not apply to distribution through the DTG. It would appear to be perverse to apply any cost recovery to a document distributed to the public over the internet. Development cost estimate: Twenty four point seven million pounds over five years (24.7 million). I suspect cost recovery, of operational and development, costs would apply to content. This would appear to be zero for the BBC, as iplayer will have zero usage cost (the BBC is publicly funded). It may involve advertising for other free-to-air broadcasters. The purpose of the cost recovery clause appears to be, to prevent members from profiting from Canvas content distribution, while avoiding a loss. - 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 Trust approves Project Canvas ...
Alex Cockell wrote: As long as the possibility of an open-source implementation remains. Which is quite concerning at present. One should be able to build a Canvas receiver from *public* specs ultimately. The scale of lockdown is quigte worrying at the mo. Also inprove some of the diagnostics... You will be legally, and without breaking Free Software principles, be able to implement a free/open-source, software stack (no linking to closed source modules), including, displaying the EPG contents (No NDA required) from the public specification. The 'canvas' interface is still subject to copyright and subject to a cost recovery fee, as are logos etc (not required by open source solution). There will be no technical or other obstruction, to omitting the content protection (which is part of the specification). I do not work for 'canvas' or the BBC, but this is my expectation. I can't help with the diagnostics ... - 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] Ofcom opens debate on net neutrality
Of course bandwidth is free ... (Just confirming peoples suspicions about my sanity). The only thing that isn't free, is widely regarded as free, but then that might become a philosophical discussion. And property rights confuse the issue. You get huge amounts of free extra bandwidth when you purchase a new router. Technology doubles the available bandwidth every twelve months. Haven't they just ratified the 40 and 100 Gb/s standards. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/22/ieee_802_dot_3ba_ratified/ http://www.ethernetalliance.org/files/static_page_files/F5BB8944-1D09-3519-ADA94D227208E301/HSE%20FAQ%20_02_0601%20_2_.pdf Don't make me get the George Gilder out ... Seriously make your points, I just wanted to indicate my position. (and have some fun). And then there is the mobile phone networks... - 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 Nature of the Problem with HD Content Protection
Brian Butterworth wrote: So, is this the privatization of approval? We do seem to have swapped from having got rid of the /PostMaster General/ and the/ Lord Chamberlain/ to having /Record Company Executives /decide what's/ good for us./ Yes, the politicians think, that if they use the law to allow others to extort more money from the people, the media, banks, oil companies etc, then it is actually the public stealing from the media, banks, oil companies ... And social benefits, well that is just straight theft. Do you think been stupid is a job requirement for a politician or can they only see the special interests ? Adam Smith must be turning in his grave, Free Markets ! Competition ! it is Corporatism, a form of Fascism. - 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 Nature of the Problem with HD Content Protection
What we are witnessing is an intellectual property land grab. The content distributors are continuing to the ever increasing duration of copyright (regulatory capture) to increasing it's scope. The scope is from controlling the commercial distribution of copyright material, to controlling it's consumption. Although for the moment they will settle for controlling all distribution. Having failed at controlling all distribution (Napsterization) they now talk of controlling casual copying (thanks Prof Feltham). As we all know from our youth, Home Taping is Killing Music, they have never controlled casual copying, and now they don't control wider non-commercial distribution by computer network (Napsterization). Jessica Litman almost gets it right in her book, you can read chapter two online here: http://www.msen.com/~litman/digital-copyright/ch2.html They couldn't mean that [control of every instance of a copy of a work], right? But they did. And, as a practical and political matter, it turned out to be a brilliant legal argument. Copyright owners who want to ensure that they control -- and can charge money for -- any appearance of their works in any computer anywhere, argued that Congress gave them that right twenty years ago, and that all they were asking for now was some support for their efforts to enforce it. [...] Copyright is now seen as a tool for copyright owners to use to extract all the potential commercial value from works of authorship, even if that means that uses that have long been deemed legal are now brought within the copyright owner's control. In 1998, copyright owners persuaded Congress to enhance their rights with a sheaf of new legal and technological controls. Armed with those copyright improvements, copyright lawyers began a concerted campaign to remodel cyberspace into a digital multiplex and shopping mall for copyright-protected material. The outcome of that effort is still uncertain. If current trends continue unabated, however, we are likely to experience a violent collision between our expectations of freedom of expression and the enhanced copyright law. Let me highlight the most relevant sentence: If current trends continue unabated, however, we are likely to experience a violent collision between our expectations of freedom of expression and the enhanced copyright law. It is only right that the copyright owners should extract all commercial (and non-commercial) value right ? Wrong, Macauley knew this in 1841. The system of copyright has great advantages and great disadvantages; and it is our business to ascertain what these are, and then to make an arrangement under which the advantages may be as far as possible secured, and the disadvantages as far as possible excluded. http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm Mark A Lemley explains the some economic theory in detail in the article Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding. But the externalities in intellectual property are positive, not negative, and property theory offers little or no justification for internalizing positive externalities. Indeed, doing so is at odds with the logic and functioning of the market. http://ssrn.com/abstract=582602 And I still have to read: Copyright as Tort Avihay Dorfman Assaf Jacob The conclusion is promising... More dramatically, these considerations demand, on pain of glaring inconsistency, a substantially weaker protection for copyright. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1599440 I would take serious issue with some of the aspects in Mark Lemley paper, but like Macauley, it recognises that copyright should be a balance between public and private interests. A balance in copyright interests that has been long abandoned as a result of regulatory capture, logical fallacies, increases in scope and enforcement (like the ability to control every copy, and control all non-commercial distribution) and the extra-judicial enforcement by machine. On a brighter note: The Enterprise Act 2002, Cartel Offense 188 2) The arrangements must be ones which, if operating as the parties to the agreement intend, would— (b) limit or prevent supply by A in the United Kingdom of a product or service, - 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] More issues with HD Content Protection
There is an problem in the Ofcom justification: 3.6 We came to the provisional view that, due to the likelihood that content management would deliver a greater variety of content to viewers on the DTT platform, an effective content management framework should be available for broadcasters to use on HD DTT. However, we also recognised that there were risks of potential detriments for consumers (we consider these risks in section 5). I am just trying some idea's if anyone wishes to comment: Ofcom talk about the (increased) availability of HD content, in the event of content protection been available on DTT. The creation of HD content is a technical feature of the hardware. Even consumer equipment is offering HD resolutions (720p or even higher). Further limits on distribution vs standard resolution (rather than just price), would appear to be prima facie evidence of anti-competitive behavior. More magic logic from Ofcom: 5.31 Whilst we recognise that viewers may wish to record or copy material within the confines of the provisions of the CDPA, that legislation does not grant rights to copy material to viewers. Rather, it provides a defence to any action for copyright infringement. Viewers do not therefore have any right to copy any material broadcast on the HD DTT platform. In this context, it would not be appropriate for Ofcom to refuse to allow copy management on the basis of such a right. We would nevertheless hope that broadcasters sought to ensure the greatest flexibility possible for viewers. Copyright is not an absolute right to restrict use, but a Tort, No harm no foul applies. 5.31 Whilst we recognise that viewers may wish to breathe. Legislation does not grant rights to breathe, Rather it provides a defense against been murdered, or otherwise unlawfuly killed. In this context, it would not be appropriate for Ofcom to refuse to allow the restriction of breathing on the basis of such a right (to breathe). We do not need legal permission for our actions, by default we are free men ! What is not denied is permitted, and what is denied needs to be subject to judicial process. Extra judicial enforcement by a public organisation breeches the Human Rights Act. Copyright originally only applied to commercial exploitation, now Ofcom, not parliament, is deciding extra judicial enforcement is appropriate in the privacy of peoples own home, and imposes restrictions the functionality of private property (force majeure - greater force) against the wishes of it's owners. How does Ofcom acquire such enormous powers, by the use of faulty logic and assuming powers is does not have the authority to exercise ? Another: English Common Law has the concept of Restraint of Trade. I think it is anti-completive behavior 4.30 Whilst adoption of the Freeview HD logo by receiver manufacturers has resulted in early receiver equipment implementing the content management solution specified in the DTG receiver specification without the BBC proposals being implemented, we remain of the view that, absent the BBC proposal, mass market receiver equipment with no content management could enter the market in the future. Over time this could lead to an unlevel playing field between receivers which implement and do not implement content management, causing the market to ‘tip’ in time such that a large proportion of manufacturers would stop including content management technology in their products. As set out in section 3, this may result in a reduction in the variety of content being made available on the HD DTT platform and would therefore be an undesirable outcome for viewers. We therefore consider that the BBC proposal is a proportionate means of securing effective content management framework on HD DTT. With the BBC (and Canvas members) or BBC (and Canvas members) and the Film distributors, engaging in discriminatory and anti-competitive behaviour, could it also be illegal by virtue of restraint of trade ? The public have an interest in every person's carrying on his trade freely: so has the individual. All interference with individual liberty of action in trading, and all restraints of trade of themselves, if there is nothing more, are contrary to public policy . . . . http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/ch13illegaility.htm Thorsten Nordenfelt, a manufacturer specialising in armaments, had sold his business to Hiram Stevens Maxim. They had agreed that Nordenfelt ‘would not make guns or ammunition anywhere in the world, and would not compete with Maxim in any way for a period of 25 years’. The House of Lords held that: * The provision prohibiting Nordenfelt from making guns or ammunition was reasonable. * The providing banning competition 'in any way' was unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade. Requiring content protection is a prima facie restraint of trade. It is really not the business of the BBC (and Canvas
Re: [backstage] Green Ink.
Gordon Joly wrote: On 17/06/2010 22:19, David Tomlinson wrote: 1. As a recipient of public money, the BBC can not discriminate against suppliers (requiring content control). 2. The BBC is subject to Public Service Obligations, and therefore must reach as wider range of the public as possible (not encrypting the EPG). 4. The BBC cannot enter into anti-competitive practices with other Broadcasters (to require Content Control). 5. The BBC cannot enter into anti-competitive practices with content distributors (Film Companies). 3. As a public body, the BBC cannot impose content management without a legal tribunal. Point 6? Point 6. I don't think I have been taking this issue seriously enough ... 6. Competition law applies equally to the Film Distributors. Just the two largest can exceed engaging in Anticompetitive Parallel Behaviour have 40% market share, 30% is required for a scale monopoly (UK law) or Oligopolistic Dominance (EU Law), and the figures were for world wide box office, not just the UK. I am using Box Office as a proxy for market power/share. A more formal analysis may be needed as the basis for legal action. - 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] Green Ink.
Nick, has been drinking the BBC kool aid, and thinks we have a weak case. Well I have submitted a complaint to the BBC suggesting the following five actual or stated intention of the BBC, in public documents, to prima facie case of breaking the law. 1. State Aid. 2. Public Service Obligations 3. Extra Judicial enforcement by a public body 4. Oligopolistic Dominance, and Anticompetitive Parallel Behaviour 5 Vertical Discrimination I could do better with more time. Nick how do you like our case now ? Extract: 1. Summary. The BBC's case is that it is in the public interest to submit to and engage in anticompetitive parallel behaviour in breach of it's own legal obligations and competition law (which is not justified by copyright). This ignores the violation of several principles enshrined in law: legal obligations and competition law. And exceptions to copyright under the law. But most worrying of all, intellectual property is continuing to be used to justify the eroding and rights and violating principles that appear in the European Convention on Human Rights[13] Universal Declaration of Human Rights[12] or a written constitution (like the US constitution[11]): freedom of speech and expression, intrusions into the publics autonomy, privacy, property and extra-judicial enforcement of arbitrary restrictions. By contrast: Breech of copyright is a Tort (civil wrong), only in exceptional cases a criminal offence (that is changing as more draconian laws are passed), a loss has to be established, for which damages may be awarded, by the courts. The BBC is clearly taking disproportionate action, by creating the infrastructure for control of the public by special interests and violating the law, in exchange for illusionary short term gains. - 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] Green Ink.
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer I am not a lawyer either, we shouldn't have to say it but: (from memory) 1. As a recipient of public money, the BBC can not discriminate against suppliers (requiring content control). 2. The BBC is subject to Public Service Obligations, and therefore must reach as wider range of the public as possible (not encrypting the EPG). 4. The BBC cannot enter into anti-competitive practices with other Broadcasters (to require Content Control). 5. The BBC cannot enter into anti-competitive practices with content distributors (Film Companies). 3. As a public body, the BBC cannot impose content management without a legal tribunal. An argument can be made that the BBC is in breach of the (specific) laws, in any of the event of any of the above, and in all but one case there is no public value test (strict liability) unlike the justifications given by Ofcom. The BBC Management appears to intend to engage in all of the above, from the Ofcom statement. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/statement/statement.pdf I will have to wait for the BBC to respond, in order to clarify the issues or appeal to the trust. - 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
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. To expand my argument (as you have seen my previous post). It is a matter of principle not expediency. They are constructing the Infrastructure of Control, and the BBC are party to this. Such control which is never in the public interest. If, as Mo pointed out, the guidelines say the 'copy never flag' should never be used. Then why does the copy never flag exist ? In fact why is the whole infrastructure, been made more complex, brittle and expensive ? We need to reject DRM in principle. The fact that it is ineffective in practice, is not a reason to tolerate this. At the risk of infringing the Manic Street Preachers copyright: If you tolerate this, then your children will be next ... Only they won't wait for your children ... Of course my use of the Manic Street Preachers lyrics is fair use, but the use of even a single frame of a protected HD content, fair use (or fair dealing) is prohibited by technology, not the law (or and the law as it is protected by technical measures). Pastor Martin Niemöller is less likely to issue an extra judicial take down notice, especially if I change the text: first they came for the pirates... The use of a single frame of protected HD doesn't breach the law, but still subject to technological measures and extra judicial enforcement. The circumvention of technological measures, to enjoy to copyright exceptions under the law, is in breach of the EU Copyright Directive. The reality is everyone breaches copyright, all the time, and copyright is subject to fair use (fair dealing) ... You make think this is exaggerated, but once you concede the principle, and create the infrastructure, Intellectual Property owners will try and extend their control. See the secret ACTA treaty from which the public are excluded, and is even outside purview of the World Trade Organisation, and which did not originally address Intellectual Property. etc. Even GM crops are just another Intellectual Property land grab, dressed up as in the Public Interest. Intellectual Property, an idea that was never justified, never served the purpose stated in the US constitution, and whose time has passed ! Pro Bono Publico - For the Public Good. - 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
Brian Butterworth wrote: The published document is here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/statement/statement.pdf Section 2.18 Ofcom is mindful that it does not have a power to include conditions in the Multiplex B licence relating to content management per se. Ofcom may only include those conditions specified in the 1996 Act and those it considers appropriate, taking into account its duties in the Broadcasting Act 1990, the 1996 Act and the 2003 Act. None of those duties relates to the ability of viewers to deal with content once broadcast. Nor do they relate to the markets for receivers. In those circumstances, Ofcom could not impose a condition requiring content management nor could it expressly restrict the ability of a multiplex operator to implement content management. Nor can Ofcom explicitly give consent, as it is clearly ouside it remit, especially when such consent would breach the EU Law, that Public Service Television has to be broadcast unencrypted. There appears to be no evidence that Ofcom or the BBC are acting within the law. - 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
Brian Butterworth wrote: If I had the resources I would launch a judicial review, as this is an appalling situation for Auntie. I too don't have the resources for a judicial review, perhaps the BBC should test the legal position it's self (judicial review), or the Open Rights Group may wish to pursue it. Time for a formal complaint to the BBC complaints, followed by escalation to the Trust in the event of an unsatisfactory reply. - 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
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Well as always I suspect we will argue about this until the cows come home and not resolve it. No what the BBC is doing is illegal under European law, (encrypting the broadcast - the EPG is broadcast), or at least, failing a legal opinion, in breach of the spirit of the law. Where is the mandate for the BBC to break the law. Where is the mandate for the BBC to enforce copyright or acquire control over consumers behavior through the use of intellectual property. We all know what the current political environment is with the secret ACTA etc. But that does not validate the Ofcom's or the BBC's actions. This is about the freedom of action of the individual, versus control by the intellectual property owner, whose rights are seen as more important to than public, and extend effectively forever. The BBC is in the wrong side on this fight. And I for one, am appalled at the BBC's stance. It doesn't get to be a much more fundamental principle, than freedom of speech and action, as the US constitution demonstrates. Comments Nick, anyone else ? - 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
Quotations except from JJ Rousseau are from the BBC Internet blog article. They don't like the idea that the owner of that media may want to limit the way they can use that content or have some say on whether it can be shared over the internet. Man is born free but why everywhere he is in chains? Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Your interest in secondary sources of income, is more important than, the freedom of action of the public. Consumers also stand to lose as, without this income, the range and quality of the content available (on free-to-air channels) would inevitably suffer. Double the license fee and double the quality and range of content ! I don't think the public will buy that argument. You are merely arguing for the status quo, as if that is evidence, of the best of all possible scenarios. Some would suggest the current BBC License Fee, is already over inflated, especially given the relative size of the national average wage vs BBC salaries and current BBC output. Arguing for restrictions to capture more revenue, strengthens this opinion. Broadcasters could have tried to take a 'heavy-handed' approach to this problem. The public would revolt at the lost of facilities provided by technology like timeshifting (VCR). This is the most you suspect the public will accept. Remember regional encoding and Content Scrambling System on DVD's. whilst at the same time protecting the legitimate concerns of rights holders. The concerns are not legitimate, you do not have the right to enslave the public, in exchange for secondary sources of revenue. The proposed technical solution increases complexity and will fail, both as a form of control and allowing legitimate access, making the publics life more difficult. any form of content management is philosophically a bad thing And to think there was no content management other than copyright when Jean-Jacques Rousseau, was alive. the Open Source community who may still fear that this will be more restrictive than it will actually turn out to be for them. Open source does not allow for secrets, the system is predicated on secrets. that we want to deliver the service which enables more viewers across the UK to enjoy high definition content as soon as possible. Subject to limitations imposed by blackmail from the content industries. Perhaps the public should just reject the blackmail, and maintain our freedom. This is a social contract too far, that only meets the needs of special interests. - 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] Several powers too far - Digital Economy Bill
Clause 17 of the Digital Economy Bill gives the Secretary of State for Business the ability to make widespread changes to copyright law through a statutory instrument. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/16/20100113/ttc-lords-oppose-clause-17-of-digital-ec-6315470.html Given the bitter arguments, constant amendments and huge interest in the Digital Economy Bill, it was fantasy that the government thought ISPs, rights owners and consumers would simply agree to the Bill with such a clause, he said. [Robin Fry, a media lawyer at law firm Beachcroft LLP] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/36093ab2-ffc6-11de-921f-00144feabdc0.html The Liberal Democrats warned that the clause, known as “clause 17”, would allow a future Conservative government to slip through a change in the law to allow the Murdoch media empire to take legal action more readily against news aggregators such as Google, which it accuses of “stealing” its content. The Tories, who adamantly reject the charge that their future policies might be shaped by Rupert Murdoch, have signalled that they will oppose the copyright clause in the Lords, where the digital economy bill is due to be put to the vote in its report stage this month. The proposed changes ensure that the power would be invoked only when the level of peer-to- peer illegal filesharing crossed a “significant” threshold, government insiders said. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/18/government_to_control_the_web/ Barrister Francis Davey has examined clause 11 of the Bill and believes that it puts extraordinary powers to control the information available to UK internet users in the hands of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, currently Lord Mandelson. [...] Davey also has concerns about the lack of restraints on the powers in the Bill. It is slightly unusual because of its breadth and the fact that there is no right of appeal or obligation to publish the notices or to go through Parliament, he said. There appears to be grounds, with an impending election, for hoping the that whole bill will be lost. :) - 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] FYI: Open iPlayer
Sorry for the duplicate post. Kieran Kunhya wrote: What is so important about the content/metadata ingest and delivery system that is the iPlayer that it needs to be licenced as opposed to being developed in-house at a broadcaster? Standardisation, as Mo indicated, why reinvent the wheel, have several variations on a theme, or have several clients on the users desktop. Is this the same as the STB project (i.e was Open iPlayer also specifying the STB) ? It seems to me that with a separate business unit, commercial tie-ups, DRM the BBC is/was in danger of acting like a private company, while leaveraging it's public service position, in a way that was not in the public interest. This is a problem with BBC external revenue generation. Is it not in the public interest for the BBC to make the iPlayer technology available, to other public service broadcasters, or even all broadcasters, or just make H264/ACC, MPEG2, content directly available in several resolutions (avoiding the Flash wrapper). Why not make iPlayer Free Software (GPL v2), allowing others to contribute to it's enhancement, and allow it free deployment on any hardware meeting the requirements. This could work equally well for the backend, which I suspect already uses some open source software. Even if iPlayer is just details of the tweaks, the software stack, and how to implement iPlayer in Flash. This could be made publicly available in an updateable online (moderated) format. The work has already been undertaken to develop iPlayer, however it should be stripped of DRM. The signal is broadcast unencrypted, and this principle should be carried over to the internet. A simple fair, non-commercial basis, creating a standard public platform for the delivery of Free To Air, on demand video, open to all. Also Channel 4 are now on you tube, another possible approach. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/16/youtube_channel_4_content_deal/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Video - 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] FYI: Open iPlayer
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/20/bbc_trust_rejects_iplayer_federation/ The BBC Trust has shelved a plan that would have allowed broadcasters such as Channel 4, ITV and Five to share the Beeb's iPlayer. The so-called Open iPlayer project was meant to establish a new commercial service separate from BBC Worldwide, that would licence the Corporation's hugely popular video-on-demand technology to third parties. We concluded that the open iPlayer plans in their proposed form, combining both commercial and public service elements, were too complicated, said BBC Trustee Diane Coyle in a statement today. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/october/open_iplayer.shtml The Trust is open to considering an alternative proposal for the licensing of the iPlayer technology to third parties if that can be done on a simple, fair and commercial basis, said Coyle. - 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: Sky hits out at Project Canvas
The hardware determines what functions are available. The specification should only cover the core functionality, needed to access the free services. This may include an embedded browser, standard codecs etc. The user interface could be provided as a reference, but how can it act as a hardware abstraction layer, when the hardware is specified by the manufacturer. It appears the specification has suffered from function and control creep. Manufacturers should be free to extend beyond the core functionality, as a unique selling point. A range could consist of the basic model (access free to air/net content) and enhanced models like a built in PVR, or overnight pre-fetch. DRM support is not required for free to air/net, but adding you tube support may be universal but not part of the core specification. - 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: Sky hits out at Project Canvas
Google ... http://www.projectcanvas.co.uk/project-summary BBC blog. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/sky_can_help_project_canvas_un.html Nor is it a BBC standard that the venture would adopt. A standard for connected TVs is being developed now with the Digital Television Group - this was always our intention and work has already begun. Our ambition is that the Canvas platform would be compliant with that standard. - 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: Sky hits out at Project Canvas
Mo McRoberts wrote: “The broadcaster wants the Trust to force the BBC to allow anybody - not just public service broadcasters - to join Canvas.” Is it safe to post ? As for following up your own posts ... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/08/project_canvas/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/08/project_canvas/page2.html To repeat, the technology that Project Canvas is developing is an open standard that any box maker or online service can use for free as long as they abide by the rules of the standard to ensure universal compatibility. It's the same with any industry standard. It's all a power play. On one side are traditional CE makers who want to keep their grip on Internet technology, controlling where users can browse and which videos they can watch. On the other side is Project Canvas. Its members, at least in this instance, want to open up an important piece of Internet technology and give it free to anyone who wants to use it to develop products and services that meet the published standards. Deja Vu ? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Mo McRoberts wrote: On 9-Oct-2009, at 00:21, David Tomlinson wrote: For obvious reasons I do not wish to discuss children as a subject anymore. It’s not obvious at all. People need to stop with the nervousness when the words “children” and “photograph” appear in a sentence together; it’s, for want of a better term, childish and ridiculous. It’s also pretty salient, given it’s a straightforward example of a copyright-holder having a current ability to exercise control without having to resort to onerous trust mechanisms. Your position has a distinct lack of great upsides as compared to the status quo, but it -does- have some significant flaws, and I say that retaining the view that copyright as it exists today is flawed in some fairly serious ways. No the mention of Children and Photograph just distorts everything it touches, so there are better examples, where privacy or personal images are concerned. Copyright is almost useless for controlling something that does not involve commercial interests in practice. The fact is that most images are not worth anything unless used commercially, except to the owner. And that is a privacy and personal respect issue. This text is copyright, even if I don't care if someone copies it, but that is another thing, attribution and source become important, in other words reputation systems etc. As for upsides, the only one copyright has, is you are familiar with it. The Besson and Mason paper covers the accumulation of rights, that forms a thicket and stops progress (patents). A similar thing applies with copyright. You can find the copyright owner, the rights clearance process is complex. Quintin Tarentino who has resources available talked at length on Radio 4 about the difficulties of getting clearance on original music for films. Having a designer chair in the background of a shot in a film is a nightmare. Speaking of films, they also suffer from the monopoly attributes of runaway costs and marketing so as to limit choice and exclude competition, and thoose poor A lister have to manage on 20 Million USD per film (2 per year ?). I have just started to put the case, to do so requires a book. http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm Here is one that makes the case, it is available free as a pdf from the website. But even this does not cover the whole argument in favour of abolishing copyright and patents. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose Freedom is another word for self determination. Incarceration, the opposite of Freedom is no control. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Richard Lockwood wrote: It is my genuine position. Abolishing copyright would achieve exactly what I want. This is what it all boils down to whenever the let's abolish copyright for the good of society. It's actually about let's abolish copyright for my own personal benefit. You simply don't want to have to pay for anything, and I'm guessing you don't produce anything creative, hence you don't benefit from copyright. It's the me, me, me, me, me! argument again - have you been down the pub with Dave Crossland too often? ;-) It's why not do a thought experiment, after all there are several million people on the Internet, who intend to practice it. The attempts to prevent them are the real danger to society. Lord Mandeleson, and the French want to throw out the Magna Carta, and the whole legal system to maintain it. Content Vendors want to lock down every piece of consumer electronics. and impose huge costs on society. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Alia Sheikh wrote: Dave, So we can have this discussion in only a manner which is determined by yourself? Children count, pictures of dogs count, pictures of someone's gran or bank statement or a tree counts. If your arguments hold tight then they hold tight for all examples. Hard to have a discussion when people threaten to take their ball away and not play anymore. Which signifies no more than the end of this discussion with you perhaps, but thought it worth mentioning in case the negative reactions to that statement were just whistling past. Alia If you wish to talk about personal images use the example of adults, a spouse for example. Or personal information. Involving children is like using the word Nazi, it is designed to close down debate, because of the moral panic surrounding the issue. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Sean DALY wrote: So if I understand you, let's abolish copyright, and that way Microsoft, Adobe et.al. can just chuck their bloated old code and incorporate formerly free software into their binaries? And charge an arm and a leg for it as well. Read Hat, SUSE etc all manage without a state sponsored monopoly, Microsoft can do so too. No thanks. I prefer the GPL, which derives its power from copyright law - the concept that creators decide how their work may be used. I support intellectual property law reform, but this is really throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The GPL only needs copyright to defend against copyright, v3 does go further, the concept is so powerful, it is widely abused (not in the GPL v2). P.S. I'm a parent, and I am glad copyright law provides me with some recourse should my teenager be dumb enough to upload a bad photo to a public internet site. I'm afraid though that next, you're going to tell me that children should be free of parental control and report their parents to the NKVD if they aren't permitted to use RapidShare or MEGAUPLOAD You think copyright is going to help, as we all laugh at your image. Who said anything about parental control. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Steve Jolly wrote: David Tomlinson wrote: Yes, I am aware of this, but why five years, why not one year why not three months, and if three months, why at all. A year or less strikes me as too little because too many people would just wait until it was free. 5-10 years seems like a more realistic minimum in that regard. Mind you, I think that copyright terms would vary by medium, ideally. It's free from the start, their are revenue streams, e.g. advertising or paying for a physical object, be that a CD or a T-Shirt or book. How long does it take for most products to make the vast majority of their money. There are exceptions, like the Beatles etc. As has been pointed out repeatedly already, copyright is about wider issues of control than the right to make money from a work. If you want to convince people that abolition makes sense, you need to address that wider issue. I have addressed it, while I consider it natural, and people will not wish to give it up, I don't see it as desirable. It limits the Freedom of others. How long would it take for a competitor, to prepare and publish an alternative to a say a book. More than three months ? A week or two, perhaps? Longer for a really high-volume product, but if copyright was abolished then you'd see specialist piracy-houses springing up, competing to be first-to-market with copied products. And they could take pre-orders in the interim period, reducing sales beneficial to the author still further. For a Dan Brown perhaps, but that is 8 Million sales in the first week, he can afford the leakage. It is only when products are successful, it is worth producing the physical copy. But I imagine the text for book was available in multiple locations within days. I don't read Dan Brown, for reasons of sanity. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Tom Morris wrote: I agree with Tom's argument. Vanity publishing does not require copyright. It is just noise, unless someone likes it. So, yeah, counter-factuals seem like a bad way to go in the debate unless there is some nice way of finding a neutral, scientifically respectable way of measuring the actual outcomes of different intellectual property scenarios. We can see some of the opportunity costs in the works of Benkler (counter factuals) etc. Open Source and Free Software is another. The Dutch had a period without copyright. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks/Main_Page Is macroeconomics a science yet? ;) Definitely not. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Robin Doran wrote: Anyone remember this for earlier in the year? Prime example of privacy and personal respect being abused. A company in Prague used a family picture off facebook for commercial purposes without consent, attribution, etc. And taking them to court, will give you the right for compensation, and prevent a repeat. Do we have to have copyright to do that, or can other laws, including new laws) to achieve the same ends. Some people don't follow the social rules or the legal ones. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Richard Lockwood wrote: No. That's just you realising you're just digging yourself deeper and looking for a way out. See Michael Smethurst's post, it is a topic in in itself and does not solely rely only upon copyright. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Deirdre Harvey wrote: Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose Freedom is another word for self determination. Incarceration, the opposite of Freedom is no control. Isn't your argument that control is bad and that people must relinquish control for your benefit? No my argument is some controls are social necessary, we call them laws. But the particular law of copyright, imposes more costs than benefits and should be abolished. We may need to retain control over personal images, and respect peoples privacy. If we need new laws to maintain these controls we should pass them. See the link Michael Smethurst supplied in his email. The default should be Freedom. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Richard Lockwood wrote: None of that makes any sense whatsoever. It made sense to me, several million people in the UK fileshare without regard to copyright. But the proposed cure (Three strikes), which bypasses the legal system is worse than the problem. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Alia Sheikh wrote: Your arguments should hold true for anything involving the word Nazi too:) Interesting the control you are trying to exercise over our freedom to discuss this topic. Alia I am just trying to keep on topic and not disappear along a tangent. I think I am been reasonable, but that is just my view. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Mo McRoberts wrote: We covered this already. The effect of the GPL cannot be achieved _without_ copyright. Any ends can be achieved through primary legislation that can be achieved through copyright as copyright is primary legislation. We can create a GPL like environment without having to use copyright. Some people (e.g. Linus of Linux fame) take exception to some of the clauses in GPL v3 and see them as unnecessary. Copyright has huge costs for society, we keep the good and loose the bad (monopoly control etc). - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Sean DALY wrote: I'm afraid you're mistaken. Talk to anyone in legal at Red Hat or Novell, or Canonical, they will tell you how much they rely on state-sponsored monopoly schemes such as copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. I attended the third international GPLv3 draft conference (http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/europe-gplv3-conference.en.html) and taped all the sessions, and I can assure you that the basis of the license is in copyright law. Watch the Eben Moglen vid if you have the time. Only because they have top operate in a environment where copyright exists. We can loose the bad (monopoly control) and keep the good (must supply source code), through new primary legislation. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: But the particular law of copyright, imposes more costs than benefits and should be abolished. I'd like to see some hard numbers/evidence for this statement. How much are the costs? In dollars and pounds? How much is the benefit? Not statements of principle, but numbers. My opinion is that is you had hard numbers, the case for abolishing copyright would not stack up, and that copyright creates more benefits than it costs - in numbers. I don't but others do. A dutch filesharing study. http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/01/20/dutch.study.file.sharing/ Outcome filesharing is revenue positive, many other studies have reached the same conclusion. A study commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs has just concluded that the net economic effects of file sharing for music, movies and games are positive. The resulting 142-page report, put together by research company TNO, doesn't narrow the results to strictly illegal content but argues that, as consumers save money on unnecessary purchases and spend it on more wanted content, they save much more in wasted spending than music production companies lose. The costs of the enforcement of the three strikes law, for BT are greater than inflated music figures for losses due to filesharing. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/04/sabip_7m_stat_sponsored_by_bpi/ Figures are from BPI study. BT has warned that the file sharing efforts proposed by the government and Peter Mandelson could cost the industry £1m every day. That would increase each customer's bill by £24 per year, said John Petter, the head of the company's consumer division. The music industry claims that file sharing costs them £200m each year, though many analysts have poured scorn on those figures, saying that that statistic is based on flawed methodology and inaccurate monitoring, as well as the assumption that one download is equivalent to one lost sale. The telecoms industry which could be damaged by lockdown, is many times larger than the Content Vendors, not to mention the Consumer Electronic Industry, again damaged by lockdown. Andrew Michael Odlyzko is a mathematician who is the head of the University of Minnesota's Digital Technology Center. http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications2.pdf The Internet is widely regarded as primarily a content delivery system. Yet historically, connectivity has mattered much more than content. Even on the Internet, content is not as important as is often claimed, since it is email that is still the true “killer app.” Table 1 presents statistics that show the relative sizes of several sectors of the U.S. economy. (See pdf for Table 1). Will that do as a start ? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Alia Sheikh wrote: This seems to roughly translate to 'anything anyone makes that they show to the world, can be taken and used by anyone in the world'. Which feels like a setup for making creators very paranoid about what they share with the world. Doesnt seem like a fun place to live if it had that effect. The point was to censorship and a monopoly to fund authors. US was promote science and the useful arts. Do you think we should review, how good a job it is doing and if we can draft a better law, or can we just abolish copyright. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Alex Mace wrote: It all seems moot to me anyway. No one is required to enforce or protect their copyright. If David or whoever wants to live in a copyright free world, then go right ahead. The greater problem is that copyright has been abused both by end users and corporations. The Associated Press's attempts to claim copyright over short excerpts from articles and the music industries attempts to stop copyright-infringement, even when there is no commercial gain for the infringer has, in my opinion, destroyed copyright as it existed. If I am breaking the law and will be prosecuted by rights-holders for the simple act of transferring my media from one format to another, then something is very broken. My personal view is that fair use should be extended to cover all personal-use copying. You should really only be infringing copyright if you make money based off someone else's work without permission or recompense. Or is that just too logical? Yes, so logical the Spanish have done something similar. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Richard Lockwood wrote: No. That's just you realising you're just digging yourself deeper and looking for a way out. See Michael Smethurst's post, it is a topic in in itself and does not solely rely only upon copyright. Now you're just randomly quoting bits of messages and dropping in irrelevant soundbites. You appear to be failing the Turing test. Sorry, theres no one home but us clever talking (typing) machines. Credit to Michael. http://www.creativecommons.org.au/node/126 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Mo McRoberts wrote: Permitting (and encouraging) filesharing is not the same as abolishing copyright. Thankfully, it’s not incompatible with copyright, either. Indeed, it’s been trialled as a catch-up/distribution mechanism by PSBs outside of the UK over the past couple of years, with decent results. Yes, the BBC iplayer initially used filesharing technology. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Deirdre Harvey wrote: We don't call them all laws. No and not all fish are sharks, but sharks are fish. But the particular law of copyright, imposes more costs than benefits and should be abolished. That is your contention, it is not a fact. Yes, and I am defending that contention. Easy as that, eh? Just pass a few privacy laws... they never impinge on the freedom of people and their right to access certain information, do they? No but it is off topic, in that copyright is not a good tool for privacy etc. Whose freedom? Not Martin Belam's freedom to protect his work from unauthorised copying obviously. Martin Belam's Freedoms should not impose on freedoms of others, where that happens we have social conventions, laws, judges etc. I just think copyright is a bad law and we should review (abolish) 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] Free as in 'Freedom'
Steve Jolly wrote: If you abolish copyright, then there's no way for the author to benefit from those revenue streams, because the people who make the CDs, T-Shirts and books have no reason to pay the author. Fans will buy T-Shirts, from the bands official site shop, or Gig;s for which the band can charge (live performances). Every law on the books exists to benefit society as a whole by removing Freedoms from the individual. My right to privacy in my own home requires that other people give up their freedom to enter it without permission, for example. So I don't think you can make a case that copyright is unusual in this regard. Not unusual just unnecessary. Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes here. My point was that a publisher who chose to pay an author for their work would be out-competed within days or weeks by competitors who have no reason to pay that author a penny. The argument is that, the copying is only worth doing, for hits. By the time you identify a hit the author is already adequately compensated. The current system allows the publisher to capture value that should belong to the public. You may find Marl Lemleys work interesting although it does not directly address this issue. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=982977 Courts and scholars have increasingly assumed that intellectual property is a form of property, and have applied the economic insights of Harold Demsetz and other property theorists to condemn the use of intellectual property by others as free riding. In this article, I argue that this represents a fundamental misapplication of the economic theory of property. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Alia Sheikh wrote: review or abolish? I think there is a case for abolish, other may wish to review it first. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Alia Sheikh wrote: I am not alone: http://ssrn.com/abstract=976733 It is not surprising that such broad criticism, from such a diverse group of critics, has now emerged. Intellectual property products form the core of today’s New Economy of high technology, communications, and entertainment [...] We need at least some voices to remind the courts and policy makers of the costs of monopoly and the view that competition has a vital role to play in incentivizing innovation - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Simon Thompson wrote: A quote from the abstract of an accepted paper to a non-peer reviewed journal edited by second year law students about US intellectual property law does not prove the case the argument. I think it is prima face evidence that I am not alone in expressing doubts about Intellectual Property Law and Copyright in particular. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine make a much better case. http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty. Michele Boldrin Department of Economics Washington University in St. Louis David K. Levine is John H. Biggs Distinguished Professor of Economics at Washington University in St. Louis. While I am typing this Prof Lessig, and Prof Boyle have books related to Intellectual Property. They have a more moderate view, as do many legal scholars. http://www.lessig.org/ http://www.thepublicdomain.org/ Available as PDF's - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Mo McRoberts wrote: Um. yes, but “use of filesharing technology” is completely unrelated in anything but a technical sense to sanctioning individuals sharing content themselves on filesharing networks. The implication is that the BBC approved of the sharing of iplayer content, of course it was subject to DRM. Yes, the Spanish, allow filesharing as long as it is non-profit. It does not require the abolision of copyright, which is subject of international treaties (Berne Convention). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
With regard to Spain, I am not familiar with the current situation but some decision are going the way of the torrent sites, http://torrentfreak.com/spanish-judge-non-commercial-filesharing-is-legal/ The ruling was made yesterday (Thursday) by Judge Paz Aldecoa in a penal court in Santander, a northern city in Spain. He said that because the man was not profiting from sharing these files, he could not be held liable. Judge Aldecoa said that a guilty verdict would imply the criminalization of socially accepted and widely practiced behavior in which the aim is in no way to make money illicitly, but rather to obtain copies for private use. http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/11510.cfm Spanish court decides linking to P2P downloads is legal 19 October 2007 8:16 by Matti Siggy Vähäkainu | 7 comments Spanish court decides linking to P2P downloads is legal In Spain, a Madrid magistrate has declared the case against Sharemula, a website publishing download links through which users can acquire TV series, music, software, etc., dismissed. In October 2006 15 individuals were arrested, among which were people responsible for Sharemula. Now a year later court came to a decision that the site or its administration have not committed any violations against the copyright law by publishing links to peer-to-peer downloads. The ruling was a considered a success by the Sharemula attorneys, who based the defense on three existing court rulings on similar cases. By not directly profiting from the downloads or storing illegal content, Sharemula did not break the law and was released from the accusations. http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-sites-step-closer-to-legality-in-spain-081104/ Essentially, the court has decided that TodoTorrente operated in a similar manner to Sharemula. The decision is open to appeal, but there is no doubt that BitTorrent sites are getting closer to legality in Spain. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Mo McRoberts wrote: No, it really didn’t. P2P requires the sharing of the content, only between users to the iPlayer, using the BBC approved software. I don't mean the BBC intended to share it on public P2P networks or internationally. http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49291924,00.htm iPlayer uses an application called Kontiki that manages your programme downloads. The problem is Kontiki is a P2P application that not only downloads content, but uploads it too. Files are distributed by 'seeders', or people who have chunks of the file to upload to others, which means the BBC can reduce its costs. iPlayer no longer users Kontiki or P2P. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Deirdre Harvey wrote: You aren't expressing any doubts about Intellectual Property Law and Copyright. Most of the rest of the contributors to the thread are expressing doubts. YOu are alone in your dogmatic certainty, not your doubt. I think the evidence justifies the abolition of copyright. It is not a new position for me. see: The Against Intellectual Monopoly book, for a comprehensive argument, I have also argued against software patents etc. I am also familiar with the arguments of the content vendors. I am defending my position in a thought experiment. Details like the fact that copyright is protected by the Berne convention, can be ignored in a thought experiment. I would suggest I am confident rather than dogmatic, on the whole I am defending against several of people at once, and keeping my replies prompt. So if I miss some details. For example, we could require all source code to be supplied, in the absence of copyright and disallow EULA's which are of dubious legal value. http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2009/aug/18/rms-talks-pirate-party-uk/ This addresses the main issues R. Stallman has, details like the clauses in GPL v2 vs GPL v3 are a minefield of detail. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Alia Sheikh wrote: If you abolish copyright, then there's no way for the author to benefit from those revenue streams, because the people who make the CDs, T-Shirts and books have no reason to pay the author. Fans will buy T-Shirts, from the bands official site shop, or Gig;s for which the band can charge (live performances). or any other shop. What is a musician doesnt want to sell tshirts and cant play live? Is the music alone worthless? No some fans may still wish to pay for the music, even if it is available for free. http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/coldplay-digital-album-success-confirms-downloads-are-king Radiohead shocked the music industry last year when they allowed fans to pay as much or as little as they wanted to download their latest album. Some music fans paid up to £100 to download In Rainbows, the band’s seventh studio album, despite it being offered for nothing. [...] Gennaro Castaldo, of HMV, said: Coldplay will not have made a huge loss by giving away their first single because they are very much a group that connects with their fans via their album. The industry will be looking very carefully at how the album sells following their decision to allow their fans to downlaod the first single for free. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Perhaps we are at cross purposes... http://torrentfreak.com/bbc-gets-ready-for-bittorrent-distribution-090409/ Like many broadcasters today, the BBC is open to experimenting with online video distribution, allowing viewers to watch shows online. However, due to complex copyright issues people are not generally allowed to share or remix the videos – until now. For their new RDTV production, the BBC is using a Creative Commons license, giving the viewer the freedom to redistribute and re-use the show. To add to the excitement there are also plans to use BitTorrent to distribute the show and source material. The BBC is one of the partners in the EU funded P2P-Next research project that uses BitTorrent technology to shape the future of web based TV delivery. BitTorrent is very effective in reducing bandwidth costs and thanks to technology developed by the P2P-Next team it can also be used to stream TV-shows, and even live video. Here is an example of the BBC allowing content, to be distributed by P2P. Is this 4 or 3.1472... - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Martin Belam wrote: I'll just run this by everyone again If you wish to talk about personal images use the example of adults, a spouse for example. Or personal information. Involving children is like using the word Nazi, it is designed to close down debate, because of the moral panic surrounding the issue. Yep, absolutely David. Using a real world example of something I have actually done in the last two weeks that used the existing copyright law framework and Internet distribution is clearly an attempt to stifle your debate and restrict your freedom rather than actually test your argument. Let me be clear, I wouldn't want to impose upon you in any way, please feel free to continue to dismiss any example that doesn't fit into your world view. Sorry Martin, It is just safer to use adults, as an example (less chance of misunderstandings) Fearghas was been a pain, providing an example of why it is easier to avoid references to children. Yes: copyright gives you redress against commercial organisations, but I think other laws would be more appropriate (in my opinion) to address the very real problem you raise. These laws may not currently exist. Respect for the person and the privacy of individuals, seems a more appropriate route (to me). I accept it is a real issue, and your intentions were honorable. Sorry for any offense I might have caused. I don't give myself much thinking time between posts. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Fearghas McKay wrote: David On 8 Oct 2009, at 19:35, David Tomlinson wrote: Why don't we just abolish copyright ? No - because those of us who create content want to be able to say no to other people just taking our work and making money from it, I want to keep my images as all rights reserved. I don't want you using them to advertise your agenda, your poster on a wall for teenage students, your happy image for tots. If you want to do any of those things I want you to have to talk to me first and discuss it. That is what copyright gives me, and I do not want to loose control of my creative work. You may have a different view of copyright but that is my view of some of the benefits of copyright. Sure, You may want that, I want want lots of things but why should society respect what you want ? any more than they respect what I want ? Why should you be able to control the actions of other people ? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Mo McRoberts wrote: On 8-Oct-2009, at 19:35, David Tomlinson wrote: How about this one: (In no particular order). [In view of various things] Why don't we just abolish copyright ? Being pragmatic, I’d posit that taking such an extremist perspective is unlikely to achieve what you want. Actually, abolishing copyright would unlikely to achieve what you want :) It is my genuine position. Abolishing copyright would achieve exactly what I want. Copyright was dreamed up by people I would humbly suggest were smarter than most (if not all) of us—not to say they’re beyond criticism, but that I would think long and hard about the ramifications of throwing it all away for diving into it. Statue of Anne (1710) was actually censorship. We have the Hansard speeches, and they were worried about creating a monopoly as was Jefferson in the USA The problem, as far as I can see it, isn’t copyright itself, but the evolved form which grants _extended_ monopolies which persist for multiple generations. Personally, I’m no great fan of this. This is the cumulative effect of granting a monopoly, special interests lobby for it's extention at the cost of the public interest. Copyright was supposed to create a -temporary- monopoly as an incentive for the furthering of society’s creative bleeding edge. It’s not an absolute monopoly (there are things like fair dealings, the right to time-shift broadcast programmes, and so on). Once it’s no longer temporary, the ultimate purpose of it is lost. I would argue that an extended temporary monopoly begins to share some of the same problems that a permanent one does. No that is the US constitution, it was a form of censorship. However, in light of this, we’ve been creative in a different way: we’ve learned to use copyright as a tool to create anti-monopolies. Things like the GPL and Creative Commons rely specifically upon copyright’s functions both to work and to prevent others from subverting their own purpose. Without copyright, a license such as the GPL, which grants you permission to redistribute a work _only_ if you adhere to its conditions, would be void. You would have to insist on the source code been made available, by the only reason the GPL need copyright, is because copyright exists ! In a no-copyright world, ignoring the reduced incentive to create works in the first place (because there are plenty of people who do it purely for enjoyment), somebody would be free to take your source code, modify it, compile it, and release the binaries without giving anybody the option of getting the source of their version: exactly what the GPL attempts to prevent. Essentially, everything becomes public domain, whether you like it or not, and it actually ends up being the worst of both worlds. Software is a special case with source and object code, we would also require the source code be provided by law. The real solution is to redress the balance: bring consumer rights up to date to more closely match expectations (for example, the fact that it’s copyright infringement to rip a CD that you bought is way out of step with modern reality); and restore the temporary nature of the monopoly—15 years, perhaps? I’m not sure—it needs careful thought. The real solution is to abolish copyright. But abolishing it altogether? Irrespective of its merits, by taking a far-flung stance, you’re more likely to get yourself written off as being crazy than make real headway in affecting change. Softly softly catchy monkey :) Thanks for the advice, but I am deadly serious. As I hope to demonstrate. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
vijay chopra wrote: I'm a paid up member of the Pirate Party http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/ (UK) and even we don't take this line. Current official policy appears to be heading towards 5 years + 5 more if you register. There's some debate from when this period should start. Yes, I am aware of this, but why five years, why not one year why not three months, and if three months, why at all. How long does it take for most products to make the vast majority of their money. There are exceptions, like the Beatles etc. But the vast majority make most of their income in the first three months on sale. How long would it take for a competitor, to prepare and publish an alternative to a say a book. More than three months ? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
I will have another go ... David Tomlinson wrote: Copyright was dreamed up by people I would humbly suggest were smarter than most (if not all) of us—not to say they’re beyond criticism, but that I would think long and hard about the ramifications of throwing it all away for diving into it. Statue of Anne (1710) was actually censorship. We have the Hansard speeches, and they were worried about creating a monopoly as was Jefferson in the USA http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm Thomas Macaulay in Parliament in 1841 A monopoly of sixty years produces twice as much evil as a monopoly of thirty years, and thrice as much evil as a monopoly of twenty years. But it is by no means the fact that a posthumous monopoly of sixty years gives to an author thrice as much pleasure and thrice as strong a motive as a posthumous monopoly of twenty years. On the contrary, the difference is so small as to be hardly perceptible. We all know how faintly we are affected by the prospect of very distant advantages, even when they are advantages which we may reasonably hope that we shall ourselves enjoy. But an advantage that is to be enjoyed more than half a century after we are dead, by somebody, we know not by whom, perhaps by somebody unborn, by somebody utterly unconnected with us, is really no motive at all to action. [...] The principle of copyright is this. It is a tax on readers for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers. As for the US constitution, we all know why copyright was created, to compensate authors, and to promote science and the useful arts. We have to question, does it meet the ends, it certainly compensates authors, but can we not achieve the ends through the doctrine of first sale (most profits come in the first three months). Promoting science and the useful arts. http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patrev.pdf Nobel prise for economics indicating that patents do not meet this end. It is hard to see how copyright succeeds in this context. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Fearghas McKay wrote: I mis-understood your intent. If there is no copyright. When you make the images public, you relinquish control. The alternative is to keep the distribution limited, and use trust. While you may have an emotional attachment or a feeling of entitlement to the images, this is not a good basis for public policy. As to why someone should make money from them ? If they can add value in some way ? Why would people pay for the images, when they are in the public domain ? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
David Tomlinson wrote: Fearghas McKay wrote: For the record, I was looking for debate on the issue of copyright. I don't see how images of children are any more relevant than images of countryside, or any other content. I suggest the people raising the issue are the ones with the problem. The Internet Watch Foundation does not require copyright to operate. I will not respond to any posts that includes references children. If fact the posters future posts will be filtered to trash. And if Fergus is looking to leave the list, let me help. Put unsubscribe in the subject and post. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Martin Belam wrote: I suspect you can trust your family, friends etc to respect your wishes, and you can limit the distribution through trust. Images of children can be sourced for advertising without having to resort to using private images. So your basic answer is that in a world without copyright, instead of me being allowed to say Hey, I know you *could* just download this straight off the internet and reuse it however you want, but I'd really rather you didn't, the onus is instead on me to personally vouch for the distribution of my photos on a person-by-person basis and just hope for the best from anyone I don't know who wants a picture of a child? My answer is that only commercial interests, would respect your copyright. My suggestion is that you don't post images you don't want re-distributed in a public place. Personal items could be covered by privacy. I don't see it useful in the context of copyright. For obvious reasons I do not wish to discuss children as a subject anymore. I suggest personal material e.g a private letter, can substitute for the purposes of the debate. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Mo McRoberts wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 06:41, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: It's the people who can't break the law, the consumer electronics companies who will be required to obtain a licence who will be affected. It is a legal trigger. Conditions placed on them (Consumer Electronics), will impact the consumer, due to built in restrictions in the equipment, imposed by a licence holder (DTVA). This will alter the landscape of free-to-air, circumventing the intention of the law. I’ve taken the view to this point that, rather than being about control of the CE sector, this is more to do with trying to appease stroppy rights-holders without having a huge amount of tangible impact (though there would be collateral damage). The alternative view is, as you suggest, that it’s a bid to seek control of the consumer electronics space by way of holding a key which everybody needs. I’ve steered away from this conclusion, because I actually think attempts at placating rights-holders are more likely the root cause -however- it’s worth noting that the Project Canvas proposals suffer from precisely the same problems (in fact, they’re worse). The BBC did state in the letter to Ofcom that the license would be zero-cost, so that part’s not an issue. Obtaining a license would require agreeing to certain conditions, however, including non-disclosure, honouring the copy-control attributes of the HD channels, and prohibiting user modification. This is incompatible with DVB code _built on_ software licensed under many open source licenses, which CE manufacturers have been increasingly embracing over the past decade. After all, what’s the point in licensing a commercial DVB stack or expending the massive RD costs in rolling your own, when a perfectly good one is there already? It’s the same reason the creators of the transcoding platform behind iPlayer didn’t write their own filesystem (last I knew, much of it runs on OpenSolaris w/ZFS on x86_64 boxes), and why BBC Online didn’t write its own web server to power bbc.co.uk, and so on. In real terms, the intention and motivation behind it are almost immaterial: the end result is the same either way. I know for a fact that several of the responses to Ofcom from technically-knowledgeable people (both inside and outside of the broadcast industry) pointed all of this out, noting the futility of the approach with respect to piracy. And why the metadata (EPG), should be regarded as part of the signal, (it is broadcast) that must be unencrypted for public service broadcasting. EPG data is subject to regulation and a licensing regime itself. I don’t know, though, how in particular the various obligations of the BBC relate to this. It’s entirely possible that there’s a loophole. M. You know what is really ironic, I think they intended to use 'Trade Secret' law, to trigger the licence, but when you make the codes to decompress the EPG secret, it is encryption, and requiring an NDA (to protect the secret, as required by law) excludes Open Source/Free Software. Of course you should ask why they want a meaningless restriction as part of the standard, and that is to trigger a licence, which can have any number of conditions including restricting the functionality of the equipment produced by the licencees (Consumer Electronics). Controlling the functionality of the Consumer Electronic product is seen (by the rights holders) as key to restricting the public access to broadcast content. No analog hole, HDMI only (encrypted, trusted) output etc. This is definitely not in the public interest. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
The rights-holders will have to answer the first part. This is sheer fantasy, really—it’s pretty much entirely incompatible with (a) an open market, and (b) broadcasting (as opposed to simulcasting to millions of people individually). They don't want an open market, they have enjoyed a monopoly through broadcasting (limited bandwidth/broadcasters) and through copyright. They don't wish this to change. Regardless of the potential of new technology for increasing the public utility. (Gains for the public). If the HD signal is encrypted or licenced, then this can carry over to the Internet where simulcasts, would be encrypted or otherwise restricted. This is all about maintaining the rights-holders monopoly of content distribution, and possibly charging on a pay-per-view model. Pro Bono Publico For the good of the public ! - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Mo McRoberts wrote: Not quite what I meant by “open market”. There was never a requirement in the past for CE makers to join logo/licensing programmes to ensure their kit worked—they just followed the specs. That wasn’t limited to CE makers, either, which is how things like MythTV came to exist. FTA isn’t that “anybody can receive the broadcasts [if they buy from one of our approved manufacturers]” it’s “anybody can receive the broadcasts provided what they have adheres to the open specs”. Yes even a certification scheme, is likely to exclude Myth TV etc. No hardware to certify, and the source code is constantly modified. It’s harder when you’ve got Internet-based delivery, because you have to hand over both the crypto mechanism and the decryption key to something which is primarily under user control—it’s not a “black box” in the same way that an STB or TV is. But, it’s not something those doing Internet-based delivery don’t often attempt to do (look at iPlayer Desktop, for example). If internet delivery is the primary delivery mechanism, then it is likely to be a STB style black box, or built into the TV, at the consumer end. I think this is the intention, of the rights-holders. I would not be surprised if they attempted to exclude open hardware (PC's). - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Mo McRoberts wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 15:07, Alia Sheikh alia.she...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote: However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be Free software friendly? Sounds good in all seriousness, would be interested to take part in *that* discussion. Unfortunately, that discussion isn’t really one which is at all technical in nature—it’s broadly a matter of legal and business strategy. Not quite so interesting to the kinds of smart people who tend to have an interest in the technical stuff! There’s some cross-over, though… ;) It is an interesting issue. Also known as why everything you know about copyright is wrong ! It needs a new thread and perhaps a new day, but please start without me, (I won't be able to resist commenting) You may find my views radical as my suggested title implies. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
This has discussion continued in a modest way on the blog comments. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html I am sorry to say Nick is making misleading reassurances. (He is not sufficiently technical or familiar with the material, to understand the logical inconsistencies - this is an observation of fact, not a personal attack). See Nick comment No. 34. Yes you will be able to put a HD tuner into my Open Source MythTV box and watch BBC HD, again if suitable tuners become available. The only reason tuners would not become available (they are currently available for Standard Definition), is that they will be excluded by the licence required to decrypt the signals. Free and Open Source Software Drivers will be excluded (excluding Myth TV) if there is any meaningful copy protection (unless the licence is breached). If the copy protection is to be meaningful, the BBC must break the law, regarding an unencrypted signal (semantics aside) and exclude FOSS from accessing the copy protected signals (which may only apply to Hollywood films, US imports, or may apply to the majority of content). See Nevali's comments, No. 35, 36, 42. Clearly Nevali, is part of the official consultation process. Issues: 1.1 Free and Open Source software is incompatible with DRM. 1.2 Reassurances to the contrary, contradict this knowledge. And undermine statements from the BBC. 2.1 What the BBC is proposing is in breach of the law by any reasonable semantics, the law is clear and does not allow for exceptions. 2.2 You may wish to proceed as if this was not true, but it is a fatal flaw that will destroy the agreements the BBC is entering into, and damage the BBC. 2.3 The BBC TRUST cannot ignore the fact that the BBC is intending to breaking the law. Semantics will not be sufficient to obfuscate this issue. 2.4 Several other options exist to exploit the flaw in the BBC's intentions. I am aware how it is possible to subvert the law, but ultimately the letter of the law, will be used to force the BBC to broadcast unencrypted. 3.1 We are in a transition phase, away from copyright and DRM. 3.2. The BBC appear to be insufficiently aware of the arguments against DRM and, dangers of the course of action they have embarked upon, to act in the public intrest 3.3 The BBC are not familiar with the argument against DRM which has failed repeatedly. 3.4. The BBC are not sufficiently aware of the arguments against intellectual property which has already lost the intellectual debate. 4.0 Free and Open Source software proponents have experience of a copyright, patent, and DRM free environment, and are therefore more ready to embrace the concepts, and freedoms involved. In view of the above, how can the BBC management claim to represent the public interest ? The BBC can choose to ignore the above, but the issues will not go away. And the BBC will be seen to be, not side of the public, but on the side of special interests on these issues. This is intention of this email to raise issues with the BBC Management of which Nick is one of the current spokesmen. Further Reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/thompson_bpi.shtml But that's changing. The first episode of the new Dr Who series was available on the unauthorised site Bit Torrent three weeks before its premiere on BBC ONE. And, although of course our main model in the UK is free-to-air unencrypted broadcast, the BBC has a duty to exploit the residual commercial value of the rights we invest in on behalf of the public: we do that both here and around the world. So we have an intense interest in effective digital rights management systems; in technical, legal and regulatory means to protect the property of rights-holders; and in increasing public awareness of the moral and economic consequences of the theft of intellectual property. On this last point, I believe the BBC could do considerably more than it does at present. Mark Thompson, BBC Director-General Thursday 14 July 2005 Some background on semantics in law. http://ssrn.com/abstract=831604 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=831604 We consider in the paper whether a pragmatics of semantic content can be a useful approach to legal interpretation. More extensively, since a pragmatic conception of meaning is a component of an inferential semantics, we consider whether an inferentialist approach to legal interpretation can be of help in treating and resolving some problems of legal interpretation. In sum: Is legal inferentialism a suitable conception of legal interpretation? Some of the Anti-copyright argument. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/web/la-oew-healey18feb18,0,7696645.story In The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, the economist and Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek explains the difference between conventional property rights and copyright. While the
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Sean DALY wrote: David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not an active project AFAIK, but it is Mozilla MPL. Hoist by my own petard ? I was aware of some (misguided in my view) attempts at Open Source DRM. But I am not familiar with the details (I just rolled my eyes skyward). Open Source and Free Software cannot enter into Non Disclosure Agreements as the text of the source code must disclose the information contained in the agreement. If I can argue by analogy (Always a dangerous thing to do). DRM is about keeping a secret. Free standing DRM needs to supply the key within the material supplied therefore, the only security is through obscurity. e.g One system uses the file size (in plain view) as the key. Not knowing that his is the key or how to apply it is how this closed source system works to keep the secret key secret. So if in the case of a physical key, I hide a spare beneath the plant pot, that is security through obscurity. Placing a plain text note: On the door saying the key is beneath the plant pot is Open Source (or Free software), for anyone who can read the text (source code). Again the key could be in the dog kennel, but the dog is access control, which is a bit like the key locked inside a trusted module chip. Again it the the lack of control of the hardware that checks for signed code (XBOX PS3 etc) the DRM is in embedded in the hardware (even if it is software) hence the need for a mod chip. A note on the door saying the key is next door, just transfers the access control to my neighbor, and this is a tethered application like the ones that I understand audible use (audio books) etc. This can consist of a challenge and response etc, so could be open source as the secret is in the challenge (and required response) on server under external control. SUN's DReaM. http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20061115-00 with a tag to trace misuse - A watermark. Again enforcement is external to the source code. Sun's DReaM appears to require dedicated hardware, or am I mistaken. A purely open software solution to DRM would appear to be impractical, if Open Source is used and against the principles of free software. The DRM is in the hardware in Apples iTunes or the XBOX etc. Lessig and Stallman on Sun's DRM http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/15/lessig_stallman_drm/ I don't share Prof Lessig's views on DRM. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/24/lessig_blesses_drm/ The delay in replying is a product of having to lookup Sun's DRM. I will address the rest in a separate post. p.s. Strong encryption (GnuPG, TrueCrypt) relies on the control of the keys which have to be supplied with stand alone DRM and just obfuscated, difficult to do with open source (e.g Java Script Obfuscation). Public key encryption is strong, key control (in standalone DRM) is weak. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: dave - this is a wild exaggeration. The suppliers that you dislike so are companies who provide content for the BBC for licence fee payers to enjoy. Their interests have considered just like everyone else's. No the BBC needs to consider the interests of the licence fee payers. Any residuals are trivial compared with core funding and the purpose of the BBC. If supplies do not wish to deal with the BBC they are free to pursue that option. Enforcement of copyright especially through technical measures, is not the role of the BBC, especially for third party content. The public service role of the BBC requires unencrypted broadcasts by law. The public have funded (at least in part) the creation of the material. and should be free to use it, how they choose, and when they choose without DRM or other restrictions. Copyright is enforced by the state not the BBC. The following is speculative: The doctrine of first sale should apply to content (in my view), even where copyright applies, and the US courts appear to agree. http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/10/06/software_ownership_ruling/ One major consideration in that was the fact that the studio did not have the right, as it did in other agreements, to demand the return of the print. By analogy the BBC cannot demand the return of the TV signal. It is mine, to sell if I wish (as long as I only sell my copy once ?). Also: The court’s decision today is not based on any policy judgment. Congress is both constitutionally and institutionally suited to render judgments on policy; courts generally are not, the Court ruled. Precedent binds the court regardless of whether it would be good policy to ignore it. A similar relationship exists between the BBC and the parliament (law). - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Rob Myers wrote: DRM is law, not code. (As code it's useless, an encryption system where you give the attacker the key...) - rob. The law prevents the breaking of even trivial encryption, and the encryption prevents, the breaking of the code, which unilaterally imposes controls on the users behavior. Kind circular. DRM is law (DMCA, IPRED, IPRED2 etc) and code, but you knew that, and knew that I knew that. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Frank Wales wrote: Do you mean the DMCA? Isn't that American? And what is a unilaterally imposed licence, when it's at home? How can someone force me to accept their permission to do something? I can not remember the relevant European legislation, IPRED, IPRES2? The DMCA has more name recognition. It gives the DTVA absolute control over the consumer electronics industry and therefore the public. It gives them control over what functions the equipment will perform, time shifting, copying etc The consumer electronics industry has absolute control over me? OH NOES! Is my iPod making me type this now? HALP! You might want to see a doctor about that. Restricts the functionality, rather than controls ? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Brian Butterworth wrote: And let's not forget that EU Legislation has to be enacted by the UK Parliament. There's a few US laws I quite like, can I claim we use them here too? From the FFII mailing list. Bilski v. Kappos, currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, is considered the single most important decision worldwide on the issue of patents on business methods, software and algorithms since the rejection of the Software Patents Directive by the European Parliament. Why not we seem to follow the US on IP Law issues. I was illustrating a point (about the Tripwire and licence) and rather suggesting it applied in the UK, as Rob has supplied the European equivalent is the EU Copyright Directive (I knew there was a European equivalent). The US law is better known by it's initials the DMCA. The Autocad ruling was just too good not to exploit. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Billy Abbott wrote: Mo McRoberts wrote: I might be being dim, but I can’t see an angle to this where the rights holders actually get what they want (anything which even impedes pirates) without fundamentally altering the conceptual landscape of free-to-air receiving equipment in the UK. I've always assumed that they don't want to impede the pirates, but instead want a way to pursue them legally and then make an extra profit. It's the people who can't break the law, the consumer electronics companies who will be required to obtain a licence who will be affected. It is a legal trigger. Conditions placed on them (Consumer Electronics), will impact the consumer, due to built in restrictions in the equipment, imposed by a licence holder (DTVA). This will alter the landscape of free-to-air, circumventing the intention of the law. You can't build a PVR, or even a TV without an EPG. And as was suggested, this will allow the DTVA to control innovation, in this field, by authorising products (and charging for a licence? aka profit). This exactly the public interest, that the law was intended to protect. And why the metadata (EPG), should be regarded as part of the signal, (it is broadcast) that must be unencrypted for public service broadcasting. QED. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Well I'm not party to the negotiations so I've no idea how strong or how weak the BBC's bargaining position is. But don't forget that the BBC is a content vendor too. I see my past has caught up with me ! (the references to the past, deja vu, my reputation has been earned). The BBC can not break the law, or it's own charter, this is a show stopper. Semantics will not be enough to avoid this fact. I am just in the process of polishing my arguments :) What they (content vendors, or special interests) want is control. That is the route to monopoly rents. This is about technical control over consumer electronics and the public. The BBC charter is on the side of the public, and the BBC should not making policy in this area. I assume my views on copyright are known (to some), I am prepared to join the debate, on the anti-copyright side. - 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 is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
Rob Myers wrote: On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: People on this list may be interested in this latest blog post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html The first commenter is far more worth reading than the original post - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html?ssorl=1254509384ssoc=rd http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html 2. The DTV is not serving the public if it introduces unnecessary controls and complexity into the standards process. Requiring secret codes to decompress the data stream is excluding free and open source software (just like the content scrambling system excluded open source DVD players). The ability to revoke or otherwise impose sanctions on the consumer electronics industry, including retrospective disabling of products and impose restrictions on functionality. After all that is it's intent. 3. To whom ever the DTLA is responding it is not the public. As indicated above, it is about giving the content industries control. 4. It will apply to HD devices without a HDMI output, another overly complex standard that will raise the cost to consumers due to the addition of encryption etc, which restricts the devices it will 'trust'. 5. The BBC's cosy negotiation with rightholders and secretive consultations amounts to us neglecting our responsibilities and a desire to slip this process through quietly This point we take most seriously. Above all else, we are a public organisation funded by the Licence Fee and have committed ourselves to greater transparency and openness because we believe that this is an obligation we have to our audience And yet you are looking to sophistry and an abuse of language to subvert the legal requirement to broadcast an unencrypted signal. It is clear that if you need a secret key to uncompress the broadcast stream rather than using a public standard which anyone can implement, then you are de facto engaged in encryption just like the Content Scrambling System. In my view this is a breach of the legal requirement to broadcast an un-encrypted signal. Any collusion by Ofcom's part, would not void the intention and letter of the law. nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk How would the cause of audiences be served if the BBC refused to deal with content vendors and as a result audiences could not access that content? As usual it's a difficult balancing act. No it is a blatent breach of the law - 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 is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protection_up.html We've said before that we are specifically avoiding encryption of the broadcast signal to ensure that the public service content remains free to air. Content protection gives content producers comfort to give consumers early and free access to more content, without jeopardising future revenue streams. Stop the rationalisation and sophistry. If you can't decode the compression, then it is effectively encrypted. And making it available as FOSS (Free, Open Source Software), would effectively make the codes public. Therefore this will be restricted (outlawed) by licence agreements. Content Protection, DRM, call it what you will, this is selling the public down the river, once established the intention will be to maintain the system when HD becomes the standard. And it seems the BBC needs all the friends it can get. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-cameron-cosied-up-to-murdoch--son-1795742.html Curb the BBC Its income is guaranteed through the licence system, while the profitability of Sky television and the Murdoch newspapers depend on the state of the market. Mr Cameron is sympathetic. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/01/murdoch-labour-bbc-brown A Murdoch-Cameron alliance could be formidably threatening to the BBC. As William Shawcross wrote of the elder Murdoch: The power he has accumulated on the part of his allies is awesome to his enemies. The BBC often does its best to lose friends and generally annoy and irritate people. But, in the coming months and years, it is going to need all the friends it can get. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/welcome_to_some_new_initials_d.html This is clearly not a fully open and connected world - but we are absolutely committed to continuing to find ways to allow you to enjoy our programmes as you choose. More sophistry, fully open and connected world is what we require of the BBC. There is a case against copyright (Intellectual Monopoly), and DRM witch extends the copyright monopolist control to consumer electronics and consumers. The BBC needs to be aware that people will be outraged at the restrictions placed on their use of content they have paid for. I for one, have an interest in this topic, and will act accordingly, now and in the future. The BBC can not afford to alienate the public. Stand on principle, no encryption, no DRM, by any name or form. This is the legal requirement and what the public expect. - 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 tells ISPs to get stuffed
Carlos Roman wrote: Be do have a fair use policy (https://www.bethere.co.uk/fairusage.do) but no actual mention of what they define as excessive network usage. I think they were quoted as saying that it was if you downloaded more than 80 GB a month (which so far I've never been penalised for). When O2 called me up to see if I wanted to sign up to their ADSL packages I asked about their data usage. Again they touted about it being unlimited downloads. So I repeated my question again and again, same answer until I ask about their fair use policy. At that point the operator went very quiet put me on hold and came back with the statement that they do have a fair use policy but it isn't enforced at the moment. They are planning at some point to enforce it but they couldn't say when and they also couldn't say how much the cap would be. Again they mentioned the same as can be found on Be's fair use policy about not abusing the network and you'd be fine. So what probably will happen is that once they've over subscribed users like Orange, CPW and Sky did and their network can't take it they'll implement usage caps like everyone else. Let's just hope they don't become too popular :) If they own their own infrastructure, vertical integration, like Sky, they really do not need to limit usage (other than by the stated capacity of the service e.g. 8 or 24Mb/s). The growth in the capacity of equipment is adequate to service demand, which is rising at 40% per annum, internationally (See DSLPrime). - 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 tells ISPs to get stuffed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the ISPs have a point ... the ADSL network is (currently) like a collection of country roads (narrow and fairly slow) which the BBC is trying to drive it's supersize juggernauts down. Think the ISPs should use some form of traffic shaping for iPlayer traffic and that the BBC and other such companies should fess up some of the costs involved in improving the network if they want to use the net to push their weighty products. But BT runs a backbone called Colossus (the clue is in the name), it is only the obsolete Asynchronous Transfer Mode equipment that BT has been forcing people to use, that is the problem. LLU exchanges avoid this, as does the Wholesale Broadband Connect which is to be rolled out (to 800+ exchanges) over the next year. The BBC should not be paying for this BT have been retarding bandwidth growth in the UK for years. There may be a short (or long) term squeeze for some ISP's and for non-LLU customers of LLU ISP's. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:07:17 +0100
There is only one solution: Bigger Pipes and Infrastructure competition, or if that is not practical (FTTH) a Government project. It is not just me who says this: http://gigaom.com/2008/04/10/why-fixing-internet-capacity-keeps-the-telcos-honest/ Without fixing the bandwidth shortage on the wire or in the protocols, we make it easy for carriers to claim that they need to regulate bandwidth in order to survive. If we can fix the bandwidth and efficiency problems, we take away one of the main reasons telcos claim they need to shape traffic and interfere with the Internet. The latest between BT and Ofcom. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article3735500.ece On which I would comment, just don't have time right now. - 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 tells ISPs to get stuffed
I am not a civil or public servant (at least not yet), which allows me to make the false proposition, that I can tell Tiscali how to run their business (the advice is free). For example it turns out that Sky are already offering ADSL2+ with their max product 16Mb/s unlimited (still subject to fair use cap!). Be/O2 are offering upto 24Mb/s with unlimited use of their top product. (£24.00pcm) No mention of usage caps! (In fact none of Be's products appear to have a usage cap). These above are just from visiting the relevant websites, others may have equivalent or more suitable/better offers; samknows (see below) allows you to select your exchange and see who provides LLU services (if any) and when it will get BT's 21CN (if among the first 868). I do not work for an ISP. A visit to http://www.samknows.com/broadband/ has activation dates for the first 868 exchanges, with ADSL2+ (All before May 2009) It also highlights regional pricing dependent upon LLU and non-LLU customers. With the latter been charged much more (Thanks to BT and perhaps the lower numbers of customers per exchange (But x3 the price, wholesale ?). With the deployment of 21CN network BT should be pass on the gains of recent generations of Moores law to their customers. So with TalkTalk having the largest number of LLU exchanges (1645) and Be/O2 expanding and Sky's 70% population coverage (Level 1 MSANS), and BT's 21CN bandwidth should increase without any increases in price. And BT should have no excuse with an all new network (except the Local Loop). I fail to understand in this context why the ISP's and BT are failing to embrace iPlayer as a driver of the adoption of higher bandwidth products. They must have seen the recent Virgin Media ad's 'not see, but say whats on TV' (Television Liberation). http://www.virginmedia.com/ p.s. According to a posting on interesting people list, Intel senior manager says Moores law is good until (at least) 2029 when we will have zetaflop supercomputers. Just how many zeros is that ? (Rhetorical question!) p.p.s In Japan FTTH new deployment has exceeded the new deployment of ADSL2+ (24Mb/s). - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
