Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
On 14-Dec-2009, at 13:22, Jim Tonge wrote: On 14 Dec 2009, at 12:42, Mo McRoberts wrote: As somebody who still has to “fix” things for IE 6 on a regular basis, all I can say is: no, it definitely isn‘t, and please don’t come back. Just a joke :) Sorry, reading my reply back, it looked deadly serious—wasn’t meant to be: dry humour! M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
On 14-Dec-2009, at 14:30, Christopher Woods wrote: The need to support IE6 brings out that kind of reaction in me, too. Hopefully sometime next year all the internal users who bump up IE6's market share in our stats will have migrated to something made this century and we might just be able to start thinking about dropping it There's no need to support IE6. There is when your clients see the browser stats and decide that it’s at a significant enough level that you need to support it. Even moreso when _they_ use IE6 internally and so expect a grade-A experience. Corporate IT generally mumbles something about “security”, even though IE6 doesn’t get all of the fixes that IE 7 8 for flaws affecting all three. Mind you, IE 7 8 are still as slow as molasses (I can type faster than the browser can open a new tab? in 2009? are you kidding me?), but at least they consume considerably less effort to support and I can degrade a lot of visual things gracefully for them (box text shadows, rounded corners, gradient backgrounds, etc., etc.) I don't even consider IE6 backward competibility when I design web sites, nor do I care if people don't like that. Most web developers don’t have that luxury. M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
On 14-Dec-2009, at 16:09, Christopher Woods wrote: I'll be sure to tell the Secretary of State for Health that when he can't use the next release of www.nhs.uk on his office PC. The DoH's still using IE6?! Last I checked, so is (much of) the BBC. I’m sure somebody here is well-placed to correct me if this is no longer the case! M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
On 14-Dec-2009, at 16:26, Christopher Woods wrote: Along with many other central government departments - yes. For reasons outlined very well by Phil in his last reply. It's your money we spend. Santa Claus on a motorbike! It's about time some of that money is allocated to a sitewide browser upgrade :( Can't it just be lumped onto the Capita spend for the central database? It seems to have a blank cheque already We can upgrade our nuclear weapons, but not a web browser, etc., etc. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Is this BBC Homeplug product legal?
On 14-Dec-2009, at 16:29, Brian Butterworth wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ttLGbZI7k Nice video - but it's using these http://www.homeplugs.co.uk/ Homeplug adaptor. I can't find anywhere where it says that these Homeplug things are legal. They didn't used to be. They’ve been sold in the UK since the late 80s… Can someone point out where I can find where it says they are legit? A number of trolls have descended on my site saying that they are not, and I can't find a definitive answer. There’s an going dispute between the The Radio Society and Ofcom (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/04/power_line_networking/), but kit compliant with the standards is perfectly legal. M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] The browser wars, reloaded?
On 14-Dec-2009, at 18:10, Christopher Woods wrote: ...Until one of only two core LINX routers has a senior moment or Google decides to bork its routing ;) (cf. last week's massive disruption and recent intercontinental slowness courtesy of the Almighty G) The UK still relies on a surprisingly small number of backbone carriers, and it seems that the UK internet infrastructure is still amazingly brittle. My impression is that ja.net is still more resilient than the public IP space by virtue of just how many HE nodes there are throughout the UK - and the fact that CERN also uses it for GRID). I'd put my money on the Universities having intersite connectivity longer after the public WWW going down 8) …which is why LINX has redundancy. why some providers opt not to use it (and so failover is truncated to just the first syllable) is beyond me. Well, actually, I *do* know: cost. cf. RapidSwitch being invisible to an awful lot of the world last week while an many other providers with LINX interconnects were just fine. You get what you pay for. (The number of “backbone carriers” is largely irrelevant: it’s peering points what matter and the ability of IP networks to utilise multiple paths is predicated on there being more than one; that’s why intersite connectivity between universities probably would be maintained while many cheap and nasty hostcos go to the wall). M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] What is TV?
Discuss. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] What is TV?
On 14-Dec-2009, at 21:24, Brian Butterworth wrote: That's what people who haven't bought a computer yet do, isn't it pops? Where people wait to be provided what's given? Don't they use a tube or something? That’s “a TV”, the device. what is “TV” the medium? :) -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Websites to get Panic Buttons
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 13:35, Lee Ball l...@leenukes.co.uk wrote: Seems like a good idea for me: Facebook and other social networking websites are to install panic buttons so children can alert the sites' operators if obscene or inappropriate material is posted. http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6946162.ece There is a chance this could be abused though. There is, certainly. That said, I’m not sure how this is especially different from the “Report Abuse” links attached to pretty much everything on every social networking site in existence. Smells like a PR campaign. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Websites to get Panic Buttons
On 7-Dec-2009, at 17:54, Graeme Mulvaney wrote: Why should facebook need a panic button for children ? - the TCs clearly set a minimum age. In rare defence of the proposals, plenty of teenagers are above the minimum age but still vulnerable to bullying, inappropriate content, etc. And, in fact, on reading the TCs just there, I can’t actually see any reference to a minimum age at all: http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Google Wave
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:20, Ant Miller ant.mil...@gmail.com wrote: Unless it sorts this out, and introduces a robust (and I mean properly robust) contributor management model I'd actual recommend we don't use it for work dialogues. I’d recommend waiting for a self-hosted server for “proper” use. I’d consider Google’s server to be more of a proof-of-concept than anything useful for real purposes. On the other hand for properly public conversatios, like these, it might well be an excellent tool. Maybe. Not sure. If the UX was cleaned up and streamlined a bit, then yeah, could supplant mailing lists/discussion groups to an extent. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iplayer css broken in chrome?
On 29-Nov-2009, at 23:03, James Crowley wrote: Don’t know if it’s just me, but the CSS files seem to be broken for the iPlayer in Google Chrome for the last day or two? (works fine in Firefox). Had a look and the stylesheet reference off to http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/r18179/style/style.css comes back as something that’s definitely not a stylesheet! Working fine over here in both Safari and Chrome (and that resource is definitely CSS for me). Cheers, Mo. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Redux and iPlayer
Bear with me on this, if you can! This is a sheer matter of curiosity, but I’m a fairly curious chap. I’ve a had a bit of to and ’fro with James Mockett (on the iPlayer team) via Twitter, and it seems we disagree (although neither of us actually *knows*) about the back-end of iPlayer. Hopefully, somebody on here will know for sure, or knows who to ask and wouldn’t mind doing the honours. James believes that Red Bee handles all of the transcoding, and pointed me at their case studies page (http://www.redbeemedia.com/html/iptv.html) which talks of iPlayer, and also this BBC Internet Blog post from Anthony Rose (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/03/bbc_iplayer_on_iphone_behind_t.html). My understanding was that although the content was shipped in by Red Bee, the actual transcoding was done by Redux, which tallies with this other Internet Blog post (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/10/history_of_the_bbc_redux_proje.html) on the history of Redux. This is bolstered a bit by this recent article (which James posted a link to, and prompted this discussion) which talks about the encoding farm used — http://www.cxo.eu.com/news/john-linwood-iplayer/. This seems to tally with the “History of the BBC Redux Project” post, and also this presentation from Tom Bird at UKNOF13 — http://uknof.com/uknof13/Bird-Redux.pdf So, which of us (either, neither?) is right? (This’ll teach me to drop in a mild query about whether OpenSolaris+ZFS is still used for it all…) Cheers! Mo. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Redux and iPlayer
Hi Brendan, Thanks for the fairly comprehensive answer! On 24-Nov-2009, at 14:25, Brendan Quinn wrote: Encoding for the other (non-iphone) services is done by Red Bee from material used for broadcast playout*. * well my knowledge isn't 100% up to date but I think that's still how it works. I wouldn't be surprised if all those new platforms mean that it's even more complicated than that... See, that’s the bit that got me—the “History of redux” post (amongst other things) suggested that its forté was being able to plug in new sets of transcoder parameters in order to support new platforms, so it struck me as perhaps a bit silly if Red Bee were doing that part of it. Mind you, I’m sure there’s a very sensible reason for it if so ;) All the best, Mo. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC News - Googlejuice vs Usability
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 15:51, backst...@gorge.org wrote: On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 03:11:28PM +, Frank Wales wrote: So, am I supposed to conclude that: 43.2 Floods body is missing policeman is noticeably easier to read than: 22.6 Whisky body backs safe drinking Well, use of the word body is less ambiguous in the first headline. Also, if I knew nothing about the stories I could conclude that a policeman, who had been missing, had drowned in floods and his body been discovered. However I don't know anything about a whisky body and I can't guess at what it means other than a group of either whisky drinkers or distillers? I would have to read that story to understand it. Also, what is safe drinking - is drinking ever safe? etc. Reading those specific headlines, my initial assumption while reading the first one was to take “floods body” as the entity (e.g., the Environment Agency), which I would have to mentally correct to “body found in floods…”. That headline is initially ambiguous because in that context the term “Floods body” could mean either, and indeed would more likely refer to an organisation than an individual (e.g., a debate about funding or flood defences). In contrast, I wouldn’t ever think that “Whisky body” was anything other than a group of people connected to whisky production or drinking. Whether there’s such a thing as “safe drinking” isn’t necessary in order to parse the headline. I’d contend that in terms of sheer readability of the headlines, the floods one is far worse—in that it takes far more effort, but having successfully parsed both, I’d have a reasonable idea of what both stories relate to (enough for me to decide whether to read them or not). M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC News - Googlejuice vs Usability
On 20-Nov-2009, at 11:45, Brian Butterworth wrote: Here's a nice little dillemma. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/changing_headlines.html BBC News headlines go from 33 characters (because of Ceefax) to 66 One the one hand, king of usability Jacob Neilson has said the BBC News headlines are the world's best http://www.useit.com/alertbox/headlines-bbc.html On the other, Google likes lots of relevant keywords, the higher the reading score the better in fact. It's not like BBC News comes bottom of any Google search, is it? My question - which is more important, SEO or usability? Given the context: short headlines on the linking pages, longer headlines on the pages themselves, I’d suggest it strikes a good balance. However, I can’t stand the short headlines. Everything’s phrased as though it’s a lie. Yes, I know the reasons, it still reads terribly, no matter what Neilson reckons. So in fact, I’d actually prefer to see the longer headlines all of the time (which does SEO no harm at all). BBC headlines ‘lengthened’. M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC News - Googlejuice vs Usability
On 20-Nov-2009, at 12:49, Brian Butterworth wrote: As I pointed out if you calculate the reading score for these longer headlines, they score higher, meaning they are less good to those (unlike ourselves) who have lower reading skills. For higher skilled people, they just take longer to scan. If you said it was for SEO, that would be fine. But for usability, it sucks. er, you’re missing the point: the short headlines remain on the “section” pages. It’s only the article itself which has the long headline, by which point you’ve already clicked through. the other use-case is arriving at the page via a search engine—in which case richer titles are helpful (you’ve already told the SE what it is you’re looking for in any case). -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] NO Encryption of HD by the BBC !
On 10-Nov-2009, at 10:50, Andrew Bowden wrote: The big shock was that (and I read all of the responses) no content provider was prepared to say why they asked the BBC for it in the first place. No PACT. No BSkyB. I reckon (and this is a personal, uninformed view) the relevant content providers were in the US rather than the UK. And if so, they probably wouldn't have seen the Ofcom consultation. One would have thought somebody might have tipped them off, considering. ’course, the fact that nobody did lends weight to the view that the BBC didn’t really want to be doing it in the first place. One question does remain, though. Graham Plumb stated back in September: “But a form of content management is required to enable us to launch Freeview HD to audiences in early 2010” http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protection_up.html I took pelters from some quarters for suggesting that this might actually not be the case. As far as I know, the launch schedule for FVHD hasn’t changed (and isn’t likely to this late on in the game), and there’s been nothing put forward to the Trust for a new service (e.g., BBC HD with the tricky-to-license bits taken out). So, what was he on about? M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] NO Encryption of HD by the BBC !
On 10-Nov-2009, at 13:00, Mo McRoberts wrote: On 10-Nov-2009, at 12:50, Brian Butterworth wrote: Out of interest, does anyone have the new list of 20 Freeview HD transmitters? My Freeview contact seems to be away. Does digital.co.uk not tell you (in a slightly cubersome way)? http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/when_do_i_switch/ Wait, ignore me. That has things pegged for first-half 2011 which are being talked about this week as being early 2010 now. Apologies. (Though if digital.co.uk is now wrong and a revised list has leaked, that’s all manner of screw-ups in one go). M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Interview with Rupert Murdoch
On 10-Nov-2009, at 13:29, Scot McSweeney-Roberts wrote: There's an article on the guardian about how he wants to sue the BBC http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/nov/10/rupert-murdoch-bbc Apparently, the BBC is stealing his news. I wonder how long it will be before he retires. I wouldn’t count on that being much help. James, at the very least, is even worse than he is (and has the current Shadow Culture Secretary on-side). M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] FYI: Open iPlayer
On 23-Oct-2009, at 01:14, Tom Loosemore wrote: There’s no (public) evidence, beyond the existence of Kangaroo, that other broadcasters are actually all that interested in a one-stop aggregation portal (I’d be tempted to say “more fool them”—right now, they need all the help they can get). coughs http://testtubetelly.channel4.com /coughs Oh, I take it back, “prototype” though it is! Some listings integration wouldn’t go amiss, but at least somebody’s doing *something*. M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] FYI: Open iPlayer
On 20-Oct-2009, at 21:51, I wrote: That said, it’s never entirely clear when people talk about “licensing iPlayer” whether they mean the front-end, with its myriad per-platform tweaks, clever Flash applet and AIR downloader, the back-end which ingests content, hooks it up appropriately, and transcodes it into a bunch of different formats, or both. I guess this may answer that question: Insiders said the proposal to commercially license the back end of iPlayer to third parties had only ever existed to support the “radical” iPlayer Federation, and that without the listings page, there would be no reason for the BBC to enter another new commercial market during a politically turbulent period. “The rationale for licensing the iPlayer on a commercial basis has gone. We are now of the view that this is something we won’t proceed with,” said a source. From http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/multi-platform/furious-bbc-to-give-up-on-open-iplayer/5007151.article According to that, the plan was one of less of licensing the back-end, and more consuming content from third-parties and feeding into the transcoding/metadata platform which already exists. I wonder how true it is :) M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] FYI: Open iPlayer
to the developers (and you could argue whether such things should exist or not until you’re blue in the face, it doesn’t change the reality of it). Perhaps one day we’ll see an open source EMP. Who knows? It’d certainly raise the bar where Flash media players are concerned. M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas
On 21-Oct-2009, at 10:03, Simon Thompson wrote: Hybrid Broadcast Broadband TV (HBBtv) is a service like Canvas being implemented by Institut fuer Rundfunktechnik. Hybrid Broadcast Broadband (HBB) is a group at the European Broadcasting Union looking at the harmonisation of Canvas, HBBtv, MHEG-5 IPTV, MHP, OIPTV and commercial offerings from the likes of Samsung and Panasonic. There's a brief write-up here http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech-i/ebu_tech-i_001.pdf Aha, I take it the article I linked to should in fact have been referring to Hybrid Broadcast Broadband, rather than Hybrid Broadcast Broadband TV, in that case? M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Changes to the list
On 20-Oct-2009, at 15:11, Tim Dobson wrote: Matt Hammond wrote: Lets not forget to include a mandatory signup for an MSN Passport or Google account or Yahoo ID ... even just to be able to browse ;-) I think we should move all of Backstage to Facebook!!!11 Everyone uses Facebook right!??!!?!1 I think you’re onto something there. Perhaps Freeview HD boxes should require a Facebook Connect login in order to deliver personalised and tailored content (e.g., BBC1)? -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Changes to the list
On 20-Oct-2009, at 15:26, Phil Lewis wrote: [REDACTED] I’m sorry, I would have replied to your message, but it required quoting it, and I’m not sure I was granted the appropriate redistribution rights. M. Produced for the BBC Backstage Mailing List by Mo McRoberts’ fingers. © MM MMIX . All rights reserved. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC trust says no to Plans to open iPlayer up to other broadcasters
On 20-Oct-2009, at 15:20, Tim Dobson wrote: What do you think? Good/Bad/Don't care? Sensible. http://nevali.net/post/218054190/back-of-envelope-analysis-bbc-trust-blocks-marquee M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] FYI: Open iPlayer
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 21:31, Kieran Kunhya kie...@kunhya.com 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? Possibly the fact that no other bugger is doing it in anything but a cack-handed way. That said, it’s never entirely clear when people talk about “licensing iPlayer” whether they mean the front-end, with its myriad per-platform tweaks, clever Flash applet and AIR downloader, the back-end which ingests content, hooks it up appropriately, and transcodes it into a bunch of different formats, or both. All credit to the front-end developers, who have done a bloody good job considering what they have to work with (I mean, seriously, Flash for HD video?), but the *really* clever and heavyweight stuff is behind the scenes, and—to the best of my knowledge—pretty much distinct from “iPlayer”. Would a broadcaster want to license the one without the other? (possibly) Would the BBC be licensing both out together, or as separate units? Am I wrong about all of this? ;) M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Changes to the list
On 19-Oct-2009, at 19:43, Brendan Quinn wrote: I agree mostly, but wouldn't knock down the idea of a google/yahoo group so quickly -- if you monitor new subscribers (as I think we do anyway on this list??) we should be okay re spam, shouldn't we? And as for passwords, you need a password to do anything on Mailman as well. FWIW, it’s only post-subscription, which most people tend not to do too much—subscribing doesn’t (have to) require a password, it can generate one for you. Of course there may be other issues about working with third parties on this stuff, but surely we can move beyond those. Re mailman, it's okay, but remember the archives aren't the prettiest: web developer hat if you can tweak the HTML ever so slightly, you can add some CSS to clean that up. The mark-up’s pretty much fine in all honesty. /web developer hat http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/ and you can't search (unless you hook up with a service like mail-archive.com) …or Google site search (bear in mind a “site” doesn’t have to be a whole domain. Google searches for site:bbc.co.uk/programmes are trés handy ;) If you (i.e., “somebody”) were feeling adventurous, you could hook it up to Xapian. this probably—understandably—exceeds the effort the relevant people are willing/able to put in, though! I'm not sure about RSS support in Mailman but would anyone really use RSS for the backstage list? Most RSS readers would break under the load ;-) I’d wonder the same thing. M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas
Hey Nick, Why don't you ask your boss Anthony? That was me asking the questions, not Anthony ;) (Unless you meant “why don’t you ask your boss, Anthony?”, in which case “Anthony’s not my boss” :)) M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas
On 14-Oct-2009, at 12:12, Stephen Jolly wrote: On 14 Oct 2009, at 11:47, Mo McRoberts wrote: Thus creating an (effective) two-tier system: those who work go the whole hog within Canvas, or those who adhere to all of the _technical_ specifications but need to come to separate arrangements in order to deliver them, and can’t (of course), brand their devices as being Canvas-compliant. I think the document I linked to implies a more flexible picture than that. It doesn’t. From §2.3: “We believe that a consistent UX is necessary to create a successful platform of meaningful scale for reasons set out below (see section 2.5 for more detail). At the same time we recognise needs of content providers, device manufacturers, platform operators and ISPs and want to create a flexible approach that supports their business models and still delivers the benefits described above. In order to retain this flexibility in a horizontal market but also the benefits set out above we are proposing a “thin” core UI managed by the Canvas JV with each content provider, manufacturer, etc. able to develop sub-sections of that UI. This is set out in more detail in section 2.6, with a summary of the flexibility offered to each stakeholder set out in section 2.7.” That is, the “thin” core UI is mandated. Figure 1 in §2.6 makes it quite clear what is considered “core UI”. §2.7 is just a sales pitch to each segment on the basis of the structure defined earlier. M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas
glaring errors or omissions in the above, I would really appreciate it being pointed out! Answers on a postcard to the usual address… M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas
On 14-Oct-2009, at 13:45, Stephen Jolly wrote: On 14 Oct 2009, at 12:23, Mo McRoberts wrote: I think the document I linked to implies a more flexible picture than that. It doesn’t. There's stuff in section 2.7 that talks about the flexibility manufacturers would have to change the appearance of the core UI (up to a point), which to me implies more flexibility than a simple choice between Canvas UI and Canvas branding or neither. My reading of it (taken in the context of the earlier sections which were quite explicit about which parts were readily-modified and which weren’t) suggested that there was only very limited flexibility there… though re-reading it I can see it’s a bit ambiguous and where you’re coming from. Hmm. (Of course, if there was no JV and minimal UI specification, it’d be a moot point… ;) M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas
On 14-Oct-2009, at 19:03, Mr I Forrester wrote: Just to be clear, I'm not saying we're not allowed to say anything, its just not clear what we can be said. I've heard so much about Canvas over the last year, I'm not even sure whats public, whats hear-say and whats actually secret (if anything) :) As some one said its a hot potato. I've just started re-reading Jonathan Zittrain's the future of the internet and how to stop it. - http://futureoftheinternet.org/. If you've not read it, go and download it or buy it now. And been thinking since watching Micromen #b00n5b92, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00n5b92) about the balance between the pc and ce (consumer electronics). It’s a nice quote, but has suffered the test of time quite badly! Apple did indeed release an SDK, after months of pressure[0] from developers. Subsequently, the two platforms which look the most likely to be worthy competitors to iPhone OS long term (Android and WebOS) are both comparatively open, and most other mobile platforms are also fairly open, even if the delivery mechanisms are a royal pain and the SDKs aren’t actually that good. There’s a danger of conflating the ability to lock down a device with a need to restrict the platform on which it runs, or even that an open- ended platform requires a whole load of confusing and inappropriate stuff in the CE side in order to be useful, when really that’s a matter of good UI design. Freeview STBs, for example, come in all shapes and sizes, and nobody has any real difficulty in choosing one, unless they have specific requirements. The openness of the platform here means that those specific requirements can usually be met in some form or another. My Freeview box is a piece of cheap tat which doesn’t do anything interesting or special, and gives me virtually no control over much at all, but the DVB-T PCI card is a different matter altogether! M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas
On 14-Oct-2009, at 21:30, Anthony McKale wrote: Like wise as someone vaguely involved in canvas for AM i'm not sure what I'm allowed to say [snip lots of cool stuff] all of the benefits of the Canvas are relatively well-understood. the idea of set of technical specs which leverage Internet connectivity along with DVB isn’t terribly new, and is just about coming of age. this is all a Good Thing. but, none of this explains why a JV is necessary to achieve this, nor— and this is one which I’ve become increasingly puzzled by over the past few weeks—why and how there’s anything except a paper proposal when the first-stage responses on the (revised) consultation are yet to come, let alone the four-week consultation and actual decision on the project’s approval. am I being dim? M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Sky hits out at Project Canvas
From the FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba940c48-b6c5-11de-8a28-00144feab49a.html Thoughts? [My take: I’ve not great love for Sky (indeed, quite the opposite), but on this one I agree with them, even if I suspect their motives are far from altruistic, to say the least] M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas
On 12-Oct-2009, at 08:12, Mo McRoberts wrote: From the FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba940c48-b6c5-11de-8a28-00144feab49a.html Responding to myself (it’s an exciting life I lead), I notice that the FT says: “The broadcaster wants the Trust to force the BBC to allow anybody - not just public service broadcasters - to join Canvas.” It was my impression that being a PSB wasn’t a prerequisite for joining the JV (just having a bucketload of cash to spare). It’s a bit odd that, one, as most of Sky’s stance seems to be predicated on the slightly sensible position of “build and use the specs and the platform will be created from that”. Jury’s out on this one until I can read their actual response, I guess. That’ll teach me to rely on the FT ;) M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 22:05, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: 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. That was all written before the exec clarified the proposition and the consultation was extended. I was all for Canvas until it became clear what it *actually* was. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:27, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: 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). We covered this already. The effect of the GPL cannot be achieved _without_ copyright. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 13:09, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: 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. 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. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 15:43, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: The implication is that the BBC approved of the sharing of iplayer content, of course it was subject to DRM. No, it really didn’t. That’s adding two and two together and getting pi. - 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'
[Swapped order of paragraphs to make more sense] On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 17:16, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: 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. I (and I suspect most others here) are very well aware of what the iPlayer Desktop of Yore used, but thanks for the history lesson. 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. So why bring it up in the context of sharing content publicly on P2P networks? [You said: “The implication is that the BBC approved of the sharing of iplayer content, of course it was subject to DRM.”] It doesn’t imply that they “approve” of sharing the content on P2P networks as you suggested—it was used in a limited, closed-loop fashion as a means to an end (i.e., a distributed CDN); the user had little to no control over it (depending upon technical competence). Within the context of the discussion, this fact is almost completely irrelevant, except that the underlying technology used is “peer-to-peer”. Technologies get reused all the time, and it doesn’t imply any sort of endorsement. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
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 :) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 :) M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
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. M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 06:41, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: It's the people who can't break the law, the consumer electronics companies who will be required to obtain a licence who will be affected. It is a legal trigger. Conditions placed on them (Consumer Electronics), will impact the consumer, due to built in restrictions in the equipment, imposed by a licence holder (DTVA). This will alter the landscape of free-to-air, circumventing the intention of the law. I’ve taken the view to this point that, rather than being about control of the CE sector, this is more to do with trying to appease stroppy rights-holders without having a huge amount of tangible impact (though there would be collateral damage). The alternative view is, as you suggest, that it’s a bid to seek control of the consumer electronics space by way of holding a key which everybody needs. I’ve steered away from this conclusion, because I actually think attempts at placating rights-holders are more likely the root cause -however- it’s worth noting that the Project Canvas proposals suffer from precisely the same problems (in fact, they’re worse). The BBC did state in the letter to Ofcom that the license would be zero-cost, so that part’s not an issue. Obtaining a license would require agreeing to certain conditions, however, including non-disclosure, honouring the copy-control attributes of the HD channels, and prohibiting user modification. This is incompatible with DVB code _built on_ software licensed under many open source licenses, which CE manufacturers have been increasingly embracing over the past decade. After all, what’s the point in licensing a commercial DVB stack or expending the massive RD costs in rolling your own, when a perfectly good one is there already? It’s the same reason the creators of the transcoding platform behind iPlayer didn’t write their own filesystem (last I knew, much of it runs on OpenSolaris w/ZFS on x86_64 boxes), and why BBC Online didn’t write its own web server to power bbc.co.uk, and so on. In real terms, the intention and motivation behind it are almost immaterial: the end result is the same either way. I know for a fact that several of the responses to Ofcom from technically-knowledgeable people (both inside and outside of the broadcast industry) pointed all of this out, noting the futility of the approach with respect to piracy. And why the metadata (EPG), should be regarded as part of the signal, (it is broadcast) that must be unencrypted for public service broadcasting. EPG data is subject to regulation and a licensing regime itself. I don’t know, though, how in particular the various obligations of the BBC relate to this. It’s entirely possible that there’s a loophole. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:44, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Controlling the functionality of the Consumer Electronic product is seen (by the rights holders) as key to restricting the public access to broadcast content. No analog hole, HDMI only (encrypted, trusted) output etc. Except the idea of closing the untrusted path only works if you work on the premise that the nefarious types who illegally share copyright material only care about breaking one specific set of laws (copyright infringement) and won’t just work around the trusted path by modifying their kit or cobbling together some equivalent. This is sheer fantasy, really—it’s pretty much entirely incompatible with (a) an open market, and (b) broadcasting (as opposed to simulcasting to millions of people individually). I can’t think of an adjective which sums it up more adequately than “crazy”. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:43, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: They don't want an open market, they have enjoyed a monopoly through broadcasting (limited bandwidth/broadcasters) and through copyright. They don't wish this to change. Regardless of the potential of new technology for increasing the public utility. (Gains for the public). Not quite what I meant by “open market”. There was never a requirement in the past for CE makers to join logo/licensing programmes to ensure their kit worked—they just followed the specs. That wasn’t limited to CE makers, either, which is how things like MythTV came to exist. FTA isn’t that “anybody can receive the broadcasts [if they buy from one of our approved manufacturers]” it’s “anybody can receive the broadcasts provided what they have adheres to the open specs”. If the HD signal is encrypted or licenced, then this can carry over to the Internet where simulcasts, would be encrypted or otherwise restricted. It’s harder when you’ve got Internet-based delivery, because you have to hand over both the crypto mechanism and the decryption key to something which is primarily under user control—it’s not a “black box” in the same way that an STB or TV is. But, it’s not something those doing Internet-based delivery don’t often attempt to do (look at iPlayer Desktop, for example). M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:04, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: How can they be compensated fairly for their work? A watermarking scheme which counts downloads or views, and apportions revenues accordingly? That would possibly mean a shift away from overcompensation of big names and a reduction of middlemen, not bad things What, in your mind, are they being (additionally) compensated for? Bearing in mind that in this context, the broadcasts are being made to about 50 million people freely over the airwaves and the rights-holders are already paid for this. Anybody within that group of 50 million has already been compensated on behalf of through the commissioning process. If a significant proportion of the downloaders of your FTA UK content are themselves within the UK, as a rights-holder I’d be asking myself why they’re having to resort to illicit means to obtain content they already had rights to receive and time-shift. Then I’d try to fix it. Once you start going outside of the UK, things are more complicated. One thing is critically evident as things have changed over the past few years: artificial geographically-based restrictions are doomed to failure. If you have to wait weeks, or even months (and sometimes years) to get the same content legally in your region, the rights-holders have shot themselves in the foot. The broadcast industry would do well to learn from the mistakes the music industry made: artificial scarcity, legal threats, hyperbole and DRM only actually achieve the intended results for a painfully short period of time. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:33, Chris Warren ch...@ixalon.net wrote: Someone isn't going to finance content for you if you can't promise you'll do your utmost, through agreements with 3rd parties (e.g. broadcasters) and all the technical and legal measures available to you, to protect their investment, however futile that may be. That isn't crazy - if you were investing in a risky venture, you'd still want promises that those you were investing in would try to minimise risks. No, it _is_ crazy. What isn’t crazy is saying “look, it’s free to air. it’s available to virtually everybody in the UK, and that’s the purpose of the broadcast. that’s why we’re commissioning it.” Similarly, dispelling the myths that the technical measures do _anything_ except harm legitimate users would be a good start. Those wishing to misappropriate the investment are not those who are in any way affected by the DRM. Seriously. I don’t know of any other way to explain this. _All_ DRM does is harm the relationship with your customer. That’s it. It’s not “doing your utmost” at anything if you know already it’s futile. That’s just called wasting everybody’s time and money, including the people who ultimately pay for the output in the first place. However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be Free software friendly? The solution is not to attempt to implement a system which only achieves the opposite of the intended effect. DRM and anything “open” cannot by definition mix in any useful fashion: DRM relies solely on things being kept secret, which is pretty much the opposite of anything which is actually open ;) The solution is the one which has served free-to-air broadcasting very well for many decades: you accept the realities, or you don’t play ball. It really, honestly, truly, isn’t any more complicated than that provided you’re actually in possession of the facts (and I realise many of the people engaging in negotiations actually aren’t). M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:56, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: My understanding is that the BBC's strategy is to treat the UK and rest-of-world markets differently, with a profit orientation on the World side. Technical geolocalisation solutions are indeed doomed to failure in my view. Those sly devils at Google showed me a sponsored link last week promising international access to UK iPlayer through a proxy. Oh, you can do it. People will pay if the product’s of a good standard and not subject to ridiculous delays and impediments. Personally, I’m in favour of liberalising some of the restrictions upon BBCW (provided it doesn’t impact negatively upon the FTA efforts within the UK). People often resort to downloads because they -have- to in order to get the output they want on their terms, rather than because it's free. (Anecdotal personal example: I’m more than capable of downloading films from BitTorrent, and have a dim view much of the movie industry, but I rent movies from iTunes instead—it’s fast, it’s easy, it’s convenient, and it doesn’t cost the earth). As a former musician and record producer, you'll have no pity from me for the rapacious vultures of the music biz :-) the daft thing is, much of it’s been so depressingly predictable from very early on. so much of it’s been avoidable. But I'm speaking generally about digital disruption. The free-to-air model is now the free-to-world model. I'm actually much more worried about newspapers. The newspapers are fixable. Perhaps not -as- newspapers in many cases (though you’ll prize my magazine subscriptions from my cold, dead hands), but by becoming far more efficient at collating and redistributing news and—most importantly—the expert commentary on it; the latter being something news.bbc.co.uk only provides minimal amounts of. Free-to-air _can_ be free-to-world, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that it WILL be—that more depends upon the content than anything else (and it doesn’t have to be FTA in the first place, of course). The only real solution, though, is to capitalise on the overseas markets: business models wholly reliant upon it being difficult and uneconomical for consumers (on whichever side of the law) to ship content from one side of the world to the other weren’t ever going to last forever. That was the monopoly period—the breathing space to develop the models and form the alliances and dip toes in waters—which as with any other, has a limited lifespan. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 15:07, Alia Sheikh alia.she...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote: However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be Free software friendly? Sounds good in all seriousness, would be interested to take part in *that* discussion. Unfortunately, that discussion isn’t really one which is at all technical in nature—it’s broadly a matter of legal and business strategy. Not quite so interesting to the kinds of smart people who tend to have an interest in the technical stuff! There’s some cross-over, though… ;) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Google Wave
On 7-Oct-2009, at 17:20, Ian Forrester wrote: Changing the long running threads (don't think I'm not watching) Now Google Wave invites are out there and more of you have had a chance to play with wave. What do people think? And why is no one building a decent client for it? Give it time… the people most likely to do this may not even have access to the preview yet ;) Am I the only excited person? Nope. It shows a huge amount of potential (although it’s quite buggy at the moment). IM+Email+Docs+…stuff, all built on XMPP? I’ll take three! (I’m finding it quite buggy at the moment, though). I’m nevalic...@googlewave.com, should anybody feel the need. A search for “with:public” is quite a good place to start for those who are new to it. M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter: @nevali Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Hi all, I realise I’m somewhat late to the party going on here—for some reason, I never got around to subscribing to backst...@. You can probably guess from my e-mail address how I relate to this particular debate! For the record, I’m no more part of the official consultation process than anybody else—indeed, one of my gripes with all of this is how a proper consultation _hasn’t_ been carried out yet. I am a (vocal) bystander for most intents and purposes. To pimp my blog for a moment, some speculation on my part as to why this might be the case can be found at: http://nevali.net/post/205806183/bbc-internet-blog-bbchd-and-drm-a-response-to-cory I appreciate Nick’s involvement in this and trying to deal with pesky people who insist on asking awkward questions ;) However, I would like to respond to this:— On 6-Oct-2009, at 16:08, 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. While this is true, to an extent, historically the interests of the rights-holders (excepting certain more enlightened members of that particular community) have been squarely opposed to the interests of the consumer. If the rights-holders could, hypothetically, lock everything down without inciting a huge backlash, most would jump at the opportunity (irrespective of the actual benefits—this is all about perception on their part; bearing in mind that many of those doing these deals aren’t hugely technical themselves). The FTA remit is designed specifically to balance this: it says, in effect, “by all means come on board, but we have an obligation to the consumer that the likes of Sky and Virgin don’t: if you don’t like this, go elsewhere. The various pieces of legislation are quite clear about what consumers can and can’t do, and we’ve historically relied upon that as the principal copy-protection mechanism.”. The danger with this debate is that it indicates a shift away from this standpoint. Also, historically, there was no requirement to buy equipment branded and licensed by consortium heavily influenced by the broadcasters in order to ensure reception: you got a TV license, a PAL- I TV, and you were away. It also raises a number of (secondary) questions which are themselves quite troubling, but I’ve covered all of the ones I could think of in the comments on the blog post. Worms, meet can. Cheers, M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Hi Nick, On 6-Oct-2009, at 18:55, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Pity. I would have left a comment. The effort required to enable comments is unfortunately more than it’s worth expending (and an awful lot of people dislike all of the available comment system options for tumblr), but I really am all ears. Either here, via e-mail to me, or a post on your own blog (do you have one? apart from the bbc.co.uk thing, I mean)—whatever suits. If it’s worth saying, I’d like to hear it—especially if it’s constructive criticism (or juicy gossip…) The same obviously applies to anybody else, of course. Cheers, M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 20:05, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: And let's not forget that EU Legislation has to be enacted by the UK Parliament. It was, as far as I know, six years ago. Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
