RE: [backstage] Remember the controversy about HD freeview and DRM?
People may be interested in these blog posts from more than a year ago - and in particular they should read the comments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_manag ement.html -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Tim Dobson Sent: 14 November 2011 19:00 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk; friends-of-backst...@pielists.net Subject: [backstage] Remember the controversy about HD freeview and DRM? Here is episode 2: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/nov/14/bbc-hd-drm TL;DR? Cory Doctrow: The Guardian just published an investigative piece I wrote about the BBC's successful petition to cripple its public broadcasts with DRM. Nearly everyone who commented on the proposal to the regulator, Ofcom, hated it, but Ofcom granted permission to use DRM anyway. The BBC and Ofcom said that the convincing arguments were in the secret, redacted text of a memo the BBC wrote to Ofcom, and both refused to release the memo, even after Freedom of Information requests were filed, citing commercial sensitivity. I published the secret text in my article and as you can see, it's neither commercially sensitive, nor convcincing. Our regulator is allowing the BBC to lock up the TV we're required by law to pay for, to give new privileges to American broadcasters that they are denied in the USA, and they're citing commercial sensitivity to keep up from finding out why. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] blog post on Net neutrality
hi - people on the Backstage mailing list may be interested in this blog post http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/10/net_neutrality_and_the_bb c.html
[backstage] open source release of mheg+ toolkit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/08/open_source_release_of_mh eg_to.html people on the mailing list may be interested in the above Nick Reynolds (Social Media Executive, BBC Online) BBC Future MediaTechnology ext: 80934 mobile: 0780 162 4919 address: BC4 D6, Broadcast Centre, White City W12 BBC Internet Blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/ My internal blog: http://bbcblogs.gateway.bbc.co.uk/reynonp1/ Future Media Technology: http://home.gateway.bbc.co.uk/fmt/main.asp?page=4282 My personal twitter: https://twitter.com/nickreynoldsatw
[backstage] erik huggers on html5
Hi - people on this list may be interested in this blog post http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/08/html5_open_standards_and_ the_b.html Nick Reynolds (Social Media Executive, BBC Online) BBC Future MediaTechnology ext: 80934 mobile: 0780 162 4919 address: BC4 D6, Broadcast Centre, White City W12 BBC Internet Blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/ My internal blog: http://bbcblogs.gateway.bbc.co.uk/reynonp1/ Future Media Technology: http://home.gateway.bbc.co.uk/fmt/main.asp?page=4282 My personal twitter: https://twitter.com/nickreynoldsatw
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Mo - although we didn't publish your article on the blog I did circulate it to other colleagues in the BBC and I was pleased to see it published in the Guardian. We also linked to it from the blog when it was published. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 16 July 2010 21:02 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 19:27, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: glossing over details which might not seem important but are What does or does not seem important is a matter of interpretation and is in the eye of the beholder... Not really... What does this mean for consumers in real terms? is pretty important -- that's why I wrote the guardian article (can't think of a better way to refer to that piece, sorry). I'm not sure that's particularly subjective, given that most of the questions being posed were along those lines, most of the misunderstandings (which came about as a result of it not being clearly explained _prior_ to anybody else having a stab at it) were in that area, and there was still stuff that -- unless you already knew the technology well -- was completely non-obvious (for example, compatibility with TVs which didn't support HDCP). The *big* thing people wanted to know from the outset was how it would affect them -- whether they'd have to replace bits of their equipment, whether they'd even want to, what things would stop working and what things wouldn't -- most people couldn't care less if Tom Watson or Cory Doctorow was wrong, because even being wrong they were saying more that was substantive and along the right lines than the BBC were. People didn't really *want* Oh, Tom got it all wrong in his blog post, they wanted Tom got it all wrong in his blog post, we're sorry we didn't post this sooner, these are the things you need to know. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
glossing over details which might not seem important but are What does or does not seem important is a matter of interpretation and is in the eye of the beholder... -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 16 July 2010 16:03 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:07, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: In the case of Erik's post that you mention all we are actually doing is cross posting to it on the Internet blog. So the editor of the About The BBC blog has editorial responsibility for it because it was published first there. What happens in practice in general is; - sometimes we (i.e. Paul and I) have an idea for a blog post and we ask someone to write it - we might help them by suggesting bullet points but we don't write it for them - the communications team also sometimes send us ideas for posts and in some cases finished posts - I assume they similarly help people write posts But I would certainly not write a finished post for someone like Erik. Senior executives have different attitudes - Anthony Rose for example writes all his posts in his own individual style. Others need or like more of a steer. All this is in a context where we have editorial control and can ask for a post to be changed and even have the right to refuse it - although I can only recall one occasion where we have. That's interesting stuff (genuinely!). you should probably do a blog post on it one day. it's good to know what the process is, in general (even if it varies). on the topic of 'things which it might be worth doing blog posts about': P4A. Again I disagree that I've been fed misleading information (and I'd like to know in what way) - I suspect that this is again about interpretation of information, which is another thing entirely. I'll respond to this bit properly when I've had a proper think about it -- interpretation comes down to it to an extent (i.e., how things are most likely to be interpreted by those reading stuff vs. how things are most likely to be interpreted by those with prior knowledge), but there're other things, too. predominantly I was struck by errors of omission, though (questions which don't really get answered, though not for the want of trying on your part, glossing over details which might not seem important but are). it's very difficult to know how much of this is deliberate and how much is a product of circumstance or just things being missed -- in either case, though, it comes across poorly and doesn't help the BBC's case any. as I say, though, I'll follow up on this later. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a personal archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all on the internet for your friends - even this which might seem harmless might prevent a rights holder setting up their own website to do the same thing commercially and legitimately. My own personal definition of a pirate and I would stress it is a personal one not a BBC or official one is someone who knowingly attempts to sell or commercially exploit other people's intellectual property without their permission. But people get hung up on the piracy word as its emotional and loaded. People say there's nothing people can do about this but Pirate Bay was closed down and fined heavily and I haven't seen much about them since. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Paul Battley Sent: 13 July 2010 17:28 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On 13 July 2010 16:43, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to keep honest people honest. I don't understand this keep honest people honest thing. Is the BBC saving people from themselves, just in case they might be tempted to do something unlawful like copying a TV programme to their portable media player? And ... are you saying that I'm dishonest for wanting to subvert these restrictions? Or is it a slippery slope - one day you're making a personal archive of a TV programme, the next you're wondering around West End pubs with a carrier bag full of DVD+Rs of shaky camcorder versions of Hollywood films? Bizarre. If pirates choose to do certain things then that is their responsibility not the BBCs. If we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want. They already are! And nothing the BBC is doing will stop them. (Encrypting the EPG on Freeview HD while the video itself is in the clear? Give me a break!) They're also doing anything they want with Sky HD and Blu-ray, both of which have far harder protections than anything the BBC's mooted. And, just to be clear, who do we mean by pirates? People downloading stuff? People uploading stuff? People making personal copies? People sharing copies with their friends? People selling stuff on for money? People uploading it to online storage sites with affiliate plans? There's such a huge gulf between the stated aims and the implementation of this policy. Paul. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
I don't write other people's posts on the blog I only write my own. I have to accept what my colleagues write in good faith, although if I think there are inaccuracies or things which are unclear then I will obviously ask for clarification. The blog is striving to be accurate and impartial. That's particularly difficult to do when you are talking about yourself but that's the aim. I have to be pragmatic. There may be things which people cannot talk about for good reason (e.g. confidentiality, or damaging a relationship with a partner). My aim is to get them to say something. If they say something, even if its not perfect, then that may spark a useful conversation and the next time they speak, it may be an improvement on what was said previously. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 13 July 2010 17:11 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 16:43, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Hi Mo, I am going out this evening so will be away from a computer. However I thought I would try and give you a quick response to some of your questions. 1. Because I didn't know it was happening until after it was mentioned by third parties. I'd point out that one of those third parties (Tom Watson) corrected his first blog post about the subject as he admitted was inaccurate. Nick, you're responding as though I'm criticising _you_. I'm not. It's not your responsibility to know that this stuff was being sent to Ofcom and make sure that the public were properly informed of it. However, it *is* the BBC's responsibility to make this happen (and when that kicks off, _then_ it becomes your problem). Tom Watson having to correct his post is something I answered back when we were talking about this previously - he wouldn't have had to do that if clear and accurate information had been published by the BBC *in the first place*! 2. Possibly because it wasn't published on the internet. I certainly can't find it on OFCOM's website now. It was published -- that's how people managed to respond to it :) Graham Plumb would certainly have known where it was (and indeed, would have had a copy of it -- you could have hosted a copy yourselves!). It wasn't easy to find on Ofcom's site, because it was pitched at the broadcasting industry, not the public (even though it concerns every potential customer of Freeview HD!) It _should_ be here: http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/other-issues/bbc-multiplex-enquiry/ But Ofcom have completely reorganised their site in the last couple of weeks, so I have no idea where it might have gone now. 3. Is this a falsehood? I'd like to know more. Yes, which is why I wrote the post which ended up in the Guardian: there are lots of things it prevents -- or at least seeks to -- so saying the only thing you won't be able to is X is false. 4. We answered most of those questions in subsequent blog posts and comments. A big part of the frustration on the part of the commenters was because questions weren't being answered. And, again, this isn't a criticism of you because I know you were trying to get answers, but ultimately a lot of quite clear and direct questions never had any followup at all. 5. Don't know the answer to this one. Will check. Thanks -- appreciated. 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to keep honest people honest. If pirates choose to do certain things then that is their responsibility not the BBCs. If we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want. The point is: what evidence was there that honest people *needed* technological measures to keep them honest? If they're honest, but do something in an unsupported way, perhaps with a cheap imported receiver, or an HD television which doesn't support the protected path, are they still honest? You're contradicting yourself when you say if we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want: first, this is not true, because copyright law applies whether or not content protection is applied, and second, both Graham's post and your statement there says that you're not targeting the pirates in the first place. 7. I'm not in charge of the BBC's Media Literacy strategy. I am only in charge of the blog. I do my best to make it as accurate and impartial as possible. Indeed, and again, much of this is not criticism of the BBC Internet Blog specifically, but of the organisation's broader policy and communication strategy as it relates to this issue. The Internet Blog is obviously a part of that, but it's not the be-all and end-all. 8. ...but the devil's in the detail, and _that_ hasn't been anything close to being honestly
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
What I'm describing is not home taping - it's publishing - the internet makes everything different -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Alex Mace Sent: 14 July 2010 11:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a personal archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all on the internet for your friends - even this which might seem harmless might prevent a rights holder setting up their own website to do the same thing commercially and legitimately. Seriously? Aren't you basically saying that home taping is killing music? Alex - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
You'd be surprised - they do (think it's a concern) -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 14 July 2010 11:26 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:10, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a personal archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all on the internet for your friends - even this which might seem harmless might prevent a rights holder setting up their own website to do the same thing commercially and legitimately. I'm actually flabbergasted that people think this is a serious concern. My own personal definition of a pirate and I would stress it is a personal one not a BBC or official one is someone who knowingly attempts to sell or commercially exploit other people's intellectual property without their permission. mine's actually a little broader than that, but at least we generally agree on something :) People say there's nothing people can do about this but Pirate Bay was closed down and fined heavily and I haven't seen much about them since. They were back online within about 24 hours and are still running more or less quite happily. And, more to the point, there were *one* site of many. Running a tracker's easy - that's the problem with peer-to-peer. It's not a million miles away from trying to stop people delivering letters to one another by hand. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
In the case of Erik's post that you mention all we are actually doing is cross posting to it on the Internet blog. So the editor of the About The BBC blog has editorial responsibility for it because it was published first there. What happens in practice in general is; - sometimes we (i.e. Paul and I) have an idea for a blog post and we ask someone to write it - we might help them by suggesting bullet points but we don't write it for them - the communications team also sometimes send us ideas for posts and in some cases finished posts - I assume they similarly help people write posts But I would certainly not write a finished post for someone like Erik. Senior executives have different attitudes - Anthony Rose for example writes all his posts in his own individual style. Others need or like more of a steer. All this is in a context where we have editorial control and can ask for a post to be changed and even have the right to refuse it - although I can only recall one occasion where we have. Again I disagree that I've been fed misleading information (and I'd like to know in what way) - I suspect that this is again about interpretation of information, which is another thing entirely. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 14 July 2010 11:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:15, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: I don't write other people's posts on the blog I only write my own. Okay, just so we're clear (and as a minor educational exercise in behind-the-scenes-on-the-Internet-Blog) - a post from, say, Erik Huggers (like the one today) - was that written by Erik, and then sent over to you (or Paul) for tidying up/formatting/etc., or do you guys write the bulk of it based upon information Erik sends over? One can never quite be sure how much a byline implies. I have to accept what my colleagues write in good faith, although if I think there are inaccuracies or things which are unclear then I will obviously ask for clarification. The blog is striving to be accurate and impartial. That's particularly difficult to do when you are talking about yourself but that's the aim. I have to be pragmatic. There may be things which people cannot talk about for good reason (e.g. confidentiality, or damaging a relationship with a partner). My aim is to get them to say something. If they say something, even if its not perfect, then that may spark a useful conversation and the next time they speak, it may be an improvement on what was said previously. This is a given - as I said, I don't doubt your intentions at all. I think you've been fed misleading information, and you're not in a position to either necessarily *know* that it's misleading, nor in some circumstances do anything about it (especially when some of the posts come from well above the paygrades of anybody here :) And, it's part of your job to defend the BBC in these circles unless you have a bloody good reason to think they're in the wrong. Indeed, I think most people here would defend the BBC to the hilt in general terms, myself included. However, in this case, the BBC - the organisation, and the message it conveyed - was misleading to the public. I don't think that's your fault, and I don't think you could have necessarily done anything about it, nor even known it to be the case. I *do* think the corporation, again collectively, could have handled things a lot better and ensured this didn't arise, but they didn't. That's the reason for my disappointment, and nothing I've seen since has swayed me from this view (and, as it goes, I might be stubborn, but I'm stubborn based on available evidence - I know when I a gut feeling is just that). M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Hi Mo, I am going out this evening so will be away from a computer. However I thought I would try and give you a quick response to some of your questions. 1. Because I didn't know it was happening until after it was mentioned by third parties. I'd point out that one of those third parties (Tom Watson) corrected his first blog post about the subject as he admitted was inaccurate. 2. Possibly because it wasn't published on the internet. I certainly can't find it on OFCOM's website now. 3. Is this a falsehood? I'd like to know more. 4. We answered most of those questions in subsequent blog posts and comments. 5. Don't know the answer to this one. Will check. 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to keep honest people honest. If pirates choose to do certain things then that is their responsibility not the BBCs. If we had no content protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing anything they want. 7. I'm not in charge of the BBC's Media Literacy strategy. I am only in charge of the blog. I do my best to make it as accurate and impartial as possible. 8. ...but the devil's in the detail, and _that_ hasn't been anything close to being honestly conveyed. I disagree - we have linked to and included all the detail that is publicly available and tried to dig out as much as we can, and we will continue to try and dig out more with an honest intent. We do not spin or misdirect on the Internet blog. I am saddened by your assertion that we do. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 13 July 2010 01:14 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management A delayed reply, but: On 16-Jun-2010, at 08:42, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: All I can really do with you Mo is disagree. Of course the public has a right to make an informed judgement. And all I can say is that on the blog we have linked to and exposed all sides of the argument and all the facts (including linking to your Guardian piece and blog posts - and I suspect more people read it there than would have if it was published on the blog). Anyone who is a regular reader of the blog and interested in this issue would be well informed. So, why is the case that: 1) no mention of the plan to scramble the EIT on Freeview HD as it is on Freesat was made on the blog, or anywhere else except a letter to Ofcom, until _after_ the issue was publicised by third parties? 2) why the explanation of what was actually going to happen (in the 2009-09 post) included from a technical perspective a link to a general Wikipedia page on lookup tables (not even on Huffman coding!), but not a link to the letter from Ofcom; no explicit statement that it was the same scheme as was employed by Freesat 3) why the following falsehood was included: The only actions that may be prevented, and only for certain programmes, are retransmitting the content in HD over the internet or, in some cases, from making more than one digital copy of the highest-value content onto Blu-ray. 4) why were many of the (serious) questions posed on that first post never answered, and quite a few of the subsequent questions never really answered either? 5) why the second post (2010-01) states networked distribution and viewing of HD content in the home is allowed without mentioning that restrictions apply to what devices the content can be transferred to over the network (or, indeed, ordinary interconnect cables)? 6) given the following (from the 2010-01 post): Indeed, the proposed Freeview HD content management approach is so 'light-touch' that some have argued that it is not worth having. But, this misses a key point - almost any copy protection system can be circumvented (if you put enough effort into it) - and that it is never going to be possible to prevent the determined pirate from lifting content. However, it is still really important to make sure that the unapproved copying and internet distribution of high value broadcast content doesn't become so easy that people don't think twice about doing it. ...do the BBC and third-party rightsholders have ANY evidence *at all* which suggests that Joe Public were about to start doing this, rather than relying on the determined pirates who get on with it unabated today (go and look at a BitTorrent network for recordings from Sky HD, for example - there are plenty about, and their content protection measures are FAR more stringent than anything Freeview or Freesat will have) -- why would anybody except a determined pirate _bother_? Honestly, what have they got to gain from it? 7) Given that this affects _the whole of Freeview HD_, why is it only those who are a regular reader of the blog and interested in this issue who deserves to be well-informed? Indeed, one of the Public Purposes Emerging technologies (http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/purpose
[backstage] linked data and world cup
Hi - people on the backstage mailing list may be interested in these blog posts http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/07/bbc_world_cup_2010_dynami c_sem.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/07/the_world_cup_and_a_call_ to_ac.html Nick Reynolds (Social Media Executive, BBC Online) BBC Future MediaTechnology ext: 80934 mobile: 0780 162 4919 address: BC4 D6, Broadcast Centre, White City W12 BBC Internet Blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/ My internal blog: http://bbcblogs.gateway.bbc.co.uk/reynonp1/ Future Media Technology: http://home.gateway.bbc.co.uk/fmt/main.asp?page=4282 My personal twitter: https://twitter.com/nickreynoldsatw
RE: [backstage] The web complaints form ate my complaint.
David - have you read these blog posts? http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_manag ement.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/06/round_up_monday_14_june_2 010.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_up.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/07/the_bbcs_approach_to_comb ating.html -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 07 July 2010 12:10 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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.
Strange Lets try again http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_manag ement.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/06/round_up_monday_14_june_2 010.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_up.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/07/the_bbcs_approach_to_comb ating.html -Original Message- From: Gordon Joly [mailto:gordon.j...@pobox.com] Sent: 07 July 2010 13:40 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Cc: Nick Reynolds-FMT Subject: Re: [backstage] The web complaints form ate my complaint. On 07/07/2010 13:02, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: David - have you read these blog posts? No, since the line break ate the URI !! Gordo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_man ag ement.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/06/round_up_monday_14_june _2 010.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protec ti on_up.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protec ti on_a.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/07/the_bbcs_approach_to_co mb ating.html -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 07 July 2010 12:10 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com http://www.joly.org.uk/ Don't Leave Space To The Professionals! - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/drm/ Aggregates them together and may be short enough -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Nick Reynolds-FMT Sent: 07 July 2010 13:47 To: Gordon Joly; backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] The web complaints form ate my complaint. Strange Lets try again http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_manag ement.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/06/round_up_monday_14_june_2 010.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_up.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/07/the_bbcs_approach_to_comb ating.html -Original Message- From: Gordon Joly [mailto:gordon.j...@pobox.com] Sent: 07 July 2010 13:40 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Cc: Nick Reynolds-FMT Subject: Re: [backstage] The web complaints form ate my complaint. On 07/07/2010 13:02, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: David - have you read these blog posts? No, since the line break ate the URI !! Gordo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_man ag ement.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/06/round_up_monday_14_june _2 010.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protec ti on_up.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protec ti on_a.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/07/the_bbcs_approach_to_co mb ating.html -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 07 July 2010 12:10 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com http://www.joly.org.uk/ Don't Leave Space To The Professionals! - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] The web complaints form ate my complaint.
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. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 07 July 2010 14:01 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: 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-di gital-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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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.
But this isn't an editorial complaint - it's a complaint about broader policy issues - I think the Trust is best. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 07 July 2010 14:37 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 17 June 2010 17:10 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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
All I can really do with you Mo is disagree. Of course the public has a right to make an informed judgement. And all I can say is that on the blog we have linked to and exposed all sides of the argument and all the facts (including linking to your Guardian piece and blog posts - and I suspect more people read it there than would have if it was published on the blog). Anyone who is a regular reader of the blog and interested in this issue would be well informed. Again its not about the BBC not being honest. It's about the fact that some people disagree with the BBC's position. But it's a honest position, honestly held. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 23:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On 15-Jun-2010, at 22:41, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: The BBC has made its position quite clear on the blog - not once but several times. We have been straight about it as you can see from these blog posts, not just recently but as far back as April last year (see Danielle Nagler's post in the list below) - so the idea that we didn't want to talk about this is false: well, yes. the *position* was very clear. the facts - that is, what was being proposed and the nitty-gritty of how it would actually affect people - weren't, as evidenced by the many questions which went unanswered in the blog comments. Tom Watson's blog post contained inaccuracies because he was interpreting a very technical industry document without background knowledge - which was what everybody else (myself included) had to do in order to figure out what it was that was actually being proposed (how else are people supposed to know what they're dealing with?) the _position_ took priority over the facts. the BBC was very effective at communicating the position. it was abysmal at communicating the facts. the closest it came was Danielle's post back in April last year (which I linked to earlier in this thread - I was very aware of it!), and even that was rather heavy on the PR, and took some flak at the time for it. I have worked hard to get the BBC to engage with you and in my view bearing in mind the obvious sensitivities we have done this well. Even I though we couldn't publish your blog post I spent time trying to get it published in other places, encouraged you to do so and I was pleased when it was. Don't get me wrong, I do very much appreciate your efforts - please don't take this as a personal criticism, because it's not, at all - in no small part because it's not *your* job to translate engineering terms into the actual effects. I'm not sure what the sensitivities are - does the public not have a right to make an informed judgement given the facts of it? And I'm saddened that you use the word disgraceful in your email below. I believe the BBC has communicated this as well as we can. I'm sorry you're saddened, but believe me, the BBC (not you singular), could have done a lot better better. Communication on this was shoddy and haphazard, it - with the exception of Danielle's post - reeked of damage-limitation, missed out half of the stuff that people would naturally want to know, and you weren't able to find out the answer to. In fact, you had asked some of same questions, because you didn't know the answer either. I know for a fact, though, that lots of the people within the BBC who were involved in creating this whole thing would have known the answers, because if you're an expert in DVB, it's actually pretty basic stuff! (don't forget, this had already been implemented once already, and the BBC, via the DTG and DTLA, were talking to receiver manufacturers to ensure they were doing the right thing). so, to be brutally honest, if there's something you couldn't be more wrong about in this whole affair, it's this. the BBC wasn't particularly honest - it didn't lie, but it was a very very long way away from the whole truth - and I think it's unfortunate that you've been taken along for the ride. I think *you*, not to mention everybody else, deserve better than that, even if we ultimately disagree about whether the actual proposal is a good or a bad thing. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
The BBC had a choice a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee payers b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any negative effect at all From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Adam Bradley Sent: 15 June 2010 15:14 To: backstage Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: the BBC had a choice: a) do nothing b) do something which didn't achieve the desired effect, and caused additional negative effects it chose (b), because the rights-holders threw their toys out of the pram. now, either this is because the people who know that this is the case couldn't make themselves heard, or because stopping piracy wasn't the goal in the first place. which is it? This is an interesting question, because I can't see what the goal here is from the BBC. Did they genuinely believe the rights-holders' bluff? Adam
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
But you can already obtain legal copies in many different ways, can't you Andrew? Explain to me how you can't... -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Adam Sampson Sent: 15 June 2010 20:35 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk writes: It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to my iPod that I've never done it. This is easy enough to automate however you like if you're using a software PVR such as MythTV -- it's the only way I listen to radio these days. I think it's a great shame that some at the BBC want to discourage this kind of development. While I'm sure the Huffman tables will be reverse-engineered soon enough, it'd be much better if I, as a license fee payer, could obtain a legal copy from the BBC for my personal use. UK copyright law is already very clear on exactly what I'm allowed to do in terms of time-shifting recordings... -- Adam Sampson a...@offog.org http://offog.org/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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
Nor does it contradict anything I said either! -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 21:06 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either: !?!?! with some caveats, that doesn't actually contradict what I've said! nwhitfield 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them, but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard. It's also clearly stated in the various documents relating to this that it's not going to affect - at all - the ability of people to record what they want to, on recorders with built in tuners (ie FreeviewHD+ boxes). In fact, the guidelines say the 'copy never' signal should not be used, everything should be at least 'copy once' and if it's already been broadcaster somewhere (like the US) in HD without protection, then even 'copy once' shouldn't be used in the UK. Realistically, this change isn't going to affect many people at all. Most people will record to their hard disk recorders, they'll be able to watch as many times at they like, and then they'll delete stuff to make space. If they did want to make a copy for posterity (ignoring the fact that the law doesn't actually say you can), they will still be able to. How many people out there have actually taken their DVD recorder and made multiple copies of a programme they've recorded? Yes, some open source software may be affected, but even that's not a certainty; MythTV copes just fine with Freesat, which uses the same technology. Other open source systems manage well with the odd dash of proprietary stuff in there, like the drivers for some graphics cards. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 16:15 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:57, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: The BBC had a choice a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee payers b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any negative effect at all with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no technical understanding of the proposal. your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the desired effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported. to follow up - apologies if this came across as unduly rude or brusque. I'm just very very tired of, having explained how this stuff works fairly unequivocally, sticking clearly to the facts, over and over again, to be met with the same thing every time. key points: the people who _upload_ content to filesharing networks are not inhibited by this in the slightest. the people who _download_ content to filesharing networks are not inhibited by this in the slightest (at least, not in that respect) - they may or may not have a FVHD receiver. the people minority types you refer to who want to use MythTV and the like may be inconvenienced, but Freesat suggests not fatally law-abiding consumers are inconvenienced, because the officially-branded boxes are crippled start-ups looking to build new devices are (potentially fatally) inconvenienced - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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
Omission from who? Me? Or the person quoted? -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 21:21 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:13, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Nor does it contradict anything I said either! through omission, no. that's hardly a ringing endorsement, is 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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
Well as always I suspect we will argue about this until the cows come home and not resolve it. Your caveats seems weak and speculative. People won't miss something they never knew they had in the first place especially if they are able to do all the things they can now, which it appears they will be. To quote yourself: the above talks solely about the direct effect upon consumers in the short term based on the equipment which exists today and assuming they don't want to do any of the things which the scheme prohibits _and_ have up-to-date equipment supporting the various schemes which make it work. So no problem then. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 21:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:38, Mo McRoberts wrote: On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either: those caveats, which make quite a significant difference: nwhitfield 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them, but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard. Freeview HD receivers on sale today will be unaffected, though they may well need a firmware upgrade. that rather depends on whether the BBC has *already* distributed the decoding table to manufacturers, which would be quite naughty of them. oops, missed out: but if the receiver is the only part of the chain being upgraded (i.e., they already have an HDTV, as many people do), everything working is *far* from guaranteed. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Mo, The BBC has made its position quite clear on the blog - not once but several times. We have been straight about it as you can see from these blog posts, not just recently but as far back as April last year (see Danielle Nagler's post in the list below) - so the idea that we didn't want to talk about this is false: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/welcome_to_some_new_initi als_d.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_up.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_a.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_manag ement.html Tom Watson's original blog post contained inaccuracies as he himself subsequently admitted and corrected. As is often the case when the BBC takes a position that people disagree with they then accuse the BBC of not being straight with them. We are being straight but I'm afraid we can't give you exactly what you want. There's no conspiracy or cover up we just disagree. I have worked hard to get the BBC to engage with you and in my view bearing in mind the obvious sensitivities we have done this well. Even I though we couldn't publish your blog post I spent time trying to get it published in other places, encouraged you to do so and I was pleased when it was. And I'm saddened that you use the word disgraceful in your email below. I believe the BBC has communicated this as well as we can. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 22:14 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management right, I'm going to level with you all: I'm tired. very tired. I'm juggling a day-job building e-commerce websites with a hobby helping to build some very very cool things, and I've put an awful lot of time and effort into questioning, gaining understanding of and explaining this whole Freeview HD copy-protection debacle. I don't think I've been especially unclear, or got caught up in rhetoric and emotion to any a great extent, and I've done my best to try to answer questions and concerns and everything else to the best of my knowledge. now, it's true that my knowledge of DVB internals isn't the best in the world: the people for whom that holds true work for the BBC and so can't really comment too much. but, I've taken what I do know and tried to put it into plain English as much as I possibly can, and as far as I can see much of this whole thing is rather cut-and-dried. now, to be clear, this scheme hasn't particularly irritated me. in all honesty, it was to be expected to an extent. there are aspects of it which *have* annoyed me, but not to the point of getting angry about it (the last time that happened, I spent all a whole day adding signatures to the bottom of an open letter...) what _has_ irritated to me, however, is the fact that nobody representing the BBC will be straight about it. everything has to be dressed up to make it look appealing (especially where it isn't), which makes it a whole lot worse if it's principally motivated by _other_ Freeview HD broadcasters. the whole approach to it was not one of informing the public in a fair and impartial manner, but of public relations. now, I wrote this article, originally for the BBC Internet Blog, but it was declined (as the BBC had already made their position clear and wanted nothing which might detract from it), and luckily I managed to persuade the Guardian to run it instead: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/01/bbc-hd-consultation-hdmi this was an article that I wrote deliberately (given its target outlet) to avoid speculation, half-truths, paranoia, cynicism or knee-jerk, sticking as much as humanly possible to the facts. if anything, I probably gave the BBC the benefit of the doubt a little more than I should! now, I can understand that it was declined for publication. after all, at that point, a guest post from a non-staffer was pretty unprecedented. but that's besides the point: why was it necessary for me to write that post in the first place? the method of engagement which the BBC employed - principally the BBC Internet blog (and only _after_ Cory Doctorow and Tom Watson drew attention to the proposal which had been quietly submitted to Ofcom without any form of public statement by the BBC) - glossed over the stuff that was in there, and yet those were the things people wanted to know most of all. so, all in all, I'm disappointed by the BBC. not for pushing this through per se, but for its approach to it, which has been nothing short of disgraceful. for the record, Nick, although I *disagree* with you on some things, I think you've done as good a job as you could have done with this whole thing - I do think it was ridiculous that you were left to field questions, though (questions which would never have arisen had the BBC been upfront and honest
RE: [backstage] Move to Mailman
Why? What can you do on a mailing list that you can't do on a message board? -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Matt Hammond Sent: 04 March 2010 10:28 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Move to Mailman Mailing lists are a much more developer friendly approach. Probably the most common mechanisms out there in the many developer communities (When in Rome...). Matt On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:55:29 -, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Why don't you set up an onshore BBC message board instead? -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Stephen Jolly Sent: 03 March 2010 17:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Move to Mailman On 3 Mar 2010, at 17:04, Ian Forrester wrote: Alright alright! I hear you all... So what's the first steps to make this happen? You could walk down to my end of the office and ask me about it? :-) 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- | Matt Hammond | Research Engineer, BBC RD, Centre House, London | http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Move to Mailman
Surely all these things could be possible on the BBC if we set it up right... -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Alan Pope Sent: 04 March 2010 10:56 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Move to Mailman On 4 March 2010 10:40, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Why? What can you do on a mailing list that you can't do on a message board? Yay! Web boards vs mailing list religious debate! Read and reply to current posts whilst offline (email client of choice). Read the content of the message without downloading unnecessary crap like avatars, banners, adverts, great gobs of javascript - useful on 3G connections. Choose how the content is presented to you (console, web, fat mail client, news reader [via 3rd party]). Decently thread conversations in the client of your choice. Archive the content without relying on the server (i.e. keep mail in a folder) Search content without relying on the server (again, offline if required) etc etc. Al. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Move to Mailman
Why would you want to do that - just clutters up an inbox... -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Michael Smethurst Sent: 04 March 2010 10:52 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Move to Mailman On 04/03/2010 10:40, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Why? What can you do on a mailing list that you can't do on a message board? Erm, mail it? -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Matt Hammond Sent: 04 March 2010 10:28 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Move to Mailman Mailing lists are a much more developer friendly approach. Probably the most common mechanisms out there in the many developer communities (When in Rome...). Matt On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:55:29 -, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Why don't you set up an onshore BBC message board instead? -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Stephen Jolly Sent: 03 March 2010 17:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Move to Mailman On 3 Mar 2010, at 17:04, Ian Forrester wrote: Alright alright! I hear you all... So what's the first steps to make this happen? You could walk down to my end of the office and ask me about it? :-) 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] indefinitely live BBC archive?
The BBC does make some programmes available all the time They are a small number of speech radio programmes to which the BBC has all the rights. Sadly with other programmes (radio programmes with music, TV programmes) the rights situation is very complicated. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Tim Dobson Sent: 28 February 2010 22:49 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] indefinitely live BBC archive? Jonathan Chetwynd wrote: indefinitely live BBC archive? my daughter (age 13) asks: why can't the BBC make some programmes available all the time? regards Jonathan ie there must be a large number of programmes that the BBC creates, and owns copyright permissions. why aren't at least some of these available via search indefinitely, aka youtube/bbc This thread reminds me of this: http://www.blog.tdobson.net/node/173 I'm glad there are people out there, like your daughter, who ask these questions. Tim - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
People on the list may be interested in this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_manag ement.html Nick Reynolds (Editor, Social Media, Central Editorial Team, BBC Online) BBC Future MediaTechnology ext: 80934 mobile: 0780 162 4919 address: BC4 D6, Broadcast Centre, White City W12 BBC Internet Blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/ My internal blog: http://bbcblogs.gateway.bbc.co.uk/reynonp1/ Future Media Technology: http://home.gateway.bbc.co.uk/fmt/main.asp?page=4282 My personal twitter: https://twitter.com/nickreynoldsatw
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
JJ Rousseau wasn't able to burn a CD -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 22 January 2010 15:53 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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
Why don't you ask your boss Anthony? -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 14 October 2009 22:07 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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
Surely the best place to start would be the BBC Trust's website and read the Canvas documents. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/search/search.shtml?scope=bbctrusturi=%2F bbctrust%2Fq=canvasgo.x=47go.y=4 If you search hard, and I admit its hard, then you can find that the consultation on Canvas closed on 1st September. BBC people who are actually directly involved in Canvas should wait until the Trust announces its decision before talking about it - otherwise they'd be in trouble. But there's no reason why people on this mailing list can't talk about it. Unless someone on this list knows something confidential! As for when the Trust intends to announce its decision, well that seems obscure at the moment. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mr I Forrester Sent: 14 October 2009 19:03 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas 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). This is at the very start of Zittrain's book. Sorry for the length two inventions-iPhone and Apple II-were launched by the same man, the revolutions that they inaugurated are radically different. For the technology that each inaugurated is radically different. The Apple II was quintessentially generative technology. It was a platform. It invited people to tinker with it. Hobbyists wrote programs. Businesses began to plan on selling software. Jobs (and Apple) had no clue how the machine would be used. They had their hunches, but, fortunately for them, nothing constrained the PC to the hunches of the founders. Apple did not even know that VisiCalc was on the market when it noticed sales of the Apple II skyrocketing. The Apple II was designed for surprises- some very good (VisiCalc), and some not so good (the inevitable and frequent computer crashes). The iPhone is the opposite. It is sterile. Rather than a platform that invites innovation, the iPhone comes preprogrammed. You are not allowed to add programs to the all-in-one device that Steve Jobs sells you. Its functionality is locked in, though Apple can change it through remote updates. Indeed, to those who managed to tinker with the code to enable the iPhone to support more or different applications, Apple threatened (and then delivered on the threat) to transform the iPhone into an iBrick. The machine was not to be generative beyond the innovations that Apple (and its exclusive carrier, ATT) wanted. Whereas the world would innovate for the Apple II, only Apple would innovate for the iPhone. (A promised software development kit may allow others to program the iPhone with Apple's permission.) Jobs was not shy about these restrictions baked into the iPhone. As he said at its launch: We define everything that is on the phone You don't want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn't work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers. On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 13:21 +0100, Mo McRoberts wrote: Hokay, taking a slightly different tack-rather than moaning about the bits of the proposal which appear incongruous, here's something more tangible (and arguably useful). This is how I reckon it -should- work (and, obviously, is what I'm speccing for Baird):- Assuming the technical specs for actual content formats and over-IP transport protocols have been settled upon, what we're left with is delivery of metadata and the UI to make it useful. Essentially, there are two ways that metadata can arrive on a box; one is over the air, the other is via an Internet connection. The same information's carried in both cases. The supplier of the box would naturally be able to predefine some subscriptions to metadata sources, but the principal initial source in most cases would be OTA (whether it's carried by Freeview, Freesat, Virgin, or Sky). This basic metadata would consist in the first instance of a set of services. There's some potential for duplication here, of course, as the same service metadata might arrive by way of different sources, and a service might be listed both in the context of a service offering (e.g., Freeview) or a broadcaster (e.g., the BBC). Identifying the dups is fairly straightforward, though, assuming the format
RE: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Martin Belam Sent: 08 October 2009 22:46 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom' David, I understand that DRM costs money and is never 100% effective, and I understand that it was a bit rubbish when the music industry made me pay again for downloads of music by dead people that I'd already purchased once on vinyl and then once again on CD. And I'm hearing a lot about your freedom. But at the moment I enjoy my freedom to be able to publish a picture of my daughter in public on the Internet so that my family, colleagues and friends can see it easily, but also express my choice alongside it that the photograph belongs to me and it is not be used without my knowledge or consent on an advert. I genuinely don't understand why you think forcibly taking that freedom away from me in a complete abolition of copyright enhances society. Martin Belam, Information Architect, guardian.co.uk - currybet.net - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
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. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 09 October 2009 12:12 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Instead of doing that I will follow your example and pimp up my personal blog where I give my current personal thoughts on this in July of last year: http://nickreynoldsatwork.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/freedom-open-source-s how-me-how/ But my blog does have comments enabled! From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 06 October 2009 19:25 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ... You could post your comments here, just for now 2009/10/6 Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net Hi Nick, On 6-Oct-2009, at 18:55, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: Pity. I would have left a comment. The effort required to enable comments is unfortunately more than it's worth expending (and an awful lot of people dislike all of the available comment system options for tumblr), but I really am all ears. Either here, via e-mail to me, or a post on your own blog (do you have one? apart from the bbc.co.uk thing, I mean)-whatever suits. If it's worth saying, I'd like to hear it-especially if it's constructive criticism (or juicy gossip...) The same obviously applies to anybody else, of course. Cheers, M. -- mo mcroberts http://nevali.net iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
[backstage] RE: Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Thanks for this David. -Original Message- From: David Tomlinson [mailto:d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk] Sent: 06 October 2009 10:35 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Cc: Nick Reynolds-FMT Subject: 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_protecti on_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
RE: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
That I think is a conspiracy theory too far. From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 06 October 2009 14:12 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ... IMHO I think the one thing that we can conclude is that the way the BBC have steamrollered the request to Ofcom with a short consultation period (and a Freeview HD service to start with hardware about to hit the shelves) is not cricket. The BBC has given commitments to being open in the past (re BBC history) and this undermines it. If you want a conspiracy theory: - BBC Licence fee raised for HD in 2010 - BBC HD access via subscription system for extra payment - all services rolled onto HD over some years (say by 2015) - all BBC services are thus subscription That would please some people I guess. 2009/10/6 David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk This has discussion continued in a modest way on the blog comments. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_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
RE: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
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. From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland Sent: 06 October 2009 15:51 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ... Scot, You can't see how it is in the public interest BECAUSE IT ISN'T. The BBC are very clear that they are willing to cut their own charter up to pander to the special interests of their suppliers; there is no need for conspiracy theories about this, they are very up front about admitting what is going on right now. It is the future implications that are up for speculation... if I was in management, Id be wondering, Cameron is going to rip Auntie a new one after the Olympics, so what can we do now to prepare? Regards, Dave On 6 Oct 2009, 3:41 PM, Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 15:00, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: David, I'm curious, what's y... I can't speak for David, but my own feeling on the subject is that because the source is in the open, circumventing any restrictions would become fairly trivial. While security through obscurity is no security still holds (and is why even closed DRM has proven ineffective), it's hard to see how FLOSS DRM would be in any way effective. At least with closed DRM, it might take a little time to break. While I can't see much argument for FLOSS DRM, I can see a lot of argument that if you're touting a DRM system, supporting FLOSS platforms is a really good idea. Look at what happend with DVD - some kid wanted to watch DVDs on his Linux box, the powers that be couldn't be bothered creating a licensed DVD player for Linux so the kid breaks DVD's CSS, rendering CSS useless. All it takes is one individual to break a DRM system and the exact same superdistribution that DRM is trying to stop will quickly spread the circumvention technique. Thinking about it, whatever DRM the BBC uses will be broken. Otherwise law abiding people will then turn what could well be criminal activity just to use the HD signal the way they currently use the SD signal. I don't see how this is in the public interest.
RE: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
I like pesky people. Oddly though your blog doesn't have a comments facility. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 06 October 2009 16:30 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: 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-respo nse-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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 ...
Pity. I would have left a comment. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 06 October 2009 18:49 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ... On 6-Oct-2009, at 18:36, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: I like pesky people. Oddly though your blog doesn't have a comments facility. Historical reasons-most of the people who read my blog follow me on Twitter, are other tumblr users, or otherwise know how to get me. When I ran it on WordPress and had comments enabled, I actually only had one real comment in about 18 months (though hundreds of spam comments...). I'm not closed to comment, it's just that my blog is ;) 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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
i do get this strange sense of deja vu From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Jeremy Stone Sent: 02 October 2009 20:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door Oh its just like the old days :) Jem Stone Communities Executive | BBC Audio and Music O7966 551242 | twitter: @jemstone | jem.stone [at] bbc.co.uk. - Original Message - From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Sent: Fri Oct 02 20:12:04 2009 Subject: 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_protecti on_a.html?ssorl=1254509384ssoc=rd http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_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
Rob - you forget that the BBC is also a content vendor. Also content vendors do want their content to be shown to licence fee payers. They just want some compensation in return. And it's an exaggeration to say that the content venedors are getting everything they want. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Rob Myers Sent: 03 October 2009 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 19:53, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.ukwrote: 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? History shows that this won't happen. And this time the BBC is in an even stronger position given the collapse of advertising revenue for commercial TV in the UK. The BBC is a nice big pot of easy money for content vendors. The threats of content vendors not to take that money shouldn't fool anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Next they'll be threatening to hold their breath until they get what they want. As usual it's a difficult balancing act. It is not. It's capitulation to special interests for no good reason. If it was a balancing act, how would just giving the side that is against the BBC and its audience everything they want balance things? - Rob. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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
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. From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Scot McSweeney-Roberts Sent: 03 October 2009 14:43 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 19:53, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: 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. But the content providers are trying to sell stuff to the BBC. You would think the BBC would be in much the same position as Tesco is allegedly in with regards to farmers and be able to exert some pressure on your suppliers. Are all the content providers suicidal enough to not sell content to the BBC if you refuse to use DRM on HD? Even with multichannel, there aren't that many buyers of content inthe UK and most of them aren't as big as the BBC, so I'm surprised that the BBC is in such a difficult bargaining position.
RE: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
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 -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 02 October 2009 00:45 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: 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_protecti on_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-m urdoch--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-b rown 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_initi als_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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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
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. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Rob Myers Sent: 02 October 2009 19:26 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protec ti on_a.html However our focus is not to champion causes - it's meeting our public service remit which means serving our many audiences as best, as fairly, and as openly as we can. Championing the cause of content vendors against those audiences is out of focus by that description. - Rob. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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
Cory's piece is inaccurate in many respects - see this http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_up.html -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Kieran Kunhya Sent: 30 September 2009 17:37 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/29/bbc-hd-encryption Ok I know we talked about it before but here he (cory) is again, but this time in the Guardian. Cheers, Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer, BBC RD 01612444063 | 07711913293 ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk (here's hoping this works) While I don't support this obfuscation of SI information, a lot of the arguments in that article aren't particularly good or don't make sense. Also because one can't have a reasoned discussion in any newspaper comment section these days, I will make my point here. Break existing equipment, such as HD laptop cards that have open drivers. Because of DVB-T2, no such devices are on the market yet. Generate a mountain of e-waste, because manufacturers won't be able to produce set-top boxes that downsample the HD signal and feed it through a digital output to existing SD tuners and recorders. No idea what he's talking about here. If an STB could decode the H.264, why would downscaling be a primary function of the device? What digital output is he talking about? Freeze out British entrepreneurs, such as the manufacturers of the Promise TV, who produce video recorders that run on open source software. If anything the open source community will be the first to find a workaround. There are a lot of programs out there to read damaged transport streams - ITV HD on Freesat was slightly obfuscated as an h.222 stream but people made it work. BBC HD used MBAFF in H.264 and someone wrote a patch. The same will happen or people will just continue to use satellite. Kieran. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Lunchtime feedback idea
Not dissimilar to the recently launched five live now If more rude -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Lee Ball Sent: 30 September 2009 18:41 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Lunchtime feedback idea J.P.Knight wrote: The basic idea was to take short messages from listeners (SMS, tweets, button clicks on the web, etc) when they thought that someone on air was spouting nonsense/evading the question/answering questions he'd rather he'd been asked/etc (we used a more bovine effluent related term during our discussion but I doubt that would be acceptable on the BBC! ;-) ). These could then be turned into a real time indication of listener dissatisfaction with the answers being given, and maybe displayed on the displays of the DAB radios, as well as on the Radio 4 website. The problem here would be who would judge what messages being received are in agreement or disagree with what is going on in the interview. Someone could say something sarcastically, but it would be picked up as literal, putting it in favor of whats being said. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
that's why there's a public consultation see also this from April http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/welcome_to_some_new_initi als_d.html From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Scot McSweeney-Roberts Sent: 30 September 2009 18:55 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 18:21, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Cory's piece is inaccurate in many respects - see this http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_up.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protect i%0Aon_up.html Is there any explanation out there of how huffman lookup tables provide content management? I'd like to have a better idea of what exactly is being proposed and what the effect will be. I think the statement no existing Freeview boxes will be affected by this whatsoever near the top of that article is a bit of a Jedi mind trick. Of course no freeview box on the market will be affected by encryption/encryption-like techniques that might be used with DVB-T2, but that's not the point. The point is that with DVB-T transmissions people have been able to do what ever they want with them and I'm guessing that the messing about with lookup tables on HD transmissions will put a stop to that. If that's the case, then I think there should be some public debate about it. Scot
RE: [backstage] Fwd: [Autonomo.us] Skype, out?
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Stephen Jolly Sent: 05 August 2009 07:03 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Autonomo.us] Skype, out? On 4 Aug 2009, at 23:07, Dave Crossland wrote: Why should economics trump freedom? Would you scrap free elections if it was better for the economy? China is proving that free elections are not needed for a efficient capitalist market system. Well, freedom's great, but you can't eat it. Luckily freedom and economic growth aren't always mutually exclusive. :-) 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Fwd: [Autonomo.us] Skype, out?
sharing and consensus are not the same as freedom From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Nico Morrison Sent: 05 August 2009 09:24 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Autonomo.us] Skype, out? Janis lives! And it's called sharing and consensus - something the West is conspicuously BAD at. Which is why open-source, Wikipedia and the others are so crucially important. NMM 2009/8/5 Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Stephen Jolly Sent: 05 August 2009 07:03 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Autonomo.us] Skype, out? On 4 Aug 2009, at 23:07, Dave Crossland wrote: Why should economics trump freedom? Would you scrap free elections if it was better for the economy? China is proving that free elections are not needed for a efficient capitalist market system. Well, freedom's great, but you can't eat it. Luckily freedom and economic growth aren't always mutually exclusive. :-) 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 programme about Open Source being made ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/07/tim_bernerslee_and_the_di gital.html You mean this I think - its not a series about open source it's a open source documentary about the web -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Greaves Sent: 13 July 2009 23:27 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] BBC programme about Open Source being made ? I heard (from a colleague in the US) that the BBC were making a programme or series about open source. Anyone here know anything about it or anyone involved? David -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once... - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 becomes the British Botnet Corporation
Indeed I can give you the BBC statement: There is a powerful public interest in demonstrating the ease with which such malware can be obtained and used; how it can be deployed on thousands of PCs without the owners even knowing it is there; and its power to send spam email or attack other websites undetected. This will help computer users realise the importance and value of using basic security techniques to defend their PCs from such attacks. The BBC has strict editorial guidelines for this type of investigation which were followed to the letter. At no stage was any other data other than the IP address used. We believe that as a result of the investigation, computer users around the world are now better informed of the importance and value of using basic security techniques to defend their PCs from attacks -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Nick Reynolds-FMT Sent: 13 March 2009 10:16 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC becomes the British Botnet Corporation I can confirm this programme was run past the legal and policy people. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Rob Myers Sent: 13 March 2009 09:30 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC becomes the British Botnet Corporation On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Steve Jolly st...@jollys.org wrote: Not sure I'm convinced - all operating systems have their vulnerabilities; All machines have their *theoretical* vulnerabilities. Only Windows has vast botnets built on them, or any effective malware threats exploiting them in the wild. Unless you are a BBC reporter who has only ever used Windows, you're on a deadline, and you don't want your report to look like it lacks balance. In which case suddenly every OS is as good as Windows for a change. ;-) - Rob. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] BBC becomes the British Botnet Corporation
Click have now responded here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/03/click_botnet_experiment.html -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Sean DALY Sent: 13 March 2009 11:20 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC becomes the British Botnet Corporation Thanks for that Nick I should mention that the Click presenter interviewed on The World Today did say that following the test in which spam was sent to the BBC's addresses, the owners of the compromised Windows PCs would be informed. Presumably by a mail not marked as spam ;-) Journalists will always want to be concise especially in broadcast media and in my opinion it would be far more precise and informative to substitute Windows PCs for PCs in the statement, since there are no OSX or GNU/Linux botnets and the scourge of Windows botnets has less to do with the popularity of the platform and much more to do with its poor architecture and policies (browser tightly coupled to operating system, ActiveX, root-equivalent administrative rights, lack of support for older more vulnerable systems, etc.) Sean On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Indeed I can give you the BBC statement: There is a powerful public interest in demonstrating the ease with which such malware can be obtained and used; how it can be deployed on thousands of PCs without the owners even knowing it is there; and its power to send spam email or attack other websites undetected. This will help computer users realise the importance and value of using basic security techniques to defend their PCs from such attacks. The BBC has strict editorial guidelines for this type of investigation which were followed to the letter. At no stage was any other data other than the IP address used. We believe that as a result of the investigation, computer users around the world are now better informed of the importance and value of using basic security techniques to defend their PCs from attacks -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Nick Reynolds-FMT Sent: 13 March 2009 10:16 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC becomes the British Botnet Corporation I can confirm this programme was run past the legal and policy people. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Rob Myers Sent: 13 March 2009 09:30 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC becomes the British Botnet Corporation On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Steve Jolly st...@jollys.org wrote: Not sure I'm convinced - all operating systems have their vulnerabilities; All machines have their *theoretical* vulnerabilities. Only Windows has vast botnets built on them, or any effective malware threats exploiting them in the wild. Unless you are a BBC reporter who has only ever used Windows, you're on a deadline, and you don't want your report to look like it lacks balance. In which case suddenly every OS is as good as Windows for a change. ;-) - Rob. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Publishing Principles for BBC Online
I'd be interested to know what you think of these: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/03/ten_publishing_principles _for.html
RE: [backstage] Iplayer the best video experience online?
iplayer has had quite a few launches over the years so it was a bit tricky to find an exact date - december of last year was when it got a real marketing push and a public launch -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Andy Sent: 12 December 2008 15:35 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Iplayer the best video experience online? 2008/12/11 Mr I Forrester mail...@cubicgarden.com: Don't forget you can all take part in the iplayer birthday celebrations. I'm almost certain that iPlayer was released sometime in the summer (not December)? archive.org has a copy of iPlayer dated 13 Oct 2007[1], it also has a copy from Aug 07 but that doesn't load (at least not for me). Are you guys certain iPlayer was released in December 07, is Archive.org wrong? Andy [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20071013100045rn_1/www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] The future of Television
Backstagers may be interested in joining this discussion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/11/somewhere_between_voice_a nd_ch.html - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Greedy BBC Blocks External Links
John O'Donovan has now blogged about this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/11/knowing_when_to_go_1.html
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aleem B
Sent: 05 November 2008 12:22
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Greedy BBC Blocks External Links
FWIW, adding an onclick is not the preferred way of
doing this. It's better to attach events to anchors during
document.onload event. If anchors need to be filtered, dom/css classes
can be used.
Sounds interesting, care to share a little more about this
method?
There are some good Javascript APIs out there for providing interesting,
cross-browser functionality. Prototype (prototypejs.org), jQuery and YUI
are popular ones I can think of. Under jQuery you would have:
$('a.outlink).click(function() { ... }
which finds anchors with class name outlink and attaches an onclick
event thus abstracting a lot of the JS tediousness. I actually managed
to write up a pretty cool Web 2.0 Scrabble game while exploring
Prototype.js http://aleembawany.com/yabble/
Google for jQuery or Prototype getting started tutorials. You should be
looking to do away with any and all JS in your markup just like you
would do with CSS.
[backstage] BBC DRM iplayer mobiles etc
the backstage mailing list may be interested in these blog posts - please do leave your comments http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/10/digital_media_anywhere.ht ml http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/10/mobile_drm.html drm isn't going to go away - but we are doing our best!
RE: [backstage] BBC open-source media platform
And you can follow Steve's journey here: http://commonplatform.co.uk/ And here's an introduction: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/09/blogger_in_residence.html From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Peter Bowyer Sent: Tue 07/10/2008 7:57 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC open-source media platform 2008/10/7 Sam Mbale [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Interesting article The BBC urged to become UK's open-source media platform The broadcast era is finished, says Steve Bowbrick . The BBC needs to provide web tools and a new generation of methods and resources that will boost [its] capital, but that will also use the BBC as a platform for promoting the individuals, organisations and businesses that make up UK plc. Steve's been saying this for a long time - now that the Beeb has taken him on board to keep them honest, I'm really looking forward to the stories he'll have to tell. -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Zac B on OpenID foundation blog post
I thought the backstage community might be interested in this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/10/openid_foundation_meeting _what.html - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 comes to Nokias... When to Windows Mobile handsets?
if it's any help Matthew Postgate says this Naturally we will want to introduce other devices as they become available - and we're already working on the next group in this blog post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/09/bbc_iplayer_on_nokia_n96_ mobil.html From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 08 September 2008 08:37 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] iPlayer comes to Nokias... When to Windows Mobile handsets? Just on the matter of Google's Android platform, I presume everyone knows about http://androidguys.com/ 2008/9/7 Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... and what about the neo freerunner platform! And Android... And RIM's devices (that doesn't support DRM at all, something one mobile music platform has already countered by selling major labels' content in MP3 or AAC+ format)... To be honest, I don't think the Windows Media DRM implementation on WinMo phones is great - it piggybacks on the host device's DRM privileges, and requires a minimum level of WMP on the desktop in order to sync desired content between devices. I do NOT want to be syncing gigabytes of high bitrate WMV files to my pocket device, although it has 2Gb SD card. I'd much prefer MPEG4/XviD/unDRMed WMV (in that order), which will play on virtually any mobile device, in a sufficiently low enough bitrate that most pocket devices less than 24 months old can handle it (300-400kbps would do nicely). Players like TCPMP are quite capable of handling this, although WMV might have an edge in terms of playback performance on WinMo devices. (And what about full support for Linux in a format which doesn't mandate a proprietary plugin, etc? And other minority OSes, my thoughts don't just stay on OS-agnostic support for all mobile devices, but that's where I see the iPlayer taking off next) If you think about it, the BBC is eventually going to *have* to provide a host of formats for all manner of devices; it's the logical progression and the public will demand it as more and more people get those inclusive data tariffs and phones that support formats that can facilitate on-demand video streaming. So, I agree that it makes sense to begin a rollout on other mobile platforms - as we can currently see, in a controlled partnership with Nokia on one particular handset, which is obviously useful to gauge quality of service and platform stability... That said, delays wouldn't be a good thing for gradual rollout to other mobile devices - particularly if they begin to err towards the unreasonable (in my mind, anything more than six months). Anything like that, when it's seen by the public that just a lucky couple of handsets are still the only ones to be granted access to the iPlayer platform by the almighty Beeb... Well, I can only imagine that it's going to result in a growing amount of resentment from regular users who have WinMo handsets (like myself) who cannot use or access the iPlayer on their mobile devices. I have an HSDPA connection, why can't I just stream MPEG4 video? I think I might even put up with stuff being panned scanned (although being given the choice would be nice) - as long as I can just play it when I'd like! A download to desktop then sync to mobile solution is far less preferable, but again it'd be tolerable for the interim. If the current state of play continues much past the middle of 2009 though, they're going to have people angrily knocking on the doors asking why they can't get iPlayer on their mobile, plus increased discussion about the validity of the licence fee, just how much of it is going into development of a product which is still treated as a walled garden solution for a lucky minority of handset owners etc... I'm broadly in favour of the licence fee, but even I might start to have my doubts if not much visible progress is made by the middle of next year, given that the iPlayer's supposed to be the Beeb's flagship interactive service and all that. Sorry, I've ended up thinking aloud again... But put it like this: I have an almost infinite amount of patience, and I fully appreciate the technical complexities of rolling out a service that is as transparent as possible for all licence fee payers. However, demand will inexorably grow, and the proles grow restless far more quickly than techy people like us do! I hope that the BBC don't get caught up in making their service so perfect
RE: [backstage] BBC Music Store
The prohibition on ads is on BBC public service activity inside the UK. Worldwide is commercial. For example BBC Worldwide has a major stake in the UKTV suite of TV channels - which have adverts, and some BBC programmes on them. The Channels themselves are not BBC branded. If the music store is not branded BBC then having ads on wouldn't be a problem (I think - and I should stress I am not an expert!) Nice that they will be DRM free. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Sent: 04 September 2008 00:38 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] BBC Music Store Apparently BBC Worldwide is making a music store: http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/841648/BBC-Worldwide-launch-ad-backed -online-music-service/ http://tinyurl.com/bbcmusicstore According to the article it will allow free streaming (supported by ads) and payed downloads. Here is the interesting bit: BBC Worldwide will then levy charges for any audio or video music content that consumers want to download to rent for a limited time period or that they download for permanent ownership and all such downloaded content will be DRM-free So is the rented stuff going to just have a notice saying Rent till ../../.., please delete it when your done on the download page? Or is the DRM-free bit only going to apply to the permanent ownership downloads? Apparently this still has to pass Trust approval, which it may fail (unlikely, but theoretically possibly). Not sure I particularly like the idea of ads being inserted, I thought the BBC was prohibited from doing that or does that prohibition not apply to worldwide even though it's using the BBC's content? Andy - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Loosemore joins Channel4
hardly! but it's the perfect job for Tom and congratulations to him! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Tom Loosemore Sent: Thu 21/08/2008 8:46 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Loosemore joins Channel4 does it need explaining? ;o) http://www.4ip.org.uk http://www.4ip.org.uk/ - i don't start until end of Sept... 2008/8/21 Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/21/channel4.ofcom Wow backstage are slow to pick this one up... I wonder if Mr Loosemore will be explaining his move on the list? :) Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/ discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] erik huggers on open standards
The Backstage community may be interested in this blog post from Erik on open standards http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/08/open_industry_standards_f or_au.html Nick Reynolds (Editor, BBC Internet Blog) BBC Future MediaTechnology ext: 12618 mobile: 0780 162 4919 address: BC4 C4, Broadcast Centre, White City W12 BBC Internet Blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/ My internal blog: http://bbcblogs.gateway.bbc.co.uk/reynonp1/ Future Media Technology: http://home.gateway.bbc.co.uk/fmt/main.asp?page=4282
RE: [backstage] BBC Music Beta launches
There's a blog post too if people have things to say: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/07/bbc_music_artist_pages_be ta.html From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Cridland Sent: 28 July 2008 20:54 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] BBC Music Beta launches My team have produced another corker... http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/beta is a lovely looking site, and contains lots and lots of lovely APIs... more details at http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/developers#RESTful How splendid. Well done, chaps and chapesses. j
[backstage] myCBBC - all your stuff in one place?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/07/my_cbbc_all_your_stuff_in_one.html I thought this blog post from Marc Goodchild might be of interest to the Backstage community, and in particular these questions: § should broadcasters like the BBC allow users to collate other material alongside BBC assets? § and if so, how do we technically guarantee that content is appropriate for younger users and doesn't cross the line with third party rights agreements? You're clever people - how do we do it? Please do feel free to leave a comment on the blog. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] BBC E-mail: It's not the Gates, it's the bars
I thought the CC licence at the bottom allowed this. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fearghas McKay Sent: 04 July 2008 12:49 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC E-mail: It's not the Gates, it's the bars On 4 Jul 2008, at 12:24, Gareth Davis wrote: Anyone else find it strange that Richard Stallman feels it is apparently unjust for Microsoft and others to publish software that users are not free to share and modify, but it is ok to publish an article which readers are not free to share and modify? This is the man who objects to having vegetarians in a dinner group because apparently it restricts his freedom to choose food. So no I don't find it strange. f - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] MHEG-5 Wimbledon on Freesat?
what I don't understand is why someone is saying they can't watch wimbledon on the BBC since I could watch it both on TV and live streamed on the bbc website yesterday From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Christopher Woods Sent: Tue 01/07/2008 6:35 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] MHEG-5 Wimbledon on Freesat? The BBC is legal, Zattoo isn't? Of course, this debate depends on how you interpret your definition of illegal broadcast! Zattoo is, they argue, merely rebroadcasting the channels in territories that can already receive them via other platforms (cable, DTV etc). This they argue is entirely legal. If people are up in arms about it, I find it puzzling that (unless I'm mistaken or I missed something) no broadcaster has come forward as of yet, to declare that they do not wish for their channels to be rebroadcast on the Zattoo platform. I'm personally in favour of Zattoo continuing, it's very handy as a fallback if the atmospherics aren't in my favour so my DTV signal breaks up (yeah, it's THAT bad sometimes!) winmail.dat
RE: [backstage] More good news .. BBC to build web page for every TV show, says Jana Bennett
that cough of yours is catching http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/a_page_for_every_programme_1.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/03/programmes_a_bite_size_design_1.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radiolabs/2008/05/helping_machines_play_with_pro.shtml From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of James Cridland Sent: Fri 13/06/2008 7:55 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] More good news .. BBC to build web page for every TV show, says Jana Bennett On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/10/bbc.digitalmedia BBC to build web page for every TV show, says Jana Bennett A brilliant idea by the sounds of things. Cough http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes (a page for every programme, tv or radio) On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Matt Barber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeh, this way it will also be easier (if they implement it, which I hope they do) to find iPlayer episodes via the programme page rather than iplayer interface. Cough http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/genres/childrens/entertainmentandcomedy/player (a page showing, for example, all childrens entertainment on the iPlayer, tv or radio) I must get this cough seen to
[backstage] BBC Topics - How It works
Since this has already been discussed a little on the board I hope you don't mind me posting this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/06/bbc_topics_how_it_works.html
RE: [backstage] Soundindex
Some of you may be interested in this blog post about Sound Index: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/06/sound_index_algorithm.html From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Chris Sizemore Sent: Wed 21/05/2008 6:47 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk; backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Soundindex good suggestions, chris -- and what you describe is indeed the general plan... i think Sound Index is undergoing a public value trial, tho, so its fate is not absolutely clear. i agree that it has fantastic potential, tho, and is headed in the right direction... best-- --cs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Chris Jackson Sent: Wed 5/21/2008 4:57 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Soundindex 2008/5/20 Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This has to be a target for Backstage http://uk.techcrunch.com/2008/05/20/bbcs-sound-index-is-good-but-we-wont-get-the-data/ Really good to see the BBC producing interesting aggregations of activity on the web. However, it is a shame that Soundindex it is not integrated with the excellent pages driven by musicbrainz under http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/ The /music/ site does a great job of indexing the many places across the BBC where an artist is featured, as well as reviews and samples etc. Soundindex offers no path to all that good stuff. For example, compare content on the The Ting Tings pages: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artist/fmbd/ vs. http://www.bbc.co.uk/soundindex/profiles/artist/?id=811 Maybe an RSS hack could take the Soundindex ordering, but link back to the /music page, joining on a suitable 3rd party URL? Chris - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] RE: [backstage] Re: [backstage] RE: [backs tage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] Re : Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £3 per month for th e iPlayer?
if was just on a DVD I would imagine BBC worldwide could do it in theory - depending on which programmes you wanted, rights etc BT or Brian couldn't without some kind of licencing agreement with WW From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of James Ockenden Sent: Mon 09/06/2008 6:20 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Re: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer? I would pay £6 a month for pre-selected iplayer content delivered to me on a DVD here in Hong Kong. Could any of the the three Bs - BT, BBC or Brian - offer that service, legally? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backs tage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £ 3 per month for the iPlayer?
clever - but i expect lawyers would be all over this like a rash From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Brian Butterworth Sent: Mon 09/06/2008 6:22 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer? How about this. If you offered a service that provided the BBC channels with 1/25th of a second delay, a BBC1+1/9 then you could watch the channel without a TV license because the channel would not be 'live', which is the requirement for a TV Licence. Yes, guesswork 2008/6/9 Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm sure that they will have it would be great to see a copy, perhaps it was overlooked that BT is more than just a UK centric business model. :-) I must say that the peace here may be broken by the following phrase ... She stressed that the BBC would not be making any money from the new arrangement. Classic choice of words . BBC now giving content away, or was profit the preferred noun? Count me in for DVB-T via the net, and for Mac excellent news. RichE On 9 Jun 2008, at 18:10, Gavin Pearce wrote: Have BT / Virgin got a license from the BBC for it then? - Gav -Original Message- From: Darren Stephens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2008 17:02 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer? Apart from BT doing it under licence? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gavin Pearce Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:29 PM To: 'backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk' Subject: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer? The way I read it was ... They are offering it as part of another service, so they're not charging for the BBC channels, you get those free, if you buy this other service. I might be wrong?? Still plenty of loop-holes here to setup a free BBC+1 if a user subscribes to your members only website:-) Im just guessing here though lol Gavin Pearce | Junior Web Developer | TBS The Columbia Centre, Market Street, Bracknell, RG12 1JG, United Kingdom Direct: +44 (0) 1344 403488 | Office: +44 (0) 1344 306011 | Fax: +44 (0) 1344 427138 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Yahoo: pearce.gavin | Skype: tbs.gavin www.tbs.uk.com http://www.tbs.uk.com/ http://www.tbs.uk.com/ TBS is a trading name of Technology Services International Limited. Registered in England, company number 2079459. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2008 15:41 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer? If BT can, why can't you or anyone else? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 09 June 2008 15:31 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] RE: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer? It turns out it isn't the iPlayer but the higher quality DVB-T recording that BT offer as part of their package. Although as they have no claim to copyright over them, it a bit hard to understand how they can charge extra for them, for example I couldn't record BBC one off-air, make a +1 of it and then transmit it via satellite and charge a fee for it. Could I? Or could I? 2008/6/9 Darren Stephens [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I would suspect so, as
RE: [backstage] iPlayer download client for the Mac
Sorry - but should you be doing this via the backstage list -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jem Stone Sent: 02 June 2008 14:07 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] iPlayer download client for the Mac You've spelt belam as belham again. Maybe you keep thinking of that lovely bit of south london. But that was balham or the band balaam and the angel. Jem On 2/6/08 13:47, Nick Reynolds-FMT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL It didn't say we want secure DRM but not TOO secure either -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Sent: 30 May 2008 16:42 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] iPlayer download client for the Mac Ryan Morrison wrote: You say Didn't the Trust tell the BBC to produce download clients for other platforms as soon as possible? But didn't the Trust also set the conditions for DRM? It doesn't say how secure the DRM has to be. And security wise it doesn't really need to be secure at all. After all the Beeb are blasting the programs out of transmitters, in digital form, at higher quality. Security is defined by weakest link. So as long as you make some small effort you're fine, you can't lower the security any more than it is now because their is none. The BBC keeps saying we need someone to write DRM for us, stop being such a bunch of lazy people and do it yourself. Helpfully the BBC pre-knows all the restrictions they want (so no need to actually encode the rights data ;)). A *very* simple method: 1. Assign client software a key or set of keys (symmetric or asymmetric doesn't really matter) 2. Take MP4* file prepend the files broadcast date(s). 3. Chose random symmetric encryption key 4. Cypher that data 5. Prepend a copy of the symmetric key encrypted with each client encryption key 6. Client decrypts with it's key and checks the broadcast date, if it's over 7 days old it refuses to play. 7. Job done, go to nearest pub (additionally actually test the software ;)) C = E_c1(k),E_c2(k),...,E_cN(k),E_k(T,P) Where C_x donates encryption under key x. c1,c2 to cN represents client keys 1 2 and N (repeat as needed) k is the item (or episode key) P is the item (or episode) T is the broadcast timestamp Decryption is left as an exercise for the reader^. As long as you don't use a Stream cypher the user will need to know the items key to tamper with the broadcast date, and if they have that key they can decrypt anyway! Might want to use some more complex method for encoding rights data. Weakness is the client key or item key could be compromised, but all DRM schemes have this weakness. It's stronger than plaintext so no less secure the Digital TV. Could probably code that in a few days (provided you have some kind of cryptography library available) * or any other format. ^ if you really can't work out how to do it then ask, but you really should have at least one person capable of understanding this The point here isn't so much that someone has made a download client but has made a download client that allows for the download of DRM free iPlayer files - which is against the terms the BBC have agreed for the iPlayer (I think that's right). The point is the BBC could have added a very simple DRM scheme and have done the same thing. Whether you agree with that or not - it is simple fact. Haven't seen the rights that the BBC have agreed. But if it says Windows DRM Only I would strongly suspect that the agreement may be illegal, particularly given EU vs Microsoft's ruling about tying. Would the BBC care to show us all this alleged document that is tying their hands? And Jem isn't trying to censor the internet - just asking that you talk about 'getting around the DRM on iPlayer files' somewhere that isn't run by the BBC. Trying to restrict discussion of certain topics isn't censorship? What precisely do you call it then? Andy - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage
RE: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
in the BBC the many fund the many - but apart from that I agree entirely From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Woods Sent: 02 May 2008 12:52 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen Whilst TV matters to a lot of people (including me :-) it is however *just* TV. Yes, a 3% level on subscription TV to support those people who can't afford it. Seems just and just TV to me. In most economic systems the few fund the many - the BBC is an exception to this due to historical reasons, you have the many funding the few. However, being British, we've somehow managed to come through all of the wrangling with quite a respectable end product, whatever the naysayers say (cf. a typically British result from decades of uncertainty can be seen in the British political system: only ever partially codified but still one of the most successful political and legal frameworks in the world imho!) rant time... look away now if you're not thusly inclined However, consumer acceptance of another broadcaster gaining funds via the many funding the few scheme would, I fear, meet with large amounts of disquiet and I've never had to pay this before, why should I now? The people will roll out their usual arguments, that's what it's like with the BBC already etc etc, but the BBC is a class apart - it's a trusted broadcaster, a trusted brand and a torchcarrier for the UK all over the world. You just cannot compare the Beeb with A. N. Other semi-publically funded PSB. Compare ITV's or C4's output to the BBC's - different leagues, even with Channel 4's comprehensive web site and digital offerings there's still leagues of difference between them. Even if they do benefit from their incumbency, they've not just sat on their laurels - innovation has always been high and they seem to be willing to push the curve a little more than others. Because of that cash injection? Yes, maybe, but as the British Broadcasting Company they are in a different class from other PSBs - my expectations for my country's national broadcaster are similarly far higher. I go elsewhere for news fixes, entertainment etc alongside the BBC, but I always come back to the BBC at the end of the day. I trust it almost implicitly (although these days my bullshit-and-spin filter is permanently turned to 'on', thanks for that Internet) I guess the crux of what I'm saying is that the BBC, due to the sheer breadth and volume of content it creates, commissions and outputs, plus all of the requisite infrastructure and platform support, deserves the bulk of the money from the licence fee. I'm happy to pay for quality by way of a licence if I make use of the resulting productions (be they TV, radio, online etc) - but I fear it's something I just wouldn't get from any other PSB. Plus, if any other broadcaster was funded by their own licence fee, I would expect them to cease advertising. Would they do that? Nah.
RE: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
And (as I'm sure you know Tom) the BBC Trust signs off Worldwide's plans and has to consider the market impact of them. BBC News online is covered by the bbc.co.uk service licence. So is the iPlayer. In Annex 2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/serv ice_licences/online/online_servicelicences/bbc_co_uk_servicelicence_30ap r2007.pdf -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Loosemore Sent: 02 May 2008 14:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen 2008/4/30 Nick Reynolds-FMT [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The BBC Trust regularly looks at BBC services to see if they make sense in a rolling programme of reviews of service licences, which include public consultations. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/bbc_service_licences/service_r ev iews.html I wonder what impact the recent launch of BBCGreen.com would have on investors considering whether to support a environment-focussed web start-up aimed at a UK audience? - Oh hang on, BBCGreen.com is done by BBC Worldwide and so isn't covered by bbc.co.uk's service licence. Neither is bbc.co.uk/iplayer. Is news.bbc.co.uk ? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
great idea Brian unlikely to happen as Sky and Virgin would scream the house down From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Brian Butterworth Sent: Thu 01/05/2008 1:37 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen BTW, I've had a really bright idea to stop needing to 'top slice' the TV License Fee: There is a PSB funding option that no-one seems to be considering. It's a really, really, simple obvious one. It re-distributive, simple to implement, almost a no brainer, logical, doesn't hurt the BBC, no selling off of Chris Moyles and Terry Wogan. And here it is: ADD A 3% TAX TO SUBSCRIPTION TELEVISION Sky subscribers: Q4 2007, 8,297,000 Annual revenue per unit: £421 Total Sky subscription revenues: £3493.037m Virgin subscribers: Q4 2007, 3,478,100 Annual revenue per unit: £507 Total Sky subscription income: £1763.346m Total income from television subscriptions: £5256.383m Revenue required to support Channel 4 or PSB Publisher etc: £150m Tax on subscriptions would be: 150/5256.383 = 2.85% What do you think? On 01/05/2008, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but it was no surprise that the first Service Licence review was yet another in-depth look at online, and not BBC One, was it? 2008/4/30 Brendan Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Tom, You wrote: the public value test is a one way expansion valve, only allowing for new BBC services, never testing existing BBC services to see if they still make sense. That's right, existing services aren't put through a PVT -- that's what the service licence is for, isn't it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/bbc_service_licences/bbc_co_uk_s ervice_licence.html The Trust are actually reviewing the online service licence right now... http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/bbc_service_licences/bbc_co_uk.h tml Ready to be published in Spring 2008, ie any day now, I suppose. Brendan. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Loosemore Sent: 30 April 2008 12:15 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen New BBC services now have to go through a market impact assessment to ensure they are not anti competitive: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/public_value_test/#part-5 but existing BBC services (ie everything other than iPlayer and BBC HD) have not been and will not be subject to such rigour... the public value test is a one way expansion valve, only allowing for new BBC services, never testing existing BBC services to see if they still make sense. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/ discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/ discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Martin Belam - http://www.currybet.net http://www.currybet.net/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/ discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv http://www.ukfree.tv/ - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
RE: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
New BBC services now have to go through a market impact assessment to ensure they are not anti competitive: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/public_value_test/#part-5 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Jolly Sent: 30 April 2008 11:16 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen Thom Shannon wrote: He does have a point though that the BBC is anti competitive. I personally think the bbc is great for consumers, and that the quality of bbc news is the only thing stopping uk tv news turning into something like american news, but any of that could change, since the bbc isn't controlled by market forces. Not subject to market forces and anti-competitive are different things. 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
The BBC Trust regularly looks at BBC services to see if they make sense in a rolling programme of reviews of service licences, which include public consultations. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/bbc_service_licences/service_rev iews.html Presumably if someone thought a particular existing BBC service was distorting the market they could raise this as part of the public consultation (and indeed I think they may have done in the past). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Loosemore Sent: 30 April 2008 12:15 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen New BBC services now have to go through a market impact assessment to ensure they are not anti competitive: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/public_value_test/#part-5 but existing BBC services (ie everything other than iPlayer and BBC HD) have not been and will not be subject to such rigour... the public value test is a one way expansion valve, only allowing for new BBC services, never testing existing BBC services to see if they still make sense. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
It would be fun... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Cashmore Sent: 16 April 2008 12:00 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost) lol! How on earth did Ian and I get on the list!!! Now that would be funny - can you imagine us running FMT! m -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andrew Bowden Sent: Wed 16/04/2008 09:24 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost) So I highly recommend everyone goes there and votes for the guy at the end of the list ;-) Mr Cridland is getting far too much support, we need to put him back in his place. Do it or I'll convert the backstage list to a MSN group ;-) You've been warned Well that's alright. Once James has become the uber-boss, we can make sure he forces you to change it 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Erik has addressed the Microsoft question at the end of this blog post - final paragraph - he wrote for the Internet Blog in January: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/a_glimpse_of_the_year_to_ come.html From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Duckett Sent: 15 April 2008 08:55 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost) On 15 Apr 2008, at 05:41, Brian Butterworth wrote: Oh right, you mean like this... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/14/bbc.digitalmedia1 The former Microsoft executive Erik Huggers Give the guy a break - so, he worked for Microsoft in the past. Let's assume for a moment that his joining the BBC was based on his merits - and not some lizard-controlled Illuminati plot to make Windows take over the world - and he might, just might, have learnt a thing or two about delivering projects despite messy internal politics after spending nine years at Microsoft. Given the history of the projects so far, I'd suggest those are skills that the BBC could use now and again. If he still owns stock or has some other conflict of interest, that would be one thing. But to relentlessly slag him off because of who he worked for in the past is simplistic at best, and plays right into the hands of those who dismiss the whole topic of interoperability as muesli-crunching irrelevance at worst.Personally, I think some of the decisions that have been taken in the past have sucked. But I don't see how this kind of ad hominem abuse is going to help persuade people that there is a better way of doing things. /rant
RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
In this blog post Mark Thompson has said that the BBC is aiming to launch a download version of iPlayer for Mac this year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/02/iplayer_choices.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean DALY Sent: 15 April 2008 13:33 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost) Michael, that's easy: I would judge you on your actions. For my part, many (that would be MANY) moons ago I was a journalist for a Windows magazine and later, purchased over a quarter of a million dollars in Microsoft licences; in both ways I helped build their monopolies. I can't even say I didn't know there was cheating back then; I saw the first conclusive proof of undocumented system calls by Excel in 1993. Back then, I thought it was great that IBM's stranglehold on the industry was being challenged and that unfair competition was not too high a price to pay for a common platform. People at Microsoft are used to distrust and resentment, although generally speaking they ascribe that to jealousy of success and not Microsoft's actions. For many years working against standards for commercial gain was just the way things were done unless there was mutual recognition that more opportunities would come from standards support. Remember IPX/SPX? I remember how a little company called Adobe got the idea to distribute a free reader for their portable document format (one of four in the market at that time) from a smaller and fiercer competitor taking market share, Farallon. Adobe won that war and buried Farallon, but it took them many years to seek ISO standardisation for PDF and the world is better off for it. (Of course, Microsoft can't stand it, they won't support PDF and they want to attack Adobe with Windows-only XPS. So much for Microsoft interoperability.) When Mr. Huggers says he is proud of his work at Microsoft which included blocking open standards, concerns about conflict of interest are justified. Those concerns can be allayed by promoting open standards. Of course, that means dropping Windows Media (which means dropping Microsoft DRM). Can a former executive promoting Windows Media be reasonably expected to reverse a decision to use Windows Media? I say give him the benefit of the doubt, but for how long? There is still no download support for iPlayer outside of Windows. What will he propose? No one is better positioned than he to enlarge WM Player's usefulness by negotiating Dirac support in WM Player, either natively, in a branded player, or as a standalone codec installer. Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] iPlayer in Wii
Anthony Rose has blogged about this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/04/bbc_iplayer_on_wii.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Sent: 09 April 2008 15:05 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] iPlayer in Wii In case anyone hasn't seen the news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7338344.stm Discuss. Andy - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] [Backstage] New BBC News site
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/03/refreshing_changes_1.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/03/bbc_ux_20.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Barber Sent: 31 March 2008 14:51 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] [Backstage] New BBC News site When did this go live?! The black bar at the top will have to grow on me... are there any plans to do anything else with that, other than a search box? ./Matt - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Embracing the torrent of online video
Could not disagree more. There's plenty of innovation possible at the BBC without having to go through a PVT. The new system is much better than the new one. BBC management need to have someone saying: this might be a cool idea but is it good value for money? Do licence fee payers actually want it? Do they need it? The problem is inside people's heads and not the fault of the Trust. You can have radical ideas and implement them if you want to. You just have to try harder. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/greenslade/2008/01/neils_interrogation_of_ly ons_s.html#comment-882642 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Loosemore Sent: 26 March 2008 16:55 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Embracing the torrent of online video The next step should be the BBC asking the BBC Trust to do a public value test on their proposals. public value test = device for kicking things into the longest grass. Public Value Test = new hurdle the BBC has to pass before any new service launches, as set out in new Charter. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/public_value_test/index.html You can draw your own conclusions as to what this means in terms of the BBC's speed to market / appetite for radical ideas. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
People may be interested in this blog post from Ashley: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/03/bbc_iplayer_on_iphone_upd ate_1.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iain Wallace Sent: 18 March 2008 12:59 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over? On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Iain Wallace wrote: Aside from the Big Lebowski reference: What? I believe it's an analogy. I got that it was an analogy, thank you. I don't really understand what the point of it was. I was invited onto this list by a member of Backstage staff who said that it was a good place to discuss the iPlayer and hacking it to work on exotic devices, and that's what I've done. I'm lost as to how this is analogous to knocking on someone's door and pissing on their carpet, regardless of how much I appreciate the work of the Cohen brothers. However it was made very clear from the start that the only thing that those discussing iPlayer couldn't do was try to break any protections on the content. That's what is causing the problems on the list and the only thing on the wiki that is contentious. I must have missed the start. Iain - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
Could you send me the link to the right post please. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Dobson Sent: 18 March 2008 15:41 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over? Nick cheers for the link please do you think you could get ashley to cast his eye over the post that Andy Halsall dropped onto the list at the start of this whole thing. (the epc long thing that ian frreser said he would try and get some answers to, but still hasnt) -ashley doesn't really seem to understand very much about the issues laid out in this letter and has really failed to adress any of the issues... I'll try commenting on the blog, but i suspect you have more influence. cheers Tim On 18/03/2008, Nick Reynolds-FMT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People may be interested in this blog post from Ashley: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/03/bbc_iplayer_on_iphone_u pd ate_1.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iain Wallace Sent: 18 March 2008 12:59 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over? On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Iain Wallace wrote: Aside from the Big Lebowski reference: What? I believe it's an analogy. I got that it was an analogy, thank you. I don't really understand what the point of it was. I was invited onto this list by a member of Backstage staff who said that it was a good place to discuss the iPlayer and hacking it to work on exotic devices, and that's what I've done. I'm lost as to how this is analogous to knocking on someone's door and pissing on their carpet, regardless of how much I appreciate the work of the Cohen brothers. However it was made very clear from the start that the only thing that those discussing iPlayer couldn't do was try to break any protections on the content. That's what is causing the problems on the list and the only thing on the wiki that is contentious. I must have missed the start. Iain - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Undermining iPlayer DRM
My apologies - this will be fixed soon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/02/leaving_comments_on_bbc_b logs.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean DALY Sent: 08 March 2008 13:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Undermining iPlayer DRM Nick, I'm sorry, I'm giving up, with 2 browsers on 3 computers since yesterday I get the same timeout error. Sean On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Nick Reynolds-FMT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please do keep trying to comment Sean - some are getting through From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Sean DALY Sent: Fri 07/03/2008 5:15 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Undermining iPlayer DRM http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/03/bbc_iplayer_on_iphone_b ehind_t.html My secret source :-) I wanted to comment, but I got an http 502, there seems to be a problem. Sean On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Phil Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With ideas like this being touted by the BBC for people to get content on different devices SANS usage or time restrictions, it seems bizarre that another part of the BBC produces iPlayer which is time limited and device controlled. I'm told that there is now an iPhone version of the iPlayer which streams in h.264 Apparently /iplayer should work natively for iPhone users and there's some more info on http://myijump.com/bbciplayer/ Anyone got any more details about the streaming being used? Or is there some already outthere that I've missed? Cheers, Phil - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Undermining iPlayer DRM
please do keep trying to comment Sean - some are getting through From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Sean DALY Sent: Fri 07/03/2008 5:15 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Undermining iPlayer DRM http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/03/bbc_iplayer_on_iphone_behind_t.html My secret source :-) I wanted to comment, but I got an http 502, there seems to be a problem. Sean On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Phil Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With ideas like this being touted by the BBC for people to get content on different devices SANS usage or time restrictions, it seems bizarre that another part of the BBC produces iPlayer which is time limited and device controlled. I'm told that there is now an iPhone version of the iPlayer which streams in h.264 Apparently /iplayer should work natively for iPhone users and there's some more info on http://myijump.com/bbciplayer/ Anyone got any more details about the streaming being used? Or is there some already out there that I've missed? Cheers, Phil - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ winmail.dat
RE: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
people don't have a moral obligation to share with other if they don't want to From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Barber Sent: 28 February 2008 18:12 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds So to put this thread back on track, does anyone have any experience with Air? Developing or using? On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 28 February 2008 15:58:08 Dave Crossland wrote: Even if I choose to use a proprietary program on a open source operating system. Sorry, I'm not wrong, Sorry, you agree not to share with me, which is wrong. *plonk* Michael. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
Then it comes down to the individual who is entitled to choose a system that prevents sharing if they wish. It's not wrong to refuse to share with someone. As was implied earlier. However it is probably true that sharing works better than not sharing in some circumstances. People are confusing practicality with morality i.e. open systems work with this means that everything must be shared. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 February 2008 10:49 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds Quoting Nick Reynolds-FMT [EMAIL PROTECTED]: people don't have a moral obligation to share with other if they don't want to Nobody is saying that they do. But people should not generally be prevented from helping others, for example by sharing with them, should they wish to do so. - Rob. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Internet TV standard
this post from the BBC Internet Blog may be of interest: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/02/p2p_next.html From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andy Sent: Mon 25/02/2008 12:42 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Internet TV standard Hi all, Just found this on BBC news. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7259339.stm From the article: The European Union is spending 14m euros (£10.5m) to create a standard way to send TV via the net. Also form the article: It will be based on the BitTorrent technology many people already use to share movies and music. Isn't that the same technology the BBC rejected? Nice to see BBC rejecting the cross-platform, EU recommended, technically superior, cheaper, better tested protocol in favour of Kontiki (what did Kontiki have as a good point?). Andy -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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: BBC Three simulcasting on the web (Was: RE: [backstage] Livestation)
people may be interested in the relevant blog post http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/02/bbc_threes_new_website.html From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Barber Sent: 12 February 2008 23:50 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: BBC Three simulcasting on the web (Was: RE: [backstage] Livestation) Yeh I like those listings! Beats the current now and next stuff! 2008/2/12 Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Isn't http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/tvlistings/ rather good too? On 12/02/2008, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, while we're on the subject of streaming TV... BBC Three's being simulcast in Flash now! (I guess to be integrated into /iPlayer at a later date once the kinks have been worked out, because it's certainly using the same player and streaming platform.) This sneaked out the door while I wasn't looking! For others: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/livearena/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/livearena/ (found purely by chance via BBC Internet blog post talking about new BBC Three web site). Streaming in Flash, hopefully will make its way to codec-based streaming soon (so I can watch it on my WM6-based phone in WMV format!) And, while we're on the subject of BBC Three: does anybody know (BBC bods or otherwise) if the Three blobs will ever make a comeback (online or otherwise)? I can definitely say that the Woods household misses them already, it was sad seeing them sing so long, fare well, auf wiedersehn goodbye before Two Pints on Sunday ;'( - an online archive of all the idents would be ace, and would Add Value too. (buzzword checkbox: √) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 12 February 2008 21:18 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Livestation It's worked OK on the PCs I have tried. Al Jazera was slower to start than News 24, and the French channels work. I was a bit disappointed - but not surprised - to find BBC World Service than BBC World. It's ahead of the News 24 Windows Media stream, which is interesting. On 12/02/2008, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, I just received my account activation email (months after I signed up!) but I had been piggybacking on someone else's shared UID occasionally (it might've even been Brian who gave me access!) - which was useful, but I lost all the configs anyway when my laptop broke in November. Just installing this latest build onto my laptop now, hopefully the quality's not decreased since I last used it :) And, knowing me, I'll end up blogging about it instead of doing work tonight, I have a bad habit of doing that. Isn't procrastination fun. ...I'm doing it already! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 12 February 2008 19:00 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Livestation I've just had an update on the LiveStation product. It's a kind of live TV streaming IPTV product, and now has a choice of channels. http://www.livestation.com/account/download Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv http://www.ukfree.tv/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv http://www.ukfree.tv/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
