Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
Hi Frank, Check mate for all of us, at the moment. Yes, I am sure that the BBC would prevail if they took such a case to court. at the same time, the potential for irreversible harm to the public persona of the Corporation would be rather large. I am certain that none of us has the right to unfettered access, and therefore the two extremes exist 1. Due to contractual obligation, the rights holder may not use his/her own Intellectual Property once a deal has been struck with the BBC and as is stated, the costs of manufacturing are written off giving little incentive to exploit the value of the library of content inhouse, in a commercial manner. 2. The defence of that valuable content is upheld, citing the rights of the rights owners to the new end user, along with the unique position of the BBC. I do not pretend to have the answer, but the debate is important because 1. The artists/ content providers/ rights holders are now being put off by the contractual obligation, 2. The new end user is capable of using the content freely, IF he doesn't get caught. So, there is a wealth of untapped ideas that are for personal use only. As I have said before, the BBC can lead the way in this. They can make the new rules, I have no doubt of that. Sadly, whilst we sit and discuss it, the libraries are being sold off to the highest bidder so the thought that the BBC will always have the ability to choose which content is freely available is getting smaller and smaller. There are many different examples, but the above points apply to all, I believe. I would like to see the BBC as a home of British culture, and to use that amazing position to serve the public in the use and conservation of the same for future generations, not just sell it all to someone else to make even more money from it, and lock us out of it, which is what is happening now. All the best RichE On Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 01:51AM, Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard P Edwards wrote: That will be fun. BBC sues license payer for downloading show from the net for free, a show that was - in part - paid for by the same license fee.. check mate I think. Perhaps, but for whom? Are you suggesting that, because the BBC chooses to make some content available online, that all BBC content is therefore up for grabs, and the BBC couldn't prevail in a legal action against those who downloaded it without permission? Good luck with the I contributed nearly 0.02% of the cost of one 'Doctor Who' episode, therefore I can help myself to all of it defence, by the way. Just because the BBC is tasked with serving the British public, and just because it's generally moving in the direction of making content more freely available, it doesn't mean that each of us, individually, has the *right* to unfettered access to whatever they produce. -- Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] democracyplayer
Congratulations to Azureus.. the first to get their foot in the door. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6194929.stm Anyone know how much they paid? Personally, I am a little sad. I would have thought that the BBC could have done this for themselves. Instead of using a DRM model from the outside. Is the debate now, how does Azureus prove that they make no income from sharing the BBC content?, and what % royalty do the rights holders get for their property to be given away, or made freely available on the net? Stranger and stranger. :-) On Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 11:40AM, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In an era where we now have IP video delivery (and such delivery will increase in the future) then what is the point of the BBC? If Paul Jackson Productions can produce Red Dwarf IV I'm going to put my Dwarf hat on and quote the production of Red Dwarf. Series 1 (IIRC) was produced by BBC North (wikipedia seems to dispute this, but I'm 90% sure that it was, at least, labelled purely as a BBC North production, although produced by Paul Jackson) Series 2 and 3 were Paul Jackson Productions. Series 4 onwards were producted by Grant Naylor Productions Anyway... why not just sell it direct on the net (every production company can be its own IP driven TV station) Right now, because there is unlikely to be the audience there to fund the production costs - TV done well costs serious money. It would be a huge financial gamble to do TV quality programming online only. Maybe in 10-20 years time... - what is the point of a BBC funded by the licence fee? At one time, the BBC was needed as a distributor of content, but do we still need the BBC to do that now if everyone has the ability to publish and distribute on their own? I would hope the aim of the BBC in the future remains what it is now - public service broadcasting - stuff which isn't necessarily commercial. Ulitimately commercial providers are after profits. If they are to fund programming, they want to fund programmes that will make them money. As such certain programmes don't often get funded - take for example, costume dramas, religion, nature and so on. And then there's the risks the BBC can take - risks others wouldn't necessarily take. And the financial power it has, which allows it to do things often better. Would ITV have made Planet Earth? And if they had, would they have made it the same way? Maybe the BBC's size and scope will change in the future - who knows what will happen. Maybe everyone will just be happy watching US imports instead of homegrown programming. Maybe fewer and fewer people will care... Who knows. That's my thoughts on the matter anyway. And naturally, I'm slightly biased ;) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Psiphon
Hi Lee, I accept your points, at the same time though, the British are being sold on this idea of privacy with a number, an ID number. Well, as a public Corporation the BBC could reverse that thinking and treat us all as UK residents wherever we are in the world already.. it is still far easier to find people that you can trust, than to be weighed down by the thoughts of people that you cannot. That is pandering to the lowest common denominator. The benefits far out-weigh the negatives for a closer social community. I think it is a shame that all that power goes to support the tiny worse case scenario. As far as I am aware, every song on TOTP up until 1983 was re-recorded so that the BBC owned the rights of broadcast in the charter it clearly states that the BBC must distribute its content to the UK public. so where is all that music that I payed for :-) I am sure that similar can be said for BBC TV. All they would have to do is say publically that such and such a show was going to be aired on the net, in not best quality, and that the original producer would be payed X. If he doesn't agree - fine - but right now is anyone asking that question? If you can see a matrix of good honest people, the vast majority, across the planet, all UK residents if you want, all hosting bits of a show and streaming it, then the BBC doesn't have to host anything. it simply has to control the first issue and the delivery mechanism. Which is exactly what it is trying to do now along with Sky, ITV etc. The first lines do not have political leanings, please excuse me if it comes across that way. I am not interested in negative or political social engineering, but take a look, the fact is that it is happening all around us right now. Richard On Tuesday, November 28, 2006, at 09:52AM, Lee Goddard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From P Edwards (Monday, November 27, 2006 11:19 PM): I think it is pretty laughable :-) I am very happy to pay for quality and expensive programming, but being censored from the same, just because of a legal precedent, is almost the ultimate insult, especially if one does have a UK TV license. In my hallucination, it should take one person within Auntie's legal department about a month to change the contracts for content production, add some budget for servers and bandwidth, to make the biggest change to how the BBC works since radio gave way to black and white TV. Probably less time, but I guess the problems isn't that the Beeb can't find the time for contract-updating. I imagine every recording has associated contracts and releases, and often after the initial broadcast and an agreed number of re-broadcastings, the artist release evaporates, and the rights revert to the performers. I can hear the voices of resistance still. There is absolutely no reason not to Hosting all that media, not to mention distributing it at a reasonable rate, is not going to be cheap. So where exactly did all this locking out and streaming certain content to certain places come from? Big brother? :-) It certainly annoyed me when in Cologne: I could watch Planet Earth but not the website. On the other hand, I would be more annoyed if, after paying my TV Tax/Licence, I couldn't watch the website because the bandwidth is consumed by people outside the UK who don't pay for it. Maybe that's selfish of me :) How about leading the way with both feet in to a new world of a really universal BBC on the net, with none of the boundaries? The opposite to the TV world. To be fair, it is the British Broadcasting Corporation, not Universal ;) Flippant, but I do think that it is not the job of the British Broadcasting Corporation to be addressing the world (save the World Service, World news channel): rather, shouldn't Auntie be taking care of broadcasting to the British people? I'm sure that a way could be programmed to reverse Psiphon or the like, with something like real-time P2P to distribute the feeds via a massive server of trusted associates, now that would be exciting. Doesn't P2P tend to distribute the lowest common denominator? So it'd still be hard to find my little history documentaries online. I'll pay and deliver, how's that? I hope that the future is MAC addresses, not IP's. It's much easier to spoof a MAC address than an IP address, though. Lee I rather like Mark Thompson Goddard Not a BBC Employee - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
Hi Kim, I have read all the replies, and I must say, as an outsider to the BBC and the Web2 concept... that the technical jargon in the list is overwhelming and therefore confusing to me. I respect the fact that my point of view is therefore pretty unenlightening, but it would seem that the principle is to look at web2 as some kind of organisation or club, great if you have the idea for membership, but as has been mentioned the tenet of all this technology is to further the interaction of myself, ie. Joe Public, within the internet. I think that it is very positive for the BBC to have a three year strategy ... but I would also hope that history would exclude the possibility of such a tight club like response to the increasingly complex set of technologies which allow content to be delivered via web pages to the user. The past is littered with examples of conceptual frameworks that have held the originators back, mostly corporate structures, whilst allowing other free thinkers to push ahead in various beneficial directions. I hope you appreciate, as I do, that this is my own opinion, but it may give you some balance from the outside world when you come to clarify the management of this new structure for those within the Beeb. Please remember that the users as well as the providers have a choice that is exercised whenever they use the web, and therefore all these structures have to be liquid in conception. Have fun:) Richard Edwards On Friday, July 14, 2006, at 06:20PM, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Original Attached - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.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 IM bots
Hi Mario,Can the bot call me at various times during the day to tell me the rss story headings, or just show me the video from the one o'clock news at two, from the bbc web-site?On 6 Feb 2006, at 23:43, Mario Menti wrote:On 2/6/06, Mario Menti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks David. Nice suggestion, and I've just implemented a message along these lines for the AIM and Jabber bots. It's a little harder for MSN, but will add it to the MSN bot whenever I get the time to figure it out. OK, should now work for MSN as well. I agree, it does make it much clearer that there's going to be a little wait while the search takes place. Mario.
Re: [backstage] iMP and alternative models to DRM
Hi Tom, I am another lurker here I think that the music business and entertainment business will have to eventually behave like any normal retailer does. Can you imagine buying a chain-saw and then paying an extra royalty for every piece of wood that you cut? Well as a member of the public that is what is being asked by paying more every time you access and pay for the same content that others have heard on first hearing for free. It is far better for everyone to pay a fair price upfront, a price that reflects the owners desire to make money once any digital content is released it will always follow its own route through the public domain. If you are a professional user of content then your own desire to earn money should help protect others in the similar business, that said musicians and film directors have been stealing whole songs, sounds and ideas off each other for decades. That is why they have lawyers. DRM will always be a no go area.. it really is an impossible task to control. Hope this makes some sense Richard On 8 Dec 2005, at 13:53, tom coombs wrote: interesting, but would people not try to get around paying? or one pays and shares the goods. and do heavy users pay the same as light users ? another Tom Tom Kerswill wrote: Good point! Hopefully that kind of thing would be fairly easy to pick up though :-) I suppose it's a bit like chart-rigging or spamming Google or anything else - a bit of a pain but hopefully possible to get around it. Tom David Sargeant wrote: I like this idea in theory but, and putting data protection aside, what is to stop people just cracking the revenue share info (or 5 'idle' PCs playing my songs on loop for that matter) and earning themselves lots of money? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Kerswill Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 11:55 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] iMP and alternative models to DRM Hi backstage people, I'm a bit of a lurker on the list and have been catching up! Especially on the iMP and how its DRM has apparently been cracked. Someone mentioned alternatives to DRM and I just thought I'd throw something I've been thinking about into the melting pot. I was thinking of it in terms of the music industry mainly, but it would be applicable to any kind of content. Rather than stopping people listing to what they want by using DRM, how about every user paying a license which allows them to listen to any music, but then sample / monitor what they listen to. For example - last.fm tracks what I am listening to on iTunes, whether it's a CD, a download from iTunes, or a bit of music from a website. Taking all the data, you can build a profile of who's listening to what music. You can then split the revenue from the license amongst all content creators, depending on how much their content has been listened to. Just like the PRS does with radio airplay. Going back to the iMP. As it is really an extension of a radio / tv player --- albeit one where the user chooses when and what content they listen to --- why not just treat it like any other TV / radio / content channel? Sample what everyone is listening to and pay royalties based on that? I know that this is a huge simplification --- and probably licensing laws for old content don't allow it --- but surely in the future this is going to be the simplest way to do it? Because it does always seem that people work out how to crack DRMs eventually... ... even if the cracking is as low-tech as simply plugging an mp3 player into the phono output of your computer while playing a BBC show. Tom - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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/ ___ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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
Re: [backstage] iMP
At the same time, if I am sitting in my living room in London with my laptop, paying a TV license - then I can access it. Yet if I take my same laptop to my house in Spain then I can't access it. surely that is where I would want it most. I would pay - no problem. I'm really happy to see it happening.. slowly. Also, why are Mac users still second for the iMP - I use my Mac for far more things than the average PC user, and it always works. With Digidesign plugins they have a demo mode where the length of the demo determines how long it can be used for on any computer. why can't the archives be sent out with a mode incorporated where they actually stop working on a machine after a certain length of time, then the BBC could apply any rule they wished to the viewing time available for a file... it does help with the piracy as well. On 7 Nov 2005, at 15:40, James wrote: Releasing iMP to the world would almost end piracy of the BBC's content. Releasing it to the UK would still keep all the BBC's content available over the net through the standard ways. What better way to maintain control and quality than to irradicate the need for piracy of BBC content..? I actually wouldn't object to paying for this as a seperate service and I wouldnt be suprised if this is not the way forward for non-uk citizens. Seems fair enough, we pay our £££ per year and if Joel from America wants it, he can but it'll cost him a percentage of the standard lic. fee. Andrew Bowden wrote: I'm at work so I can't check at the moment, but ISTR that my telly licence has a unique reference number with it. This is going back a few years (say about 3-4). I used to buy my license from the old Post Office, and those didn't have a unique number on them. The ones you get sent by TV Licensing do. Hmm, I didn't know that. I wonder how you get them to move the licence to a new property when you move house if you don't have a licence number? The online form[1] has the licence number as a required field. I remember filling in that form back in October 2001 and thinking exactly the same! IIRC, I just put down that I had no license number. But there wasn't a knock on my door, and when it came up for renewal, the letter came from the right address. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
Strange,In my view the copyright law was written to make sure that the creator was paid their dues.. this argument is all about not using any of the content because no one knows who to pay and how much to pay. The creators will therefore lose money from other new streams of revenue it isn't about posturing, look at the music business, non-copyrighted music is beginning to be used instead.On 3 Nov 2005, at 13:38, Graeme Mulvaney wrote:This argument sounds similar to the debats rattling around about the rights to broadcast the 1996 and 2000 olympic games on-line. The ultimate solution was for the rights holders to designate the Internet as a novel communications stream and to auction rights for it accordingly. There's no point beating the BBC up about it - it's out of their hands - hell, even Google had to accept that no amount of posturing will get around copyright. On 11/3/05, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's also complicated by the fact that there aren't just rights in theTV programme, there are all kind of underlying rights (ie, copyright on things that appear in programme) that might need to be cleared as well.Literary - a script, for drama; poetry, quotations, song lyrics, bookreadings etcWorks of art - might include buildings, logos etc, plus Photographs (and photographs of works of art have two sets of copyright...)Stagings - I think, called grand rights - for things like choreographyetcMusic rights - both in the composition, and the performancesTypography - ie, the layout of an edition of a book, even if the original text is out of copyright.An interesting case in point is the Daleks - the BBC owns the rights inthe way they look, but the estate of Terry Nation owns the rights in thecharacter and the way they behave. So if you wanted to use the image of a dalek you'd have to clear the rights with the BBC, but if you wantedto animate it to make it move and go 'Exterminate!' you'd also need toclear with the estate. http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/ownership.htm"Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (includinga photograph) lasts until 70 years after the death of the author. Theduration of copyright in a film is 70 years after the death of the last to survive of the principal director, the authors of the screenplay anddialogue, and the composer of any music specially created for the film.Sound recordings are generally protected for 50 years from the year of publication. Broadcasts are protected for 50 years and publishededitions are protected for 25 years. For copyright works created outsidethe UK or another country of the European Economic Area, the term ofprotection may be shorter. There may also be differences for works created before 1 January 1996."So - even if the broadcast copyright has expired, it's no guarantee thatthe underlying rights have...-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gordon JolySent: 02 November 2005 22:23To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukCc: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk; Andrew BowdenSubject: RE: [backstage] Backstage - StagnantAt 12:57 +0100 26/10/05, Andrew Bowden wrote: Are there old shows in your archive that have had their copyrights expire? If so, there's no reason they can't be placed up right now, other then potentially bandwidth. (To which I'd say that you should offer them via torrent -- you keep running the tracker and a single seed, and let the mob effect take care of the rest.)IIRC it takes 50 years for the copyright to expire so that puts us in 1955.It is not a copyright issue, per se. It is a rights issue. Digitalrights.Here is an succinct description of "The duration of copyright" from http://tyler.hrc.utexas.edu/uk.cfmquotThe time period for copyright has grown continually longer over thelast three centuries. Many think it is now absurdly long. In Britainthe Copyright Act of 1842 introduced the idea of post mortem copyright protection; it established a copyright period of 42 yearsfrom the date of first publication or 7 years after the author'sdeath, whichever was the longer. The Copyright Act of 1911 extendedthe period to 50 years after an author's death; and the European Union Directive on Term of Copyright (adopted by the UK on 1 January1996) further extended the standard period to 70 years p.m.a. Thus in2004 works by authors who died in 1934 or any year thereafter remain "in copyright"./quotGordo (born 1955)--"Think Feynman"/http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]///-Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe,please visit 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/-- You can't build a reputation based
Re: [backstage] Backstage - Stagnant
Jim, I somewhat agree. I am not a programmer but I watch the mails here for a clue as to where people want things to go. The BBC have incredible resources yet there seems to be more innovation of the Apple Discussions board. As an example, this week Sky News re- launched, even as a normal event there should be a complete re-design of the BBC news site by now. There was one defining point for me during the competition, before the summer, there was a lot of discussion about copyright. I am sure that there are loads of ideas on both sides, but until the BBC themselves get organised, most of the content is locked under the control of the owner. In my opinion that never leads to innovation I can watch complete TV channels, live from the US and only old programmes. I can listen to any radio on the planet, but I can't make a podcast using any copyrighted music.. well for a start the BBC owns most of the Mechanical rights to the music historically played on Top of the Pops. At least in the 70's and 80's all artists re-recorded their work just for that show. As Duncan says, it is a two way street here. My thing is music, but I see Backstage as a programmers BBC3.. I think it should be serious, and therefore needs it's own copyright contract and possibly some kind of fee structure for both sides. I don't mean that people have to pay, but there needs to be some incentive. If there is a future for the BBC's own content then they need to tell us more about what we can have access to not just wait till guys this side ask. Plus if the programmers are going to put in the hours there needs to be a light at the end of the tunnel. After all if I wrote a TV show I would know that I could get the BBC to get involved with all the technical aspects of filming. they would still pay me as well, plus give me a contract for any future uses. I just want to watch all the BBC channels live on the web. now that would be excellent. Rich On 25 Oct 2005, at 18:02, James wrote: Hi, Please don't read this in the wrong way but is the backstage project becoming stagnant? A few months ago there was a lot of hype and it sounded promising but for me personally I havent seen much in the way of new things for the developing community to use. Yes, the feeds are great but to some extent they were already out there and if we're honest it was only a matter of time before people began to use them without the BBC's consent. We are yet to see anything of the API's which have been to follow soon for months now and there has been little implementation or word of it from any of the numerous prototypes that have been put out. As a group I've also noticed that messages are sparse and recently more about petty points than anything interesting to developing. I think the concept of the backstage is great but I for one would like to see a more active, engaging approach from the BBC and I think there is only so many places one can take an RSS XML feed... How about some ideas from the BBC about things they would like to see? How about real life ideas which they potentially want to implement? Any thoughts on this? Jim. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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/
