Re: [backstage] Ping...
Good to see ... On 2 Jun 2011, at 18:32, david.ho...@nokia.com wrote: I'm here! -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk ] On Behalf Of ext Christopher Woods Sent: 02 June 2011 17:00 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Ping... Is this list still alive? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Ping...
I live half way down the Med. Spent twenty years recording in studios in London. Been here since day 1. It has been a brilliant place. Rich On 2 Jun 2011, at 22:22, Adam McGreggor wrote: On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 05:50:55PM +0100, Giacomo Shimmings wrote: Me too. It would be rather nice if people could say who they are and what they're up to when they reply. I'm unlurking after goodnessknowshowmanyyears of not actually posting. I do too much, but fortunately, spell my name differently from most, so am fairly search-engine-of-choice'able. I sometimes manage to keep on top of email, too ;o) -- A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history -- with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila. -- Mitch Ratcliffe, in 'Technology Review', 1992 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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: Backstage- End of an Era
I've got a little story to tell, before this list disappears In 1990 I had the pleasure of doing a recording session at Maid Vale a full band with the Royal Philharmonic, about 110 people. We set up the studio and found that the small monitors (speakers) on the desk were out of phase. Incorrectly wired. In my commercial world, this would have just been fixed... there and then. In the BBC world, the studio assistant began by telling us that, as they were hard wired, we were therefore wrong. we carried on complaining and eventually a maintenance man came to have a look. complete with crisp white coat and pipe. We weren't allowed to touch the wiring ourselves health and safety you know!! He opened the plug and found it incorrectly wired. Hurrah... fixed in less than five minutes. The BBC assistant then proceeded to tell us that the studio had had a bass problem for so long that an £87,000 budget had been agreed to make changes. Changes which were no longer necessary as out of phase speakers cancel out bass. Our own budget was £250,000 for three days work, work that we came very close to just cancelling. This sums up my experience of Backstage as well. I am no computer tech but I understand the internet and its world far better than most. I have been on it since 1987. Backstage has taught me much, at the same time it has infuriated me... :-) I shall though, be very sad to see it go. I am afraid that the commercialisation of the BBC has been nothing if not cack-handed. :-) Many times I have thought that Backstage was more important to the BBC than the audience. and some of the really heated discussions have been very interesting, if for nothing more than the potentially tiny changes in the true vision of the BBC employees. Although last week there was a post trying to show how positively proactive the Beeb is in trying to keep the net (distribution) neutral whilst hiding themselves behind Siemens, Rights Holders and GEO/IP.. hahahahaha whoever can square that argument is wise indeed. Best wishes all RichE On 22 Oct 2010, at 17:38, Mo McRoberts wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 16:21, Martin Poppy Hatfield mar...@moppy.co.uk wrote: Come on Mo,this list has very rarely acheived significant volume to even justify splitting it into 2 lists. It's nothing to do with volume -- everything to do with audience. There has been, over the past year, _loads_ of stuff going on which is relevant to Backstage, and of interest to developers, but it doesn't make the list. 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] BBCs' commitment to fair dealing rights (was RE: API...)
For those who may have missed this... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11380490 Good to see that some inside the bubble are aware that a different conversation needs to take place. Richard On 1 Oct 2010, at 19:17, Paul Jakma wrote: On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Andrew Bowden wrote: No it doesn't. But lets imagine that the UK TV system was being designed right now... What do you think a popular request would be? You mean content protection. The thing is, the BBC currently *is* in the process of designing what will become the UK TV system, and the BBC is trying to build content protection into it. What though of the public's fair dealing rights? The public explicitly has a number of rights, e.g. to right to make copies for private study, or for educational/research purposes, or to re-use small portions of a work for critical purposes, etc - an inexhaustive list. The systems the BBC is designing today, which may well become the future systems for TV delivery, do NOT make any provision for the public to exercise these rights. The BBC today appears to be engaged in building systems which are beholden to commercial, corporate interests, given the BBC deliberately is building in technical measures which try rob the public of their ability to exercise these long held rights. The only public interest that has been given consideration by the BBC, we know from public documents and statements, is the right for the public to have access to as much commercial material as possible - which of course requires content protection. Personally, I really don't think its in the BBCs' long term interests to go down this path of giving commercial interests such strong weighting. But hey. regards, -- Paul Jakmap...@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A Fortune: Losing your drivers' license is just God's way of saying BOOGA, BOOGA! - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] API into iPlayer content
Yes.. but this list was around before GeoIP, and before the Rights holders had a clue about the internet. Equally, the Trust now. I saw exactly the same things happening with music. Now, twenty years later, some of the music Rights holders have got the plot. What I would like to know is whether anyone inside the BBC is actually educating the similar owners of the content in order for them to see things as I/we do? If no one is, then the pace of technical development and in addition, earning more income in places, is slowed to a snails pace. Best wishes Richard On 30 Sep 2010, at 18:47, Anthony McKale wrote: Ok puts on bbc hat, lots of us like open source commit to open source etc etc iPlayer’s a bit of a special case where were often legally bound not to share the files for Rights reasons or even if we do have the rights we have geoip agreements not to share them abroad, then if we do finally have all the above then we have competition issues with competitors getting rather Annoyed when we share things there trying to sell, And at that point I’d advise everyone interested to contact the bbc trust would decides such things, Basically the way to get our video/audio on the web is flash at the moment, when html 5 matures and gets drm maybe we’ll use that or what ever the new kid on the block is, it won’t be my decision that’s for sure Have a look at the work done for radio aunty and such to see excellent ways of embedding flash into your page Ant On 30/09/2010 17:42, Alex Cockell a...@acockell.eclipse.co.uk wrote: And by doing so, they're only pissing off their best viewers - the early adopters. Shooting themselves in the foot when hobbyists only want to *help* - Original message - They've been going out of their way trying to stop unapproved apps grabbing content. They put a lot of effort into making sure content is unavailable to open source systems when simply leaving it as is would mean anyone could write on top of iPlayer. e.g. read the second PDF http://pjakma.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/bbc-response-to-my-iplayer-drm-foi-request/ Open Source gets a mention under meetings with Technology, Piracy and Enforcement ticked in the header of the minutes. On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Anthony McKale anthony.mck...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Replace BBC with iPlayer and I'd agree with some of those points, it's more a indifference and lack of care rather than being directly hostile though. And I'd say that will changes rather soon, due to various management changes. Ps since no one's publicly said I can't Here's some really good ref data feeds (ps like all these feeds PROXY-CACHE don't hit feeds directly or you'll kill them) http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ion/refdata/type/service/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ion/refdata/type/category/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ion/refdata/type/masterbrand/service_type/tv/id s/service1/ids/sevice2/ eg http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ion/refdata/type/service/discoverable_only/1/fo rmat/json Very useful reference feed for ion, ps you guys aren't missing much from not having access to the wiki, it's mainly incomplete, inaccurate or out-of-date. Zap On 30/09/2010 13:15, Iain Wallace ikwall...@gmail.com wrote: Unlikely. The BBC have gone out of their way to be hostile to open source attempts at using iPlayer content, however you will find working examples and programs for playing iPlayer stuff on pretty much anything on that same wiki. On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Alex Cockell a...@acockell.eclipse.co.uk wrote: I'm not personally looking for metadata, but it would be great if some of the open-source players were permitted back into the fold, meaning that VLC and the like could play BBC content... Especially for cpu architectures that Adobe don't support. Oh, and be able to distribute said player plugins in Linux distro repositories. And I want to be able to play content on my n900 again. - Original message - Not sure what you're looking for, but all the metadata that iPlayer pages uses to build a programme page is openly accessible http://beebhack.wikia.com/wiki/IPlayer_Metadata It can't not be otherwise the javascript on those pages wouldn't work. On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Anthony McKale anthony.mck...@bbc.co.uk wrote: it uses some of them, but iplayer it's self is created from them too -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk on behalf of Mo McRoberts Sent: Wed 9/29/2010 2:52 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] API into iPlayer content On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 14:23, Anthony McKale anthony.mck...@bbc.co.uk wrote: yah the feeds aren't https/firewall
Re: [backstage] Internet Standards role
Is that a 56 hour week with overtime only after that point then? RichE On 7 Sep 2010, at 10:06, Ant Miller wrote: it sort of makes sense, in that we still have some operational support roles that are shift based, and some part time. having days and hours terms for role grades ensures these peoples pay and conditions are always part of the collective terms of employment. On 9/7/10, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: On 07/09/2010 08:40, Ant Miller wrote: and that's days as opposed to hours in case anyone was wondering if there was going to be a nocturnal equivalent role. How very quaint... and out of sync with modern employment practices (bar the Post Office). Gordo -- 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/ -- Ant Miller tel: 07709 265961 email: ant.mil...@gmail.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 http://backstage.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 Standards role
This is why I find the 9 days bit intriguing. In the old days I used to put in 120 hour weeks, so I know exactly what you mean by addiction... the interesting part is that the UK seems to have gone to part time contracts where, as Simon says, you can work an 80 hour week with no overtime. OK, you get days off in lieu, but in that kind of job I suspect that finding the free days to take off could be pretty difficult... unless you take a long holiday every summer... in which case the BBC office effectively closes for that time. I think that I can see this ending is all sorts of chaos. :-) In my case, we did not get paid days off in lieu... so if you needed to sleep you had to swallow the financial inconvenience. Neither way is perfect, but calling for a contractual 9 day week seems somehow unsettling for me. Looks like a great job though, they'd also prefer someone uncompetitive - now that made me smile. Regards RichE On 7 Sep 2010, at 10:35, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: On 7 Sep 2010, at 09:20, Richard P Edwards wrote: Is that a 56 hour week with overtime only after that point then? I doubt it - someone who excels at a job as cool as this one - is likely to be very hard to control - and won't let himself or herself limited to a mere 56 hours :) This type of role usually comes with a lovely internet addiction :) Thanks, Dw. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 Standards role
Aha, thanks Simon ... confusion over. :-) On 7 Sep 2010, at 11:39, Simon Thompson wrote: 9 is the pay grade, not the number of days - 9D means a grade 9 person on days conditions. It may be a continuing or fixed term contract. On 7 September 2010 10:23, Richard P Edwards re...@mac.com wrote: This is why I find the 9 days bit intriguing. In the old days I used to put in 120 hour weeks, so I know exactly what you mean by addiction... the interesting part is that the UK seems to have gone to part time contracts where, as Simon says, you can work an 80 hour week with no overtime. OK, you get days off in lieu, but in that kind of job I suspect that finding the free days to take off could be pretty difficult... unless you take a long holiday every summer... in which case the BBC office effectively closes for that time. I think that I can see this ending is all sorts of chaos. :-) In my case, we did not get paid days off in lieu... so if you needed to sleep you had to swallow the financial inconvenience. Neither way is perfect, but calling for a contractual 9 day week seems somehow unsettling for me. Looks like a great job though, they'd also prefer someone uncompetitive - now that made me smile. Regards RichE -- Simon Thompson GMAIL Account
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
The internet doesn't make anything different. Not anymore. It is exactly the same as the physical world but bigger and more connected. The publishers should be educated at the same time as they would benefit from being open and educating their customers. Surely the apparent subterfuge goes to show that they are running around like headless chickens in fear of something which the music industry has already had to become satisfied with? I don't think that individual communication is something that the BBC is very good at. If they were then we, the public, would not find ourselves in these situations. As David says, the BBC are looking in the wrong direction if they want to fear the dark. Regards Rich E On 14 Jul 2010, at 12:52, Mo McRoberts wrote: On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:33, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: What I'm describing is not home taping - it's publishing - the internet makes everything different The point is -- the leap from 'having recorded some programmes' to 'publishing them on the Internet' isn't a small one in real terms. It may well be a concern, but all evidence to date points to it being a pretty misplaced one (in part because the determined pirates who everybody knows aren't foiled by any of these measures continue unabated regardless - thus, there's no incentive for ordinary honest folk to go to the trouble of finding out how they might start to publish their archive on the Internet). Plus, publishing a stash of iPlayered content would stand out like a sore thumb -- unless you were clued up enough that you're technically on a par with the determined pirate class of users, you're not going to be able to keep something like that hidden from BBC Legal for very long. It doesn't take much imagination to see how selfsame honest folk would react to getting a letter in the post from m'learned friends as a result of their publication activities. Turn the bloody thing off! would tend towards being high on the list of priorities. 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] Re: [backstage] Re: get_iplay er 2.77 release (was Re: [backstage] get_ip layer dropped in response to BBC’s lack of su pport for open source)
I thought this was an interesting summary http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/bbc_drm_and_demise_get_iplayer_what_hell_going I read some quite thought provoking stories of what the Publishers are up to . so once PACT and other old fashioned societies get involved, then the unintended consequences could be quite tragic. Rich On 27 May 2010, at 09:47, Brian Butterworth wrote: I think the people from PACT got it all banned. After all, they have their own interests to look after, you can't blame them. It's not as if the money is from the public or anything. On 26 May 2010 23:28, Alex Cockell a...@acockell.eclipse.co.uk wrote: Hi folks, Considering it's now being handled here - do we have anyone with any clout as to getting get_iplayer supported officially? Just thinking that there is precedent for a download/streaming engine separate to playback client - just look toward the EBU... :) Watching with interest... Alex -- Alex Cockell Reading, Berks, UK a...@acockell.eclipse.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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] TODAY: Digital Economy Bill Flashmob, 5pm [Manchester]
Equally Rich On 6 Apr 2010, at 22:29, Alex Cockell wrote: I'm hoping they'll do the right thing and kill the bill. 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] Duplicate posts
Hi, I did.. just so that you know it wasn't just you. I also get some mails in the wrong order... which can be confusing. Regards Rich On 2 Mar 2010, at 19:20, Phil Lewis wrote: Hi, Did anyone else get around 10 duplicates of the last post: From: Simon Stirrat streetma...@gmail.com Reply-to: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject:Re: [backstage] Video on Demand Dissertation Survey Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:15:35 + Or was it just me? BTW: Strangely there are up to 14 internal BBC SMTP hops in some of those backstage emails. Is something not quite right? Regards 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/
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer for Apple TV
On 16 Feb 2010, at 22:34, Mo McRoberts wrote: On 16-Feb-2010, at 16:59, Christopher Woods wrote: Simile time: trying to control, or fighting against, cross-platform consumption, usage on previously unconceived platforms and/or unexpected adaption of the service to new forms of consumption is like swimming against a rip tide. Either it's available everywhere legally and someplaces illegaly or nowhere legally and everywhere illegally. It's the rightsholders' choice. Excellently put. (There is a third option, but it’s unfashionable to suggest it ;) M. Is Auntie becoming schizophrenic? Rich - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 ...
It is also worth highlighting that the Societies involved in protecting the rights of music producers have also lagged well behind the technical innovations which have subsequently opened up new areas of distribution... both legal and illegal. Their methods for trying to defend the rights have actually alienated the public, as well as some of those same serious investors. I am sure that PACT and the BBC could learn much from the recent experience of the physical music business. Whilst arguing for detail, they lost the battle. Sadly, as the whole model has been distorted by industry self interest, the golden goose, along with the bolting horse, have disappeared anyway, over the horizon to pastures new. :-) Richard Edwards On 7 Oct 2009, at 14:13, Mo McRoberts wrote: As a former musician and record producer, you'll have no pity from me for the rapacious vultures of the music biz :-) the daft thing is, much of it’s been so depressingly predictable from very early on. so much of it’s been avoidable. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Thoughtful post on AH
For sure, peaked my interest. Thanks Dave, Richard On 19 Aug 2009, at 23:19, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi, Thought this list might find this thoughtful post on the FSFE-UK list to be of interest :-) -- Forwarded message -- From: MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop Date: 2009/8/19 Subject: [Fsfe-uk] Educating Ashley: was it wasted time? To: fsfe...@gnu.org After BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.fsf.uk/4822 some of you may have spent time trying to educate the BBC digital divison and its leader Ashley Highfield. Jono Bacon spent some time with him, as described at http://www.jonobacon.org/2008/06/20/ashley-highfield-reviews-ubuntu/ Now, in case you hadn't heard, Ashley Highfield is back at Microsoft, while his division's embarrassing sets of expenses and budget overruns still swirl around the BBC. Unfortunately, he's still being listened to by people in the media, but is again unconvinced by the need for freedom and sharing. There is a growing consensus something can be done. We have to protect IP for the health of our economy. We need implementable anti-piracy measures. We can do a lot more [than the Digital Britain report proposes] if there is a will to do it. -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/17/microsoft-ashley-highfield-interview Was it a waste of time convincing him at the BBC about free software and Ubuntu? Or does the message live on inside the BBC? What's the current status of get_iplayer support from the BBC? Tolerated, hated or something else? What should we learn from this? More generally, the push for free and open source software is fast becoming about more than FOSS for the sake of freedom of computing. It's becoming a struggle between public and private benefit in access to everything from Department for the Environment presentations to BBC and ITV shows. Where is this debate happening next? Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) LMS developer and webmaster at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk| co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | op - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Clay Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable
I would tend to agree with you Tom. The fun side of this discussion is that most of the opinions are factual, yet as with the press, many of them will not be true once these changes have passed, especially those with a spoonful of fear factor. I can remember the uproar in the Docklands when the newspapers moved from Fleet Street. I am still looking forward to the day when a collection of great journalists decide to work together, putting their skills online beyond the grasp of publishers and big business. I think we can all agree that the old model of organised news prompted via vested interest is becoming stale in what I hope is a better educated and intelligent world. That is the beauty of sharing online. with or without compensation. Not to stir up a huge nest, but I must also point out that for over a decade now the business community has watched the internet with a mixture of greed and confusion. At the same time, the speed of evolution has taken most by surprise. The BBC still suffers from this, in many areas. The current Banking crisis is a great example. The velocity within the market has allowed those with the knowledge to do some incredible things, whilst the majority of Boardrooms/Governments have sat back in wonder. Very soon, the generation at the top will be actually net literate, which will save us all! Meanwhile I am certain that quality will win eventually. In my sphere of the music industry, there are actually many more Artists now making money from performing and selling their music and they are mostly becoming enlightened by the fact that it can be done without interest from the major record labels. No amount of economic structure or business models can stop someone who is prepared to generate an audience through hard work. Although the antique system does try its hardest. I think it is a very exciting time for journalists. I get my reports delivered by email from all over the world. they mostly turn up on the TV news about a month later. I no longer have to buy a week's fish and chips paper covered in adverts to read some anonymous twaddle, a very British past-time, to find some interest still it is also true that the journalists who I read do not ask me to contribute to them as yet. I will be happy to in future. but I won't be paying the middle man again if I can help it. Regards Rich On 17 Mar 2009, at 09:58, Tom Morris wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:15, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: That would be disastrous. In the UK this would preclude investigating anyone who has anything to do with the state in order to avoid endangering the university's funding. And in general it would turn journalism from the investigation of truth (or at least matters of popular interest) into just another academic postmodern solipsism. Say what you like about academia, but one of the things I most enjoy about reading academic journals is that there are absolutely no mentions of booze-addled Premier League footballers, Pete Doherty or Amy Winehouse's crackwhore antics, endless speculation about what the government will announce or coverage any of these seemingly surname-deprived people I see on the front of magazines (Cheryl, Paris, Britney, Nicole, Kerry, Katie, Peter etc.). I've never seen an academic journal attempt to incite the barely literate into attacking paediatricians. They also don't spend much time arguing about whether mediocre comedians should be fired because stupid people were offended by a phonecall. They don't spend much time bidding for ghoulish 'death rights' on a talentless Big Brother star. Nor do they print churnalism produced by PR flacks and endorsed by shady quacks and pseudoscientists. If someone claiming that gravity is just a scam by aliens, they don't put on the pretense of balance. In all the academic journals I peruse, I've yet to see Barley-esque blog posts about finding oneself by jet-setting of to India printed there for reasons only of nepotism. None of the academic journals I tend to read are managed by marketing arseholes who spend their days reading shitty blogs filled with dumbed-down, Digg-friendly top ten lists about SEO and viral social media. They don't find the need to get Gravity theorists and Intelligent Falling theorists in equal measure for 'fairness' or 'balance'. They also rarely ever need to uncritically print Number 10 or White House press releases for fear of losing access. Academic papers which don't clearly define what they are talking about tend to get rejected, while the media are free to use moronic generalisations like the public sphere (a term so broad that it covers absolutely everything except hiding under a duvet all day) or political correctness gone mad!. They don't waste tremendous amounts of money sending outside broadcast units out to stand around outside, say, a school to illustrate a report about that school. The difference
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
I am really looking forward to this Ian. I have remixed real data... ie music and video, all my life. Having some from the BBC will be absolutely wonderful. Best wishes RichE P.S. Not really in the same world as the BBC - yet Digidesign have over the last couple of years moved to the following improvements it is now possible to share files internally with other users using Digidelivery and recently they have changed the system so that multiple Protools systems can be used in sync. This means that work can be shared very easily now, whilst still being governed by the software. I know that this isn't exactly free yet worth noting when one thinks of projects done using Avid and Protools. Hence it is becoming very easy to exchange data which includes a clear working method. R On 20 Jan 2009, at 17:21, Ian Forrester wrote: Wow thanks guys. I don't want to get into a discussion about the footage per-se because that's not the important thing. So to answer the points about the packaging. I didn't know Tar was just a way to pack together files with no compression. Now tar.gz makes sense to me :) The reason why we would like to Tar the files together is because of things like subtitles, artwork, cuts of music, other metadata pieces, etc. We're not just talking a collection of video files. I guess we're also thinking about the 5% of the audience who would actually do a remix with the raw project files. This would be on going rather that a one off, so we need the ability to handle everything from low rez 3gp files to ultra high rez animations at stupid frame rates Delivery, Seems BitTorrent, P2Pnext (tribler) and the internet archive are the best solutions by a long way. I did speak to people about how we pass footage around internally and the answer was via hard drives. There was some thought in the past about having drop off points in major cities where you can get all the footage in one go by bringing your 1TB drive for example. Sneakernet, or what ever they now call it. Licensing, I think we'll use something like CC-BY-NC (although I totally understand the arguments against NC, Dave) CC-BY-NC-SA is tempting due to the nature of the content. I do wonder how we keep the licence in tack even when the assets are broken up and reused? Maybe we should be looking into watermarking or some adobe xmp type system? This would also be useful for figuring out reach. Lots to think about... But once I got the footage cleared and sorted you guys will be first to know. We're planning to be as open as possible about the whole experience. Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [] private; [x] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk ] On Behalf Of Jim Tonge Sent: 19 January 2009 23:59 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute +1 BitTorrent +1 MP4 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] a postive BBC news story - Matthew Postgate's appointment bodes well for a new BBC tech era
I am truly pleased that Kingswood has had a reprieve hopefully many more areas of the BBC will be looked at as the public believe they are, as part of a great corporation, as opposed to being just another part to wind down and sell. With more clarity and better overall confidence within the staff - then all the questions over the validity of the license fee may begin to subside. This is great news. RichE On 29 Oct 2008, at 17:02, Brian Butterworth wrote: I'm sick of Manuelgate, so a nice story from JK.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2008/oct/29/bbc-research Matthew Postgate's appointment as controller of the BBC's research and innovation department is, at last, great news for the BBC 's tech department... -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Questions for upcoming interviews
Hi Ian, My question... When, after waiting thirty years, will I and others, be able to truly own our digital files on computers and over the internet? Where every file is stamped with digital ownership. A stamp that is integrated to all files and attributes universal ownership to the person who put it in to a computer first. Is that so difficult that we still have to rely on licensing to contract usage instead of simply getting the code to do the work? Regards RichE On 30 Sep 2008, at 17:21, Ian Forrester wrote: Hi All, Those who are subscribed to the Backstage Calendar http://www.google.com/calendar/feeds/q7frqh0v016rki1769l9d7jlro%40group.calendar.google.com/public/basic - XML http://www.google.com/calendar/ical/q7frqh0v016rki1769l9d7jlro%40group.calendar.google.com/public/basic.ics - ICAL http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=q7frqh0v016rki1769l9d7jlro%40group.calendar.google.comctz=Europe/London - HTML May have noticed were at the FOWA expo this month. As part of the shift in emphases for backstage we're also doing more interviews with people in the industry or around the culture of mashup and remix. we're currently interviewing Kevin Rose, Alex Albrecht, Jason Calacanis, Matt Biddulph, Matt Jones, Mark Zukerberg and others. If you guy's were asking the questions, what questions would you ask them. I'm really hoping we can serve up the challenging questions which you really want to hear not the what is digg type questions you usually get from tech interviews. I know I want to hit Zukerberg with a question about data portability. Cheers 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 discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Soundcloud
Thanks for sharing this Rob. I am only just coming back down to Earth as everyone else begins the Web 2 journey in to the clouds. :-) Must say that I am intrigued by PicLens. the movement is a little strange for my eyes, but it is great to see more moving beyond the normal browser experience. All this is pointing to a rapid collation and search of good data, which with API, RSS etc. I find it all very exciting. I hope someone releases a metatag license soon, so I can embed my own details in to files, even when copied! Regards RichE On 6 Aug 2008, at 13:14, Rob Morrissey wrote: Hey Guys, Not sure whether anyone has mentioned this already yet, but have you heard of soundcloud? http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1143-soundcloud-expands-the-audio-player Just signed up myself - I'm sure someone at the BBc made something very similar to this quite a while ago? Have a look... 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] Soundcloud
Hi Jim, I agree with what you say. It is a little like the Mac Front Row in essence, but from my side, I like to see pieces of software that join the web experience with the complete OS in a different way. As a surfer, I don't get too excited anymore by the way that Browsers present the info to me. and I have been waiting for good 3d/VR since 1989. :-) My Banksy image search was a good way to pass a few moment whilst working last night. There are some interesting things on Backstage, I hope that you have fun. ATB RichE On 6 Aug 2008, at 14:58, Jim Tonge wrote: Hello, I'm new here. PicLens is great for Google image searches and, to be honest, not much else. Been using it for about a month, and after the initial wow factor the novelty quickly wears off. As you say, the interface is a little idiosyncratic. Still, respect to the developers, it's a slick plugin. PicLens Lite is a decent, free Flash gallery though if you want to impress [easily impressed] site visitors. Jim
Re: [backstage] RealPlayer banished Toady!
Hi James, I am looking forward to all these changes, I hope it will be great. One quick question, regarding the iPlayer Radio is it possible on an update to make the volume control actually go down to zero? I can then watch the Magic Roundabout on Youtube instead of listening to the news... :-) Mine's a pint of Dog-bolter or Abbott. RichE On 16 Jun 2008, at 18:48, James Cridland wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/6/13 James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As the man in charge of the Coyopa project, which'll be fiddling with a lot of our streams, You mean this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radiolabs/2008/03/ coyopa_takes_shape.shtml ? Yep. It's in BH now. I saw it last week, warming up one of the apparatus rooms. And it's even working. Hopefully we'll switch stuff on within the next month. Some niggles to sort out still though. 2. Flash streaming just works for most people, and as the TV iPlayer has shown, a tremendously popular way of consuming content. Not on mobiles. How about an Ogg stream with Cortado[1] for mobiles (or other people who dislike Flash). Agreed. We have plans on mobile also, though any solution must just work. Yes, we're providing a ton of extra streams in different formats for wifi radios and the like to use; no, Ogg Vorbis is not one of them. I refer the gentleman to the answers I gave here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radiolabs/2008/03/ streaming_radio_online_your_co_1.shtml Not sure whether our streaming will work on Gnash or not, incidentally. I'd think, for a while at least, it will. 3. HTTP downloads are not possible I think the idea was to stream over HTTP. (or something that is similar enough to streaming that no one notices). RTMP or RTSP is streaming. Nobody (using Flash) will notice it's any different to any other experience they have. Again, it must just work. HTTP streaming is less good for Content Restriction And Protection. (Again, sorry we have to put crp in our streams in this way, but we do.) (Yes, the abbreviation is intentional). I'm sorry we have to use it. But we have to use it. Is there no a more open streaming protocol one could use? Again, back to the Content Restriction And Protection issue; but also coupled with the knowledge that a typical user wants something that just works. 5. A pop-up player will continue to be available in iPlayer when radio moves in. Unfortunately there is not much the BBC can really do about stay on top however. If the OS/Browser don't provide it then you're out of luck. Some OSes let any window stay on top. Yep, agreed. We can't provide stay on top with anything internet, without a software product, which people don't, generally, download. (Sweeping generalisation, but my experience). If only browsers supported video[2] and audio tags, and if there was actually some base codecs defined that would work on any browser. (chicken/egg?) Ye... to a point. There are some base codecs defined that work on any browser with Flash installed (ie virtually all of them); and that's the way that the world is going. Beer, anyone? Are you buying? ;) Nope. You? Mine's the guest ale. //j
Re: [backstage] Re: [backstage] RE: [backstage] R E: [backstage] RE: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for B T Vision to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer ?
Thinking out loud. there could be opportunity whereby BT, or already BBC license holders, feed the iplayer (Virgin DVB-T) feed to a 3G iPhone but maybe with an HDMI port added, if you want to watch straight on a TV screen . If one can't, or doesn't like 3G or Edge, you can just use Wifi the BBC iPlayer could be rented for use by the download to anyone outside the UK, with those inside still getting free access. If a content producer wants, they could probably do a deal costing 30% of the app final price, right now. No post and no physical overheads or not truly physical ones. I think it was a few years ago that external income began to make a contribution, so this could reverse the potential license increase necessity. sorted then :-) I think the second part is the most interesting Could be great. RichE On 9 Jun 2008, at 19:20, James Ockenden wrote: 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.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: [backstage] RE: [backstage] R E: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] Re : Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer?
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:owner- [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/ 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:owner- [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 they would likely claim that it is like any number of satellite channels bundled on sky, provided at zero cost, but only available as part of a package which includes other chargeable services. Marketing drones, don't you just love them... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 1:09 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7439652.stm 2008/6/5 Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]: According to http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3580-catch-up-tv-on- bt-vision-no-longer-free.html BT Vision now has a TV Replay Pack that costs £3 per month and covers the ... BBC iPlayer service. Is it OK for BT to charge for access to the free iPlayer? --- Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 ** *** To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go tohttp://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html ** *** -- Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 This message has been scanned for viruses by Viatel MailControl, a service from Viatel. This message has been scanned for viruses by Viatel MailControl, a service from Viatel. This message has been scanned for viruses by Viatel MailControl, a service from Viatel. This message has been scanned for viruses by Viatel MailControl, a service from Viatel.
Re: [backstage] Stephen Fry: There is this marvellous idea the iPlayer is secure. It's anything but secure
I agree with Mr Fry's position and furthermore, I think that it is important, as is my own case, to understand that there are many rights-holders who fear all of this. and the result is that they cannot see a high quality/secure way to release their work for financial reward. Therefore the speed of cultural development has suffered since the mid 90's, across both TV and Radio. and a lot of supporting industries. If the BBC were to connect the two it would be wonderful, even a new secure codec would help. I am still not certain about Dave Crossland's model either.. and as a result it is very frustrating to try to professionally consider why I should work so hard when the rules of distribution are clearly so uncertain at present. RichE On 8 May 2008, at 10:42, Tom Loosemore wrote: unhelpfully, the BBC's not yet put up the transcript of the speech, so it's hard to judge given the vagries of reporting... http://www.bbc.co.uk/thefuture/ 2008/5/8 Andrew Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Can I just pedal backwards very quickly as I realise that in reading the article, Mr. Fry actually said no such thing... he just pointed out that the lock wasn't particularly secure. Which is not news to anyone... *pedals backwards rapidly* From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Wong Sent: 08 May 2008 10:20 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Stephen Fry: There is this marvellous idea the iPlayer is secure. It's anything but secure It's rather interesting that one of the very few TV personalities who really *gets* the digital revolution (tm) and all that is essentially arguing that the digital arms race needs to be beefed up, instead of starting negotations. My personal opinion, not those of my employers etc. Andrew From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 08 May 2008 08:31 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Stephen Fry: There is this marvellous idea the iPlayer is secure. It's anything but secure http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/may/08/bbc.television2 He also sounded a warning for BBC executives, accusing them of incredible naivety in believing they could control the distribution of programmes online. Programmes distributed via the BBC's increasingly popular online iPlayer service are supposed to be viewable for a week only, and can be stored on a PC for up to 30 days. But Fry said that large numbers of viewers were bypassing the corporation's digital rights management software, and more would follow. There is this marvellous idea the iPlayer is secure. It's anything but secure, said Fry, host of the TV quiz show QI. His recent documentary on the Gutenberg printing press was one of the most popular programmes on the iPlayer catch-up service. The BBC is throwing out really valuable content for free. It shows an incredible naivety about how the internet and digital devices work. Fry admitted to bypassing the copy protection to transfer programmes to his Apple iPhone, and said the corporation's iPlayer was hurting its commercial rivals. Brian Butterworth - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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?
Surely the next step is to stop GeoIP, so that anyone can try this - even in Poland. :-) I think that this may not be too far away, after all, this is the most derisive form of censorship. Happy days Rich On 9 Mar 2008, at 10:00, Tim Dobson wrote: On 08/03/2008, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://exploringfreedom.org/2008/03/08/bbc-iplayer-on-gnu-linux- without-flash-using-only-free-software/ which explains how to do it manually :-) next step is to automate it is that what Ian Wallaces script does? (sorry, i cant check it out myself at the moment because i'm travelling in poland) after we automate it, then sort out naming and meta data. then get some crazy people to create a client which is way more memory hungry than necessary and has strange alpha blendering effects etc. -- blog.tdobson.net 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] HD-DVD / Blu Ray
Yep, I have to agree. LOL Rich On 25 Feb 2008, at 17:13, Steve Jolly wrote: Richard P Edwards wrote: I would love to know who it was that decided to make the two systems incompatible.. once again, if that hadn't have happened HD-DVD could have still lost, but without the public's purchases becoming pretty much obsolete, and the hardware would still have a market. Where's the fun in a format war where the formats are compatible? :-) 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] HD-DVD / Blu Ray
Toshiba seem to have a bigger game plan. http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUST28617520080220 You have to love the timing. On the same day as they effectively lose one battle, they amortise some of their losses with an extra $800 million investment. The better Sony do now, the bigger cut Toshiba get. I would love to know who it was that decided to make the two systems incompatible.. once again, if that hadn't have happened HD-DVD could have still lost, but without the public's purchases becoming pretty much obsolete, and the hardware would still have a market. There are probably more than 100,000 unsatisfied European customers at the moment, by the figures on the net. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3LIL6dBGDGSJKaC2z7Z0mnBrZow Rich P.S. Good to see that the BBC are over their Rights Holders licensing issues! :-) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080219/wr_nm/bbc_apple_dc On 22 Feb 2008, at 12:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could be good marketing if they can make it cost effective. How many people bought HD-DVD anyway... presumably not /that/ many or the format wouldn't have gone belly up. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt Barber Sent: 22 February 2008 11:58 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray I don't know if it would make good business sense, but wouldn't it be good if Sony came in right now and said 'hey all you HD-DVD deck buyers - come swap it for a blu-ray deck for free/subsidised price'. Could even swap it for a PS3, increasing game sales while they were at it. Don't think the people that bought a shiny new deck to sit under their TV would want a PS3 instead though. On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 22 February 2008 08:03:43 Brian Butterworth wrote: Is the BBC Shop going to swap defunt HD-DVD for BR versions? Why would they (or any shop) do that? It'd perhaps be a nice gesture, but hardly a way to run a business - I'd be really surprised if (for example) WH Smith offered to do that. I don't seem to recall that ever happening with the wreckage from any other technology war... Mind you, this really is the wrong place to ask that question - why don't you mail them and ask? (they are a commercial entity run seperately from the rest of the BBC after all) 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] HD-DVD / Blu Ray
I think that if you compare Vinyl with anything round and shiny, CD's DVD etc... you have a point Ian. But every generation I know, from 72 to 11 year olds, is now just putting it all on computers. Today my mother came across your new BBC home page and was really excited about the iPlayer until I tried to explain why she can't access it from Spain, she is old! As far as I can see, the wider public have become consumers completely. With little intention of keeping physical packaging beyond the life of the product, which if you can transfer it, is very short with CD. A little harder with DVD, but we are trying ;-) Musically, the future for me is in mixing 5.1 or 6.1 mixes. Yes, everyone will have to own home theatres to hear how great it is but with the quality control, up to 96K sampling right now and the large size of files it will be a lot easier to control the delivery and copying through the net. In car this will be awesome to hear. In this sense I think the future is more about content than delivery. I don't see any good reason to buy Blu Ray. especially if I can legally torrent HD programmes sometime in the near future. I can get an Apple TV and loads of HD space for similar money. Regards RichE On 20 Feb 2008, at 15:57, Ian Forrester wrote: I don't know guys, it may have been said multiple times but the only winner in this battle must be the online services. However I'm still left wondering when the general public will get their head around non-physical media. People seem to like the look and feel of physical media like CDs, Vinyl, DVDs. Cheers Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Woodhouse Sent: 20 February 2008 13:31 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 15:26 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I /heart/ about the pre-2K bit of plastic is the way it takes control over your TV/DVD and insists that you watch the copyright notices Sounds like you need to get yourself a better DVD player. -- dwmw2 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 iplayer on exotic devices
Is there any intention within the BBC to put us out of our misery, and status as potential law breakers, to provide a server full of streamed content, complete TV programmes, that we can access legally worldwide through the internet? I suggest that if Mr Highfield's associate is breaking the law, then either he is one of many, in which case the horse has bolted.. or we need to make an example of him, and any further accessories to the crime. :-( The BBC is heading in to a very problematic area, where if they manage to keep the creators sweet, they risk losing control of their distribution system. and the support of the customer. I know that this is over simplified, but everyone now is aware of the direction that this is all taking. MS, Apple, and Amazon are all examples of World-wide networking businesses. Please can the BBC arrange a department that considers and delivers a product for the world through the internet? No more DRM, no GeoIP, no using content scraped from other web-sites, without an open and sincere contribution to the world at large. I'll happily pay a yearly subscription. I believe that if you try this route, then you will beat the pirates to it, and truly contribute to the future if you decide not to, then the model of the Music business since 1994 is your future, which would be saddening indeed. Regards RichE On 11 Jan 2008, at 11:06, Nick Reynolds-AMi wrote: Ashley Highfield's post seems relevant to this discussion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/ip_to_tv_how.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Jolly Sent: 09 January 2008 12:54 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC iplayer on exotic devices Dave Crossland wrote: On 09/01/2008, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Production client-side code really shouldn't have documentation in. If the BBC is serious about supporting innovation around the iPlayer, it ought to leave it in here. I believe Ian said that there's a proper API coming, which sounds to me like a more elegant solution than serving lots of redundant comments to every iPlayer user. 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/
Re: [backstage] New BBC customisable homepage
I agree. Is the less than 60 click second hand part of the new era it introduces? I know that life in London is fast paced, but ... *smile* RichE On 18 Dec 2007, at 11:44, Darren Stephens wrote: Yeah, I forgot the clock. Nice little retro touch that brought back some childhood memories of waiting for Dr Who on a Saturday night (and schools programmes!) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Barber Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:27 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] New BBC customisable homepage I second the clock, looks great. Nice redesign for a new era of the web. Great the way that video and rich media has presecence now as it will be used more and more in coming months I should think. Few tweaks here and there, as mentioned the accessibility issues with tabbing through content, and it should be great. ./Matt On Dec 18, 2007 11:14 AM, ~:'' ありがとうございまし た。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also like the initial effect, however... why is 50% of the space uneditable? seems contrary to sense, can't find any excuse for the obligatory large picture with 4 choices, please remove, optionally of course ~: the directory could also be editable, with a minimise and reset if desirable. why is radio not editable? the minimised buttons could be links, no... keyboard navigation isn't exactly intuitive, but does it work at all? the link order is weird in any case... with each area minimised, I tabbed to 'open' sport, hit enter, it opens, which is excellent, but then how can I tab through the links displayed? a huge congratulations on a significant benchmark. kind regards Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet On 17 Dec 2007, at 17:37, Christopher Woods wrote: Wow, what a great job! First impressions are fantastic - clean, easy on the eye, very nice purple colour scheme and I very much like the rollover effects (the customisation aspect is nice, too). I'm glad to see that the clock has finally made a comeback - I remember a discussion about that a while ago (I think it was on here, wasn't it?) when the Flash-based BBC clocks were discussed, and someone at the beeb asked if they could use them for a forthcoming BBC project or something like that? I can't be bothered to go looking through my archives now to verify my poor memory, but nevertheless good job to all involved! The only things that need sorting are the slightly chubby 'headers' for the hideable sections, make them a little less tall, 10-15px less would do it I think. Also, no mouseover effects for the four showcase buttons underneath the main image? Ooo, love the effects when you customise stuff... All the swishing and swooping and modal dialogs when you set your location and BBC News version - I'm such a mug for a bit of web 2 goodness sometimes! I'm wondering how it degrades in older browsers though... Trying it on my WinMo 5 phone, at least it renders as a full single column by default in Pocket IE - LOADs of scrolling through images and layout stuff, but at least all the content is easily readable. None of the edit links work for customising the widgets, I'm guessing (hoping) a mobile-friendly version of the BBC homepage is coming soon - I'd be sorely tempted to change my homepage to the BBC frontpage for my phone if a 3G-, QVGA-friendly version was designed. Looking good for starters though! I don't know if there's anyone at the Beeb who is involved (or knows someone who's involved) in the frontpage redesign, but it's looking very promising and I'm quite pleased. I love the return of the clock, promise me that'll never go! :D - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html ** ***
Re: [backstage] Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:46:04 +0100
Hi All, It is worth mentioning that a lot of third party apps, which are not necessarily favoured by Apple, function well, and follow every new release of the system. It would seem that this system is now full of ideas that at one point were external apps. As for your questions Ian, Q1. No, I am not a Quicksilver user at present. Q2. Yes, we have iPods and all use iTunes happily with iPod Rip to help in special circumstances. Q3. I did change the dock position once, on an old iMac, but found it useless. now I have about 70 icons in there, and it seems better to just hide it at the bottom. I am a firm believer that the head-space to use a Mac is different from that of Windows users. I actually enjoy the way that this system works, and get to smile when I find something brilliant that I did not know about. Since OS7 I have had nothing but better experiences with each update, and having seen the struggles with Windows, I'm glad to be on this platform. Obviously there are always things that could be better but in this case, the tiny screen details really make a difference if you sit and look at it all day. Regards RichE On 17 Sep 2007, at 17:30, Tom Morris wrote: On 9/17/07, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a theory that PC users like to customise more that Mac and Linux users. I don't know why but once you buy a mac, your pretty much in the fold and rarely change anything. For example how many mac users have you seen using something else besides itunes to manage there ipod? Or how many mac users have you seen with a different colour UI? Few, and i'm wondering if that's because the interface is so perfect that actually its restrictive? Or is it just that mac users are too busy to play with the skin/ui? Each of these are different questions. As for skins and UIs, there's a reason why most people don't change their theme - it's already pretty good. So much so that there are tons of people making OS X impersonation themes for Windows, KDE and GNOME. That said, there are tools like Unsanity's Shape Shifter: http://www.unsanity.com/haxies/shapeshifter/ and a wide variety of themes available: http://interfacelift.com/themes-mac/ I'm really happy with the OS X theme, and have no need to change it. I have a custom backgrounds set on my PC on both the XP and Ubuntu partitions, but haven't been bothered to copy it over to my Mac. I'm lazy. I actually don't care too much about the UI. I'm reasonably happy with it. I've customised the living crap out of my .bash_profile file though. What goes around that is mostly irrelevant. But let me ask a question to the list (those at barcampbrighton know what I'm going to ask) Q1. How many of you Mac users have Quicksilver installed? Guilty as charged. I don't think it proves your point though, Ian. It has a ton of different themes and plugins available. And I've written a load of custom user scripts for Quicksilver so that I can control my Mac the way I like (for instance, a simple script called Lock which locks my keychains and flips back to the login screen - useful when I'm at somewhere like BarCamp where I can trust everyone enough to leave my laptop out, but not trust them enough to let them browse my e-mail!). I've also written custom scripts to post to Twitter and Jaiku from Quicksilver. Quicksilver is not a 'monopoly' though. Most people use it because they don't like Spotlight - the built-in OS X type it, find it tool. And there's a following out there for LaunchBar which does the same sort of thing (I used LaunchBar back on 10.2). My parents are both Mac users. Both of them have Quicksilver installed on their Mac (my insistence). Neither of them use it. Both use the Dock. Both have custom backgrounds. And Quicksilver is going open source with the next release http://www.tuaw.com/2007/08/09/quicksilver-goes-open-source-with- leopard-release/ Also, Quicksilver has become so popular that there's been a huge set of spinoffs on the Windows platform: http://www.lifeclever.com/scott-hanselman-10-quicksilver- alternatives-for-windows/ Q2. How many of you Mac users have a iPod and use iTunes? I have an iPod and iTunes, and think it's brilliant. Everyone bitches about iTunes, but I really like it. I use it for tons of podcast subscriptions and it's almost rock solid. I'd switch to other podcast management tools if they were any good. I've tried them, and they either flake out or do things in other, undesirable ways. There are ways to improve iTunes, of course. I don't like the standard 'filtering' system in OS X - you can't specify complex rules, so you are forced to do things like create search dependencies (ie. create a playlist that contains all X, another playlist that contains all Y, then a playlist that contains things which are both X Y or X !Y etc.) I think this is a case of Apple simplifying the interface at expense of useful functionality, and is one of the reasons I
Re: [backstage] Latest Podcast - Edinburgh TV Unfestival - Is TV Dead?
Me too. ;-) RichE On 29 Aug 2007, at 11:42, Toni Sant wrote: I must say I'm quite curious now! ;-) Many thanks for putting the update on your undoubtedly very long to do list. Cheers... ...t.s. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Matthew Cashmore Sent: Wed 29/08/2007 11:17 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Cc: Subject: Re: [backstage] Latest Podcast - Edinburgh TV Unfestival - Is TV Dead? Sorry... Really you would laugh It's actually not very funny though. G. But yes we will update the XML file very soon... m On 28/8/07 23:28, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I told you the reason why we couldn't do this, you would laugh. :) It looks like we may have to move the XML file in the near future, but yes it will link to all older podcasts and the future ones. Toni Sant wrote: Hi Matthew - Any plans of adding this (and the previous) podcast to the original podcast feed your created? Cheers... ...t.s. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Matthew Cashmore Sent: Tue 28/08/2007 1:00 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Cc: Subject: [backstage] Latest Podcast - Edinburgh TV Unfestival - Is TV Dead? The latest backstage podcast is now live you can listen to it here http://blip.tv/file/354940 Or download the MP3 file directly from here http://blip.tv/file/get/Matthewcashmore- backstagebbccoukPodcastEdinburghTVUn festivalIsTVDead340.mp3 ³At the inaugural backstage TV Unfestival in Edinburgh this year, Matthew Cashmore chaired a panel discussion entitled Is TV Dead. He was joined on the panel by € Brian Butterworth from UKFree.tv € Ewan Spence of The Podcast Network € Michael Sparks with the BBC RD € George Wright with the BBC interactive TV.² Kevin Anderson of Guardian fame blogged about the session over here http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/08/ tv_unfestival_is_tv_dead_th e_p.html#more Is was actually really interesting and in the end the conclusion was that if stories where strong, then TV was as strong as ever... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzKoiktzNqE Hope you enjoy :-) m ___ Matthew Cashmore Development Producer BBC Future Media Technology, Research and Innovation BC5C3, Broadcast Centre, Media Village, W12 7TP T:020 8008 3959(02 83959) M:07711 913241(072 83959) * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.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/ ___ Matthew Cashmore Development Producer BBC Future Media Technology, Research and Innovation BC5C3, Broadcast Centre, Media Village, W12 7TP T:020 8008 3959(02 83959) M:07711 913241(072 83959) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 ** *** To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.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] Your chance to inform the BBC Digital Media Initiative
Ian, This looks brilliant. RichE On 27 Jul 2007, at 17:33, Ian Forrester wrote: We are proud to introduce a new initiative with the BBC Digital Media Initiative (DMI), which will affect the BBC for many years to come. Something which I'm sure the Backstage Community will and could sink its teeth into :) From how the metadata is structured to what formats we should or could be using. Its all in the DMI, and your welcome to comment, suggest or deconstruct our on going plans. There will be lots more information about this _long term_ initiative in the next few weeks, till then there is more on the blog - http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/news/archives/2007/07/ your_chance_to_inform_the_digital_media_initiative.html I really hope you all take this opportunity to really look over this project and if needed input into the process. It’s a long running project but from mid next year you will start to see the fruits of the DMI being delivered. Cheers, See you at Minibar... Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [ x ] private; [ ] ask first; [ ] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +44 (0)2080083965 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info mailing list offer
I'd be happy to contribute, and discuss, more about DRM in another place, if you like. RichE On 19 Jun 2007, at 17:04, Nic James Ferrier wrote: Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Assuming you mean me, replying to other's comments is hardly hijacking. I don't mean you (unless you are the owner of www.FreeTheBBC.info). I don't mean to be rude either. I simply mean that the discussions about how the BBC should be run are really important and not off-topic for this list... but other things are on-topic as well so maybe it would be better to move the discussion elsewhere. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.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] DRM does not work... what next?
Hi Ian, What happens next? .. well most that you listed below is already happening somewhere. In my opinion, this is what happens next.. Your whole office, and anybody interested in the positive future of the BBC, goes to the DG, or whomever now, and demands a budget to put as many pieces of content on the web as possible, under the banner of the BBC. You ask him/them to forget that he ever heard of GeoIP and DRM, and state that the web is now to be used to freely and openly fulfil the message on the BBC's coat of arms. Send out a press release to rights holders, and go ahead. If anyone wants to stop the process then they have a week to remove their content from the contractual status of the BBC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_BBC That the world needs the BBC is undeniable, and the web is now another place to distribute the content. Once you discover the true market place, you can then adjust your approach accordingly. As for rights holders, pull the other one. there is not one new unique creator on the planet who does not understand the benefit they could receive in this via the BBC. if they have a problem, then they can re-license their works to someone else, like ITV or Second Hand TV, as they do now. Just ask them. The majority of old rights holders, on the other hand, will always confuse the issue because they are in business, they do not normally simply create, they are also precious about the future, and their finances. even though, as you must be aware, the production costs are written off on first broadcast, and the license applies for only three years, in most cases. Not a very good deal for the financiers, especially if that is the public. If you wish, you could charge the customer outside of the UK, and would perhaps make more money than the complete income of the BBC already, even take a pound off the license fee and charge everyone worldwide £1 per month, or £10 per year, to watch via the net. Why shouldn't you compete with Realplayer or WMP, as they are US companies? Pass a royalty of that on to the creator, but don't get misled by the rights holder comments. Either way, if you trust your customer, and it works both ways, then they will always support you with their custom. The BBC can lead this cultural change, and must if it wishes to continue doing what it does best, worldwide. Stir up the nest as this present direction is useless to everyone. If you all begin now, then you will retain the upper hand I believe if you wait much longer then the actual creators will bypass your system of distribution, and the BBC will lose some more of its credibility as it loses its honest customers, resulting in economic Check Mate. :-) RichE On 14 Jun 2007, at 10:19, Mr I Forrester wrote: I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while, and want to ponder this question to the backstage community... We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well lets just say for this thread that DRM doesn't work and it just turns consumers into against the content holder. ...What happens next? Here's some thoughts from me, Content producers adopt watermarking technologies? P2P streaming and Multicasting becomes the next big advance for content producers People start paying for real time or 0day access? Google and Yahoo start indexing torrent sites and offering services like sharetv.org Joost and Democracy adoption increases The portable video player and digital set top (appletv, xbmc, etc) markets blows up Torrent site uses slowly drops, as content producers use other online services Windows Home server (now you see how my last post relates) and similar products sales increase 10 fold over the next 3 year - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Windows Home Server RC1 available for download
For sure Ian, We already have our own network broadcasting/server units at home :--) Have had for three years or more. In my case. Mac G5 plus 30 inch screen as desktop, with a 23 inch as a TV or second screen. add bittorrent, or DVD, or iTunes plus iChat.. with a terrabyte of disk space, 14 days of music, etc...etc.. etc. On a wifi network running over 5Kms radius. `Within which are another 3 networked Macs, one of which is attached to a Sony HD TV, with wireless mouse and keyboard, in another houseand a PC in fact Backstage is a part of my true network. It is great. Add Protools, and a 1500 watt surround speaker system, with the ability to play it very loud outside, with sunshine, and life is even better :-) In and output, plus sharing is totally second nature at home here. RichE On 13 Jun 2007, at 14:30, Ian Forrester wrote: From Engadget Microsoft has just announced a tasty banana for all you code monkeys out there, in the form of the first publicly available download (well, for non-beta testers at least) of the widely anticipated Windows Home Server operating system. Release Candidate 1, as this build is known, is said to offer a number of improvements over previous betas, and is the first version that participants in the Code2Fame Challenge can use to work on their entries. http://feeds.engadget.com/~r/weblogsinc/engadget/~3/124341635/ What I find interesting is the new focus on home servers. Are we finally started to accept that people will store tons of films, music and pictures on there local network and use something like the AppleTV, Xbox media centre or Xbox360/PS3 to stream stuff over the network? Just a quick thought... Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [ x ] private; [ ] ask first; [ ] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +44 (0)2080083965 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
Exactly, ask any parent not to teach their kids to share it is part of the total fabric of society. Sometimes I think the business world has completely lost it. There are many neutral ways to influence, and believing in the choice of the customer is surely a mainstay of any business. unless you want to have a secret police as well. I have had the same experience with my 10 year old, and it left me feeling very uncomfortable indeed. RichE On 12 Jun 2007, at 13:50, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi David! On 12/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If however you say making a copy of this DVD for your own use (eg in case of damage) is OK but it is wrong to give it away or sell it. Please don't do that. Then you are actually treating the consumer as a reasonable person. No, you're attacking their civic spirit and the nature of friendship, and that's not cool. No one self-respecting is going to agree to betray their friends and neighbours like that. For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF LAW ABIDING PEOPLE*, which is more likely to work? Neither. Talk to teenagers - file sharing is here to stay. By saying law abiding, you're invoking the law as an authority on ethics, which is ill-conceived. The law is, at best, at attempt to achieve justice. Often, if doesn't: law abiding people moved to the back of the bus. -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] A decent editorially-ordered BBC News feed?
Hi James, with the cold, You are not alone I tried a couple of years ago to use the BBC RSS, and just found it had little order. That does not just apply to the BBC, I don't use RSS for anything apart from Wired. At about the same time Mario produced a bot in iChat that could help to push information, (TV stuff). Although I do not want a news ticker, and don't want to continually update an open browser page, it would be cool to be able to select certain pages from the news site, and then be automatically updated in a desktop widget when things change, which could happen as a stream in iChat but, As an example, everyday I open the News page, read current stories, then go to the England page. and select Herts, Essex and London. normally there are very few completely new stories. but if I don't look then I have no idea. Quite a lot of the time, stories that I have already read are editorially changed, yet it is impossible to keep up. As a result, I would love a little more feeding it would definitely save me a lot of clicks everyday, and in the case of something really interesting happening, I would love to clear, F1 on my Expose, my screen to reveal a desktop window that shows regularly updated news info from the whole of the BBC.. I saw a hack that changes a Widget from Dashboard to the desktop the other day, so that part is possible. http://www.mac-help.com/forums/showthread.php?t=363 If the screen could display a mini News page, then it could also include some of the design elements of the original page.. a bit like putting the mobile phone web browser screen on your desktop, but with live updates. that would be cool. ATB RichE On 21 May 2007, at 12:46, James Cridland wrote: Since I'm at home tending a cold, I thought I'd do some reconfiguring of my iGoogle page (that's what they insist on calling the Google personalised homepage these days - Steve Jobs has a lot to answer for). I thought I might look at the current BBC News gadgets, and write a nicer one (which gives the text as well as just the headline). But - am I alone in finding the BBC News RSS feeds slightly wanting? The three big items on the BBC News (UK) front page right now are: - Blaze ravages Cutty Sark - Fresh clashes in Northern Lebanon - No 10 defends Hodge housing call However, the top three items on the BBC News UK front page RSS feed right now are: - Lebanon clashes 'kill civilians' - Cameron attacks grammar 'fantasy' - Jail term for Khaleda Zia adviser Essentially, that RSS feed is useless as a feed for the top three stories right now. Is there a way I can get an RSS feed sorted in editorial order, rather than just time-added order? The top three stories exist on http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/ and the top story lives on the Radio 4 website, so it's presumably possible. Indeed, http:// news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/default.stm contains, with the HRs, exactly what I'd like in my Google Gadget. So is this available for mere mortals to use? -- http://james.cridland.net/
Re: [backstage] list test and Hack Day
Somehow I love the idea of Redmond including anti functionality in to Vista. links in pretty well to their version of anti-trust. I get the feeling that there will be more to come from the Devastate (my) Reality Medium. Although I won't be in London for the hack day, I am looking forward to the live streaming of some/all of the summer concerts (Glastonbury,Womad etc) - with the possibility of seeing them in Second Life, and hearing superb surround sound mixes.. alas no details yet. Back to the sunshine, beer and surfing although congratulations on another news scoop in the Webby's, and the iTunes pod-casts... now up to 91. Perhaps everyone else is working... Best of luck Kim, welcome to the outside world. :-) Penguins eh? now that sounds cool. RichE On 1 May 2007, at 20:19, David Greaves wrote: Kim Plowright wrote: Dear sweet evil Jesus on a pogo stick, don't start that up again! LOLS Ah, before my time and this is the first time I'd seen this writeup (or any writeup as considered). Refers the honourable gentlemen to archive URL below. Suggests he takes a look. You know, just so he understands what might be under the corner of the rug he's about to pick up. http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ Ah. Guess I'd better not mention ad blocking either then ;) I think I'll go and feed my penguins... David - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.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 Archive trial
No way Kim, I'm NOT normal. ;-) On 19 Apr 2007, at 13:28, Kim Plowright wrote: /me guesses, somehow, that the denizens of this list are somewhat demographically homogeneous. I got kicked off after about 60% when I said I was male. hhm. Oh well, perhaps 35-44 age bracket is already full. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 Archive trial
Hey Tom, By making it UK centric, isn't the BBC missing the public values of an awful lot of us that no longer inhabit that island all year? Or are there pages written in Polish etc, just to please the total UK population. I wish the Trust would accept BBC internet presence for what it is, a part of the World-Wide Web. (Not sarcastic, as I am a firm believer that I am English wherever I happen to be, especially as a UK tax payer.) Regards RichE On 18 Apr 2007, at 19:30, Tom Loosemore wrote: On 18/04/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 16:39 +0100 18/4/07, Ian Forrester wrote: Hi All, Outside of the framework debate... The BBC Archive trial is getting closer to opening its doors. Exclusively I can now tell you that the register your interest form is up (16:30). So if your interested in taking part in the trial, go to http://bbc.co.uk/archive now. Many thanks for your time - unfortunately due to the specifications of this trial, we are not currently aiming to recruit past or present BBC staff. !!! yep, and quite right too, if the BBC Trust's decision making is not just impartial but seen to be impartial. Allowing BBC staff past or present to join put the latter at risk, since the data from this trial will form the core empirical input into the BBC Trust's Public Value Test on the Open Archive (which is separate from iPlayer 'catch up' Public Value Test, the decision on which is due soonish. That's why they need so much personal data, to make sure the sample is balanced across a whole series of dimensions to reflect the UK population as a whole (hence UK only) We're also gonna release 50 hours for download by anyone in the UK, whether on the trial or not. - oh, and it's all non-DRM'd, albeit geo-IP'd
Re: [backstage] BBC Archive trial
And the same here . I got kicked off after about 60% when I said I was male. hhm. Oh well, perhaps 35-44 age bracket is already full. On 18 Apr 2007, at 19:40, Toni Sant wrote: Here's what I got: Many thanks for your time - unfortunately you did not meet the recruitment criteria for this trial. Is there a list of recruitment criteria? Cheers... ...t.s. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Forrester Sent: 18 April 2007 16:40 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] BBC Archive trial Hi All, Outside of the framework debate... The BBC Archive trial is getting closer to opening its doors. Exclusively I can now tell you that the register your interest form is up (16:30). So if your interested in taking part in the trial, go to http://bbc.co.uk/archive now. There is no press launch or anything like that yet, so your really the first people to find out about this. So do it today before the 20,000 places disappear. Cheers, Ian Forrester Senior Producer, BBC Backstage BC4 B4, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7RJ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 02080083965 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.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] BBC Archive trial
Thanks Tom, I appreciate you suggestion, and will do. Vocab looks great. All the best RichE On 18 Apr 2007, at 20:04, Tom Loosemore wrote: The Trust have to base all their decisions on the needs of UK licence fee payers, first and foremost. But yes, a global internet, that challenges lots of assumptions that previously were not even explicity. Why not write to them and tell 'em - seriously ,it's their job to hear views from people who pay the licence fee. http:// www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/ PS There are 100,000 of pages in welsh, gaelic etc. on bbc.co.uk BTW... and there will be a welsh version of iPlayer In fact one of the coolest hidden gems of the BBC is bbc.co.uk/vocab , which could very easily be adapted for polish just by adding dictionary... This is one of the apps I'd personally like to Open Source... or offer as an API... On 18/04/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Tom, By making it UK centric, isn't the BBC missing the public values of an awful lot of us that no longer inhabit that island all year? Or are there pages written in Polish etc, just to please the total UK population. I wish the Trust would accept BBC internet presence for what it is, a part of the World-Wide Web. (Not sarcastic, as I am a firm believer that I am English wherever I happen to be, especially as a UK tax payer.) Regards RichE On 18 Apr 2007, at 19:30, Tom Loosemore wrote: On 18/04/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 16:39 +0100 18/4/07, Ian Forrester wrote: Hi All, Outside of the framework debate... The BBC Archive trial is getting closer to opening its doors. Exclusively I can now tell you that the register your interest form is up (16:30). So if your interested in taking part in the trial, go to http://bbc.co.uk/archive now. Many thanks for your time - unfortunately due to the specifications of this trial, we are not currently aiming to recruit past or present BBC staff. !!! yep, and quite right too, if the BBC Trust's decision making is not just impartial but seen to be impartial. Allowing BBC staff past or present to join put the latter at risk, since the data from this trial will form the core empirical input into the BBC Trust's Public Value Test on the Open Archive (which is separate from iPlayer 'catch up' Public Value Test, the decision on which is due soonish. That's why they need so much personal data, to make sure the sample is balanced across a whole series of dimensions to reflect the UK population as a whole (hence UK only) We're also gonna release 50 hours for download by anyone in the UK, whether on the trial or not. - oh, and it's all non-DRM'd, albeit geo-IP'd
Re: [backstage] Backstage Podcast number 2
Sounds great to me Ian. I will be looking forward to this. Is there any way to include a chat session running live for comment? You may have seen on Wired that DRM has made it in to being used to add legacy to certain products. as if we all need more than Moore to determine when something is out of date. This is certainly another side of the discussion, applying to both hardware and software. Some may not have seen, or contemplated, the fact that other institutions are also making some effort to defend the rights of an odd minority of users .. :-) http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/04/another_univers.html Regards RichE On 17 Apr 2007, at 11:16, Ian Forrester wrote: So looking over the comments, We're talking about maybe, 1. The EMI guy who worked on the deal 2. A EMI competitor 3. An music artist or producer 4. Dave Rowntree 5. Becky from ORG 6. Another person who knows this area inside out including watermarking 7. A service provider like Last.fm or emusic Ah that's how the backstage podcast ended up on the media guardian :) And there was me thinking they were on the list. Ian Forrester || backstage.bbc.co.uk || cubicgarden.com || geekdinner.co.uk -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scot McSweeney-Roberts Sent: 17 April 2007 10:13 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Backstage Podcast number 2 George Bray wrote: So currently we have a couple of guests, however... 1. Who should we get on the podcast? The EMI guy who did the deal with Steve Jobs. An EMI competitor. An artist - someone who has a stake in their intellectual property, and a bit of an understanding on the distribution crossroads we're at. Ricky Gervais, Stephen Merchant? How about Dave Rowntree from Blur (and the Open Rights Group as well)? Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] EMI 'in no DRM deal'
Hi all, I am surprised that this thread has pointed so strongly toward the price hike and quality as being risky. Please let me be concise with some of the facts Steve Jobs noted that about 3% of music on all iPods is copied from CD.. CD that is already non-DRM and sold by the major record labels. In the penultimate two years, the biggest selling albums have sold about 10 million copies each worldwide, down to 6 million in 2006. Seeing that probably over a hundred different albums are released per month in the UK and US, the chance of a new recording being successful enough to make the charts in future is pretty slim on CD sales alone. if you look at the amount of new artists in the UK chart during any one year, I would be surprised if there were a crossover of upwards of ten percent in to the mainstream. With this in mind, the major record labels are making pretty large investments in new product, which is cross collateralised from profit on their own successful artists. If one looks at the piracy issue, the biggest loss was through illegal copying of CD by industrial duplicators. The RIAA and others could average their losses by looking at the illegal manufacturing, in the physical sense. They then put their stall out by going after high profile sharers. mostly youngsters, as a way of changing public opinion. as well as trying to stop the real pirates with criminal legal action. The relationship between the Majors and its public has been fraught for a long time, in my opinion since W.H.Smith was included in to the fold of record shops only selling what the Majors wanted them to, back in the late eighties when it was all about a monopoly on physical distribution. The top five lost much of their customer loyalty and as such the internet, and copying, was the perfect reply. From way back then, EMI was parodied as Every Mistake Imaginable within the recording world. which if you look at some of their failures was pretty true. I think that Steve Jobs has defined a market and it has taken a lot of persuasion to get the Majors involved... illegal file sharing will be eventually seen for what it was all along, a smokescreen covering the fact that the major record companies completely lost the plot at the beginning of the nineties. Now they have evidence to support legal downloading as a relevant revenue source. There is still a huge market for high quality music and recordings, with sample rates better than CD on the horizon this is hopefully the beginning of that new market. With almost 0% manufacturing and distribution costs in comparison to a physical CD, they will surely make more money, not less, and EMI's share price will hopefully reflect the u-turn in policy. For my ten pence, I would rather pay for a proper legal product than any of the crunched mp3 files that I have heard. In future I would even pay double the present license fee to watch BBC TV on my laptop worldwide through the net. and I hope to, eventually. One of the most exciting parts of all of this entertainment is the growth and realtime connection within society as a result of TV schedules, tours, and album releases. across the board perhaps that has a value that is lost when the control of the distribution of ideas is lost, as has been seen due to concentrating on negative issues instead of the positives. Remember that Thriller sold 40 million copies in its first chart run. and for all the losses, CD sales haven't done too badly, still, it is time for a change. http://zobbel.de/stat/uksales_a.htm Download sales increased by 65% in 2006, but in the UK digital albums are still only 1.4% of the overall album market. In the singles market, where all this is being promoted, 79% of the 65.1 million sales in 2006 were from legal downloads. A quite astounding statistic is that CD sales, for many reasons, fell by 20% in the US in the first quarter of this year compared to last. perhaps CD has finally had its day and now we can begin to enjoy larger files with better quality. Blueray at 96Khz with DTS for example, but then who wants a physical copy? On the other hand, perhaps Apple and EMI are crazy. the evidence would suggest that they both have far to go forward, and at least they are willing to give it a go. At £15 an album, if the quality is good and the product is free of DRM, then I will certainly buy it. I hope that they achieve the success that the artists need in promoting their products, in a way that sounds as good as possible. RichE On 3 Apr 2007, at 13:15, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi Jason! On 03/04/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, of course. However, I said more people put the unDRMed file on the torrents. The file without DRM will be easier to distribute, therefore perhaps more people will. The point about this Apple/EMI
Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'
:-) As here... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6516189.stm For sure the vote will be said to not reflect public opinion, but 86% saying there should be less DRM is quite a statistical majority. I'm over the moon that higher quality is one of the future intentions, I am tired of trying to listen to great songs that sound like rubbish on any computer especially if I paid for them. The future is getting brighter, once you all get to hear a recording at 96Khz then you may understand, just like HDTV. Can everyone stop dumbing down within the argument of for the sake of the license holders now, in all spheres? RichE On 2 Apr 2007, at 13:42, Brian Butterworth wrote: Just to keep Auntie on her toes, another company that is a TLA has decided to not bother with wasteful DRM: http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2048195,00.html? gusrc=rssfeed =4 'In a major change of policy for a record label, EMI is expected to announce later today that it will begin selling songs without copy protection through Apple's iTunes music store. Apple's chief executive, Steve Jobs, will attend a press conference alongside Eric Nicoli, his counterpart at EMI, in London at 1pm today. According to reports over the weekend, they will announce that EMI is ditching the anti-piracy technology that currently restricts how people can copy and listen to their digital music tracks. The Wall Street Journal reported today that the group will announce that it plans to sell significant amounts of its catalogue without anti- copying software. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.24/742 - Release Date: 01/04/2007 20:49 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 on YouTube
Great :-) RichE On 2 Mar 2007, at 11:58, Andrew Bowden wrote: Might interest some people here. http://www.youtube.com/BBC http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=bbcworldwide Which a third to come in the form of a BBC World channel (which won't be avalable in the UK apparently) More details http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/ 2007/03_march/02/you_tube.shtml -- Andrew Bowden Development Producer, BBCi Future Media and Technology, BC5 B4, Broadcast Centre, White City
Re: [backstage] Want a quick bit of beta-testing fun?
Are there any thoughts of making the new player in to a widget James? On the technical side, Christian O'Connell sounds a lot better this morning. did someone hit the bass button overnight? I have just heard Oasis Live Forever, and it is about 3 dB quieter than a equivalent mp3 copy in iTunes, but sounds about as good. The difference is huge overall, much much better than yesterday. Do you use those sliding multi-band FM compressors? I know that the BBC used to allow each producer to set-up their own for each show, so the same song would sound different depending on which show you heard it on. That led to quite a lot of confusion :-) Have fun RichE On 28 Feb 2007, at 15:50, James Cridland wrote: On 2/28/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is the first that I have seen of this player. Works pretty well in Safari but the overall sound compression is absolutely awful. There is no way I could listen to that for pleasure. Even the adverts are pumping. that has to be from your audio source. Sorry about that. Within iTunes it is a lot better Curious. It's the same stream within iTunes and the Flash Player in Safari (our MP3 stream): there should be no difference at all. But - noted. Our processing is under review (as I tire of saying!); and I do think it's a little over-eager on the online feed. It was optimised for 20k mono, not 128k stereo. On 2/28/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Pandora) Anyone know of any technical reasons why we couldn't have a similar UK service? I'm reasonably sure that an established UK player could get the rights. You'd think so. But the rights (we've looked) are so expensive as to put it completely out of anyone's league. Indeed, last.fm aren't fully-licenced. Cheers for the feedback so far. Much appreciated. -- http://james.cridland.net/
Re: [backstage] First BBC Backstage Podcast: DRM and the BBC
I have managed to listen to the first minutes and then the stream stops. can anyone share the mp3 with me? :-) RichE On 13 Feb 2007, at 11:53, Martin Belam wrote: Haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but will do. Does that mean we don't have to carry on the debate here anymore ;-) cheers, martin -- Martin Belam - http://www.currybet.net On 13/02/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, I'd just like to say thanks to everyone who was involved, it was a pleasure being part of the debate :-) -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/ 2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http:// www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Does Wikipedia have a cash crisis? Could this be Another h2g2 moment?
Oooops sorry all, just realised that the ogg file just had a POSIX error, connection reset by peer. now I am back up and running thankfully VLC plays Ogg, as I have just found for the first time.:-) RichE On 13 Feb 2007, at 12:30, J.P.Knight wrote: On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Tom Loosemore wrote: we had a good long look at ways of working together, but sadly we don't own our own bandwidth following the sale of BBC Technology to Siemans a couple of years ago. Does the BBC actually own _anything_ these days? :-) :-) :-) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
Thanks Tom, Seriously, at least this honest answer lets us consider another way. Is it possible for the BBC to set up a web-page and some publicity that asks the following question If you are a Rights Owner of work that has been broadcast by the BBC in the last 70 years, and would like your content to be re-used in a financially viable, or free, manner across the world of the internet, will you please contact us? It is quite obvious that PACT and the BBC's negotiation of last May probably considered every facet of broadcasting, using a black box sitting in someone's lounge in the UK as the basis. In settling with a 7 year license, on new commissions, I'm sure that the BBC probably had a longer time frame for past works. If that is true, then we are getting somewhere, simply because it is very likely that the original rights holders of those works probably don't use a computer for much more than email. If they can be attracted back in to the debate, it may make the BBC's position easier regarding your future prospects, after all those lost rights holders could change the picture for everyone, especially since some of the revenue from the further use of that content would add to their estate value or pensions. I'm sure that they would be very happy to further exploit (yes, I hate that word:-) their rights. If nothing else, the use of the net as a historical document, could be very interesting. try this as an example :-) http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8435153709246106788q=public +nuclear Perhaps we should see this at the same time. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay? docid=7942215474518717328q=nagasaki+nuclear The net has immense power for the future, I cannot honestly see any time when it is tamed as some of the commercial/political/legal world would like it to be, maybe it will carry on opening new avenues for everyone. All the best RichE On 12 Feb 2007, at 00:32, Tom Loosemore wrote: the honest answer is we don't know bear in mind that to know for sure you have to examine *all* the various contracts with *all* the various contributors - and for that, you need to know who the contributors are, and where their contracts are stored... if their contracts are stored. Then you have to hope the contracts we unambiguous. When the creative archive team went hunting for some content for their trial which was demonstrably unambiguously BBC owned, they found nothing that didn't require at least some additional rights clearance... There's lot of stuff for which the BBC owns *broadcast* rights, because that was the reality of all that was possible at the time. And then there's moral rights, but let's no go there for now... On 11/02/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Tom, Can I ask again then, is there anything that the BBC owns 100% copyright of in an archive? Yes or no would be a start. :-) Regards Richard On 11 Feb 2007, at 11:43, Tom Loosemore wrote: On 10/02/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 15:42 + 8/2/07, Dave Crossland wrote: On 06/02/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We also know that the BBC has content that they own 100% of the copyright. This is, apparently, not the case at all for the majority of existing records. However, moving forward, I see no reason why the BBC cannot be clear that it is owning 100% of the rights in all new contracts for internally produced works. *** Desert Island Discs is one of Radio 4's most popular and enduring programmes. Created by Roy Plomley in 1942, the format is simple: each week a guest is invited by Kirsty Young to choose the eight records they would take with them to a desert island. *** For rights reasons Desert Island Discs is not available as a listen again item. *** http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/desertislanddiscs.shtml Why no podcast? Gordo Estate of Roy Plumley owns the rights to the format, and isn't keen on on demand... - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
Hello Matthew, Yes, obviously this is a step in the right direction I looked at that site as soon as it was first released. Which was before I knew anything about GeoIP and the BBC's re- negotiated terms of agreement with PACT, last May, even before the fuss over the Met Office's weather feeds. The UK only clause completely barred and censored me from that content. This is definitely an interesting journey, fraught with difficulties, and I think that it is really important for you at the BBC to realise and take in to account some of what is discussed here. after all it is only a discussion. If my perception is biased or incorrect, then I apologise. Still, there is clearly a collision of two worlds. One being the freedom of data on the net, worldwide the other being how a public corporation controls such data, and who the BBC's shareholders are in that decision. I have learnt much during my time following backstage, and most of it has involved finding possible ways to circumvent the controls that you have put in place. not that I would consider using the data illegally for financial reward at this moment, but I am now very aware that it is possible. I think that Lord Puttnam could do with some more information regarding the possible pitfalls, especially with using the iPlayer. In my experience, as soon as you release the data, whether it be on iPlayer with DRM or not, one has to be totally clear about how it may be abused and to what extent the BBC will defend such abuse as Devil's advocate, how would the BBC sue me and twenty thousand others publicly on behalf of the Rights Holders and make the case for supporting such a waste of money? I think we are all aware from the RIAA's experience of the limitations of that course, and so perhaps it is right to see the opposing perspective... especially where content that the BBC does own copyright for is concerned. I do think that the positive social capital is definitely worth considering. All the best RichE On 4 Feb 2007, at 21:42, Matthew Cashmore wrote: Hi there, Is this not a step in the right direction? http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/ Unfortunately we have to actually make things work, and whilst many of us here at the beeb would love nothing more than to release all of our content, like we've done above, the people who own the rights don't want us to... so we're back to Toms point of having to make a stark choice... release what we can using accepted* DRM, or don't release anything... surely it's better to move things on in terms of making the content available via the iPlayer, than to not? * By the rights holders. m -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Richard P Edwards Sent: Fri 02/02/2007 19:09 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer Hi Dave, Yes, it was a mistake on my part that I hit reply and the previous email didn't end up on the list. Apologies. As I said at the beginning, it will be interesting to see why anyone believes that DRM is needed on BBC products. So far I have seen no clear reason whatsoever, apart from as you say, a defensive legal willingness to support an old model. Still, I get the feeling that my wish to have access to the BBC archive for free use to remix its content is as yet a dream. :-) All the best RichE On 2 Feb 2007, at 16:49, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi Richard! (I notice you didn't reply to the Backstage mailing list, perhaps in error?) On 02/02/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I totally agree that DRM is not a complete answer, but neither is giving it all away for nothing. Copyright was originally an industrial regulation on printers, and I see no reason why it cannot continue as an industrial regulation. The public now have copying machines. It is impossible to change that fact, and unethical to deny it. Copyright law as it is today is totally broken by this, in as much as it treats the public in an unjust way. But business is adaptable (even if some businesses are not...) and the public is a relatively small market. Let me try and break down Giving it all away for nothing... Giving. If you put up a micropayment (ie, paypal) tip jar and put good copywriters to task on making good 'sales' copy and include those words everywhere they are appropriate, you'll find that people like to give back to things that they appreciate. it all. Although a poor quality version on YouTube available the day it is finished is good enough for a lot of people, that is not the whole thing. The thing is spread out across time and space. Physical containers of the work - collectors editions and top
Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
Hi Dave, Yes, it was a mistake on my part that I hit reply and the previous email didn't end up on the list. Apologies. As I said at the beginning, it will be interesting to see why anyone believes that DRM is needed on BBC products. So far I have seen no clear reason whatsoever, apart from as you say, a defensive legal willingness to support an old model. Still, I get the feeling that my wish to have access to the BBC archive for free use to remix its content is as yet a dream. :-) All the best RichE On 2 Feb 2007, at 16:49, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi Richard! (I notice you didn't reply to the Backstage mailing list, perhaps in error?) On 02/02/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I totally agree that DRM is not a complete answer, but neither is giving it all away for nothing. Copyright was originally an industrial regulation on printers, and I see no reason why it cannot continue as an industrial regulation. The public now have copying machines. It is impossible to change that fact, and unethical to deny it. Copyright law as it is today is totally broken by this, in as much as it treats the public in an unjust way. But business is adaptable (even if some businesses are not...) and the public is a relatively small market. Let me try and break down Giving it all away for nothing... Giving. If you put up a micropayment (ie, paypal) tip jar and put good copywriters to task on making good 'sales' copy and include those words everywhere they are appropriate, you'll find that people like to give back to things that they appreciate. it all. Although a poor quality version on YouTube available the day it is finished is good enough for a lot of people, that is not the whole thing. The thing is spread out across time and space. Physical containers of the work - collectors editions and top packaging/mechandise - are still worth paying for. I have never bought a DVD for myself, because I've only ever downloaded films, but I've bought a load as presents for other people. A burnt off CD doesn't quite do the same trick :-) away. It is true that you don't have as much control as you used to, and that the public will inevitably end up remixing what you did with something else, and maybe even making some money off all the ads on their webpage when their remix becomes popular. You're never going to see any of that cash, but, as an industrial regulation, copyright can still work. An Ad agency, for example, won't be able to get away with using your work like that, without getting a copyright license. for nothing. Don't confuse no money with no thing. What you get by allowing people to fileshare is 'mindshare' or 'social capital.' Ask PR companies about how valuable that can be. I think that all paid knowledge work will become custom work, paid for because someone wants something done for them for another purpose. Ie, moving from a profit center in its own industry to a cost center of another industry. This is fuelled mainly by the falling costs not only of the costs of distribution, but of production. Everyone becomes a producer of all every kind of information once the tools and time to know the tools become cheaply/widely available enough. -- 8 -- 1. Playing live. You can never replicate a live show so this is great for fans, artists and managers. At a certain point you can make a fortune. Major record companies are now trying to get a piece of bands' live incomes as they realise they are on the wrong hobby horse. 2. Merchandise. If it's good it will sell. 3. Synchs. You get paid loads for putting your music on adverts and films. 4. A record deal. You still need one but it's an engine room for the rest of the business. -- 8 -- - http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/01/ if_you_want_to_get_ahead_get_a.html Perhaps I can make money selling bikes. Depends how good your chinese is... :-) Selling non-technologisable consumables like freshly prepared food is probably your best bet :-) If, in 20 years time, there is not enough money to be made in 'content creation,' because the price of production and distribution have fallen so far that everyone is not only famous for 10 minutes but is their own media magnate, then it will be a shame that $100m films are not made any more. Kind of like it is a shame that massive, massive landscape paintings of the countryside are not made any more, because photography killed painting about 100 years ago. People still do business, and we still have Art, and even a few Art Stars still obtaining mega patronage. There will always be plenty of ways to make money. Snip Most people will be helpless to do anything about that, other than feel bad about themselves for not understanding whats going on and thinking computers are shit. This happens to most people I know that use Windows, on a regular basis.! :-) This is a real shame - I find work for myself helping people like this discover free software :-) With any popular GNU+Linux
Re: [backstage] Music, (meta)data, musicbrainz and the BBC
Hi Michael, The label's prefix is always in the ISRC code this may explain further... http://www.riaa.com/issues/audio/isrc_faq.asp My understanding is that the code is attached to the original and unique recording. so many recordings of the same song can have different codes... but each is unique in its sound after mastering. They should never be the exact same audio object with different codes. That does make sense to me, as it is the recording that is important in this case, not the lyrical content or title. Obviously this is designed for admin and royalty collection and therefore the code would probably always be considered along with the CD label. which incorporates the other descriptions one normally requires. It can quickly become very complicated if you want to include Genre of music as a description, as you can see from the changing playlists of radio 1/2 etc. If it is just for live music, then most listeners will be able to discern what they are looking at or listening to from the Venue details along with the Artist name. So I would look toward the following Name, (Song Title) Artist, Venue Date Album Composer Genre Comments Obviously there will be other BBC type info that is needed, but these fields should be enough for a complete description, if I follow your idea. ATB RichE On 26 Jan 2007, at 13:21, Michael Smethurst wrote: On the subject of ISRC codes I've spoken to some of the production people about this Apparently they're supposed to uniquely identify the audio object So if a track appears on a single and also appears on an album with EXACTLY the same recording it should have the same isrc code BUT apparently labels often prefix the isrc with something to identify the label so if a release is re-released on a different label the tracks on it often have different ISRC codes even tho they're the same audio object Basically they're not guranteed Anyway, this is what i've been told... i'd be delighted to be told different... [and they're also no good for describing live music] We have come across gracenotes but unfortunately (once again) they don't really model the platonic ideal of a song (just tracks) so mike flowers pops wonderwall http://www.gracenote.com/prof/music/album.html/ambdreampop/ 7fc4bbab6b367527a59404978be5b833.html has no song to tie it back to oasis's wonderwall http://www.gracenote.com/prof/music/album.html/britpop/ 6ffbeca624a0d776e294e04ece5219d9.html they just happen to label the track search as song maybe there's more going on under the skin of the site but i doubt it From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard P Edwards Sent: 26 January 2007 01:27 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Music, (meta)data, musicbrainz and the BBC James, The 128 character description could well be the ISRC code from the original label. If it is, then it contains a lot of those same details, and is unique across all manufactured CD's. I would also be surprised if you haven't come across these guys http://www.gracenote.com/prof_home.html They seem to have the Song ID database sown up. RichE On 25 Jan 2007, at 16:55, James Cridland wrote: Michael, Ignoring for a while the question of why the BBC is now looking at putting third-party music information services out of business, and being constructive: The major problem we've found working with any third-party music data is the issue of non-standard descriptions. Take a well-known song, which is in our system as... The Beatles: Norwegian Wood (This bird has flown), aka Beatles, The: Norwegian Wood, for example. Life gets harder with R.E.M.'s End of the world as we know it (and I feel fine), since R.E.M. is also known as REM and R. E. M. and... ooh, it's horrid. This needs fixing. Secondly, working with third-party systems is a little difficult for cleared-for-broadcast stuff. Oasis's Fsucking in the bushes won't look great on scrolling DLS, however we do it - and automated swear filters don't work cleverly enough. (I've added an extra letter in there for work-safe email). The way we've ended up working with these types of services is to have to pre-moderate everything before importing, which is a nuisance but the only way. Easy for us, given the comparatively small amount of music we play; harder for the Beeb, I'd guess. If it helps (which I doubt it will), if you go to http:// nowplaying.virginradio.co.uk/vr.js - do it in Firefox so you can see it on-screen - you'll see the following information within a JavaScript line: Artist name ~ artist ID ~ Track name ~ track ID ~ Live on-air studio ~ Presenter name ~ Presenter image reference ~ short description of show (which makes no sense right now I notice!) ~ Short legacy web action description ~ Webcam true/false flag ~ DJ show link ~ Official artist website ~ tickets available true/false ~ 128
Re: [backstage] Music, (meta)data, musicbrainz and the BBC
James, The 128 character description could well be the ISRC code from the original label. If it is, then it contains a lot of those same details, and is unique across all manufactured CD's. I would also be surprised if you haven't come across these guys http://www.gracenote.com/prof_home.html They seem to have the Song ID database sown up. RichE On 25 Jan 2007, at 16:55, James Cridland wrote: Michael, Ignoring for a while the question of why the BBC is now looking at putting third-party music information services out of business, and being constructive: The major problem we've found working with any third-party music data is the issue of non-standard descriptions. Take a well-known song, which is in our system as... The Beatles: Norwegian Wood (This bird has flown), aka Beatles, The: Norwegian Wood, for example. Life gets harder with R.E.M.'s End of the world as we know it (and I feel fine), since R.E.M. is also known as REM and R. E. M. and... ooh, it's horrid. This needs fixing. Secondly, working with third-party systems is a little difficult for cleared-for-broadcast stuff. Oasis's Fsucking in the bushes won't look great on scrolling DLS, however we do it - and automated swear filters don't work cleverly enough. (I've added an extra letter in there for work-safe email). The way we've ended up working with these types of services is to have to pre-moderate everything before importing, which is a nuisance but the only way. Easy for us, given the comparatively small amount of music we play; harder for the Beeb, I'd guess. If it helps (which I doubt it will), if you go to http:// nowplaying.virginradio.co.uk/vr.js - do it in Firefox so you can see it on-screen - you'll see the following information within a JavaScript line: Artist name ~ artist ID ~ Track name ~ track ID ~ Live on-air studio ~ Presenter name ~ Presenter image reference ~ short description of show (which makes no sense right now I notice!) ~ Short legacy web action description ~ Webcam true/false flag ~ DJ show link ~ Official artist website ~ tickets available true/false ~ 128 character description ~ some number which probably does something I appreciate this is nothing to do with what you're asking, but I wondered whether it was interesting to the conversation. And I'm always up for a pint. j -- http://james.cridland.net/ http://www.virginradio.co.uk/vip/profile/bigjim/
Re: [backstage] DRM
Hi Jason, Does anyone know what the requirements of the rights holders are within this particular area? I would love to see a list, then another legal solution may become available. RichE On 24 Jan 2007, at 08:43, Jason Cartwright wrote: All my personal point of view, as usual Seriously guys why the need for DRM, I've only just reconciled myself that I'm not going to get radio in ogg format, and will have to put up with real player as long as I want Radio on demand; now this?! Most BBC stations have a Windows Media stream as well now, I believe. If you come up with a solution to distribute content that satisfies all the requirements of the relevant rights holders then there is whole industry of people willing to give you money. Otherwise, its Windows Media Player DRM all the way if you want to want to get at that content at all, legally. J
Re: [backstage] DRM
Hi Vijay, Believe it.. I can hear the clunky wheels starting up. From the halls of the British Corporation.. yes we need DRM to satisfy the owners of the work that is to be re-produced, without it we could never get a licence, or the content etc.etc.etc.. DRM doesn't exist on my planet... but then nor does BBC TV according to the BBC. Talk about restricting culture, it seems at every level. I don't believe that DRM is to stop the customer or help the original Rights owner. but it sure allows some control factor from the distributor. It will be interesting to see why anyone believes that it is needed on BBC products. :-) RichE On 23 Jan 2007, at 18:30, vijay chopra wrote: I notice that the Beeb is going to put Digital restrictions management in it's upcoming online, TV on demand service via iPlayer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6290745.stm For this reason it has recommended that the BBC's on-demand service reduces from 13 weeks the planned amount of time that users could keep downloaded programmes. Not only that, but Ofcom wants to make the DRM tighter, so we have access to our own media for even less time! What planet are these people on, what would have happened if they were around when we first started printing books? My guess is this: http:// www.pingwales.co.uk/2007/01/18/Chisnall-DRM.html Seriously guys why the need for DRM, I've only just reconciled myself that I'm not going to get radio in ogg format, and will have to put up with real player as long as I want Radio on demand; now this?!
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
What is great is that. One 3.5m satellite dish with a four way LNB, connected to four Sky boxes with four Sling Media Sling boxes attached to four Macs, because that is what I like, each with a couple of realtime Automator actions, stream the whole lot to Democracy from behind Psiphon. Perhaps £10K for the lot. I believe that it will happen by the end of February, BBC1-4 live'ish on the net. Before I get raided, I will not be doing this, but any guesses on how long until someone does? it really is that easy. Perhaps the one feed that you are all missing is the realtime TV feed that is available to us all. I would call it BC plus - plus the hour it takes to digitise,verify and stream. Add more dishes and more torrents, and you end up with the same legal situation as the music industry has. for good or bad. For £166 million the BBC, as the original BBC could do it, might upset the Aussies though but hey, they have the Ashes back :-) Better still, everyone who is interested in the UK could be asked to contribute (BBC Associate program) and the BBC could sell the idea to the Rights holders by splitting any revenue with them based on the number of times a show is viewed at the end of the year. similar to the commercial radio model. The BBC could then use a click count similar to Google ads. but only if they manage a system whereby they are in some control of the first release. and scan any sites that use the content for numbers of hits. Financially, if done legally, which I believe the majority would, I can see everyone making more money than they do now.. I believe the Music model has shown that the quality is important, so more DVD's could be sold, and the BBC would have more information about what to re-run on TV based on the figures from the net. I don't believe I am a geek with computers. so please don't be upset at the above idea, it is for research and information only.. and it would work:-) Regards Rich E On 20 Dec 2006, at 20:44, Nic James Ferrier wrote: Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nic what kind of stuff are talking about doing? Which Lawyers are you worried about? BBC or others? Can you give me an idea. Sure. One thing I'd like to do would be to: - take the BBC realvideo feeds (say newsnight) - convert them into something sensible (mpeg?) - make them into an atom feed - shove them on democracy - see them when I want, not when the BBC says I can or: - the above - shove them into some website - let people tag them and cross reference them - let people search that - let people cross reference that, say BBC news programmes with other news programmes like democracy-now I can't do those things coz I'm pretty sure they're against the law. As soon as I started converting BBC content into something else so that it would play nicely on the Net the BBC's lawyers would be talking to me. I'm pretty sure that would happen. If you're saying that wouldn't happen that's great! -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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
DRM. well look at a system that is already successfully used. A CD has a unique code at the front ... ISRC if you want to even have a chance of being paid a royalty then this code has to be preserved. In my mind, it must be possible to add a code within a data stream that uniquely identifies individual digital content like a meta- tag. Then one should be able to, within the license of user software, allow that code to phone home each time it is used, or every ten times... Just like a cookie. It could even be possible to use a search engine to count how many times that unique code is used across the net. That is your only security, so make it hard to find, and harder to lose and totally copyable. Success can be judged by views, as happens now. The user doesn't even have to worry about it. Yes, Sony messed up. but that was too detailed, I don't think it is ever acceptable to put applications in to the system to phone home, but a small code is the same as putting a name to a song, and this only need work once a year when you open the particular piece of data. I'm interested if anyone can do this. Each piece of content should be unique. I doubt anyone would complain if everything was above board, and only connected to use on computers. Just about every application I use now has the ability to, and does, use my connection to verify itself in some way, even the operating system with updates etc. (Which could be what the Azureus tracker is doing !) I think if the BBC could verify their own content then that would be a huge step in the right direction. I really don't think that anyone has to suffer DRM, as pre DRM CD has proven. where the only way that you know that it is there is because it tells what CD you are playing. and when I look at all my blanks, that is another perfect reason to actually buy the ones I love. Alternatively... the DRM of mp3 is a nightmare because it makes most feel like criminals when they can't play their purchase where they would wish to I doubt that the majority would copy a TV programme download from computer to DVD just to share it, they would use youshareit.com along with everyone else, thus preserving that code, or upload it to where they got it from the net, or point their friends to the same original link. There are lots of accepted examples to follow, like the mobile phone company that spends £100K to advertise a free phone on TV.. sounds madness, until you are locked in to their system for a contractual year, or the Bugatti, built for £5 million and sold for £840K each. The prestige is priceless. After all, if something is popular, then one can earn in many different ways. Knowing that it is popular, and where, can be just as important. So tag all your content and get it to tell you what it is doing. :-) Best wishes RichE On 21 Dec 2006, at 15:34, Timothy-john Bishop wrote: Okay, that sounds great, but what about rights management? I know its going to happen anyway but On 21/12/06, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is great is that. One 3.5m satellite dish with a four way LNB, connected to four Sky boxes with four Sling Media Sling boxes attached to four Macs, because that is what I like, each with a couple of realtime Automator actions, stream the whole lot to Democracy from behind Psiphon. Perhaps £10K for the lot. I believe that it will happen by the end of February, BBC1-4 live'ish on the net. Before I get raided, I will not be doing this, but any guesses on how long until someone does? it really is that easy. Perhaps the one feed that you are all missing is the realtime TV feed that is available to us all. I would call it BC plus - plus the hour it takes to digitise,verify and stream. Add more dishes and more torrents, and you end up with the same legal situation as the music industry has. for good or bad. For £166 million the BBC, as the original BBC could do it, might upset the Aussies though but hey, they have the Ashes back :-) Better still, everyone who is interested in the UK could be asked to contribute (BBC Associate program) and the BBC could sell the idea to the Rights holders by splitting any revenue with them based on the number of times a show is viewed at the end of the year. similar to the commercial radio model. The BBC could then use a click count similar to Google ads. but only if they manage a system whereby they are in some control of the first release. and scan any sites that use the content for numbers of hits. Financially, if done legally, which I believe the majority would, I can see everyone making more money than they do now.. I believe the Music model has shown that the quality is important, so more DVD's could be sold, and the BBC would have more information about what to re-run on TV based on the figures from the net. I don't believe I am a geek with computers. so
Re: [backstage] Re: Best links of the year
In the stranger world that I inhabit, these are some of my favs, although they change daily. Great use of the web... http://www.wefeelfine.org/ wefeelfine_mac.html Interesting concept, and check out the money raised http:// www.mondonation.com/ The best user conference on the web, for me... http:// duc.digidesign.com/ This year, of course mention must be made of Google Video and Youtube, stating the obvious... but they have put a bullet hole through many legal and social requisites this year. The world is smaller and IMO more open due to their presence. I have yet to see whether the BBC is going to shift, but Matthew's interview gave a great insight to the new chapter of Backstage, personally I would like to thank both Ian and Matthew for keeping this discussion going, and prodding the boundaries every now and then. Have a great Christmas all. Richard Edwards. On 16 Dec 2006, at 01:28, Mr I Forrester wrote: So my best links are web 2.0 services which I have in my tabs more that 50% of the time Flickr http://www.flickr.com - Growing from strength to strength with no features Blip.tv http://www.blip.tv - Free hosting of video of any quality and plays well with the rest of the web Democracy http://www.getdemocracy.com/ - As consumer friendly as web video gets and such a good project Twitter http://www.twitter.com - New addition but made such a impact in its short time Thought I'd stay away from the more developer type links... Ian Forrester | backstage.bbc.co.uk | cubicgarden.com On 15 Dec 2006, at 11:54, Tom Loosemore wrote: Hello all I'm doing a review of the year's best links, for use inside Auntie. Any suggestions? For 'best' read: Funny/useful/fabulous/bonkers/innovative Dropsend.com is my link of the year, which is a sad reflection on my life. -t - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/ 2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http:// www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Video Encoder
Davy, If I lack the connection with command line this is how I do what you describe. Apple iPhoto import photos in to a library.. set up the slideshow... Then use Snapz Pro X to capture the screen as a movie, or mpeg. The H.264 codec is available which seems the most up to date in the Mac world, or so I read a while ago. Snapz Pro does Windows. Hope this is helpful. Regards Richard On 14 Dec 2006, at 22:44, Davy Mitchell wrote: Hi Folks, Sorry if this is OT. Working on a new prototype and this request might give a little away :-) !! Anyway I am looking for a windows video encoder (command line?) that can take static images and spit out something video webby and also be as lossless as possible. I've tried Google and not found anything practical. Free or very close to it preferably. Thanks, Davy -- Davy Mitchell Blog - http://www.latedecember.com/sites/personal/davy/ Mood News - BBC News Headlines Auto-Classified as Good, Bad or Neutral. http://www.latedecember.com/sites/moodnews/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 Website recognition?
:-) and there I was enjoying the discussion. :-) On 8 Dec 2006, at 16:22, feedback wrote: please take us off your email list - Original Message - From: Barry Hunter To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 1:35 PM Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC Website recognition? Infact, if you ignore search engines (Google, Yahoo), apps (gmail) and Microsoft (wtf?) the Beeb is the most visited site in the world*. and Microsoft (wtf?) Drifting O/T, but I suspect that is skewed by the 'check for updates' that Internet Explorer does by default every time its opened, which IIRC is via a microsoft.com url. Also the 'Mail' button (when using Hotmail for example) and the links IE installs in the Links Toolbar, all utalise a redirect via microsoft.com.
Re: [backstage] Open data at the BBC
I agree, FYI, there is some pretty extensive data here https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html#Econ https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html The above is cool, for anyone in to lists or sources. Tenuous link I know :-) Have fun. Richard Edwards On 4 Dec 2006, at 12:21, Matthew Hurst wrote: Ian - this is awesome. I've been a lurker at backstage from the very start and a big believer. Matt (http://datamining.typepad.com) On 12/4/06, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mikel Maron who created GeoRSS [http://blip.tv/file/98290] sent this to me just recently Just read this weblog post, and was reminded of our conversation about open data and GeoRSS at the BBC http://datamining.typepad.com/data_mining/2006/12/bbc_generation_.html One of our BBC developers said this, Thanks for that Mikel, I know the journalist who worked on that and will pester him to put a link in to the original data. We certainly should be doing that if only for accessibility reasons. I just thought I'd share with the backstage list, is there anything else like this which you've seen which you'd love to have the data behind? Cheers, Ian Forrester || backstage.bbc.co.uk || x83965 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
From looking at their web-site, perhaps Backstage could show them the way to a better designer. On the front page it mentions W3C over 40 times.. I fell of my seat before I got to the About page, but I was smiling broadly as I got up off the floor. Freakonomics can definitely be a recommendation for them if they agree with Overton. For sure they could do more to include, involve, and promote the positive direction. Beginning with the language they use. Regards Richard On 30 Nov 2006, at 11:39, Ian Forrester wrote: So the questions is what could the BBC Backstage be doing to help the W3C? Besides recommending good practice and standards? Ian Forrester || backstage.bbc.co.uk || x83965 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Allan Jardine Sent: 30 November 2006 09:12 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window Or this could all simply indicate that the W3C is being very sensible and not trying to push standards beyond what people are actually doing or want to do. Perhaps to some extent. But then you end up in a situation such as the MSIE / Netscape browser war where multiple features are introduced, with each party wanting their own extensions included into the spec. Which ever is most popular wins, but leaves a number of developers / users out in the cold. Until 802.11x came along, very few people used wireless computer networks, similarly with GSM for mobile phones. Perhaps the W3C should trail blaze in the same manner. Indeed html and xml were 'new' (if tidied up sgml) and presented many new opportunities. The example you give of Flash is an interesting one... but SVG has also come a long way and is a similarly complex technology. Indeed it has. And I've used SVG for a few experiments, to get a feel for it. The spec looks good and very powerful. Now if only someone would implement it. Opera, Safari and Firefox are all developing their SVG support, however it is slow going. Opera appears to be furthest along, with Firefox 2 supporting a sub-set of the spec and Safari having limited support in nightly builds. One of the most powerful features of SVG imho is the ability to mix xml namespaces using the foreignObject in SVG. Which Safari supports, but does little else, Opera doesn't support and Mozilla (1.8? Firefox 3) will / does in nightlys. This is why I suggested that perhaps the W3C should look at developing a standards based browser, to push other browser developers to support new standards less than five years after they are released... Don't get me wrong - I have great respect for the W3C, and to some extent their task is impossible. But it does need a shake up, because it's not quite working at the moment. A - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Psiphon Next Gen content
Ian, As a geriatric, I am pleased to be 3rd Generation, with a hint of 4th !! I'm looking forward to real virtual reality as well, been waiting since 1987 although Second Life isn't up my street. but an interactive band on youtube is.. so my vision is very different from the norm. I am happy to see it all as binary code, so there is no difference between anyone telling me the news, from the radio,TV,web-site, or my neighbour. The big difference is that now I have so much choice that I struggle to decide what is actually important or worth my time. I am therefore influenced by what I feel is good, and I respect the BBC and it's quality. I don't know who makes what, or whether one show is more expensive than another, but you can be sure that my experience makes for very quick choices. so yes, I will record a great show to DVD just to get rid of the ad breaks. Can you tell me, why is mixing BBC content with some dance tune bad? If I can pay for that content and people like the mashup, then I am not hurting anyone. sadly at this moment I am unable to license that content but that doesn't make it bad.. if every cameraman owned the footage he shot, then most programs could not be edited and aired, as a similar example. I must say that I get pretty frustrated with old world legal problems always affecting new ways to use the content as I would like, in my case I can do just about all of it, but I choose to stay within the law. I can though, understand completely why others don't in these cases. Even as far back as the 80's people were stealing loops and using them to make new songs. the new generations are capable of borrowing from all digital sources, and sometimes they actually win. Youtube is perhaps a case in point, where once again the writs will fly after the event. Just like Google's project to copy books. the idea has no negatives, but the how it is paid for is unknown or just way too complicated and expensive to do. What a great time to be around to use it all, given legal access. On 29 Nov 2006, at 10:56, Ian Forrester wrote: I keep meaning to draw this out and post it on my blog --- my own thoughts on TV generations --- 1st generation - Mainstream TV watchers, Tend to be stuck to the Broadcast Schedule, will get home to watch a certain thing, will see lots of adverts etc. Will tend to have Cable, Sky or Free view 2nd generation - Tape it for later They tend to watch live events, browse TV and tape/vivo/record everything they watch a lot (such as shows). They skip adverts but still see them. Still aware of the Broadcast Schedule and subscribes to Sky or Cable 3rd generation - On Demand Completely off the schedule, no idea which channel things come from or what time there on. Rely on friends recommendations or social networks to tell what's on. Owns a laptop or has a computer device (such as xbox) setup with there TV. Tends not to browse TV and does not subscribe to Sky or Cable but watches a lot of TV 4th generation - There is no spoon Same as 3rd generation but sees all content as remixable and shareable. Can't understand why mixing bbc content with some dance tune is bad. Uploads content to online sites and shares a lot for social capital. May not even own a TV but has access to a large connection Obviously there's stages between the generations, like someone who watches everything on demand but also tunes in for Torchwood every week (what day is it on again?) :) Ian Forrester || backstage.bbc.co.uk || x83965 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Luke Dicken Sent: 28 November 2006 21:33 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Psiphon Next Gen content Yes, actually most kids my sons age - 20 ish don't watch tv at all. They might watch YouTube occassionally but mostly they are either watching DVD's on their wide screen laptops, or creating their own content with digi-cams, photoshop artwork, websites or generally out and about Speaking as someone in this age-group (although possibly atypical given my tech background), its not that we don't watch TV, its just that TV programs aren't good enough to keep our interest. My flatmate makes time for Torchwood each week - I have a habit of forgetting its on so end up either setting our TV up to record it, then watch it later, or I pick it up from a torrent site. The whole concept of remembering when a show is on and watching it is now totally alien to me - I want content on demand, and youtube delivers that. Its just that its generally trashy content on there, and whilst you can sometimes spend hours watching what fun people have with... Y'know... Putting firecrackers down their pants or whatever Its not exactly the kind of high-brow stuff people want from a proper broadcasting outfit.
Re: [backstage] Psiphon
So the facts support the premise that the BBC can embrace this audience, or let someone else... Google/MSN earn the profit and pay the BBC for the right. Is it wrong for the public to be afforded the same right, as in this case, we are contributors to the original cost of production? Tom, I'm with you - thank you for your insight. Two points may help though, one is that it seems that a trial version, or beta, can be set up overnight. and the other is that you need a clause similar to the record industry, for promotional purposes only. That has been used in many contexts, and coupled with either a re- edit or a huge drop in quality, I am sure that the world now realises that these new distribution models are extremely valuable. Especially in the case of the BBC where I believe that it is the value of content when it arrives in the public domain that determines whether it is successful or not, not necessarily only financial income. The BBC can have its own YouTube, in weeks if it likes, perhaps the facts will allow the connected problems to disappear in the wash. There must be an easy beginning point which doesn't include external rights holders, as in reality, it is just another type of search engine. I hope so. Regards Richard On 28 Nov 2006, at 12:29, Lee Goddard wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Hyett It seems obvious to me that this transition, led by music will mean that they spend more time on the PC, watching than they do on the TV. Its a generational thing Yeah: keep the kids away from the remote control for my big screen and media PC, and they'll have to watch TV on their sorry little PC! Is this the place to ask why BBC News have such an excellent MCE package, and BBC2 Broadband doesn't? -- Lee Goddard Independent Contractor, Software Development/Analysis BBC Radio ☺ Room 718 · Henry Wood Hs · Regents St · London W1 1AA · ( 020 776 50849 ♫ lee(at)server-sidesystems.ltd.uk
Re: [backstage] Psiphon
Wow, I will be watching the next World Cup live on the BBC then. ;-) If this does what I think it will, then the resulting discussion will, again, have consequences for everyone. Personally, I like the idea of sharing and from this side of the Channel, the UK is a state that censors. I accept the reasons why, copyright etc. but this will push those regulations once more. Now, I am off to find a trusted friend. :-) Thanks Mario. On 27 Nov 2006, at 10:17, Mario Menti wrote: Just stumbled upon this, and thought it may be of interest to some folks on the list: http://psiphon.civisec.org According to the front page, psiphon is a human rights software project developed by the Citizen Lab at the Munk Centre for International Studies that allows citizens in uncensored countries to provide unfettered access to the Net through their home computers to friends and family members who live behind firewalls of states that censor. Mario.
Re: [backstage] Psiphon
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. I can hear the voices of resistance still. There is absolutely no reason not to, and if the BBC doesn't, it will probably find all of its best content hosted all over the world for anyone to see anyway. just as CBS have found out. So where exactly did all this locking out and streaming certain content to certain places come from? Big brother? :-) 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. I'm sure that a way could be programmed to reverse Psiphon or the like, with something like realtime P2P to distribute the feeds via a massive server of trusted associates, now that would be exciting. I'll pay and deliver, how's that? I hope that the future is MAC addresses, not IP's. Richard On 27 Nov 2006, at 18:23, Ian Forrester wrote: Its certainly interesting. Something I was reading the other day http://torrentfreak.com/downloading-tv-shows-leads-to-more-tv- watching/ Earlier this month we estimated that almost a million viewers get their latest Lost episode through BitTorrent. TV broadcasters are now beginning to realize that making shows available for download is helping their business, instead of hurting it. CBS's chief research officer David Poltrack said that online distribution services like YouTube and BitTorrent are friends, not foes. Poltrack is not too keen on the paid distribution model iTunes offers right now. He thinks that TV shows should be available for free via ad-supported models. In a panel discussion at the Future of Television Forum Poltrack said that if [consumers] are going to steal it, give it to them anyway. But also make it easier to access and present it better than YouTube or BitTorrent or anywhere else. :) Ian Forrester || backstage.bbc.co.uk || x83965 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard P Edwards Sent: 27 November 2006 18:07 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Psiphon I believe that the music market place has already answered your question Ian. The only successful new model allows the customer to use any authorised device to play the downloaded music on. therefore quelling a few of the customers complaints, but still not going far enough. If I can already watch content on my computer, then the BBC has to acknowledge that the same computer can travel with me, so using Geo IP becomes a censorship which I will either find a way around, or go and view someone else's content. As is mentioned on today's News site, perhaps the real debate should therefore be the other way around, how does the BBC keep its viewers. and why is there so much fear about losing content, when as soon as it appears on TV it is effectively sold anyway? I agree with Ricky Gervais, I don't think that a program loses its value just because someone can download it. In fact, if it is good enough then it finds a larger market place. I understand the law completely, but as has also been affected today, perhaps the thinking of the suits is slightly out of touch where copyright is concerned. :-) I would love to see the BBC reverse its thinking and engage us, as the public, in allowing much more access, even if they have to pressure government to change the law. There is nothing to fear :-) On 27 Nov 2006, at 16:01, Ian Forrester wrote: Alright alright, I walked into the last two comments :) But its certainly an interesting debate, what would (we) the BBC do if Geo IP was so easily passed. And what would you do if it was so easy? I thought this might be amusing for some. http://blogs.opml.org/tommorris/ 2006/11/27#obviousTruthsForIdiotsInSuits Specially this line - Television isn't dead yet. But, for me, it's lying on the ground wounded. Ian Forrester || backstage.bbc.co.uk || x83965 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jakob Fix Sent: 27 November 2006 14:54 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Psiphon On 11/27/06, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What happens when setting up a proxy service is as easy as running an application and using one is as easy as typing in a url? isn't that what Torpark is all about? http://www.torrify.com/ -- Jakob. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group
Re: [backstage] Backstage Tag Cloud T-shirt designs
I'll have one of the V5's Ian :-) If I had a choice, I would take out secondlife (needless advertising perhaps) and add moped... just as a smiley. All the best Richard On 16 Nov 2006, at 15:13, Ian Forrester wrote: So this is what I've done so far... Let me know what you think, http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/news/images/ideas/backstage%20cloud% 20tshirt%20v2.jpg http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/news/images/ideas/backstage%20cloud% 20tshirt%20v3.jpg http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/news/images/ideas/backstage%20cloud% 20tshirt%20v4.jpg http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/news/images/ideas/backstage%20cloud% 20tshirt%20v5.jpg I have done the designs in SVG, if anyone wants to edit the source file directly. Cheers, Ian Forrester || backstage.bbc.co.uk || x83965 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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: Take Scag: [backstage] Witty slogan and design for Backstage T-shirts
Mario rocks.I can't see a place for that scooter on the road, let alone on a t-shirt. sorry Ian. :-)RichE.On 1 Nov 2006, at 11:39, Matthew Cashmore wrote: Very very very cool... and not just because my name is on there! :-) Ian's use of the word awesome however is a little suspect... especially when you see this http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattcashmore/282153124/ He's currently suggesting we somehow get his new scooter into the shirt design ;-) tinhat value="on" From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ian ForresterSent: 01 November 2006 10:56To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukSubject: RE: Take Scag: [backstage] Witty slogan and design for Backstage T-shirts That is awesome :) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mario MentiSent: 01 November 2006 10:35To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukSubject: Re: Take Scag: [backstage] Witty slogan and design for Backstage T-shirts On 10/31/06, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like this idea a lot!I can imagine we could run the mail archives through a tag cloud maker and generate pretty much everything we need. How cool would it be if peoples names came up? :) If you want to see what the current tag cloud may look like (based on the subject lines in the unofficial mail archive), see here: http://menti.net/?p=40Cheers,Mario.
Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
Please excuse my interruption, but I would in all cases expect the original author to be accountable.For the complete framework of the public's and BBC's legal responsibility, it is worth reading the BBC's disclaimer and House Rules."You also agree to indemnify the BBC against all legal fees, damages and other expenses that may be incurred by the BBC as a result of your breach of the above warranty"I would suggest that Auntie has herself clearly protected, yet again. but the question of before and after the fact censorship is still very pertinent. I expect that someone is working hard as I type to close the path of information, certainly very difficult in this case. Such a tiny idea that has huge implications, hopefully to the benefit of us all.Humorously, (sic), it is the re-publication that would appear, under the BBC's "perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicenseable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, play, and exercise all copyright and publicity rights with respect to any such work worldwide and/or incorporate it in other works in any media now known or later developed for the full term of any rights that may exist in such content etc etc etc" clause phew!!!, to be the reason that the site could receive a cease and desist letter for using this information, sadly.RegardsOn 25 Oct 2006, at 11:50, Kim Plowright wrote:Any subsequent republication of the libel is also actionable, though... IANAL!From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Phil WinstanleySent: 25 October 2006 09:03To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukSubject: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoringI believe it’s the “publisher” of content in Libel cases. Phil. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin BelamSent: 24 October 2006 15:44To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukSubject: Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring As someone who used to work closely with the BBC community site teams my first thought was what happens when the BBC pulls posts for legal reasons, and this site reproduces them - who ends up potentially legally liable - the site re-hosting the content, the BBC, or the original poster, even though they didn't give explicit permission for newssniffer to re-use the content. *shuffles off to consult lawyer* all the best,martinhttp://www.currybet.net On 24/10/06, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Thought this might be of interest to the backstage crew: http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_revisionhttp://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensoredJJason CartwrightClient Side Developer - CBBC Interactive[EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 57) 67938Mobile: 07976500729 "Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here" - Ray Bradbury --received to: andyb.comMessage ID : o8b854b5cd7704bc7af26fd2de1e9ab0a.proSender ID : [EMAIL PROTECTED]Msg Size : 4k This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential andintended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they areaddressed.If you have received this email in error please notify the originator ofthe message. This footer also confirms that this email message has beenscanned for the presence of computer viruses, though it is notguaranteed virus free.Original Recipient: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukOriginal Sender : [EMAIL PROTECTED]Original Send Date: 25/10/2006 - 09:03:26
Re: [backstage] Suddenly Everything's Coming up Widgets
Personally, I can't wait until the web breaks free of web-browsers, but I don't think that widgets alone are the answer. although the application does take note of the fact that all of us enjoy toasters that make toast, and irons that iron, if you get my meaning. I have been trying to find a useful widget since Mac OS-X came out, I find the web-cams and live weather radar shots to be the biggest reason for me to switch the screen. I have no idea whether any of the BBC radio widgets work any better now, I gave up using them about a year ago. I am also really looking forward to the BBC doing a watch again in the same way that their radio programmes are available. After the success of You-tube, this has to be a certainty to keep up with the future. (Legalities allowing.) I'm intrigued by the new apparent trend in data manipulation. It was noted over the weekend that Google video are changing the viewer counts to put certain videos further down the list... the opposite to natural selection, I suppose, although of course, there are no facts to support this. Allegedly. On 9 Oct 2006, at 12:59, Ian Forrester wrote: A interesting piece by Om Malik for Business 2.0 [1] on the state of widgets --- Breaking down the Web into small, portable pieces is the smart trend that everyone from Nokia to Google is betting on. Then he follows up with a short post on GigaOM [2] What do others feel about the future of widgets? Like I mentioned before Opera are keen on the idea of mobile Widgets, but have yet to show there hand except for in the desktop market [3]. While Nokia just got in on the act and launched widsets [4]. [1] - http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/ 2006/09/01/8384338/ [2] - http://software.gigaom.com/2006/09/11/its-a-widget-world/ [3] - http://widgets.opera.com/ [4] - https://www.widsets.com Ian Forrester || backstage.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] New backstage.bbc.co.uk website
I have been hereabouts for years and today was my third time at the web-site, perhaps not common, but what is It is interesting that the blog has no comments on it... yet here in the mails a variety of brilliant subjects have been discussed. I am therefore intrigued by the relationship between the two. Perhaps there could be a sidestage blog, where concepts can be discussed, without the certainty of framework... but for the community .. for example the duc, digidesign users conference over at their site, or any active forum. My apologies if this is available to the community elsewhere, if it is I'd love the link. There are a very wide variety of people in this community, past and present, I for one would like to see more on how backstage can actually change the course of various experiences within the BBC, but not necessarily involving the critic of what is already there. Thanks. RichE On 4 Oct 2006, at 17:53, Jose-Carlos Mariategui wrote: In deed, as stated before, I think it should be accessible to common people that do not have any programming skills and that may be able to mashup the feeds using some type of GUI. A sort of ning.com for dummies. on 10/4/06 2:05 PM, Lee Goddard at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How would you like to consume the site... Mobile / www / offline downloads? WWW, RSS, thanks for asking! - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Publishing TV listings? BDS are after you...
I am sure that BDS do pay the BBC. The difference here is that the BBC, as Backstage, made the content available for use... and as such, has a clear responsibility to BDS, and any other commercial user, as well as the members of Backstage, to make sure that everyone works within the BBC's terms as the data supplier. Can the BBC have their cake and eat it? I think not. On 23 Jun 2006, at 13:04, Peter Bowyer wrote: On 23/06/06, Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The one part of this I *really* don't get is that accurate TV listing data is only going to generate more viewers. So why on earth would you want to restrict it? Because 'generating more viewers' is only one part of the value commercial value of listings data to the broadcaster. And a diminishing one, at that - it's easy to argue that there are already more than enough places that an interested viewer can find out what's on BBC1 tonight at 9pm, and the existence of another adds nothing to the audience figures. If an aggregator wants to add value to listings data to serve their own commercial ends, why shouldn't they pay royalties to the data provider? Peter (Devil's Advocate-in-Chief) -- Peter Bowyer Email: [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] feeds with live graphics?
Hi Guys, I am always interested in the copyright issues that arrive in this discussion from time to time. Regarding the BBC, has anyone thought to ask their lawyers to simply put a clause in to their own license contract agreement? At least then one would be able to make informed decisions based on the cost of using such images or any other copyrighted works in this area. I would suggest that the BBC also works in the commercial world in this respect, and I cannot see any reason why, as an example, Associated Press would take the BBC to court and win over a case connected with equality or disability. If the BBC would like to use un-copyrighted material, then I am sure that the public can help. or that they themselves have enough strength to make it happen the way that they wish. Please can someone call the BBC legal department and ask if this is possible, otherwise we will be going around in circles again meanwhile holding back creativity for the sake of legal insanity. Regards Richard Edwards On 13 Jun 2006, at 10:24, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote: Matthew, sorry was replying to DED rather than CA would that be double indemnity ~: cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 13 Jun 2006, at 09:20, Matthew Somerville wrote: Jonathan Chetwynd wrote: given the BBC's remit might this mean they need to ensure that they have copyright clearance, if they need it? -- The Disability Equality Duty will apply, from December 2006, to the BBC , Channel 4 and the Welsh Fourth Channel (S4C). Right, but that's irrelevant to my point. That simply means that those organisations have to put the effort in to promoting disability equality, it has nothing to do with when you can legally make copies of stuff without infringing someone's copyright. -- Sorry, I don't understand. The whole point of the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act is that it enables (some) people to make accessible versions of (some) copyright material for visually impaired people without needing to clear it with the copyright holder, whoever they are. So who would the BBC need to ensure they have copyright clearance with, and what for? ATB, Matthew - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Last played songs?
Hi,I would like to add to this.If you look on the Pete Tong Radio 1 web-site, for example, you will see that a playlist is published as much as possible.Two points come to mind...1. If the shows are specialist then it is very important that the audience has this information.2. In which ever case, for the sake of the music business and new artists, there should never be a situation where this information is not documented for MCPS/PRS etc.. Therefore 80% actually online now, is far better than the odd piece missed, for everyone concerned. Anyway - what do those show producers do whilst on air?RegardsRichard EdwardsOn 16 May 2006, at 15:51, Kenneth Burrell-CAPITA wrote:Hi all I am a newbie and have been sitting on the side lines observing since signing up about a month ago. Fascinating stuff, even for someone who isn't a developer. From my years of experience having a dialogue with the BBC audience and information provision James is spot on. 100% is very ambitious and our experience of trying to get all output areas to provide all information for the audience, just in case, can be a waste of effort. I agree if it can be done automatically then fine, but if it requires manual effort then do not expect that it will (always) be done. Ken Ken BurrellBBC Information On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 02:57:05PM +0100, Dan Hill wrote: Release early, release often. Indeed, although we're concentrating on 'mainstream' users for these feeds, rather than Backstage, so I'd rather we tended towards 100% and avoided unecessary studio info where possible. It may be that we have a fuller feed for Backstage etc. alongside.I think the general public would like partial info better then none too --it's just fine for them if it sometimes shows up with "(custom content)".Even better if it knows what mics are live, and who is sitting in front ofthem, though obviously that'd require some extra work for producers (orengineers, depending on how the show works). The last 20% takes 80% of thetime, but a large amount of your audience only cares about the first 80%anyway. IOW, when you can't figure out what's being played, just put in aplaceholder. -=- James Mastros
