Re: [backstage] iPad
I remember in 1992 when an engineer friend sniffed that Windows (v3) wasn't a proper operating system, just a DOS application, and DOS was a pig, and OS/2 was a serious OS. Bill Gates laughed all the way to the bank. Sean On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: Underwhelming. It's a big iPhone. It's named after the Star Trek PADD. Might be good it if ran an operating system and had a keyboard. 2010/1/27 Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net So, what does everyone think? (and how much effect will it have on the video situation over the next 18 months or so, do we reckon?) 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] iPad
Yes, Gates led IBM along; his chief concern was to distract them while gaining market share for Windows. i remember a press conference in Paris in 1993 for the Windows NT launch where he said he expected IBM to break apart into pieces. It was the DOS OEM licensing that made Gates rich. Sean On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: OS/2 PM was a trick Microsoft played on IBM, wasn't it? Windows v3.0 was cooperative multitasking, not pre-emptive which was why people said it was a DOS application and they were quite right. It was the first point that made Gates rich, not the second. 2010/1/29 Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com I remember in 1992 when an engineer friend sniffed that Windows (v3) wasn't a proper operating system, just a DOS application, and DOS was a pig, and OS/2 was a serious OS. Bill Gates laughed all the way to the bank. Sean On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: Underwhelming. It's a big iPhone. It's named after the Star Trek PADD. Might be good it if ran an operating system and had a keyboard. 2010/1/27 Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net So, what does everyone think? (and how much effect will it have on the video situation over the next 18 months or so, do we reckon?) 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] dot.life, windows 7 ubuntu
Thanks for this Tim One thing this story illustrates is that new users react to the desktop or graphical user interface, not the underlying GNU/Linux distribution. This concept of alternate desktops is foreign to Windows and Mac users, since those OSes come with only one desktop. Gnome and KDE, the two predominant desktops used in GNU/Linux distros, are not marketed as separate products; as such they are invisible and to newcomers, the desktop is assumed to be part of the system, whether Ubuntu or Fedora or openSuSE or Mandriva or $yourfavedistrohere. As new users assume that desktop=distro, a lousy experience through e.g. not knowing what a package manager is or does becomes I tried Linux and couldn't do X. Never mind that Microsoft has very carefully and diligently worked on making Windows play nasty with other systems... I contribute to a children's education project with a kid-friendly desktop based on GNU/Linux which has over a million users in thirty countries. We may be nonprofit, but we are not hobbyists. Mr Cellan-Jones knows about this project, having reported on it in Rwanda two years ago and again recently. He might be surprised to learn that he could use Ubuntu (or indeed most distros) with the Gnome desktop, the KDE desktop, the Xfce desktop... or Sugar, the same desktop he saw on One Laptop per Child hardware in Africa. It's interesting to note that Windows, like all traditional office-desktop paradigm GUIs, is confusing to young children and kid-friendly alternate desktops for Windows are perhaps the only exceptions to the vanilla interface approach. (An excellent alternate desktop for grownups from Xerox called TabWorks actually came standard on Compaq hardware in the mid-1990s, but fizzled.) In his comment on Popey's blog, Mr Cellan-Jones repeated a tried and true adage of broadcast journalism: Never work with children, animals or technology. My co-contributors and myself manage to do 2 out of 3, and only the openness, security, reliability, flexibility, standards compatibility, networking, and low cost of GNU/Linux makes it possible. It's tempting to condemn the BBC for Mr Cellan-Jones' statements; after all, Microsoft's illegal efforts to impose and sustain its desktop PC monopoly are a matter of public record. And GNU/Linux's tiny PC market share (servers and supercomputers are another story) hides a multitude of vibrant projects. However, the BBC does get the story right, too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8117064.stm Sean. On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Tim Dobson li...@tdobson.net wrote: http://popey.com/blog/2009/10/21/bbc-breakfast-talk-up-windows-7-dismiss-rivals/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/10/24_hours_with_ubuntu.html I have a feeling Popey is on this list... :) Read, comment, try not to hurt each other etc... :) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
All we have to do now Is take these lies and make them true somehow All we have to see Is that I don't belong to you And you don't belong to me Freedom You've gotta give for what you take Freedom You've gotta give for what you take On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Martin Belam Sent: 08 October 2009 22:46 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom' David, I understand that DRM costs money and is never 100% effective, and I understand that it was a bit rubbish when the music industry made me pay again for downloads of music by dead people that I'd already purchased once on vinyl and then once again on CD. And I'm hearing a lot about your freedom. But at the moment I enjoy my freedom to be able to publish a picture of my daughter in public on the Internet so that my family, colleagues and friends can see it easily, but also express my choice alongside it that the photograph belongs to me and it is not be used without my knowledge or consent on an advert. I genuinely don't understand why you think forcibly taking that freedom away from me in a complete abolition of copyright enhances society. Martin Belam, Information Architect, guardian.co.uk - currybet.net - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Talk to anyone in legal at Red Hat or Novell, or Canonical, they will tell you how much they rely on state-sponsored monopoly schemes such as copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. I attended the third international GPLv3 draft conference (http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/europe-gplv3-conference.en.html) and taped all the sessions, and I can assure you that the basis of the license is in copyright law. Watch the Eben Moglen vid if you have the time. On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:27 PM, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Sean DALY wrote: So if I understand you, let's abolish copyright, and that way Microsoft, Adobe et.al. can just chuck their bloated old code and incorporate formerly free software into their binaries? And charge an arm and a leg for it as well. Read Hat, SUSE etc all manage without a state sponsored monopoly, Microsoft can do so too. No thanks. I prefer the GPL, which derives its power from copyright law - the concept that creators decide how their work may be used. I support intellectual property law reform, but this is really throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The GPL only needs copyright to defend against copyright, v3 does go further, the concept is so powerful, it is widely abused (not in the GPL v2). P.S. I'm a parent, and I am glad copyright law provides me with some recourse should my teenager be dumb enough to upload a bad photo to a public internet site. I'm afraid though that next, you're going to tell me that children should be free of parental control and report their parents to the NKVD if they aren't permitted to use RapidShare or MEGAUPLOAD You think copyright is going to help, as we all laugh at your image. Who said anything about parental control. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Well, Henry III tried to throw out the Magna Carta too, and look where it got him. That darned French influence I suppose - Eleanor of Provence and her cronies at court, no doubt with the first reading of HADOPI. On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:16 PM, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Richard Lockwood wrote: It is my genuine position. Abolishing copyright would achieve exactly what I want. This is what it all boils down to whenever the let's abolish copyright for the good of society. It's actually about let's abolish copyright for my own personal benefit. You simply don't want to have to pay for anything, and I'm guessing you don't produce anything creative, hence you don't benefit from copyright. It's the me, me, me, me, me! argument again - have you been down the pub with Dave Crossland too often? ;-) It's why not do a thought experiment, after all there are several million people on the Internet, who intend to practice it. The attempts to prevent them are the real danger to society. Lord Mandeleson, and the French want to throw out the Magna Carta, and the whole legal system to maintain it. Content Vendors want to lock down every piece of consumer electronics. and impose huge costs on society. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Some legal systems, particularly in French-speaking countries, beyond commercial use do indeed restrict broadcast and print and Internet journalism use of recognizable images of persons without prior permission, with fairly well-defined exceptions particularly for the press. In the case of minors, the parent or guardian must provide prior authorisation. The UK and USA have no such legal tradition as far as I know. This is called the droit à l'image and dozens of cases are brought each year. If you read French, http://www.educnet.education.fr/legamedia/legadico/lexique/droit-limage is an excellent starting point. This creates work for those who have to blur faces and disguise voices, but does protect individuals and children in particular better than in the English-speaking countries. Sean On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Zen zen16...@zen.co.uk wrote: People, places and possessions get used all the time without their consent by the big broadcasters. The only difference is that the broadcasters have used their own hardware to capture the image or sound, etc. Why is okay for broadcasters to consider their work copyright protected, but they have no consideration for the initial 'copyright' of the people involved? On 9 Oct 2009, at 11:45, Michael Smethurst wrote: and this old chestnut http://www.creativecommons.org.au/node/126 -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk on behalf of Robin Doran Sent: Fri 10/9/2009 11:25 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom' Anyone remember this for earlier in the year? Prime example of privacy and personal respect being abused. A company in Prague used a family picture off facebook for commercial purposes without consent, attribution, etc. http://www.extraordinarymommy.com/blog/are-you-kidding-me/stolen-picture / -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 09 October 2009 11:09 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom' Mo McRoberts wrote: On 9-Oct-2009, at 00:21, David Tomlinson wrote: For obvious reasons I do not wish to discuss children as a subject anymore. It's not obvious at all. People need to stop with the nervousness when the words children and photograph appear in a sentence together; it's, for want of a better term, childish and ridiculous. It's also pretty salient, given it's a straightforward example of a copyright-holder having a current ability to exercise control without having to resort to onerous trust mechanisms. Your position has a distinct lack of great upsides as compared to the status quo, but it -does- have some significant flaws, and I say that retaining the view that copyright as it exists today is flawed in some fairly serious ways. No the mention of Children and Photograph just distorts everything it touches, so there are better examples, where privacy or personal images are concerned. Copyright is almost useless for controlling something that does not involve commercial interests in practice. The fact is that most images are not worth anything unless used commercially, except to the owner. And that is a privacy and personal respect issue. This text is copyright, even if I don't care if someone copies it, but that is another thing, attribution and source become important, in other words reputation systems etc. As for upsides, the only one copyright has, is you are familiar with it. The Besson and Mason paper covers the accumulation of rights, that forms a thicket and stops progress (patents). A similar thing applies with copyright. You can find the copyright owner, the rights clearance process is complex. Quintin Tarentino who has resources available talked at length on Radio 4 about the difficulties of getting clearance on original music for films. Having a designer chair in the background of a shot in a film is a nightmare. Speaking of films, they also suffer from the monopoly attributes of runaway costs and marketing so as to limit choice and exclude competition, and thoose poor A lister have to manage on 20 Million USD per film (2 per year ?). I have just started to put the case, to do so requires a book. http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm Here is one that makes the case, it is available free as a pdf from the website. But even this does not cover the whole argument in favour of abolishing copyright and patents. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive:
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
So if I understand you, let's abolish copyright, and that way Microsoft, Adobe et.al. can just chuck their bloated old code and incorporate formerly free software into their binaries? And charge an arm and a leg for it as well. No thanks. I prefer the GPL, which derives its power from copyright law - the concept that creators decide how their work may be used. I support intellectual property law reform, but this is really throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Sean. P.S. I'm a parent, and I am glad copyright law provides me with some recourse should my teenager be dumb enough to upload a bad photo to a public internet site. I'm afraid though that next, you're going to tell me that children should be free of parental control and report their parents to the NKVD if they aren't permitted to use RapidShare or MEGAUPLOAD On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:35 PM, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: How about this one: (In no particular order). * In view of the power grab we have witnessed. * In view of technological developments. * In view of the fact the copyright is censorship of the public. * In view of the extension of the scope of monopoly to 100 years or life + 70 years * In view of the fact that it is a state sanctioned monopoly. * In view of the fact that there is no economic case for continuing copyright. * In view of the costs copyright imposes on society. * In view of the opportunity costs. Why don't we just abolish copyright ? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 ...
I agree technical schemes and disproportionate legal threats are inefficient ways to combat illicit copying, and work should be done to make copying licit. However, the rights holders are not bad guys in the scenario, they represent (for better or worse) people making a living through creation. How can they be compensated fairly for their work? A watermarking scheme which counts downloads or views, and apportions revenues accordingly? That would possibly mean a shift away from overcompensation of big names and a reduction of middlemen, not bad things. Or perhaps the public should just settle for lots more mediocrity. Sean. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:43 PM, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: The rights-holders will have to answer the first part. This is sheer fantasy, really—it’s pretty much entirely incompatible with (a) an open market, and (b) broadcasting (as opposed to simulcasting to millions of people individually). They don't want an open market, they have enjoyed a monopoly through broadcasting (limited bandwidth/broadcasters) and through copyright. They don't wish this to change. Regardless of the potential of new technology for increasing the public utility. (Gains for the public). If the HD signal is encrypted or licenced, then this can carry over to the Internet where simulcasts, would be encrypted or otherwise restricted. This is all about maintaining the rights-holders monopoly of content distribution, and possibly charging on a pay-per-view model. Pro Bono Publico For the good of the public ! - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 ...
My understanding is that the BBC's strategy is to treat the UK and rest-of-world markets differently, with a profit orientation on the World side. Technical geolocalisation solutions are indeed doomed to failure in my view. Those sly devils at Google showed me a sponsored link last week promising international access to UK iPlayer through a proxy. As a former musician and record producer, you'll have no pity from me for the rapacious vultures of the music biz :-) But I'm speaking generally about digital disruption. The free-to-air model is now the free-to-world model. I'm actually much more worried about newspapers. Sean. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:04, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: How can they be compensated fairly for their work? A watermarking scheme which counts downloads or views, and apportions revenues accordingly? That would possibly mean a shift away from overcompensation of big names and a reduction of middlemen, not bad things What, in your mind, are they being (additionally) compensated for? Bearing in mind that in this context, the broadcasts are being made to about 50 million people freely over the airwaves and the rights-holders are already paid for this. Anybody within that group of 50 million has already been compensated on behalf of through the commissioning process. If a significant proportion of the downloaders of your FTA UK content are themselves within the UK, as a rights-holder I’d be asking myself why they’re having to resort to illicit means to obtain content they already had rights to receive and time-shift. Then I’d try to fix it. Once you start going outside of the UK, things are more complicated. One thing is critically evident as things have changed over the past few years: artificial geographically-based restrictions are doomed to failure. If you have to wait weeks, or even months (and sometimes years) to get the same content legally in your region, the rights-holders have shot themselves in the foot. The broadcast industry would do well to learn from the mistakes the music industry made: artificial scarcity, legal threats, hyperbole and DRM only actually achieve the intended results for a painfully short period of time. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 ...
David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not an active project AFAIK, but it is Mozilla MPL. Of course, one could add that FLOSS engineers, probably more than most engineers, hate to spend time working on useless software. I would agree the industry is in a transition phase away from DRM, but I'd hesitate to say the same for copyright. Copyright, patents, trademarks, are state-sponsored monopolies originally intended to protect small inventors and creators with the goal of fostering innovation. Without a doubt, the law is struggling with new technologies, and patent and copyright claims overlap in software with silly results, and innovation is more and more the product of wired communities, but the concept of copyright is not disappearing, just being transformed. The goal of rewarding creators for their work is in my view unchanged, only made quite more difficult with new technologies. I had the opportunity to question Ashley Highfield about DRM several years ago (http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071118205358171), before he upped and joined Microsoft. Truth be told, I was not surprised nothing came of his pronouncement that day. Sean. On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:34 AM, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: This has discussion continued in a modest way on the blog comments. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html I am sorry to say Nick is making misleading reassurances. (He is not sufficiently technical or familiar with the material, to understand the logical inconsistencies - this is an observation of fact, not a personal attack). See Nick comment No. 34. Yes you will be able to put a HD tuner into my Open Source MythTV box and watch BBC HD, again if suitable tuners become available. The only reason tuners would not become available (they are currently available for Standard Definition), is that they will be excluded by the licence required to decrypt the signals. Free and Open Source Software Drivers will be excluded (excluding Myth TV) if there is any meaningful copy protection (unless the licence is breached). If the copy protection is to be meaningful, the BBC must break the law, regarding an unencrypted signal (semantics aside) and exclude FOSS from accessing the copy protected signals (which may only apply to Hollywood films, US imports, or may apply to the majority of content). See Nevali's comments, No. 35, 36, 42. Clearly Nevali, is part of the official consultation process. Issues: 1.1 Free and Open Source software is incompatible with DRM. 1.2 Reassurances to the contrary, contradict this knowledge. And undermine statements from the BBC. 2.1 What the BBC is proposing is in breach of the law by any reasonable semantics, the law is clear and does not allow for exceptions. 2.2 You may wish to proceed as if this was not true, but it is a fatal flaw that will destroy the agreements the BBC is entering into, and damage the BBC. 2.3 The BBC TRUST cannot ignore the fact that the BBC is intending to breaking the law. Semantics will not be sufficient to obfuscate this issue. 2.4 Several other options exist to exploit the flaw in the BBC's intentions. I am aware how it is possible to subvert the law, but ultimately the letter of the law, will be used to force the BBC to broadcast unencrypted. 3.1 We are in a transition phase, away from copyright and DRM. 3.2. The BBC appear to be insufficiently aware of the arguments against DRM and, dangers of the course of action they have embarked upon, to act in the public intrest 3.3 The BBC are not familiar with the argument against DRM which has failed repeatedly. 3.4. The BBC are not sufficiently aware of the arguments against intellectual property which has already lost the intellectual debate. 4.0 Free and Open Source software proponents have experience of a copyright, patent, and DRM free environment, and are therefore more ready to embrace the concepts, and freedoms involved. In view of the above, how can the BBC management claim to represent the public interest ? The BBC can choose to ignore the above, but the issues will not go away. And the BBC will be seen to be, not side of the public, but on the side of special interests on these issues. This is intention of this email to raise issues with the BBC Management of which Nick is one of the current spokesmen. Further Reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/thompson_bpi.shtml But that's changing. The first episode of the new Dr Who series was available on the unauthorised site Bit Torrent three weeks before its premiere on BBC ONE. And, although of course our main model in the UK is free-to-air unencrypted broadcast, the BBC has a duty to
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
Actually, lots of FLOSS code produces supersecure encryption; GnuPG for example. Digital Restrictions Management of broadcast media is harder to do than text messages or filesystem volumes. Most commercial DRM developers don't give a hoot about GNU/Linux platforms since marketshare is so small though. Sean On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 15:00, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not an active project AFAIK, but it is Mozilla MPL. I can't speak for David, but my own feeling on the subject is that because the source is in the open, circumventing any restrictions would become fairly trivial. While security through obscurity is no security still holds (and is why even closed DRM has proven ineffective), it's hard to see how FLOSS DRM would be in any way effective. At least with closed DRM, it might take a little time to break. While I can't see much argument for FLOSS DRM, I can see a lot of argument that if you're touting a DRM system, supporting FLOSS platforms is a really good idea. Look at what happend with DVD - some kid wanted to watch DVDs on his Linux box, the powers that be couldn't be bothered creating a licensed DVD player for Linux so the kid breaks DVD's CSS, rendering CSS useless. All it takes is one individual to break a DRM system and the exact same superdistribution that DRM is trying to stop will quickly spread the circumvention technique. Thinking about it, whatever DRM the BBC uses will be broken. Otherwise law abiding people will then turn what could well be criminal activity just to use the HD signal the way they currently use the SD signal. I don't see how this is in the public interest. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Invalid XML in iPlayer feeds
I have generated calmness by inserting systematic XML validation in my workflows using xmlstarlet, e.g.: snip $ xml val list.htm list.htm:2: parser error : XML declaration allowed only at the start of the document ?xml version=1.0 encoding=utf-8? ^ list.htm - invalid $ /snip I ran the above on a Mac. Runs on Windows, *nux, the BDSs, etc. Sean On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Alex Macea...@hollytree.co.uk wrote: iPlayer itself seemed to be down eariler today... Alex On 3 Sep 2009, at 14:52, Paul Battley wrote: The iPlayer feeds seem to be broken today. They currently have a blank line before the XML declaration, making them invalid. E.g. (Firefox will also complain if you load it up) http://feeds.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/popular/tv/list Has anyone else noticed? I can't be the only person who is using a real, strict XML parser to consume them! Paul. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Ogg Theora/Vorbis and HTML5
Ogg Theora is an excellent choice because it is not patent-encumbered and has good metadata support (even if search engines and local indexers like Spotlight neglect that metadata for now). However, the Ogg container could just as well contain Dirac and in my view the BBC is missing a major opportunity for goodwill by not promoting Dirac. The shortcut to this is to talk with Adobe; they quietly added Speex support to Flash 10 after all, and with Dirac support in Flash, uptake would develop very quickly. H.264/AAC uptake has been hampered by Microsoft's refusal to support it these past six years; they seem to have deathly feared the competition with Windows Media. They support it in the XBox though, and in Windows 7 which may be out this year after all. Opera doesn't need licences for Ogg Theora, Håkon Wium Lie their CTO told me a year and a half ago they vastly prefer unencumbered web standards. He repeated this when I saw him last week at a briefing on the Microsoft browser tying case. Opera is probably another opportunity to promote Dirac in mobile. There is an Ogg Theora codec pack for Windows Media Player, but I believe it cannot be pushed out silently and requires administrative rights. Sean On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Tom Fitzhenryt...@tom-fitzhenry.me.uk wrote: Hey guys, Are there any plans on supporting HTML 5's video tag for iPlayer? I realise there are rights issues with some programmes and that rights holders might have problems with non-DRM solutions, but presumably there are some programmes which the BBC have full rights to. Supporting the video tag raises the question of which codec to use, which is difficult to answer because there is no codec that every vaguely popular browser (IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome) supports or plans to support in the near future. IE has been silent so far (though there are DirectShow filters for Ogg Theora/Vorbis.[0]). Firefox 3.5 will support Ogg Theora/Vorbis (and cannot support H.264/AAC because of patent issues).[1] Safari will support H.264/AAC (Ogg Theora/Vorbis plugins for Quicktime exist[2]).[3] Opera will support Ogg Theora/Vorbis (I don't know if they plan to purchase licenses for its users.)[4] Chrome will support Ogg Theora/Vorbis and H.264/AAC.[5] I think users of alternative browsers (Firefox, Opera, Chrome), rather than non-alternative browsers would most appreciate video to Flash. Also, H.264/AAC cannot be supported in browsers without huge financial backing (because of patent issues), where as Ogg Theora/Vorbis is believed to be patent-free. As such, to benefit most people, I think using Ogg Theora/Vorbis would be the best choice. Regards, Tom Fitzhenry PS. I don't know if this is the right place to post this. I couldn't find a better place though. 0. http://www.xiph.org/dshow/ 1. https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Using_audio_and_video_in_Firefox 2. http://xiph.org/quicktime/ 3. http://webkit.org/blog/140/html5-media-support/ 4. http://labs.opera.com/news/2008/11/25/ 5. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10250958-2.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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 cameras + sailing dingies
I clearly remember having seen an ad (ThinkGeek perhaps?) for a tripod mount with three large (2 or 3 inch) suction cups, designed for speedboats (!), claimed to be ideal for curved slick surfaces and to grip even better in wetter conditions. If I manage to find it I'll post a link :-) Sean On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Tim Dobson li...@tdobson.net wrote: Hey there, This isn't a common question I'd guess but here's a good a place to ask as any! :) So basically I've just acquired a small waterproof HD video camera and I'm looking for the best way to mount it onto my Laser EPS[1] sailing dinghy. It has a standard tripod mount so I was wondering about tying it on with desk tripod near the mast foot or something but I wondered if anyone had any prior experience or thoughts on how they'd do this. I'm not looking for a beautiful (or expensive!) solution just something I can put together to get some video from onboard an my boat. HD (I was thinking capturing what is happening in the cockpit is just as interesting as whats happening ahead of you for the most part... I'm not really a camera geek or a lifelong sailor (yet!) but I wonder if there's someone out there who knows a bit more in this field than me... Cheers, Tim Dobson [1] http://www.blog.tdobson.net/node/247 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 cameras + sailing dingies
Google is my friend :-) http://www.stickypod.com/ On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: I clearly remember having seen an ad (ThinkGeek perhaps?) for a tripod mount with three large (2 or 3 inch) suction cups, designed for speedboats (!), claimed to be ideal for curved slick surfaces and to grip even better in wetter conditions. If I manage to find it I'll post a link :-) Sean On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Tim Dobson li...@tdobson.net wrote: Hey there, This isn't a common question I'd guess but here's a good a place to ask as any! :) So basically I've just acquired a small waterproof HD video camera and I'm looking for the best way to mount it onto my Laser EPS[1] sailing dinghy. It has a standard tripod mount so I was wondering about tying it on with desk tripod near the mast foot or something but I wondered if anyone had any prior experience or thoughts on how they'd do this. I'm not looking for a beautiful (or expensive!) solution just something I can put together to get some video from onboard an my boat. HD (I was thinking capturing what is happening in the cockpit is just as interesting as whats happening ahead of you for the most part... I'm not really a camera geek or a lifelong sailor (yet!) but I wonder if there's someone out there who knows a bit more in this field than me... Cheers, Tim Dobson [1] http://www.blog.tdobson.net/node/247 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian on the future of journalism
http://vimeo.com/4359127 Very alert commentary by the Guardian's editor-in-chief. On inverting the journalistic model: Commentators are not the future... the expertise lies outside the newspaper; on so many subjects, they actually know more than we do serious journalism is not sustainable in this interim print vs. digital period blur the role between journalist and reader You can cling onto that [traditional Victorian] model, but in the end you'll just fall off a cliff On Clay Shirky, Jeff Jarvis et. al.: By the time I get up in the morning, these guys have gutted the world's press for me... it's like a personalised wire feed on the things that interest me... for free! Sean - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Clay Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable
A key characteristic of a newspaper is that you can fold it up. Foldable or rollable screens may yet arrive in the next few years, I vaguely recall Samsung and Sony showing proof-of-concept and prototypes the last year. The Touch Book by Always Innovating is creating buzz, you leave the keyboard in your bag and pull out the creen to read with. Or stick it on your refrigerator (this is not a joke). I like e-reading on the OLPC XO-1 which is small, light, and ruggedized (it's for kids), twists and folds flat screen out, and in direct sunlight switches to very high resolution black and white (you have to read on it outside to believe it). Navigation is by the joystick buttons although it does take a little getting used to. I own an EeePC and an Aspire One and they are clunky in comparison (I don't even consider classic laptops). Disclaimer: I am a participant in the Sugar Labs project which creates the software for the XO-1, so I am very biased. Sean. On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: It is very noticeable that WVM is not a DAB user... I was actually thinking of cross between a Kindle and an etch-a-sketch that can be dropped onto a road, get covered in cement dust and will still allow page 3 to be read. Something with an interface so simple that it can be operated by anyone in the pub and cheap enough to be given away with a few litres of petrol - or on the cover newspaper. This device would be good news for sales of toilet paper... 2009/3/17 Steve Jolly st...@jollys.org Brian Butterworth wrote: And then there's that gizmo, the one that can deliver the Sun to white van man cheaply and reliably. The radio? 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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
Yes, it is indeed a pity that OLPC doesn't make XO-1s easily available outside of the annual G1G1 programme. However, that could change as they have recently decided to deploy widely in the USA and not just developing countries. I have two XO-1s from the previous G1G1s and a third I picked up on eBay. It's rather magical the way they look for and find each other in the mesh network. I've actually traveled with a pair instead of my usual laptop (the 2 XO-1s together aren't larger or heavier). The rabbit ear antennae pick up networks my other machines didn't know existed (although the EeePC was a contender). I have a Zoltan Zowii USB Ethernet adaptor (http://www.flickr.com/photos/curiouslee/2233561457/), works great it's supposed to be Wii-compatible too. Sean On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: A key characteristic of a newspaper is that you can fold it up. Foldable or rollable screens may yet arrive in the next few years, I vaguely recall Samsung and Sony showing proof-of-concept and prototypes the last year. If I get my fish chips wrapped in a Kindle I will be really annoyed. ;-) I like e-reading on the OLPC XO-1 which is small, light, and ruggedized (it's for kids), twists and folds flat screen out, and in direct sunlight switches to very high resolution black and white (you have to read on it outside to believe it). Navigation is by the joystick buttons although it does take a little getting used to. I own an EeePC and an Aspire One and they are clunky in comparison (I don't even consider classic laptops). I'd gladly buy one as an ebook reader to help get those economics of scale working for OLPC, but... - Rob. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Clay Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable
Network bridge when traveling with the kids... I have patched into the hotel Internet with the Ethernet adapter on one of the XO-1s then meshed them; I surfed on one while the kids surfed on the other (in the next room over), and when it was bedtime I knocked on the wall one minute before cutting the connnection. Parental control system! Unless of course there is an open wifi network in the neighborhood :-/ but since the Sugar Journal records the student's activity, they wouldn't get away with it for long :-) I heartily dislike using airport wifi with my usual laptop stuffed full of compromising documents (such as the next netbook I want to buy), while I surf without fear with the XO-1. Its range is fabulous. It's also easy to turn off the radio now before boarding a plane, the very first production version required a CLI command since most kids in African and South American villages don't have that problem often. Ruggedized: Having suffered a broken screen years ago by an overzealous security person (an ancestor of the netbook - the Compaq Contura Aero - on the left in this photo from last October: http://www.canalpda.com/files/images/2967213682_90a7ccf751_o.preview.jpg), I like that the XO-1 is waterproofed and tough. Small footprint (though larger than the recent netbooks because of the carrying handle) means it can coexist with a food tray. Also, security people tend to think you are less of a threat when toting a kid computer, especially with kids in tow. Although I have met lots of parents in airports as their kids join mine to see what games are on... Fast charging, and 2 XO-1s = double the battery time! XO-1s draw 5 watts and have between 2 and 4 hours of autonomy depending on the task. I recently picked up an external iPod-sized battery which is supposed to last 12 hours or so (I have to locate a connector). And a solar panel I got as a BP petrol station freebie which might work too. What I really want is the Freeplay hand crank (http://www.olpcnews.com/hardware/power_supply/olpc_power_xocto_plug_freeplay.html), that would keep the kids busy all right, an hour's autonomy per 10 minutes of cranking. But it has only been deployed in Peru I think. Sean On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Steve Jolly st...@jollys.org wrote: Sean DALY wrote: I have two XO-1s from the previous G1G1s and a third I picked up on eBay. It's rather magical the way they look for and find each other in the mesh network. I've actually traveled with a pair instead of my usual laptop (the 2 XO-1s together aren't larger or heavier). Do you get any interesting benefits from having 2 XOs instead of a single conventional laptop? It sounds like there ought to be some nifty possibilities... 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] Clay Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable
I would venture to add it's even worse for print journalists, who generally speaking in the past had a stressful day to make deadline then time off was time off. Nowadays, print journalists covering a beat are often expected to file online from wherever they are if there is breaking news in their sector. I myself am less worried about the number and volume of newspapers (after all, New York supported over twenty penny dailies in the 19th century), and more concerned with how journalists will make a living. There is a great advantage to open space newsrooms: cub reporters learn from the grizzlies. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Kevin Charman-Anderson global...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 16:36 +, Dave Crossland wrote: But make money for whom? Those doing the activity at the core of the profession - in the case of newspapers, the reporters; in the case of music, the artists - or for those involved in the profession in roles peripheral to it's core, and shareholders? We should be talking about new models for employing reporters rather than resuscitating old models for employing publishers; the more time we waste fantasizing about magic solutions for the latter problem, the less time we have to figure out real solutions to the former one. - http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/02/why-small-payments-wont-save-publishers/ I've been working as an online journalist since 1996, and I think all of us (in journalism) are trying to figure out one thing: How do we support journalism (and by extension the journalists who do it)? We're not talking about keeping the publishers in a state in which they have become accustomed. Everyone in my patch is talking about how to keep the lights on and keep the bills paid - mostly our own. I've been operating on the assumption for the last few years that we're entering a post-industrial era for journalism. Mass media has been fragmenting for decades now, and the internet is only part of that fragmentation. I actually don't worry about journalism. It will get done, but as someone who is a journalist and has many friends in the business, I do worry about how the journalists make the transition. We will have a lot fewer professional journalists. That much is obvious. That doesn't necessarily mean we'll have less journalism. But I think Clay was pretty accurate in that we're in the middle of this revolution and the answers aren't all clear. But Dave, taking a swing from the barricades at the profiteering publishers sounds lovely but it comes close to ignoring the pain and economic dislocation that journalists are going through at the moment. We're not the only ones hurting in this recession, but reporters are going to have difficulty replacing their income in this recession from their previously full-time jobs with a totally digital model that is still in the making. best, k - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Clay Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/ I was fascinated by this piece. Example: Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. I waited for him to cite the example of the BBC as a model that could survive the Internet revolution... but he didn't, surely because in the USA there is no equivalent. I concur with his viewpoint that business models are being broken faster than new ones can be invented. Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Clay Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable
Yes, quite, when I said no equivalent I was precisely thinking of the gargantuan scale of the BBC (with correspondents worldwide!) compared to PBS which has to pitifully beg viewers for contributions all the time... Sean On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Brendan Quinn brendan.qu...@bbc.co.uk wrote: I waited for him to cite the example of the BBC as a model that could survive the Internet revolution... but he didn't, surely because in the USA there is no equivalent. To be fair he does mention NPR as a successful model (or at least a less unsuccessful one). National Public Radio is a radio network funded by donations and voluntary subscriptions (with some government funding as well). PBS TV has the same funding model, and both services are regarded as the main source of highbrow content in the US. Americans routinely think of the BBC as the PBS/NPR of the UK, which is both gratifying (they are associated with high quality media) and frustrating (PBS/NPR content can often be seen as too worthy or righteous, and equating the two doesn't convey the sheer scale and scope of the BBC) Brendan. Sean DALY wrote: http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/ I was fascinated by this piece. Example: Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. I waited for him to cite the example of the BBC as a model that could survive the Internet revolution... but he didn't, surely because in the USA there is no equivalent. I concur with his viewpoint that business models are being broken faster than new ones can be invented. Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC becomes the British Botnet Corporation
I listened to a discussion on the World Service radio The World Today programme yesterday morning, and I was disturbed at the sloppy reporting: although botnet machines are exclusively running Windows because of the poor Microsoft security model, this was not mentioned. In fact, OSX was cited as being as vulnerable as Windows, which is just silly. Although the three basic steps to security cited (patching, firewall, and antivirus) are useful to a general nontechnical audience, it's not a minor point that in the past ten years there have been thousands of virii, keyloggers, and rootkits which have attacked Windows, while those attacking GNU/Linux and OSX can be counted on the fingers of one's hands. An opportunity was also missed to mention looking for the SSL encryption lock icon, and in this connexion how modern standards-based browsers such as Firefox also indicate status in the address bar. The legal implications of purchasing a botnet of over 20,000 machines are indeed questionable, but I certainly agree that raising consumer awareness on the issue is laudable. A pity that key facts were omitted. Sean. On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Sam Mbale smb...@mpelembe.net wrote: The idea that botnets — networks of innocent PCs surreptitiously hijacked by evildoers and turned to nefarious purposes — pose a security threat both to computer owners and attack targets should be pretty common knowledge by now. The BBC tech show “Click,” however, felt its viewers could use a graphic reminder, and in putting one together, managed to stumble into some decidedly gray legal territory. Full story http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2009/03/bbc-becomes-the-british-botnet-corporation.html I saw the demo on the 6 o'clock news today, and I did wonder about the legal implications. rgds Sam Mbale Mpelembe Network http://www.mpelembe.net Follow me on http://twitter.com/mpelembe - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC becomes the British Botnet Corporation
Thanks for that Nick I should mention that the Click presenter interviewed on The World Today did say that following the test in which spam was sent to the BBC's addresses, the owners of the compromised Windows PCs would be informed. Presumably by a mail not marked as spam ;-) Journalists will always want to be concise especially in broadcast media and in my opinion it would be far more precise and informative to substitute Windows PCs for PCs in the statement, since there are no OSX or GNU/Linux botnets and the scourge of Windows botnets has less to do with the popularity of the platform and much more to do with its poor architecture and policies (browser tightly coupled to operating system, ActiveX, root-equivalent administrative rights, lack of support for older more vulnerable systems, etc.) Sean On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Indeed I can give you the BBC statement: There is a powerful public interest in demonstrating the ease with which such malware can be obtained and used; how it can be deployed on thousands of PCs without the owners even knowing it is there; and its power to send spam email or attack other websites undetected. This will help computer users realise the importance and value of using basic security techniques to defend their PCs from such attacks. The BBC has strict editorial guidelines for this type of investigation which were followed to the letter. At no stage was any other data other than the IP address used. We believe that as a result of the investigation, computer users around the world are now better informed of the importance and value of using basic security techniques to defend their PCs from attacks -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Nick Reynolds-FMT Sent: 13 March 2009 10:16 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC becomes the British Botnet Corporation I can confirm this programme was run past the legal and policy people. -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Rob Myers Sent: 13 March 2009 09:30 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC becomes the British Botnet Corporation On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Steve Jolly st...@jollys.org wrote: Not sure I'm convinced - all operating systems have their vulnerabilities; All machines have their *theoretical* vulnerabilities. Only Windows has vast botnets built on them, or any effective malware threats exploiting them in the wild. Unless you are a BBC reporter who has only ever used Windows, you're on a deadline, and you don't want your report to look like it lacks balance. In which case suddenly every OS is as good as Windows for a change. ;-) - Rob. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC becomes the British Botnet Corporation
I, too, stand corrected. Thanks Gordon. It's interesting that some of the most evil stuff I have dealt with, and this example too, comes from an unusual vector. I managed to avoid the Sony BMG rootkit since I don't listen to music on my old PC (that Amerie disc is still on my shelf waiting to infect any Windows machine it runs on). But last year a video game called Perimeter installed an awful rootkit called SecuROM on that PC, and while trying to restore the system to a healthful state Windows was broken and at this point only launches in 256 colors with the vanilla VGA driver. I've been booting it into full color with kubuntu since, until I take an hour to swap the disk and install a proper OS. Sean. On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Gordon McMullan gordon.mcmul...@bbc.co.uk wrote: It may not be *vast* but here's a report of a Mac OS X Trojan enrolling a Mac into a DDoS attack http://notahat.com/posts/28 it seems that he was originally infected by running a compromised installer infected with the OSX.iWorkServices.A trojan see: http://www.sophos.com/security/analyses/viruses-and-spyware/osxiworksa.html Thanks. I must confess I was ignorant of that. :-( - Rob. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC becomes the British Botnet Corporation
I have to disagree. Although describing all systems as potentially vulnerable is factually correct, it's not informative in the context of massive botnets. It's the difference between discussing a rare contagious disease and a flu epidemic. Although the precautions to take in both cases will be similar, the specific advice to combat the epidemic will be far more useful. The starting point is indeed to patch and use a firewall. (These two tasks happen to be ridiculously easy on OSX.) Next is to not install software whose source you are not sure of, in particular from unsolicited e-mail. Antivirus: vital for Windows, I've never needed an antivirus product for OSX or GNU/Linux PCs (I suppose that could change). Wifi networks: four years ago I had the only secure network in my neighborhood; this year 8 of the 10 networks I see (11 of 14 with the EeePC) have at least WEP security, so there has been progress. As OSX marketshare is climbing steeply (less steeply since Christmas though), and GNU/Linux marketshare of netbooks (the growth category) is between 10% and 40% depending on whom you speak with, we will be in a position a year from now to know if vulnerability is proportional to marketshare. For my part, I'll put my money on 99% of botnets by volume (number of clients) still running on a version of Windows. Sean. On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Peter Bowyer pe...@bowyer.org wrote: 2009/3/13 Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org: On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Peter Bowyer pe...@bowyer.org wrote: 2009/3/13 Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org: On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Steve Jolly st...@jollys.org wrote: Not sure I'm convinced - all operating systems have their vulnerabilities; All machines have their *theoretical* vulnerabilities. Only Windows has vast botnets built on them, or any effective malware threats exploiting them in the wild. And a great way to change that is to allow users of other OSs to believe and act as if they're not vulnerable. If forewarned is forearmed, this applies to knowing which platform is the greater theoretical and practical security risk. It does not justify hiding that information with a false equivalency If you're going to tell a naive computer user one thing, what would it be? I'd say it should be something like 'all computers are vulnerable to security breaches, take suitable precautions'. Discussions about the relative vulnerability of their computer compared with the others on the planet can come later, and shouldn't affect their reaction to the above. -- Peter Bowyer Email: pe...@bowyer.org Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] The BBC as sheep... and irresponsible ones too
back in the day, before a recording session we would degauss the reels with a magic wand degausser, on the understanding that doing so to a master tape would mean a fate worse than death. I still have a little one somewhere which I would use on quarter-inch reels, I wonder if that would work on a sealed hard drive? On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Matt Jones m...@mattjones.me.uk wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM, David Greaves da...@dgreaves.com wrote: So here we are, a month after Which? gave out the same dumb advice the BBC follows: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_791/7910045.stm Sensationalist pillock :) I can't wait for someone to be seriously hurt trying to drill through a hard drive. FWIW: http://16systems.com/zero/index.html David -- Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once... - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ Waiting for the first legal claim in 5-4-3 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] Slightly bias view maybe?
Having experienced the music business in the 1980s as a musician, audio engineer, record producer, occasional DJ concert promoter, record pressing plant sales marketing rep, and staff worker for a PolyGram label, allow me to paraphrase O. Henry: ...As I said before, I dreamed that I was standing near a crowd of prosperous-looking angels, and a policeman took me by the wing and asked if I belonged with them. Who are they? I asked. Why, said he, they are the men who hired working-girls, and paid 'em five or six dollars a week to live on. Are you one of the bunch? Not on your immortality, said I. I'm only the fellow that set fire to an orphan asylum, and murdered a blind man for his pennies. To which I would add: , and pilfered every last nickel I could from young musicians who didn't know a royalty from a penury. Sean. On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Robert (Jamie) Munro rjmu...@arjam.net wrote: Dave Crossland wrote: 2009/2/23 Robert (Jamie) Munro rjmu...@arjam.net: Some of them have no pensions and need this money, he said. Perhaps builders who built buildings in the 1950s should be paid rights on the labour they used to build the building as long as the buildings still stand. Or Doctors whose patients continue to be alive. Surely the comparison is with doctors who did the best they could but now their patients are dead, but they ought to be continually paid for the excellent job they did at the time? Musicians are only continually paid if the track happened to be a hit (or perhaps was used in a film or something) lots of music has been recorded in the last 50 years that was just as good as music that became a hit but it didn't become a hit due to the vagueness of the music industry. The performers of this music won't get any benefit from term extension. Similarly Doctors and Builders should only be paid while their patients are still alive or the buildings are still used, no matter how much effort it took to treat the patient or build the building at the time. :-) Robert (Jamie) Munro - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Make the primary operating system used in state schools free and open source
For the past two years, the Ile-de-France region which includes Paris has distributed 200,000 USB keys with free open source software to students of 450 secondary schools each September. The gcompris project (= j'ai compris = I understood) for young students is available for all platforms in over 25 languages and has been used worldwide. The Shuttleworth Foundation has sponsored several large-scale education projects in South Africa, notably tuXlab and Kusasa. The One Laptop Per Child project, designed particularly for students in developing countries, has distributed over 600,000 XO laptops running the Sugar interface. Although OLPC has announced a beefed-up (and thus more expensive) Windows-only or dual-boot version of the XO, Microsoft has encountered difficulties getting any version of Windows to run on it. Sugar is now being ported to popular netbooks, is being included in GNU/Linux distributions, and a standalone bootable live USB key is in the works. Disclaimer: I am a participant in the Sugar Labs community. Sean. On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Rich Vazquez rvazq...@impactnews.com wrote: I'm glad you pointed this out. There are more obviously. Why is this discussion operating like there aren't entire governments, schools and nations already moving to or running open source? Andalusia (Guadlinex), Extremadura (gnuLinEx), Madrid (MAX) in Spain have had their own distributions for schools and public spaces quite some time. We can discuss how feasable it is - but it is. People are doing it in Spain and other parts of the world. Here's one primer with a few case studies: http://www.iosn.net/education/foss-education-primer/index_html/view Here's a click through presentation on Guadlinex: http://speeches.ofset.org/jrfernandez/rmll2008/ A good quote from there: Integrating computers in education is a pedagogical not a technical issue On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Neil Aberdeen n...@tui.co.uk wrote: Under BSF SUN now runs Bradford local authority schools IT From http://blogs.sun.com/joehartley/entry/back_to_a_new_school The computers were not conventional PCs, but Sun Ray thin clients. Sun Ray clients enable virtualized desktop sessions to run on a datacenter server, which houses the applications and data. ... As the key technology partner to Bradford, Sun is not only providing the hardware, we're also designing the software that will facilitate learning. Using Sun's open source software as well as other open source educational software such as Moodlerooms, Sun has created an open source software environment for the school. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Mozilla to support open video natively
They could wrap Dirac in an Ogg container, that would be cheaper. The Ogg Vorbis pilot was done years ago, when there was no non-IE browser with more than 3% market share. Adobe quietly added support for Speex in Flash 10. I have no doubt both Adobe and Mozilla would support Dirac if asked to by the BBC. I do however doubt Microsoft would bother, after all they are going on six years with no H.264 support (I do not count the XBox). Of course, Flash and QuickTime are there to overcome Windows' deficiencies. On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Andy stude.l...@googlemail.com wrote: 2009/1/26 Dogsbody d...@dogsbody.org: Mozilla Firefox 3.1 will include native support for video in the browser and they have chosen Theora as the format of choice. And contributed $100k to fund it's development http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/01/mozilla-contributes-10-to-fund-ogg-development.ars So does that mean we can have iplayer in as a Theora stream now ;-) It would be nice, but the Beeb claim Ogg is too expensive (at least that's what they said when asked about offering Ogg Vorbis Audio streams). Andy -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Is DRM on its last throes at last?
Yes, likely in 2010 On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Ian Deeley ian.dee...@gmail.com wrote: Aside from the fact Windows 7 supports H.264 and AAC Sent from my iPhone On 13 Jan 2009, at 22:31, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: Digital Restrictions Management is a dead end. Consumers don't want it. Hollywood's head-in-sandism on this is beyond pitiful. DECE is chaired by the very exec who imposed the Sony BMG hidden Windows rootkit on the Amerie record on my shelf, and which fortunately for me was not interoperable with my Mac or GNU/Linux computers. For ten years Microsoft has positioned itself as a partner to content providers, only too happy to propose its services while shutting out competitors, the consumer be damned. They can't even bring themselves to support MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 and AAC (while Apple laughs all the way to the bank). A decade later, they are still hoping for a central role in a DRM ecosystem which excludes free software. What the studios don't realize (with the exception of Disney, which has a clue) is that consumers have no patience for difficult to use / expensive / incompatible rights systems. They already lost patience overpaying for disks with a pointless zoning system and seven guaranteed minutes of copyright information in Greek and Swedish (no offense to my southern annd northern friends). I say, let them hoist themselves on their own petards (the studios, not the Hellenes Swedes). The longer they put off developing new business models, the greater the risks they take. Sean On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Andy stude.l...@googlemail.com wrote: Is DRM on it's last legs? Not according to this news story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7825428.stm When we people learn that trying to stop people copying or playing Audio/Video after a certain date is not possible due to Replay Attack[1]? I'm not sure whether they intend to deploy this both for video and music. However with DRM Free Music already legally available will people really stand for not being able to do things they could before? Andy [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_attack -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Is DRM on its last throes at last?
Digital Restrictions Management is a dead end. Consumers don't want it. Hollywood's head-in-sandism on this is beyond pitiful. DECE is chaired by the very exec who imposed the Sony BMG hidden Windows rootkit on the Amerie record on my shelf, and which fortunately for me was not interoperable with my Mac or GNU/Linux computers. For ten years Microsoft has positioned itself as a partner to content providers, only too happy to propose its services while shutting out competitors, the consumer be damned. They can't even bring themselves to support MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 and AAC (while Apple laughs all the way to the bank). A decade later, they are still hoping for a central role in a DRM ecosystem which excludes free software. What the studios don't realize (with the exception of Disney, which has a clue) is that consumers have no patience for difficult to use / expensive / incompatible rights systems. They already lost patience overpaying for disks with a pointless zoning system and seven guaranteed minutes of copyright information in Greek and Swedish (no offense to my southern annd northern friends). I say, let them hoist themselves on their own petards (the studios, not the Hellenes Swedes). The longer they put off developing new business models, the greater the risks they take. Sean On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Andy stude.l...@googlemail.com wrote: Is DRM on it's last legs? Not according to this news story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7825428.stm When we people learn that trying to stop people copying or playing Audio/Video after a certain date is not possible due to Replay Attack[1]? I'm not sure whether they intend to deploy this both for video and music. However with DRM Free Music already legally available will people really stand for not being able to do things they could before? Andy [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_attack -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer caching
It is said ( http://blogs.msdn.com/ukgovernment/archive/2008/12/17/windows-for-submarinestm.aspx also http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/topstories/3982380.Submarine_job_wrapped_up_in_time_for_Christmas/ ) that The [Microsoft Windows] system, which has been installed on all seven Trafalgar class submarines, all four Vanguard class and one Swiftsure class, controls the vast amount of information needed to run the sophisticated weapons systems on a nuclear submarine. Pundits are already referring to the deep blue screen of death and Das Reboot (my turn to duck) On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: I seem to remember when I proposed ISP on-site caching for the iPlayer, there were many naysayers. So, I am pleased to read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7787335.stm The BBC has worked with British company Velocix to test a system which puts servers in ISPs that store, or cache, the most popular iPlayer programmes. Mr Rose said smart software in the iPlayer would check these caches to see if the programme a user wants is loaded locally on a caching device near the user. Streaming from within an ISP's network cuts the cost of transporting that traffic for both the BBC and the net supplier. It was up to ISPs now to get hold of the caching boxes and install them, ... ISPs that use the caching technology in the same way it did with other firms that carry or broadcast BBC content. Oh, yeah, there's a Mac download version too. Seems only fair now they have their very own blue screen of death problem. [ducks] And with Adobe's AIR on Linux. [ducks again] Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] So Long and Thanks For All The Fish?
Could you please explain foot-candles? On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A little nerdy Friday amusement... I saw an article about Mystery of dolphins' speed solved on BBC News. There was a small error - the measure of force was quoted in kilograms. I wrote a little email ... COMMENTS: Whoever wrote http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7748754.stm must have failed basic science. kg is a measure of mass, but the story uses kg as a measure of force. Force is measured in Newtons (N)! I got a nice email back this morning saying Many thanks for alerting us. This error has now been corrected. So, I went to have a look .. and they have changed kg to the imperial mass measure, lbs, and added of force. --- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Microsoft says it 'has always preferred' DRM-free content
Aleem, are you aware of the difficulties the BBC has encountered in the iPlayer project after choosing Microsoft DRM to satisfy content rights owners? On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Aleem B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BBC is a public service so the issues don't really translate to Microsoft/DRM which is inclined to support DRM so it can sign deals with labels and sell their music players. Your original mail (and subsequent follow up) is classic flamebait--something you should avoid altogether. On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/11/23 Aleem B [EMAIL PROTECTED] And why shouldn't they? They don't make money off DRM'd content but legally they are obliged, not to mention the strong lobby of the RIAA/MPAA has ensured that all major music players in the market faciliate copyright through DRM. If the iPod weren't DRM'd, iTunes wouldn't have any sort of deal with the labels. AAPL doesn't make much on iTunes (but that's slowly changing as its position grows ever more commanding and the RIAA are aware and trying to mitigate this somewhat). FWIW, apple also maintains the same position (despite iPod DRM annoyances) though Jobs has been slightly more forward about this position. What do you find so alarming about their stance on DRM? cf http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/news/archives/2007/02/bbc_backstage_p_1.html -- Aleem On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another alternative universe moment... http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_says_it_has_always_preferred_DRMfree_content/1227222823 At a Media Center-centric event here Wednesday, Microsoft's new Media Center marketing manager Mike Seamons, charged with demonstrating the charms of the Windows 7 version of Media Center, said that Microsoft has always preferred DRM-free content, adding that the company nonetheless understands the need for protections. --- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Microsoft says it 'has always preferred' DRM-free content
Aleem - The answer is yes, the question is so confounding that a quick response won't suffice. Take a look at the backstage list archive, you will drink deeply from that fountain. On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Aleem B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aleem, are you aware of the difficulties the BBC has encountered in the iPlayer project after choosing Microsoft DRM to satisfy content rights owners? Of course not. He can't be arsed to listen to the podcast. Is the question so confounding that you cannot offer a quick response and feel compelled to link to a one hour video that doesn't directly pertain to my question. If you had a response you'd have given it by now--you probably don't so you are waffling about. -- Aleem - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 DRM iplayer mobiles etc
Indeed I had been under the impression there was progress when Ashley Highfield told me last November that long-term, DRM should be open source or better yet, work should be done with rights holders to do away with DRM. In my conversations with people from PACT I got the distinct impression that they are not at all militant about DRM. What they are deeply concerned with are the livelihoods of content creators and maintaining a resemblance to the status quo where more popular content is remunerated in proportion. The BBC is perhaps uniquely qualified to sit down with PACT and the others and hammer out deals which are fair to both the licence fee payer and the creator. DRM is inherently unfair to the licence fee payer, in many cases infringing on users' rights; it is difficult and expensive to implement on common platforms, and even more so on all the others; and is easily defeated by the technically inclined while monstrously frustrating to everybody else. Years ago, the BBC convinced RealNetworks to issue a special version of their player. Adobe has just implemented Speex in Flash 10, it seems to me the BBC could also play a part in getting a free video codec into Flash which to my mind would certainly be a positive step. Isn't there anyone at the BBC willing to take that leadership role? Sean. On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Tim Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Crossland wrote: 2008/10/15 Phil Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes, the fact that this will run on all the Linux PCs in both my houseand office is a shockingly pro-Microsoft move and must be stopped! The fact that this will run only with proprietary software is continuing the BBC's discriminatory policy against software freedom, and it must be stopped. I wonder how one can best persuade the relevant people at the BBC to lay out, adopt and embrace a forward thinking strategy to allow end users to access any and all of their services using only free software... Ideas welcome Tim -- www.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] Questions for upcoming interviews
Well, licensing refers to law, which governs the legal system, which is still mostly effective in protecting privacy, determining ownership, setting wrongs right, etc. I'm not at all sure I would want a unique identifier, even biometric, on any of my documents in this age of Google (which as far as I can tell cares not a whit about anyone's privacy until threatened by regulators). And if anyone imposed that on me, I'm sure I would want to remove it, and moreover I'm sure it would be trivial to do so, and perhaps trivial to spoof someone else's. Also, considering the large number of computing devices I use every day (not to mention my phone, digital camera, camcorder, audio recorder, etc all of which create documents), I can't imagine spending time coding in a personal identifier. I still don't know how to change the ring on my office phone. There has been progress in developing timestamping for pro video with open standards and GPS + net synced timestamp but I don't know where that is at these days. A helpful start would be standardizing metadata fields for documents, for example starting from the Dublin Core, then persuading proprietary developers to actually index that data. Even mapping existing metadata fields in containers (i.e. EXIF) to a standard set would be helpful. All that said I understand the question but I would turn it around, e.g.: When, after waiting thirty years, will I and others, be able to truly own our digital files on computers and over the internet? In other words, claim ownership from the moment of creation. Is the solution to 'stamp' documents with unique identifiers? How could unambiguous ownership be proven whilst respecting privacy and preventing forgery? I would add a question of my own: A technical solution could be imagined to the problem of ownership of personal cloud data -- backup sync to a local machine. We do that with our phone handset address books all the time and it's possible with most webmail accounts, why can't we do it with all social networking sites? For that to work, there needs to be a standard protocol/format. What are SAS providers doing in that regard? Do they have any incentive to do so, or do regulators have to step in? Sean. On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 01/10/2008, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? Please ask them this! :-) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Manchester Free Software Talk: Dave Crossland - Free as in Profit
May I recommend ffmpeg2theora? for example: ./ffmpeg2theora rawfootage.dv -x 352 -y 288 -v 2 -S 0 -K 128 -c 1 -H 32000 –artist 'Dave Crossland' –title 'Free as in Profit' -date 'September 16, 2008' –location 'Manchester Digital Development Agency (MDDA)' –organization 'Manchester Free Software (http://manchester.fsuk.org/blog/)' –copyright '(c) 2008 Dave Crossland' –license 'Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works v3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)' -o rawfootage.theora.ogg Sean On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Tim Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Butterworth wrote: I'd quite like to come, but can't. I just love font internals*. Looking forward to the video, Dave. Just to follow this up, I have the video, I just need to convert it from DV raw to something people might want to download ie. not 1GB/min ish I am waiting for some hardware, and then I should have the video up. Good talk by the way Dave! Tim -- www.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] Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:40:58 +0100
Adobe AIR for Linux beta http://blogs.adobe.com/ashutosh/2008/09/adobe_air_for_linux_beta_is_ou_1.html no DRM support :-) On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Frances Berriman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Battley Sent: 07 July 2008 11:54 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:40:58 +0100 2008/7/7 Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Is Adobe Air any good for developing in? Has anyone done anything good with it? There's http://freshairapps.com/showcase (about to become refreshingapps.com because Adobe didn't want to play) for some reasonably polished little apps. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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: Old thread, new News... Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]
I use Google News often and this happens all the time. PR Newswire is particularly vulnerable, as they don't add the year to their datelines. Here's one in the top ten search results for two big companies: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=126607 No year! Note that the copyright notice at the bottom says 2008. One could be forgiven for assuming this happened two months ago and not five years and two months ago. Imagine pulling out one of these with today's date. To make matters worse, PR Newswire helpfully provides Technorati, blog submission buttons c, so anyone can breathlessly announce old news as if it were new news. Half a dozen blog links later, the markets pick it up and we're off to the races. At Internet speed, it is absolutely vital that datelines be complete with the year... On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:48 PM, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remember this old thread... (see below) Now, in the context of What could *possibly* go wrong look at this: Google News farce triggers Wall Street sell-off http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/10/online_news_farce_drops_united_stock/ Note the bit at the end: Update The Tribune Company has now said that traffic to the Sun-Sentinel's archive pushed the old bankruptcy article onto the most viewed section of the paper's web site. David (Who's feeling rather smug) David Greaves wrote: Peter Bowyer wrote: On 08/01/2008, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally I would rather the most read/most emailed reflected exactly what the user was doing, and wasn't most emailed stories from the last 7 days excluding the also in the news section because we are the BBC and we want our readers to look very serious all the time Not on the front page. IMHO The front page of the BBC news should not have 4 year old stories appearing on it 'by mistake'. In the entertainment section, see also section etc etc then yes. The front page should be current. If it *is* now current for some bizzare reason then re-report it. That misses the point - a casual reader (and even some regular readers) can be misled by those links pointing to old news. The 'Most Emailed' links are presented under a headline 'Most Popular Stories Now', and next to a section 'Around the world now' (on the page I'm looking at) which implies that the stories are current. Indeed. It was only last week I realised that 'Most Popular Stories Now' was a link and wasn't actually a section title!!! It's a fine objective to show real data (although dubious when it reflects 'gaming'), but it must be clear to the reader what the context is of what you're showing. And I note that the 'See Also' stories in the sidebar *are* date stamped. So is it a technology problem? (I could accept that See Also are edited into the story manually and the dates are re-keyed) 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/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Google Chrome
http://www.google.com/chrome The URL is live, but the download link seems to refer back to the homepage... On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chrome is using Webkit, so assuming you already count Safari as one of your three (*) existing major browsers, you should be fine as far as HTML rendering is concerned. Ooo, didn't know that. That doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence though :/ (* IE6+/Firefox/Safari/Opera - which one are you not developing for?) I usually find if something looks good in IE AND Firefox, Opera doesn't have any problems... Well, maybe minor ones, usually CSS related, but rendering wise I think it behaves particularly nicely. :) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Google Chrome
They have also placed the link on their main homepage... On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Sean DALY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.google.com/chrome The URL is live, but the download link seems to refer back to the homepage... On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chrome is using Webkit, so assuming you already count Safari as one of your three (*) existing major browsers, you should be fine as far as HTML rendering is concerned. Ooo, didn't know that. That doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence though :/ (* IE6+/Firefox/Safari/Opera - which one are you not developing for?) I usually find if something looks good in IE AND Firefox, Opera doesn't have any problems... Well, maybe minor ones, usually CSS related, but rendering wise I think it behaves particularly nicely. :) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Google Chrome
http://blog.chromium.org/2008/09/welcome-to-chromium_02.html In this first blog post Ben Goodger mentions that the code is released under a BSD-style licence. On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Graeme Mulvaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's pretty spiffy - very fast compared to IE7 on Vista. I like the way you can tear-off tabs and re-attach them to a different Chrome window - 'in-tab' pop-ups are a nice feature - It seems fairly stable - even with over 100 tabs active it's still pretty nippy. On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's here people: http://www.google.com/chrome now works! Haven't downloaded it as I am using Linux, but I have signed up for email alerts so should be one of the first to know when they get the Linux version working. The Google code URL doesn't appear to be working yet though. Andy - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- You can't build a reputation based on what you are going to do. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Google Chrome
if the google browser goes linux http://dev.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/build-instructions-linux On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Vladimir Harman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can I control security and cookies in google browser...i mean the security and protection set up? also, if the google browser goes linux, will it be open source code? --- On Tue, 9/2/08, Chris Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [backstage] Google Chrome To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 9:11 PM The link is working fine, I've just read your mail in Gmail, in Chrome!First impressions are that the new JavaScript engine V8 is very quick indeed. Chris 2008/9/2 Sean DALY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.google.com/chrome The URL is live, but the download link seems to refer back to the homepage... On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chrome is using Webkit, so assuming you already count Safari as one of your three (*) existing major browsers, you should be fine as far as HTML rendering is concerned. Ooo, didn't know that. That doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence though :/ (* IE6+/Firefox/Safari/Opera - which one are you not developing for?) I usually find if something looks good in IE AND Firefox, Opera doesn't have any problems... Well, maybe minor ones, usually CSS related, but rendering wise I think it behaves particularly nicely. :) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Google Chrome
Google starting from scratch with its own browser, Chrome Posted by Rafe Needleman http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10029914-2.html On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not seen anyone post about this yet: (Google Browser) http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-09-01-n47.html Unknown if it's real at the moment, but getting Scott McCloud to do a 38 page comic describing things in detail etc, does make me think the contents are plausible. (certainly his style of cartoons/drawing) The use of a comic to introduce the features reminds me of the cartoon guide to computer science (by Larry Gonick). 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/
Re: [backstage] BBC E-mail: It's not the Gates, it's the bars
I'm not sure I understand why one should have more freedom to twist Mr. Stallman's words than the protection under copyright to reuse and change traditional BBC articles. Mr. Stallman can be demanding (I have interviewed him twice, a daunting experience) but I think his message is very important. For my part I'm very pleased the BBC has seen fit to publish that commentary. Sean. On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Gareth Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stallman believes that works of opinion are different from pieces of software. He is concerned that arbitrary modifications of a work of opinion could lead to misrepresentation, and he's not alone in that. Software doesn't really have that problem, so he's right that they are different. I don't agree with his conclusions on this particular issue, I'm just trying to explain that his position is coherent. Personally I don't agree with the conclusions either, but everyone is entitled to their opinions. I've no knowledge on Stallman philosophy on anything other than software. It just jumped out the screen at me, that after the big long article on freedom, you then get restrictions put on what you can do with the article. I wouldn't have even considered it if the CC licence had not been mentioned and the article was posted under the usual site copyright terms. -- Gareth Davis | Production Systems Specialist - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Nabaztags and BBC Radio...
I have a first-generation one, and when it works, it tells us the local weather at breakfast time and blinks meaningfully (e.g. consecutive blue dots=rain AND wind). I say when it works, because their server reliability is awful, even for the clock which is often off the hour or is not announced at all. It's amusing, but I wouldn't count on it for anything serious such as playback of phone messages. To my knowledge the first gen Nabaztag cannot stream audio continuously, I think there is a 45- or 60-second limit. It is also WEP only :-( The new one has a mic, handles WPA and I believe can stream audio. I saw a demonstration on French TV, parents had recorded their voices as MP3s and taped RFID chips in their kid's books, if the kid got close enough to the rabbit it would recite the book. They publish an API. hope this helps Sean - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Friday humour
And an arrogant three legged donkey with one eye playing the piano while wearing shades? A hoity toity honky tonky plinky plonky winky wonky. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Friday humour
Not even, I saw a South African perfume advert featuring the Hoity Toity girl ;-) http://www.biz-community.com/Article.aspx?c=11l=196ai=5210 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Friday humour
A skeleton walks into a bar. He says, I'll have a pint... and a mop - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 Look East HTML rich newsletter
The only problem with sending an entirely plain text email is when you get into the world of stats. Well, that's a marketer's problem, and as an end user I don't care, I want information in a way I can use it. For the past eight years, the FNAC in France has cheerfully sent me a fat rich HTML newsletter every week which I can't read, and their so-called feedback doesn't function; every year I ask them for a plaintext version, every year I get no response. I'd like to see their data report that shows a loyal customer having spent over 22K roros these past fifteen years (including online purchases with plain text e-mail communication option) who doesn't bounce their marketing e-mails, yet never reads them nor clicks on them. I'm sure such a report doesn't include the messages I take the time to type send them. I work for a big company and in the past managed hosting for a few dozen websites which included e-mail marketing. Invariably, low clickthrough rates were related to unreadable messages. We sent lots of plain text e-mails with click here for rich version URLs, occasionally personalized. Although there was lots of talk about targeting and personalization, we had the most success when we merely concentrated on getting people to the site, then analysed the site visit data. Nontechnical anecdotal studies (focus groups) found that many e-mails were forwarded to friends family, which of course would render any analysis of personalized URLs useless. On the other hand, watching generally which portions of the site had high visit rates immediately following e-mail campaigns was fruitful and far simpler to compile report communicate internally. Product launches had TVC, print, OOH, and POS support too, so really all we had to do was to try to find a correlation between a newsletter and increased traffic. One of my successors told me about a curious case: a visit spike which correlated to an e-mail, but coming from another country; it turned out an influential blogger had gotten the e-mail and cut pasted an e-mail link onto her blog. Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Imitation the sincerest form, etc., or how copy and paste is getting out of hand
http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/hrtova-nova-web-stranica-besramni-plagijat-bbccouk/386887.aspx http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/05/15/croation-state-broadcaster - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Stephen Fry: There is this marvellous idea the iPlayer is secure. It's anything but secure
http://www.contentinople.com/author.asp?section_id=450doc_id=152567 So Verisign is spinning off Kontiki? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dESY1kJfGdw The classic Beanbags BT ad which my kids had me play every night for a week - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Tim, what disturbs people about a former MS executive in that position is that Microsoft's interests are not at all aligned with the interests of a public broadcaster. Microsoft wants video format lockin, which is why to this day Windows Media Player has no support for MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 and AAC (Xbox excluded), the Xiph Ogg codecs, or even Dirac for that matter whose bitstream has been frozen for SMPTE VC-2. Microsoft chooses not to license Windows Media 9 format for implementation in GNU/Linux. Their DRM architecture is Microsoft-only, just like the Apple FairPlay AVC/AAC extension is Apple-only. If Mr. Huggers had worked for, say, a bank, nobody would care. But he had an active role at Microsoft promoting a closed, proprietary format at the expense of open formats. Anyone using a non-Microsoft system knows that only open standards guarantee interoperability and given Microsoft's shoddy record on open standards, concerns are justified. Probably the best thing he could do to allay those concerns would be to support open standards. It's a mystery to me why the BBC doesn't make available a Dirac codec installer for WMP. I have no doubt the browsers and mobile manufacturers would line up for Dirac given its patent-unencumbered status. Did you see Sun announcing the reinvention of the wheel last week, a patent-unencumbered video codec? Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
It's possible there are Microsoft employees who could switch hats and support open standards - John Sullivan of Microsoft Research who headed the AVC standardisation effort wouldn't have any credibility problems. As it happens, Mr. Hugger's former job included blocking open standards; it's merely reasonable to question his commitment on that subject. I wouldn't expect him to have any experience in building standards-based architectures, either. Nothing personal in that, it's just the way Microsoft functions. Their overriding goal is to maximise revenue using lockin; they do this by interlocking proprietary components (tying in the parlance of the EU DG-Competition). They sometimes embrace standards, but only when weak in a market; that's why WMP supports AVC/AAC on Xbox but not under Windows. Can Mr. Huggers make the switch from working for shareholders to working for licence fee payers? It's certainly possible and I do give him the benefit of the doubt. But actions speak louder than, etc. The best outcome is for Huggers to fulfill his January promise and promote open standards. Dirac is a perfect candidate in this regard particularly now that the bitstream has been frozen. I am aware of only one argument against its use: it is not included in Windows. Were Huggers to arrange that, concerns about his commitment would disappear overnight. The real challenge for him is to deep-six DRM, which is the source of the BBC's PC video client interoperability problems; technical protection measures don't work. That requires a leadership role to work with rights holders. It probably involves fundamental changes in the talent remuneration structure. I don't underestimate the difficulty. But as a public broadcaster the BBC is perhaps uniquely positioned to meet that challenge. Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Michael, that's easy: I would judge you on your actions. For my part, many (that would be MANY) moons ago I was a journalist for a Windows magazine and later, purchased over a quarter of a million dollars in Microsoft licences; in both ways I helped build their monopolies. I can't even say I didn't know there was cheating back then; I saw the first conclusive proof of undocumented system calls by Excel in 1993. Back then, I thought it was great that IBM's stranglehold on the industry was being challenged and that unfair competition was not too high a price to pay for a common platform. People at Microsoft are used to distrust and resentment, although generally speaking they ascribe that to jealousy of success and not Microsoft's actions. For many years working against standards for commercial gain was just the way things were done unless there was mutual recognition that more opportunities would come from standards support. Remember IPX/SPX? I remember how a little company called Adobe got the idea to distribute a free reader for their portable document format (one of four in the market at that time) from a smaller and fiercer competitor taking market share, Farallon. Adobe won that war and buried Farallon, but it took them many years to seek ISO standardisation for PDF and the world is better off for it. (Of course, Microsoft can't stand it, they won't support PDF and they want to attack Adobe with Windows-only XPS. So much for Microsoft interoperability.) When Mr. Huggers says he is proud of his work at Microsoft which included blocking open standards, concerns about conflict of interest are justified. Those concerns can be allayed by promoting open standards. Of course, that means dropping Windows Media (which means dropping Microsoft DRM). Can a former executive promoting Windows Media be reasonably expected to reverse a decision to use Windows Media? I say give him the benefit of the doubt, but for how long? There is still no download support for iPlayer outside of Windows. What will he propose? No one is better positioned than he to enlarge WM Player's usefulness by negotiating Dirac support in WM Player, either natively, in a branded player, or as a standalone codec installer. Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Yes Nick, that reminded me of Toyota aiming for zero emissions, wonder if they'll hit it this year (joke). DRM on Mac means Fairplay, so the announcement really should be no download support for GNU/Linux actually planned or possible since our proprietary software DRM partners make mutually incompatible solutions, none of which work over GNU/Linux. Mr. Thompson's blog post was I felt well-reasoned and well written, although I wouldn't agree that the BBC should throw up its hands and give up just because its partners don't support standards. I also disagree with the assessment that is less expensive to go proprietary for 90% of the online viewership; I believe it would be far less expensive to go open-standards for 100% of the viewership. Of course, DRM messes up that scenario, which is why a non-DRM solution needs to be found, such as Dirac with watermarking in a branded player. He also didn't touch upon on the ISP/bandwidth/controlled P2P issue which is a major component of the Windows-only download client, over which he was questioned at that same HoC hearing. I wonder what the plan is in that department for Mac? Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Dan, I take your point. It's the worst sort of technical issue, the kind that can only be solved by non-engineers. It's also of little interest to most developers, a mere nuisance, except for those obliged to code for it or silly enough to not use Windows. Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Michael - mail me off-list. Thanks. Sean - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
I knew a filmmaker who handed out a card with the title Grand Pooh-Bah. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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?
I had some background discussions with PACT while preparing my interview with Ashley and what I learned (unsurprisingly) is that rights holders want to be compensated; the actual method is up for discussion. They hear that DRM doesn't work or is ineffective, but they don't see an alternative. Pooling schemes hit a roadblock: many rights holders hope to have a very successful creation and be compensated for that far over and above what other rights holders might earn. I believe that tracking viewing (and by that I mean anonymised aggregates, not Phormlike snooping) is probably key to eliminating DRM. Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Data Portability?
And here's another: http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/press/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=301421 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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?
The --limit-rate parameter of curl is often used to simulate low or variable bandwidth, e.g.: curl --limit-rate 128 URL On the subject of DRM, Adobe has just announced their DRM server availability: http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200803/031908FMRMS.html Bizarrely, the server can run on Red Hat even though clients arre only available for Windows and OSX... On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:24 PM, David Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18/03/2008, Iain Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *maybe*, but considering the interface only lets you view video if you're viewing from a wifi connection and not the phone's data connection (just a javascript check) then the only difference is, as suggested Quicktime limiting itself or pulling down a chunk of data at a time which is entirely possible but doesn't seem very likely. The download scripts let you download an entire iPlayer MP4 in a matter of minutes or seconds. AFAIK, Quicktime on the iPhone streams the programme gradually, with a read-ahead buffer of a few megabytes (which is much kinder to the BBC's servers!) Hence if a programme was downloaded in 5 minutes but the show lasts 30 minutes, it was probably leeched! -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] iPlayer DRM is over?
But the BS about the biggest market first is... well, true. You must serve your biggest audience first, but that's not at the exclusion of others. The point is that the biggest market, PCs running Windows, is captive to a monopolist which chooses not to support open standards such as MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 and MPEG-4 AAC, not to mention Ogg Theora and Ogg Vorbis. Microsoft makes that choice for an excellent reason, the interest of its shareholders; it wants to favor its proprietary Windows Media 9 format. Microsoft would be thrilled to licence WM9 codecs to every platform there is for $$$, in particular mobile telephony and IPTV, meanwhile preventing implementation in free libre software. If iPlayer had been Flash from the getgo, the biggest single technical target platform AND the second and third biggest would have been served right away, far more quickly, for cheaper, with less drama. But for that matter, Dirac would have been even better than Flash. Codecs could be provided for any platform and would be only a minor nuisance to install compared to the Kontiki client for example. DRM is a separate subject from video encoding. I have managed large-scale deployments and I am aware that hindsight is always better, but I can't agree with the point of view that a publicly funded broadcaster (or a government!) should be held hostage to a commercial company's interests. Microsoft could very well support H.264/AAC, Theora/Vorbis, Dirac, etc. if that was a condition for UK licence fee payers to view online content. There is precedent: the BBC managed to convince Real to make a BBC-specific player, after all. I am convinced that DRM has been the primary criteria for iPlayer technological choices. Although BBC management, software developers, and ordinary users can all agree that DRM is a futile exercise that has got to go, the problem of compensating creators fairly has to be solved. In the absence of a solution, the BBC management because of the PACT pact are condemned to bailing out the boat with thimbles. Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Guardian article about iPhone iPlayer
Well, H.264/AAC is great for preventing technically challenged Windows users from avoiding DRM, since it is used by everybody worldwide with one exception... Microsoft Media Player. Well, WMP supports MPEG-1, that's already something. H.264/AAC *is* supported in the Xbox, which has a magnetic field around it to prevent any connection to a computer (joke) Sean On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Andy Halsall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 13 March 2008 12:25:38 Steve Jolly wrote: Thought that people might find this interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/13/digitalvideo.television S And the BBC reply: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7293988.stm - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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?
One could speculate that the BBC definition of platform agnostic is time-bombed DRM for every platform in the UK, the universe elsewhere, on a platform-by-platform basis, starting with Windows, then Apple, then... On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 13/03/2008, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It *appears* that it has. Confirmed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7293988.stm Anyone know Nokia's head of legals phone number? Or Google's? Or Samsung? Or LG? Or Sony? Or any other mobile phone vendor? Can the BBC really hope to survive the potential legal onslaught these vendors could bring? The trust have already ruled iPlayer must be made platform agnostic, the BBC have not only failed to do this but they have now acted directly against it (scanning for and blocking products not from approved vendors even if they posses the technical capabilities needed). Andy -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 question about BBC-iPlayer_Setup.exe
On the cabextract homepage there is info about InstallShield packages too. Microsoft's MSDN might be helpful, e.g.: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa446531.aspx On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Dogsbody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately it turned out to not be a cab file after all, that's why I'm still trying to find out more (see below) :-/ Thanks though Dan On 11/03/2008 15:07, Sean DALY was seen to type: Dan - have you tried Stuart Caie's cabextract? I have used it on OSX to extract a single file from a .CAB package. On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Dogsbody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, I'm still trying for find out more (you know when you get a challenge but just can't leave it until you have worked it out!) but I have some more info if anyone is interested or can help? :-) My findings indicate that this file is a Windows Installer Internet Download Bootstrap with a built in msi file, it looks a lot like a self extracting cab file so it can be mistaken for one. It would be really useful if someone at the BBC could provide the details of what tool was used to construct the file so that I can have a go at reproducing the format. Thanks again Dan Dogsbody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unlike the questions about the the iplayer itself I have a question regarding the exe that Windows users can use to download iplayer. I am trying to write a tool to monitor/filter web traffic and so I need to identify the media type of all files it see and unpack all archive files. I'm having difficulty with BBC-iPlayer_Setup.exe, I can identify it as a self-extracting Microsoft CAB file, but when I try to unpack it, it fails. I guess my questions are... - Is it a self-extracting CAB file? - If it is not a CAB file what is it please? - And, if possible, what tool was used to create it and package it up? Thank you :-) I'll go back to lurking now :-) Dan - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 question about BBC-iPlayer_Setup.exe
Dan - have you tried Stuart Caie's cabextract? I have used it on OSX to extract a single file from a .CAB package. On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Dogsbody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, I'm still trying for find out more (you know when you get a challenge but just can't leave it until you have worked it out!) but I have some more info if anyone is interested or can help? :-) My findings indicate that this file is a Windows Installer Internet Download Bootstrap with a built in msi file, it looks a lot like a self extracting cab file so it can be mistaken for one. It would be really useful if someone at the BBC could provide the details of what tool was used to construct the file so that I can have a go at reproducing the format. Thanks again Dan On 13/01/2008 13:01, Dogsbody was seen to type: Unlike the questions about the the iplayer itself I have a question regarding the exe that Windows users can use to download iplayer. I am trying to write a tool to monitor/filter web traffic and so I need to identify the media type of all files it see and unpack all archive files. I'm having difficulty with BBC-iPlayer_Setup.exe, I can identify it as a self-extracting Microsoft CAB file, but when I try to unpack it, it fails. I guess my questions are... - Is it a self-extracting CAB file? - If it is not a CAB file what is it please? - And, if possible, what tool was used to create it and package it up? Thank you :-) I'll go back to lurking now :-) Dan - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] iPlayer, DRM, Free Software and the iPhone
My mother hates unnecessary technical complications (she finds computers and gadgets are complicated enough as it is) and DRM falls right into that category :-) On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Andy Halsall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Till then, I would suggest you don't do anything your mother wouldn't be happy about. I take it that isn't legal advice... :) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Undermining iPlayer DRM
Nick, I'm sorry, I'm giving up, with 2 browsers on 3 computers since yesterday I get the same timeout error. Sean On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Nick Reynolds-FMT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please do keep trying to comment Sean - some are getting through From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Sean DALY Sent: Fri 07/03/2008 5:15 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Undermining iPlayer DRM http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/03/bbc_iplayer_on_iphone_behind_t.html My secret source :-) I wanted to comment, but I got an http 502, there seems to be a problem. Sean On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Phil Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With ideas like this being touted by the BBC for people to get content on different devices SANS usage or time restrictions, it seems bizarre that another part of the BBC produces iPlayer which is time limited and device controlled. I'm told that there is now an iPhone version of the iPlayer which streams in h.264 Apparently /iplayer should work natively for iPhone users and there's some more info on http://myijump.com/bbciplayer/ Anyone got any more details about the streaming being used? Or is there some already out there that I've missed? Cheers, Phil - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Undermining iPlayer DRM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/03/bbc_iplayer_on_iphone_behind_t.html My secret source :-) I wanted to comment, but I got an http 502, there seems to be a problem. Sean On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Phil Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With ideas like this being touted by the BBC for people to get content on different devices SANS usage or time restrictions, it seems bizarre that another part of the BBC produces iPlayer which is time limited and device controlled. I'm told that there is now an iPhone version of the iPlayer which streams in h.264 Apparently /iplayer should work natively for iPhone users and there's some more info on http://myijump.com/bbciplayer/ Anyone got any more details about the streaming being used? Or is there some already out there that I've missed? Cheers, Phil - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] One-day Conference To Help Web Developers Address Accessibility in Web 2.0
I agree that accessibility is below the radar of most developers. Less important topics are too, such as color management (modern browsers interpret ICC color profiles). In my experience, what's effective is to videotape the conference and publish the video and audio recordings with transcripts, thus making available the presentations, comments, QA and learnings to all. That can be expensive of course if commercial firms are contracted with, but sometimes outreach to the community concerned can be the solution: offering e.g. free transport to a participant willing to record the event, finding volunteers to transcribe, etc. Sean On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Andrew Disley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5 Mar 2008, at 13:21, Mr I Forrester wrote: I don't believe there will be, but ability.net have said they want to do more of them depending on this event. Maybe even even up north Tim. I for one am very really pleased to see an event dedicated to this topic, congratulations to AbilityNet and all involved. It's about time we had some focus on this topic, for years the 'bigger' events only ever have one or two sessions on accessibility - and they are usually only a top level view on the issues, which many of us have herd over and over. I agree the costs are a little off putting for smaller outfits who will need to find accommodation, travel and give up a day's worth of income. I would defiantly consider attending of my own back if this came up North, unless I can convince my employer to send me to London. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] New concept to solve last-mile broadband: walk yourself over to a video ATM
http://www.news.com/Coming-soon-Movies-on-flash-memory-cards/2100-11398_3-6232651.html?tag=nefd.lede http://www.portomedia.com/ As I understand it, their idea is that you buy their proprietary USB-based key, walk over to their kiosk, select and download a film in under a minute, bring it home, dump it into the computer via standard USB the time it takes, then watch it on Windows or in a purchased branded set-top box. It's time-bombed Windows DRM and the kiosk is nonstandard USB, they get you by imposing the hardware interface and encouraging you to continue to go down to the video store. I don't know whhat codec they use, but probably not H.264/AAC if it's Windows Media. Toshiba, Samsung, IBM, Seagate are partners. Non-Windows need not apply. The journalist claims a transfer to an iPod Touch took only a few seconds, but doesn't go so far as to say he viewed the film, since if it is MS DRM'd it won't play on any iPod without stripping the DRM. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Vint Cerf on the future of the Internet
I had the honor and privilege of meeting Vint Cerf in Geneva last week and although he didn't have time for an audio interview, he very graciously agreed to answer my questions by e-mail: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080303140032154 Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Gnash-dev] EFF: Adobe Pushes DRM for Flash
http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200704/041607AMP.html snip For content publishers, Adobe Media Player enables better ways to deliver, monetize, brand, track and protect video content. It provides an array of video delivery options for high-quality online and offline playback, including on-demand streaming, live streaming, progressive download, and protected download-and-play. The Adobe Media Player enables a wider selection of monetization and branding options including viewer-centric dynamic advertising and the ability to customize the look and feel of the player on the fly to match the brand or theme of the currently playing content. Advanced Analytics and Content Protection The technology provides content publishers a standardized toolbox to deploy a variety of innovative new advertising formats, and to compile permission-based analytics data, both online and offline, to better understand their audiences. Building on Adobe's rich history of document protection technology, Adobe Media Player plans to offer content publishers a range of protection options, including streaming encryption, content integrity protection and identity-based protection. /snip On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Iain Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think this is blurring the line between what constitutes DRM and what constitutes a proprietary streaming protocol. The article doesn't really go into any technical detail about what they're referring to, but I take it they're referring to RTMP. This isn't DRM as the files inside the protocol are the same video formats that would be streamed over the web. DRM tends to be applied to the files directly. To assert that RTMP is a DRM scheme would imply that it's primary purpose is to lock out unauthorised users. From what I gather, this isn't its primary purpose at all - it's just supposed to make streaming objects over the web to flash more flexible and efficient. From what I've read of the protocol written up in OS Flash, it's pretty obtuse but there doesn't seem to be any great effort made in it to lock out unauthorised users. Therefore RTMP is not DRM and that article is reactionary guff. Iain On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :-) -- Forwarded message -- From: John Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 29 Feb 2008 03:31 Subject: [Gnash-dev] EFF: Adobe Pushes DRM for Flash To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/02/adobe-pushes-drm-flash ... most sites that use these [Flash and FLV] formats simply serve standalone, unencrypted files via ordinary web servers. Now Adobe, which controls Flash and Flash Video, is trying to change that with the introduction of DRM restrictions in version 9 of its Flash Player and version 3 of its Flash Media Server software. Instead of an ordinary web download, these programs can use a proprietary, secret Adobe protocol to talk to each other, encrypting the communication and locking out non-Adobe software players and video tools. We imagine that Adobe has no illusions that this will stop copyright infringement -- any more than dozens of other DRM systems have done so -- but the introduction of encryption does give Adobe and its customers a powerful new legal weapon against competitors and ordinary users through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Recall that the DMCA sets out a blanket ban on tools that help circumvent any DRM system (as well as the act of circumvention itself). When Flash Video files are simply hosted on a web site with no encryption, it's unlikely that tools to download, edit, or remix them are illegal. But when encryption enters the picture, entertainment companies argue that fair use is no excuse; Adobe, or customers using Flash Media Server 3, can try to shut down users who break the encryption without having to prove that the users are doing anything copyright-infringing. Even if users aren't targeted directly, technology developers may be threatened and the technologies the users need driven underground. Users may also have to upgrade their Flash Player software (and open source alternatives like Gnash, which has been making rapid progress, may be unable to play the encrypted streams at all). ... ___ Gnash-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev -- 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
Re: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray
Or reuse -- think of DAT, which the music industry succeeded in killing as a consumer format in the late 80s and was relegated to recording studios, but which got a new lease on life as a SCSI data backup format. The original CD-Audio Red Book gave rise to the CD-ROM XA Yellow Book after all (multisession and strengthened data correction). On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Fearghas McKay [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? I don't think HD-DVD machines have suddenly stopped working. As others have said - why should they because they supplied content to you in the format of your choice change it because the supply chain of suitable players may run out at some point in the future? If you are an early adopter of a competing technology you are probably aware of the risks of being left in a cul de sac hardware wise, but the device doesn't just stop working overnight. f - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray
Concerning physical records, I feel the same way. I buy few items online, not only because of the silly DRM, but because managing storage and backups is a headache. I concur with Richard's comments that consumers are just putting it all on computers, but every consumer I know has difficulty keeping track of what they have and where it is. Computers grow old and die when they are not stolen, and forums are full of panicked people realizing that they have lost all their music, photos, etc. or are blocked because they can't figure out how to transfer everything. In that regard I was very impressed with the native Apple OSX migration utility which clones everything -- data, applications, configurations, accounts and rights -- to a new machine automatically over firewire. Just be sure to do it before the old machine dies... There are user-friendly backup solutions coming online, but local search still has a ways to go in indexing metadata across formats. I suspect that lots of today's ephemeral data will be difficult to view or listen to years later. If local data is DRM'd, one may as well accept that it will have no longevity whatsoever. My friends who are recording studio owners are doing offline backup with client-specific external hard drives, they have become so affordable that they just bill the client for one, throw everything on there when the project is done, and label it with the client's name. Firewire and USB will be around for long enough I suppose. For longevity, portability, and ruggedness, I vote for books and discs. On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Darren Stephens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All of this is true enough, but (and there's always a but) you still have the physical artefact, don't you? Even if it's gaffer taped with a hundred others, you still have the physical object you shelled out your money for. The digital stuff is, by your own admission, descended from the objects. Brands may be virtual but I for one prefer to buy the disc. Why? Because there's something tangible to show for the transaction after completion, not something ephemeral that is rather difficult to pin down. There is something that is identifiable as being of worth. That's not to say I don't buy the ephemeral stuff – I have purchased stuff on my iPod – but I am certainly more cautious about buying items that way. How unusual I am I can't say. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:08 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray On 20/02/2008, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I was talking to Dave about this in Edinburgh. The thing is, the current evidence suggests that this might be a false assumption. From a physiological point of view, lots of marketing efforts does indeed go into selling things to people. However, the modern liberal international capitalist system puts a lot of effort into promoting brands, which a not things, but virtual. It is quite a logical step to say that brands therefore exist in cyberspace. They have value only as something that is possessed by a company that hey can use. I've got three enormous boxes that I have all my CDs in. I gaffer taped them up when I finished MP3ing them, which was years ago now. How many times have I unpacked them? None. I've got a Vista Media Center with all my music on it, and I can copy and play this (using www.orb.com) anywhere. It's connected to the TV and has a remote control, and does my videos and all my thousands of photos. I can access all this lot from where ever with one remote control. I'm not alone. Everyone with an MP3 player (say an iPod) can carry around an amount of music you couldn't carry around in a transit van if it were on vinyl. Look, I'm such a nerd that I bought all of Star Trek (not Enterprise, obviously but with the Cartoons), Doctor Who and Blake's Seven on VHS and they took up the whole damn loft! Now I can have it all on a box smaller than half a VHS cassette. And if that's not enough. To quote from Down The Line, What is point DVD? The weirdest exam result (was the A) I got for an AO Level in Science in Society, so I've known about the idea of peak oil and climate change for ages. I recon that if we are going to run out of the oil and stop killing the planet, then the easiest thing for people to give up is buying data stamped onto heavy plastic carted around by lorry. It's just so unnecessary! If you are investing, invest in fat datapipes not past-it plastic.
Re: [backstage] Open source video streaming browser based video client
I came across this recently but have not tested it: Flumotion Cortado by Fluendo, streaming applet for Ogg formats http://www.flumotion.net/cortado/ http://stream.fluendo.com/en/textos.php?id=8 On the client side, it's a java applet which can be embedded into a page. On the server side, Ogg Theora / Ogg Vorbis can be streamed via a Flumotion platform or even loaded locally. No idea how that last would hold up under heavy traffic though. This is not a recommendation, I have merely looked through their site. I am looking at streaming hosting for a project I'm working on and I want to check this out later. Cheers Sean On Feb 18, 2008 11:29 PM, Graeme West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dan, Apple's Darwin Streaming Server might do the trick for you. It does MPEG-4, MPEG-4 H.264/AVC etc. streaming and supports SMIL files. It's open source (though those file formats are patented). http://developer.apple.com/opensource/server/streaming/index.html We use it to serve BBC content from our repository under our educational deposit agreement. I can't say that it's the most feature-complete piece of software in the world but it does the job, and there's a decent user community if you get stuck with anything. Client-side, things get a bit tricky, since the QuickTime plugin is basically mince. It's quite pernickety about network issues (such as proxy configurations not being inherited from the OS on Windows), but again it does the job... Though at least the transport would be in a relatively standard format (RTSP/RTP), rather than nasty Real guff. Simon's suggestion of Flash on the client side might make a nice combination with DSS, though we've only ever used Flash as an HTTP (progressive download) front-end - not true streaming - so I can't say if/how well the combination would work. Graeme -- Graeme West Web Services Development Architect Spoken Word Services Glasgow Caledonian University Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (+44) 0141 273 8544 Project web site: http://www.spokenword.ac.uk/ On 17 Feb 2008, at 22:55, simon wrote: Hello, Flash appears to say yes to SMIL: http://livedocs.adobe.com/flash/9.0/main/wwhelp/wwhimpl/common/html/wwhelp.htm?context=LiveDocs_Partsfile=0589.html though flash has caused me problems by only implementing limited subsets of other standard formats (eg limited html tags in flash textareas) so I wouldn't like to say for sure the flash's understanding of SMIL would do what you want. I've never used SMIL + flash. And the best bet I think for an open source flash streaming server for flv video format is still currently Red5 which hasn't made a 1.0 version yet: http://osflash.org/red5 If you use MP4 container with h264/aac as your flash video format (from memory: player 9,0,115,0 onwards), you may have more options for your server, it's on my list to check this but so far I haven't had time. S. On Feb 17, 2008 10:18 PM, Dogsbody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apologies if this is slightly off topic but I have been googling on and off since last year, found nothing and you lot are the best people I know to ask! I'm looking for an open source video streaming server browser based video client for the video finish of a charity marathon I run. I'm already using Helix Server for streaming the video although I could change that if required. I'm using Real video for the stream and I guess it's the having to ask users to download and install Real Player that's harsh. While Real is very good at simultaneous multi-bitrate streaming it's anything but open and I know plenty of people that refuse to install Real Player not to mention to vulnerabilities! It would be great to have the video window in the browser so the user didn't have to download anything (e.g. VLC) but I think that just leaves Flash(!?) which is also not open (although people are at least used to video in Flash). The BIG requirement though is that the client can understand/replicate SMIL information as the video is stored on the server as a single 1GB file and different users are streamed different 20 second clips based on the time they went over the finish line. Can Flash even do that? Any help appreciated. Dan P.S. I'm using the term Open Source as a indication of the ideal, I'm a fan of open source so I would like to use it with free software being the next choice but as this is a charity marathon we have no money to throw at commercial software. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit
Re: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray
The deck makers don't mind giving you control, but the disc sellers do. That spam bit of FBI warning (means a lot in France) is Hollywood, terrified that they will suffer by not offering consumers what they want (cf.: the music industry). In both cases the basic model has been to upgrade physical record formats every few years then laugh all the way to the bank. They should have taken a clue from the failure of Super Audio CD. Consumers readily understand the advantages in investing in a new widescreen telly to better view their 80 or 100 DVDs, but the idea of replacing all those films yet again, after VHS (or Beta)?? On Feb 19, 2008 4:26 PM, [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 and it tries to thrust the 'don't copy videos' advert on to you. Why should any company have the right to stop you using your own DVD controls and force you to watch the messages it demands that you watch. It 'steals' your electricity and screen time to display its messages and if you tot up all the hours people waste waiting to have control over their DVDs then you realise that it wastes a lot of energy and is anything but green. Wonder why this imposition hasn't been challenged in the courts. It is a small but very annoying thing. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ian Smith (Irascian Ltd) Sent: 19 February 2008 14:17 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray Yup. Presumably, in this ridiculous Must buy into the latest hype even if the technology really isn't up to the job and it's totally impractical world we live in people will happily wait several hours after deciding they want to watch a movie for their movie to download instead of just inserting that pre-2K bit of plastic that starts up immediately. Michael Bay famously declared that HD-DVD was introduced by Microsoft as a deliberate spoiler to Blu-Ray to ensure failure of that format and eventual success of the download high def format they were really after. Clearly the ravings of a lunatic who hasn't enjoyed the picture quality of a broadcast on a stuttering iPlayer on an 8MB broadband connection! Ian (happy to be fighting over a comb if the alternative is either watching postage stamp sized movies on a phone or enjoying artefacting and poor quality that is the Sky HD service). From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 19 February 2008 13:55 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray On 19/02/2008, Matt Barber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Toshiba drops out of HD DVD war - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7252172.stm What does everyone think? I thought they would keep this going for longer. Bald men fighting over a comb. Now one one them can scrape their scalp to their heart's content. Putting data onto bits of plastic is so pre-2K... - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] co-branded Miro players
I found the Miro announcement so interesting, I decided to interview Nicholas Reville about it: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080207173143823 Sean On Feb 5, 2008 3:20 PM, Sean DALY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, very interesting. The Miro folk have experience cobbling together technos across platforms while presenting a user-friendly interface. On 2/4/08, Davy Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is great news - thanks for sharing it Ian :-) On Feb 4, 2008 3:42 PM, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry to be clear, we are talking and they are coming into the BBC to show off Miro in March. And this is bloggable :) Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [] private; [] ask first; [x] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Forrester Sent: 04 February 2008 15:30 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] co-branded Miro players I think it would be fair to say we are talking to Miro ;) 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean DALY Sent: 01 February 2008 09:21 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] co-branded Miro players Now here's an idea: branded, platform-neutral clients... http://www.getmiro.com/blog/?p=363 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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/ -- Davy Mitchell Blog - http://www.latedecember.co.uk/sites/personal/davy/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/daftspaniel Skype - daftspaniel needgod.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/
Re: [backstage] co-branded Miro players
Yes, very interesting. The Miro folk have experience cobbling together technos across platforms while presenting a user-friendly interface. On 2/4/08, Davy Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is great news - thanks for sharing it Ian :-) On Feb 4, 2008 3:42 PM, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry to be clear, we are talking and they are coming into the BBC to show off Miro in March. And this is bloggable :) Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [] private; [] ask first; [x] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Forrester Sent: 04 February 2008 15:30 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] co-branded Miro players I think it would be fair to say we are talking to Miro ;) 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean DALY Sent: 01 February 2008 09:21 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] co-branded Miro players Now here's an idea: branded, platform-neutral clients... http://www.getmiro.com/blog/?p=363 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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/ -- Davy Mitchell Blog - http://www.latedecember.co.uk/sites/personal/davy/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/daftspaniel Skype - daftspaniel needgod.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/
[backstage] co-branded Miro players
Now here's an idea: branded, platform-neutral clients... http://www.getmiro.com/blog/?p=363 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Dirac Pro v1.0.0, SMPTE VC-2
Hardware manufacturers are notorious for preferring open MPEG, SMPTE, ITU standards over proprietary codecs (other than their own). I saw a presentation at SATIS in Paris a few years ago which listed the main PC codecs (including Theora) and then called MPEG the only standards that matter. This argument still holds up: out of the three historical players who have been battling these past 15 years or so, the only reliable format across players all this time was and is... MPEG-1. From 1992! I'm not sure most people who think of Dirac number more than a handful though. In the absence of any press communication, this is one of those quiet events which could have enormous impact. Sean On Jan 24, 2008 11:39 PM, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean DALY wrote: I think this is fabulous news. Congratulations to all who worked on it. A patent-unencumbered (say that 10x fast) royalty-free codec is something the world needs. So what if Microsoft doesn't support it, they don't support H.264 or AAC either (XBox Zune aside) and look where that got iTunes. It is indeed fabulous news, but people should bear in mind that Dirac Pro / VC2 is not the codec that most people think of as Dirac. It lacks motion-compensation, which is unnecessary for its intended use, but which is needed to make it competitive with widely-adopted alternatives such as WM9 and h.264. Dirac Pro is being marketed in hardware form as a way of squeezing HD video down relatively low-bandwidth cables, such as the SDI cables installed in many TV studios for standard definition signals - see http://www.numediatechnology.com/products.html for details. http://dirac.sourceforge.net/specification.html gives more details, including the specifications of the two codecs. 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] RTMP stream URL resolving script
I believe icecast would be a better FOSS candidate for a multicast on-demand streaming server than VLC. But really, any discussion of streaming must needs associate the file format container and codec and client-side application (browser plug-in, dedicated, ...). And on a large scale, the workflow, both media transcoding and metadata transformations. I wouldn't underestimate the technical difficulties of organising massive on-demand streaming, especially both historic and close behind on-air. Just the data storage alone is a major headache. And I won't even bring up DRM / authentification issues :-) Sean On Jan 24, 2008 11:16 AM, mike waterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/24/08, Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andy wrote: On 23/01/2008, Phil Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without looking it up, the previous reply (from a Gnash dev IIRC) was that the BBC are using the latest version of Adobe Flash Streaming Server, and this has dropped support for streaming over HTTP. I remembered it being described as deprecated. My interpretation of deprecated is that it isn't recommended to use it but it still can be used. Normally it means it will be removed sometime in the future. For instance I can use a Deprecated Method in Java and it will still wok but I will get a warning and it may be removed from Java in the future. I therefore assumed that RTMP could still be used but wasn't the recommended approach. I may have been wrong though. (Why would anyone remove something useful from a software application anyway? More importantly why would anyone trust a vendor that did that with their Mission Critical software applications?). You seem to be confusing yourself as RTMP has not been removed and is the recommended approach with http apparently being deprecated. They probably removed http streaming as it isn't that efficient and it makes it easy for people to download the flv videos. With the streaming the videos are harder to copy plus you get the benefits that if you skip forward in a video you don't have to wait for the flv to download to that point. Have you ever used youtube? you can skip to any part of the video and it starts streaming from there. The only reason i can see adobe deprecating http is so you have to use their clients to use it! The bbc really should be more open about this. So you want to open iplayer up to third party clients and get the open source community involved? But yet you don't want to let them download the shows? The only thing stopping us from downloading the shows is no rtmp client support outside of flash player, as soon as that happens anyone could build a downloader client. So what is your logic for closing us off then trying to open it up? When YouTube upgrade, they too will probably lose support for streaming over HTTP as well. Not so sure, they have loads of third party clients (think apple tv) that doesn't use rtmp and they wouldn't kill support for them. They currently stream over HTTP don't they? This the BBC could *currently* do the same. See above. Like other people have pointed out when You Tube next upgrade they will probably stop the current http streams. Also, I previously asked you if you knew of any alternatives the BBC could have used. To quote you: Any chance you could actually answer the questions I asked? To quote you: This has also been answered before (the last time you asked it, actually). I'm not entirely convinced you've actually been reading replies, or if you have, actually paying them much attention. Apache has the power to serve files over HTTP. You should check it out http://www.apache.org/ . Stick a file in a location it can access and clients can stream from it. Red5 likely still does HTTP. http://osflash.org/red5 First hit on Google for Video Streaming Software: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/streaming.html (VLC can behave as a server as well as doing playback) Supports multiple formats and protocols. Apache is okay, but no security and it can only do http, VLC can do different streams but it is only designed for streaming one video and makes use of multicast and this is not available with many ISPs, so both of this suggestions are unusable. Adam -- This email proudly and graciously contributes to entropy. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] RTMP stream URL resolving script
Have you ever used youtube? you can skip to any part of the video and it starts streaming from there. The only reason i can see adobe deprecating http is so you have to use their clients to use it! Mike - http is not ideally suited to streaming, where the idea is to provide smooth audio or video taking into account floopy network bandwidth (with buffering...), client-side decoding speed, and viewing the stream or flux while the file is still being downloaded. http is of course fine for small clips. I believe Flash MX was the first version to offer streaming and it was simulated streaming at that, straight buffering with no network quality feedback if I remember right. Sometimes close enough does count, as in horseshoes and hand grenades a biker friend of mine used to say. Also IIRC MPEG-1 was silent on IP transport while MPEG-2 may have had something and MPEG-4 has a whole chapter on it. The issue of open standards is of course perfectly valid. RealNetworks for example has had great streaming for years but I believe their protocols are entirely proprietary. Sean On Jan 24, 2008 11:42 AM, Sean DALY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe icecast would be a better FOSS candidate for a multicast on-demand streaming server than VLC. But really, any discussion of streaming must needs associate the file format container and codec and client-side application (browser plug-in, dedicated, ...). And on a large scale, the workflow, both media transcoding and metadata transformations. I wouldn't underestimate the technical difficulties of organising massive on-demand streaming, especially both historic and close behind on-air. Just the data storage alone is a major headache. And I won't even bring up DRM / authentification issues :-) Sean On Jan 24, 2008 11:16 AM, mike waterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/24/08, Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andy wrote: On 23/01/2008, Phil Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without looking it up, the previous reply (from a Gnash dev IIRC) was that the BBC are using the latest version of Adobe Flash Streaming Server, and this has dropped support for streaming over HTTP. I remembered it being described as deprecated. My interpretation of deprecated is that it isn't recommended to use it but it still can be used. Normally it means it will be removed sometime in the future. For instance I can use a Deprecated Method in Java and it will still wok but I will get a warning and it may be removed from Java in the future. I therefore assumed that RTMP could still be used but wasn't the recommended approach. I may have been wrong though. (Why would anyone remove something useful from a software application anyway? More importantly why would anyone trust a vendor that did that with their Mission Critical software applications?). You seem to be confusing yourself as RTMP has not been removed and is the recommended approach with http apparently being deprecated. They probably removed http streaming as it isn't that efficient and it makes it easy for people to download the flv videos. With the streaming the videos are harder to copy plus you get the benefits that if you skip forward in a video you don't have to wait for the flv to download to that point. Have you ever used youtube? you can skip to any part of the video and it starts streaming from there. The only reason i can see adobe deprecating http is so you have to use their clients to use it! The bbc really should be more open about this. So you want to open iplayer up to third party clients and get the open source community involved? But yet you don't want to let them download the shows? The only thing stopping us from downloading the shows is no rtmp client support outside of flash player, as soon as that happens anyone could build a downloader client. So what is your logic for closing us off then trying to open it up? When YouTube upgrade, they too will probably lose support for streaming over HTTP as well. Not so sure, they have loads of third party clients (think apple tv) that doesn't use rtmp and they wouldn't kill support for them. They currently stream over HTTP don't they? This the BBC could *currently* do the same. See above. Like other people have pointed out when You Tube next upgrade they will probably stop the current http streams. Also, I previously asked you if you knew of any alternatives the BBC could have used. To quote you: Any chance you could actually answer the questions I asked? To quote you: This has also been answered before (the last time you asked it, actually). I'm not entirely convinced you've actually been reading replies, or if you have, actually paying them much attention. Apache has the power to serve files over HTTP. You should check
[backstage] Dirac Pro v1.0.0, SMPTE VC-2
I think this is fabulous news. Congratulations to all who worked on it. A patent-unencumbered (say that 10x fast) royalty-free codec is something the world needs. So what if Microsoft doesn't support it, they don't support H.264 or AAC either (XBox Zune aside) and look where that got iTunes. Now, a deal to ecapsulate Dirac in Flash would be the next step, no? In a branded streaming player... ? Sean - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Transcript for Backstage Accessibility podcast
As I've said previously, transcribing is a long, tedious and generally thankless task, yet is so well worth it -- often years down the road, when you can easily find what was said with just a remembered keyword or phrase. It's true that one would always like to have expressed oneself better, but in my experience that's the case for absolutely everyone, so if anything it encourages one to think before speaking :-) So thanks Ian, it's a great contribution. Sean On Jan 22, 2008 10:34 PM, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/news/archives/2007/12/podcast_accessi.html http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/news/archives/2007/12/podcast_accessi_1.html Ian, congratulations, and my aplogies, if I became overbearing or worse... best wishes Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet On 21 Jan 2008, at 17:58, Ian Forrester wrote: Hi All, I've finally got the transcript for the backstage podcast. Its currently lives here - http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/news/archives/ 2007/12/podcast_accessi_1.html I have also added the previous podcast to the main feed, so you should automatically get the podcast, if your subscribed to this feed - http://bbcbackstage.blip.tv/rss Enjoy and I'm sorry it took so long... 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 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] RTMP stream URL resolving script
I stand corrected. Concerning Corporation X, I should have said without attribution and without source code. Sean On Jan 19, 2008 2:22 PM, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19/01/2008, Sean DALY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, it's public domain then, which is fine The public domain exists in the UK only for works that have expired from copyright; its only in the USA that you can legally assign a work into the public domain before its term expires. Thus Creative Commons recently retracted its PD license in favor of CC 0. as long as you don't mind Corporation X incorporating and selling your code. The GPL doesn't prohibit Corporation X incorporating and selling your code. -- 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] RTMP stream URL resolving script
That's misleading (I'm sure non-intentionally). Microsoft have indeed used BSD code in their systems in the past and as I recall it was the TCP/IP stack - or portions thereof Hmmm I meant aside from the TCP/IP stack -- after all, David Wheeler mentions that in the article I linked to -- I should have been more explicit. But, again, I have no proof, so l will call it just a rumor :-) However I am not at all sure Microsoft respects its licensing obligations regarding reused code. The Services for Unix package contains licence texts (including GPLv1, GPLv2, and BSD) but no source code, nor any indication of where to find it. Sean On Jan 20, 2008 10:35 PM, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 20 January 2008 17:01:43 Sean DALY wrote: A longstanding rumor, for which I have no proof, is that parts of Microsoft's network code was simply copied from BSD code, which if true would naturally explain why Microsoft is so hesitant to documents its protocols not to mention its code. That's misleading (I'm sure non-intentionally). Microsoft have indeed used BSD code in their systems in the past and as I recall it was the TCP/IP stack - or portions thereof. This isn't exactly uncommon and if you're choosing a TCP/IP stack to use, there are worse choices :-) However they *have* complied with the BSD license - if you look in the manuals distributed with windows you will find the appropriate statements. It is however not exactly a secret (or even a rumour!) - eg it's trivial to find here: * http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306819/en-us (you'll see the various notices they're required to include) I *believe* (but have no evidence beyond I've been told) that they've been reported to have rewritten that code since then, so I'd guess they no longer need those statements. (I don't have a copy of Vista, so can't (and have no inclination to) check :) The reason for Microsoft not documenting it protocols and code in the way demanded by some is IMO likely to be for some other reason. I'm going to refrain from speculating why. I will note that documenting protocols allows for multiple implementations - enabling competition. I suspect therefore their decision is based on whether they can see value in competition in that space or not. (if it grows the market, then everyone benefits including them - since although their share shrinks the pie grows increasing their income. If the market is at peak size, it shrinks their market share whilst not growing the size of the pie, reducing their income) Beyond speculating that their decision is based on cold hard money, I'm not speculating further :-) Michael. *personal opinions only* - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] RTMP stream URL resolving script
Well, it's public domain then, which is fine as long as you don't mind Corporation X incorporating and selling your code. Often, a simple copyright notice saying this notice must accompany all subsequent versions of this code is better than nothing. Sean On Jan 19, 2008 12:46 AM, Iain Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll do that, but for now it's for anyone to use. If you make something amazing from it, credit me in the readme ;) I don't want to get into a discussion about the pros and cons of GPL v3 but I would much prefer to see an MIT or BSD style licence. Can I put in a plea for dual licensing to keep everybody happy? Well I have to say that Iain's licence seems so much more simple, understandable and easy to use :-) Yes, the previous discussion is an example of why I don't automatically stick licenses on my code. Maybe everyone else has read the relevant open source licenses in detail and weighed up the pros and cons of each, but I haven't and it's unlikely I'll ever be bored enough to do so. At the end of the day, aren't we all just trying to advance each other's understanding? And maybe get a mention on El Reg ;) I'm not going to sue anyone for using a code snippet I wrote one evening. Iain - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Streaming iPlayer age guidance
Nick - I often use xmlstarlet to wade through unfamiliar XML files, like so: first, the structure $ xml el -u b008s14v.xml iplayerMedia iplayerMedia/concept iplayerMedia/concept/longSynopsis iplayerMedia/concept/masterbrand iplayerMedia/concept/masterbrand/ident iplayerMedia/concept/masterbrand/ident/height iplayerMedia/concept/masterbrand/ident/identifier iplayerMedia/concept/masterbrand/ident/mediaType iplayerMedia/concept/masterbrand/ident/server iplayerMedia/concept/masterbrand/ident/width iplayerMedia/concept/masterbrand/thumbnail iplayerMedia/concept/masterbrand/thumbnail/height iplayerMedia/concept/masterbrand/thumbnail/mediaType iplayerMedia/concept/masterbrand/thumbnail/url iplayerMedia/concept/masterbrand/thumbnail/width iplayerMedia/concept/mediumSynopsis iplayerMedia/concept/pid iplayerMedia/concept/relatedConcepts iplayerMedia/concept/relatedConcepts/concept iplayerMedia/concept/relatedConcepts/concept/mediumSynopsis iplayerMedia/concept/relatedConcepts/concept/pid iplayerMedia/concept/relatedConcepts/concept/subtitle iplayerMedia/concept/relatedConcepts/concept/thumbnail iplayerMedia/concept/relatedConcepts/concept/thumbnail/height iplayerMedia/concept/relatedConcepts/concept/thumbnail/mediaType iplayerMedia/concept/relatedConcepts/concept/thumbnail/url iplayerMedia/concept/relatedConcepts/concept/thumbnail/width iplayerMedia/concept/relatedConcepts/concept/title iplayerMedia/concept/relatedConcepts/concept/url iplayerMedia/concept/shortSynopsis iplayerMedia/concept/subtitle iplayerMedia/concept/thumbnail iplayerMedia/concept/thumbnail/height iplayerMedia/concept/thumbnail/mediaType iplayerMedia/concept/thumbnail/url iplayerMedia/concept/thumbnail/width iplayerMedia/concept/title iplayerMedia/concept/url iplayerMedia/concept/versions iplayerMedia/concept/versions/version iplayerMedia/concept/versions/version/available iplayerMedia/concept/versions/version/duration iplayerMedia/concept/versions/version/guidance iplayerMedia/concept/versions/version/guidance/text iplayerMedia/concept/versions/version/name iplayerMedia/concept/versions/version/pid Then, the sel command to output: $ xml sel -t -m //iplayerMedia/concept -v title -n -v subtitle -v versions/version/guidance b008s14v.xml Torchwood: Series 2 Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang Contains some violence. $ xmlstarlet runs on everything. What I love about it is that the same operation can then be applied to a thousand files. It generates XML par default but can output text as above, ready for formatting or parsing by anything else. Sean On Jan 18, 2008 10:56 AM, Nick Ludlam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17 Jan 2008, at 19:08, Matthew Somerville wrote: Andy wrote: Also I am almost certain there was an XML meta file stored somewhere that corresponded to each programme and now I can't find it. Any help? http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/metafiles/episode/b008s14v.xml - you just need the programme episode PIP. Related concepts for that episode include Doctor Who and... Doctors. ;-) It doesn't seem to contain anything about being 16 or over though. The guidance section, after wading through all that whitespace, is: version nameAudioDescribed,Original/name pidb008s14n/pid guidance textContains some violence./text /guidance duration00:50:00/duration availabletrue/available /version This is something I'd love to see included in the broadcast EPG, as well. Currently, I don't think any UK broadcaster is using the Parental rating descriptor that's available in the EN 300 468 S.I. spec. -- Nick Ludlam [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] BBC Hires Dirk-Willem van Gulik as CTA
I saw the BBC press release go up an hour ago: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/01_january/17/gulik.shtml On Jan 17, 2008 5:15 PM, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's only mid-Jan, but I bet the below is the best news about the BBC I will hear this year. http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/419-industry-moves-joost-cto-leaves-to-build-new-bbc-network/ More on the man... http://www.go-opensource.org/go_open/episode_3/big_guns/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] 403 Forbidden on http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology/ is showing 403 Forbidden. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] 403 Forbidden on http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology/
If I remember right I had clicked this morning on the trailing-slash link on the sidebar of this page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/01/networking_with_negroponte.html But it seems fine now. On Jan 9, 2008 1:45 PM, Michael Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It simply because http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology/ tries to redirect to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/default.stm/ - note the trailing slash in both which makes it not work. Doing http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology works in Opera and IE as it redirects to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/default.stm - but Firefox keeps putting the trailing slash back in and then 403's. As I write, it now doesn't work in Opera - so someone is obviously tinkering in the background. On 09/01/2008, Melissa Packer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 404 for me here inside the firewall. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean DALY Sent: 09 January 2008 09:13 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] 403 Forbidden on http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology/ is showing 403 Forbidden. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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/ -- Michael Walsh Mobile: +44-(0)771-2524200 Mobile: +353-(0)85-1278212 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.digitalrightsmanifesto.com Blog: http://digitalrightsmanifesto.wordpress.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/
Re: [backstage] 403 Forbidden on http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology/
With or without slash, the redirect is OK for me on Firefox v2.0.0.11, Safari v1.32, Opera v9.25 on Mac, and Firefox v2.0.0.11, IE v6 on PC XP. On Jan 9, 2008 2:57 PM, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 09/01/2008, Michael Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It simply because http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology/ tries to redirect to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/default.stm/ - note the trailing slash in both which makes it not work. Using Telnet to view the exact return by the server shows something interesting. /technology actually redirects to /technology/ That would be why Firefox is adding a trialling /, it's what it is being told to do. Don't know how opera and IE are working. View the actual responses: Connected to www.bbc.co.uk (212.58.253.70). GET /technology HTTP/1.1 HOST: www.bbc.co.uk HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently [snip] Location: http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology/ [snip] It's the BBC adding the trailing slash, not the browser. The most likely cause is that /technology is a directory so technically a request for /technology is invalid, Apache appears to auto-correct to /technology/ and then uses rewrite rules on the subsequent request. If you want rewrite to apply to /technology make sure you don't have your .htaccess in that folder as it won't see it till it gets the /technology/ request. Oddly I swear it appeared to be fixed and then broke again. From outside the BBC a request to /technology/ is forbidden not rewritten to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/default.stm/ as suggested (at least not currently) Is someone playing with the server config files? Direct link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/default.stm still works fine however. Andy -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] 403 Forbidden on http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology/
here's what curl (v7.14 on Darwin) has to say, with and without the trailing slash: $ curl http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology --dump-header bbc-co-uk.technology.txt !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN htmlhead title301 Moved Permanently/title /headbody h1Moved Permanently/h1 pThe document has moved a href=http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology/;here/a./p /body/html $ curl http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology/ --dump-header bbc-co-uk.technology.txt !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN htmlhead title302 Found/title /headbody h1Found/h1 pThe document has moved a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/default.stm;here/a./p /body/html On Jan 9, 2008 3:16 PM, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology redirects directly to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/default.stm See: Connected to www.bbc.co.uk (212.58.251.202). GET /technology HTTP/1.1 HOST: www.bbc.co.uk HTTP/1.1 302 Found [snip] Location: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/default.stm [snip] Well done to whoever fixed it. Andy -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]
If the HTML is fairly standardized (I see that the datestamp is both in the metatags and in the body), it's even easier to add or change the presentation of datestamps, just a text operation which I'd take over a fancy CMS any day of the week. Static pages can be great for performance, reliability, ease of backup, standards validation, subcontracting for translation, etc. Massive changes are simplified since they can be done on nonlive and distributed servers and previewed offline with any browser or even errorchecked automatically. Sed, awk, perl, python are all adapted to that task. I used a CMS a few years ago which was quite limited (only one media file per record) and as a kludge we generated static HTML popups with multiple media choices as the media file. The intranet IP addresses were hardcoded in the HTML so we were worried when server change time came, but we updated 16,000 static pages in under an hour with sed. As I recall, before running the script we were concerned about intense disk activity and there was a suggestion to do the edits in a RAMdisk, in which case only a few minutes would have been necessary. It's true that a light grey background with the year might be a good idea for old content, but myself I'd sooner stick with live text, just present it a tad larger on top and with the year on the bottom of the page. Sean. On Jan 7, 2008 4:05 PM, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Greaves wrote: I think someone missed the point here... Or am I wrong? If I explain that all the stories on the BBC news website are barely more than static HTML, would that explain why adding watermarks to them all would be difficult? If the site was backed by some kind of new-fangled CMS then it would be an extremely sensible suggestion. :-) 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/
