[backstage] Fwd: [Fsfe-uk] Interview: Ashley Highfield on BBC's DRM'd iPlayer
:-) -- Forwarded message --From: Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: 19 Nov 2007 11:26Subject: [Fsfe-uk] Interview: Ashley Highfield on BBC's DRM'd iPlayerTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's a good interview on Groklaw with the head of the BBC divisionresponsible for the DRM'd iPlayer software: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071118205358171 His responses are sometimes encouraging and sometimes discouraging but itseems that the issue is open for debate and that if people care enough tomaintain public awareness of this issue, DRM-free BBC content is possible. IIRC, the BBC agreed to this interview because of the amount of attentionraised by a previous interview with Mark Taylor:http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071021231933899(also by Sean Daly) Maybe some of you here know more about the topic and could contribute to thediscussion here or on Groklaw. I'm certainly interested. --Ciarán O'Riordan __ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linuxhttp://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _ \ Join FSFE's Fellowship:http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \ http://www.fsfe.org ___Fsfe-uk mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED]://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk -- 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/
RE: [backstage] Fwd: [Fsfe-uk] Interview: Ashley Highfield on BBC's DRM'd iPlayer
Also you can comment here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/groklaw_interview.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland Sent: 19 November 2007 12:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Fwd: [Fsfe-uk] Interview: Ashley Highfield on BBC's DRM'd iPlayer :-) -- Forwarded message --From: Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: 19 Nov 2007 11:26Subject: [Fsfe-uk] Interview: Ashley Highfield on BBC's DRM'd iPlayerTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's a good interview on Groklaw with the head of the BBC divisionresponsible for the DRM'd iPlayer software: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071118205358171 His responses are sometimes encouraging and sometimes discouraging but itseems that the issue is open for debate and that if people care enough tomaintain public awareness of this issue, DRM-free BBC content is possible. IIRC, the BBC agreed to this interview because of the amount of attentionraised by a previous interview with Mark Taylor:http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071021231933899(also by Sean Daly) Maybe some of you here know more about the topic and could contribute to thediscussion here or on Groklaw. I'm certainly interested. --Ciarán O'Riordan __ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linuxhttp://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _ \ Join FSFE's Fellowship:http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \ http://www.fsfe.org ___Fsfe-uk mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED]://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk -- 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] Fwd: [Fsfe-uk] Interview: Ashley Highfield on BBC's DRM'd iPlayer
On 19/11/2007, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also you can comment here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/groklaw_interview.html Good point :-) Ashley said, Well, they started from the principle of, We just don'tknow the way this market is going to develop. We don't want any of ourcontent to be made available. A lot of the rights holders are not atall familiar with this world. They are often writers, or directors, orproducers—and for them, **they can see that this world hasopportunity, but they also see that it has great risk of underminingtheir current business.** And so this is something that we've had totake them on a journey with. And the initial point was, yes,convincing them that **the content was well-protected, that once theyunderstood enough about copyright and digital rights management towant to be assured that the content would be available free within theUK but not freely copying available outside the UK.** And we hadauditors in to demonstrate that that was the case. This reminded me of something Eben Moglen said athttp://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2420/stories/2007101950761.htm : What's happening is that, at one and the same time, the digitalrevolution is offering capitalists the undreamt of **possibility thatthey can continue to charge large prices for goods that have no costof manufacture and distribution.** That is the bonanza. That isperfection for capitalism. Profit becomes the whole of the price. It'sa very great dream for them. At the same time, they are facing the **possibility of complete ruinif we move to a voluntary distribution system in which they no longerown anything** but perform services to creators. Because then, indistributing culture, they must compete with children and lovers andpeople who distribute culture just because they want to. So there is acompetitive crisis building. On the one hand, their pay-off matrix shows in the positive side somevery large numbers. And on the negative side, their pay-off matrixshows equally large negative numbers. **There is no saddle point inthis game,** the game theoreticians would say. The game itself doesnot give you an optimum strategy. There are two possibilities: they have superior force, and so theycoerce the game to the cells in which they win. Or we have superiorforce in which case they must change their way of doing business.Unfortunately, there is really no choice in the middle. The middlebecomes hard to hold because the ends are so attractive. So, international capital at one and the same time sees that it hasopportunities beyond its wildest dreams and it has challenges thatmight put it out of business. This produces that same uneasiness thatbeset capital when it first encountered the communist movement in themiddle of the 19th century. And so I took the moment at which itencountered communism and I changed a few words to show how it worksat the opening of the 20th century. And the spectre of freeinformation that haunts capitalism now is like the spectre ofcommunism that haunted it in the 19th century with just one exception;this one works. The communists of 1867 were writing about somethingthat they hoped to do. We are writing about the spreading out ofsomething we have already done. This one is already showing that itcan happen. Interesting times :-) -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Fsfe-uk] Interview: Ashley Highfield on BBC's DRM'd iPlayer
davehaveyouanyideahowdifficultitistoreadyouremailstheylookquiteinterestingbutthelackofformattingandgeneralrunningtogetherrreallymakeslifedifficultforsomeofusonthelistDavid Dave Crossland wrote: On 19/11/2007, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also you can comment here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/groklaw_interview.html Good point :-) Ashley said, Well, they started from the principle of, We just don'tknow the way this market is going to develop. We don't want any of ourcontent to be made available. A lot of the rights holders are not atall familiar with this world. They are often writers, or directors, orproducers—and for them, **they can see that this world hasopportunity, but they also see that it has great risk of underminingtheir current business.** And so this is something that we've had totake them on a journey with. And the initial point was, yes,convincing them that **the content was well-protected, that once theyunderstood enough about copyright and digital rights management towant to be assured that the content would be available free within theUK but not freely copying available outside the UK.** And we hadauditors in to demonstrate that that was the case. This reminded me of something Eben Moglen said athttp://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2420/stories/2007101950761.htm : What's happening is that, at one and the same time, the digitalrevolution is offering capitalists the undreamt of **possibility thatthey can continue to charge large prices for goods that have no costof manufacture and distribution.** That is the bonanza. That isperfection for capitalism. Profit becomes the whole of the price. It'sa very great dream for them. At the same time, they are facing the **possibility of complete ruinif we move to a voluntary distribution system in which they no longerown anything** but perform services to creators. Because then, indistributing culture, they must compete with children and lovers andpeople who distribute culture just because they want to. So there is acompetitive crisis building. On the one hand, their pay-off matrix shows in the positive side somevery large numbers. And on the negative side, their pay-off matrixshows equally large negative numbers. **There is no saddle point inthis game,** the game theoreticians would say. The game itself doesnot give you an optimum strategy. There are two possibilities: they have superior force, and so theycoerce the game to the cells in which they win. Or we have superiorforce in which case they must change their way of doing business.Unfortunately, there is really no choice in the middle. The middlebecomes hard to hold because the ends are so attractive. So, international capital at one and the same time sees that it hasopportunities beyond its wildest dreams and it has challenges thatmight put it out of business. This produces that same uneasiness thatbeset capital when it first encountered the communist movement in themiddle of the 19th century. And so I took the moment at which itencountered communism and I changed a few words to show how it worksat the opening of the 20th century. And the spectre of freeinformation that haunts capitalism now is like the spectre ofcommunism that haunted it in the 19th century with just one exception;this one works. The communists of 1867 were writing about somethingthat they hoped to do. We are writing about the spreading out ofsomething we have already done. This one is already showing that itcan happen. Interesting times :-) -- 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] Fwd: [Fsfe-uk] Interview: Ashley Highfield on BBC's DRM'd iPlayer
On 19/11/2007, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: avehaveyouanyideahowdifficultitistoreadyouremailsthey lookquiteinterestingbutthelackofformattingandgeneral runningtogetherrreallymakeslifedifficultforsomeofuson thelistDavid lol, I do apologise and hope this is better (CAPS EMPHASIS mine) Ashley said at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071118205358171 A lot of the rights holders are not at all familiar with this world. They are often writers, or directors, or producers -- and for them, THEY CAN SEE THAT THIS WORLD HAS OPPORTUNITY, BUT THEY ALSO SEE THAT IT HAS GREAT RISK OF UNDERMINING THEIR CURRENT BUSINESS. And so this is something that we've had to take them on a journey with. And the initial point was, yes, convincing them that the content was well-protected, that once they understood enough about copyright and digital rights management to want to be assured that the content would be available free within the UK but not freely copying available outside the UK. And we had auditors in to demonstrate that that was the case. This reminded me of something Eben Moglen said at http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2420/stories/2007101950761.htm What's happening is that, at one and the same time, the digital revolution is offering capitalists the undreamt of POSSIBILITY THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO CHARGE LARGE PRICES FOR GOODS THAT HAVE NO COST OF MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION. THAT IS THE BONANZA. That is perfection for capitalism. Profit becomes the whole of the price. It's a very great dream for them. At the same time, they are facing the POSSIBILITY OF COMPLETE RUIN IF WE MOVE TO A VOLUNTARY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN WHICH THEY NO LONGER OWN ANYTHING but perform services to creators. Because then, in distributing culture, they must compete with children and lovers and people who distribute culture just because they want to. So there is a competitive crisis building. On the one hand, their pay-off matrix shows in the positive side some very large numbers. And on the negative side, their pay-off matrix shows equally large negative numbers. There is no saddle point in this game, the game theoreticians would say. The game itself does not give you an optimum strategy. There are two possibilities: they have superior force, and so they coerce the game to the cells in which they win. Or we have superior force in which case THEY MUST CHANGE THEIR WAY OF DOING BUSINESS. Unfortunately, there is really no choice in the middle. The middle becomes hard to hold because the ends are so attractive. So, international capital at one and the same time sees that it has opportunities beyond its wildest dreams and it has challenges that might put it out of business. This produces that same uneasiness that beset capital when it first encountered the communist movement in the middle of the 19th century. And so I took the moment at which it encountered communism and I changed a few words to show how it works at the opening of the 20th century. And the spectre of free information that haunts capitalism now is like the spectre of communism that haunted it in the 19th century with just one exception; this one works. The communists of 1867 were writing about something that they hoped to do. We are writing about the spreading out of something we have already done. This one is already showing that it can happen. ... As they begin to think of themselves as exporters of bit streams, knowledge and symbols and entertainment, the developed societies with the highly developed capitalist sectors begin to recognise that they must live and play in our zero-marginal-cost world. Denying that their goods have zero marginal cost won't work. They tried that last decade. Making exceptions from the general rules of economics won't work because of the traison des clercs [French for treason of the clergy: a phrase that has come to denote the moment in socially revolutionary situations when the retained intellectual defenders of the established order begin to question the system] that follows from that as the economists refuse to go with the programme. So, they have to fall back to simple microeconomic theory because it's the rules by which they lived and it becomes the rules by which they are forced to change fundamentally what they do because there is no alternative. That is the crisis. -- Regards, Dave This post is my personal opinion and doesn't reflect any employers official positions. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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: [Fsfe-uk] Interview: Ashley Highfield on BBC's DRM'd iPlayer
On Monday 19 November 2007 14:58, Dave Crossland wrote: GOODS THAT HAVE NO COST OF MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION Television programmes have zero cost? Crikey, I didn't realise people were so civil spirited. Incidentally, where can I get zero cost internet connectivity with unlimited upload bandwidth? More seriously... Yes, businesses must change -- we all know that. Until you have a better way of funding it than the current model then you're demanding one thing: less to be made _at the same quality_ or lowering of quality. The current model is predicated on distribution being a scarce resource, remove that and you eradicate or cripple the majority of current income schemes. Funding for commericial players comes from investors. Investors look for a return on their investment as income. If you can actively show they can make more money from a non-DRM world (which creates an artificial scarcity of distribution), they'll fund it. Since also from *that* perspective the aim of DRM is to create an artificial scarcity that doesn't have to be perfect it just has to be sufficiently good to make a sufficiently good scarcity to make a suffiently good income. There is logically a time that will come when even a DRM'd world is no longer viable as an artificial scarcity, at which point the companies involved will either evolve or die. So as I say, if you can actively show they can make more money or even just equal money, given the long term view, from a non-DRM world, investors will bite your hand off to help you. (hmm, badly mixed metaphor) If you can't, they won't. If you don't like that your only alternative is to legislate or wait. Stamping your foot in public without addressing this is simply wasting your (and everyone else's) time. Incidentally, I'd like to see someone address this because in the long term it is a real issue, and I would personally like to see quality maintained or go up, and the volume of stuff produced either stay the same or go up. (It's also why the foot stamping is so annoying since it's just shouting IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!, without actually offering a *real* alternative that will actually move things forwards.) Richard Stallman could've stood and shouted It's Bad! about proprietary software for the past 23 years, but instead he decided to say no, whilst I won't be a part of that world, I'll create a viable alternative. Surely that's more productive. (and yes, I know he's done his fair share of shouting It's bad! too, but if someone offers a realistic alternative they're generally more worth listening to) Incidentally, it's probably worth observing that the key thing that makes open source and free software REALLY work is networked source control (well, diff + the internet actully. Remove diff+internet and life gets real hard, real fast (you can do it of course)). The equivalent doesn't exist for media yet as far as I know. If someone REALLY wanted to make a change, that's where I'd start. You've probably got 20 years or more work ahead of you if you do though :-). Now to my mind, though, that'd be REAL innovation in the industry... Michael. -- (all personal views) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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: [Fsfe-uk] Interview: Ashley Highfield on BBC's DRM'd iPlayer
On 19/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 19 November 2007 14:58, Dave Crossland wrote: GOODS THAT HAVE NO COST OF MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION Television programmes have zero cost? Crikey, I didn't realise people were so civil spirited. Incidentally, where can I get zero cost internet connectivity with unlimited upload bandwidth? I think the phrase should be towards zero cost, because it's clearly not ever actually. But it is how certain companies got it into their heads to provide free broadband. It's an economic version of Moore's law, which is normally doubles X every 18 months. If you think of a mathematically, the reciprocal of this is the cost of X. If it's £1 per Mb at the start, then it's 50p in 18 months, 25p in 3 years, 6½p in 6 years, 1½p by year nine, and 0.4p by year 12. So, if we consider the lifetime of the licence fee, 10 years, what cost £1 at the start drops to .78p by the end. It's easy to see how this applies to distribution and storage, less clear about TV production. Here is an illustration, which shows Moore law working on a nominal average broadband speed. More seriously... Yes, businesses must change -- we all know that. Until you have a better way of funding it than the current model then you're demanding one thing: less to be made _at the same quality_ or lowering of quality. The current model is predicated on distribution being a scarce resource, remove that and you eradicate or cripple the majority of current income schemes. Funding for commericial players comes from investors. Investors look for a return on their investment as income. If you can actively show they can make more money from a non-DRM world (which creates an artificial scarcity of distribution), they'll fund it. Since also from *that* perspective the aim of DRM is to create an artificial scarcity that doesn't have to be perfect it just has to be sufficiently good to make a sufficiently good scarcity to make a suffiently good income. There is logically a time that will come when even a DRM'd world is no longer viable as an artificial scarcity, at which point the companies involved will either evolve or die. So as I say, if you can actively show they can make more money or even just equal money, given the long term view, from a non-DRM world, investors will bite your hand off to help you. (hmm, badly mixed metaphor) If you can't, they won't. If you don't like that your only alternative is to legislate or wait. Stamping your foot in public without addressing this is simply wasting your (and everyone else's) time. Incidentally, I'd like to see someone address this because in the long term it is a real issue, and I would personally like to see quality maintained or go up, and the volume of stuff produced either stay the same or go up. (It's also why the foot stamping is so annoying since it's just shouting IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!, without actually offering a *real* alternative that will actually move things forwards.) Richard Stallman could've stood and shouted It's Bad! about proprietary software for the past 23 years, but instead he decided to say no, whilst I won't be a part of that world, I'll create a viable alternative. Surely that's more productive. (and yes, I know he's done his fair share of shouting It's bad! too, but if someone offers a realistic alternative they're generally more worth listening to) Incidentally, it's probably worth observing that the key thing that makes open source and free software REALLY work is networked source control (well, diff + the internet actully. Remove diff+internet and life gets real hard, real fast (you can do it of course)). The equivalent doesn't exist for media yet as far as I know. If someone REALLY wanted to make a change, that's where I'd start. You've probably got 20 years or more work ahead of you if you do though :-). Now to my mind, though, that'd be REAL innovation in the industry... Michael. -- (all personal views) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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
Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Fsfe-uk] Interview: Ashley Highfield on BBC's DRM'd iPlayer
Sorry, I forgot the diagram... On 19/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 19 November 2007 14:58, Dave Crossland wrote: GOODS THAT HAVE NO COST OF MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION Television programmes have zero cost? Crikey, I didn't realise people were so civil spirited. Incidentally, where can I get zero cost internet connectivity with unlimited upload bandwidth? I think the phrase should be towards zero cost, because it's clearly not ever actually. But it is how certain companies got it into their heads to provide free broadband. because it's clearly not ever actually ZERO. It's an economic version of Moore's law, which is normally doubles X every 18 months. If you think of a mathematically, the reciprocal of this is the cost of X. If it's £1 per Mb at the start, then it's 50p in 18 months, 25p in 3 years, 6½p in 6 years, 1½p by year nine, and 0.4p by year 12. So, if we consider the lifetime of the licence fee, 10 years, what cost £1 at the start drops to .78p by the end. It's easy to see how this applies to distribution and storage, less clear about TV production. Here is an illustration, which shows Moore law working on a nominal average broadband speed. More seriously... Yes, businesses must change -- we all know that. Until you have a better way of funding it than the current model then you're demanding one thing: less to be made _at the same quality_ or lowering of quality. The current model is predicated on distribution being a scarce resource, remove that and you eradicate or cripple the majority of current income schemes. Funding for commericial players comes from investors. Investors look for a return on their investment as income. If you can actively show they can make more money from a non-DRM world (which creates an artificial scarcity of distribution), they'll fund it. Since also from *that* perspective the aim of DRM is to create an artificial scarcity that doesn't have to be perfect it just has to be sufficiently good to make a sufficiently good scarcity to make a suffiently good income. There is logically a time that will come when even a DRM'd world is no longer viable as an artificial scarcity, at which point the companies involved will either evolve or die. So as I say, if you can actively show they can make more money or even just equal money, given the long term view, from a non-DRM world, investors will bite your hand off to help you. (hmm, badly mixed metaphor) If you can't, they won't. If you don't like that your only alternative is to legislate or wait. Stamping your foot in public without addressing this is simply wasting your (and everyone else's) time. Incidentally, I'd like to see someone address this because in the long term it is a real issue, and I would personally like to see quality maintained or go up, and the volume of stuff produced either stay the same or go up. (It's also why the foot stamping is so annoying since it's just shouting IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!, without actually offering a *real* alternative that will actually move things forwards.) Richard Stallman could've stood and shouted It's Bad! about proprietary software for the past 23 years, but instead he decided to say no, whilst I won't be a part of that world, I'll create a viable alternative. Surely that's more productive. (and yes, I know he's done his fair share of shouting It's bad! too, but if someone offers a realistic alternative they're generally more worth listening to) Incidentally, it's probably worth observing that the key thing that makes open source and free software REALLY work is networked source control (well, diff + the internet actully. Remove diff+internet and life gets real hard, real fast (you can do it of course)). The equivalent doesn't exist for media yet as far as I know. If someone REALLY wanted to make a change, that's where I'd start. You've probably got 20 years or more work ahead of you if you do though :-). Now to my mind, though, that'd be REAL innovation in the industry... Michael. -- (all personal views) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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 -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv attachment: bb%20speed%20vs%20tv.png
