Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
At 19:45 + 21/12/06, Richard P Edwards wrote: DRM. well look at a system that is already successfully used. A CD has a unique code at the front ... ISRC if you want to even have a chance of being paid a royalty then this code has to be preserved. In my mind, it must be possible to add a code within a data stream that uniquely identifies individual digital content like a meta-tag. Digital watermarks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermark The BBC have recently started watermarking their Doctor Who images because individuals were selling prints of them on Ebay. And what of watercasting? # Brown,I., Perkins,C., Crowcroft,J. (1999). Watercasting: distributed watermarking of multicast media. Proc. of the First International Workshop on Networked Group Communications, Pisa, Italy, LNCS 1736 series. Berlin:Springer-Verlag, 286-300 Digital watermarking for multicast [WATERCAST] is a recent application level active service devised at UCL for discouraging mass copying of multicast data. More important, we must specify mechanisms that will instantiate proxies to perform the actual work. Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
PVR's and Sky's on-demand player can only push that subscription % higher -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Bowden Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:50 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] democracyplayer Perhaps they should look harder at the financial underpinnings of their employers, then. Ultimately, all businesses serve their customers first, or they fail, and for all commercial businesses, the customers are those who pay the invoices that the business sends out. Sky, at least, invoice viewers as well as advertisers, so arguably they are as concerned with what viewers want as what advertisers want; I don't know the split between these funding sources, though. Many years ago, according to the book Sky High by Matthew Horsmam (IIRC), Sky One was funded around 80% by subscription, with the rest being advertising, sponsorship, teleshopping etc. That's several years old and may have changed in values, however I'd be surprised if subscription wasn't still the dominant player. Sky One being the most popular standard pay TV channel had the highest subscription v other funding ratio. Other channels will have different ratios, more in favour of advertising. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
Sure. One thing I'd like to do would be to: - take the BBC realvideo feeds (say newsnight) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/ (click the large Podcast button) - convert them into something sensible (mpeg?) MP4's? Here is the one from yesterday... http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/downloadtrial/bbc2/newsnightvideopodca st/newsnightvideopodcast_20061213-1500_40_st.mp4 - make them into an atom feed RSS alright? http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/downloadtrial/bbc2/newsnightvideopodca st/rss.xml J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 22) 59487 Mobile: 07976500729 I hate people with quotes in their email signatures - DH - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
the various news feeds (was Re: [backstage] democracyplayer)
Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sure. One thing I'd like to do would be to: - take the BBC realvideo feeds (say newsnight) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/ (click the large Podcast button) - convert them into something sensible (mpeg?) MP4's? Here is the one from yesterday... http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/downloadtrial/bbc2/newsnightvideopodcast/newsnightvideopodcast_20061213-1500_40_st.mp4 - make them into an atom feed RSS alright? http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/downloadtrial/bbc2/newsnightvideopodcast/rss.xml Thanks for that. I had looked at them, but this page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4977678.stm says the newsnight one is updated only every friday (having said that I see more recent stuff in there). The BBC breakfast news thing might do for what I want. The BBC doesn't offer a video feed of daily news. There is a weekly roundup. I don't want a weekly roundup though. So what I might want to do is parse the news site and look for video casts, download the rm, convert it to mp4 and make it available with RSS as daily news from the BBC. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
At 17:14 + 19/12/06, Frank my old mucker wrote: The Joly G-man wrote: The BBC are responsible in the main (AFAIK) for enforcing incorrect terminology as follows: 1) forward slash - a term used by Naomi Troski on the Big Byte, circa 1994. Since Ms Troski speaks fluent 'Strine, we assume that the term oblique stroke was not in her vocabulary. Presenters including the late John Peel used the correct term. I don't think the term solidus was much in use. Well, it's always been 'slash' in the computing circles I've been wobbling around in since about 1980; to me, 'oblique stroke' sounds more like a cerebrovascular accident occasioned by maintaining one's head at an overly-jaunty angle. OK. When was the word slash qualified with forward? My objection would be to the 'forward' part, but I guess a non-trivial number of people still get 'backslash' wrong (due, no doubt, to the bone-headed adoption of '\' as the DOS path separator by Microsoft, as a result of being frivolously different from Unix, as far as I know). Oh yeah. (Nowhere near as egregious as referring to '#' as 'pound', though.) 2) logon to our website - the actual meaning in most cases is browse our website. Or send us an e-mail at www.bbc.co.uk/not-an-email-address. Yup, that as well. Still, we've come a long way to be quibbling with the BBC's use of terminology about something that's so taken for granted now. It was only a few years ago that Janet Street-Porter ruined my perfectly good irony meter when she wasted 30 minutes of precious TV airtime whining about how the Internet was only of interest to Sad People, and how we should all get out more, instead of being stuck in front of screens the whole time. I suspect that the programme in question, J'accuse..., could only be shown today as an object lesson in how to be totally clueless in public about the future of your own field. Now, who wants to start a sweepstake about which year we'll all be saying 'softwares' without flinching, the way we no longer flinch about saying 'emails'? Images are often called photoshops I believe... And when can we expect Radio London announcers to change from 0207 space to the correct 020 space 7?? Or does it matter? Gordo P.S. On the subject of BBC Managers, can we expect very little email activity from BBC staff for the next two to three weeks (whilst the whole of the BBC takes an annual break)? P.P.S. I want to start a new thread on the Today programme message board - can somebody help me? -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
What is great is that. One 3.5m satellite dish with a four way LNB, connected to four Sky boxes with four Sling Media Sling boxes attached to four Macs, because that is what I like, each with a couple of realtime Automator actions, stream the whole lot to Democracy from behind Psiphon. Perhaps £10K for the lot. I believe that it will happen by the end of February, BBC1-4 live'ish on the net. Before I get raided, I will not be doing this, but any guesses on how long until someone does? it really is that easy. Perhaps the one feed that you are all missing is the realtime TV feed that is available to us all. I would call it BC plus - plus the hour it takes to digitise,verify and stream. Add more dishes and more torrents, and you end up with the same legal situation as the music industry has. for good or bad. For £166 million the BBC, as the original BBC could do it, might upset the Aussies though but hey, they have the Ashes back :-) Better still, everyone who is interested in the UK could be asked to contribute (BBC Associate program) and the BBC could sell the idea to the Rights holders by splitting any revenue with them based on the number of times a show is viewed at the end of the year. similar to the commercial radio model. The BBC could then use a click count similar to Google ads. but only if they manage a system whereby they are in some control of the first release. and scan any sites that use the content for numbers of hits. Financially, if done legally, which I believe the majority would, I can see everyone making more money than they do now.. I believe the Music model has shown that the quality is important, so more DVD's could be sold, and the BBC would have more information about what to re-run on TV based on the figures from the net. I don't believe I am a geek with computers. so please don't be upset at the above idea, it is for research and information only.. and it would work:-) Regards Rich E On 20 Dec 2006, at 20:44, Nic James Ferrier wrote: Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nic what kind of stuff are talking about doing? Which Lawyers are you worried about? BBC or others? Can you give me an idea. Sure. One thing I'd like to do would be to: - take the BBC realvideo feeds (say newsnight) - convert them into something sensible (mpeg?) - make them into an atom feed - shove them on democracy - see them when I want, not when the BBC says I can or: - the above - shove them into some website - let people tag them and cross reference them - let people search that - let people cross reference that, say BBC news programmes with other news programmes like democracy-now I can't do those things coz I'm pretty sure they're against the law. As soon as I started converting BBC content into something else so that it would play nicely on the Net the BBC's lawyers would be talking to me. I'm pretty sure that would happen. If you're saying that wouldn't happen that's great! -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
Rich E makes a very compelling case! I imagine it is only a matter of time. Now that we have compression/encryption and bandwidth to do these things is is only time before an enterprising person gets on and does it. It would be a shame to have a reaction of squashing such as the music and film industry have taken. I believe you should have to pay for content if the author desires you to (it's about the only feasible model), but that payment such be balanced. Before it was possible to download films you struggled to find DVDs for less that 15 quid. I just got Layer Cake for 2.99, a price I'm happy to pay. If I could have downloaded it for £3 I would have done, but only if it had the flexibility of the DVD i just bought - I can play it nearly anywhere, copy it and back it up, and watch it with friends in my living room, but not easily share it. DRM in itself is not inherently evil, it's just that most of the DRM out there is pretty evil because of it's restrictions. Hopefully TV (a pretty big them of whom the BBC is I believe, the finest) will take note and Implement a micro payment system, I'll happy follow. Hell, if the TV licensing system could be used to fund/authentically it, that would be even better, but I imagine it's not an ideal system. The trick to getting content provision right I believe, is the payment levels. These are the motivator to steal music and films - they were blooming expensive to buy. There was motivation to steal them. Now if you could micro-pay for streamed TV content, especially if it was re-usable (even with a measure of DRM to stop free-distribution), I would be in, and I believe many others would too. That said, if such a system threatened the existence of the BBC (and it might just), I'm not giving up Radio4 just for TV on my laptop :) Oli On 12/21/06, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is great is that. One 3.5m satellite dish with a four way LNB, connected to four Sky boxes with four Sling Media Sling boxes attached to four Macs, because that is what I like, each with a couple of realtime Automator actions.
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
Okay, that sounds great, but what about rights management? I know its going to happen anyway but On 21/12/06, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is great is that. One 3.5m satellite dish with a four way LNB, connected to four Sky boxes with four Sling Media Sling boxes attached to four Macs, because that is what I like, each with a couple of realtime Automator actions, stream the whole lot to Democracy from behind Psiphon. Perhaps £10K for the lot. I believe that it will happen by the end of February, BBC1-4 live'ish on the net. Before I get raided, I will not be doing this, but any guesses on how long until someone does? it really is that easy. Perhaps the one feed that you are all missing is the realtime TV feed that is available to us all. I would call it BC plus - plus the hour it takes to digitise,verify and stream. Add more dishes and more torrents, and you end up with the same legal situation as the music industry has. for good or bad. For £166 million the BBC, as the original BBC could do it, might upset the Aussies though but hey, they have the Ashes back :-) Better still, everyone who is interested in the UK could be asked to contribute (BBC Associate program) and the BBC could sell the idea to the Rights holders by splitting any revenue with them based on the number of times a show is viewed at the end of the year. similar to the commercial radio model. The BBC could then use a click count similar to Google ads. but only if they manage a system whereby they are in some control of the first release. and scan any sites that use the content for numbers of hits. Financially, if done legally, which I believe the majority would, I can see everyone making more money than they do now.. I believe the Music model has shown that the quality is important, so more DVD's could be sold, and the BBC would have more information about what to re-run on TV based on the figures from the net. I don't believe I am a geek with computers. so please don't be upset at the above idea, it is for research and information only.. and it would work:-) Regards Rich E On 20 Dec 2006, at 20:44, Nic James Ferrier wrote: Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nic what kind of stuff are talking about doing? Which Lawyers are you worried about? BBC or others? Can you give me an idea. Sure. One thing I'd like to do would be to: - take the BBC realvideo feeds (say newsnight) - convert them into something sensible (mpeg?) - make them into an atom feed - shove them on democracy - see them when I want, not when the BBC says I can or: - the above - shove them into some website - let people tag them and cross reference them - let people search that - let people cross reference that, say BBC news programmes with other news programmes like democracy-now I can't do those things coz I'm pretty sure they're against the law. As soon as I started converting BBC content into something else so that it would play nicely on the Net the BBC's lawyers would be talking to me. I'm pretty sure that would happen. If you're saying that wouldn't happen that's great! -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- This email is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient(s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the prior consent of Timothy-John Bishop. If you are not the intended recipient please discard this email and notify the sender as quickly as possible. This email and any attached files have been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. Please note that electronic mail may be monitored in accordance with the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practices) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000.
Re: buffy (was Re: [backstage] democracyplayer)
Hang on... Commercial companies can produce utter trash (buffy I rest my case) but look at HBO producing Angels in America. Proper quality programming can be produced, you just need to keep the execs away from the bank manager. Tim Bishop City College Plymouth Students Union LGBT Officer http://www.cityplym.ac.uk http://www.timbionline.googlepages.com On 20/12/06, Nic James Ferrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I rest my case. If Buffy is the best TV that can be made by commercial television companies, they need to be outlawed. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the worst television show I've *ever* seen. Then either you are not watching enough television or you are not watching Buffy closely enough. Buffy was a show for teenagers making clear the complexity of modern adult life. It built a consistent model of the world within the genre of fantasy/science fiction. It tackled real adult issues like sex and death and responsibility without talking down to anyone, sermonizing or being disrespectfull. At the same time it was amusing, well acted had good special effects and challenging story lines. You are quite wrong if you think it was bad. Like Keats it can be shown, objectively, to be good work. I would remind you that US commerical television also produced 24. I personally don't like it but it is innovative. And the West Wing. Again, not my favourite but it is challenging being neither cynical not cloying about politicians. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- This email is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient(s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the prior consent of Timothy-John Bishop. If you are not the intended recipient please discard this email and notify the sender as quickly as possible. This email and any attached files have been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. Please note that electronic mail may be monitored in accordance with the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practices) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000.
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
DRM. well look at a system that is already successfully used. A CD has a unique code at the front ... ISRC if you want to even have a chance of being paid a royalty then this code has to be preserved. In my mind, it must be possible to add a code within a data stream that uniquely identifies individual digital content like a meta- tag. Then one should be able to, within the license of user software, allow that code to phone home each time it is used, or every ten times... Just like a cookie. It could even be possible to use a search engine to count how many times that unique code is used across the net. That is your only security, so make it hard to find, and harder to lose and totally copyable. Success can be judged by views, as happens now. The user doesn't even have to worry about it. Yes, Sony messed up. but that was too detailed, I don't think it is ever acceptable to put applications in to the system to phone home, but a small code is the same as putting a name to a song, and this only need work once a year when you open the particular piece of data. I'm interested if anyone can do this. Each piece of content should be unique. I doubt anyone would complain if everything was above board, and only connected to use on computers. Just about every application I use now has the ability to, and does, use my connection to verify itself in some way, even the operating system with updates etc. (Which could be what the Azureus tracker is doing !) I think if the BBC could verify their own content then that would be a huge step in the right direction. I really don't think that anyone has to suffer DRM, as pre DRM CD has proven. where the only way that you know that it is there is because it tells what CD you are playing. and when I look at all my blanks, that is another perfect reason to actually buy the ones I love. Alternatively... the DRM of mp3 is a nightmare because it makes most feel like criminals when they can't play their purchase where they would wish to I doubt that the majority would copy a TV programme download from computer to DVD just to share it, they would use youshareit.com along with everyone else, thus preserving that code, or upload it to where they got it from the net, or point their friends to the same original link. There are lots of accepted examples to follow, like the mobile phone company that spends £100K to advertise a free phone on TV.. sounds madness, until you are locked in to their system for a contractual year, or the Bugatti, built for £5 million and sold for £840K each. The prestige is priceless. After all, if something is popular, then one can earn in many different ways. Knowing that it is popular, and where, can be just as important. So tag all your content and get it to tell you what it is doing. :-) Best wishes RichE On 21 Dec 2006, at 15:34, Timothy-john Bishop wrote: Okay, that sounds great, but what about rights management? I know its going to happen anyway but On 21/12/06, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is great is that. One 3.5m satellite dish with a four way LNB, connected to four Sky boxes with four Sling Media Sling boxes attached to four Macs, because that is what I like, each with a couple of realtime Automator actions, stream the whole lot to Democracy from behind Psiphon. Perhaps £10K for the lot. I believe that it will happen by the end of February, BBC1-4 live'ish on the net. Before I get raided, I will not be doing this, but any guesses on how long until someone does? it really is that easy. Perhaps the one feed that you are all missing is the realtime TV feed that is available to us all. I would call it BC plus - plus the hour it takes to digitise,verify and stream. Add more dishes and more torrents, and you end up with the same legal situation as the music industry has. for good or bad. For £166 million the BBC, as the original BBC could do it, might upset the Aussies though but hey, they have the Ashes back :-) Better still, everyone who is interested in the UK could be asked to contribute (BBC Associate program) and the BBC could sell the idea to the Rights holders by splitting any revenue with them based on the number of times a show is viewed at the end of the year. similar to the commercial radio model. The BBC could then use a click count similar to Google ads. but only if they manage a system whereby they are in some control of the first release. and scan any sites that use the content for numbers of hits. Financially, if done legally, which I believe the majority would, I can see everyone making more money than they do now.. I believe the Music model has shown that the quality is important, so more DVD's could be sold, and the BBC would have more information about what to re-run on TV based on the figures from the net. I don't believe I am a geek with computers. so
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
You're saying the global market is more important than everyone being able to download BBC content for free. Hmm, I don't think I was saying that. What I'm saying is that when the BBC paid for Paul Jackson Productions to make series I, II, and III of Red Dwarf, the people who made it (not the BBC), the people who wrote the theme tune (not the BBC), the people who wrote the incidental music (not the BBC), and the people who wrote the script (not the BBC) will all have done so in the expectation of being able to exploit it commercially and earn additional money for their work through VHS and subsequent overseas sales. That is all set up contractually, and you can't just wave your hand and say that 18 years later, because we have IP delivery of video content now, it is OK for everybody in the world with an internet connection to download their work for free on the basis that you have paid your Licence Fee. The industry is moving slowly, and not probably in the direction we'd all hope. PACT have moved towards allowing on demand and catch-up downloads of independently produced programmes braodcast by the BBC, but in return they get greater control over the new media commercial exploitation of programming at a later date http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/06_june/02/newmedia.shtml It occurs to me I may have turned to the dark side since starting to work at Sony ;-) martin http://www.currybet.net On 19/12/06, Josh at GoUK.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at source from the UK You're saying the global market is more important than everyone being able to download BBC content for free. But why shouldn't it be the other way round: that people's right to download content for free (or at a fee direct from the BBC) be more important that the global market? What is all this for: the global market of for people? In the end, the global market just resells the stuff to the people - why should BBC content be used to make other BBC content suppliers rich and make people pay twice for their BBC content? I even wonder what the BBC is for in this digital era... ... ... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Belam Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:41 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] democracyplayer What you're talking about is a global, industry issue with thousands of diverse stakeholders - from actors to cameramen. And you also have to realise that the rights are not just for the UK, there are different rights frameworks across the globe. So, for example, if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at source from the UK martin http://currybet.net [1] http://www.zudeo.com/ [2] http://www.zudeo.com/az-web/docs/PR20061219_BBC_Content_Partnership.pdf On 19/12/06, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So that's one reason for the BBC to dump their own-brand NIH-syndrome iPlayer and start publishing video feeds you can consume in Democracy or whatever player you like the most, just like they publish RSS feeds of the news stories. Absolutely. I like that idea a lot. I think there would still be space for the BBC to do something in this area just because they're the BBC. My mum is probably not going to use Democracy but she probably would use something from Auntie. Ultimately this is exactly the reason why the BBC (and other parties) do these things. Why does AOL have its own browser after all? If people didn't use it, they wouldn't create it. There is a world of between the kind of person that is on backstage and the average BBC user. I can still remember the first time I ever saw some user testing being performed (for those that don't know, it's where various people come in, sit at a computer and are asked to do various tasks, like try and find something on a website - for those who the testing is being done for, there is usually a two way mirror or video link so that you can watch what's going on). In one respect I found my first session incredibly frustrating (almost wanting to shout through the mirror LOOK! IT'S THERE!) but in another way, it was extremely enlightening. It showed me a different side to the coin. The side where people don't distinguish between adverts and general website
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
Maybe we should try and get more BBC managers here. How do you know there not watching this already? Seriously! Watching, maybe. But are they participating? Not so far as I've seen. i thoroughly resemble that remark - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
Thanks, Martin, for the explanation - appreciated and understood. In an era where we now have IP video delivery (and such delivery will increase in the future) then what is the point of the BBC? If Paul Jackson Productions can produce Red Dwarf IV, why not just sell it direct on the net (every production company can be its own IP driven TV station) - what is the point of a BBC funded by the licence fee? At one time, the BBC was needed as a distributor of content, but do we still need the BBC to do that now if everyone has the ability to publish and distribute on their own? And of BBC programming - do we need it? Commercially there are plenty of ways to get similar (and sometimes identical/repeat) content to what the BBC provides. I am not trying to be objectionable or malicious: I am genuinely struggling to understand why the country needs a publicly funded broadcaster or at least one as big and as powerful as the BBC. I'm also concerned that the licence fee is used to support the BBC's net activities - it gives the BBC a huge advantage over other net companies who don't get public money to support their online ventures. Festive wishes Josh -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Belam Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:13 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] democracyplayer You're saying the global market is more important than everyone being able to download BBC content for free. Hmm, I don't think I was saying that. What I'm saying is that when the BBC paid for Paul Jackson Productions to make series I, II, and III of Red Dwarf, the people who made it (not the BBC), the people who wrote the theme tune (not the BBC), the people who wrote the incidental music (not the BBC), and the people who wrote the script (not the BBC) will all have done so in the expectation of being able to exploit it commercially and earn additional money for their work through VHS and subsequent overseas sales. That is all set up contractually, and you can't just wave your hand and say that 18 years later, because we have IP delivery of video content now, it is OK for everybody in the world with an internet connection to download their work for free on the basis that you have paid your Licence Fee. The industry is moving slowly, and not probably in the direction we'd all hope. PACT have moved towards allowing on demand and catch-up downloads of independently produced programmes braodcast by the BBC, but in return they get greater control over the new media commercial exploitation of programming at a later date http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/06_june/02/newme dia.shtml It occurs to me I may have turned to the dark side since starting to work at Sony ;-) martin http://www.currybet.net On 19/12/06, Josh at GoUK.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at source from the UK You're saying the global market is more important than everyone being able to download BBC content for free. But why shouldn't it be the other way round: that people's right to download content for free (or at a fee direct from the BBC) be more important that the global market? What is all this for: the global market of for people? In the end, the global market just resells the stuff to the people - why should BBC content be used to make other BBC content suppliers rich and make people pay twice for their BBC content? I even wonder what the BBC is for in this digital era... ... ... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Belam Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:41 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] democracyplayer What you're talking about is a global, industry issue with thousands of diverse stakeholders - from actors to cameramen. And you also have to realise that the rights are not just for the UK, there are different rights frameworks across the globe. So, for example, if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at source from the UK martin http://currybet.net [1] http://www.zudeo.com/ [2] http://www.zudeo.com/az-web/docs/PR20061219_BBC_Content_Partnership.pdf On 19/12/06, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So that's one reason for the BBC to dump
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
Hi Frank, Check mate for all of us, at the moment. Yes, I am sure that the BBC would prevail if they took such a case to court. at the same time, the potential for irreversible harm to the public persona of the Corporation would be rather large. I am certain that none of us has the right to unfettered access, and therefore the two extremes exist 1. Due to contractual obligation, the rights holder may not use his/her own Intellectual Property once a deal has been struck with the BBC and as is stated, the costs of manufacturing are written off giving little incentive to exploit the value of the library of content inhouse, in a commercial manner. 2. The defence of that valuable content is upheld, citing the rights of the rights owners to the new end user, along with the unique position of the BBC. I do not pretend to have the answer, but the debate is important because 1. The artists/ content providers/ rights holders are now being put off by the contractual obligation, 2. The new end user is capable of using the content freely, IF he doesn't get caught. So, there is a wealth of untapped ideas that are for personal use only. As I have said before, the BBC can lead the way in this. They can make the new rules, I have no doubt of that. Sadly, whilst we sit and discuss it, the libraries are being sold off to the highest bidder so the thought that the BBC will always have the ability to choose which content is freely available is getting smaller and smaller. There are many different examples, but the above points apply to all, I believe. I would like to see the BBC as a home of British culture, and to use that amazing position to serve the public in the use and conservation of the same for future generations, not just sell it all to someone else to make even more money from it, and lock us out of it, which is what is happening now. All the best RichE On Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 01:51AM, Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard P Edwards wrote: That will be fun. BBC sues license payer for downloading show from the net for free, a show that was - in part - paid for by the same license fee.. check mate I think. Perhaps, but for whom? Are you suggesting that, because the BBC chooses to make some content available online, that all BBC content is therefore up for grabs, and the BBC couldn't prevail in a legal action against those who downloaded it without permission? Good luck with the I contributed nearly 0.02% of the cost of one 'Doctor Who' episode, therefore I can help myself to all of it defence, by the way. Just because the BBC is tasked with serving the British public, and just because it's generally moving in the direction of making content more freely available, it doesn't mean that each of us, individually, has the *right* to unfettered access to whatever they produce. -- Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
In an era where we now have IP video delivery (and such delivery will increase in the future) then what is the point of the BBC? If Paul Jackson Productions can produce Red Dwarf IV I'm going to put my Dwarf hat on and quote the production of Red Dwarf. Series 1 (IIRC) was produced by BBC North (wikipedia seems to dispute this, but I'm 90% sure that it was, at least, labelled purely as a BBC North production, although produced by Paul Jackson) Series 2 and 3 were Paul Jackson Productions. Series 4 onwards were producted by Grant Naylor Productions Anyway... why not just sell it direct on the net (every production company can be its own IP driven TV station) Right now, because there is unlikely to be the audience there to fund the production costs - TV done well costs serious money. It would be a huge financial gamble to do TV quality programming online only. Maybe in 10-20 years time... - what is the point of a BBC funded by the licence fee? At one time, the BBC was needed as a distributor of content, but do we still need the BBC to do that now if everyone has the ability to publish and distribute on their own? I would hope the aim of the BBC in the future remains what it is now - public service broadcasting - stuff which isn't necessarily commercial. Ulitimately commercial providers are after profits. If they are to fund programming, they want to fund programmes that will make them money. As such certain programmes don't often get funded - take for example, costume dramas, religion, nature and so on. And then there's the risks the BBC can take - risks others wouldn't necessarily take. And the financial power it has, which allows it to do things often better. Would ITV have made Planet Earth? And if they had, would they have made it the same way? Maybe the BBC's size and scope will change in the future - who knows what will happen. Maybe everyone will just be happy watching US imports instead of homegrown programming. Maybe fewer and fewer people will care... Who knows. That's my thoughts on the matter anyway. And naturally, I'm slightly biased ;) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Frankly, this is not a simple issue. It's nowhere near a simple issue. And it's getting more complicated by the day. When I hear of a simple issue I reach for my revolver. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
I'm also concerned that the licence fee is used to support the BBC's net activities - it gives the BBC a huge advantage over other net companies who don't get public money to support their online ventures. You may be interested in this... Market Impact Assessment of BBC's Online Services http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/pdf/kpmg_exec_sum.pdf From 'Executive Summary' despite BBCi's [bbc.co.uk's] evident popularity, we consider that it has had relatively little commercial impact to date. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh at GoUK.com Sent: 20 December 2006 09:57 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] democracyplayer Thanks, Martin, for the explanation - appreciated and understood. In an era where we now have IP video delivery (and such delivery will increase in the future) then what is the point of the BBC? If Paul Jackson Productions can produce Red Dwarf IV, why not just sell it direct on the net (every production company can be its own IP driven TV station) - what is the point of a BBC funded by the licence fee? At one time, the BBC was needed as a distributor of content, but do we still need the BBC to do that now if everyone has the ability to publish and distribute on their own? And of BBC programming - do we need it? Commercially there are plenty of ways to get similar (and sometimes identical/repeat) content to what the BBC provides. I am not trying to be objectionable or malicious: I am genuinely struggling to understand why the country needs a publicly funded broadcaster or at least one as big and as powerful as the BBC. I'm also concerned that the licence fee is used to support the BBC's net activities - it gives the BBC a huge advantage over other net companies who don't get public money to support their online ventures. Festive wishes Josh -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Belam Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:13 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] democracyplayer You're saying the global market is more important than everyone being able to download BBC content for free. Hmm, I don't think I was saying that. What I'm saying is that when the BBC paid for Paul Jackson Productions to make series I, II, and III of Red Dwarf, the people who made it (not the BBC), the people who wrote the theme tune (not the BBC), the people who wrote the incidental music (not the BBC), and the people who wrote the script (not the BBC) will all have done so in the expectation of being able to exploit it commercially and earn additional money for their work through VHS and subsequent overseas sales. That is all set up contractually, and you can't just wave your hand and say that 18 years later, because we have IP delivery of video content now, it is OK for everybody in the world with an internet connection to download their work for free on the basis that you have paid your Licence Fee. The industry is moving slowly, and not probably in the direction we'd all hope. PACT have moved towards allowing on demand and catch-up downloads of independently produced programmes braodcast by the BBC, but in return they get greater control over the new media commercial exploitation of programming at a later date http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/06_june/02/n ewme dia.shtml It occurs to me I may have turned to the dark side since starting to work at Sony ;-) martin http://www.currybet.net On 19/12/06, Josh at GoUK.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at source from the UK You're saying the global market is more important than everyone being able to download BBC content for free. But why shouldn't it be the other way round: that people's right to download content for free (or at a fee direct from the BBC) be more important that the global market? What is all this for: the global market of for people? In the end, the global market just resells the stuff to the people - why should BBC content be used to make other BBC content suppliers rich and make people pay twice for their BBC content? I even wonder what the BBC is for in this digital era... ... ... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Belam Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:41 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] democracyplayer What you're talking about is a global, industry issue with thousands of diverse stakeholders - from actors to cameramen. And you also have to realise that the rights are not just
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
Congratulations to Azureus.. the first to get their foot in the door. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6194929.stm Anyone know how much they paid? Personally, I am a little sad. I would have thought that the BBC could have done this for themselves. Instead of using a DRM model from the outside. Is the debate now, how does Azureus prove that they make no income from sharing the BBC content?, and what % royalty do the rights holders get for their property to be given away, or made freely available on the net? Stranger and stranger. :-) On Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 11:40AM, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In an era where we now have IP video delivery (and such delivery will increase in the future) then what is the point of the BBC? If Paul Jackson Productions can produce Red Dwarf IV I'm going to put my Dwarf hat on and quote the production of Red Dwarf. Series 1 (IIRC) was produced by BBC North (wikipedia seems to dispute this, but I'm 90% sure that it was, at least, labelled purely as a BBC North production, although produced by Paul Jackson) Series 2 and 3 were Paul Jackson Productions. Series 4 onwards were producted by Grant Naylor Productions Anyway... why not just sell it direct on the net (every production company can be its own IP driven TV station) Right now, because there is unlikely to be the audience there to fund the production costs - TV done well costs serious money. It would be a huge financial gamble to do TV quality programming online only. Maybe in 10-20 years time... - what is the point of a BBC funded by the licence fee? At one time, the BBC was needed as a distributor of content, but do we still need the BBC to do that now if everyone has the ability to publish and distribute on their own? I would hope the aim of the BBC in the future remains what it is now - public service broadcasting - stuff which isn't necessarily commercial. Ulitimately commercial providers are after profits. If they are to fund programming, they want to fund programmes that will make them money. As such certain programmes don't often get funded - take for example, costume dramas, religion, nature and so on. And then there's the risks the BBC can take - risks others wouldn't necessarily take. And the financial power it has, which allows it to do things often better. Would ITV have made Planet Earth? And if they had, would they have made it the same way? Maybe the BBC's size and scope will change in the future - who knows what will happen. Maybe everyone will just be happy watching US imports instead of homegrown programming. Maybe fewer and fewer people will care... Who knows. That's my thoughts on the matter anyway. And naturally, I'm slightly biased ;) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Bowden Sent: 20 December 2006 10:07 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] democracyplayer Frankly, this is not a simple issue. It's nowhere near a simple issue. And it's getting more complicated by the day. --- In total agreement This is a long and complicated issue, which is getting much more complicated every single day. I'm happy we're able to discuss this in the open because there's this view that the BBC has its head in the sand. I don't believe we do. I don't mind saying IMHO (not BBC view) - There's a good chance there will be some changes to the licence fee within the next few years. And come the next charter review, we will see a huge cut and we will be forced to share with some new public services. The next few years are critical for the BBC, as it really readies its self for a new landscape. As Isaac Asimov says The only constant is change. Backstage is maybe one of the most advanced parts (in this aspect) of the BBC right now, but other areas will follow. I wouldn't say its check mate yet, but its certainly heading in to the end game in regards to one British public broadcaster. I expect we will see lots of checks soon. We need to be more fluid and a broadcaster doesn't seem to fit well with that. All of above was my own view Cheers, Ian Forrester || backstage.bbc.co.uk || cubicgarden.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] democracyplayer
Josh at GoUK.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks, Martin, for the explanation - appreciated and understood. In an era where we now have IP video delivery (and such delivery will increase in the future) then what is the point of the BBC? If Paul Jackson Productions can produce Red Dwarf IV, why not just sell it direct on the net (every production company can be its own IP driven TV station) - what is the point of a BBC funded by the licence fee? At one time, the BBC was needed as a distributor of content, but do we still need the BBC to do that now if everyone has the ability to publish and distribute on their own? The BBC is (and always has been) an editorial organization. There is still a role for this. It's a trusted place to get content. The contract between the consumer and the editor is I pay you and you find entertaining and informative content that I want to watch. That contract can continue into the digital age no matter how good the tools get I am still lazy enough to want someone else to find new things for me. I'm also concerned that the licence fee is used to support the BBC's net activities - it gives the BBC a huge advantage over other net companies who don't get public money to support their online ventures. So am I. So the BBC better find ways to justify it quick. One compelling way would be to work towards free-er content. I think this should be a stated aim of the organization. An interesting consideration is that talent will be much less concentrated and managed in the near future. democracyplayer and youtube are already showing how people are doing it for themselves (once again, porn shows the way). How long before amateur dramas that people *want* to watch are common? How long before virtual world actors (as in secondlife) are doing the job of soap opera? It only needs a bit more 3d power and a chunk more bandwidth. One of the things that has stopped free content is the rights of the talent. I hope someone at the BBC is thinking about this stuff. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
Inside or outside the UK, the story is that right now any member of the public with a connection and PC can see that content for free. Illegally. a show that was - in part - paid for by the same license fee Wrong. Usually, I believe, the licence fee purchases the right for the programme to be broadcast by the BBC within a set of restrictions (times, channels perhaps - I don't know). It does not, usually, purchase the programme itself. Of course, there is a portion of (internally produced?) BBC content that isn't like this. You'll see this used in Podcasts (to *grin* download) e.g. last night's Newsnight... http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/downloadtrial/bbc2/newsnightvideopodcast/newsnightvideopodcast_20061219-1600_40_st.mp4 J On 19 Dec 2006, at 17:22, Jason Cartwright wrote: ** This is all my personal opinion ** This £1bn revenue stream [1] (more than half of which comes from abroad [2]) goes on to fund new content for you to enjoy for free (after paying your licence fee, of course). J [1] http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/annreport/ report06/16.financialstatements.pdf Page 9 [2] http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/annreport/ report06/16.financialstatements.pdf Page 11 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh at GoUK.com Sent: 19 December 2006 15:14 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] democracyplayer if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at source from the UK You're saying the global market is more important than everyone being able to download BBC content for free. But why shouldn't it be the other way round: that people's right to download content for free (or at a fee direct from the BBC) be more important that the global market? What is all this for: the global market of for people? In the end, the global market just resells the stuff to the people - why should BBC content be used to make other BBC content suppliers rich and make people pay twice for their BBC content? I even wonder what the BBC is for in this digital era... ... ... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Belam Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:41 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] democracyplayer What you're talking about is a global, industry issue with thousands of diverse stakeholders - from actors to cameramen. And you also have to realise that the rights are not just for the UK, there are different rights frameworks across the globe. So, for example, if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at source from the UK martin http://currybet.net [1] http://www.zudeo.com/ [2] http://www.zudeo.com/az-web/docs/ PR20061219_BBC_Content_Partnership.pdf On 19/12/06, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So that's one reason for the BBC to dump their own-brand NIH-syndrome iPlayer and start publishing video feeds you can consume in Democracy or whatever player you like the most, just like they publish RSS feeds of the news stories. Absolutely. I like that idea a lot. I think there would still be space for the BBC to do something in this area just because they're the BBC. My mum is probably not going to use Democracy but she probably would use something from Auntie. Ultimately this is exactly the reason why the BBC (and other parties) do these things. Why does AOL have its own browser after all? If people didn't use it, they wouldn't create it. There is a world of between the kind of person that is on backstage and the average BBC user. I can still remember the first time I ever saw some user testing being performed (for those that don't know, it's where various people come in, sit at a computer and are asked to do various tasks, like try and find something on a website - for those who the testing is being done for, there is usually a two way mirror or video link so that you can watch what's going on). In one respect I found my first session incredibly frustrating (almost wanting to shout through the mirror LOOK! IT'S THERE!) but in another way, it was extremely enlightening. It showed me a different side to the coin. The side where people don't distinguish between adverts and general website navigation. Where
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
in production, bring in some new thinkers, and come up with a media format that has some relevance to the 21st century. We get the same old formats with the same old presenters going round and round in meaningless circles as the champions of broadcast mediocrity. Comedy quizzes on radio and TV which have the same old people in slightly different guises. The country is full of talent, but the BBC sticks with a few tried and trust formats and personalities - where's the PSB value in that? I know some people will immediately say what about the BBC's news coverage. But is there anything worse on TV? BBC's reporters are trained to the point of being clones. Close your eyes and it is impossible to know if you are listening to Michael Buerk in 1986 or Darren Jordan. Where is there any personality or individuality in BBC news delivery? Has there been any change in delivery format in the last XX years, save for scrolling news at the bottom of the screen? Sorry, will get off my soapbox now. Think the BBC is so insular in its thinking and so shallow in its production and performance pool, that it just can't see that the world is changing around it and that it wants to sit there in an Ivory Tower where it is forever 1956. If the BBC is to remain as a publicly funded PSB, then it really needs a huge internal shake up so that it can start to reflect the diverse cultural society that the UK is today and not just sit there smugly thinking that Aunty always knows best. WR Josh -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Bowden Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:07 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] democracyplayer Just because the BBC is tasked with serving the British public, and just because it's generally moving in the direction of making content more freely available, it doesn't mean that each of us, individually, has the *right* to unfettered access to whatever they produce. Increasingly far from it, it has to be said. An interesting case is the matter of programmes made by independent production companies - the BBC of course has a 25% quota for TV programmes made this way, with up to another 25% being split between inhouse and indies. Unfortunately for anyone with free-for-all plans, the Indies want to make money off their programmes. The fact that the licence fee has funded their creation irrelevant to that - for what the BBC pays, it gets various time restricted rights after which the Indie can commercially exploit the programme for its own financial gain. If nothing else, that model alone - which isn't going to go away by any means - is completely at odds with the notion of giving away non-DRM content to all and sundry. As usual, I'm going to be blunt and honest (and in a personal opinion obviously). We can all dream. But it's a LONG way away. If it ever happens. Frankly, this is not a simple issue. It's nowhere near a simple issue. And it's getting more complicated by the day. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
The BBC could never have made Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the best TV *ever* in my opnion and yes, I can justify that). I rest my case. If Buffy is the best TV that can be made by commercial television companies, they need to be outlawed. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the worst television show I've *ever* seen. Rich.
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
This is maybe going a bit off-topic for this list? In an era where we now have IP video delivery (and such delivery will increase in the future) then what is the point of the BBC? It is very good question, and one that there was a lot of debate on in the run-up to the charter renewal fandango. I think three of the salient points with regard to direct IP broadcast without the BBC as a distributor are - you can get 8m people around the TV for a shared experience watching Strictly Come Dancing and Doctor Who, but there are few (if any) videos on YouTube with an aggregation of 8 million eyeballs on them - Inital funding for those programmes that independent production companies make on TV and radio (and within New media on web sites and software) comes from the Licence Fee. I don't know that you'd see the same level of commissioning if smaller independent producers had to find start-up cash for each programme they wanted to make - there are still more TV sets in the UK than broadband connections I'm also concerned that the licence fee is used to support the BBC's net activities - it gives the BBC a huge advantage over other net companies who don't get public money to support their online ventures. The DCMS online review found that to be the case in a couple of areas, which the BBC shut down. I guess it really comes down to the argument of whether people still think having bbc.co.uk as a digital on-ramp to the internet for people in the Uk is on the whole a good thing. If using the iPlayer for free makes people more confident about downloading TV shows and watching them on their PC, and so go on to buy download content from Sky or Channel 4, then has that benefitted or distorted the market? Interestingly in my line of work at the moment, all my user testing says people love the idea of streaming music to their mobile phones, but don't try it because they are worried about the price. Now, if they had a free service to get them used to the concept, does that make them more or less likely to sign up to a subscription in the long term for a different service? all the best, martin http://www.currybet.net On 20/12/06, Josh at GoUK.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Martin, for the explanation - appreciated and understood. In an era where we now have IP video delivery (and such delivery will increase in the future) then what is the point of the BBC? If Paul Jackson Productions can produce Red Dwarf IV, why not just sell it direct on the net (every production company can be its own IP driven TV station) - what is the point of a BBC funded by the licence fee? At one time, the BBC was needed as a distributor of content, but do we still need the BBC to do that now if everyone has the ability to publish and distribute on their own? And of BBC programming - do we need it? Commercially there are plenty of ways to get similar (and sometimes identical/repeat) content to what the BBC provides. I am not trying to be objectionable or malicious: I am genuinely struggling to understand why the country needs a publicly funded broadcaster or at least one as big and as powerful as the BBC. I'm also concerned that the licence fee is used to support the BBC's net activities - it gives the BBC a huge advantage over other net companies who don't get public money to support their online ventures. Festive wishes Josh -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Belam Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:13 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] democracyplayer You're saying the global market is more important than everyone being able to download BBC content for free. Hmm, I don't think I was saying that. What I'm saying is that when the BBC paid for Paul Jackson Productions to make series I, II, and III of Red Dwarf, the people who made it (not the BBC), the people who wrote the theme tune (not the BBC), the people who wrote the incidental music (not the BBC), and the people who wrote the script (not the BBC) will all have done so in the expectation of being able to exploit it commercially and earn additional money for their work through VHS and subsequent overseas sales. That is all set up contractually, and you can't just wave your hand and say that 18 years later, because we have IP delivery of video content now, it is OK for everybody in the world with an internet connection to download their work for free on the basis that you have paid your Licence Fee. The industry is moving slowly, and not probably in the direction we'd all hope. PACT have moved towards allowing on demand and catch-up downloads of independently produced programmes braodcast by the BBC, but in return they get greater control over the new media commercial exploitation of programming at a later date http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/06_june/02/newme dia.shtml It occurs to me I may have turned to the dark side since starting to work
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
I am talking specifically asking for non-technical managers to be involved here. At least to some extent. I expect those people to think that they've already made up their minds. But they probably haven't really heard the wealth of different opnions there are on the subject. Its outside the backstage remit for that kind of thing to be officially happening here though surely. I mean, I doubt there's anyone here who objects to this kind of discussion, sharing viewpoints and arguing is a good thing, but as someone has already said we're way off-topic for what backstage is meant to be about. Bringing folks like that in here for that kind of discussion seems like it will only take the list further away from its aims - and cause them frustration when we return to talking about feeds, APIs, etc. I don't think that's really a good idea unless backstage itself gets a broader tech discussion remit. I assume that there are mechanisms in place for this kind of discussion to be happening formally elsewhere, rather than informally here, but if that is the case might it not be good to open them up somewhat - and if it isn't, to set them up? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
But not everyone has the resources to publish and distribute - unless you consider YouTube to be an acceptable delivery system. Neither does every consumer have the ability to watch video delivered over the internet. You forget that not everyone is a geek - a common problem on this list of late. Were well along the road to every consumer having the ability to watch video over the net thats what were talking about here: the future, not the past. My 88 year old neighbour got his first PC a few weeks ago and he s already choosing to view things over the net rather than from the TV. The BBC is a public service, producing and showing content that is (in theory, and usually, in practice) fair, objective and free from bias. The unique way it's funded also means that it's free of the everything must make money! constraint that commercial broadcasters are tied by - which means it can produce and/or show minority interest content, and get that content out to a potentially huge audience. I dont think the above holds water. Saying that all licence fee payers should pay to produce minority interest content is ridiculous. It is just short of theft to take money off an old lady and use it to make programmes that the BBC wants to make. If people want minority programming, they should be able to subscribe to a specialist broadcaster. Its all part of the paternal view of programming that were stuck with from the 1950s the world has moved on and it is time the BBC/broadcasting in general actually caught up. The BBC think they know what is good for people and try to serve it up the way they want to serve it .. in the past people couldn't go elsewhere, but today they have choices and they choose in their millions to watch other channels, use the net, etc. People try to say the BBC is the benchmark for broadcasting. I think it is as well, but only in the sense that is the standard of mediocrity that all other channels know that can match the BBC hasnt pushed the boundaries of broadcasting for years. We may in fact have far higher standards if we just got rid of the all pervading self-satisfied and delusional smugness of the BBC. Now that just sounds like sour grapes. Has your personal web project not managed to get venture capital funding or something? Dont have an unfunded web project, so no sour grapes just feel on the widest possible canvas that having a great dinosaur like the BBC just isnt any good for innovation, creativity, multicultural diversity, ingenuity, etc Additionally, you're complaining about the BBC not providing everything online for free - and then complain that it's funding the web activities and services it does provide. Make your mind up. Im not complaining that the BBC doesnt provide everything online for free and Im not complaining about the web activities it does provide: Im just pointing out that the BBC cannot control how broadcast material is used after it has been broadcast (far better for the BBC to deal with realities rather than fantasies) and that its funding is unjustifiable in a modern and diverse multimedia age. If the BBCs services and output are as great as the people at the BBC think it are, then why do so many people choose not to watch the BBC? If the programmes are so fantastic and appealing, why do people choose to watch American imports, telephone game shows, other channels, the net, etc. The BBC is in a big naval gazing bubble. It thinks it knows what is best for people and it ignores the evidence before its eyes when it sees people switching off. It ridicules other programming and yet it cant keep its audience. Bizarre, to me. Cheers Josh
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
Mmmm, think we're getting to an age where we need to reassess what tv quality programming is and what it means. We're not heading to a TV age, so the concept of TV programming will probably not be terribly relevant in a few years or so. The concept of TV programming may disappear because that's distribution. The important thing is not distribution, but content. And much of that content could be expensive. There will still be demand for big budget dramas like Pride and Prejudice, for special affects laden programmes like Doctor Who. Artists and writers will still start small and start building up large followings, and then start demanding large salaries. In other words, it still costs money :) I'm not sure what PSB the BBC offers these days ... Dr Who, Strictly Come Dancing, running auditions for Andrew Lloyd Webber's musicals, Planet Earth, etc, etc, have no PSB credentials whatsoever. The issue is that the definition of public service varies between people. There's a huge amount of data on Ofcom's website about this. It makes long, but interesting reading. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/psb_review/ Most interesting is a report done for Ofcom. Annoyingly I can't find the original report, but here's an article from the BBC News website about it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3648007.stm In a survey for Ofcom, viewers rated the following four in order of importance for public service programming. News Sport Drama Soap Operas It was an interesting result, and just goes to show... - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
No clearer indication of the difference between these two models can be found than in the sudden profusion of TV-based premium-rate phone scams, I'm sorry, phone-in pay-to-guess-the-answer quiz programmes; the BBC has no such offerings, nor would I expect them to have any, because they're just a mechanism for hoovering money from the pockets of the bored and the under-informed. With respect, I think people turn to such pap because they are bored rigid by what the BBC has to offer. I'm at a loss to know where/what the quality programmes are on the BBC - I can't find them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Frank Wales Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 12:25 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] democracyplayer Josh at GoUK.com wrote: At one time, the BBC was needed as a distributor of content, but do we still need the BBC to do that now if everyone has the ability to publish and distribute on their own? The BBC is, and always has been, much more than a distributor, some mere series of tubes through which content passes from makers to viewers without touching the sides on the way through. And of BBC programming - do we need it? Commercially there are plenty of ways to get similar (and sometimes identical/repeat) content to what the BBC provides. In general, the BBC sets the high-quality watermark for the entire British broadcasting industry, and has undoubtedly forced ITV and others to make better programmes than they would otherwise have done in a commercial-only marketplace. Also, don't forget that the BBC aren't the only broadcaster with a public service remit: Channel Four also has one, but they were only possible because of externally-mandated, entirely uncommercial funding arrangements with ITV. I am not trying to be objectionable or malicious: I am genuinely struggling to understand why the country needs a publicly funded broadcaster or at least one as big and as powerful as the BBC. Very crudely, and wearing my Reithian-opinion hat, the BBC exists to deliver education, entertainment and information to the British public; commercial-supported broadcasters exist to make money by delivering the attention of viewers to advertisers. Only the first of these two scenarios is clearly of benefit to the public, you and me. In the other, we're just a natural resource to be harvested and sold off like so many varieties of attentional baked-beans; any benefits we might get are a side-effect of the process. No clearer indication of the difference between these two models can be found than in the sudden profusion of TV-based premium-rate phone scams, I'm sorry, phone-in pay-to-guess-the-answer quiz programmes; the BBC has no such offerings, nor would I expect them to have any, because they're just a mechanism for hoovering money from the pockets of the bored and the under-informed. Ultimately, commercial activities can only support a proportion of things that might be possible, and some of the most lucrative would be far from beneficial to the public. Moreover, many things worth doing are almost blitheringly uncommercial; try writing a credible business plan for the public library system, for example. Commercial activities also tend to favour the easy and the uncontroversial, which implicitly marginalizes unpopular views and hard-to-digest information; look at Fox News, if you don't believe me. As long as broadcasting holds an important sway over public attitudes and perceptions, it seems to me that public-service broadcasters, such as the BBC and Channel Four, are an essential part of maintaining the balance away from the most grotesque excesses of the market. They should act as providers of first-resort for that which is uncommercial, and for that which is difficult-but-important. And they should also act as the public's advocate in shaping the future of communication, both in their statements and in their behaviour. [Disclaimer: I don't work for the BBC, but I've seen them on television.] -- Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
- you can get 8m people around the TV for a shared experience watching Strictly Come Dancing and Doctor Who, but there are few (if any) videos on YouTube with an aggregation of 8 million eyeballs on them The shared experience thing is a red herring. 20 years ago, some shows would have got 15 or 20 million. The trend is for diversity. And just because 8m watch a programme, doesn't mean it is good programming It means that 52m are choosing to watch or do something else. Initial funding for those programmes that independent production companies make on TV and radio (and within New media on web sites and software) comes from the Licence Fee. I don't know that you'd see the same level of commissioning if smaller independent producers had to find start-up cash for each programme they wanted to make Why should the licence fee be used to make programmes that independent production companies want to make? Why should people pay for things that they are never going to want to see? People should be able to subscribe to specific channels and the subscriptions will pay for the programming. If there aren't enough subscriptions, then the programmes won't get made. I might like to see every house in London painted in purple - but I can't expect everyone in the country to pay for my whim. It is a bizarre model that takes money from people but gives them nothing in return ... although they then have to pay to subscribe to the things that they do want to watch with other providers. It should be possible, for example, for someone to watch Sky content only, and not to have to pay for BBC driven content. If I drive a Ford, I don't expect to have to give 300 quid to Honda drivers ... ... ... we buy what we want to buy. It is called choice, not imposition. Interestingly in my line of work at the moment, all my user testing says people love the idea of streaming music to their mobile phones, but don't try it because they are worried about the price. Now, if they had a free service to get them used to the concept, does that make them more or less likely to sign up to a subscription in the long term for a different service? People worry because they already have to pay a whack of money each year for their TV licence. Free them from that expense and let them use that cash to buy what they want and not what the BBC wants to give them. Festive wishes Josh - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
Luke Dicken [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Its outside the backstage remit for that kind of thing to be officially happening here though surely. I mean, I doubt there's anyone here who objects to this kind of discussion, sharing viewpoints and arguing is a good thing, but as someone has already said we're way off-topic for what backstage is meant to be about. From: http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html and I quote: Membership of the list is open to anyone who is keen to innovate using bbc.co.uk content - whether they work for the BBC or not. It's a proper discussion list, as in you can post as well as read. [Gentle Plea: please be gentle with the BBC staff on the list - they suffer enough already.] How exactly is this discussion off-topic? We're just, momentarily, thinking big pictures rather than implementation details. Bringing folks like that in here for that kind of discussion seems like it will only take the list further away from its aims - and cause them frustration when we return to talking about feeds, APIs, etc. I don't think that's really a good idea unless backstage itself gets a broader tech discussion remit. I assume that there are mechanisms in place for this kind of discussion to be happening formally elsewhere, rather than informally here, but if that is the case might it not be good to open them up somewhat - and if it isn't, to set them up? I think if BBC managers are smart (as I'm sure they are) they will want to be having these discussions. Some of the people they will want to be talking with are on this list. Some of the people on this list just want to talk about APIs and feeds and such in which case maybe we do need a separate list. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
How exactly is this discussion off-topic? Backstage.bbc.co.uk : Build what you want using BBC content backstage.bbc.co.uk is the BBC's developer network to encourage innovation and support new talent. Content feeds are available for people to build with on a non-commercial basis. Join the email discussion list to tell us how we could improve the service and converse with others about backstage.bbc.co.uk Backstage isn't a generic think-tank. Your complaints are equivalent to complaining theres no recipes for cheese here. There isn't - its not what it was put here for. If a cheese recipe discussion springs up, that's great in my opinion. If its something I don't care about, I won't read the emails in that thread. I'm not complaining about the off-topic, because I don't really care, but you're asking why there's no dairy farmers on the list. That's the reason right there. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
On 20/12/06, Nic James Ferrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Maybe we should try and get more BBC managers here. How do you know there not watching this already? Seriously! Watching, maybe. But are they participating? Not so far as I've seen. i thoroughly resemble that remark I *have* seen you participate. But you're a tech manager right? So you already get it. And you've made your mind up (probably, maybe) about whether free content is possible, desirable or likely. Nope, i'm not a tech manager. But yes, safe to say I've made my mind up: http://www.lllj.net/blog/archives/2006/01/06/how-can-drm-be-good/#comment-7373 I am talking specifically asking for non-technical managers to be involved here. At least to some extent. I expect those people to think that they've already made up their minds. But they probably haven't really heard the wealth of different opnions there are on the subject. Trust me, they have. They really, really have. If there's one thing I can point to in my 5 years here, it's that. It's now 3 years since we got Lessig over to present to 100+ senior managers. The debate has been long and intense. And it continues in public, albeit not in places backstage subscribes would hang out! http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/research/iplayer-public-value-test.html We have to remember, this is not a technical issue. It's driven by technology and law. But it's about society. Totally. And the bedrock of society is the rule of law. And the law is *crystal* clear - the BBC doesn't own all rights to its archive; the myriad of underlying rights holders do (and there are 1.2m contributers listed on http://open.bbc.co.uk/catalogue) No public institution can knowingly break the law, however compelling the 'moral' case. Our job is to make the case to our regulator (The BBC Trust), and to the rights holders, that the societal opportunity cost of *not* releasing our archive outweighs what it would costs and the market impact (aka the Public Value Test ) We have, despite frustrations, been busy on this front: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/research/iplayer-public-value-test.html http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds40870.html http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/news/archives/2006/09/hurry_while_sto.html that does not happen overnight and - frankly - the outcome of any of these isn't obvious either. Oh, and for those of you debating what the BBC is *for* - it's here: http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/publications/cr_pubs/pub_royalcharter06.html copypaste relevent bits 4.The Public PurposesThe Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows— (a)sustaining citizenship and civil society; (b)promoting education and learning; (c)stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; (d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities; (e)bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK; (f)in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit ofemerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking aleading role in the switchover to digital television. 5.How the BBC promotes its Public Purposes The BBC's main activities should be the promotion of its Public Purposes through theprovision of output which consists of information, education and entertainment, supplied by means of— (a) television, radio and online services; (b)similar or related services which make output generally available and which may bein forms or by means of technologies which either have not previously been used bythe BBC or which have yet to be developed. /paste The 37 pages of the charter do not mention the word 'programme' once. The BBC does not exist to make programmes (neither does ITV, natch) ; The BBC exists to build public value through media. The very first edition of Wired UK magazine in April 1994 carried a final page column by Douglas Adams which contained exactly this point. http://yoz.com/wired/1.01/adams.html Lots of people are not in the business you think they're in. Television companies are not in the business of delivering television programmes to their audiences, they're in the business of delivering audiences to their advertisers. (This is why the BBC has such a schizophrenic time - it's actually in a different business from all its competitors). bests -tom - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nic what kind of stuff are talking about doing? Which Lawyers are you worried about? BBC or others? Can you give me an idea. Sure. One thing I'd like to do would be to: - take the BBC realvideo feeds (say newsnight) - convert them into something sensible (mpeg?) - make them into an atom feed - shove them on democracy - see them when I want, not when the BBC says I can or: - the above - shove them into some website - let people tag them and cross reference them - let people search that - let people cross reference that, say BBC news programmes with other news programmes like democracy-now I can't do those things coz I'm pretty sure they're against the law. As soon as I started converting BBC content into something else so that it would play nicely on the Net the BBC's lawyers would be talking to me. I'm pretty sure that would happen. If you're saying that wouldn't happen that's great! -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
Nic James Ferrier wrote: Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the other, we're just a natural resource to be harvested and sold off like so many varieties of attentional baked-beans; any benefits we might get are a side-effect of the process. I realise you said it was very crude but I think this is too crude. I can't think of many itv or sky people who would agree with this analysis. Perhaps they should look harder at the financial underpinnings of their employers, then. Ultimately, all businesses serve their customers first, or they fail, and for all commercial businesses, the customers are those who pay the invoices that the business sends out. Sky, at least, invoice viewers as well as advertisers, so arguably they are as concerned with what viewers want as what advertisers want; I don't know the split between these funding sources, though. No clearer indication of the difference between these two models can be found than in the sudden profusion of TV-based premium-rate phone scams, I'm sorry, phone-in pay-to-guess-the-answer quiz programmes; the BBC has no such offerings, nor would I expect them to have any, because they're just a mechanism for hoovering money from the pockets of the bored and the under-informed. They're hardly a mechanism for delivering viewers to advertizers. Well, why involve your real customers when you can drink from the source of funds directly, especially in the middle of the night, when your real customers are hard to find? (Plus, I'll bet you 20p that no advertisers would purchase slots in the 'Guess movies with an 'M' in them' show, for various reasons.) Are you saying they are scams? That no one wins the prize? They seem carefully constructed to conceal from participants the truth about what their chances of winning are, while charging them for every attempt. Even a bookmaker has to disclose the odds, and doesn't get to rip up 99% of the bets at random while keeping all the stakes. I believe I saw Sky TV executives testifying before a parliamentary select committee just the other week, giving their poor opinion of the whole situation, and asking that it be regulated like gambling before they're all tainted by it. Commercial activities also tend to favour the easy and the uncontroversial, which implicitly marginalizes unpopular views and hard-to-digest information; look at Fox News, if you don't believe me. Tend, tend, tend. This is a very biased nonsense. Can you show that the majority of commercial broadcasting endeavours are difficult or controversial? If not, then it isn't nonsense. Commercial channels may be more likely to appeal to niche markets. *May* be more likely, but most don't, unless you class football or reality cop shows or 'Ironside' repeats as niche markets. Just as most commercial retailers *may* be more likely to serve niche markets, but most don't; the commercial imperative makes it consistently more tempting to pursue the larger markets, especially in fields where economies of scale operate, or where fixed infrastructure costs have to be paid, such as for transmitters and satellites and stuff. Ultimately, what *might* happen is more inspiring than what *does* happen. They may be more customer led than a giant public corporation with no need to pay immediate attention to viewing figures. Because overnight viewing figures are the number-one criterion to judge public-service broadcasting by? American Television, where there are few controls, is some of the worst in the world. But it's also some of the best in the world. Unfortunately, unless it's changed a lot since I was last there, the 'some of the best' is a sprinkling of rose petals onto the torrent of dishwater that is 'some of the worst'. 'Six feet under' or 'Futurama' or even 'The Daily Show' don't compensate for the Incredible Foghorn of Conservative Mediocrity that is US TV. Frankly, I'm amazed when anything half-way decent comes out of it, doubly so when it's commissioned by a major network. The BBC could never have made Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the best TV *ever* in my opnion and yes, I can justify that) I would hope you could justify your own opinion, but I suspect you'll have trouble getting the rest of us to share it. :-) -- Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
buffy (was Re: [backstage] democracyplayer)
Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I rest my case. If Buffy is the best TV that can be made by commercial television companies, they need to be outlawed. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the worst television show I've *ever* seen. Then either you are not watching enough television or you are not watching Buffy closely enough. Buffy was a show for teenagers making clear the complexity of modern adult life. It built a consistent model of the world within the genre of fantasy/science fiction. It tackled real adult issues like sex and death and responsibility without talking down to anyone, sermonizing or being disrespectfull. At the same time it was amusing, well acted had good special effects and challenging story lines. You are quite wrong if you think it was bad. Like Keats it can be shown, objectively, to be good work. I would remind you that US commerical television also produced 24. I personally don't like it but it is innovative. And the West Wing. Again, not my favourite but it is challenging being neither cynical not cloying about politicians. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: *May* be more likely, but most don't, unless you class football or reality cop shows or 'Ironside' repeats as niche markets. Just as most commercial retailers *may* be more likely to serve niche markets, but most don't; MTV. the commercial imperative makes it consistently more tempting to pursue the larger markets, especially in fields where economies of scale operate, or where fixed infrastructure costs have to be paid, such as for transmitters and satellites and stuff. Which is of course the very stuff that we're discussing doing away with. The thread was started about democracyplayer. American Television, where there are few controls, is some of the worst in the world. But it's also some of the best in the world. Unfortunately, unless it's changed a lot since I was last there, the 'some of the best' is a sprinkling of rose petals onto the torrent of dishwater that is 'some of the worst'. Sure. But so what? We have massive loads of rubbish too. It may be quieter and more humdrum but it's just as much dross as that guy singing about how much he loves his neighbour. I'm not sure we could agree that we've had a show of the quality of The West Wing to offset that. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
I was at a European Broadcasting Union earlier this called Beyond Broadcast. Almost every single presentation and discussion had some rights element/thicket/headache/crisis/meltdown to it. The BBC Beethoven download a couple of years ago was almost scuppered because although it was a BBC orchestra, there was a freelance conducter (I think that is how Tom L or someone described it to me). I'm sure that somone has mentioned this but just the BBC broadcasts something doesn't mean the BBC owns the rights to something or all of the content in the production. Even news content is often a patchwork of BBC content plus Reuters, APTN, ABC, etc, etc. Some of the more well name news presenters are not BBC staff but freelance staff with their own 'production companies'. AND, broadcast rights are usually separate from internet distrubtion rights. Often, agency footage can only be used for broadcast. For instance, ABC footage (the BBC has a close relationship with ABC) often says NOT FOR INTERNET DISTRIBUTION. The BBC and every media organisation whether publicly funded or a private concern is thinking about rights. It's a nightmare, and there aren't any simple or easy answers at the moment. best, Kevin Anderson Standard disclaimer: Views are my own and don't represent those of current or past employer. On 12/20/06, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Inside or outside the UK, the story is that right now any member of the public with a connection and PC can see that content for free. Illegally. a show that was - in part - paid for by the same license fee Wrong. Usually, I believe, the licence fee purchases the right for the programme to be broadcast by the BBC within a set of restrictions (times, channels perhaps - I don't know). It does not, usually, purchase the programme itself. Of course, there is a portion of (internally produced?) BBC content that isn't like this. You'll see this used in Podcasts (to *grin* download) e.g. last night's Newsnight... http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/downloadtrial/bbc2/newsnightvideopodcast/newsnightvideopodcast_20061219-1600_40_st.mp4 J On 19 Dec 2006, at 17:22, Jason Cartwright wrote: ** This is all my personal opinion ** This £1bn revenue stream [1] (more than half of which comes from abroad [2]) goes on to fund new content for you to enjoy for free (after paying your licence fee, of course). J [1] http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/annreport/ report06/16.financialstatements.pdf Page 9 [2] http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/annreport/ report06/16.financialstatements.pdf Page 11 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh at GoUK.com Sent: 19 December 2006 15:14 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] democracyplayer if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at source from the UK You're saying the global market is more important than everyone being able to download BBC content for free. But why shouldn't it be the other way round: that people's right to download content for free (or at a fee direct from the BBC) be more important that the global market? What is all this for: the global market of for people? In the end, the global market just resells the stuff to the people - why should BBC content be used to make other BBC content suppliers rich and make people pay twice for their BBC content? I even wonder what the BBC is for in this digital era... ... ... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Belam Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:41 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] democracyplayer What you're talking about is a global, industry issue with thousands of diverse stakeholders - from actors to cameramen. And you also have to realise that the rights are not just for the UK, there are different rights frameworks across the globe. So, for example, if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at source from the UK martin http://currybet.net [1] http://www.zudeo.com/ [2] http://www.zudeo.com/az-web/docs/ PR20061219_BBC_Content_Partnership.pdf On 19/12/06, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So that's one reason for the BBC to dump their own-brand NIH-syndrome iPlayer and start publishing video feeds you can consume in Democracy
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
Maybe we should try and get more BBC managers here. How do you know there not watching this already? Seriously! Define Managers? Because, well, if Tom L (in charge of plan for future of bbc.co.uk), Jem (in charge of strategy group for user generated content), Matt L (in charge of innovation in new media), Andy C (Deputy Controller, Internet, last time I checked) and Tony A (in charge of iplayer) aren't good enough for ya, then... I'm not sure we're ever going to get the DG on the list... He's a bit busy with running the BBC... :) Watching, maybe. But are they participating? Not so far as I've seen. Four out of those five were at the Backstage Bash, iirc. Besides, you don't actually *want* more managers around here, trust me - it wouldn't help... - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
What you're talking about is a global, industry issue with thousands of diverse stakeholders - from actors to cameramen. And you also have to realise that the rights are not just for the UK, there are different rights frameworks across the globe. So, for example, if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at source from the UK martin http://currybet.net [1] http://www.zudeo.com/ [2] http://www.zudeo.com/az-web/docs/PR20061219_BBC_Content_Partnership.pdf On 19/12/06, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So that's one reason for the BBC to dump their own-brand NIH-syndrome iPlayer and start publishing video feeds you can consume in Democracy or whatever player you like the most, just like they publish RSS feeds of the news stories. Absolutely. I like that idea a lot. I think there would still be space for the BBC to do something in this area just because they're the BBC. My mum is probably not going to use Democracy but she probably would use something from Auntie. Ultimately this is exactly the reason why the BBC (and other parties) do these things. Why does AOL have its own browser after all? If people didn't use it, they wouldn't create it. There is a world of between the kind of person that is on backstage and the average BBC user. I can still remember the first time I ever saw some user testing being performed (for those that don't know, it's where various people come in, sit at a computer and are asked to do various tasks, like try and find something on a website - for those who the testing is being done for, there is usually a two way mirror or video link so that you can watch what's going on). In one respect I found my first session incredibly frustrating (almost wanting to shout through the mirror LOOK! IT'S THERE!) but in another way, it was extremely enlightening. It showed me a different side to the coin. The side where people don't distinguish between adverts and general website navigation. Where people can't see what you consider to be extremely obvious. Most importantly, it gave me a firm impression. That I should always, always, always remember... not everyone is like me. That's not to say that everything should be dumbed down to the lowest level - just that, for the BBC anyway, it's important to try and cater for everyone. Unfortunately, the Backstage community appears uninterested in talking about Free Software media formats, and why they are important. (I don't know why this is.) I am interested in talking about it. I know others here are. But the trouble is we can't solve the problem. We need to get the management thinking about the rights of the licence payer instead of the rights of the talent. Actually I'd say that's only part of the problem because if it was just a BBC issue, you'd be almost there. What you're talking about is a global, industry issue with thousands of diverse stakeholders - from actors to cameramen. There is, for example, a certain, well known British actor who has decreed that some of his early work cannot be repeated on television. Everytime someone tries to negotiate repeat rights for those series, he is a voice that says no. As such the programmes can't be repeated. That's the way the industry has worked for decades. Trying to unpick it will take years. That's a guarentee. Anyway, back to those tedious admin tasks I'm supposed to be doing right now :) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
Its bloody Outlook which makes replying to emails a pain. Should switch to using Thunderbird like I do at home. http://www.youtube.com/rss/tag/bbc.rss - Nice! Obviously if your worried about the lawyers getting you, then don't do it :) But if you can mock up your idea using non-bbc content or bbc podcasts, that might be a way forward? Ian Forrester || backstage.bbc.co.uk || x83965 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nic James Ferrier Sent: 18 December 2006 21:45 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] democracyplayer Jeez Ian, sort your quoting out man. How hard can it be? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
iTunes lists hundreds of podcasts in the music store, covering all sorts of topics - football, world news, tech news, music shows, general stuff etcetcetc Its not particularly tech-centric anymore. I'm not trying to argue that 9/10 people you meet know what a podcast is, but a fair few are aware to some extent of what it is, and a large number of people have access to iTunes by virtue of having an iPod. The biggest challenge facing podcasters right now is breaking away from the iPod/iTunes perception - most people with vague knowledge think you _need_ both to listen to podcasts. The implication being that there are a good chunk of people out there picking their podcasts up using iTunes. Although, I have to admit, that by popular demand, I had to archive each episode of the podcast I do with listen now links to the mp3, as well as supplying the feed before I started reaching a majority of my entire target audience. I do still maintain that without understanding the mechanisms behind podcasting the term download is heavily misleading, no matter the contextual sentence it is in - there are people out there who use download when they mean save, or when they mean open (Which makes front line support so much fun: I was just downloading this document and my PC crashed Where were you downloading it from? Word. ..), putting other words around it doesn't negate the lack of comprehension that goes on in the average person. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Lockwood Sent: 19 December 2006 11:41 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] democracyplayer Hmm. My personal experience is that people (both ordinary users and technical users) don't use generally podcasts, and that generally, non-technical users use the term podcast to refer to any vaguely topical spoken word MP3 file, which they expect to download - when they want to listen to one, they don't use the software that will regularly go and get it for them, they simply download it manually. But then, that's just my personal experience. Just like in my personal experience, most *real* people don't subscribe to text RSS feeds, nor do they read 'blogs written by people they don't actually know. Cheers, R. On 12/19/06, Luke Dicken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: people actually use their RSS reader on a daily basis RSS useage is pretty low - about 12% last count? RSS feeding media... 1% of users download a podcast on a typical day - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6175728.stm. It's the realm of geeks. I'd disagree with this heavily, and when I read the article when it was first posted I have to confess I went various shades of purple and said things to the monitor that should not be repeated in such civilised company. The concept of downloading a podcast is redundant. Its liking asking someone how often they receive a radio signal on their television. Other stuff downloads the podcasts for you, it not something you do or are even aware of. If you had to ask joe schmoe on the street what happened when you downloaded a podcast, with a rudimentary understanding of podcasting, he'd most likely equate it to subscribing to the feed. The study the article is based from is ridiculous, asking technically correct but horribly worded questions, and thus the article, and conclusions drawn based on it are just nonsense. With that rant out of the way, I'd be interested (and this comes back somewhat to statistics) in how many uniques the bbc feeds are hit from. That would probably give a reasonably accurate view of % uptake across a broad spectrum of the population. 12% sounds like a reasonable number - but don't forget that ten years ago internet usage itself was at those sorts of levels (no I can't cite my source, yes my figures might be off, but the point still stands...). Its definitely on the increase - to a point where I was talking with a Biology lecturer and he suggested putting course news and lectures up in RSS format. I'd say its gone well beyond geeks - although perhaps it remains the realm of people with the intelligance and curiosity to ask what does that orange button do, which, lets face it, is probably a small number of today's mainstream internet users. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
Brendan Quinn wrote: The questions were actually [1] Do you ever use the internet to... Download a podcast so you can listen to it or view it at a later time? Did you happen to do this yesterday, or not? Which doesn't seem too misleading to me... Putting in the listen to it or view it at a later time text makes it pretty clear, don't you think? Looking at the report it's interesting to see the % of people saying they had done so the previous day remained the same as the previous period. It would have been nice to know what this % was expressed as a % of those who had 'downloaded' the podcast rather than as a % of the sample set. I'd agree with Luke though in that the term podcast is far too associated with a single tech producer, Apple, but in the absence of Seán - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
** This is all my personal opinion ** This £1bn revenue stream [1] (more than half of which comes from abroad [2]) goes on to fund new content for you to enjoy for free (after paying your licence fee, of course). J [1] http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/annreport/report06/16.financialstatements.pdf Page 9 [2] http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/annreport/report06/16.financialstatements.pdf Page 11 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh at GoUK.com Sent: 19 December 2006 15:14 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] democracyplayer if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at source from the UK You're saying the global market is more important than everyone being able to download BBC content for free. But why shouldn't it be the other way round: that people's right to download content for free (or at a fee direct from the BBC) be more important that the global market? What is all this for: the global market of for people? In the end, the global market just resells the stuff to the people - why should BBC content be used to make other BBC content suppliers rich and make people pay twice for their BBC content? I even wonder what the BBC is for in this digital era... ... ... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Belam Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:41 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] democracyplayer What you're talking about is a global, industry issue with thousands of diverse stakeholders - from actors to cameramen. And you also have to realise that the rights are not just for the UK, there are different rights frameworks across the globe. So, for example, if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at source from the UK martin http://currybet.net [1] http://www.zudeo.com/ [2] http://www.zudeo.com/az-web/docs/PR20061219_BBC_Content_Partnership.pdf On 19/12/06, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So that's one reason for the BBC to dump their own-brand NIH-syndrome iPlayer and start publishing video feeds you can consume in Democracy or whatever player you like the most, just like they publish RSS feeds of the news stories. Absolutely. I like that idea a lot. I think there would still be space for the BBC to do something in this area just because they're the BBC. My mum is probably not going to use Democracy but she probably would use something from Auntie. Ultimately this is exactly the reason why the BBC (and other parties) do these things. Why does AOL have its own browser after all? If people didn't use it, they wouldn't create it. There is a world of between the kind of person that is on backstage and the average BBC user. I can still remember the first time I ever saw some user testing being performed (for those that don't know, it's where various people come in, sit at a computer and are asked to do various tasks, like try and find something on a website - for those who the testing is being done for, there is usually a two way mirror or video link so that you can watch what's going on). In one respect I found my first session incredibly frustrating (almost wanting to shout through the mirror LOOK! IT'S THERE!) but in another way, it was extremely enlightening. It showed me a different side to the coin. The side where people don't distinguish between adverts and general website navigation. Where people can't see what you consider to be extremely obvious. Most importantly, it gave me a firm impression. That I should always, always, always remember... not everyone is like me. That's not to say that everything should be dumbed down to the lowest level - just that, for the BBC anyway, it's important to try and cater for everyone. Unfortunately, the Backstage community appears uninterested in talking about Free Software media formats, and why they are important. (I don't know why this is.) I am interested in talking about it. I know others here are. But the trouble is we can't solve the problem. We need to get the management thinking about the rights of the licence payer instead of the rights of the talent. Actually I'd say that's only part of the problem because if it was just a BBC issue, you'd be almost
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
The Joly G-man wrote: The BBC are responsible in the main (AFAIK) for enforcing incorrect terminology as follows: 1) forward slash - a term used by Naomi Troski on the Big Byte, circa 1994. Since Ms Troski speaks fluent 'Strine, we assume that the term oblique stroke was not in her vocabulary. Presenters including the late John Peel used the correct term. I don't think the term solidus was much in use. Well, it's always been 'slash' in the computing circles I've been wobbling around in since about 1980; to me, 'oblique stroke' sounds more like a cerebrovascular accident occasioned by maintaining one's head at an overly-jaunty angle. My objection would be to the 'forward' part, but I guess a non-trivial number of people still get 'backslash' wrong (due, no doubt, to the bone-headed adoption of '\' as the DOS path separator by Microsoft, as a result of being frivolously different from Unix, as far as I know). (Nowhere near as egregious as referring to '#' as 'pound', though.) 2) logon to our website - the actual meaning in most cases is browse our website. Or send us an e-mail at www.bbc.co.uk/not-an-email-address. Still, we've come a long way to be quibbling with the BBC's use of terminology about something that's so taken for granted now. It was only a few years ago that Janet Street-Porter ruined my perfectly good irony meter when she wasted 30 minutes of precious TV airtime whining about how the Internet was only of interest to Sad People, and how we should all get out more, instead of being stuck in front of screens the whole time. I suspect that the programme in question, J'accuse..., could only be shown today as an object lesson in how to be totally clueless in public about the future of your own field. Now, who wants to start a sweepstake about which year we'll all be saying 'softwares' without flinching, the way we no longer flinch about saying 'emails'? -- Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
Josh As a license payer, and thus a funder of the BBC, I am keen to see the BBC move towards covering costs as much as possible by re-using free to listen/view content from the home market and re-sell it abroad wherever a market may exist. To view the issue as one of people's right to download content forgets that any right that may exist is bounded by the UKs national boundaries, and that listeners and viewers outside of these borders are not paying twice for content, they are paying once. Best Regards Neil - Original Message From: Josh at GoUK.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 3:13:59 PM Subject: RE: [backstage] democracyplayer if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at source from the UK You're saying the global market is more important than everyone being able to download BBC content for free. But why shouldn't it be the other way round: that people's right to download content for free (or at a fee direct from the BBC) be more important that the global market? What is all this for: the global market of for people? In the end, the global market just resells the stuff to the people - why should BBC content be used to make other BBC content suppliers rich and make people pay twice for their BBC content? I even wonder what the BBC is for in this digital era... ... ... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Belam Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:41 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] democracyplayer What you're talking about is a global, industry issue with thousands of diverse stakeholders - from actors to cameramen. And you also have to realise that the rights are not just for the UK, there are different rights frameworks across the globe. So, for example, if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at source from the UK martin http://currybet.net [1] http://www.zudeo.com/ [2] http://www.zudeo.com/az-web/docs/PR20061219_BBC_Content_Partnership.pdf On 19/12/06, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So that's one reason for the BBC to dump their own-brand NIH-syndrome iPlayer and start publishing video feeds you can consume in Democracy or whatever player you like the most, just like they publish RSS feeds of the news stories. Absolutely. I like that idea a lot. I think there would still be space for the BBC to do something in this area just because they're the BBC. My mum is probably not going to use Democracy but she probably would use something from Auntie. Ultimately this is exactly the reason why the BBC (and other parties) do these things. Why does AOL have its own browser after all? If people didn't use it, they wouldn't create it. There is a world of between the kind of person that is on backstage and the average BBC user. I can still remember the first time I ever saw some user testing being performed (for those that don't know, it's where various people come in, sit at a computer and are asked to do various tasks, like try and find something on a website - for those who the testing is being done for, there is usually a two way mirror or video link so that you can watch what's going on). In one respect I found my first session incredibly frustrating (almost wanting to shout through the mirror LOOK! IT'S THERE!) but in another way, it was extremely enlightening. It showed me a different side to the coin. The side where people don't distinguish between adverts and general website navigation. Where people can't see what you consider to be extremely obvious. Most importantly, it gave me a firm impression. That I should always, always, always remember... not everyone is like me. That's not to say that everything should be dumbed down to the lowest level - just that, for the BBC anyway, it's important to try and cater for everyone. Unfortunately, the Backstage community appears uninterested in talking about Free Software media formats, and why they are important. (I don't know why this is.) I am interested in talking about it. I know others here are. But the trouble is we can't solve the problem. We need to get the management thinking about the rights of the licence payer instead of the rights of the talent. Actually I'd say
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
Neil Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As a license payer, and thus a funder of the BBC, I am keen to see the BBC move towards covering costs as much as possible by re-using free to listen/view content from the home market and re-sell it abroad wherever a market may exist. To view the issue as one of people's right to download content forgets that any right that may exist is bounded by the UKs national boundaries, and that listeners and viewers outside of these borders are not paying twice for content, they are paying once. As a licence payer, and thus funder of the BBC, I am keen to be able to get what I've paid for once already without paying for it again. I believe that it's my view, not yours, that will keep the BBC a free and funded organization with the kind of editorial freedom it has now. If things go your way I would expect people to say if it's so commercially successfull why can't it be privatized? and I don't believe there is a compelling answer to that. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] democracyplayer
Hi Nic! I'm glad to see that Ian is recommending Free Software and that you took the time to check it out - Thanks, and cheers Ian :-) On 17/12/06, Nic James Ferrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When is auntie going to be publishing feeds so I can see the headlines from the beeb in democracyplayer? The BBC iPlayer is/was kinda similar to Democracy Player, except that people actually use Democracy on a daily basis, and occaisionally pull up the iPlayer when they need to. This is just the same as the way that people actually use their RSS reader on a daily basis, and occaisionally pull up a primitive website without an RSS feed to see its latest. So that's one reason for the BBC to dump their own-brand NIH-syndrome iPlayer and start publishing video feeds you can consume in Democracy or whatever player you like the most, just like they publish RSS feeds of the news stories. But there is a far more important reason the BBC should do this: it should respect our digital rights. Democracy Player is Free Software, which is means it is software that respects our ability to share and change all software. (Its license is at https://develop.participatoryculture.org/democracy/browser/trunk/tv/license.txt and is explained http://www.gnu.org) Its not just applications though - there are Free Software media formats too, such as Ogg audio and Theora video. Despite the existance of technically superior Free Software media formats, many things are only available in proprietary formats, and where the master copies have been discarded, changing them into Free Software formats will reduce their quality. Today this isn't a problem; some formats have been 'reverse engineered' so that Democracy can play them - such as Microsoft Windows Media, Apple Quicktime and Adobe Flash Video. Conspicuously absent is Real Video, which the BBC favours. http://www.videolan.org/vlc/features.html Tomorrow, there is a problem, though, and it will be a big one. Many media files in those formats cannot be played by Democracy or other Free Software video players (such as mplayer which powers Ian's Xbox Media Center.) because those formats can try to lock you out from your media using Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). This is a big problem despite the fact that the locks are easily broken, because it is illegal to unlock them. Its also illegal to make unlocking tools, and to tell people how to make those tools. In the USA this is through the Digital Milennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and in the UK this is through the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD). A norwegian boy of 15 was charged with breaking into his own computer before the EUCD was introduced, and the court at that point could throw it out as ridiculous. Today, a similar lawsuit might be less sensible. The BBC does not support Free Software media formats such as Theroa, and does turn on the locks in the proprietary media formats it does use. This is wrong. Unfortunately, the Backstage community appears uninterested in talking about Free Software media formats, and why they are important. (I don't know why this is.) Without BBC Backstage community support, BBC is unlikely to support Free Software, and so, Nic, you're unlikely to get BBC video in your Democracy Player any time soon. The community support is so important because the BBC managers, such as Ashley Highfield, the BBC director of new media and technology, appears to say that the BBCis all for respecting sharing, contrary to its actions: Ashley Highfield outlined a three-pronged approach to refocus all future BBC digital output and services around three concepts - share, find and play. He said the philosophy of share would be at the heart of what he dubbed bbc.co.uk 2.0. - http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1760999,00.html -- 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] democracyplayer
Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So that's one reason for the BBC to dump their own-brand NIH-syndrome iPlayer and start publishing video feeds you can consume in Democracy or whatever player you like the most, just like they publish RSS feeds of the news stories. Absolutely. I like that idea a lot. I think there would still be space for the BBC to do something in this area just because they're the BBC. My mum is probably not going to use Democracy but she probably would use something from Auntie. This is one way of looking at what the BBC does. It is an editorial service. It can be an editorial service in the provision of net video as much as it is in terms of news. The BBC does not support Free Software media formats such as Theroa, and does turn on the locks in the proprietary media formats it does use. This is wrong. I agree. I strongly agree. I've worked for GNU for 10 years. I've eaten Chinese food with Richard Stallman. I've been thinking for a while about how to start persuading the BBC of this. I don't think there's a problem persuading people like Ian. I'm pretty sure they understand. One of the reasons I suggested Ian as a replacment to Michael Grade is that the BBC need his level of understanding in that post. There is a lot to change. There are a lot of legal problems in freeing content. But it does need to be freed if the BBC is to remain relevant to Britain. Absolutely. No question. Unfortunately, the Backstage community appears uninterested in talking about Free Software media formats, and why they are important. (I don't know why this is.) I am interested in talking about it. I know others here are. But the trouble is we can't solve the problem. We need to get the management thinking about the rights of the licence payer instead of the rights of the talent. Maybe we should try and get more BBC managers here. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
** This is all my personal point of view ** I'm glad to see that Ian is recommending Free Software and that you took the time to check it out. Nobody mentioned that it was Free Software. I suspect it was recommended by Ian and liked by Nic (and myself) because it's quick, its usable, and it just works. Do users really care about anything else? I suspect not. people actually use their RSS reader on a daily basis RSS useage is pretty low - about 12% last count? RSS feeding media... 1% of users download a podcast on a typical day - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6175728.stm. It's the realm of geeks. Conspicuously absent is Real Video, which the BBC favours I believe the main reason for this is that Real was the prevailing technology when the BBC started streaming all those years ago. It's a legacy issue, and the BBC has made huge investments in kit to stream at the quanities it does... over 30Gbps for the World Cup, I think? formats can try to lock you out from your media using Digital Restrictions Management I'm sure someone here will explain to you that its not really your media, and most of the time nor is it the BBC's to give you. Many people have rights to material the BBC broadcasts - music (songwriters, artists, labels), talent and the production companies. All very, very complicated - there are big depts around here that purely deal with managing rights. Personally - I'd prefer to have DRMed content delivered to me (iPlayer), than no content at all (current situation). the locks are easily broken Nobody is suggesting that any kind of DRM is uncrackable. Of course not - but its 'good enough' to satisify the rights holders. ** /This is all my personal point of view ** Jason On 17/12/06, Nic James Ferrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When is auntie going to be publishing feeds so I can see the headlines from the beeb in democracyplayer? The BBC iPlayer is/was kinda similar to Democracy Player, except that people actually use Democracy on a daily basis, and occaisionally pull up the iPlayer when they need to. This is just the same as the way that people actually use their RSS reader on a daily basis, and occaisionally pull up a primitive website without an RSS feed to see its latest. So that's one reason for the BBC to dump their own-brand NIH-syndrome iPlayer and start publishing video feeds you can consume in Democracy or whatever player you like the most, just like they publish RSS feeds of the news stories. But there is a far more important reason the BBC should do this: it should respect our digital rights. Democracy Player is Free Software, which is means it is software that respects our ability to share and change all software. (Its license is at https://develop.participatoryculture.org/democracy/browser/trunk/tv/lice nse.txt and is explained http://www.gnu.org) Its not just applications though - there are Free Software media formats too, such as Ogg audio and Theora video. Despite the existance of technically superior Free Software media formats, many things are only available in proprietary formats, and where the master copies have been discarded, changing them into Free Software formats will reduce their quality. Today this isn't a problem; some formats have been 'reverse engineered' so that Democracy can play them - such as Microsoft Windows Media, Apple Quicktime and Adobe Flash Video. Conspicuously absent is Real Video, which the BBC favours. http://www.videolan.org/vlc/features.html Tomorrow, there is a problem, though, and it will be a big one. Many media files in those formats cannot be played by Democracy or other Free Software video players (such as mplayer which powers Ian's Xbox Media Center.) because those formats can try to lock you out from your media using Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). This is a big problem despite the fact that the locks are easily broken, because it is illegal to unlock them. Its also illegal to make unlocking tools, and to tell people how to make those tools. In the USA this is through the Digital Milennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and in the UK this is through the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD). A norwegian boy of 15 was charged with breaking into his own computer before the EUCD was introduced, and the court at that point could throw it out as ridiculous. Today, a similar lawsuit might be less sensible. The BBC does not support Free Software media formats such as Theroa, and does turn on the locks in the proprietary media formats it does use. This is wrong. Unfortunately, the Backstage community appears uninterested in talking about Free Software media formats, and why they are important. (I don't know why this is.) Without BBC Backstage community support, BBC is unlikely to support Free Software, and so, Nic, you're unlikely to get BBC video in your Democracy Player any time soon. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit
RE: [backstage] democracyplayer
I agree. I strongly agree. I've worked for GNU for 10 years. I've eaten Chinese food with Richard Stallman. I've eaten Indian with Mr Stallman I've been thinking for a while about how to start persuading the BBC of this. I don't think there's a problem persuading people like Ian. I'm pretty sure they understand. One of the reasons I suggested Ian as a replacment to Michael Grade is that the BBC need his level of understanding in that post. There is a lot to change. There are a lot of legal problems in freeing content. But it does need to be freed if the BBC is to remain relevant to Britain. Absolutely. No question. Geez, I'd better dust off my suit then :) But seriously there are a lot of people around the BBC that really get it. They are looking at the next 10+ years not what's just around the corner. What's good for the nation and not just what's good for the BBC at the moment. I do think we will get someone like your suggesting up near the top very soon. Unfortunately, the Backstage community appears uninterested in talking about Free Software media formats, and why they are important. (I don't know why this is.) I am interested in talking about it. I know others here are. But the trouble is we can't solve the problem. We need to get the management thinking about the rights of the licence payer instead of the rights of the talent. I'm not so sure its that black and white. Like most things there is a huge amount of grey in between. The BBC does certainly think about the licence payer, audiences are in everything we do. But seriously we do. I would use the turning of a oil tanker to explain the change. It takes time and you can speed things up a little but ultimately it takes time. Time not only for the BBC but for public perception and values. The BBC would not exist without the public and as we move into a much more connected future, I would agree that we need corperations like the BBC more that ever before. As you point out if the BBC did launch a channel on Democracy as such. It might pull in people like my parents and maybe even open their minds to more grassroots content. Hey maybe even inspire them to create their own! On side point - I'm surprised no ones tried turning all the BBC content on YouTube and other darker places into a RSS channel. Not that I'm suggested you do that of course! Maybe we should try and get more BBC managers here. How do you know there not watching this already? Seriously! - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] democracyplayer
So I download democracyplayer based on Ian's recommendation (and the fact that it doesn't trash my debian instance anymore). Gosh it's cool. When is auntie going to be publishing feeds so I can see the headlines from the beeb in democracyplayer? -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
