RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Andrew Bowden wrote: That means they won't come to my DVD store [2]. Boo! They might never have come though. Pah, you just want them coming in to your online DVD rental store :) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the friendwould otherwise have bought a copy from the DVD store. That isoccasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, theclaimed loss does not occur. As people are taking my attempt at humour seriously, I'll have to respond. No. They may not come into my DVD rental store. But they *might*. They might go somewhere else. They might go online. They might go to WH Smith. However they won't do ANY of those things if you go willy-nilly re-distributing copies of the DVD you've rented from me. Ergo, me, as a small shop keeper, am about to be evicted from my house because my business has been destroyed due to hoardes of people copying DVDs and giving them to everyone else. And what about my wife and childen? But when your friend avoids the need to rent a copy of a DVD, thestore and the producers do not lose anything they had. A more fittingdescription would be that the store and producers get less income thanthey might have got. The same consequence can result if your frienddecides to play discuss post-internet copyright on BBC mailing listsinstead of watching a DVD. In a free market system, no business isentitled to cry foul just because a potential customer chooses notto deal with them. I would never cry foul because someone doesn't do business with me. However my DVD rental store relies on some people doing business. Just as Joe's store down the road does. And Fred's online store. And so on. This is not about me losing out because you've copied my DVD and given it to every one you know. This is about the whole industry losing out because a proportion of the people you give that copied DVD to, would have gone to my shop otherwise and now won't rent DVD. And if the market is reduced by people redistributing for free, then other people lose their income. And hey, it's always going to be the little people who suffer most. Which is for me, an ethical argument. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
The media producers are clearly getting a free lunch here, they can sell the same thing again and again, never having to give up any of there own possessions but requiring others to surrender their items in exchange. Lord of the Rings. Three big budget films. How do you think they got financed? Someone looked at the budgets and said Right. Lets say we make this much in ticket sales, this much in merchandise, this much in DVD sales. But whack! Copyright is gone, so the DVD income goes. Copyright affects the merchandise because anyone can legally knock off merchandise without the sayso of the people who created it. Oh and the cinema doesn't have to worry - it can just get one copy and give it to the rest in its chain. And lo, the film can no longer be financed. Free lunch? Nah. You've just destroyed the entire model that funded the film. Thousands of people who would have had work, now have none. Sure, some people /might/ buy the official DVD, but others won't. The funding isn't there. To bring this to the BBC, the BBC's commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, pumps money into some programmes on the basis that it knows it will make money back off DVD sales, book sales etc. Let us not forget that there is no natural need for copyright, we could function fine without it. It is only through government legislation that such a thing exists. Maybe we would. But maybe a lot of things you value, would be destroyed. If I want to spend time on a project, then release it freely to all, that's my decision. However if I spend my time on a project and want to try and make money off it, why shouldn't I? It's my idea, my project. Why should I let someone else make money off it if I don't want to. And you're going to have one hell of a time persuading the population of the world that they should reliquish all rights to their work because some people have a completely anti-copyright stance. Most of them will just think you're bonkers. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
As this is the Backstage list, has anyone come up with a widget to mash up the most ridiculous and rabid tirades from this and other recent threads with Google maps to produce a huge cloud of red map pins around Shoreditch? Ooh, an archive mash-up! I like that idea :) 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
I fully respect Andrew's point of view as written below, but - with respect - I struggle to agree with it. Years ago, before PCs and printers, if people wanted anything copied they had to go to the local shop or library where they could use a photocopier. Today, they just use their own scanners and printers to make their own copies. Similarly, people used to have to send their film off for printing, but these days lots of people have digi cameras and their own home photo printers. If something is technologically possible, people will use it. We can't hold back time. Lots of businesses and industries disappear - a kind of natural selection. Good business diversify and develop into new products and markets. In any event, the DVD rental store it going to be put out of business anyway by content being delivered over the net. Or should that also be stopped? Yes, the industry model we have NOW may lose out on some sales, but there is no reason why it can't develop and make a good profit using other distribution channels and business models. I think we're in danger of trying to deal with 21st century technology with 19th century thinking and laws. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Bowden Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:18 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the friendwould otherwise have bought a copy from the DVD store. That isoccasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, theclaimed loss does not occur. As people are taking my attempt at humour seriously, I'll have to respond. No. They may not come into my DVD rental store. But they *might*. They might go somewhere else. They might go online. They might go to WH Smith. However they won't do ANY of those things if you go willy-nilly re-distributing copies of the DVD you've rented from me. Ergo, me, as a small shop keeper, am about to be evicted from my house because my business has been destroyed due to hoardes of people copying DVDs and giving them to everyone else. And what about my wife and childen? But when your friend avoids the need to rent a copy of a DVD, thestore and the producers do not lose anything they had. A more fittingdescription would be that the store and producers get less income thanthey might have got. The same consequence can result if your frienddecides to play discuss post-internet copyright on BBC mailing listsinstead of watching a DVD. In a free market system, no business isentitled to cry foul just because a potential customer chooses notto deal with them. I would never cry foul because someone doesn't do business with me. However my DVD rental store relies on some people doing business. Just as Joe's store down the road does. And Fred's online store. And so on. This is not about me losing out because you've copied my DVD and given it to every one you know. This is about the whole industry losing out because a proportion of the people you give that copied DVD to, would have gone to my shop otherwise and now won't rent DVD. And if the market is reduced by people redistributing for free, then other people lose their income. And hey, it's always going to be the little people who suffer most. Which is for me, an ethical argument. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Free lunch? Nah. You've just destroyed the entire model that funded the film. Thousands of people who would have had work, now have none. Sure, some people /might/ buy the official DVD, but others won't. The funding isn't there. If a film company can't produce a film and make money from it through its own distribution model, then in the end it will stop making films. There are plenty of people who would like to make money doing what they like, but can't find a way of making their revenue stream work. The market decides - the market isn't there to support bad business models. Film companies, etc, will have to adapt to survive and thrive. As an analogy, we're moving, in terms of energy supply, to micro production rather than having huge power supplies vast distances away. Maybe it is the same with media. The time of the blockbuster and the TV channel as we knew it is dead? Maybe this is a new micro media age? What's wrong with that? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Bowden Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:29 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? The media producers are clearly getting a free lunch here, they can sell the same thing again and again, never having to give up any of there own possessions but requiring others to surrender their items in exchange. Lord of the Rings. Three big budget films. How do you think they got financed? Someone looked at the budgets and said Right. Lets say we make this much in ticket sales, this much in merchandise, this much in DVD sales. But whack! Copyright is gone, so the DVD income goes. Copyright affects the merchandise because anyone can legally knock off merchandise without the sayso of the people who created it. Oh and the cinema doesn't have to worry - it can just get one copy and give it to the rest in its chain. And lo, the film can no longer be financed. Free lunch? Nah. You've just destroyed the entire model that funded the film. Thousands of people who would have had work, now have none. Sure, some people /might/ buy the official DVD, but others won't. The funding isn't there. To bring this to the BBC, the BBC's commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, pumps money into some programmes on the basis that it knows it will make money back off DVD sales, book sales etc. Let us not forget that there is no natural need for copyright, we could function fine without it. It is only through government legislation that such a thing exists. Maybe we would. But maybe a lot of things you value, would be destroyed. If I want to spend time on a project, then release it freely to all, that's my decision. However if I spend my time on a project and want to try and make money off it, why shouldn't I? It's my idea, my project. Why should I let someone else make money off it if I don't want to. And you're going to have one hell of a time persuading the population of the world that they should reliquish all rights to their work because some people have a completely anti-copyright stance. Most of them will just think you're bonkers. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Yes, the industry model we have NOW may lose out on some sales, but there is no reason why it can't develop and make a good profit using other distribution channels and business models. I think we're in danger of trying to deal with 21st century technology with 19th century thinking and laws. This is the argument that always crops up: Use a different business model. I've yet to hear someone come up with a workable one. Giving the end product away - and allowing everyone else to do the same - is *not* a workable business model. R. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Years ago, before PCs and printers, if people wanted anything copied they had to go to the local shop or library where they could use a photocopier. And some of them doing photocopies which breached copyright law too :) Today, they just use their own scanners and printers to make their own copies. Similarly, people used to have to send their film off for printing, but these days lots of people have digi cameras and their own home photo printers. If something is technologically possible, people will use it. We can't hold back time. Lots of businesses and industries disappear - a kind of natural selection. Good business diversify and develop into new products and markets. I wasn't talking about time. I was purely talking about the fact that if you breach copyright law, that has an impact all over the place. In any event, the DVD rental store it going to be put out of business anyway by content being delivered over the net. Or should that also be stopped? Of course not. Because as a business man, I have to keep an eye on what's going on and if someone does what I do better/cheaper/more convient than I do, than I either have to adapt and die. My business might be destroyed for many factors. However is it ethically and morally right to destroy my business by mass participation in an illegal act, just because you can? (of course illegal acts can be committed by business too) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
So, how do you propose to fund a multi-million pound film in a different business model? I don't propose funding a multi-million pound film, so it is not my concern. If it can be made, it can be made. If it can't be made, it can't be made. If people don't want to pay for films, then don't make them. My neighbour wishes they still made wooden boats like the Mary Rose, but I and my mates are not going to stump up some millions to satisfy his (and some other people's) desires. I am not advocating any illegal act. Copyright is the law and we /should/ abide by it. But in the real world, it is easily breached - just as most people break the law at some point by dropping littler, speeding, etc. In the end, the law is unenforceable on any meaningful scale. Copyright is like King Canute: nice intention, but completely insane if you think it is ever going to work in any meaningful way. You'll make more money by finding a model that does work, then trying to rely on the /watertight sieve/ that is copyright. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Bowden Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 10:05 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? If a film company can't produce a film and make money from it through its own distribution model, then in the end it will stop making films. There are plenty of people who would like to make money doing what they like, but can't find a way of making their revenue stream work. The market decides - the market isn't there to support bad business models. Film companies, etc, will have to adapt to survive and thrive. So, how do you propose to fund a multi-million pound film in a different business model? Budget for the entire Lord of the Rings series incidentally was $270m apparently. That's a lot of dosh to have to get in any ones books. As an analogy, we're moving, in terms of energy supply, to micro production rather than having huge power supplies vast distances away. Maybe it is the same with media. The time of the blockbuster and the TV channel as we knew it is dead? Maybe this is a new micro media age? What's wrong with that? Time of big blockbusters is dead? I really doubt it. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Richard Lockwood wrote: This is the argument that always crops up: Use a different business model. I've yet to hear someone come up with a workable one. Giving the end product away - and allowing everyone else to do the same - is *not* a workable business model. I wonder if there really is that much of a workable business model for entertainment anyway, even if we constrain ourselves to 20th century entertainment technologies. While some people have made a lot of money, it's rarely the artists and a lot of that money is made by very sharp accounting practices (ie, Hollywood Accounting). Lord Of The Rings has been mentioned - look at the arguments between Peter Jackson and New Line for an example of the artist not getting his fair share (or at least not feeling that he is getting his fair share). There's a book on the music industry (whose name escapes me, I can look it up if anyones interested) that goes into some detail on how dubious an industry it is. I even knew someone who was once in a band that got signed, sent to the Bahamas to make a record and then the record was never released, and when they asked why, they were told that they were being used as a writeoff (which is exactly one of the sorts of practices mentioned in the book). I think it's this fundamental lack of a real business model that's driving the calls for DRM - the entertainment industry's business model is mostly smoke and mirrors, and easy copying takes away some of the mirrors. Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 01/03/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a film company can't produce a film and make money from it through its own distribution model, then in the end it will stop making films. There are plenty of people who would like to make money doing what they like, but can't find a way of making their revenue stream work. The market decides - the market isn't there to support bad business models. Film companies, etc, will have to adapt to survive and thrive. So, how do you propose to fund a multi-million pound film in a different business model? Budget for the entire Lord of the Rings series incidentally was $270m apparently. That's a lot of dosh to have to get in any ones books. Ticket sales at the box office probably easily covered that; People aren't going to stop visiting cinemas any time soon. Film companies could start making money direct from the consumer; people still buy DVDs as they are better quality, extras etc. all things only the film companies can provide. I'll still buy your DVD so long as you don't tell me what I can do with it so will others; they'll still make money on DVDs and other merchandise as well
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Dave Crossland wrote: On 28/02/07, Mario Menti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In just about every definition, loss can mean being deprived of something, regardless of whether you physically possessed that thing in the first place. What loss are rights holders taking? Loss of potential revenue (though only potential, as you've said there's no guarantee that the person getting the copy would ever have bought/rented the DVD in the first place). I wouldn't go so far as to call it theft, but it's certainly a violation of rights. Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Dave Crossland wrote: Consider why authors always cede their rights to publishers, and if they would do this if it was indeed a natural right? I thought that in certain countries (France springs to mind) you can't really cede your copyright to publishers, as copyright really is a considered a natural right. Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Of course it is about laissez-faire economics: business is, as business always has been. But if he somehow managed to find an investor to stump up the money for just such a boat, with the idea that he would make a profit by selling jaunts on the ship, would you and your mates refuse to pay for a pleasure ride but steal the ship during the night and offer free rides to everyone in your town so that he had no way of making back his money? I am not advocating using things for nothing. I'm saying DRM and copyright protection are meaningless, expensive, wasteful, fanciful, and unintelligent ways of trying to enforce payment/control usage. Nobody's asking you to pay for music or films you don't watch or listen to. Which, again, is exactly the point I'm making. People here are saying there has to be a model to protect producers so they can afford to make what they want to make. My point is that people will pay for things if the producers produce worthwhile and desirable products. Though, as an aside, to be true to the truth, the licence fee does ask people in the UK to pay for content they don't watch or listen to. But that's another point entirely. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Deirdre Harvey Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:08 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? King Canute was just showing his men that even though he was the king, he couldn't hold back the see. poor Canute, so misunderstood. So, how do you propose to fund a multi-million pound film in a different business model? I don't propose funding a multi-million pound film, so it is not my concern. OK, so this isn't about ethics then, it's about dogmatic laissez-faire economics with a sprinling of darwinian pseudoscience sprinkled on top? If it can be made, it can be made. If it can't be made, it can't be made. If people don't want to pay for films, then don't make them. My neighbour wishes they still made wooden boats like the Mary Rose, but I and my mates are not going to stump up some millions to satisfy his (and some other people's) desires. But if he somehow managed to find an investor to stump up the money for just such a boat, with the idea that he would make a profit by selling jaunts on the ship, would you and your mates refuse to pay for a pleasure ride but steal the ship during the night and offer free rides to everyone in your town so that he had no way of making back his money? Nobody's asking you to pay for music or films you don't watch or listen to. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Please to no more sophomoric nonsense about broken business models and how we need to walk into the shining future without a backward glance. Cool. What you don't understand, you call sophomoric nonsense. Think you've won the argument there, at least with yourself. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Deirdre Harvey Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:17 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland Sent: 01 March 2007 10:59 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? Many people mistakenly take for granted that this is the basic idea of copyright, but it is not. It was set up with the sole purpose of benefiting the public. When the public decide they would rather do without it, that is entirely justifiable. That is not true. Copyright was an attempt to balance the needs of the author with the public good. That is why it is of (supposedly) limited duration - you gets your chance to make your money and then you sets it free. The problem with granting monopoly rights, even temporary ones is that they can be used by the powerful to bully the weak, as has happened with copyright (or IP as they'd like to have it) law. I think the original time-limited (14 years as it was in the US) copyright term was a good idea. If anyone can think of a better model for making it possible for people to realise financial benefit from stuff they have created I'm all about hearing it. Please to no more sophomoric nonsense about broken business models and how we need to walk into the shining future without a backward glance. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 3/1/07, Scot McSweeney-Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought that in certain countries (France springs to mind) you can't really cede your copyright to publishers, as copyright really is a considered a natural right. I think you might mean Moral Rights (the Droit Moral), as opposed to copyright (the Droit Proprietere) which is still framed in a similar way in France as anywhere else: Moral rights are distinct from any economic rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rightstied to copyright, thus even if an artist has assigned his or her rights to a work to a third party he or she still maintains the moral rights to the work. (1) (1) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Rights Moral Rights are typically concerned with the right to proper attribution and the right to prevent defamatory use of the work, not with the right to financially profit from it. IMHO, IANAL and all that cheers, Tim
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 01/03/07, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, how do you propose to fund a multi-million pound film in a different business model? I don't propose funding a multi-million pound film, so it is not my concern. OK, so this isn't about ethics then, it's about dogmatic laissez-faire economics with a sprinling of darwinian pseudoscience sprinkled on top? Its all about ethics. There is no justification for imposing restrictions on the publics normal use of digital technology. It is wrong. would you and your mates refuse to pay for a pleasure ride but steal the ship during the night Analogies between digital works and physical property totally confuse the issue. and offer free rides to everyone in your town so that he had no way of making back his money? The hidden assumption is that he has a natural right to make his money back. He doesn't. -- 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Dave Crossland wrote: On 01/03/07, Scot McSweeney-Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Crossland wrote: Consider why authors always cede their rights to publishers, and if they would do this if it was indeed a natural right? I thought that in certain countries (France springs to mind) you can't really cede your copyright to publishers, as copyright really is a considered a natural right. Are we in France? Natural rights are considered to be fairly universal, even if not universally enforced. Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
The film industry can still be financed. Yes, it may not have as much money as it would if everyone had to pay something every time they watched a film. But I don't have as much money as if everyone had to pay me something every time they read an email I wrote. The millions spent on film stars will no longer happen, and it will be harder to finance stuff without a known track record, and other such _changes_. But change is good. Is it. I can't see Lord of the Rings ever getting made had we been in that system. It wouldn't happen. And that was a series of three damm good quality films that millions of people love and enjoy. Your quest for choice and freedom has therefore destroyed my freedom to watch a high quality production because ultimately high quality, high budget productions wouldn't exist. Your dogmatic idiology, destroys my freedoms. It's my idea, my project. This is where we start to diverge. You have a hidden assumption that you can treat ideas and projects like they have owners, like they are physical property. This is misguided. Take my website. My ideas. My work. My effort. It's a project. It's an idea. It's mine. Ideas become effort if implemented. The effort means it's a project. Simple. Mine to do with what I want because I made it, I came up with the idea, I made a project to implement it. Mine. Not yours. I might let you have it. I might not. But it's mine. An idea made a Hoover. Another idea made a Dyson. Ideas are the root of many many things. And you're going to have one hell of a time persuading the population of the world that they should reliquish all rights to their work because some people have a completely anti-copyright stance. Go ask some people on the tube what percentage of their music is authorised. The population of the world are not professionalised authors, and they have a anti-copyright stance. Absolutely irrelevant. Absolutely. Because what people believe they stand for and what they do are completely different. People will fight hand and nail for the rights to do something, and then believe completely different. Logic like yours just wouldn't cut the mustard. Most of them will just think you're bonkers. The number of people knowing how to do filesharing is correlated to how bonkers you are, I think :-) Like I say. Irrelevant. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland Sent: 01 March 2007 10:59 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? But change is good. For someone so enamoured of accusing everyone of having hidden assumptions you are finding it pretty easy to ignore the huge assumption at the centre of your argument. There are so many assumptions in the sentence change is good never mind the belief system that comes with it I don't even know where to start. But that's an argument for the first-year undergraduate philosophy mailing list I'm on. It's great, people finding out about a way of thinking about things, latching on to it without thinking through its implications and then endlessly arguing more and more vehemently in favour of things that don't make any sense. Anyway, I'm out. It's weird, until two days ago I largely agreed with what you posted. Alienating the converted seems a weird way of winning this argument, which ultimately is going to come down to convincing people who don't care about the morality of DRM, or even of copyright, that it matters, that it is compromising their rights and that it's worth resisting. But whatever, I'm sure there's some fundamental assumption at the heart of what I'm writing, such as that you even give a shit. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 01/03/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But change is good. Is it. I think so. There are many rural communities than shun progress alot, and a few like the Amish that do a lot. I like change, because in change there is opportunity :-) I can't see Lord of the Rings ever getting made had we been in that system. It wouldn't happen. And that was a series of three damm good quality films that millions of people love and enjoy. If they love and enjoy them so much, they'll be prepared to fund them. Non-coercive business models demonstrably work. Your quest for choice and freedom has therefore destroyed my freedom You have put freedom in quotation marks because you are misapplying the term. Misapplying it in this way makes no sense. It's my idea, my project. This is where we start to diverge. You have a hidden assumption that you can treat ideas and projects like they have owners, like they are physical property. This is misguided. Take my website. My ideas. My work. My effort. It's a project. It's an idea. It's mine. Ideas become effort if implemented. The effort means it's a project. Simple. An abstract idea is made up of other abstract ideas. Therefore it makes no sense to treat it like non-abstract, physical, property. Or did you steal the idea of a website from Tim Berners Lee? The population of the world are not professionalised authors, and they have a anti-copyright stance. Absolutely irrelevant. Absolutely. Because what people believe they stand for and what they do are completely different. Yes, and I am saying that we should look at what they do, not what they say they stand for, and be honest about that. We all store and share digital data. That is what computers and networks are made for. Publishers need to honestly accept this, instead of trying to deny and reject it. -- 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 01/03/07, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But change is good. For someone so enamoured of accusing everyone of having hidden assumptions you are finding it pretty easy to ignore the huge assumption at the centre of your argument. Please explain what you think this is :-) I don't even know where to start. Go for it! :-) But that's an argument for the first-year undergraduate philosophy mailing list I'm on. It's great, people finding out about a way of thinking about things, latching on to it without thinking through its implications and then endlessly arguing more and more vehemently in favour of things that don't make any sense. Rather than just saying I don't make sense, could you please explain _why_ I don't make sense, so we can have a real discussion? Anyway, I'm out. It's weird, until two days ago I largely agreed with what you posted. I'm not sure how what I've posted before and lately differ. Please explain. Alienating the converted I'm not seeking to 'convert' anyone. I'm seeking to discuss digital rights in an open forum full of smart people, and have so far had great success with this. this argument ... going to come down to convincing people who don't care about the morality of DRM, or even of copyright, that it matters, that it is compromising their rights and that it's worth resisting. I agree. -- 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
This is an interesting point. The BBC seem to be creating a platform where I have to obtain the equipment (the iPlayer software) from a single vendor - the BBC - why? Accepting for the moment the use of DRM and Microsoft DRM (amply covered in other threads!), why must I use the BBC iPlayer to download the BBC content? As far as I am aware, iPlayer will use the Kontiki platform (as used by Sky Anytime and Channel 4 On Demand). Why can't the BBC release a toolkit/API to allow us to build a player (UI) on top of this stuff - perhaps the BBC will? Why don't the other companies? Why don't you all get together and create a 'UK standard'? As things stand, it seems to me that watching 'stuff' from a multiplicity of sources on a PC is going to be a usability nightmare. Pete Cole -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Deirdre Harvey Sent: 27 February 2007 13:10 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? fair point (although the Welsh argument is a canard), but there is a difference between creating content for a new channel, albeit one that is not available without purchasing new equipment, and creating a new platform that is only available if you buy that equipment from a particular vendor. e.g. if subscribing to sky was the only way to see BBC3 BBC4 I think you'd be entirely right. Deirdre Harvey :: Producer BBC jam Irish Versioning :: 3rd Floor :: Stockman House :: Belfast BT2 7EE Tel. 02890 338121 :: Ext. 38121 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 27 February 2007 12:46 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? This is all my personal point of view. I can't receive digital TV, so I'd like a refund on money spent to make BBC3 and BBC4. Oh, and I can't read welsh so could TV Licencing please send me a cheque for the money spend on http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/ J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Gardner Sent: 27 February 2007 12:07 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On a related DRM tip, I just thought I'd chip in with some comments my wife made last night. We download podcasts from the BBC, and from Virgin Radio (thanks Mr Cridland!), but obviously it is all talk related, not full track music content. My wife asked me Are there any podcasts from XFM or something like that, where they just play you the new cool tunes? and then she said the immortal words that no anti-DRM zealot ever wants to hear... I wouldn't care if I could only listen to it once and it just blew up So there you go, you have to keep in mind that the people on this list are not representative of the public in general, whether it is about clicking web adverts, or avoiding DRM like the plague. As a consumer my wife is savvy enough to understand the concept of DRM - and she just doesn't *care* that it restricts her use and re-use of downloaded material. She's just interested in downloading time-shifed radio programmes with full music tracks in it, and being able to listen to it once. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 28/02/07, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is there a way you could implement it that doesn't compromise the public at the expense of the people with the temporary monopoly rights? There is a hidden assumption here: that the monopolists are elevated to the same level of importance as the public. This is not true. I recommend reading http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html for a full explanation of why the public is more important than the monopolists. -- 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 28/02/07, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wouldn't care if I could only listen to it once and it just blew up Separating fools from their freedom is wrong. The fact that the fools participate voluntarily does not excuse it. DRM is a predatory scheme that creates subjugation. Even if most people don't recognize this as a problem, the free software movement does, and is trying to end the problem. People who don't value freedom are entitled to their views. The free software movement values freedom, and it acts on its own views, not theirs. It never set out to make them happy: It set out to give them freedom. -- 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
-Original Message- From: Deirdre Harvey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 February 2007 12:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? If there's a demand for that kind of service, is there a way you could implement it that doesn't compromise the public at the expense of the people with the temporary monopoly rights? ... And I just realised I didn't answer your final question. In all honesty, I can't think of a workable solution right now, it's a tough one to solve (captain obvious to the rescue!) Give me a while to come up with something... Must add though, when I wanted to timeshift radio in the past (when I was but a nipper), I always found a C90 worked quite well - at least for 2 or 3 months until I somehow managed to completely destroy them. I suppose the question I should ask you back is, IS there a demand for that specific kind of service? We can theorise on different ways to implement a time-limited, managed platform for content distribution and consumption, but the existing systems such as Listen Again work pretty well imo, and pop music is so repeated on network radio there's no real need to offer timeshifted playback of those kind of shows, you'd be creating supply where there is no demand. Or is there demand? Have I completely misinterpreted what you're saying? Feel free to correct / educate / dissect what I've said. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It never set out to make them happy: It set out to give them freedom. Who would have thought a conversation about the concept of people watching TopGear a couple of days late could end up at this melodramatic line? Who would have thought the BBC would try to stop people watching Top Gear 8 days late? -- 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 28/02/07, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't think of a workable solution yeah, me neither. so is it ok to say to someone you can't have what you want because even though it's technically possible it is not ethically possible? I don't know. Please explain why permitting the public to store and redistribute works is not ethical :-) -- 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 28/02/07, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't think of a workable solution yeah, me neither. so is it ok to say to someone you can't have what you want because even though it's technically possible it is not ethically possible? I don't know. Please explain why permitting the public to store and redistribute works is not ethical :-) Hi. I'm a DVD rental store owner. [1] You've just paid me £5 to hire my DVD. Yay! You've taken it home, copied it and given it to a mate. That means they won't come to my DVD store [2]. Boo! :-) [1] Actually I'm not. I work for the BBC. [2] which I don't actually work in - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Anyone who understands the rights and commercial impact issues. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland Sent: 28 February 2007 13:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It never set out to make them happy: It set out to give them freedom. Who would have thought a conversation about the concept of people watching TopGear a couple of days late could end up at this melodramatic line? Who would have thought the BBC would try to stop people watching Top Gear 8 days late? -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Andrew Bowden wrote: That means they won't come to my DVD store [2]. Boo! They might never have come though. -- Kirk - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Can someone explain how copyright itself is ethical? Maybe I should explain why it is in itself immoral. Why do things cost money? What is the purpose of price? Economics would say Price is used to distribute scarce resources Where a scarce resource is one which has a finite limit. This reflects the fact that if I own a resource, such as a tonne of coal, no other person can posses that exact same tonne. I can also not grant someone that tonne of coal and still have it. Not everyone can have as much coal as they desire as there is not an infinite supply of coal. So what happens when I buy something? Well for a tangible good, that is a scarce resource, I surrender a sum of money, (or an item if we are using a bartering system), and in return the seller surrenders the item I am buying, at which point he ceases all ownership of the item. Is Television and Film content a scarce resource? Well can one person own the same thing, can it be provided in infinite supply. I shall look at this from the technical prospective of is it physically possible, not the legal view point, the legal interference with markets shall be handled later. Especially with Digital content the resource is NOT scarce. It can be duplicated without loss. Files can be transferred unaltered. This is very useful, if some bits got flipped in your program it could do weird and even dangerous things. If we can duplicate the content an infinite amount of times then why does it require a price? Everyone can posses a copy of the media. Now what happens why I buy media, I surrender money as before, and now what does the seller (assuming copyright holder here, they at some point perform the sale even if only to someone who sells on the item) surrender? Well they give me copy of the media, but wait they still have the original, so they surrender nothing? Even if you take into account possession of rights (an artificial property and not a natural one), do they give me the right to copy, relicense, distribute this item, no they do not (normally), thus they have in fact surrendered nothing. The media producers are clearly getting a free lunch here, they can sell the same thing again and again, never having to give up any of there own possessions but requiring others to surrender their items in exchange. Does this seem moral, equitable or right? Lets go a little further. We can safely assume that some of this media content provides pleasure to people or enhances their life in some way. Now copyright itself provides a way of withholding something that would improve someones quality of life. Would someone like to justify why it is acceptable to withhold what something that would improve someones life when it would cost nothing to grant them it? The purpose of copyright is to inflict suffering on people by withholding things from them for no good reason. I thought the human race had got past the stage where it thought it acceptable to inflict suffering on people for their own perverse pleasure? evidently not. Let us not forget that there is no natural need for copyright, we could function fine without it. It is only through government legislation that such a thing exists. I am actually very interested to know the exact figure spent on iPlayer and DRM, sorry if its already been mentioned I missed the start of this thread. Has the BBC published this information or do I need to make an official request under he Freedom Of Information Act. Can someone at the BBC explain why they chose a one platform approach, this was never actually covered. A lot was said about the BBC having their arm forced by rights holders (this I doubt, the BBC is one of the most powerful broadcasters in the world). Did the rights holders dictate it must be a Windows only solution? If so could you forward me a copy of it, I would like to contact my MEP, the European Union prosecuted Microsoft over media player before didn't they? So why Platform Specific, the technology exists to write cross platform applications easily and simple. Has the BBC not heard of Java or Python? A java Application will generally run unmodified on any OS as it is run via the Java VM (this is not a full virtual machine like VMWare by the way). I know this because I have written applications on Windows and run them on Linux and vice versa, with no changes what so ever. As for DRM, well the rights holders are NOT mandating a secure unbreakable DRM are they? If they are then by using MS DRM you are violating your agreement, its a software DRM which can be broken. The operation of an x86 processor is a known quantity, I can examine your binary code and determine every instruction it is executing. Thus it must be breakable. There are even higher level attacks, such as writing a VM which runs the iPlayer, and instead of sending content to the screen it captures it in a file. So seems the DRM scheme need not be secure why can't the BBC generate a cross platform one, it would tag a few minutes, use XML
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 2/28/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The claim is partly misleading because the word loss suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the store's stock of DVDs were burned, or if the money in the till got torn up, that would really be a loss. I'm sorry, but this sentence is patent bollocks. To define loss in these narrow terms is utter nonsense. In just about every definition, loss can mean being deprived of something, regardless of whether you physically possessed that thing in the first place. By all means keep arguing about the pros and cons of DRM, but spare us stupidities like this please. Cheers, Mario.
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 28/02/07, Mario Menti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In just about every definition, loss can mean being deprived of something, regardless of whether you physically possessed that thing in the first place. What loss are rights holders taking? -- 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
_ From: Mario Menti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 February 2007 22:59 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? On 2/28/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The claim is partly misleading because the word loss suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the store's stock of DVDs were burned, or if the money in the till got torn up, that would really be a loss. I'm sorry, but this sentence is patent bollocks. To define loss in these narrow terms is utter nonsense. In just about every definition, loss can mean being deprived of something, regardless of whether you physically possessed that thing in the first place. By all means keep arguing about the pros and cons of DRM, but spare us stupidities like this please. Cheers, Mario. I have to agree that this line of thought is not without its own flaws, but you have to agree that the term loss has been manipulated somewhat by the incumbent film and TV studios; they've subtly changed its meaning from that of a physical loss to that of a loss of potential income on their intellectual property. This is where we begin to get very abstract here with our definitions of 'loss' and 'theft'. So it's not complete nonsense, it's interesting to see how the classical definition of loss has been altered by the studios to fit their way of speaking - reminds me of past RIAA publications where they've mentioned xyz millions of dollars lost through piracy - when in fact it's not REALLY loss, it's just money they thought they would be getting whilst relying on a predetermined profit curve (basically, they're not factoring into the equation that people won't continue to purchase at the same rate they may initially, or a service selling content might lose 'cool' factor and become less profitable... Or, as I suspect they're actually doing, they're taking an average of figures over the past 10 years and then using those as a basis for their loss - when in fact the music industry has been in decline for a long time, and the Internet has NOT been the sole cause of its wider financial downturn). I'm not saying unlicensed redistribution of content isn't to blame at least in part, but the industry does have this habit of twisting the truth, flipping and adjusting the wording and meaning somewhat to meet its own ends. I've done a lot of research into the music industry as part of my Uni course so I know I'm not talking completely out my arse here. Thus, the industry's argument for slapping rights restrictions onto everything in sight is largely based on these continuing assertions that they are losing money through piracy which they would otherwise be receiving into their coffers, and these assertions are in turn originated on financial data and trends which tend to not factor into account these new forms of distribution. We had a lecture from two people at our Uni late last year; one person from EMI and one person from the IFPI. Even though it wasn't billed as a this is why piracy is bad and killing the music industry lecture, it was exactly that - but during the QA session I asked a few pointed questions. One included, why don't you change your price points to price pirates out of the market, follow a business model like allofmp3 where you give the customers MP3s or their own choice of formats, for a fixed price per megabyte, and there we go - the unlicensed distributors can't survive in that kind of market, where it's just as easy for the consumer to go legit as it is for them to break the law... To which the man from the IFPI answered, because we just can't, we don't, trust our consumers. I was basically stonewalled, they didn't even acknowledge that any model aside from the current one would work. I thought it was a very arrogant approach, they presented loads of stats, figures, past trends, statistical analysis of Internet bandwidth usage etc... And it was all based on the assumption that users only 'steal' music because it's part of their mindset now. So, for me, this entire matter boils down to trust; the industry's lack of trust for consumers, and in turn, consumers' lack of trust in their rights restriction schemes. They alter the meaning of established words, and somehow they manage to lobby the US Government to codify their 'modified' meanings in law! That's what really riles me, and why I don't like DRM. I won't trust a 'trust' mechanism which is run by untrustworthy people, and it's also why I don't entirely agree with the industry's version of 'loss' due to x or y reasons. If only it were clear cut enough that by not purchasing music, you were directly depriving artists of a large amount of revenue from what would otherwise be a unit sale, but in reality that's so infrequently the case. Even before the advent of Internet sharing, it was the same for many artists - large advance, then work
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. An interesting question, but surely the obvious answer is infinitesimally small ? dan :) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Jim Gardner wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows Are you certain Microsoft isn't funding it? I thought most of the Windows Media tools are free (as in beer - if you've payed your Microsoft tax). Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 27/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is all my personal point of view. I can't receive digital TV, so I'd like a refund on money spent to make BBC3 and BBC4. Oh, and I can't read welsh so could TV Licencing please send me a cheque for the money spend on http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/ And I don't watch football, so I don't want to fund the Premiership highlights contract, please. I suspect we'll all find that it doesn't work that way. Thank goodness. -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. /delurk The BBC does loads of things that I dislike. However, I have to live with that and still pay all of the license fee. My only real choice would be to bin the TV and not pay at all. The license model works on the premise that the BBC will give you a chunk of stuff you like and another chunk of stuff you don't. I pay for Eastenders - eugh, but in return I get Animal Planet - yay. I can't get dsatt, but I can get dtt, should I get a rebate on the dsatt development? If you are successful, I'd like a refund for everything except Radio5 Breakfast Show, News 24, news.bbc, Animal Planet and the Accidental Angler. I worked out last week that I've only watched about 13 hours of TV in the last year. I should get a huge rebate. The best way for you to find out would be through a FOI request. http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/ Cheers, Andy - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Jason Cartwright wrote: Oh, and I can't read welsh so could TV Licencing please send me a cheque for the money spend on http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/ Well, the pop-up Oes gennych chi 5 munud i roi eich barn am y safle hwn? (Have you got 5 minutes to fill in a survey on this site, or similar) doesn't disappear whether you click Nagoes (No) or the cross, so I'd agree on this point! ;) http://jam.bbc.co.uk/ - Your computer settings do not match what you need to use this site. Thanks, that's very helpful. Far more important than iPlayer is the fact I'm totally subsidising all those freeloading radio listeners and BBC News website readers who don't have TVs. Bring back the radio licence! ;-) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal point of view. I can't receive digital TV, so I'd like a refund on money spent to make BBC3 and BBC4. Oh, and I can't read welsh so could TV Licencing please send me a cheque for the money spend on http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/ Didn't some people say exactly that when digital TV first started? Didn't there used to be a Black White TV licence? If so, there is precedent for a lower fee for those with less capable equipment. Also, wouldn't the Welsh content be paid for by Welsh viewers (or is the amount of Welsh language content disproportionate to the number of native Welsh speakers). More importantly, if the BBC had chosen to not use the DVB standard but some proprietary technology only available from single manufacturer (that was already a convicted monopolist), would there have been even more discontent about digital TV? Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. This is just my personal opinion, and not that of my employer. Are you a BT customer? If so, you could try to demand a refund of the part of your line rental that goes towards providing phone boxes for those people that don't own a mobile, or towards provision of telephone services in rural areas for those that don't live in a city. Pay council tax? Why not ask for a refund for provision of social services to those people that require social services. Pay income tax? All those people that don't have jobs or need medical care or use any of the thousands of public services that you don't. You could cut your payments down to only those services you use. If you're actually interested in protesting in a productive manner, you could join the public consultation and raise the issue of platform independence: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/open_consultations/ondemand_services.html .
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. says a guy who is using the excellent ( in fact with Google Docs, above- and beyond- excellent) FREE, gmail service. pay for your email service, you fucking tightwad, and you might have a vaguely moral place from which to make your tiny cock point. Jim Gardner is a nitpicking troll. I always read his posts in a Terry Wogan reading outraged-from-Picky-on-Twee on Points of View voice. Mr Forrester, do the decent thing and ban him from this list, it discolours the whole lovely mood of the place. On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
I would like to I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding of Seb Potter's employment - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. ;-) Seb Potter wrote: On 27/02/07, *Jim Gardner* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. This is just my personal opinion, and not that of my employer. Are you a BT customer? If so, you could try to demand a refund of the part of your line rental that goes towards providing phone boxes for those people that don't own a mobile, or towards provision of telephone services in rural areas for those that don't live in a city. Pay council tax? Why not ask for a refund for provision of social services to those people that require social services. Pay income tax? All those people that don't have jobs or need medical care or use any of the thousands of public services that you don't. You could cut your payments down to only those services you use. If you're actually interested in protesting in a productive manner, you could join the public consultation and raise the issue of platform independence: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/open_consultations/ondemand_services.html.
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Hi Which is like paying income tax for Health Service and then having to pay for prescriptions? ... Can someone suggest a way of how you could efficiently and effectively collect payment (s) that reflects all individuals use of BBC services and programmes? Annual packages or subscription based on likes and dislikes/hours viewed or listened/bbc web pages viewed/services accessed/content downloaded/free concerts attended/freephone helpline numbers dialed/... Ken -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scot McSweeney-Roberts Sent: 27 February 2007 13:20 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? Seb Potter wrote: Are you a BT customer? If so, you could try to demand a refund of the part of your line rental that goes towards providing phone boxes for those people that don't own a mobile, or towards provision of telephone services in rural areas for those that don't live in a city. Or you could switch to a different (cheaper) telephone company - people are somewhat stuck with the BBC. Pay council tax? Why not ask for a refund for provision of social services to those people that require social services. Pay income tax? All those people that don't have jobs or need medical care or use any of the thousands of public services that you don't. You could cut your payments down to only those services you use. But with the iPlayer, a person has to first pay the tax (ie, licence fee) and then they have to pay a single provider to actually use the service. So it's like paying for the NHS and then being forced to pay BUPA (and only BUPA and not, say, Norwich Union) to actually get a particular treatment. Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
The cost of the BBC's On Demand proposals (including the iPlayer) are in the public domain anyway as part of our (BBC's) submission to the BBC Trust and the the resulting Public Value Assessment document. Its worth a look. In section 8 The proposals will cost the BBC an additional £131m over the five-year period 2006/7- 2011/12. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/pvt_iplayer/ondemandpva.pdf http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/pvt_iplayer/ondemandpva.pdf thanks Jem From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Aberdeen Sent: 27 February 2007 13:41 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? I would like to I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding of Seb Potter's employment - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. ;-) Seb Potter wrote: On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. This is just my personal opinion, and not that of my employer. Are you a BT customer? If so, you could try to demand a refund of the part of your line rental that goes towards providing phone boxes for those people that don't own a mobile, or towards provision of telephone services in rural areas for those that don't live in a city. Pay council tax? Why not ask for a refund for provision of social services to those people that require social services. Pay income tax? All those people that don't have jobs or need medical care or use any of the thousands of public services that you don't. You could cut your payments down to only those services you use. If you're actually interested in protesting in a productive manner, you could join the public consultation and raise the issue of platform independence: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/open_consultations/ondemand_services.html.
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Dear all Can I remind everyone that this is a public mailing list that is archived and searchable. Please keep civil to everyone. Yes even the ones that that harp on about DRM noon and night ;) Thanks Jem -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Gardner Sent: 27 February 2007 13:52 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? It would appear from this and other mails I've received that I have the same name as someone who has a track record for trolling. I can assure everyone on the list that this is the first thread this James Gardner has started or replied to on the backstage mailing list, and given the less than wide vocabulary of some, it will be the last. Well done everyone. On 27 Feb 2007, at 13:26, James Ockenden wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. says a guy who is using the excellent ( in fact with Google Docs, above- and beyond- excellent) FREE, gmail service. pay for your email service, you fucking tightwad, and you might have a vaguely moral place from which to make your tiny cock point. Jim Gardner is a nitpicking troll. I always read his posts in a Terry Wogan reading outraged-from-Picky-on-Twee on Points of View voice. Mr Forrester, do the decent thing and ban him from this list, it discolours the whole lovely mood of the place. On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/ 2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http:// www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Kenneth Burrell-CAPITA wrote: Hi Which is like paying income tax for Health Service and then having to pay for prescriptions? ... I can choose to go to Boots, or Tesco or one of any number of small chemists to get the prescription. I'm not forced into going to a single chemist, which may be inconvenient or costly to go to (or that I just don't like, for whatever reason). And, unlike the licence fee, people on low incomes don't have to pay prescription charges no matter where they go. Can someone suggest a way of how you could efficiently and effectively collect payment (s) that reflects all individuals use of BBC services and programmes? Annual packages or subscription based on likes and dislikes/hours viewed or listened/bbc web pages viewed/services accessed/content downloaded/free concerts attended/freephone helpline numbers dialed/... You could extend the mechanisms used by adverterisers to gather ratings, so that every household with a TV Licence gets one of those boxes they use to monitor what people are watching/listening to combined with a password to use the BBC website and linking it together with every licence fee payers phone number so you know who dialed what freephone number (though the privacy issues around such an idea are immense, and I somehow doubt that it would qualify as efficient). You then use that with charging model that uses per use pricing (like, 10p for an hour of TV, 1p per kilobyte of data from the website). Alternatively you could encrypt everything, and people could pay for packages (like on Sky) - so you could just get news documentaries and childrens, while leaving out the sport. I don't think you could do it at level of the individual (except for people who live on their own), only for households, which is what the licence fee is currently targeted at any way. But then, both of those methods still leave the question - how do you pay for the unpopular, but worthy, programming? If you are going to go to a model where people only pay for what they like, then you're really talking about commercial television. Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
It would appear from this and other mails I've received that I have the same name as someone who has a track record for trolling. I can assure everyone on the list that this is the first thread this James Gardner has started or replied to on the backstage mailing list, and given the less than wide vocabulary of some, it will be the last. Well done everyone. On 27 Feb 2007, at 13:26, James Ockenden wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. says a guy who is using the excellent ( in fact with Google Docs, above- and beyond- excellent) FREE, gmail service. pay for your email service, you fucking tightwad, and you might have a vaguely moral place from which to make your tiny cock point. Jim Gardner is a nitpicking troll. I always read his posts in a Terry Wogan reading outraged-from-Picky-on-Twee on Points of View voice. Mr Forrester, do the decent thing and ban him from this list, it discolours the whole lovely mood of the place. On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/ 2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http:// www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
But then, both of those methods still leave the question - how do you pay for the unpopular, but worthy, programming? PPV - you split the programme budget between the expected number of viewers. As such, EastEnders being a programme with many viewers, would cost less than a documentary on BBC Four. My theory with that approach is that everyone would probably end up paying pretty much the same as they do now anyway ;) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Thanks for a straight answer at last, it's appreciated. I'm sure Microsoft are desperately pleased with themselves for earning what ever percentage of that £131 million is theirs. You have to hand it to them, they certainly know how to charge people more money for less functionality. Shame on you BBC. On 27 Feb 2007, at 13:54, Jeremy Stone wrote: The cost of the BBC's On Demand proposals (including the iPlayer) are in the public domain anyway as part of our (BBC's) submission to the BBC Trust and the the resulting Public Value Assessment document. Its worth a look. In section 8 The proposals will cost the BBC an additional £131m over the five- year period 2006/7– 2011/12. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/ review_report_research/pvt_iplayer/ondemandpva.pdf thanks Jem From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Aberdeen Sent: 27 February 2007 13:41 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? I would like to I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding of Seb Potter's employment - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. ;-) Seb Potter wrote: On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. This is just my personal opinion, and not that of my employer. Are you a BT customer? If so, you could try to demand a refund of the part of your line rental that goes towards providing phone boxes for those people that don't own a mobile, or towards provision of telephone services in rural areas for those that don't live in a city. Pay council tax? Why not ask for a refund for provision of social services to those people that require social services. Pay income tax? All those people that don't have jobs or need medical care or use any of the thousands of public services that you don't. You could cut your payments down to only those services you use. If you're actually interested in protesting in a productive manner, you could join the public consultation and raise the issue of platform independence: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/ open_consultations/ondemand_services.html.
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Yes even the ones that that harp on about DRM noon and night ;) Actually the DRM discussions in recent weeks have been incredibly stimulating and provocative and much appreciated inside BBC towers and I hope for other subscribers. (I always knew I shouldn't try and make weak jokes on mailing lists ;) Jem - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Being fairly new to the list I can only imagine that this DRM thing has dragged on a bit for some of the older members, but I would remind everyone that it's pretty much universally agreed that this is the biggest mistake the BBC have ever made - so it's not like it isn't worth discussing at length. Since you seem to have shown up here with the matter resolved along with the rest of your 'universe', I'd say that shows there's absolutely no value in re-hashing the same discussions over again. How about this for an idea- go read the list archives, and if there's anything new to say that hasn't already been said ad nauseam, come back and say it. While you're doing that, the rest of us can get on with using this list for what it was put here for. In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't the 'Bash the BBC' list. Peter (who has no connection with any broadcast organisation, but lots of interest in backstage) -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 27/02/07, John Drinkwater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I got similar comments from someone else off-list related to comments i've made here and on the BBC editors site. I'm sorry to hear that - I've been quite vocal about my non-mainstream opinions, and never received such comments. -- 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
George Wright wrote: On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 18:09 +, Jim Gardner wrote: I'm sure Microsoft are desperately pleased with themselves for earning what ever percentage of that £131 million is theirs Programme ingest, programme creation, programme/contributor rights, content distribution, application development, infrastructure, promotion, QA, deployment, salaries... None of these things involve Microsoft or DRM. Programme ingest, content distribution and infrastructure may be based on Microsoft technologies - so MS would be getting some money from server licences. I suppose you could do most of it with Macs or Linux, but there's probably at least one Windows server somewhere doing the transcoding. Maybe you could use hardware encoders instead, but MS would still be getting some licensing money from those. I would also assume they'd get something from the application development with Visual Studio and/or MSDN licences. It would be interesting to hear how the backend of iPlayer is actually being done. Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
I never did understand keyboard heros. The fact is, if we where talking face to face in the pub, you wouldn't dream of being so obnoxious just because you think I'm wrong. Just because you can't counter my argument with anything doesn't give you the right to resort to the fail-safe, I've been here longer than you and every likes me more; playground mentality. I stopped joining lists to argue with people like you years ago. You, sir, are the kind of person who ruined UseNet. If I'm rehashing already aired opinions then I apologies, but I can't understand how anyone could take the time to go out of their way just to be nasty to someone when it's far more helpful to simply stay quiet. Get a job you like. If anyone else has a compelling reason in favor of paying twice for something that doesn't work properly and they can string a sentence together with which to convince me I'm wrong, I'm all ears. Otherwise I think we'll put joining this list down to experience and move on. On 27 Feb 2007, at 18:41, Peter Bowyer wrote: On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Being fairly new to the list I can only imagine that this DRM thing has dragged on a bit for some of the older members, but I would remind everyone that it's pretty much universally agreed that this is the biggest mistake the BBC have ever made - so it's not like it isn't worth discussing at length. Since you seem to have shown up here with the matter resolved along with the rest of your 'universe', I'd say that shows there's absolutely no value in re-hashing the same discussions over again. How about this for an idea- go read the list archives, and if there's anything new to say that hasn't already been said ad nauseam, come back and say it. While you're doing that, the rest of us can get on with using this list for what it was put here for. In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't the 'Bash the BBC' list. Peter (who has no connection with any broadcast organisation, but lots of interest in backstage) -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
I would've hoped that the BBC listserver either washes those kind of emails or returns them to sender. -Original Message- From: Jim Gardner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 February 2007 19:20 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? I'm not exactly over-the-moon about the idea that everyone's private email address is visible. What are people still using Windows supposed to do if someone decides to attach a worm? On 27 Feb 2007, at 18:13, John Drinkwater wrote: On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He privately mailed me and used words I won't repeat for fear they trigger the spam filter. Is he sub-normal or is that the crack on this list? If so I'm not interested in continuing with it. I got similar comments from someone else off-list related to comments i've made here and on the BBC editors site. The list certainly attracts people of various opinions, but he's certainly sub-normal. :-) On 27 Feb 2007, at 14:44, Dave Crossland wrote: The list's House Rules are simple: Be Nice To Each Other and Don't Break The Law. If you are rude or spam the list then you'll be taken off. - http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html Will this policy be acted upon? -- Regards, Dave - -- John '[Beta]' Drinkwater http://johndrinkwater.name/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Hi David - we're looking into this issue - we'll let you know what we're going to do :-) m -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dave Crossland Sent: Tue 27/02/2007 14:44 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk; Matthew Cashmore; Ian Forrester Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? On 27/02/07, James Ockenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: pay for your email service, you fucking tightwad, and you might have a vaguely moral place from which to make your tiny cock point. The list's House Rules are simple: Be Nice To Each Other and Don't Break The Law. If you are rude or spam the list then you'll be taken off. - http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html Will this policy be acted upon? -- Regards, Dave http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Hi welcome to the list Jim, Can I suggest you lurk a little more before posting more. It tends to be bad form to complain at such a early stage :) Cheers, Ian Forrester Jim Gardner wrote: I'm not exactly over-the-moon about the idea that everyone's private email address is visible. What are people still using Windows supposed to do if someone decides to attach a worm? On 27 Feb 2007, at 18:13, John Drinkwater wrote: On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He privately mailed me and used words I won't repeat for fear they trigger the spam filter. Is he sub-normal or is that the crack on this list? If so I'm not interested in continuing with it. I got similar comments from someone else off-list related to comments i've made here and on the BBC editors site. The list certainly attracts people of various opinions, but he's certainly sub-normal. :-) On 27 Feb 2007, at 14:44, Dave Crossland wrote: The list's House Rules are simple: Be Nice To Each Other and Don't Break The Law. If you are rude or spam the list then you'll be taken off. - http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html Will this policy be acted upon? -- Regards, Dave - --John '[Beta]' Drinkwater http://johndrinkwater.name/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
