subject:"Re\: \[backstage\] www.FreeTheBBC.info"


On 19/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

vijay chopra wrote:
 On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I totally agree, however seeing as I have no intention of breaking the
 spirit of the law (I may be breaching a technicality) I have no qualms
 in using any software to break copy protection to make personal backups,
 and supply it to others if requested. I regularly get told by friends
 and family my computer won't let me copy this DVD my reply is either
 to do it for them, or give them a CD with the appropriate tools on it.
 I doubt that the BPI is likely to come after me as a pirate (Argghh!) as
 I only back up for personal use, and only use file sharing services in
 legal ways. The only thing I have downloaded unlawfully is an out of
 print RPG book, that I would be happy to pay for, if only I could find
 someone selling it!

Interesting business model called The long tail in Wired a while back.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail_pr.html


http://www.useit.com/alertbox/zipf.html



 The flipside to that is when does it become a normal number again? I
 translated the ACSS decryption key back into base10 if I were then to
 perform various other mathematical functions on it would it stop being
 the ACSS key? What if I needed that number for another purpose? I'm not
 saying that posting an entire DVD in hex is OK, just asking questions.

Like I said, context.
You posted that number and even quoted the words ACSS decryption code.



Problems with laws arise when you start enforcing them rigidly :)

Technology has no common sense. It's a bit like speeding. Technically doing
31mph in a 30 zone is illegal. No policeman would ever stop you (just) for that.

DRM, being technological, cannot turn a blind eye to the law. The law is
supposed to be a bit fuzzy.

David
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/




--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-19 Thread David Woodhouse

On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 12:50 +0100, David Greaves wrote:
 DRM, being technological, cannot turn a blind eye to the law. The law
 is supposed to be a bit fuzzy.

DRM doesn't even cope with the clear-cut cases without screwing the
consumer over, let alone the 'fuzz'. 

My partner is a high school teacher, and is therefore covered by the ERA
licensing scheme¹ -- effectively she's allowed to record BBC (and other)
content and use it for educational purposes without many restrictions at
all. 

From DVB this is nice and easy -- I stream MPEG to a file and she can do
what she likes with it. (Well, I then do what she tells me she'd like.)

Does the misguided iPlayer DRM scheme allow this? I'm not on the trial
(perhaps my Linux/PowerPC hosts weren't considered suitable?) but I
strongly suspect not.

-- 
dwmw2

¹ http://www.era.org.uk/about_era.html

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-19 Thread Ian Betteridge


On 19/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




From DVB this is nice and easy -- I stream MPEG to a file and she can do
what she likes with it. (Well, I then do what she tells me she'd like.)



Actually, she can't do what she likes with it: she can do what the law
allows her to do with it. This is an important point, and shouldn't be
ignored in the debate.

Does the misguided iPlayer DRM scheme allow this?


Why should it? It is not removing her ability to record the programme: she
simply has to use the DVB stream to do it.

What you're doing is the equivalent of someone getting into an automatic car
and complaining because it's removed your right the change gears. Just go
buy a with with gear shift, and stop complaining.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


David,

The files transferred using iPlayer are just .AVI wrappers of MPEG-4 type
content.   The DRM is inside the AVI wrapper, outside of the MPEG-4.


On 19/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 12:50 +0100, David Greaves wrote:
 DRM, being technological, cannot turn a blind eye to the law. The law
 is supposed to be a bit fuzzy.

DRM doesn't even cope with the clear-cut cases without screwing the
consumer over, let alone the 'fuzz'.

My partner is a high school teacher, and is therefore covered by the ERA
licensing scheme¹ -- effectively she's allowed to record BBC (and other)
content and use it for educational purposes without many restrictions at
all.

From DVB this is nice and easy -- I stream MPEG to a file and she can do
what she likes with it. (Well, I then do what she tells me she'd like.)

Does the misguided iPlayer DRM scheme allow this? I'm not on the trial
(perhaps my Linux/PowerPC hosts weren't considered suitable?) but I
strongly suspect not.

--
dwmw2

¹ http://www.era.org.uk/about_era.html

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/





--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-19 Thread Richard McMillan


I think the point is that the DRM screws with what people might *expect* to
be able to do with content in certain circumstances. ie I can record it with
my PVR - why not with my computer/iplayer combo?

Richard

On 19/06/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On 19/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 From DVB this is nice and easy -- I stream MPEG to a file and she can do
 what she likes with it. (Well, I then do what she tells me she'd like.)


Actually, she can't do what she likes with it: she can do what the law
allows her to do with it. This is an important point, and shouldn't be
ignored in the debate.

Does the misguided iPlayer DRM scheme allow this?


Why should it? It is not removing her ability to record the programme: she
simply has to use the DVB stream to do it.

What you're doing is the equivalent of someone getting into an automatic
car and complaining because it's removed your right the change gears. Just
go buy a with with gear shift, and stop complaining.







--

Richard B. McMillan

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-19 Thread Ian Betteridge


On 19/06/07, Richard McMillan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I think the point is that the DRM screws with what people might *expect*
to be able to do with content in certain circumstances. ie I can record it
with my PVR - why not with my computer/iplayer combo?



Which means that all this talk of how iPlayer screws with your rights is
simply bunk. It doesn't do what you'd expect it to do? Big deal - use
another option for doing the same thing. It's not like anyone has taken away
those other options. The introduction of iPlayer, as far as I'm aware, won't
make your PVR blow up.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info mailing list offer

2007-06-19 Thread Ian Betteridge


Assuming you mean me, replying to other's comments is hardly hijacking.

On 19/06/07, Nic James Ferrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I'd be happy to setup a mailing list for discussion about this.

It does seem a little unfair to Ian to habitually hijack his list for
dicussion of rights issues. It it supposed to be a techie list after
all.


If the owners want to contact me I'll gladly set them up on a list on
my list server.

--
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info mailing list offer

2007-06-19 Thread Nic James Ferrier

Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Assuming you mean me, replying to other's comments is hardly
 hijacking.

I don't mean you (unless you are the owner of www.FreeTheBBC.info).

I don't mean to be rude either.


I simply mean that the discussions about how the BBC should be run are
really important and not off-topic for this list... but other things
are on-topic as well so maybe it would be better to move the
discussion elsewhere.


-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info mailing list offer

2007-06-19 Thread Gary Kirk


You mean Ian Forrester?

On 19/06/07, Nic James Ferrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Assuming you mean me, replying to other's comments is hardly
 hijacking.

I don't mean you (unless you are the owner of www.FreeTheBBC.info).

I don't mean to be rude either.


I simply mean that the discussions about how the BBC should be run are
really important and not off-topic for this list... but other things
are on-topic as well so maybe it would be better to move the
discussion elsewhere.


--
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/




--
Gary 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info mailing list offer

2007-06-19 Thread Nic James Ferrier

Gary Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 You mean Ian Forrester?

I meant that backstage is Ian Forrester's list, yes. He runs it.

I'm not trying to say anything other than there's a lot of talk about
this and maybe it's time it had a separate discussion place and I'm
willing to spend my money hosting it.


-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info mailing list offer

2007-06-19 Thread Richard P Edwards

I'd be happy to contribute, and discuss, more about DRM in another  
place, if you like.

RichE

On 19 Jun 2007, at 17:04, Nic James Ferrier wrote:


Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Assuming you mean me, replying to other's comments is hardly
hijacking.


I don't mean you (unless you are the owner of www.FreeTheBBC.info).

I don't mean to be rude either.


I simply mean that the discussions about how the BBC should be run are
really important and not off-topic for this list... but other things
are on-topic as well so maybe it would be better to move the
discussion elsewhere.


--
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,  
please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ 
mailing_list.html.  Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- 
archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-19 Thread vijay chopra


On 19/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


vijay chopra wrote:
 On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I totally agree, however seeing as I have no intention of breaking the
 spirit of the law (I may be breaching a technicality) I have no qualms
 in using any software to break copy protection to make personal backups,
 and supply it to others if requested. I regularly get told by friends
 and family my computer won't let me copy this DVD my reply is either
 to do it for them, or give them a CD with the appropriate tools on it.
 I doubt that the BPI is likely to come after me as a pirate (Argghh!) as
 I only back up for personal use, and only use file sharing services in
 legal ways. The only thing I have downloaded unlawfully is an out of
 print RPG book, that I would be happy to pay for, if only I could find
 someone selling it!

Interesting business model called The long tail in Wired a while back.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail_pr.html



If the book is ever republished (or if I see it second hand etc.), I'll buy
it, however  it's unusual for companies  who write RPGs to republish old
editions; they like being able to charge their player base over and over,
so  keep changing the rules.


Like I said, context.
You posted that number and even quoted the words ACSS decryption code.


you kind of missed my point,  after changing the base I could have doubled
it, would it still be the ACSS key (whether I wrote the ACSS key doubled
or not)?

Is it the ACSS key if I write:
the ACSS volume key is: 1.3 x 10^37 as this is true, but gives nowhere
near enough information for it to be useful in decoding anything.

Oh, and the law isn't meant to be fuzzy, it's meant to be clear; enforcement
of the law is meant too be fuzzy. To use your metaphor, in law the speed
limit is exactly 30mph, not around 30mph. And as such I' seeking clarity
on exactly what's legal, and what's not regarding the copyright of numbers.

Vijay

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-19 Thread Michael Sparks

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 19:31, vijay chopra wrote:
 And as such I' seeking clarity
 on exactly what's legal, and what's not regarding the copyright of numbers.

You need to speak to a lawyer then.

And for what its worth, I believe the issue is not related to copyright -
I've not really looked into it so can't say what it is, but as I recall
it doesn't relate to copyright. If I recall its an area of law more open
to interpretation by a judge, so a lawyer may only be able to give you
a piece of well educated legal advice rather than a definite answer.

If its in a grey area of law, then it'd be waiting for someone to be sued in 
order to define the borders clearer.

But if you want something exact with the law, you best speak to someone
who can give legal advice. Backstage is intended, I thought, to be a
list for technical discussion of stuff from the BBC you can use for
building things. (ie stuff you can take and build things with, rather
than things you can't) It's not really the place (IMO) to ask for legal 
advice.


Michael.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-19 Thread Andy Leighton

On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 07:31:03PM +0100, vijay chopra wrote:
 On 19/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 vijay chopra wrote:
  On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  legal ways. The only thing I have downloaded unlawfully is an out of
  print RPG book, that I would be happy to pay for, if only I could find
  someone selling it!
 
 
 If the book is ever republished (or if I see it second hand etc.), I'll buy
 it, however  it's unusual for companies  who write RPGs to republish old
 editions; they like being able to charge their player base over and over,
 so  keep changing the rules.

What RPG is it for?  What book?  A lot of the old stuff is being republished 
as PDFs.

-- 
Andy Leighton = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials 
   - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info mailing list offer


I can do [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a mailing list... it's there in 30 minutes if
people wish to use it.

On 19/06/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I'd be happy to contribute, and discuss, more about DRM in another
place, if you like.
RichE

On 19 Jun 2007, at 17:04, Nic James Ferrier wrote:

 Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Assuming you mean me, replying to other's comments is hardly
 hijacking.

 I don't mean you (unless you are the owner of www.FreeTheBBC.info).

 I don't mean to be rude either.


 I simply mean that the discussions about how the BBC should be run are
 really important and not off-topic for this list... but other things
 are on-topic as well so maybe it would be better to move the
 discussion elsewhere.


 --
 Nic Ferrier
 http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk
 -
 Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
 please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/
 mailing_list.html.  Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-
 archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/





--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


Sorry, I'm a bit oldscool and still think of my wrappers being AVIs - being
a bit Visual Basic 3!  I meant WMV.

As the iPlayer downloads the complete file before playback, there is no
requirement to stream.

Conceptually you have a file wrapped up like this:

({ [audio]+[video] ] VCodec }  DRM  WMV )

The VCodec the BBC use is WMV9, I was presuming it was the WM9  MPEG-4 based
codec because of the quality and bitrate, I havn't got a file to hand to
check however...


On 19/06/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Eh? The iPlayer content is WMV format, WMA 9.1 and WMV9 with the MS DRM
implementation. I always thought because WMV files are ASF-based, and
streamable, they were discrete audio and video streams within the WMV
wrapper?

 --
*From:* Brian Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* 19 June 2007 15:43
*To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
*Subject:* Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.infohttp://www.freethebbc.info/


 David,

The files transferred using iPlayer are just .AVI wrappers of MPEG-4 type
content.   The DRM is inside the AVI wrapper, outside of the MPEG-4.


On 19/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 12:50 +0100, David Greaves wrote:
  DRM, being technological, cannot turn a blind eye to the law. The law
  is supposed to be a bit fuzzy.

 DRM doesn't even cope with the clear-cut cases without screwing the
 consumer over, let alone the 'fuzz'.

 My partner is a high school teacher, and is therefore covered by the ERA

 licensing scheme¹ -- effectively she's allowed to record BBC (and other)
 content and use it for educational purposes without many restrictions at
 all.

 From DVB this is nice and easy -- I stream MPEG to a file and she can do

 what she likes with it. (Well, I then do what she tells me she'd like.)

 Does the misguided iPlayer DRM scheme allow this? I'm not on the trial
 (perhaps my Linux/PowerPC hosts weren't considered suitable?) but I
 strongly suspect not.

 --
 dwmw2

 ¹ http://www.era.org.uk/about_era.html

 -
 Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
 please visit
 http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
 list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/




--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv





--
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-19 Thread Dave Crossland


On 19/06/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Backstage is intended, I thought, to be a
list for technical discussion of stuff from the BBC you can use for
building things. (ie stuff you can take and build things with, rather
than things you can't) It's not really the place (IMO) to ask for legal
advice.


When the list was announced its stated purpose was general discussion.
Perhaps its worth setting up backstage-devel and backstage-general if
the traffic is very high, but any large activity seems confined to a
few easily-managed threads.

--
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] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-19 Thread Christopher Woods

Whereas I had the advantage there, because all I had to do was dive into
C:\iPlayer Content ;)
 
nowt wrong with oldskool! :D


  _  

From: Brian Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 19 June 2007 22:18
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


Sorry, I'm a bit oldscool and still think of my wrappers being AVIs - being
a bit Visual Basic 3!  I meant WMV.
 
As the iPlayer downloads the complete file before playback, there is no
requirement to stream.  
 
Conceptually you have a file wrapped up like this:
 
 ({ [audio]+[video] ] VCodec }  DRM  WMV ) 
 
The VCodec the BBC use is WMV9, I was presuming it was the WM9  MPEG-4 based
codec because of the quality and bitrate, I havn't got a file to hand to
check however...

 
On 19/06/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

Eh? The iPlayer content is WMV format, WMA 9.1 and WMV9 with the MS DRM
implementation. I always thought because WMV files are ASF-based, and
streamable, they were discrete audio and video streams within the WMV
wrapper? 


  _  

From: Brian Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 19 June 2007 15:43
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info http://www.freethebbc.info/ 

 

David,
 
The files transferred using iPlayer are just .AVI wrappers of MPEG-4 type
content.   The DRM is inside the AVI wrapper, outside of the MPEG-4.  

 
On 19/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote: 

On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 12:50 +0100, David Greaves wrote:
 DRM, being technological, cannot turn a blind eye to the law. The law 
 is supposed to be a bit fuzzy.

DRM doesn't even cope with the clear-cut cases without screwing the
consumer over, let alone the 'fuzz'.

My partner is a high school teacher, and is therefore covered by the ERA 
licensing scheme¹ -- effectively she's allowed to record BBC (and other)
content and use it for educational purposes without many restrictions at
all.

From DVB this is nice and easy -- I stream MPEG to a file and she can do 
what she likes with it. (Well, I then do what she tells me she'd like.)

Does the misguided iPlayer DRM scheme allow this? I'm not on the trial
(perhaps my Linux/PowerPC hosts weren't considered suitable?) but I 
strongly suspect not.

--
dwmw2

¹ http://www.era.org.uk/about_era.html

- 
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk  http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/ discussion
group.  To unsubscribe, please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/





-- 
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv  http://www.ukfree.tv/ 




-- 
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-18 Thread vijay chopra


AFAIK bypassing DRM or other copy protection is perfectly legal in the UK
and most of Europe; afterall, in itself it's not a breech of copyright.

Thankfully we don't have an equivilent of the American DCMA so the media
centre hackers have nothing to fear.

(Disclaimer: IANAL)

Vijay.


On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:28 +0100, Christopher Woods wrote:
 Nah, because the technology-friendly minority of the world's population
will
 figure out both how to crack the DRM, and how to produce one-click tools
 which strip the DRM from crap-ridden files they've downloaded.

 The world rejoices!

Except they don't, because although the _criminals_ get an easy ride,
the honest hackers who'd like to work on media centres and other tools
and programs to deal with this content are scared away by the fact that
we had to crack the DRM to get at it.

--
dwmw2

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-18 Thread Tim Cowlishaw


I'm also NAL, (and have a terrible memory for these things),but doesn't the
EU Copyright Directive include some sort of anti-circumvention language a la
DMCA?

Cheers,

Tim

On 6/18/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


AFAIK bypassing DRM or other copy protection is perfectly legal in the UK
and most of Europe; afterall, in itself it's not a breech of copyright.

Thankfully we don't have an equivilent of the American DCMA so the media
centre hackers have nothing to fear.

(Disclaimer: IANAL)

Vijay.


On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:28 +0100, Christopher Woods wrote:
  Nah, because the technology-friendly minority of the world's
 population will
  figure out both how to crack the DRM, and how to produce one-click
 tools
  which strip the DRM from crap-ridden files they've downloaded.
 
  The world rejoices!

 Except they don't, because although the _criminals_ get an easy ride,
 the honest hackers who'd like to work on media centres and other tools
 and programs to deal with this content are scared away by the fact that
 we had to crack the DRM to get at it.

 --
 dwmw2

 -
 Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
 please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html
 .  Unofficial list archive:
 http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-18 Thread vijay chopra


You might well be right there, if so it would be unfortunate. However IIRC
not long ago the BPI (the UKs equivilant to the RIAA) promised that it
wouldn'd sue home users making copies for personal use and backup. So even
so home users can be more relaxed than in the USA (at least when it comes to
music).

Vijay.


On 18/06/07, Tim Cowlishaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I'm also NAL, (and have a terrible memory for these things),but doesn't
the EU Copyright Directive include some sort of anti-circumvention language
a la DMCA?

Cheers,

Tim

On 6/18/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 AFAIK bypassing DRM or other copy protection is perfectly legal in the
 UK and most of Europe; afterall, in itself it's not a breech of copyright.

 Thankfully we don't have an equivilent of the American DCMA so the media
 centre hackers have nothing to fear.

 (Disclaimer: IANAL)

 Vijay.


  On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote:
 
  On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:28 +0100, Christopher Woods wrote:
   Nah, because the technology-friendly minority of the world's
  population will
   figure out both how to crack the DRM, and how to produce one-click
  tools
   which strip the DRM from crap-ridden files they've downloaded.
  
   The world rejoices!
 
  Except they don't, because although the _criminals_ get an easy ride,
  the honest hackers who'd like to work on media centres and other tools
  and programs to deal with this content are scared away by the fact
  that
  we had to crack the DRM to get at it.
 
  --
  dwmw2
 
  -
  Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
  please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html
  .  Unofficial list archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-18 Thread Dave Crossland


On 18/06/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Thankfully we don't have an equivilent of the American DCMA so the media
centre hackers have nothing to fear.


Sadly we do: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Copyright_Directive#Technological_measures

--
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] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-18 Thread David Woodhouse

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 09:59 +0100, vijay chopra wrote:
 You might well be right there, if so it would be unfortunate. However IIRC
 not long ago the BPI (the UKs equivilant to the RIAA) promised that it
 wouldn'd sue home users making copies for personal use and backup. So even
 so home users can be more relaxed than in the USA (at least when it comes to
 music). 

Will you host the WMV10-reader code on your web server then, alongside
CSS and ACSS decryption code? :)

-- 
dwmw2

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-18 Thread Andy


On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Will you host the WMV10-reader code on your web server then, alongside
CSS and ACSS decryption code? :)


Are you aware of the judgment of a Finish court on the matter of DVD CSS?

It basically stated the DVD CSS was not an effective technological
measure and as such wasn't protected.

Translation of the ruling is available here:
http://www.turre.com/css_helsinki_district_court.pdf (PDF)

The question is now are WMV10 and AACS effective or not?

Of course I Am Not A Lawyer, the outcome of any legal case is based
partial on luck. Law's are not written to be exact and interpretations
of key words and phrases may vary.


@Richard
Liking the SQL there :D


--
Computers are like air conditioners.  Both stop working, if you open windows.
   -- Adam Heath
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-18 Thread Christopher Woods

 I believe that it's up to individual member states to implement the EUCD as
they see fit (and there is a great deal of leeway in how countries interpret
the copyright laws accordingly, take Sweden for example!)

 -Original Message-
 From: Dave Crossland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: 18 June 2007 13:31
 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
 Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
 
 On 18/06/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Thankfully we don't have an equivilent of the American DCMA so the 
  media centre hackers have nothing to fear.
 
 Sadly we do: 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Copyright_Directive#Tech
 nological_measures
 
 --
 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-18 Thread David Greaves


Sean Dillon wrote:

vijay chopra wrote:
Besides, if there are meeja prima donnas and wannabe luvvies (on this 
list or otherwise) that believe that DRM is a long term, workable 
solution to this problem, then I couldn't care less if they get 
their egos bruised a little, and don't see why anyone else should care 
either.


With the utmost respect there are a couple of techie prima donnas here 
as well who could do with being dragged into the real world of 
commercial media production and distribution.


With even more respect than anyone has shown anywhere ever
(phew)

The 'real world' for commercial people is usually this quarter's profit.
The 'real world' for techies doesn't even have money, never mind profit.


Getting them to play together is hard - the problem is that the commercial 
people control the money and therefore control the balance of power. They 
*think* that controlling the balance of power makes them right. They are wrong.


I'm seeing a shift in some businesses to allowing the CTO to control technical 
funding - driven by business requirements - not business 'proposals'.


David - who has been privileged enough to be a commercial product manager and a 
technical architect :)


PS I have no idea about 'the real world' for marketing luvvies - thank goodness!
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-18 Thread vijay chopra


On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


ACSS decryption code? :)



You mean 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640 ?
In english that's; thirteen undecillion, two hundred fifty six decillion,
two hundred seventy eight nonillion, eight hundred eighty seven octillion,
nine hundred eighty nine septillion, four hundred fifty seven sexillion, six
hundred fifty one quintillion, eighteen quadrillion, eight hundred sixty
five trillion, nine hundred one billion, four hundred one million, seven
hundred four thousand, six hundred forty.

Sure I will, you can't copyright a number, and I'd like to see anyone try
and sue me for posing one.

Vijay.

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-18 Thread Christopher Woods

There's already been discussion of this on forae such as Ars Technica (and
its ilk) where they discuss the legal ramifications of a developed,
researched combination of numbers which achieves a particular purpose or
function (as opposed to the same group of numbers which just happened to be
randomly arranged and ended up in the same configuration, and serve no
purpose other than to look pretty).
 
I think law courts may have a hard time seeing your way of thinking on this,
depending on how the case is presented - and whether you can get the EFF to
present your defence! (Even though I agree with you.)


  _  

From: vijay chopra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 18 June 2007 18:42
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info




On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

ACSS decryption code? :)


You mean 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640 ?
In english that's; thirteen undecillion, two hundred fifty six decillion,
two hundred seventy eight nonillion, eight hundred eighty seven octillion,
nine hundred eighty nine septillion, four hundred fifty seven sexillion, six
hundred fifty one quintillion, eighteen quadrillion, eight hundred sixty
five trillion, nine hundred one billion, four hundred one million, seven
hundred four thousand, six hundred forty.  


Sure I will, you can't copyright a number, and I'd like to see anyone try
and sue me for posing one.

Vijay.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-18 Thread David Woodhouse

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 18:41 +0100, vijay chopra wrote:
 On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 ACSS decryption code? :)
 
 You mean 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640 ?

No, that's just a decryption key. I meant the whole of the software
package which decodes ACSS. Like libdvdcss does for CSS.

It's the CSS situation which highlights just how silly the situation
with DRM is -- the criminals are almost entirely unaffected, and the
only people who are _really_ inconvenienced are the honest consumers who
just want to watch the content to which they're entitled. Honest people
are scared to distribute and use libdvdcss, because they think they
might have legal problems if they do. Obviously the ones who are using
it to break the law anyway don't care about that, so they just go ahead.

 In english that's; thirteen undecillion, two hundred fifty six decillion,
 two hundred seventy eight nonillion, eight hundred eighty seven octillion,
 nine hundred eighty nine septillion, four hundred fifty seven sexillion, six
 hundred fifty one quintillion, eighteen quadrillion, eight hundred sixty
 five trillion, nine hundred one billion, four hundred one million, seven
 hundred four thousand, six hundred forty.

That's American, not English.

 Sure I will, you can't copyright a number, and I'd like to see anyone
 try and sue me for posing one.

We digress but I'm dubious about that argument. You can represent
_anything_ with 'just a number'. I could buy a DVD, decrypt it and send
the entire thing to this list in hex form, calling it 'just a number'.
Would that make it OK?

-- 
dwmw2

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-17 Thread Christopher Woods

Nah, because the technology-friendly minority of the world's population will
figure out both how to crack the DRM, and how to produce one-click tools
which strip the DRM from crap-ridden files they've downloaded.

The world rejoices!

 -Original Message-
 From: Richard Lockwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: 17 June 2007 14:23
 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
 Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

 You know, I'd guess that people who couldn't pass an ECDL or 
 CLAIT course would have difficulty working out how to crack 
 DRM.  So, if there are so many people in the country that 
 couldn't pass, maybe DRM's not as useless as we all think 
 when it comes to preventing casual copying (the equivalent of 
 home taping)...

 INSERT INTO pigeons (cat) VALUES (true);

 :-)

 Cheers,

 R.

 On 6/16/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  On 16/06/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   On Saturday 16 June 2007 18:13, vijay chopra wrote:
They don't need to know how a PC works, but I'll bet 
 many couldn't 
even pass an ECDL or CLAIT course (reflecting society 
 as a whole); 
I wouldn't claim to be able to plan a city without some 
 relevant qualifications.

   Do we really have to have these kinds of insulting accusations ?

   Michael.

  How is saying that there are many (possibly most) people in 
 society, 
  could not pass an ECDL or CLAIT course and this is thus 
 reflected into 
  most professions and areas of life including the media an 
 accusation 
  of any sort.
  It's plain fact, go and visit your local FE college and see howmany 
  grown adults are on basic IT literacy  courses and 
 struggling. I work 
  in an FE college library and see these people day in, day out.

  Vijay.

 --
 SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073

 Registered address:
 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
 -
 Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To 
 unsubscribe, please visit 
 http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
   Unofficial list archive: 
 http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-17 Thread David Woodhouse

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:28 +0100, Christopher Woods wrote:
 Nah, because the technology-friendly minority of the world's population will
 figure out both how to crack the DRM, and how to produce one-click tools
 which strip the DRM from crap-ridden files they've downloaded.
 
 The world rejoices! 

Except they don't, because although the _criminals_ get an easy ride,
the honest hackers who'd like to work on media centres and other tools
and programs to deal with this content are scared away by the fact that
we had to crack the DRM to get at it.

-- 
dwmw2

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-16 Thread Kim Plowright


On 15/06/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

It takes people outside the media-land as you put it because the
people inside are too ignorant of technology to understand it.

If media people had known even the very basics of how a PC works then
we would never have had DRM in the first place.


snip

Please be aware that your statements in this email can be read as a
fairly comprehensive attempt at personally insulting most of the BBC
and ex-BBC people on this list.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-16 Thread Dave Crossland


On 16/06/07, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 15/06/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 It takes people outside the media-land as you put it because the
 people inside are too ignorant of technology to understand it.

Please be aware that your statements in this email can be read as a
fairly comprehensive attempt at personally insulting most of the BBC
and ex-BBC people on this list.


Many media industry professionals are on record stating their believe
that DRM can work to halt unauthorised sharing, and that the problems
with current DRM systems are not fundemental truths of computer
science, but mere matters of implementation.

I've never heard that kind of thing from anyone associated with the
BBC, though :-)

--
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] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-16 Thread Dave Crossland


On 15/06/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


If you want to win over content creators *show* them how they can make as
much money through sharing as they can make from restricting sharing.


This is like arguing that a dictator will start free elections if it
can be down the economy will run higher. Having free elections is
simply more important than the state of the economy. It's _wrong_ to
have crooked elections.

Similarly, its misguided to justify freedom of speech because it will
make authors more money. That may or may not be true - its irrelevant.
Freedom of speech is critical for a free healthy, free society.

So production companies who ask to justify software freedom and file
sharing on the basis of how much money it makes are missing the point.
We must not restrict sharing because it is unethical. We must not use
proprietary software because it is unethical.

--
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] www.FreeTheBBC.info


There are many media people living in their London-centric bubble
(a.k.amedia-land) who as Andy's email said, are totally ignorant of
the basics of
modern technology. That isn't an insult, but a fact simply by virtue of the
fact that much of the general population couldn't tell you how a PC works
either. Those working in the media are no exception.

Besides, if there are meeja prima donnas and wannabe luvvies (on this list
or otherwise) that believe that DRM is a long term, workable solution to
this problem, then I couldn't care less if they get their egos bruised a
little, and don't see why anyone else should care either.

Vijay.


On 16/06/07, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On 15/06/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 It takes people outside the media-land as you put it because the
 people inside are too ignorant of technology to understand it.

 If media people had known even the very basics of how a PC works then
 we would never have had DRM in the first place.

snip

Please be aware that your statements in this email can be read as a
fairly comprehensive attempt at personally insulting most of the BBC
and ex-BBC people on this list.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-16 Thread Ian Betteridge


On 16/06/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote


So production companies who ask to justify software freedom and file
sharing on the basis of how much money it makes are missing the point.
We must not restrict sharing because it is unethical. We must not use
proprietary software because it is unethical.



If you believe that there's some intrinsic ethical right to share content,
then you are fundamentally opposed to copyright as a whole.

In which case, there's no point in taking this conversation further, for two
reasons. First, you're also ethically opposed to the existence of the BBC -
an organisation which exists because copyright material exists, and secondly
because you will simply break any DRM (it doesn't work anyway, remember?)
and copy away anyway.

If you come from the perspective that copyright should not exist, then
frankly iPlayer and its ilk are irrelevant to you, and there's simply no
point discussing it.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-16 Thread Ian Betteridge


On 16/06/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Many media industry professionals are on record stating their believe
that DRM can work to halt unauthorised sharing,




Many? Links please.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-16 Thread Ian Betteridge


On 16/06/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


There are many media people living in their London-centric bubble 
(a.k.amedia-land) who as Andy's email said, are totally ignorant of the basics 
of
modern technology. That isn't an insult, but a fact simply by virtue of the
fact that much of the general population couldn't tell you how a PC works
either. Those working in the media are no exception.




It's a mistake to assume that you have to know how a PC works in order to
understand the impact of technology on culture. It's rather like saying that
no one can be an urban planner without being able to also construct an
internal combustion engine.


Besides, if there are meeja prima donnas and wannabe luvvies (on this list

or otherwise)




No ad hominem attacks there, then. I could, of course, start talking about
arrogant techies who think they know it all - but I'll refrain.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


In which case, there's no point in taking this conversation further, for
two reasons. First, you're also ethically opposed to the existence of the
BBC - an organisation which exists because copyright material exists,



I thought the purpose of the BBC was to inform, educate and entertain.
none of those *require* copyright. Granted, copyright makes it much easier,
but your statement is misleading.

I don't know about Dave, but my problem with copyright law is the length of
time it lasts. IMO all works should fall into the public domain after 25
years; but that's another debate entirely

Vijay.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-16 Thread David Woodhouse

On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 17:45 +0100, Ian Betteridge wrote:
 No ad hominem attacks there, then. I could, of course, start talking
 about arrogant techies who think they know it all - but I'll refrain. 

For the record...

Ad Hominem (lit. 'against the man'¹) is the logical fallacy where you
discount an argument because of (some attribute of) the person who
presents it.

To say You smoke crack, therefore your argument is irrelevant is
classic Ad Hominem.

To say Your argument makes no sense, therefore I believe you're on
crack is not -- because it's based on the _argument_ not the crack
intake.

There's obviously a grey area in between -- especially where the
cause-and-effect isn't explicitly stated, but is implied instead.
Nevertheless, a lot of what people call 'Ad Hominem' isn't.

If you argue that the world is flat, I'll probably call you a muppet.
But that won't necessarily be Ad Hominem.

-- 
dwmw2

¹ or something like that. My Latin is not just poor; it's non-existent.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


On 16/06/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On 16/06/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 There are many media people living in their London-centric bubble 
(a.k.amedia-land) who as Andy's email said, are totally ignorant of the basics of
 modern technology. That isn't an insult, but a fact simply by virtue of the
 fact that much of the general population couldn't tell you how a PC works
 either. Those working in the media are no exception.



It's a mistake to assume that you have to know how a PC works in order to
understand the impact of technology on culture. It's rather like saying that
no one can be an urban planner without being able to also construct an
internal combustion engine.



They don't need to  know how a PC works, but I'll bet  many couldn't even
pass an ECDL or CLAIT course (reflecting society as a whole); I wouldn't
claim to be able to plan a city without some relevant  qualifications.



Besides, if there are meeja prima donnas and wannabe luvvies (on this list

 or otherwise)



No ad hominem attacks there, then. I could, of course, start talking about
arrogant techies who think they know it all - but I'll refrain.

Yep, and well deserved too (you deside if I mean meeja luvvies or arrogant

techies.)

Vijay.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-16 Thread Michael Sparks

On Saturday 16 June 2007 18:13, vijay chopra wrote:
 They don't need to  know how a PC works, but I'll bet  many couldn't even
 pass an ECDL or CLAIT course (reflecting society as a whole); I wouldn't
 claim to be able to plan a city without some relevant  qualifications.

Do we really have to have these kinds of insulting accusations ?


Michael.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


On 16/06/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Saturday 16 June 2007 18:13, vijay chopra wrote:
 They don't need to know how a PC works, but I'll bet many couldn't even
 pass an ECDL or CLAIT course (reflecting society as a whole); I wouldn't
 claim to be able to plan a city without some relevant qualifications.

Do we really have to have these kinds of insulting accusations ?


Michael.



How is saying that there are many (possibly most) people in society, could
not pass an ECDL or CLAIT course and this is thus reflected into most
professions and areas of life including the media an accusation of any
sort.
It's plain fact, go and visit your local FE college and see howmany grown
adults are on basic IT literacy  courses and struggling. I work in an FE
college library and see these people day in, day out.

Vijay.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-15 Thread Joe Flintham


Tom Loosemore wrote:


It's a balance. And we know that balance will shift over time,
It certainly is a balance; there's also the balance between Thompson 
claiming that the BBC is innovative on the one hand, while on the other 
projects like the iPlayer and Creative Archive are crippled by pressure 
from corporate media players and 20th century copyright laws. Where's 
the balance in BBC would act as the UK web 2.0 market’s creative RD 
- [Ashleigh Highfield]?


Your points are sound Tom, but they are also the reason why Thompson and 
Highfield are talking PR rubbish.


Joe Flintham

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


On 15/06/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




I'm sure a quick Google would explain it in words everybody can
understand.
All the media industries suffer from an overabundance of buzzwords - I'm
working in the music industry myself at the moment (student on placement)
and it's amazing how quickly you pick up on all of them (and usually have
to
end up using them to sound even vaguely professional).



Well a quick google won't tell you how to do it. Unless you think that
being able to Google for HTML teaches  you how to write  code ;)


Commission features that were interesting, exciting, and got
 people to read them? Write entertaining copy? Edit other
 people's copy to a high standard?

sp - other peoples' copy, not other people's copy. Let's be thankful
you're
a layout specialist, not a copy editor!



LOL hey - you pay me, I'll hit the magic spell check button ;)


Interesting you say that - I've noticed that there are a number of stories

about new publications that are struggling to establish and retain their
foothold in the extremely competitive publishing market in the UK. A
couple
of years ago, when I worked in a local supermarket's petrol station I used
to do the night shifts and every so often along with the paper deliveries
would come the trade magazine... And some of the stories in that, very
disheartening. I get the impression that the publishing industry is
constantly having to cut back and downsize on their more 'experimental'
new
product launches as it's becoming increasingly hard to find a niche or
absorb some of another mag's existing readerbase.



Well the thing is that more magazines being sold doesn't equate to more
revenue for publishers, because in the majority of cases a magazine's cover
price is below the cost of production. For example, one magazine I worked on
was cover priced at £2.95, but actually cost £6 to make. Advertising, of
course, makes up the rest - and the advertising market for print is falling
as more ad revenue moves online. Smart publishers are getting that ad
revenue too, of course, but it makes launching a new print publication hard
to justify - a lot of good ideas get focus-grouped to death, because the
cost of launch makes it a big risk.

That's not to say there's not great launches and relaunches out there, but
they've mostly been in particular sectors - women's magazines, for example.


I've seen very professional sites that've sourced their imagery exclusively

from flickr - they're few and far between, but they do look very good (and
they're not professional photographers, just pro-am).



But that's something that the print world has done for years - think of all
of those photography mags which publish reader's images (or, for that
matter, the marvellous JPG magazine). Pro-am's can do great work (and can
graduate to doing it as professionals), but that's not the same as saying
the man in the street can walk in and be a top photographer, which is what
was stated earlier. It takes a long time to get that good, unless you're
extremely gifted.



I fully agree on the point being made - the pro media outfits are producing

the best quality stuff. Not to say that there's some real gems out there;
but the established outfits have the industry clout to get the
advertisement
out, get the word out. The various BBC Radio 1 podcasts are thoroughly
pimped to the listeners in countless trails, bumpers and DJ announcements
all day every day on their respective broadcast shows. Heck, some of the
podcasts even get replayed on Radio 1 in their own dedicated broadcast
slots! The magazine podcasts are advertised in their respective print
publications, the newspaper podcasts same again. How can you even expect
an
indie podcast to achieve that kind of mass coverage without some big
backers
behind it to invest the initial and ongoing advertising costs?



Yes, the big media types get ad money - but ad money only buys you one shot
at it. If your podcast is rubbish, you won't get a second chance from the
consumer.


People are lazy; they set up a podcast to download and it'll download, and

even if they don't actually listen to it (or they listen but donp't like
that particular episode) the download will still be registered as a
download. They'll keep on subscribing and just hope the next episode is
better. So, peoples' laziness will give the podcast more votes than it
deserves and artificially distort the Top 10. I never go by top 10s
personally because I don't think they're representative of actual quality.




It would be interesting to see some figures on that - I have no data...

And of course, Top 10's aren't representative of quality if you think
quality is some absolute value. But they are representative of what people
like, which is a very good test of quality overall.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-15 Thread Matthew Somerville

Christopher Woods wrote:
 Write entertaining copy? Edit other people's copy to a high standard?
 
 sp - other peoples' copy, not other people's copy. Let's be thankful you're
 a layout specialist, not a copy editor!

Spelling/grammar nazi insults already? Dear me. other people's copy is, of
course, perfectly correct; Ian is editing the copy of other people. other
peoples' copy could, if one is lenient, be correct if you were referring to
editing the copy of more than one group of people (I can edit the copy of
the Dutch and French peoples to a high standard, perhaps), but I think Ian
was probably thinking of the former.

[snip]

-- 
ATB,
Matthew  |  http://www.dracos.co.uk/
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-15 Thread Stephen Deasey


On 6/15/07, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


The licence fee could be one such business model. But the argument is
about the balance between investing in  linear vs  making the most of
on demand.




It isn't, because the two are not mutually exclusive.

The argument that you can't put Doctor Who online without DRM because
you don't also have the world-wide rights to Neighbors doesn't follow.

Put one online, and not the other.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


It's that old plural/possessive or singular/possessive conundrum.

Not that copy editing takes any skill, of course, anyone can walk in off the
street and do it to professional level without any training ;)

On 15/06/07, Matthew Somerville [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Christopher Woods wrote:
 Write entertaining copy? Edit other people's copy to a high standard?

 sp - other peoples' copy, not other people's copy. Let's be thankful
you're
 a layout specialist, not a copy editor!

Spelling/grammar nazi insults already? Dear me. other people's copy is,
of
course, perfectly correct; Ian is editing the copy of other people. other
peoples' copy could, if one is lenient, be correct if you were referring
to
editing the copy of more than one group of people (I can edit the copy of
the Dutch and French peoples to a high standard, perhaps), but I think
Ian
was probably thinking of the former.

[snip]

--
ATB,
Matthew  |  http://www.dracos.co.uk/
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-15 Thread Stephen Miller

Just a small point on the buying out of all the rights. Merely because 
programmes would be available free would not totally kill off other 
forms of money raising based on the product. After all, a significant 
portion of worldwide broadcasters would still be after syndication 
rights. DVD sales are probably also workable, at least on a small scale, 
as there is some added value in a physical collection, with properly 
printed menus, perhaps accompanied by a small book or some other value 
increasing items. Whilst the DVD sales aren't going to be the revenue 
stream they once were if the material is freely available, I think some 
small amount of the market will still be there.


Also some of the BBCs material is useful educationally, which may make 
the DVDs profitable in some places abroad without the internet 
infrastructure necessary to obtain the free materials. Additionally, 
DVDs may still be saleable outside the UK due to a lack of awareness of 
the material being available for free on the BBC site. Lastly, if there 
were to be communities established to help benefit individual producers 
(I'm thinking specifically of the natural history unit etc.), then you 
may find people are willing to either donate extra money, or buy 
specific DVDs to aid in the content of that department.


Just because something may be available for free does not entirely mean 
you kill the market for selling the same thing. I agree it makes it more 
difficult, especially on non-commercial terms.


If the BBC were to think more strongly about going down the route of 
free online downloads of all material, I'm sure that a public 
consultation, perhaps on a wiki based format may come up with some 
revenue generating ideas which have not been considered already.


With regards to the sport aspect, I'm not so sure the BBC would lose 
coverage of the Olympics etc. After all, the olympics is supposed to 
encompass the world, and hence a freely available catalogue of the games 
might well add value to the bid to get the games rather than reduce. 
BBCi is already making strides in showing perhaps less popular sports 
such as snooker online. Whilst the most highly commercial sports, 
specifically football are likely to object to free online distribution, 
many sports are likely to care a lot less. Especially with some if some 
GeoIP provision is put in place (and this is a slightly lesser evil than 
DRM - though perhaps could be extended to include somehow those abroad 
who have valid TV licenses).


Perhaps a bit rambling, but just wanted to say that free content may not 
kill the commerciality of programmes entirely.


Tom Loosemore wrote:

 Apparently today's rights-holder production companies believe that
 DRMcan stop the mass market from sharing works. Probably not;
 simplymaking the works All Rights Reserved does enough damage to
 thepotential for the mass market, by criminalizing businesses that
 findways to monetise the Internet.
One might also say criminalising businesses who get rich off the
creativity of others :)

The point, to me, is simple: DRM doesn't work. It doesn't stop anyone
taking your content for free. Therefore, work out business models which
don't rely on DRM.


and, yes,  the licence fee could be one of them - see Creative Archive
passim, or OFCOM's ideas for a new Public Service Publisher using a
Creative Commons commercial sharealike licencing model.

however, if the BBC were to adopt such a 'buy all rights in
perpetuity' model, it would mean making far, far fewer programmes,
since each programme would have to cost more (*much* more in many
cases) to compensate rights holders for the reduction in secondary
income from repeats, DVDs, overseas sales etc. We'd also probably lose
any stars the moment we made them (Gervais, etc) cos they could make
more than we could afford upfront commercially. And we'd lose all
sport. And the Olympics.

But hey, making far fewer programmes may not seem the end of the
world, since everyone only really likes a few programmes, and it's all
going on demand anyway so why worry about filling linear schedules,
right?

Then you realise that everyone != people like us, both in terms of the
programmes they like, and more importantly, in terms of their
likelihood to use the internet.

Everyone pays for the licence fee, and so everyone deserves to get
value from it.

So you need a wide range of programmes to cater for  people's
increasingly fragmented tastes, and a variety of delivery methods to
cater for a range of tech capabilities.

41% of the UK population didn't use the Internet last month. We reckon
up to 20% of them *never* will. They'll pop their clogs before they
ever do anything on demand.

They pay for the BBC too.

Right now I find it hard to justify reducing the range of programmes
that 41% enjoy, just so the 5% of the population who regularly share
TV programmes over the internet can get *even more* value from the BBC
And incidentally, that 5% ('geeks like us') already

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


On 15/06/07, Stephen Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



If the BBC were to think more strongly about going down the route of
free online downloads of all material, I'm sure that a public
consultation, perhaps on a wiki based format may come up with some
revenue generating ideas which have not been considered already.



I think you're missing the point a bit. The BBC can think what it likes, and
it doesn't matter - what matters is what the rights holders think, and
unless you can persuade them that they won't lose money, the BBC's hands
will be tied.

To reiterate: the BBC cannot do free, un-DRM'd downloads unless either it
pays them a huge sack of money or people like you and I demonstrate to them
that no-DRM doesn't equal no money. The BBC has no magic wand it can wave to
make no-DRM happen.

With regards to the sport aspect, I'm not so sure the BBC would lose

coverage of the Olympics etc. After all, the olympics is supposed to
encompass the world, and hence a freely available catalogue of the games
might well add value to the bid to get the games rather than reduce.




I can assure that navigating that argument through the IOC would be... well,
an *interesting* task. Virtually *all* the IOC's income is from TV coverage
of the games. Anything that could potentially reduce that by one cent
wouldn't even get close to a hearing.


Perhaps a bit rambling, but just wanted to say that free content may not

kill the commerciality of programmes entirely.



You're right, it doesn't and it won't. But arguing that at the BBC is a
waste of breath, because they're not the people you need to persuade.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


On 15/06/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Pro-am's can do great work (and can
graduate to doing it as professionals), but that's not the same as saying
the man in the street can walk in and be a top photographer, which is what
was stated earlier. It takes a long time to get that good, unless you're
extremely gifted.


The rise of digital authoring tools means that as time passes, the man
in the street is more and more likely to be a pro-am, and more and
more likely to be that good - especially if he can combine his talents
with others collaboratively, standing on the shoulders of giants.

And, he's going to be more and more likely to seek ways to monetize
that value without becoming a full time professional author.

This is why non-commercial Creative Commons licenses are a problem,
imo: For about 10 years the free software movement was almost totally
non-commercial, and then business kicked off and has powered the whole
thing since then. IMO this is directly attributable to the
copyleft-thanks and commercial-use-please aspects of the GPL.

As you can see in this graph, http://swivel.com/graphs/show/9227397
(from http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_statistics :-) the CC-NC
licenses are by far the most popular, with CC-NC-ND and CC-NC-SA at a
similarly higher growth than the others - and BY and BY-ND are more
popular than BY-SA.

Free culture is shooting itself future self in the foot, because
non-commercial licenses will hobble the remix market.
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol4-1/coates.asp is a good
academic paper on the 1st and 2nd generation of CC users. What do the
3rd, 4th, 5th look like? Will they be helped or hindered by NC terms?
A CC users I recently queried about this (a photographer) said that NC
terms don't matter, because they are happy to give permission to low
budget organisations. But a culture of permission is not a culture of
freedom.

Its not that people shouldn't be paid for authorship - they should, of
course - but that the social system of payment should not be
draconian.

If copyright duration was contracting instead of expanding, I'd be
much more favourable to NC terms - but the reality is that the public
domain has got a large gap in it from the early 1930s until the early
2000s when CC appeared, and a NC commons is not ideal.

--
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] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-15 Thread Andrew Bowden


 If copyright duration was contracting instead of expanding, 
 I'd be much more favourable to NC terms - but the reality is 
 that the public domain has got a large gap in it from the 
 early 1930s until the early 2000s when CC appeared, and a NC 
 commons is not ideal.

No, but is arguable that if there was no NC commons, there gap would
still be there, and would be bigger.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-15 Thread Richard Lockwood



 Pro-am's can do great work (and can
 graduate to doing it as professionals), but that's not the same as saying
 the man in the street can walk in and be a top photographer, which is what
 was stated earlier. It takes a long time to get that good, unless you're
 extremely gifted.

The rise of digital authoring tools means that as time passes, the man
in the street is more and more likely to be a pro-am, and more and
more likely to be that good - especially if he can combine his talents
with others collaboratively, standing on the shoulders of giants.



Rubbish.  The rise of digital authoring tools may enable more people
to learn how to use those tools, granted, but you don't become any
kind of creative professional just by learning how to use the tools.
That's like watching a video of Jimi Hendrix, Olga Korbut or Stephen
Gerrard and saying I could do that if I practiced enough.

Rich.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


On 13/06/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On 13/06/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  entirely). And that's why DRM discussion will just go round in circles
  until someone comes along which exhibits a demonstrable downside,
  which is both immediately explainable and fully obvious to the general
  tech-using population. Something like Sky requiring HDCP-compliant
  HDTVs for their SkyHD receives,

 I'd say You can download BBC shows from the internet to watch them
 later. But after 7 days, BBC will force your computer to delete your
 shows. Is that good or bad? was pretty clear :-)

It's a good thing for me, its better than what I and many people have
currently.


If you don't value a free society, then you might think its a good
thing. If you do value your freedom, like most people, then its a bad
thing.

Freedom to decide how much later you want to watch something is a
pretty basic freedom, that a lot of people value. Many people may not
appreciate this freedom, because they haven't experienced it before,
and won't know what they are missing.

But taking advantage of them is nasty. Its shameful that the BBC is doing that.

You seem like the kind of person who stands for free speech, free
elections and a free and democratic society. I'd be very surprised if
you were in favor of restricting the free speech of BBC journalists
because companies they were reporting about would lose potential
revenue.

Freedom for everyone is more important than profit for a few people. I
think that's where these allegations that the BBC is corrupt come from
- a common reason that our freedom is trampled is because it has been
sold for profit.

--
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] www.FreeTheBBC.info


On 13/06/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On 13/06/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  entirely). And that's why DRM discussion will just go round in circles
  until someone comes along which exhibits a demonstrable downside,
  which is both immediately explainable and fully obvious to the general
  tech-using population. Something like Sky requiring HDCP-compliant
  HDTVs for their SkyHD receives,

 I'd say You can download BBC shows from the internet to watch them
 later. But after 7 days, BBC will force your computer to delete your
 shows. Is that good or bad? was pretty clear :-)

It's a good thing for me, its better than what I and many people have
currently.


If you don't value a free society, then you might think its a good
thing. If you do value your freedom, like most people, then its a bad
thing.

Freedom to decide how much later you want to watch something is a
pretty basic freedom, that a lot of people value. Many people may not
appreciate this freedom, because they haven't experienced it before,
and won't know what they are missing.

But taking advantage of them is nasty. Its shameful that the BBC is doing that.

You seem like the kind of person who stands for free speech, free
elections and a free and democratic society. I'd be very surprised if
you were in favor of restricting the free speech of BBC journalists
because companies they were reporting about would lose potential
revenue.

Freedom for everyone is more important than profit for a few people. I
think that's where these allegations that the BBC is corrupt come from
- a common reason that our freedom is trampled is because it has been
sold for profit.

--
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] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-15 Thread Kim Plowright


I just thought I'd say - I'm currently at the iSummit in dubrovnik.
There's a lot of interesting conversation going on around these topics
-   if anyone's interested, info is here http://www.icommons.org/

I'm guessing that session recordings etc will be available later. Will
post details if I find them!
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-15 Thread Stephen Deasey


On 6/15/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


To reiterate: the BBC cannot do free, un-DRM'd downloads unless either it
pays them a huge sack of money or people like you and I demonstrate to them
that no-DRM doesn't equal no money. The BBC has no magic wand it can wave to
make no-DRM happen.



The BBC's sack of money contains 3 billion pounds, which is a of sum
of money which can make a lot of things happen.

What percentage of the production costs, including the profit margin
of the production company (is it produced by an outside production
company?) of e.g. Holby City, which is on tonight, was payed for by
the license fee?  I would guess, not being a tv person, that it would
be all of it. Am I way off?
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-15 Thread Kirk Northrop


Dave Crossland wrote:

The BBC's sack of money contains 3 billion pounds, which is a of sum
of money which can make a lot of things happen.


It does make lots of things happen. TV, Radio, internet, innforming, 
educating and entertaining the nation.



What percentage of the production costs, including the profit margin
of the production company (is it produced by an outside production
company?) of e.g. Holby City, which is on tonight, was payed for by
the license fee?  I would guess, not being a tv person, that it would
be all of it. Am I way off?


Yes. BBC Worldwide money will also help pay for it - some productions 
get extra money from BBC Worldwide too as a sort of advance to make a 
good show they can flog on DVD.


--
From the North, this is 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info


Good debate :-)

On 13/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 So where is the balance?

 I believe you're referring to the commonly-held misconception that
 there is a copyright balance.

No, not copyright balance. Economic balance.


Apologies for misunderstanding you there :-)


 Or do you believe that the content creator (and as
 Michael pointed out, colleagues) doesn't deserve recompense?

 Deserve, no.

 Authors do not inherently deserve the right to control the publics use
 of their work;

I didn't ask that - I asked if they deserve recompense.


Sure - nothing wrong with exchanging value for cash. Even if the
majority of the value is generated by someone else, if you can find a
way to add value and push out a profit margin, that's great. (As long
as you don't stop everyone else from adding value to what you did and
profiting further)

And I think people like to reward things they find value in.

Stallman made a recent speech about this (the first half is an
introduction to free software, the second half is about free culture,
at 
http://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/hesa/richard_m_stallman_s_speech_in_gothenburg_2007_05_16
:-) and mentioned an estimate that the average American spends $20 on
music per year, and 10% of money spent on music actually gets through
the publishers to the artists. If it was possible to send money
directly to artists, I think people would send more than $2 a year.


 those rights are given to them by the public, and were
 intended to be given only in so far as that they benefitted the
 public.
No, quote: Rather, it does this to modify their behavior: to provide an
incentive for authors to write more and publish more.


...so that the public benefits.


Society (and therefore I) has a moral obligation to uphold its end of the
bargain - ie limit unpaid sharing.


I value sharing. I believe sharing is the basis of being be a good
friend and a good neighbor. I believe that limiting sharing is a
nasty, shameful thing to do. I don't believe that artists and authors
will be unable to make a living in a world where unlimited sharing is
encouraged.


 Corporate corruption of governments has weakened democracy
 very badly, and the way copyright is used against the public interest
 is an example of this wider problem with global society.

Agree 100%. eg Disney are, wrt copyright, completely hypocritical bastards.
I am similarly sickened by the situation in schools where rights holders are
coming down on music clubs and essentially preventing musical performances.


For sure :-) Musical performances are an essential part of all human
cultures, binding communities together from the dawn of history. Isn't
sharing music data through the Internet is the translation into new
media of that primitive impulse? :-)


 Authors need to find new business models that do not harm the public;
 they do exist, and there is a lot of money to be made in pursuing
 them.

But they need society as a whole to agree to an approach.
And for the past 40 years (or so) the predominantly physical transport of media
has lead to a status-quo. Whilst it's appealing to rip it out roots and all -
it's not pragmatic.


But it is happening. Here, the more influential members of society are
the younger ones. Tom mentioned that 20% of the BBCs audience will
never go online, and that maybe only 5% actually appreciate what we're
debating. But that 20% is only going down, (popping their clogs Tom
said, lol!) and the 5% is going up, fast.


So we have copyright - a legal tool used by the GPL. It's not going away.
DRM, or rather LESS - is the issue.


LESS is not enough :-)


 I'm glad to hear we agree on all of these things.

We're closer than I think you think :)


:-)


 You're right, try:
   For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF MORALLY SOUND PEOPLE*, which is more
 likely to
   work?

 Morally sound people share with their friends.

Morally sound people would accept their societal obligations and contribute to
the artist to a societally accepted degree (yes, driven by capitalism) and then
obtain the media, possibly electronically from a friend.


Morally sound people are today obtaining media digitally from their
friends and everyone on the (filesharing) network, and contribute to
the artist to a societally accepted degree when the opportunity to do
so is apparent.

A good example of how people _do_ volunteer to pay is
http://www.sheeba.ca/store/

Though they don't respect our sharing, they have an interested
you-decide-the-price model, and ranges from pay nothing! upwards,
with recommended price points. It then runs all transactions through
an averaging system, and this is apparently often higher than the
prices paid  at the iTMS.


  Neither. Talk to teenagers - file sharing is here to stay.

 If your argument is that we raise morally bankrupt children then so be
 it.
 Teenagers however, are not the vast majority of people.

 No, but with the baby boom generation about to retire, en masse, young
 people are assuming positions

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


On 15/06/07, Kirk Northrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




Yes. BBC Worldwide money will also help pay for it - some productions
get extra money from BBC Worldwide too as a sort of advance to make a
good show they can flog on DVD.



Plus, of course, production costs don't stop the moment that a show is first
broadcast. Unless you pay a lot of cash, writers, actors and the like are
entitled to repeat fees and other residuals.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


Hi Jeremy!

On 13/06/07, Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Hang on a minute. Didn't i make a plea yesterday not to resurrect this tired 
old debate.


Thanks for posting these blog comments on this topic - appreciated!
This debate is not tired or old, and is going to continue in a public
way that embasses the BBC for as long as the BBC remains a DRM
restrictor. Surely the decision to use DRM was made knowing that this
would happen?


Ian Betteridge has critiqued the 5 claims made by
http://www.freethebbc.info/ at
 http://www.technovia.co.uk/?p=1180


One of the most interesting points was,


 How about a letter supporting the efforts of the BBC to educate
 rights holders about the future of media?


Is there any evidence that there _are_ any such efforts that we can support?

--
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] www.FreeTheBBC.info


On 15/06/07, Stephen Deasey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


The BBC's sack of money contains 3 billion pounds, which is a of sum
of money which can make a lot of things happen.



I suggest you go back to Tom L's email.


What percentage of the production costs, including the profit margin

of the production company (is it produced by an outside production
company?) of e.g. Holby City, which is on tonight, was payed for by
the license fee?  I would guess, not being a tv person, that it would
be all of it. Am I way off?




Again, go back to Tom's email.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


On 14/06/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


The market tells me you're wrong: because people
still pay for content, a huge amount of it.


The people who pay for content production are advertisers. They are
becoming more interested in placing ads on digital files than in
printed media, because that's what people are looking more and more at
- especially the highly consumptive savvy types.

What makes Google and Yahoo et al so profitable is that they don't pay
for content production. Which makes us free culture people look like
Google shills, alas.


 That fact is borne out by the growth of the net and by ordinary people
 having a say and doing their own things: a lot of the stuff read,
 listened to, watched, etc today isn't being produced by media people
 it is being produced by regular people who now have access to tools
 which allow them to record and share their work.

That, frankly, is nonsense. For example, more magazines are being sold
in the UK than have ever been sold before: how does that fact fit into
your view?


Can you provide a reference for this claim? :-)

I was at http://stbride.org/events_education/events/newspaperdesign
and heard that the _only_ newspaper that is profitable today, apart
from the zero-price 100%-ads papers that have sprung up like mushrooms
lately, is the Daily Mail. I figured magazines would be the same, and
am genuinely curious to hear differently :-)

--
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] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-15 Thread Jeremy Stone

 
  How about a letter supporting the efforts of the BBC to educate 
  rights holders about the future of media?

Is there any evidence that there _are_ any such efforts that we can
support?


Well backstage is quite a good place to start.

Yesterday the Cabinet Officde published a paper; The Power of
Information; that it commissioned from Tom Steinberg, founder and
Director of mySociety, and Ed Mayo, Chief Executive of the National
Consumer Council . (It's a brilliant analysis of how and where the
government can work alongside user communities, create value by making
its data and information available in different formats and using
different pricing models and a framework for doing so). 

One of the recommendations is to 

Recommendation 4. To encourage innovation in the re-use of information
by noncommercial
users, UK trading funds should, in consultation with OPSI, examine the
introduction of non-commercial re-use licences, along the lines of those
pioneered by the
BBC's Backstage project

So you could argue that effectively the Cabinet Office has warmly
received proposals to change the rights framework of its (considerable)
public information and data because the BBC (and Google and others) has
pioneered this approach.
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publications/reports/power_information/p
ower_information.pdf

More on this in yesterdays Guardian..
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2101807,00.html
The economic analysis is simply not there to justify the current
position and policy that we have, Mayo said last week. The report calls
on trading funds to grant free licences along the lines of those
pioneered by the BBC in its Backstage project.

I'd also point to the pioneering work of my radio colleagues in
negotiating with record companies, equity and others the framework so
that for the past 6-7 years a rights position has existed that has
allowed for (worldwide in most cases) on demand radio listening for 7
days for 90% of the BBC's music and speech output across 8 national
radio networks...

thanks
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] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-15 Thread Sean Dillon


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most of what the media produces isn’t creative: it is formulaic and 
componentised in much the same way as any factory that assembles work on 
a production line. Of course, media production needs to be financed, but 
it isn’t a scarce resource and it does warrant disproportionate returns.


I can only talk for my time in production roles being anything BUT 
formulaic or 'componentised' I'd be intersted in knowing which 
orgaisations you've experienced that take such a view.


I need to pick you up on one point, that is original (read 'creative') 
content IS a scarce resource and that's exactly the point. I don't see 
many people here or elsewhere creating and publsihing weather data or 
local news reports or giving over by over commentary of cricket matches 
or detailed analysis of Football matches.


With a notably small exception it's media owners who provide commentary 
from the front line of so many wars or the insights of political 
machinations of Washington/London/Brussells et al. Who has the time, 
money or inclicnation to create TV listsings?


I see lots of people making use of this rich source of data, making 
mash-ups and utilising this data but virtually nobody produces genuinely 
unique content of this ilk (RSS, XML Feeds etc... the sort of stuff 
we're discussing on this list) other than the larger media owners.



If the media was truly creative, it wouldn’t struggle with how to make 
money from its work. It is a confusion on the part of the media folk to 
think that their work is somehow creative and unique.


Please can you elaborate on this. It's such a sweeping indictment of the 
entire media landscape that I really am interstested in hearing you 
support this with something more than what I'm sorry to say comes across 
as anti-established-media bias. I know on the whole we're a sitting duck 
for those who know better but I can't see where you manage to actually 
support your argument.



Seán

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


On 15/06/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




If you don't value a free society, then you might think its a good
thing. If you do value your freedom, like most people, then its a bad
thing.



In what sense is providing a service which was not previously provided and
which replaces no other services reducing your freedom?


Freedom to decide how much later you want to watch something is a

pretty basic freedom, that a lot of people value.




Actually, I'd say basic freedoms cover things like a free press, free
speech, and free association - not time shifting TV.




But taking advantage of them is nasty. Its shameful that the BBC is doing
that.




Doing what? Providing a service which it did not provide before?




Freedom for everyone is more important than profit for a few people.




Yes, and again: in what sense is your freedom being reduced? The BBC is
introducing a service which has not been available before. Is your test of
whether the BBC should introduce something now based on it being available
to 100% of the UK population? Because if it is, then they should stop doing
internet work immediately, as well as digital television, DVB, and much more
besides.


I

think that's where these allegations that the BBC is corrupt come from
- a common reason that our freedom is trampled is because it has been
sold for profit.




No, those allegations come from people who spend too long with tin foil hats
on.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-15 Thread Stephen Deasey


On 6/15/07, Kirk Northrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Dave Crossland wrote:
 The BBC's sack of money contains 3 billion pounds, which is a of sum
 of money which can make a lot of things happen.

It does make lots of things happen. TV, Radio, internet, innforming,
educating and entertaining the nation.

 What percentage of the production costs, including the profit margin
 of the production company (is it produced by an outside production
 company?) of e.g. Holby City, which is on tonight, was payed for by
 the license fee?  I would guess, not being a tv person, that it would
 be all of it. Am I way off?

Yes. BBC Worldwide money will also help pay for it - some productions
get extra money from BBC Worldwide too as a sort of advance to make a
good show they can flog on DVD.




But I don't think it does. The BBC Archive was paid 10 million in
2004/2005 by BBC Worldwide, and contributed 80 million in other
revenue. Compared to the 3 billion license fee it's insignificant.

There are two types of programmes: those the BBC owns rights to, and
those it doesn't.  One argument against releasing BBC owned programmes
without DRM on the Internet is that it would make it difficult to then
also sell it to Fox, for example.

But there is no significant revenue from this sort of activity.  It
would be advantageous to the license fee payer, and no loss, for this
type of programming to be released without restrictions.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-15 Thread Richard Lockwood


 

 Here we go again with the there are plenty of other ways to make
 money / loads of other business models argument.  No-one yet has
 mentioned one (and that includes that MP3 site that Dave C mentioned

Those companies are profitable.

Please don't be a snob :-)


Really?  I'd be interested to see some published accounts.  And I'm
not going to go down the road of personal insults in this public
forum.

Rich.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


On 15/06/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Can you provide a reference for this claim? :-)



Yep - http://www.ppamarketing.net/cgi-bin/wms.pl/60, plus
http://www.ppamarketing.net/cgi-bin/wms.pl/899 if you want more detail.

I haven't got detailed figures on how the different sectors break down, but
basically consumer magazines keep going up and up, while
business-to-business titles are generally static (and in some sectors, like
technology, falling). Consumer mags have had ten years of solid growth. And,
of course, that's not accounting for contract magazine publishing, which is
growing massively - think Waitrose Food Illustrated and its ilk.

The big growth is in glossy weeklies, at the moment - Grazia (which sells to
more ABC1's than any other title on the market - Vogue has nothing on the
spending power of the Grazia reader) and the like.


I was at http://stbride.org/events_education/events/newspaperdesign

and heard that the _only_ newspaper that is profitable today, apart
from the zero-price 100%-ads papers that have sprung up like mushrooms
lately, is the Daily Mail. I figured magazines would be the same, and
am genuinely curious to hear differently :-)



Ahh, well profitable is a different matter. Magazines depends far more on
ad revenue than sales - titles with relatively small circulations can be
hugely profitable (Felix Dennis refers to his mansion as the house that
MacUser built for this very reason). But having said that, ad spend in
magazines keep going up overall - 25% in real terms over the past ten years,
or thereabouts.

But the point I was making was really about demand for magazines, which has
never been higher. We're paying more for them than ever, while buying more
than ever.

So it seems that, while we like our news stories on screen, we like our
features on paper. Nice, thick, glossy paper with big pictures :)

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-15 Thread Kirk Northrop


Kirk Northrop wrote:

Dave Crossland wrote:

The BBC's sack of money contains 3 billion pounds, which is a of sum
of money which can make a lot of things happen.


My apologies, it was in fact Stephen Deasey who wrote this.

It appears Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 STILL hasn't fixed all the bugs with 
inboxes...


Sorry about that Dave!

--
From the North, this is 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info


On 15/06/07, Stephen Deasey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



There are two types of programmes: those the BBC owns rights to, and
those it doesn't.  One argument against releasing BBC owned programmes
without DRM on the Internet is that it would make it difficult to then
also sell it to Fox, for example.




Yeah, but don't forget that even when the BBC is the producer of a
programme, it is not the sole rights holder. Programmes where the BBC owns
all rights in perpetuity with no residual payments due are very rare -
mostly news, some (but not all) documentaries, and very old archive footage.


It can be really hard for anyone not connected to the media to get their
head round, but programmes don't have all their production costs set up
front and then nothing beyond that. If a series is rebroadcast, lots of
people associated with it are due additional payments. It's a very finely
balanced system which basically works: without it, almost no actors would
ever make a living out of acting (and remarkably few do already).

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


Oh, and at the risk of adding even more - this is all for the UK market. The
US market is completely different: there, the cost of launching a national
magazine is so high that there's much less competition, and much less
competition means more stilted, boring magazines. We're lucky we live in
such a small (geographically) country.

On 15/06/07, Ian Betteridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On 15/06/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Can you provide a reference for this claim? :-)


Yep - http://www.ppamarketing.net/cgi-bin/wms.pl/60, plus
http://www.ppamarketing.net/cgi-bin/wms.pl/899 if you want more detail.

I haven't got detailed figures on how the different sectors break down,
but basically consumer magazines keep going up and up, while
business-to-business titles are generally static (and in some sectors, like
technology, falling). Consumer mags have had ten years of solid growth. And,
of course, that's not accounting for contract magazine publishing, which is
growing massively - think Waitrose Food Illustrated and its ilk.

The big growth is in glossy weeklies, at the moment - Grazia (which sells
to more ABC1's than any other title on the market - Vogue has nothing on the
spending power of the Grazia reader) and the like.


I was at http://stbride.org/events_education/events/newspaperdesign
 and heard that the _only_ newspaper that is profitable today, apart
 from the zero-price 100%-ads papers that have sprung up like mushrooms
 lately, is the Daily Mail. I figured magazines would be the same, and
 am genuinely curious to hear differently :-)


Ahh, well profitable is a different matter. Magazines depends far more
on ad revenue than sales - titles with relatively small circulations can be
hugely profitable (Felix Dennis refers to his mansion as the house that
MacUser built for this very reason). But having said that, ad spend in
magazines keep going up overall - 25% in real terms over the past ten years,
or thereabouts.

But the point I was making was really about demand for magazines, which
has never been higher. We're paying more for them than ever, while buying
more than ever.

So it seems that, while we like our news stories on screen, we like our
features on paper. Nice, thick, glossy paper with big pictures :)

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


On 12/06/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



By definition something that can be infinitely replicated is NOT a
scarce resource.



I'm afraid that's not a tenable argument.

You're thinking of the resource as the bits. In fact, the scarce
resource is the creativity which made the first copy. So the only question
that matters is how do you reward creativity?

So - how, in your system when all media are free, do you reward creativity?
Or do you believe that creativity is not worth monetary reward?

Copyright exists to create a system of artificial scarcity, on the principle
that creativity deserves reward as it's a major positive activity for
society as a whole. Take away that system of artificial scarcity, and you'd
better have a replacement that can do the job just as well.

So please Andy- what's your replacement? Bare in mind that unless your
replacement can substitute for the economic activity supported by copyright,
you are going to reduce economic activity in general and thus make the world
(literally) poorer.

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-14 Thread zen16083

 So - how, in your system when all media are free, do you reward
creativity? Or do you believe that creativity is not worth monetary
reward?

Most of what the media produces isnt creative: it is formulaic and
componentised in much the same way as any factory that assembles work on a
production line. Of course, media production needs to be financed, but it
isnt a scarce resource and it does warrant disproportionate returns.

If the media was truly creative, it wouldnt struggle with how to make money
from its work. It is a confusion on the part of the media folk to think that
their work is somehow creative and unique.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ian Betteridge
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:13 PM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 12/06/07, Andy  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote:

By definition something that can be infinitely replicated is NOT a
scarce resource.

I'm afraid that's not a tenable argument.

You're thinking of the resource as the bits. In fact, the scarce
resource is the creativity which made the first copy. So the only question
that matters is how do you reward creativity?

So - how, in your system when all media are free, do you reward creativity?
Or do you believe that creativity is not worth monetary reward?

Copyright exists to create a system of artificial scarcity, on the principle
that creativity deserves reward as it's a major positive activity for
society as a whole. Take away that system of artificial scarcity, and you'd
better have a replacement that can do the job just as well.

So please Andy- what's your replacement? Bare in mind that unless your
replacement can substitute for the economic activity supported by copyright,
you are going to reduce economic activity in general and thus make the world
(literally) poorer.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-14 Thread Richard Lockwood




If the media was truly creative, it wouldn't struggle with how to make money
from its work. It is a confusion on the part of the media folk to think that
their work is somehow creative and unique.



Here we go again with the there are plenty of other ways to make
money / loads of other business models argument.  No-one yet has
mentioned one (and that includes that MP3 site that Dave C mentioned
earlier - there's a good reason they can be pretty sure no-one's going
to illegally share their music.  Not with people they like anyway.

Cheers,

Rich.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-14 Thread zen16083

 Here we go again with the there are plenty of other ways to make
money / loads of other business models argument. 

Just for the sake of accuracy ... I didn't actually say either of the above.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Lockwood
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:19 PM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info



 If the media was truly creative, it wouldn't struggle with how to make
money
 from its work. It is a confusion on the part of the media folk to think
that
 their work is somehow creative and unique.


Here we go again with the there are plenty of other ways to make
money / loads of other business models argument.  No-one yet has
mentioned one (and that includes that MP3 site that Dave C mentioned
earlier - there's a good reason they can be pretty sure no-one's going
to illegally share their music.  Not with people they like anyway.

Cheers,

Rich.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-14 Thread Richard Lockwood


Oh.  Right.  Sorry.  wouldn't struggle with how to make money from its work.

I'm sure there's a distinction between that and would be able to come
up with a different business model

Cheers,

Rich.



 Here we go again with the there are plenty of other ways to make
money / loads of other business models argument. 

Just for the sake of accuracy ... I didn't actually say either of the above.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Lockwood
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:19 PM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info



 If the media was truly creative, it wouldn't struggle with how to make
money
 from its work. It is a confusion on the part of the media folk to think
that
 their work is somehow creative and unique.


Here we go again with the there are plenty of other ways to make
money / loads of other business models argument.  No-one yet has
mentioned one (and that includes that MP3 site that Dave C mentioned
earlier - there's a good reason they can be pretty sure no-one's going
to illegally share their music.  Not with people they like anyway.

Cheers,

Rich.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/




--
SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073

Registered address:
4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-14 Thread zen16083

Hey Rich

++
Oh.  Right.  Sorry.  wouldn't struggle with how to make money from its
work.

I'm sure there's a distinction between that and would be able to come
up with a different business model


There is a distinction because I'm not saying that people would be able to
come up with a different business model. I'm saying that the struggle to
make money shows a lack of creative thinking. Maybe no one can come up with
a way to make money (other than using DRM as a cosh) - though I think that's
unlikely.

The problem probably comes in media people expecting a disproportionate
return on what they do. They think they're producing something scarce (but
in truth everyone has some creative talent) but all they are producing is
more of a long line of similar things that have gone before.

Look at the BBC: at the moment it is running its pictures in Britain thing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/britain/

This has a lot of creative content from people all over the country...
people who aren't getting paid for their creativity. A lot of what is being
produced is as good/interesting as anything you see from the BBC itself or
photography professionals.


The vast majority of media content is just normal stuff: someone singing,
someone playing music, someone acting, etc - it doesn't take much skill and
it certainly is not a scare and valuable resource.

My initial response was to the poster who said that creativity is scarce and
therefore valuable  My reply was to say it isn't scarce and therefore
not valuable. There may be a few exceptions of true creativity ... but they
are few and far between.  Calvin Coolidge got it right in his shot across
the bows to people who think they are somehow unique or special:

Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not;
nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not.
Unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not - the world is
full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are
omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and will always solve the
problems of the human race.

Not arguing with you, but I wasn't saying there is a different business
model out there. I was just pointing out that media creativity isn't a
scarce/valuable resource ... if the original poster is claiming creative
scarcity for the foundation of their argument, then their argument is sunk.





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Lockwood
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:41 PM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Oh.  Right.  Sorry.  wouldn't struggle with how to make money from its
work.

I'm sure there's a distinction between that and would be able to come
up with a different business model

Cheers,

Rich.


  Here we go again with the there are plenty of other ways to make
 money / loads of other business models argument. 

 Just for the sake of accuracy ... I didn't actually say either of the
above.


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Lockwood
 Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:19 PM
 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
 Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

 
 
  If the media was truly creative, it wouldn't struggle with how to make
 money
  from its work. It is a confusion on the part of the media folk to think
 that
  their work is somehow creative and unique.
 

 Here we go again with the there are plenty of other ways to make
 money / loads of other business models argument.  No-one yet has
 mentioned one (and that includes that MP3 site that Dave C mentioned
 earlier - there's a good reason they can be pretty sure no-one's going
 to illegally share their music.  Not with people they like anyway.

 Cheers,

 Rich.
 -
 Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
 visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
 Unofficial list archive:
 http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

 -
 Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/



--
SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073

Registered address:
4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info


On 14/06/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Most of what the media produces isn't creative: it is formulaic and
componentised in much the same way as any factory that assembles work on a
production line. Of course, media production needs to be financed, but it
isn't a scarce resource and it does warrant disproportionate returns.



I think that's your opinion, but it's not one that's shared by the market.
After all, the  appetite of consumers for  content of all kinds has never
been greater - people spend more and more time listening to music, watching
video, reading web sites, interacting via MMORPGs (etc). Where 50 years ago,
consuming media meant an hour reading a paper and two hours listening to
the radio, now media consumption is pretty much constant outside of work
contexts (and even there...). What's more, when people aren't consuming
media, they're creating it - from camera phone images to blogging to
YouTube.

By saying that stuff's not creative, it's just repetitive you're basically
saying that consumers of media are suckers and stupid. That's not an opinion
I share. If you think, for example, that Coronation Street isn't creative
I have serious doubts over your ability to judge what creativity is. You're
betraying, basically, a highly snobbish attitude towards anything that's
popular.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007-06-14 Thread Dave Crossland

On 14/06/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't say anything
about Coronation Street or things being popular being uncreative – I'm saying it doesn't take
anything exceptional to produce much of the media content we have today
Community created drama series shows, which could be shared freely,started
turning up years ago - Ian Forrester promoted them to me. Verycreative,
enjoyable stuff. Any current examples, Ian?
Obscurity is the biggest problem new businesses face. Popularitydelivers
business opportunities. Everything that can be digitised canbe freely shared.
The easier it is to share and reuse a work, the morepopular it will be.
Restricted works will become less popular thanfreely distributable works.
Apparently today's rights-holder production companies believe that DRMcan stop the mass
market from sharing works. Probably not; simplymaking the works All Rights
Reserved does enough damage to thepotential for the mass market, by criminalizing businesses
that findways to monetise the Internet. (Consider, EMI could have boughtYouTube and been raking in
the Adsense money.)
Professionals tend to overestimate their scarcity value and have asnobby attitude to
works made by semi-professionals. Richard Lockwoodhas just been a good example of this.
The costs of production as wellas distribution are approaching zero, and a lot of
semi-professionalsare making stuff they just couldn't make until now. Since it would
befoolish to start out by restricting potential customers and remainingobscure, newly
founded production companies will permit sharing in alegal way. Some Rights
Reserved.
The harder the incumbents push on DRM, the easier they make it for newpeople to
trounce them in the market.
-- 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I didn’t say anything about Coronation Street or things being popular 
being uncreative – I’m saying it doesn't take anything exceptional to 
produce much of the media content we have today. Most people could 
step into a media role and produce work that is as good as what we are 
served up with today.


And that is simply stupid. It's rather like saying that any monkey with 
a copy of Dreamweaver can make a web site - it's true, to a degree, but 
to pretend that they could produce the same results as a professional 
who's spent years learning the craft involved is, frankly, dumb.


To take my own little media role as an example. Do you think you could 
flat plan a magazine so it had pace? (For that matter, do you even know 
what a flat plan is?) Commission features that were interesting, 
exciting, and got people to read them? Write entertaining copy? Edit 
other people's copy to a high standard? Cut copy to fit layouts? Plan 
layouts that were original? Check the proofs, repeatedly? Check the 
finished layouts for colour balance and accuracy? Work with printers to 
ensure that they don't mess everything up?


No? Of course you couldn't - at least, not to the same standard that I 
can having done it for 12 years.


There's a horrible tendency amongst some parts of the tech community to 
denigrate the skills of others - and you're displaying a prime example 
of that, right now. The market tells me you're wrong: because people 
still pay for content, a huge amount of it.


That fact is borne out by the growth of the net and by ordinary people 
having a say and doing their own things: a lot of the stuff read, 
listened to, watched, etc today isn’t being produced by “media people” 
it is being produced by regular people who now have access to tools 
which allow them to record and share their work.


That, frankly, is nonsense. For example, more magazines are being sold 
in the UK than have ever been sold before: how does that fact fit into 
your view?


Try an experiment. Take a copy of FHM. Now replace every picture in it 
with images from Flickr - but no professional photographers allowed. Do 
you think it will be the same quality? I'd really like to so you 
actually do this - because I know you couldn't.


Oh, and try another little bit of research: How many of the Top Ten 
podcasts downloads in the UK on the iTunes Store are produced by these 
ordinary people and how many are produced by professional media 
outfits? Take a look, and come back with the answer for us, please. I 
happen to know what it is - and I suspect you won't like it.


The ‘media’ may consider its skills as being scarce and valuable, but 
they’re deluded if they think that.



So you keep saying, but you saying it doesn't make it true.

The creative industries, excluding software and RD, contribute between 
6-9% of the UK's total GDP, a figure that's consistently grown over the 
past 10 years. People are consuming MORE professional media, not less.


And, to get back to my original point: Would you like to explain how all 
that economic activity is going to be replaced in your copyright-free 
Utopia? Or would you be prepared to shrink the UK economy by 6% because 
of your ideals? If so, would you like to explain to voters why they'll 
have to pay more tax - about 6% more on the basic rate - in order to 
make up the difference? Or would you like to explain to the 5-6% of the 
UK's workforce directly employed by the creative industries that they're 
out of a job, and should all try to compensate by doing lecture tours or 
something.


To put it in another context: the amount that the creative industries 
contribute to the exchequer is about the same as the amount the 
government spends on higher education. Like to tell me how you're going 
to make up that shortfall?

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info