In case you're interested, I'm organising a free event where javascript
legend Jeremy Ruston is giving a talk on HTML5 and the slow death of
Flash. Plenty of time for QA afterwards! Details here:
http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/4516026/
Cheers,
Phil
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:42 PM, cisnky
i think plugins tend to be created to fill gaps
flash has done well because it filled alot of gaps
it seems one of the biggest gaps in html was video, however though the
video/audio tags seem a great step forwards
the lack of a clear commonly supported streaming
protocal/branding/inserted
This has discussion continued in a modest way on the blog comments.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html
I am sorry to say Nick is making misleading reassurances.
(He is not sufficiently technical or familiar with the material, to
understand the
There was always the luck for Macromedia (now Adobe) that when they launched
Flash there was no competitor. Even Microsoft used Flash 2 on the old
Microsoft Network.
When I first heard that Macromedia were going to add a video player to the
Flash plugin I though that it might catch on! It's been
On 6 Oct 2009, at 11:34, Brian Butterworth wrote:
There was always the luck for Macromedia (now Adobe) that when they
launched Flash there was no competitor. Even Microsoft used Flash 2
on the old Microsoft Network.
When I first heard that Macromedia were going to add a video player
to
big reason for the success of Flash was Adobe's reputation for
providing great tools for designers.
Adobe hates designers, now Marcomedia that was a company that loved
designers
Flex == the evil
Flash == the great, if under supported these days
Flex SDK + Elicipse + Flash == the best :)
Zap
I agree Stephen - enabling creative people who were not that technical
to build really intricate animations and applications was a key reason
for Flash being successful. Even if the way they built things would give
most developers a hissy fit.
Most designers use Adobe tools (e.g. Photoshop,
Thanks for this David.
-Original Message-
From: David Tomlinson [mailto:d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk]
Sent: 06 October 2009 10:35
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Cc: Nick Reynolds-FMT
Subject: Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
This has discussion continued in a modest way on the blog
Hi,
Id like to suggest that referring not to 'copy protection' but to 'copy
restriction' is an effective way of adding clarity to this kind of
discussion.
I prepared a more emotive (angry) post about this issue but didn't allocate
time to finish it as I figured an unemotive and level headed
I get a strange sense of the BBC pushing DRM down the throats of the public,
AGAIN, so, yes.
On 3 Oct 2009, 10:27 AM, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk
wrote:
i do get this strange sense of deja vu
--
*From:* owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:
That I think is a conspiracy theory too far.
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth
Sent: 06 October 2009 14:12
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty
2009/10/6 Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com
I get a strange sense of the BBC pushing DRM down the throats of the
public, AGAIN, so, yes.
On 3 Oct 2009, 10:27 AM, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk
wrote:
i do get this strange sense of deja vu
Hi,
I was referring to the wording of David's original post.
Your last paragraph is a bit unclear to me, could you restate?
Regards, Dave
On 6 Oct 2009, 2:47 PM, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote:
Dave,
I've gone back and looked at the original letter again.
There are two
David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is
incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to
allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not an active project
AFAIK, but it is Mozilla MPL.
Of course, one
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 15:00, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote:
David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is
incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to
allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is
Scot,
You can't see how it is in the public interest BECAUSE IT ISN'T. The BBC are
very clear that they are willing to cut their own charter up to pander to
the special interests of their suppliers; there is no need for conspiracy
theories about this, they are very up front about admitting what
dave - this is a wild exaggeration. The suppliers that you dislike so
are companies who provide content for the BBC for licence fee payers to
enjoy. Their interests have considered just like everyone else's.
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
Actually, lots of FLOSS code produces supersecure encryption; GnuPG for example.
Digital Restrictions Management of broadcast media is harder to do
than text messages or filesystem volumes.
Most commercial DRM developers don't give a hoot about GNU/Linux
platforms since marketshare is so small
Hi all,
I realise I’m somewhat late to the party going on here—for some
reason, I never got around to subscribing to backst...@. You can
probably guess from my e-mail address how I relate to this particular
debate!
For the record, I’m no more part of the official consultation process
DRM is law, not code.
(As code it's useless, an encryption system where you give the attacker the
key...)
- rob.
On Oct 6, 2009 4:14 PM, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, lots of FLOSS code produces supersecure encryption; GnuPG for
example.
Digital Restrictions Management of
Sean DALY wrote:
David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is
incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to
allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not an active project
AFAIK, but it is Mozilla MPL.
I think Nevali might take umbrage at being lumped into our conspiracy
so blatantly.
a
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM, David Tomlinson
d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
This has discussion continued in a modest way on the blog comments.
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
dave - this is a wild exaggeration. The suppliers that you dislike so
are companies who provide content for the BBC for licence fee payers to
enjoy. Their interests have considered just like everyone else's.
No the BBC needs to consider the interests of the licence
Rob Myers wrote:
DRM is law, not code.
(As code it's useless, an encryption system where you give the attacker
the key...)
- rob.
The law prevents the breaking of even trivial encryption, and the
encryption prevents, the breaking of the code, which unilaterally
imposes controls on the
I like pesky people. Oddly though your blog doesn't have a comments
facility.
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 06 October 2009 16:30
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage]
Pity. I would have left a comment.
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 06 October 2009 18:49
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On
Frank Wales wrote:
Do you mean the DMCA? Isn't that American? And what is a unilaterally
imposed licence, when it's at home? How can someone force me to accept
their permission to do something?
I can not remember the relevant European legislation, IPRED, IPRES2?
The DMCA has more name
Hi Nick,
On 6-Oct-2009, at 18:55, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
Pity. I would have left a comment.
The effort required to enable comments is unfortunately more than it’s
worth expending (and an awful lot of people dislike all of the
available comment system options for tumblr), but I really
On 06/10/09 19:07, David Tomlinson wrote:
Frank Wales wrote:
Do you mean the DMCA? Isn't that American? And what is a unilaterally
imposed licence, when it's at home? How can someone force me to accept
their permission to do something?
I can not remember the relevant European
You could post your comments here, just for now
2009/10/6 Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net
Hi Nick,
On 6-Oct-2009, at 18:55, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
Pity. I would have left a comment.
The effort required to enable comments is unfortunately more than it’s
worth expending (and an awful
And let's not forget that EU Legislation has to be enacted by the
UK Parliament.
There's a few US laws I quite like, can I claim we use them here too?
2009/10/6 Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
On 06/10/09 19:07, David Tomlinson wrote:
Frank Wales wrote:
Do you mean the DMCA? Isn't that
Brian Butterworth wrote:
And let's not forget that EU Legislation has to be enacted by the
UK Parliament.
There's a few US laws I quite like, can I claim we use them here too?
From the FFII mailing list.
Bilski v. Kappos, currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, is
considered the
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 20:05, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote:
And let's not forget that EU Legislation has to be enacted by the
UK Parliament.
It was, as far as I know, six years ago. Copyright and Related Rights
Regulations 2003.
M.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk
On 06/10/09 20:05, Brian Butterworth wrote:
And let's not forget that EU Legislation has to be enacted by the
UK Parliament.
Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_and_Related_Rights_Regulations_2003#Technical_measures
And while I'm at it -
Mo McRoberts wrote:
I might be being dim, but I can’t see an angle to this where the
rights holders actually get what they want (anything which even
impedes pirates) without fundamentally altering the conceptual
landscape of free-to-air receiving equipment in the UK.
I've always assumed that
Billy Abbott wrote:
Mo McRoberts wrote:
I might be being dim, but I can’t see an angle to this where the
rights holders actually get what they want (anything which even
impedes pirates) without fundamentally altering the conceptual
landscape of free-to-air receiving equipment in the UK.
36 matches
Mail list logo
