2009/10/7 David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk
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
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 06:41, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
It's the people who can't break the law, the consumer electronics companies
who will be required to obtain a licence who will be affected.
It is a legal trigger.
Conditions placed on them (Consumer Electronics),
Instead of doing that I will follow your example and pimp up my personal
blog where I give my current personal thoughts on this in July of last
year:
http://nickreynoldsatwork.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/freedom-open-source-s
how-me-how/
But my blog does have comments enabled!
Mo McRoberts wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 06:41, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
It's the people who can't break the law, the consumer electronics companies
who will be required to obtain a licence who will be affected.
It is a legal trigger.
Conditions placed on them
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:44, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Controlling the functionality of the Consumer Electronic product is seen (by
the rights holders) as key to restricting the public access to broadcast
content. No analog hole, HDMI only (encrypted, trusted) output
The rights-holders will have to answer the first part.
This is sheer fantasy,
really—it’s pretty much entirely incompatible with (a) an open market,
and (b) broadcasting (as opposed to simulcasting to millions of people
individually).
They don't want an open market, they have enjoyed a
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:43, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
They don't want an open market, they have enjoyed a monopoly through
broadcasting (limited bandwidth/broadcasters) and through copyright.
They don't wish this to change. Regardless of the potential of new
I agree technical schemes and disproportionate legal threats are
inefficient ways to combat illicit copying, and work should be done to
make copying licit.
However, the rights holders are not bad guys in the scenario, they
represent (for better or worse) people making a living through
creation.
Mo McRoberts wrote:
Not quite what I meant by “open market”. There was never a requirement
in the past for CE makers to join logo/licensing programmes to ensure
their kit worked—they just followed the specs. That wasn’t limited to
CE makers, either, which is how things like MythTV came to
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
I can't think of an adjective which sums it up more
adequately than crazy.
Time for me to unlurk :-)
I'm pretty sure everyone knows by now that
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:04, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote:
How can they be compensated fairly for their work? A watermarking
scheme which counts downloads or views, and apportions revenues
accordingly? That would possibly mean a shift away from
overcompensation of big names and a
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:33, Chris Warren ch...@ixalon.net wrote:
Someone isn't going to finance content for you if you can't promise you'll
do your utmost, through agreements with 3rd parties (e.g. broadcasters) and
all the technical and legal measures available to you, to protect their
My understanding is that the BBC's strategy is to treat the UK and
rest-of-world markets differently, with a profit orientation on the
World side. Technical geolocalisation solutions are indeed doomed to
failure in my view. Those sly devils at Google showed me a sponsored
link last week promising
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:56, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote:
My understanding is that the BBC's strategy is to treat the UK and
rest-of-world markets differently, with a profit orientation on the
World side. Technical geolocalisation solutions are indeed doomed to
failure in my view.
It is also worth highlighting that the Societies involved in
protecting the rights of music producers have also lagged well behind
the technical innovations which have subsequently opened up new areas
of distribution... both legal and illegal. Their methods for trying to
defend the rights
Please. Only conspiracy theories allowed here. Move along:)
However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more
flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of
many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM,
maybe it would be
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 15:07, Alia Sheikh alia.she...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote:
However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more
flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of
many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM,
maybe
Mo McRoberts wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 15:07, Alia Sheikh alia.she...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote:
However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more
flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of
many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort
Help us free London's Data
Saturday 24th October 2009 10.00 am
London's Living Room
City Hall
The Queens Walk
London SE1 2AA
The Greater London Authority is currently in the process of scoping
London's DataStore. Initially we propose to release as much GLA data as
possible and to encourage
Changing the long running threads (don't think I'm not watching)
Now Google Wave invites are out there and more of you have had a chance
to play with wave. What do people think? And why is no one building a
decent client for it?
Am I the only excited person?
Secret[] Private[] Public[x]
Ian
On 7-Oct-2009, at 17:20, Ian Forrester wrote:
Changing the long running threads (don't think I'm not watching)
Now Google Wave invites are out there and more of you have had a
chance
to play with wave. What do people think? And why is no one building a
decent client for it?
Give it time…
Ah London's got no chance :)
I think theres something bubbling up which is similar but with support
from the local and regional government agencies in Greater Manchester.
Like they say, Manchester does today what London does tomorrow ;)
Secret[] Private[x] Public[]
Ian Forrester
Senior
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
Changing the long running threads (don't think I'm not watching)
Now Google Wave invites are out there and more of you have had a chance
to play with wave. What do people think? And why is no one building a
decent
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 17:18, Brendan Quinn brendan.qu...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
We want the input of the developer community from the outset prior to
making any decisions on formats or platform. We would therefore like to
invite interested developers to City Hall so that we can talk to you
about
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 17:20, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
Now Google Wave invites are out there and more of you have had a chance
to play with wave. What do people think? And why is no one building a
decent client for it?
Am I the only excited person?
I had a Wave Sandbox
As would I. On one hand I'd like an invite, on the other I'd rather
gouge my eyes out than have one. The way Google pass their invites
out is very clever-clever in building up a market, but it marks them
out as c***s. I've worked with all kinds of Google stuff and been to
various Google
26 matches
Mail list logo
