On 30/10/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave doesn't mean sharing. Dave means stealing and redistributing
for free. When he says sharing, Dave always means stealing. Dave wants
everything for nothing.
This is simply untrue: non-commercial redistribution allow
On 29/10/2007, David McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* From the interview, it is clear that the reason that the current DRM
requirements exist is because rights-holders did not want the end-user the to
be
able to redistribute content to others
Asking people to agree not share with friends
On 16/10/2007, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Jolly wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/10_october/16/adobe.shtml
I wonder if that means iPlayer is dropping the DRM to go YouTube style.
Sadly the GNU/Linux support mentioned is nothing of the sort,
On 16/10/2007, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Crossland wrote:
Sadly the GNU/Linux support mentioned is nothing of the sort, since
it will require Adobe's proprietary Flash player.
Depends - gnash now (allegedly, I haven't tried it) has the
functionality to support YouTube
On 05/10/2007, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So move there, if you want as many advantages as you can possibly make
for your startup.
But you can find a sharp circle of friends who are into this stuff
pretty much anywhere, and if they are sharp enough - Jaiku (finland)
and Placez
On 05/10/2007, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Graham this morning said you should move to silicon valley if your
serious about this stuff or at least its an advantage.
Paul wrote some related thoughts in HP (or an essay on his site from
04/05) comparing Boston to the Valley, so
On 21/09/2007, George Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Flickr isn't a substitute for professional photo libraries just yet, you know.
We drive into the future using only our rearview mirror.
-- Marshall McLuhan
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To
On 17/09/2007, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a theory that PC users like to customise more that Mac and Linux
users
Given the amount of skins for GNU/Linux users' desktops, such as on
kde-look.org and gnome-look.org, thats an interesting statement. Apple
disapproves of
On 16/08/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems the anti-DRM protests are misdirected. Why is the yellow jump-suit
brigade talking to the people who actually have the power to change it? The
rights holders.
The BBC is being very sneaky about responsibility for the DRM:
It doesn't
On 16/08/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does iPlayer contain Silverlight? I've not seen anything to suggest it does.
It might not today, but its very clear what Microsoft's web-video strategy is.
There was an article in The Register today about this:
On 15/08/07, Paul Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Dave,
Who is Dan Lyons?
A journalist for Forbes who has constantly attacked the software
freedom movement.
What is a shill?
A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a
political group, who pretends no association
On 14/08/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The irony is that it probably doesn't matter now. They could now download it
using their Windows XP machine in DRMed Windows Media Format.
All thanks to our new overlord Bill, and his maniacal scheme to take over
the BBC from the inside.
On 14/08/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Forrester wrote:
Yep we were there along with about another 20 people.
So were they making a point or trying to make a difference?
I believe the additional media coverage of the unconscionable
restrictions in the iPlayer will make a
Hi Folks,
Not seen mention of it in her yet, so those those interested in the
on-going iPlayer controversy, the Free Software Foundation's Defective
By Design campaign is holding a protest outside the BBC Television
Center in White City tomorrow at 10:30AM.
Read all about it at
On 13/08/07, Matthew Cashmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And we'll be out there - backstage tshirts on hand, and doing some
interviews.
Cool! :-)
But why is it happening outside TVC? I'm sure it's already been said
elsewhere but... FMT are in the Broadcast Centre, 1/2 mile up the road?
I
On 13/08/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm wondering if the police will be able to continue protecting us from
terrorwrists if they have to police an iPlayer DRM demo?
Yeah dude, its going to turn violent, for sure.
lol
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk
On 31/07/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 19:50, Dave Crossland wrote:
There are efforts to make unauthorised sharing of television as easy
as possible though, such as http://www.rulecam.net/ted/ and this makes
a mockery of highly restricted systems
On 01/08/07, Paul Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are times when I
think that the Linux community expects everything for nothing, and if it's
not forthcoming that a company is either stupid or short sighted or
similar.
No, the software freedom movement doesn't expect anything for
On 01/08/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not advocating eye patches and peg legs here, but personally I don't see
a moral difference between getting something that's available on demand free
from iPlayer via other means. That could be a PVR, or it could be getting it
from a
On 01/08/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/08/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/08/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not advocating eye patches and peg legs here, but personally I don't
see
a moral difference between getting something that's
On 30/07/07, Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From time to time there has been (mostly around iPlayer) some strong
criticism of how the BBC develops products. That's good.
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/BBCcorrupted
August 14th seems like a date for the diary :-)
--
Regards,
On 31/07/07, Otu Ekanem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
isn't
unreasonable to think that that percentage, like me, will open this
particular thread expecting something related to our antiquated albeit
better than none transport system: The London Underground.
Otu, that's a fair point; I was
On 29/07/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 27 July 2007 19:03, Dave Crossland wrote:
Sun announced an intention to release Java under GPLv2.
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/
Roadmap. What are the remaining key steps that Sun and the OpenJDK
community
Hi,
Another glimpse at the future of television:
http://www.rulecam.net/ted/
(Free software under MIT/X11 style licensing, although its depends on
proprietary Java :-(
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit
On 27/07/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sun opened Java a while ago:
http://www.sun.com/2006-1113/feature/
it's free now.
Sun announced an intention to release Java under GPLv2.
It is not free now.
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/webnotes/README.html
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the
Hi Jason!
On 15/06/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really don't want to get back into this :-)
I think this is important, and I hope you do too. So thanks for
contributing to the debate :-)
DRM is wrong. Pretty much anything that stops the free flow of
information and ideas
On 25/06/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could choice in this matter mean that iPlayer is available in one
configuration on a TV, and also through a cable set top box? One product.
Choice of methods.
If the iPlayer did that
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your name and logo's would still be covered by Trademark and similar
protections. Misrepresenting the source of a good is surely illegal
isn't it?
Oh - so visual intellectual property is fine, but recorded isn't?
Trademark law is
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
Hi Tom!
Thanks for the excellent post, lots to think about :-)
On 15/06/07, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On 12/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's the main
point - the BBC is the wrong target here.
The BBC is very much the right target. When the trend it to move awayfrom
proprietary software and lock-in formats, the the BBC is fastbecoming one large
advert for Microsoft. First
Hi Andrew!
Thanks for chipping in with this, it reflects very much what Tom
Loosemore said in the Backstage DRM Podcast - that BBC DRM was a
regrettable but neccessary evil, done only at the behest of the
production companies who feed the BBC.
On 12/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Come on - how many of you have ever heard your mum exclaiming Oh, why
does my content have to come with DRM???
My sister had an iPod. Her computer broke. She got a new one. She put
the iPod in to copy the music back to the new computer.
On 12/06/07, Tim Cowlishaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I, personally, won't be using any CC-NC licenses, and will not
recommend them to others
Hmmm... this was really my point - by reccomending magnatune's model of
selling licences (for commercial re-use of artistic goods that are available
On 12/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. That's either your sister not telling the whole truth (Did you
click the button that says 'Wipe My iPod?), or Apple's crap software.
The alert box your sister would have got actually says:
The point isn't the alert box's wording.
On 12/06/07, Matt Rink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the problem is more not that people want rid of DRM just
because they can, it's more that ... Alot of average (non-techie)
users are buying iPods and using iTunes
not realising that everything that what they have downloaded can only
be
On 12/06/07, Tom Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DRM MADE MY SISTER CRY.
An all-too-common story
Thanks for backing me up on this one :-)
but (and I hate to say this) it only proves
that you need to keep good backups and that the iPod's Music Mode is
not a backup (without the use of
Hi Jeremy!
On 12/06/07, Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- As Richard said..Listen Again will still be available
Listen Again is in proprietary Real Media format. The BBC should
adopt free formats like Ogg Vorbis.
- We will also be working (or already are) on propositions for cable,
On 12/06/07, Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good luck to ITV.com btw . Has it launched yet ;)
The new soaps section of http://www.itv.com has live streams and
catch up service right now. Guess that came out this week.
I'd say this was the first of its kind in the UK - gratis live
Hi David!
On 12/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If however you say making a copy of this DVD for your own use (eg in case of
damage) is OK but it is wrong to give it away or sell it. Please don't do that.
Then you are actually treating the consumer as a reasonable person.
No,
On 12/06/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I feel that GNU Copyleft is inferior to Creative Commons Licences.
And GNU Copyleft is a virus.
Creative Commons licenses use copyleft, and they recommend the GPL for software.
http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Hi Tom!
On 12/06/07, Tom Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The argument for us for the iPlayer is a bit like the argument for
God. Of course, none of us are going to [believe in/use] [God/the
iPlayer], we're not that stupid. But the ignorant proletariat out
there needs a [comfort blanket/DRM
Hi David!
On 12/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If however you say making a copy of this DVD for your own use (eg in
case of
damage) is OK but it is wrong to give it away or sell it. Please don't
do that.
Then you are
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
http://www.freethebbc.info
:-)
--
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/
On 08/05/07, Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And they say that Perl is dead :-)
No, just braindamaged. http://www.underlevel.net/jordan/erik-perl.txt etc ;)
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit
On 03/05/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a CC-licenced JavaScript animation library
I'd love to hear about why Virgin is using Creative Commons to license
software :-)
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit
On 03/05/07, Mario Menti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://tbites.com/2007/05/cridland-heads-to-beeb
Congrats James!
leaving after six years to work for the BBC, as Head of Future Media
Technology, Audio Music
Wow! That's awesome!
I've always found James' posts here thoughtful, and wish him
On 16/04/07, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So currently we have a couple of guests, however...
1. Who should we get on the podcast?
Miles Metcalfe was imo the best participant in the first one :-)
2. What subjects would you like us to explorer in the podcast?
The obvious stuff
On 03/04/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 13:15 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
The point about this Apple/EMI deal is that they have costed out
thecost of non-DRM. This is very significant, and something
MilesMetcalfe suggested in the DRM Podcast.
The BBC
On 03/04/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that many CDs have some form of DRM on them.
And that recently the publishers stopped putting DRM on CDs, because
they've realised that hurting their customers only hurts them.
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion
Hi Jason!
On 03/04/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, of course. However, I said
more people put the unDRMed file on the torrents. The file without DRM will be easier to
distribute, therefore perhaps more people will.
The point about this Apple/EMI deal is that they have costed
Hi Tim!
On 03/04/07, Tim Cowlishaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in areas of the
world where internet access is not yet as common as here, DRM is much more
prevalent, as they are attempting to lock down the recorded music market
*before* pervasive internet access becomes a problem for their
On 03/04/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excellent article from The Register...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/03/emi_apple_drm_analysis/
Concluding line: Do we cease to pay artists completely, or do we move
to a model where music is a service? Thanks to EMI and Apple,
On 03/04/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When does radio become a music distribution service?
When it goes out over TCP/IP, because of http://streamripper.sourceforge.net
People like last.fm are riding a fine line here right?
I heard they aren't licensed.
On 02/04/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd imagine at the quantities that Apple buy bandwidth, the extra cost
of delivering the larger file will be negligibly more. Therefore what is
this price increase paying for? Potential lost revenue when more people
put the unDRMed file on
Hi,
From http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1826/125/ :
Bruce Lehman, who now heads the International Intellectual Property
Institute ... explained the U.S. perspective in the early 1990s that
led to the DMCA (ie. greater control though TPMs) ... acknowledged
that our Clinton
Hi,
Doctorow mentions the BBC DRM discussions, from the 14th minute of
http://www.archive.org/download/OpenViewsCoryDoctorow/t1172602800.ogg
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit
On 02/03/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Might interest some people here.
Wow - awesome!
Great to see the BBC providing footage in non-DRM formats! Congratulations!
The Gnash project (http://gnash.lulu.com) is about to get flash video
playback working, so the obstacle to free
On 01/03/07, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, how do you propose to fund a multi-million pound film
in a different business model?
I don't propose funding a multi-million pound film, so it is
not my concern.
OK, so this isn't about ethics then, it's about dogmatic laissez-faire
On 01/03/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But change is good.
Is it.
I think so. There are many rural communities than shun progress alot,
and a few like the Amish that do a lot. I like change, because in
change there is opportunity :-)
I can't see Lord of the Rings ever getting
On 01/03/07, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But change is good.
For someone so enamoured of accusing everyone of having hidden
assumptions you are finding it pretty easy to ignore the huge assumption
at the centre of your argument.
Please explain what you think this is :-)
I
On 28/02/07, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is there a way you could implement it that doesn't
compromise the public at the expense of the people with the temporary
monopoly rights?
There is a hidden assumption here: that the monopolists are elevated
to the same level of importance
On 28/02/07, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't care if I could only listen to it once and it just blew up
Separating fools from their freedom is wrong. The fact that the fools
participate voluntarily does not excuse it. DRM is a predatory
scheme that creates subjugation. Even
On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It never set out to make them happy: It set out to give them freedom.
Who would have thought a conversation about the concept of people
watching TopGear a couple of days late could end up at this melodramatic
line?
Who would have thought
On 28/02/07, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't think of a workable solution
yeah, me neither. so is it ok to say to someone you can't have what you
want because even though it's technically possible it is not ethically
possible? I don't know.
Please explain why permitting the
On 28/02/07, Mario Menti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In just about every definition, loss can
mean being deprived of something, regardless of whether you physically
possessed that thing in the first place.
What loss are rights holders taking?
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk
On 27/02/07, John Drinkwater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got similar comments from someone else off-list related to comments
i've made here and on the BBC editors site.
I'm sorry to hear that - I've been quite vocal about my non-mainstream
opinions, and never received such comments.
--
HI James!
On 26/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Cranky Geeks
this week, one of the studio guests said how splendid oscartorrents.com was,
The fact you deliberately linked to a torrent site - thus removing the
chance of the oscar winners to earn money from their films,
On 24/02/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I joined the backstage mailing list because the description is this:
Finally, remember that the noise is the signal. You can't post too
much. Deploy filters.
- http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html
--
Regards,
Dave
Hi James!
The poet, the artist, the sleuth - whoever sharpens our preception
tends to be antisocial; rarely well-adjusted, he cannot go along
with currents and trends. A strange bond often exists among antisocial
type in their power to see environments as they really are.
Professionalism merges
On 21/02/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Dave. Now I understand. This is a major step
Yes, Ian and Matthew are really showing how things should be done! :-)
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit
On 20/02/07, John Wesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're using Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 - details here
Why not the new version of the Attribution license? (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ )
Is there a bit difference?
No, because you can upgrade CC licenses to the latest
On 20/02/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 15:18 + 19/2/07, Matthew Cashmore wrote:
Hi Gordon - nope an honest as you like Creative Commons Licence - no BBC
fudge at all.
I was thinking of the Creative Archive Licence which is a BBC fudge.
I'm not sure why you'd think this, or
On 19/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Going into a cinema with a camcorder...
That cinema rips on peekvid.com are palatable isn't something HD
salesmen and industry professionals seem to really understand, eheh
:-)
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion
http://daringfireball.net/2007/02/macrovision_translation
Classic :-)
--
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:
On 18/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's possible for all our podcasts to be produced in Ogg Vorbis
automatically, too.
...
Ultimately, no organisation can spend time servicing 0.01% of people without
losing focus for the 99.99% of people.
The automation means that you
On 18/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/15/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the point, then? Well, the point of the BBC is that, by
informing, educating and entertaining everyone in the UK, the
population of the UK gains both individually
On 14/02/07, David McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, this seems particularly pointless when I can simply point my desk
antenna at the Crystal Palace transmitter and record the 20Mbaud H.264 1080p
stream being broadcast in clear.
This is the kind of thing I think the BBC should be
Hi Tom!
On 14/02/07, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, this seems particularly pointless when I can simply point my desk
antenna at the Crystal Palace transmitter and record the 20Mbaud H.264 1080p
stream being broadcast in clear.
This is the kind of thing I think the BBC
On 09/02/07, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if you want the BBC to move on from being a broadcaster (which it
looks to me like you do!), then engage in the wider political debate
about media policy.
I'm sorry, not being an industry insider nor experienced politically,
I don't really
On 13/02/07, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Yep - the BBC doesn't even own the Daleks...)
The BBC owns *half* the daleks - specifically, the look and
visual identity. The estate of Terry Nation owns their behaviour.
So - if you want to use a picture of a dalek, you approach the
BBC.
On 13/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rubbish, the BBC could have had their cake and eaten it just
by threatening to tell the content providers to shove off. The rights
holders want their material on the BBC, probably more than the BBC
wants any particular piece
On 08/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/02/07, Dave Crossland wrote:
On 08/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deterring the general public from blatant file-sharing.
It fails at this purpose.
I disagree. It fails at preventing all of the public from sharing
On 09/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
its deemed 'good enough' for the general public (the vast, vast
majority of which just want to watch Eastenders/Dragons
Den/whatever the next day).
The vast, vast majority of the general public have no problems
using the regular
On 09/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The purpose of being good enough to satisfy the people that
own the rights to the content - and therefore being able to
release the content in this manner.
You implicitly elevate the people that own the rights to the content
above the
On 13/02/07, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My understanding is that
Thanks for taking the time to explain :-)
- the writer writes the script, which is subject to the usual literary
copyright rules
- the contract writers are employed under is some kind of a
On 13/02/07, David McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is going to be a (semi-)regular occurrence, could we get a real RSS feed
for it?
Yes, I'd be in favour of that.
I also note that its been published in the free software, open
standard, cross platform ogg vorbis format as well as
On 11/02/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ignoring the DRM usecase or restricting your computer scenarios, having a
secure location for helping check system integrity and protecting the
contents of your harddrive, is useful.
Sure.
When you lose the ability to sign things yourself,
On 11/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just reread one of RMS' musings on treacherous computing, and some
of what he describes is terrible. But that's not what is on offer!
If it was designed to stop your computer
from functioning as a general-purpose computer why can I
301 - 400 of 438 matches
Mail list logo
