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:
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
2009/9/30 Kieran Kunhya kie...@kunhya.com
Generate a mountain of e-waste, because manufacturers won't be able to
produce set-top boxes that downsample the HD signal and feed it through
a digital output to existing SD tuners and recorders.
No idea what he's talking about here. If an STB
I do wonder what the point of all this is. I know sometimes circumstances
complicate matters, but from the POV of a viewer the Beeb shouldn't be
beholden to the rightsholders. I certainly don't want to see a repeat of the
same kind of infighting witnessed in the States over the Broadcast Flag. Any
i do get this strange sense of deja vu
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Jeremy Stone
Sent: 02 October 2009 20:19
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 19:53, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.ukwrote:
How would the cause of audiences be served if the BBC refused to deal
with content vendors and as a result audiences could not access that
content?
As usual it's a difficult balancing act.
But the content
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 19:53, Nick Reynolds-FMT
nick.reyno...@bbc.co.ukwrote:
How would the cause of audiences be served if the BBC refused to deal
with content vendors and as a result audiences could not access that
content?
History shows that this won't happen.
And this time the BBC is
Rob - you forget that the BBC is also a content vendor. Also content
vendors do want their content to be shown to licence fee payers. They
just want some compensation in return. And it's an exaggeration to say
that the content venedors are getting everything they want.
-Original Message-
Well I'm not party to the negotiations so I've no idea how strong or how
weak the BBC's bargaining position is.
But don't forget that the BBC is a content vendor too.
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
Well I'm not party to the negotiations so I've no idea how strong or how
weak the BBC's bargaining position is.
But don't forget that the BBC is a content vendor too.
I see my past has caught up with me !
(the references to the past, deja vu, my reputation has been
People on this list may be interested in this latest blog post:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti
on_a.html
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson
Sent: 02
On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti
on_a.html
However our focus is not to champion causes - it's meeting our public
service remit which means serving our many audiences as best, as fairly,
and as openly as we can.
How would the cause of audiences be served if the BBC refused to deal
with content vendors and as a result audiences could not access that
content?
As usual it's a difficult balancing act.
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk]
On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
People on this list may be interested in this latest blog post:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti
on_a.html
The first commenter is far more worth reading than the original post -
Rob Myers wrote:
On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
People on this list may be interested in this latest blog post:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti
on_a.html
The first commenter is far more worth reading than the original post -
Oh its just like the old days :)
Jem Stone
Communities Executive | BBC Audio and Music
O7966 551242 | twitter: @jemstone | jem.stone [at] bbc.co.uk.
- Original Message -
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Scot McSweeney-Roberts wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 19:07, Nick Reynolds-FMT
nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk mailto:nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
that's why there's a public consultation
Where? There doesn't seem to be anything related on ofcom's site
2009/9/30 Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk
Cory's piece is inaccurate in many respects - see this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti
on_up.htmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti%0Aon_up.html
I wasn't
Ofcom's letter to DTT industry stakeholders inviting comments
To me, that's not the quite the same thing as a public debate on the
issue.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 09:27, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
--- On Thu, 1/10/09, Frankie Roberto fran...@frankieroberto.com wrote:
From: Frankie Roberto fran...@frankieroberto.com
Subject: Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Date: Thursday, 1 October, 2009, 11:39 AM
2009/9/30 Nick
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protection_up.html
We've said before that we are specifically avoiding encryption of the
broadcast signal to ensure that the public service content remains free
to air. Content protection gives content producers comfort to give
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/29/bbc-hd-encryption
Ok I know we talked about it before but here he (cory) is again, but
this time in the Guardian.
Cheers,
Secret[] Private[] Public[x]
Ian Forrester
Senior Backstage Producer, BBC RD
01612444063 | 07711913293
Cory's piece is inaccurate in many respects - see this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti
on_up.html
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Kieran Kunhya
Sent: 30 September 2009
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 18:21, Nick Reynolds-FMT
nick.reyno...@bbc.co.ukwrote:
Cory's piece is inaccurate in many respects - see this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti
that's why there's a public consultation
see also this from April
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/welcome_to_some_new_initi
als_d.html
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Scot
On 30/09/09 17:37, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
If anything the open source community will be the first to find a workaround.
It will be both impractical and illegal to do so. From the article -
DTLA requires that all devices be made to resist end-user
modification. That is, DTLA devices can't use
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 19:07, Nick Reynolds-FMT
nick.reyno...@bbc.co.ukwrote:
that's why there's a public consultation
Where? There doesn't seem to be anything related on ofcom's site
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/?open=Yessector=Broadcasting%20-%20TV
You'd think they'd be the
27 matches
Mail list logo
