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
Depending on the kind of media there are other ways of making money
other than charging for things that are copyable.
Music:
Charge for Live performances/concerts
Charge for physical merchandise
OK. So if I can't perform live (due to terrible stage fright (see
XTC), disability or any other
Software:
Charge for support
Charge for bespoke software
Charge for custom modifications.
Now this is a model we know works because there's a multiple of
companies in the OpenSource world. So it's a no brainer.
Music:
Charge for Live performances/concerts
Charge for physical merchandise
I think - as do many others, it seems - that people pirate because they want
interoperability, convenience of consumption on their own terms, and the
quality is often better to boot.
Yes, yes, and yes. Don't forget though, that a lot of people pirate
because they want the convenience of not
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
Musical revenues are not something I know huge amounts, but
this seems
to me to be a model which drives the musicians very very hard. To
earn money to live they have to perform - and they'll need
to do it a LOT.
But to prepare their next album, they'll need to stop performing
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
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:38:16AM +0100, Andrew Bowden wrote:
Music:
Charge for Live performances/concerts
Charge for physical merchandise
Musical revenues are not something I know huge amounts, but this seems
to me to be a model which drives the musicians very very hard. To earn
Dave Crossland wrote:
On 14/06/07, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/testtube
I've seen the remixer thing on another site - guess thats yet another
Google acquisition.
I seem to recall Yahoo getting to market before them with their purchase
of Jumpcut Remix.
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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 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
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,
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. So if I can't perform live (due to terrible stage fright (see
XTC), disability or any other reason), what do I do?
And if I develop RSI or another disability that prevents me doing my job?
There is a reason we have a benefit for
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
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
I haven't used it, but one of the Silverlight demos Microsoft produced
was a video editing RIA.
On 15/06/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14/06/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
video editing is often upheld as a paragon of desktop
computing, since its so processor, memory
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
That's just a personal preference amongst some people - it isn't wrong.
According to Michael Swan from Oxford University Press, Practical English
Usage:
British English: different from / different to
American English: different from / different than
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 10:19 +0100, Mr I Forrester wrote:
I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while,
and want to ponder this question to the backstage community...
We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well
lets just say for this
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 10:15 +0100, Richard Lockwood wrote:
I think - as do many others, it seems - that people pirate because they want
interoperability, convenience of consumption on their own terms, and the
quality is often better to boot.
Yes, yes, and yes. Don't forget though, that a
On 15/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only a few years ago, the BBC renegotiated its contract with BSkyB to
_remove_ DRM from its satellite broadcasts. That's why I can receive BBC
content on my DVB-S card without having to muck about with a Dragon CAM
and a Solus card. Well
I think the whole discussion about alternative business models and even
philosophical discussions about the nature of copyright are irrelevant
and counterproductive. You don't need to be a revolutionary to observe
that DRM is worthless and causes far more pain to consumers than the
supposed
On 6/15/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet
from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet.
It's not worse, but it's not much better.
The BBC charter is not to do a little
Go get your invites now and enjoy...
https://www.joost.com/presents/backstage/
Thanks to the Joost team for the special invites.
-
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
Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the
internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC
over the internet.
Because it's not free of charge -- it's our license fee that's going
to pay for the useless DRM
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've obviously not read the numerous posts explaining in some detail
why it *isn't* currently feasible
Must have missed that one. Can you show in detail the point at which
it says you MUST use MICROSOFT DRM? I would really like to know
Stephen Deasey wrote:
The BBC has many thousands of hours of programming which it holds
sufficient rights to enable it to published on the Internet, DRM-free.
If DRM is so distasteful, then why isn't this being done? Surely the
BBC should be taking steps to move towards a DRM-free world, if
Andy wrote:
Must have missed that one. Can you show in detail the point at which
it says you MUST use MICROSOFT DRM? I would really like to know so I
can email my MEP about this matter. In case they want to add the BBC
as an accessory to whatever they are prosecuting Microsoft for today.
Name
I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the
internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC
over the internet.
Because it's not free of charge -- it's our license fee that's going
to pay for the useless DRM technology, even if we don't use it. I
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:49:10PM +0100, Andy wrote:
don't know about and aren't complete yet. Running on x86, intel/AMD 64
bit, PowerPC, Motorola 68k, Sparcs, Alpha, Arm, MIPS, PA-RISC, s/390,
and CPU architectures that are unknown to the BBC or incomplete.
Steady on - why not Z80, OK a bit
Oh, snazzy!
-Original Message-
From: Mr I Forrester [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 15 June 2007 18:28
To: BBC Backstage
Subject: [backstage] Joost invites just for the Backstage community
Go get your invites now and enjoy...
https://www.joost.com/presents/backstage/
We have friends in many different places...
Christopher Woods wrote:
Oh, snazzy!
-Original Message-
From: Mr I Forrester [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 15 June 2007 18:28
To: BBC Backstage
Subject: [backstage] Joost invites just for the Backstage community
Go get your invites
Ve haff vays of making you tok mistar volpi...
-Original Message-
From: Mr I Forrester [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 15 June 2007 23:25
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Joost invites just for the Backstage
community
We have friends in many different
54 matches
Mail list logo
