Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
Hi Matthew, Thanks for the link; I'd never seen the creative archive before, and I agree, it's a step in the right direction, but I'm not a big fan of the licence. For example clause 2.2.7 requires me to attach the creative archive logo to any derivative works and the UK only clause is undesirable, but I think they (and the other constraining clauses in this licence) are necessary for these works until content producers become more enlightened. On 04/02/07, Matthew Cashmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there, Is this not a step in the right direction? http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/ Unfortunately we have to actually make things work, and whilst many of us here at the beeb would love nothing more than to release all of our content, like we've done above, the people who own the rights don't want us to... so we're back to Toms point of having to make a stark choice... release what we can using accepted* DRM, or don't release anything... surely it's better to move things on in terms of making the content available via the iPlayer, than to not? * By the rights holders. m -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED]on behalf of Richard P Edwards Sent: Fri 02/02/2007 19:09 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukhttps://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer Hi Dave, Yes, it was a mistake on my part that I hit reply and the previous email didn't end up on the list. Apologies. As I said at the beginning, it will be interesting to see why anyone believes that DRM is needed on BBC products. So far I have seen no clear reason whatsoever, apart from as you say, a defensive legal willingness to support an old model. Still, I get the feeling that my wish to have access to the BBC archive for free use to remix its content is as yet a dream. :-) All the best RichE On 2 Feb 2007, at 16:49, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi Richard! (I notice you didn't reply to the Backstage mailing list, perhaps in error?) On 02/02/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I totally agree that DRM is not a complete answer, but neither is giving it all away for nothing. Copyright was originally an industrial regulation on printers, and I see no reason why it cannot continue as an industrial regulation. The public now have copying machines. It is impossible to change that fact, and unethical to deny it. Copyright law as it is today is totally broken by this, in as much as it treats the public in an unjust way. But business is adaptable (even if some businesses are not...) and the public is a relatively small market. Let me try and break down Giving it all away for nothing... Giving. If you put up a micropayment (ie, paypal) tip jar and put good copywriters to task on making good 'sales' copy and include those words everywhere they are appropriate, you'll find that people like to give back to things that they appreciate. it all. Although a poor quality version on YouTube available the day it is finished is good enough for a lot of people, that is not the whole thing. The thing is spread out across time and space. Physical containers of the work - collectors editions and top packaging/mechandise - are still worth paying for. I have never bought a DVD for myself, because I've only ever downloaded films, but I've bought a load as presents for other people. A burnt off CD doesn't quite do the same trick :-) away. It is true that you don't have as much control as you used to, and that the public will inevitably end up remixing what you did with something else, and maybe even making some money off all the ads on their webpage when their remix becomes popular. You're never going to see any of that cash, but, as an industrial regulation, copyright can still work. An Ad agency, for example, won't be able to get away with using your work like that, without getting a copyright license. for nothing. Don't confuse no money with no thing. What you get by allowing people to fileshare is 'mindshare' or 'social capital.' Ask PR companies about how valuable that can be. I think that all paid knowledge work will become custom work, paid for because someone wants something done for them for another purpose. Ie, moving from a profit center in its own industry to a cost center of another industry. This is fuelled mainly by the falling costs not only of the costs of distribution, but of production. Everyone becomes a producer of all every kind of information once the tools and time to know the
Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
Hello Matthew, Yes, obviously this is a step in the right direction I looked at that site as soon as it was first released. Which was before I knew anything about GeoIP and the BBC's re- negotiated terms of agreement with PACT, last May, even before the fuss over the Met Office's weather feeds. The UK only clause completely barred and censored me from that content. This is definitely an interesting journey, fraught with difficulties, and I think that it is really important for you at the BBC to realise and take in to account some of what is discussed here. after all it is only a discussion. If my perception is biased or incorrect, then I apologise. Still, there is clearly a collision of two worlds. One being the freedom of data on the net, worldwide the other being how a public corporation controls such data, and who the BBC's shareholders are in that decision. I have learnt much during my time following backstage, and most of it has involved finding possible ways to circumvent the controls that you have put in place. not that I would consider using the data illegally for financial reward at this moment, but I am now very aware that it is possible. I think that Lord Puttnam could do with some more information regarding the possible pitfalls, especially with using the iPlayer. In my experience, as soon as you release the data, whether it be on iPlayer with DRM or not, one has to be totally clear about how it may be abused and to what extent the BBC will defend such abuse as Devil's advocate, how would the BBC sue me and twenty thousand others publicly on behalf of the Rights Holders and make the case for supporting such a waste of money? I think we are all aware from the RIAA's experience of the limitations of that course, and so perhaps it is right to see the opposing perspective... especially where content that the BBC does own copyright for is concerned. I do think that the positive social capital is definitely worth considering. All the best RichE On 4 Feb 2007, at 21:42, Matthew Cashmore wrote: Hi there, Is this not a step in the right direction? http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/ Unfortunately we have to actually make things work, and whilst many of us here at the beeb would love nothing more than to release all of our content, like we've done above, the people who own the rights don't want us to... so we're back to Toms point of having to make a stark choice... release what we can using accepted* DRM, or don't release anything... surely it's better to move things on in terms of making the content available via the iPlayer, than to not? * By the rights holders. m -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Richard P Edwards Sent: Fri 02/02/2007 19:09 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer Hi Dave, Yes, it was a mistake on my part that I hit reply and the previous email didn't end up on the list. Apologies. As I said at the beginning, it will be interesting to see why anyone believes that DRM is needed on BBC products. So far I have seen no clear reason whatsoever, apart from as you say, a defensive legal willingness to support an old model. Still, I get the feeling that my wish to have access to the BBC archive for free use to remix its content is as yet a dream. :-) All the best RichE On 2 Feb 2007, at 16:49, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi Richard! (I notice you didn't reply to the Backstage mailing list, perhaps in error?) On 02/02/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I totally agree that DRM is not a complete answer, but neither is giving it all away for nothing. Copyright was originally an industrial regulation on printers, and I see no reason why it cannot continue as an industrial regulation. The public now have copying machines. It is impossible to change that fact, and unethical to deny it. Copyright law as it is today is totally broken by this, in as much as it treats the public in an unjust way. But business is adaptable (even if some businesses are not...) and the public is a relatively small market. Let me try and break down Giving it all away for nothing... Giving. If you put up a micropayment (ie, paypal) tip jar and put good copywriters to task on making good 'sales' copy and include those words everywhere they are appropriate, you'll find that people like to give back to things that they appreciate. it all. Although a poor quality version on YouTube available the day it is finished is good enough for a lot of people, that is not the whole thing. The thing is spread out across time and space. Physical containers of the work - collectors editions and top
RE: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
In order to help me, once they are written I'm going to publish the first chapter or two under a creative commons licence, and post it on my website. This will also have the side benefit of telling me if anyone else thinks I'm any good. If instead of publishing on my website, I could submit previous short stories to the BBC for a possibility of a reading on a BBC radio station (probably BBC 7, though I'd personally like BBC radio 4). [Kim Plowright] So, here's a dumb question, that I'm going to ask anyway because sometimes they get interesting answers. Why on earth do you need the BBC for that? What does the chance at getting a 'BBC' reading give you that, say, podcasting the chapters yourself doesn't? What does the BBC add in that scenario? Anything more than Legitimisation? (I'm thinking of Cory Doctorow's 'publish for free and podcast for free to drive sales' model here.) (Also, I think there's a nice little idea for a site for aspiring writers in this; and Open Source Audio Books Podcast project.)
Re: [backstage] Elegant little screencast
That's not web 2.0 in a nutshell, these describe it much more clearly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA8NKzPvNBM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pOkaC4eHsE Yes, I'm cynical about the whole concept of adding javascript and a nice logo to a geocities site, and calling it web 2.0. In reality web 2.0 when my computer can output coffee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RqBgraHxB4 ;p On 05/02/07, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE Web2.0 in a nutshell. Kim Plowright | Snr. Producer, New Product Development BBC Interactive Drama and Entertainment | MC1D6, BBC Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ t: +44 (0)20 800 83413 | m: +44 (0)7980 303 908 | *www.bbc.co.uk/drama * | *www.bbc.co.uk/entertainment*
Re: [backstage] BBC Web API - additional audio formats // additional speed descriptors
At 17:23 04/02/2007, you wrote: On 2/2/07, Sean Dillon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: type and url would obviously be mandatory. Are there any views on whether bitrate and network should be optional or mandatory? If bitrate is include how would you define variable and constant bitrates? Or is there actually a need to define this? [Might make sense if network always defaults to unicast unless stated?] Bitrate: Sean, your point about variable bitrates makes sense. That adds complexity, I suspect. For example (and sorry for using VR as an example), our Windows Media stream is a total of 132k, of which 128k is audio. Yet it is an intellistream which will knock all the way down to 20k if it needs to. What do I put in the bitrate there? 132k? 128k? 20-128k? (Our Real streams are similar: 8k up to 32k). Similarly, our Ogg Vorbis streams are variable, we quite one as around 20k and one as around 160k. James, Presumably the purpose of the bitrate field would be purely informative? e.g. to allow the end user to choose between low and high bitrate streams to suit the bandwidth of their connection. If so, the maximum bitrate would be sufficient. Chris ___ Chris Newell Lead Technologist BBC Research Kingswood Warren Tel: +44 (0)1737 839659
RE: [backstage] BBC launches a Homepage that validates!!!
On 2 Feb 2007, at 11:15, Brian Butterworth wrote: If you have a widescreen TV and you havn't gone into the menus to set the output format to 16:9 then everyone is simply going to look fat and you're missing the pictures. What was the point of buying a widescreen TV if you don't actually use it? Please email me back if you need any more help. I'm not quite sure you understood my point. I'm not missing any pictures I was pointing out how small the clock is on the News24 compared to how it was 2 weeks ago. But for the record my TV is set to 16:9. Perhaps it's time to buy a bigger TV? - 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.24/668 - Release Date: 04/02/2007 01:30 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.25/669 - Release Date: 04/02/2007 21:58 - 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/
RE: [backstage] BBC launches a Homepage that validates!!!
I'll have to look into the meta tag. Given we're not serving the file as that mime type, changing it will probably upset someone else. But definitely give it due consideration. The W3C recommends that you *should* serve XHTML as application/xhtml+xml, but you *may* serve it as text/html if you follow the HTML Compatibility Guidelines (which we do). http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary. Odd things start happening when you serve XHTML as application/xhtml+xml, including - firefox doesn't support incremental loading of XML documents yet: http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html#accept - if the client is not a validating parser it may not expand character entity references like copy; and deg; as these are declared in the DTD. - IE doesn't understand (because it doesn't want to do it if it can't do it properly: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/15/467901.aspx) Kevin. - 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/
Re: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
On an individual basis, it gives exposure, and feedback and helps new talent. If the BBC editors decide that one of my short stories should be broadcast, then I can go to a publisher and say Publish me, the BBC thinks I'm good enough to broadcast (maybe I could go to BBC books, and say your colleges on the radio think I'm god, what about you?). More importantly, on a wider institutional and societal basis it builds a base and understanding of free (libre, not gratis) culture, and longer term, all these DRM happy media types will see how pointless restrictions like DRM are as their careers were launched by free media, it's the same principle used in education get 'em young. If you build the idea of freedom into the careers of content providers they won't be so quick to take it away from others, and be able to sleep soundly without it. On an individual note, I will be publishing the first chapter of the book I'm writing under a creative commons licence, once I finish writing you'll be able to read it online, for free (both senses) and as a thank you for taking the time you'll get given the right to make (and sell) derivative works, give copies to friends and basically do what you like with it, just so long as you acknowledge my authorship. On 05/02/07, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In order to help me, once they are written I'm going to publish the first chapter or two under a creative commons licence, and post it on my website. This will also have the side benefit of telling me if anyone else thinks I'm any good. If instead of publishing on my website, I could submit previous short stories to the BBC for a possibility of a reading on a BBC radio station (probably BBC 7, though I'd personally like BBC radio 4). [Kim Plowright] So, here's a dumb question, that I'm going to ask anyway because sometimes they get interesting answers. Why on earth do you need the BBC for that? What does the chance at getting a 'BBC' reading give you that, say, podcasting the chapters yourself doesn't? What does the BBC add in that scenario? Anything more than Legitimisation? (I'm thinking of Cory Doctorow's 'publish for free and podcast for free to drive sales' model here.) (Also, I think there's a nice little idea for a site for aspiring writers in this; and Open Source Audio Books Podcast project.)
Re: [backstage] RE: [backstage] £1.2 billion question (or RE: [backstage] BBC Bias??? Click and Torrents)
It depends what you mean by failed Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is circumvented by simply burning your tracks to CD, then ripping to MP3. I'd count that as a failed DRM mechanism, as it's essentially useless. If the BBC implements DRM that's as good as Fairplay, I'll be happy (as long as they don't spend to much of my licence fee on it). I'm sure (well not really, but that's a different debate) HD-DVD and\or Blu-Ray will make millions too, but I'd say that their DRM has failed already too. On 05/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is all my personal opinion. withdrew DRM, since it totally failed, like it always will iTunes Music Store (solely selling DRMed content?) appears to be doing pretty well... over 2bn songs, 50m TV episodes and 1.3m films sold [1]. It turned over around $1.7bn last financial year [2]. Doesn't make it right, of course, but it's hardly failed. J [1] http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/01/09itunes.html [2] http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/10/107357/reports/10K_FY2006.pdf- they don't breakdown the revenue far enough, but its about $1.7 to $1.8bn I'd reckon. - 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/
[backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] £1.2 billion que stion (or RE: [backstage] BBC Bias??? C lick and Torrents)
The iTunes music store, along with others is a special case. I dont think many consumers know in fact that they are, in effect, renting the music even though they have paid for it (by renting I mean the fact that without an internet connection, if you were to shove your iTunes purchases onto another computer (that belonged to you?), they would not work since it would not be able to phone home and your purchases would be useless). One of the reasons I do believe that the DRM on the iTunes music store is not necessarily a good thing is because it locks the user into the iTunes/iPod system and if the user were to ditch the iPod and iTunes theyd have to purchase all their music again, or indeed, burn it to disc and re-import, therefore ending up with even lower quality files then they would have started off with. And heres another thing to chuck into the pot. What about those of us that want the flexibility of being able to choose our tracks to be able to download, but will not compromise on sound quality (i.e. want pure linear PCM WAVs or lossless)? Apart from quasi-legal Allofmp3.com, wheres the download store for us serving up popular music for those of us who want quality and flexibility? Not all people want DRM laced low bit-rate files you know. IMO, DRM should only be used in situations where the content is hired out to the user (in that, the user is explicitly using a subscription service, such as Napster to go, or whatever its called) and not for services where the user purchases the song outright. After all, if you purchase a washing machine, do you want to be told when and where you can use it, and if you move it from house to house, do you want to have to check in with the company that made it, so that it can be used at the new address? - C. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 05 February 2007 18:24 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] RE: [backstage] £1.2 billion question (or RE: [backstage] BBC Bias??? Click and Torrents) This is all my personal opinion. withdrew DRM, since it totally failed, like it always will iTunes Music Store (solely selling DRMed content?) appears to be doing pretty well... over 2bn songs, 50m TV episodes and 1.3m films sold [1]. It turned over around $1.7bn last financial year [2]. Doesn't make it right, of course, but it's hardly failed. J [1] http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/01/09itunes.html [2] http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/10/107357/reports/10K_FY2006. pdf - they don't breakdown the revenue far enough, but its about $1.7 to $1.8bn I'd reckon. - 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/
Re: [backstage] Elegant little screencast
At 11:46 + 5/2/07, vijay chopra wrote: That's not web 2.0 in a nutshell, these describe it much more clearly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA8NKzPvNBMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA8NKzPvNBM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pOkaC4eHsE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pOkaC4eHsE Yes, I'm cynical about the whole concept of adding javascript and a nice logo to a geocities site, and calling it web 2.0. In reality web 2.0 when my computer can output coffee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RqBgraHxB4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RqBgraHxB4 ;p On 05/02/07, Kim Plowright mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE Web2.0 in a nutshell. Kim Plowright | Snr. Producer, New Product Development BBC Interactive Drama and Entertainment | MC1D6, BBC Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ t: +44 (0)20 800 83413 | m: +44 (0)7980 303 908 | www.bbc.co.uk/drama | www.bbc.co.uk/entertainment As We May Think mashup? Gordon -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - 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/
Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
On 04/02/07, Matthew Cashmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this not a step in the right direction? http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/ The CA strongly suggested that the BBC might provide leadership in the Free Culture community. However, I recently saw IFTV's http://blip.tv/file/138568 (IFTV being Ian Forester, the one man TV production house ;-) where someone said Greg Dyke over hyped the CA and promised more than it could deliver, given the existing copyright regime. release what we can using accepted* DRM, or don't release anything... surely it's better to move things on in terms of making the content available via the iPlayer, than to not? By pretending that digital restrictions are ethical, that they can work at all, and that they are worth spending money on, the BBC contributes to making a world that no one would like to live in, other than copyright holders; where sharing is equated with attacking ships and killing people. While copy restrictions work on the majority of people who are not used to copying digital data as a way of life, a predatory scheme on the ignorant is not cool, and unconscionable by people who are used to that way of life. Even the kids of major music studio execs share music; think of the childen? :-) -- 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/
RE: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer
I think you make some very valid points there Richard, I just want to show that the BBC is trying very hard to move in a direction that enables the user to have as much control as possible. The News Quiz is a good example - we release the News Quiz via a podcast feed with no DRM at all - but it's only 'live' during the series... once the series is over the feeds go dead - but not the files you've downloaded. This area is highly emotive - I don't think we'll ever find an answer that will make everyone happy, or for that matter will be the best solution for the BBC or the user, or the rights holder... but give us some points for trying! :-) m From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard P Edwards Sent: 05 February 2007 15:10 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer Hello Matthew, Yes, obviously this is a step in the right direction I looked at that site as soon as it was first released. Which was before I knew anything about GeoIP and the BBC's re-negotiated terms of agreement with PACT, last May, even before the fuss over the Met Office's weather feeds. The UK only clause completely barred and censored me from that content. This is definitely an interesting journey, fraught with difficulties, and I think that it is really important for you at the BBC to realise and take in to account some of what is discussed here. after all it is only a discussion. If my perception is biased or incorrect, then I apologise. Still, there is clearly a collision of two worlds. One being the freedom of data on the net, worldwide the other being how a public corporation controls such data, and who the BBC's shareholders are in that decision. I have learnt much during my time following backstage, and most of it has involved finding possible ways to circumvent the controls that you have put in place. not that I would consider using the data illegally for financial reward at this moment, but I am now very aware that it is possible. I think that Lord Puttnam could do with some more information regarding the possible pitfalls, especially with using the iPlayer. In my experience, as soon as you release the data, whether it be on iPlayer with DRM or not, one has to be totally clear about how it may be abused and to what extent the BBC will defend such abuse as Devil's advocate, how would the BBC sue me and twenty thousand others publicly on behalf of the Rights Holders and make the case for supporting such a waste of money? I think we are all aware from the RIAA's experience of the limitations of that course, and so perhaps it is right to see the opposing perspective... especially where content that the BBC does own copyright for is concerned. I do think that the positive social capital is definitely worth considering. All the best RichE On 4 Feb 2007, at 21:42, Matthew Cashmore wrote: Hi there, Is this not a step in the right direction? http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/ Unfortunately we have to actually make things work, and whilst many of us here at the beeb would love nothing more than to release all of our content, like we've done above, the people who own the rights don't want us to... so we're back to Toms point of having to make a stark choice... release what we can using accepted* DRM, or don't release anything... surely it's better to move things on in terms of making the content available via the iPlayer, than to not? * By the rights holders. m -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Richard P Edwards Sent: Fri 02/02/2007 19:09 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer Hi Dave, Yes, it was a mistake on my part that I hit reply and the previous email didn't end up on the list. Apologies. As I said at the beginning, it will be interesting to see why anyone believes that DRM is needed on BBC products. So far I have seen no clear reason whatsoever, apart from as you say, a defensive legal willingness to support an old model. Still, I get the feeling that my wish to have access to the BBC archive for free use to remix its content is as yet a dream. :-) All the best RichE On 2 Feb 2007, at 16:49, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi Richard! (I notice you didn't reply to the Backstage mailing list, perhaps in error?) On 02/02/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I totally agree that DRM is not a complete answer, but neither is giving it all away for nothing. Copyright was originally an
Re: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] £1.2 billion question (or RE: [backstage] BBC Bias??? Click and Torrents)
On 05/02/07, David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.bleep.com do FLAC FLAC is Free Lossless Audio Compression, a great free software audio format. To be clear, I am not against people charging money for distributing music; I am against people distributing music in proprietary formats, and restricting me from redistributing music. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
On Monday 05 February 2007 17:27, vijay chopra wrote: If instead of publishing on my website, I could submit previous short stories to the BBC for a possibility of a reading on a BBC radio station (probably BBC 7, though I'd personally like BBC radio 4). I don't think that scales. Nanowrimo has shown that many, many, many people can write a novel in a month - far more than the BBC 7 or Radio 4 staff could read in a reasonable time frame, let alone arrange for someone to give a reading for a reasonable subset of them. You never know though, there maybe someone reading this thread thinking ooh, that's a nice idea :) Then again, you could probably scale it if you had some form of peer review system in place, and you took all the short chapters in a standard form and automated the production of a monthly on-demand printed journal... Personally, I think the idea of a podcasting your own reading strikes me as better, but there can be things done around that to give exposure, (again such as a recommendation engine of sorts, maybe). In this case, examples' case, I think there is a better option for you. ... On an individual note, I will be publishing the first chapter of the book I'm writing under a creative commons licence, once I finish writing you'll be able to read it online, for free (both senses) and as a thank you for taking the time you'll get given the right to make (and sell) derivative works, give copies to friends and basically do what you like with it, just so long as you acknowledge my authorship. What stops you publishing your book yourself? It's quite simple to do on lulu.com for example - I've bought a few books from there and the quality is higher than you might think. (especially given there is ranking and rating of books there) You don't have to charge for a download if you like (and indeed a number of books on lulu.com *do* have a free download option). More concretely - grab the open office book templates, copy and paste in your text, format using a free font [1], and then upload the resulting PDF with an embedded license stating which of the particular CC licenses you feel is free enough[2], add a charge if you like. Strictly speaking if you really want to enable derivatives you'll need to find a way to have the ODF file as a downloadable as well, though the preview may be suitable for that. Then also pick a print format (hardback, paperback, pocketbook etc), and pick whether you want to have a profit from your book or not. (If you don't it makes lulu.com into a really fancy shared printer) [1] http://goldfndr.home.mindspring.com/urw.html [2] Lulu requires the books to stipulate a license. I know Cafepress do this as well, although I've found Lulu easier to work with. (eg for making personalised notebooks) Regards, Michael. -- Michael Sparks, Senior Research Engineer, BBC Research Kamaelia Project Lead, http://kamaelia.sourceforge.net/Home All the opinions above are mine, and mine alone, and certainly not my employers opinions :-) - 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/
Re: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals
The BBC decided not to celebrate 70 years of television that started at Alexandra Palace in 1936 that is in 2006. Or did I miss something? Since 1995 the Palace has been a Grade II listed building. It was designed to be The People's Palace and later nicknamed (allegedly by Gracie Fields) Ally Pally, and in 1936 became the headquarters of world's first regular public high definition television service, operated by the BBC. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Palace In 2007, the BBC is a small fish in a big sea, and the quality of output may not be the most important factor. If you want to chat, upload music, moving or static images in the early 21st Century, just imagine a world in which the BBC is not your first choice. Gordo (formerly of the Robert Elms Chat Room, a previous service of BBC Radio London). -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - 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/
action serials (was Re: [backstage] BBC Trust reaches Provisional Conclusions on BBC on-demand proposals)
Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You never know though, there maybe someone reading this thread thinking ooh,
that's a nice idea :) Then again, you could probably scale it if you had some
form of peer review system in place, and you took all the short chapters in a
standard form and automated the production of a monthly on-demand printed
journal...
What I think would work (and what I'm going to fund when I'm
incredibly rich) is writing to an objective.
You set a framework, say an action serial (such as Dick Barton) or a
class-romance ('Only A Factory Girl' by Rosy M Banks being an example),
and get people to contribute to it.
This would work a bit like open source software where most people (but
only just) contribute to existing projects. Releases would be
contiguous wholes. You could have multiple releases of a single work
if people came up with sufficiently good plot versions.
I think there's loads of scope for this. I find it difficult to code
while listening to Jon Udel for example. I probably could code while
listening to 'Dick Barton Special Agent', 'The Red League' or 'The
Further Adventures of Mellors' (well, maybe not that one).
There's loads of scope as well for dramatising the results.
I don't think the BBC needs to get involved. But a forum *like* this
does.
--
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs
-
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/
