Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth, however, you're Adblocked. If a site's a waste of bandwidth, what are you doing visiting in the first place? Making his evaluation? Don't criticise something without first knowing what you're on about, etc etc. Surely if you want to properly evaluate the site, you need to see it all - everything in context, ads included? Cheers, Rich. - 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] Ad Blocking
On 27/02/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth, however, you're Adblocked. If a site's a waste of bandwidth, what are you doing visiting in the first place? Making his evaluation? Don't criticise something without first knowing what you're on about, etc etc. Surely if you want to properly evaluate the site, you need to see it all - everything in context, ads included? Cheers, Rich. Not really, why do I need to see a sites ads to evaluate it's content? Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put it back on the black list, On the other hand I go somewhere like pvponline or pandora, I like it, so I white list and find that the ads are reasonable and don't get in the way of the content, so I click on them, even though I'm not remotely interested in what they have to offer. The things these sites have in common? They all give quality content, if you don't give quality content I'm unlikely to visit regularly (for example I occasionally visit newspaper sites, but the content is as bad as the print versions) so there's no point in me white listing the site. The moral of the story? Give users quality and they will come, if they come they will be happy to help you generate revenue. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
vijay chopra wrote: Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put it back on the black list, Do you subscribe to slashdot? One of the perks of slashdot membership is you don't get ads. Scot - 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] Ad Blocking
Not really, why do I need to see a sites ads to evaluate it's content? Because the ads are an intrinsic part of the site's content. That's what the owner of the content has decided comprises the full work, and therefore that's what you have been granted permission to use. Consumer choice in this case is not for you to block the site's adverts and deliver yourself a derivative work, but for you to either consume the content intact or not at all. Seb -- Sebastian Potter Technical Project Manager, BBC Children's Interactive - 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] Ad Blocking
On 27/02/07, Sebastian Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not really, why do I need to see a sites ads to evaluate it's content? Because the ads are an intrinsic part of the site's content. That's what the owner of the content has decided comprises the full work, and therefore that's what you have been granted permission to use. Consumer choice in this case is not for you to block the site's adverts and deliver yourself a derivative work, but for you to either consume the content intact or not at all. Seb -- Sebastian Potter Technical Project Manager, BBC Children's Interactive If something is on a *public* network, there is no obligation on me to waste my bandwidth downloading something that gives me no value; the other day I was browsing the web on my Nintendo DS browser; in order to speed things up it doesn't even have flash capability (interestingly GMail falls back to html only, and they choose not to serve me ads). If I'm using a browser unable to view adverts am I still going against the wishes of the site owner? or would they rather have the hit so that they can charge more for ads on their site? Do you condemn all the users of lynx? http://lynx.browser.org/ as they prefer only html? Or should I be forced to view every tiny quirk of ever script that a site runs? I use firefox, am I being unfair to web admins who like using ActiveX as I can't\don't view any ActiveX scripts, or is that not an intrinsic part of the site's content? To be blunt if it's served to *my* PC I have every right to do as I wish with the content; the same as if I buy a book, I don't have to read it all, why is it different for a website? I don't have to read the adverts in magazines or newspapers no one considers those an intrinsic part of [their] content why do ads have this special status on the web? It's the same with TV, I change the channel (or make a cup of coffee etc.) during ads (or skip them on my PVR just like I did with VHS tapes) is that also wrong? Are TV ads intrinsic part of a programmes content? If not, why are they so much part of a website's content? Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
To be blunt if it's served to *my* PC I have every right to do as I wish with the content; the same as if I buy a book, I don't have to read it all, why is it different for a website? I don't have to read the adverts in magazines or newspapers no one considers those an intrinsic part of [their] content No - but they're still there. You flick past them, and they don't annoy you by their very presence, which web ads appear to. You don't insist your newsagent takes a pair of scissors or a bottle of Tipp-Ex to your copy of Wired or Empire before you buy it, do you? (And, as someone who used to work in print media, I think you'd find that yes, ads *are* considered an intrinsic part of a magazine's content.) Cheers, Rich. - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. - 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] Ad Blocking
Richard Lockwood wrote: I don't have to read the adverts in magazines or newspapers no one considers those an intrinsic part of [their] content No - but they're still there. You flick past them, and they don't annoy you by their very presence, which web ads appear to. Saying that, ads in newspapers and magazines don't flash, animate, play sounds, pop up over the article you're reading or jump out of the paper after you've closed it. If people have gotten used to using adblockers, a lot of the blame has to go to the advertisers for using such annoying techniques. Web browsing is usually more similar to reading a magazine than watching TV, but the marketers tried their best to make the ads TV-like or worse/better (depending on your point of view). Had the ads not been so intrusive, then the arms race wouldn't have begun. Well, maybe there would have been the odd person intent on blocking ads (along with cookies and javascript), but adblocking would never have become a standard part of every browser. Scot - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. An interesting question, but surely the obvious answer is infinitesimally small ? dan :) - 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] Ad Blocking
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To be blunt if it's served to *my* PC I have every right to do as I wish with the content; the same as if I buy a book, I don't have to read it all, why is it different for a website? I don't have to read the adverts in magazines or newspapers no one considers those an intrinsic part of [their] content No - but they're still there. You flick past them, and they don't annoy you by their very presence, which web ads appear to. You don't insist your newsagent takes a pair of scissors or a bottle of Tipp-Ex to your copy of Wired or Empire before you buy it, do you? (And, as someone who used to work in print media, I think you'd find that yes, ads *are* considered an intrinsic part of a magazine's content.) There's an interesting side issue on advert intrusiveness in all this. Some forms of advertising are more intrusive than others. The 15 or so billboards I have to walk past in the ten minute walk to the tube station, are far more intrusive than a page advert in a magazine. A flashing, zooming, screeching flash advert on a webpage perhaps even more so. So there's an inevitability. Make your adverts intrusive and annoying, and people will want to skip them. And if they find a way, they will. (Believe me, if I could destroy the combined works of Titan, Clear Channel and JC Decaux who continue to blight the area I live in (usually without planning permission too), I would.) - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Jim Gardner wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows Are you certain Microsoft isn't funding it? I thought most of the Windows Media tools are free (as in beer - if you've payed your Microsoft tax). Scot - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 27/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is all my personal point of view. I can't receive digital TV, so I'd like a refund on money spent to make BBC3 and BBC4. Oh, and I can't read welsh so could TV Licencing please send me a cheque for the money spend on http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/ And I don't watch football, so I don't want to fund the Premiership highlights contract, please. I suspect we'll all find that it doesn't work that way. Thank goodness. -- Peter Bowyer Email: [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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. /delurk The BBC does loads of things that I dislike. However, I have to live with that and still pay all of the license fee. My only real choice would be to bin the TV and not pay at all. The license model works on the premise that the BBC will give you a chunk of stuff you like and another chunk of stuff you don't. I pay for Eastenders - eugh, but in return I get Animal Planet - yay. I can't get dsatt, but I can get dtt, should I get a rebate on the dsatt development? If you are successful, I'd like a refund for everything except Radio5 Breakfast Show, News 24, news.bbc, Animal Planet and the Accidental Angler. I worked out last week that I've only watched about 13 hours of TV in the last year. I should get a huge rebate. The best way for you to find out would be through a FOI request. http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/ Cheers, Andy - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Jason Cartwright wrote: Oh, and I can't read welsh so could TV Licencing please send me a cheque for the money spend on http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/ Well, the pop-up Oes gennych chi 5 munud i roi eich barn am y safle hwn? (Have you got 5 minutes to fill in a survey on this site, or similar) doesn't disappear whether you click Nagoes (No) or the cross, so I'd agree on this point! ;) http://jam.bbc.co.uk/ - Your computer settings do not match what you need to use this site. Thanks, that's very helpful. Far more important than iPlayer is the fact I'm totally subsidising all those freeloading radio listeners and BBC News website readers who don't have TVs. Bring back the radio licence! ;-) - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal point of view. I can't receive digital TV, so I'd like a refund on money spent to make BBC3 and BBC4. Oh, and I can't read welsh so could TV Licencing please send me a cheque for the money spend on http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/ Didn't some people say exactly that when digital TV first started? Didn't there used to be a Black White TV licence? If so, there is precedent for a lower fee for those with less capable equipment. Also, wouldn't the Welsh content be paid for by Welsh viewers (or is the amount of Welsh language content disproportionate to the number of native Welsh speakers). More importantly, if the BBC had chosen to not use the DVB standard but some proprietary technology only available from single manufacturer (that was already a convicted monopolist), would there have been even more discontent about digital TV? Scot - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. This is just my personal opinion, and not that of my employer. Are you a BT customer? If so, you could try to demand a refund of the part of your line rental that goes towards providing phone boxes for those people that don't own a mobile, or towards provision of telephone services in rural areas for those that don't live in a city. Pay council tax? Why not ask for a refund for provision of social services to those people that require social services. Pay income tax? All those people that don't have jobs or need medical care or use any of the thousands of public services that you don't. You could cut your payments down to only those services you use. If you're actually interested in protesting in a productive manner, you could join the public consultation and raise the issue of platform independence: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/open_consultations/ondemand_services.html .
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. says a guy who is using the excellent ( in fact with Google Docs, above- and beyond- excellent) FREE, gmail service. pay for your email service, you fucking tightwad, and you might have a vaguely moral place from which to make your tiny cock point. Jim Gardner is a nitpicking troll. I always read his posts in a Terry Wogan reading outraged-from-Picky-on-Twee on Points of View voice. Mr Forrester, do the decent thing and ban him from this list, it discolours the whole lovely mood of the place. On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. - 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/ - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
I would like to I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding of Seb Potter's employment - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. ;-) Seb Potter wrote: On 27/02/07, *Jim Gardner* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. This is just my personal opinion, and not that of my employer. Are you a BT customer? If so, you could try to demand a refund of the part of your line rental that goes towards providing phone boxes for those people that don't own a mobile, or towards provision of telephone services in rural areas for those that don't live in a city. Pay council tax? Why not ask for a refund for provision of social services to those people that require social services. Pay income tax? All those people that don't have jobs or need medical care or use any of the thousands of public services that you don't. You could cut your payments down to only those services you use. If you're actually interested in protesting in a productive manner, you could join the public consultation and raise the issue of platform independence: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/open_consultations/ondemand_services.html.
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Hi Which is like paying income tax for Health Service and then having to pay for prescriptions? ... Can someone suggest a way of how you could efficiently and effectively collect payment (s) that reflects all individuals use of BBC services and programmes? Annual packages or subscription based on likes and dislikes/hours viewed or listened/bbc web pages viewed/services accessed/content downloaded/free concerts attended/freephone helpline numbers dialed/... Ken -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scot McSweeney-Roberts Sent: 27 February 2007 13:20 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? Seb Potter wrote: Are you a BT customer? If so, you could try to demand a refund of the part of your line rental that goes towards providing phone boxes for those people that don't own a mobile, or towards provision of telephone services in rural areas for those that don't live in a city. Or you could switch to a different (cheaper) telephone company - people are somewhat stuck with the BBC. Pay council tax? Why not ask for a refund for provision of social services to those people that require social services. Pay income tax? All those people that don't have jobs or need medical care or use any of the thousands of public services that you don't. You could cut your payments down to only those services you use. But with the iPlayer, a person has to first pay the tax (ie, licence fee) and then they have to pay a single provider to actually use the service. So it's like paying for the NHS and then being forced to pay BUPA (and only BUPA and not, say, Norwich Union) to actually get a particular treatment. Scot - 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/ - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
The cost of the BBC's On Demand proposals (including the iPlayer) are in the public domain anyway as part of our (BBC's) submission to the BBC Trust and the the resulting Public Value Assessment document. Its worth a look. In section 8 The proposals will cost the BBC an additional £131m over the five-year period 2006/7- 2011/12. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/pvt_iplayer/ondemandpva.pdf http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/pvt_iplayer/ondemandpva.pdf thanks Jem From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Aberdeen Sent: 27 February 2007 13:41 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? I would like to I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding of Seb Potter's employment - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. ;-) Seb Potter wrote: On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. This is just my personal opinion, and not that of my employer. Are you a BT customer? If so, you could try to demand a refund of the part of your line rental that goes towards providing phone boxes for those people that don't own a mobile, or towards provision of telephone services in rural areas for those that don't live in a city. Pay council tax? Why not ask for a refund for provision of social services to those people that require social services. Pay income tax? All those people that don't have jobs or need medical care or use any of the thousands of public services that you don't. You could cut your payments down to only those services you use. If you're actually interested in protesting in a productive manner, you could join the public consultation and raise the issue of platform independence: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/open_consultations/ondemand_services.html.
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Dear all Can I remind everyone that this is a public mailing list that is archived and searchable. Please keep civil to everyone. Yes even the ones that that harp on about DRM noon and night ;) Thanks Jem -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Gardner Sent: 27 February 2007 13:52 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? It would appear from this and other mails I've received that I have the same name as someone who has a track record for trolling. I can assure everyone on the list that this is the first thread this James Gardner has started or replied to on the backstage mailing list, and given the less than wide vocabulary of some, it will be the last. Well done everyone. On 27 Feb 2007, at 13:26, James Ockenden wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. says a guy who is using the excellent ( in fact with Google Docs, above- and beyond- excellent) FREE, gmail service. pay for your email service, you fucking tightwad, and you might have a vaguely moral place from which to make your tiny cock point. Jim Gardner is a nitpicking troll. I always read his posts in a Terry Wogan reading outraged-from-Picky-on-Twee on Points of View voice. Mr Forrester, do the decent thing and ban him from this list, it discolours the whole lovely mood of the place. On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. - 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/ - 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/ - 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/ - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Kenneth Burrell-CAPITA wrote: Hi Which is like paying income tax for Health Service and then having to pay for prescriptions? ... I can choose to go to Boots, or Tesco or one of any number of small chemists to get the prescription. I'm not forced into going to a single chemist, which may be inconvenient or costly to go to (or that I just don't like, for whatever reason). And, unlike the licence fee, people on low incomes don't have to pay prescription charges no matter where they go. Can someone suggest a way of how you could efficiently and effectively collect payment (s) that reflects all individuals use of BBC services and programmes? Annual packages or subscription based on likes and dislikes/hours viewed or listened/bbc web pages viewed/services accessed/content downloaded/free concerts attended/freephone helpline numbers dialed/... You could extend the mechanisms used by adverterisers to gather ratings, so that every household with a TV Licence gets one of those boxes they use to monitor what people are watching/listening to combined with a password to use the BBC website and linking it together with every licence fee payers phone number so you know who dialed what freephone number (though the privacy issues around such an idea are immense, and I somehow doubt that it would qualify as efficient). You then use that with charging model that uses per use pricing (like, 10p for an hour of TV, 1p per kilobyte of data from the website). Alternatively you could encrypt everything, and people could pay for packages (like on Sky) - so you could just get news documentaries and childrens, while leaving out the sport. I don't think you could do it at level of the individual (except for people who live on their own), only for households, which is what the licence fee is currently targeted at any way. But then, both of those methods still leave the question - how do you pay for the unpopular, but worthy, programming? If you are going to go to a model where people only pay for what they like, then you're really talking about commercial television. Scot - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
It would appear from this and other mails I've received that I have the same name as someone who has a track record for trolling. I can assure everyone on the list that this is the first thread this James Gardner has started or replied to on the backstage mailing list, and given the less than wide vocabulary of some, it will be the last. Well done everyone. On 27 Feb 2007, at 13:26, James Ockenden wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. says a guy who is using the excellent ( in fact with Google Docs, above- and beyond- excellent) FREE, gmail service. pay for your email service, you fucking tightwad, and you might have a vaguely moral place from which to make your tiny cock point. Jim Gardner is a nitpicking troll. I always read his posts in a Terry Wogan reading outraged-from-Picky-on-Twee on Points of View voice. Mr Forrester, do the decent thing and ban him from this list, it discolours the whole lovely mood of the place. On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. - 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/ - 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/ - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
But then, both of those methods still leave the question - how do you pay for the unpopular, but worthy, programming? PPV - you split the programme budget between the expected number of viewers. As such, EastEnders being a programme with many viewers, would cost less than a documentary on BBC Four. My theory with that approach is that everyone would probably end up paying pretty much the same as they do now anyway ;) - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Thanks for a straight answer at last, it's appreciated. I'm sure Microsoft are desperately pleased with themselves for earning what ever percentage of that £131 million is theirs. You have to hand it to them, they certainly know how to charge people more money for less functionality. Shame on you BBC. On 27 Feb 2007, at 13:54, Jeremy Stone wrote: The cost of the BBC's On Demand proposals (including the iPlayer) are in the public domain anyway as part of our (BBC's) submission to the BBC Trust and the the resulting Public Value Assessment document. Its worth a look. In section 8 The proposals will cost the BBC an additional £131m over the five- year period 2006/7– 2011/12. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/ review_report_research/pvt_iplayer/ondemandpva.pdf thanks Jem From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Aberdeen Sent: 27 February 2007 13:41 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? I would like to I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding of Seb Potter's employment - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. ;-) Seb Potter wrote: On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that amount back from the BBC. If anyone knows a reliable way of working out this figure, please discuss. This is just my personal opinion, and not that of my employer. Are you a BT customer? If so, you could try to demand a refund of the part of your line rental that goes towards providing phone boxes for those people that don't own a mobile, or towards provision of telephone services in rural areas for those that don't live in a city. Pay council tax? Why not ask for a refund for provision of social services to those people that require social services. Pay income tax? All those people that don't have jobs or need medical care or use any of the thousands of public services that you don't. You could cut your payments down to only those services you use. If you're actually interested in protesting in a productive manner, you could join the public consultation and raise the issue of platform independence: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/ open_consultations/ondemand_services.html.
[backstage] Coders needed for BBC Weather New Media
Hi all, I just thought I'd mention that there are 2 jobs going in my team. One is for a Client-side coder (continuing contract), and the other is for a server-side coder (6 month contract initially). The closing date for both positions is tomorrow, 28th Feb (as in, 23:59). You can learn more about these positions on the following pages: http://tinyurl.com/3brsmd http://tinyurl.com/yuweyq And I am happy to answer quick questions via email. Mail me directly please. Thanks, Kass Kathryn Schmitt Senior Developer BBC Weather Centre 2026 Television Centre T: 020 82259448 M: 0771 7582482 www.bbc.co.uk/weather www.bbc.co.uk/climate - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Yes even the ones that that harp on about DRM noon and night ;) Actually the DRM discussions in recent weeks have been incredibly stimulating and provocative and much appreciated inside BBC towers and I hope for other subscribers. (I always knew I shouldn't try and make weak jokes on mailing lists ;) Jem - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Being fairly new to the list I can only imagine that this DRM thing has dragged on a bit for some of the older members, but I would remind everyone that it's pretty much universally agreed that this is the biggest mistake the BBC have ever made - so it's not like it isn't worth discussing at length. Since you seem to have shown up here with the matter resolved along with the rest of your 'universe', I'd say that shows there's absolutely no value in re-hashing the same discussions over again. How about this for an idea- go read the list archives, and if there's anything new to say that hasn't already been said ad nauseam, come back and say it. While you're doing that, the rest of us can get on with using this list for what it was put here for. In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't the 'Bash the BBC' list. Peter (who has no connection with any broadcast organisation, but lots of interest in backstage) -- Peter Bowyer Email: [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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
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. -- 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
George Wright wrote: On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 18:09 +, Jim Gardner wrote: I'm sure Microsoft are desperately pleased with themselves for earning what ever percentage of that £131 million is theirs Programme ingest, programme creation, programme/contributor rights, content distribution, application development, infrastructure, promotion, QA, deployment, salaries... None of these things involve Microsoft or DRM. Programme ingest, content distribution and infrastructure may be based on Microsoft technologies - so MS would be getting some money from server licences. I suppose you could do most of it with Macs or Linux, but there's probably at least one Windows server somewhere doing the transcoding. Maybe you could use hardware encoders instead, but MS would still be getting some licensing money from those. I would also assume they'd get something from the application development with Visual Studio and/or MSDN licences. It would be interesting to hear how the backend of iPlayer is actually being done. Scot - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
I never did understand keyboard heros. The fact is, if we where talking face to face in the pub, you wouldn't dream of being so obnoxious just because you think I'm wrong. Just because you can't counter my argument with anything doesn't give you the right to resort to the fail-safe, I've been here longer than you and every likes me more; playground mentality. I stopped joining lists to argue with people like you years ago. You, sir, are the kind of person who ruined UseNet. If I'm rehashing already aired opinions then I apologies, but I can't understand how anyone could take the time to go out of their way just to be nasty to someone when it's far more helpful to simply stay quiet. Get a job you like. If anyone else has a compelling reason in favor of paying twice for something that doesn't work properly and they can string a sentence together with which to convince me I'm wrong, I'm all ears. Otherwise I think we'll put joining this list down to experience and move on. On 27 Feb 2007, at 18:41, Peter Bowyer wrote: On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Being fairly new to the list I can only imagine that this DRM thing has dragged on a bit for some of the older members, but I would remind everyone that it's pretty much universally agreed that this is the biggest mistake the BBC have ever made - so it's not like it isn't worth discussing at length. Since you seem to have shown up here with the matter resolved along with the rest of your 'universe', I'd say that shows there's absolutely no value in re-hashing the same discussions over again. How about this for an idea- go read the list archives, and if there's anything new to say that hasn't already been said ad nauseam, come back and say it. While you're doing that, the rest of us can get on with using this list for what it was put here for. In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't the 'Bash the BBC' list. Peter (who has no connection with any broadcast organisation, but lots of interest in backstage) -- Peter Bowyer Email: [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/ - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
I would've hoped that the BBC listserver either washes those kind of emails or returns them to sender. -Original Message- From: Jim Gardner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 February 2007 19:20 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? I'm not exactly over-the-moon about the idea that everyone's private email address is visible. What are people still using Windows supposed to do if someone decides to attach a worm? On 27 Feb 2007, at 18:13, John Drinkwater wrote: On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He privately mailed me and used words I won't repeat for fear they trigger the spam filter. Is he sub-normal or is that the crack on this list? If so I'm not interested in continuing with it. I got similar comments from someone else off-list related to comments i've made here and on the BBC editors site. The list certainly attracts people of various opinions, but he's certainly sub-normal. :-) On 27 Feb 2007, at 14:44, Dave Crossland wrote: The list's House Rules are simple: Be Nice To Each Other and Don't Break The Law. If you are rude or spam the list then you'll be taken off. - http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html Will this policy be acted upon? -- Regards, Dave - -- John '[Beta]' Drinkwater http://johndrinkwater.name/ - 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/ - 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/ - 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] Coders needed for BBC Weather New Media
Sorry, I seem to have messed up with the tinyurls I gave in my previous post. Here are the links in their gory splendour: https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=HqSpVAxKiZLqNnZifjobid=13564, 2395596535key=1658236c=653525135614pagestamp=sehoeqelevzzvayuna https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=EnPmSXuHfWInKkWfcjobid=13563, 3448980234key=1658236c=653525135614pagestamp=seyhulndvpljmxynbh Kathryn Schmitt Senior Developer BBC Weather Centre 2026 Television Centre T: 020 82259448 M: 0771 7582482 www.bbc.co.uk/weather www.bbc.co.uk/climate
[backstage] Bug report: backstage.bbc.co.uk
On http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/ there's a blog, and the main item of the blog is currently 'More Twitter Hacks and BBC Goodness'. Click the headline, to be rewarded by a 404 error. (Or, worse, click the 'see original' link in the RSS feed to be rewarded by a 404 error). And now I can't blog about that posting and how, on reflection, wrong it is. Bah. It's a conspiracy. -- http://james.cridland.net/
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
On 2/26/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even more - lowering the CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet user has no opportunity to click. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_Through_Rate Depends if you ever click ads... Doesn't. Depends whether the ad is good enough for you to click on. Ads are crap so I won't click on them ever is a rubbish argument. You will click on ads if they are relevant. There is a value to the brand owner for you to see the ad even if you don't click on them. And how do you know whether the media owner has a CPM or CPC deal for this particular ad anyway? -- http://james.cridland.net/
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
On 2/27/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put it back on the black list Ah. Other people might get irritated with the ads and therefore not go back to Slashdot. Instead, you want to get the content, but not want to let them have any chance of earning revenue from it. It's akin to stealing chocolate from the store because you believe the prices are 'over-high'. It's unethical. It's indefensible. It's wrong. You know it - I know it - we all know it. Your only ethical option is to Not Visit. Full-stop. Stop stealing, and stop boasting that you're stealing. Interestingly, we did some experiments on Virgin Radio's website with flash overlayz (you know, those horrid things that get in the way of content). I said to the sales manager: We'll do those, fine. The first complaint we get, we'll remove them from the site. She agreed. I believed that we'd get the first complaint within the first hour of the first day. We're still waiting for that first complaint, nine months later. The moral of the story? Complain, people. Please. If you don't complain, I can't tell the sales manager to take her crappy overlayz and shove them where the sun doesn't shine because our visitors don't want them. However, I should rush to point out - we no longer carry overlayz, because we believe nobody likes them. If only someone had complained, we'd have acted earlier. (Please give feedback about anything you see on that site to www.virginradio.co.uk/contact_us/?to=techies and I or one of my team will reply). -- http://james.cridland.net/
Re: [backstage] A couple of things including Arrington
On 2/27/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The fact you deliberately linked to a torrent site - thus removing the chance of the oscar winners to earn money from their films Well done, Dave. Don't you owe me a drink? ;) -- http://james.cridland.net/
Re: [backstage] Tube on Twitter
Mornington Crescent. -- Davy Mitchell Blog - http://www.latedecember.co.uk/sites/personal/davy/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/daftspaniel Skype - daftspaniel - 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] Bug report: backstage.bbc.co.uk
Joy :-) - Thanks for pointing that out James will try to sort now - I hate MT. m -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of James Cridland Sent: Tue 27/02/2007 20:38 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Bug report: backstage.bbc.co.uk On http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/ there's a blog, and the main item of the blog is currently 'More Twitter Hacks and BBC Goodness'. Click the headline, to be rewarded by a 404 error. (Or, worse, click the 'see original' link in the RSS feed to be rewarded by a 404 error). And now I can't blog about that posting and how, on reflection, wrong it is. Bah. It's a conspiracy. -- http://james.cridland.net/
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Hi David - we're looking into this issue - we'll let you know what we're going to do :-) m -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dave Crossland Sent: Tue 27/02/2007 14:44 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk; Matthew Cashmore; Ian Forrester Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? On 27/02/07, James Ockenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: pay for your email service, you fucking tightwad, and you might have a vaguely moral place from which to make your tiny cock point. The list's House Rules are simple: Be Nice To Each Other and Don't Break The Law. If you are rude or spam the list then you'll be taken off. - http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html Will this policy be acted upon? -- Regards, Dave http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Hi welcome to the list Jim, Can I suggest you lurk a little more before posting more. It tends to be bad form to complain at such a early stage :) Cheers, Ian Forrester Jim Gardner wrote: I'm not exactly over-the-moon about the idea that everyone's private email address is visible. What are people still using Windows supposed to do if someone decides to attach a worm? On 27 Feb 2007, at 18:13, John Drinkwater wrote: On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He privately mailed me and used words I won't repeat for fear they trigger the spam filter. Is he sub-normal or is that the crack on this list? If so I'm not interested in continuing with it. I got similar comments from someone else off-list related to comments i've made here and on the BBC editors site. The list certainly attracts people of various opinions, but he's certainly sub-normal. :-) On 27 Feb 2007, at 14:44, Dave Crossland wrote: The list's House Rules are simple: Be Nice To Each Other and Don't Break The Law. If you are rude or spam the list then you'll be taken off. - http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html Will this policy be acted upon? -- Regards, Dave - --John '[Beta]' Drinkwater http://johndrinkwater.name/ - 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/ - 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/ - 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] Tube on Twitter
Hang on, are we playing Finsbury Rules here? -Original Message- From: Davy Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 February 2007 22:43 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Tube on Twitter Mornington Crescent. -- Davy Mitchell Blog - http://www.latedecember.co.uk/sites/personal/davy/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/daftspaniel Skype - daftspaniel - 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/ - 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/
