RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Andrew Bowden wrote: That means they won't come to my DVD store [2]. Boo! They might never have come though. Pah, you just want them coming in to your online DVD rental store :) - 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 claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the friendwould otherwise have bought a copy from the DVD store. That isoccasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, theclaimed loss does not occur. As people are taking my attempt at humour seriously, I'll have to respond. No. They may not come into my DVD rental store. But they *might*. They might go somewhere else. They might go online. They might go to WH Smith. However they won't do ANY of those things if you go willy-nilly re-distributing copies of the DVD you've rented from me. Ergo, me, as a small shop keeper, am about to be evicted from my house because my business has been destroyed due to hoardes of people copying DVDs and giving them to everyone else. And what about my wife and childen? But when your friend avoids the need to rent a copy of a DVD, thestore and the producers do not lose anything they had. A more fittingdescription would be that the store and producers get less income thanthey might have got. The same consequence can result if your frienddecides to play discuss post-internet copyright on BBC mailing listsinstead of watching a DVD. In a free market system, no business isentitled to cry foul just because a potential customer chooses notto deal with them. I would never cry foul because someone doesn't do business with me. However my DVD rental store relies on some people doing business. Just as Joe's store down the road does. And Fred's online store. And so on. This is not about me losing out because you've copied my DVD and given it to every one you know. This is about the whole industry losing out because a proportion of the people you give that copied DVD to, would have gone to my shop otherwise and now won't rent DVD. And if the market is reduced by people redistributing for free, then other people lose their income. And hey, it's always going to be the little people who suffer most. Which is for me, an ethical argument. - 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] Want a quick bit of beta-testing fun?
Are there any thoughts of making the new player in to a widget James? On the technical side, Christian O'Connell sounds a lot better this morning. did someone hit the bass button overnight? I have just heard Oasis Live Forever, and it is about 3 dB quieter than a equivalent mp3 copy in iTunes, but sounds about as good. The difference is huge overall, much much better than yesterday. Do you use those sliding multi-band FM compressors? I know that the BBC used to allow each producer to set-up their own for each show, so the same song would sound different depending on which show you heard it on. That led to quite a lot of confusion :-) Have fun RichE On 28 Feb 2007, at 15:50, James Cridland wrote: On 2/28/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is the first that I have seen of this player. Works pretty well in Safari but the overall sound compression is absolutely awful. There is no way I could listen to that for pleasure. Even the adverts are pumping. that has to be from your audio source. Sorry about that. Within iTunes it is a lot better Curious. It's the same stream within iTunes and the Flash Player in Safari (our MP3 stream): there should be no difference at all. But - noted. Our processing is under review (as I tire of saying!); and I do think it's a little over-eager on the online feed. It was optimised for 20k mono, not 128k stereo. On 2/28/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Pandora) Anyone know of any technical reasons why we couldn't have a similar UK service? I'm reasonably sure that an established UK player could get the rights. You'd think so. But the rights (we've looked) are so expensive as to put it completely out of anyone's league. Indeed, last.fm aren't fully-licenced. Cheers for the feedback so far. Much appreciated. -- http://james.cridland.net/
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
The media producers are clearly getting a free lunch here, they can sell the same thing again and again, never having to give up any of there own possessions but requiring others to surrender their items in exchange. Lord of the Rings. Three big budget films. How do you think they got financed? Someone looked at the budgets and said Right. Lets say we make this much in ticket sales, this much in merchandise, this much in DVD sales. But whack! Copyright is gone, so the DVD income goes. Copyright affects the merchandise because anyone can legally knock off merchandise without the sayso of the people who created it. Oh and the cinema doesn't have to worry - it can just get one copy and give it to the rest in its chain. And lo, the film can no longer be financed. Free lunch? Nah. You've just destroyed the entire model that funded the film. Thousands of people who would have had work, now have none. Sure, some people /might/ buy the official DVD, but others won't. The funding isn't there. To bring this to the BBC, the BBC's commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, pumps money into some programmes on the basis that it knows it will make money back off DVD sales, book sales etc. Let us not forget that there is no natural need for copyright, we could function fine without it. It is only through government legislation that such a thing exists. Maybe we would. But maybe a lot of things you value, would be destroyed. If I want to spend time on a project, then release it freely to all, that's my decision. However if I spend my time on a project and want to try and make money off it, why shouldn't I? It's my idea, my project. Why should I let someone else make money off it if I don't want to. And you're going to have one hell of a time persuading the population of the world that they should reliquish all rights to their work because some people have a completely anti-copyright stance. Most of them will just think you're bonkers. - 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?
As this is the Backstage list, has anyone come up with a widget to mash up the most ridiculous and rabid tirades from this and other recent threads with Google maps to produce a huge cloud of red map pins around Shoreditch? Ooh, an archive mash-up! I like that idea :) 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 fully respect Andrew's point of view as written below, but - with respect - I struggle to agree with it. Years ago, before PCs and printers, if people wanted anything copied they had to go to the local shop or library where they could use a photocopier. Today, they just use their own scanners and printers to make their own copies. Similarly, people used to have to send their film off for printing, but these days lots of people have digi cameras and their own home photo printers. If something is technologically possible, people will use it. We can't hold back time. Lots of businesses and industries disappear - a kind of natural selection. Good business diversify and develop into new products and markets. In any event, the DVD rental store it going to be put out of business anyway by content being delivered over the net. Or should that also be stopped? Yes, the industry model we have NOW may lose out on some sales, but there is no reason why it can't develop and make a good profit using other distribution channels and business models. I think we're in danger of trying to deal with 21st century technology with 19th century thinking and laws. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Bowden Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:18 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the friendwould otherwise have bought a copy from the DVD store. That isoccasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, theclaimed loss does not occur. As people are taking my attempt at humour seriously, I'll have to respond. No. They may not come into my DVD rental store. But they *might*. They might go somewhere else. They might go online. They might go to WH Smith. However they won't do ANY of those things if you go willy-nilly re-distributing copies of the DVD you've rented from me. Ergo, me, as a small shop keeper, am about to be evicted from my house because my business has been destroyed due to hoardes of people copying DVDs and giving them to everyone else. And what about my wife and childen? But when your friend avoids the need to rent a copy of a DVD, thestore and the producers do not lose anything they had. A more fittingdescription would be that the store and producers get less income thanthey might have got. The same consequence can result if your frienddecides to play discuss post-internet copyright on BBC mailing listsinstead of watching a DVD. In a free market system, no business isentitled to cry foul just because a potential customer chooses notto deal with them. I would never cry foul because someone doesn't do business with me. However my DVD rental store relies on some people doing business. Just as Joe's store down the road does. And Fred's online store. And so on. This is not about me losing out because you've copied my DVD and given it to every one you know. This is about the whole industry losing out because a proportion of the people you give that copied DVD to, would have gone to my shop otherwise and now won't rent DVD. And if the market is reduced by people redistributing for free, then other people lose their income. And hey, it's always going to be the little people who suffer most. Which is for me, an ethical argument. - 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?
Free lunch? Nah. You've just destroyed the entire model that funded the film. Thousands of people who would have had work, now have none. Sure, some people /might/ buy the official DVD, but others won't. The funding isn't there. If a film company can't produce a film and make money from it through its own distribution model, then in the end it will stop making films. There are plenty of people who would like to make money doing what they like, but can't find a way of making their revenue stream work. The market decides - the market isn't there to support bad business models. Film companies, etc, will have to adapt to survive and thrive. As an analogy, we're moving, in terms of energy supply, to micro production rather than having huge power supplies vast distances away. Maybe it is the same with media. The time of the blockbuster and the TV channel as we knew it is dead? Maybe this is a new micro media age? What's wrong with that? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Bowden Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:29 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? The media producers are clearly getting a free lunch here, they can sell the same thing again and again, never having to give up any of there own possessions but requiring others to surrender their items in exchange. Lord of the Rings. Three big budget films. How do you think they got financed? Someone looked at the budgets and said Right. Lets say we make this much in ticket sales, this much in merchandise, this much in DVD sales. But whack! Copyright is gone, so the DVD income goes. Copyright affects the merchandise because anyone can legally knock off merchandise without the sayso of the people who created it. Oh and the cinema doesn't have to worry - it can just get one copy and give it to the rest in its chain. And lo, the film can no longer be financed. Free lunch? Nah. You've just destroyed the entire model that funded the film. Thousands of people who would have had work, now have none. Sure, some people /might/ buy the official DVD, but others won't. The funding isn't there. To bring this to the BBC, the BBC's commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, pumps money into some programmes on the basis that it knows it will make money back off DVD sales, book sales etc. Let us not forget that there is no natural need for copyright, we could function fine without it. It is only through government legislation that such a thing exists. Maybe we would. But maybe a lot of things you value, would be destroyed. If I want to spend time on a project, then release it freely to all, that's my decision. However if I spend my time on a project and want to try and make money off it, why shouldn't I? It's my idea, my project. Why should I let someone else make money off it if I don't want to. And you're going to have one hell of a time persuading the population of the world that they should reliquish all rights to their work because some people have a completely anti-copyright stance. Most of them will just think you're bonkers. - 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?
Yes, the industry model we have NOW may lose out on some sales, but there is no reason why it can't develop and make a good profit using other distribution channels and business models. I think we're in danger of trying to deal with 21st century technology with 19th century thinking and laws. This is the argument that always crops up: Use a different business model. I've yet to hear someone come up with a workable one. Giving the end product away - and allowing everyone else to do the same - is *not* a workable business model. R. - 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?
Years ago, before PCs and printers, if people wanted anything copied they had to go to the local shop or library where they could use a photocopier. And some of them doing photocopies which breached copyright law too :) Today, they just use their own scanners and printers to make their own copies. Similarly, people used to have to send their film off for printing, but these days lots of people have digi cameras and their own home photo printers. If something is technologically possible, people will use it. We can't hold back time. Lots of businesses and industries disappear - a kind of natural selection. Good business diversify and develop into new products and markets. I wasn't talking about time. I was purely talking about the fact that if you breach copyright law, that has an impact all over the place. In any event, the DVD rental store it going to be put out of business anyway by content being delivered over the net. Or should that also be stopped? Of course not. Because as a business man, I have to keep an eye on what's going on and if someone does what I do better/cheaper/more convient than I do, than I either have to adapt and die. My business might be destroyed for many factors. However is it ethically and morally right to destroy my business by mass participation in an illegal act, just because you can? (of course illegal acts can be committed by business too) - 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?
So, how do you propose to fund a multi-million pound film in a different business model? I don't propose funding a multi-million pound film, so it is not my concern. If it can be made, it can be made. If it can't be made, it can't be made. If people don't want to pay for films, then don't make them. My neighbour wishes they still made wooden boats like the Mary Rose, but I and my mates are not going to stump up some millions to satisfy his (and some other people's) desires. I am not advocating any illegal act. Copyright is the law and we /should/ abide by it. But in the real world, it is easily breached - just as most people break the law at some point by dropping littler, speeding, etc. In the end, the law is unenforceable on any meaningful scale. Copyright is like King Canute: nice intention, but completely insane if you think it is ever going to work in any meaningful way. You'll make more money by finding a model that does work, then trying to rely on the /watertight sieve/ that is copyright. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Bowden Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 10:05 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? If a film company can't produce a film and make money from it through its own distribution model, then in the end it will stop making films. There are plenty of people who would like to make money doing what they like, but can't find a way of making their revenue stream work. The market decides - the market isn't there to support bad business models. Film companies, etc, will have to adapt to survive and thrive. So, how do you propose to fund a multi-million pound film in a different business model? Budget for the entire Lord of the Rings series incidentally was $270m apparently. That's a lot of dosh to have to get in any ones books. As an analogy, we're moving, in terms of energy supply, to micro production rather than having huge power supplies vast distances away. Maybe it is the same with media. The time of the blockbuster and the TV channel as we knew it is dead? Maybe this is a new micro media age? What's wrong with that? Time of big blockbusters is dead? I really doubt it. - 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?
Richard Lockwood wrote: This is the argument that always crops up: Use a different business model. I've yet to hear someone come up with a workable one. Giving the end product away - and allowing everyone else to do the same - is *not* a workable business model. I wonder if there really is that much of a workable business model for entertainment anyway, even if we constrain ourselves to 20th century entertainment technologies. While some people have made a lot of money, it's rarely the artists and a lot of that money is made by very sharp accounting practices (ie, Hollywood Accounting). Lord Of The Rings has been mentioned - look at the arguments between Peter Jackson and New Line for an example of the artist not getting his fair share (or at least not feeling that he is getting his fair share). There's a book on the music industry (whose name escapes me, I can look it up if anyones interested) that goes into some detail on how dubious an industry it is. I even knew someone who was once in a band that got signed, sent to the Bahamas to make a record and then the record was never released, and when they asked why, they were told that they were being used as a writeoff (which is exactly one of the sorts of practices mentioned in the book). I think it's this fundamental lack of a real business model that's driving the calls for DRM - the entertainment industry's business model is mostly smoke and mirrors, and easy copying takes away some of the mirrors. 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 01/03/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a film company can't produce a film and make money from it through its own distribution model, then in the end it will stop making films. There are plenty of people who would like to make money doing what they like, but can't find a way of making their revenue stream work. The market decides - the market isn't there to support bad business models. Film companies, etc, will have to adapt to survive and thrive. So, how do you propose to fund a multi-million pound film in a different business model? Budget for the entire Lord of the Rings series incidentally was $270m apparently. That's a lot of dosh to have to get in any ones books. Ticket sales at the box office probably easily covered that; People aren't going to stop visiting cinemas any time soon. Film companies could start making money direct from the consumer; people still buy DVDs as they are better quality, extras etc. all things only the film companies can provide. I'll still buy your DVD so long as you don't tell me what I can do with it so will others; they'll still make money on DVDs and other merchandise as well
[backstage] Traffic Info
http://www.vecosys.com/2007/03/01/google-adds-traffic-flow-reports-but-t here-is-a-better-way/ Google Maps adds a traffic info layer. Looks rather good, but it's US only at the moment. Example: http://maps.google.com/maps?layer=tz=10ll=41.883876,-87.632446 J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] blocked::mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 22) 59487 Mobile: 07976500729 I hate people with quotes in their email signatures - DH
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Dave Crossland wrote: On 28/02/07, Mario Menti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In just about every definition, loss can mean being deprived of something, regardless of whether you physically possessed that thing in the first place. What loss are rights holders taking? Loss of potential revenue (though only potential, as you've said there's no guarantee that the person getting the copy would ever have bought/rented the DVD in the first place). I wouldn't go so far as to call it theft, but it's certainly a violation of rights. 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?
Dave Crossland wrote: Consider why authors always cede their rights to publishers, and if they would do this if it was indeed a natural right? I thought that in certain countries (France springs to mind) you can't really cede your copyright to publishers, as copyright really is a considered a natural right. 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?
Of course it is about laissez-faire economics: business is, as business always has been. But if he somehow managed to find an investor to stump up the money for just such a boat, with the idea that he would make a profit by selling jaunts on the ship, would you and your mates refuse to pay for a pleasure ride but steal the ship during the night and offer free rides to everyone in your town so that he had no way of making back his money? I am not advocating using things for nothing. I'm saying DRM and copyright protection are meaningless, expensive, wasteful, fanciful, and unintelligent ways of trying to enforce payment/control usage. Nobody's asking you to pay for music or films you don't watch or listen to. Which, again, is exactly the point I'm making. People here are saying there has to be a model to protect producers so they can afford to make what they want to make. My point is that people will pay for things if the producers produce worthwhile and desirable products. Though, as an aside, to be true to the truth, the licence fee does ask people in the UK to pay for content they don't watch or listen to. But that's another point entirely. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Deirdre Harvey Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:08 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? King Canute was just showing his men that even though he was the king, he couldn't hold back the see. poor Canute, so misunderstood. So, how do you propose to fund a multi-million pound film in a different business model? I don't propose funding a multi-million pound film, so it is not my concern. OK, so this isn't about ethics then, it's about dogmatic laissez-faire economics with a sprinling of darwinian pseudoscience sprinkled on top? If it can be made, it can be made. If it can't be made, it can't be made. If people don't want to pay for films, then don't make them. My neighbour wishes they still made wooden boats like the Mary Rose, but I and my mates are not going to stump up some millions to satisfy his (and some other people's) desires. But if he somehow managed to find an investor to stump up the money for just such a boat, with the idea that he would make a profit by selling jaunts on the ship, would you and your mates refuse to pay for a pleasure ride but steal the ship during the night and offer free rides to everyone in your town so that he had no way of making back his money? Nobody's asking you to pay for music or films you don't watch or listen to. - 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?
Please to no more sophomoric nonsense about broken business models and how we need to walk into the shining future without a backward glance. Cool. What you don't understand, you call sophomoric nonsense. Think you've won the argument there, at least with yourself. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Deirdre Harvey Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:17 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland Sent: 01 March 2007 10:59 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? Many people mistakenly take for granted that this is the basic idea of copyright, but it is not. It was set up with the sole purpose of benefiting the public. When the public decide they would rather do without it, that is entirely justifiable. That is not true. Copyright was an attempt to balance the needs of the author with the public good. That is why it is of (supposedly) limited duration - you gets your chance to make your money and then you sets it free. The problem with granting monopoly rights, even temporary ones is that they can be used by the powerful to bully the weak, as has happened with copyright (or IP as they'd like to have it) law. I think the original time-limited (14 years as it was in the US) copyright term was a good idea. If anyone can think of a better model for making it possible for people to realise financial benefit from stuff they have created I'm all about hearing it. Please to no more sophomoric nonsense about broken business models and how we need to walk into the shining future without a backward glance. - 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?
On 3/1/07, Scot McSweeney-Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought that in certain countries (France springs to mind) you can't really cede your copyright to publishers, as copyright really is a considered a natural right. I think you might mean Moral Rights (the Droit Moral), as opposed to copyright (the Droit Proprietere) which is still framed in a similar way in France as anywhere else: Moral rights are distinct from any economic rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rightstied to copyright, thus even if an artist has assigned his or her rights to a work to a third party he or she still maintains the moral rights to the work. (1) (1) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Rights Moral Rights are typically concerned with the right to proper attribution and the right to prevent defamatory use of the work, not with the right to financially profit from it. IMHO, IANAL and all that cheers, Tim
Re: [backstage] Traffic Info
On 01/03/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.vecosys.com/2007/03/01/google-adds-traffic-flow-reports-but-there-is-a-better-way/ Google Maps adds a traffic info layer. Looks rather good, but it's US only at the moment. Example: http://maps.google.com/maps?layer=tz=10ll=41.883876,-87.632446 J Here's an unofficial UK version: http://www.gtraffic.info/ that does something similar Vijay
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 01/03/07, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, how do you propose to fund a multi-million pound film in a different business model? I don't propose funding a multi-million pound film, so it is not my concern. OK, so this isn't about ethics then, it's about dogmatic laissez-faire economics with a sprinling of darwinian pseudoscience sprinkled on top? Its all about ethics. There is no justification for imposing restrictions on the publics normal use of digital technology. It is wrong. would you and your mates refuse to pay for a pleasure ride but steal the ship during the night Analogies between digital works and physical property totally confuse the issue. and offer free rides to everyone in your town so that he had no way of making back his money? The hidden assumption is that he has a natural right to make his money back. He doesn't. -- 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] Traffic Info
Also the vecosys post also refers to this UK start up that is using UK traffic data and Microsoft's Virtual Earth. http://www.dotnetsolutions.ltd.uk/evidence/web20/trafficeye/ A Microsoft Live! Local Web 2.0 Mash-up that combines real time traffic information with a rich, interactive map allowing a helicopter view of all serious traffic incidents in the UK. Jem From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 01 March 2007 11:39 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Traffic Info On 01/03/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.vecosys.com/2007/03/01/google-adds-traffic-flow-reports-but-t here-is-a-better-way/ Google Maps adds a traffic info layer. Looks rather good, but it's US only at the moment. Example: http://maps.google.com/maps?layer=tz=10ll=41.883876,-87.632446 J Here's an unofficial UK version: http://www.gtraffic.info/ that does something similar Vijay
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Dave Crossland wrote: On 01/03/07, Scot McSweeney-Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Crossland wrote: Consider why authors always cede their rights to publishers, and if they would do this if it was indeed a natural right? I thought that in certain countries (France springs to mind) you can't really cede your copyright to publishers, as copyright really is a considered a natural right. Are we in France? Natural rights are considered to be fairly universal, even if not universally enforced. 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?
The film industry can still be financed. Yes, it may not have as much money as it would if everyone had to pay something every time they watched a film. But I don't have as much money as if everyone had to pay me something every time they read an email I wrote. The millions spent on film stars will no longer happen, and it will be harder to finance stuff without a known track record, and other such _changes_. But change is good. Is it. I can't see Lord of the Rings ever getting made had we been in that system. It wouldn't happen. And that was a series of three damm good quality films that millions of people love and enjoy. Your quest for choice and freedom has therefore destroyed my freedom to watch a high quality production because ultimately high quality, high budget productions wouldn't exist. Your dogmatic idiology, destroys my freedoms. It's my idea, my project. This is where we start to diverge. You have a hidden assumption that you can treat ideas and projects like they have owners, like they are physical property. This is misguided. Take my website. My ideas. My work. My effort. It's a project. It's an idea. It's mine. Ideas become effort if implemented. The effort means it's a project. Simple. Mine to do with what I want because I made it, I came up with the idea, I made a project to implement it. Mine. Not yours. I might let you have it. I might not. But it's mine. An idea made a Hoover. Another idea made a Dyson. Ideas are the root of many many things. And you're going to have one hell of a time persuading the population of the world that they should reliquish all rights to their work because some people have a completely anti-copyright stance. Go ask some people on the tube what percentage of their music is authorised. The population of the world are not professionalised authors, and they have a anti-copyright stance. Absolutely irrelevant. Absolutely. Because what people believe they stand for and what they do are completely different. People will fight hand and nail for the rights to do something, and then believe completely different. Logic like yours just wouldn't cut the mustard. Most of them will just think you're bonkers. The number of people knowing how to do filesharing is correlated to how bonkers you are, I think :-) Like I say. Irrelevant. - 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] Traffic Info
It's certainly interesting as a concept, although I'm cautious on the fact that it doesn't really take into account the speed limits on different roads. Although I've actually no idea how you could take that into account! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 01 March 2007 11:14 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Traffic Info http://www.vecosys.com/2007/03/01/google-adds-traffic-flow-reports-but-t here-is-a-better-way/ Google Maps adds a traffic info layer. Looks rather good, but it's US only at the moment. Example: http://maps.google.com/maps?layer=tz=10ll=41.883876,-87.632446 J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] blocked::mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 22) 59487 Mobile: 07976500729 I hate people with quotes in their email signatures - DH
RE: [backstage] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/default.stm
And whilst asking, how does the Beeb choose the FROM THE BLOGOSPHERE comments? A journalist reads the blogosphere, and chooses something. The whole blogosphere? Good job :) - 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] Traffic Info
Jason Cartwright wrote: I just want to know the effect its going to have on my journey time. Google's does this with a ridiciously-easy-to-visually-parse colour coding of the traffic speed. This boils down all the one lane closed due to barrier repairs crap into something far more usable. This is, of course, what TrafficMaster have done for years. Someone should surely be able to do the same?! -- Kirk - 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] Traffic Info
That however was my problem with it - the colour coding is easy but simplistic. A motorway going at 30 mph for me, says bad and wrong, but under Google's colour coding, that's a yellow. Meanwhile, (say) an road A-road [1] in a suburban area with a 30mph would be classed as yellow even though it's running normally. Like you, I don't have a car. Which is why my favourite traffic disruption map is this one :) http://journeyplanner.tfl.gov.uk/im/RD-T.html [1] if this was in the UK of course From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 01 March 2007 12:40 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Traffic Info Warning: contain no talk of DRM, licence fees, or copyright. All the other links are good, but Google appear to have the visualisation down to a fine art. For instance, both those sites tell me that there is an incident up the road on the A40, and they do that with a load of ambiguous (borderline meaningless) gumpf like a Might End time and Severity plus a swath of text to read. I'm not really interested, and whilst I appreciate the technical-aspects of the mashups, its all a bit rubbish. I just want to know the effect its going to have on my journey time. Google's does this with a ridiciously-easy-to-visually-parse colour coding of the traffic speed. This boils down all the one lane closed due to barrier repairs crap into something far more usable. Of course, all this is just my opinion... and I don't even drive :-) J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeremy Stone Sent: 01 March 2007 11:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Traffic Info Also the vecosys post also refers to this UK start up that is using UK traffic data and Microsoft's Virtual Earth. http://www.dotnetsolutions.ltd.uk/evidence/web20/trafficeye/ A Microsoft Live! Local Web 2.0 Mash-up that combines real time traffic information with a rich, interactive map allowing a helicopter view of all serious traffic incidents in the UK. Jem From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 01 March 2007 11:39 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Traffic Info On 01/03/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.vecosys.com/2007/03/01/google-adds-traffic-flow-reports-but-t here-is-a-better-way/ Google Maps adds a traffic info layer. Looks rather good, but it's US only at the moment. Example: http://maps.google.com/maps?layer=tz=10ll=41.883876,-87.632446 J Here's an unofficial UK version: http://www.gtraffic.info/ that does something similar Vijay
RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland Sent: 01 March 2007 10:59 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? But change is good. For someone so enamoured of accusing everyone of having hidden assumptions you are finding it pretty easy to ignore the huge assumption at the centre of your argument. There are so many assumptions in the sentence change is good never mind the belief system that comes with it I don't even know where to start. But that's an argument for the first-year undergraduate philosophy mailing list I'm on. It's great, people finding out about a way of thinking about things, latching on to it without thinking through its implications and then endlessly arguing more and more vehemently in favour of things that don't make any sense. Anyway, I'm out. It's weird, until two days ago I largely agreed with what you posted. Alienating the converted seems a weird way of winning this argument, which ultimately is going to come down to convincing people who don't care about the morality of DRM, or even of copyright, that it matters, that it is compromising their rights and that it's worth resisting. But whatever, I'm sure there's some fundamental assumption at the heart of what I'm writing, such as that you even give a shit. - 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 01/03/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But change is good. Is it. I think so. There are many rural communities than shun progress alot, and a few like the Amish that do a lot. I like change, because in change there is opportunity :-) I can't see Lord of the Rings ever getting made had we been in that system. It wouldn't happen. And that was a series of three damm good quality films that millions of people love and enjoy. If they love and enjoy them so much, they'll be prepared to fund them. Non-coercive business models demonstrably work. Your quest for choice and freedom has therefore destroyed my freedom You have put freedom in quotation marks because you are misapplying the term. Misapplying it in this way makes no sense. It's my idea, my project. This is where we start to diverge. You have a hidden assumption that you can treat ideas and projects like they have owners, like they are physical property. This is misguided. Take my website. My ideas. My work. My effort. It's a project. It's an idea. It's mine. Ideas become effort if implemented. The effort means it's a project. Simple. An abstract idea is made up of other abstract ideas. Therefore it makes no sense to treat it like non-abstract, physical, property. Or did you steal the idea of a website from Tim Berners Lee? The population of the world are not professionalised authors, and they have a anti-copyright stance. Absolutely irrelevant. Absolutely. Because what people believe they stand for and what they do are completely different. Yes, and I am saying that we should look at what they do, not what they say they stand for, and be honest about that. We all store and share digital data. That is what computers and networks are made for. Publishers need to honestly accept this, instead of trying to deny and reject it. -- 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?
On 01/03/07, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But change is good. For someone so enamoured of accusing everyone of having hidden assumptions you are finding it pretty easy to ignore the huge assumption at the centre of your argument. Please explain what you think this is :-) I don't even know where to start. Go for it! :-) But that's an argument for the first-year undergraduate philosophy mailing list I'm on. It's great, people finding out about a way of thinking about things, latching on to it without thinking through its implications and then endlessly arguing more and more vehemently in favour of things that don't make any sense. Rather than just saying I don't make sense, could you please explain _why_ I don't make sense, so we can have a real discussion? Anyway, I'm out. It's weird, until two days ago I largely agreed with what you posted. I'm not sure how what I've posted before and lately differ. Please explain. Alienating the converted I'm not seeking to 'convert' anyone. I'm seeking to discuss digital rights in an open forum full of smart people, and have so far had great success with this. this argument ... going to come down to convincing people who don't care about the morality of DRM, or even of copyright, that it matters, that it is compromising their rights and that it's worth resisting. I agree. -- 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] Traffic Info
Andrew Bowden wrote: It's certainly interesting as a concept, although I'm cautious on the fact that it doesn't really take into account the speed limits on different roads. Although I've actually no idea how you could take that into account! ** Perhaps a GIS, with a database of what road sections have what speeds, and then you match current road speed against what the GIS says the road speed should be. Easy ;-) Scot
RE: [backstage] Traffic Info
I'd do that kind of thing around Birmingham if my GPS receiver worked amongst all those multi-storey buildings - I've tried before, dismal failure. That said, my phone (Hermes) apparently has a dormant, disconnected GPS chip in which can be activated with a firmware flash, so that's something to try... -Original Message- From: Kirk Northrop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 March 2007 14:00 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Traffic Info Barry Hunter wrote: ... in fact it's something hope is been recorded over at openstreetmap.org... This is really interesting! I wanted to go out and walk more, but didn't really have a reason to do so. Now I do! Expect South Manchester to become nicely tracked soon... -- Kirk - 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] Traffic Info
Hi, I've still yet to do anything towards this, but you might find http://upcoming.org/event/153405/ The State of the Map ( Open Source Streetmap Conference) and http://upcoming.org/event/155807/ (Sheffield Mapping Party) of interest. Cheers Ian I'll create the database, if you drive every road to record the speed limit ;-) ... in fact it's something hope is been recorded over at openstreetmap.org http://openstreetmap.org ... What a cool site. Looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Map_Features it's certainly possible to tag segments with a maxspeed value, so I hope people are doing it. I think I'll sign up - I might actually get some use out of my handheld GPS. Thinking about it, it should be a fairly straight forward process finding road speeds in the UK, with most roads either being 30, 60 or 70 - it's just finding exceptions to the general rule thats the problem. 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/
