Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 12/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's the main point - the BBC is the wrong target here. The BBC is very much the right target. When the trend it to move awayfrom proprietary software and lock-in formats, the the BBC is fastbecoming one large advert for Microsoft. First iPlayer, nowhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/britain/photocollection/ Your target should be people like, like, well, like yourself. Come up with a model that can cope with: a) Giving data away for free, and b) Compensating the creators of that data and you're fu**ing laughing. Oh please. That was figured out like 5 years ago. MagnatuneOpened:Spring 2003Pricing: USA: $5–$18 per albumPlatforms: Platform independentFormat: MPEG Layer 3 (.mp3), Advanced Audio Coding (.aac), Ogg Vorbis(.ogg), FLAC (.flac), WAV (.wav)Restrictions: None, Creative Commons LicenseCatalogue:244 artists, 537 albumsPreview: Entire songStreaming: Preview onlyProtocol: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (http://)Availability: WorldwideWebsite: www.magnatune.com JamendoOpened: January 2005Pricing:FreePlatforms: Platform independentFormat: MPEG Layer 3 (.mp3), OGG Vorbis (.ogg)Restrictions: None, Creative Commons Licenses, Free Art LicenseCatalogue: 3000+ artists, 2000+ albumsPreview: Entire songStreaming: YesBurning/copying: AllowedTrial: NoneProtocol: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (http://), BitTorrent, eMuleAvailability: WorldWideFeatures: Tags, Free downloads, CommunityWebsite: www.jamendo.com -- 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
5. ...and then you spoil your reaonable arguments by going off into one. What you can't argue with is the fact that the BBC is constrained by the legal requirements (copyright et al) placed on the content by third parties. The BBC cannot simply take a unilateral decision to make all information free - it provides a large percentage of its content by negotiating how it'll be used from third parties. Did the content producers say Only use Windows Media DRM, if so I think this is a matter the European Courts would be interested in. It could well violate competition law. In fact if the BBC has been told it can only use Microsoft DRM then that agreement may be prohibited under the Competition Act 1998. Much as I hate to wade into this, I thought I'd explain why Windows DRM is being used both at the BBC and Channel 4 (and Sky too I think) [1], on the specific issue - and specific issue only - of why it is being used and not others. Currently, as I understand it, only Microsoft's DRM mechanisms are being used because contracts signed with rights holders have required the implementation of a specific window which the BBC can offer such downloads. Such rights holders - independent production companies, foreign broadcasters etc - wish to commercially exploit the programmes they have made (and they are allowed to do this), and they wish to exploit them online as well as on cable and satellite channels, or foreign media. Restricting the availability of the BBC downloaded version allows them to do that. If a BBC downloaded version was available to all forever, it would destroy their commercial exploitation online. So to restrict the availability, you /currently/ need Windows DRM. So whilst rights holders wouldn't have insisted on Windows DRM, they have got Windows DRM because it does what the rights holders want. Should Apple change FairPlay to work in a similar way, then there would be no excuse not to use FairPlay as well. I won't go any further into the rights and wrongs of those discususions. I just thought I'd explain why it is like it is so it is all out in the open. [1] I read somewhere that ITV will be getting round this whole issue by streaming content rather than allowing download. Don't know how true that is. - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 01:51, Andy wrote: What is a scarce resource? Anything with a finite supply. ... You talk of compensating the creators. You seem to be under the impression that we live in a meritocracy and that people are payed money based on their worth. I'm picking this out because you've picked one part correctly, but misunderstood this second part. There's an interesting point that I read a while back intelligence is the scarcest resource. And if you think about it, in many respects from a human perspective this is true. So we divide up problems to fit our brain size and capabilities. That'll take X man-weeks, Y man-years. In this case it's NOT about meritocracy. It's about paying for that scarce resource in the first place in lots of places based on a gambling economy or a futures market. (spreading lots of relatively small sized bets across a collection of things and hoping winning back big enough pays for all of them) Now flip this to creativity. How *large* are the following problems - how many people are needed (normally) ? * Someone busking with a guitar * A band busking * A band putting on a show on stage * A band putting on a show on stage being recorded * A band putting on a show on stage being broadcast on TV The numbers of people escalate with each stage, and that's just music. OK let's try another: * Someone telling a story * A collection of friends going role playing * A collection of people putting on a setless and no-particular costume no-lighting play in the park * A collection of people putting on a play in a theatre .. with a set .. with a lighting .. with costumes * Being recorded. * Being made as a TV show .. with no incidental music, or SFX/post prod and only one set/camera .. with no incidental music, or SFX/post prod and multiple sets/camera .. with incidental music, but no SFX/post prod and multiple sets/camera .. with incidental music, post prod but no SFX and multiple sets/camera (X) .. with incidental music, post prod SFX and multiple sets/camera * Being made as a film ... Again, the numbers escalate quite quickly. We rapidly start dividing problems into people sized chunks quickly. These things take time and people need to be paid to do these things _if_ we want them to happen in a reasonable timescale. Why? Suppose the item (X) is something you really like and requires (say) 100 people doing a variety of roles (if you bear in mind an SFX house and post prod house as well as all the usual things, this is probably either a good or low estimate - looking at the Doctor Who page on credits on IMDB). So that's a 100 people working full time. Or in the spare time. Now they have to make a living and it doesn't matter for this argument whether it's good or bad, but they do need an income. Either from being paid to do it full time or in their spare time. Note: Good or bad. This isn't a merit based argument. If you can find a mechanism to pay people for their time (as we have today), then they can allocate their scarce resource (ie intelligence/creativity) into working on creating a TV show worth watching full time. *That* is what paying for content about - *that* is where economics comes in. I've said *nothing* here about the type of TV show it is, whether its any good, or anything - nothing about its merits. The scarce resource you are paying for is their intelligence or creativity (whether that's good or bad). The alternative is you don't pay for that scarce resource of intelligence or creativity. Yes, there will always be some people who are willing and able to do these things on their own time, so you may get something, but it will take longer. Optimistically lets say that these people put in 8 hours a week of their own time on a production rather than 40 hours. (that's rather high even for amateur dramatics, 6 is the most realistic upper limit for anyone other than a few people) Translate this to a TV show and it means a new show which is currently annually - that would then get made every 5 years at best (assuming you can get 100 people to co-ordinate their time efficiently over a 5 year period and to stay friends to solidly put in that effort for free for that long and have no-one disappear). You then have the issue that with a TV show you have other resources you need to use pay for. Convincing costumes are either incredibily hard to make or expensive to buy. Sets take time effort and resources. etc. (With theatre you have the advantage of distance) These are all scarce resources involved in the production of a TV show. Currently the economic model that finds a way to pay for this scarce resource is essentially predicated on copying distribution essentially being a hard thing to do. (Lever one scarce resource to pay for the others) DRM rightly or wrongly tries to create an artificial scarce resource in
Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
*scraps similar but far less well-written email* *Applause* Cheers, Rich. On 6/12/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 12 June 2007 01:51, Andy wrote: What is a scarce resource? Anything with a finite supply. ... You talk of compensating the creators. You seem to be under the impression that we live in a meritocracy and that people are payed money based on their worth. I'm picking this out because you've picked one part correctly, but misunderstood this second part. There's an interesting point that I read a while back intelligence is the scarcest resource. And if you think about it, in many respects from a human perspective this is true. So we divide up problems to fit our brain size and capabilities. That'll take X man-weeks, Y man-years. In this case it's NOT about meritocracy. It's about paying for that scarce resource in the first place in lots of places based on a gambling economy or a futures market. (spreading lots of relatively small sized bets across a collection of things and hoping winning back big enough pays for all of them) Now flip this to creativity. How *large* are the following problems - how many people are needed (normally) ? * Someone busking with a guitar * A band busking * A band putting on a show on stage * A band putting on a show on stage being recorded * A band putting on a show on stage being broadcast on TV The numbers of people escalate with each stage, and that's just music. OK let's try another: * Someone telling a story * A collection of friends going role playing * A collection of people putting on a setless and no-particular costume no-lighting play in the park * A collection of people putting on a play in a theatre .. with a set .. with a lighting .. with costumes * Being recorded. * Being made as a TV show .. with no incidental music, or SFX/post prod and only one set/camera .. with no incidental music, or SFX/post prod and multiple sets/camera .. with incidental music, but no SFX/post prod and multiple sets/camera .. with incidental music, post prod but no SFX and multiple sets/camera (X) .. with incidental music, post prod SFX and multiple sets/camera * Being made as a film ... Again, the numbers escalate quite quickly. We rapidly start dividing problems into people sized chunks quickly. These things take time and people need to be paid to do these things _if_ we want them to happen in a reasonable timescale. Why? Suppose the item (X) is something you really like and requires (say) 100 people doing a variety of roles (if you bear in mind an SFX house and post prod house as well as all the usual things, this is probably either a good or low estimate - looking at the Doctor Who page on credits on IMDB). So that's a 100 people working full time. Or in the spare time. Now they have to make a living and it doesn't matter for this argument whether it's good or bad, but they do need an income. Either from being paid to do it full time or in their spare time. Note: Good or bad. This isn't a merit based argument. If you can find a mechanism to pay people for their time (as we have today), then they can allocate their scarce resource (ie intelligence/creativity) into working on creating a TV show worth watching full time. *That* is what paying for content about - *that* is where economics comes in. I've said *nothing* here about the type of TV show it is, whether its any good, or anything - nothing about its merits. The scarce resource you are paying for is their intelligence or creativity (whether that's good or bad). The alternative is you don't pay for that scarce resource of intelligence or creativity. Yes, there will always be some people who are willing and able to do these things on their own time, so you may get something, but it will take longer. Optimistically lets say that these people put in 8 hours a week of their own time on a production rather than 40 hours. (that's rather high even for amateur dramatics, 6 is the most realistic upper limit for anyone other than a few people) Translate this to a TV show and it means a new show which is currently annually - that would then get made every 5 years at best (assuming you can get 100 people to co-ordinate their time efficiently over a 5 year period and to stay friends to solidly put in that effort for free for that long and have no-one disappear). You then have the issue that with a TV show you have other resources you need to use pay for. Convincing costumes are either incredibily hard to make or expensive to buy. Sets take time effort and resources. etc. (With theatre you have the advantage of distance) These are all scarce resources involved in the production of a TV show. Currently the economic model that finds a way to pay for this scarce resource is essentially predicated on copying distribution essentially being a hard thing to do. (Lever one scarce resource to pay for the others) DRM
Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 12/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently, as I understand it, only Microsoft's DRM mechanisms are being used because contracts signed with rights holders have required the implementation of a specific window which the BBC can offer such downloads. [snip] Restricting the availability of the BBC downloaded version allows them to do that. If a BBC downloaded version was available to all forever, it would destroy their commercial exploitation online. So to restrict the availability, you /currently/ need Windows DRM. And why could the BBC not develop an openly specified DRM. It would be able to support _any_ restrictions they want and it is ridiculously simple. I have stated this before, but there is no reason why you can't represent restrictions in XML and tag it before the media file. Simply have the player parse the XML (not difficult, there are libraries for this libxml for instance) The BBC is claiming it could take over 2 years to do this. This is complete rubbish. I hate to accuse the BBC of intentionally lying to it's regulator but it is beginning to look like this. What restrictions are needed? I am guessing they want: Country Locking (safer to implement on the key exchanging server to be honest) Expiry Time Complex things like season stacking can be implemented server side and just have the correct expiry time set in the file. How difficult do you think this is, it could have been done by the BBC in a matter of days, the BBC must have some very good software people. Why doesn't someone as them what XML is. After you've finished writing the specification publish it and then the next time someone asks why it's not supported on their platform simply point to the spec and say here you go, implement it for yourself. So whilst rights holders wouldn't have insisted on Windows DRM, they have got Windows DRM because it does what the rights holders want. So it _is_ the BBC who make it only work on a single platform Implementation of an (insecure) DRM scheme is not difficult. If the BBC is willing to pay me £1 million (less than they spent on Windows iPlayer) I could write up a nice specification for you and then you would have a truly platform agnostic system. [1] I read somewhere that ITV will be getting round this whole issue by streaming content rather than allowing download. Don't know how true that is. I doubt that. The bandwidth would cost ITV a fortune. Then there is the fact that many people don't have connections fast enough to actually stream full screen high quality video. So BBC what _are_ the restrictions that the content producers want? There is no reason not to tell us, unless you are hiding something? Oh and perhaps I should clear something up: My view is that the BBC should be using openly published standards that are free to implement, including DRM if it is needed. And I have precisely no problem with locking content to the UK, but that is done more securely server side NOT client side. freethebbc.info appears to want NO DRM, and wants it to be available to the non-UK. Andy -- First they ignore you then they laugh at you then they fight you then you win. - Mohandas Gandhi - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
Hi Andrew! Thanks for chipping in with this, it reflects very much what Tom Loosemore said in the Backstage DRM Podcast - that BBC DRM was a regrettable but neccessary evil, done only at the behest of the production companies who feed the BBC. On 12/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: independent production companies, foreign broadcasters etc wish to commercially exploit the programmes they have made (and they are allowed to do this), and they wish to exploit them online as well as on cable and satellite channels, or foreign media. Restricting the availability of the BBC downloaded version allows them to do that. If a BBC downloaded version was available to all forever, it would destroy their commercial exploitation online. So to restrict the availability, you /currently/ need Windows DRM. The worldwide public are non-commercially sharing everything that can be encoded digitally. The production companies are out of touch with this simple fact, and they need to know that the idea they can restrict the public availability of their copyrighted works is a flawed one. The BBC can play a role in helping them understand this; it is failing to do so. One way that I favor is to tell them to get on with trying to exploit their works online themselves, let them deal with the fiasco of trying to do DRM, themselves, and build up demand from the public for the BBC to provide works through the Internet with public notices that point the finger at the rights holders. Then, when the rights holders realise that DRM is a bad idea, the BBC can step in with a DemocracyPlayer/tvnanny.org/etc style solution and save the day with something truly marvelous. I won't go any further into the rights and wrongs of those discususions. I just thought I'd explain why it is like it is so it is all out in the open. I appreciate 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/
[backstage] WMV9 on Mac
Hi gang, Completely the wrong list one imagines, but with all the current banter about DRM, cross OS operability, etc etc, it reminds me that I'm yet to get WMV files to play on my Mac. Specifically these new fangled WMV9/drm protected thingybobs. Googling such seems to produce people wanting to strip the DRM off porn they've downloaded, which is not what I have in mind, I just want to play legal content, and preferably without installing Windows Media Play (if thats the only solution). Anybody had any luck? I'm currently using VLC, which seems to play some files. Cheers, Oli
RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 12/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having never written or Product Managed the writing of a reliable DRM system No one has ever and no one will ever write or Product Manage the writing of a reliable DRM system. There can never be such a thing. Please don't be taken in by the snake oil salesmanship - by subtly letting in the little lies that DRM vendors tell, you let the big lies in as well. I will happily alter that to Having never written or Product Managed the writing of a DRM system that is as 'reliable as possible in order for it to be acceptable for rights holders' Etc etc. - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 10:00, Andy wrote: On 12/06/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's an interesting point that I read a while back intelligence is the scarcest resource. And if you think about it, in many respects from a human perspective this is true. So we divide up problems to fit our brain size and capabilities. That'll take X man-weeks, Y man-years. You have missed the point entirely. I may have missed your point, no need to shout, so I'll re-read. By definition something that can be infinitely replicated is NOT a scarce resource. Correct. I can create hundreds of copies of an idea trivially. You can spout rubbish out the human mind all you like but it can't change that. I can spout as much rubbish about the human mind as I like. I'm not however an infinite resource of rubbish. Occasionally something will come out that's not rubbish if I try for long enough. However even as a source of rubbish and non-rubbish, I am a finite resource. And that finite resource now needs to work on something else. If you get my point, good, if you don't - sorry :-) And a point you entirely missed is that the creativity is only needed once. In the original creation of said item of media. Not missed at all. I do prefer to have something new though on a regular basis. The new series of doctor who was welcome after the endless copies were repeated on UK Gold. It is NOT needed for further copies and thus those copies are not scarce ergo no price needed. The copies are not a scarce resource. I never said they were cf: Currently the economic model that finds a way to pay for this scarce resource [creativity/intelligence] is essentially predicated on copying distribution essentially being a hard thing to do. ... due to copying distribution no longer being as scarce a resource as it was ... I say less, because although I can trivially create a copies today, its not as trivial for the majority of people to make large numbers of copies very rapidly. (I can send one email, and it go to lots of people, but it either ties up my connection or I rely on a distribution service). Over a sufficiently long period of time though, yes, today copies are not a scarce resource. I never claimed that they were. I did not state that creators do not need to be payed, You stated this: You talk of compensating the creators. You seem to be under the impression that we live in a meritocracy and that people are payed money based on their worth. I was specifically picking up the point of meritocracy vs economics. The real scarce resource paid for is the creativity in the first place (certain kinds of stuff doesn't get made otherwise). Since we don't live in a meritocracy, the way this scarce resource (creativity) is paid for is through two other scarce resources, one real, one artificial. One is leveraging the effort of DVD/CD/etc copying, the other is by enforcing a monopoly over the control of copying (copyright). One is a natural barrier, the other is artificial. (cf the cost of the next Harry Potter novel vs the cost of a Shakespeare play in book form - one reflects just the costs of copying and distribution) I stated that people do not need to pay for the media they enjoy, DUE TO IT NOT BEING A SCARCE RESOURCE. (sorry for the capitals but you missed it on lower case so I wrote it in big letters). You don't need to shout about it. I'd accepted that copying was not a scarce resource as a basic premise. Might be worth re-reading what I wrote in that light. Now as I say above, this finite resource now needs to work on something else - I'll answer anything else in my own time, if I have time. If you get my point, good, if you don't - sorry :-) Michael. - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 6/12/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip all fair enough and I'm pretty much in agreement. However] So while I, personally, won't be using any CC-NC licenses, and willnot recommend them to others, I won't cuss you for using them. If youuse any of the retired, anti-sharing CC licenses, or refer to _the_Creative Commons license, you get cussed :- Hmmm... this was really my point - by reccomending magnatune's model of selling licences (for commercial re-use of artistic goods that are available free for non-commercial use), aren't you tacitly endorsing the use of an NC-licence? surely Magnatune's model would not work if they did not have the opportunity to restrict the commercial re-use of their work? Cheers, Tim
Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 12/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on - how many of you have ever heard your mum exclaiming Oh, why does my content have to come with DRM??? My sister had an iPod. Her computer broke. She got a new one. She put the iPod in to copy the music back to the new computer. iTunes asked her if she'd like to use the iPod on this computer. She clicked yes. She immediately found her iPod was wiped. She cried. I got the sobbing phone call. DRM MADE MY SISTER CRY. Good enough? :-D -- 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 12/06/07, Tim Cowlishaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I, personally, won't be using any CC-NC licenses, and will not recommend them to others Hmmm... this was really my point - by reccomending magnatune's model of selling licences (for commercial re-use of artistic goods that are available free for non-commercial use), aren't you tacitly endorsing the use of an NC-licence? Thats a good point bro. Yes I am. I'll restate: I, personally, won't be using any CC-NC licenses, and will not actively endorse them, but if someone's otherwise thinking of using DRM, I'm happy to recommend this business model. surely Magnatune's model would not work if they did not have the opportunity to restrict the commercial re-use of their work? Yup, it surely would not work. But We are not evil is a lot better company slogan than We have a debatable take on value propositions :-) -- 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
No. That's either your sister not telling the whole truth (Did you click the button that says 'Wipe My iPod?), or Apple's crap software. I don't use iTunes (although I know people who successfully use it over multiple machines and love it), although a quick Google search comes up with the following information: The alert box your sister would have got actually says: The iPod iPod is synced with another iTunes library. Do you want to erase this iPod and sync with this iTunes library? Which is pretty clear to me. Not a DRM issue. http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61675 Cheers, Rich. On 6/12/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on - how many of you have ever heard your mum exclaiming Oh, why does my content have to come with DRM??? My sister had an iPod. Her computer broke. She got a new one. She put the iPod in to copy the music back to the new computer. iTunes asked her if she'd like to use the iPod on this computer. She clicked yes. She immediately found her iPod was wiped. She cried. I got the sobbing phone call. DRM MADE MY SISTER CRY. Good enough? :-D -- 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/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
I think the problem is more not that people want rid of DRM just because they can, it's more that people like to consume their media in a way suitable to them. If BBC programmes become available I would like to watch on my PSP on the way into work, not just at my PC within a BBC skinned application. It's just like with iTunes and its DRM, If I buy an iPod because I think it looks nice and download music from iTunes for it and then a few years later get a new MP3 player (non Apple) I would like my music to work with that too. Alot of average (non-techie) users are buying iPods and using iTunes not realising that everything that what they have downloaded can only be played on the iPod and not on anyhing else. People just want to be able to view them when, where and how they want and DRM restricts their choices... (without them realising it) Matt On 6/12/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on - how many of you have ever heard your mum exclaiming Oh, why does my content have to come with DRM??? My sister had an iPod. Her computer broke. She got a new one. She put the iPod in to copy the music back to the new computer. iTunes asked her if she'd like to use the iPod on this computer. She clicked yes. She immediately found her iPod was wiped. She cried. I got the sobbing phone call. DRM MADE MY SISTER CRY. Good enough? :-D -- 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/ - 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] WMV9 on Mac
On 6/12/07, oliver wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi gang, Completely the wrong list one imagines, but with all the current banter about DRM, cross OS operability, etc etc, it reminds me that I'm yet to get WMV files to play on my Mac. Specifically these new fangled WMV9/drm protected thingybobs. Googling such seems to produce people wanting to strip the DRM off porn they've downloaded, which is not what I have in mind, I just want to play legal content, and preferably without installing Windows Media Play (if thats the only solution). Anybody had any luck? I'm currently using VLC, which seems to play some files. You need to get the Flip4Mac plugin 'WMV Components for QuickTime'. They do a free (as in beer) plugin that lets you view Windows Media files in QuickTime - http://flip4mac.com/wmv.htm - and they do some commercial plugins also. I'm using the free one, and it works pretty well. I'm not sure what they'll do for your WMV9 with DRM files - but, to be honest, you shouldn't have bought those things in the first place. They're worse than cigarettes. If Flip4Mac doesn't work for what you want, you could always drop me an e-mail off-list and I'll help you find another way... ;- -- Tom Morris http://tom.opiumfield.com/blog/ - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 12/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. That's either your sister not telling the whole truth (Did you click the button that says 'Wipe My iPod?), or Apple's crap software. The alert box your sister would have got actually says: The point isn't the alert box's wording. The point is that, if she _had_ clicked cancel, she would be unable to copy the music back from the iPod. That feature is missing because the RIAA demanded Apple miss it out. There are 3rd party programs to copy the data back, but the data is stored in a proprietary system optimised for the iPods menu, and this system keeps changing so these tools (and indeed, _all_ 3rd party iPod management software) keep breaking. In this way, this is rudimentary DRM in iTunes/iPod. What worse is that, the feature isn't just missing, it is designed in a way that will allow people to inadvertently wipe their iPods. Which is literally a crying shame. The iPod iPod is synced with another iTunes library. Do you want to erase this iPod and sync with this iTunes library? Which is pretty clear to me. Firstly, its well known by usability professionals that as users get more experienced with graphical user interfaces, they stop reading the exact text of messages, and infer from their actions and the text of the message box buttons what to click. I'm sorry to hear that you are still spending time carefully reading the full text of message boxes. Tom Morris' Mum appears to have reached this level of competence, though. Secondly, you are naive in thinking that what you see now - http://kb.kennettnet.co.uk/images/itunesipodsync.png - is what she saw then - http://ant.sillydog.org/blog/pic/ss_ipodanotherlibrary01.jpg -- 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 12/06/07, Matt Rink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the problem is more not that people want rid of DRM just because they can, it's more that ... Alot of average (non-techie) users are buying iPods and using iTunes not realising that everything that what they have downloaded can only be played on the iPod and not on anyhing else. Right: Some people understand the problem they are going to have if they accept DRM, and they want rid of those problems before they occur. Some people don't understand the problems, and there's going to be tears when they realise they've been ripped off. -- 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 12/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DRM is very simple to implement, simple put an XML header at the front of the media file detailing what can or can not be done with content. Job Done. So it can be bypassed but then all software implemented DRM has that flaw there is nothing that can be done about it feasibly. (unless you are going to convince Intel and AMD to change their entire chip design to add a feature none of their customers want, I'll wait while they laugh you out of their office). Oh, this trivial solution fits in very well indeed with the 'educate the masses' and make them feel bad about violating licenses. Of course if you politely tell them you can't do an error-correcting copy of that scratched DVD that your 3 year old tried to insert into the plant pot. Please buy (yet) another original. Then I suspect they'll tell you to piss off. If however you say making a copy of this DVD for your own use (eg in case of damage) is OK but it is wrong to give it away or sell it. Please don't do that. Then you are actually treating the consumer as a reasonable person. For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF LAW ABIDING PEOPLE*, which is more likely to work? OK, you're right - well, which is more likely to work with a more balanced economic model? - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 12/06/07, Tom Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DRM MADE MY SISTER CRY. An all-too-common story Thanks for backing me up on this one :-) but (and I hate to say this) it only proves that you need to keep good backups and that the iPod's Music Mode is not a backup (without the use of third-party software). ... I know that I ought to practice what I preach and help them setup a backup schedule - but does the fact that the doctor is an alcoholic make his advice about cutting down on alcohol usage wrong? Of course it's not.) While logically what he says is true, IMO its quite unlikely he's going to persuade someone with a minor drinking problem to sort it out, if he himself doesn't live and believe what he's saying. His drink-less pitch will miss the subtle differences that make a difference in inspiring change. Similarly, you're unlikely to get anybody doing good backups by just saying do regular backups when you don't do it yourself. If you do do it yourself, you'll include those sublte differences like do regular backups with bacula. The iPod's Music Mode is, of course, a perfectly good back up: It is a copy of your music library. -- 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
Hi Jeremy! On 12/06/07, Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - As Richard said..Listen Again will still be available Listen Again is in proprietary Real Media format. The BBC should adopt free formats like Ogg Vorbis. - We will also be working (or already are) on propositions for cable, mac, linux Have you read http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html ? :-) and the BBC Trust have asked us to be platform agnostic within a reasonable time frame Sadly, platform agnostic doesn't mean non-DRM or non-proprietary :-( This is innovative, ground breaking stuff for a media corporation on this scale. Very true, and very applaudable in those narrow aspects. But while important, these technical achievements are not as important as the social implications of the technology. And you know we are also distributing our video content via YouTube and other spaces and experimenting with embedded video (on 7 Ages of Rock, in News) within bbc.co.uk and the ability for users to share that. When you say share, you really mean embed in their own web pages - which is certainly not sharing, other than in a very superficial sense. IMO its important to distinguish sharing an embedded clip on your homepage versus sharing data across all your computing devices. This is a snapshot of where we are today. Thanks for posting this! :-) -- 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 12/06/07, Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good luck to ITV.com btw . Has it launched yet ;) The new soaps section of http://www.itv.com has live streams and catch up service right now. Guess that came out this week. I'd say this was the first of its kind in the UK - gratis live streaming of TV with an advertising model rather then subscription. Also, an anonymous friend elsewhere in the industry wrote me, As for the DRM, the issue is probably a lack of understanding from a legal point of view. Really what happens is the legal teams need to be able to say they used best practice - and if that happens to not be very good in our opinion does not matter. The big studios go the Windows Media route, well so then will the production houses. Big studios/production houses create/own the content and dictate how they go out on broadcast. Distributor need to adhere to the guidlines, otherwise those companies will not provide/sell them the content. The big US companies set the benchmark in legal terms. So for example the productions houses dont care if some guy in the street is saying DRM is bad, they care that the content is protected to the best of their ability, and they see Fox/whoever... using windows media. Remember these productions also sell DVD's and the like. -- 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
Hi David! On 12/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If however you say making a copy of this DVD for your own use (eg in case of damage) is OK but it is wrong to give it away or sell it. Please don't do that. Then you are actually treating the consumer as a reasonable person. No, you're attacking their civic spirit and the nature of friendship, and that's not cool. No one self-respecting is going to agree to betray their friends and neighbours like that. For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF LAW ABIDING PEOPLE*, which is more likely to work? Neither. Talk to teenagers - file sharing is here to stay. By saying law abiding, you're invoking the law as an authority on ethics, which is ill-conceived. The law is, at best, at attempt to achieve justice. Often, if doesn't: law abiding people moved to the back of the bus. -- 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
At 13:38 +0100 12/6/07, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi Jeremy! On 12/06/07, Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - As Richard said..Listen Again will still be available Listen Again is in proprietary Real Media format. The BBC should adopt free formats like Ogg Vorbis. - We will also be working (or already are) on propositions for cable, mac, linux Have you read http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html ? :-) I feel that GNU Copyleft is inferior to Creative Commons Licences. And GNU Copyleft is a virus. Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
Exactly, ask any parent not to teach their kids to share it is part of the total fabric of society. Sometimes I think the business world has completely lost it. There are many neutral ways to influence, and believing in the choice of the customer is surely a mainstay of any business. unless you want to have a secret police as well. I have had the same experience with my 10 year old, and it left me feeling very uncomfortable indeed. RichE On 12 Jun 2007, at 13:50, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi David! On 12/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If however you say making a copy of this DVD for your own use (eg in case of damage) is OK but it is wrong to give it away or sell it. Please don't do that. Then you are actually treating the consumer as a reasonable person. No, you're attacking their civic spirit and the nature of friendship, and that's not cool. No one self-respecting is going to agree to betray their friends and neighbours like that. For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF LAW ABIDING PEOPLE*, which is more likely to work? Neither. Talk to teenagers - file sharing is here to stay. By saying law abiding, you're invoking the law as an authority on ethics, which is ill-conceived. The law is, at best, at attempt to achieve justice. Often, if doesn't: law abiding people moved to the back of the bus. -- 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/ - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
The vast majority of users are quite happy to use the content as it's provided, and have no problems doing that. (I ask this politely) On what basis do you say that? I don't know anyone who is happy with DRM. My 70 year-old neighbour refuses to buy DRM material just on the principle that rights shouldn't be managed because the implication of all DRM is that the buyer would be - but for the DRM - a thief ... which is a preposterous way to approach your client base. Any DRM can be undone, so it is just waste of time and effort and money. I think it does alienate a large section of the public. D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Lockwood Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:27 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info One point that gets made repeatedly in these arguments is something along the lines of users are demanding DRM-free content - implying that the whole world is gagging for copyable Doctor Who episodes and back editions of Top Gear. This just isn't the case. The vast majority of users are quite happy to use the content as it's provided, and have no problems doing that. It's a *tiny* minority of people who are demanding DRM-free content, and of those, most of them don't have a practical reason for wanting that content without DRM, they just need to feel that they're arguing the moral high ground in any given situation. They're not intent on becoming the next Brian Eno or Chemical Brothers, they just feel the need to argue the position because they've read about it on Slashdot. Come on - how many of you have ever heard your mum exclaiming Oh, why does my content have to come with DRM??? 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/ - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 12/06/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I feel that GNU Copyleft is inferior to Creative Commons Licences. And GNU Copyleft is a virus. Creative Commons licenses use copyleft, and they recommend the GPL for software. http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl -- 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
Hi Tom! On 12/06/07, Tom Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The argument for us for the iPlayer is a bit like the argument for God. Of course, none of us are going to [believe in/use] [God/the iPlayer], we're not that stupid. But the ignorant proletariat out there needs a [comfort blanket/DRM application]. We can't deny them that, regardless of your boorish, high-faultin' academic-y arguments about it's [nonexistence/utter silliness]. We can't forcibly deny them that, but the opportunity cost of maintaining a society of superstition/proprietary software is immense. Coercive atheism - such as North Korea and former Soviet states - are marked by all that comes with totalitarianism: poor economic development, censorship, corruption, depression, and so on. However, nations marked by high levels of organic atheism, such as Sweden or the Netherlands - are among the healthiest, wealthiest, best educated, and freest societies on earth. - The Cambridge Companion to Atheism http://books.google.com/books?id=tAeFipOVx4MCpg=PA57psp=1sig=pM5T-0bjgXv2YkMmjhKfZ44HN2c If the iPlayer works, hopefully, all it'll do is distract the bureaucrats and legal types away from what everyone is doing on BitTorrent. That is it's criteria for success - how well it keeps the BBC hierarchy from noticing reality. For all the problems with the pharmaceutical industry, I much prefer it to the underground dealer network. Being forced underground isn't cool, as anyone who used Napster 1.0 in the weeks before it got shut down will know when they compare it to even today's p2p filesharing systems. -- 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 12/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah yes. An insecure-by-design DRM scheme. Well that's useful, isn't it. Can't be worse the defective by design DRM we have now A Digital Rights Management system that doesn't actually allow you to manage anything. You've just described all DRM. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
Actually the ones who are watching again on their PCs are already getting it DRM free: via bittorrent or eMule etc. and just find a non-techie friend who wants their Fairplay encumbered music to work on their non-apple MP3 player; then tell me that people don't want DRM free content. Vijay. On 12/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One point that gets made repeatedly in these arguments is something along the lines of users are demanding DRM-free content - implying that the whole world is gagging for copyable Doctor Who episodes and back editions of Top Gear. This just isn't the case. The vast majority of users are quite happy to use the content as it's provided, and have no problems doing that. It's a *tiny* minority of people who are demanding DRM-free content, and of those, most of them don't have a practical reason for wanting that content without DRM, they just need to feel that they're arguing the moral high ground in any given situation. They're not intent on becoming the next Brian Eno or Chemical Brothers, they just feel the need to argue the position because they've read about it on Slashdot. Come on - how many of you have ever heard your mum exclaiming Oh, why does my content have to come with DRM??? 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] Google Map Symbols Key
Google Map Symbols Key how is it possible to add symbols to google maps? in addition to the current drawing-pin or text-bubbles. my hack demo: http://www.peepo.co.uk/temp/moulin/moulin.svg valuable prize for adding location and text. Example keys: Ordinance Survey: http://tinyurl.com/3axdny streetmap: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/mapkey.htm cheers ~: Jonathan Chetwynd Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet 29 Crimsworth Road SW8 4RJ 020 7978 1764 http://www.eas-i.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] Re: Google Map Symbols Key
oops, please use safari-webkit for best experience of demo... cheers Jonathan Chetwynd - 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] Google Map Symbols Key
If you use My Google Maps, you can define any one of a number of symbols to any pinpoint you add to your map. -Original Message- From: ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 June 2007 15:42 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [backstage] Google Map Symbols Key Google Map Symbols Key how is it possible to add symbols to google maps? in addition to the current drawing-pin or text-bubbles. my hack demo: http://www.peepo.co.uk/temp/moulin/moulin.svg valuable prize for adding location and text. Example keys: Ordinance Survey: http://tinyurl.com/3axdny streetmap:http://www.streetmap.co.uk/mapkey.htm cheers ~: Jonathan Chetwynd Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet 29 Crimsworth Road SW8 4RJ 020 7978 1764 http://www.eas-i.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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
Dave Crossland wrote: Hi David! On 12/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If however you say making a copy of this DVD for your own use (eg in case of damage) is OK but it is wrong to give it away or sell it. Please don't do that. Then you are actually treating the consumer as a reasonable person. No, you're attacking their civic spirit and the nature of friendship, and that's not cool. No one self-respecting is going to agree to betray their friends and neighbours like that. So you're saying that _not_ filesharing is betraying friends and neighbours? Because it's morally correct to share something that is not diminished by sharing? So where is the balance? Or do you believe that the content creator (and as Michael pointed out, colleagues) doesn't deserve recompense? The 'rules' of our society include exchanging money for products and services. In the media area we used to buy physical records and tapes, now I like to think we buy a right to listen/watch for us and our family. As a rabid anti-DRM person I do not object to paying to listen/watch - it costs money to create this stuff and I expect to contribute. I do however object to having to pay Microsoft/Apple/Sony to listen/watch. I also object to not being able to listen/watch on my home-made gizmo. I want to listen/watch my media in my car; I want to innovate and listen/watch in my bath... And I object to having to pay for each of these things. I object to paying for a new copy because my old player died. For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF LAW ABIDING PEOPLE*, which is more likely to work? Neither. Talk to teenagers - file sharing is here to stay. By saying law abiding, you're invoking the law as an authority on ethics, which is ill-conceived. The law is, at best, at attempt to achieve justice. Often, if doesn't: law abiding people moved to the back of the bus. You're right, try: For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF MORALLY SOUND PEOPLE*, which is more likely to work? If your argument is that we raise morally bankrupt children then so be it. Teenagers however, are not the vast majority of people. David - 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] Google Map Symbols Key
Hi Jonathan, There's an example of what (I think) you want at www.sdldev.co.uk/weather/map.asp All the code's in the source. Cheers, Rich. On 6/12/07, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Google Map Symbols Key how is it possible to add symbols to google maps? in addition to the current drawing-pin or text-bubbles. my hack demo: http://www.peepo.co.uk/temp/moulin/moulin.svg valuable prize for adding location and text. Example keys: Ordinance Survey: http://tinyurl.com/3axdny streetmap: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/mapkey.htm cheers ~: Jonathan Chetwynd Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet 29 Crimsworth Road SW8 4RJ 020 7978 1764 http://www.eas-i.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/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 00:50 +0100, Richard Lockwood wrote: Andy, You've completely missed the point of my argument. While we can bicker over the technical details of DRM systems involved, the fact is that the majority of facts presented in that letter are not facts at all. Let's go through the points one by one. Again. 1. DRM Doesn't work. I'm prepared to agree with this. OK, so you'll concede the most important fact is actually true. That must be why your first mail started off with entirely gratuitous Ad Hominem, to distract from your error? 2. As I originally wrote, it's a moot point as to weather it stops copying on an industrial scale. It probably doesn't. I thought I said that. Maybe I wasn't clear. Let me try again. I don't think that DRM works to stop piracy. On the other hand, I don't see any better options. If DRM doesn't actually work, as we seem to agree then why do you not see no DRM as a better option? If DRM doesn't prevent illegal copying or viewing 'outside the window', then what _does_ it achieve? Other than a highly dubious lock-in to proprietary software, that is. That's the main point - the BBC is the wrong target here. Your target should be people like, like, well, like yourself. Come up with a model that can cope with: a) Giving data away for free, and b) Compensating the creators of that data and you're fu**ing laughing. The BBC have operated that model for decades. /me looks at the unencrypted MPEG data stream flowing across his home network from the DVB-S card in the box in the corner... it's _trivial_ for me to stick that on a DVD and flog it on the street corner, and it's far better quality than anything I can be bothered to download over my crappy DSL line. -- dwmw2 - 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
Hi David! On 12/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If however you say making a copy of this DVD for your own use (eg in case of damage) is OK but it is wrong to give it away or sell it. Please don't do that. Then you are actually treating the consumer as a reasonable person. No, you're attacking their civic spirit and the nature of friendship, and that's not cool. No one self-respecting is going to agree to betray their friends and neighbours like that. So you're saying that _not_ filesharing is betraying friends and neighbours? Certainly. Because it's morally correct to share something that is not diminished by sharing? Correct! So where is the balance? I believe you're referring to the commonly-held misconception that there is a copyright balance. Please read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html to understand why this concept is mistaken. Or do you believe that the content creator (and as Michael pointed out, colleagues) doesn't deserve recompense? Deserve, no. Authors do not inherently deserve the right to control the publics use of their work; those rights are given to them by the public, and were intended to be given only in so far as that they benefitted the public. Corporate corruption of governments has weakened democracy very badly, and the way copyright is used against the public interest is an example of this wider problem with global society. Authors need to find new business models that do not harm the public; they do exist, and there is a lot of money to be made in pursuing them. The 'rules' of our society include exchanging money for products and services. As a rabid anti-DRM person I do not object to paying to listen/watch - it costs money to create this stuff and I expect to contribute. I do however object to having to pay Microsoft/Apple/Sony to listen/watch. I also object to not being able to listen/watch on my home-made gizmo. I want to listen/watch my media in my car; I want to innovate and listen/watch in my bath... And I object to having to pay for each of these things. I object to paying for a new copy because my old player died. I'm glad to hear we agree on all of these things. For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF LAW ABIDING PEOPLE*, which is more likely to work? By saying law abiding, you're invoking the law as an authority on ethics, which is ill-conceived. The law is, at best, at attempt to achieve justice. Often, if doesn't: law abiding people moved to the back of the bus. You're right, try: For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF MORALLY SOUND PEOPLE*, which is more likely to work? Morally sound people share with their friends. Neither. Talk to teenagers - file sharing is here to stay. If your argument is that we raise morally bankrupt children then so be it. Teenagers however, are not the vast majority of people. No, but with the baby boom generation about to retire, en masse, young people are assuming positions of power previously unavailable. These young people have grown up with computers (although not the Internet) and understand that file sharing is a good thing to do. -- 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] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 13/06/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: entirely). And that's why DRM discussion will just go round in circles until someone comes along which exhibits a demonstrable downside, which is both immediately explainable and fully obvious to the general tech-using population. Something like Sky requiring HDCP-compliant HDTVs for their SkyHD receives, I'd say You can download BBC shows from the internet to watch them later. But after 7 days, BBC will force your computer to delete your shows. Is that good or bad? was pretty clear :-) -- 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/
