On 16 Jun 2010, at 07:11, Brian Butterworth wrote:
> It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it
> uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an
> edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way.
Deviation from the main topic
David,
As we have not actually seen the real Ofcom response yet, I don't know the
answers to your questions. But asking the legal position was my one and
only response to the consultation, so it will be interesting to hear it.
If I had the resources I would launch a judicial review, as this is
a
It's only on the EPG anyway, even Windows Media Centre will bypass it, as it
uses the DigiGuide one. Or record the whole audio-video stream and use an
edit package. Or pause/record the old fashioned way.
On 14 June 2010 18:30, Phil Lewis wrote:
> So is this just going to be another region-codi
Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
Well as always I suspect we will argue about this until the cows come
home and not resolve it.
No what the BBC is doing is illegal under European law, (encrypting the
broadcast - the EPG is broadcast), or at least, failing a legal opinion,
in breach of the spirit of
On 15-Jun-2010, at 22:41, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
> The BBC has made its position quite clear on the blog - not once but
> several times. We have been straight about it as you can see from these
> blog posts, not just recently but as far back as April last year (see
> Danielle Nagler's post in
On 06/15/2010 10:11 PM, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
People won't miss something
they never knew they had in the first place especially if they are able
to do all the things they can now, which it appears they will be.
They'll find out soon enough, they're not, and it doesn't.
This is a problem.
Mo,
The BBC has made its position quite clear on the blog - not once but
several times. We have been straight about it as you can see from these
blog posts, not just recently but as far back as April last year (see
Danielle Nagler's post in the list below) - so the idea that we didn't
want to tal
It is sincerely wearying. I wish we were more honest. If it was me doing the
talking for us, it would be different, but i don't get that clout.
Cheers for the input.
a
Sent from my HTC
-Original Message-
From: Mo McRoberts
Sent: 15 June 2010 22:13
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subje
> People won't miss something they never knew they had in the first place
> especially if they are able
to do all the things they can now, which it appears they will be
damn, someone invented the car and forgot to tell anyone. still we won't miss
what we never knew...
or "miss" seems an odd wor
right,
I’m going to level with you all:
I’m tired. very tired. I’m juggling a day-job building e-commerce websites with
a hobby helping to build some very very cool things, and I’ve put an awful lot
of time and effort into questioning, gaining understanding of and explaining
this whole Freevie
Well as always I suspect we will argue about this until the cows come
home and not resolve it.
Your caveats seems weak and speculative. People won't miss something
they never knew they had in the first place especially if they are able
to do all the things they can now, which it appears they will
On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:38, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>
> On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
>
>> With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on
>> the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either:
>
> those caveats, which make quite a significant differe
On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:36, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
> Omission from who?
>
> Me?
>
> Or the person quoted?
the person quoted. he didn’t contradict you because he didn’t cover those
points in enough detail. sheesh.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
> [ma
On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
> With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on
> the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either:
those caveats, which make quite a significant difference:
> "nwhitfield
> 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM
> My understandin
Omission from who?
Me?
Or the person quoted?
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 15 June 2010 21:21
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 1
Panasonic HD avert on ITV right after the match just now said record HD TV
(Freesat or Freeview) to BluRay and save forever
Paul
On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:13, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
> Nor does it contradict anything I said either!
through omission, no. that’s hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01
Nor does it contradict anything I said either!
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 15 June 2010 21:06
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 15
But you can already obtain legal copies in many different ways, can't
you Andrew?
Explain to me how you can't...
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Adam Sampson
Sent: 15 June 2010 20:35
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co
On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote:
> With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on
> the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either:
!?!?!
with some caveats, that doesn’t actually contradict what I’ve said!
>
> "nwhitfield
> 14 Jun 2010, 7:04
But y
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Adam Sampson
Sent: 15 June 2010 20:35
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
"Andrew Bowden" writes:
> It's so hard for me
With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on
the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either:
"nwhitfield
14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM
My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on
sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going
On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:34, Adam Sampson wrote:
> While I'm sure the Huffman tables will be reverse-engineered soon
> enough, it'd be much better if I, as a license fee payer, could obtain a
> legal copy from the BBC for my personal use. UK copyright law is already
> very clear on exactly what I'm
"Andrew Bowden" writes:
> It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to
> my iPod that I've never done it.
This is easy enough to automate however you like if you're using a
software PVR such as MythTV -- it's the only way I listen to radio these
days. I think it's a great
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:37, Andrew Bowden wrote:
> Ease of use aside, even the iPhone 4 doesn't really have the screen
> resolution to require HD content - will many handheld devices really
> need HD?
The Archos 7 Home Tablet handles 720p. I would expect HD capability to
become fairly standar
American TV producers and film companies used the same argument a few years
back that if the broadcast flag wasn't allowed then they wouldn't allow HD
content to be broadcast on non-encrypted channels. Congress rejected the use
of the broadcast flag and American producers caved in and allowed HD
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:48, Adam Bradley wrote:
> Point taken, but it would be nice if someone made it easy in future and this
> just makes it less likely.
> Perhaps "Why can't I stream this on my network player upstairs" would be a
> more likely question in the future.
Oh, but it can! So lon
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:33, Paul Battley wrote:
> On 15 June 2010 16:23, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>> "why can I not watch Freeview HD on my (slightly older) HD TV?"
>
> This (HDCP) is one of the restrictions I understand the least. It's
> like screwing shut the cat-flap (the DVI/HDMI signal) when t
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Andrew Bowden wrote:
> From: Adam Bradley
> > Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course.
> > "Why can't I record this TV show?",
>
> Unless I've missed something (and I'm sure someone will tell me if I
> have!) there's no proposals on the table t
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:37, Andrew Bowden wrote:
> From: Adam Bradley
>> Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course.
>> "Why can't I record this TV show?",
>
> Unless I've missed something (and I'm sure someone will tell me if I
> have!) there's no proposals on the table to pr
From: Adam Bradley
> Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course.
> "Why can't I record this TV show?",
Unless I've missed something (and I'm sure someone will tell me if I
have!) there's no proposals on the table to prevent people from
recording HD content - as long as the user
On 15 June 2010 16:23, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> "why can I not watch Freeview HD on my (slightly older) HD TV?"
This (HDCP) is one of the restrictions I understand the least. It's
like screwing shut the cat-flap (the DVI/HDMI signal) when the door
(unencrypted broadcasts) is open. If you want to rip
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:16, Adam Bradley wrote:
> If the desired effect was to limit what the average consumer can do with TV
> - i.e. only making one recording, and limiting how they can transfer this
> around their home - then it looks like it could achieve it. This ensures
> that any consum
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:16, Adam Bradley wrote:
> If the desired effect was to limit what the average consumer can do with TV
> - i.e. only making one recording, and limiting how they can transfer this
> around their home - then it looks like it could achieve it. This ensures
> that any consum
> a) broadcast in other countries without this scheme or an
> equivalent
> b) distributed widely prior to it hitting the UK
And on BBC HD on satellite to the UK and large parts of Europe.
The horse-and-cart makers still can't stand the existence of the car...
Won't be long until the "DRM" is (sym
The group of licence fee payers who have been affected by all this lockdown is
larger than you realise, Nick.
And they're also early adopters as well. For instance, my Nokia N900 may have
Flash 9.4 on board, but i'm sure unadorned streams woukld play out better.
I run Ubuntu on an Atom netbo
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
> wrote:
> > The BBC had a choice
> >
> > a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee
> > payers
> >
> > b) do something which does achieve the desired effect an
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:57, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
> wrote:
>> The BBC had a choice
>>
>> a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee
>> payers
>>
>> b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a v
> _however_, who do people like Graham Plumb work for? AFAIK,
> he's BBC proper, not the subsidiary. _The Corporation_ has
> made representations in favour of this idea (rather PR-heavy
> representations, at that - possibly the single aspect of this
> I'm least happy about).
In some situation
On 06/15/2010 02:08 PM, Andrew Bowden wrote:
If the alternative was this system did not exist and rights holders told
broadcasters (for this is not just a BBC issue) that the broadcaster
could not broadcast their content in HD on the Freeview platform...
They threatened something like this bef
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FM&T
wrote:
> The BBC had a choice
>
> a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee
> payers
>
> b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small
> negative impact on a very small group of people if
On 06/15/2010 03:21 PM, Andrew Bowden wrote:
We can argue around this one as much as we want but I'm afraid there's one
simple truth. Most people don't care one bit and just want to watch their
programme.
They do. And they won't take long to work out that technology, content
and services a
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:21, Andrew Bowden wrote:
> The Strategy Review is irrelevant as this functionality could be used by ITV1
> HD and Channel 4 HD.
>
> The BBC's name is plastered over this because it holds the multiplex
> broadcast licence (in the guise of BBC Free to View Ltd) and, as
The BBC had a choice
a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence
fee payers
b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very
small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has
any negative effect at all
_
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:14, Adam Bradley wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>>
>> the BBC had a choice:
>> a) do nothing
>>
>> b) do something which didn't achieve the desired effect, and caused
>> additional negative effects
>>
>> it chose (b), because the rights-ho
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 14:08, Andrew Bowden
> wrote:
> > Much as I'm rather loathe to wade into this, there's an important
> > question to ponder.
> > If the alternative was this system did not exist and rights holders
> > told broadcasters (for this is not just a BBC issue) that the
> > br
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> the BBC had a choice:
>
> a) do nothing
>
> b) do something which didn't achieve the desired effect, and caused
> additional negative effects
>
> it chose (b), because the rights-holders threw their toys out of the pram.
>
> now, either this
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 14:08, Andrew Bowden wrote:
> Much as I'm rather loathe to wade into this, there's an important
> question to ponder.
>
> If the alternative was this system did not exist and rights holders told
> broadcasters (for this is not just a BBC issue) that the broadcaster
> could
> From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:12, Alex Cockell
> wrote:
> > What I can't fathom is why the hell the Beeb's management
> > has changed
> > so much imn terms of homebrew innovation etc? What are they
> > so scared
> > of, anyway? Why don't they declare an
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:12, Alex Cockell wrote:
> What I can't fathom is why the hell the Beeb's management has changed so
> much imn terms of homebrew innovation etc? What are they so scared of,
> anyway? Why don't they declare an open api etc?
>
> Why are they so set on restricting my kit?
A
What I can't fathom is why the hell the Beeb's management has changed so much
imn terms of homebrew innovation etc? What are they so scared of, anyway? Why
don't they declare an open api etc?
Why are they so set on restricting my kit?
- Original message -
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:05, Stephen Jolly wrote:
> You could generate new tables each week to track the slow evolution of the
> English language? ;-)
more {better,useless} than that!
generate new tables each week to track the slow evolution in the
English language as it's used in the EPG ;)
On 15 Jun 2010, at 09:53, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> either way, they'd just get reverse-engineered again. they could push
> out new tables every week, but they went to lengths to explain how the
> one they have was specially-generated to be wonderfully optimised (in
> order to qualify as being some kin
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:13, Adam Bradley wrote:
> I would assume that the rules for content protection would bar user created
> plugins from having access to the data. The Ofcom document had some comments
> from content providers about updates to the tables being necessary in the
> future if it
I would assume that the rules for content protection would bar user created
plugins from having access to the data. The Ofcom document had some comments
from content providers about updates to the tables being necessary in the
future if it gets broken, but it doesn't look like there are any firm pl
55 matches
Mail list logo
