Re: [backstage] Clay Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable
On Sunday 15 March 2009 07:45:27 Dan Brickley wrote: On 15/3/09 02:32, Andy Halsall wrote: I concur with his viewpoint that business models are being broken faster than new ones can be invented. Business models and distribution methods, the demand for high quality content however remains constant Really? Do we have metrics...? I'd love to see evidence for this intuition. I suppose whatever numbers one had, a chart over time could be made to look constant by making sure the definition of high quality was relative to some notion of current context. Ha, no. I think it is something that would be rather difficult to determine statistically in any case. So it would seem that I have made the claim based on a mixture of intuition and hope... That being said, I have found, when reading certain social networking sites, that mixture of decent journalism and sensationalism seem to ensure that others read and positively comment on any given article. Of course in those cases decent journalism has to compete with things like cute pictures of kittens, but still, it might indicate that people are still prefer to read things that are well written and researched rather, even if they do on occasion lack the substance and importance one would hope for. - 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] Clay Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable
On Sunday 15 March 2009 14:55:43 Dave Crossland wrote: 2009/3/15 Kevin Anderson global...@gmail.com: As for Clay's piece, it's one of the best of a kind. I would say that much of the discussion here is confusing public funding with a business model. I think the phrase business model is colloquially used as funding model for people for whom the Internet is dissolving the funding model they previously relied upon rather than profiteering scheme for shareholders I think business model is the right term when talking about how something is going to make money, to me it seems to include distribution, revenue generation, and operations in general. What people seem to miss is that when they want to take advantage of a new method of distribution, they need to make allowances for it in other areas. The classic example of this is the Music business, when moving from a physical distribution model (CD's) to an online one (downloads) they, initially at least, assumed that they could continue to do what they were doing in the physical sphere, charge £9.99 for a singe, £20+ for an album, only allow one copy (utilising whatever DRM scheme was flavour of the week) and pass on the same money to the artists (less breakages...) and no one would care. They were clearly wrong, people didn't want to pay inflated prices for something that only worked under certain conditions, especially not when they could rip their existing music collection (which hadn't really been easily possible in previous changes, from Record to tape, or tape to CD). So rather than being able to charge everyone to gain access to their existing record collections again (as they had essentially been able to do previously) they were faced with a decline in sales, and a model that was being challenged by the fact many people were happy to swap copies of music without restriction. They failed to adjust their business model along with everything else, and failed to deal with the threat they faced from outside. It is the same with almost anything that can be distributed electronically, and, I fear it will be along time until businesses realise just how different the world is when a perfect digital copy can be provided to thousands if not millions of people, with little or no investment. Of course in the music industry's case, the solution they sought was one of legislation, not something that endeared them to their previous and potential customer bases. - 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] Clay Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable
I concur with his viewpoint that business models are being broken faster than new ones can be invented. Business models and distribution methods, the demand for high quality content however remains constant, as long as that doesn't change there will always be a need for journalists, writers, photographers and all the people who support them. However problem with generating revenue from this work, beyond recognition at least, will only get harder. - 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] Linguistic discrimination?
Of course you've also limited the debate to those who have the capability and the inclination to participate in such a debate on a foreign broadcaster's website, whatever language(s) it's hosted in. Very good point, although I don't know how prevalent internet access is in Venezuela and how common internet cafe type establishments are. -- Andy Halsall Director ICTSC LTD, The ICT and Security Company. Direct: +44 (0)114 335 0392 Mobile: +44 (0)750 511 1705 Non-Geo: +44 (0)845 224 2591 Sales: +44 (0)845 224 2305 Web: www.ictsc.com --- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. This email should be digitally signed, if it is not, it is probably not from who it claims to be from. Please report any abusive or unwanted email content to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Registered office: 26 Cleveland Street, Upperthorpe, Sheffield, S6 3JB. Registration Number: 5667864 This email and any attachments were created and sent using Open Source software, ICTSC Ltd believes in open standards and the freedom to innovate. - 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] Linguistic discrimination?
On Monday 08 December 2008 11:42:24 Brian Butterworth wrote: Interesting point of debate. This logic says that it is possible only to have an opinion if you speak the language of the country that you have a though about. No, the logic seems to be that requiring comments in a language that only a certain demographic of a country speak will illicit responses only from people of that demographic, if, as in this case that demographic also have a moderately uniform political view (as much as that is possible) you have essentailly closed the debate to those outside of a particular political grouping. - 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] Guardian article about iPhone iPlayer
On Thursday 13 March 2008 12:25:38 Steve Jolly wrote: Thought that people might find this interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/13/digitalvideo.television S And the BBC reply: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7293988.stm signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
OK, so the BBC has decided to use something more involved than a simple user agent check to determine whether it will serve up standards compliant and non DRM encumbered media to a client. Fair enough. What I still find rather confusing is that, short of using whatever DRM capabilities the iPhone has, they will still be streaming DRM free content to a single platform, something that is likely to be circumventable by other clients soon. Not only that, but the BBC article I posted a link for earlier plainly states that the iPlayer DRM used to protect the downloaded content for Windows is also broken, so in effect supplying DRM encumbered media to a windows client is the same as providing DRM free content (the difference is when the removal of or circumvention of protective measures is carried out). So the BBC is claiming it is not permissible for it to make non-DRM content that it has licensed available, but is doing so and doing so in a manner that makes that content only available to a device (th iPhone) that comes from a single vendor and has a very small market share (I wont go into depth here to draw parallels with reasons given for Linux support as they are self evident). The BBC are also making media available for download to another single vendor provided platform (a vendor that has faced and is facing further anti-trust action in the EU). In the latter case the media is encumbered with DRM, but that DRM has been broken. So in effect the BBC are giving a competitive edge to two commercial entities, one of which is already in hot water for using suspect practices to maintain their dominance, apparently on the basis that that is the only way to protect the media, but without any real protective measures in either case. (I cant remember what happened to the slew of / rumoured anti-trust cases against apple for its pricing, hardware tie-ins and failure to licence FairPlay or I would mention these too.) Now, I am sure that fairly soon the method being used to 'protect' the iPhone specific DRM free content will be identified and circumvented, some people would probably be happy with that as a solution. I would however suggest that using such workarounds will be detrimental. The BBC needs to either provide a platform agnostic DRM capable player (I would even add the fantasy requirement for it to be unbreakable DRM), or resolve its licensing issues (or something else). Earlier in the week a number of people posted references to a BBC blog that seemed to indicate that DRM free, standards compliant media would be available to mobile devices (regardless of type) as long as they were capable of displaying such media in a satisfactory manner, I would rather like to know if that is still the case and how the BBC is going to justify becoming a very nice marketing tool for a select number of device providers (without cost to those providers!). I would be half tempted to suggest that the BBC's best option at this point in time would be to remove the Windows and iPhone specific iPlayer capabilities (others would probably advocate getting rid of the flash player as well, but at least that is marginally more portable, even if it is not open) and wait until they have a solution that does not favour one or more commercial entities, basically what is something that is based on open standards and platform agnostic. Now, I really shouldn't be getting side-tracked by this list as often as I am... Thanks. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
On Thursday 13 March 2008 13:55:50 Iain Wallace wrote: ... User Agent ... cookies. ... Wireshark, ... BBC-UID cookie ... large hex number ... Quicktime version (including OS identifier). ... MP4 URL ... cookie contains some kind of hash ... client data ... agent sends over. ... upload a packet trace from an iPhone or Touch? ;) So you are one of those dastardly hackers exploiting the BBC's security measures Seriously though, Whilst identifying what mechanism is being used to more accurately identify the platform making the request for the mp4 is going to be necessary for anyone who wants to carry on using a workaround to get hold of usable media (and frankly someone should do it even if it is just to point out that this kind of 'protection' is unlikely to work) I would much rather the BBC skimpy clarified their position and then abided by whatever rules they claim restricts their ability to stream compliant media, that way at least when the BBC next decide to license something they will have to consider their online distribution requirements as part of any license agreement. As a side note if the BBC really is using plugin version information to determine platform (and using a cookie to store that info) then it may be useful to gather all the data that the iPhone is likely to present to a server making such a request now, rather than doing it on a bit by bit basis and dropping that somewhere. Cheers signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
On Thursday 13 March 2008 15:44:56 Phil Wilson wrote: --- We've released a fix to prevent unrestricted downloading of streamed TV programmes on BBC iPlayer. Like other broadcasters, the security of rights-protected content online is an issue we take very seriously. It's an ongoing, constant process and one which we will continue to monitor. --- The problem for me is that as far as I understand it, because of the way authentication has been implemented, streaming is practically impossible on anything other than the target platform, in this case the iPhone. This means that almost any hack will result in a downloaded file, rather than a streaming video. Phil You hit the nail on the head, the media in question here is 'rights protected' only in terms of copyright. Given that it is being distributed, short of DRM, I am not sure how the BBC hopes enforce any specific method of usage. I would also like to point out to Ian that this response, whilst clarifying the BBC's general position on 'rights-protected' content, goes no further in explaining the lock in to a niche device (for this BETA service at lease) nor why the BBC can stream DRM free content (even if it is as a stream) to the iPhone but not to other mobile (or other) platforms. As for focusing the debate, I would suggest that all this does is rule out any distribution of BBC content by people who download a stream (which is obvious anyway), it doesn't clarify as to whether I can happily pull the stream to a non iPhone device by making appear to be one or download the stream, watch it on a device not yet supported and then delete it (without distributing it first). Andy. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
On Thursday 13 March 2008 16:03:26 Thomas Leitch wrote: Fair enough. What I still find rather confusing is that, short of using whatever DRM capabilities the iPhone has, they will still be streaming DRM free content to a single platform, something that is likely to be circumventable by other clients soon. Not only that, but the BBC article I posted a link for earlier plainly states that the iPlayer DRM used to protect the downloaded content for Windows is also broken, so in effect supplying DRM encumbered media to a windows client is the same as providing DRM free content (the difference is when the removal of or circumvention of protective measures is carried out). In effect.. No. It's not broken. You pointed out something that probably circumvents the protection. You can force your way into my house should you really want to, but that doesn't mean my front door is broken. No it doesn't, it means that the protection you have is broken, i.e. a code has been 'broken'. In the case of DRM 'broken' would indicate that it is (easily, systematically and/or repeatably) breachable, broken as in 'doesn't work anymore' not broken as in 'broken window' It works well enough to give rights holders a safety blanket. Fair enough, if that is the BBC's position. What I find worrying is that the argument 'we need to protect our content' has in your view become 'we need to be seen to be trying to protect the content'. Thats fine too, but lets be honest about it. Now, if broken DRM is OK why are we limiting it to a broken DRM scheme on a single vendors platform. So the BBC is claiming it is not permissible for it to make non-DRM content that it has licensed available, but is doing so and doing so in a manner that makes that content only available to a device (th iPhone) that comes from a single vendor and has a very small market share (I wont go into depth here to draw parallels with reasons given for Linux support as they are self evident). BBC also makes iPlayer content available in formats Windows can understand, oh and Adobe Flash. Yes, but that hardly addresses the point, the iPhone version is DRM free. You pointed out earlier that DRM was required for the rights holders to be happy with it, are rights holders happy with DRM free content being distributed for the iPhone? The BBC are also making media available for download to another single vendor provided platform (a vendor that has faced and is facing further anti-trust action in the EU). In the latter case the media is encumbered with DRM, but that DRM has been broken. You can download on an iPhone or iPod Touch made by Apple, or Microsoft Windows. Separate companies... separate vendors even. So in effect the BBC are giving a competitive edge to two commercial entities Adobe. Microsoft. Apple. Now, I am sure that fairly soon the method being used to 'protect' the iPhone specific DRM free content will be identified and circumvented, some people would probably be happy with that as a solution. I would however suggest that using such workarounds will be detrimental. The BBC needs to either provide a platform agnostic DRM capable player (I would even add the fantasy requirement for it to be unbreakable DRM), or resolve its licensing issues (or something else). Pay £££ for a license to freely distributre individual bits of content. Spend many months dealing with each different holder of those rights... you've probably guessed that there isn't one mammoth, single rights holder, or distribute it in a protected form to as many people as possible. A format which obviously doesn't satisfy the vocal minority. Earlier in the week a number of people posted references to a BBC blog that seemed to indicate that DRM free, standards compliant media would be available to mobile devices (regardless of type) as long as they were capable of displaying such media in a satisfactory manner, I would rather like to know if that is still the case and how the BBC is going to justify becoming a very nice marketing tool for a select number of device providers (without cost to those providers!). So one moment you to want it to be available on more devices. Now you think that's quite anti-competitive ? Wait, we stream in Real and Windows formats here you know. Have you seen those companies using that as a very nice marketing tool ? Because I sure as hell haven't. does not favour one or more commercial entities I can really the people who, you know, act and write music and direct, produce and fund... you know, those pesky creatives and the like really plumping for that one. Get real. So in summary, there are issues with DRM and cross platform compatibility, these are legal (in terms of licensing) and technological. Fine, if the BBC were a commercial entity I would be entirely happy for them to do what they wish, ignore the issue
Re: [backstage] iPlayer, DRM, Free Software and the iPhone
On Monday 10 March 2008 08:55:46 Mr I Forrester wrote: I will attempt to get some answers to your questions, although I think the iphone service is only a beta service at the moment? Ian, I get the impresion some of them, or at least those related to future support for other mobile platforms may have been answered on one of the BBC blogs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/03/bbc_iplayer_on_iphone_behind_t.html). However I think most of my points and queries still stand so any further info you could get would be nice. Thanks. Andy. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [backstage] iPlayer, DRM, Free Software and the iPhone
Till then, I would suggest you don't do anything your mother wouldn't be happy about. I take it that isn't legal advice... :) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[backstage] iPlayer, DRM, Free Software and the iPhone
devices, but there is an obvious demand for mobile content from the BBC. From a totally personal point of view, if I could reliably determine that this was legal, I would be tempted to see if I could automate this process to some degree and then make use of my IPAQ (a Hx4700 running free software) to watch the resulting DRM free files when I am on the move. My PDA's 4' VGA screen makes it an ideal mobile media platform, the fact that I have mplayer installed and a 2Gb CF card means I could quite reasonably use it when travelling to catch up on my favourite BBC content. Obviously it would also mean that I would be able to watch content on my PC (running Debian) whenever I wished. Anyway, to sum up, I am pleased that the BBC is offering DRM free material, it is the right thing for the BBC to do, (if that is what they intended). I am rather less pleased that it is not easily usable for those of us without an iPhone. I have some questions about how this new source can be used legally, and I wonder how long it will survive as a BBC service. I'd love to get some comments from the BBC, or other interested parties with regard to the issues I have raised (apologies if they have already been addressed elsewhere). I'd also like to point out that this (rather larger than intended) commentary is not intended as a criticism of the BBC in general, the BBC provides me with a large amount of my daily news, entertainment and commentary and it does an excellent job doing so. Thanks, -- Andy Halsall signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
If only people would make real-world, rational and pragmatic arguments about FOSS then this adversarial stuff would be less strident. The argument (IMO) should be about the use of an open standard, not Adobe vs Gnash. I agree totally, this cannot be emphasised enough. If your OS/device/whatever can't do published standards then tough. OTO if the BBC supports and promotes proprietary standards (cf Microsoft OOXML) then that's more of an issue. Especially with @10% (and rising) of BBC traffic coming from non Windows PC type platforms. The interesting thing here is that clearly mobile devices and set top boxes are increasingly being used to view multimedia content online (and offline for that matter), yet media solutions (especially those where DRM is a key consideration) are geared very much toward Windows PC's. The BBC would do well to provide a platform agnostic, well documented and standardised solution to media distribution. I think that *that* is the reason that the BBC have a duty to counterbalance their support for Adobe/Flash with support for more open alternatives. Again, this cannot be emphasised enough. Andy Halsall. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [backstage] One-day Conference To Help Web Developers Address Accessibility in Web 2.0
On Monday 03 March 2008 14:51:33 Ian Forrester wrote: Hi All, We're involved in abilitynet's one day conference - www.abilitynet.org.uk/accessibility2 This may actually be quite interesting, its certainly a topic that could do with a little more publicity and support. (I should say its also nice to see the page's referring to the conference boasts both valid markup and passes automated accesibility tests.) The only thing I would take issue with is that at £150.00 (plus travel and accomodation) this will be out of reach for the group that would benefit from it most. (i.e. small web design company's, freelancers etc.. who probably havn't got a compliance team already telling them they should be aiming for accessibility as well as glitz.) Having said that, at least AbilityNet is a charity, so presumably the cash will go to good use. Cheers Andy. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
