Re: [backstage] Canvas - Open Source Consortium

On 13/09/2010 23:11, Scot McSweeney-Roberts wrote: On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 21:22, David Tomlinson wrote: The Google TV box (Logitech Revue) is an addition to your set top box, so it does not integrate with Free To Air TV and may be unable to access UK catch-up content. But it's also ge

Re: [backstage] Canvas - Open Source Consortium

To be honest, I'm unconvinced by Project Canvas. It's difficult to see how a UK only system is going to compete in this day and age. What does it do that a Google TV box can't do? Why would a manufacturer make a Canvas box instead of something that they can sell in most of the world (or even al

Re: [backstage] Canvas - Open Source Consortium

On 13/09/2010 13:39, Tim Dobson wrote: Gah, this makes no sense in the context of what Canvas actually is. If you're going to bitch and moan, at least bloody do it coherently. +1 A sense of outrage always makes me incoherent too. So what is Canvas ? A black box under the control of a Join

[backstage] Canvas - Open Source Consortium

http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-canvas-complaint-5-comes-from-open-source-software-fans/ "The OSC is a small body, with 23 members from small development and consultancy firms, and it’s objection is largely philosophical - that Canvas isn’t “open” in the same way Unix and Linux lovers reg

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

I know users of the site who have had nasty letters from solicitors telling them to pay £300+ for a single album they torrented, etc. So I think users may notice a difference in that regard. Yes these guy's are saints. "But as they say in Britain, “where there’s muck, there’s brass”, and

Re: [backstage] Audio levels on iPlayer material (again)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_Gain "No native support is available for Amarok 1, but a Replay Gain script is available for Amarok's script manager. As it is an external script, however, there will be a slight lag between the start of a track and the volume adjustment. This is particularl

Re: [backstage] Audio levels on iPlayer material (again)

At the risk of making things worse, normalisation is a technical term, perhaps the correct term I was looking for is replay gain. The BBC 'normalises' it's output to ensure everything is at the same apparent sound level (relative to other output). I was suggesting that some sort of automati

Re: [backstage] Audio levels on iPlayer material (again)

Jim Tonge wrote: Unless I'm (quite possibly) misunderstanding you here David, I think he was just highlighting a valid issue. I wasn't trying to be critical of anyone, just making a suggestion, while well aware that the BBC has people with far more expertise in this area than I. I wasn't aw

Re: [backstage] Audio levels on iPlayer material (again)

Christopher Woods wrote: I posted a while back asking about why iPlayer videos start loud then get quieter a few seconds later... A Normalisation stage post encoding ? Obviously that won't help where the 'correction' is made within the programme. Grandmother, Eggs, How to suck ? - Sent vi

[backstage] Big Game Fishing

If at first you fail: I have re-submitted a modified (shortened and simplified) complaint to the BBC and look forward to learning about the limits of my understanding of the law with regard to public service obligations the human rights act and the copyright design and patents act. The compe

Re: [backstage] Digital Economy Bill

Bad new as well I just came across the following: "Our content protection requirements have to cater for the widest possible number of content providers, including giving reassurance to those looking to support pay-per-view and subscription access to film," said Canvas's chief technology offic

[backstage] Digital Economy Bill

A glimmer of hope ? BT and TalkTalk may go to court to try and overturn the Digital Economy Act - passed just before Parliament was dissolved for the election. Two of the largest ISPs in the UK want the High Court to confirm that the Act is legal and that disconnecting persistent file sharers

Re: [backstage] The web complaints form ate my complaint.

Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/drm/ http://forums.reghardware.com/post/675054 "I can't believe The Register hasn't picked up on this. The proposed 'DRM' is entirely harmless and here's why. Scrambling the EPG does NOT prevent the video itself being recorded,

Re: [backstage] The web complaints form ate my complaint.

Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote: But this isn't an editorial complaint - it's a complaint about broader policy issues - I think the Trust is best. "You can only appeal to the Trust if you have been through the full complaints process of the BBC, or TV Licensing, or the Digital Switchover Help Sche

Re: [backstage] The web complaints form ate my complaint.

Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote: Hi David - my suggestion would be that rather then complaining to the BBC or OFCOM you take your complaint to your MP or the BBC Trust. Complaining to the BBC is the first stage in taking the issue to the BBC Trust. (two responses then escalate to the Trust) It woul

Re: [backstage] The web complaints form ate my complaint.

Nick, My complaint consists of the following: * The Ofcom statement is a dogs dinner full of logical and legal fallacies. * What the BBC is proposing breaches the law (illegal and against BBC policy). (Public Service Obligations, Human Right Act, Competition Law). This is the only complaint

[backstage] The web complaints form ate my complaint.

If like me you were waiting for the official response to my complaint about BBC HD Content Protection. It appears that the BBC web form has eaten my complaint. It is for this reason (and others), I hate web forms. It may have been the cut and paste or the length of the text. Perhaps I should

Re: [backstage] BBC Trust approves Project Canvas ...

Ian Stirling wrote: Earlier there was mention made of a 'cost recovery'. Cost recovery does not apply to distribution through the DTG. It would appear to be perverse to apply any cost recovery to a document distributed to the public over the internet. Development cost estimate: Twenty fo

Re: [backstage] BBC Trust approves Project Canvas ...

Mo McRoberts wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:03, David Tomlinson wrote: It is a legal obligation for the BBC (and other public service broadcasters) to make it's services available to the public and act in a non-discriminatory way to all third parties (in my view). ^ In *your*

Re: [backstage] BBC Trust approves Project Canvas ...

Alex Cockell wrote: Yeah, but would that include the Mythtv project and other open source projects? Would the Linux community be able to build their own gear? And have access to everything? Yes. you might even get access to the Canvas UI if you request it. It is a legal obligation for the B

Re: [backstage] BBC Trust approves Project Canvas ...

Mo McRoberts wrote: Without the Canvas UX, you're not permitted to access any Canvas content. 4.62. "Further, the Trust understood that, since the core technical specification for Canvas would be published, it would be open to manufacturers and platform operators either to adopt the Canva

Re: [backstage] BBC Trust approves Project Canvas ...

"Legal compliance: Canvas will comply with all applicable laws including competition and state aid law." http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/june/canvas.shtml This is BBC policy and a legal requirement. Mo McRoberts wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 04:02, David Tomlin

Re: [backstage] BBC Trust approves Project Canvas ...

Alex Cockell wrote: As long as the possibility of an open-source implementation remains. Which is quite concerning at present. One should be able to build a Canvas receiver from *public* specs ultimately. The scale of lockdown is quigte worrying at the mo. Also inprove some of the diagnost

Re: [backstage] The Nature of the Problem with HD Content Protection

"The measures in the Digital Economy Act are a form of protectionism by the existing entertainment industry, which has been self-destructively slow in adapting to new technology," said the introduction to the policy as seen by Journalism.co.uk. http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/168768

Re: [backstage] The Nature of the Problem with HD Content Protection

Brian Butterworth wrote: So, is this the privatization of approval? We do seem to have swapped from having got rid of the /PostMaster General/ and the/ Lord Chamberlain/ to having /Record Company Executives /decide what's/ good for us./ Yes, the politicians think, that if they use the law t

Re: [backstage] The Nature of the Problem with HD Content Protection

Did I mention copyright can be bad for you... American University document http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique "FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ACTA would authorize or encourage private and government enforcement measures that would: * curtail enjoyment of fundamental ri

Re: [backstage] Ofcom opens debate on net neutrality

Of course bandwidth is free ... (Just confirming peoples suspicions about my sanity). The only thing that isn't free, is widely regarded as free, but then that might become a philosophical discussion. And property rights confuse the issue. You get huge amounts of free extra bandwidth when yo

[backstage] The Nature of the Problem with HD Content Protection

What we are witnessing is an intellectual property land grab. The content distributors are continuing to the ever increasing duration of copyright (regulatory capture) to increasing it's scope. The scope is from controlling the commercial distribution of copyright material, to controlling it'

[backstage] More issues with HD Content Protection

There is an problem in the Ofcom justification: "3.6 We came to the provisional view that, due to the likelihood that content management would deliver a greater variety of content to viewers on the DTT platform, an effective content management framework should be available for broadcasters to

Re: [backstage] Green Ink.

Gordon Joly wrote: On 17/06/2010 22:19, David Tomlinson wrote: 1. As a recipient of public money, the BBC can not discriminate against suppliers (requiring content control). 2. The BBC is subject to Public Service Obligations, and therefore must reach as wider range of the public as

Re: [backstage] Green Ink.

Richard has mistaken me for a Hollywood Mogul. Copyright is a state sponsored monopoly, often associated with other anti-competitive behaviour, especially among marketing and distribution. Also according to economic theory, they (copyright owners, distributors etc) capture the positive exter

Re: [backstage] Green Ink.

Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote: I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer I am not a lawyer either, we shouldn't have to say it but: (from memory) 1. As a recipient of public money, the BBC can not discriminate against suppliers (requiring content control). 2. The BBC is subject to Public Service Oblig

[backstage] Green Ink.

Nick, has been drinking the BBC kool aid, and thinks we have a weak case. Well I have submitted a complaint to the BBC suggesting the following five actual or stated intention of the BBC, in public documents, to prima facie case of breaking the law. 1. State Aid. 2. Public Service Obligations

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

Brian Butterworth wrote: If I had the resources I would launch a judicial review, as this is an appalling situation for Auntie. I too don't have the resources for a judicial review, perhaps the BBC should test the legal position it's self (judicial review), or the Open Rights Group may wis

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

Brian Butterworth wrote: The published document is here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/statement/statement.pdf Section 2.18 "Ofcom is mindful that it does not have a power to include conditions in the Multiplex B licence relating to content management per se. Ofcom ma

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

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. To expand my argument (as you have seen my previous post).

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

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

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

Quotations except from JJ Rousseau are from the BBC Internet blog article. "They don't like the idea that the owner of that media may want to limit the way they can use that content or have some say on whether it can be shared over the internet." "Man is born free but why everywhere he is in

[backstage] Several powers too far - Digital Economy Bill

Clause 17 of the Digital Economy Bill gives the Secretary of State for Business the ability to make widespread changes to copyright law through a statutory instrument. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/16/20100113/ttc-lords-oppose-clause-17-of-digital-ec-6315470.html "Given the bitter arguments, const

Re: [backstage] FYI: Open iPlayer

Sorry for the duplicate post. Kieran Kunhya wrote: > What is so important about the content/metadata ingest and delivery > system that is the iPlayer that it needs to be licenced as opposed to > being developed in-house at a broadcaster? Standardisation, as Mo indicated, why reinvent the wheel

[backstage] FYI: Open iPlayer

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/20/bbc_trust_rejects_iplayer_federation/ The BBC Trust has shelved a plan that would have allowed broadcasters such as Channel 4, ITV and Five to share the Beeb's iPlayer. The so-called "Open iPlayer" project was meant to establish a new commercial service

Re: [backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas

Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote: Two stories of interest: http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-bbcs-canvas-doesnt-have-a-monopoly- on-standardising-iptv-vod/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/15/sky-programmes-on-freevie http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/10/15/sky_player_launch/ You ca

Re: [backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas

The hardware determines what functions are available. The specification should only cover the core functionality, needed to access the free services. This may include an embedded browser, standard codecs etc. The user interface could be provided as a reference, but how can it act as a hardwa

Re: Fwd: [backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas

Yes, the BBC or at least Project Canvas, has lost the plot ! I don't work in this area (computing more generally), but I prefer open environments (no lockdown). Why are the BBC trying to create the grand unified set top box (STB) ? An all singing all dancing solution ? The public service r

Re: [backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas

Mo McRoberts wrote: “The broadcaster wants the Trust to force the BBC to allow anybody - not just public service broadcasters - to join Canvas.” Is it safe to post ? As for following up your own posts ... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/08/project_canvas/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2

Re: [backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas

Google ... http://www.projectcanvas.co.uk/project-summary BBC blog. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/sky_can_help_project_canvas_un.html "Nor is it a "BBC standard" that the venture would adopt. A standard for connected TVs is being developed now with the Digital Television Grou

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Martin Belam wrote: I'll just run this by everyone again "If you wish to talk about personal images use the example of adults, a spouse for example. Or personal information. Involving children is like using the word Nazi, it is designed to close down debate, because of the moral panic surroundin

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Perhaps we are at cross purposes... http://torrentfreak.com/bbc-gets-ready-for-bittorrent-distribution-090409/ "Like many broadcasters today, the BBC is open to experimenting with online video distribution, allowing viewers to watch shows online. However, due to complex copyright issues people

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Alia Sheikh wrote: If you abolish copyright, then there's no way for the author to benefit from those revenue streams, because the people who make the CDs, T-Shirts and books have no reason to pay the author. Fans will buy T-Shirts, from the bands official site shop, or Gig;s for which th

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Deirdre Harvey wrote: You aren't expressing any doubts about Intellectual Property Law and Copyright. Most of the rest of the contributors to the thread are expressing doubts. YOu are alone in your dogmatic certainty, not your doubt. I think the evidence justifies the abolition of copyright.

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Mo McRoberts wrote: No, it really didn’t. P2P requires the sharing of the content, only between users to the iPlayer, using the BBC approved software. I don't mean the BBC intended to share it on public P2P networks or internationally. http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49291924

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

With regard to Spain, I am not familiar with the current situation but some decision are going the way of the torrent sites, http://torrentfreak.com/spanish-judge-non-commercial-filesharing-is-legal/ "The ruling was made yesterday (Thursday) by Judge Paz Aldecoa in a penal court in Santander,

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Mo McRoberts wrote: Um. yes, but “use of filesharing technology” is completely unrelated in anything but a technical sense to sanctioning individuals sharing content themselves on filesharing networks. The implication is that the BBC approved of the sharing of iplayer content, of course it wa

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Simon Thompson wrote: A quote from the abstract of an accepted paper to a non-peer reviewed journal edited by second year law students about US intellectual property law does not prove the case the argument. I think it is prima face evidence that I am not alone in expressing doubts about

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Alia Sheikh wrote: I am not alone: http://ssrn.com/abstract=976733 "It is not surprising that such broad criticism, from such a diverse group of critics, has now emerged. Intellectual property products form the core of today’s "New Economy" of high technology, communications, and entertainm

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Alia Sheikh wrote: review or abolish? I think there is a case for abolish, other may wish to review it first. - 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.

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Steve Jolly wrote: If you abolish copyright, then there's no way for the author to benefit from those revenue streams, because the people who make the CDs, T-Shirts and books have no reason to pay the author. Fans will buy T-Shirts, from the bands official site shop, or Gig;s for which the

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Deirdre Harvey wrote: We don't call them all laws. No and not all fish are sharks, but sharks are fish. But the particular law of copyright, imposes more costs than benefits and should be abolished. That is your contention, it is not a fact. Yes, and I am defending that contention.

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Mo McRoberts wrote: Permitting (and encouraging) filesharing is not the same as abolishing copyright. Thankfully, it’s not incompatible with copyright, either. Indeed, it’s been trialled as a catch-up/distribution mechanism by PSBs outside of the UK over the past couple of years, with decent re

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Richard Lockwood wrote: No. That's just you realising you're just digging yourself deeper and looking for a way out. See Michael Smethurst's post, it is a topic in in itself and does not solely rely only upon copyright. Now you're just randomly quoting bits of messages and dropping in irrel

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Alex Mace wrote: It all seems moot to me anyway. No one is required to enforce or protect their copyright. If David or whoever wants to live in a copyright free world, then go right ahead. The greater problem is that copyright has been abused both by end users and corporations. The Associated

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Alia Sheikh wrote: This seems to roughly translate to 'anything anyone makes that they show to the world, can be taken and used by anyone in the world'. Which feels like a setup for making creators very paranoid about what they share with the world. Doesnt seem like a fun place to live if it ha

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote: "But the particular law of copyright, imposes more costs than benefits and should be abolished." I'd like to see some hard numbers/evidence for this statement. How much are the costs? In dollars and pounds? How much is the benefit? Not statements of principle, but numbe

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Sean DALY wrote: I'm afraid you're mistaken. Talk to anyone in legal at Red Hat or Novell, or Canonical, they will tell you how much they rely on state-sponsored monopoly schemes such as copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. I attended the third international GPLv3 draft conference

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Mo McRoberts wrote: We covered this already. The effect of the GPL cannot be achieved _without_ copyright. Any ends can be achieved through primary legislation that can be achieved through copyright as copyright is primary legislation. We can create a GPL like environment without having to

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Alia Sheikh wrote: Your arguments should hold true for anything involving the word Nazi too:) Interesting the control you are trying to exercise over our freedom to discuss this topic. Alia I am just trying to keep on topic and not disappear along a tangent. I think I am been reasonable, but

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Richard Lockwood wrote: None of that makes any sense whatsoever. It made sense to me, several million people in the UK fileshare without regard to copyright. But the proposed cure (Three strikes), which bypasses the legal system is worse than the problem. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Deirdre Harvey wrote: Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote: Freedom's just another word for "nothing left to lose" Freedom is another word for self determination. Incarceration, the opposite of Freedom is no control. Isn't your argument that control is bad and that people must relinquish control for

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Richard Lockwood wrote: No. That's just you realising you're just digging yourself deeper and looking for a way out. See Michael Smethurst's post, it is a topic in in itself and does not solely rely only upon copyright. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe,

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Robin Doran wrote: Anyone remember this for earlier in the year? Prime example of privacy and personal respect being abused. A company in Prague used a family picture off facebook for commercial purposes without consent, attribution, etc. And taking them to court, will give you the right for

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Tom Morris wrote: I agree with Tom's argument. Vanity publishing does not require copyright. It is just noise, unless someone likes it. So, yeah, counter-factuals seem like a bad way to go in the debate unless there is some nice way of finding a neutral, scientifically respectable way of mea

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Steve Jolly wrote: David Tomlinson wrote: Yes, I am aware of this, but why five years, why not one year why not three months, and if three months, why at all. A year or less strikes me as too little because too many people would just wait until it was free. 5-10 years seems like a more

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Sean DALY wrote: So if I understand you, let's abolish copyright, and that way Microsoft, Adobe et.al. can just chuck their bloated old code and incorporate formerly free software into their binaries? And charge an arm and a leg for it as well. Read Hat, SUSE etc all manage without a state spon

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Alia Sheikh wrote: Dave, So we can have this discussion in only a manner which is determined by yourself? Children count, pictures of dogs count, pictures of someone's gran or bank statement or a tree counts. If your arguments hold tight then they hold tight for all examples. Hard to have a

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Alia Sheikh wrote: > My suggestion is that you don't post images you don't want re-distributed in a public place. Sounds fun for all those artists with showreels Showreels are advertising, don't you want the widest possible distribution ? Electronically signed to show they have not been mo

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Richard Lockwood wrote: It is my genuine position. Abolishing copyright would achieve exactly what I want. This is what it all boils down to whenever the "let's abolish copyright for the good of society". It's actually about "let's abolish copyright for my own personal benefit". You simply

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote: Freedom's just another word for "nothing left to lose" Freedom is another word for self determination. Incarceration, the opposite of Freedom is no control. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Mo McRoberts wrote: On 9-Oct-2009, at 00:21, David Tomlinson wrote: For obvious reasons I do not wish to discuss children as a subject anymore. It’s not obvious at all. People need to stop with the nervousness when the words “children” and “photograph” appear in a sentence together; it’s

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Martin Belam wrote: I suspect you can trust your family, friends etc to respect your wishes, and you can limit the distribution through trust. Images of children can be sourced for advertising without having to resort to using private images. So your basic answer is that in a world witho

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

David Tomlinson wrote: Fearghas McKay wrote: For the record, I was looking for debate on the issue of copyright. I don't see how images of children are any more relevant than images of countryside, or any other content. I suggest the people raising the issue are the ones with the pr

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Fearghas McKay wrote: I mis-understood your intent. If there is no copyright. When you make the images public, you relinquish control. The alternative is to keep the distribution limited, and use trust. While you may have an emotional attachment or a feeling of entitlement to the images, this

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

I will have another go ... David Tomlinson wrote: Copyright was dreamed up by people I would humbly suggest were smarter than most (if not all) of us—not to say they’re beyond criticism, but that I would think long and hard about the ramifications of throwing it all away for diving into it

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Martin Belam wrote: David, I understand that DRM costs money and is never 100% effective, and I understand that it was a bit rubbish when the music industry made me pay again for downloads of music by dead people that I'd already purchased once on vinyl and then once again on CD. And I'm hearing

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Fearghas McKay wrote: David On 8 Oct 2009, at 22:14, David Tomlinson wrote: You may want that, I want want lots of things but why should society respect what you want ? any more than they respect what I want ? Why should you be able to control the actions of other people ? So to be

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

vijay chopra wrote: I'm a paid up member of the Pirate Party (UK) and even we don't take this line. Current official policy appears to be heading towards 5 years + 5 more if you register. There's some debate from when this period should start. Yes, I am awar

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Mo McRoberts wrote: On 8-Oct-2009, at 19:35, David Tomlinson wrote: How about this one: (In no particular order). [In view of various things] Why don't we just abolish copyright ? Being pragmatic, I’d posit that taking such an extremist perspective is unlikely to achieve what you

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Fearghas McKay wrote: David On 8 Oct 2009, at 19:35, David Tomlinson wrote: Why don't we just abolish copyright ? No - because those of us who create content want to be able to say no to other people just taking our work and making money from it, I want to keep my images as all r

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

How about this one: (In no particular order). * In view of the power grab we have witnessed. * In view of technological developments. * In view of the fact the copyright is censorship of the public. * In view of the extension of the scope of monopoly to 100 years or life + 70 years * In vie

[backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

Free as in 'Freedom'. Sorry if this is old news to some, I just want to win some hearts and minds. This is in the reply to the requests for positive argument. Who are we ? and why do we fight DRM etc ? We are the people can or have written software, this is not comprehensive, or exclusive (

Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...

Mo McRoberts wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 15:07, Alia Sheikh wrote: "However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it wo

Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...

Mo McRoberts wrote: Not quite what I meant by “open market”. There was never a requirement in the past for CE makers to join logo/licensing programmes to ensure their kit worked—they just followed the specs. That wasn’t limited to CE makers, either, which is how things like MythTV came to exist

Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...

The rights-holders will have to answer the first part. > This is sheer fantasy, really—it’s pretty much entirely incompatible with (a) an open market, and (b) broadcasting (as opposed to simulcasting to millions of people individually). They don't want an open market, they have enjoyed a monopo

Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...

Mo McRoberts wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 06:41, David Tomlinson wrote: It's the people who can't break the law, the consumer electronics companies who will be required to obtain a licence who will be affected. It is a legal trigger. Conditions placed on them (Consumer Electron

Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...

Billy Abbott wrote: Mo McRoberts wrote: I might be being dim, but I can’t see an angle to this where the rights holders actually get what they want (anything which even impedes pirates) without fundamentally altering the conceptual landscape of free-to-air receiving equipment in the UK. I've

Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...

Brian Butterworth wrote: And let's not forget that "EU Legislation" has to be enacted by the UK Parliament. There's a few US laws I quite like, can I claim we use them here too? From the FFII mailing list. "Bilski v. Kappos, currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, is considered th

Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...

Frank Wales wrote: Do you mean the DMCA? Isn't that American? And what is a unilaterally imposed licence, when it's at home? How can someone force me to accept their permission to do something? I can not remember the relevant European legislation, IPRED, IPRES2? The DMCA has more name reco

Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...

Brian Butterworth wrote: Dave, I've gone back and looked at the original letter again. There are two proposals. The BBC is saying that it will use Huffman encoding to broadcast the SI tables. This is not a bad idea really, given that it could extend the EPG, for example. The BBC is saying

Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...

Rob Myers wrote: DRM is law, not code. (As code it's useless, an encryption system where you give the attacker the key...) - rob. The law prevents the breaking of even trivial encryption, and the encryption prevents, the breaking of the code, which unilaterally imposes controls on the use

Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...

Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote: dave - this is a wild exaggeration. The suppliers that you dislike so are companies who provide content for the BBC for licence fee payers to enjoy. Their interests have considered just like everyone else's. No the BBC needs to consider the interests of the licence

Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...

Sean DALY wrote: David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not an active project AFAIK, but it is Mozilla MPL.

  1   2   >