On 13/09/2010 23:11, Scot McSweeney-Roberts wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 21:22, David Tomlinson
d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Nick Reynolds-FMT 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
Nick Reynolds-FMT 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
Nick Reynolds-FMT 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,
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
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
Mo McRoberts wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:03, David Tomlinson
d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Nick Reynolds-FMT 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
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).
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
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
Nick Reynolds-FMT 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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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 Group
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/
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
Nick Reynolds-FMT 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
Deirdre Harvey wrote:
Nick Reynolds-FMT 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
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
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
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
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
Nick Reynolds-FMT 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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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:
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
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
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
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,
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.
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.
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
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
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
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 rights
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 want
vijay chopra wrote:
I'm a paid up member of the Pirate Party
http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/ (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 aware
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
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,
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 problem
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
Mo McRoberts wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 06:41, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk 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
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
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
Mo McRoberts wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 15:07, Alia Sheikh alia.she...@rd.bbc.co.uk 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
This has discussion continued in a modest way on the blog comments.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protection_a.html
I am sorry to say Nick is making misleading reassurances.
(He is not sufficiently technical or familiar with the material, to
understand the
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.
Nick Reynolds-FMT 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
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
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
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 the
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.
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
Well I'm not party to the negotiations so I've no idea how strong or how
weak the BBC's bargaining position is.
But don't forget that the BBC is a content vendor too.
I see my past has caught up with me !
(the references to the past, deja vu, my reputation has been
Rob Myers wrote:
On 02/10/09 19:17, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
People on this list may be interested in this latest blog post:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/freeview_hd_copy_protecti
on_a.html
The first commenter is far more worth reading than the original post -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protection_up.html
We've said before that we are specifically avoiding encryption of the
broadcast signal to ensure that the public service content remains free
to air. Content protection gives content producers comfort to give
Carlos Roman wrote:
Be do have a fair use policy (https://www.bethere.co.uk/fairusage.do) but no actual
mention of what they define as excessive network usage. I think they were
quoted as saying that it was if you downloaded more than 80 GB a month (which so far I've
never been penalised
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the ISPs have a point ... the ADSL network is (currently)
like a collection of country roads (narrow and fairly slow) which the
BBC is trying to drive it's supersize juggernauts down. Think the
ISPs should use some form of traffic shaping for iPlayer traffic and
There is only one solution:
Bigger Pipes and Infrastructure competition, or if that is not practical
(FTTH) a Government project.
It is not just me who says this:
http://gigaom.com/2008/04/10/why-fixing-internet-capacity-keeps-the-telcos-honest/
Without fixing the bandwidth shortage on the
I am not a civil or public servant (at least not yet), which allows me
to make the false proposition, that I can tell Tiscali how to run their
business (the advice is free).
For example it turns out that Sky are already offering ADSL2+
with their max product 16Mb/s unlimited (still subject to
96 matches
Mail list logo
