Re: [backstage] BBC Podcasts Including Music
On 22 Nov 2007, at 10:52, Sean DALY wrote: * How about outright payment for perpetual rights? Way too expensive, especially worldwide. Need this necessarily be the case though? considering that broadcast (and arts / media / entertainment sector in general) is one of the most over-subscribed professions in this country, and a great deal of talented people working in the broadcast industry are paid shockingly low wages by their (rights holder) employers, i'd be willing to bet that there are a great many talented programme-makers who would be willing to sell their content outright for a not-outrageous sum. Granted, Endemol or News Corp probably won't be among them, but does this have to be a problem? Cheers, Tim - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] CC-Salon London: November 2007
Hi all, please excuse the spam - however, I thought this might interest some people on here (particularly as there'll be some discussion onf the BBC's Creative Archive Licence project). Cheers! Tim -- CC-Salon London returns with our final event of 2007, for more discussion and debate on the subjects of art, technology, copyright and free culture. This time round we'll be joined by Jordan Hatcher, a lawyer and legal consultant specialising in intellectual property and technology law, who will present and discuss his work on a new report entitled Snapshot study on the use of open content licences in the UK cultural heritage sector. This study primarily examines the use of the Creative Archive (CA) and Creative Commons (CC) licences among UK museums, libraries, galleries, and archives.The key objective has been to get a snapshot of current licensing practices in this area in 2007, and Jordan will report on his findings. We've got loads more events planned for the new year, including talks, discussions and parties. Visit our website for more information: http://ccsalon-london.org.uk The Salon will be held from 7PM - 11PM at: The Crown and Anchor, 22, Neal St, Covert Garden London WC2H 9PS. The event is open to all with no registration, but if you like, you can register on our Facebook or Upcoming events: Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=18814899168 Upcoming: http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/312503/?ps=5 - 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] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
On 10/31/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me rephrase. For this argument, your choice of terminology is not important. You don't have the automatic right to redistribute someone else's artistic endeavours. Trying to argue that you do, simply because you can is not a valid reason. Bringing in irrelevant metaphors does not make you right. Using emotive language like friendship and community, or trying to argue that your doing the moral equivalent of fighting racism does not make what you wish a fact. You don't automatically have that right. Actually Richard, we would - were it not for copyright law. There is *no* natural / moral property right in intangible creative works (see the case of Donaldson vs Beckett in 1774 that finally decided this issue in the UK - http://www.copyrighthistory.com/donaldson.html) Therefore, since there are no preexisting natural rights to control creative work (under UK law at least), by default, we do 'automatically have that right'. However, we, as a society choose to suspend that right for a certain period, in order to offer an incentive to authors to create new work - an incentive we call copyright. Copyright is not a 'natural' or 'moral' right, it is a 'statutory right' - one created by the law, rather than a preexisting one. Dave is arguing that the terms of this statutory right ought to be redefined, and that some of the natural rights of the public that it curtails ought to be restored. This is a perfectly reasonable position. This debate is not about 'property' or 'moral rights', as copyright is neither of these things, so why confuse the debate by continually arguing in these terms? IANAL, TINLA. Cheers, Tim - 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] From the front lines... Defective By Design Protest
On 8/15/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. Utter, utter rubbish, that whole piece. Would you care to give us a slightly more reasoned critique, Richard? despite Cory's apparent predeliction for Soviet-Union-based metaphors (check out his other DRM article for the Guardian), i thought he made his argument very well. Cheers, Tim
[backstage] London CC-Salon - Thursday July 26th
CC-Salon London is back after the success of our first event , with another evening of talks, presentations and discussion about art, technology, media, copyright and the Creative Commons. This month we're joined by Paula le Dieu (Magic Lantern Productions) and Michela Ledwidge (Modfilms.com), and we'll be treated to live music from Calendargirl / Calendarsongs. The salon will be held in the basement at Juno, 134 Shoreditch High Street, London, from 7pm on Thursday the 26th of July. You can sign up on Upcoming (here: http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/219503/ ) or Facebook (here: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=2461017529 ) but it's definitely not compulsory - just turn up! See you there! Tim
Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
I'm also NAL, (and have a terrible memory for these things),but doesn't the EU Copyright Directive include some sort of anti-circumvention language a la DMCA? Cheers, Tim On 6/18/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AFAIK bypassing DRM or other copy protection is perfectly legal in the UK and most of Europe; afterall, in itself it's not a breech of copyright. Thankfully we don't have an equivilent of the American DCMA so the media centre hackers have nothing to fear. (Disclaimer: IANAL) Vijay. On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:28 +0100, Christopher Woods wrote: Nah, because the technology-friendly minority of the world's population will figure out both how to crack the DRM, and how to produce one-click tools which strip the DRM from crap-ridden files they've downloaded. The world rejoices! Except they don't, because although the _criminals_ get an easy ride, the honest hackers who'd like to work on media centres and other tools and programs to deal with this content are scared away by the fact that we had to crack the DRM to get at it. -- dwmw2 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html . Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 6/12/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip all fair enough and I'm pretty much in agreement. However] So while I, personally, won't be using any CC-NC licenses, and willnot recommend them to others, I won't cuss you for using them. If youuse any of the retired, anti-sharing CC licenses, or refer to _the_Creative Commons license, you get cussed :- Hmmm... this was really my point - by reccomending magnatune's model of selling licences (for commercial re-use of artistic goods that are available free for non-commercial use), aren't you tacitly endorsing the use of an NC-licence? surely Magnatune's model would not work if they did not have the opportunity to restrict the commercial re-use of their work? Cheers, Tim
[backstage] London CC-Salon - June 2007
Once again, sorry for spamming this accross so may lists! Thanks, Tim Creative Commons, the Open Rights Group and Free Culture UK are pleased to announce the first London CC-Salon event, to be held in Shoreditch on Thursday 28th June 2007. The CC Salon is a monthly event focused on building a community of artists and developers around Creative Commons licenses, standards, and technology, and have been running with great success in cities around the world, including San Francisco, Berlin and Johannesberg. All are welcome, especially anyone interested in Creative Commons, copyright, Free Culture, Open Source, art, media, and music. CC-Salon will held on the last Thursday of every month, at Juno, 135 Shoreditch High Street, London E1 6JE, from 6.30pm until midnight. The June event will feature contributions from: Tom Reynolds (Random Acts of Reality - http://randomreality.blogware.com) Elizabeth Stark (Free Culture USA - http://www.freeculture.org) Jonathan Roberts (FreeMeDVD - http://questionsplease.org/freeme) and after-dinner.net DJs In addition, we've got 100 free Magnatune.com http://magnatune.com/ gift vouchers to give away, courtesy of John Buckman. Each voucher is worth $8, or one album from Magnatune's large and eclectic catalogue of DRM-free, CC-licenced music. There's plenty more planned for future events, and we'd love to hear from anyone interested in participating, whether by performing, exhibiting work, or giving a talk or presentation. Please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] if this sounds like you!
[backstage] CC-Salon London to launch in June
Hi all, Apologies for the cross-list spamming (and for duplicate copies of this message, if appropriate). Myself and the folks from the Open Rights Group are in the process of organising a monthly CC-Salon event to take place in London, with the first planned for Thursday June the 28th. The CC Salon is a monthly event focused on building a community of artists and developers around Creative Commons licenses, standards, and technology, and have been running with great success in other cities around the world, including San Francisco, Berlin and Johannesberg. All are welcome, especially anyone interested in Creative Commons, copyright, Free Culture, Open Source, Art, Media, and Music. If you'd like to take part, whether by performing or exhibiting your work, giving a talk or presentation, providing sponsorship or other support, or by getting involved in the running of the event, we'd love to hear from you, Please drop me a line if this sounds like you! We'd be especially keen to hear from artists, musicians and anyone else who publishes creative work under an open license, or anyone whose cultural practice involves appropriation, quotation, remixing, sampling and collage. Do get in touch if you'd like the opportunity to show off your work! Please do pass this message on to anyone else who may be interested. Many thanks, Tim http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Salon http://www.openrightsgroup.org http://www.freeculture.org.uk http://ccsalon-london.org.uk
Re: [backstage] BBC Archive trial
On 4/19/07, Kirk Northrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, it's well known (and proved) that you can do what you want with the picture if the sound is OK. True but a slight exaggeration - A certain level of video quality still qualifies as an acceptable threshold, IMO. In addition, crystal clear sound and crystal clear vision are both pretty useless if they're not in sync. Cheers, Tim
Re: [backstage] Hack day in London
On 4/19/07, oliver wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've signed up, but know whos - am I l33t geek enough :) ? ha! my thoughts exactly are design-y CSS / HTML -type people welcome at these sort of events? If not, I'll have to finish working my way through 'Thinking in Java' by June... or just learn RoR. ;-) Cheers, Tim
Re: [backstage] Backstage Podcast number 2
There's a chap called Paul Sanders who is often on the ORG-Discuss list who could be interesting too... he's a Music Industry-type who also has a wealth of technical knowledge on these issues, and runs State51 - a digital distribution comapny. http://www.state51.co.uk/ I've seen him speak at a a couple of events and he's always thought provoking. In terms of EMI people, I'd try and get hold of Ruth Katz.. she's head of 'content protection' or some such thing, and is always engaging - she's also one of the longest serving EMI employees and does a talk for new staff introducing them to the company, so has a wealth of knowledge about their particular business. Otherwise, Michael, Becky or Suw from ORG would be well worth having on board. Dave Rowntree's also always good - being an anti-DRM musician tends to add weight to the anti-DRM POV too. Cheers, Tim On 4/17/07, Scot McSweeney-Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: George Bray wrote: So currently we have a couple of guests, however... 1. Who should we get on the podcast? The EMI guy who did the deal with Steve Jobs. An EMI competitor. An artist - someone who has a stake in their intellectual property, and a bit of an understanding on the distribution crossroads we're at. Ricky Gervais, Stephen Merchant? How about Dave Rowntree from Blur (and the Open Rights Group as well)? Scot - 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] EMI 'in no DRM deal'
On 4/3/07, Daniel Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that many CDs have some form of DRM on them. I was under the impression that DRM'd CDs were flawed, and have largely stopped being sold? (Not to mention the bad public reaction of people using their pc as a hifi buying a cd only to find it not working!) In Britain, hardly any CD releases contain DRM - however, in parts of Mainland Europe and South America, most major label releases (and a fair few indies) contain macrovision software or a similar DRM system - an ad-hoc survey I carried out in the Lisbon branch of FNAC last summer gave me an estimate of 60-80% of releases (based on a sample of one 6' rack in their pop section - I'm not a statistician, but I would imagine this is hardly a representative sample). There are also leaflets available explaining to parents how DRM stops your children becoming criminals - i have one of these at home i'll try and scan and translate at some point. It seems to me (and this is pure conjecture), that the record companies are of the opinion that filesharing can't now be stopped in the UK and US (although they can continue to litigate in the hope of scaring people off, and gaining a little compensation in the process), however, in areas of the world where internet access is not yet as common as here, DRM is much more prevalent, as they are attempting to lock down the recorded music market *before* pervasive internet access becomes a problem for their business model. Cheers, Tim
Re: [backstage] BBC announces 3G mobile syndication trial with Orange, Vodafone and 3
On 3/29/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you can stream them on a mobile, it would be useful if they could be provided online in the same format (I mean, that's what you are doing anyway...) Almost, except I imagine the Mobile Phone networks are pobably paying BBC Worldwide a not-inconsiderable amount of money for the rights to broadcast BBC content as part of their 'walled garden' offering - a cost that may or may not be passed on to the customer as a 'pay per view' service. In addition, putting the streams online would make them available *globally*, putting them on mobiles run by UK operators makes them available (for the most part) to the UK citizens who fund the BBC. Note: I'm not saying that this situation is a good thing, but that this is probably the reason why BBC content is available on mobile and not online for the time being. With the exception of a few providers, Mobile data services are closed, non-neutral networks, and, as such are very different from the 'proper' internet. This is probably why traditional 'rights-holders' are so keen on them. Cheers, Tim
Re: [backstage] BBC announces 3G mobile syndication trial with Orange, Vodafone and 3
On 3/29/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim, They can't be paying BBC Worldwide a penny, as it is strictly forbidden by the Communications Act 2003! Really? please do explain... I was under the impression that Worldwide were the rights-holders for all BBC-originated content, and wasn't aware of any limits on their exploitation of these rights. What exactly does the Communications Act prohibit? Cheers, Tim
[backstage] Art gallery catalogue API
Hi all, Not entirely on-topic but i figured someone on here might be able to help - does anyone happen to know of any art galleries or collections that have an API or feeds of their catalogue available? I'm about to start a project that requires a load of data about paintings and other artworks, and it'd be nice not to have to do too much screen-scraping... Cheers! Tim
Re: [backstage] Art gallery catalogue API
Aah... ok.. I think you might have misunderstood my question - I'm actually looking for some sort of API that'll allow me to search the collections of real-life art galleries (the tate, national gallery, guggenheim, etc), rather than an online gallery application. Thanks anyway! Tim On 3/12/07, Ian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Don't know if you've stumbled into Gallery2 yet, but that's probably worth awhile investigating - probably the biggest open source gallery. http://gallery.menalto.com - homepage http://gallery.menalto.com/node/21661 - mentions RSS feeds. Ian http://alteris.co.uk all things internet PHP.CSS.HTML.SQL Hi all, Not entirely on-topic but i figured someone on here might be able to help - does anyone happen to know of any art galleries or collections that have an API or feeds of their catalogue available? I'm about to start a project that requires a load of data about paintings and other artworks, and it'd be nice not to have to do too much screen-scraping... Cheers! Tim
Re: WEB API (was Re: [backstage] Noise and Signal)
On 3/7/07, J.P.Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Andy Leighton wrote: For A Good Read there is nothing in the synopsis at all listing the books covered in that programme. There is a list of past (inc. the current programme) books chosen on the A Good Read micro-site - but again without any sort of markup. Would it be too difficult for someone to use something like span class=booktitleThe Rider/span by span class=authorTim Krabbe/span It could do with an ISBN or two in there as well - that would make tying the books to other, non-BBC bibliographic systems easier (such as library OPACs, OCLC WorldCat or LibraryThing). I'm only tentatively playing with these sorts of things at the moment, so I could be wrong, but might it be possible to include this, and all the other metadata mentioned, using the Dublin Core spec embedded as eRDF or RDFa within the html? since Dublin Core is an open spec this'd be great for interoperability, I imagine... cheers, Tim
Re: WEB API (was Re: [backstage] Noise and Signal)
Aah, fantastic stuff! Many thanks Eamonn... Cheeres, Tim On 3/7/07, Eamonn Neylon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Tony Hammond of Nature Publishing Group wrote a good article on augmenting RSS with domain-specific namespaced elements a while back at http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/07/23/rssone.html. It shows an example of embedded Dublin Core and PRISM elements and might provide some inspiration (there is a useful link, in the comments, to a qualified Dublin Core representation as well). Eamonn -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Tim Cowlishaw *Sent:* 07 March 2007 12:58 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk *Subject:* Re: WEB API (was Re: [backstage] Noise and Signal) On 3/7/07, J.P.Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Andy Leighton wrote: For A Good Read there is nothing in the synopsis at all listing the books covered in that programme. There is a list of past (inc. the current programme) books chosen on the A Good Read micro-site - but again without any sort of markup. Would it be too difficult for someone to use something like span class=booktitleThe Rider/span by span class=authorTim Krabbe/span It could do with an ISBN or two in there as well - that would make tying the books to other, non-BBC bibliographic systems easier (such as library OPACs, OCLC WorldCat or LibraryThing). I'm only tentatively playing with these sorts of things at the moment, so I could be wrong, but might it be possible to include this, and all the other metadata mentioned, using the Dublin Core spec embedded as eRDF or RDFa within the html? since Dublin Core is an open spec this'd be great for interoperability, I imagine... cheers, Tim
Re: [backstage] Question.
There's a few clauses in the CA license that the current version of the CC licences don't support - specifically the No-Endorsements and UK-only specifications. However, if the Beeb (and their partners in the CA project could be prepared to drop the UK-only clause - which would appear to be a not unpopular move with license payers based on an informal petition carried out last year) then the CA license could potentially be made compatible with CC v3.0 (which includes a no-endorsements option) if not entirely replaced by CC. Free Culture UK were doing some campaigning on this issue last year, but that seems to have stagnated recently. I'm going to see if II can kick it back to life at some point. Any help from anyone else who is keen to support this issue would be gratefully received! Cheers, Tim On 3/5/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Believe not so due to licensing / royalty agreements, hence their Creative Archive license instead. Could be wrong, but that's from memory so ymmv. It makes sense to me, don't fix what's not broken etc. -Original Message- From: Gordon Joly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 March 2007 23:21 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Question. http://www.frankieroberto.com/weblog/ Could the BBC's Creative Archive project switch to Creative Commons licences? Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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] Flash required?
Is all the discussion of AJAX here missing the point slightly? The point of AJAX is to allow the sending and recieving of data without refreshing the page, which is only one facet of the functions that flash can fulfil. While I'm personally pretty anti-flash in most cases (although stuff like sIFR shows how it can be applied in a useful and usable way - http://www.mikeindustries.com/sifr/ ) it's use as a so-called 'rich-media' interface (animation, sound, video, precise typographic control) have absolutely nothing to do with AJAX (although javascript could replace much of this functionality)? Cheers, Tim
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 3/1/07, Scot McSweeney-Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought that in certain countries (France springs to mind) you can't really cede your copyright to publishers, as copyright really is a considered a natural right. I think you might mean Moral Rights (the Droit Moral), as opposed to copyright (the Droit Proprietere) which is still framed in a similar way in France as anywhere else: Moral rights are distinct from any economic rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rightstied to copyright, thus even if an artist has assigned his or her rights to a work to a third party he or she still maintains the moral rights to the work. (1) (1) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Rights Moral Rights are typically concerned with the right to proper attribution and the right to prevent defamatory use of the work, not with the right to financially profit from it. IMHO, IANAL and all that cheers, Tim
Re: [backstage] HD-DVD how DRM was defeated
On 2/22/07, Alice Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem with this argument is that the technology doesn't respect the consumer's right to choose. The technology currently removes rights under fair use, and breaking that technology also involves breaking a (ridiculous) law. It's a broken situation all round, and it doesn't come down to whether anyone's saying content creators should be paid. Course they should. Blanket licensing would solve this, for instance, without any DRM technology required. There are other ways and means of generating revenue, and certainly a slew that the collective minds haven't even thought of yet... I for one welcome the new business models. Let's try them all and see what sticks in this new and shiny digital world, rather than trying to brute force yesteryear's analogue models onto the world of upload once, copy forever. Whilst I agree with your argument, it's worth noting that 'Fair Use' is a US legal concept, and of little relevance in the UK, where we currently have the alltogether more restrictive set of exceptions and limitations to copyright called 'Fair Dealing' (Although this may change in the wake of the Gowers Review last year). The other point worth noting concerning James's argument is that the assertion that 'It's the content-creators choice to have crap in their content or not.' suggests the notion that copyright is a property right over creative work, in the same way that one can have an ownership right over a pencil, or car. This is simply not true - Copyright law (in both the UK and US) has always been framed as a time-limited *monopoly* right, *granted* to authors to give an incentive to create (and therefore to contribute to the public domain at the end of the copyright term), not as a pre-existing *property* right, *recognised* by the law. (The term 'Intellectual Property' is a misnomor in this respect, and in fact has only been in common use since approximately the 1970s.) I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Cheers, Tim
Re: [backstage] Sky MPEG4 Freeview subscription
Hmm.. It's great that people are actively resisting this, but to reiterate a point made earlier on the Open Rights Group list concerning the iPlayer petition on pm.gov.uk, is this really the best forum for protest? IMO the idea that the PM (or any branch of government) should step in to legislate what should and should not be shown on television is a slightly scary prospect Will forward the post from the ORG list for reference, for all those not subscribed... Cheers, Tim On 2/22/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, You are all probably quite aware that Sky have said they wish to remove their free-to-air channels from Freeview and replace them with a subscription service that is based on MPEG4. Despite the fact they haven't even gotten around to asking Ofcom for permission, a petition to 'keep Freeview free' has been started, in the style of the road charging one. http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SkyPayOnFreeview/ Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 21/02/2007 15:19
[backstage] Fwd: [ORG-discuss] BBC iPlayer Petition
Forwarding for reference: ORG list responses to the BBC iPlayer petition on pm.gov.uk Cheers, Tim -- Forwarded message -- From: David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Feb 22, 2007 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [ORG-discuss] BBC iPlayer Petition To: Open Rights Group open discussion list [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 22/02/07, David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mmmm ... I think the fact that the Trust put question 5 in their request for comments, phrased as it was - a direct invitation to supply them with cluebats with which to beat the people responsible for a Windows-only proposal over the head with - indicates that they're far from clueless on this matter themselves. (forgot to note) - remembering that the Trust isn't allowed that sort of direct hands-on influence any more than the PM's office is, although their raised eyebrows are taken pretty seriously inside the BBC as I understand it. That they phrased question 5 that way says precisely what they think of the idea IMO. - d. ___ ORG-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/org-discuss
