Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?
Sorry for the delay in replying but I've had a toothache! Right... You can divide the kind of material that is currently shown on television into five broad types: - True live, which a content that is actually live, or is non-archive material introduced by live presentation. This would be the news and weather on most channels, live events such as sport and music and so on. The value of the content is related to common experience or to the breaking news . - As live is content that is produced, recorded and edited as if it were broadcast live, but has actually been produced beforehand. Such programmes are usually produced in quantity and to a format which - Commissioned programmes covers the large part of factual and drama programmes. - Import programmes are bought from TV networks abroad. - Archive programmes are programmes of the above types that have been show before. Putting on my futurologist hat: TRUE LIVE True live will remain in the on broadcast TV. For the BBC this means streaming of BBC News 24 and BBC World. On the live sports side, this will remain the only existing pull for subscription TV, as is already the only service that Sky operates that has not lost almost all the viewers. Online live sport will either be provided by IPTV with spot-adverts, live streams (BBC Sport). Some formats such as talent shows will probably also be constructed for the live buzz. AS LIVE Much of this kind of entertainment material is produced for broadcast television and will probably continue to be pumped out over satellite, cable and terrestrial services. But as the shared live experience is fake, then these programmes will be eventually be pumped into on-demand services, vodcasts and so on.Current examples are Have I Got News For You and Watchdog. Most of these formats have daily or weekly episodes which have little resale value. COMMISSIONED This area covers the majority of content. In the past, these programmes are scheduled, but without the linear form of traditional TV, such material will be consumed on demand. If the BBC has any sense, all such material should be made available to any organization that will encode and distribute it as long as they make no edits and take no credit. The BBC, as a premium originated content broadcaster produces material that has a range of resale values. IMHO the BBC should stick all educational content online with immediate effect, unless there is a good reason for not doing so. Obviously most people would also like entertainment and comedy formats to be included, but these have much higher potential resale value and will probably have to wait until later. It is my opinion that the BBC should collect usage information from distributed video and have a fixed annual fund to compensate those who write, contribute and perform for the programmes. IMPORTS Once the world moves broadcasting in to cyberspace, Imports on TV channels will disappear. What is the point in waiting six months to watch a new Simpson's on Sky One (or years onto C4) if you can download it from the US minutes after broadcast. This is not much of a problem for the BBC as it has very little imported programming these days, but it may see the eventual death of BBC non-domestic channels (other than BBC World). The foreign sales of formats will no doubt continue, and there will be a market for subtitled and dubbed non-English content. ARCHIVE The value of programmes from the archive will fall because the costs of storage and distribution fall towards zero. Eventually it would be desirable to have every single programme the BBC has ever broadcast to be in an archive. To me the value of transmitting our culture abroad outweighs the cost of lost archive sales. On 14/06/07, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while, and want to ponder this question to the backstage community... We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well lets just say for this thread that DRM doesn't work and it just turns consumers into against the content holder. ...What happens next? Here's some thoughts from me, Content producers adopt watermarking technologies? P2P streaming and Multicasting becomes the next big advance for content producers People start paying for real time or 0day access? Google and Yahoo start indexing torrent sites and offering services like sharetv.org Joost and Democracy adoption increases The portable video player and digital set top (appletv, xbmc, etc) markets blows up Torrent site uses slowly drops, as content producers use other online services Windows Home server (now you see how my last post relates) and similar products sales increase 10 fold over the next 3 year - 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:
Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 21:52 +0100, Andy Leighton wrote: Steady on - why not Z80, OK a bit limited but the Z8 was 32bit and about the same time as some of those above? Basically some of the listed processors above are dead for general-purpose computing in the home and they are used by a dwindling core of hobbyists (and usually not as their main machine). Not main machine, true. Maybe as the media centre... some nice low-power cores in there which can be run fanless, for example :) -- 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 6/15/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've obviously not read the numerous posts explaining in some detail why it *isn't* currently feasible Must have missed that one. Can you show in detail the point at which it says you MUST use MICROSOFT DRM? I would really like to know so I can email my MEP about this matter. In case they want to add the BBC as an accessory to whatever they are prosecuting Microsoft for today. Or is it not in fact true that the rights holders would be happy with any DRM? I believe the actual facts are... 1. Rights holders insist on time limited DRM solution. 2. Only Microsoft supports a time limited DRM. 3. Therefore, in order to conform to point 1, BBC have to use Microsoft based DRM. HTH. Mike. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really are a fucking twat, aren't you? Rich. Resorting to personal insults because you can't win an argument? What is so wrong with suggesting you publish said agreements? If they are published and I missed it, then I am sorry but you could be a tad more helpful and point to them instead of sending abusive emails. Or are the agreements/contracts protected by an NDA, or trade secret etc.? The list of OSes/Chips was never meant to be complete, it is just a list of platforms. To be neutral on platform the BBC's iPlayer will need to run on every platform that has existed, that does exist, or will exist in the future. It's not neutral if you select 3 software platforms and implement it on them because you have other platforms which don't have it. Websters dictionary define neutral as meaning: 1. Not engaged on either side; not taking part with or assisting either of two or more contending parties; neuter; indifferent. Wikipedia defines platform (in the computing context) to mean: In computing, a platform describes some sort of framework, either in hardware or software, which allows software to run. Typical platforms include a computer's architecture, operating system, or programming languages and their runtime libraries. Wordnet defines platform to mean: 3: the combination of a particular computer and a particular operating system (the other definitions weren't relevant due to context). Even by implementing iPlayer on Windows, Mac and Linux you are assisting those parties and not assisting contending parties such as BSD, or any other OS that exists or could exist. So given those definitions of neutral and platform how can implementing it on a subset of platforms ever be platform neutral. And even if it is implemented on all platforms it may not be neutral as it assists existing platforms over ones that have not been created yet. If you have any suggestions about how to achieve platform neutrality I would actually be genuinely interested in hearing them (provide you can manage to do that without resorting to personal insults). Right now I can only think of an Open Source reference implementation, or a publicly defined specification. If anyone else knows of a way to achieve platform neutrality speak up! Your new law, do you want it to be Lockwood's Law or Richard's Law? I think Lockwoods law sound better, but you invented the law so you get naming privileges. I concede now the BBC has no choice at this time but to use a DRM scheme, I just disagree with _which_ scheme, and it _appears_ the BBC Trust agrees with me. @Mike: Prove axiom 2. You are also failing to take into account the possibility of using a custom or adapted DRM implementation, it shouldn't cost too much compared with the 4.5 million that the BBC have spent so far. Ian Worte: Name another DRM system which is technically capable of the same things, and exists today. The BBC iPlayer didn't exist when the BBC started the project, why does the DRM need to have existed at that time as well? I will continue looking for such a DRM scheme. Or I could try and stall this for long enough to give me time to create my own DRM scheme and point to that (but that may be cheating?) I am downloading a cross platform DRM system as we speak, the source is rather large though. I think it's bringing all the crypto libraries and media libraries with it. More news on that if it does do time restrictions. can't be sure though. Andy -- SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1 - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 16/06/07, mike chamberlain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the actual facts are... 1. Rights holders insist on time limited DRM solution. 2. Only Microsoft supports a time limited DRM. 3. Therefore, in order to conform to point 1, BBC have to use Microsoft based DRM. I accept axiom 1. Axiom 2 is incorrect and can be proved to be so. Proof: 2a: If Microsoft's is the only scheme who support time limited DRM there can not exist a scheme such that: - scheme is not Microsoft's - scheme supports time limited DRM 2b: OpenIPMP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not Microsoft's scheme. 2c: OpenIPMP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) supports time limited DRM 2b and 2c contradict the hypothesis in 2a, thus axiom 2 can not be correct. Axiom 3 is incorrect. It's reasoning relied on Axiom 2 which was proved to be incorrect (see above). Ian wrote: Name another DRM system which is technically capable of the same things, and exists today. OpenIPMP Andy PS sorry about the double post but the DRM software I was taking quite a while to download. -- SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1 - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On Saturday 16 June 2007 12:43, Andy wrote: To be neutral on platform the BBC's iPlayer will need to run on every platform that has existed, that does exist, or will exist in the future Picking out this one point, this is bogus, unless you are suggesting that iPlayer should run on a ZX81 (In which case I give up talking to you right here). Platform neutrality means it should not favour any one specific system. There are several ways to achieve this. You've discounted several however claiming they're not platform neutral, so I'll leave my response there. Michael. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 16/06/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Platform neutrality means it should not favour any one specific system. That's not what platform neutral means. It means it shouldn't favour any specific system or systems. If there was a war between 4 nations, (called A, B, C, D) would you consider fighting with nations A and B as being neutral? There are several ways to achieve this. You've discounted several however claiming they're not platform neutral, so I'll leave my response there. I discounted things that did not meet defined objectives based on recognised definitions of the words platform (in the computing context) and neutral. I really don't see how you can claim choosing a few platforms is neutral. If you would like to point out how selecting a few platforms and not selecting other platforms is neutral be my guest. unless you are suggesting that iPlayer should run on a ZX81 I'm thinking lack of colour and sound support could be a problem. However if a spec was provided it wouldn't be the BBC saying no we won't allow it on the ZX81, they will be allowing it on any platform. If no one can actually get it to work on the platform then that is a problem with the platform. Unless the BBC provides specifications it can not be implemented on all platform's and would not be neutral as it is only selecting a subset of platforms. Which of the methods I discounted did you think would provide platform neutrality? I thought I provided reasons for them. Implementing it on all platforms - in practical too many platforms, BBC may not even know all the platforms. Using a Virtual Machine - the VM would be the platform, it would not be neutral as it only runs on specific platforms, namely the VM itself. Which part of which one of those do you disagree with? Or do you disagree with my definition of platform neutral? Andy -- SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1 - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 10:19 +0100, mike chamberlain wrote: 1. Rights holders insist on time limited DRM solution. 2. Only Microsoft supports a time limited DRM. 3. Therefore, in order to conform to point 1, BBC have to use Microsoft based DRM. I would phrase it slightly differently. 1. Rights holders ask for a time-limited DRM solution. 2. Microsoft offer a time-limited DRM solution. 3. The BBC accepts that this is a placebo; DRM doesn't really work. 4. The BBC offers this 'solution' to the rights-holders, knowing that it will actually be broken like all the other DRM solutions and it only _really_ serves to inconvenience the consumers. When a clueless person walks into a shop and is sold a 'solution', there is a legal obligation on the part of the shop assistant not to mis-sell, on the basis that the shop assistant is presumed to be an expert in the field. I'm sure the same _law_ doesn't apply here, but the moral principle should. I am very disappointed by the BBC's actions. They have a duty to the the public, and they _also_ have a duty to help the people who have come to them with such strange ideas, rather than disingenuously _pretending_ to meet their requirements. The BBC are failing on both counts. The world didn't fall on our heads when the MPAA failed to ban the VCR in 1984. And it won't fall on our heads when we wake up and drop DRM either. By reducing the usability of the content, you effectively prohibit almost _all_ innovation and development around the platform. It's not that the DRM won't be cracked -- of course it will. But you make people live in fear of generating programs and tools for dealing with that content, just like we live in fear of shipping programs which can allow you to view your legally-purchased DVDs. I don't see how anybody can think that's a good thing. Especially anyone subscribed to this particular mailing list. -- dwmw2 I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. -- Jack Valenti, MPAA. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:04, Andy wrote: Platform neutrality means it should not favour any one specific system. That's not what platform neutral means. It means it shouldn't favour any specific system or systems. Huh??? I wrote: me it should not favour any one specific system. you it shouldn't favour any specific system or systems. Care to explain how these two statements are actually different? I know you use a contraction and you didn't and you said any and I said one, but the intent/meaning is the same. I'm giving up talking to you at this point. Michael. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Depending on the kind of media there are other ways of making money other than charging for things that are copyable. Music: Charge for Live performances/concerts Charge for physical merchandise OK. So if I can't perform live (due to terrible stage fright (see XTC), disability or any other reason), what do I do? And if you think that physical merchandise (by which I assume you mean t-shirts etc) can't be copied, you've obviously never been to any live gigs. Bootleg merchandise traders are legion - and in your happy free world, the band wouldn't own their own logos, album cover designs etc, so that bootlegging would be legal. Any other brilliant thoughts? Cheers, Rich. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Software: Charge for support Charge for bespoke software Charge for custom modifications. Now this is a model we know works because there's a multiple of companies in the OpenSource world. So it's a no brainer. Music: Charge for Live performances/concerts Charge for physical merchandise Musical revenues are not something I know huge amounts, but this seems to me to be a model which drives the musicians very very hard. To earn money to live they have to perform - and they'll need to do it a LOT. But to prepare their next album, they'll need to stop performing because they'll need to write their album. And is there not a finite amount of gigs people will attend? The number of people who go to a gig a week isn't that high. Where does this model leave people like Kate Bush - internationally regarded and loved, but who hates doing live performances, so doesn't. As for merchandise, I like music, but I can count on my fingers the number of band related merchandise I own. It's a Shirehorses t-shirt. As an aside, Ash recently announced they'd no longer be releasing Albums. Instead they're going for downloadable singles - which of course people will pay for. Tracks they think will be released quicker and more often. Film: Charge the cinemas (but give the DVDs etc away) Or do like some of the community film projects (like the one mentioned on this list http://www.aswarmofangels.com/ ) Job done. How does this fund films which don't do very well in the cinemas but have done far better off the back of DVD sales? Clerks is an interesting example. It grossed millions in the US, yet had minimal cinematic release. Yet it's a highly regarded film and I suspect there's more than one person on this list who has a copy somewhere. DVD revenues now regularly eclipse box office reciepts. So your model could destroy huge chunks of the film industry.That might be a good thing, but it's very hard to see how Lord of the Rings would ever have been made under your model. The potential box office revenues alone wouldn't have cut the mustard. To look forward is not easy. To find workable solutions isn't. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
I think - as do many others, it seems - that people pirate because they want interoperability, convenience of consumption on their own terms, and the quality is often better to boot. Yes, yes, and yes. Don't forget though, that a lot of people pirate because they want the convenience of not having to pay for something they want. Cheers, Rich. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Musical revenues are not something I know huge amounts, but this seems to me to be a model which drives the musicians very very hard. To earn money to live they have to perform - and they'll need to do it a LOT. But to prepare their next album, they'll need to stop performing because they'll need to write their album. And is there not a finite amount of gigs people will attend? The number of people who go to a gig a week isn't that high. Where does this model leave people like Kate Bush - internationally regarded and loved, but who hates doing live performances, so doesn't. But aren't you just looking at the top end of musicians? Even for recording musicians quite a number of them aren't making much (or indeed any) money on their recordings. Artists could also sell recordings themselves presumably signed although this will probably not add much to the value long-term. We could completely go over to a gift culture - there would still be plenty of people who would like to reward artists. I did have top end musicians in mind, but I'm also keeping in mind a certain band of musicians who now sell their music themselves - retain the distribution and costs and so on. Sometimes people who have grown disgruntled with, or who have been dropped by their record label. Artists for whom the album sales and live music income (which lets face it, often isn't much either!) combined help pay their way. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:38:16AM +0100, Andrew Bowden wrote: Music: Charge for Live performances/concerts Charge for physical merchandise Musical revenues are not something I know huge amounts, but this seems to me to be a model which drives the musicians very very hard. To earn money to live they have to perform - and they'll need to do it a LOT. But to prepare their next album, they'll need to stop performing because they'll need to write their album. And is there not a finite amount of gigs people will attend? The number of people who go to a gig a week isn't that high. Where does this model leave people like Kate Bush - internationally regarded and loved, but who hates doing live performances, so doesn't. But aren't you just looking at the top end of musicians? Even for recording musicians quite a number of them aren't making much (or indeed any) money on their recordings. Artists could also sell recordings themselves presumably signed although this will probably not add much to the value long-term. We could completely go over to a gift culture - there would still be plenty of people who would like to reward artists. -- Andy Leighton = [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. So if I can't perform live (due to terrible stage fright (see XTC), disability or any other reason), what do I do? And if I develop RSI or another disability that prevents me doing my job? There is a reason we have a benefit for disability! We also have a little something called insurance that can cover you should you develop a disability. And if you think that physical merchandise (by which I assume you mean t-shirts etc) can't be copied, you've obviously never been to any live gigs. Bootleg merchandise traders are legion - and in your happy free world, the band wouldn't own their own logos, album cover designs etc, so that bootlegging would be legal. Your name and logo's would still be covered by Trademark and similar protections. Misrepresenting the source of a good is surely illegal isn't it? Any other brilliant thoughts? Why don't you offer something constructive for once? We could always use the donation model. Not sure how well that works though. Charities seem to get quite a bit. Could also use advertising, but I really dislike advertising as advertisers are responsible for attempts to destroy the functionality of the Internet. (e.g. legitimate pop ups don't work anymore as people block pop ups to weed out the uninvited adverts. They are also responsible for the increasing problems with email due to spam.) Having said that I do prefer target adverts, if you advertise something I actually wanted anyway I may buy it from you. Anyway the presence of other business models is insignificant, I don't need an alternative business model to determine whether the current one is morally right or not. But that is another discussion. And the reason why people pay for things that they can get free may include: Lack of knowledge (if you don't know something exists you're not going to get it) They view the free product as inferior in some way (regardless of whether it is) Oh and the reason people pay when they can download illegally may not be they are good people it may have something to do with the being sent to jail thing, or the lack of skill. as illegal content is driven underground. Andy -- SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1 - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your name and logo's would still be covered by Trademark and similar protections. Misrepresenting the source of a good is surely illegal isn't it? Oh - so visual intellectual property is fine, but recorded isn't? Trademark law is totally different to copyright law and totally different again to patent law. Please don't confuse them under the bogus umbrella term 'intellectual property' - its phrased intentionally to misdirect and confuse the way we consider these issues. -- Regards, Dave - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
That's just a personal preference amongst some people - it isn't wrong. According to Michael Swan from Oxford University Press, Practical English Usage: British English: different from / different to American English: different from / different than -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Lockwood Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 3:32 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next? On 6/15/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your name and logo's would still be covered by Trademark and similar protections. Misrepresenting the source of a good is surely illegal isn't it? Oh - so visual intellectual property is fine, but recorded isn't? Trademark law is totally different to copyright law and totally different again to patent law. Please don't confuse them under the bogus umbrella term 'intellectual property' - its phrased intentionally to misdirect and confuse the way we consider these issues. But in Davetopia, logos can be copied electronically, and hence freely shared (as they have no intrinsic value), and then printed on t-shirts. Rich. PS I know this isn't a grammar list, but it's a personal bugbear of mine... It's different from, not different to. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 10:19 +0100, Mr I Forrester wrote: I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while, and want to ponder this question to the backstage community... We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well lets just say for this thread that DRM doesn't work and it just turns consumers into against the content holder. ...What happens next? Nothing. We get a clue, stop making life hard for honest consumers, and after a while we realise that the sky _didn't_ actually fall on our head. Only a few years ago, the BBC renegotiated its contract with BSkyB to _remove_ DRM from its satellite broadcasts. That's why I can receive BBC content on my DVB-S card without having to muck about with a Dragon CAM and a Solus card. Well done, BBC. At least _then_ you had a clue. I think the whole discussion about alternative business models and even philosophical discussions about the nature of copyright are irrelevant and counterproductive. You don't need to be a revolutionary to observe that DRM is worthless and causes far more pain to consumers than the supposed benefits it actually achieves. And if you get distracted into 'revolutionary' talk like that, then you just give ammunition to the muppets who respond to anti-DRM arguments with Ad Hominem nonsense about students and ne'er-do-wells. -- 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 10:15 +0100, Richard Lockwood wrote: I think - as do many others, it seems - that people pirate because they want interoperability, convenience of consumption on their own terms, and the quality is often better to boot. Yes, yes, and yes. Don't forget though, that a lot of people pirate because they want the convenience of not having to pay for something they want. That's a different kind of 'convenience'. A kind which DRM doesn't actually manage to prevent, if people are determined enough -- which history shows us they are. -- 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 15/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Only a few years ago, the BBC renegotiated its contract with BSkyB to _remove_ DRM from its satellite broadcasts. That's why I can receive BBC content on my DVB-S card without having to muck about with a Dragon CAM and a Solus card. Well done, BBC. At least _then_ you had a clue. It's pretty insulting to suggest that the BBC now somehow doesn't have a clue, don't you think? Certainly if I were a BBC employee, it would make me disinclined to take the case you're making seriously if your opening gambit is you're clueless... The situations aren't analogous. The satellite issue was, for a start, partly due to money: the BBC simply decided not to pay to be on Sky's encryption platform. But it the argument was simple: it was just making the same services available on satellite that everyone already gets via DTV and analogue broadcast. iPlayer, though, is a service over and above what exists. That makes it completely different territory in terms of rights and residuals, which, in turn, makes it about 500 times as complicated. I think the whole discussion about alternative business models and even philosophical discussions about the nature of copyright are irrelevant and counterproductive. Alternative business models are completely relevant. You don't need to be a revolutionary to observe that DRM is worthless and causes far more pain to consumers than the supposed benefits it actually achieves. DRM doesn't work to stop piracy. But as we've seen over and over again, it's not about stopping piracy: it's about reassuring rights holders. Persuade *them* that it doesn't stop piracy - but that, actually, piracy isn't really an issue on an individual basis - and you'd get somewhere. And if you get distracted into 'revolutionary' talk like that, then you just give ammunition to the muppets who respond to anti-DRM arguments with Ad Hominem nonsense about students and ne'er-do-wells. Well, the clueless jibe means you don't really have a lot of leg to stand on re: ad hominem attacks :)
Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?
I think the whole discussion about alternative business models and even philosophical discussions about the nature of copyright are irrelevant and counterproductive. You don't need to be a revolutionary to observe that DRM is worthless and causes far more pain to consumers than the supposed benefits it actually achieves. And if you get distracted into 'revolutionary' talk like that, then you just give ammunition to the muppets who respond to anti-DRM arguments with Ad Hominem nonsense about students and ne'er-do-wells. And Ad Hominem nonsense about muppets presumably. I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet. Obviously DRM free content is even better, but it's not feasible right now. Rich. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 6/15/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet. It's not worse, but it's not much better. The BBC charter is not to do a little bit better than it did before, but to give the best value it possibly can. It's not doing the best it can, and this isn't good enough. Obviously DRM free content is even better, but it's not feasible right now. It is feasible right now, for some content, if not all. The sentiment here seems to be that no one likes DRM, no one wants DRM, and no one believes it works, but a) the rights holders need to be lied to and b) they hold all the cards. I don't think this is the case, but even so, what's being done to fix this? Some DRM-free content available is better than no DRM-free content. The more DRM-free content which is widely available, the more pressure it puts on those who would use DRM, not to. The BBC has many thousands of hours of programming which it holds sufficient rights to enable it to published on the Internet, DRM-free. If DRM is so distasteful, then why isn't this being done? Surely the BBC should be taking steps to move towards a DRM-free world, if that's what it believes in, which is what has been reported here. It needn't cost any money, and we could start really simple: all local news casts, all weather reports, all House of Commons footage -- dump it to the Internet Archive and Google and anyone else who will take it. Just get it out there. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet. Because it's not free of charge -- it's our license fee that's going to pay for the useless DRM technology, even if we don't use it. I don't like paying more money to make something less useful. -- Adam Sampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://offog.org/ - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've obviously not read the numerous posts explaining in some detail why it *isn't* currently feasible Must have missed that one. Can you show in detail the point at which it says you MUST use MICROSOFT DRM? I would really like to know so I can email my MEP about this matter. In case they want to add the BBC as an accessory to whatever they are prosecuting Microsoft for today. Or is it not in fact true that the rights holders would be happy with any DRM? If you care to not believe that, and instead to believe that the BBC and its employees on this list are actively lying to you then fine They have done it before! if you lie to me in official communications (and the BBC has) then I am less likely to trust you. Oh and I know they have lied to me because in one message I was told they couldn't do something because an agreement existed, when I made an FOI request I was told no such agreement existed. If that's not lying how else do you explain that paradox? My favourite one is them telling me something that was free (and that the BBC had used for free) would cost too much. And particularly common is the BBC's ridiculous claim that something would cause them to have to increase the license fee. The BBC doesn't have that power does it? Face it certain members of the BBC will lie to hide data they are ashamed of. It's just a pity they give the honest and hard working members of the team a bad name. there's nothing anyone can say that will change your mind Publish these contracts or agreements. It's all well and good saying it's the license holders, honest it is and then not presenting any evidence they are requiring anything. Once it can be shown it really is the license holders fault, and we can see it's their fault we can focus on them a bit. But simple yelling rights holders and backing it up with nothing ain't going to work. Andy -- SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1 - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Stephen Deasey wrote: The BBC has many thousands of hours of programming which it holds sufficient rights to enable it to published on the Internet, DRM-free. If DRM is so distasteful, then why isn't this being done? Surely the BBC should be taking steps to move towards a DRM-free world, if that's what it believes in, which is what has been reported here. Isn't that what the BBC Archive Trial is all about. http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/ http://xrl.us/bbcarchive Ok, so it's currently closed, but it will return at some point. But that's a completely different proposition to the iPlayer. Dave... - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Andy wrote: Must have missed that one. Can you show in detail the point at which it says you MUST use MICROSOFT DRM? I would really like to know so I can email my MEP about this matter. In case they want to add the BBC as an accessory to whatever they are prosecuting Microsoft for today. Name another DRM system which is technically capable of the same things, and exists today. Once it can be shown it really is the license holders fault, and we can see it's their fault we can focus on them a bit. But simple yelling rights holders and backing it up with nothing ain't going to work. If you could be bothered to do any research, you could find out what residuals Equity and the Writers Guild of Great Britain accept as a minimum. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet. Because it's not free of charge -- it's our license fee that's going to pay for the useless DRM technology, even if we don't use it. I don't like paying more money to make something less useful. So you don't want the content under any circumstances unless those circumstances are *precisely* the ones you want. I see. Your license fee hasn't actually gone up because of this, has it? You haven't got an extra bill, saying Cost of you paying for our DRM system: 17p have you? You've been (I hope) paying your license fee for years, funding all kinds of activities that the BBC gets up to (I personally object to having to pay for Strictly Come Dancing, but we don't have the option to pick and choose the bits of the BBC our license fee goes to). During this discussion I've been growing increasingly more convinced that those arguing against the BBC putting their content out with DRM actually have no interest whatsoever in the actual content of that content (if you see what I mean), rather, they're simply using it as an excuse to start dropping the name Richard Stallman*, regrinding their axes on freedom, and bashing Microsoft. Rich. * I propose an amendment to Godwin's Law - anyone mentioning Richard Stallman automatically gets laughed out of the room and loses the argument on the basis that they're more than likely to be simply parroting currently fashionable views that they once read in Wired. ** ** Please note that this is meant to be a humourous aside, and not the point of this post. Ranty replies to this bit of the post will be laughed at. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:49:10PM +0100, Andy wrote: don't know about and aren't complete yet. Running on x86, intel/AMD 64 bit, PowerPC, Motorola 68k, Sparcs, Alpha, Arm, MIPS, PA-RISC, s/390, and CPU architectures that are unknown to the BBC or incomplete. Steady on - why not Z80, OK a bit limited but the Z8 was 32bit and about the same time as some of those above? Basically some of the listed processors above are dead for general-purpose computing in the home and they are used by a dwindling core of hobbyists (and usually not as their main machine). So when is the BBC going to comply with platform neutral? Or does it intend never to comply? What method of complying is it using (seems it should have started by now)? Is it going to be a specification like an RFC or is it going to be an open implementation which will serve as a specification for interaction? I don't see any other way to achieve platform neutral, any one else got any idea how else platform neutral is going to be achieved? For the benefit of those who do not understand why I am stressing the term platform neutral so hard, it is because the BBC Trust explicitly specified the BBC must provide a platform neutral solution. It depends what you mean by platform neutral? Platform neutral means to me software that is independent of any particular feature or any software particular to one platform. Of course any widely used end-user platform must be supported. But at the moment that seems to be restricted to three operating systems on four processor families. -- Andy Leighton = [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 6/14/07, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while, and want to ponder this question to the backstage community... We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well lets just say for this thread that DRM doesn't work and it just turns consumers into against the content holder. ...What happens next? Creating an artificial scarcity of bits and charging for them is just a round about way of charging for a genuinely scarce resource: the time and effort of creators. Because the scarce bits model no longer works, creators will have to charge differently: - More directly, e.g. I will play may guitar and sing if you pay at the door - Less directly, e.g. I will tell people to buy your perfume if you pay me I don't think the BBC has these problems. It knows exactly where it's next 3,000 million pounds is coming from, and by extension, the guy who sticks the sink plungers on the front of Daleks knows he will be compensated for his work. - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Hi Ian, What happens next? .. well most that you listed below is already happening somewhere. In my opinion, this is what happens next.. Your whole office, and anybody interested in the positive future of the BBC, goes to the DG, or whomever now, and demands a budget to put as many pieces of content on the web as possible, under the banner of the BBC. You ask him/them to forget that he ever heard of GeoIP and DRM, and state that the web is now to be used to freely and openly fulfil the message on the BBC's coat of arms. Send out a press release to rights holders, and go ahead. If anyone wants to stop the process then they have a week to remove their content from the contractual status of the BBC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_BBC That the world needs the BBC is undeniable, and the web is now another place to distribute the content. Once you discover the true market place, you can then adjust your approach accordingly. As for rights holders, pull the other one. there is not one new unique creator on the planet who does not understand the benefit they could receive in this via the BBC. if they have a problem, then they can re-license their works to someone else, like ITV or Second Hand TV, as they do now. Just ask them. The majority of old rights holders, on the other hand, will always confuse the issue because they are in business, they do not normally simply create, they are also precious about the future, and their finances. even though, as you must be aware, the production costs are written off on first broadcast, and the license applies for only three years, in most cases. Not a very good deal for the financiers, especially if that is the public. If you wish, you could charge the customer outside of the UK, and would perhaps make more money than the complete income of the BBC already, even take a pound off the license fee and charge everyone worldwide £1 per month, or £10 per year, to watch via the net. Why shouldn't you compete with Realplayer or WMP, as they are US companies? Pass a royalty of that on to the creator, but don't get misled by the rights holder comments. Either way, if you trust your customer, and it works both ways, then they will always support you with their custom. The BBC can lead this cultural change, and must if it wishes to continue doing what it does best, worldwide. Stir up the nest as this present direction is useless to everyone. If you all begin now, then you will retain the upper hand I believe if you wait much longer then the actual creators will bypass your system of distribution, and the BBC will lose some more of its credibility as it loses its honest customers, resulting in economic Check Mate. :-) RichE On 14 Jun 2007, at 10:19, Mr I Forrester wrote: I've been thinking about products and services like this for a while, and want to ponder this question to the backstage community... We've been talking about how DRM doesn't work, etc in other posts. Well lets just say for this thread that DRM doesn't work and it just turns consumers into against the content holder. ...What happens next? Here's some thoughts from me, Content producers adopt watermarking technologies? P2P streaming and Multicasting becomes the next big advance for content producers People start paying for real time or 0day access? Google and Yahoo start indexing torrent sites and offering services like sharetv.org Joost and Democracy adoption increases The portable video player and digital set top (appletv, xbmc, etc) markets blows up Torrent site uses slowly drops, as content producers use other online services Windows Home server (now you see how my last post relates) and similar products sales increase 10 fold over the next 3 year - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
On 14/06/07, Stephen Deasey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Creating an artificial scarcity of bits and charging for them is just a round about way of charging for a genuinely scarce resource: the time and effort of creators. Because the scarce bits model no longer works, creators will have to charge differently: - More directly, e.g. I will play may guitar and sing if you pay at the door - Less directly, e.g. I will tell people to buy your perfume if you pay me What's interesting is that there are multiple models for how this works, and I suspect there's no on size fits all approach. For example, one of the common examples of how a non-DRM system could work to pay for creativity in music is give away the recordings, make money on the tours. But you can also turn that around: for example, Apple is sponsoring free gigs, while selling recordings of the gigs (hopefully DRM free, although I suspect that will be down to which record companies are involved). The idea is that you're paying for the convenience of being able to download them from a trusted source, fast, and with the quality you want. You pay for ease-of-download.
Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next?
On 14/06/07, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...What happens next? Hopefully we will actually see some innovation! Depending on the kind of media there are other ways of making money other than charging for things that are copyable. Software: Charge for support Charge for bespoke software Charge for custom modifications. (actually software is doing the best in terms of giving content away). Music: Charge for Live performances/concerts Charge for physical merchandise Film: Charge the cinemas (but give the DVDs etc away) Or do like some of the community film projects (like the one mentioned on this list http://www.aswarmofangels.com/ ) Job done. Andy -- SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1 - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
Andy wrote: On 14/06/07, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...What happens next? Hopefully we will actually see some innovation! I think there's actually a more pertinent question, which is this: Why are people currently paying for things that they could get for free? For example, why would anyone buy an un-DRM'd song from iTunes when, with about five minutes searching, they could download a pirate copy (possibly even better quality, if they go for FLAC)? Why do sites like Bleep, which sell un-DRM'd material, make money when all they are selling is bits that are available for nothing elsewhere? The answer, to me, is simple: people think that paying those who make things they take pleasure out of is perfectly fair, as long as it's easy to do and not overly expensive. People are basically honest, and agree with the idea that artists should get paid. So how about, instead of telling people that their industry is old fashioned and dying and they're all going to have to work in McDonalds, we give them some positive stories about how no DRM doesn't mean rampant piracy - in fact, it means people are more likely to actually pay for your work? Too often, all I see from the anti-DRM camp is basically snarky, dumb stuff which alienates content creators - the very people who need to be won over. Can we see some positivity, please? - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
People are basically honest, and agree with the idea that artists should get paid. LOL. Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha. I think there's actually a more pertinent question, which is this: Why are people currently paying for things that they could get for free? Even more pertinently, why are people stealing, suffering DRM, being electronic freedom fighters with Oggs etc when there is a wealth of freely available content already available. I don't spend a lot of time hunting for podcasts but I have gigs of great audio and video to consume. Yeah a few BBC but mostly not. I worry that the big media groups will finally get online but will just be clunky, expensive and irrelevent. I don't need more content so any big program libraries are just not appealing. Here's to cool ideas like Backstage !! As an aside, I wonder why the BBC can't be producing more original podcast content. For example, Grammar Girl - great show, dynamic and educational. Hardly has a Holywood budget. Why are the BBC shows so sanitized and sterile e.g. Digital Planet??!? They are hardly stretching the medium either and sound like recycled radio. To answer my own question, I think people mostly pirate stuff partly to feel like 'winning' or beating the system. Good old greed which you won't ever get rid of with any technology :-) Yours cynically, Davy -- Davy Mitchell Blog - http://www.latedecember.co.uk/sites/personal/davy/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/daftspaniel Skype - daftspaniel needgod.com - 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] DRM does not work... what next?
copy. And, buying another digital copy? Higher profit ratio, because of the obvious savings of not having to press album, print artwork, send out CD... Why can't the labels see - and most importantly, acknowledge - that the only way forward which will work is NO DRM? -Original Message- From: Davy Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 June 2007 22:43 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] DRM does not work... what next? People are basically honest, and agree with the idea that artists should get paid. LOL. Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha. I think there's actually a more pertinent question, which is this: Why are people currently paying for things that they could get for free? Even more pertinently, why are people stealing, suffering DRM, being electronic freedom fighters with Oggs etc when there is a wealth of freely available content already available. I don't spend a lot of time hunting for podcasts but I have gigs of great audio and video to consume. Yeah a few BBC but mostly not. I worry that the big media groups will finally get online but will just be clunky, expensive and irrelevent. I don't need more content so any big program libraries are just not appealing. Here's to cool ideas like Backstage !! As an aside, I wonder why the BBC can't be producing more original podcast content. For example, Grammar Girl - great show, dynamic and educational. Hardly has a Holywood budget. Why are the BBC shows so sanitized and sterile e.g. Digital Planet??!? They are hardly stretching the medium either and sound like recycled radio. To answer my own question, I think people mostly pirate stuff partly to feel like 'winning' or beating the system. Good old greed which you won't ever get rid of with any technology :-) Yours cynically, Davy -- Davy Mitchell Blog - http://www.latedecember.co.uk/sites/personal/davy/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/daftspaniel Skype - daftspaniel needgod.com - 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/
