On 13/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rubbish, the BBC could have had their cake and eaten it just
by threatening to tell the content providers to shove off. The rights
holders want their material on the BBC, probably more than the BBC
wants any particular piece
On 08/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/02/07, Dave Crossland wrote:
On 08/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deterring the general public from blatant file-sharing.
It fails at this purpose.
I disagree. It fails at preventing all of the public from sharing
On 09/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
its deemed 'good enough' for the general public (the vast, vast
majority of which just want to watch Eastenders/Dragons
Den/whatever the next day).
The vast, vast majority of the general public have no problems
using the regular
On 09/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The purpose of being good enough to satisfy the people that
own the rights to the content - and therefore being able to
release the content in this manner.
You implicitly elevate the people that own the rights to the content
above the
Sharing is good for society, but only when sharing things you have
permission to.
It is true that breaking agreements is not good.
However, all iPod owners intuitively understand that agreements not to
share are more bad than the act of breaking them, and is thus
justified on a 'lesser of
On 13/02/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your argument is that all music should be utterly free. Which, while
a nice idea in Davetopia, or wherever you live, is completely
unworkable.
I suspect that he would like all music to be free (libre), not free
(gratis), and why would
The purpose of being good enough to satisfy the people that
own the rights to the content - and therefore being able to
release the content in this manner.
I also forgot to say:
You implicitly elevate the people that own the rights to the content
above the public. This isn't cool.
No
No it's not cool. However if you don't have rights holders who are happy,
you would get nowt.
What's better - a moral highground with nothing, or no moral highground
but with everything?I'd presume people here would say the former, whilst
I suspect the majority of the general public would
On 2/1/07, Stephen Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What needs to be developed is new distribution systems, not excuses for
old methods, nor seeing any form of global market as a problem. If
content is available at a fair price globally and simultaneously, the
advertising markets and audiences
On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And yet it's still used...
Doesn't that say something?
It says that record execs are stupid, but we all knew that already.
I was going more for a it might be broken by some, but
On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And yet it's still used...
Doesn't that say something?
It says that record execs are stupid, but we all knew that already.
I was going more for a it might be broken by
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] £1.2
billion question (or RE: [backstage] BBC Bias??? Click and Torrents)
On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And yet
On 08/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The purpose of being good enough to satisfy the people that own the rights
to the content - and therefore being able to release the content in this
manner.
Satisfy them to what end? The current arrangement temporarily satisfies
media
On 08/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And yet it's still used...
Doesn't that say something?
It says that record execs are stupid, but we all knew that
On 08/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was going more for a it might be broken by some,
but it's good enough for 'purpose'. And what is that purpose, exactely? The purpose of
being good enough to satisfy the people that own the rights to the content
Satisfy the rights
Hi Dave
On 08/02/07, Dave Crossland wrote:
On 08/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deterring the general public from blatant file-sharing.
It fails at this purpose.
I disagree. It fails at preventing all of the public from sharing files.
Firstly, file sharing in itself. Most
On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It will be interesting in a few years time once a few MP3 players
have died, and people have had chance to lose their entire music
collection in spectacular fashion due to hard disk failures and so on.
This will only be a problem for people
On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And yet it's still used...
Doesn't that say something?
It says that record execs are stupid, but we all knew that already.
It depends what you mean by failed Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is circumvented
by simply burning your tracks to CD, then ripping to MP3. I'd count that as
a failed DRM mechanism, as it's essentially useless. If the BBC implements
DRM that's as good as Fairplay, I'll be happy (as long as they don't
On 05/02/07, David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.bleep.com do FLAC
FLAC is Free Lossless Audio Compression, a great free software audio format.
To be clear, I am not against people charging money for distributing
music; I am against people distributing music in proprietary
On 02/02/07, J.P.Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What might be a fair price in, say, Russia, might be
ridiculously cheap here and unbearaby expensive in Vietnam.
Current example: www.allofmp3.com is a licensed mp3 downloads business
- licensed in Russia - that is ridiculously cheap compared to
Brian Butterworth wrote:
It permits you, as you keep quoting it, to make a recording of a
broadcast to let you view or listen to it at a more
convenient time
(timeshifting); it does *not* let you make copies of that
recording
(sharing). As I said, and you ignored, above.
On 1/30/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Metaphors that compare digital data to physical objects are almost
always confusion.
Agreed.
Stealing is stealing, copying is copying. Stealing is not copying.
Not agreed. But then, you might be confusing physical objects with data. (!)
On 31/01/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/30/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Metaphors that compare digital data to physical objects are almost
always confusion.
Agreed.
:-)
Stealing is stealing, copying is copying. Stealing is not copying.
Not agreed. But
On 1/31/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you make furniture, the fact that furniture-duplication wands are
invented does not give you the right to restrict people from
duplicating chairs.
No, but I should have the rights to restrict people from duplicating MY
chairs.
I'm
On 1/31/07, Josh at GoUK.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you make furniture, the fact that furniture-duplication wands are
invented does not give you the right to restrict people from
duplicating chairs.
No, but I should have the rights to restrict people from duplicating MY
chairs.
This is a splendidly informed debate, incidentally. I'm enjoying it.
On 1/31/07, Stephen Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Media groups tend to equate a download
with a (potential) lost sale. This is just not the case. Many people who
download, especially cross borders may discover television
On 1/29/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29/01/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In most cases, the broadcaster has negotiated limited rights
The distributor's limited rights have been extended in the opposite
direction to where distribution technology has taken us.
On 29/01/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I forwarded my reply to an old friend, Miles Metcalfe
More interesting comments from Miles:
Never in the history of creative product
have rights holders contemplated or been allowed to get away with
restrictions against the affordances of
On 30/01/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/29/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29/01/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In most cases, the broadcaster has negotiated limited rights
The distributor's limited rights have been extended in the opposite
On 1/29/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not a case of what I think about the law, it is my
understanding of it.
There is no legal precedent to support your position.
Yours neither. :-)
Well there is two precedents. Firstly the BBC took BSB to the high court to
stop
On 29/01/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In most cases, the broadcaster has negotiated limited
The distributor's limited rights have been extended in the opposite
direction to where distribution technology has taken us.
rights in a limited time-frame and a limited territory to
Sorry if you didn't get why this is a backstage issue, let me explain more
carefully.
I'm not sure how a torrent counts as the making [...] of a
recording of a broadcast. Obviously, you can make a direct
recording of a broadcast yourself for time-shifting purposes
however you want (VCR,
33 matches
Mail list logo
