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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
@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
36 matches
Mail list logo
