> "Anthony Anderson, managing director of Naxos UK, one of the biggest
> publishers of classical-music CDs, complained: "By offering downloads for
> nothing, the BBC was distorting the marketplace. Is this what a public-sector
> broadcaster, largely funded by the licence fee, should be doing?"
> For BBC Orchestra performances of pre-20th century works I see no
> reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be podcast.
remember conductors are all freelancers...
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:59:29AM +, Brian Butterworth wrote:
> On 07/11/2007, George Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:05:00 +, "Brian Butterworth" <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Various parts of its non-DRM on demand radio proposals (book
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 11:59 +, Brian Butterworth wrote:
> >> Various parts of its non-DRM on demand radio proposals
> (book readings,
> >> classical music) failed the Public Value Test due to the
> BBC Trust's
> >> fears over the negative market impact
Brian Butterworth said:
> £45 million a year is spent on BBC Radio 3. It seems a poor use of
> this spending to not allow the classical music to be podcasted, I was shocked
> when the Trust showed a certain myopia on this front. It's not like any of
> this music has copyright issues, for
On 11/6/07, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Forget management, I fear you'll find that the BBC Trust's permission
> to offer 7 days catchup TV was predicated on using DRM.
>
> Various parts of its non-DRM on demand radio proposals (book readings,
> classical music) failed the Public Val
On 07/11/2007, nick richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11/6/07, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Forget management, I fear you'll find that the BBC Trust's permission
> > to offer 7 days catchup TV was predicated on using DRM.
> >
> > Various parts of its non-DRM on demand radio
On 07/11/2007, George Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:05:00 +, "Brian Butterworth" <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Various parts of its non-DRM on demand radio proposals (book readings,
> >> classical music) failed the Public Value Test due to the BBC Trust
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:05:00 +, "Brian Butterworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Various parts of its non-DRM on demand radio proposals (book readings,
>> classical music) failed the Public Value Test due to the BBC Trust's
>> fears over the negative market impact of non-DRM downloads.
>
On 06/11/2007, David McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... and then later realised that:
What do you mean "realised later"? These are the kind of things that
would be in the feasibility study. 10 minutes with even a half way
competent engineer would have shown you that proprietary technology
wa
I couldn't agree more. The problem seems to be that everyone has bought the
DRM snake oil, and no one is willing to admit they got it wrong. Indeed I'm
sure there are many people who still believe that DRM is the "solution" to a
problem*; and no one in the broadcasting industry seems to be capable
On 06/11/2007, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Forget management, I fear you'll find that the BBC Trust's permission
> to offer 7 days catchup TV was predicated on using DRM.
>
> Various parts of its non-DRM on demand radio proposals (book readings,
> classical music) failed the Publi
Forget management, I fear you'll find that the BBC Trust's permission
to offer 7 days catchup TV was predicated on using DRM.
Various parts of its non-DRM on demand radio proposals (book readings,
classical music) failed the Public Value Test due to the BBC Trust's
fears over the negative market
vijay chopra wrote:
> Of course, this raises the question, is he misleading deliberately, or just
> misinformed? Considering his recent faux pas it's not much of a stretch to
> believe he's not only misinformed, terminally so (I ascribe nothing to
> malice that can be explained by eveyday incompet
14 matches
Mail list logo
