On 18/02/07, James Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/15/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What's the point, then? Well, the point of the BBC is that, by
> > informing, educating and entertaining everyone in the UK, the
> > population of the UK gains both individually and co
On 2/15/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's the point, then? Well, the point of the BBC is that, by
> informing, educating and entertaining everyone in the UK, the
> population of the UK gains both individually and collectively to an
> extent greater than the BBC's negative ma
"Nation shall encrypt peace unto nation"
Although, of course, if the other nation is using the same OS and has
the right DRM key, that would be better than "Nation shall offer
nothing to nation" wouldn't it?
m
On 15/02/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What's the
> > What's the point, then? Well, the point of the BBC is that, by
> > informing, educating and entertaining everyone in the UK, the
> > population of the UK gains both individually and collectively to an
> > extent greater than the BBC's negative market impact
>
> This is a nice argument again
On 09/02/07, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if you want the BBC to move on from being a broadcaster (which it
looks to me like you do!), then engage in the wider political debate
about media policy.
I'm sorry, not being an industry insider nor experienced politically,
I don't really
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/desertislanddiscs.shtml
Why no podcast?
Gordo
Estate of Roy Plumley owns the rights to the format, and isn't keen on
on demand...
-
Yes, we know.
Gordo
--
"Think Feynman"/
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]///
-
Sent via the backstage
On 12/02/07, Kirk Northrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Loosemore wrote:
> There's lot of stuff for which the BBC owns *broadcast* rights,
> because that was the reality of all that was possible at the time.
How about news stuff? Let's say a newsflash based on a press release
from 10 Downing S
Tom Loosemore wrote:
There's lot of stuff for which the BBC owns *broadcast* rights,
because that was the reality of all that was possible at the time.
How about news stuff? Let's say a newsflash based on a press release
from 10 Downing Street. Library pictures would be used - surely the BBC
Tom, what kind of ninja lawyers does the Estate of Roy Plumley employ? :-)
The same kind that Endemol and every other Independent media company
uses to protect formats such as Big Brother?
Good summary here:
http://www.harbottle.com/hnl/pages/article_view_hnl/2078.php
And it's the format right
Thanks Tom,
Seriously, at least this honest answer lets us consider another way.
Is it possible for the BBC to set up a web-page and some publicity
that asks the following question
"If you are a Rights Owner of work that has been broadcast by the BBC
in the last 70 years, and would like
At 20:05 + 8/2/07, vijay chopra wrote:
If I take content and use it to promote charities, the BBC remains
impartial. It's me that's not. AFAIK there's nothing in the charter
that forces third parties to be impartial. Just anal media luvvies
("content producers") and their lawyers.
If the
Hi Tom!
On 12/02/07, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the honest answer is "we don't know"
Thanks for explaining this clearly!
What about new works though? Such as those currently podcast? :-)
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, ple
On 11/02/07, George Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Rights to the format" means what, exactely?
some (random ish) links
Maybe this is a bit of a Rorschach effect, but these all seem to prop
up my view that 'format rights' is hand waving.
http://www.wragge.com/publications/hottopics/def
the honest answer is "we don't know"
bear in mind that to know for sure you have to examine *all* the
various contracts with *all* the various contributors - and for that,
you need to know who the contributors are, and where their contracts
are stored... if their contracts are stored. Then you ha
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 21:45 +, Dave Crossland wrote:
> On 11/02/07, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Desert Island Discs ... Why no podcast?
> >
> > Estate of Roy Plumley owns the rights to the format, and isn't keen on
> > on demand...
> "Rights to the format" means what, exacte
Hi Tom,
Can I ask again then, is there anything that the BBC owns 100%
copyright of in an archive?
Yes or no would be a start. :-)
Regards
Richard
On 11 Feb 2007, at 11:43, Tom Loosemore wrote:
On 10/02/07, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 15:42 + 8/2/07, Dave Crossland wrote:
On 11/02/07, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Desert Island Discs ... Why no podcast?
Estate of Roy Plumley owns the rights to the format, and isn't keen on
on demand...
Wow. How curious.
"Rights to the format" means what, exactely?
I can imagine "Desert Island Discs" might be a tr
On 10/02/07, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 15:42 + 8/2/07, Dave Crossland wrote:
>On 06/02/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>We also know that the BBC has content that they "own"
>>100% of the copyright.
>
>This is, apparently, not the case at all for the major
At 15:42 + 8/2/07, Dave Crossland wrote:
On 06/02/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We also know that the BBC has content that they "own"
100% of the copyright.
This is, apparently, not the case at all for the majority of existing records.
However, moving forward, I see no
> if the BBC did try to use it's muscle, it could just get accused
> of bully-boy tactics by the industry who could then complain to
> the government etc - such things have happened in the past)
I thought the BBC was answerable to the Board of Trustees, not the
Government. Or is it a Government m
On 09/02/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if the BBC did try to use it's muscle, it could just get accused
of bully-boy tactics by the industry who could then complain to
the government etc - such things have happened in the past)
I thought the BBC was answerable to the Board of Tr
> On 09/02/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It is also complete obliviousness to reality.
> > > In fact, Steve Job's first blog post at
> > > http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ is nicely timed for this
> > > debate - carefully outlining why "platform agnostic" DRM is do
On 09/02/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is also complete obliviousness to reality.
> In fact, Steve Job's first blog post at
> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ is nicely timed for this
> debate - carefully outlining why "platform agnostic" DRM is doomed.
Here's ho
> It is also complete obliviousness to reality.
> In fact, Steve Job's first blog post at
> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ is nicely timed for this
> debate - carefully outlining why "platform agnostic" DRM is doomed.
Here's hoping, because if/once the music industry (who are after
> On 31/01/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "The Trust considers that BBC content should be available to all
> > significant players on a non-discriminatory basis. It will develop and
> > publish a syndication policy and consider on each occasion where
> > syndication is proposed wh
If I take content and use it to promote charities, the BBC remains
impartial. It's me that's not. AFAIK there's nothing in the charter that
forces third parties to be impartial. Just anal media luvvies ("content
producers") and their lawyers.
On 08/02/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
> The BBC hates charities! Woo.
The BBC is required to be impartial.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/nonsportevent
s/8charities.shtml
This was highlighted during the Live 8 coverage - a charity with a
political motive, but broadcasting an entertainment event...
http:/
On 01/02/07, George Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 20:07 +, vijay chopra wrote:
> And I'm sure the proposal for "Linux DRM" will go down well in the
> FLOSS community, as well as a lead balloon anyway.
Well, Linus seems to think it's OK...
Linus also thinks that c
On 31/01/07, Colin Moorcraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It establishes a desirable goal - platform agnosticism - without
constraining how that is achieved.
It is also complete obliviousness to reality.
In fact, Steve Job's first blog post at
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ is ni
On 31/01/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"The Trust considers that BBC content should be available to all
significant players on a non-discriminatory basis. It will develop and
publish a syndication policy and consider on each occasion where
syndication is proposed whether a PVT or
On 06/02/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We also know that the BBC has content that they "own"
100% of the copyright.
This is, apparently, not the case at all for the majority of existing records.
However, moving forward, I see no reason why the BBC cannot be clear
that it is
e user, or the rights holder...
but give us some points for trying! :-)
m
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard P Edwards
Sent: 05 February 2007 15:10
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlaye
or the BBC or the user, or the rights holder... but give us
some points for trying! :-)
m
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard P Edwards
Sent: 05 February 2007 15:10
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] &quo
On 04/02/07, Matthew Cashmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is this not a step in the right direction?
http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/
The CA strongly suggested that the BBC might provide leadership in the
Free Culture community.
However, I recently saw IFTV's http://blip.tv/file/138568 (IFTV
terms of making the content available via the iPlayer, than to not?
* By the rights holders.
m
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Richard P Edwards
Sent: Fri 02/02/2007 19:09
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach
;https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>on behalf of Richard P Edwards
Sent: Fri 02/02/2007 19:09
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to th
By the rights holders.
m
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Richard P Edwards
Sent: Fri 02/02/2007 19:09
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
Hi Dave,
Yes, it was a mistake on my part that I hit reply
Hi Richard!
On 02/02/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, it was a mistake on my part that I hit reply and the previous email
didn't end up on the list. Apologies.
I hope you'll post it on list, and I'll post my reply :-)
As I said at the beginning, it will be interesting t
Hi Dave,
Yes, it was a mistake on my part that I hit reply and the previous
email didn't end up on the list. Apologies.
As I said at the beginning, it will be interesting to see why anyone
believes that DRM is needed on BBC products. So far I have seen no
clear reason whatsoever, apart from
Hi Richard!
On 01/02/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Technically speaking, I wonder whether others have thought about self
destructive files?
...
I will be very interested if such a management system already exists.
Certain they do.
Unfortunately, that they work is total mak
Ofcom's "research" is now available too...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/bbcmias/ondemand/bbc_ondemand/bbciplayer
survey/
Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database
Hi all,
I have been watching this debate with great interest
As a recording engineer/producer of 20 years, I have many examples of
the different views expressed here. I also have digital content
waiting to be released on the unsuspecting public sometime in the
future, or when I can find
> And I'm sure the proposal for "Linux DRM" will go down well in the
FLOSS
> community, as well as a lead balloon anyway. I can see the slashdot
> headline already: "BBC proposing DRM for Linux"
Well there are pretty obvious divisions in the community. A lot of
people have recently gone on the
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 20:07 +, vijay chopra wrote:
> And I'm sure the proposal for "Linux DRM" will go down well in the
> FLOSS community, as well as a lead balloon anyway.
Well, Linus seems to think it's OK...
http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2003042401126OSKNLL
> I can see the slashd
"The Trust will require the BBC Executive to adopt a platform-agnostic
approach within a reasonable timeframe. This requires the BBC to develop an
alternative DRM framework to enable users of other technology, for example,
Apple and Linux, to access the on-demand services."
Can anyone tell me if
"This requires the BBC to develop an alternative DRM framework to enable
users of other technology, for example, Apple and Linux, to access the
on-demand..."
I'm now taking bets on how soon "BBC DRM" is cracked.
Seriously, do the people who wrote that paragraph seriously think that they
can better
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland
Sent: 31 January 2007 13:55
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
On 31/01/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The Tr
I find the Trust's wording careful - and wise.
It establishes a desirable goal - platform agnosticism - without
constraining how that is achieved. It opens up doors to third parties
(e.g. alternatives to Microsoft- or Apple-only DRM) to take
independent initiatives regardless of the BBC (i.
> "The Trust has also asked the executive to adopt a
> platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer. The original
> proposal for the service would have meant it was only
> available to Microsoft users but the Trust's proposal will
> require them to develop an alternative framework which will
> al
On 31/01/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Trust has also asked the executive to adopt a platform-agnostic approach
to the iPlayer. ... for example Apple Macs
What about GNU+Linux users, who are reputedly a larger userbase than
OS X users? :-)
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via th
"The Trust has also asked the executive to adopt a platform-agnostic approach
to the iPlayer. The original proposal for the service would have meant it
was only available to Microsoft users but the Trust's proposal will require
them to develop an alternative framework which will allow users of oth
On 1/31/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BBC Trust gives iPlayer the go ahead Jessica Rogers 11:00am
(Broadcast)
This is a better link - it gives rather more detail (and isn't Emap's
copyright either!):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press-releases/31-01-2007.html
...in
BBC Trust gives iPlayer the go ahead Jessica Rogers 11:00am
(Broadcast)
The BBC Trust has given the go ahead to the corporation's new on-demand
services, including the controversial iPlayer, but has made major changes to
a number of key features the BBC executive proposed.
Changes proposed fo
53 matches
Mail list logo
