Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 collectively to an > > extent greater than the BBC's negative market impact > > This is a nice argument against BBC DRM, I think :-D Let's not be un-necessarily emotive. There is no such thing as "BBC DRM" The BBC is using DRM in the iPlayer. BBC DRM. I'm sorry if that was unclear, and am not sure what you are referring to? -- 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 market impact This is a nice argument against BBC DRM, I think :-D Let's not be un-necessarily emotive. There is no such thing as "BBC DRM", and it harms your argument to claim there is. Watch this Lawrence Lessig speech - http://lessig.notlong.com (hosted on Google Video). The coverage is pretty awful, but it's well worth watching. (Notably, you can download this video and watch it on a laptop, or an iPod video). The most interesting part of this discussion is the Q&A at the end - the last five minutes - where a speaker from the floor recommends "massive civil disobedience" to break DRM forever. Lessig disagrees. He says (and I paraphrase because I can't type that fast) - "I would not doubt the technical ability of hackers to break any DRM that there is out there. However, I would doubt their political ability to understand what happens when they do. I think we lose the opportunity to convince the hearts and minds of the rest of the world. We will lose again and again in the political context if it seems all we're trying to do is to 'get something for free'. We guarantee we will lose every single time." Think about what you're saying - and about whether talking about "BBC DRM" is going to help you win this battle... or lose it. -- http://james.cridland.net/
Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
"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 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 against BBC DRM, I think :-D A bit like the one that points out that the BBC's motto is not "Nation shall encrypt peace unto nation" Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/685 - Release Date: 13/02/2007 22:01 - 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/ -- Martin Belam - http://www.currybet.net - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
> > 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 against BBC DRM, I think :-D A bit like the one that points out that the BBC's motto is not "Nation shall encrypt peace unto nation" Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/685 - Release Date: 13/02/2007 22:01 - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 know what wider political debate about media policy is, or how to engage it, other than posting to lists like this to learn things for myself, and submitting my views to the Trust questionaire and such. > The BBC is meant to do what 'the industry' doesn't, though. Otherwise, > what's the point? Not true. The BBC is not there to do whatever the industry doesn't do. Never has been. Okay, my bad. 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 against BBC DRM, I think :-D -- 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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.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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 Street. Library pictures would be used - surely the BBC film these and therefore own them? They employ the newsreader, own the studio in which it was made, commissioned the music and titles. The press release is exactly that, so I can't think they'd be to snotty on the copyright of it in that way. Or am I missing something obvious? tons of pooled footage / bought in footage / freelance cameramen / stills / most library pictures are bought in, or result in some secondary fee to original rights holders - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 film these and therefore own them? They employ the newsreader, own the studio in which it was made, commissioned the music and titles. The press release is exactly that, so I can't think they'd be to snotty on the copyright of it in that way. Or am I missing something obvious? -- Kirk - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 rights which drive up the valuations of Independent TV companies http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1788734,00.html And it's not like the BBC isn't in this global game, either: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4375311.stm - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 your content to be re-used in a financially viable, or free, manner across the world of the internet, will you please contact us?" It is quite obvious that PACT and the BBC's negotiation of last May probably considered every facet of broadcasting, using a black box sitting in someone's lounge in the UK as the basis. In settling with a 7 year license, on new commissions, I'm sure that the BBC probably had a longer time frame for past works. If that is true, then we are getting somewhere, simply because it is very likely that the original rights holders of those works probably don't use a computer for much more than email. If they can be attracted back in to the debate, it may make the BBC's position easier regarding your future prospects, after all those "lost" rights holders could change the picture for everyone, especially since some of the revenue from the further use of that content would add to their estate value or pensions. I'm sure that they would be very happy to further "exploit" (yes, I hate that word:-) their rights. If nothing else, the use of the net as a historical document, could be very interesting. try this as an example :-) http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8435153709246106788&q=public +nuclear Perhaps we should see this at the same time. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay? docid=7942215474518717328&q=nagasaki+nuclear The net has immense power for the future, I cannot honestly see any time when it is tamed as some of the commercial/political/legal world would like it to be, maybe it will carry on opening new avenues for everyone. All the best RichE On 12 Feb 2007, at 00:32, Tom Loosemore wrote: 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 have to hope the contracts we unambiguous. When the creative archive team went hunting for some content for their trial which was demonstrably & unambiguously BBC owned, they found nothing that didn't require at least some additional rights clearance... 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. And then there's moral rights, but let's no go there for now... On 11/02/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 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 owning 100% of the rights in all new contracts for >> >internally produced works. >> >> >> >> >> *** >> >> Desert Island Discs is one of Radio 4's most popular and enduring >> programmes. Created by Roy Plomley in 1942, the format is simple: >> each week a guest is invited by Kirsty Young to choose the eight >> records they would take with them to a desert island. >> >> >> *** >> >> For rights reasons Desert Island Discs is not available as a >> listen again item. >> >> *** >> >> 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... > - > 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/ - 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. Unoffici
Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 BBC is impartial, why does it host the Action Network?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A19752852
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/C55155
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/
Gordo
--
"Think Feynman"/
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]///
-
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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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, 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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/default_1661.html "If a format has distinct and original features and is recorded on paper in detail, with every angle of the format being covered and thoroughly documented, then the chance of being able to protect the format through the copyright subsisting in these documents is much better." As developers of software well know, copyright does not prevent copycats who made their own from scratch. http://www.ifla.tv/protectyourformat.html "There is no statutory protection for television formats in any country that we know of." This also centers on copyrights, as above. http://www.legalday.co.uk/lexnex/simkins03/simkinsq303/simkins050803.htm "The laws of copyright, passing off, and confidence may all be relevant." Additionally, this page is seminar snake oil :-) > I can imagine "Desert Island Discs" might be a trademark. But I don't > think the format can be copyrighted, Some lawyers may disagree with you (not necessarily about whether DID is copyrightable or not, but about whether 'formats' can be 'protected' in law.) Based on those links, it sounds like all the case law is in my favour. Tom, what kind of ninja lawyers does the Estate of Roy Plumley employ? :-) -- 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 have to hope the contracts we unambiguous. When the creative archive team went hunting for some content for their trial which was demonstrably & unambiguously BBC owned, they found nothing that didn't require at least some additional rights clearance... 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. And then there's moral rights, but let's no go there for now... On 11/02/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 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 owning 100% of the rights in all new contracts for >> >internally produced works. >> >> >> >> >> *** >> >> Desert Island Discs is one of Radio 4's most popular and enduring >> programmes. Created by Roy Plomley in 1942, the format is simple: >> each week a guest is invited by Kirsty Young to choose the eight >> records they would take with them to a desert island. >> >> >> *** >> >> For rights reasons Desert Island Discs is not available as a >> listen again item. >> >> *** >> >> 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... > - > 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/ - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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, exactely? some (random ish) links (about format rights, rather than DID itself) http://www.wragge.com/publications/hottopics/default_1661.html http://www.ifla.tv/protectyourformat.html http://www.legalday.co.uk/lexnex/simkins03/simkinsq303/simkins050803.htm > I can imagine "Desert Island Discs" might be a trademark. But I don't > think the format can be copyrighted, Some lawyers may disagree with you (not necessarily about whether DID is copyrightable or not, but about whether 'formats' can be 'protected' in law.) George (disclaimer - I work for the BBC) - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 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 owning 100% of the rights in all new contracts for >internally produced works. *** Desert Island Discs is one of Radio 4's most popular and enduring programmes. Created by Roy Plomley in 1942, the format is simple: each week a guest is invited by Kirsty Young to choose the eight records they would take with them to a desert island. *** For rights reasons Desert Island Discs is not available as a listen again item. *** 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... - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 trademark. But I don't think the format can be copyrighted, and I'm pretty sure it can't be patented. -- 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 majority of existing records. > >However, moving forward, I see no reason why the BBC cannot be clear >that it is owning 100% of the rights in all new contracts for >internally produced works. *** Desert Island Discs is one of Radio 4's most popular and enduring programmes. Created by Roy Plomley in 1942, the format is simple: each week a guest is invited by Kirsty Young to choose the eight records they would take with them to a desert island. *** For rights reasons Desert Island Discs is not available as a listen again item. *** 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... - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 reason why the BBC cannot be clear that it is owning 100% of the rights in all new contracts for internally produced works. *** Desert Island Discs is one of Radio 4's most popular and enduring programmes. Created by Roy Plomley in 1942, the format is simple: each week a guest is invited by Kirsty Young to choose the eight records they would take with them to a desert island. *** For rights reasons Desert Island Discs is not available as a listen again item. *** http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/desertislanddiscs.shtml Why no podcast? Gordo -- "Think Feynman"/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
> 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 mouthpiece afterall? the people who just decided what the BBC should do over the next 10 years looked very much like a Government to me and the man who decided how much money the BBC should get over the next 6 years looked very much like Gordon Brown and the person currently busy appointing the next Chair of the BBC Trustees looks just like that Tessa Jowell woman who runs the Department of Culture Media & Sport the BBC is a construct formed by political will, and exists so long as that political will remains as is only right and proper in a democracy. 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. > And IMHO the whole industry is pretty much following music. > The music model is a known quantity. Non-DRM is less so. > Ergo the industry goes with the known quantity. The BBC is meant to do what 'the industry' doesn't, though. Otherwise, what's the point? Not true. The BBC is not there to do whatever the industry doesn't do. Never has been. 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 Read the charter http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/ Bests -tom - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 Trustees, not the Government. Or is it a Government mouthpiece afterall? And IMHO the whole industry is pretty much following music. The music model is a known quantity. Non-DRM is less so. Ergo the industry goes with the known quantity. The BBC is meant to do what 'the industry' doesn't, though. Otherwise, what's the point? Of course the music industry has greater experience. And it has its views on whether it's working. And it seems today, that Warner Music aren't going to drop DRM yet. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6344929.stm Simply saying something is "without logic and merit" doesn't make it so. When you see Edgar Bronfman's analysis posted on his website, instead of hand waving, let us know :-) -- 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
> 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 hoping, because if/once the music industry (who are after all, > > the "pioneers" in this field) drop the idea, the more likely it is that > > others will follow. > I thought the BBC is meant to be a leader, not a follower. The issues at play are standard issues in the broadcast arena - what has been negotiated with the BBC is broadly the same as what's been negotiated with ITV and with Channel 4. And probably will be for Five. This really isn't just a BBC issue (indeed 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) And IMHO the whole industry is pretty much following music. The music model is a known quantity. Non-DRM is less so. Ergo the industry goes with the known quantity. Of course the music industry has greater experience. And it has its views on whether it's working. And it seems today, that Warner Music aren't going to drop DRM yet. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6344929.stm <>
Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 hoping, because if/once the music industry (who are after all, the "pioneers" in this field) drop the idea, the more likely it is that others will follow. I thought the BBC is meant to be a leader, not a follower. Then this debate will finally end :) The 7th rule of Internet Club is: Debates will go on as long as they have to. :-) -- 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
> 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 all, the "pioneers" in this field) drop the idea, the more likely it is that others will follow. Then this debate will finally end :) <>
RE: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
> 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 other action is necessary." > > Now I can see that as a cable/IPTV thing - if NTL/Telewest get it, why > > not BT Vision etc. Online that could be more interesting. Would 4od be > > a significant player for example? > I would like to suggest that we the British Public are now a > 'significant player' - we want to syndicate BBC content on our own > websites. Hmm? :-) well I'm sure that someone would "If you've got the money, you can have it" ;) Still, if someone could work out a way of doing it (that fits in with the *current* restrictions on availability), what better than an embedded BBC Player in the same way as you can get headlines now! http://news.bbc.co.uk/shared/bsp/hi/services/htmlsyndication/html/default.stm People blogging about (say) this evenings EastEnders, could embed it in their site. I like it myself. <>
Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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]> wrote:
> 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://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4649329.stm
J
-
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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
> 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://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4649329.stm J - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 combining proprietary software with GPL software is fun, and includes hundreds of pieces of proprietary software in his kernel. When you say 'DRM for Linux', I doubt you mean 'DRM for the Linux kernel' I'm guessing you mean DRM for files to be played back in media players which can run on GNU/ Linux systems Amongst others, the fluendo hackers have been working on some DRM support within gstreamer - which could well find themselves in major distros. Major distros include many pieces of proprietary software, as 'value added' bonuses, so including "value added" media restrictions is unsurprising. But these are all always "freedom-subtracted" problems. I'm no fan of DRM at all - but to base decisions on whether to provide a codec on whether (GNU/) Linux systems Why the ()? :-) 'shouldn't' have access to DRMd files might well be rather short sighted - Windows users don't deserve 'less' 'restricted' files than free software users. All users deserve free software, just like all people deserve free speech, free labour, free elections, etc If it was up to the BBC, I'm guessing all BBC-originated files would be available under a DFSG/ CC approved licence. First, there is a mammoth difference between DFSG and CC approval. Second, the BBCs previous exploration had unconscionable restrictions on use. The license text said don't use it "for any illegal, derogatory or otherwise offensive purpose" and the "human readable summary" went even further, saying "don't use it to promote political, charitable, or other campaigning purposes." The BBC hates charities! Woo. Third, there are really two separate issues here, restricting sharing (even with ourselves, as per the 7 day delete crap) and permitting remixing. It isn't just up the the BBC, as recent announcements seem to have made clear. The BBC can take leadership on these issues. In the extreme, it could just get on with it and invite the production houses to sue. That kind of disruptive leadership seems too much for the timid BBC at the moment. But What would Dyke do? -- 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 nicely timed for this debate - carefully outlining why "platform agnostic" DRM is doomed. -- 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 other action is necessary." Now I can see that as a cable/IPTV thing - if NTL/Telewest get it, why not BT Vision etc. Online that could be more interesting. Would 4od be a significant player for example? I would like to suggest that we the British Public are now a 'significant player' - we want to syndicate BBC content on our own websites. Hmm? :-) -- 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 owning 100% of the rights in all new contracts for internally produced works. It actually is quite easy to take the position that the BBC can broadcast freely worldwide, as Second Life has shown... I don't recall the public or bands complaining when the Scottish concert was broadcast there last year. Mmmm. Also that most of the BBCs website is available worldwide, and this is not a problem either. -- 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
Matthew, You all get about 8 out of 10 for trying and I am sure that there are some who have a clearer idea than I as to which course the BBC is on. ;-) I think that it has been proven that the internet side of the BBC is just being viewed as an extension of the normal UK' centric Corporation of old. At least that is how it is publicised lately. Sadly, as with any large organisation, there is also another truth behind the scenes.. hence some of the unusual difficulties. It has been explained to us here many times that the Rights Holders have the final say. but if one reads the PACT version, it is clear that they are fighting hard to get the best deal available, yet still realise that they have a way to go.So it is true that the BBC are defending their position on that side as well. We also know that the BBC has content that they "own" 100% of the copyright. The main problems are therefore all because of how the BBC is "selling" its own wishes for its future whether to the public directly, or government, or the Rights Holders. Yes, there are commercial interests, but the BBC isn't viewed (yet) as a commercial business, so what Apple or Microsoft do can be viewed as of little consequence. Although, if you all are paid by Siemens, then I suppose you get an extra point for thinking like a commercial entity. We all have a certain faith in Auntie, but don't take it for granted. The way that bits have been sold off and licensed to the highest bidder, or favourite ex-employee... and the closeness of those at the top, try a Wiki of Tessa Jowell, lead one to a very different picture of what is apparently happening there. I still believe that the BBC has the power to be a worldwide source of important free speech, but please don't get lost in all the tinkering whilst the world moves on. you may find that the producers and audience change direction and suddenly that position will become untenable. I'm sure that all this was discussed before the World Service radio was released, and again before the actual web-site was put online. now you guys have the brilliant opportunity with the "crown jewels". It actually is quite easy to take the position that the BBC can broadcast freely worldwide, as Second Life has shown... I don't recall the public or bands complaining when the Scottish concert was broadcast there last year. In fact I recorded that concert from the net for viewing later, and it led me to buy the Snow Patrol album, as they say, job done :-) The end point is that it is highly complicated for you all to start from a position of "enabling" the "user" to have as much "control" as possible.. I don't want to be enabled, I don't even want to be a user or have any control I just want to watch my favourite shows on the net when I wish. if not, I will go and watch/use someone else's, and buy the DVD directly from the independent if I hear of a show that I have missed. But hey, in that case you, the BBC, make 15% profit for doing nada :-) All the best RichE On 5 Feb 2007, at 16:20, Matthew Cashmore wrote: I think you make some very valid points there Richard, I just want to show that the BBC is trying very hard to move in a direction that enables the user to have as much control as possible. The News Quiz is a good example - we release the News Quiz via a podcast feed with no DRM at all - but it's only 'live' during the series... once the series is over the feeds go dead - but not the files you've downloaded. This area is highly emotive - I don't think we'll ever find an answer that will make everyone happy, or for that matter will be the best solution for the BBC or the 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 iPlayer" Hello Matthew, Yes, obviously this is a step in the right direction I looked at that site as soon as it was first released. Which was before I knew anything about GeoIP and the BBC's re- negotiated terms of agreement with PACT, last May, even before the fuss over the Met Office's weather feeds. The UK only clause completely barred and censored me from that content. This is definitely an interesting journey, fraught with difficulties, and I think that it is really important for you at the BBC to realise and take in to account some of what is discussed here. after all it is only a discussion. If my perception is biased or incorrect, then I apologise. Still, there is clearly a collision of two worlds. One being the freedom of data on the net, worldwi
RE: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
I think you make some very valid points there Richard, I just want to
show that the BBC is trying very hard to move in a direction that
enables the user to have as much control as possible.
The News Quiz is a good example - we release the News Quiz via a podcast
feed with no DRM at all - but it's only 'live' during the series... once
the series is over the feeds go dead - but not the files you've
downloaded.
This area is highly emotive - I don't think we'll ever find an answer
that will make everyone happy, or for that matter will be the best
solution for 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
Hello Matthew,
Yes, obviously this is a step in the right direction I looked at
that site as soon as it was first released.
Which was before I knew anything about GeoIP and the BBC's re-negotiated
terms of agreement with PACT, last May, even before the fuss over the
Met Office's weather feeds. The UK only clause completely barred and
censored me from that content.
This is definitely an interesting journey, fraught with difficulties,
and I think that it is really important for you at the BBC to realise
and take in to account some of what is discussed here. after all it
is only a discussion.
If my perception is biased or incorrect, then I apologise. Still, there
is clearly a collision of two worlds.
One being the freedom of data on the net, worldwide the other being
how a public corporation controls such data, and who the BBC's
"shareholders" are in that decision.
I have learnt much during my time following backstage, and most of it
has involved finding possible ways to circumvent the controls that you
have put in place. not that I would consider using the data
illegally for financial reward at this moment, but I am now very aware
that it is possible. I think that Lord Puttnam could do with some more
information regarding the possible pitfalls, especially with using the
iPlayer. In my experience, as soon as you release the data, whether it
be on iPlayer with DRM or not, one has to be totally clear about how it
may be "abused" and to what extent the BBC will defend such abuse as
Devil's advocate, how would the BBC sue me and twenty thousand others
publicly on behalf of the Rights Holders and make the case for
supporting such a waste of money?
I think we are all aware from the RIAA's experience of the limitations
of that course, and so perhaps it is right to see the opposing
perspective... especially where content that the BBC does own copyright
for is concerned.
I do think that the positive "social capital" is definitely worth
considering.
All the best
RichE
On 4 Feb 2007, at 21:42, Matthew Cashmore wrote:
Hi there,
Is this not a step in the right direction?
http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/
Unfortunately we have to actually make things work, and whilst
many of us here at the beeb would love nothing more than to release all
of our content, like we've done above, the people who own the rights
don't want us to... so we're back to Toms point of having to make a
stark choice... release what we can using accepted* DRM, or don't
release anything... surely it's better to move things on in 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 to the
iPlayer"
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 as you say, a defensive legal
willingness to support an old model. Still, I get the feeling that my
wish to have access to the BBC archive for free use to remix its content
is as yet a dream. :-)
All the best
RichE
On 2 Feb 2007, at 16:49, Dave Crossland wrote:
Hi Richard!
(I notice you didn't reply to the Backstage mailing
list, perhaps in error?)
On 02/02/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I totally agree that DR
Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 being Ian Forester, the one man TV production house ;-) where someone said Greg Dyke over hyped the CA and promised more than it could deliver, given the existing copyright regime. release what we can using accepted* DRM, or don't release anything... surely it's better to move things on in terms of making the content available via the iPlayer, than to not? By pretending that digital restrictions are ethical, that they can work at all, and that they are worth spending money on, the BBC contributes to making a world that no one would like to live in, other than copyright holders; where sharing is equated with attacking ships and killing people. While copy restrictions work on the majority of people who are not used to copying digital data as a way of life, a predatory scheme on the ignorant is not cool, and unconscionable by people who are used to that way of life. Even the kids of major music studio execs share music; think of the childen? :-) -- 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
Hello Matthew, Yes, obviously this is a step in the right direction I looked at that site as soon as it was first released. Which was before I knew anything about GeoIP and the BBC's re- negotiated terms of agreement with PACT, last May, even before the fuss over the Met Office's weather feeds. The UK only clause completely barred and censored me from that content. This is definitely an interesting journey, fraught with difficulties, and I think that it is really important for you at the BBC to realise and take in to account some of what is discussed here. after all it is only a discussion. If my perception is biased or incorrect, then I apologise. Still, there is clearly a collision of two worlds. One being the freedom of data on the net, worldwide the other being how a public corporation controls such data, and who the BBC's "shareholders" are in that decision. I have learnt much during my time following backstage, and most of it has involved finding possible ways to circumvent the controls that you have put in place. not that I would consider using the data illegally for financial reward at this moment, but I am now very aware that it is possible. I think that Lord Puttnam could do with some more information regarding the possible pitfalls, especially with using the iPlayer. In my experience, as soon as you release the data, whether it be on iPlayer with DRM or not, one has to be totally clear about how it may be "abused" and to what extent the BBC will defend such abuse as Devil's advocate, how would the BBC sue me and twenty thousand others publicly on behalf of the Rights Holders and make the case for supporting such a waste of money? I think we are all aware from the RIAA's experience of the limitations of that course, and so perhaps it is right to see the opposing perspective... especially where content that the BBC does own copyright for is concerned. I do think that the positive "social capital" is definitely worth considering. All the best RichE On 4 Feb 2007, at 21:42, Matthew Cashmore wrote: Hi there, Is this not a step in the right direction? http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/ Unfortunately we have to actually make things work, and whilst many of us here at the beeb would love nothing more than to release all of our content, like we've done above, the people who own the rights don't want us to... so we're back to Toms point of having to make a stark choice... release what we can using accepted* DRM, or don't release anything... surely it's better to move things on in 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 to the iPlayer" 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 as you say, a defensive legal willingness to support an old model. Still, I get the feeling that my wish to have access to the BBC archive for free use to remix its content is as yet a dream. :-) All the best RichE On 2 Feb 2007, at 16:49, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi Richard! (I notice you didn't reply to the Backstage mailing list, perhaps in error?) On 02/02/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I totally agree that DRM is not a complete answer, but neither is giving it all away for nothing. Copyright was originally an industrial regulation on printers, and I see no reason why it cannot continue as an industrial regulation. The public now have copying machines. It is impossible to change that fact, and unethical to deny it. Copyright law as it is today is totally broken by this, in as much as it treats the public in an unjust way. But business is adaptable (even if some businesses are not...) and the public is a relatively small market. Let me try and break down "Giving it all away for nothing"... "Giving." If you put up a micropayment (ie, paypal) tip jar and put good copywriters to task on making good 'sales' copy and include those words everywhere they are appropriate, you'll find that people like to give back to things that they appreciate. "it all." Although a poor quality version on YouTube available the day it is finished is good enough for a lot of people,
Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
Hi Matthew, Thanks for the link; I'd never seen the creative archive before, and I agree, it's a step in the right direction, but I'm not a big fan of the licence. For example clause 2.2.7 requires me to attach the creative archive logo to any derivative works and the UK only clause is undesirable, but I think they (and the other constraining clauses in this licence) are necessary for these works until content producers become more enlightened. On 04/02/07, Matthew Cashmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi there, Is this not a step in the right direction? http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/ Unfortunately we have to actually make things work, and whilst many of us here at the beeb would love nothing more than to release all of our content, like we've done above, the people who own the rights don't want us to... so we're back to Toms point of having to make a stark choice... release what we can using accepted* DRM, or don't release anything... surely it's better to move things on in terms of making the content available via the iPlayer, than to not? * By the rights holders. m -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<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 the iPlayer" 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 as you say, a defensive legal willingness to support an old model. Still, I get the feeling that my wish to have access to the BBC archive for free use to remix its content is as yet a dream. :-) All the best RichE On 2 Feb 2007, at 16:49, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi Richard! (I notice you didn't reply to the Backstage mailing list, perhaps in error?) On 02/02/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: I totally agree that DRM is not a complete answer, but neither is giving it all away for nothing. Copyright was originally an industrial regulation on printers, and I see no reason why it cannot continue as an industrial regulation. The public now have copying machines. It is impossible to change that fact, and unethical to deny it. Copyright law as it is today is totally broken by this, in as much as it treats the public in an unjust way. But business is adaptable (even if some businesses are not...) and the public is a relatively small market. Let me try and break down "Giving it all away for nothing"... "Giving." If you put up a micropayment (ie, paypal) tip jar and put good copywriters to task on making good 'sales' copy and include those words everywhere they are appropriate, you'll find that people like to give back to things that they appreciate. "it all." Although a poor quality version on YouTube available the day it is finished is good enough for a lot of people, that is not the whole thing. The thing is spread out across time and space. Physical containers of the work - collectors editions and top packaging/mechandise - are still worth paying for. I have never bought a DVD for myself, because I've only ever downloaded films, but I've bought a load as presents for other people. A burnt off CD doesn't quite do the same trick :-) "away." It is true that you don't have as much control as you used to, and that the public will inevitably end up remixing what you did with something else, and maybe even making some money off all the ads on their webpage when their remix becomes popular. You're never going to see any of that cash, but, as an industrial regulation, copyright can still work. An Ad agency, for example, won't be able to get away with using your work like that, without getting a copyright license. "for nothing." Don't confuse no money with no thing. What you get by allowing people to fileshare is 'mindshare' or 'social capital.' Ask PR companies about how valuable that can be. I think that all paid knowledge work will become custom work, paid for because someone wants something done for them for another purpose. Ie, moving from a profit center in its own industry to a
RE: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
Hi there, Is this not a step in the right direction? http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/ Unfortunately we have to actually make things work, and whilst many of us here at the beeb would love nothing more than to release all of our content, like we've done above, the people who own the rights don't want us to... so we're back to Toms point of having to make a stark choice... release what we can using accepted* DRM, or don't release anything... surely it's better to move things on in 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 to the iPlayer" 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 as you say, a defensive legal willingness to support an old model. Still, I get the feeling that my wish to have access to the BBC archive for free use to remix its content is as yet a dream. :-) All the best RichE On 2 Feb 2007, at 16:49, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi Richard! (I notice you didn't reply to the Backstage mailing list, perhaps in error?) On 02/02/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I totally agree that DRM is not a complete answer, but neither is giving it all away for nothing. Copyright was originally an industrial regulation on printers, and I see no reason why it cannot continue as an industrial regulation. The public now have copying machines. It is impossible to change that fact, and unethical to deny it. Copyright law as it is today is totally broken by this, in as much as it treats the public in an unjust way. But business is adaptable (even if some businesses are not...) and the public is a relatively small market. Let me try and break down "Giving it all away for nothing"... "Giving." If you put up a micropayment (ie, paypal) tip jar and put good copywriters to task on making good 'sales' copy and include those words everywhere they are appropriate, you'll find that people like to give back to things that they appreciate. "it all." Although a poor quality version on YouTube available the day it is finished is good enough for a lot of people, that is not the whole thing. The thing is spread out across time and space. Physical containers of the work - collectors editions and top packaging/mechandise - are still worth paying for. I have never bought a DVD for myself, because I've only ever downloaded films, but I've bought a load as presents for other people. A burnt off CD doesn't quite do the same trick :-) "away." It is true that you don't have as much control as you used to, and that the public will inevitably end up remixing what you did with something else, and maybe even making some money off all the ads on their webpage when their remix becomes popular. You're never going to see any of that cash, but, as an industrial regulation, copyright can still work. An Ad agency, for example, won't be able to get away with using your work like that, without getting a copyright license. "for nothing." Don't confuse no money with no thing. What you get by allowing people to fileshare is 'mindshare' or 'social capital.' Ask PR companies about how valuable that can be. I think that all paid knowledge work will become custom work, paid for because someone wants something done for them for another purpose. Ie, moving from a profit center in its own industry to a cost center of another industry. This is fuelled mainly by the falling costs not only of the costs of distribution, but of production. Everyone becomes a producer of all every kind of information once the tools and time to know the tools become cheaply/widely available enough. -- 8< -- 1. Playing live. You can never replicate a live show so this is great for fans, artists and managers. At a certain point you can make a fortune. Major record companies are now trying to get a piece of bands' live incomes as they realise they are on the wrong hobby horse. 2. Merchandise. If it's good it will sell. 3. Synchs. You get paid loads f
Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 to see why anyone believes that DRM is needed on BBC products. So far I have seen no clear reason whatsoever, apart from as you say, a defensive legal willingness to support an old model. The BBC doesn't really hold the rights to most of the shows it airs, and the defensive legal willingness is not really the BBC, but the proprietors who really hold the rights to "the BBC's" shows. Still, I get the feeling that my wish to have access to the BBC archive for free use to remix its content is as yet a dream. :-) Maybe one day; the biggest issue is convincing people that the 'non-commercial use only' terms popularised by Creative Commons are not good... -- 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 as you say, a defensive legal willingness to support an old model. Still, I get the feeling that my wish to have access to the BBC archive for free use to remix its content is as yet a dream. :-) All the best RichE On 2 Feb 2007, at 16:49, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi Richard! (I notice you didn't reply to the Backstage mailing list, perhaps in error?) On 02/02/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I totally agree that DRM is not a complete answer, but neither is giving it all away for nothing. Copyright was originally an industrial regulation on printers, and I see no reason why it cannot continue as an industrial regulation. The public now have copying machines. It is impossible to change that fact, and unethical to deny it. Copyright law as it is today is totally broken by this, in as much as it treats the public in an unjust way. But business is adaptable (even if some businesses are not...) and the public is a relatively small market. Let me try and break down "Giving it all away for nothing"... "Giving." If you put up a micropayment (ie, paypal) tip jar and put good copywriters to task on making good 'sales' copy and include those words everywhere they are appropriate, you'll find that people like to give back to things that they appreciate. "it all." Although a poor quality version on YouTube available the day it is finished is good enough for a lot of people, that is not the whole thing. The thing is spread out across time and space. Physical containers of the work - collectors editions and top packaging/mechandise - are still worth paying for. I have never bought a DVD for myself, because I've only ever downloaded films, but I've bought a load as presents for other people. A burnt off CD doesn't quite do the same trick :-) "away." It is true that you don't have as much control as you used to, and that the public will inevitably end up remixing what you did with something else, and maybe even making some money off all the ads on their webpage when their remix becomes popular. You're never going to see any of that cash, but, as an industrial regulation, copyright can still work. An Ad agency, for example, won't be able to get away with using your work like that, without getting a copyright license. "for nothing." Don't confuse no money with no thing. What you get by allowing people to fileshare is 'mindshare' or 'social capital.' Ask PR companies about how valuable that can be. I think that all paid knowledge work will become custom work, paid for because someone wants something done for them for another purpose. Ie, moving from a profit center in its own industry to a cost center of another industry. This is fuelled mainly by the falling costs not only of the costs of distribution, but of production. Everyone becomes a producer of all every kind of information once the tools and time to know the tools become cheaply/widely available enough. -- 8< -- 1. Playing live. You can never replicate a live show so this is great for fans, artists and managers. At a certain point you can make a fortune. Major record companies are now trying to get a piece of bands' live incomes as they realise they are on the wrong hobby horse. 2. Merchandise. If it's good it will sell. 3. Synchs. You get paid loads for putting your music on adverts and films. 4. A record deal. You still need one but it's an engine room for the rest of the business. -- 8< -- - http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/01/ if_you_want_to_get_ahead_get_a.html Perhaps I can make money selling bikes. Depends how good your chinese is... :-) Selling non-technologisable consumables like freshly prepared food is probably your best bet :-) If, in 20 years time, there is not enough money to be made in 'content creation,' because the price of production and distribution have fallen so far that everyone is not only famous for 10 minutes but is their own media magnate, then it will be a shame that $100m films are not made any more. Kind of like it is a shame that massive, massive landscape paintings of the countryside are not made any more, because photography killed painting about 100 years ago. People still do business, and we still have Art, and even a few Art Stars still obtaining mega patronage. There will always be plenty of ways to make money. Most people will be helpless to do anything about that, other than > feel bad about themselves for not understanding whats going on and > thinking computers are shit. This happens to most people I know that use Windows, on a regular basis.! :-) This is a real shame - I find work for myself helping people like this discover free software :-) With any popular
Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 make-believe. Not today, not tomorrow. It will never, ever work. Why? At their core, computers store, copy and modify information. You can try to put locks in computers to be less good at doing what they do, but the locks are always breakable. A computer that doesn't store, copy and modify information isn't a computer. Consider a bicycle. A bicycle without wheels is not a bicycle, and a bicycle with wheels but locks on them is, literally, lame. If you bought a bicycle from a vendor who had installed locks on the wheels, and not given you the keys, you would be somewhat agitated. If someone downloads a file from a website, and their computer treacherously deletes that file, they will be somewhat agitated. Most people will be helpless to do anything about that, other than feel bad about themselves for not understanding whats going on and thinking computers are shit. But eventually, someone who is not helpless will become agitated, and they will disable the mechanism. Then they will publish how to disable it, and then everyone who wants to, will. The law is such that you may, perhaps, on the off-chance, and after the fact, be able to sue or have arrested some individuals. But you won't stop us all. A current example is the DRM system in Blu-Ray and HD-DVD - famously disabled this month. Will your shareholders be happy for your company to waste your money on such a wild goose chase? :-) More in-depth explanations of how all this works - given to Microsoft and HP - are at http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt and http://www.craphound.com/hpdrm.txt -- 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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: 268.17.17/661 - Release Date: 30/01/2007 23:30 - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 a manner to secure the rights for the artists involved. As ever, that is truly complicated. Technically speaking, I wonder whether others have thought about self destructive files? If a producer is willing to give away his work completely for free for example, thereby losing his/her rights of distribution through the internet, could one of the best "DRM" type features be that the file itself will disappear from the users desktop/hard-drive at some pre-programmed date? I know this is similar to the BBC's 7 day restriction, but if the file actually deleted itself then the "value" would appear in people returning to the same web-site to download new copies, without restrictions of where they could be played. In this case the user/ customer would actually be engaged without having to make any effort to sort their own digital data, which may lead to far less copying. Obviously people could still make their own physical copies, but I think most would agree that the vast majority would not, ie... how many here know of anyone that makes DVD's of You-tube content? I will be very interested if such a management system already exists. All the best RichE On 1 Feb 2007, at 09:19, Andrew Bowden 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. 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 record as saying that the platform needs DRM to survive, others are vehamontly opposed to it on idiological groups. Linus has of course, said his thing. However as no one is really producing DRM'd content on a large scale (that I'm aware of) it's very hard to know what the balance of views is. It's actually going to need someone to start doing it, before we see how the community reacts in practise. Seeing it in use will be, IMHO, a far more interesting test! - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
> 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 record as saying that the platform needs DRM to survive, others are vehamontly opposed to it on idiological groups. Linus has of course, said his thing. However as no one is really producing DRM'd content on a large scale (that I'm aware of) it's very hard to know what the balance of views is. It's actually going to need someone to start doing it, before we see how the community reacts in practise. Seeing it in use will be, IMHO, a far more interesting test! - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 slashdot headline already: "BBC proposing DRM for Linux" Thankfully, decisions in or outside the BBC are rarely based on /. headlines. When you say 'DRM for Linux', I doubt you mean 'DRM for the Linux kernel' I'm guessing you mean DRM for files to be played back in media players which can run on GNU/ Linux systems Amongst others, the fluendo hackers have been working on some DRM support within gstreamer - which could well find themselves in major distros. https://core.fluendo.com/gstreamer/svn/trunk/gst-fluendo-drm/ and http://blogs.gnome.org/view/uraeus/2005/12/03/0 I'm no fan of DRM at all - but to base decisions on whether to provide a codec on whether (GNU/) Linux systems 'shouldn't' have access to DRMd files might well be rather short sighted - Windows users don't deserve 'less' 'restricted' files than free software users. If it was up to the BBC, I'm guessing all BBC-originated files would be available under a DFSG/ CC approved licence. It isn't just up the the BBC, as recent announcements seem to have made clear. George (disclaimer - I work for the BBC) - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
"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 the iPlayer DRM has anything to do with the Beebs deal with Microsoft: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/539.stm ? I hope it doesn't, but does it?
Re: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
"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 HD-DVD or Blu-Ray DRM protection, which combined probably had hundreds of millions spent on their development, and have already both been cracked? 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"
RE: [backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
Read the press release, penguinista! :) "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..." http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press-releases/31-01-2007.html -Original Message- 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 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 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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.e. it reinforces an interesting market opportunity; hopefully public service broadcasters, their governing bodies and regulators in other parts of the world will take notice and add their weight - if they are not already acting along similar lines); or for the BBC to form partnerships with third parties that would achieve platform agnostic coverage; and, possibly, for the BBC (Kingswood?) to come up with its own fiendish wheeze(s). To quote Mao Tse Tung: let a thousand flowers bloom. - Colin Colin Moorcraft, onTV Europe Ltd. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://onTV.eu.com mobile: +44-(0)7766 333067 On 31 Jan 2007, at 16:04, Andrew Bowden wrote: "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 other technology, for example Apple Macs, to access the service." Which I mightily suspect is a paragraph a lot easier to write in a report than to put into action in a way that represents value-for-money versus reach. It's an interesting one - before I looked at the Trust press release, I just read that as "persuade Apple to add in extra functionality to their DRM policy". However looking at the Trust press release, it says... "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." Which is an even more interesting statement IMHO! The bizarre bit to me seems to be: "BBC management's request for the iPlayer to have a feature enabling users to bookmark a show for download ahead of transmission was also rejected by the Trust." Actually, looking at the release again... "Though advertised in early promotional material, the BBC's proposition submitted to the Trust did not seek approval for a 'bookmark' feature, which would enable users to 'bookmark' a programme in advance of transmission. The Trust's approval of the proposals would not cover such a feature." I presume that's a "Don't ask, don't get"! Actually the one I'm interested in is the syndication to third parties... "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 other action is necessary." Now I can see that as a cable/IPTV thing - if NTL/Telewest get it, why not BT Vision etc. Online that could be more interesting. Would 4od be a significant player for example? Interesting one... Are they saying that if I can't book something in advance from the BBC, I'm more likely to completely forget about it and rent a DVD at a later date or pay for something from C4 instead.. You mean that's not how you'd behave? :) - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
> "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 other technology, for example Apple Macs, to > access the service." > Which I mightily suspect is a paragraph a lot easier to write > in a report than to put into action in a way that represents > value-for-money versus reach. It's an interesting one - before I looked at the Trust press release, I just read that as "persuade Apple to add in extra functionality to their DRM policy". However looking at the Trust press release, it says... "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." Which is an even more interesting statement IMHO! > The bizarre bit to me seems to be: > "BBC management's request for the iPlayer to have a feature > enabling users to bookmark a show for download ahead of > transmission was also rejected by the Trust." Actually, looking at the release again... "Though advertised in early promotional material, the BBC's proposition submitted to the Trust did not seek approval for a 'bookmark' feature, which would enable users to 'bookmark' a programme in advance of transmission. The Trust's approval of the proposals would not cover such a feature." I presume that's a "Don't ask, don't get"! Actually the one I'm interested in is the syndication to third parties... "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 other action is necessary." Now I can see that as a cable/IPTV thing - if NTL/Telewest get it, why not BT Vision etc. Online that could be more interesting. Would 4od be a significant player for example? Interesting one... > Are they saying that if I can't book something in advance > from the BBC, I'm more likely to completely forget about it > and rent a DVD at a later date or pay for something from C4 > instead.. You mean that's not how you'd behave? :) - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
"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 other technology, for example Apple Macs, to access the service." Which I mightily suspect is a paragraph a lot easier to write in a report than to put into action in a way that represents value-for-money versus reach. The bizarre bit to me seems to be: "BBC management's request for the iPlayer to have a feature enabling users to bookmark a show for download ahead of transmission was also rejected by the Trust." Are they saying that if I can't book something in advance from the BBC, I'm more likely to completely forget about it and rent a DVD at a later date or pay for something from C4 instead.. all the best martin - 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] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 ...including this paragraph: *Platform-agnostic approach:* As proposed, the TV catch-up service on the internet relies on Microsoft technology for the digital rights management (DRM) framework. 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. ...now, that's definitely good news (whatever the definition of "reasonable timeframe") -- http://james.cridland.net/
[backstage] "platform-agnostic approach to the iPlayer"
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 for the iPlayer by the Trust as part of its public value test include limiting the storage window for seven-day TV catch-up of TV shows over the internet to 30 days, rather than the 13 weeks proposed by the corporation's executive. The Trust has also agreed with Ofcom about the need for a tighter definition of what series would be offered for series 'stacking' and ruled that it will only be available for specific types of programmes. Only programmes with "a distinct run, with a beginning and end" such as Bleak House, Doctor Who and Strictly Come Dancing would be included while Eastenders, Top Gear and Blue Peter would be excluded. The Trust said the public value of allowing access to free content needed to be balanced against value of the BBC's secondary rights and potential for negative market impact. 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 other technology, for example Apple Macs, to access the service. The BBC Trust will also develop a policy for syndicating BBC content to other internet operators such as Google. The Trust has ruled that third-party content will not be made available through the iPlayer because of fears it could increase the negative market impact of the BBC's proposals. BBC Trustee and chair of the public value test steering group Diane Coyle said: "The BBC Trust has a duty to ensure the public receives value in return for paying the licence fee. Our view is that the BBC's new on-demand services are likely to deliver significant public value, and should be allowed to proceed, but subject to certain conditions in order to reduce the potential negative market impact. "In representing the public interest, the Trust's duty includes ensuring that the BBC does not adversely affect the market by reducing choice for licence fee payers. In reaching our decision, the Trust has therefore taken account of both the potential public value added and the potential negative market impact. We concluded that a number of modifications to the BBC's proposals are necessary to deliver the greatest value to the public." The Trust is now undergoing a period of consultation on its proposals and will reach a final decision by the beginning of May. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.17/661 - Release Date: 30/01/2007 23:30 - 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/
