Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

If the shows were not distributed at all, that would be better than distributing them with DRM, because the BBC would not be participating in attacking the public's freedoms. Congratulations. You've just won the award for the most ridiculous statement ever made on this mailing list, and simul

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 15/06/07, Jeremy Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How about a letter supporting the efforts of the BBC to educate > > rights holders about the future of media? > Is there any evidence that there _are_ any such efforts that we can > support? I'd also point to the pioneering work of my ra

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Hi Jason! On 15/06/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I really don't want to get back into this :-) I think this is important, and I hope you do too. So thanks for contributing to the debate :-) DRM is wrong. Pretty much anything that stops the free flow of information and idea

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 19/06/07, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: vijay chopra wrote: > On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > I totally agree, however seeing as I have no intention of breaking the > spirit of the law (I may be breaching a technicality) I ha

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 19/06/07, Andy Leighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 07:31:03PM +0100, vijay chopra wrote: > On 19/06/07, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >vijay chopra wrote: > >> On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > wrote: >

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Whereas I had the advantage there, because all I had to do was dive into C:\iPlayer Content ;) nowt wrong with oldskool! :D _ From: Brian Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 June 2007 22:18 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info Sorry

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 19/06/07, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Backstage is intended, I thought, to be a list for technical discussion of stuff from the BBC you can use for building things. (ie stuff you can take and build things with, rather than things you can't) It's not really the place (IMO) to ask

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

15:43 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk *Subject:* Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info<http://www.freethebbc.info/> David, The files transferred using iPlayer are just .AVI wrappers of MPEG-4 type content. The DRM is inside the AVI wrapper, outside of the MPEG-4. On 19/06/07, David Woodhou

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info mailing list offer

I can do [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a mailing list... it's there in 30 minutes if people wish to use it. On 19/06/07, Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd be happy to contribute, and discuss, more about DRM in another place, if you like. RichE On 19 Jun 2007, at 17:04, Nic James Ferrier

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 07:31:03PM +0100, vijay chopra wrote: > On 19/06/07, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >vijay chopra wrote: > >> On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > wrote: > >> legal ways. The only thing I have downloaded unlawfull

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 19:31, vijay chopra wrote: > And as such I' seeking clarity > on exactly what's legal, and what's not regarding the copyright of numbers. You need to speak to a lawyer then. And for what its worth, I believe the issue is not related to copyright - I've not really looked in

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 19/06/07, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: vijay chopra wrote: > On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > I totally agree, however seeing as I have no intention of breaking the > spirit of the law (I may be breaching a technicality) I ha

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info mailing list offer

I'd be happy to contribute, and discuss, more about DRM in another place, if you like. RichE On 19 Jun 2007, at 17:04, Nic James Ferrier wrote: "Ian Betteridge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Assuming you mean me, replying to other's comments is hardly hijacking. I don't mean you (unless you

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info mailing list offer

"Gary Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You mean Ian Forrester? I meant that backstage is Ian Forrester's list, yes. He runs it. I'm not trying to say anything other than "there's a lot of talk about this and maybe it's time it had a separate discussion place and I'm willing to spend my money

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

2007 15:43 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info David, The files transferred using iPlayer are just .AVI wrappers of MPEG-4 type content. The DRM is inside the AVI wrapper, outside of the MPEG-4. On 19/06/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info mailing list offer

You mean Ian Forrester? On 19/06/07, Nic James Ferrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Ian Betteridge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Assuming you mean me, replying to other's comments is hardly > hijacking. I don't mean you (unless you are the owner of www.FreeTheBBC.info). I don't mean to be rud

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info mailing list offer

"Ian Betteridge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Assuming you mean me, replying to other's comments is hardly > hijacking. I don't mean you (unless you are the owner of www.FreeTheBBC.info). I don't mean to be rude either. I simply mean that the discussions about how the BBC should be run are re

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info mailing list offer

Assuming you mean me, replying to other's comments is hardly hijacking. On 19/06/07, Nic James Ferrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd be happy to setup a mailing list for discussion about this. It does seem a little unfair to Ian to habitually hijack his list for dicussion of rights issues. It

[backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info mailing list offer

I'd be happy to setup a mailing list for discussion about this. It does seem a little unfair to Ian to habitually hijack his list for dicussion of rights issues. It it supposed to be a techie list after all. If the owners want to contact me I'll gladly set them up on a list on my list server. -

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 19/06/07, Richard McMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the point is that the DRM screws with what people might *expect* to be able to do with content in certain circumstances. ie I can record it with my PVR - why not with my computer/iplayer combo? Which means that all this talk of

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

I think the point is that the DRM screws with what people might *expect* to be able to do with content in certain circumstances. ie I can record it with my PVR - why not with my computer/iplayer combo? Richard On 19/06/07, Ian Betteridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 19/06/07, David Woodhouse

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

David, The files transferred using iPlayer are just .AVI wrappers of MPEG-4 type content. The DRM is inside the AVI wrapper, outside of the MPEG-4. On 19/06/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 12:50 +0100, David Greaves wrote: > DRM, being technological, can

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 19/06/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From DVB this is nice and easy -- I stream MPEG to a file and she can do what she likes with it. (Well, I then do what she tells me she'd like.) Actually, she can't do what she likes with it: she can do what the law allows her to do wi

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 12:50 +0100, David Greaves wrote: > DRM, being technological, cannot turn a blind eye to the law. The law > is supposed to be a bit fuzzy. DRM doesn't even cope with the clear-cut cases without screwing the consumer over, let alone the 'fuzz'. My partner is a high school te

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 19/06/07, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: vijay chopra wrote: > On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > I totally agree, however seeing as I have no intention of breaking the > spirit of the law (I may be breaching a technicality) I hav

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

vijay chopra wrote: On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: I totally agree, however seeing as I have no intention of breaking the spirit of the law (I may be breaching a technicality) I have no qualms in using any software to break copy protection t

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 08:43 +0100, David Greaves wrote: > Incidentally, who thinks the law should allow protection of this type of > information beyond "trade secret" - if an organisation is dumb enough to > expose > it's PKI keys then they deserve no legal protection. http://www.angryflower.co

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

David Greaves wrote: Sean Dillon wrote: vijay chopra wrote: Besides, if there are meeja prima donnas and wannabe luvvies (on this list or otherwise) that believe that DRM is a long term, workable solution to this "problem", then I couldn't care less if they get their egos bruised a little, an

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 19/06/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 18:41 +0100, vijay chopra wrote: > On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ACSS decryption code? :) > > You mean 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640 ? No, that's just a decrypt

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

David Woodhouse wrote: On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 18:41 +0100, vijay chopra wrote: Sure I will, you can't copyright a number, and I'd like to see anyone try and sue me for posing one. We digress but I'm dubious about that argument. You can represent _anything_ with 'just a number'. I could buy

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 18:41 +0100, vijay chopra wrote: > On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ACSS decryption code? :) > > You mean 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640 ? No, that's just a decryption key. I meant the whole of the software package which d

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

agree with you.) _ From: vijay chopra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 June 2007 18:42 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ACSS decryption code? :)

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ACSS decryption code? :) You mean 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640 ? In english that's; thirteen undecillion, two hundred fifty six decillion, two hundred seventy eight nonillion, eight hundred eighty seven octillion, n

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Sean Dillon wrote: vijay chopra wrote: Besides, if there are meeja prima donnas and wannabe luvvies (on this list or otherwise) that believe that DRM is a long term, workable solution to this "problem", then I couldn't care less if they get their egos bruised a little, and don't see why anyone

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

ED] > Sent: 18 June 2007 13:31 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info > > On 18/06/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Thankfully we don't have an equivilent of the American DCMA so the > > medi

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 18/06/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Will you host the WMV10-reader code on your web server then, alongside CSS and ACSS decryption code? :) Are you aware of the judgment of a Finish court on the matter of DVD CSS? It basically stated the DVD CSS was not an effective technol

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

vijay chopra wrote: Besides, if there are meeja prima donnas and wannabe luvvies (on this list or otherwise) that believe that DRM is a long term, workable solution to this "problem", then I couldn't care less if they get their egos bruised a little, and don't see why anyone else should care ei

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 09:59 +0100, vijay chopra wrote: > You might well be right there, if so it would be unfortunate. However IIRC > not long ago the BPI (the UKs equivilant to the RIAA) promised that it > wouldn'd sue home users making copies for personal use and backup. So even > so home users c

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 18/06/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thankfully we don't have an equivilent of the American DCMA so the media centre hackers have nothing to fear. Sadly we do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Copyright_Directive#Technological_measures -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the bac

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

You might well be right there, if so it would be unfortunate. However IIRC not long ago the BPI (the UKs equivilant to the RIAA) promised that it wouldn'd sue home users making copies for personal use and backup. So even so home users can be more relaxed than in the USA (at least when it comes to

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

I'm also NAL, (and have a terrible memory for these things),but doesn't the EU Copyright Directive include some sort of anti-circumvention language a la DMCA? Cheers, Tim On 6/18/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AFAIK bypassing DRM or other copy protection is perfectly legal in the

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

AFAIK bypassing DRM or other copy protection is perfectly legal in the UK and most of Europe; afterall, in itself it's not a breech of copyright. Thankfully we don't have an equivilent of the American DCMA so the media centre hackers have nothing to fear. (Disclaimer: IANAL) Vijay. On 18/06/0

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:28 +0100, Christopher Woods wrote: > Nah, because the technology-friendly minority of the world's population will > figure out both how to crack the DRM, and how to produce one-click tools > which strip the DRM from crap-ridden files they've downloaded. > > The world rejoi

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Lockwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 17 June 2007 14:23 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info > > You know, I'd guess that people who couldn't pass an ECDL or > CLAIT course would have difficulty working out how to crack &g

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

You know, I'd guess that people who couldn't pass an ECDL or CLAIT course would have difficulty working out how to crack DRM. So, if there are so many people in the country that couldn't pass, maybe DRM's not as useless as we all think when it comes to preventing casual copying (the equivalent of

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 16/06/07, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Saturday 16 June 2007 18:13, vijay chopra wrote: > They don't need to know how a PC works, but I'll bet many couldn't even > pass an ECDL or CLAIT course (reflecting society as a whole); I wouldn't > claim to be able to plan a city withou

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On Saturday 16 June 2007 18:13, vijay chopra wrote: > They don't need to  know how a PC works, but I'll bet  many couldn't even > pass an ECDL or CLAIT course (reflecting society as a whole); I wouldn't > claim to be able to plan a city without some relevant  qualifications. Do we really have to h

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 16/06/07, Ian Betteridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 16/06/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are many media people living in their London-centric bubble (a.k.amedia-land) who as Andy's email said, are totally ignorant of the basics of > modern technology. That isn't an

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 17:45 +0100, Ian Betteridge wrote: > No ad hominem attacks there, then. I could, of course, start talking > about arrogant techies who think they know it all - but I'll refrain. For the record... Ad Hominem (lit. 'against the man'¹) is the logical fallacy where you discount

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

In which case, there's no point in taking this conversation further, for two reasons. First, you're also ethically opposed to the existence of the BBC - an organisation which exists because copyright material exists, I thought the purpose of the BBC was to "inform, educate and entertain". none

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 16/06/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There are many media people living in their London-centric bubble (a.k.amedia-land) who as Andy's email said, are totally ignorant of the basics of modern technology. That isn't an insult, but a fact simply by virtue of the fact that much of

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 16/06/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Many media industry professionals are on record stating their believe that DRM can work to halt unauthorised sharing, Many? Links please.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 16/06/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote So production companies who ask to justify software freedom and file sharing on the basis of how much money it makes are missing the point. We must not restrict sharing because it is unethical. We must not use proprietary software because it

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

There are many media people living in their London-centric bubble (a.k.amedia-land) who as Andy's email said, are totally ignorant of the basics of modern technology. That isn't an insult, but a fact simply by virtue of the fact that much of the general population couldn't tell you how a PC works

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 15/06/07, Ian Betteridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you want to win over content creators *show* them how they can make as much money through sharing as they can make from restricting sharing. This is like arguing that a dictator will start free elections if it can be down the economy wi

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 16/06/07, Kim Plowright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 15/06/07, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It takes people outside the "media-land" as you put it because the > people inside are too ignorant of technology to understand it. Please be aware that your statements in this email can be read

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 16/06/07, Kim Plowright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please be aware that your statements in this email can be read as a fairly comprehensive attempt at personally insulting most of the BBC and ex-BBC people on this list. That was not my intention. I apologise if I have offended you. My aim wa

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 15/06/07, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It takes people outside the "media-land" as you put it because the people inside are too ignorant of technology to understand it. If media people had known even the very basics of how a PC works then we would never have had DRM in the first place.

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 15/06/07, Sean Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian is absolutely correct. It is extremely easy for those outside of media-land to tell us how we should be running our businesses without having walked a few miles in our shoes and being exposed to the whole messy compliancey process. It take

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Ian Betteridge wrote: On 15/06/07, *Stephen Deasey* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: There are two types of programmes: those the BBC owns rights to, and those it doesn't. One argument against releasing BBC owned programmes without DRM on the Internet is that i

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Oh, and at the risk of adding even more - this is all for the UK market. The US market is completely different: there, the cost of launching a national magazine is so high that there's much less competition, and much less competition means more stilted, boring magazines. We're lucky we live in suc

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 15/06/07, Stephen Deasey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There are two types of programmes: those the BBC owns rights to, and those it doesn't. One argument against releasing BBC owned programmes without DRM on the Internet is that it would make it difficult to then also sell it to Fox, for exam

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Kirk Northrop wrote: Dave Crossland wrote: The BBC's sack of money contains 3 billion pounds, which is a of sum of money which can make a lot of things happen. My apologies, it was in fact Stephen Deasey who wrote this. It appears Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 STILL hasn't fixed all the bugs with inbo

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 15/06/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can you provide a reference for this claim? :-) Yep - http://www.ppamarketing.net/cgi-bin/wms.pl/60, plus http://www.ppamarketing.net/cgi-bin/wms.pl/899 if you want more detail. I haven't got detailed figures on how the different sector

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

> > > > Here we go again with the "there are plenty of other ways to make > money" / "loads of other business models" argument. No-one yet has > mentioned one (and that includes that MP3 site that Dave C mentioned Those companies are profitable. Please don't be a snob :-) Really? I'd be inte

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

> There are two types of programmes: those the BBC owns rights > to, and those it doesn't. Depends on which rights your talking about. Music rights, programme format rights, film clip rights, script rights, dramatisation rights... Example 1 - Auf Wiedersehn, Pet. Made by Central Television in

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 14/06/07, Ian Betteridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The market tells me you're wrong: because people still pay for content, a huge amount of it. The people who pay for content production are advertisers. They are becoming more interested in placing ads on digital files than in printed media

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 6/15/07, Kirk Northrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave Crossland wrote: > The BBC's sack of money contains 3 billion pounds, which is a of sum > of money which can make a lot of things happen. It does make lots of things happen. TV, Radio, internet, innforming, educating and entertaining the

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

> > How about a letter supporting the efforts of the BBC to educate > > rights holders about the future of media? >>Is there any evidence that there _are_ any such efforts that we can support? Well backstage is quite a good place to start. Yesterday the Cabinet Officde published a paper; The

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of what the media produces isn’t creative: it is formulaic and componentised in much the same way as any factory that assembles work on a production line. Of course, media production needs to be financed, but it isn’t a scarce resource and it does warrant dispropor

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 15/06/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there any evidence that there _are_ any such efforts that we can support? Surely, if you believe that it matters, you should start this yourself? :)

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 15/06/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I value sharing. I believe sharing is the basis of being be a good friend and a good neighbor. I believe that limiting sharing is a nasty, shameful thing to do. I don't believe that artists and authors will be unable to make a living in a w

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 14/06/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If the media was truly creative, it wouldn't struggle with how to make money > from its work. It is a confusion on the part of the media folk to think that > their work is somehow creative and unique. > Here we go again with the "the

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Hi Jeremy! On 13/06/07, Jeremy Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hang on a minute. Didn't i make a plea yesterday not to resurrect this tired old debate. Thanks for posting these blog comments on this topic - appreciated! This debate is not tired or old, and is going to continue in a public w

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 15/06/07, Kirk Northrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes. BBC Worldwide money will also help pay for it - some productions get extra money from BBC Worldwide too as a sort of advance to make a good show they can flog on DVD. Plus, of course, production costs don't stop the moment that a sh

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Good debate :-) On 13/06/07, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> So where is the balance? > > I believe you're referring to the commonly-held misconception that > there is a "copyright balance." No, not copyright balance. Economic balance. Apologies for misunderstanding you there :-

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Dave Crossland wrote: The BBC's sack of money contains 3 billion pounds, which is a of sum of money which can make a lot of things happen. It does make lots of things happen. TV, Radio, internet, innforming, educating and entertaining the nation. What percentage of the production costs, inc

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 15/06/07, Stephen Deasey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The BBC's sack of money contains 3 billion pounds, which is a of sum of money which can make a lot of things happen. I suggest you go back to Tom L's email. What percentage of the production costs, including the profit margin of the pr

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 15/06/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you don't value a free society, then you might think its a good thing. If you do value your freedom, like most people, then its a bad thing. In what sense is providing a service which was not previously provided and which replaces no

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

ive conflict of interest forms everyone who works here has to fill out. Pretty insulting, and not very funny statement to make. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland Sent: 15 June 2007 12:09 To: backstage@lists.bbc

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 6/15/07, Ian Betteridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: To reiterate: the BBC cannot do free, un-DRM'd downloads unless either it pays them a huge sack of money or people like you and I demonstrate to them that no-DRM doesn't equal no money. The BBC has no magic wand it can wave to make no-DRM hap

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

I just thought I'd say - I'm currently at the iSummit in dubrovnik. There's a lot of interesting conversation going on around these topics - if anyone's interested, info is here http://www.icommons.org/ I'm guessing that session recordings etc will be available later. Will post details if I fin

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 15/06/07, Stephen Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If the BBC were to think more strongly about going down the route of free online downloads of all material, I'm sure that a public consultation, perhaps on a wiki based format may come up with some revenue generating ideas which have not be

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 13/06/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 13/06/07, Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > entirely). And that's why DRM discussion will just go round in circles > > until someone comes along which exhibits a demonstrable downside, > > which is both immediately expla

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 13/06/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 13/06/07, Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > entirely). And that's why DRM discussion will just go round in circles > > until someone comes along which exhibits a demonstrable downside, > > which is both immediately expla

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

> > Pro-am's can do great work (and can > graduate to doing it as professionals), but that's not the same as saying > the man in the street can walk in and be a top photographer, which is what > was stated earlier. It takes a long time to get that good, unless you're > extremely gifted. The rise

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

> If copyright duration was contracting instead of expanding, > I'd be much more favourable to NC terms - but the reality is > that the public domain has got a large gap in it from the > early 1930s until the early 2000s when CC appeared, and a NC > commons is not ideal. No, but is arguable t

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 15/06/07, Ian Betteridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Pro-am's can do great work (and can graduate to doing it as professionals), but that's not the same as saying the man in the street can walk in and be a top photographer, which is what was stated earlier. It takes a long time to get that goo

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Just a small point on the buying out of all the rights. Merely because programmes would be available free would not totally kill off other forms of money raising based on the product. After all, a significant portion of worldwide broadcasters would still be after syndication rights. DVD sales a

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

It's that old plural/possessive or singular/possessive conundrum. Not that copy editing takes any skill, of course, anyone can walk in off the street and do it to professional level without any training ;) On 15/06/07, Matthew Somerville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Christopher Woods wrote: >> W

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 6/15/07, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The licence fee could be one such business model. But the argument is about the balance between investing in linear vs making the most of on demand. It isn't, because the two are not mutually exclusive. The argument that you can't put D

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Christopher Woods wrote: >> Write entertaining copy? Edit other people's copy to a high standard? > > sp - other peoples' copy, not other people's copy. Let's be thankful you're > a layout specialist, not a copy editor! Spelling/grammar nazi insults already? Dear me. "other people's copy" is, of

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 15/06/07, Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm sure a quick Google would explain it in words everybody can understand. All the media industries suffer from an overabundance of buzzwords - I'm working in the music industry myself at the moment (student on placement) and it's amaz

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Tom Loosemore wrote: It's a balance. And we know that balance will shift over time, It certainly is a balance; there's also the balance between Thompson claiming that the BBC is innovative on the one hand, while on the other projects like the iPlayer and Creative Archive are crippled by pressu

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Hi Tom! Thanks for the excellent post, lots to think about :-) On 15/06/07, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: if the BBC were to adopt such a 'buy all rights in perpetuity' model, it would mean making far, far fewer programmes, since each programme would have to cost more (*much* more i

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

> To take my own little "media role" as an example. Do you > think you could flat plan a magazine so it had pace? (For > that matter, do you even know what a flat plan is?) I'm sure a quick Google would explain it in words everybody can understand. All the media industries suffer from an overa

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

> Apparently today's rights-holder production companies believe that > DRMcan stop "the mass market" from sharing works. Probably not; > simplymaking the works "All Rights Reserved" does enough damage to > thepotential for the mass market, by criminalizing businesses that > findways to monetise th

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

Dave Crossland wrote: Obscurity is the biggest problem new businesses face. Popularitydelivers business opportunities. Everything that can be digitised canbe freely shared. The easier it is to share and reuse a work, the morepopular it will be. Restricted works will become less popular thanfre

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn’t say anything about Coronation Street or things being popular being uncreative – I’m saying it doesn't take anything exceptional to produce much of the media content we have today. Most people could step into a media role and produce work that is as good as wh

Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 14/06/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> I didn't say anything about Coronation Street or things being popular being> uncreative – I'm saying it doesn't take anything exceptional to produce much> of the media content we have today Community created drama series shows, which co

  1   2   >