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
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 ideas
On 19/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vijay chopra wrote:
On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[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
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]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
legal ways. The
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
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 decryption
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, and
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.
vijay chopra wrote:
On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[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 to
On 19/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vijay chopra wrote:
On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
really
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 rude
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
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
On 19/06/07, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vijay chopra wrote:
On 19/06/07, *David Woodhouse* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[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
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
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]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
legal ways. The only thing I have downloaded unlawfully is an out of
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
Sorry, I'm a bit oldscool and still think of my wrappers being AVIs - being
a bit Visual Basic 3! I meant WMV.
As the iPlayer downloads the complete file before playback, there is no
requirement to stream.
Conceptually you have a file wrapped up like this:
({ [audio]+[video] ] VCodec }
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 can
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
: 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
media centre hackers have nothing to fear.
Sadly we do:
http
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
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,
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? :)
You mean
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
:[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
DRM. So, if there are so many people in the country
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 rejoices!
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.
snip
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 as a
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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 without
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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 that
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 of
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 explainable and
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 explainable and
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
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
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,
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 :-)
Or
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
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
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
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,
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
[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
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
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
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 interested to
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 sectors
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
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
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
On 12/06/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By definition something that can be infinitely replicated is NOT a
scarce resource.
I'm afraid that's not a tenable argument.
You're thinking of the resource as the bits. In fact, the scarce
resource is the creativity which made the first copy. So
is somehow creative and unique.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ian Betteridge
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:13 PM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 12/06/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL
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 there are plenty of other ways to make
money / loads of other
Lockwood
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:19 PM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
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
business models argument.
Just for the sake of accuracy ... I didn't actually say either of the above.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Lockwood
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:19 PM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage
, then their argument is sunk.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Lockwood
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:41 PM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
Oh. Right. Sorry. wouldn't struggle with how to make money
On 14/06/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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
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 could
[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
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
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 the
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 in
It's a good thing for me, its better than what I and many people have
currently.
J
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland
Sent: 13 June 2007 01:32
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
On 13
Also
Walter Benjamin's 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
An analysis of art in the age of mechanical reproduction
PROTECTED] on behalf of Kim Plowright
Sent: Wed 6/13/2007 11:00 AM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
Also
Walter Benjamin's 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jeremy Stone
Sent: Wed 6/13/2007 11:53 AM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk; backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
Ian Betteridge has critiqued the 5 claims made by http://www.freethebbc.info/ at
http://www.technovia.co.uk/?p=1180
He
Dave Crossland wrote:
So you're saying that _not_ filesharing is betraying friends and
neighbours?
Certainly.
Because it's morally correct to share something that is not diminished
by sharing?
Correct!
So where is the balance?
I believe you're referring to the commonly-held
Too late. :D
_
From: Jeremy Stone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 June 2007 12:19
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk; backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk;
backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
And whilst i'm at it. Martin Belam has also analysed the freebbc
@lists.bbc.co.uk
*Subject:* RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info
And whilst i'm at it. Martin Belam has also analysed the freebbc petition
on currybet.
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/06/free_the_bbc_drm_debate.php
Hang on a minute. Didn't i make a plea yesterday not to resurrect this
tired old debate
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
