And overnight we got Boingboing'ed -
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/12/bbc_techies_talk_drm.html
Off the bat, I would say Cory has taken some of the simple stuff and ran
with it... The debate was a lot more complex that suggested in BoingBoing
Cheers,
Ian
-
Sent via the
Imagine if your local library imposed DRM on the books it lent you,
you'd only be able to read them in certain places with certain light
sources. Why do you accept unreasonable restrictions (even paying for
the privilege) on music that you'd never except with the written
word?
Well
Hello
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6353889.stm
DRM software like Apple's Fairplay or Microsoft's Windows Media DRM
should properly be called digital restriction management, since its primary
goal is to limit what purchasers can do with downloaded content. (from
Bill Thompson)
Isn't
(Yep - the BBC doesn't even own the Daleks...)
The BBC owns *half* the daleks - specifically, the look and visual identity.
The estate of Terry Nation owns their behaviour.
So - if you want to use a picture of a dalek, you approach the BBC. If you want
said dalek to move around shouting
On 13/02/07, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Yep - the BBC doesn't even own the Daleks...)
The BBC owns *half* the daleks - specifically, the look and visual
identity. The estate of Terry Nation owns their behaviour.
So - if you want to use a picture of a dalek, you approach the
On 13/02/07, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Yep - the BBC doesn't even own the Daleks...)
The BBC owns *half* the daleks - specifically, the look and
visual identity. The estate of Terry Nation owns their behaviour.
So - if you want to use a picture of a dalek, you approach the
BBC.
On 13/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rubbish, the BBC could have had their cake and eaten it just
by threatening to tell the content providers to shove off. The rights
holders want their material on the BBC, probably more than the BBC
wants any particular piece
Haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but will do. Does that mean
we don't have to carry on the debate here anymore ;-)
cheers,
martin
--
Martin Belam - http://www.currybet.net
On 13/02/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I'd just like to say thanks to everyone who
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Tom Loosemore wrote:
we had a good long look at ways of working together, but sadly we
don't own our own bandwidth following the sale of BBC Technology to
Siemans a couple of years ago.
Does the BBC actually own _anything_ these days? :-) :-) :-)
-
Sent via the
On 08/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/02/07, Dave Crossland wrote:
On 08/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deterring the general public from blatant file-sharing.
It fails at this purpose.
I disagree. It fails at preventing all of the public from sharing
My understanding is that
- the writer writes the script, which is subject to the usual literary
copyright rules
- the contract writers are employed under is some kind of a
license-to-perform-and-broadcast rather than a complete buyout of everything,
to give them long term creative control and
On 09/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
its deemed 'good enough' for the general public (the vast, vast
majority of which just want to watch Eastenders/Dragons
Den/whatever the next day).
The vast, vast majority of the general public have no problems
using the regular
Just finished listening to it, well worth my time; thanks for the good job,
and it seems that the BBC now finally has some fully free content (even if
it's only one podcastl; what makes a downloadable audio file into a podcast
anyway??) that's available under a recognised copyleft licence. The
I have managed to listen to the first minutes and then the stream
stops. can anyone share the mp3 with me? :-)
RichE
On 13 Feb 2007, at 11:53, Martin Belam wrote:
Haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but will do. Does that mean
we don't have to carry on the debate here anymore ;-)
On 09/02/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The purpose of being good enough to satisfy the people that
own the rights to the content - and therefore being able to
release the content in this manner.
You implicitly elevate the people that own the rights to the content
above the
Oooops sorry all, just realised that the ogg file just had a POSIX
error, connection reset by peer. now I am back up and running
thankfully VLC plays Ogg, as I have just found for the first time.:-)
RichE
On 13 Feb 2007, at 12:30, J.P.Knight wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Tom
On 13/02/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have managed to listen to the first minutes and then the stream
stops. can anyone share the mp3 with me? :-)
RichE
There are links to download it at the bottom of the blog post:
vijay chopra wrote:
(even if it's only one podcastl; what makes a downloadable audio file
into a podcast anyway??)
If this is going to be a (semi-)regular occurrence, could we get a real RSS feed
for it?
Cheers,
David
--
David McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Computing, Imperial
Sharing is good for society, but only when sharing things you have
permission to.
It is true that breaking agreements is not good.
However, all iPod owners intuitively understand that agreements not to
share are more bad than the act of breaking them, and is thus
justified on a 'lesser of
This is all my personal opinion.
User experience is inextricably linked to the technology choice.
By making a technology choice (XHTML 1.0/HTML 4.01/DRM/No DRM/WMP/Real/Ogg) you
are enevitably going to piss off some people. There is no solution to which
there is no potential criticism
On 13/02/07, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My understanding is that
Thanks for taking the time to explain :-)
- the writer writes the script, which is subject to the usual literary
copyright rules
- the contract writers are employed under is some kind of a
On 13/02/07, David McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is going to be a (semi-)regular occurrence, could we get a real RSS feed
for it?
Yes, I'd be in favour of that.
I also note that its been published in the free software, open
standard, cross platform ogg vorbis format as well as
On 13/02/07, David McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vijay chopra wrote:
(even if it's only one podcastl; what makes a downloadable audio file
into a podcast anyway??)
If this is going to be a (semi-)regular occurrence, could we get a real
RSS feed
for it?
Cheers,
David
I agree. I spent
If the ONLY distribution channel open to artists/record labels was a libre
channel sans DRM, would the artists/record labels (etc) stop producing and
distributing? I think not. They will still make more money out of such libre
publishing than they would:
(1) if they didnt publish at all
(2)
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=121866page=6
Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.37/682 - Release Date: 12/02/2007
13:23
-
Sent via the
On 13/02/07, John Wesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. I spent a good few minutes looking for an RSS feed with the
podcast in it (there are loads of RSS feeds on the site) before just giving
up and grabbing the ogg.
The MSM (including the BBC) is guilty of doing this all the time,
On 13/02/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your argument is that all music should be utterly free. Which, while
a nice idea in Davetopia, or wherever you live, is completely
unworkable.
I suspect that he would like all music to be free (libre), not free
(gratis), and why would
Yep, just saw the news on /. : HD-DVD and Blu-Ray Protections Fully Broken
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/1724238 , so how much is the
Beeb going to put into DRM, more than Sony and Toshiba etc.
On 13/02/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
28 matches
Mail list logo
