Perhaps backstage.bbc.co.uk could have the streams for the
purposes of a technical trial too?
There's already been a technical trial with live streaming of BBC
channels - the Multicast trial
http://www.bbc.co.uk/multicast/
Can't have two trials doing pretty much the same thing. Would make a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Bowyer
Sent: 31 March 2007 19:38
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Browser Stats
On 31/03/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31/03/07, Peter Bowyer
Just to keep Auntie on her toes, another company that is a TLA has decided
to not bother with wasteful DRM:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2048195,00.html?gusrc=rssfeed
=4
'In a major change of policy for a record label, EMI is expected to announce
later today that it will begin
It's certainly doesn't work as an argument against
misrepresenting statistics, but as they only person I know
who did double-maths-with-statistics for A-level, I guess I
am uniquely injured!
It takes a certain kind of sadist to do that. It takes another to then
take it to university
Return Receipt
Your RE: [backstage] Browser Stats
document:
:-)
As here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6516189.stm
For sure the vote will be said to not reflect public opinion, but 86%
saying there should be less DRM is quite a statistical majority.
I'm over the moon that higher quality is one of the future
intentions, I am tired of
On 02/04/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to keep Auntie on her toes, another company that is a TLA has decided
to not bother with wasteful DRM:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2048195,00.html?gusrc=rssfeed
=4
Or the BBC article on the matter (which doesn't
The DRM free songs are going to be more expensive I notice
$1.29 a song as opposed to 99c.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy
Sent: 02 April 2007 14:27
To:
I'd imagine at the quantities that Apple buy bandwidth, the extra cost
of delivering the larger file will be negligibly more. Therefore what is
this price increase paying for? Potential lost revenue when more people
put the unDRMed file on the torrents perhaps?
J
-Original Message-
Haven't seen any comments on
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Free-TV-listings/
here yet. I don't suppose anything will come of it but it would be nice
for people like http://bleb.org/tv/
Simon.
--
-+// What's an elephant? A kind of badger, said Granny. She\\+-
-+hadn't maintained
Just to keep Auntie on her toes, another company has
decided to not bother with wasteful DRM:
Video content has developed pretty differently from music ... I
wouldn't hold the two in parallel right now, [Steve Jobs] said.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2048507,00.html
-
Got to say I'd personally be happy paying up to $3 a song if it was DRM
free and recorded at a high bit rate.
Cheers
Ian
Jeremy Stone wrote:
The DRM free songs are going to be more expensive I notice
$1.29 a song as opposed to 99c.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html
You'd pay $30 and up for an album on CD? Are you mad?
I suppose you do get a convenient hard copy backup too...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Mr I Forrester
Sent: Mon 02/04/2007 18:53
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'
On 02/04/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd imagine at the quantities that Apple buy bandwidth, the extra cost
of delivering the larger file will be negligibly more. Therefore what is
this price increase paying for? Potential lost revenue when more people
put the unDRMed file on
The increased price is paying for the perceived increase in risk to the
copyright holder and to ensure that there's a choice which could
potentially prove the demand for non DRM music is low (statistically).
IMHO.
Phil.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
15 matches
Mail list logo
