Funny that the BBC is mentioned. Like any large institution they have a certain amount of power, but this is counteracted somewhat by so many people being interested in influencing what they do with their mammoth size.
Just today I saw this story about how Ofcom (the UK regulator) is telling the BBC off for some of its planned Video Download services - Ofcom want it to be even more restrictive, so that it doesnt unfairly harm the commercial competitors to the BBC, and so that it doesnt impact too much on things like DVD sales. So they are advising the BBC to make the content timeout and dissapear from users computers even more quickly than the BBC had planned. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6290745.stm As a BBC license fee payer, I am resigned to the fact that just beccause we pay for it, doesnt currently give us entitlement to use all BBC footage however we like. We contribute to production costs, and we get to watch their stuff, and technically the right to keep it for a certain period of time. If we want to have permanent access to it, we have to buy the DVD. I would like this to change but I cant expect it to happen in isolation, the argument about it harming commercial rivals will carry weight with those who get the power to make these decisions. And if it were freely available worldwide, the argument about us paying license fee to subsidise the rest of the world would arise. We shpould also be aware that current BBC footage isnt really akin to stuff that in the public domain. Its fine to make an argument that it should be, but as things stand right now the stuff about google DRMing public domain stuff is not directly comparable with commercial or nation-owned companies DRMing their copyrighted content. Personally as someone who is not an optimist about things in the medium term, I expect injustices like this stuff to become inconsequentioal compared to the horrors ahead. I think its more likely that 'media will become free' because the industry that currently produces it will collapse over time with much of the rest of our modern economy & society, rather than as a result to some new enlightened approach to our very ideas about 'owning' creative content. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As good as its programming can be I've heard the BBC referred to as > the "Big Bully on Campus." > > > > We are about to face a similar problem in the UK. The BBC are > > putting their massive archive online, and they are obsessed with > DRM. > > In the UK, everyone with a TV pays a $200+ license fee (tax) each > > year to fund the BBC. It has no commercials or sponsors. It's > OURS. > > > > The BBC website is beautiful, but the BBC is a massive > bureaucratic, > > old-media beast and its management are locked in an outmoded > mindset, > > and are choosing their technology based on this. They have > rejected > > Quicktime and Flash as formats because they have been told that > they > > don't have adequate DRM or quality - I suspect that they have been > > sold a line by Microsoft. They have been ramping up their rights > > clauses in their contracts with independent producers, being very > > hardline about negotiation on this, and are terrified of being > > accused of 'giving away' content paid for by taxpayers without > > getting adequate return. This was a massive opportunity for them > and > > for all of us, and it looks like they're going to blow it. And > they > > are very poorly advised. And all of us have to sit back and watch.
