Cheers, well, in an optimistic moment the BBC will play an important role in pushing some boundaries in the UK at least. In the past they have stuck their toe in the water with things like letting VJs remix & use some of their archive clips for non-commercial purposes (although it with their own license which was inspired by creative commons but more restrictive in various ways, eg UK people only).
There will be people within the organisation and externally who want to go much further than they willr ealistically be able to do. If the economic & political climate was different, if we were not in the middle of a 'the market is god' phase of political belief, various commercial effects any move the BBC makes may be less powerful factors in the decision than other stuff such as public interest etc. I really cannot make any predictions about how fast the pace of change will be, I clearly dont expect all that much, some real progress but some very real hardles that wont be jumped in a hurry. Its possible the 'dvd sales' factor may diminish in the future - its not impossible that replacing some physical goods, and the need to transport them using oil, with digital goods, is a small but significant enabler for various nations plans to reduce oil consumption by tens of percent in the next decade or so. So I think we'll see plenty of encouragement with the whole video downloading thing, but possibly as a result of this becoming the main revenue stream rather than DVD etc, an even greater emphasis on DRM. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "the industry that currently produces it will collapse over time with > much of the rest of our modern economy & society." thanks for that > cheery thought :-) Thanks for the link, too - I hadn't seen that > story today. > > It's talking about the iPlayer, which is for all recent (last 7 days) > content, and I can definitely see the competitive element of that, > and also the need for the BBC to make some kind of revenue return on > new shows - after all, you're right, it's not pure public domain > stuff. but it's just wrong that they seem to be taking the same > attitude towards their archive - decades of basically non-competitive > material. as it gets older, it *should* become public domain. we > don't 'contribute to' production costs - together, we totally fund > everything they do - we are investors in the finished product, and > part owners of it. If they opened up the archive, it would be an > argument *for* the licence fee and the BBC. > > You say you can't expect this to change in isolation... but can you > see any real way that motivated people could influence the decisions > of large public bodies, which doesn't involve the end of everything > else? In an optimistic moment? > > > On 24 Jan 2007, at 20:12, Steve Watkins wrote: > > 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" <david@> 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. > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
