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 fully obvious to the general
> > tech-using population. Something like Sky requiring HDCP-compliant
> > HDTVs for their SkyHD receives,
>
> I'd say "You can download BBC shows from the internet to watch them
> later. But after 7 days, BBC will force your computer to delete your
> shows. Is that good or bad?" was pretty clear :-)
It's a good thing for me, its better than what I and many people have
currently.
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.
Freedom to decide how much later you want to watch something is a
pretty basic freedom, that a lot of people value. Many people may not
appreciate this freedom, because they haven't experienced it before,
and won't know what they are missing.
But taking advantage of them is nasty. Its shameful that the BBC is doing that.
You seem like the kind of person who stands for free speech, free
elections and a free and democratic society. I'd be very surprised if
you were in favor of restricting the free speech of BBC journalists
because companies they were reporting about would lose potential
revenue.
Freedom for everyone is more important than profit for a few people. I
think that's where these allegations that the BBC is corrupt come from
- a common reason that our freedom is trampled is because it has been
sold for profit.
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
