On 6/15/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I still don't see how having DRM'd content free (of charge) over the internet from the BBC is worse than having no content from the BBC over the internet.
It's not worse, but it's not much better. The BBC charter is not to do a little bit better than it did before, but to give the best value it possibly can. It's not doing the best it can, and this isn't good enough.
Obviously DRM free content is even better, but it's not feasible right now.
It is feasible right now, for some content, if not all. The sentiment here seems to be that no one likes DRM, no one wants DRM, and no one believes it works, but a) the "rights holders" need to be lied to and b) they hold all the cards. I don't think this is the case, but even so, what's being done to fix this? Some DRM-free content available is better than no DRM-free content. The more DRM-free content which is widely available, the more pressure it puts on those who would use DRM, not to. The BBC has many thousands of hours of programming which it holds sufficient rights to enable it to published on the Internet, DRM-free. If DRM is so distasteful, then why isn't this being done? Surely the BBC should be taking steps to move towards a DRM-free world, if that's what it believes in, which is what has been reported here. It needn't cost any money, and we could start really simple: all local news casts, all weather reports, all House of Commons footage -- dump it to the Internet Archive and Google and anyone else who will take it. Just get it out there. - 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/
