On 25/06/07, Graeme Mulvaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If no iPlayer is preferable to a DRM iPlayer then what's the problem, just don't use the thing - nobody is forcing you to do anything.
That, however much it might be your point of view, is not "a choice".
I don't agree with piracy and it annoys the hell out of me when I see entire episodes of BBC programming published on places like YouTube (admittedly in bite-sized 'fair-use' chunks) - I like DRM it helps to stop lazy people from getting 'creative' and using yet another web 2.0 service to 'mash-up' everything in sight, the intention isn't to stop you creating your own original content it's to guarantee a revenue stream for the creative types who originate stuff in the first place.
The BBC should be, in my humble opinion, about creating content for the use of licence fee payers. As long as no payment is received, licence fee payers should be able to watch, listen, store, forward, cut-and-paste and mash up any content that is created in their name and with their cash. It's the only way to have a licence-fee funded BBC in ten years time. If the BBC heads down the subscription model, then that's it for it. It will become just another commercial company.
I want a DRM version of iPlayer now!, not being able to record and 'fairly use' the programming in my mash-ups doesn't bother me at all - if I want to nick an episode of Dr Who or run a laughter track over Newsnight then there are plenty of other places I can look for the content.
The fact that I've got MPEG-2 from DVB-T versions of all the recent Doctor Who on my hard drive is not an argument FOR DRM but against it...
If it works well on Vista or XP then that's great - I'm glad the BBC is focusing on delivering the iPlayer on a computing platform that will reach over 90% of its' target audience, that represents great value for money and most people in the country probably couldn't care less either way.
Not if you have only Macs in your home. Do Mac users qualify some something like a digital "black and white" licence?
This has nothing to do with freedom of choice or public service remit... its just another woe-pen source bandwagon - instead of bickering about the BBC using Microsofts' DRM, get together and come up with a suitable open-alternative - that's why the open source movement started in the first place.
DRM is designed to support a payment model - it is not an sensible solution for a public service broadcaster with a licence fee!
On 6/25/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 25/06/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 25/06/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Could choice in this matter mean that iPlayer is available in one > > > configuration on a TV, and also through a cable set top box? One > product. > > > Choice of methods. > > > > If the iPlayer did that then there would be choice! > > I think its a mistake to concentrate on choice: If that's what is > promoted, then we'll just get a cross platform DRM system, which will > be even worse, because even more people will get their freedom > trampled. > > DRM is not acceptable, and no iPlayer is preferable to a DRM iPlayer > because DRM tramples our freedom. Similarly, a DRM iPlayer only for > Windows is preferable to a cross platform DRM iPlayer because it will > harm less people, and those people not using Windows will more likely > to understand why the lack of freedom inherent in DRM is unacceptable. > > -- > 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/ > -- You can't build a reputation based on what you are going to do.
-- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
