Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds

[Alia Sheikh]

Dave Crossland wrote:

On 25/02/2008, Ian Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

 A free download will allow users of Macs, PCs and, later this
year, Linux machines to run any Air applications.



Since Air is proprietary, that it runs on GNU+Linux is not good.
  

For a certain value judgement of 'good' that is?

I like Linux, except when it annoys the hell out of me.  But then thats 
exactly how I feel about any MS or Apple OS I've ever used.


I can absolutely see why a person would want to use an OS that is 1) 
free and 2) open source, but would you really then restrict those people 
to only being able to run software that is 1) free and 2) open source?  
Call me crazy but I think that the fact that companies now have to 
seriously consider building Linux support into their software products, 
is a good thing.  At the end of the day its an extra thing that your 
platform can do, its not a reduction in functionality.  If Adobe's press 
is to be believed then Mr Joe Bloggs running Linux at home will be able 
to use an app written in Air for free.  I personally consider that 'good'.
  

 The BBC is also building prototype applications with AIR.



The BBC should not require the British public to use proprietry
software, so developing these prototypes is misguided.
  
Now this is a bit hairy - would you be happier if the BBC required that 
the public could use only non-proprietary software to access any of its 
work?  It feels uncomfortably like you're making a moral judgement about 
the nature of 'good' and 'bad' software and asking the BBC to enforce 
this.  I'd like everyone to be able to access everything for free (as in 
beer) and consider that a good place to start.  Software freedom is the 
icing on the cake for me, but its not the cake.Thats my judgement, on 
what is 'good', but I wouldnt expect or want everyone to agree with it. 

What you suggest might make content harder to access  - and whether you 
agree with them or not, a lot of people simply don't care about software 
being free and open source (I'd argue that more people care about the 
former than the latter, since everyone loves a freebie).  Providing 
content to these people is as much part of the BBC's remit as anything 
else. Certainly if there is a way of doing something that is both free 
and open source and doesn't keep anyone out of the playground then  it 
would be hard to see any point in *not* doing that.  But if a 
proprietary thing lets you do something in a way that meets your 
requirements better, then to argue that it should not be used just 
because it is proprietary seems very over simplistic.  I wouldn't be 
happy deciding what people should care about and enforcing it.



 "The nice thing about it is that it works on all the different platforms - Mac,
PC and eventually Linux," said John O'Donovan, chief architect in the
BBC's Future Media and Technology Journalism division.

 So what do people think?



John O'Donovan sounds like he must be a good engineer; sadly he seems
unaware of the social problems he is leading the BBC into when he
praises this proprietary technology.
  
You know 'social problems' might be over egging the lily.  A bit:) 


Alia

-
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/

Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds

[Alia Sheikh]

Hey,

I never said anything about being unhappy with open standards, please do 
not implicitly misquote me like that:)


What I said was that as far as possible things should be open but that 
that should not be the only value judgement that is made.  I also said 
positive and fluffy things about how nice it would be if everyone could 
access everything and that that was ideally how things should be.  I 
don't think the BBC *have* said


"we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only
permit their users access to our content".

and I don't think that is what I am defending.  I am defending the right 
to investigate whether that particular bit of software is useful.  As I 
would (and have in the past) for open source software.


I think that it woud have been good to have had a discussion on what Air 
can and can't do.  It would have been fantastic to have had a discussion 
about open source alternatives that can do the same job or a better 
job.  It would have been useful to talk about things that aren't the 
same but a bit like it or find out about some open source projects that 
haven't produced anything useful so far but that might be good to keep 
an eye out for.  It would have been interesting to know whether, if a 
piece of content was made available via Air or via something more open, 
what people's opinions would be about who would use which and why.  It 
would be interesting to know what people like the osflash.org guys think 
of all this (I don't know if any of you are on this list?).


This is not a forum that exists simply for the purpose of telling the 
BBC that it is Wrong.


It would have been good to talk. 


Alia


Andy wrote:

On 26/02/2008, Alia Sheikh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

Now this is a bit hairy - would you be happier if the BBC required that
 the public could use only non-proprietary software to access any of its
 work?



I doubt that it what Dave is saying.
It should make it's content available via a standard way (see:
http://www.ietf.org , http://www.w3c.org , http://www.iso.org ).
That way it can be viewed in both proprietary and Open Source
software. See everyone's happy.

And if you are unhappy using Open Standards then you can't use HTTP,
or TCP/IP for that matter so how are you going to access the BBC
website in the first place?

  

 It feels uncomfortably like you're making a moral judgement about
 the nature of 'good' and 'bad' software and asking the BBC to enforce
 this.



No one is asking the BBC to enforce ANYTHING. The entire opposite, we
are asking the BBC to allow *any* software to be used.

  

 I wouldn't be
 happy deciding what people should care about and enforcing it.



That's what the BBC is doing and you have been defending. It is saying
"we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only
permit their users access to our content".

Andy


  



-
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/

Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds

[Alia Sheikh]

for whatever it's worth:
http://osflash.org/
http://osflash.org/mtasc
are also useful


simon wrote:
don't know if this has already been discussed here, but: 
http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Home


On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Alia Sheikh <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:


Hey,

I never said anything about being unhappy with open standards,
please do
not implicitly misquote me like that:)

What I said was that as far as possible things should be open but that
that should not be the only value judgement that is made.  I also said
positive and fluffy things about how nice it would be if everyone
could
access everything and that that was ideally how things should be.  I
don't think the BBC *have* said

"we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only
permit their users access to our content".

and I don't think that is what I am defending.  I am defending the
right
to investigate whether that particular bit of software is useful.
 As I
would (and have in the past) for open source software.

I think that it woud have been good to have had a discussion on
what Air
can and can't do.  It would have been fantastic to have had a
discussion
about open source alternatives that can do the same job or a better
job.  It would have been useful to talk about things that aren't the
same but a bit like it or find out about some open source projects
that
haven't produced anything useful so far but that might be good to keep
an eye out for.  It would have been interesting to know whether, if a
piece of content was made available via Air or via something more
open,
what people's opinions would be about who would use which and why.  It
would be interesting to know what people like the osflash.org
<http://osflash.org> guys think
of all this (I don't know if any of you are on this list?).

This is not a forum that exists simply for the purpose of telling the
BBC that it is Wrong.

It would have been good to talk.

Alia


Andy wrote:
> On 26/02/2008, Alia Sheikh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>> Now this is a bit hairy - would you be happier if the BBC
required that
>>  the public could use only non-proprietary software to access
any of its
>>  work?
>>
>
> I doubt that it what Dave is saying.
> It should make it's content available via a standard way (see:
> http://www.ietf.org , http://www.w3c.org , http://www.iso.org ).
> That way it can be viewed in both proprietary and Open Source
> software. See everyone's happy.
>
> And if you are unhappy using Open Standards then you can't use HTTP,
> or TCP/IP for that matter so how are you going to access the BBC
> website in the first place?
>
>
>>  It feels uncomfortably like you're making a moral judgement about
>>  the nature of 'good' and 'bad' software and asking the BBC to
enforce
>>  this.
>>
>
> No one is asking the BBC to enforce ANYTHING. The entire
opposite, we
> are asking the BBC to allow *any* software to be used.
>
>
>>  I wouldn't be
>>  happy deciding what people should care about and enforcing it.
>>
>
> That's what the BBC is doing and you have been defending. It is
saying
> "we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only
> permit their users access to our content".
>
> Andy
>
>
>


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk <http://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/





-
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/

Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds

[Alia Sheikh]

Dave Crossland wrote:

On 26/02/2008, Alia Sheikh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

Dave Crossland wrote:
 > On 25/02/2008, Ian Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >
 >>  A free download will allow users of Macs, PCs and, later this
 >> year, Linux machines to run any Air applications.
 >
 > Since Air is proprietary, that it runs on GNU+Linux is not good.

For a certain value judgement of 'good' that is?



It tramples users' freedom and their friendships since we can't know
how it works or redistribute it. That's not good.
  

With regards to "friendship", haven't we been here before?:)
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/msg06204.html

  

 I like Linux



Please consider calling the system GNU+Linux or GNU/Linux.
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html explains :-)
  
I've read the page and  I will consider it. 

 Call me crazy but I think that the fact that companies now have to
 seriously consider building Linux support into their software products,
 is a good thing. At the end of the day its an extra thing that your
 platform can do, its not a reduction in functionality.



But it is a reduction in freedom! :-)
  
Is it a reduction in freedom if you do not have a bicycle and I give you 
a bicycle on the condition that you do not take it apart?  It can be 
argued that you have a restriction in your life that you didn't before.  
But you also have a bicycle.


I think that it might be fair to say that many things in life trample 
your freedoms, if you have an open enough definition of what you feel 
you should be free to do.  I am not free to use a different underground 
rail network in London other than that provided by London Transport (nor 
am I able to build my own), I am not free to breathe underwater without 
the aid of a snorkel or air cylinder due to a basic fault in my design, 
I am not free to know what the exact parameters were in the lighting 
setup for my favourite current scene in my current favourite movie. I 
wonder if people could be defined by which lack of freedom they choose 
to care about?


I am not free to know the inner workings of Adobe Air.  But I am free to 
build something that does the same sort of thing.  I am free to use it 
to build something using Air and then let people access it to assess if 
they want a service that behaves in a particular way.  I am free to use 
open alternatives if the excellent open source community writes them, I 
am free to use them now if they exist.  The freedom I care about having 
trampled is the freedom to investigate and assess a product and the 
freedom to find the best solution for a problem, where the definition of 
'best' takes into account more than just a single opinion (and I do 
think that your viewpoint is an opinion Dave, even though I suspect I 
agree with more of it than you think).  I would like to take into 
account what the majority of the licence fee paying public care about 
and which freedoms matter to them - even if I might not agree with it.  
I would like to acknowledge that there is (and always has been) a more 
complicated and more interesting argument here than simply 'all software 
should be open'.

If Adobe's press
 is to be believed then Mr Joe Bloggs running Linux at home will be able
 to use an app written in Air for free.  I personally consider that 'good'.



If someone running GNU+Linux uses more proprietary software tomorrow
than they use today, that is not good.
  
That is a value judgement, and is, I'm afraid an opinion.  This 
fictional person who we are talking about may disagree with you 
entirely.  That piece of software may add something that had been 
missing their whole life.  Whether you or like it or not, it would be 
their fundamental right to think that is *is* in fact 'good'.  You have 
every right to think it isn't 'good' for you :)
  

 >>  The BBC is also building prototype applications with AIR.



The BBC should not require the British public to use proprietry
software, so developing these prototypes is misguided.
  

Now this is a bit hairy - would you be happier if the BBC required that
 the public could use only non-proprietary software to access any of its
 work?



You are exaggerating my position :-)
  
Apologies if it came across that way, I was asking you a question that 
I'm genuinely interested in your reply to and I'm glad I did since your 
reply clarified your position for me.

I advocate the BBC requires that the public could use non-proprietary
software to access any of its work.
  
I agree actually.  As long as that software exists.  I don't think we 
should fail to take advantage of advances in technology simply *because* 
something is proprietary though.  Or to put it another way, I wouldn't 
tell my engineers they weren't allowed to investi

Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds

[Alia Sheikh]

There's an air-apps wiki at http://airapps.pbwiki.com/ which lists a 
bunch of applications.  Gives an idea of what people have done already 
with it.



Thom Shannon wrote:
It's been around for quite a while now. It's good in that it's fairly 
easy to port existing stuff too, it runs a webkit browser with a few 
extensions for access to local files data storage and extra ui 
control. You can host a pure js/html app, use frames to load webpages 
or just standard ajax. It's good for bridging the gap between your web 
app and the desktop, the most common use for it seems to be making 
twitter clients!


The biggest downside is the memory footprint, its huge! Makes it quite 
unusable for things like twitter clients. It's also potentially a lot 
of work to make things function fully offline (like gears) but then it 
can be a lot of work to get gears working.


Idea: an abstraction library for using google gears, local storage via 
air or flash and any other method that comes along!


Ian Forrester wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7254436.stm

Adobe Air allows developers to build tools that still have some 
functionality even when a computer is no longer connected to the net.
A free download will allow users of Macs, PCs and, later this year, 
Linux machines to run any Air applications.

The BBC is also building prototype applications with AIR.
"The nice thing about it is that it works on all the different 
platforms - Mac, PC and eventually Linux," said John O'Donovan, chief 
architect in the BBC's Future Media and Technology Journalism division.

So what do people think?

Ian Forrester

This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable

Senior Producer, BBC Backstage
BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
work: +44 (0)2080083965
mob: +44 (0)7711913293

-
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/



  





-
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/

Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds

[Alia Sheikh]

There's also something called Mozilla Prism which seems to have many of 
the same goals:

http://labs.mozilla.com/2007/10/prism/
windows only for the moment but open

An article comparing it to air:
http://www.openparenthesis.org/2007/11/10/prism-vs-air

Need to do some more digging to see how if at all they differ in practice.

Here's a question - platform and whatnot aside, it would be interesting 
to find out what sort of apps people would like to see built.  
Especially, I guess, with regards to BBC content.


simon wrote:
don't know if this has already been discussed here, but: 
http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Home


On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Alia Sheikh <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:


Hey,

I never said anything about being unhappy with open standards,
please do
not implicitly misquote me like that:)

What I said was that as far as possible things should be open but that
that should not be the only value judgement that is made.  I also said
positive and fluffy things about how nice it would be if everyone
could
access everything and that that was ideally how things should be.  I
don't think the BBC *have* said

"we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only
permit their users access to our content".

and I don't think that is what I am defending.  I am defending the
right
to investigate whether that particular bit of software is useful.
 As I
would (and have in the past) for open source software.

I think that it woud have been good to have had a discussion on
what Air
can and can't do.  It would have been fantastic to have had a
discussion
about open source alternatives that can do the same job or a better
job.  It would have been useful to talk about things that aren't the
same but a bit like it or find out about some open source projects
that
haven't produced anything useful so far but that might be good to keep
an eye out for.  It would have been interesting to know whether, if a
piece of content was made available via Air or via something more
open,
what people's opinions would be about who would use which and why.  It
would be interesting to know what people like the osflash.org
<http://osflash.org> guys think
of all this (I don't know if any of you are on this list?).

This is not a forum that exists simply for the purpose of telling the
BBC that it is Wrong.

    It would have been good to talk.

Alia


Andy wrote:
> On 26/02/2008, Alia Sheikh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>> Now this is a bit hairy - would you be happier if the BBC
required that
>>  the public could use only non-proprietary software to access
any of its
>>  work?
>>
>
> I doubt that it what Dave is saying.
> It should make it's content available via a standard way (see:
> http://www.ietf.org , http://www.w3c.org , http://www.iso.org ).
> That way it can be viewed in both proprietary and Open Source
> software. See everyone's happy.
>
> And if you are unhappy using Open Standards then you can't use HTTP,
> or TCP/IP for that matter so how are you going to access the BBC
> website in the first place?
>
>
>>  It feels uncomfortably like you're making a moral judgement about
>>  the nature of 'good' and 'bad' software and asking the BBC to
enforce
>>  this.
>>
>
> No one is asking the BBC to enforce ANYTHING. The entire
opposite, we
> are asking the BBC to allow *any* software to be used.
>
>
>>  I wouldn't be
>>  happy deciding what people should care about and enforcing it.
>>
>
> That's what the BBC is doing and you have been defending. It is
saying
> "we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only
> permit their users access to our content".
>
> Andy
>
>
>


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk <http://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/





-
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/

Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds

[Alia Sheikh]

Hi Rupert,

I appear to have duplicated your comment on Prism.  Didn't mean to 
ignore your message, it just got a bit lost in the noise.  Have you used 
it at all?  Or anyone else on this list for that matter.  I'd be 
interested in an opinion.


Alia


Rupert Watson wrote:
Ian 


I think it is funny that it says

"The current versions of the programs only work on PCs."

despite the fact that earlier the article quotes your BBC man saying that
the nice thing is that it is cross platform...

I think that the BBC should keep an eye on Mozilla Prism as well.

Rupert Watson


On 25/02/2008 19:22, "Ian Forrester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  

So what do people think?



Rupert Watson
Www.root6.com
+44 7787 554 801 




ROOT 6 LIMITED
Registered in the UK at
4 WARDOUR MEWS, LONDON
W1F 8AJ
Company No. 03433253

-
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/
  



-
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/

Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds

[Alia Sheikh]

Good luck trying 8D

To answer the question - not yet.  I've decide to see if I can make the 
last thing I wrote work in Air though - will keep you posted.


Alia

Matt Barber wrote:
So to put this thread back on track, does anyone have any experience 
with Air? Developing or using?



On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:


On Thursday 28 February 2008 15:58:08 Dave Crossland wrote:
> >  Even if I choose to use a proprietary program on a open
source operating
> >  system. Sorry, I'm not wrong,
>
> Sorry, you agree not to share with me, which is wrong.


*plonk*


Michael.

-
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/





-
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/

Re: [backstage] RealPlayer banished Toady!

[Alia Sheikh]

Beat me to it steve:)
We have some code that allows you to author id3v2 tags in mp3s to 
indicate chapters

http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/projects/chapter_tool/
and some classes that read these tags out of mp3s enhanced in this way.  
Currently written in Actionscript, as the demo player is Flash based, 
but no reason you couldn't port if you wanted to. 
Would this be of any interest?

Alia



Steve Jolly wrote:

Tom Hannen wrote:

I guess all the consituent parts exist already - I was thinking more
of an app that would make it easy for you to skip items whilst
cooking, or washing up, or in the car etc.

If you have a CD player in the kitchen, it is very easy to skip to the
next track - you stop what you're doing for a second, and hit one
button.  The same isn't true of trying to skip through items on the
today programme - stare at the screen, grab the mouse, choose from a
number of links, and click on one.

Hit the space bar to hear the next item would be a nice feature.  I'm
not saying it should be part of the today website, just that if I had
any programming skills whatsoever, I'd like to make it!


I wonder if segmented MP3 podcasts would be an elegant way to enable 
this functionality?


S

-
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/


-
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/

[backstage] Cool Accessibilty Hacks and Subtitles using BBC Redux @ Mashed

[Alia Sheikh]

Hi everyone!

We are giving a talk called Cool Accessibilty Hacks and Subtitles using 
BBC Redux at Mashed this weekend.
For Mashed we're making an archive of our TV and radio programmes 
available on the web on a system called BBC Redux. You'll find our 
programmes in their native broadcast form (MPEG-2 transport streams or 
.ts files).


Trial accounts on BBC Redux are available from today for Mashed 
attendees. These accounts will be disabled on Friday 20th June and 
re-enabled at Mashed for anyone doing an accessibility hack.


An account can be got by emailing me back at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(word of warning - I can only approve requests for Mashed attendees)

See http://mashed08.backnetwork.com/event/?articleid=28 for more info:)

Alia Sheikh
Research Engineer
Kingswood Warren
-
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/

Re: [backstage] Cool Accessibilty Hacks and Subtitles using BBC Redux @ Mashed

[Alia Sheikh]

Hi Christopher,

does that mean you'd like an account?:)
If you're coming to mashed and do, give me a shout

Alia

Christopher Woods wrote:
 
  
We are giving a talk called Cool Accessibilty Hacks and 
Subtitles using BBC Redux at Mashed this weekend.
For Mashed we're making an archive of our TV and radio 
programmes available on the web on a system called BBC Redux. 
You'll find our programmes in their native broadcast form 
(MPEG-2 transport streams or .ts files).



Blimey that sounds like a golden opportunity for some to really go a bit
leftfield with their concepts... Is it all* of the BBC's digitised archive,
or just a handpicked selection?

* within reason

-
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/
  


-
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/

[backstage] Mashed : Hack Moyles - Audio segmentation with RTMP

[Alia Sheikh]

So last week there was some discussion on this list about writing an app 
that let you skip the boring bits of a podcast, and I mentioned that we 
had some code that would let you do just that.


We're making that code, some demo apps and some open source applications 
available that will let you use mp3 tags to enhance audio with images, 
chapters and descriptive text.  We are also providing enhanced versions 
of the Chris Moyles podcast for you to play around with.


See http://mashed08.backnetwork.com/event/?articleid=25 for more details:)

Night!
Alia
-
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/

[backstage] cool visualisation thing for text

[Alia Sheikh]

So I might be coming late to the party, but have y'all seen this?

http://wordle.net/

It's "a toy for generating 'word clouds' from text that you provide. The 
clouds give greater prominence to words that appear more frequently in 
the source text. You can tweak your clouds with different fonts, 
layouts, and color schemes. The images you create with Wordle are yours 
to use however you like."


It's all rather pretty and has me wondering if I should do unspeakable 
things with scheduling data.


Alia
-
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/

Re: [backstage] cool visualisation thing for text

[Alia Sheikh]

yup, 'fraid so:)  I just rather liked it

wikipedia gets you any number of more useful ones under
Tag Cloud Tools and Articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_cloud

Alia

Brian Butterworth wrote:
I just realised that these are just pictures, the don't actually do 
anything... 

2008/6/19 Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>:


Alia,

Thanks for posting that.  They are quite interesting and pretty
"word clouds".

I'm just wondering if people actually use them?  For example, they
used to appear on sites like CiF, but they have been removed.

They also seem a usability nightmare...

I'm guessing there is probably some massive successful word cloud
out there and I've just missed it?

2008/6/19 Alia Sheikh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>:

So I might be coming late to the party, but have y'all seen this?

http://wordle.net/

It's "a toy for generating 'word clouds' from text that you
provide. The clouds give greater prominence to words that
appear more frequently in the source text. You can tweak your
clouds with different fonts, layouts, and color schemes. The
images you create with Wordle are yours to use however you like."

It's all rather pretty and has me wondering if I should do
unspeakable things with scheduling data.

Alia
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk <http://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/




-- 



Brian Butterworth

http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and
switchover advice, since 2002 





--

Brian Butterworth

http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover 
advice, since 2002 


-
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/

Re: [backstage] Mashed : Hack Moyles - Audio segmentation with RTMP

[Alia Sheikh]

since I'm about to add things to that page right now, this was extremely 
useful, thanks:):)


Alia


Phil Wilson wrote:
We're making that code, some demo apps and some open source 
applications available that will let you use mp3 tags to enhance 
audio with images, chapters and descriptive text.  We are also 
providing enhanced versions of the Chris Moyles podcast for you to 
play around with.


This is completely awesome.

small bug: the link "Our HTML based enhanced MP3 player" points at 
"http://mashed08.backnetwork.com/url"; which is wrong.


Phil
-
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/


-
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/

Re: [backstage] Mashed : Hack Moyles - Audio segmentation with RTMP

[Alia Sheikh]

all fixed, in case you're waiting on that:)

someone has suggested another CoolThing we could do for the audio 
visualisation stuff too, so we're currently flapping a bit sorting that 
out...


Phil Wilson wrote:
We're making that code, some demo apps and some open source 
applications available that will let you use mp3 tags to enhance 
audio with images, chapters and descriptive text.  We are also 
providing enhanced versions of the Chris Moyles podcast for you to 
play around with.


This is completely awesome.

small bug: the link "Our HTML based enhanced MP3 player" points at 
"http://mashed08.backnetwork.com/url"; which is wrong.


Phil
-
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/


-
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/

Re: [backstage] Mashed : Hack Moyles - Audio segmentation with RTMP

[Alia Sheikh]

actual flight was achieved, albeit briefly

Michael wrote:

On Thursday 19 June 2008 12:41:38 Alia Sheikh wrote:
  

 so we're currently flapping a bit sorting that
out...



Are you really /flapping/ ?
:)


Michael.
-
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/
  


-
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/

Re: [backstage] Use visualisations of audio in your mashups!

[Alia Sheikh]

Hi Adam,
sounds like you've read the white paper?:)
so the current flap is about this promise we've made on the website:
"At this web page <http://mprr.kw.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/vis/avn>you'll be 
able to generate your own jpg visualisatons for your mp3 files and use 
them in your mashups. You will also find a download link to get the 
visualisation data as a text file of RGB values (once we've added this 
functionality!)"

Would that do you?:)
I can talk to you at *great length* on the day about where the rgb 
values come from and how to generate them from scratch.

Alia-currently-typing-this-with-one-finger-while-eating-lunch

Adam Lindsay wrote:

Alia,

Again, that looks nifty. For my thinking, though, I'd be much more 
drawn to the feature vectors that you're extracting, especially as it 
could possibly be combined with:

 http://developer.echonest.com/docs/analyze

Any possibility of this happening?

adam


Alia Sheikh wrote:

Hi again!

We've been doing some work on automatically extracting colours from 
audio, to allow us to better navigate that audio.  It works 
suprisingly well at actually revealing the structure of a peice of 
audio content.


For Mashed we're making available a web-based service that allows you 
to put an mp3 in and get a coloured jpg out, for use in any way you 
see fit.


More info at: http://mashed08.backnetwork.com/event/?articleid=26

Email me ifor a username and password to the service, if you'd like 
to have a play beforehand.


Alia Sheikh
Research Engineer
Kingswood Warren
-
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/

-
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/


-
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/

Re: [backstage] Use visualisations of audio in your mashups!

[Alia Sheikh]

er, the remains of the curry we ordered in at work late yesterday 
evening
I'm afraid I didn't make innovative use of it, but some synergies were 
leveraged. Ohyes.


Matt Barber wrote:



Alia-currently-typing-this-with-one-finger-while-eating-lunch



Alia, what IS for lunch?


-
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/

[backstage] Did the MASH. (Did a reduxy mash).

[Alia Sheikh]

Dear Everyone-I-met-this-weekend,

I just wanted to say that Mashed08 was brilliant, and thanks to everyone 
who came, anyone who tried to use our stuff in their hacks or who came 
up to have a chat wth us. It was lovely to put faces to email addresses!
If you want to tell us about your hack, send us links to demo or explain 
what else you'd have really liked to do given time, then please do get 
in touch. Ditto if you have ideas for things you'd like to see us do 
next year.  It was good for the R&D lot to get to talk to you guys, and 
I hope that people keep some of the conversations going.


I also need to let you know that I'm disabling all the redux accounts 
after I send this email - but I've already had one request to keep a 
account open for two extra days while someone continues working on their 
hack, so in all fairness, if anyone else wants to do the same, mail me 
today and I might reactivate your acount for a little while longer:)
It's been fascinating seeing what people have tried to use their redux 
access for - maybe there's something in this letting you play with it 
malarkey ;)


See you next year!
Alia Sheikh
Kingswood Warren




-
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/

Re: [backstage] Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:40:58 +0100

[Alia Sheikh]

Oh I promised myself that I wouldn;t get involved, but yay Godzilla!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RFEzpUsUBk


Ian - I'd like to know more about the competition.  If all we know is 
that it's using AIR then that's all we'll argue^H^H^H^H^Htalk about.  
Whats it actually going to be?  Is Backstage runnning it or is someone 
else? Also are competitions going to be a regular thing/will we get to 
play with lots of stuff eventually or is this a one off? 


Oh, and I crush everything:)

Alia

Richard Lockwood wrote:



On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:


2008/7/3 Matt Barber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Ian Forrester
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
>>
>> If we ran a competition which required the final prototype to
be in Adobe
>> Air, how would people feel about that?
>
> No problem with that.

There is a large problem with that - Adobe Air is proprietary
software, so it ought to be boycotted.

 
You boycott it Dave, if it makes you happy.  The rest of us can carry 
on living in the real world.
 




> It's using a new technology and product to encourage
> development, and the technology is available to end users easily
and with
> little effort, on multiple platforms.

But it tramples our freedom and community, which are more important.

 
No Dave, you're thinking of Godzilla.
 
Rich.


-
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/

Re: [backstage] Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:40:58 +0100

[Alia Sheikh]

Simon, Ben - I like that idea.  Use whatever tools you like.  Get a 
thing built.  Assess success or failure, lather rinse repeat.


Ian - your original question was this:
"If we ran a competition which required the final prototype to be in 
Adobe Air, how would people feel about that?"


So ok we now have some answers.  Clearly some people have strong 
feelings about not using AIR - as in specifically boycotting it, other 
people don't have any problem with using it and there are, I'm sure, 
lots of shades of grey in between.


It does seem like there would be enthusiasm for a competition of some 
sort involving writing RIAs, with lots of options for tools-of-choice.  
(Correct me if I'm wrong here guys).  So what I'd absolutely love is a 
bit more clarity on what prompted the quesiton in the first place.


As far as any suggestions go, I think it would be great to let people 
use whatever tools their personal belief system allowed, without 
restricting anyone else's freedom to make their own choices. 

If a competition was run that was promoted by and affiliated with 
Backstage that was focused entirely on a single technology (be it 
whatever) then it could be argued that we were failing to be even a 
little bit thorough in our investigative approach. 

If Adobe wish to run something and Backstage is generally interested in 
the output of it, then that is a different kettle of squid - it's 
understandable that Adobe would run a competition biased towards an 
Adobe product and Backstagers should feel free to take part as they see 
fit. 

I would be incredibly unhappy with a curtailment of my rights to learn, 
understand and investigate for the sake of a single viewpoint/belief 
system, which (whatever it's merits) is not one that every person on 
this list has subscribed to.  I would also be unhappy if we were seen to 
be playing favourites.


I've left this list once before, because whilst it's full of interesting 
people, I've absolutely no interest in watching them bang their heads 
against each other in the same way over and over again.  I still have no 
interest in that.  Whilst it is your right to speak it is also everyone 
elses right to not to have to listen.  If this is going to get 
religious, then I'm out of here.


So yeah, Ian - more clarity please.

All my love,

Alia











Dave Crossland wrote:

2008/7/4 simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
  

Ben's suggestion to allow the people to choose their RIA flavour whether it
be AIR, gears or whatever is very sensible.

Surely the main thing is that a good idea gets built.



Surely the main thing is that we preserve our freedom to understand
and share the software we use to do our computation.

Using software running on other people's servers to do _our_
computation also tramples our freedom, and this is becoming more
common with RIA technology.

"If your software would keep us divided and helpless, please don't
write it. We are better off without it. We will find other ways to use
our computers, and preserve our freedom."
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7487060.stm

Cheers,
Dave
Personal opinion only.
-
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/
  


-
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/

Re: [backstage] Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:40:58 +0100

[Alia Sheikh]

:):)


Unrelated, but seeing as they're here: many thanks to Alia, Matt, Ian 
and everyone else who helped make Mashed so great!


Phil 


-
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/

Re: [backstage] What's the calendar app?

[Alia Sheikh]

Nico,

Calendar app, open-source,  using Drupal - anyone?

WebCalendar 1.1 do you?
It doesnt seem to be supported anymore though
http://drupal.org/project/modules?filters=tid:61&solrsort=sort_title%20desc

This page may be of some use:
http://www.roseindia.net/opensource/open-source-calendar.shtml

Good luck
Alia
-
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/

Re: [backstage] TEDxNorth

[Alia Sheikh]

Registration being free and available here: 
http://www.tedxnorth.com/manchester09/register.php


Got a preliminary programme yet Ian?:)

Ian Forrester wrote:

Hi All,

Just a quick note about the series of TEDx - http://www.ted.com/tedx events 
coming up this summer in the North of England.

TEDx North - www.tedxnorth.com. Is a combination of 5 different TEDx events.

TEDxLiverpool - 7th August 2009
TEDxLeeds - 10th September 2009
TEDxSheffield - 16th September 2009
TEDxNewcastle - 30th September 2009
TEDxManchester - 2nd October 2009

Each event will have excellent live speakers and previous TEDtalks. They 
promise to bring you a taste of TED without the huge cost and long waiting 
list. Tickets are available now and I'm happy to say the BBC's famous Studio 7 
will host TEDxManchester on the 2nd October. We have room for 100's of people, 
so it should be one of the biggest.

For you guys in the south wondering about TEDx in the south, midlands or 
Scotland, there was one recently - http://tedxthames.com/ and there's some 
upcoming ones here - http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/284 which include 
TEDxLondon and TEDxBirmingham

So don't forget to sign up early and we'll hopefully see you soon,

Ian Forrester

This e-mail is: []secret; []private; [x]public

Senior Producer, BBC Backstage, BBC R&D
Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ
email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk
work: +44 (0)1612444063 | mob: +44 (0)7711913293 


-
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/

  


-
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/

Re: [backstage] TEDxNorth

[Alia Sheikh]

The TED tagline is: "Riveting talks by remarkable people, free to the world"
So get interesting person, make them talk, film it, release. 
You can view previous ones on the TED site.
The quality of the experience therefore depends very much on the 
interestingness of the speaker.

eg:
http://www.ted.com/talks/torsten_reil_studies_biology_to_make_animation.html
"Torsten Reil talks about how the study of biology can help make 
natural-looking animated people -- by building a human from the inside 
out, with bones, muscles and a nervous system. He spoke at TED in 2003; 
see his work now in GTA4."

or
http://www.ted.com/talks/olafur_eliasson_playing_with_space_and_light.html
"In the spectacular large-scale projects he's famous for (such as 
"Waterfalls" in New York harbor), Olafur Eliasson creates art from a 
palette of space, distance, color and light. This idea-packed talk 
begins with an experiment in the nature of perception."


TEDx are local events following the same model


Alex Mace wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but what is TED? A quite look at the website 
tells me plenty about signing up and events going on, but nothing at 
all about what it is...


On 20 Jul 2009, at 09:35, Alia Sheikh wrote:

Registration being free and available here: 
http://www.tedxnorth.com/manchester09/register.php


Got a preliminary programme yet Ian?:)

Ian Forrester wrote:

Hi All,

Just a quick note about the series of TEDx - http://www.ted.com/tedx 
events coming up this summer in the North of England.


TEDx North - www.tedxnorth.com. Is a combination of 5 different TEDx 
events.


TEDxLiverpool - 7th August 2009
TEDxLeeds - 10th September 2009
TEDxSheffield - 16th September 2009
TEDxNewcastle - 30th September 2009
TEDxManchester - 2nd October 2009

Each event will have excellent live speakers and previous TEDtalks. 
They promise to bring you a taste of TED without the huge cost and 
long waiting list. Tickets are available now and I'm happy to say 
the BBC's famous Studio 7 will host TEDxManchester on the 2nd 
October. We have room for 100's of people, so it should be one of 
the biggest.


For you guys in the south wondering about TEDx in the south, 
midlands or Scotland, there was one recently - 
http://tedxthames.com/ and there's some upcoming ones here - 
http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/284 which include TEDxLondon and 
TEDxBirmingham


So don't forget to sign up early and we'll hopefully see you soon,

Ian Forrester

This e-mail is: []secret; []private; [x]public

Senior Producer, BBC Backstage, BBC R&D
Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ
email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk
work: +44 (0)1612444063 | mob: +44 (0)7711913293
-
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/





-
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/


-
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/




-
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/

Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...

[Alia Sheikh]

Please. Only conspiracy theories allowed here.  Move along:)

"However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more
flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of
many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM,
maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that
will help protect investments and be "Free" software friendly?"

Sounds good in all seriousness, would be interested to take part in *that* 
discussion.

Alia



Chris Warren wrote:



Time for me to unlurk :-)

I'm pretty sure everyone knows by now that no-matter what DRM system is in
place, it can be circumvented. But in the end that doesn't really matter -
it's all just a case of being seen to be doing one's best to protect
investments.

Someone isn't going to finance content for you if you can't promise you'll
do your utmost, through agreements with 3rd parties (e.g. broadcasters) and
all the technical and legal measures available to you, to protect their
investment, however futile that may be.

That isn't crazy - if you were investing in a risky venture, you'd still
want promises that those you were investing in would try to minimise risks.

However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more
flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of
many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM,
maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that
will help protect investments and be "Free" software friendly?

Chris

-
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/

  


-
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/

Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...

[Alia Sheikh]

David Tomlinson wrote:

Mo McRoberts wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 15:07, Alia Sheikh  
wrote:



"However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more
flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but 
instead of

many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM,
maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution 
that

will help protect investments and be "Free" software friendly?"

Sounds good in all seriousness, would be interested to take part in 
*that*

discussion.


Unfortunately, that discussion isn’t really one which is at all
technical in nature—it’s broadly a matter of legal and business
strategy. Not quite so interesting to the kinds of smart people who
tend to have an interest in the technical stuff! There’s some
cross-over, though… ;)


It is an interesting issue.

Also known as "why everything you know about copyright is wrong !"

It needs a new thread and perhaps a new day, but please start without 
me, (I won't be able to resist commenting) You may find my views 
radical as my suggested title implies.

-
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/


I think everyone can get caught up in finding a technical solution that 
doesnt exist.  There might not be a technical solution.  There is 
probably a solution.

Alia

-
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/

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

[Alia Sheikh]

Sorry for prattling on for so long.


Hi Tom,
found this interesting, and you've reminded me to read through this 
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/25/1345/03329 so for 'prattling' 
it's decent;)

Alia

Tom Morris wrote:

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 22:32, David Tomlinson  wrote:
  

Yes, I am aware of this, but why five years, why not one year why not three
months, and if three months, why at all.




Well done. You've re-discovered the Sorites Paradox.


But the copyright industry discovered it first.

One thing the American Founding Fathers got right is that the test
should be public benefit - whether it benefits the "useful Arts and
Sciences". What they got wrong was not being a bit more specific about
the "limited time" provision.

I mean, yes, life plus seventy years is a "limited time" when you
consider it cosmically. Given that someone is likely to produce their
greatest work in their thirties or forties, given a reasonable life
expectancy of 70-80 years, we are talking a century.

I think a decade or two is long enough for the "useful Arts and
Sciences" to benefit from a work.

The problem with copyright is a perceptual one: people see
"intellectual property" and they focus on the second word. It's
property, they think. It's like a house or a car - I *own* it.

No you don't. You are leasing it from humanity. And all that
inspiration that led you to the point of creating the work has
external costs. The artist wanders around the National Gallery. The
writer reads books in libraries. The moviemaker watches other movies.
Everyone goes to school. Many go to university. Feel free to insert
Locke's labour-mixing argument here. (In the case of the BBC, which we
all pay for if we have TVs, it's completely apparent that we have a
moral stake in as much as we are required to pay for it if we want to
watch TV. But we own a stake in every other type of cultural
production too because no cultural work - at least nothing of any
value - exists in a vacuum.)

But again, I say, we have a Sorites problem. Unless you cope with the
problem, you either end up saying we should have an infinite copyright
term or no copyright at all. Yes, if we were to say 10 years
extendable to 20, we'd face accusations of arbitrariness. But life+70
years is arbitrary too. Except it isn't. It's arbitrary in the same
way that a badly regulated banking sector is arbitrary - it's done
that way because certain people are profiting greatly from locking us
away from our cultural birthright.

How do we resolve the Sorites problem inherent in copyright and all
intellectual property that has a temporal limit built-in? Simple. We
use a Rawlsian original position thought experiment modified to cope
with the same situation. Imagine that you were taken back to an
original position. You were placed behind a veil of ignorance. You
don't know whether when you are put into the world whether you are
going to be Walt Disney or Richard Stallman. You don't know if you
will be a Napster user or a member of Metallica. You don't know if you
are going to be a copyright creator, a copyright reuser or whatever.
Now decide on your principles.

I think that given this thought experiment, a short-term copyright can
be justified. Life+70 years is inequitable on Rawlsian grounds. The
only people who can seriously think Life+70 years is equitable are the
children of pop stars who will be collecting royalty cheques for the
rest of their life for doing absolutely sweet bugger all. Just because
your mum or dad is a pop star doesn't mean that the law should provide
you with a guaranteed income. Two generations of my family have made
their money in the printing trade. I have a feeling that the next two
generations are not. Boo hoo. They've got to find a different calling
in life.

The other problem with morality-of-IP debates is that we do not get to
see the real cost of what doesn't happen because of IP laws. It's very
easy to throw out a counterfactual like "if we didn't have strong
copyright protection, we'd never have The Beatles". But I'm pretty
sure that for every quite reasonable counterfactual of that sort,
there are a fair amount of flipsides - "if we didn't have strong
copyright protection, we'd have had (some other thing we can't tell
you because it never happened)". I can't tell you about the great
singer we never had because of copyright limitations. I can only
vaguely hint at it. The rhetorical force of specific counter-factuals
has a great deal of weight compared to very general counter-factuals.
But when it comes down to brass tacks, there isn't much to either of
them. Are we really saying that if copyright had been 5 years shorter,
the Beatles would never have existed? That seems ridiculous. (Hey, the
Sorites problem works for counterfactuals too!)

We can see it a bit more with technology stuff: we can see plenty of
things which are perfectly legal to do with open source but which you
can't do with cl

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

[Alia Sheikh]

Dave,
So we can have this discussion in only a manner which is determined by 
yourself?
Children count, pictures of dogs count, pictures of someone's gran or 
bank statement or a tree counts.  If your arguments hold tight then they 
hold tight for all examples.  Hard to have a discussion when people 
threaten to take their ball away and not play anymore.
Which signifies no more than the end of this discussion with you 
perhaps, but thought it worth mentioning in case the negative reactions 
to that statement were just whistling past.

Alia



My answer is that only commercial interests, would respect your 
copyright.


My suggestion is that you don't post images you don't want 
re-distributed in a public place.


Personal items could be covered by privacy. I don't see it useful in 
the context of copyright.


For obvious reasons I do not wish to discuss children as a subject 
anymore.


I suggest personal material e.g a private letter, can substitute for 
the purposes of the debate.


-
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/




-
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/

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

[Alia Sheikh]

> My suggestion is that you don't post images you don't want 
re-distributed in a public place.


Sounds fun for all those artists with showreels



David Tomlinson wrote:

Martin Belam wrote:
I suspect you can trust your family, friends etc to respect your 
wishes, and you can limit the distribution through trust.


Images of children can be sourced for advertising without having to 
resort to using private images.




So your basic answer is that in a world without copyright, instead of
me being allowed to say "Hey, I know you *could* just download this
straight off the internet and reuse it however you want, but I'd
really rather you didn't", the onus is instead on me to personally
vouch for the distribution of my photos on a person-by-person basis
and just hope for the best from anyone I don't know who wants a
picture of a child?

My answer is that only commercial interests, would respect your 
copyright.


My suggestion is that you don't post images you don't want 
re-distributed in a public place.


Personal items could be covered by privacy. I don't see it useful in 
the context of copyright.


For obvious reasons I do not wish to discuss children as a subject 
anymore.


I suggest personal material e.g a private letter, can substitute for 
the purposes of the debate.


-
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/




-
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/

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

[Alia Sheikh]

This seems to roughly translate to 'anything anyone makes that they show 
to the world, can be taken and used by anyone in the world'.
Which feels like a setup for making creators very paranoid about what 
they share with the world.

Doesnt seem like a fun place to live if it had that effect.

The whole point of copyright was to encourage people to make and share 
things in the knowledge that the time and effort they spend doing so 
will have the potential to be recompensed.  If instead they feel that 
putting their creative work in the public domain will prevent recompense 
(remember everyone has to eat) then you disincentivize them to share the 
work.  In the case of industries where the work must be shown to be sold 
(art, music  previews actually just about anything) then you 
disincentivize them to create the thing in the first place.


If people want to share their work with all and sundry then brilliant, 
and it's what we have creative commons for.


Copyright may be broken but chucking it out and not having something put 
in its place for the original aim of encouraging creative works, seems 
*lazy*.


Apologies if I'm misinterpreting anything you're saying.

Alia


David Tomlinson wrote:

Fearghas McKay wrote:
I mis-understood your intent.

If there is no copyright.

When you make the images public, you relinquish control.

The alternative is to keep the distribution limited, and use trust.

While you may have an emotional attachment or a feeling of entitlement 
to the images, this is not a good basis for public policy.


As to why someone should make money from them ?

If they can add value in some way ?

Why would people pay for the images, when they are in the public domain ?
-
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/




-
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/

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

[Alia Sheikh]

Your arguments should hold true for anything involving the word Nazi too:)
Interesting the control you are trying to exercise over our freedom to 
discuss this topic.

Alia

David Tomlinson wrote:

Alia Sheikh wrote:

Dave,
So we can have this discussion in only a manner which is determined 
by yourself?
Children count, pictures of dogs count, pictures of someone's gran or 
bank statement or a tree counts.  If your arguments hold tight then 
they hold tight for all examples.  Hard to have a discussion when 
people threaten to take their ball away and not play anymore.
Which signifies no more than the end of this discussion with you 
perhaps, but thought it worth mentioning in case the negative 
reactions to that statement were just whistling past.

Alia


If you wish to talk about personal images use the example of adults, a 
spouse for example. Or personal information. Involving children is 
like using the word Nazi, it is designed to close down debate, because 
of the moral panic surrounding the issue.

-
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/




-
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/

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

[Alia Sheikh]

review or abolish?
bit pointless abolishing flippers before inventing feet


David Tomlinson wrote:


I just think copyright is a bad law and we should review (abolish) it.




-
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/

Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'

[Alia Sheikh]

If you abolish copyright, then there's no way for the author to 
benefit from those revenue streams, because the people who make the 
CDs, T-Shirts and books have no reason to pay the author.


Fans will buy T-Shirts, from the bands official site shop, or Gig;s 
for which the band can charge (live performances). 

or any other shop.
What is a musician doesnt want to sell tshirts and cant play live?  Is 
the music alone worthless?

-
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/

Re: [backstage] Google Wave

[Alia Sheikh]

Its worse because you know the rules of email at the outset before you 
start playing.
Once people become familiar with wave then protocols and accepted 
behaiviour will emerge, but for now, I'm finding the "Oh I added you to 
a work/holiday/pictures of my cat! wave" phenomenon irritating as well
Is it possible to remove yourself from a wave and make it so people 
can't add you back on?
I guess I would have expected some sort of 'you have been added to this 
wave, do you accept?' notification and a notification to all other users 
that you got added

Alia

Stephen Jolly wrote:

On 1 Dec 2009, at 11:20, Ant Miller wrote:
  

It's impossible to set t the outset what the distribution of a wave
should be (you have to assume that they WILL be public- dangerous
unless you live in a world without lawyers or Daily Mail journos!)
It's impossible to actively manage what waves YOU get attached to.

In essence it treats the world as a great big friendly share
everything playschool, where nobody even has surprise parties let
alone personal private conversations.



Surely email has the same issue?  Nothing stops me from bccing or forwarding 
emails from supposedly private conversations to third parties there.  I'm not 
saying that a better way to manage participants wouldn't be welcome, but surely 
the existing one is no worse than those of older technologies?

S


-
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/

  


-
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/