[backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[Simon Cobb]

there's a couple I hadn't heard of on here
 
http://lifehacker.com/software/lifehacker-top-10/top-10-free-video-rippe
rs-encoders-and-converters-316478.php
 
 
 

Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[Jason Cartwright]

I can highly recommend HeyWatch (from that list). An outstanding service,
with an excellent API. I've got it hooked up with a CMS encoding hundreds of
videos a month.

J

On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  there's a couple I hadn't heard of on here
>
>
> http://lifehacker.com/software/lifehacker-top-10/top-10-free-video-rippers-encoders-and-converters-316478.php
>
>
> **
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview

[Dave Crossland]

On 01/11/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Sharing artistic works between friends is one of the central tenets of
> > > > friendship. Ask anyone under 20 if they've got a laptop, and if they
> > > > do, if they have copies of music from their friends. Its almost
> > > > certain that they will.
>
>  Yes, they'll have music - sharing artistic works is NOT a
> central tenet of friendship.

Before people had laptops, it wasn't. Now they have laptops, it is.
That they share copies of music is evidence of this.

> > Copyright restrictions _are_ imposed purely for the benefit of the
> > public -
>
> That's rubbish.  The copyright on a work is automatic to the creator of that
> work.

That's _how_ copyright works, not _why_ it exists.

> > they're only there to protect the interests of the artists in
> > so far as the artists' interests align with the public's. When they
> > diverge, the public trumps the artists. So yes, I want want to do away
> > with the rights that no longer work in my favor, and I'm willing to
> > engage in civil disobedience until the law catches up.
>
> Ah yes - you finally admit it's about things not being in your favour.  Not
> about your woolly concept of "freedom"

I'll rephrase so this is less woolly for you:

Copyright is only there to protect the interests of the artists in so
far as the artists' interests align with the public's. When they
diverge, the public trumps the artists. So yes, I want want to do away
with the rights that trample my freedom to be a good friend, and I'm
willing to engage in civil disobedience until the law catches up.

> Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Why _should_ freedom to redistribute copies be restricted?

You've said its because the loss of potential sales, ie, income. To
which I say.

> > If they can find an audience that appreciates them, they will sell
> > other copies, despite that their audience can listen without paying
> > before hand. And they will sell tickets for gigs. And they will sell
> > branded kit. And when businesses want to use their music for
> > promotion, those businesses will pay them royalties.

...which is why that...

> Not relevant.

...is relevant.

> This isn't about suggesting how artists can replace the
> income stream you're taking away from them.  It's about your ludicrous claim
> that you have the moral right to copy their music.  Suggesting they should
> do smething else to finance making more music (which you'll then copy free
> of charge)

Tickets for gigs and branded kit are physical goods, so the public
can't make copies. Businesses making government-regulated uses of
works is also not my concern, because taxing businesses is hardly
controversial.

> > > How many times do I have to say it - you want everything to be free in
> > > order for you not to have to pay for it.  That's
> >
> > tautologous?
>
> Yes, but

But but but. lol

> > > > I don't think that not *having* to pay, and *being able* to pay, are
> > > > mutually exclusive. We can have both.
> > >
> > > Yes - but "being able to pay" isn't part of it.
> >
> > I just said it is
>
> But that isn't part of your argument.  Your argument is that music / films
> should be (and in your mind

Its not just in my mind, as we have agreed:

> > Ask anyone under 20 if they've got a laptop, and if they
> > do, if they have copies of music from their friends. Its almost
> > certain that they will.
>
>  Yes, they'll have music

:-)

> are) freely copyable.  Your argument isn't that
> music / films should be copyable, only if the person receiving the copy is
> able to reimburse the artist in some way.

Yes, because "only if" is too restrictive. Replace it with "and" and
you're approaching my point.

> And don't call me bro.

I'm just trying to get you down with the kids.

-- 
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/

RE: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[Simon Cobb]

oo-er have we strayed onto the wrong list here? this conversation seems
drm free, heh
 
I'd like to ask for the link (if you can supply it) to see what you've
developed using this HeyWatch ingest/output please
 
 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright
Sent: 01 November 2007 08:38
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers
encoders and converters


I can highly recommend HeyWatch (from that list). An outstanding
service, with an excellent API. I've got it hooked up with a CMS
encoding hundreds of videos a month.

J


On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

there's a couple I hadn't heard of on here
 

http://lifehacker.com/software/lifehacker-top-10/top-10-free-video-rippe
rs-encoders-and-converters-316478.php 
 
 
 




-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161 

Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[Jason Cartwright]

Well, the system doing the calls to HeyWatch is proprietary, and firewalled
(written in ASP.net, with a MySQL backend). But the output is listed here...
http://play.tm/storytype/videos

Using the JW FLV player...
http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=JW_FLV_Player

Which is also used for YouTube-style embedding...
http://jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/6/flash_video_embedding

Looking forward to H.264 in the mainstream flash player - then it'll be
hello HD (depending on bandwidth and HD source material, both of which are
plentiful).

J

On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  oo-er have we strayed onto the wrong list here? this conversation seems
> drm free, heh
>
> I'd like to ask for the link (if you can supply it) to see what you've
> developed using this HeyWatch ingest/output please
>
>
>
>  --
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jason Cartwright
> *Sent:* 01 November 2007 08:38
> *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers
> encoders and converters
>
> I can highly recommend HeyWatch (from that list). An outstanding service,
> with an excellent API. I've got it hooked up with a CMS encoding hundreds of
> videos a month.
>
> J
>
> On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  there's a couple I hadn't heard of on here
> >
> > http://lifehacker.com/software/lifehacker-top-10/top-10-free-video-rippers-encoders-and-converters-316478.php
> >
> >
> >
> > **
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jason Cartwright
> Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> +44(0)2070313161
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

RE: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[Andrew Bowden]

It's a shame that there's so little emphasis on converting to flv format
- everything I see is about converting from or playing them (I'm
involved with a website which currently embeds video in Real,  Windows
Media or occassionally QuickTime and MPEGs due to historical reasons,
and I'm wondering about a Flash video trial using the FLV player)
 
HeyWatch looks interesting, but I'd rather have something on my desktop!




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright
Sent: 01 November 2007 09:14
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers
encoders and converters


Well, the system doing the calls to HeyWatch is proprietary, and
firewalled (written in ASP.net, with a MySQL backend). But the output is
listed here...
http://play.tm/storytype/videos 

Using the JW FLV player...
http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=JW_FLV_Player

Which is also used for YouTube-style embedding...

http://jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/6/flash_video_embedding

Looking forward to H.264 in the mainstream flash player - then
it'll be hello HD (depending on bandwidth and HD source material, both
of which are plentiful). 

J


On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

oo-er have we strayed onto the wrong list here? this
conversation seems drm free, heh
 
I'd like to ask for the link (if you can supply it) to
see what you've developed using this HeyWatch ingest/output please
 
 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright
Sent: 01 November 2007 08:38
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video
rippers encoders and converters



I can highly recommend HeyWatch (from that list). An
outstanding service, with an excellent API. I've got it hooked up with a
CMS encoding hundreds of videos a month.

J


On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

there's a couple I hadn't heard of on here
 

http://lifehacker.com/software/lifehacker-top-10/top-10-free-video-rippe
rs-encoders-and-converters-316478.php 
 
 
 




-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161 




-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161 

Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview

[Jason Cartwright]

I don't know about anyone else's friendships, but I certainly don't share
files with friends. Sure, I recommend or having something recommended to me,
but they (and I) know how to get hold of the media itself without having
files transferred to them by me.

Is this not what would happen with iPlayer? "Hello Jim, I enjoyed Spooks on
iPlayer last night", "Really Jason? I'll go and watch that on my iPlayer,
cable catchup, or whatever without the hassle of cracking the DRM out of the
WMV file and working out how to get it off your computer via a slow ADSL
upload speed or taking our laptops to the pub".

(Conversation in theory anyhow - I can't use iPlayer on my Macs, nor can
many of my friends who have Macs).

J

> > Sharing artistic works between friends is one of the central tenets of
> > > friendship. Ask anyone under 20 if they've got a laptop, and if they
> > > do, if they have copies of music from their friends. Its almost
> > > certain that they will.
> >
> > No - it isn't!
>
> Ask 'em. Seriously. On the way to work or something. Please?
>

RE: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[Simon Cobb]

riva converts to flv on the desktop if you don't have flash video
encoder/ sorenson: http://www.rivavx.com/?encoder
 
it's windows tho so if you're using an alternative OS it's not for you.
 
there's also ffmpeg: http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/faq.html
 
mac apps I don't know about, sorry for you if that's your OS, heh.
 
 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Bowden
Sent: 01 November 2007 09:30
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers
encoders and converters


It's a shame that there's so little emphasis on converting to flv format
- everything I see is about converting from or playing them (I'm
involved with a website which currently embeds video in Real,  Windows
Media or occassionally QuickTime and MPEGs due to historical reasons,
and I'm wondering about a Flash video trial using the FLV player)
 
HeyWatch looks interesting, but I'd rather have something on my desktop!




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright
Sent: 01 November 2007 09:14
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers
encoders and converters


Well, the system doing the calls to HeyWatch is proprietary, and
firewalled (written in ASP.net, with a MySQL backend). But the output is
listed here...
http://play.tm/storytype/videos 

Using the JW FLV player...
http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=JW_FLV_Player

Which is also used for YouTube-style embedding...

http://jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/6/flash_video_embedding

Looking forward to H.264 in the mainstream flash player - then
it'll be hello HD (depending on bandwidth and HD source material, both
of which are plentiful). 

J


On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

oo-er have we strayed onto the wrong list here? this
conversation seems drm free, heh
 
I'd like to ask for the link (if you can supply it) to
see what you've developed using this HeyWatch ingest/output please
 
 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright
Sent: 01 November 2007 08:38
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video
rippers encoders and converters



I can highly recommend HeyWatch (from that list). An
outstanding service, with an excellent API. I've got it hooked up with a
CMS encoding hundreds of videos a month.

J


On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

there's a couple I hadn't heard of on here
 

http://lifehacker.com/software/lifehacker-top-10/top-10-free-video-rippe
rs-encoders-and-converters-316478.php 
 
 
 




-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161 




-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161 

Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[Jason Cartwright]

HeyWatch solves several problems that we (play.tm, as content publishers)
have encountered.

Multiplatform - doesn't matter what platform you're on (Windows, OSX etc)
Bandwidth - upload speeds on various connections (often ADSL, cable, or at
conferences where every sucker is draining the Wifi) is rubbish. HeyWatch
lets us give it a URL of the video (including over FTP), and it ingests it
and spits the outputs out at upto 20mbit/sec (they seem to limit it).
Cost - zero fixed cost, no cost per desk, fits our business model of more
content more revenue.

J

On 01/11/2007, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  It's a shame that there's so little emphasis on converting *to* flv
> format - everything I see is about converting from or playing them (I'm
> involved with a website which currently embeds video in Real,  Windows Media
> or occassionally QuickTime and MPEGs due to historical reasons, and I'm
> wondering about a Flash video trial using the FLV player)
>
> HeyWatch looks interesting, but I'd rather have something on my desktop!
>
>  --
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jason Cartwright
> *Sent:* 01 November 2007 09:14
> *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers
> encoders and converters
>
> Well, the system doing the calls to HeyWatch is proprietary, and
> firewalled (written in ASP.net, with a MySQL backend). But the output is
> listed here...
> http://play.tm/storytype/videos
>
> Using the JW FLV player...
> http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=JW_FLV_Player
>
> Which is also used for YouTube-style embedding...
> http://jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/6/flash_video_embedding
>
> Looking forward to H.264 in the mainstream flash player - then it'll be
> hello HD (depending on bandwidth and HD source material, both of which are
> plentiful).
>
> J
>
> On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  oo-er have we strayed onto the wrong list here? this conversation seems
> > drm free, heh
> >
> > I'd like to ask for the link (if you can supply it) to see what you've
> > developed using this HeyWatch ingest/output please
> >
> >
> >
> >  --
> > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jason Cartwright
> > *Sent:* 01 November 2007 08:38
> > *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> > *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers
> > encoders and converters
> >
> >  I can highly recommend HeyWatch (from that list). An outstanding
> > service, with an excellent API. I've got it hooked up with a CMS encoding
> > hundreds of videos a month.
> >
> > J
> >
> > On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >  there's a couple I hadn't heard of on here
> > >
> > > http://lifehacker.com/software/lifehacker-top-10/top-10-free-video-rippers-encoders-and-converters-316478.php
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > **
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cartwright
> > Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > +44(0)2070313161
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jason Cartwright
> Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> +44(0)2070313161
>
>


-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

RE: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[Andrew Bowden]

I am a Linux monkey, but to be honest, I have yet to find Linux
particularly good for basic video editing.  There are tools out there
like Kino which do work very well if you're using a DV source, but I'm
generally not and I've not always had much joy with converting files and
then opening them in Kino.
 
As it happens, my PC came with a copy of Windows Media Centre, and I
keep it on a small partition for such occassions.  I've used Digital
Media Converter (http://www.deskshare.com/dmc.aspx) in the past - does
batch conversions nicely, but barfs at the odd file - but it doesn't
support FLV annoyingly, so Riva looks like a good bet.
 
Wasn't aware that ffmpeg did flv, although I should have guessed!  I
mean, is there anything it doesn't do? :)
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Cobb
Sent: 01 November 2007 09:45
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers
encoders and converters


riva converts to flv on the desktop if you don't have flash
video encoder/ sorenson: http://www.rivavx.com/?encoder
 
it's windows tho so if you're using an alternative OS it's not
for you.
 
there's also ffmpeg: http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/faq.html
 
mac apps I don't know about, sorry for you if that's your OS,
heh.
 
 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Bowden
Sent: 01 November 2007 09:30
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers
encoders and converters


It's a shame that there's so little emphasis on converting to
flv format - everything I see is about converting from or playing them
(I'm involved with a website which currently embeds video in Real,
Windows Media or occassionally QuickTime and MPEGs due to historical
reasons, and I'm wondering about a Flash video trial using the FLV
player)
 
HeyWatch looks interesting, but I'd rather have something on my
desktop!




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright
Sent: 01 November 2007 09:14
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video
rippers encoders and converters


Well, the system doing the calls to HeyWatch is
proprietary, and firewalled (written in ASP.net, with a MySQL backend).
But the output is listed here...
http://play.tm/storytype/videos 

Using the JW FLV player...
http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=JW_FLV_Player

Which is also used for YouTube-style embedding...

http://jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/6/flash_video_embedding

Looking forward to H.264 in the mainstream flash player
- then it'll be hello HD (depending on bandwidth and HD source material,
both of which are plentiful). 

J


On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

oo-er have we strayed onto the wrong list here?
this conversation seems drm free, heh
 
I'd like to ask for the link (if you can supply
it) to see what you've developed using this HeyWatch ingest/output
please
 
 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright
Sent: 01 November 2007 08:38
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten
free video rippers encoders and converters



I can highly recommend HeyWatch (from that
list). An outstanding service, with an excellent API. I've got it hooked
up with a CMS encoding hundreds of videos a month.

J


On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: 

there's a couple I hadn't heard of on
here
 

http://lifehacker.com/software/lifehacker-top-10/top-10-free-video-rippe
rs-encoders-and-converters-316478.php 
 
 
 




-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Ma

Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[David Greaves]

Andrew Bowden wrote:
> I am a Linux monkey, but to be honest, I have yet to find Linux
> particularly good for basic video editing.  There are tools out there
> like Kino which do work very well if you're using a DV source, but I'm
> generally not and I've not always had much joy with converting files and
> then opening them in Kino.

Have you seen avidemux?
>From an editing PoV it only really offers concatenation and cutting - fine for
commercial editing and trimming - not so hot if you want to insert a sequence
into a stream.

It does convert various formats quite well - my wife uses it in her Myth to DVD
workflow


David
-
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] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[Michael Sparks]

On Thursday 01 November 2007 10:06, Andrew Bowden wrote:
> I am a Linux monkey, but to be honest, I have yet to find Linux
> particularly good for basic video editing.

What did you think of Cinelerra or CinePaint (formerly Film Gimp) out of 
interest ? (or things like pitivi?)


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/

Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview

[Dave Crossland]

On 01/11/2007, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is this not what would happen with iPlayer? "Hello Jim, I enjoyed Spooks on
> iPlayer last night", "Really Jason? I'll go and watch that on my iPlayer,
> cable catchup, or whatever without the hassle of cracking the DRM out of the
> WMV file and working out how to get it off your computer via a slow ADSL
> upload speed or taking our laptops to the pub".

That is the nasty situation that the DRM in the iPlayer tries to set up, yes.

-- 
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/

Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview

[Jason Cartwright]

You have misunderstood my point. In summary - I highly doubt DRM affects the
situation as much as you are making out.

I don't share files directly with my friends (DRMed or otherwise) I doubt
many other people do either. There are many reasons for this...

* Poor upload speeds on broadband (particularly for big files we're probably
talking about)
* People don't take their laptops/memory sticks/devices/whatever to social
occasions
* Ad-hoc networking isn't as straight-forward to non-techies as OS vendors
would like to make out
* Its too easy to get files from elsewhere (example: torrents)

So, we're left with me recommending things to my friends (and vice-versa)
then obtaining the 'things' from the path of least resistance - this may be
iPlayer or it may be torrents, but certainly not me giving them the
'things'.

J

On 01/11/2007, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 01/11/2007, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Is this not what would happen with iPlayer? "Hello Jim, I enjoyed Spooks
> on
> > iPlayer last night", "Really Jason? I'll go and watch that on my
> iPlayer,
> > cable catchup, or whatever without the hassle of cracking the DRM out of
> the
> > WMV file and working out how to get it off your computer via a slow ADSL
> > upload speed or taking our laptops to the pub".
>
> That is the nasty situation that the DRM in the iPlayer tries to set up,
> yes.
>
> --
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview

[Richard Lockwood]

>
> >
> > Is this not what would happen with iPlayer? "Hello Jim, I enjoyed Spooks
> on
> > iPlayer last night", "Really Jason? I'll go and watch that on my
> iPlayer,
> > cable catchup, or whatever without the hassle of cracking the DRM out of
> the
> > WMV file and working out how to get it off your computer via a slow ADSL
> > upload speed or taking our laptops to the pub".
>
> That is the nasty situation that the DRM in the iPlayer tries to set up,
> yes.


How the  is that a "nasty stuation"?  Come on - in simple terms, without
getting on the "ALL DRM IS EVIL - FREE FREE - I WANT IT FOR NOTHING"
soapbox, how it it a "nasty situation".

I can understand the frustrations of those who can't run iPlayer - but
that's a different discussion.

Rich.

Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[Sean Dillon]

Simon Cobb wrote:

there's a couple I hadn't heard of on here
 
http://lifehacker.com/software/lifehacker-top-10/top-10-free-video-rippers-encoders-and-converters-316478.php


I know it's a collection of various tools (some mentioned) but I'm
amazed that Godian Knot wasn't mentioned. Certainly for MPEG2->Xvid/Divx
conversion it's the best and most flexible I've come across.

Commercially I've also been using Sorrenson Squeeze as well. This has
some lovely features such as batch conversions (drop multi-bitrate and
multiformat output templates onto the file and set it going) as well as
supporting a hot-directory (watch a directory for files appearing then
automatically convert them and put them somewhere else).

Seán

-
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] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[Andrew Bowden]

> On Thursday 01 November 2007 10:06, Andrew Bowden wrote:
> > I am a Linux monkey, but to be honest, I have yet to find Linux 
> > particularly good for basic video editing.
> What did you think of Cinelerra or CinePaint (formerly Film 
> Gimp) out of interest ? (or things like pitivi?)

Last time I tried Cinelerra it had a tendancy to crash randomly on my
machine.  Plus I never liked that rather psycadellically coloured
interface :)  Looks like they've improved it on that front - I must try
it again.

CinePaint I haven't tried, mainly as I'm not that interested in visual
effects - more chopping and cutting 

-
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] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[Andrew Bowden]

> Have you seen avidemux?
> From an editing PoV it only really offers concatenation and 
> cutting - fine for commercial editing and trimming - not so 
> hot if you want to insert a sequence into a stream.

I haven't seen it - thanks for the tip off.  Sounds like it might be
worth a look.  Something to do this weekend I think!
 

-
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] Thumbnails in RSS feeds for news now

[Ian Forrester]

Hi All,

Just a quick email before I go on holiday :)

In the News feeds now there is media:thumbnail

http://newsrss.bbc.co.uk/rss/newsonline_uk_edition/front_page/rss.xml

For example...

 
  NHS superbug figures 'offer hope'  
  Hospitals in England may be beginning to win the battle 
against infections, latest figures suggest.  
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/health/7072744.stm  
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7072744.stm  
  Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:49:29 GMT  
  Health  
  http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40604000/jpg/_40604735_cleaning6649.jpg"/>
 
 

Enjoy They look good in Bloglines and Google reader.

Cheers

Ian Forrester

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

Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview

[Steve Jolly]

Michael Sparks wrote:

Apologies if that's all a little random - and also, improvements on this
summary (and on criterion) welcome. :-)


Michael, your insistence on resorting to facts and reasoned argument 
risks torpedoing this entire prolonged exchange of rants.  Keep it up. ;-)


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/

[backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again

[vijay chopra]

Just read 
this
interview with Mr Highfield
"Highfield used the numbers of non-Windows users visiting bbc.co.uk as
justification for the corporation's XP-only release. "We have 17.1 million
users of bbc.co.uk in the UK and, as far as our server logs can make out, 5
per cent of those [use Macs] and around 400 to 600 are Linux users.""
(via slashdot )

Have tech.co.uk missed out a zero as I can't believe that the number of
Linux users is that low, I'd expect more people to visit the site on their
mobile phones than that.
Unless perhaps most do as I do and go straight to news.bbc.co.uk and bypass
bbc.co.uk entirely (in which case using those numbers as justification for
ignoring iPlayer on Linux is bizarre; perhaps some more research into your
audience is in order?).

Though it feels good to be a member of such an exclusive club, can we have
the number of Linux users visiting news.bbc.co.uk please? That way we can
see if Mr Highfield's claims stand up to scrutiny.

Vijay.

RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again

[Andrew Bowden]

I've been discussing this in the office, so I did some sums
 
Having a look at various (non-BBC) site stats I have access to, I'm
seeing a 3-4% market share. Now on some of them, I know I'm counting
towards those stats, but one particular site (with a 3.6% Linux usage) I
don't look at regularly (I just fix broken code on rare occassions).

Even if we say bbc.co.uk has a 2% Linux usage, that's 340,000 users. And
if we say that bbc.co.uk has a 0.1% Linux usage, that's 17,000.
 
Some stats have put Linux desktop usage at as low as 0.26%, so even if
we take the 0.1% figure, I'd expect a lot more than 400-600!
 
I have a feeling that there's been a bit of a mistake made somewhere
down the line :)




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra
Sent: 01 November 2007 16:52
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again


Just read this
   interview with Mr
Highfield 
"Highfield used the numbers of non-Windows users visiting
bbc.co.uk as justification for the corporation's XP-only release. "We
have 17.1 million users of bbc.co.uk in the UK and, as far as our server
logs can make out, 5 per cent of those [use Macs] and around 400 to 600
are Linux users."" 
(via slashdot
 )

Have tech.co.uk missed out a zero as I can't believe that the
number of Linux users is that low, I'd expect more people to visit the
site on their mobile phones than that. 
Unless perhaps most do as I do and go straight to news.bbc.co.uk
and bypass bbc.co.uk entirely (in which case using those numbers as
justification for ignoring iPlayer on Linux is bizarre; perhaps some
more research into your audience is in order?). 

Though it feels good to be a member of such an exclusive club,
can we have the number of Linux users visiting news.bbc.co.uk please?
That way we can see if Mr Highfield's claims stand up to scrutiny. 

Vijay.

Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again

[Michael Sparks]

On Thursday 01 November 2007 17:01, Andrew Bowden wrote:
> I've been discussing this in the office, so I did some sums
>
> Having a look at various (non-BBC) site stats I have access to, I'm
> seeing a 3-4% market share. Now on some of them, I know I'm counting
> towards those stats, but one particular site (with a 3.6% Linux usage) I
> don't look at regularly (I just fix broken code on rare occassions).
>
> Even if we say bbc.co.uk has a 2% Linux usage, that's 340,000 users. And
> if we say that bbc.co.uk has a 0.1% Linux usage, that's 17,000.
>
> Some stats have put Linux desktop usage at as low as 0.26%, so even if
> we take the 0.1% figure, I'd expect a lot more than 400-600!
>
> I have a feeling that there's been a bit of a mistake made somewhere
> down the line :)

Linux Format has an ABC figure of 26702. That's a bit higher than 600. It's 
also very unlikely to be anywhere near the number of people who run Linux.
After all, I doubt PC Format gets 17.1 million people buying it each month...

Look at it this way - there's more than 600 shops nationwide (Tesco,
WH Smiths, newsagents) that sell goods (magazines :) which are targetted
at linux users. You need a much bigger market than 600 to make that
economically viable year in year out.

Someone IS getting their stats wrong.


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/

Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again

[vijay chopra]

Thanks for that, I was pretty certain there was a mistake somewhere as I
said, I'd expect for a site as big as bbc.co.uk to get more than 4-600 hits
from people on their mobile phones (I have a low-tech Nokia 60-70, and even
it's capable of viewing the beebs site, add opera mini and most of the web
is available).

Now the question is the mistake in the reporting or in Ashley's comments;
either mistakenly or, as the conspiracy nuts will no doubt think, on
purpose.

Vijay.

On 01/11/2007, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  I've been discussing this in the office, so I did some sums
>
> Having a look at various (non-BBC) site stats I have access to, I'm seeing
> a 3-4% market share. Now on some of them, I know I'm counting towards those
> stats, but one particular site (with a 3.6% Linux usage) I don't look at
> regularly (I just fix broken code on rare occassions).
>
> Even if we say bbc.co.uk has a 2% Linux usage, that's 340,000 users. And
> if we say that bbc.co.uk has a 0.1% Linux usage, that's 17,000.
>
> Some stats have put Linux desktop usage at as low as 0.26%, so even if we
> take the 0.1% figure, I'd expect a lot more than 400-600!
>
> I have a feeling that there's been a bit of a mistake made somewhere down
> the line :)
>
>  --
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] PROTECTED]>[mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] PROTECTED]>]
> *On Behalf Of *vijay chopra
> *Sent:* 01 November 2007 16:52
> *To:* 
> backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk PROTECTED]>
> *Subject:* [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
>
> Just read 
> this
> interview with Mr Highfield
> "Highfield used the numbers of non-Windows users visiting bbc.co.uk as
> justification for the corporation's XP-only release. "We have 17.1 million
> users of bbc.co.uk in the UK and, as far as our server logs can make out,
> 5 per cent of those [use Macs] and around 400 to 600 are Linux users.""
> (via slashdot )
>
> Have tech.co.uk missed out a zero as I can't believe that the number of
> Linux users is that low, I'd expect more people to visit the site on their
> mobile phones than that.
> Unless perhaps most do as I do and go straight to news.bbc.co.uk and
> bypass bbc.co.uk entirely (in which case using those numbers as
> justification for ignoring iPlayer on Linux is bizarre; perhaps some more
> research into your audience is in order?).
>
> Though it feels good to be a member of such an exclusive club, can we have
> the number of Linux users visiting news.bbc.co.uk please? That way we can
> see if Mr Highfield's claims stand up to scrutiny.
>
> Vijay.
>
>

Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again

[Matt Hammond]

The statements attributes to Ashley Highfield seem to talk about *users*  
(eg. measured as unique cookies) whereas the other numbers we're comparing  
against here are being described as "usage" and "hits".


Just thought I'd point it out before we get in a mess :-)


Matt

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:38:19 -, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



Thanks for that, I was pretty certain there was a mistake somewhere as I
said, I'd expect for a site as big as bbc.co.uk to get more than 4-600  
hits
from people on their mobile phones (I have a low-tech Nokia 60-70, and  
even
it's capable of viewing the beebs site, add opera mini and most of the  
web

is available).

Now the question is the mistake in the reporting or in Ashley's comments;
either mistakenly or, as the conspiracy nuts will no doubt think, on
purpose.

Vijay.

On 01/11/2007, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 I've been discussing this in the office, so I did some sums

Having a look at various (non-BBC) site stats I have access to, I'm  
seeing
a 3-4% market share. Now on some of them, I know I'm counting towards  
those

stats, but one particular site (with a 3.6% Linux usage) I don't look at
regularly (I just fix broken code on rare occassions).

Even if we say bbc.co.uk has a 2% Linux usage, that's 340,000 users. And
if we say that bbc.co.uk has a 0.1% Linux usage, that's 17,000.

Some stats have put Linux desktop usage at as low as 0.26%, so even if  
we

take the 0.1% figure, I'd expect a lot more than 400-600!

I have a feeling that there's been a bit of a mistake made somewhere  
down

the line :)

 --
*From:*  
[EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
*On Behalf Of *vijay chopra
*Sent:* 01 November 2007 16:52
*To:*  
backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk

*Subject:* [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again

Just read  
this

interview with Mr Highfield
"Highfield used the numbers of non-Windows users visiting bbc.co.uk as
justification for the corporation's XP-only release. "We have 17.1  
million
users of bbc.co.uk in the UK and, as far as our server logs can make  
out,

5 per cent of those [use Macs] and around 400 to 600 are Linux users.""
(via slashdot )

Have tech.co.uk missed out a zero as I can't believe that the number of
Linux users is that low, I'd expect more people to visit the site on  
their

mobile phones than that.
Unless perhaps most do as I do and go straight to news.bbc.co.uk and
bypass bbc.co.uk entirely (in which case using those numbers as
justification for ignoring iPlayer on Linux is bizarre; perhaps some  
more

research into your audience is in order?).

Though it feels good to be a member of such an exclusive club, can we  
have
the number of Linux users visiting news.bbc.co.uk please? That way we  
can

see if Mr Highfield's claims stand up to scrutiny.

Vijay.






--
| Matt Hammond
| Research Engineer, FM&T, BBC, Kingswood Warren, Tadworth, Surrey, UK
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/

-
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] Ashley Highfield speaks again

[Matt Hammond]

That said, I also reckon 400-600 sounds far too low!


Matt

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:52:54 -, Matt Hammond  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


The statements attributes to Ashley Highfield seem to talk about *users*  
(eg. measured as unique cookies) whereas the other numbers we're  
comparing against here are being described as "usage" and "hits".


Just thought I'd point it out before we get in a mess :-)


Matt

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:38:19 -, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



Thanks for that, I was pretty certain there was a mistake somewhere as I
said, I'd expect for a site as big as bbc.co.uk to get more than 4-600  
hits
from people on their mobile phones (I have a low-tech Nokia 60-70, and  
even
it's capable of viewing the beebs site, add opera mini and most of the  
web

is available).

Now the question is the mistake in the reporting or in Ashley's  
comments;

either mistakenly or, as the conspiracy nuts will no doubt think, on
purpose.

Vijay.

On 01/11/2007, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 I've been discussing this in the office, so I did some sums

Having a look at various (non-BBC) site stats I have access to, I'm  
seeing
a 3-4% market share. Now on some of them, I know I'm counting towards  
those
stats, but one particular site (with a 3.6% Linux usage) I don't look  
at

regularly (I just fix broken code on rare occassions).

Even if we say bbc.co.uk has a 2% Linux usage, that's 340,000 users.  
And

if we say that bbc.co.uk has a 0.1% Linux usage, that's 17,000.

Some stats have put Linux desktop usage at as low as 0.26%, so even if  
we

take the 0.1% figure, I'd expect a lot more than 400-600!

I have a feeling that there's been a bit of a mistake made somewhere  
down

the line :)

 --
*From:*  
[EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
*On Behalf Of *vijay chopra
*Sent:* 01 November 2007 16:52
*To:*  
backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk

*Subject:* [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again

Just read  
this

interview with Mr Highfield
"Highfield used the numbers of non-Windows users visiting bbc.co.uk as
justification for the corporation's XP-only release. "We have 17.1  
million
users of bbc.co.uk in the UK and, as far as our server logs can make  
out,

5 per cent of those [use Macs] and around 400 to 600 are Linux users.""
(via slashdot )

Have tech.co.uk missed out a zero as I can't believe that the number of
Linux users is that low, I'd expect more people to visit the site on  
their

mobile phones than that.
Unless perhaps most do as I do and go straight to news.bbc.co.uk and
bypass bbc.co.uk entirely (in which case using those numbers as
justification for ignoring iPlayer on Linux is bizarre; perhaps some  
more

research into your audience is in order?).

Though it feels good to be a member of such an exclusive club, can we  
have
the number of Linux users visiting news.bbc.co.uk please? That way we  
can

see if Mr Highfield's claims stand up to scrutiny.

Vijay.










--
| Matt Hammond
| Research Engineer, FM&T, BBC, Kingswood Warren, Tadworth, Surrey, UK
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/

-
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] Ashley Highfield speaks again

[David Greaves]

Matt Hammond wrote:
> The statements attributes to Ashley Highfield seem to talk about *users*
> (eg. measured as unique cookies) whereas the other numbers we're
> comparing against here are being described as "usage" and "hits".
> 
> Just thought I'd point it out before we get in a mess :-)

Still comparing apples and apples though: "We have 17.1 million users of
bbc.co.uk in the UK ... and around 400 to 600 are Linux users."

So there does appear to be a mess somewhere...

David
(Who, with his wife, accounts for 2 users)


-
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] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview

[Andy]

On 01/11/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sharing artistic works is NOT a
> central tenet of friendship.

Of course it is. You can't possibly be friends with someone unless you
copy stuff off them. I mean how could you possible be a friend due to
things like shared interests, conversation or any other social
activities. Did you not know nobody in the world had friends till the
dawn of Internet File Sharing, they all sat around on there one
speaking to no one. It wasn't until file sharing that friendship
existed how could you not know that?

(^^ I would hope I don't need to point this out but that was meant
sarcastically.)

Seriously if all your friendships are based solely on what "artistic"
material you can acquire from a friend I think you might need to
reconsider your concept of friendship.

Anyone who knows me, (and most of the people on this list as well ;))
would know that I am certainly not the most pro-copyright person
around. And yet even I disagree with the statement that friendship is
based on file sharing.


Of course media does have an impact on friendship. I watch DVDs I
legally own with friends. Of course they are getting access to the
media content and aren't paying anything, but *severely* doubt that is
the kind of sharing that Rich is objecting to.


> Just because you can doesn't mean you should.  You *can* stab your neighbour
> to death with a breadknife.  Doesn't make it morally right.

I hope your not comparing copy a CD from a friend to murder, I think
most of us agree that murder is a far more serious than copyright
infringement.

> Suggesting they should
> do smething else to finance making more music (which you'll then copy free
> of charge) is also, frankly, patronising.

Are you saying people shouldn't suggest alternative business models,
or are you saying his are patronizing, or are you saying that just
because someone can present an alternative revenue stream it doesn't
alter the morality of copying?

Surely a rational business must at least consider alternative models
for making revenue.
As an aside I was reading a paper about music in the age of copying.
It's in a book at home (it's part of a selection of papers on a DRM
conference. I was interested in some of the technical papers, it's on
the web I think.)

> Yes, but continuous repetition seems to be the only way to get any point
> through to you Dave.

I could name a few other people that applies to ;)
Maybe I should repeat some stuff till it gets through to people.
Compilation of source code is not a cryptographically secure way to
protect data or algorithms.
Compilation of source code is not a cryptographically secure way to
protect data or algorithms.
Compilation of source code is not a cryptographically secure way to
protect data or algorithms.
Compilation of source code is not a cryptographically secure way to
protect data or algorithms.
Compilation of source code is not a cryptographically secure way to
protect data or algorithms.

Andy

-- 
Computers are like air conditioners.  Both stop working, if you open windows.
-- Adam Heath
-
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/

General issues regarding Open Source vs Closed Source encryption _systems_ ( was Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview )

[Michael Sparks]

On Thursday 01 November 2007 20:38, Andy wrote:
> Compilation of source code is not a cryptographically secure way to
> protect data or algorithms.

Giving someone the sourcecode is even less secure - >IF< the attacker can gain
a significant advantage by doing so. The question is therefore "can they?".

(Consider the lighthearted analogy of R2D2 getting the sourcecode/schematics
to the defense mechanisms of the Deathstar. It's a lot easier to find
implementation attacks if you have the detailed plans - especially if you
have a strong incentive to do so.)

In the following I'm going to use standard terminology of Alice, Bob and Eve.

Alice & Bob wish to communicate over a secure channel C, without Eve getting
access to their secret. (the names from a message being sent from A to B via C
without anyone evesdropping).

Consider tools like SSH, SSL & TLS. In this case A & B are chatting - eg 
sending personal financial data. A&B are both users of the software & have a 
vested interest in protecting the integrity of C because E may wish to do 
something nasty. Like empty their bank account.

In this usecase, a common solution is public key encryption. In such a system 
Eve gains no advantage in attacking C from knowing the algorithm in use. Eve 
needs to gain access to the private keys in use and since these are never 
communicated, Eve has to try something else - Eve isn't hosted on the same 
machines as A&B after all. (If Eve was, Eve could do things like a memory 
based attack)

The something else usually relies on looking for implementation attacks to 
bypass the secure channel in order to gain further access. (which when 
combined with other attacks can lead to access to keys)
   * Example: http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-18.html

Rarely you have attacks against the protocol itself, but this did happen with
the change from ssh 1 to ssh 2 - ssh 1 being susceptible to man in the middle 
attacks.

If you have access to the source it is far easier to find such attacks. Rather 
than throwing random data at a piece of software or attempting decompilation, 
you can look at a higher level for locations where buffer overruns can 
happen, double free() etc. You can of course automate some of this.

HOWEVER, E is not the only person interested in finding errors. A & B are also 
interested in finding errors, in order to thwart Eve from accessing their 
personal/financial/etc information. People in groups A&B also have access to 
the same tools. They also have good reason to update their systems to protect 
against holes. There's also *alot* more people who are As & Bs than are Es.

Furthermore, each hole plugged pushes access to the keys further and further 
away from E.

Now consider the case where:
   * Alice is someone who has created a piece of content (the secret) which
 they wish to protect.
   * Bob is a _display device_ which Alice trusts to merely *show* the secret
 to the user.
   * Eve is in this case the user. Alice is afraid that if Eve gets the secret
 (the unecrypted a/v file) that Eve with share it in an unprotected form.

Furthermore: Eve owns the system that Bob is running on. Bob is running on a 
general purpose computer. Eve therefore has access to everywhere that Bob can 
store data. Bob cannot store any secrets from Eve on the computer. Bob can 
however *try* and hide secrets. (Security through obscurity is of course no 
security) Bob could also encrypt these secrets to try and prevent Eve 
accessing them.

If Eve finds where the secrets are however, Eve can use a brute force attack 
against the stored data to find the keys. This is precisely what happens when 
someone use libcss to watch a DVD under Linux. 

OK, back on topic. You claim this:
> Compilation of source code is not a cryptographically secure way to
> protect data or algorithms.

Which is true. The numerous DVD players performing brute force attacks under 
Linux in order for people to be able to watch the DVDs they've paid for 
proves your point here happily.

The question here is can you have a *completely* open source DRM mechanism 
where the keys & algorithm used are protected. (ie hidden)  If you think 
about it, the answer has to be no. Consider two cases:

   * The case where you (Eve) can recompile the code yourself, and merely take
 data from Alice which includes the keys. Clearly in this case it's
 trivial to just dump the decrypted data immediately (as VLC can - cf that
 recent article :) after decryption.

   * Suppose a key is embedded in the source as a literal and this is used
 during initial handshaking with Alice and to protect keys before storage
 on disk. Furthermore, suppose that you are supplied with a precompiled
 binary. Sure you can compile your own version, but you can't use your own
 compiled version to decrypt the data.

 This binary could either be the entire system or a decrypt, decode,
 display binary thunk.

This latter approach is more secure, but i

Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview

[Richard Lockwood]

On 11/1/07, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 01/11/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sharing artistic works is NOT a
> > central tenet of friendship.
>
> Of course it is. You can't possibly be friends with someone unless you
> copy stuff off them. I mean how could you possible be a friend due to
> things like shared interests, conversation or any other social
> activities. Did you not know nobody in the world had friends till the
> dawn of Internet File Sharing, they all sat around on there one
> speaking to no one. It wasn't until file sharing that friendship
> existed how could you not know that?
>
> (^^ I would hope I don't need to point this out but that was meant
> sarcastically.)
>
> Seriously if all your friendships are based solely on what "artistic"
> material you can acquire from a friend I think you might need to
> reconsider your concept of friendship.
>
> Anyone who knows me, (and most of the people on this list as well ;))
> would know that I am certainly not the most pro-copyright person
> around. And yet even I disagree with the statement that friendship is
> based on file sharing.
>
>
> Of course media does have an impact on friendship. I watch DVDs I
> legally own with friends. Of course they are getting access to the
> media content and aren't paying anything, but *severely* doubt that is
> the kind of sharing that Rich is objecting to.


Good grief.  Andy and I agree on something.  :)


>
> > Suggesting they should
> > do smething else to finance making more music (which you'll then copy
> free
> > of charge) is also, frankly, patronising.
>
> Are you saying people shouldn't suggest alternative business models,
> or are you saying his are patronizing, or are you saying that just
> because someone can present an alternative revenue stream it doesn't
> alter the morality of copying?


The latter.

Surely a rational business must at least consider alternative models
> for making revenue.


Absolutely. Few people would disagree that the way people "consume" music
and films is a constantly changing process, and over the last few years the
rate of that change has increased massively.

For some bands it's no possible for them to run their own affairs to a much
greater extent than in the past, running the band as a business as opposed
to just being an artist working for and being paid by a record company.
However, for some bands, this isn't an option, and the "traditional" model
will very often work better.  To quote the Broken Family Band in the
Guardian (http://tinyurl.com/23xn6f);

"I'll bet that without Razorlight they'd all be f***ed for jobs. I wouldn't
let Johnny Borrell do my photocopying."

:-)

Right - let's move on.

Cheers,

Rich.