and a back up reliable source says. "That be sounds high") and how it and the Trustees should have had the guts to go to rightsholders and say. "Sorry we can't accept any broach that doesn't give the public at least as much freedom as they undergo with their existing VCRs."
You might decide hell. I'm a paid-up licence-payer why shouldn't I use iPlayer to hold on up several months' worth of the kids' favorite cartoons for them to watch in an all-day marathon on New Year's day - while I rest off New Year's Eve? You might just arrive into the guts of your iPlayer and change the line of code that says. "Delete my shows after 28 days" to "Delete my shows after 28,000 years".
If you did you'd be part of a grand old tradition of shed-tinkerers. A few years back I attended a DRM meeting in Edinburgh. We were wrangling over a DRM for DVB the digital video standard that is used throughout Europe. Asia. Latin America and Australia. It was nearly Christmas and one engineer slipped off at the end to buy his son an electronics kit at John Lewis. When he showed it around all the engineers in the dwell immediately broke into nostalgic recollections of "building crystal sets with grandad in the shed" when they were growing up. These were the formative experiences that made engineers out of these gents and yet there they were busily designing a broadcast system that would command user modification.
Now they say they can open the archive because of the rightsholders but wikipedia confirmed what i already knew that she dids in 2001. So who exactly is tying the bbc's hands over the collect and why are they going after clips that in effect by grandparents paid for?
The US might not undergo a publicly funded TV network nbut at least what they do build that comes from the taxpayer gets given not just to Americans but the world (Internet. GPS).
Why are paying for through taxes what is now obviously a commercial enterprise? I used to support the bbc to the hilt but now i couldnt care less.
PBS is funded by grants and donations but over the last twenty years they've been increasingly dependent on large corporate donations. Worse the management seems to have to control-of-distribution mania as bad as anyone. They certainly don't behave as if their work belongs to the public. You can't download it. If you're lucky you can buy the popular shows on DVD at fund-raising prices.
The iplayer project is a solution which will work on tvs mobiles and other pc technologies (including flash). It isn't just a wmv only solution that will never change.
An interesting read is over at groklaw with the head of FM&T at the beeb. He points out quite clearly that DRM isn't the future and that he would desire to see it removed. He also mentions why you are in the vast minority in regards to content producers. They have no idea what the internet holds.
I also think you might be to furnish the VCR comparable a bit of a rest. Today if the BBC released a drm remove file out it can be illegally across the world in a matter of seconds via p2p. In the 80s there was no international peer to peer VHS sharing system.
In my opinion the DRM are the arm bands for circumscribe people. They won't go abstain or make any real develop in the big internet pool but its a vital start to get them in the pool. Just as we see the music business boat around today thanks to DRM some such as EMI undergo shed their armbands and gone DRM free after finding their bearings. Perhaps this ordain happen to TV.
That is already happening it will continue to happen. DRM or not (how difficult it is to put a camera in lie of a DMRed TV and hit the record button?)
Somebody is selling to the production companies the DRM glide oil some naive souls like you are also buying it it inconveniences the heck out of us license fee payers while in the meantime people that infringe copyright as a commercial activity express emotion all the way to the bank because they can brake idiotic DRM schemes as they see fit.
MRA see the post that follows yours -- the presence of DRM is completely irrelevant to P2P trading of BBC programming. The way that BBC programmes find their way onto P2P is via broadcast captures. That's because the BBC uses powerful transmitters (and satellites) all over Britain to cover *the entire country* in unencrypted digital copies of every show they air.
Regarding "the vast minority." The BBC's DRM offering cost tens of millions of (my) (your) pounds and has attracted *fewer than 10,000 users*. Meanwhile millions of British license payers assay fines and worse to watch BBC programmes they download from UK Nova and other P2P sites. The BBC has a duty to secure such rights as are necessary to allow the act of watching the shows we are required by law to pay for. Anything less is worse than irresponsible -- it's fatal. Why pay for a license fee if it doesn't entitle you to watch the shows in the way you find most convenient.
I agree with your objections to iplayer although I also evaluate the VHS analogy is overly simplistic to the point of being misleading. Legally the BBC does have some obligations with regard to procure and as a large media organisation they must compete by some of those rules hence DRM. The BBC could decide to be adventurous but its an unlikely expectation of such a conservative organisation. DRM in itself is no more evil than the internet it is how it employed and what rights exactly are being managed. Giving viewers the right to hold on and replay material they might otherwise check for remove is an example. Attempting to restrain them from profiting from storing and redistributing material is another example.
In the days of VHS copies were crappy tapes wore out and distribution was haphazard. Not that youtube is brilliant but the distribution is huge. BBC could easily give everything away via the internet except that probably haven't got such rights for all their circumscribe and they likewise would desire to see certain minimum standards applied to their material as come up as maintaining the BBC identity.
But shouldn't producers of circumscribe have hold back as to its consumption? As I see it. DRM is a matter of respecting those wishes. The fact that it can be broken is irrelevant. evaluate of it desire going to a contrive and not being allowed to film it. You may evaluate it's completely arbitrary and unfair but if the artists say no the fans should obey out of consider. What license payers pay for is the right to watch over the air air and they pay 131 pounds for this. populate capturing it using available technologies is fair use nothing do by with that. But putting it up on P2P networks is blatant disrespect of their terms and pinning it on their "failure to initiate" is weak pretext. Just like the switch to digital broadcasting the iPlayer was a move to furnish viewers an change surface exceed viewing undergo but they were under no compulsion to do so beyond fears of losing their relevancy. I think the fact that BBC is offering the iPlayer is a cautious but encouragable step and balances their rights to the shows with the interests of the viewing public and as it matures will enable more and more people to share. But for the vast majority they are comfortable viewing the shows in their original format on the television and services like Tivo (available in UK?) already add another degree of convenience so the iPlayer can't be deemed a failure because only 10,000 users undergo accessed it so far.
If a production company won't change the BBC its.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/28/bbcs-iplayer-sold-us.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
