DRM and the BBC

[CommonSenseOTB]

In a related way: http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/

Does anybody in the US know if this is true or just scaremongering?

I pay attention on a regular basis to both Canadian and US news. I haven't heard a thing about this. If it's true, they are quietly trying to slip this past the people and into law. Why?

I refuse to discuss this lest the "men in the truck" quietly take me in for "re-education".

[Mauiby de Fug]

In a related way: http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/

Does anybody in the US know if this is true or just scaremongering?

I heard about it here (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/11/tomo ... ts-to-die/), although that has a link to the same site DH has posted...

[Disembodied]

It's called SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act (I suppose it sounds better than PITWA, the Pissing In The Wind Act) ... a fair bit of flutter about it, although I have to say DH's link was the first I'd heard. Reuters though are currently suggesting that it looks like the Act might not go through:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/ ... NT20111117

[Smivs]

It is not going un-opposed.

[Selezen]

I think there's a big culture change in the wind, and those who make money from distribution of any media are getting hit hard. Napster was the first big case of this, where music publishers found out they were losing money because online distribution was becoming more popular than buying hard copies of things.

It's true for all the stuff that's being discussed here. Books, music, films, documentaries, everything that is distributed by any sort of marketing firm. The problem is that the floodgates are open and there's no way it's ever going to stop.

Piracy is never going to go away. DRM is like trying to put your finger in a dam that's already rubble at the bottom of a raging torrent (pun intended).

As far as the BBC is concerned, I do resent paying the licence fee, knowing that it's being put into a kitty that ultimately contributes to paying the wages of people I hate and who do nothing for me (Chris Moyles, Chris Evans, Graham Norton, cast of Eastenders, anyone involved with "talent reality" shows etc). Some of it pays for very good things, like documentaries, Watchdog, Crimewatch and Spooks. I woudl be accepting of a change in the structure of license fees, where they are used as a "review" of what people like - people can pay their license fee money to certain "products" made by the BBC. For example I could pay 20% to BBC News, 30% to production of drama and 50% to documentaries. It would be a fantastic way for the BBC to gauge what the fee paying public are enjoying most and would make the couch-dwelling public actually think about what they are paying for.

Radical, huh? Yeah, I'm a rebel.

I generally advocate "try before you buy" philosophies, because I've bought far too many albums based on one good song (where all the other songs were crap) and too many films based on trailers that were only good because they had ALL the good bits in the trailer. I'll watch/listen to something then if it's good and I'll watch/listen to it again then I'll go and buy it.

I like that most new DVDs/Blu-rays are now coming with free digital downloads. I don't like that each one has a different way to play it though... I still tend to download a DRM free digital copy so that I can play it on my computer, iPhone and TV through their disparate methods.

Ultimately, I understand the need to have DRM as far as the profits of publishers are concerned, but I don't understand why the viewer/listener/reader's ability to view said protected media has to be compromised to achieve that. Maybe some boffin out there will work it out some day, and you know that the person who does it will be a hacker...

[Disembodied]

As far as the BBC is concerned, I do resent paying the licence fee, knowing that it's being put into a kitty that ultimately contributes to paying the wages of people I hate and who do nothing for me (Chris Moyles, Chris Evans, Graham Norton, cast of Eastenders, anyone involved with "talent reality" shows etc). Some of it pays for very good things, like documentaries, Watchdog, Crimewatch and Spooks. I woudl be accepting of a change in the structure of license fees, where they are used as a "review" of what people like - people can pay their license fee money to certain "products" made by the BBC. For example I could pay 20% to BBC News, 30% to production of drama and 50% to documentaries. It would be a fantastic way for the BBC to gauge what the fee paying public are enjoying most and would make the couch-dwelling public actually think about what they are paying for.

Radical, huh? Yeah, I'm a rebel.

But life's like that; it's not a bed of roses. You have to take the bad with the good. I like the idea that my taxes support schools and hospitals, but I resent the idea that they're used to bail out halfwit banks, and to [... insert long, long list here]. But a functioning state is better than the alternative.

The idea of only paying for what I like has some appeal – but the unfortunate truth is that the programmes I like are in fact supported by the licence fees of people who would rather only see "talent reality" shows, soap operas and oinking chat shows, i.e. the majority ... Because they're free from (some) commercial pressure, the BBC can make things that nobody else would make, because it wouldn't appeal to the lowest common denominator. By so doing they create a bottom line of quality which others are measured against, and which they have to aspire to (this is one reason why Murdoch and his brood hate them so much).

Maybe there is some place, some role for greater interactivity – for crowdsourced funding of artists, writers, film- and programme-makers, games designers. But right now, I'll take the Beeb, with all its faults and garbage, over the alternatives on offer.

[Cmdr James]

I woudl be accepting of a change in the structure of license fees, where they are used as a "review" of what people like - people can pay their license fee money to certain "products" made by the BBC. For example I could pay 20% to BBC News, 30% to production of drama and 50% to documentaries. It would be a fantastic way for the BBC to gauge what the fee paying public are enjoying most and would make the couch-dwelling public actually think about what they are paying for.

We could easily enough allocate money according to viewing figures. That is more or less what commercial stations do, and is anagolous to asking people what they like.

We will have almost 100% gameshows and reality TV. Enjoy your democratised TV :p

[Micha]

We will have almost 100% gameshows and reality TV. Enjoy your democratised TV :p

NNNNnnnnnooooooooooooo!!!!!!

[CommonSenseOTB]

I woudl be accepting of a change in the structure of license fees, where they are used as a "review" of what people like - people can pay their license fee money to certain "products" made by the BBC. For example I could pay 20% to BBC News, 30% to production of drama and 50% to documentaries. It would be a fantastic way for the BBC to gauge what the fee paying public are enjoying most and would make the couch-dwelling public actually think about what they are paying for.

We could easily enough allocate money according to viewing figures. That is more or less what commercial stations do, and is anagolous to asking people what they like.

We will have almost 100% gameshows and reality TV. Enjoy your democratised TV :p

Enjoying your democratised Oolite?

[Cmdr. Maegil]

Enjoying your democratised Oolite?

Actually, yes!

But, then again you have to realize that the demographics of something with "Elite" on its name is bound to be at the very least "above average"...

[maik]

Enjoying your democratised Oolite?

Luckily, I'm not bound by other people's votes on what should be part of my ooniverse and what shouldn't.

[CommonSenseOTB]

Enjoying your democratised Oolite?

Luckily, I'm not bound by other people's votes on what should be part of my ooniverse and what shouldn't.

Ah, but your choice of what oxps are available for download is determined in large part by feedback to the oxp developer in the form of comment and # of views to an oxp viewtopic, # of views to oxp wiki pages, and # of downloads of an oxp. You are voting when you either choose to respond to a viewtopic or ignore it. You are voting when you either download an oxp or ignore it.

Everything I've come up with so far has been a direct result of reading posts past and present and deciding to pursue a want/need/desire/idea for an oxp. In effect, somebody wanted it(and voted for it with their posts).

Then there are the oxps that were made because the author themselves wanted it and made it available to share with the community. As there are only so many people making oxps, this may have had the effect of delaying the creation of oxps that have had their ideas and concepts voted for, even as long as 3 or 4 years ago. Not enough oxpers wanting to pursue what has already been voted on.

Now, if what you want isn't available and you download and use what is available even though you don't want it, that is in effect voting for oxpers to create oxps you don't want. There is a democratised oolite whether you want it or not. Use your vote wisely.

[Disembodied]

But this "democracy" is self-limiting. People who want this to be a space-based trading and fighting game, but with Newtonian physics, don't come here at all (or if they do, they either change their minds, or leave disappointed). It's self-limited to people who care strongly about, and enjoy playing, one game which closely resembles Elite. "Democratic Oolite" and "democratic TV" are two wholly different levels of things.

Anyway, we're not a democracy: we're an Anarchy, with Feudal tendencies.

[Cody]

Anyway, we're not a democracy: we're an Anarchy, with Feudal tendencies.

Right on!

[Capt. Murphy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... siness_pop