BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
 

In article , Java Jive
wrote:


Exactly, like region-coding on DVDs and Blu-Rays, which is specifically
designed to allow copyright owners to charge what different markets will
stand. If all their prices were fair in the first place, there would be
no point in doing this.

Interesting as an example of an anti-competitive practice that should IMHO
also be illegal under international trade rules. But for some curious
reason is accepted. Maybe because of the way the rules are chosen by big
business interests largely based (politically) in the large developed
countries. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
 

In article , Jim Lesurf wrote:
It seems somewhat idiotic to try to force downloads/streams to
self-destruct in the same world where millions routinely record the same
broadcast material using home DVD recorders, etc.

It seems completely idiotic to try to force any kind of programme material
to self-destruct. Books weren't made to self-destruct, gramophone
recordings weren't made to self-destruct, audio cassettes weren't made to
self-destruct, filmstrips and tape/slide programmes weren't made to self-
destruct, cine film (cellulose nitrate notwithstanding) wasn't made to
self-destruct, video cassettes weren't made to self-destruct, lasediscs
weren't made to self-destruct, CDs and DVDs weren't made to self-destruct,
clay tablets and stone carvings weren't made to self-destruct, and
civilisation as we know it did not come to an end as a result, so why
should anyone in their right mind think there is a valid reason to make
digital material self-destruct, other than "just because we can"? The
people who built the pyramids and the Parthenon presumably wanted their
culture to survive as long as possible, so what was it that suddenly
changed with the invention of digital bitstreams?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
 

In article , Jim Lesurf wrote:
Exactly, like region-coding on DVDs and Blu-Rays, which is specifically
designed to allow copyright owners to charge what different markets will
stand. If all their prices were fair in the first place, there would be
no point in doing this.

Interesting as an example of an anti-competitive practice that should IMHO
also be illegal under international trade rules. But for some curious
reason is accepted. Maybe because of the way the rules are chosen by big
business interests largely based (politically) in the large developed
countries. :-)

Likewise the jiggering of potentially universal electronic equipment such as
phones and broadband routers so that it will only work with one company's
service. This sort of thing might give a short-term advantage to one company
(which is presumably why it happens), but a ridiculous amount of useful
stuff must be thrown away as a result, not to mention the sheer waste of
human effort employed simply undoing other human effort through the vast
network of unofficial "unlocking" services that has sprung up as a result.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
 

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf wrote:
It seems somewhat idiotic to try to force downloads/streams to
self-destruct in the same world where millions routinely record the same
broadcast material using home DVD recorders, etc.

It seems completely idiotic to try to force any kind of programme
material to self-destruct. Books weren't made to self-destruct,
gramophone recordings weren't made to self-destruct, audio cassettes
weren't made to self-destruct, filmstrips and tape/slide programmes
weren't made to self- destruct, cine film (cellulose nitrate
notwithstanding) wasn't made to self-destruct, video cassettes weren't
made to self-destruct, lasediscs weren't made to self-destruct, CDs and
DVDs weren't made to self-destruct, clay tablets and stone carvings
weren't made to self-destruct, and civilisation as we know it did not
come to an end as a result, so why should anyone in their right mind
think there is a valid reason to make digital material self-destruct,
other than "just because we can"?

perhaps because the person possessing it hadn't paid anything ;-)

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
 

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf wrote:
Exactly, like region-coding on DVDs and Blu-Rays, which is
specifically designed to allow copyright owners to charge what
different markets will stand. If all their prices were fair in the
first place, there would be no point in doing this.

Interesting as an example of an anti-competitive practice that should
IMHO also be illegal under international trade rules. But for some
curious reason is accepted. Maybe because of the way the rules are
chosen by big business interests largely based (politically) in the
large developed countries. :-)

Likewise the jiggering of potentially universal electronic equipment such
as phones and broadband routers so that it will only work with one
company's service.

and that is because that "one company" has subsidised the purchase price.
They see no reason that this subsidy should help their competitors.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
 

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf wrote:
It seems somewhat idiotic to try to force downloads/streams to
self-destruct in the same world where millions routinely record the
same broadcast material using home DVD recorders, etc.

It seems completely idiotic to try to force any kind of programme
material to self-destruct. Books weren't made to self-destruct,
gramophone recordings weren't made to self-destruct,..

[snip]

...stone carvings weren't made to self-destruct, and civilisation as we
know it did not come to an end as a result, so why should anyone in
their right mind think there is a valid reason to make digital material
self-destruct, other than "just because we can"?

Well, as far as I can tell...

rant warning again!

The people wo do this have zero interest in 'civilisation'. They have no
interest in either the people who create the source material or the end
users who wish to enjoy it.

Their central interest is simply in trying to get more money and control
for themselves. Everyone else is a body to crawl over on their way up.

The change is that they now see 'technical mechanisms' which they feel can
be exploited to maximise their personal wealth and level of control/status.
It is irrelevant to them if the results seem absurd, or the mechanisms
often turn out to be flops or counter-productive in the long run.

Thus we have 'loudness wars' with pop/rock CDs, and all the other symptoms
of people who - based on a mix of ignorance, greed, etc - will do whatever
they (or a consultant with am impressive suit) tells them will maximise
their personal wealth, etc.

It does not enter their consciousness to think that people might actually
prefer (and buy more in the long run) products that are not crippled by
these symptomatic manifestations. They don't care about 'the long run'.
They are simply grocers who treat everything they encounter as something to
buy and sell in a way that maximises their immediate personal income.

Witness also the repeated attempts by the meeja companies to get copyright
on recorded performances extended. Often using others as their glove
puppets. The excuse trotted out is that the poor performers from 50+ years
ago will 'lose income'. Curiously failing to note that larger amount might
then not be the sole ownership of the large companies involved. (And that
many of the older recordings may have been made for a single performance
fee.)

The reality is that if someone hasn't already made a decent amount from a
50 year monopoly on a performance, then it seems likely that either they
never will, of that the company involved wasnae bothering to even put the
recordings on sale.

Witness here the large back catalogues of some companies that leave
countless recordings unavailable for decades.

I have belonged to the Barbirolli Society for many years, and been involved
in trying to get older recordings re-released. As an example, this morning
I received some 'new' CDs of commercial recordings issued for the first
time on CD. We've had CD for well over two decades! Yet it falls to the
Society and few keen people to get these re-issued. They then repay easily
the production costs - and where relevant the copyright costs paid to the
recording 'owner'.

The 'spur' here does seem to be the UK limit of 50 years on recorded
performance copyrights. Hence the companies know that if they don't make
the source tapes available and use them for re-issues, then someone else
can do a re-issue based on the best recorded versions they can find. This
didn't bother them much when Al Bowley or Nat Gonella was at stake. But as
the limit moves towards the 60s they are getting worried.

I'm fairly sure that most music enthusiasts could mention equivalent
examples in their favourite fields of music.

Also: (since I am ranting again :-) )...

Anyone bought any Gregory Peck films on DVD originally made under the
banner of the independent company he and some other actors set up to avoid
being controlled by the large studios at the time? Take 'To Kill a
Mockingbird' as an example or 'On The Beach'.

Are they *actually* 16:9 anamorphic despite what it may say on the case?

I have tried three different 'issues' of Mockingbird. None of them are more
than letterboxed into 4:3 or plain 4:3 despite the covers claiming
otherwise. None of them have any address for the companies that made them.

So is the situation with film on DVD any better than for music?... Can the
copyright owners be bothered to put on sale decent quality reissues?

I am all for the creators and performers getting a decent income and
copyright for a sensible time. But I don't personally regard that as an
excuse for companies to exploit the material forever more. Indeed, I'd
limit essentially all copyrights to something like 50 years even for
authors - despite have my own published work. if you can't make income from
it in that time I can't see the point of hanging on. And the spectre of
copyright can blight any republishing of interesting material when the
author is missing, the publisher has vanished, and no-one can work out who
'owns' the copyright. That can be a right PITA for both enthusiasts and
academics alike.

I can see the point of keeping copyrights in terms of ensuring reissues
don't misrepresent the original. But not for 'income' after some decades
have passed.

/rant

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
 

rant warning again!

The people wo do this have zero interest in 'civilisation'. They have no
interest in either the people who create the source material or the end
users who wish to enjoy it.

Dunno really its a commercial world out there...

Their central interest is simply in trying to get more money and control
for themselves. Everyone else is a body to crawl over on their way up.

Not all the time Jim.. There are some good guys and gals out there..


The change is that they now see 'technical mechanisms' which they feel can
be exploited to maximise their personal wealth and level of control/status.
It is irrelevant to them if the results seem absurd, or the mechanisms
often turn out to be flops or counter-productive in the long run.

Thus we have 'loudness wars' with pop/rock CDs, and all the other symptoms
of people who - based on a mix of ignorance, greed, etc - will do whatever
they (or a consultant with am impressive suit) tells them will maximise
their personal wealth, etc.

Well a few stations I've heard recently have seemingly backed off the
processing a bit but a few more bits on DAB wouldna go amiss;)..

Which seems it might happen;)..


It does not enter their consciousness to think that people might actually
prefer (and buy more in the long run) products that are not crippled by
these symptomatic manifestations. They don't care about 'the long run'.
They are simply grocers who treat everything they encounter as something to
buy and sell in a way that maximises their immediate personal income.

What... Have you got 'agin Grocers, or do you really mean
supermarkets?..


--
Tony Sayer

BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
 

In article , Charles wrote:
Likewise the jiggering of potentially universal electronic equipment such
as phones and broadband routers so that it will only work with one
company's service.

and that is because that "one company" has subsidised the purchase price.
They see no reason that this subsidy should help their competitors.

Exactly. The company only sees a short term advantage to themselves, not the
annoyance to others and the large scale waste.

I bought a replacement mobile phone for my granddaughter this afternoon for
less than a tenner in Carphone Warehouse. Although it was bought for use on a
particular network using an existing SIM card, the phone itself is not
network locked and could be used on any of them. So it can be done.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
 

In article , tony sayer

wrote:
rant warning again!

The people wo do this have zero interest in 'civilisation'. They have
no interest in either the people who create the source material or the
end users who wish to enjoy it.

Dunno really its a commercial world out there...

That would explain behaviour that actually makes good commercial sense. But
not when it is based on idiocy combined with greed. :-)


Their central interest is simply in trying to get more money and
control for themselves. Everyone else is a body to crawl over on their
way up.

Not all the time Jim.. There are some good guys and gals out there..

Yes. I know there are many people in the music, broadcasting, etc, areas
who are excellent, talented, and motivated by producing superb material.

However they weren't who I was ranting about. I was ranting about the dumb
bunnies who inflict things like clipping, nag screens, futile 'content
protection', etc, on the end users (and, indeed, on the products of the
creators/performers, perhaps without their informed consent or agin their
preferences).



It does not enter their consciousness to think that people might
actually prefer (and buy more in the long run) products that are not
crippled by these symptomatic manifestations. They don't care about
'the long run'. They are simply grocers who treat everything they
encounter as something to buy and sell in a way that maximises their
immediate personal income.

What... Have you got 'agin Grocers, or do you really mean supermarkets?..

I am really referring to a mentality and needed a sensible label to
distinguish the people I was referring to from those who do have skill,
talent, and care about the material and the customers. Feel free to give
them some other name-label. :-)

However my charge level for ranting has essentially now been run down, so I
am happy to stop. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?
 

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Charles wrote:
Likewise the jiggering of potentially universal electronic equipment
such as phones and broadband routers so that it will only work with
one company's service.

and that is because that "one company" has subsidised the purchase
price. They see no reason that this subsidy should help their
competitors.

Exactly. The company only sees a short term advantage to themselves, not
the annoyance to others and the large scale waste.

I bought a replacement mobile phone for my granddaughter this afternoon
for less than a tenner in Carphone Warehouse. Although it was bought for
use on a particular network using an existing SIM card, the phone itself
is not network locked and could be used on any of them. So it can be
done.

Of course it can be done. I suspect that the phone was second-hand and the
subsidy had already been 'paid back'.

If you want to save resources then the only solution is for there to be
only one company in any particular field - there will then be no
duplication of effort. Is that what you want?

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11