BBC3 DOGS

BrianH wrote:
Surely the real reason for the now globally ubiquitous
screen logo is simply an attempt to imprint a watermark and
thereby dissuade commercial copying. Or am I missing
something here?

Yes, you are missing the fact that anyone who wants to do this would
usually have other non-defaced sources for the material, or would
simply remove the logo using technological means.

Point taken, but I meant a "weak attempt ... [to] dissuade",
in particular amateur efforts rather than professional
studios. After all, there are some VERY amateur film
recordings for sale in far eastern markets; I remember
watching one awful pirated one that had been made in a
cinema with head silhouettes appearing at the bottom of the
screen as people came and left their seats.

Yes, and that's exactly why it won't make any difference. Even if the only
source is a DOG-defaced off-air recording, and the pirate can't be arsed to
obscure the source in his copy, people will still buy it. After all, it was
good enough for the target audience, wasn't it? And certainly better than a
camcorder copy of a new film release.

And are there really "other non-defaced sources" so easily
accessed as a digital satellite FTA source, for example? I'm
thinking of some of the more prestigious BBC productions.

Inside jobs, DVD releases...

Anyway, I still think that copyright protection is a more
credible reason than the risible official ones given, that
of brand identification, or worse, that the public finds it
useful for identification.

I prefer to believe that there is no credible reason at all!

in 221554 20070109 153617 BrianH wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Geoff Winkless wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
For example, I once went on a course where the lecturer had
some kind of verbal tic that caused him to randomly append the words "to it"
to many of his sentences.

*lol*

I had a lecturer who used to do that with "right". I think the record
was over a hundred.

We had a teacher at school who used the word "therefore" in nearly every sentence
he uttered. I think everyone who's ever been in a teaching establishment of any
sort must have encountered at least one character like this. Once you've noticed
their particular verbal tic, you can't *not* notice it, and your sole objective
from then on becomes keeping a tally, to the total neglect of whatever it is that
they're trying to teach you.

But have you noted just how many times anyone interviewed
uses the verbal crutch "you know"? Usually lamely tailing
off a sentence when further descriptive powers desert them.
This has reached such proportions that even public figures
sprinkle their utterances with very liberal doses, sometimes
in every sentence, such that I believe the general audience
does indeed mentally filter it out, along with its
companion, "I mean" that appears almost as frequently.

"I mean" is the most annoying to me - people being interviewed on radio and TV seem to
start every reply with "Yes, I mean ..." or "No, I mean ..."

BrianH wrote:

Surely the real reason for the now globally ubiquitous screen logo is
simply an attempt to imprint a watermark and thereby dissuade commercial
copying. Or am I missing something here?

No, it's purely a marketing and branding tool as far as the UK broadcasters
are concerned. AIUI BBC TV transmissions carry a watermark, and have done for
about 20 years. It can't be seen on normal viewing, but it is robust enough to
survive multiple VHS generations.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In article , says...
Judy Booth wrote:
Have you tried complaining to the BBC about [DOGs]? I'm not saying they
will change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people
are unhappy about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing
this.

Not a chance. Their standard response is that they have research showing
that people like them. This is a lie, obviously, but shows the mentality
that underlies their imposition.

The only way to put an end to these territorial ****ings is to root out all
the TV executives who think they are a good idea, line them up against a
wall, and have them shot.

That's a little harsh, Pyriform... Why wait till they're lined up?
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1125 DVDs, 344 games, 299 CDs, 110 cinema films, 41 concerts, videos & news
/* gears of war, beatles week, ridge racer 2 psp, call of duty 3, jarhead

New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
DVDfever Youtube Channel - http://youtube.com/user/DVDfever

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...




I can't seriously imagine ITV would want to "copy" BBC THWEE or BBC FLAWs
off-air feed.

I can't imagine some broadcaster would want to off-air copy the ****
running on ITVx or procure a movie from ITVx off-air.

Surely it would be easier to copy a DVD? ;-O

Is broadcaster piracy really such a threat and does it actually exist in
the UK?

I think not.



The other factor is that UK broadcasting is still heavily unionised and
regulated. To play 30 seconds of music entitles the music rights holder to
a small fee on every play. Every appearance of an actor entitles the said
actor of a royalty fee.

DOG or not, these parties are not going to let their content go out
without PACT, Equity, or their agents collecting their fees. The more
money at stake, the more fuss and effort they will go to protect their
actual revenue streams.

So again, where is this supposed "off-air" piracy, and how does the DOG
prevent copying?

And why would it be needed for such a purpose on the BBC's DOG **** infested
HD service when it is impossible to copy it because of DRM.



Also why the "top left"?

http://forum.logofreetv.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=906

They know that the top-left is the most prominent position.

Would copy protection require "the most dominant position" of the screen
when the bottom right would be equally valid.




It looks like nothing much more than marketing witchcraft, from a pool of
people thinking the equivalent of "the world is flat because one does not
fall off the edge", because is it nothing more than marketing dogma and
"belief" on the part of a very small number of unaccountable boneheads.

Dom Robinson wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
Judy Booth wrote:
Have you tried complaining to the BBC about [DOGs]? I'm not saying
they will change things based on a single complaint, but if enough
people are unhappy about this and tell them so, then they may stop
doing this.

Not a chance. Their standard response is that they have research
showing that people like them. This is a lie, obviously, but shows
the mentality that underlies their imposition.

The only way to put an end to these territorial ****ings is to root
out all the TV executives who think they are a good idea, line them
up against a wall, and have them shot.

That's a little harsh, Pyriform... Why wait till they're lined up?

Because that would just be uncivilised. I suppose next you'll be suggesting
we all crowd round and call them names before shooting them....

Actually, I might make them stand in front of a giant bullet-proof plasma
screen displaying examples of their work, "pour encourager les autres"...
And the whole event would be televised, naturally.

BrianH wrote:

Point taken, but I meant a "weak attempt ... [to] dissuade",
in particular amateur efforts rather than professional
studios. After all, there are some VERY amateur film
recordings for sale in far eastern markets; I remember
watching one awful pirated one that had been made in a
cinema with head silhouettes appearing at the bottom of the
screen as people came and left their seats.

As said, given this quality threshold, a BBC logo isn't going to
upset/stop "pirates" or their audience!

And are there really "other non-defaced sources" so easily
accessed as a digital satellite FTA source, for example? I'm
thinking of some of the more prestigious BBC productions.

The most prestigious BBC productions are shown on BBC One, DOG-free.

Can something that never makes it onto BBC One or Two (DOG-free) really
be called "prestigious"?

Anyway, I still think that copyright protection is a more
credible reason than the risible official ones given, that
of brand identification, or worse, that the public finds it
useful for identification.

Can you point to a single case of the BBC using it as such, e.g. using
a logo to prove that some pirated content was owned by the BBC in legal
proceedings?

btw, don't underestimate how easy (and common place) it is to remove a
logo...

http://neuron2.net/delogo132/delogo.html

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...359#post903359

For programmes that don't make it into BBC One or Two, sometimes the
only place to see them _without_ a DOG is via an illegal download (or
by processing them yourself).

Cheers,
David.

wrote:
BrianH wrote:

Point taken, but I meant a "weak attempt ... [to] dissuade",
in particular amateur efforts rather than professional
studios. After all, there are some VERY amateur film
recordings for sale in far eastern markets; I remember
watching one awful pirated one that had been made in a
cinema with head silhouettes appearing at the bottom of the
screen as people came and left their seats.
As said, given this quality threshold, a BBC logo isn't going to
upset/stop "pirates" or their audience!
And are there really "other non-defaced sources" so easily
accessed as a digital satellite FTA source, for example? I'm
thinking of some of the more prestigious BBC productions.
The most prestigious BBC productions are shown on BBC One, DOG-free.
Can something that never makes it onto BBC One or Two (DOG-free) really
be called "prestigious"?
Anyway, I still think that copyright protection is a more
credible reason than the risible official ones given, that
of brand identification, or worse, that the public finds it
useful for identification.

Thanks David, you've convinced me. I just couldn't believe
the breathtakingly stupid official answers and was casting
around for something marginally more credible that perhaps
they didn't want to admit.

But this practice has been invoked world-wide for many
years, I used to travel a lot on business and witnessed the
almost universal use of on-screen logos in many countries
when probably the removal techniques were not so easily
available to small-time pirates. The marketing 'suits' may
have thought they were doing something to counter that and
at the same time brand their product (at least to their even
more technically ignorant directors) and the practice has
passed into the broadcasting industry's standard procedures.
Marketing has a history of dubious projects to justify its
existence - I write as a previous corporate multinational
marketing manager, thankfully well behind me.

Can you point to a single case of the BBC using it as such, e.g. using
a logo to prove that some pirated content was owned by the BBC in legal
proceedings?

Naturally not, it wouldn't be worth their while - there are
many cases in other fields where deterrent mechanisms or
threats would never be followed up by the cost of litigation
unless a decision to make a test case to deter others is
made. As you and others have pointed out this is probably
not a major problem anyway.

Best, B.

In article , says...
Dom Robinson wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
Judy Booth wrote:
Have you tried complaining to the BBC about [DOGs]? I'm not saying
they will change things based on a single complaint, but if enough
people are unhappy about this and tell them so, then they may stop
doing this.

Not a chance. Their standard response is that they have research
showing that people like them. This is a lie, obviously, but shows
the mentality that underlies their imposition.

The only way to put an end to these territorial ****ings is to root
out all the TV executives who think they are a good idea, line them
up against a wall, and have them shot.

That's a little harsh, Pyriform... Why wait till they're lined up?

Because that would just be uncivilised. I suppose next you'll be suggesting
we all crowd round and call them names before shooting them....

I'll be sure to record the footage on my mobile phone while the condemned
shout back, "Is this your manhood=3F?"

Actually, I might make them stand in front of a giant bullet-proof plasma
screen displaying examples of their work, "pour encourager les autres"...
And the whole event would be televised, naturally.

And on Youtube before you can blink
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1125 DVDs, 344 games, 299 CDs, 110 cinema films, 41 concerts, videos & news
/* gears of war, beatles week, ridge racer 2 psp, call of duty 3, jarhead

New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
DVDfever Youtube Channel - http://youtube.com/user/DVDfever

In message , Pyriform
writes
I don't think so, although of course it's impossible to be sure. He never
used it in an appropriate context to it.

You see - you're doing it now.

--
Trevor Wright