BBC iplayer

On 20 Aug, 11:25, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article . com,

wrote:
The recorded music business has held onto the same pathetic fantasy since the
invention of tape recording - that it will somehow be possible to invent a
technology that will permit the punters to listen to the music but not copy it.
Every time a new technology or home recording format is invented, they waste
their money and our patience on another vain attempt, not realising that
fundamental principles are against them.
[...]
If the disc costs £10, the DRM costs 1p per disc, and the presence of
DRM forces an extra sale about 1 time in 100, that's a 10x return on
investment for using DRM.

The notion that preventing people from copying recordings (even if it were
possible) will actually force them to buy copies is an act of faith on the part of
the recording industry. Like any act of faith, not only is it unprovable, but there
are plenty of indications to the contrary, such as the many instances where
familiarity through the availability of an illegal copy has actually prompted the
desire to own an original.

Such examples are often quoted. I have a few myself.

However, it would be folly to suggest that giving content away would
have no impact on the sales of that content. Is everyone in this world
really so honest that, if they're given (or can obtain) a copy of a
movie or CD they were thinking about buying at a vastly reduced price
(e.g. free), they will still go out and buy it at full price? Unless
you actually believe that, then it follows that DRM will stop
_someone_ from copying something, that will stop at least _someone_
from receiving it for free, and that will cause at least _someone_ to
buy it. Hence it will generate at least some extra revenue.

Actually believing the mantra that "every copy is a lost sale", and that the
equivalent amount of money could be recouped by preventing the copying is utter
nonsense necause it is banking on phantom money that never existed, so it is sheer
folly to waste real money in pursuit of it.

Of course every copy isn't a lost sale. There isn't $2bn (or whatever)
out there just waiting to be spent on legitimate CDs and DVDs if only
piracy were stamped out. (If there is, it's not sitting in my back
account!)

However, there is clearly a commercial benefit to be gained from not
giving the stuff away. If the cost of DRM (and I have no idea how much
Microsoft charge for it) is less than the increased revenue due to
using it, then people will use it.

This is all way OT, since the BBC are not in this position.

Cheers,
David.

"
writes:

If the disc costs £10, the DRM costs 1p per disc, and the presence of
DRM forces an extra sale about 1 time in 100, that's a 10x return on
investment for using DRM.

But how many sales does it lose through people not buying discs with DRM?

"
writes:

I wonder how the cost of everyone watching TV this way compares with
the cost of everyone getting a Freeview PVR which can buffer 7 day's
worth of TV? (or a fraction of it, by making an intelligent choice for
you). I suspect the latter is much cheaper, DRM-free, and
fantastically better quality.

One potential problem with that (and I do have a Freeview PVR) is that
at some times there is nothing you wish to watch (record) on any
channel, but at other times 4 or 5 channels might be showing programmes
which you might like to watch. But the PVRs can, at most, record 2
channels while letting you watch a third live (with the restriction that
the channel you are watching live must be on the same MUX as one of
those you are recording).

On 20 Aug, 13:44, Graham Murray wrote:
"
writes:

I wonder how the cost of everyone watching TV this way compares with
the cost of everyone getting a Freeview PVR which can buffer 7 day's
worth of TV? (or a fraction of it, by making an intelligent choice for
you). I suspect the latter is much cheaper, DRM-free, and
fantastically better quality.

One potential problem with that (and I do have a Freeview PVR) is that
at some times there is nothing you wish to watch (record) on any
channel, but at other times 4 or 5 channels might be showing programmes
which you might like to watch. But the PVRs can, at most, record 2
channels while letting you watch a third live (with the restriction that
the channel you are watching live must be on the same MUX as one of
those you are recording).

Current PVRs also have nowhere near the disc space required to store 7
days TV. There are semi-affordable HDDs that do though.

It's been possible to record an entire mux for several years on PCs,
so there's no hardware issue there - infact in hardware terms that
datarate has been possible longer than we've had DTT!

As for tuners, I guess some people manage to find content they want on
more than 2 or 3 muxes at once, but the planning assumption in the UK
is that half the muxes are unimporant since they won't be available
from relay transmitters.

So I think we're quite close to this being a reality.

Google BBC PVR Pandora to find out what BBC R&D have already produced.

Sony had a prototype that recorded 7 channels at once, but I can't
find the link to that.

Cheers,
David.

In article . com,
wrote:
However, it would be folly to suggest that giving content away would
have no impact on the sales of that content.

Quite so, but it seems to work both ways. A great many things are
effectively given away in the hope of a *positive* influence on sales.
In the world of commerce, loss-leaders and free samples are at least as
common as the record industry's plaintive bleat that "every unauthorised
copy is a lost sale". Clearly there are believers on both sides of this
particular fence.

Is everyone in this world
really so honest that, if they're given (or can obtain) a copy of a
movie or CD they were thinking about buying at a vastly reduced price
(e.g. free), they will still go out and buy it at full price? Unless
you actually believe that, then it follows that DRM will stop
_someone_ from copying something, that will stop at least _someone*
from receiving it for free, and that will cause at least _someone_ to
buy it. Hence it will generate at least some extra revenue.

It will only generate "extra" revenue if the sales you imagine have been
"forced" by its non-availability outnumber the sales prompted by its
availability. Would you care to outline a reliable objective method for
measuring these quantities?

Rod.

In article , Graham Murray wrote:
If the disc costs £10, the DRM costs 1p per disc, and the presence of
DRM forces an extra sale about 1 time in 100, that's a 10x return on
investment for using DRM.

But how many sales does it lose through people not buying discs with DRM?

None, I should think. Most people won't have a clue what "DRM" is, or
whether any particular disc has it. Personally I buy discs based on whether
they contain the particular performances I want to hear, and it seems a
reasonable assumption that most people do the same.

Rod.

On 20 Aug, 22:30, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

It will only generate "extra" revenue if the sales you imagine have been
"forced" by its non-availability outnumber the sales prompted by its
availability. Would you care to outline a reliable objective method for
measuring these quantities?

Of course not, but through various audio/hacker forums, I've observed
the spread of DRM on audio CDs. It wasn't introduced on all titles in
all territories at the same time. It was introduced piecemeal. One
plausible explanation is that the record companies were testing the
water, and assessing the impact it had.

I haven't bought a "pop" CD in years, but from what I read, DRM is now
widespread on such CDs. This suggests the impact the record companies
saw justified the price of applying it. I admit there are other
explanations, but this is a plausible one.

"They are numbskulls and spent money on something that brought them
zero benefit in any way" is less plausible, though possible of course.
A lot of things happen because someone in some company has to be seen
to be doing something. Lots of people create/perpetuate jobs for
themselves where no actual useful work exists for them to do!

Cheers,
David.

In article .com,
wrote:
I haven't bought a "pop" CD in years, but from what I read, DRM is now
widespread on such CDs. This suggests the impact the record companies
saw justified the price of applying it. I admit there are other
explanations, but this is a plausible one.

All that indicates is that the record companies *believe* it has an
effect, which doesn't prove a thing. The number of people who believe
something tells us nothing whatsoever about whether or not it is true,
unless they can offer some credible rational evidence-based argument in
support of whatever it is that they believe.

The case can be argued hypothetically either way, but without
quantitative evidence there is no hope of being sure which is the
dominant effect. When I see such evidence I'll start believing things,
but so far there has been nothing more than the naive orthodoxy of
vested interests.

Rod.

Graham Murray wrote:
One potential problem with that (and I do have a Freeview PVR) is
that at some times there is nothing you wish to watch (record) on
any channel, but at other times 4 or 5 channels might be showing
programmes which you might like to watch. But the PVRs can, at most,
record 2 channels while letting you watch a third live (with the
restriction that the channel you are watching live must be on the
same MUX as one of those you are recording).

Sure, but how often is this a problem in practice? On the few
occasions when there have been three things on that I want to record,
one or more was also scheduled for later that day/week. I think that
maybe twice in three years have I resorted to recording a third
programme on the PC's tv card or (heaven forfend!) the VCR. (I never
watch anything live anyway - can't stand the adverts, either the
commercial ones or the BBC ones :-( ).

André Coutanche

On 21 Aug, 11:57, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article .com,

wrote:
I haven't bought a "pop" CD in years, but from what I read, DRM is now
widespread on such CDs. This suggests the impact the record companies
saw justified the price of applying it. I admit there are other
explanations, but this is a plausible one.

All that indicates is that the record companies *believe* it has an
effect, which doesn't prove a thing. The number of people who believe
something tells us nothing whatsoever about whether or not it is true,
unless they can offer some credible rational evidence-based argument in
support of whatever it is that they believe.

The case can be argued hypothetically either way, but without
quantitative evidence there is no hope of being sure which is the
dominant effect. When I see such evidence I'll start believing things,
but so far there has been nothing more than the naive orthodoxy of
vested interests.

It is very easy to believe that everyone in a high powered job earning
more than you must be a complete idiot, and that you could do the job
better yourself.

However, I would suggest to you that, just possibly, the record
companies looked at quantitive data such as sales, applied DRM to
different titles in different territories, and performed some kind of
analysis to judge the effect of applying the protection. It's on
record that they monitor p2p traffic too, so it's likely they measured
the number of seeds and copies.

I don't know if the data itself has been published. Most record
companies are American public companies - a surprising amount of data
is released by them, simply because of legal obligations to do so.

It could, of course, be blind belief. The real commercial world isn't
always (ever?) rational. However, there's a bottom line, and someone
in most companies will question expenditure which does not generate
any return.

Cheers,
David.