Further correspondence from Channel 4 CEO

"nwsy" wrote:
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to have your website logo on the page this
link points to?

These logos on his website do not go over the top of actual content, nor do
they hang around once you scroll down the page.

Bill, dancing.

"Ant" wrote in message
...
I think the best way to perhaps is to focus on the misuse of computers and
the
spam angle.
I don't see why my set top box (essentially a computer) should be treated any
differently to my PC.
You're tuning into a broadcast. When you do that, you must expect to
receive all the parts that form that of that broadcast.

Exactly. And broadcasters have obligations and laws to which they must abide
like anyone else.

Loz

"Ant" wrote in message
...
I think the best way to perhaps is to focus on the misuse of computers and
the
spam angle.
I don't see why my set top box (essentially a computer) should be treated any
differently to my PC.
You're tuning into a broadcast. When you do that, you must expect to
receive all the parts that form that of that broadcast.

Exactly. And broadcasters have obligations and laws to which they must abide
like anyone else.

Loz

You're tuning into a broadcast. When you do that, you must expect to
receive all the parts that form that of that broadcast.


Ahhaa. This is good.

If Interactive Digital TV code is to be treated as part of the
broadcast, then this would mean that Channel 4 *is* responsible for the
C4 Active service and the C4 RED DOT.

This point works in our favour, since it means that C4 must then accept
full culpability for their RED DOT code download, and can not plea that
this is the fault of their suppliers' technology.

In particular, C4 should respond to my point of:

Why does the C4 Active service T&Cs say "over 16" when the RED DOT
appears during children's programming where the audience and marketing
is specifically under 16?

The next question is why is OFCOM - the converged super regulator -
denying responsibility for CMA issues? I have it in writing that OFCOM
will not investiagte CMA 1990 Section 1 matters, since the CMA 1990
Section 1 is not specifically included in the Communications Act 2003.

Finally, I look forward to the statement from Channel 4, which they have
not yet made, where they specifically state that "they will download
code onto viewers boxes with or without permission".

So far they have skirted the issue, but one keeps asking.




On a similar vein, I do not spend much time on dealing with BSKYB, since
PSB channels are my personal specialism and I do not have the resources
to play with Sky, however this thread contains some interesting
background notes. Sky users choose their RED DOTs. PSB users do not:

http://forum.logofreetv.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=881

- Sky's Gamestar service is specifically targetted at children.
- The Sky startegy mirrors the Las Vegas strategy proven in the US.




http://logofreetv.org/







--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

You're tuning into a broadcast. When you do that, you must expect to
receive all the parts that form that of that broadcast.


Ahhaa. This is good.

If Interactive Digital TV code is to be treated as part of the
broadcast, then this would mean that Channel 4 *is* responsible for the
C4 Active service and the C4 RED DOT.

This point works in our favour, since it means that C4 must then accept
full culpability for their RED DOT code download, and can not plea that
this is the fault of their suppliers' technology.

In particular, C4 should respond to my point of:

Why does the C4 Active service T&Cs say "over 16" when the RED DOT
appears during children's programming where the audience and marketing
is specifically under 16?

The next question is why is OFCOM - the converged super regulator -
denying responsibility for CMA issues? I have it in writing that OFCOM
will not investiagte CMA 1990 Section 1 matters, since the CMA 1990
Section 1 is not specifically included in the Communications Act 2003.

Finally, I look forward to the statement from Channel 4, which they have
not yet made, where they specifically state that "they will download
code onto viewers boxes with or without permission".

So far they have skirted the issue, but one keeps asking.




On a similar vein, I do not spend much time on dealing with BSKYB, since
PSB channels are my personal specialism and I do not have the resources
to play with Sky, however this thread contains some interesting
background notes. Sky users choose their RED DOTs. PSB users do not:

http://forum.logofreetv.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=881

- Sky's Gamestar service is specifically targetted at children.
- The Sky startegy mirrors the Las Vegas strategy proven in the US.




http://logofreetv.org/







--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Heracles Pollux wrote:
You're tuning into a broadcast. When you do that, you must expect to
receive all the parts that form that of that broadcast.


Ahhaa. This is good.

If Interactive Digital TV code is to be treated as part of the
broadcast, then this would mean that Channel 4 *is* responsible for
the C4 Active service and the C4 RED DOT.

This point works in our favour, since it means that C4 must then
accept full culpability for their RED DOT code download, and can not
plea that this is the fault of their suppliers' technology.

Is it not the case of how the code is treated after download? That each box
could have the individual capacity to block that downloaded code and have
the red dot visible or not? That user-end processing would be part of the
STB code and presumably out of C4's control?

I'm assuming that C4's red dot broadcast consists of little more than
something like "show_red_dot: yes" or "Show_red_dot: no", with all the
display specifics being part of the STB software. I expect everyone here
knows more about it than me, so feel free to correctly me, angrily or
condescendingly as you see fit.

In particular, C4 should respond to my point of:

Why does the C4 Active service T&Cs say "over 16" when the RED DOT
appears during children's programming where the audience and marketing
is specifically under 16?

Presumably something to do with parental regulation and responsibility. It's
up to the parents to regulate the kids behaviour and viewing habits, not the
channel. Actually, thinking as I'm typing, I realise how stupid this idea
is. C4 should obviously know the ages of each individual watching and block
their content from those too young to watch on an individual basis,
naturally.

In fact this should be universal: we should all register our children's ages
and bedtimes with the broadcasters on a daily basis so they can decide
whether to continue broadcasting to our houses after the watershed if our
kids are not in bed by then. In fact, I can't see why this couldn't be
extended to everyone. We could all give a list of our individual tolerances
and preferences to the broadcasters so they can tailor their content to our
individual needs. It's their responsibility after all.

Or, perhaps C4 should suspend the service between 5.30am and 7am - their
only specifically "children's" content times, as obviously, no-one over 16
watches at these times and even if they did, would not wish to access the
Active content before setting off for work or college or university etc.

The next question is why is OFCOM - the converged super regulator -
denying responsibility for CMA issues? I have it in writing that OFCOM
will not investiagte CMA 1990 Section 1 matters, since the CMA 1990
Section 1 is not specifically included in the Communications Act 2003.

Isn't that your answer? It's not in their remit? Section one is about
unauthorised access to computer material. As far as I'm aware OFCOM is a
broadcast regulator, not a software crime investigation unit. As you know
far more about OFCOM's remit and scope than I do I'd appreciate it if you'd
correct my naivety.

Finally, I look forward to the statement from Channel 4, which they
have not yet made, where they specifically state that "they will
download code onto viewers boxes with or without permission".

I'd guess that there would be little way of "opting out" of the download and
that it makes far more sense to have the download happen anyway and the
consent issue to be at the users end, with a local "switch off" option.

So far they have skirted the issue, but one keeps asking.

I expect they can see that it would be unnecessarily cumbersome to tailor
their downloads to suit individual users when the digibox could contain code
which could do the job with much less hassle.

On a similar vein, I do not spend much time on dealing with BSKYB,
since PSB channels are my personal specialism and I do not have the
resources to play with Sky, however this thread contains some
interesting background notes. Sky users choose their RED DOTs. PSB
users do not:

http://forum.logofreetv.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=881

- Sky's Gamestar service is specifically targetted at children.
- The Sky startegy mirrors the Las Vegas strategy proven in the US.

Yes, this article shocked me. To think that games should be specifically
targetted at children! Whatever next?

And of course, how natural it is to make the analogy between one kids games
service and the gambling capitol of the USA. Surprised there's not national
outrage.

Heracles Pollux wrote:
You're tuning into a broadcast. When you do that, you must expect to
receive all the parts that form that of that broadcast.


Ahhaa. This is good.

If Interactive Digital TV code is to be treated as part of the
broadcast, then this would mean that Channel 4 *is* responsible for
the C4 Active service and the C4 RED DOT.

This point works in our favour, since it means that C4 must then
accept full culpability for their RED DOT code download, and can not
plea that this is the fault of their suppliers' technology.

Is it not the case of how the code is treated after download? That each box
could have the individual capacity to block that downloaded code and have
the red dot visible or not? That user-end processing would be part of the
STB code and presumably out of C4's control?

I'm assuming that C4's red dot broadcast consists of little more than
something like "show_red_dot: yes" or "Show_red_dot: no", with all the
display specifics being part of the STB software. I expect everyone here
knows more about it than me, so feel free to correctly me, angrily or
condescendingly as you see fit.

In particular, C4 should respond to my point of:

Why does the C4 Active service T&Cs say "over 16" when the RED DOT
appears during children's programming where the audience and marketing
is specifically under 16?

Presumably something to do with parental regulation and responsibility. It's
up to the parents to regulate the kids behaviour and viewing habits, not the
channel. Actually, thinking as I'm typing, I realise how stupid this idea
is. C4 should obviously know the ages of each individual watching and block
their content from those too young to watch on an individual basis,
naturally.

In fact this should be universal: we should all register our children's ages
and bedtimes with the broadcasters on a daily basis so they can decide
whether to continue broadcasting to our houses after the watershed if our
kids are not in bed by then. In fact, I can't see why this couldn't be
extended to everyone. We could all give a list of our individual tolerances
and preferences to the broadcasters so they can tailor their content to our
individual needs. It's their responsibility after all.

Or, perhaps C4 should suspend the service between 5.30am and 7am - their
only specifically "children's" content times, as obviously, no-one over 16
watches at these times and even if they did, would not wish to access the
Active content before setting off for work or college or university etc.

The next question is why is OFCOM - the converged super regulator -
denying responsibility for CMA issues? I have it in writing that OFCOM
will not investiagte CMA 1990 Section 1 matters, since the CMA 1990
Section 1 is not specifically included in the Communications Act 2003.

Isn't that your answer? It's not in their remit? Section one is about
unauthorised access to computer material. As far as I'm aware OFCOM is a
broadcast regulator, not a software crime investigation unit. As you know
far more about OFCOM's remit and scope than I do I'd appreciate it if you'd
correct my naivety.

Finally, I look forward to the statement from Channel 4, which they
have not yet made, where they specifically state that "they will
download code onto viewers boxes with or without permission".

I'd guess that there would be little way of "opting out" of the download and
that it makes far more sense to have the download happen anyway and the
consent issue to be at the users end, with a local "switch off" option.

So far they have skirted the issue, but one keeps asking.

I expect they can see that it would be unnecessarily cumbersome to tailor
their downloads to suit individual users when the digibox could contain code
which could do the job with much less hassle.

On a similar vein, I do not spend much time on dealing with BSKYB,
since PSB channels are my personal specialism and I do not have the
resources to play with Sky, however this thread contains some
interesting background notes. Sky users choose their RED DOTs. PSB
users do not:

http://forum.logofreetv.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=881

- Sky's Gamestar service is specifically targetted at children.
- The Sky startegy mirrors the Las Vegas strategy proven in the US.

Yes, this article shocked me. To think that games should be specifically
targetted at children! Whatever next?

And of course, how natural it is to make the analogy between one kids games
service and the gambling capitol of the USA. Surprised there's not national
outrage.

"Bill Godfrey" wrote
"nwsy" wrote:
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to have your website logo on the
page this link points to?

These logos on his website do not go over the top of actual
content, nor do they hang around once you scroll down the
page.

Exactly, and it's a bloody poor webmaster that wouldn't provide a link
back to the top of his site from every single page - that's about the
first thing anyone creating a website should learn. Whether it's a
graphic or text is entirely up to personal choice.

In any case, anyone looking at the site can easily disable images in
their browser via the options, and if the page has been written properly
will still know exactly what the link is because of the alt attribute.

Kieran
--
The UK Sci-Fi TV Book Guide
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/john.seymour1/ukbookguide/
A comprehensive guide to 50 years of novelisations and script books
NEW - Complete listing of books based on US series

"Bill Godfrey" wrote
"nwsy" wrote:
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to have your website logo on the
page this link points to?

These logos on his website do not go over the top of actual
content, nor do they hang around once you scroll down the
page.

Exactly, and it's a bloody poor webmaster that wouldn't provide a link
back to the top of his site from every single page - that's about the
first thing anyone creating a website should learn. Whether it's a
graphic or text is entirely up to personal choice.

In any case, anyone looking at the site can easily disable images in
their browser via the options, and if the page has been written properly
will still know exactly what the link is because of the alt attribute.

Kieran
--
The UK Sci-Fi TV Book Guide
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/john.seymour1/ukbookguide/
A comprehensive guide to 50 years of novelisations and script books
NEW - Complete listing of books based on US series

"MC" wrote in message


I do not disapprove of anyone having their say. Thats exactly what right we
have as British citizens and that is my point. "No Logo" is fighting for
what he believes in. You, too, have your right to make a counter argument
against him. However, I feel you do not counter argue with relevant points.
You seem just to ridicule him for complaining in the first place. I hope
you do not intend to continue your counter arguments with "bad arguments"
you so accuse No Logo of. If you do not have a counter argument just leave
him to get on with it.

Been there, done that (search for my posts in Google), and he doesn't
listen, even when his arguments defy logic.



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG