While I applaud the BBC for this attempt to make its archives available, I wonder if they have truly considered the actual costs of distribution. Leaving aside broadband connectivity costs (something that's been considered elsewhere) I am curious as to how they are going to negotiate the retransmission rights for all this archival stock. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a feasibility study into this as part of their preparation for digital television and found the costs of renegotiating transmission rights for that intellectual property were more expensive than creating new television content. I imagine the internet would be even more expensive, as the penetration of internet is global, where broadcasting is geographically limited.
The only trouble with offshore implementations of Napster is the possibility that those who hold the most power in IP (Intellectual Property, not internet protocol, this time) will push for litigation against ISPs providing access to "offensive material" received from overseas Napster-style operations. Australia already has a complaints mechanism in place, overseen by the Australian Broadcasting Authority, where the ABA can issue a 'take-down' notice forcing ISPs to block access to servers hosting offending materials. Right now that law is only supposed to refer to materials that would generally be regarded as X-rated or banned content, but the precedent is in place. I see a time where materials that would be regarded as 'illegal copies' being added to that list of take-down materials, as imminent.
If Napster is forced into the underground, so what, you may say. It won't stop the flood. But folks, it will. The whole point of Napster was that it was easily accessible and free. If access to overseas-hosted Napster-style services is blocked from major nations, then only the elite, or those with the finances for developing/purchasing advanced routing systems will be able to participate in a once free exchange.
The goal should not be to prove that Napster hasn't engaged in IP-infringement, but that IP-infringement is no longer relevant. That artists and creators should be seeking alternatvive means of receiving payment for their work. You could well argue that if they are truly artists, they should regard their work as within the public domain. Otherwise, they are nothing more than sales clerks.
Slashdot Mirror
While I applaud the BBC for this attempt to make its archives available, I wonder if they have truly considered the actual costs of distribution. Leaving aside broadband connectivity costs (something that's been considered elsewhere) I am curious as to how they are going to negotiate the retransmission rights for all this archival stock. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a feasibility study into this as part of their preparation for digital television and found the costs of renegotiating transmission rights for that intellectual property were more expensive than creating new television content. I imagine the internet would be even more expensive, as the penetration of internet is global, where broadcasting is geographically limited.
Thoughts on this anyone?
The only trouble with offshore implementations of Napster is the possibility that those who hold the most power in IP (Intellectual Property, not internet protocol, this time) will push for litigation against ISPs providing access to "offensive material" received from overseas Napster-style operations. Australia already has a complaints mechanism in place, overseen by the Australian Broadcasting Authority, where the ABA can issue a 'take-down' notice forcing ISPs to block access to servers hosting offending materials. Right now that law is only supposed to refer to materials that would generally be regarded as X-rated or banned content, but the precedent is in place. I see a time where materials that would be regarded as 'illegal copies' being added to that list of take-down materials, as imminent. If Napster is forced into the underground, so what, you may say. It won't stop the flood. But folks, it will. The whole point of Napster was that it was easily accessible and free. If access to overseas-hosted Napster-style services is blocked from major nations, then only the elite, or those with the finances for developing/purchasing advanced routing systems will be able to participate in a once free exchange. The goal should not be to prove that Napster hasn't engaged in IP-infringement, but that IP-infringement is no longer relevant. That artists and creators should be seeking alternatvive means of receiving payment for their work. You could well argue that if they are truly artists, they should regard their work as within the public domain. Otherwise, they are nothing more than sales clerks.