I wouldn't bet that it won't happen. The majority of BBC-produced content isn't sold abroad, or not for a long time. Allowing non-UK viewers to watch, with the same "seven days after original broadcast" stipulation, wouldn't be hard to implement or commercially damaging.
Dirac is alive and well and living in open source land. However, it's a streaming codec, which means it wouldn't be so good for iMP - instead, it's intended to be a codec that can be used for live streams at high quality.
The idea that you "paid for the creation of the content" shows that you don't really understand the process of creating TV programmes, and how rights are distributed and money made from them.
With most programmes that have been created, the copyright is owned by the company that created it - which, thanks to the decision to "outsource" a lot of programme making, isn't always the BBC. Furthermore, writers and artists involved in programmes - actors, for example - usually have rights to additional money when a programme is shown again. This means that, in order to comply with its contracts with these rights-holders, the BBC has to know how many times a programme has been viewed. Without a DRM scheme of some sort, I don't see how this would be possible. It's a classic case where "digial rights management" doesn't mean "copy protection" - it means being able to manage and account for the rights.
The problem is that the definition of a trade secret is so lose as to cause problems, unless checked. A trade secret covers not just an unreleased product, but a business deal or process.
Suppose, for example, that a US clothes company used Chinese factories employing slave labour prisoners to make its goods. Nothing illegal going on - the use of prisoners is legally endorsed in China, and importing the clothes to the US would be (IFAIK) not illegal either. This is, legally, a trade secret: report on it, and you could be prosecuted. What's more, there's no public interest defence, as no crime is being committed.
A second point: Simply because someone tells you something that they're under NDA over doesn't mean you've "induced" them to do so. If you were to email me the details of the super-dooper Widget 20000 that your company's working on, I wouldn't have induced you to do it. I haven't asked you about it, I haven't asked you to break your NDA, and I haven't encouraged to do so. I don't even know that the information is correct.
Yes, it does seem reasonable to ask the journalist where he got the info: except that such a request, if routinely granted, would have a chilling effect on investigative journalism in general. No source would risk giving information to a journalist, even if it was in the public interest, if courts routinely granted subpeona's giving them source names. Apple fans need to look towards the general principle, rather than the particular case.
Actually, in many cases I've seen, the reverse is true. The usual argument goes like this:
1. The journalists used material that obviously originated with Apple. 2. Therefore, the journalists are guilty. Hang 'em.
Mostly, they're jumping to a whole barrel of conclusions before they've been decided on by the court. In other forums, I've even seem them argue that it doesn't matter that Apple appears to have applied for a subpeona before doing the legal work it's required to do - the defendents are "obviously" guilty and therefore Apple can do what the hell it likes.
It's like those people who argue that you should be able to torture people in Guantanamo, because they're "obviously" guilty, too - it shows a complete lack of understanding that the law is *process*, no just decision.
Microsoft's argument was that if it had a free licence for QuickTime, it would mean that QuickTime was the standard for video on both Mac and Windows. Given Microsoft's notorious desire to control standards, this was actually a VERY good offer: it would certainly have benefitted Apple. Think about it - no more Windows Media, no more Real, just a single standard that Apple, not Microsoft, would own.
The same, of course, is true of Windows. I've worked in companies where users aren't given Admin rights on their Windows machines, which effectively eliminates 90% of viruses because of them exploit user stupidity rather than holes in the OS.
It's possible that neither DVD-RW nor DVD+RW will prevail, as both kinds of disc can be read in any DVD-ROM drive and all modern DVD players.
Phillips claims DVD+RW is "more compatible", but both drives write discs that fall within the official spec for DVD players, so that's pretty meaningless.
First off, this is a project from Ziff Davis Media, NOT ZDNet. In case you don't know, Ziff Davis sold the ZDNet properties to CNet, but will be setting up new sites themselves. I believe that ZDNet's license to use the content from Ziff Davis magazines also runs out fairly soon - next year?
Secondly, as a professional journalist I resent the implicit assumption in your statements that what journalists say about products is biased towards those manufacturers are advertised. In seven years as a journalist on technology magazines, I have NEVER come across a case where products got good reviews because their manufacturer advertised in a magazine. Journalists don't always do a good job (and some do a lousy one of reviewing products), but that's not because of any bias of the kind you suggest.
I'm not saying it's never happened. But I do say that it's much more rare than you suggest.
Yes, 1600x1200 on a 15in screen is a *real* joy to squint at isn't it?
Get real, that's got to be one of the most pointless "features" I've ever heard of.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't bet that it won't happen. The majority of BBC-produced content isn't sold abroad, or not for a long time. Allowing non-UK viewers to watch, with the same "seven days after original broadcast" stipulation, wouldn't be hard to implement or commercially damaging.
Dirac is alive and well and living in open source land. However, it's a streaming codec, which means it wouldn't be so good for iMP - instead, it's intended to be a codec that can be used for live streams at high quality.
The idea that you "paid for the creation of the content" shows that you don't really understand the process of creating TV programmes, and how rights are distributed and money made from them.
With most programmes that have been created, the copyright is owned by the company that created it - which, thanks to the decision to "outsource" a lot of programme making, isn't always the BBC. Furthermore, writers and artists involved in programmes - actors, for example - usually have rights to additional money when a programme is shown again. This means that, in order to comply with its contracts with these rights-holders, the BBC has to know how many times a programme has been viewed. Without a DRM scheme of some sort, I don't see how this would be possible. It's a classic case where "digial rights management" doesn't mean "copy protection" - it means being able to manage and account for the rights.
Best. Post. Evah.
The problem is that the definition of a trade secret is so lose as to cause problems, unless checked. A trade secret covers not just an unreleased product, but a business deal or process.
Suppose, for example, that a US clothes company used Chinese factories employing slave labour prisoners to make its goods. Nothing illegal going on - the use of prisoners is legally endorsed in China, and importing the clothes to the US would be (IFAIK) not illegal either. This is, legally, a trade secret: report on it, and you could be prosecuted. What's more, there's no public interest defence, as no crime is being committed.
A second point: Simply because someone tells you something that they're under NDA over doesn't mean you've "induced" them to do so. If you were to email me the details of the super-dooper Widget 20000 that your company's working on, I wouldn't have induced you to do it. I haven't asked you about it, I haven't asked you to break your NDA, and I haven't encouraged to do so. I don't even know that the information is correct.
Yes, it does seem reasonable to ask the journalist where he got the info: except that such a request, if routinely granted, would have a chilling effect on investigative journalism in general. No source would risk giving information to a journalist, even if it was in the public interest, if courts routinely granted subpeona's giving them source names. Apple fans need to look towards the general principle, rather than the particular case.
Actually, in many cases I've seen, the reverse is true. The usual argument goes like this:
1. The journalists used material that obviously originated with Apple.
2. Therefore, the journalists are guilty. Hang 'em.
Mostly, they're jumping to a whole barrel of conclusions before they've been decided on by the court. In other forums, I've even seem them argue that it doesn't matter that Apple appears to have applied for a subpeona before doing the legal work it's required to do - the defendents are "obviously" guilty and therefore Apple can do what the hell it likes.
It's like those people who argue that you should be able to torture people in Guantanamo, because they're "obviously" guilty, too - it shows a complete lack of understanding that the law is *process*, no just decision.
This should really be modded up as informative. It's about time some people started busting a few of the anti-MS myths that people take as given.
But then never let the truth get in the way of a good rant, eh?
Microsoft's argument was that if it had a free licence for QuickTime, it would mean that QuickTime was the standard for video on both Mac and Windows. Given Microsoft's notorious desire to control standards, this was actually a VERY good offer: it would certainly have benefitted Apple. Think about it - no more Windows Media, no more Real, just a single standard that Apple, not Microsoft, would own.
The same, of course, is true of Windows. I've worked in companies where users aren't given Admin rights on their Windows machines, which effectively eliminates 90% of viruses because of them exploit user stupidity rather than holes in the OS.
..something which it has singularly failed to do.
A gram was orginally defined as the mass of one cubic centimeter of pure water.
It's possible that neither DVD-RW nor DVD+RW will prevail, as both kinds of disc can be read in any DVD-ROM drive and all modern DVD players.
Phillips claims DVD+RW is "more compatible", but both drives write discs that fall within the official spec for DVD players, so that's pretty meaningless.
Actually, Apple had to pay a substantial amount of money to Apple Corps. to settle this issue.
First off, this is a project from Ziff Davis Media, NOT ZDNet. In case you don't know, Ziff Davis sold the ZDNet properties to CNet, but will be setting up new sites themselves. I believe that ZDNet's license to use the content from Ziff Davis magazines also runs out fairly soon - next year? Secondly, as a professional journalist I resent the implicit assumption in your statements that what journalists say about products is biased towards those manufacturers are advertised. In seven years as a journalist on technology magazines, I have NEVER come across a case where products got good reviews because their manufacturer advertised in a magazine. Journalists don't always do a good job (and some do a lousy one of reviewing products), but that's not because of any bias of the kind you suggest. I'm not saying it's never happened. But I do say that it's much more rare than you suggest.
Yes, 1600x1200 on a 15in screen is a *real* joy to squint at isn't it? Get real, that's got to be one of the most pointless "features" I've ever heard of.