Early BBC content was clearly produced and owned by the BBC. I suspect that much of the newer material is licensed with ultimate ownership retained by the various production companies. They would be the ones imposing distribution restrictions to protect their worldwide licensing revenue.
The word you are looking for is called " champerty". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty
The financing of lawsuits by a third party was seen as encouraging frivolous suits. In these days of TV ads and billboards advertising accident lawyers, champerty laws have pretty much gone by the wayside.
I expect my next car stereo to have a Type A USB socket on it, so I can plug in a flash drive, or an iPod, or whatever else the TECH industry (not the music industry) comes up with.
There was at least one aftermarket stereo that had this a couple of years ago, but it seems to have died in the market. Didn't understand why - as it was a whole lot simpler than the Wifi download stereos.
Now, GM and the other manufacturers are coming out with a $200 iPod cable for the 2008 models.
I think the thing that might save theaters is if they made themselves even smaller. Although I like watching actual film movies, it doesn't seem like this is going to keep them in business. I'm thinking of basically 'extreme home theaters' that could be rented out for an evening for under $100. Get 8 friends together, and grab a theater for a night. Big comfy seats, and you pick a movie out of a catalog and they play it for you. Particularly if they allowed you to bring your own food/drink, I think there could really be a market for such a thing. You pick the start time, and you don't have to worry about being stuck with some obnoxious people (other than the ones you choose to bring, of course).
You know, this is a rather brilliant idea. One of the better movie theater experiences I can recall from a number of years ago was a classic small town theater that replaced every third seat with a table, sold wine, beer, pizza and a few other items and showed second or third run movies.
Since they weren't marketing to the preteen/teen crowd, the audience was well behaved and quiet during the screening.
I doubt the economics would work these days. The big chains won't let the smaller chains survive (Google on Madstone theaters), and the real estate needed to do intimate rooms would cost far more than could be recouped on ticket prices or room rentals.
"While production of ethanol can be inefficient rarely does it result in a net energy loss. Several different studies show anywhere from a 38% net gain in energy to over 100% depending on methods use."
I'm sorry, but this statement is misleading at best. There will always be an energy cost (loss) involved in transforming energy from a lower state to a higher state.
For a very readable book on why this is the case and why it isn't necessarily bad, please see Peter Huber's book "The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy".
"I pay higher prices for software and music because of the rampant theft."
I'm sorry - this statement is absolutely incorrect and displays a lack of knowledge about how markets work. Unfortunately, it keeps geeeting repeated by The RIAA, BSA, MPAA and various other agenda driven organizations so often that people start believing it.
People pay what they perceive to be a fair price for products. The argument that prices would be lower if traded copies weren't available has as much validity as the argument that music CD prices will come down once the cost of coverting record plants from vinyl is recovered.
If I'm willing to pay $100 for software package X with a certain level of leakage, why would vendor X reduce that price at all? Fact is, they wouldn't - there is no economic reason to reduce the price. In fact, there would be every reason to increase the price.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly for BBC Radio. Can you provide a link for BBC Television?
Early BBC content was clearly produced and owned by the BBC. I suspect that much of the newer material is licensed with ultimate ownership retained by the various production companies. They would be the ones imposing distribution restrictions to protect their worldwide licensing revenue.
The word you are looking for is called " champerty". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty The financing of lawsuits by a third party was seen as encouraging frivolous suits. In these days of TV ads and billboards advertising accident lawyers, champerty laws have pretty much gone by the wayside.
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers..."
Now, GM and the other manufacturers are coming out with a $200 iPod cable for the 2008 models.
"While production of ethanol can be inefficient rarely does it result in a net energy loss. Several different studies show anywhere from a 38% net gain in energy to over 100% depending on methods use."
5 031161/qid=1121701621/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-0278 377-4635900?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I'm sorry, but this statement is misleading at best. There will always be an energy cost (loss) involved in transforming energy from a lower state to a higher state.
For a very readable book on why this is the case and why it isn't necessarily bad, please see Peter Huber's book "The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy".
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/046
"I pay higher prices for software and music because of the rampant theft."
I'm sorry - this statement is absolutely incorrect and displays a lack of knowledge about how markets work. Unfortunately, it keeps geeeting repeated by The RIAA, BSA, MPAA and various other agenda driven organizations so often that people start believing it.
People pay what they perceive to be a fair price for products. The argument that prices would be lower if traded copies weren't available has as much validity as the argument that music CD prices will come down once the cost of coverting record plants from vinyl is recovered.
If I'm willing to pay $100 for software package X with a certain level of leakage, why would vendor X reduce that price at all? Fact is, they wouldn't - there is no economic reason to reduce the price. In fact, there would be every reason to increase the price.
They'll have to
As long as the revenue stream from network viewing exceeds that from individual subscribers, the networks will demand exclusivity.