[fc-uk-discuss] Re: [okfn-discuss] OFCOM Public Service Publisher (PSP) consultation response

Fri Mar 9 12:25:49 UTC 2007

Hi Phillip,

Thanks for the comments, I wrote those points after having read only the
abstract of the OFCOM paper, so wasn't fully aware of the subject - clearly
a lot of the points are (a) very vague and (b) already covered by the OFCOM
doc, as a result of my being slightly premature in writing them .  I think
that emphasising the public benefit of liberal licensing is definitely the
way to go.. .I'll add more when i've finished reading the paper!

Cheers,

Tim

On 3/9/07, Philip Merrill <veyr at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I've worked on a reply to this for the Digital Media Project (dmpf.org)
> so I've read the main document, the personal visions, and the Chitty
> 16-pager pretty carefully. I'm certainly happy to help discuss the
> material or locate references that might be useful. I'll at least start
> by commenting on the Wiki stuff, but please direct me wherever I can be
> of use. (By the way, before I was asked to draft the DMP reply, I
> encouraged Nicholas Bentley to reply on his own. Some of you may know
> him.)
>
> > Technology facilitates a shift from a consumption-based model for the
> media to a participatory one - ongoing trend towards this - blogs,
> youtube, etc, PSB should encourage rather than stifle mass participation.
>
> This is so consistent with the new approach described that it fails to
> reply to anything. Frankly, they were smart to suggest this, but they
> need help to get results.
>
> > PSBs should represent the public interest when commissioning
> programmes - All new programme content should be commissioned with terms
> as such that they can be distributed without DRM and under the
> most-liberal-possible licence
>
> You mean PSPs with two P's. (I know it is hard to talk seriously in a
> regulatory context about a Sony portable device's acronym; I keep
> thinking about my son's stupid games and UMD disks.) As far as public
> interest, I'd look at the phrase "public service" and argue that liberal
> licensing provides the best value for the taxpayer. People should use
> all they can, and part of the commissioning process can generate new
> content that supports very liberal licensing (their idea as well as what
> we want). The authors like to use the phrase "share aware" meaning that
> content tells you what you are allowed to do with it (instead of mute
> content encumbered with technological restriction measures but no
> concept for reuse).
>
> > PSBs should represent the public interest in dealings with the
> government (similar to British Library's policy on DRM)
>
> This has many implications and is too vague. For example, a political
> action component is definitely envisaged for this.
> http://www.openmedianetwork.org.uk/contentandvision/act.htm
> Also, the whole proposal is really not DRM-friendly (disclaimer: Digital
> Media Project (dmpf.org) is DRM, we're not the Beckman Center at
> Harvard, we're like the opposite).
> Also, you said PSBs and not PSPs. I'd elaborate the list of what public
> service/interest issues are involved for the complex participative
> environment proposed (although actually they claim to make NO
> "proposals" in the sense of Ofcom jargon). I think there are a number of
> different ones, and then there is the later potential to handle three
> things separately: news, children's programming, and the Regions and
> States. I think a good Free Culture Wish List would be received very
> receptively. At worst, they'll end up with lots of free stuff if the
> document's vision is put into practice, but there might be parallel
> channels that are more restricted, and there will probably be
> restrictions on non-UK users esp. shaking us foreigners down for
> much-needed revenue.
>
> > Investment in technical infrastructure and educational programmes to
> broaden participation in the media and facilitate a conversational,
> participatory model.
>
> Again, if you go through it you'll see that they say they want to
> commission not just content but enabling tools, technology or education
> for participation. They are really great! Until page 45, I didn't find
> one thing I disagreed with. So I would parse out two wish lists here,
> one for technical infrastructure and another for programme types. But be
> warned that these folks really shine when it comes to describing diverse
> program types for public service digital media. In the work-up sessions,
> it looks like everyone had to contribute at least 8 sites or something
> and then propose a make-believe new idea of their own. The URLs are on
> their http://www.openmedianetwork.org.uk/ website
>
> Anyway, I don't mean to criticize. I'd like to live in the better world
> a UK PSP can give me, even way out here in California.
>
> Speaking of which, I'll bet some of you might want to comment on the
> suggestion that the PSP cannot be London based or it will be sucked into
> old crusty ways of thinking. Personally, I think the whole thing could
> be run online with fun periodic events travelling across the UK. And if
> someone can't be there, no matter, they can be there virtually or else
> join in the discussions and online comments after-the-fact. But they
> really seem to want to stay out of London!
>
> PHIL :)
> http://home.earthlink.net/~veyr/ for gory details
>
>
> Tim Cowlishaw wrote:
>
> > (those on the fc-uk list see forwarded messages below- we're discussing
> >
> > That sounds fantastic to me.. I've got a wiki page up on the fc-uk
> > site with a couple of preliminary thoughts (However, I think these
> > might be irrelevant as after reading more of the document i think i
> > may have initially misunderstood the scope of the consultation -
> > expect retractions and revisions to these!). Just had a read through
> > Saul's blog entry and theres' loads of good stuff in there too, so as
> > I think our positions are all pretty much aligned, presenting a
> > 'united front' in this respect would be a great idea.
> >
> > Wiki page here: http://www.freeculture.org.uk/OfcomPsbResponse
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> > On 3/9/07, * Michael Holloway* <michael at openrightsgroup.org
> > <mailto:michael at openrightsgroup.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     Nice suggestion, Rufus.
> >
> >     ORG has not yet planned to submit on this. In fact we're feeling a
> >     little overwhelmed by the many ongoing consultations. Perhaps
> >     there could be a joint submission from ORG, OKFN and FC-UK? I
> >     could certainly get some eyes to look over draft material, and
> >     encourage contributions from our advisers and supporters too.
> >
> >
> >     On 3/9/07, *Rufus Pollock* < rufus.pollock at okfn.org
> >     <mailto:rufus.pollock at okfn.org>> wrote:
> >
> >         Dear Saul,
> >
> >         As I know the deadline for a response on the OFCOM Public
> Service
> >         Publisher is looming (March the 23rd I believe) I was
> >         wondering whether
> >         we at the OKF/OKFN should send something in. Given that you
> >         wrote a
> >         response (in addition to the long blog post) perhaps we could
> >         use that
> >         as the basis (or as is) for an OKFN response. It would also be
> >         good to
> >         put something up as I know that Free Culture UK are thinking
> >         of drafting
> >         something and perhaps ORG might do too.
> >
> >         Regards,
> >
> >         Rufus
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         okfn-discuss mailing list
> >         okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org <mailto:okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> >         http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     Michael H Holloway
> >     +44 (0) 7974 566 823
> >
> >     http://www.openbusiness.cc/
> >     http://www.openrightsgroup.org
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     okfn-discuss mailing list
> >     okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org <mailto:okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> >     http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >fc-uk-discuss mailing list
> >fc-uk-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> >http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> fc-uk-discuss mailing list
> fc-uk-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20070309/92a7109b/attachment-0002.html>