Memorandum submitted by Jason Antoniewicz
The global nature of the internet, technological
convergence and availability have given rise to new ways of experiencing
more media content more conveniently than ever before. Consequently,
many media consumers have adopted the new technology.
Faced with widespread "unauthorised"
access to content, the media industry began by reacting on the
basis of fear, trying to enforce its rights. Now, though, it is
trying to adapt. Adaptation will soon become the main and, possibly,
the only focus as it becomes increasingly evident that the more
practical and beneficial approach is to make unauthorised access
unnecessary and capitalise on the market in ways that are realistic.
Existing measures have proved to be inadequate.
In fact, regardless of any measures the Committee may take within
its current thinking, this inadequacy will remain. The restrictive
approach, mistakenly seen as essential to "protect"
the interests of content makers, is unworkable and will soon be
anachronistic. Legislators should still consider the choice of
some content makers to use restrictive methods, though this will
never be effective and will become less of an issue as the market
develops.
Such a choice should not be available to the
BBC, not least because of its "unique" role. The closed
approach the BBC has adopted in its plans for the online provision
of broadcast content limits access and has squandered the license
fee. So far, there has been no effective safeguard or analysis
of the Corporation's activities in this key area. Moreover, the
Corporation is placing itself in a legal minefield where it cannot
serve two gods in "digital Britain": the public and
the content creators. With a different approach, though, it could
serve both.
To do this, the BBC should allow open access
to content via open standards and software. Anything less compromises
its belief that it should play a prominent part at the helm of
"digital Britain". Anything less and "digital Britain"
as a project will do more harm than good, especially in widening
the "digital divide".
To balance rights and expectations, while remaining
realistic in the face of technological change, the BBC should
abandon simplistic and outdated arguments about editorial integrity
and instead carry advertising alongside online content to compete
in the emerging global market.
Barriers to this can be overcome—advertisers
did not abandon TV with the advent of the VCR. Geographical restrictions
would be self-defeating, since they would merely extend the life
of the alternative, unofficial market. Flood that market with
free, unrestricted, good quality, official products and the public
will tolerate a few advertisements. This approach would stifle
unauthorised access like no other method.
The debate has been too narrow. The Committee
needs to broaden its view and the BBC needs to be opened up. The
limited nature of the information coming out of the Corporation
leads to an ill-informed public, the knock-on effect being that
the Committee's consultations are devalued. Additionally, the
information that the BBC does offer is weighted in favour of "closed"
systems, in tune with its own choices and the interests of its
partners.
What is worse is that this lack of openness
and balance has had a direct effect on the workings of the Committee,
which is why, perhaps, the White Paper fails to offer much in
the way of critical analysis of the BBC's plans. While it states
a preference for open standards over proprietary ones, the White
Paper merely praises the BBC's recent work on broadcasting content
online and fails to recognise the implications of the Corporation's
"lock down" approach.
Long before the scheduled review in 2016, the
media landscape will reflect open standards more than restrictions,
as happened with the development of the world wide web. A free
and open model for broadcast media via the internet may appear
radical, but it is not. It is just that the information available
to the Committee thus far has not served it well.
18 April 2006
| 
