I sigh – Slashdot, predictably goes bonkers.
If you have a tolerance for /. you can find some nuggets in there like this one, which makes a good point about a public corporation that sets great store by it’s perception as a ‘trusted brand’ but seems to have little trust in its users:
Why consider all the Internet users/customers as thiefs? [sic] Imagine a shop where you are systematically checked walking out, will you come back?
and this one
…there’s a much deeper issue here. The BBC has been in existence for most of the 20th century and their archive includes a very detailed log of global history throughout that time as well as entertainment programs. The value of that archive cannot be underestimated as a historical, social and political eductaional resource for future generations – therefore, if it is to be “opened to the public” then it must be done so in a manner independent of DRM enforced by an American software company! Otherwise, the public ends up paying Microsoft to access information that should be accessible to all, no matter whether they can afford to pay MS for a DRM license.
…the core issue here is maintaining the right to free information. Just as anyone (in the UK at least) can stroll into a public library and have free access to important historical books, the factual BBC archive must be handled in a similar fashion, even to the point where there’s a PC in every library to be able to get to that archive also.
Sigh. I guess they could spend some of that post-Hutton goodwill.
UPDATE: to the second quote from /., Tomski points out that he’s conflating the iMP with the creative archive, which will be DRM-free and be as close to a creative commons as possible. Fair enough. Still not sure about Tom’s assertion that “Of course the iMP will have DRM”…