Slashdot Mirror

but if you look into bbc wordwide you will find that its a provate corporatation thats worth 1.2 billion that sells all our tv programs we have paid for around the world making the people rich off our backs

Is that a different BBC Worldwide to the onehope you enjoy my rantsworth :)

On the contrary, merely reading it made lose about 5 IQ points. While I can spare them (unlike some) I really hope it's not permanent.

Also:

BBC produced content is sold Worldwide, making a tidy contribution*. Most of this is broadcast to the UK well before internationally, so (for example) an American TV exec would naturally be concerned that any show they were interested in licensing might just be all over the torrents well in advance.

* Though this is quite difficult to determine, since while the Annual Review indicates dividends paid of around £70m in 2008-09, there's presumably a lot of scope for costs shared with the BBC (i.e. that the BBC would otherwise have had to pay themselves). Last year BBC Worldwide sales were £1b.

I think you're missing the point of my question. The BBC does online streaming right now. Are you saying they fund this via BBC Worldwide, not via the license fee? Because I was under the impression that they specifically asked for the license fee to be increased so that they could do more online, and are planning on spending far more on digital than BBC Worldwide takes in.

Specifically, the BBC made a grand total of £6.9 million in profits from BBC Worldwide last year according to their official figures linked to above, and the planned spending on iPlayer and related digital offerings as per the Guardian page is £1.2 billion. Explain to me again how BBC Worldwide is funding iPlayer?

Actually, the BBC does have a commerical arm which operates outside the uk... it is called BBC Worldwide.

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/

I wonder how BBC Worldwide would feel if the BBC started to give their content for free on the web when they have to pay for their content (which they then sell to others) from the BBC. I'm sure the networks that carry BBC content would be so happy to pay large sums for it but know that it is available for free on the internet (ok, please forget about BT as that is another problem).

Also, remember the fact that the BBC doesn't *own* all the content it broadcasts, and because you pay your "TV tax" it doesn't mean you own the content broadcast either. Most of the BBC's content is produced by other companies which the BBC then aquires certain rights to show (like being able to repeat it for 7 days after broadcasting it). Just becuase it was produced for the BBC doesn't mean the BBC owns it. The rights for these programmes are usually pretty complicated, every time a programme is repeated lots of people end up getting paid again. This causes a problem because the rights to broadcast the programme over the internet means new contracts have to be drawn up. What if say, a show like Spooks/MI5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooks), wishes to sell the rights to broadcast it over the internet to another company? How would it affect the company that made Spooks if they could not get money for DVDs of the series because everyone downloaded it for free and burnt it to DVD? It isn't the BBC who pushed for the DRM, it was really the production companies who produce the content for the BBC. These companies who produce content for the BBC have to then sell this content to other companies outside of the BBC to get their investment back. What chance would they have to sell these programmes if everyone in the world could get these programmes for free (yes, they can do it via BT, but that is techncially illegal... please don't derail with arguments whether legal or not).

Another example, a music clip is used in one programme produced for the BBC. They are allowed to use the clip when the programme is broadcast, but once it gos to DVD the clip has to be changed due to the rights owner of the clip. The BBC might have a licence to use the clip in a broadcast but not to actually use it on a DVD (that would have cost more for the BBC to use in that way). This happen for the first series of monkey dust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Dust). The same has happen when networks like Fox or HBO use a track on their shows. Sometimes when it arrives on DVD the track would be replaced by something else due to rights issues. So imagine now what the rights owner of that clip would demmand if the programme that used the clip was broadcast over the internet (not just UK, but worldwide). The BBC would have to get rights to do this, so would have to pay more and would be forced to adopt things that the rights owner would want. Broadcasting over internet isn't covered by contracts to broadcast over airwaves. Channel 4 has an onDemand service over the internet and because of the rights they bought some programmes under, they can't broadcast certain programmes (check out their help page, http://geo.channel4.com/player/simulcast/help.html ). So it all comes down to rights issues in the end and content producers wanting to make the most money. Remember, the BBC doesn't own all their content as well so they have these same rights issues at Channel 4.

So if you want to campaign for the BBC to drop the DRM from their videos, then contact all the companies that the BBC uses to produce their content. They're the ones that want DRM after all.

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/ And your comment states £620.0m from BBC Commercial Businesses, plus £24.2m from other income. That is money NOT collected from public funding (hence my comment that the BBC is partially funded by the Government). You typed it, I assume you read it first. As you say, well-established facts....

This should help answer you question: http://www.bbcworldwide.com/

...also, it's never shy about launching commercial ventures, and using that money to cross-subsidise the UK services.

So here's hoping that once this really gets going, they will launch a subscription offer targetted at non-Brits.

Well not quite..........

A commercial arm of the public BBC, BBC Worldwide, runs BBC America.

The entire remit of BBC Worldwide is to secure licensing revenue from the commercial market, investing it directly back into the BBC. Last financial year BBC Worldwide directed £141 million back to the BBC. Of this BBC America, through 30 million subscriptions, advertising and licensing contributed a large proportion.

I think this sounds like a form of "international licence fee". BBC Worldwide and the BBC just need to start talking a bit more to each other and extend this model to something like the Creative Archive.

Well not quite..........

A commercial arm of the public BBC, BBC Worldwide, runs BBC America.

The entire remit of BBC Worldwide is to secure licensing revenue from the commercial market, investing it directly back into the BBC. Last financial year BBC Worldwide directed £141 million back to the BBC. Of this BBC America, through 30 million subscriptions, advertising and licensing contributed a large proportion.

I think this sounds like a form of "international licence fee". BBC Worldwide and the BBC just need to start talking a bit more to each other and extend this model to something like the Creative Archive.

Well not quite..........

A commercial arm of the public BBC, BBC Worldwide, runs BBC America.

The entire remit of BBC Worldwide is to secure licensing revenue from the commercial market, investing it directly back into the BBC. Last financial year BBC Worldwide directed £141 million back to the BBC. Of this BBC America, through 30 million subscriptions, advertising and licensing contributed a large proportion.

I think this sounds like a form of "international licence fee". BBC Worldwide and the BBC just need to start talking a bit more to each other and extend this model to something like the Creative Archive.

Of course they are, however you have to either pay for them on a CD or wait till they play them on either Radio4 or BBC7 again. You can even buy them as a single CD ready encoded in MP3 format. The site you list above is of course totally illegal.

For legal BBC material see http://www.bbcworldwide.com/

They are allowed to sell their programmes (e.g. The Office) and programme formats (e.g. The Weakest Link) to other broadcasters (either just on its own, or through a joint venture such as BBC America), as well as DVDs etc. This is done through a separate company called BBC Worldwide.

I'm very happy to pay the licence fee. That's where most of their money comes from, I think. But the programs they sell through BBC Worldwide do provide substantial income.

Personally I'm happy to pay the licence fee just to avoid commercial breaks. But there are plenty of great wildlife, arts and history programs that would never get made on commercial stations, great comedy, and the world's greatest radio station Radio4.

The evil Murdoch is trying his best to kill the licence fee. I sometimes wake screaming from nightmares where he succeeds.

Saeger wrote: Is it standard BBC practice to repackage and resell what the public already paid for?

Yes.

And does allowing something to be viewed for free exclude it from ALSO being sold (*cough**linux*).

Doesn't exclude it, but does reduce its commercial value.