Slashdot Mirror

when it doesn't rely on ads, you, not the advertisers become the customer.

No.

The BBC get their revenue from a government monopoly. They schmooze the government of the day when their charter comes up for renewal. They pay zero attention to customer complaints.

If I click the links you supplied, there are no ads on them. I presume this is because I live in the UK and therefore my IP address is sent different content.

If you go to the Guardian Media Group's response that was reported on in TFA then you will see that nearly all of their complaint is actually about the BBC and Channel 4. They don't mention Google at all by name.

In the UK, the Guardian must compete with publicly funded broadcasters, and in a converging media environment, they are all going to put their content on the internet. Furthermore the Guardian is investing heavily in online video and audio streaming. So there is increasing competition for the same market.

The Guardian's strategy of late has been to try and expand their global readership, but this requires their brand to be recognised (search engine hits) and for people to visit their site, instead of sucking the news off the search engine's summary page. This is incompatible with going down the paid-for content route which has been attempted by other newspapers.

'They don't have to ask government to intervene in an area it has neither knowledge, skill nor particular legitimacy.'

The full response, which you can read here:

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/GMG_DBIRResponse.pdf

is as much a swipe at the BBC as at Google, etc. The 'BBC Trust', installed by the current government a couple of years ago to oversee the Beeb's activities, has shown a worrying tendency to bend over backwards to placate commercial competitors when they start whining about this sort of thing (the Trust are the guys who blocked BBC Radio 3 from releasing any more mp3s after a highly successful experiment with the Beethoven Symphonies, who mandated a 7-day expiry on DRM'd iPlayer content, and who are responsible for junking a range of popular BBC websites). I'm sure the Guardian group would love some pressure to be exerted to further reduce the activities of their main competitor in UK news...

I agree - I was going to suggest that people also respond to the consultation that's planned this spring, but it seems they've already made up their mind!:

A creative industries strategy paper published on Friday commits the government to consulting on anti-piracy legislation this spring with a view to implementing it by April 2009.

That document is available at http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Publications/archive_2008/cepPub-new-talents.htm . The full quote is:

We will consult on legislation that would require internet service providers and rights holders to co-operate in taking action on illegal file sharing with a view to implementing legislation by April 2009. Finding voluntary, preferably commercial solutions, remains the ideal, but the Government will equip itself to introduce legislation swiftly if suitable arrangements between ISPs and relevant sectors are not forthcoming or prove insufficient.We will also explore tougher penalties for copyright infringement. These actions signal the Governments strong support for the creative industries as we move towards a fully digital world.

The document also makes claims as to the supposed "costs" of piracy:

The cost of pirate audio-visual goods and illegal downloads amounted to £460 million in 2006 alone.

A 10% reduction in software piracy in the UK would generate 30,000 jobs and contribute £11 billion to the official economy.

Aside from the flaw that a downloaded copy is not always a lost sale, I feel there is another flaw here - people who don't spend money on CDs will then have that money to spend money on other things. Don't get me wrong, it's ethically wrong if companies have lost out on money they have received, but it is an economic fallacy to suggest that this is a loss to the economy as a whole. That money will be spent elsewhere - and it will also create jobs elsewhere. It's the same misunderstanding of economics as exists in the broken window fallacy.

I'll still reply to the consultation anyway, as I hope many other people will, just to make a point - but writing to MPs will be better still.

According to the website for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, you can contact Tessa Jowell through the DCMS by writing a letter to:

Department for Culture Media & Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5DH

020 7211 6200 open 9:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Monday to Friday

enquiries@culture.gov.uk

much like Darlings announcements the other day...

This distribution of programmes is part of the BBC's public service agreement as all BBC content is supposed to be free, as in no money required and as in to be used by other people.

Yeah... BBC Choice is a bit of a let down, they're going to rename it to BBC Three and refocus the channel to the youth market, I guess it will be a bit like an E4 type channel.

The public consultation process is still ongoing, I guess they will get a review at a select committee, you have until 25th January to submit your views to the Dept of Culture if you feel you have something to say.

If you think that is bad try the 'Ministry of Culture' - just make sure you put your shades on first!