Slashdot Mirror
BBC to Put Entire Radio & TV Archive Online
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is to to put it's entire radio and television archive online, free for everyone, as the BBC Creative Archive." The article is a little thin on how far back these archives go, but regardless, this is a gigantic amount of data, and to see it go online, and open to the public is very cool.
Will it include Dr. Who?
Assuming that it is workable and of reasonable quality, this is a huge development. I'd particularly recomment the BBC4 program "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Club," an amazing improv show.
That all the Monty Python episodes will be available? That would be really cool, but I just spent ~$100 on the 14 DVD boxed set. Nuts!
eleven plus two / twelve plus one
Hopefully they will do what they do with the BBC Broadband service - peer with DSL and cable ISPs so the bandwidth costs nothing apart from the upkeep of the system.
This also means that international folks can't access it. Which is good since I pay my TV License...
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
There was an excellent radio programme on the making of "Blackadder" on Saturday. Interviews with all the makers, and behind the scenes stories (lots of creative battles apparently). Well worth a listen.
Will this just be news/education/documentaries? Or will it really include every episode of Doctor Who and Eastenders?....
Wouldn't 'free, legal TV entertainment downloads' result in absoloute outrage from the MPAA and friends? I can't see it ever happenning....
Just wanted to point out to the world that TV License paying Brits like myself pay for the BBC. Just something to keep in mind when you're downloading Red Dwarf season 3.
But don't get me wrong, I'd like to add how happy I am with the BBC; they offer fantastic services and I'm proud that they're available to everyone in the world. Without much doubt the quality of radio and TV in the UK is far better because of the BBC. Not to mention Brits won't put up with frequent or long advert breaks because the BBC channels have none!
Also, it's refreshing to see a company be happier to let people enjoy it's IP than to be obsessed with milking the consumer for every penny it can.
What really pissed me off a couple of months ago was that they CHARGED ME MONEY (4 USD) for watching a 5-minute part rerun on the web. I sent them a big fuck you-mail and asked what the hell was going on with the property of the people. The broadcaster is owned by the state, ergo the public. No reply.
So kudos to the BBC, crap to NRK.
The original poster can spell check the article, the slashdot internel system can use ispell and the likes, and Slashdot editors can proofread them.
I am lead to believe that Slashdot is completely automated , unattended system that looks for patterns in posts (like "Linux" , "SCO" etc.) before accepting them.
I know , typos happen. But how is it possible to make an error in a few lines of text!? And it happens so often!
I know i am going down as a troll/offtopic/whatever but this is NOT FUNNY anymore.
Especially for those of us the non-native English speakers , it is really frustrating. I had to look "giantic" through dictd jsut to be sure it was gigantic mispelled and not something else.
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
This seems like a good idea but I think there will be a lot of problems or limitations.
The BBC appear to have sold the rights to many of their successful programs to other channels such as UK Gold. For more recent programs, they might not own the Internet rights to them if they have been made for the BBC by third party companies (I think this has stopped them from including some radio programs in thier existing (and very good) radio archive site. Also, what about international rights - I would guess there are many cases were the BBC have sold rights for brodcast in other contries to other broadcasters.
While I think this good be very good, I wouldn't be suprised if it is limited to clips that are more useful for research purposes (like news footage and small budget documenteries) than the big money programs.
The Rupert Murdoch owned media has become increasingly shrill about the BBC. Recently a top Sky (Fox equivalent in the UK ) executive made a speech about what he wants done to the BBC:
* Forced auction of any good programs the BBC makes to Sky and ITV (Honestly!! Anything good should be reaped from where it was produced, and interrupted with reams of shite car adverts.)
* Enforced licence fee reductions
* Banned from buying US imports (24, Buffy, etc)
* All kinds of other random restrictions to make life easier for the bottom feeders at Newscorp.
The Sun and Times, Murdochs bought rags, have also been consistently ragging on about the bullshit Iraq dossier affair, in which a BBC journalist is accused of actually telling the truth.
This is the ultimate reply.
" Fuck with us, we'll bury your "Footballers Wives" and "Sex in trashy Greek holiday resorts" crap in 70 years of quality broadcasting!"
This is almost too good to be true. Have to see if Tony gets a call from Rupert, and poor old Greg Dyke gets his marching orders.
The amount of historical material is mind boggling! I'll be eager to support once it is available. We should have more broadcast companies trying to give "public value." Heh. I honestly can't imagine a company in the U.S. doing something like this.
However, just to ponder, I remember reading that the BBC was getting a lot of flak for the suicide of David Kelly. I hope it's not too cynical to suggest that perhaps in some way, they are doing this to restore some of their image that may have been tarnished?
At any rate, this is definately a very magnanimous thing for the BBC to do, and I am glad to see it.
If the BBC releases their Radio Archive, they might be distributing great artist live performances like Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin. I know that theses performances have been released on CD by major record labels.
Will the RIAA go after the BBC for distributing their own recordings of someone else's material? Will they have to get permission from every artist they want to feature in their archive?
If an artist knows I am recording their performance and chooses to perform anyway, do they own the rights to distribution or do I?
I know they are dumb questions, but the mechanics of the ownership seem really confusing to me in an archive or library format.
- How can it be determined whether the use is commercial or not? I assume they mean you can't re-distribute the content for profit, but what about using the material as research for books or other for-sale works?
- What will the RIAA say? Surely they won't just lie down while Beatles performances, John Peel Sessions, and other huge cash cows are available for free.
- What will the MPAA say? Apologies for not having done my research, but surely there are DVDs for sale at Best Buy of content distributed by members of the MPAA?
- Will it only be material the BBC explicitly produced? Surely they, like other networks, have broadcast shows or footage that they didn't create.
- What formats will be used? This seems like a thorny issue. Many of the most popular formats have strings attached. With the hoo-ha surrounding proprietary image and sound recording formats, what's the best set of technologies to use?
- How long will it take to get the material online? It seems like this will be a never-ending project, with new content being created 24/7.
- What will the order of precedence be? Will it be FIFO, FILO, by popularity, by media type?
This is terribly exciting... I hope other media outlets follow suit."Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
Even with Sky satellite TV in the house, my wife and I spend most of our TV hours tuned into BBC1 & 2. Apart from the lack of annoying commercials, the BBC have consistently out-done all the commercial channels in terms of the quality of its programming. Way to go, BBC. We love you!
Others have mentioned Dr Who, Black Adder and Monty Python's Flying Circus. Here are some other BBC classics, just a few favourites that spring to mind:
Period Drama: Elizabeth I; I, Claudius
Drama: Casualty
Comedy: Fawlty Towers; Steptoe and Son; Only Fools and Horses; One Foot in the Grave; Red Dwarf; Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
That would be a broadcaster with a duty to serve the public, rather than exploit them to make revenue for shareholders, only catering to LCD large-revenue audiences, serving programmes as the carrot-to-get-eyes-watching-adverts in an arse-about-face way. Seems pretty clear to me.
"recently torpedoed by the Kelly affair"
If you read the Times or the Sun, operated by Rupert Murdoch who has an axe to grind against the BBC, because he would like to be the dominant force in British Media (God deliver us all from such a hellish fate.)
"...with the review of the Royal Charter, which provides the conditions under which the BBC operates, due soon (I think in 2005,"
2006
" in any case before Tony the liar gets the boot); it looks like pre-emptive defensive action thus..."
The BBC's internet arm is being reviewed currently. They've been making quite a push with their interactive TV services, and are constantly innovating.
I think you're being cynical in suggesting the only reason that the Beeb is planning this is to defend against hostile forces in the government, though it will surely help.
BBC Radio 7 currently available on DAB in the UK, and over the internet to the entire world, for free, makes the BBC radio archives available to everyone, in much the same way as this proposal (though a "listen again" function for the station is not, because of diverse licensing conditions.)
What Greg Dyke announced is simply a bigger and broader development of things like BBC online Radio, Radio 7, and many of it's news-themed programmes which are already available.
I don't know what went on with the teletext thing you mention, maybe licensing/copyright issues, but it's a fact that you can listen to BBC radio for nothing, so it would seem unusual if this were being done to prevent anyone from outside "Little England" from getting BBC produced culture (see... I avoided "content.")
In short they're not really known for their meanness in this regard. :)
Your misting of the fire-logs seems a little unnecessary.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
They did throw away or wipe the tapes of many of the old Dr Who shows.
Link to missing episodes
Will it include Doctor Who!
Let's hope so!!!!
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
...and I came across this paragraph
Newsreader Bruce Belfrage was on air when 500lbs of explosives hit Broadcasting House in October 1940. He paused as he heard the bomb go off during his nine o'clock bulletin - but continued as normal, as he was not allowed to react on air because of security reasons. Seven people were killed.
Did this man have balls of steel or what?
Find funky gifts
I agree wholeheartedly with your criticism of the original poster's position. One thing I would add though is the "brouhaha" that surrounds the BBC's internet presence. Many of the content providers in the UK are "concerned" that the BBC is subsidising it's internet presence with the License Fee payers money (for those that don't understand what that means, see the BBC web site somewhere) and thus distorting the profgitibility of web delivered content. I think their argument is a crock but it is a very interesting argument to have.
Personally I think that the BBC's approach to interactive TV, digital TV and internet content is a salutory lesson to all those that believe that there is no place for publically funded media organisations like the BBC. I think they are actually innovating and their TV/Web/participation programs (and no I don't mean Fame Fscking Academy) are truly extraordinary. And whether they are responding to or prompting some of the work of the other commercial channels in the Uk, there are some _excellent_ (ok mainly educationally focused) programs being produced.
Having access to all the clasic radio programs online is a delightful thought. Comedy alone is reason enought to be excited.
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
I listened to the original radio shows, saw the TV series, have the LPs and saw the stage play at the Finsbury Rainbow and bought the books. That's 5 versions, all slightly (or not so slightly) different. IMNSHO the book(s) is(are) the weakest version with the radio version the best.
The stage play was suitably weird, with the book played by a man in a blue foil soil lowered in a gondola from the ceiling to divert attention during scene changes. He threw an inflatable dolphin (no whales available I suppose) into the audience at one point, landed quite near and made me jump. Then there was a drunken Vogon molesting audience members... ah the good old days, 1979 I think.
Didn't buy the CDs though, hmm.
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
While I applaud the BBC for this attempt to make its archives available, I wonder if they have truly considered the actual costs of distribution. Leaving aside broadband connectivity costs (something that's been considered elsewhere) I am curious as to how they are going to negotiate the retransmission rights for all this archival stock. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a feasibility study into this as part of their preparation for digital television and found the costs of renegotiating transmission rights for that intellectual property were more expensive than creating new television content. I imagine the internet would be even more expensive, as the penetration of internet is global, where broadcasting is geographically limited.
Thoughts on this anyone?
Many of us already support NPR or PBS, our public radio and television networks in the United States. Perhaps offering paid access to the same programming in digital formats could be a way to help fund these public resources. Being able to download and keep a copies of favorite television or radio broadcasts would be a real perk for paying subscribers.