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.
All of the programmes currently avaliable are in streaming realmedia, catered to the 56k audiance. I could see this initiative falling flat on it's face unless a burnable, portable and high quality format is used.
This would be a great use for Bittorrent. It would be expensive for BBC to distrubite these; with Bittorrent, it would keep the costs down, and present a non-piracy method to the public.
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.
Finally, I can see the last 5 episodes of "Alo, Alo"!
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
P.S.: Those things that sound like commercials in the NPR broadcast can't be commercials, because public radio doesn't have commercials by definition. They must be "sponsorship acknowledgements."
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
This news absolutely makes my day. Week! If they manage to do this just a little, this just made my year.
Quotes like this:
"I believe that we are about to move into a second phase of the digital revolution, a phase which will be more about public than private value; about free, not pay services; about inclusivity, not exclusion.
Doesn't that single quote look more exciting than a whole porn site? :-)
The whole BBC library! All the documentaries and stuff... all the Monty Pythons, all the Young Ones, all the Bottoms, all the AbFab, all the Men Behaving Badly, all the Blackadders!
All the cricket Test matches they used to broadcast!!
Oh... Excuse me, I think I just wet my pants.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
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.
Benny Hill wasn't a BBC show. It was shown on ITV and made by the (now defunct) Thames Television (my father was a cameraman on it for a while).
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.
[History of the BBC]
The BBC was founded in 1922. They broadcast radio only until 1936 when they started their first TV channel. A lot of cool stuff.
Everybody I know who heard those broadcasts agrees that it was the best HHGTG of all. I don't believe they've ever been released exactly as originally broadcast. Transcripts are available of those shows, but these miss the subtle music and audio effects that made the show really wonderful. I know I was disappointed with some audio tapes I purchased years later.
I've never been interested in ripping off Douglas Adams, or his family, by downloading mp3s that purport to be copies of the original show.
Does this mean if you query the cluster archive with 'why' 'archive' it will tell you 42?
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
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.
With the huge bandwidth needed for a project like this, just wait til it's online and Slashdot links to it ;)
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.
I'll take the classic Klitch opening move of Waterloo. Anyone to follow?
- 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 if you managed to find the mysterious 2nd step, the BBC is a non-profit organisation, which is exactly why it can do something like this.
Please let it be divx instead of realmedia or other crap!
The BBC is funded by a single licence fee per household, not by the number of TVs. You only need pay it in the UK if you use a TV to view television material (I believe console use is excluded, but significantly also if you view such material on the internet, so if you watch it, the licence fee will still be legally required, even if you don't have a TV.
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
... And I, not being a British subject, would still be willing to pay a lesser "TV tax" subscription for the access to a near-TV quality, downloadable archive in a portable format.
Let's be fair: the cost of these fine productions (and let's not get into the nit-picks about cardboard sets and cheesy sci-fi aliens) has already been borne by the TV-tax paying British public. They got to see ad-free television produced by people who were willing to take artistic risks because the they weren't subject to the tyranny of the marketing department.
If this is your style, I suspect you'd like to support them in producing more of the like. I like the sci-fi and the some of the comedy the BBC produces. If I could have access to new productions, even if it was a year or so after the first run in England, I'd would be willing to pay for it.
I think this archive of older radio and TV is a fantastic idea, even if it's not in a portable format right now. Fair enough: if you getting it for free, you can't complain how you're getting it. If the BBC would like an extra revenue stream, earmarked to support risk-taking entertainment that might not be universally popular, but still take direct feedback from the public, rather than markerters, I'll find a way to convert a few US dollars to pounds sterling to support it.
So, a question for anyone who wants to take it on: What would be a good business model for the BBC to take, understanding that their mandate is to produce entertainment for the British public, to enable foreigners to have access, provide support and feedback without jeopardizing that mandate?
I can see how this can be a project that will be instantly way too expensive to keep going for the BBC. Because we all know that on opening day, the announcement will be here on Slashdot, home page of the entire world's geek population. And of course, we'll all be clamouring to download their entire archive all at once. If we don't make their servers beg for mercy, we'll melt their routers with the traffic.
But I guess we'll just have to see. If it hasn't been done already, we should write them and recommend Bittorrent, or perhaps find good mirroring sites.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Even non-profit organizations need to have annual revenues (donations, etc) >= costs or else they wouldn't very long
Obviously you're not a Brit. The BBC's revenue comes from the television license fee, a standard part of the landscape in the UK.
The government recently announced that it would have an review of the BBCs online activities, a clear retaliation over the Kelly affair.
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
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
Here in Canada the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) offers some of it's shows (Quirks and Quarks) in .ogg format. And at least their radio messages have no commercials! (net even "sponsorship acknowledgements.")
CBC has archives back to 1938 online HERE. The radio broadcasts from the front line of WW II are really something.
Greg Dyke's actual quote:
"We intend to allow parts of our programmes, where we own the rights, to be available to anyone in the UK to download so long as they don't use them for commercial purposes."
Note the *parts*. All this is going to provide is a bunch of clips.
"recently BBC changed even its teletext format to prevent users who receive spill-over broadcast (like myself in Belgium) to fully access teletext information; I have my doubts on their willingness to make something available for free outside of Little England"
Rather a snide remark from some-one who used to get something for free that people in "Little England" have to pay for.
You still get all their web content for free, don't you ?
You are totally insane. The Beeb rocks!
I live in holland and the quality of TV here is _way_ below the programming of the BBC. Too much moronic dutch drama that feels like the 'school play' and and an increasing amount of US produced touch feely My-kids-got-kidnapped-by-aliens TV-movie drivel is what we get here. It so bad that the best dutch 'home' productions are the TV summaries of the matches Ajax plays.
Having said that, I suspect that people in italy who have to live with RAI Uno would consider dutch TV the best thing since sliced bread. As thedy have to watch those god-aweful Berlusconi sponsored soft-porn game shows. TV of the BBC's caliber must seem totally beyond any possible realm of reality to them iti's.
- It took western civilisation 2000 years to ensure popular literacy, and now we work with icon driven GUI's. Go figure.
The big question is what acutally consitutes the "BBC archive"? Is it everything that's ever been shown on the BBC, or is it only the in-house produced BBC programs?
To take an obvious example, The Simpsons, their definately not BBC property, so I doubt they'll be in the archive, neither will any of the other American imports (24, Buffy, Star Trek, etc.). But then, what about Blackadder? Surely that was made by the BBC? The rights to Blackadder are owned by Tiger productions (Rowan Atkinson's company), this includes the DVD rights for example. Will this be in the archive?
What about Monty Python, 'Allo 'Allo, Red Dwarf, Dr Who or Hitchhikers? A (non-authoritative ) Amazon check suggests that they are all distributed by BBC worldwide, which is the commerical arm of the BBC (and produces all of the commercial UK-* stations on Sky), but how many of these have additional rights? Red Dwarf (the book) is owned by Grant Naylor, Hitchhikers by Douglas Adams. How many books will get sold if these episodes are available for free?
There's also the digitising problem, It might not seem like it, but only in the last 5 years have any TV programs been digitally stored. And the BBC tend to lose things, they lost episodes of Dr Who for example (one is still missing I think), so how many of these archives will be complete?
I am truly hoping that most BBC aired programs will be there (you might have to wait for "The Office"?) but I have a horrible feeling it'll be an archive of Eastenders (bad bad soap opera), Casualty (no blood-n-guts E.R. clone) and Noel's house party (please god no).
--
What a time to be sitting on a Gigabit university network... :)
They got to see ad-free television produced by people who were willing to take artistic risks because the they weren't subject to the tyranny of the marketing department... ... and ended up with Noel's House Party.
creation science book
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."
Just to slightly correct you here, he "allegedly" killed himself, his death is at the very least suspicious in that he was found with a bottle of painkillers that are easily overdosed on, causing respitory arrest and his wrist was slashed as well. It maybe that he did kill himself, though that is not proven, and before the war Dr. Kelly said he would be found dead in the woods if Iraq was invaded. The documents released so far in the Hutton enquiry can be found here and include such interesting information as the government attempting to ensure that Dr. Kelly was not questioned about the status of Iraqs WMD programmes in his testimony before Parliamentry commitees, as his informed opinion contradicted the government line that Iraq was a "current and ongoing threat" as the PM stated and as the PMs chief of staff said he might say some uncomfortable things.
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
Although Blair is desperate to get rid of the BBC or to change its mandate to make it advertiser-funded (in no small part because it criticises "New Labour") any change made to the way the BBC operates or is funded would spell the end of one of the greatest organisations anywhere in the world.
The BBC can produce the programs they do, and report news in the way it does, because it answers to no-one. Not the UK government, not to sponsors, not to advertisers. It doesn't have to keep anyone happy. Think of this: How in-depth was the reporting of the M$ vs DoJ debacle on MSNBC? How in-depth was the reporting of AOHell's financial woes on CNN?
The BBC recently came under huge criticism for their claim that the UK's official government dossier on Iraq's WMD was "sexed up". In the viewer feedback section they had on this, at least half of the comments posted on the BBC's site were anti-BBC. Some were calling for it to be shutdown and disbanded. Can you imagine CNN doing the same?
I think the decision to open up their content archive to the public for free is truly wonderful. I think it also has business possibilities for the BBC. Would ISPs in the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other English-speaking countries get business from advertising a high-speed BBC content mirror? I think so. ISP pays the BBC to mirror their content = ISP gets more customers = BBC gets more money.
If the BBC's sale of DVDs and videos remained unchanged or even went up as a result, it would also put a final nail in the coffin of the MPAssA and RIAssA's arguments that: free download = doom, gloom, bankrupt artists = death of civilisation as we know it. The BBC has the might to compete with anyone on the world stage. Their public popularity is, and has been for many year, the envy of every other media company in existence. The RIAssA and MPAssA would not have a leg to stand on should the BBC come out in favour (backed up by figures, of course) of making content freely-available.
Now, where do I get that OC43 connection from?
Windows Tweaks
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.
"In particular, it will be about how public money can be combined with new digital technologies to transform everyone's lives."
Everywhere in hollywood, stars and middlemen, flunkies and directors, aging rockers and CEOs woke up screaming.
"No.. no, not the Internet! Don't put it ON the INTERNET AAAAHHHHHH, OUR CONTROL, OUR MARGINS! NO PEOPLE NEED USSSSSSSSSSSS!!"
You heartless British bastards.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Furry cows moo and decompress.
The BBC at its finest.