BBC Creative Archive Based On Creative Commons

powcom writes "The BBC appears to be delivering on its promise of releasing its material to the public - they're modelling their licensing on Creative Commons. Lawrence Lessig is very excited and so I imagine, will a lot of other people be - rightly." This brief article also mentions yesterday's release of Creative Commons' 2.0 licenses -- well worth reading about.

Comments

BBC viewpoint

[Space cowboy]

For those that don't know, and are therefore probably thinking "How the hell can they give it all away for free", the BBC is funded by everyone in the UK who has a TV paying a yearly fee (104 I think - I pay 8/month by direct-debit until it's paid). From the last figures I can find (on the admittedly licence-fee-hostile CAL site) the BBC has 2.8 billion pounds per year running costs ($5,000,000,000, give or take...)

There are lots of people in the UK who object to paying for the licence fee (I'm not one of them), most of whom (in my opinion) want the same quality of service (or better ;-) without having to cough up the cash. Given the advantages (the BBC documentaries and wildlife programs to name but two would probably not get made in a more commercial environment) I'm fairly happy paying 8/month. Given that I'll happily blow 50 on a night out (pub & meal), it seems like good value to me...

And then of course without the constant need to please the paymasters, you can get this sort of benevolence (although I'd be willing to bet when the details come out that re-broadcasting is limited :-). You also get more (IMHO) objectivity. I trust the BBC far more than I trust most news organisations, foreign or domestic - there's a tradition of honest portrayal of news that places it up amongst the best, a tradition it lives up to, at least more often than most.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[grahamsz]

I do wonder what sort of DRM they'll use.

I know they've been involved in trials of ogg vorbis, but it seems unlikely that anything which has commercial value will be released drm-less.

The BBC bring in a lot of money by licensing shows to foreign broadcasters; however most of this probably comes from current shows, so their back catalogue may not be so valuable.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Ithika]

Excellent points, but to further what you said about trustworthiness... When they have been under suspicion (Andrew Gilligan, "sexed up" dossiers, etc.) they were remarkably objective about their own (mis)deeds. I think any other organisation would have a) attempted to ignore their own part in the proceedings, or b) editorialised when they should have just been reporting.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[mccalli]

Given the advantages (the BBC documentaries and wildlife programs to name but two would probably not get made in a more commercial environment)...

This used to be true, but it seems to be getting more and more commercial now. the "Walking With..." set of series, for example, seemed to be geared for DVD sales right from the beginning. The programming is now plastered with adverts....for the BBC. And the children's programming in particular is just smothered with markerting tie-ins.

No, I'm afraid I believe the BBC is becoming more commercial all the time, and I resent and object to that. I don't begrudge them the license fee, but I do begrudge them using that to push their tie-in products.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's unlikely the BBC archives will use DRM at all. How could they? What would be the point of releasing under a Creative Commons licence but then slapping Digital Restrictions Management all over it? Sort of self defeating.

Lets also not forget that the BBC is funding development of a wavelet CODEC, which it has released as OSS via. Sourceforge. I don't think they could aim to be more open, frankly.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[TopShelf]

Someone on NPR used that same argument for how democracy should more reasonably be promoted in places like Iraq - not so much that America and other democracies are perfect, but that when mistakes are made (i.e. the recent prison scandal), they are dealt with in an open and public way.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Kegster]

If they are making the archive available in a lossy format then this shouldn't be too much of a problem really.

Broadcasters who want to use BBC content are going to be wanting broadcast quality media, which effectively means mpeg2 (mpeg4 isn't quite there yet), as will anyone who wants a decent copy for home.

Or they use a dual-licensing apporach, a la MySQL,
one license if you want broadcast rights, or a higher quality, and a Open type license for personal use?

Is the text of the license they are proposing available anywhere?

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

For those that don't know, and are therefore probably thinking "why didn't he put currency symbols in front of the amounts", Slashdot takes upon itself to delete several useful symbols, including the sign for UK Pounds (and Euros too). One pound is about $1.80.

The cost is a little higher than the parent poster stated, at 121 pounds per year, which corresponds to $218 at the current exchange rate.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[isorox]

Slashdot blocks € signs?

Re:BBC viewpoint

[grahamsz]

My point is that there'll be less incentive for a US network to purchase Red Dwarf and fill it full of commercials, if it's possible to download it off the net.

In that vein they'll probably want to restrict it to british citizens or even just british license payers, otherwise they'll be paying for bandwidth to reduce the value of their international resale rights.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 104/year and you're paying 8/mo.? I guess that you don't like your kids. :)

Or maybe you Brits have Smarch?

Re:BBC viewpoint

[linuxhansl]

I could not agree more. I am from Germany but live in the states.

While the fee-funded public TV stations in Germany lost some quality over the years, there's no comparison with the crap that is being broadcasted on German private channels.

The same crap is being broadcasted on all US station (KQED being the notable exception).

Everybody whines over fees payed for some public stations, but I think they are necessary.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[laigle]

I just wish I could get the same quality programming in the US for the much higher price we pay. Ah, the joys of the free market.

And by free market, I mean a tiny group of collusionary, racketeering, megalomaniacal jerks who bribe Congress to stifle any form of competition so they won't get their comeuppance for the miserable job they do.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[afidel]

Well if the beeb is interested in reselling the work all they need to do is distribute it with a Non-Commercial Creative Commons license and no one will be able to make money off of distributing it. Sure the audience might be somewhat lessened by those people who download the episodes and refuse to watch the ad filled version but I don't think it would have a huge affect. Btw there is no Creative Commons license that would allow restriction to a particular class of recipients, in fact such a license would be very much against the spirit of creative commons.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[sjb2016]

If they wanted to restrict their offerings to just UK license payers why don't they do it now? I abuse their servers for streaming video of news and all kinds of radio programming, yet I'm a dyed-in-the-wool American, who lives in America. The best part is, while here, there are all kinds of restrictions on competitions (i.e. you must be a U.S. citizen to win) I won a Daft Punk DVD after e-mailing Annie Nightengale one Saturday night. They even sent it to me express shipping.

I realize that the things they'll be offering will likely be more bandwidth intensive just streaming audio, but I don't think (and certainly don't hope) that they'll be restricting this service too much.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

MPEG4 is quite a lot better than MPEG2... data rate wise. Kbps vs. Kbps, MPEG2 will never win, unless the MPEG4 encoder is plain fucking stupid.

The only reason that they don't use it in broadcast is that they've already got 1) MPEG2 equipment (encoders, decoders and anything inbetween) 2) MPEG2 media to play, and possibly 3) the end user's equipment dosen't know anything but but MPEG2.

If you give an MPEG4 encoder the same bandwidth to work with (as MPEG2), It'll flat out whoop it's ass. (going to need a helluva CPU to do MPEG4 decoding in HDTV resolutions tho).

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Theatetus]

Didn't you know they have 13 months per year in England? Lousy Smarch weather...

Re:BBC viewpoint

[ArsenneLupin]

>Slashdot blocks € signs?
yes that's cos...

Oh sorry, I must be hallucinating then... Could have sworn that I've seen one of those on Slashdot...

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh sorry, I must be hallucinating then...

If you thought that the second post you quoted was responding to the first post you quoted then yes, you were hallucinating.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Malc]

I think they had to be objective with their self analysis. They risk losing the renewal of their charter if they upset enough people and I think they already feel like the ice is a bit thin in places.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

éléphant et âne!

Super, Slash is Iso-latin-1 clean!

Testing Spanish question mark:

==> nope, didn't make it. Is there any reason why Slashdot hates the Spanish characters?

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that many languish in British gaols who cannot pay the license fee.

Of course many in the cities like this gentleman are rich and can pay these huge taxes, but much of Britain is populated by peasant farmers living at subsistence levels of the equivalent of $200 a year.

Taxes like the license fee are used as leverage to silence this underclass where political opposition arises.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus Torvalds has said they Linux should support DRM. It's useful in situations where - for example - you've a net cafe and you don't want people to be able to overwrite or read the machine.

Creative Commons licences have rights associated with them, and so DRM could be used. Now, DRM doesn't (and maybe can never) understand when a user should be permitted by law, but consider a DRM where it allowed everything but logged a history of the file.

DRM is mostly stupid, but it's not always.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

England still has pound not euro.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Alby]

Because of course, it's currently totally impossible to download episodes of Red Dward from the 'net.

--
Alby <alby@bleary-id.co.uk>

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Bruce Perens]

It's useful in situations where - for example - you've a net cafe and you don't want people to be able to overwrite or read the machine.

That's not what DRM is for, and DRM is not usable for this purpose. You are thinking about the privilege mechanism, which has been in Linux from the earliest days.

consider a DRM where it allowed everything but logged a history of the file.

It's not possible to both allow everything and enforce logging.

Bruce

Re:BBC viewpoint

[hunterx11]

That's odd, even typing £ or £ doesn't work.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Bombcar]

It used to. There was a major revision recently (notice the change to your comments page?) that allowed many new characters (such as Umlauts, etc), and they got the € in but forgot the pound.

Oh, well. They should just up and go Unicode all the way, baby.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Space cowboy]

Hey! We invented English, not maths...

Just checked my bank statements and it's 11 pounds/month, presumably for 11 months...

Simon

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Snaller]

My point is that there'll be less incentive for a US network to purchase Red Dwarf and fill it full of commercials, if it's possible to download it off the net.

Except its a crap point. By that reasoning there would be no reruns. Why would people watch a rerun when they could have seen it the first time?
Why show a movie on TV when its been show in the cinema? (after all people have seen it in the cinema)
Why release a tv series on DVD when its been shown on tv etc etc.

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[amw]

Just checked my bank statements and it's 11 pounds/month, presumably for 11 months

You'll probably find it dropping in a few months - they tend to change the amount every six, to make it up to 121 pounds by the end of each year.

(Mine, in front of me, lists 6 payments at about 9.65, and a further 6 of about 10.50)

Adrian

Re:BBC viewpoint

[DerekLyons]

I think it's unlikely the BBC archives will use DRM at all. How could they? What would be the point of releasing under a Creative Commons licence but then slapping Digital Restrictions Management all over it? Sort of self defeating.

No, it's not self defeating. Creative Commons is *not* OSS, not free as in beer, nor free as in air. Creative Commons licenses frequently require attribution, and may or may not allow derivative or commercial usage. DRM is not incompatible with this.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[grahamsz]

I don't see your point.

If i have the choice between

a) watching a 30 minute show bloated to 45 with commercials

b) watching a slightly lower quality streaming one commercial free

I'll choose b every time (gotta love tivo).

Less people will watch a rerun on tv IF they either have it on tv or their computer. Therefore the show is worth less money to the bbc...

I just dont know how much

Re:BBC viewpoint

[tolan-b]

Perhaps, but they are generally objective with their self analysis anyway, so there's no reason to believe that this was a special case.

Anyway, that whole 'scandal' was about one bit of reporting, which was generally seen to be fairly accurate anyway (where are the WMDs?)

The main reason it was blown up so much was because the commercial broadcasting organisations hate the BBC, especially Murdoch ('half' the UK press, Sky TV in the UK, Fox in the states).

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus Torvalds has said they Linux should support DRM.

Yes, but he didn't say that Linux itself should be controlled by DRM, which would be the analogous situation.

It's useful in situations where - for example - you've a net cafe and you don't want people to be able to overwrite or read the machine.

Err, no. That's what software and physical security is for. Things like BIOS passwords and not letting people fiddle around inside the case, etc.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not saying that the networks will rebroadcast it. He's saying that when the BBC gives it away, the networks might see it as taking away potential viewers were they to pay the BBC to rebroadcast it themselves. In effect, lowering the resale value.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[RichM]

Oh I don't think the BBC has to worry about their bandwidth ;)
http://support.bbc.co.uk/support/network/
http://support.bbc.co.uk/support/mrtg/servers.html
http://support.bbc.co.uk/support/mrtg/apache/

Re:BBC viewpoint

[mibus]

They're probably less likely to release Red Dwarf than, say, Dr Who - at least to begin with.

Remember it's some of their catalogue. Not all. Certainly not anything that's raking in money. I'm betting they'll start with stuff from the 50s and work their way forwards - by the time they get to Red Dwarf, it'll be old hat :)

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Paul Jakma]

there'll be less incentive for a US network to purchase Red Dwarf

My understanding is that the BBC archive will only be available to those in the UK. UK residents after all have already paid for and collectively own these works. The rest of the world will still have to pay for access to BBC works. Quite how the BBC will manage this technically is another question.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[icerunner]

Yes, but as an insider I know that all you're doing is abusing the BBC's small rack of 486's in telehouse New York.

We keep the good stuff for ourselves :-P

Re:BBC viewpoint

[HogynCymraeg]

You are thinking about the privilege mechanism

I must admit that I too view it as a privilege mechanism. That's what I thought the "Rights" bit of DRM was...

Re:BBC viewpoint

[mgoren]

I can't comment specifically on the BBC, but my impression of public media in the U.S. (PBS, NPR) is that, while still far better than commercial media, they are becoming more and more like the commercial media. For lack of enough money reasons and to obtain a larger audience (and thus more money). If this is true of the BBC too, does it mean the license fee is not enough, that they are becoming more commercial b/c w/ the increasing costs of programming, they need more money? (I gather that the license fee is one of the reasons why the BBC is purportedly much better than U.S. public media, which receives very little in public funding.)

Ironically, IMHO the more that public media comes to resemble commercial media, the more they strengthen the argument of those that say gov't shouldn't subsidize public media. The whole premise of the subsidy is that it is subsidizing a unique and *different* media for purposes of diversity, democracy, etc.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[h4rm0ny]

Quite how the BBC will manage this technically is another question.

They don't have to manage this technically. They only ned to manage it legally. It is commercial use that they are forbidding with their Creative Commons based licensing.

If you want to get hold of Red Dwarf and watch it and you're not a British licence payer then you'll probably still be able to do so. At worst there will be some shoddy protection, such as checking your IP address or some such. The moment that you start making money on it however, you become traceable and open to prosecution. Unless you think there is a way that a US station could broadcast Red Dwarf without anyone being aware of it and without a business address for the station.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[h4rm0ny]

I think they had to be objective with their self analysis. They risk losing the renewal of their charter if they upset enough people and I think they already feel like the ice is a bit thin in places.

I don't think the BBC can be faulted for their objectivity in the Gilligan case. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the current Government which took great advantage of the BBC's willingness to admit mistakes whilst playing dirty as they could themselves.

of course, to people like me, that does actually make the BBC look better.

And besides, whatever the technicalities, Gilligan was right.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[duncangough]

It's worth pointing out that although $5,000,000,000 doesn't sound like a lot to companies in the US, in the UK that's a massive amount of money. Bear in mind also that the average height of someone in the UK is around 4 foot 6. Things, in general, are much bigger in the US.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Grab]

Come off it - the BBC has *never* known what to do with Dr. Who! "Hey, we've got this ultra-successful, iconic TV programme, so let's axe it while it's having a real come-back. And while we're at it, let's wipe all the recordings of old programmes as well. Releasing old episodes on video/DVD? Nah, don't want to do that..."

That's the blessing and curse of the BBC. As an organisation with external funding unconnected to its viewing figures, it can produce objective reporting, challenging programmes, and serious documentaries with quality rather than immediate payback. OTOH, it doesn't have to give a damn about its audience, so there could be mass marches outside their offices for a show to come back or be made available on video/DVD, and they wouldn't give a damn (Dr. Who being the prime example).

As for stuff from the 50s, very little of it exists. Like the Dr. Who episodes, most of them have been erased so that the tapes can be reused. Ironically, most recordings from before about 1970 that have survived have only done so bcos BBC employees have stolen them.

My pet peeve about the BBC is that whilst you can listen to radio shows again via the Internet, you can only do so streaming - you can't download the whole show and listen to it. This screws over anyone on 56K (which currently is most of the UK), bcos it becomes unuseable when you have 1-minute gaps between 10-second chunks of music!

Grab.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[h4rm0ny]

You missed off who decide what you want to watch according to the ramblings of a group of mentally deficient people with the surname of Nielsen."

*Ahem*

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

As in insider, any chance you could start LARTing people until they agree to reinstate the Ogg streams? I mean what was it, one FreeBSD box with an SBLive! and one guy checking the logs now and again? Please tell me you can find the resource for that!

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

My pet peeve about the BBC is that whilst you can listen to radio shows again via the Internet, you can only do so streaming - you can't download the whole show and listen to it.

You need mplayer -dumpstream mate.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[BenBenBen]

And besides, whatever the technicalities, Gilligan was right.

No, he stated that number 10 deliberately and knowingly included untrue information in the dossier, in his 6:07 broadcast.

He made a mistake, chose his words poorly, and a man paid for it with his life (through his own volition, but still).

Unless you can prove that Number 10 did do it deliberately? If you can, you have the power to bring down a government, so I suspect you don't.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Frit Mock]

"And by free market, I mean a tiny group of collusionary, racketeering, megalomaniacal jerks who bribe Congress to stifle any form of competition so they won't get their comeuppance for the miserable job they do."

They do not need to bribe! THEY ARE MANIPULATING OPINIONS IN THE WAY THEY OTHERS LIKE.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[pbhj]

Hmm,

I do object. I like some of their shows and approve of their ideology to improve the level of broadcasting and to increase the range of viewing available.

So much of it is trash though. And they advertise, just it's monopolistic ... they only advertise BBC products (mags, books, videos, ...).

Other things I object to: swapping Parkinson for Premiership football. They haven't increased the range of viewing, only taken a hugely overpriced show (association football [I live in Wales, where "football" weirdly means "rugby football"]) and charged it to the license payer instead of commerce. This is very bad, not least because it props up the price at public expense when fully commercial systems would bring down the price.

Oh, and I don't like paying for digital TV when I can't afford to buy a STB (#60 pounds-ish).

50 for a night out?? That's basically my disposable income for an entire month and 7.50 of that currently goes on my dial-up connection! Yes I am working (not at this precise second though :0)>

pbhj

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Nick_dm]

If you actually read through notes at the end of the Hutton Inquiry there are some quotes (from internal emails and such) that show some people saying (paraphrasing) "we'll have trouble on this claim, we don't have solid evidence". Also they did twist other facts such as the "45 minute" claim was alegedly about "battlefield mortar shells or small calibre weaponry" not misiles or anything that would be a threat to the UK. They may not have added things they believed were untrue but they did add things that they knew they couldn't back up, and they also put true claims into different contexts.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Silburn_Luke]

Its not just creative content that the BBC contributes. Slashdot types in particular should be grateful for the R&D effort BBC Engineering has put into technologies and standards for broadcast and electronic media over the years.

Their annual spend is pretty low in the order of things (GBP13 million at present) but this feeds into a lot of stuff that gets commercially developed in time - NICAM stereo being one notable achievement that most people don't know originated at Kingswood Warren. These days of course the BBC is heavily invested in their web presence, so these days BBC Research look into things like streaming media as well as their more traditional areas of focus.

Regards Luke

Re:BBC viewpoint

[bitchell]

I believe there was a school of thought that said anything the BBC makes should be free for people that pay the TV license. But of others outside the UK they should be made to pay.

I think this was in reference to the BBC's News website.

With regards to the future availability of BBC's archive of programs I think that yes, people outside the UK should pay to D/L the programmes. We HAVE to pay for them even if we don't watch any of the BBC channels. Thats the law.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[gbjbaanb]

probably most of this is because the BBC is getting ready for the govt to kill off the licence fee after listening to fee-objecting people such as yourself.

I don't think there's much to say about DVD-released programming, it could be your subjective opinion that this is the case, another could say that the modern audience is more interested in 'encapsulated' series similar to the stuff we get off US programmes, and not dvd-sales driven at all. (they do release a lot of back catalog on dvd now - stuff that never saw anything other than broadcast 20 years ago.)

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

The only exceptions are brains and penises (penii?), where the reverse is true.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[dave420]

They've already said they're going to use DRM. The Creative Commons license doesn't extend to foreigners, as they haven't paid their license fees. We pay our fees, we own it. All you other guys can go to the BBC's online shop and buy it there :)

DRM will be used to ensure the copies only play in Britain. How successful that is, I don't know, but there has to be some protection there, as the BBC is cool. :)

Don't equate DRM with closed-source. Just 'cos the beeb is working on lots of open-source stuff, doesn't mean they don't want to (rightfully) protect their/our property.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[awol]

This used to be true, but it seems to be getting more and more commercial now. the "Walking With..." set of series, for example, seemed to be geared for DVD sales right from the beginning.

Which is a wonderful thing. If you can get gigabytes of data on a DVD then the whole experience of watching the series can be turned on its head

Some of the things they are doing with interactive TV are wonderful. I was watching some show about bats and by "pressing the red button" I was taken out of the live TV into some kind of live video based game where I could try and help the bat sonar locate the moth. Bloody extraordinary. If this also means that they can make this link work with the DVD, then more power to them.

Their role as a public institution enables them to develop these technologies for everyone then to use. Great value for the license fee IMHO.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[mccalli]

If you can get gigabytes of data on a DVD then the whole experience of watching the series can be turned on its head

Agreed, but that is a commercial offering - I'd have to pay for the DVD even though I've already paid for the series through my license fee. There's the objection - to my mind they should concentrate on broadcast first, with tie-ins very much secondary. I think the emphasis is shifting.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

No, say it ain't true. I thought the really big dicks were on t'other side of pond!

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Paul Jakma]

It is commercial use that they are forbidding with their Creative Commons based licensing.

How do you know this? The BBC themselves dont even seem to have fully decided on the licensing scheme, never mind announced what the actual terms will be. If you'd care to read the damn article:

This afternoon the first meeting of an external consultative panel, which included many UK media holders, heard the BBC's decision that it will base the Creative Archive usage licence on the Creative Commons

So they've decided to base the licence on CC, but they're still in consultation and the actual licence itself is far from decided.

If you want to get hold of Red Dwarf and watch it and you're not a British licence payer then you'll probably still be able to do so.

Read the article again:

the BBC will enable individuals in the UK to download released content to their computers

"in the UK". The BBC already use Geo-IP schemes to restrict access to some content on their internet site to UK users. The BBC makes a lot of money from licensing material to rest of world, they will likely protect that licence revenue stream if they can. Eg, the BBC's digital satelite service is "free", however, it is still encrypted to protect it from non-UK viewers (UK residents can ring a number and gain access for free). The only unencrypted BBC domestic channels broadcast on digital satelitte are transmitted on Astra targeted transmitters with a small footprint targetted on the UK (some parts of Ireland and NL, Belgium can get it too).

Dont assume this BBC archive will be open to everyone on the internet, it most likely will not be.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Tin Foil Hat]

I wish that view were correct, but DRM is about the rights of the producer, not those of the consumer.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Grab]

Excellent! I thought there must be a way to do it, but I couldn't find it for the life of me. Cheers!

Grab.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Yer Mom]

Close - it's 120 quid. Or less if you have a black-and-white set. I wonder how many of those they sell these days?

Re:BBC viewpoint

[h4rm0ny]

If you'd care to read the damn article

I did read the damn article as you so pleasantly put it. I'll keep my reply to your two main points.

Firstly, you say that I don't know that they are going to forbid commercial use. Well from the damn article, here is what led me to that conclusion:

By applying a CC-type license to the content, the BBC will enable individuals in the UK to download released content to their computers, share it, edit it and create new content. Commercial reuse of the content will not be allowed.

Now there may be room for a lawyer to wriggle through there and there is no guarantee that the BBC will hold to this, but the inference I drew seems a natural one.

Secondly, and more insultingly, you've quoted just one sentance out of the context of what I wrote and thus changed its meaning significantly. Yes, I said that people outside the UK will be able to get hold of the programs. I followed this by saying that at most there is likely to be some shoddy protection based on the users IP Address. Now if you aren't aware of at least one way around this then I'd be surprised. Particularly as what I said was in agreement with your own parent post where you wondered how they could restrict distribution technically. I am saying that they can't except for AOL users. This is clear if you'd read the damn post you are replying to.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[h4rm0ny]

No, he stated that number 10 deliberately and knowingly included untrue information in the dossier, in his 6:07 broadcast.

This is that technicality. He said they deliberately included information that they knew to be false. All that was proved was that they deliberately included information that they didn't know wasn't true, i.e. they could not support it.

Yes, there is room in there for a laywer to wriggle through, but God it stinks.

There was a case for war. Saddam was a monster. But that case should have been made openly. Lying to garner public support for a war is abhorrent.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[Snaller]

I don't see your point.

You don't decide how the world thinks. Everbody doesn't do it your way.

Re:BBC viewpoint

[/dev/trash]

Hmmmmm. Either you get a discount by paying via direct-debit, or you're always 8 dollars behind in payments for the year.

I wonder

[Tebriel]

Will being a permanent member of the "external consultative panel" for the BBC change Lessig's views on anything? Will this be a paid position?

this has to be...

[zeruch]

...one of the better pieces of news in a while. I have generelly held the Beeb in high regard, not just for it's programming, but it's business practices. This seems to hold true.

Re:this has to be...

[Anonymous Coward]

I held them in high regard too ... until they falsified a news report to make a political arguement (See the Hutton report).

Of course, the Daily Mirror falsifing UK soldier abuse photos if a whole different level of dishonesty.

And, yes, I hold politicians and journalists to different standards. I expect politicians to lie. I expect journalists to tell the truth, but I'll accept them spining the truth.

Re:this has to be...

[ibpooks]

...but they aren't a real business; they're a government sponsored charity.

Re:this has to be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutly, it was downright dishonest of them. However those responsible took the fall; several members of the news team who were directly involved, some board members and Greg Dyke no longer work for the BBC. Lets also not forget the sword cut both ways; the whitewash by Hutton not wishstanding it was Whitehall who revealed the Dr's name. Throughout the entire sorry afair at least the BBC held itself to higher standards and refused to reveal it's sources.

The Mirror was a whole new level of just downright cynical bullshit designed to play off of peoples emotions. The entire paper should be shut down and Piers Morgan should appear on national T.V to personally apologise. In front of an entire audiance of service men and women who have served in Iraq.

Re:this has to be...

[Wolfbone]

Then there was this 'analysis' by the infamous Stephen Evans, the BBC's North American business correspondent and friend of the BSA, RIAA etc. There is also the fact that they have reneged on their promise to provide ogg streams two years ago and the curious absence, despite complaints, of any reporting of the software patent furore, even on the BBCi Technology site (not one mention, even of the demonstrations - ever!).

The dumbing down of much of their output and the Horizon series in particular also caused/causes quite a stir on the message boards but their policy is always to ignore complaints and give complainers the brush off - just listen to the arrogance of those producers and programme makers defending themselves absolutely, no matter how valid the criticisms, on Radio 4's "Feedback" programme. I stopped watching the BBC TV some time ago - soon after they introduced those insipid, self promoting adverts. They have lost much of my respect.

Re:this has to be...

[RMH101]

The Mirror: Dubious photos illustrating proven true story, complete with evidence, of abuse of prisoners in Iraq
Result: Piers Morgan sacked

Tony Bliar: Claims of WMD justifying war in Iraq demonstrably false, with zero evidence
Result: TB still in power.

Re:this has to be...

[Anonymous Coward]

ogg was an experiment and we loved them for it, but licensing never worked out.

Thanks to the brits for this one...

[mobiux]

We get it for free because they pay thier yearly tax.

I just wish I could get the BBC america channel at home.

Re:Thanks to the brits for this one...

[Richard_at_work]

Get what for free? The archive will only be available to UK ADSL/Cable subscribers, the BBC can do this because almost all of the ADSL and cable providers do private peering with the BBC (they have one hell of a network). Other than the limited world services, people outside of the UK get little.

Re:Thanks to the brits for this one...

[PhillC]

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the not too distant future the BBC attempted to institute some type of subscription system for people accessing their online content from outside the UK. This may for example be based upon IP address. It won't be a perfect system, but I can see it being tried.

At the moment there is quite a big public debate occurring regarding how much money the BBC is spending on New Media initiatives. It is largely focussed on the premise that because the BBC has so many tax payer funded resources they are able to invest heavily in New Media and are thus stifling competing commercial operations.

It wouldn't surprise me to see this debate shift and focus on who should have access to the BBC New Media content for free - that is only UK based users.

Re:Thanks to the brits for this one...

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC isn't paid through a tax but through a licence fee. The difference is the licence is optional -- you don't have to have a TV.

The Beeb

[Cally]

For all it's miriad faults (Sue McGregor springs to mind, Libby Purves, John Waite, Noel Edmonds, most of BBC1 these days,... uh, that's a longer list than I was thinking of ;) the BBC is still one of the few things that give me any feeling of pride in the institutions of this country. I won't go so far as to say "proud to be British" - patriotism just isn't sportsmanlike IMHO.

Re:The Beeb

[FrostedWheat]

BBC1 is filled with a lot of crap I agree, but nowhere near as bad as ITV. Rarly is there a show on that channel I want to watch, the last one being 'Highlander'. And as much as I liked the show, I had to give up on it. ITV never shows it at the same time, nor even the same day some weeks. Now and then it would disappear from the channel completly. I imagine this happens to any program on that channel that isn't a soap or un-reality show.

*phew*! Glad I got all that outta my system!

Of to work I go...

In Related News...

[k4_pacific]

Cable news channel MSNBC announced today that they will be releasing their archives under the Windows XP EULA.

Re:In Related News...

[frodo from middle ea]

Which one, the original or SP1 or SP2's EULA, they seem to have changed quite a bit, but i suppose the original EULA has something along the lines of "By agreeing to this EULA, you also agree to any future modifications to this EULA, which may be performed with notifying you , at any time in the future."

Re:In Related News...

[sckeener]

Cable news channel MSNBC announced today that they will be releasing their archives under the Windows XP EULA.

great something else to click through

Re:In Related News...

[John Starks]

Such an EULA is not legally binding. Contract law is based around the idea of two parties mutually agreeing on specific terms. Neither party can change those terms without the other's agreement. Clauses such as the one you mentioned are simply invalid, since they violate the idea on which contract law is based.

You should take that with a grain of salt though, as IANAL.

Re:In Related News...

[Aneurysm9]

There is a question whether a EULA relates to a sale of goods. If it does and the Uniform Commercial Code applies, then, perhaps, EULAs are considered as proposals for addition to the contract formed at the time of sale of the goods (i.e., the software) and become part of the contract unless rejected. See UCC 2-204 and UCC 2-207.

Re:In Related News...

[Snaller]

With a two year delay.

Re:In Related News...

[sulli]

And two Service Packs per program, available at random intervals.

How long will this last?

[millahtime]

We get it for free because they pay thier yearly tax.

How long will this last. The BBC supplying to the world with only the Brits paying for it. I would guess they would give it to the Brits at no cost but charge everyone else.

Re:How long will this last?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a licence payer, I really don't mind. Hey, we've already paid it, it's there, why not just let everyone else enjoy it as well? What benefit is there in locking it away? I don't gain anything!

Re:How long will this last?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously providing free media content to the public will offend neo-con capitalist sensibilities to the point they will assume the UK has been usurped by communist terrorists and immediately liberate the UK.

Re:How long will this last?

[millahtime]

As a licence payer, I really don't mind. Hey, we've already paid it, it's there, why not just let everyone else enjoy it as well? What benefit is there in locking it away? I don't gain anything!

I like your thinking but I was just trying to make my comment like a businees in the business of making money would think.

Re:How long will this last?

[Xilman]

How long will this last. The BBC supplying to the world with only the Brits paying for it. I would guess they would give it to the Brits at no cost but charge everyone else.

It works both ways. I'm a Brit, living in Britain (or Britland as Dubya would say). Some years ago I wrote to NASA's public relations people asking for some information. By return of post, at no cost to me and sent by airmail, came a large envelope full of stuff.

AFAICT, both NASA and the BBC take the view that the material has already been paid for by tax payers and so, by and large, they are willing to send out copies to non-commercial entities.

Paul

Re:How long will this last?

[Malc]

We don't get it for free. We either have to pony up for their region 1 DVDs, or pay extra to subscribe to BBC Canada/America. For me I would have to pay CAD$15/month on top of my cable bill to get digital cable, buy or rent a digital cable box, and then pay more to get the channel. I objected to paying CAD$75/month when all I was watching was TVO (also available over the air), CBC (also available over the air), BBC Canada and BBC World. Now I don't pay for any of it... it's only TV after all ;)

Re:How long will this last?

[Angus Prune]

Thats the beauty of the BBC, they are not a normal business and dont currently have that ethic. Although that doesnt mean they will never become more tight-fisted but there remains an element of political control so this can (hopefully) be pre-empted if it ever were to happen.

I have no links to the Beeb, but I think they do a fantastic job and play an important role. The way the BBC is funded allows it to make niche programs that would not be produced otherwise.

Re:How long will this last?

[kuiken]

Well actualy people outside the UK pay for it aswell.
BBC isnt giving away their feeds for free to your local cable company

Good news

[N3koFever]

It's good news if they do this. Their shows (especially comedy) are probably the best in the world and making them available to anyone who wants them is great, especially for people who live in places where they can't see them usually. One of the advantages of having a publicly funded non-commercial TV network I guess.

NPR Public Content

[beatleadam]

The BBC appears to be delivering on its promise of releasing its material to the public - they're modelling their licensing on Creative Commons.

I continue to be very excited about this type of content release and especially in the case of the BBC so that all the Monty Python will be available.

I know here in the states we have NPR's content available for listening and download so how are these two institutions licensing different?

Re:NPR Public Content

[m_dob]

As I understand it they are only releasing content as long as it is not making money for them through their commercial arm (BBC Worldwide).

Don't expect to see any Python any time soon. I think the plan is to do with television as they do with radio - i.e. make the last 7 day's programs available online, though this could have changed.

Re:NPR Public Content

[Gorath99]

I continue to be very excited about this type of content release and especially in the case of the BBC so that all the Monty Python will be available.

Though I would love to see that happen, I don't think we'll ever see Monty Python released this way, as the BBC doesn't own the series. The Pythons themselves do.

See here for more.

Re:NPR Public Content

[Bjimba]

Never mind the Pythons (for the moment, anyway). The BBC have held hostage for far too long the only live performances of Harry Nilsson ever filmed.

Oh, how I long for the day these two BBC specials are released. And I wouldn't balk at paying for them, either. But couldn't there be some clause in all this that says if the commercial arm determines some content is not worth releasing, the Creative Commons-esque release automatically kicks in?

Free Harry now!

Re:NPR Public Content

[interiot]

NPR's policy on copyright peeves me so much. I pledge money to them every year, so I get to freely listen to news programs over the radio. Yet if I want a permanent copy (often only available in propietary formats like Real no less), I have to pay extra for it. I can't put my finger on exactly why, but it really seems like NPR should have lead the OSS revolution, producing open content even before Richard Stallman did.

Re:NPR Public Content

[beatleadam]

I can't put my finger on exactly why, but it really seems like NPR should have lead the OSS revolution, producing open content even before Richard Stallman did.

That is my point exactly and I agree with you.

Perhaps it is this: If NPR releases content (i.e. it airs on the Radio) to the public anyways where if you had any recording device you could copy it for free, why on Earth if I am to download and copy it or record it "legally" do I have to Pay for it?

Re:NPR Public Content

[Halfbaked Plan]

NPR are rather greedy in certain ways. And there are offshoots of NPR like 'American Public Radio' which were set up to strip off valuable properties like Garrison Keillor's popular program so they could rake in the loot.

Re:NPR Public Content

[Sv1ad]

Though I would love to see that happen, I don't think we'll ever see Monty Python released this way, as the BBC doesn't own the series. The Pythons themselves do.
And the same goes for parts of Doctor Who - like the Daleks. *Sobs quietly.*

Creative Commons!

[Lorenzo de Medici]

The Creative Commons license brings licensing to the masses. As an independent filmmaker, I am so overjoyed to be able to have websites such as Magnatune where I can find decent artists who want exposure for their music, something some of my films can provide. At the same time, I get good quality audio for my films. They win. I win. It's a wonderful thing.

To anyone who has not explored the CC licences, I highly encourage them to check it out and learn about this really cool license.

Also, I didn't notice any really significant changes in the 2.0 licenses. Did anyone catch something blaringly obvious that I missed?

Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?"

[Bart]

So, would this be the same BBC who force us to load proprietary and intrusive software (RealPlayer) in order to listen to their audio streams? The same BBC who "tried" Ogg Vorbis streaming for three weeks before quietly shelving it? The BBC who have never offered MP3 streams?

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?"

[Carnildo]

This is the same BBC that forced Real to provide a free, no-nag, no-spyware, less-evil version of the player.

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?"

[Bart]

Whereas WFMU.org offer Realaudio streams, MP3 streams and, as of last week Ogg Vorbis streams.

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?"

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ogg Streams were up for months, not three weeks. I know the guy who was responsible for it, and the sad reason it stopped is simply because the department running it was moved to another office and "right sized", leaving no resource to pursue the streams. You could always write to the BBC and ask them to restart the trials though; no harm in asking.

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?"

[mikael]

So, would this be the same BBC who force us to load proprietary and intrusive software (RealPlayer) in order to listen to their audio streams?

Don't forget that it was the same BBC who introduced the 'Dirac' compression algorithm as an Open Source project.

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?"

[ckelly5]

I can honestly say that while I consider myself fairly well educated in current technologies, if it weren't for this site, I wouldn't know what Ogg Vorbis is. You can't really blame the BBC for going with what is considered to be one of, if not *the* standard in audio streaming technologies in the marketplace. In fact, you need to give the BBC some credit because 90%+ of other companies out there wouldn't have even *thought* about trying Ogg Vorbis, even if they did eventually shelve it. Besides, who knows what formats all this new data from the BBC will be in when released. For all we know, it will be in various Ogg formats.

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?"

[jbb999]

I heared an interview of one of the people in charge of this on BBC radio the other day and he basically said that they used real because it was the closest thing to a standard at the time they started doing this, and that for newer stuff they also made it available with MS media player, and they hoped to make more stuff available in both those formats *and in other non propriety formats* in the future. He basically said they used those formats because that's what people had got players for.

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?"

[Anonymous Coward]

er no, (AC because i work there, not karma burn worries)

We use Real because it's really cross platform, and when we started streaming, there was very little alternative

You find another deployed, free (beer) client that deals with Win32, Mac (9/X), GNU/Linux, Solaris, the BSDs, HP/UX, etc etc, and maybe the BBC will support it.

Good luck.

when you've found that client, come back and tell the BBC. We'd love to hear about it, really. We hate the nag stuff too, but the client works, gets our A/V content out to the most users.

which is what we're about, after all

And the mp3 streams? Stuff that's 'ours' (reith lectures, for a start) is being trialled as mp3s - you have no idea how hard it would be to do for stuff that isn't

Great FUD, btw

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?"

[Wolfbone]

"We use Real because it's really cross platform, and when we started streaming, there was very little alternative"

Fair enough, but now there are many formats for streaming audio and video and many players capable of playing them and have been for quite some time. It was two years ago that the BBC began to provide the Ogg streams which it then dropped, saying they'd get around to it again when they had the time. The BBC should be at the forefront of this kind of technology, experimenting with stuff like speex for it's speech oriented programming - I know the BBC would like to make the best use of it's bandwidth

"You find another deployed, free (beer) client that deals with Win32, Mac (9/X), GNU/Linux, Solaris, the BSDs, HP/UX, etc etc, and maybe the BBC will support it."

Huh? - Please explain why you think it is necessary for everyone in the country to use one single cross-platform capable client, imposed on us by the BBC, just to listen to an audio stream - or indeed any other kind of stream? If the BBC provided the streams in multiple formats, the problem wouldn't arise. Who are you to tell us what software we must use to listen to content that we have payed for?

"when you've found that client, come back and tell the BBC. We'd love to hear about it, really. We hate the nag stuff too, but the client works, gets our A/V content out to the most users."

No it doesn't. Providing a choice of stream formats would do that, providing only the 'most popular' (and most widely despised) one does not. Justifying the lack of choice by stating the irrelevant fact that the RealPlayer client is the only cross-platform client for that proprietary stream format is nonsensically circular. Why don't you tell us why the BBC is imposing this perverse and Rumpelstiltskinesque condition on the stream and therefore the client software instead of simply enabling the listeners to choose by damn well providing the Ogg streams that they already promised?

"Stuff that's 'ours' (reith lectures, for a start) is being trialled as mp3s - you have no idea how hard it would be to do for stuff that isn't"

So, now you are telling us that the BBC can provide mp3 streams but cannot provide the Ogg streams? Who do you think you are kidding? Was the BBC lying when it said: "Yay, the legal issues have been resolved. We now have rights to all the of the BBC's radio output. Hopefully we should start kicking off these streams soon." ? Just how hard would it be for the BBC to stream Radio 5 Live's 24 hour news and talk in Ogg or mp3? - Okay so you can't stream all of the sporting events or all of the other content on other channels but that is an understandable difficulty. There is an ocean of content out there that is 'yours' - ours actually - and these feeble excuses about cross-platform players hold no water, any more than the lame excuse I heard from another BBC insider, for the reason that certain episodes of Horizon cost 9 times the $20 that they do in the U.S. - "It's expensive to hire the equipment to make the DVDs".

FUD indeed. You say you work for the BBC and I believe you - your bizarre non-explanation of the BBC's intransigence and addiction to the Real formats is reminiscent of the patronising arrogance exhibited by programme makers when called to account by disgruntled listeners in BBC programmes like "Feedback". It is clear that the BBC has moved a very long way from it's Reithian ideals of public service and now behaves in some ways like the worst kind of corporate monopolist, imposing it's self-interested and commercially founded decisions on it's users and customers without conscience or consideration.

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?"

[BenBenBen]

It's really quite simple.

The BBC tech guys at Kingswood Warren "got it" (I remember their webcam with a huge inflatable Tux in the background..)

They were "right-sized" as part of the preparation for the sell-off of BBC Technology (which is a national shame), and their new marketdroid paymasters took one look at their (underappreciated here) efforts to ogg etc stuff and said "get back to work".

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?"

[Anonymous Coward]

You find another deployed, free (beer) client that deals with Win32, Mac (9/X), GNU/Linux, Solaris, the BSDs, HP/UX, etc etc, and maybe the BBC will support it.

Uh, hello? Well gee, lets see..how about Helix Player with Ogg Vorbis streams delivered over RTSP or HTTP? Well look at that...just exactly what you asked for. So when can we expect the Ogg Streams?

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?"

[Wolfbone]

Yes I know all about that but things appear to have happened since then and given that it was last June it looks like they've dropped the ball again and if it's really so simple then who are the mysterious new tech guys who are finding the time to trial the mp3 format stuff? It's not as though no-one's continued to complain. I have certainly done so on more than one occasion including to the new boss Andrew Highfield.

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?"

[kraut]

Actually, the BBC has started experimenting with MP3 downloads again - the recent Reith lectures, for example, were available as streamed audio, text transcript, and MP3 download. Very nice!

Of course they're not perfect yet, but the BBC is a great institution.

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?"

[plugger]

The Ogg Vorbis trials continued for several months before being halted. Something to do with merging Kingswood Warren with their new Streaming Media Services center. See here for details ntk.net

This is Certainly Great News

[List of FAILURES]

Precedent like this by such a well respected and very tasteful organization is sure to bolster support for the Creative Commons style of licensing. One of the best, but most downtrodden traits of humanity is the capacity for sharing. Certain, mentally ill segments of our civilization are striving to keep what last tight grips they have on anything of value. They think only of themselves and their immediate needs rather than thinking of us as a collective and the legacy that we may leave behind with a more open approach. I applaud the BBC and it's efforts to show the world that it is possible to embrace sharing as a good thing for creativity. I berate everyone else who believes that keeping something completely to themselves is good in any way. Go ahead and become Gollum, if that is what you wish. The rest of us will leave you behind.

Re:This is Certainly Great News

[Anonymous Coward]

I like that. It really captures the current anti-capitalist, anti-american sentiment of the day and yet it doesn't advocate the violence preferred by some: "The rest of use will leave you behind", indeed!

The reason I'm writing though is this: I'm writing a book about the history of communism and how it has changed throughout the ages and I was wondering if will you give me permission to use your post as an example of a modern viewpoint of the communist agenda?

The BBC are not government

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC are not government. They are controlled by state officials and the Crown.

Re:The BBC are not government

[isorox]

The BBC are not government. They are controlled by state officials and the Crown.

Yes, thats right aside for one little point.

YOU@RE COMPLETELY WRONG

The BBC is controlled by an executive committie of ~ 20 people, headed by the Director General (Mark Thompson). He is appointed by the board of governers (headed by Micheal Grade). He was appointed by the government, however once appointed is not controlled by them, nor does he control the DG.

Re:The BBC are not government

[thatjavaguy]

Absolute rubbish.

Alternative Business

[bludstone]

Im curious.

Does this mean independant people can take these sources, remaster them, and release them on dvd for a fee?

Let me take a step back for a second.

Sometimes I picture what it would be like if the current copyright laws were re-written so that ownership only existed for, oh, 15 years. Would a new set of industries pop up that release shows on various media formats?

For example, one company could be comitted to getting the content to you in the most inexpensive way possible. Another could be obsessed with video quality and extras (read: fanboys and their tv shows) and other such developments; they would charge a larger fee. Not to mention "fan sequals" and indy spinoffs.

I see a great potential for a new market emerging from releasing open content like this.

Re:Alternative Business

[leakingmemory]

Creative Commons != BSD License Not sure about the exact line between becoming sued and not, but it seems pretty clear to me that the original author still owns the work. But maybe you can get paid for the cd and possibly for creating it/buring too.

Re:Alternative Business

[Anonymous Coward]

>Does this mean independant people can take these sources, remaster them, and release them on dvd for a fee?

no.

Re:Alternative Business

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what license you choose.

Re:Alternative Business

[P-Nuts]

Does this mean independant people can take these sources, remaster them, and release them on dvd for a fee?

RTFA:

By applying a CC-type license to the content, the BBC will enable individuals in the UK to download released content to their computers, share it, edit it and create new content. Commercial reuse of the content will not be allowed.

So it sounds like the for a fee bit wouldn't be permissible.

Re:Alternative Business

[bfields]

Sometimes I picture what it would be like if the current copyright laws were re-written so that ownership only existed for, oh, 15 years. Would a new set of industries pop up that release shows on various media formats? For example, one company could be comitted to getting the content to you in the most inexpensive way possible. Another could be obsessed with video quality and extras (read: fanboys and their tv shows) and other such developments; they would charge a larger fee. Not to mention "fan sequals" and indy spinoffs.

Note that this already happens; just replace tv shows by, say, Shakespeare plays: go to any decent bookstore and look at their collection of Hamlet editions....

--Bruce Fields

Re:Alternative Business

[BenBenBen]

I can't remember whose idea it was originally, but the best one yet IMO is an exponential increase in copyright renewal fees.

Produce something, and the copyright's yours for 10 years. At the end of 10 years it's either PD'd or you pay 10,000 dollars to renew copyright. Another 10 years, you pay 1,000,000. Eventually, say you have a large-eared mouse that's a fundamental part of your income, you can afford to re-copyright it.

This method (poorly described here) applies free market darwinism to copyright.

Yaaaaaawn

[Roland Piquepaille]

yesterday's release of Creative Commons' 2.0 licenses -- well worth reading about.

on a rainy day.

/me goes back to blog...

Re:Yaaaaaawn

[42forty-two42]

Well, it's certainly been raining a lot where I am.

Re:Thanks to you for this one...

[Roland Piquepaille]

We get it for free because they pay thier yearly tax.

And we over here get to read your post on the DARPA-created Internet because you pay your taxes. Everybody in the world eventually contributes something to everybody else.

Anyway, thanks.

Re:BBC is official government media

[gibodean]

The BBC is the news and media branch of the government of the United Kingdom. It is not a "good thing" to have the state control things like this.

While in theory that could be true, just try comparing the news you get from the BBC with that you get from the networks in the USA.

Those USA networks are much more biased than the BBC.

Re:Nobody cares.

[shibbie]

Groovy baby!

Funding is done by licence fee - links

[RidiculousPie]

Further information on running costs is available in this document (Starting at about Table 14) and this document
According to the second document licence fee revenue is 2,659million pounds.
License fee information on the bbc website

TV Licensing Website

To summarise:
Standard license fee is 121 pounds(colour television)
Black and White Television is 40.50 pounds
Registered blind people can apply for a discount of up to 50%
People over the age of 75 do not need a license

Re:Funding is done by licence fee - links

[BlightThePower]

I can never decide if the discount for the registered blind is:
1. Almost comical tight-fisted meanness
2. Scrupulous fairness
3. Because sound is 50% of the broadcast
(do registered deaf get 50% off though? No, IIRC).

Re:Funding is done by licence fee - links

[iabervon]

What about the fact that blind people pay less for black & white TVs than colour?

I'd guess that the registered blind with TVs can generally see well enough to watch them. You're considered blind if your vision is insufficient to be able to function in everyday life; you may be able to see well enough to watch TV even if you couldn't see well enough to cross the street safely. People whose vision is too bad to enjoy TV probably listen to the radio instead of having a TV.

Re:Funding is done by licence fee - links

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK you can get the 50% discount if someone living with you is registered blind...

Re:Funding is done by licence fee - links

[Adrian]

I can never decide if the discount for the registered blind is...

One thing to bear in mind that being registered blind doesn't mean that you have no sight - just that it is difficult to perform activities for which eyesight is essential. Many registered blind can get a lot visually out of a TV broadcast.

Also remember that the licence fee pays for the beeb's web presence and (if you include digital) ten national radio stations + goodness knows how many local ones.

You're right that there isn't a discount for the deaf (but there is subtitling available on most programs AFAIK.)

Re:Funding is done by licence fee - links

[sql*kitten]

According to the second document licence fee revenue is 2,659million pounds.

Put it this way: the BBC has a budget comparable to the Royal Navy and it's accountable to pretty much nobody.

If the BBC were half as important as it claims to be, it could manage very well without this massive subsidy - even with that massive advantage, Reuters still beats it on news every time, viewers prefer American sitcoms and movies, etc etc. It's high time the archaic TV tax was scrapped.

The Beeb isn't only making money from license fees

[tjwhaynes]

How long will this last. The BBC supplying to the world with only the Brits paying for it. I would guess they would give it to the Brits at no cost but charge everyone else.

The Beeb is making a fair amount of income from other sources. Take a look at TLC in the US - all of their top-ranked shows are under license from the BBC, from Clean Sweep to Trading Places. Then there are DVD and other media sales. PBS channels purchase shows like "Life Of Mammals" and comedies. The Beeb gets advertising revenue from the channels with commericials. The BBC is far from a licensing-fee-only company.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

hoping others will follow

[xlyz]

BBC is not the only state owned, fee financed media company

Italian RAI is in the same situation and has an impressive archive as well

looking forward to re-installing my video editing software :)

Re:hoping others will follow

[Richard_at_work]

The BBC isnt actually state owned, its owned by a private Trust and given a Government Mandate to allow it to collect a license fee for TVs. The government actaully has minimal say in the running of the BBC, much to the current governments dislike.

Re:hoping others will follow

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see the RAI archive released under such terms, but it is quite wrong to suggest that the RAI is the same kind of institution as the BBC. One obvious difference is that the RAI is partially funded by advertising and a fair amount of direct government subsidy. In fact RAI TV has more advertising per hour than British commercial TV and it has rarely achieved a similar level of quality in recent years (mainly because British commercial TV has to compete with the BBC's quality standards, not the woeful dross of Berlusconi's private stations) Perhaps more insidiously, the RAI has always been a creature of the Government and the Italian political class. For years the three main Italian parties effectively had one RAI TV channel each and today the RAI as a whole is basically the property of Prime Minister Berlusoni. Given that Berlusconi also owns all the private terrestrial TV stations that matter in Italy, this amounts to a private media autocracy. I love Italy and Italians, but I can't imagine any other country that would consider itself a democracy if practically all of its broadcast media were in the hands on one private individual.

Re:hoping others will follow

[ctid]

The government actaully has minimal say in the running of the BBC, much to the current governments dislike.

Don't forget the dislike of the previous government. And the one before that. And the one before that as well. One of the best features of the BBC is that it contrives to be disliked by *every* government, *and* by whichever party is in opposition. They must be doing something right.

Re:The Beeb isn't only making money from license f

[jacoplane]

And licensing their materials under a creative commons license does not mean that revenue has to end. They can give it away to the public for free while forbidding commercial use (without paying for that right).

What is being released exactly?

[SsShane]

I want mah Doctor Who!

Re:What is being released exactly?

[azzy]

Why do you have to moan so much?

Because you want to, because you want to!

Billie Piper? GOD NO!! Anything but!!!

Does this mean

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That I can finally rewatch "Are You Being Served?" which played on my local PBS station until the video tapes fell apart?

What's the difference between March14th and Nov2nd

[Anonymous Coward]

There were actually elections on March 14th...

Ignorance ensued

[Anonymous Coward]

BBC's taxes are authorised by a Crown Charter, which is done through government. However, the Government and the BBC both have to abide by it (which they both do willingly). This isn't a Government controls the BBC situation, it's a contract between seperate entities.

Unfortunately, you're too ignorant to know what you're talking about.

Re:Ignorance ensued

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unfortunately, you're too ignorant to know what you're talking about."

You are too ignorant to realize that something that is government-created, funded, and controlled is a part of government.

Re:Ignorance ensued

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not government controlled.

It isn't really government funded. The government must only authorise the 'taxes' as part of BBC Charter, every ten years.

It's a bit like judges. Some judges are political appointments. But otherwise, the judges are strictly off-limits from political interference. That is enforced by both legal rules, and political pressures (it would create an enormous scandal if the government tried to interfere).

Re:Ignorance ensued

[Anonymous Coward]

government-created

CROWN-charter. Hi, welcome to the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. Meet our head of state, Queen Elizibeth II. Did you receieve your complimentary copy of the Magna Carta? Good good.

This isn't the U.S. The Crown is the head of state, not the Government. The Crown created both Parliment (Refer to your copy of the Magna Carta) and the British Broadcasting Coproration. The Crown is the boss in this town. The Prime Minister and the BBC both answer to the Crown.

I'd draw you a PowerPoint presentation with the full Organisation Chart but Slashdot wont let me, and the colours would only serve to distract you..

Re:Ignorance ensued

[chuckT]

Er, yes, the Queen is the head of State, and the Government (Prime Minister and Cabinet) set the agenda, but under the unwritten British Constitution, Parliament is supreme, and can basically do what the hell it likes.

So Parliament is in charge. Period. (As I am told they say in America).

Chuck

GNU FDL

[Henrik S. Hansen]

The GNU Free Documentation License should also be considered for any kind of free document. Although it is modelled for documentation for programs, it could really be applied for most things.

However, the GNU FDL has had some controversy within Debian, who have considered moving works licensed under it to the non-free section. Of course, this has undergone Much debate, with Richard Stallman under heavy fire.

Re:BBC is official government media

[Anonymous Coward]

The USD media is controlled by the state - the corporate state. Read up on Mussolini and the ideals of fascism (not the hitler nazi anomaly, ordinary fascism). Fascism is the merging of government and corporate power.

Excellent

[locarecords.com]

This is really good news and I am very pleased that a public sector company like the BBC should seek to do this. That they have used Creative Commons licenses is very interesting considering they are based on US law (and the UK ones are still under development) but still I am sure they have enough copyright lawyers should they need to sort something out.

[Grammar-Nazi] "Creative Commons'"

[JessLeah]

I just wanted to point out that "Creative Commons" is a singular entity, despite the fact that it ends in the letter "s". Therefore, it is "Creative Commons's" license (or whatever), not "Creative Commons'" license (or whatever),

Re:[Grammar-Nazi] "Creative Commons'"

[Angus Prune]

Actually either positioning of the possesive apostrophe is correct.

Re:[Grammar-Nazi] "Creative Commons'"

[geeklawyer]

Well then, Mr grammar Nazi, I hope you're better at invading Poland than delineating the rules of English grammar.

I don't pretend to be an expert grammarian but here's a grammar 101 on the apostrophe:

to show that a noun has, belongs or possesses something else an '-s' is usually added: 'a dog's collar': likewise for a plural noun not ending in '-s': 'rat's tails'

for a common noun, singular or plural, ending with an '-s', add an apostrophe after the '-s': 'all the jeans' have holes'

for proper nouns one can either add " -'s " or an apostrophe without the '-s', depending on tradition or taste: Charles's and Charles' is fine; 'girls' dresses' is fine; 'girls's dresses is not.'

The Creative Commons is, as you correctly say, in the singular. More properly it is a proper noun: therefore, as per the above rules, either " Creative Commons' " licence or " Creative Commons's " licence is correct.

Thank you for your time.

Re:[Grammar-Nazi] "Creative Commons'"

[JessLeah]

That's Ms. Grammar Nazi, and "All the jeans' have holes" is incorrect.

Re:[Grammar-Nazi] "Creative Commons'"

[aziraphale]

Well, yes, because there's no posessive there.

"He looked in all of his jeans' pockets", however, is probably grammatically correct, but frankly nowadays jeans can be thought of as an adjective when applied to pockets, and you could more effectively render that thought via a sentence like

"He looked in all of his jeans pockets"

(Actually, I think the first version vaguely implies that he's looking in the pockets of all of his jeans, whereas the second one suggests that he is looking in all of the pockets of his jeans - which is a curious distinction to draw from an apostrophe, but grammar can be funny that way, and it shows that any list you ever come across of 'how apostrophes work' is generally going to be woerfully inadequate)

Similarly, I have no idea why the assumption is that the license under discussion belongs to the Creative Commons and should therefore be described as the Creative Commons' License - that would be rather like demanding that the GPL be called GNU's Public License. It's a license, its class is 'Creative Commons', so it's a Creative-Commons License, much as the GPL is a public license of class GNU. The sentence in the post should probably have read "... version 2.0 of the Creative-Commons Licenses", in that case.

It's pretty common for proper nouns qualifying common nouns get rendered as adjectives like this, rather than as possessives. Consider "Microsoft operating system", "London restaurants", or, perhaps most relevantly, given the plural, "United States foreign policy", or "Macdonalds hamburgers".

Re:[Grammar-Nazi] "Creative Commons'"

[JessLeah]

That's "McDonald's" ;)

*cough*

[BlightThePower]

Paul Gerhardt, Joint Director, BBC Creative Archive explains: "We want to work in partnership with other broadcasters and public sector organisations to create a public and legal domain of audio visual material for the benefit of everyone in the UK."

Don't see you mentioned there I'm afraid. We accept cash, VISA and Mastercard though.

But seriously, my feeling is that this isn't over by a long chalk yet. Wait until the tabloids (esp. the Daily Mail) find out about this. If as you say it ends up with programmes we pay for being made freely available around the world (heh, not that the BBC World Service doesn't already do this on the radio) there will be uproar. Now we may joke about these fuddy-duddies in the shires, but "Middle England" is very good at turning out to vote, so their views carry disproporitonate weight for this reason (hunting with hounds anyone?). Theres a section of British society that doesn't like the license fee in the first place and will be out to cause a stink the next time the charter is up for renewal anyway.

Believe when you see it is what I'm saying.

Re:*cough*

[isorox]

not that the BBC World Service doesn't already do this on the radio

Funded from the foreign office, not the license fee. World TV (as well as the BBC branded foreign channels, BBC America etc.) is funded by advertisers. BBC Prime is funded by subscription.

Financial Considerations

[otisaardvark]

This is exactly fulfilling the remit of the BBC, and demonstrates perfectly why most Brits are happy paying the TV licence fee. The Creative Commons style copylefting is a wonderful touch, and shows how "in tune" the BBC is to the mood of the public.

Nevertheless, there are important financial considerations which we should not overlook.

It seems to me that concerns about bandwidth and lucrative overseas syndication deals will probably mean that "direct" access is limited to UK addresses (at least initially). Despite this, licensing revenue will inevitably decline. Combined with the decrease in income from DVD sales, and the phenomenal cost of digitizing, hosting and maintaining the archive, this probably adds up to a significant licence fee increase. This is on top of the additional fee already imposed for digital viewers.

Politically, many in the government want to punish the BBC for its relentless Iraq questioning. However, Tessa Jowell, the minister in charge, has made encouraging noises. I have a great deal of respect for the BBC, but I sincerely hope (and unfortunately doubt) they can justify their "techno-edge" spending in a potentially politically hostile climate when their Charter comes under review in 2006.

Re:Financial Considerations

[N3koFever]

Good point, even if they make it so that only material over ten years old falls under this that's still over 80 years of material. My guess is that only a selection will be available directly from the BBC either streamed or downloaded, but it will give people the right to freely distribute their own recordings of material that this applies to.

Re:Financial Considerations

[MoonBuggy]

I'm sure that the BBC can kill two birds with one stone by colocating Akamai style media caching servers in the UK ISP's datacentres. Not only would this create great speed increases and reduce bandwidth charges, I'm sure the beeb could swing it so that they just pay low colocation fees and only a token amount for the bandwidth since it's just shuttled about within the ISP's own network.

It would make it far less likely for widespread overseas downloading to happen and the broadband providers would not only have a 'killer app' to shout about, they'd be getting paid for it too. Everyone wins :-D

Re:Financial Considerations

[isorox]

this probably adds up to a significant licence fee increase

IIRC my ballpark BBC Worldwide figures, its about 10% of the BBC's income - so a tenner on the license fee would cover all income from syndication and dvds.

This is on top of the additional fee already imposed for digital viewers.

What additional fee? You mean last years 4 increase?

Re:Financial Considerations

[logical1010]

lucrative overseas syndication deals

Ah yes, millions and millions in revenue for AbFab reruns on the Comedy Channel. What are they thinking?

BBC world news probably pulls in a decent amount but this is valuable for daily content only. I don't think revenue from current content programs like BBCWN would be adversly affected by the decision to release their archives.

Python/Dr. Who/Red Dwarf(was this BBC?)/etc. we've (N.A.) seen it over here, probably not going to pay for it again. I would assume same for AUS and NZ, nobody else left in the english native world to sell to.

As for bandwith, ya, I wouldn't want to be paying for providing us N.A. geeks the oppurtunity to download above said shows.

Then again the article does say "...opening of a portion of the BBC's archives...". Would that include revenue generating popular programs?

Re:Financial Considerations

[lavaface]

I live in the U.S. and I would gladly pay a fee to access the archives. If the BBC is unwilling to allow foreigners to pay for service, well I guess there's always BitTorrent . . .

Re:Financial Considerations

[lingsb]

They already do this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/broadband/info/bsp.shtml

(Even JANET, the universities' network, has one of their repeaters!)

Re:BBC is official government media

[Anonymous Coward]

"The USD media is controlled by the state - the corporate state."

The only media in the US controlled by the state is NPR and PBS. There is no "corporate state".

Good News for UK Residents ONLY

[ear1grey]

Don't get too excited...

Just in case the announcement is unclear. This proposed CC-style license is for UK residents only.

Historically, in the UK, if you owned a television you were legally obliged to have a Television License - the current cost is approximately 80 pounds sterling per year. Even if you didn't watch any BBC channels you were still legally obliged to purchase a license, so since the work of the BBC has technically always been owned by UK Citizens it will soon be made available to those who funded it.

The license for the rest of the world may be something completely different.

Re:BBC is official government media

[dylman]

Yes, it's far better to have your news media controlled by vast corporations pursuing their own, unknown agendas. Fox News are renowned worldwide for their balanced, fair journalism, after all...

UK Only?

[OECD]

Odd line from TFA:

By applying a CC-type license to the content, the BBC will enable individuals in the UK to download released content to their computers, share it, edit it and create new content.

"In the UK"? Will there be different restrictions for the rest of us?

Re:UK Only?

[Richard_at_work]

You wont be able to get the origional content. The BBC peers with almost all of the UKs broadband suppliers, thus allowing tight access control to only those who it wants, IE the UK broadband users. For those on ISPs not peered with the BBC, im afraid you will either loose out, or have to sign up specially.

Re:UK Only?

[Anonymous Coward]

but I for one am open to swapsies over bit torrent...

You are completely wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

What you describe is common with branches of government. In the United States, judges (like your BBC state officials) are appointed by other government officials, but are not "controlled" by them afterwards. Like with the BBC, the people are taxed to pay for the judges' job.

Re:You are completely wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats nice, but the BBC is not in the United States. How is the process by which a judge appointed in another country with a different legal system[1] have any relevence to the BBC?

[1]: The U.S is a democratic republic, the U.K is a parlimentary monarchy. The rules are different; we have things like Royal Charters which have no analogue in the U.S.

CBC ... follow suit

[subVorkian]

The CBC should follow the lead of it's older, wiser brother.

This was found at: http://archives.cbc.ca/info/281g_en23.shtml

CBC staff from coast to coast to coast have online access to RADIOLA material through CBC's Intranet. This makes it much easier to incorporate old programming into new coverage -- when reporting on the history of a conflict, say, or the death of a national figure.

It's sad that only insiders at CBC have access to electronic copies of content. The have locked down their listening formats using commercial streaming products (RealAudio, QuickTime & Windows Media). This makes it difficult to record or re-use content streaming from CBC.

It's sad because this content is tax-payer funded. It also makes personal recording impossible or at best illegal.

I really think CBC should follow the BBC.

Re:BBC is official government media

[gpuk]

That is the most misguided comment I have ever read.

I suggest you direct your browser to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/ Where you can peruse the BBC's royal charter.

You may also wish to read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/pdf/agr eement_text.shtml
Specifically, read section "4. OBJECTIVES FOR THE HOME SERVICES".

The BBC is not a mouth piece for the government and indeed the government has no control over what can or cannot be broadcast. If you lived in the UK you would have read in the papers and seen on TV the huge debate that took place recently over finding a replacement director general after Greg Dyke (the former DG) resigned in response to the Dr. David Kelly affair. The debate was centred around finding a person suitable for the level of impartiality required. The government also felt obliged to jump through hoops just to let everyone know that they fully respected the impartiality of the BBC and had no intention of meddling with the selection process. The BBC's impartiality is so highly regarded in this country that if the government even hinted at trying to sway the selection process it would lose the next general election. This is why they went to such lengths to show they had no involvement in the process.

And in the US?

[FirstTimeCaller]

What about us over here in the USA? We like Monty Python as much as the next bloke! When do we get our hands on the free BBC archives?

Don't make us come over there and liberate your asses!

Re:And in the US?

[arkhan_jg]

Don't make us come over there and liberate your asses!

*Has a mental image of a yank wandering around London randomly pulling down people's trousers*

*shudder*

Re:And in the US?

[meadowsp]

Or running round the countryside letting loose donkeys.

Get over it. He won the vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over it. Bush won the same way the other ones did: he got enough of the popular vote in enough states to win the electoral college. If you know anything about government, you will know that this is how Clinton won also.

Re:Get over it. He won the vote

[Anonymous Coward]

But how did Cleveland Grover do it? And why was he counted twice, but Clinton only once?

Re:Get over it. He won the vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Clinton was elected twice in a row, whereas the other one was elected once, had a break for four years, then got re-elected separately.

And Bush is automatically unsuitable to lead anyone, by simple virtue of the fact that he is a monotheist. Anything a christian {or a jew, or a muslim} ever does, they do with just one purpose: to improve their own personal chance of getting into heaven {and if they actually believe all that bullshit, I mean believe it's true, as opposed to being a bunch of fairy-tales that people used to tell one another around a camp fire, then they should be put in a strait-jacket and taken to the wacky ward en quatrieme vitresse}.

Only atheists have pure and true motives, because their judgement is not clouded by fear of divine punishment.

Re:BBC is official government media

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh? there isn't?

So, the fact that the current Vice President was CEO of Haliburton, and the fact that Haliburton was awarded all sorts of "no-bid" contracts to do things in Iraq, and the fact that Haliburton now has a private army of 5000 "contractors" (ie: people with guns... aka mercenaries)... .. these are all just coincidences?

No news on the BEEB

[Insipid Trunculance]

I just checked the website and there is absolutely nonews on the bbc's own website about the new archive.

What an irony that the bbc doesnt carry up to date news about itself.

Re:No news on the BEEB

[Shimbo]

What an irony that the bbc doesnt carry up to date news about itself.

Some people meet to talk about copyright and licenses isn't really news, except for geeks. Announcing the intention to put the back catalogue on the Net was big news but that was months ago now.

Re:No news on the BEEB

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats because its not news, its PR, and if you look in the right place....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressr eleases/sto ries/2004/05_may/26/creative_archive.shtml

Not DARPA any more

[samjam]

Yes, but now the DARPA have finished developing it each country is paying their own share.

Thankyou DARPA for the funding and early development, very essential.

But now DARPA contribute no more to the internet than Marconi or Farnsworth do to programme broadcasting.

Unlike the BBC which develops programmes using UK license-payers money to then market abroad.

Sam

Re:Not DARPA any more

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it isn't called DARPA any more, but there is certainly a lot of Government backed research being done within Internet 2.

Re:BBC is official government media

[Malc]

Err, have you ever watched the BBC? They're often very anti-government of the day. That hardly makes them a good branch of government, let alone signify that they're under state control.

Re:Only one Fox

[naoiseo]

wow.

Re:BBC is official government media

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they are, and I have to question the patriotism of anyone who would accuse our vice president of using his position to make money for himself and his friends. You, sir, are disgusting.

nitty nit

[GeekyGurkha]

Over 75's do need a license. They just don't have to pay for it. (but they do have to fill out mucho-forms or somesuch to get hold of it) On the first post (don't want to make 2) The people who object to paying a license fee are likely those who have cable or sky & don't actually watch the BBC's channels (or rarely do), and are understandably annoyed about having to pay for them.

Re:Only one Fox

[ThomaMelas]

Dude, look up. That shadow is the point going right over your head.

Patriotism

[UdoKeir]

Here's a few quotations to be going on with:

Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.
~George Bernard Shaw

PATRIOTISM, n.
Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.
In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Re:Patriotism

[hachete]

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."
Oscar Wilde

So bloody true.

Re:BBC is official government media

[Anonymous Coward]

They question the government. Commercial media organisations like Fox are far more likely to use their news coverage as leverage for financial reasons. If it hurts the company, then questions aren't asked. That's something we should really deal with. It's the BBC's greatest strength.

Well, that and the fact there is absolutely no advertising.

Can you imagine what the country would be like if Ruperts Sky News was the offical media outlet for the United Kingdom?

Re:BBC is official government media

[jsebrech]

Yes they are, and I have to question the patriotism of anyone who would accuse our vice president of using his position to make money for himself and his friends. You, sir, are disgusting.

Well, it is then also just a coincidence that halliburton pays cheney more money in "deferred payments" than the United States of America pays him for being vice president (as shown by his most recent tax statement).

This after he had publicly said that he had cut all ties to halliburton. And because of the way halliburton is structured, they don't have to give a reason for that money. It could very well be based on profit, meaning that the contracts cheney handed to halliburton came straight back to him in personal profit.

Ofcourse, we could never know the truth, because both cheney and halliburton won't tell it to you. All you can find out is that he gets more money for having ties to halliburton than for being vice president.

And that doesn't even get into his secret energy cabinet, which was staffed with energy industry executives and not a single person representing the environmental movement, and of which we know nothing at all, since cheney has consistently refused to release anything, no transcripts, no recordings, not even exactly who attended those meetings.

By the way, halliburton has gone through corporate inversion. Meaning they have off-shored a number of subsidiaries to dodge paying taxes in the US. Also, halliburton subsidiaries did illegal trade with Saddam until the late 90's, at the time Cheney was running it. Making him not just an energy-industry lapdog, but a big hypocrit.

Halliburton was chosen for providing services in iraq it had zero experience with, like food preparation. They hired someone else to do that, and then didn't pay them what they had promised to pay. So halliburton makes more profit, and the soldiers in Iraq don't get warm meals. That's true patriotism for you.

Re:Only one Fox

[jsebrech]

Fox News's only agenda is to serve the public. If they don't, their ratings fall. No "unknown agendas".

Fox news is a business. As a business, they do not exist to serve the public, they exist to turn a profit. The truth isn't profitable, because it's rarely a "sexy" story. Fox news has a spin portraying fox viewers as true patriots who know the real truth because they watch fox news, and who know that fox news portrays the real america, who are strongly behind George W. Bush, and who think the iraq war is a great effort in the war on terror. It creates a very loyal viewerbase who will not look for other news sources, because in their mind it would make them less patriotic. Fox profits handsomely from this spin by having a loyal audience to show ads to.

Ratings and truth are unrelated. Lies can be sweet poison, the truth bitter medicine. If a station gave you bitter medicine, you would stop watching it, which is why fox news gets such nice ratings from spreading blatant, but seductive, lies consistently.

Re:The Beeb isn't only making money from license f

[Ray Radlein]

I thought that the license fees for those shows went to Endemol, RDF Media, and Banyan Productions -- you know, the folks who produced the original shows for the BBC in the first place.

I mean, let's say that one of those companies produces a show where Cathy Rogers throws Alan Titchmarsh and Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen out of an airplane and they have to assemble a decorative parachute from scrap materials before they hit the ground. If TLC picks it up and has Jesse James toss Hildi Santo-Tomas and Mikey Teutul out of a plane, does the Beeb really get a cut of the action? Sweeeeeet deal, if so.

Re:BBC is official government media

[Anonymous Coward]

" I have to question the patriotism of anyone who would accuse our vice president of using his position to make money for himself and his friends"

Actually, that would be acting like an American. Dissent is the most patriotic activity an American can do. It is anti-American to insist others think as you do, and get suspicious of them if they don't. Congrats on neatly undercutting your own argument by your bias.

Re:BBC is official government media

[MoonBuggy]

Quite right - hell, any medium that was controlled by the government wouldn't have gone directly against them on WMDs and The Hutton Report. The BBC coverage of both of these issues was a huge negative impact on Blair's credibility.

BBC archives

[curator_thew]

The BBC has 85km of shelves, which translates very roughy (digitised at 25 Mb/s) to 200 TB/km => 17 PB. This is an overestimate for us, because not all our shelves hold video, and we have spare copies and VHS 'browse' copies. But it gives a round number: 10 PB for the BBC archive, and similar sizes for other major European broadcast archives.

(from: http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id= 15550)

[can someone calculate how many "cisco-minutes" or "internet2-minutes" that is?]

Re:BBC archives

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a bit confused with these "km" and "PB" units.
How many Libraries of Congress would this translate to?

Re:BBC archives

[Anonymous Coward]

km = kilometre == 10**3 metres.
PB = petabyte == 10**15 bytes (if you're a hard disc manufacturer), or 2**50 bytes (if you're thinking binary).

Re:A Question for you, sir

[aldoman]

The BBC doesn't, but the commercial networks (ITV, Channel4, Five etc) all have commercials.

Re:The Beeb isn't only making money from license f

[rezza]

Hot damn I'd love to see a show like that. I've seen enough of these garden/home/anything makeover shows to last me an eternity.

Re:BBC is official government media

[Anonymous Coward]

hoho they don't do irony in the US do they =\

Re:BBC is official government media

[pfafrich]

The BBC is the news and media branch of the government of the United Kingdom. It is not a "good thing" to have the state control things like this.

This is very far from the truth. They have almost complete editorial independance, and are often our biggest critic of the govenment. Comparisions with a 1984 style department of truth hold no water. Witness the Kelly Afair.

Educational Use?

[alienmole]

One thing I don't get about the CC license is how educational use is supposed to fit in. Is there some legal precedent which rules that universities etc. are non-commercial? Universities charge money to educate people. Is the BBC releasing a whole lot of material that can't legally be used in education?

This is a serious question, I'd be interested in any informed replies.

Re:Educational Use?

[saroth2]

There are both commercial and non-commercial universities. Just because an institution is non-commercial does not it does not charge. An example would be a public museum, which (usally) charges admission, yet it is still considered non-commercial.

Re:Educational Use?

[alienmole]

An example would be a public museum, which (usally) charges admission, yet it is still considered non-commercial.

I assume that's because it's not incorporated as a for-profit entity. I guess that's what my question boils down to: is one of the determining factors for "intended for ... commercial advantage" whether an entity is incorporated for profit? For example, there are "universities" like DeVry in the U.S., which is "one of the three major players in the private, for-profit post secondary education sector in the North America" (from here). So would DeVry be unable to use non-commercial Creative Commons material, whereas other universities would? And is this something that's clearly determined by precedent?

Re:BBC is official government media

[Malc]

"Can you imagine what the country would be like if Ruperts Sky News was the offical media outlet for the United Kingdom?"

That Murdoch guy already has a lot of power in a lot of countries. I've heard it claimed that he can bring down governments or at least unduly affect elections. Conspiracy theory or truly scary?

Royal Charter and Agreement

[gylz]

Its interesting to note that making the archives accessible to the public is actually part of their Royal Charter Agreement:

The Corporation shall make reasonable arrangements, itself or with such body or bodies as it chooses, for public access to its sound, television or film archives with or without charge as the Corporation thinks fit.

They could have chosen to charge for access to the archive, regardless of whether you`re a license payer or not. They didn`t of course because they have always been one of the few truly altruistic corporations out there. Hats off to the Beeb and to prof. Lessig for being such forward thinkers I say!!

BBC also has a big radio network

[Goonie]

The BBC produces a number of channels of radio programming, the most notable of which for an international audience is the BBC World Service, which has some excellent global news coverage. All of this would be extremely useful for a blind person.

As an Aussie, however, my favourite is the Ashes on Test Match Special, where you can learn about all the lovely English ladies who bake the commentators delightful sponge cake for afternoon tea and, incidentally, follow the cricket.

Re:BBC also has a big radio network

[iabervon]

Right, blind people probably listen to BBC radio (for that matter, I sometimes listen to BBC radio, despite being neither blind nor British). But they don't need a TV (or a TV license) to do so.

The FDL is a PITA

[Goonie]

I'm a contributor to the Wikipedia, which is licensed under the FDL. As such, I've seen a lot of debate about the license. In my opinion, while the intention is fine, the specifics of the text make it unsuitable for anything except software documentation. It is too long and complex, with too many over-specific provisions, many of which are designed around the assumption that it will be used for documentation.

It is my belief that if the Wikipedia was restarted from scratch, it would probably use the Creative Commons By-attribution share-alike license, at least for the text, which accomplishes essentially the same thing but is much, much clearer.

Re:The FDL is a PITA

[Crick]

I run my own "free content" site for a series of roleplaying games, the FRPGC. We publish material for roleplaying games in a manner consistant with the "four freedoms" of the FSF. Unfortunately, the FSF doesn't share our view that the freedoms they apply to software should apply to other media.

With that in mind we've had a real struggle trying to find a license that is compatible with our philosophy. The FDL has "closed" Invariant Sections, is GPL-incompatible and is otherwise far too complicated, the CCPL is really and open source license for content, not a free content license and is GPL-incompatible.

In the end we settled upon using the GPL for our content: primarily because it does most things other content licenses do (copyleft, require modifiable copy, attribution) with the bonus that it has a vast wealth of material already published under it. For a roleplaying game publisher this is perfect especially when we decide to write computer games/PC generators/whatever for our material.

Re:BBC is official government media

[Anonymous Coward]

This is very much the case in Australia. Three or four media moguls have the power to decide who wins elections.

Re:Oh, big deal

[Cederic]

I am British, and I'm not disappointed.

How much ABC / CBC / CNN / Fox content are you able to download, share, edit and use to create new content, legally?

Let's just hope they include some of the high quality content, not just the dross..

~ced

Re:The Beeb isn't only making money from license f

[PhillC]

Rights issues are a big deal for the Beeb. Yes, a lot of the stuff that they broadcast has been produced by other companies - whether it be broadcast companies or other indies. However, the Beeb does film a lot of its own stuff too. Their Natural History unit in Bristol is pretty big and they have a wealth of that type of material in their archive. Think David Attenborough - all his TV work is pretty much wholly BBC filmed.

It's going to be really interesting to see how Creative Archive handles these issues and I see Right Management as perhaps a bigger obstacle to overcome than anything to do with technology. Usually if someone like BBC Worldwide (commercial wholly owner subsidiary of the public service BBC) sells footage to a third party then they can manually manage any pay-aways to the original producers. Think sport - if BBCW sells sport footage that they have broadcast and originally filmed they still often have to pay the sporting group that "runs" the game. For example the Football Association. How Creative Archive manages this when they are providing the footage for free, even under the Creative Commons licence and for non-commercial use, is going to be a tough one to work out.

Re:The Beeb isn't only making money from license f

[PhillC]

The BBC does make a reasonable amount of income from their commercial subsidiaries - BBC Worldwide, BBC Technology, BBC Resources, BBC America etc. However, when compared to GBP121/year from every household in the UK with a television, the other contributions are pretty small - less than 10%.

Re:The Beeb isn't only making money from license f

[minus9]

Now that's entertainment!

It's 2, Scrupulous fairness

[the_twisted_pair]

About 1 in 60 people are registered blind in the UK, and the definition covers a panoply of afflictions to sight - macular degeneration etc.

Comparatively few are actually without any sight, mercifully.

Availability and intent

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks as if they are going to start with releasing clips (see here), however if I understand things correctly they may expand to full programs later on. Also interesting is this article which hints that the service may be available to everyone.

Re:Oh, big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the entire back catalogue of Horizons will keep me happy for years. Oh God, I hope the entire back catalogue of Horizons will be in the archive..

The Pythons...

[warrax_666]

own the Daleks? That explains it!

NHK comes to you...

[takasuz]

BBC's initiative just amazes the Japanese, who need to pay $130/yr (or $250/yr including a few satellite channels) to the Nippon Broadcasting Corporation (NHK), and NHK has just recently introduced DRM restrictions on its digital broadcast.

And they literally come to your house to collect the fee!

Re:BBC is official government media

[Anonymous Coward]

"Can you imagine what the country would be like if Ruperts Sky News was the offical media outlet for the United Kingdom?"

The news would be a lot more accurate. However, it would still be a problem. The problem is that the UK has official media PERIOD. The media should be left to the people, not to the ruling class.

Dissent as such is not patriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

" Dissent is the most patriotic activity an American can do"

No, it isn't. If the dissenting view is "I hate this country and want it destroyed", it certainly isn't patriotic.

Understanding business

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fox news is a business. As a business, they do not exist to serve the public, they exist to turn a profit"

However, as they are in the service business, if they do not serve the public, they won't turn a profit. Their bottom line depends directly on their accountability to the viewing public.

"The truth isn't profitable"

Actually, it is. Fox News has gotten to be rather successful for being more balanced and more accurate than the alternatives.

"Fox news has a spin portraying fox viewers as true patriots who know the real truth "

No, Fox does not have a patriot spin, or a pro-Bush spin.

"which is why fox news gets such nice ratings from spreading blatant, but seductive, lies consistently"

No, their success is dependent on them being rather factual.

Re:Only one Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because your point was so utterly invalid that it was not worth considering. Deal with the facts next time.

Argument within government

[Anonymous Coward]

"Err, have you ever watched the BBC? They're often very anti-government of the day. That hardly makes them a good branch of government, let alone signify that they're under state control."

Ted Kennedy, a government official, criticizes George W Bush, the leading government official, very frequently, as part of his office. Are you arguing that Ted Kennedy is not part of the US government?

Perhaps the problem is your narrow use of "government" to mean not the actual government, but to mean only the top leader, cabinet, and close advisors.

Re:BBC is official government media

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it is then also just a coincidence that halliburton pays cheney more money in "deferred payments" than the United States of America pays him for being vice president (as shown by his most recent tax statement).

This after he had publicly said that he had cut all ties to halliburton. And because of the way halliburton is structured, they don't have to give a reason for that money. It could very well be based on profit, meaning that the contracts cheney handed to halliburton came straight back to him in personal profit.

Ofcourse, we could never know the truth, because both cheney and halliburton won't tell it to you. All you can find out is that he gets more money for having ties to halliburton than for being vice president.

And that doesn't even get into his secret energy cabinet, which was staffed with energy industry executives and not a single person representing the environmental movement, and of which we know nothing at all, since cheney has consistently refused to release anything, no transcripts, no recordings, not even exactly who attended those meetings.

By the way, halliburton has gone through corporate inversion. Meaning they have off-shored a number of subsidiaries to dodge paying taxes in the US. Also, halliburton subsidiaries did illegal trade with Saddam until the late 90's, at the time Cheney was running it. Making him not just an energy-industry lapdog, but a big hypocrit.

Halliburton was chosen for providing services in iraq it had zero experience with, like food preparation. They hired someone else to do that, and then didn't pay them what they had promised to pay. So halliburton makes more profit, and the soldiers in Iraq don't get warm meals. That's true patriotism for you.

Gods, learn to spell you twit. And some proper capitalization would be helpful as well. (Hint, company names and names of people/countries are supposed to be capitalized, even if they're in the middle of a sentence.)

Some CC licenses are free IMO...

[Goonie]

There are a lot of different Creative Commons licenses, some of which are clearly not free in the GNU sense.

However, the by attribution/share-alike license seems like a fairly close analogue to the GPL for non-software content. It lets people freely use, copy, and make derivative works from your content, under the conditions that they acknowledge the source and make the derived work available under the same license. The one thing it doesn't do is insist on the availability of modifiable copy, which is going to be very problematic to define appropriately for a broad variety of media and for many is a moot point.

Anyway, while I can see why the GPL is appropriate for you if you're insisting on "source code", but in my opinion it doesn't make a license for non-software that doesn't have this requirement non-free.

Re:Some CC licenses are free IMO...

[Crick]

I don't think defining modifiable and transparent copy for multiple media is a problem: to produce all computer media you require software to open data files and modify them. The condition that you make such data files publicly available and ensure such a copy is published in a open standard format would not be all that difficult to define. The FDL already goes some way to doing this for documents and images.

for many is a moot point.

Hey, I'm sure it is a moot point for you, just as open source was a moot point for many commercial before Linux. That doesn't mean that it's not an important point, just that you don't realise its relevance and importance.

Anyway, while I can see why the GPL is appropriate for you if you're insisting on "source code", but in my opinion it doesn't make a license for non-software that doesn't have this requirement non-free.

I suppose it depends on how you define 'free': our experience of the Open Gaming License used by Wizard's of the Coast to publish their d20 system demonstrates that merely making content 'open' is not enough. What use is open content if it is only distributed in a closed format with DMCA-protected copy protection on it, for example? That's not free at all because it restricts the basic freedom to modify the work.

We crafted this particular freedom particularly because of this issue and, in our humble opinion, it's no different to the freedom that the source code must be provided with free software.

Re:Some CC licenses are free IMO...

[Goonie]

Read section 4 of the actual CC-by-sa license. Amongst the restrictions on those who resdistribute the work is that:

You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.

Doesn't that deal with most of the problem?

Re:Some CC licenses are free IMO...

[Crick]

I have read the CCPL in detail. Section 4 does deal with part of the problem (I assume it is some sort of anti-DRM/DMCA clause). In fact, this section is repeated in various clauses of the CCPL, not just section 4, although that particular section does refer to modifications.

However, it does not deal with the situation where an author publishes a work in a proprietary format that requires expensive software to edit/modify. In this way, you can make it prohibitively expensive to modify your content by publishing in closed formats whose editors have no free software counterparts.

Similarly, if, say, you publish your text in image form to preserve the formatting this satisfies the above: it is not a technical measure that controls access to the content. It just makes the task of obtaining the actual text non-trivial. It's possible, but only in the same way it is possible to obtain a version of the source code from a binary executable using a decompiler, which is why we have free software/open source in the first place.

Re:A Question for you, sir

[plugger]

The commercial networks do have commercials, but I think they are less frequent than what you have to put up with in the US. A 1/2 hour sitcom will have 1 break in the middle, a movie might go 40 minutes or more without a break.

Re:[Grammar Nazi just got ]

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no! In this case, Creative Commons is an adjective. There is no possession involved!

Think about it. Do any of these look correct to you?

Drivers' license
TV's license
Marriage's license

It's not just TV either...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Beeb is truly a jewel to be treasured and it's worth pointing out that the 140 pound licence fee doesn't just get us 8 TV channels, several of which are packed with original programming. But also 10 radio stations and one of the worlds most popular and information packed websites at www.bbc.co.uk

On top of that they also do a shedload of R&D work that would probably never get the space to breathe in the kind of atmosphere that commercial channels have, where if an idea isn't profitable within a week it gets canned.

Personally i'd be happy to pay the licence fee just for Radio 4 and BBC2 alone, the rest is a happy bonus.