Slashdot Mirror
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.
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
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
Physicists get Hadrons!
We get it for free because they pay thier yearly tax.
I just wish I could get the BBC america channel at home.
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.
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?
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.
Who is Twirlip of the Mists?
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!
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.
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).
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.
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...
This was found at: http://archives.cbc.ca/info/281g_en23.shtml
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.
That is the most misguided comment I have ever read.
r eement_text.shtml
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/ag
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.
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?
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.
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.
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".
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"