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!
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?
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
...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.
Cable news channel MSNBC announced today that they will be releasing their archives under the Windows XP EULA.
Unknown host pong.
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?
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.
no
This is the same BBC that forced Real to provide a free, no-nag, no-spyware, less-evil version of the player.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
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.
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.
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.
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
ah, mod points
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
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
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
I want mah Doctor Who!
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.
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.
Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's Ms. Grammar Nazi, and "All the jeans' have holes" is incorrect.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin