Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BBC Creative Archive Based On Creative Commons

Posted by timothy on from the way-to-go dept.

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.

12 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. BBC viewpoint by Space+cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:BBC viewpoint by Ithika · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      the layman's guide to computer science
    2. Re:BBC viewpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Creative Commons! by Lorenzo+de+Medici · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?

  3. This is Certainly Great News by List+of+FAILURES · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  4. Alternative Business by bludstone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 .sig
  5. Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?" by Carnildo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  6. Funding is done by licence fee - links by RidiculousPie · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 ... now where is my crack?
  7. Financial Considerations by otisaardvark · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

  8. Re:BBC is official government media by dylman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  9. CBC ... follow suit by subVorkian · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  10. Re:BBC is official government media by gpuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.