British TV Station Offers Downloads

Richard W.M. Jones writes "Remember how the British just love to download TV? Well, British terestrial TV channel five has announced that it will become the first to offer TV programmes to download legally. Except that they don't quite seem to get it yet. They are offering here some videos from this car programme which apparently didn't quite make it to air, for the princely sum of £1.50 (about $3), in DRM'd WMV 10 format (mplayer plays them fine). Still, it's a start, and it looks like they're just testing the water. Hopefully they won't take the lack of response as 'proof' that there's no demand. There's more about this at the BBC's website."

Comments

Codecs

[XanC]

Maybe your mplayer plays them fine. My 64-bit mplayer's offerings are a bit more basic.

Let's get some open codecs!

Re:Codecs

[njfuzzy]

This right here is why Open Source operating systems will never get past the propeller-head crowd. Not only is it marginalized (as a Mac user I feel your pain)-- but there's no way to standardize. There's always a hundred variations, and 99 guys saying, "it won't work on mine".

Re:Codecs

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a retard. The WMV10 codec is closed source and covered by patents. It's amazing that we are even able to make use of the Windows binary on 32-bit x86 Linux. There's no way for us to reimplement WMV10 legally until the patents expire.

Re:Codecs

[Taladar]

The problem is simple. There are no 64-bit codecs for Windows Media and 64 Bit applications can not import 32 bit ones. And since we have no source we can not simply recompile.

Re:Codecs

[XanC]

Isn't this a problem that Open Source / Standards actually solves? If we push for open codecs, then ANY "marginalized" system can play it, whether it's Open Source itself or not.

Re:Codecs

[robnauta]

Hey who wants to improve open source when it's easier to fork off just to add your name to it ?

Getting money the right way

[aussie_a]

Download company 7 Digital, which is providing the technology for the online shop, said TV companies were increasingly keen to earn money from the internet.

Good to see they aren't trying to get money from the web via lawsuits. Then again, this is a british company, not an American one (before you mod me flame-bait, the American *AA's have always been the first to do it in their industry. If I'm wrong, feel free to post a link :)).

Re:Getting money the right way

[Anonymous Coward]

The Canadian Recording Industry Association got a tariff imposed upon blank CD-Rs which goes to them.

They did this long before the RIAA even sued Napster.

Re:Getting money the right way

[Anonymous Coward]

The Canadian Recording Industry Association got a tariff imposed upon blank CD-Rs which goes to them.

Newsflash: Canada is in America, just north of the United States.

Re:Getting money the right way

[Anonymous Coward]

When someone references "America", they are generally refering to the United States. Don't be such an ass.

"They don't get it"

[Dancin_Santa]

They are trying to sell ice to Eskimos! Sand to scorpions! Dentistry to Britons!

Well, that last one doesn't really fit the theme of what I was getting at. Which was: You can't sell something to someone who can get it for themselves for free.

Re:"They don't get it"

[sp3tt]

That's not true.
In fact, here in Sweden at least, many downloaders want to pay the author of the works they download. But they do not think the prices are reasonable, thus they download. And for a DVD which sold 200,000 copies, the director got 15,000SEK (less than 2,000 USD). Which is also a cause for downloading - not enough money goes to authors.

Right now, there is actually a discussion between a director and "pirates" on Sweden's largest pro-"piracy" website. What they have reached is the points described above.
The director has proposed to hold a seminar about the film industry's future and how it can use the internet. The seminar is currently being planned.

Re:"They don't get it"

[Troed]

You can't sell something to someone who can get it for themselves for free.

Of course you can. I'd very much like to go to one central place for music, movie and tv-series downloads where I know the quality of the content and that I indeed support the ones producing it. I'll happily pay for such a service.

Not everyone here on Slashdot is 14 and thinks free downloads are cool.

Re:"They don't get it"

[sp3tt]

I think being able to download music for free is a great thing, but I'd love to pay the artists for it. But for a CD which costs $20, the artist gets maybe $1. If I could download music for a fee, if it was not protected with DRM, had good quality, and the money went straight to the artist (well, to the managers of the service and to the costs for the bandwidth too, but that is minor), and the price was reasonable, then I would do it.
And btw, I am 13.

Re:"They don't get it"

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to reply to the poster..

When I was 14 I gladly copied games (the only thing you could copy back then) I still got a box of old sins. Im now grownup, Im used to "get what I want", and what do I do now when I got money? .. I _buy_ things! .. Oh, this program was 600$? Well I buy that one, oh this movie was 30$, I want it? Yes I buy it.. now to the redthread, Im used to copy stuff right? Im used to pay for stuff (nowerdays) and therefor I would be happy to pay for downloads! .. Sweden got a wounderful service thats called sf-anytime, a movie download service where you pay a fee and you get to "rent" the moviestream for 24hours. After 24hours they cut you ability to stream the video... ..

I would just say, I want MORE OF THAT

Re:"They don't get it"

[commodoresloat]

here in Sweden at least, many downloaders want to pay the author of the works they download

Heh, that's just because the government pays for everything else.

Re:"They don't get it"

[frostw]

What is it with Americans (sorry, making an assumption that you are) banging on about British dental quality? Where did this stereotype come from? I'm British, I have great teeth. Everyone I know has great teeth. Just mystified because I hear this again and again.

Re:"They don't get it"

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't sell something to someone who can get it for themselves for free.

Better tell Evian.

(Why the needless attack on Brits?)

Re:"They don't get it"

[digitalchinky]

I'm wondering if I'd want to pay for all 12 million episodes of 'The Bill' or 'EastEnders'

And if so, how much :-)
I figure about a pound or so... (for all)

Re:"They don't get it"

[TIMxPx]

If you want the artists to get the money from the music/films that you buy, just go to local shows/film festivals and buy the cds or dvds there, directly from the artists. They will get basically all of the profits from that kind of thing. You can also purchase cds or dvds from the artist websites sometimes. Unfortunately, very few musicians and writer/director/producer types sell their products electronically, and usually use the internet for advertising and wider distribution in order to get popular, not for making money. The already popular major label acts like Britney or Metallica are exceptions i'm sure, but i don't want their crappy music anyway (if you do, it's not difficult to obtain). Artists are likely always going to use outside services for distribution via the internet until it becomes a part of their technological repertoire to do secure sales via their own sites. The best thing to do about that is to send email, snail mail, telephone/text messages, etc., to the artists until they get it. If they don't, well, they may not be cut out to make it in that business.

Re:"They don't get it"

[FluffyPanda]

Yes you can, it's called the "Bottled Water" theory of marketing.

People can get it for free, but you offer them it for a small fee with some kind of added value (such as not having to worry about breaking the law). Real or imagined added value makes little difference.

I'd pay a subscription to have on-demand access to the british tv networks programming from my home in Italy (I'm English, but live in Italy with my Italian wife), and I'm sure many people would do the same even from their homes in England.

Re:"They don't get it"

[sp3tt]

You think we have festivals up here, in nortern Sweden? Where people think we have polar bears walking the streets?

Re:"They don't get it"

[aichpvee]

Who pays for the government in Sweden? I'm assuming it's the same people who are downloading, but maybe things are different there and they have money trees and cash pixies...

Re:"They don't get it"

[BenjyD]

Teeth seem to be one of the American obsessions, along with being afraid of choking and French Fries. I think they are often prepared to spend large amounts of money on dental work, hence the polished white tombstone-like teeth of many americans. I guess that what we consider 'normal' looks bad to the US.

Great, now I've got "Dental Plan..Lisa needs braces...Dental Plan" going round my head again.

Re:"They don't get it"

[Cooke]

Have you tried getting a NHS dentist?!

Re:"They don't get it"

[rizole]

Bottle of water anyone?

Re:"They don't get it"

[Alan Partridge]

Money trees? That's EXACTLY what they have in Sweden.

Re:"They don't get it"

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't sell something to someone who can get it for themselves for free.

Really? What's bottled water all about then. Water falls from the sky yet people pay to buy it in nicely labeled bottles.

Re:"They don't get it"

[Butt]

You can't sell something to someone who can get it for themselves for free.

Haven't you seen those fridges filled with bottled water, roughly what you get from a tap? Brand, convenience, and reliability are worth money. As I think iTunes Music store demonstrated.

Re:"They don't get it"

[Momoru]

Fox in America is trying this same thing already, they cancelled a reality show midseason, and as a consolation to fans they posted the final episodes online. Some TV you can't get for free because it just wasn't aired.

Re:"They don't get it"

[mumblestheclown]

. Which is also a cause for downloading - not enough money goes to authors.

BULLSHIT.

If the director is being screwed, then he shouldnt have signed his contract. Why oh why can't you idiots understand that there is a FREE MARKET at work here (even more so since the internet has allowed you to EASILY AND CHEAPLY distribute a movie in a variety of formats) and that the market has CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY said that the work done by middlemen, such as distribution companies, advertising and marketing firms, etc IS VALUABLE.

Were it not, directors and authors would not sign on the bottom line.

I mean, i can sit on the bog and sing wonderful tunes. There is some uniqueness in this, but not a hell of a lot. Why oh why can't you pro piracy liars finally just grasp the simple economic reality that it is neither a common nor easy nor cheap task to take my bathroom hummings and turn them into a product? If i become known as the world's greatest bog singer, then perhaps I have more negotiation room with the distributors and marketers, but until I do, I as an artist have a relatively low pecking order simply because what I offer is relatively common?

It's not rocket science. It's BASIC ECONOMICS.

Re:"They don't get it"

[Blublu]

You should check out this site. It's almost exactly what you describe. You can also download the stuff in non-DRM format in decent quality (128 kbps) without paying anything.

Re:"They don't get it"

[asliarun]

Whoa! Talk about a *bold-faced* lie.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Re:"They don't get it"

[xSauronx]

i agree, id pay a reasonable price for reaspnable quality...i think a better way to put things are "you can't sell something overpriced and overly restricted to someone who can get it free and with no strings attached".

of course, again, ive known kids to spend a grand on a new pc for the sole purpose of downloading movies and music for free...yes, $1000US on a pc so they can jump on usenet or IRC or whatever they use and get low quality dvds *cough* get NETFLIX *cough* games (many of which they never even bother playing, they just use it to help their share ratio) and crappy music that, again, they use to up their ratio....so they can download more stuff, watch 15% of it, and up their ratio.

stupid kids.

Re:"They don't get it"

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

A pound of what? Chocolate? Marbles?

Re:"They don't get it"

[Stween]

The Bill is on ITV, EastEnders is on Beeb 1.

I think the best you'd get out of Five is "Family Affairs". Or perhaps some of their night-time stay-up-late-in-the-off-chance-of-seeing-nipple soft porn offerings.

Re:"They don't get it"

[drsmithy]

Why oh why can't you idiots understand that there is a FREE MARKET [...]

Anything involving copyright isn't a free market, it's a government-granted monopoly. That's what copyright *is*.

[...] and that the market has CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY said that the work done by middlemen, such as distribution companies, advertising and marketing firms, etc IS VALUABLE

Actually the "free market" is currently demonstrating that the role of those "middlemen" has become obselete. The fact that it's doing this *in the face of* blatant law-buying by those who are being obseleted, draconian laws and ridiculously excessive punishments just makes it all the more obvious.

Why oh why can't you pro piracy liars [...]

I'm not pro-piracy, I'm anti-"intellectual property".

[...] finally just grasp the simple economic reality that it is neither a common nor easy nor cheap task to take my bathroom hummings and turn them into a product?

Actually it is fairly cheap - and it's very quickly getting cheaper. That's why those "middlemen" have become obselete.

Re:"They don't get it"

[asliarun]

I agree with you that the author's/director's cut is an economic deal, and should be treated as such.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the whole creative business has been perverted to such an extent that the laws of economics no longer prevail. We currently live in such an artificial world that we've forgotten the real value of something. This is aided by the fact that a painting sells for tens of millions of dollars, a music album sells for over $20, and a 30 minute TV episode sometimes contains 15 minutes of commercials.

The way things currently are, these creative works are priced as high as a customer can bear. Forget about economics or supply/demand for a second and answer this. How much is something really worth? For a manufactured product, the answer is fairly simple. Take the manufacturing cost (plus R&D cost), add a 10-50% margin, and you'll get a fair value for a product. Economics only kicks in when you want to figure out the exact margin, based on competition or lack of it.

The price for a creative work can be determined similarly as well. The only difference is that the R&D cost in the above example is substituted with the royalty that the creator should get. I don't pretend to be an expert, but my rough calculation tells me that the current prices of books, audio CDs, movies, and paintings are a complete perversion of the above calculation. $20 for a audio CD cannot be justified by ANY real means, especially considering the fact that the same creative work was priced 1/4 a few years ago.

This is my objection to the current system. Barring that, issues like the monopoly of distributors or authors getting a raw deal are just by-products of this screwed up system.

Re:"They don't get it"

[Gordonjcp]

hence the polished white tombstone-like teeth of many americans

... which are so weakened by whitening treatments that they cannot chew anything tougher than soggy bread and reclaimed meat pulp - hence the popularity of McDonalds.

Re:"They don't get it"

[mankey wanker]

Free markets do not have potentially immortal corporate entities that have huge advantages over natural persons. At one time people would practically sell their souls over to these power-mongering entities just to get their foot in the door of a given media industry. The internet may change the need to do that. The internet is changing the face of all media - that is, unless it is halted by the moneyed interests described above.

The gatekeepers are a dying breed. No one is interested in protecting their exclusive right to shit that lasts over 100 years. And I don't mean the govt. that sucks corporate cock, I mean the people that have to actually obey or disobey the law. A century ago civil disobedience meant riots in the streets, today it means using the internet to exchange information - much of which properly belongs to the commons.

Why don't you get it? It's basic economics.

Re:"They don't get it"

[NickFitz]

Like Nazi Cheerleaders in Colour?

Re:"They don't get it"

[mumblestheclown]

Anything involving copyright isn't a free market, it's a government-granted monopoly. That's what copyright *is*.

Irrelevant. The issue here has no bearing on copyright. A contract was signed of which the director agreed to some terms. It would have been the same if no IP was involved and if it was a simple matter of two interests getting together to make physical items.

Actually the "free market" is currently demonstrating that the role of those "middlemen" has become obselete. The fact that it's doing this *in the face of* blatant law-buying by those who are being obseleted, draconian laws and ridiculously excessive punishments just makes it all the more obvious.

If the free market is demonstrating this, then let it demonstrate this. no need for "people to pirate things because they dont feel the director's cut is fair" type bullshit.

IF THE MIDDLEMEN ARE BECOMING NATURALLY OBSOLETE, THEN NO BULLSHIT 'SUPPORT THE DIRECTORS BY PIRATING' ACTIVITY IS NECESSARY. The directors will, through pure self interest, switch from signing contracts that do involve middlemen to those that don't. Why don't you just stop lying to yourself and accept that as it is clear that many directors HAVENT stopped signing such contracts, that therefore the DIRECTORS THEMSELVES must see the value in what the "middlemen" do? It's not rocket science and I am 100% right on this matter. Why don't you just be intellectually honest and admit it?

Re:"They don't get it"

[mumblestheclown]

For a manufactured product, the answer is fairly simple. Take the manufacturing cost (plus R&D cost), add a 10-50% margin, and you'll get a fair value for a product.

You really don't understand supply and demand at all, do you?

a product is "worth" exactly how much somebody is willing to pay for it. not more, not less. unless you understand that simple concept, you do not understand not economics 101, but economics day 1, hour 1, minute 1, second 1.

From your post, all I can say is this: "welcome to economics! Please have a seat! let's begin."

Re:"They don't get it"

[Psychotext]

UK - Pound Sterling, monetary value equivalent to 1.90 US Dollars... Not lb, poor cousin of base 10 weight systems.

But yeah, a lb of marbles would do nicely! :)

Re:"They don't get it"

[mumblestheclown]

At one time people would practically sell their souls over to these power-mongering entities just to get their foot in the door of a given media industry.

there's no need for you to characterize them as "immoral or moral." I mean, you can think that, but it adds nothing to your argument.

Look at it this way: the internet and other technologies now provide artists unprecedented ability to self-publish cheaply or freely. And yet great thousands of artists are still dying to sign on the bottom line to give a media company some giant percentage of their future earnings. Why? is it because the artists are stupid and clueless about the internet? in some small percentage, yes. but for the vast bulk of them, the answer is NO. they are simply looking out for their own PERSONAL best options... 10% of (a chance of) 1 million is a hell of a lot better, they figure, than 90% of (a chance of) $10000.

It's like this: if I have the one cabbage patch kid, then the price goes up for it due to supply and demand. right now, the artists want that one cabbage patch kid, which is the distribution, promotion, and organization that the companies provide. they do this, even though there are free alternative dolls out there! It's not rocket science - the companies provide a valuable resource that artists are willing to sign given terms to get.

You havent made any economic argument at all. You've said "sucks corporate cock." Tha's not an argument- that's junior highschool grade paranoiabullshit.

Re:"They don't get it"

[sp3tt]

The director signed a contract, and the middlemen get the most of the cake.
Does that mean middlemen are required? Does it mean the directors want to get 3 cents per sold DVD, maybe 50 cents per sold theater ticket? Does it mean that the directors like the middlemen, who take most of the money?
No, it does not.
Middlemen are not required. Most of them aren't. But the movie industry has not yet realized the opportunities of the internet.
Most middlemen can be cut off with distribution over the internet, but so far, it has not been done, because noone dares the risk.

And, by the same logic as your fucked up reasoning:
Why should we explore space? Obviously we are happy with earth, because we don't live anywhere else, and why should we, noone wants to move anyway.

Re:"They don't get it"

[iainl]

The difference being that in this case, the "getting it for free" method involves bothering to set your freeview recorder for 8:30pm on Mondays.

No way am I paying money to download a programme that is normally available free-to-air as an mpeg2.

Re:"They don't get it"

[sp3tt]

But people download music, doesn't that mean the prices are too high, that the customers are not willing to pay $20 for an album?

Re:"They don't get it"

[asliarun]

"You really don't understand supply and demand at all, do you?"

I'm not talking about supply and demand. I'm talking about the fair value of a product.

"a product is "worth" exactly how much somebody is willing to pay for it. not more, not less. unless you understand that simple concept, you do not understand not economics 101, but economics day 1, hour 1, minute 1, second 1."

I haven't taken economics 101, so i'll take your word for it (as far as the economics defintion of a product's "worth" is concerned). That still doesn't change the fact that everything has an inherent value. The manufacturing cost of a product is usually a fair indicator of the fair value (or inherent value plus margin) of a product. If an aspirin costs $1 in USA and costs 10 cents in India, you might be right in saying that it's because of economics or supply/demand. However, that doesn't change the fact that you're getting ripped off. By the way, the same medicine or book that you buy in the US DOES (legally) cost 1/5 or less in India.

Of course, if you're happy to get ripped off and take solace in the great laws of economics, that's another story. I'm not.

Re:"They don't get it"

[mikey_boy]

wrong. A product is not "worth" exactly how much somebody is willing to pay for it. A product can be priced at that value - but any product is worth something different to any given individual. The principles of supply and demand describe the willingness of producers and consumers to produce and consume at differing price points. i.e. producers will produce more the higher the price, consumers will consume more the lower the price.

The concept of supply and demand is bandied around on slashdot like some kind of panacea to all questions related to markets. People thing that because they understand this simple concept they have the answer to all the problems that various markets experience, such as the movie or music industry trying to deal with the new supply model of the internet.

The trouble here of course is that supply and demand only works when applied to completely free markets, and only over a period of time. And it's this second point that people don't seem to get. Supply and demand rules do not apply instantaneously, making sure that we always get the most efficient price point for a product. It can take years for this to be found as new producers enter markets, some drop out, each with differing pricing models and subtley different products.

right now with movies, we have a high-end price point on DVDs, which a lot of people aren't happy to pay. Because there isn't any competition between the big movie studios (i.e. they all belong to the same organisations, stick to the same price points etc) there is no movement in innovation and new pricing points, which leads to a thriving black market, where people are essentially getting stuff for free. Because no supply currently exists where the middleman is removed, and the pricing point is lower, it is impossible to judge where supply and demand will lead us, and whether a suitable pricing model can be established which means that a sufficiently high number of consumers will pay the new low price point to support continued production.

Time will tell ...

Re:"They don't get it"

[sp3tt]

There was an article in a Swedish newspaper some weeks ago. It was about a true garage band, they didn't have a record contract, hadn't advertised very much and so on. Yet when they went out on tour, people in Milano, Italy were waiting for them at the airport.
How did they achive this fame? They released their music on the internet, and soon it became very popular, spreading all over the world.
Good music sells, because if someone likes an album, he/she will tell his/her friends about it. Those friends will tell their friends about the album, and it will spread.
Now, imagine what this can do with the internet. Imagine if an album was "slashdotted". If a very popular website (more than 100,000 unique visitors/day) posted something about an album, and recommended it. That's practically free advertising for the album!
The point is, good music sells, shit does not.
Will this only benefit the mainstream artists, the ones which sell lots of records? No. Because of the very low costs of distribution over the internet, a small band without a contract can make their music available for millions of people at almost no cost! That was what the band in the story in the beginning of this comment did.

Re:"They don't get it"

[glesga_kiss]

You can watch EastEnders for free on interactive cable already. They have the last week or so available. Not that you'd want to, it's just another damn depressing soap. They also have "Top Gear", which is what "Fifth Gear" is ripping on (TG was canned, one of the presenters defected, then TG started again).

Re:"They don't get it"

[Zeinfeld]

Have you tried getting a NHS dentist?!

Thanks to the Tories there is not a single NHS dentist in Massachusetts. Bastards!

I have mod points but they won't let me mark the original story 'bogus propaganda' like it deserves. The TV company 'gets it' plenty, they are offering content that is likely to be very popular in the UK market in download format at a reasonably cheap price point.

Or is a company considered to 'not get it' because they don't bother to support linux, a platform which has something less than a 3% penetration in the desktop market and even less in the home market. Apple on the other hand is considered to 'get it' despite the fact that the DRM format of their rabidly proprietary iTunes store only supports a single hardware vendor.

For profit corporation refuses to provide material in format friendly to freeloaders shock horror! Death of the net, news at 9 o'clock.

Re:"They don't get it"

[Cooke]

The TV company 'gets it' plenty, they are offering content that is likely to be very popular in the UK market in download format at a reasonably cheap price point.

I don't think its such a bad deal I can't get channel 5 and I quite like the show although I don't think I will be paying for it unless it comes without the adverts.

Re:"They don't get it"

[Jiminez]

As someone with economics degrees coming out their arse, and someone who has studied the field now for over a decade, the original poster's analysis and understanding of (mythical) free market economics, supply and demand, market intervention and such like is embarassingly naive. These concepts are all vast simplifications (of underlying psychological and social principles of market economics) taught to first year students. Under any sort of close scrutiny they are quickly shown lacking (as highlighted by most papers in the last 20 years), and in numerous cases are simply incorrect.

Classic slashdot however.

Re:"They don't get it"

[Zemrec]

This made me think. Why not download illegally, but since you're concerned about the director (or actor or whomever) not getting enough money, paypal him $10 or some such amount.

Re:"They don't get it"

[R.Caley]

Which is also a cause for downloading - not enough money goes to authors.

So the argument is ``the authors don't get enough, so I'll make sure they don't get anything''?

If you care so much, buy the DVD and send an extra cheque to the director. Say $1 or local equivalent. You wouldn't notice, and if a significant number of people also care he'll be very happy.

Alternatively you could just advise the guy to get a better agent.

Re:"They don't get it"

[sp3tt]

Does he have a paypal account?
Atually, someone suggested this solution, as a test. he proposed that the director put a movie on a BitTorrent tracker, with a link to a paypal account and check how much he got.
But the idea is unrealistic. Noone wants to risk that noone pays for the movie.

Re:"They don't get it"

[mumblestheclown]

Ok, I'll bite. I will hide my multiple graduate degrees in technology, politics, and economics and ask you to put up or shut up: where, exactly does the simple equation fall short?

There are many aspiring artists. Until they become known by the market, their skils are common and ordinary. Nobody will pay a street busker $10 million to hum a tune.

There are few companies who can take an aspiring artist to stardom, and each of those must gamble a large amount of money to do so. Their services are scarce and in demand. Hence, they can negotiate on favorable terms with an aspiring artist.

There is nothing in it more complicated than that, fundamentally. I dare you to show otherwise.

Re:"They don't get it"

[mumblestheclown]

You are a complete fool.

A product is not "worth" exactly how much somebody is willing to pay for it. A product can be priced at that value - but any product is worth something different to any given individual.

Amazing. Self Contadiction in only. two sentences. Bravo.

The rest of your sentiments about prices moving slowly in response to demand changes is nonsense. Meanwhile, you think that DVDs are overpriced, and you base this on your notion that there is a grand conspiracy at work.

Go back to playing video games.

Re:"They don't get it"

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll recall that Stephen King risked it with one of his books. He didn't make as much money as a Stephen King book usually pulls but it wasn't nothing.

Re:"They don't get it"

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that whilst up to now the "traditional" channels have been the only possible way of distributing music and video, there are now new possibilities.

As such, producers of content may be able to find a more efficient way of getting their offerings to customers than via the traditional, expensive, mechanisms. If a new way of doing things can result in content producers getting more money, customers paying less money, and industry moguls getting screwed, everyone wins. That's the free market in action.

The thing that is valuable is not so much marketing (unless you're a pop band aimed at the prepubescent sheep market) but the filter that publishers of music, film, books or whatever provide. Compare the quality of a typical published book with typical fan fiction found on the web. Whilst some of the latter is quite good, most is bilge.

Customers with time constraints (anyone who isn't a student) need someone to filter out the crap, and will pay money for that. So you still need some kind of crap filter, but it could probably be done better and more cheaply (for music, at least) than the current system.

The industry giants are seeing their monopoly being threatened. That's the free market at work.

Re:"They don't get it"

[cayenne8]

"But people download music, doesn't that mean the prices are too high, that the customers are not willing to pay $20 for an album?"

Nope....means that people want stuff for free....like finding money on the street. You don't worry that you didn't earn it when you bend down to pick it up.

There will always be people that would go for the free version, even if every CD was $0.01 each...you'd still have people downloading them for free.

By the way, where they hell do all you people buy CD's for $20+?? I've never seen them that expensive...unless it was a 2 disc set. Most every CD at BB or the like is only in the $10.99-$15.99 range. If you can't afford that every once in awhile....you've got worse problems to worry about than listening to music. Work on getting a better job....

Re:"They don't get it"

[cayenne8]

"There was an article in a Swedish newspaper some weeks ago. It was about a true garage band, they didn't have a record contract, hadn't advertised very much and so on. Yet when they went out on tour, people in Milano, Italy were waiting for them at the airport."

Very interesting....good to hear it for them.

My question is...sure, you can get fame from releasing your music on the internet in a free fashion, but, how do they plan on making any $$'s by giving it away for free?

If they plan on making it,by selling tickets to live performances....they I applaud that!! Let's get back to the older ways in that a band made records to makes some money, but, mostly to get people excited about seeing them live. When I was growing up, I was always saving money to see the next band come through town....I don't think you see that as often anymore.

But, if you just put your music out for free...well, people will just download it for free, and cheer you on...but, you're not gonna make lots of money that way.

And face it...most guys get in rock bands to chase the dream of making money, and sleeping with lots of women.

Re:"They don't get it"

[sp3tt]

I think they made money from live performances, and selling t-shirts and other stuff.

Re:"They don't get it"

[An Onerous Coward]

It's not rocket science and I am 100% right on this matter. Why don't you just be intellectually honest and admit it?

This would make an incredibly wonderful sig.

Re:"They don't get it"

[node 3]

First off, pipe it down some. Your post looks like that of a raving mad loony before a person even reads one word.

Why oh why can't you idiots understand that there is a FREE MARKET at work here

Actually the 'free market' is a myth. It doesn't really exists. It's a mental construct that we use to describe something far more complex and nuanced (ie: reality).

Were it not, directors and authors would not sign on the bottom line.

Their choice in the matter is artificially limited. In other words, they don't operate within a 'free market'.

Why oh why can't you pro piracy liars finally just grasp the simple economic reality that it is neither a common nor easy nor cheap task to take my bathroom hummings and turn them into a product?

Actually, it's very inexpensive to turn 'bathroom hummings' into a product. The high costs in the non-free market are all artificial (hence, it's not a free market).

It's not rocket science. It's BASIC ECONOMICS.

Economics is far more complex than rocket science. The difference is that you can join in mass delusions, and get things, 'somewhat right' in economics and not know things are a mess, while in rocket science you can't play fast and loose with reality.

Re:"They don't get it"

[tom's a-cold]

There are many aspiring artists. Until they become known by the market, their skils are common and ordinary. Nobody will pay a street busker $10 million to hum a tune.

There are few companies who can take an aspiring artist to stardom, and each of those must gamble a large amount of money to do so. Their services are scarce and in demand. Hence, they can negotiate on favorable terms with an aspiring artist.

The "simple equation" falls short because it doesn't take into account boundary conditions or history, and since it assumes that a free market exists, so that "well, duh, just go to the competition" is a viable alternative.

In reality, there are a few gatekeepers who own government-granted licenses to the broadcast media, and some of them have leveraged these government-granted privileges to gain disproportionate market share in other distribution channels such as concert venues. Because of this, their power to set prices is unconstrained by any meaningful competition, and they parasitically use this pricing power to screw both the consumers and the producers of the goods they distribute.

Since broadcast licenses are awarded through a corrupt, opaque and highly uncompetitive process, since "intellectual property" rights are being massively redefined through legislation for hire to benefit the middlemen, and since the government has massively intervened to protect the obsolescent business model from competition, what possible reason could a rational person have for playing by the rules of such a flagrantly rigged, crooked game?

Every time I see one of these free-market arguments, I wonder why it isn't evident that, once a firm has grown to a certain size, the marginal cost of buying off legislators to create barriers to entry for new players is far lower than the cost of responding to legitimate competition. In other words, the free market contains in it the seeds of its own subversion once oligopoly emerges. When it's cheaper to rig the game than it is to play better, it's no longer a free market. It's just a racket.

What's odd is how many people defend the racketeers even when it's not in their interest to do so. The simplistic black-and-white ideology that underpins right-wing economics must have an incredibly strong emotional appeal. I suspect that it is akin to the appeal of fundamentalist religion, since the rhetoric is so often the same.

Re:"They don't get it"

[mumblestheclown]

I am sorry. Your answer is comedy. If you have an advanced degree from anywhere but mickey mouse college, it is a discredit to that institution.

The basic error that you make is believing that there are significant "IP-related" nuances to the problem. In reality, this is not an IP issue at all.

First, admit to me the simple fact that we were talking about movies here, where the use of public airways is a non-issue. You seem to have changed this into a discussion of music and/or TV, but your arguments are nevertheless bullshit.

Yes, clear channel (for example), has access to a large number of ears. but very simple analysis will show that they in fact own a very reasonable fraction of the total number of stations. this is clearly a failure of any competition to organize itself effectively.

actually... I was going to write a long reply, but I figure now what's the point. You are completely full of shit. You have no degrees. You are a slashdot idiot. Anybody with any real training in economics would not have gone off on irrelevancies and conspiracybabbly as you have. Piss off.

Re:"They don't get it"

[Jiminez]

I think you have embarassingly aimed your colourful reply at someone else's post entirely - it always helps to read the name of the poster first, and you probably owe him, whoever he is, an apology.

Back at the ranch: The current supply of music to retailers is a virtual monopsony, and certainly an oligopsony as with most over-developed markets. As such it is clear that the theories you are espousing don't apply to a commercial situation that is bordering on market failure (consider the colossal barriers to entry if nothing else). Nothing more complicated than that requires analysis imo.

I reiterate, these situation are so often the case that I believe that the arguments you have put forward relating economics 101 to this discussion, would seem naive to all economists i know.

Re:"They don't get it"

[drsmithy]

Nobody will pay a street busker $10 million to hum a tune.

There's a rather large assumption you seem to be hanging your whole argument on here - that any artist is *worth* "10 million" to "hum a tune".

This is another major success of the media company brainwashing (along with equating murder, rape and theft to copying information) - and that is that they only promote artists worth listening to (and its underlying corollary, that the only artists worth listening to are the ones they promote).

I await your argument as to why an "artist" - or those riding shotgun - deserve to have the law crafted in such a way as they only ever have to do a few months (or maybe years) worth of work in their entire lives, but are then able to charge everyone else for the fruits of that work for the rest of their lives (and the way things are going, indefinitely).

Don't forget to explain how the "free market" fits into that scenario.

There are few companies who can take an aspiring artist to stardom, and each of those must gamble a large amount of money to do so.

Gamble ? You have a funny idea of what "gambling" is.

An artist who is actively promoted by a major label is guaranteed success. It's a no-lose proposition, because the labels only take on artists they know will be popular and successful (noting that this is a different thing to "skilled and talented"). Even if the artist is relatively unsuccessful, the label can still milk their "product" for a century or more, thanks to "intellectual property" laws.

There is nothing in it more complicated than that, fundamentally. I dare you to show otherwise.

I'm really not quite sure what point you're trying to make. Certainly, labels are in a very strong bargaining position - but that's because of the market distortions created by "intellectual property", not because of the "free market".

Re:"They don't get it"

[drsmithy]

Irrelevant. The issue here has no bearing on copyright.

You cannot talk about the "free market" in the context of copyrighted works without taking copyright into account. It's like talking about the legal system without taking judges into account.

If the free market is demonstrating this, then let it demonstrate this. no need for "people to pirate things because they dont feel the director's cut is fair" type bullshit.

That's an inescapable part of the "free market demonstration". How people feel - and hence their motivations for certain behaviours - is, after all, the fundamental basis of the "free market".

The *reasoning* behinds people's actions is irrelevant to the "free market", all that's relevant to it is what they do.

Why don't you just stop lying to yourself and accept that as it is clear that many directors HAVENT stopped signing such contracts, that therefore the DIRECTORS THEMSELVES must see the value in what the "middlemen" do?

Lots of people see value in what the mafia does as well. That doesn't mean they're right.

Re:"They don't get it"

[mikey_boy]

hmmm, perhaps I didn't word my initial statement very clearly, in an attempt at brevity. What I was trying to point out that is that just because some people are willing to pay a particular price for a product, doesn't mean that the product is actually worth it. But clearly that's actually a bit of a pointless thing to say as it is rather obvious, and also what underlies the basic principle of the demand side of supply and demand. So feel free to ignore it!

I am curious to know why you think my sentiments on prices moving slowly in response to demand changes is nonsense. Surely the very fact that we are still yet to see an adequate response to the potential change in distribution (and subsequently prices) is evidence of this? We've started to see changes in the distribution of music with the like of iTunes, but the prices for that are the same as if you bought a physical product.

I never actually described DVDs as being over-priced, I merely described it as a "high-end" price point to illustrate the contrast with the low-end of free. Personally I hope a middle ground is achieved. I think DVDs are a tad over-priced, but with squeezed retail margins at places like amazon, it's not too bad.

The "conspiracy" you feel I alluded to is not worthy of the title conspiracy. Which is why I didn't use the word. What I am referring to is the fact that the bigger studios have a vested interest in maintaining their current production and distribution models. They also have little incentive to compete on price, and typically don't (I am talking like for like new releases here, as opposed to back catalogue releases, although these tend to be similarly priced across the studios as well of course).

anyway, all very tedious, I think insted of going back to playing a video game, I might get back to work ;-)

Re:"They don't get it"

[AaronGTurner]

Part of the problem we are having here is that worth can mean more than one thing.

One meaning is 'monetary value' the other is 'intrinsic value'.

A good is worth (monetarily) to a producer the difference between the cost of its production and what a consumer is willing to pay.

The worth to a consumer is hard to quantify since different things mean different things to people. What consumers are willing to pay is that, what they are willing to pay, and is only tangentially related to the worth of the good to the consumer since consumers have different priorities, disposable incomes, and so on. In other words what consumers are, on average, willing to pay, is an conglomeration of a whole series of decisions.

Re:"They don't get it"

[AaronGTurner]

Indeed, an example of this is Linux distributions. You could roll your own from source, but convenience can have a value to a customer, and the customer may be willing to pay for this if they are cash rich and time poor (or lack the skills or knowledge to do it themselves).

Re:"They don't get it"

[AaronGTurner]

Also the same would be true of doing your taxes. You can do it yourself, for free, or hire an accountant to help you to save you time, or offer some form of added value (potential tax savings).

Re:"They don't get it"

[Mannerism]

Ah, but you're in fact paying for things that you can't get for free: the convenience of a single site, the guarantee of content quality, the knowledge that you're supporting the producers, and the legitimacy of having legally obtained it.

Buffering...

[Arcady13]

The demo videos all play fine for about 20 seconds and then I get "buffering..."

Re:Buffering...

[Anonymous Coward]

Start the download and watch it tomorrow. Today watch what you downloaded yesterday.

5th gear!

[seringen]

maybe someone should tell them that some trannys have six gears, and maybe they'd respond that they're not going to fall for that spinal tap rouse

Re:5th gear!

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe someone should tell them that some trannys have six gears, and maybe they'd respond that they're not going to fall for that spinal tap rouse

Hahaha. It's called "Fifth Gear" because it's on "Channel 5". Get it?

Once upon a time, there was a BBC show called "Top Gear". Then the main presenter or two left, and it stagnated for a bit. Then there was a new station called "Channel 5" and the whole "Top Gear" production team decamped to Channel 5 to make essentially the same show. Hence "Fifth Gear".

Re:5th gear!

[Dogers]

Except Top Gear is back, and has been for some time, on BBC2

Re:5th gear!

[Anonymous Coward]

The new Top Gear has Jeremy Clarkson and does cars. That's all the similarity there is to the old show.

Re:5th gear!

[Anonymous Coward]

The best bit is when they take a dig at the other side:

"This Porsche is a bit lethargic in top gear, it doesn't really appear to be going anywhere. Leave it in fifth gear though and you get a whole different experience...."

Re:5th gear!

[lisaparratt]

And here was me thinking most trannies want to get rid of the gear stick they've already got!

Re:5th gear!

[iainl]

Correct. One major difference between the shows is that the new Clarkson, Hammond and May Top Gear is absolutely pissing hilarious and a must-watch even if you're not an Evo bore, while I'd rather watch paint dry than sit through another 30 minutes of Fifth Gear. Or Old Top Gear for that matter.

Tiff Needell is actually a pretty reasonable driver, and certainly far better at it than Clarkson. But he can't present a TV programme for toffee.

Re:5th gear!

[zakkie]

I think you you meant "ruse". Some trannies in fact have seven gears (Mercedes-Benz 7GTRONIC), and others yet have just about infite "gears" - the Van Doorne CVT for example. However, I'm sure they're well aware of this... ;-)

Re:5th gear!

[Dogtanian]

Yeah, I'll admit that I thought the old Top Gear stagnated a bit when Clarkson left. Clarkson was an important part of the mix, and it lost something when that happened. I'm not surprised that they axed it (at least temporarily).

Ironically though, the 'new' Top Gear is crap *because* it's 1 hour (not 30 mins) of "Jeremy Clarkson and chums present a 'zoo' format' TV programme- and frankly, 30 minutes of Clarkson, let alone 1 hour is too much. The problem is that he works well as part of a mix, but now it's like Paul McCartney left The Beatles and is doing self-indulgent solo stuff (his co-presenters are the other members of Wings who do what they're told). It sucks....

For all its flaws (basically it's identical to the old Top Gear when they axed it), Fifth Gear is at least watchable and doesn't overegg the pudding.

Re:5th gear!

[nmg196]

> Ironically though, the 'new' Top Gear is crap *because* it's 1 hour
> (not 30 mins) of "Jeremy Clarkson and chums present a 'zoo' format'
> TV programme

I strongly disagree. The old programme was just review after review of boring everyday cars. If you want car reviews - buy a car magazine, because televised reviews of normal cars are hardly entertaining.

The new program is great. The format is great, the guests are great, the humour is great - I love it.

I suspect that maybe you're not in their target demographic? I'm 26 and most people around my age seem to think the new format is much better and less like all the other car programmes/magazines.

*Some* of their articles are admittedly quite stupid, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Re:5th gear!

[Hogwash McFly]

Jeremy Clarkson is one of those guys that enjoys the sound of his own voice a little too much, like most radio DJs and Zapp Brannigan. Top Gear has a certain self-congratulatory vibe to it, in terms of the studio audience. It's hard to both put my finger on and explain it, but they all seem to have the same laugh: that overly masculine, chesty chuckle. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but they all seem like the kind of middle-aged guys who practice martial arts or collect samurai swords.

Then again, I'm not particularly mad about cars, although I can see why Top Gear is so popular.

Re:5th gear!

[Dogtanian]

I suspect that maybe you're not in their target demographic?

Demographic? Ugh. I'm going to get a rotweiller and train it to attack anyone who says 'demographic'. Horrid marketingspeak... :)

I'm in my late twenties, so I suspect I'd still fit an 18-34 or 18-40 demog... profile, which is probably Top Gear's target audience. Problem is that these things are always crude, and I don't consider myself particularly average from that point of view. Not better or worse, just not a typical 18-34 'lad' that buys every shiny piece of crap that's advertised in FHM (though recently FHM seems to have got really adolescent, so maybe they're going for the 13-18 market).

But that's not really the point; I *liked* the funny stuff on Top Gear; I thought it lost something after Clarkson left (read my original message). But 1 hour of Clarkson, like-minded zoo, and audience is too much of a good(?) thing.

Remember that 'Clarkson' chat show that had nothing specific to do with cars? Take the cars out of the equation and Clarkson is an occasionally amusing, but more often boorish and tedious guy from the pub doing some contrived 'non-PCness' for half an hour or so.

And the problem with the new Top Gear is that it's not really *about* cars, it's about laddishness (should've done it in the mid-nineties when Loaded was at its peak).

I don't want to over-praise the old Top Gear. Even when Clarkson was on it could be bitty and often tedious, but there were good bits; and the funny stuff was funny because they didn't overdo it.

Re:5th gear!

[arwel]

Well, I'm in my mid 40s and I enjoy TG! Probably proves I'm just a big kid.

I particularly liked the test of what they could do to a beat-up old Toyota pick-up, last season -- drive it up and down steps, park it on the beach of the Severn estuary when the tide's coming in, drop a wrecking ball on it, park it on top of a tower block which is going to be explosively demolished, do all that... and the damned thing will still move under its own power after a little basic mechanics' attention!

Re:5th gear!

[Zeinfeld]

The new Top Gear has Jeremy Clarkson and does cars. That's all the similarity there is to the old show.

Jeremy Clarkson was the only thing that made the original Top Gear worth watching. Top Gear without Clarkson was simply a worn out 20 year old format. It would be like trying to do the daily show without Jon Stewart.

US TV does not really have characters like Clarkson. If they find someone close they stick them on the tube every night and pretend that they are an expert on every topic imaginable. Dennis Miller was funny once a week on SNL and his HBO show and totally boring every night.

Re:5th gear!

[Malc]

Top Gear is still not very good. Of course they don't have Tiff Needel, and he's what makes 5th Gear for me. How can you beat a show where somebody who loves what they do drives cars sideways around racing tracks and winding roads, and giggles about it the whole time!

Re:5th gear!

[Anonymous Coward]

WARNING: Do not google for "tranny"!

The goggles, they do nothing!! ;__;

Re:5th gear!

[OoberMick]

I suspect that maybe you're not in their target demographic?

Not in the target demographic? His name is Dogtanian!! One for all and all for one Muskehounds are always ready...

Re:5th gear!

[palndrumm]

the 'new' Top Gear is crap *because* it's 1 hour (not 30 mins)

If that's what you want, you should move to Australia. We do get Top Gear (on BBC World - only available on pay TV), but it's only a half-hour edited version rather than the full hour.

Re:5th gear!

[RedWizzard]

How can you beat a show where somebody who loves what they do drives cars sideways around racing tracks and winding roads, and giggles about it the whole time!

Sorry, how is that different from Top Gear?

same here, on PowerPC

[r00t]

Linux runs on Macs too.

Plus, being able to fix bugs is addicting. I know that I never need to seriously worry that my Open Source software will break if I change platforms, upgrade my OS, or whatever. I can always find or make a fix, because I have the source. Support doesn't end with an uncaring or bankrupt vendor.

Say, is it even legal to use those Windows DLL files and such?

Re:same here, on PowerPC

[Ilgaz]

Eh, its what people get for wmedia. In such situations, remembering the amazing flame real networks gets while offering NATIVE stuff to platforms makes you laugh.

We will see when Microsoft make it impossible to use wmedia 11 or 12 by a simple trick, like requiring advanced latest directx.

I bet the stuff they offer won't play in OS X native wmedia client (you know its a joke), someone should pay for it and call his/her lawyer for lawsuit.

God bless Real/Quicktime and mpeg 4.

Re:same here, on PowerPC

[Ilgaz]

It looks like someone finds time between illegally copying windows media DLLs to mark me troll.

like I fucking cared. MS bitch.

Re:same here, on PowerPC

[Anonymous Coward]

like I fucking cared.

You fucking cared enough to fucking write that fucking reply.

Re:same here, on PowerPC

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose, for Linux on PPC or other platforms, that the x86 windows codec binary should be emulated, so at least one could transcode (probably far from Real Time) MS's proprietary formats to something more open, like xvid, mpg, or the ogg video thing, whatever it's called.

Not an ideal solution, obviously, but you're using Linux on a Mac. One should be used to hacks.

Re:same here, on PowerPC

[evilviper]

Say, is it even legal to use those Windows DLL files and such?

It's not legal to use MPlayer in the first place, so what's the difference?

MPlayer includes support for all manner of patent-protected audio/video codecs, and as such, is illegal.

If you're in a country where there are no software patents, it's a very different story.

Using the DLLs is a grey area, but I'm inclined to assume they would be legal if tested in a US court. They all come from freely downloadable programs (RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, Quicktime), and are being redistributed in an unmodified form. Using them with MPlayer or Xine is no doubt in violation of their EULA, but the enforcability of EULAs is questionable.

Re:same here, on PowerPC

[jonbryce]

Call your lawyer and what? Sue for £1.50?

It will cost you more than that in lawyer's fees. A lot more than that.

Maybe report them to your local trading standards dept.

NRL

[POds]

The NRL is a premier sporting event in Australia, comparable to the AFL. We've beena ble to download the games once aired on national free to air and pay television. Recently telstra has taken away our right todownload them and are now only offering them to telstra customers. Certain a step backwards.

We can still download them, but only for a week or so.

Damn, i've used 'download' in the above, but i really should have used stream. Thats how this site came about.

Re:NRL

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Nice popunder on your personal website.

Re:NRL

[POds]

yer, been meaning clean that site up and move it to another host! Know of any good free web hosters?

Fifth Gear

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Fifth Gear is a spinoff, of sorts, of the BBC's very popular Top Gear, and is the best car review programme out there, by far.

It is on the air where I live, and there are torrents of this show online. However, it is a good start. Now only if we could get the rumored Season 5 of the BlackAdder series via downloads.

Re:Fifth Gear

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nothing to do with Top Gear, it just happens to use some ex-TG presenters and use a strikingly similar format.

Re:Fifth Gear

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nothing to do with Top Gear, it just happens to use some ex-TG presenters and use a strikingly similar format.

No, it is essentially the old Top Gear after Jeremy Clarkson left. AFAIUI Fifth Gear is virtually the whole production team from the old shop.

After a few years hiatus the BBC relaunched the new-format Top Gear (back with Jezza) in the more irreverent warehouse and track format.

Re:Fifth Gear

[Anonymous Coward]

5th Gear is rubbish compared to top gear! No competition!

Re:Fifth Gear

[Anonymous Coward]

Fifth Gear is a spinoff, of sorts, of the BBC's very popular Top Gear, and is the best car review programme out there, by far.

For entertainment and reviews of higher-end more performant cars, sure.

If you want to buy a new car for your grandma, watch Fifth Gear instead.

Re:Fifth Gear

[10Ghz]

Fifth Gear is a spinoff, of sorts, of the BBC's very popular Top Gear, and is the best car review programme out there, by far.

I don't get Fifth Gear on TV around here. I used to get Top Gear though. Top Gear kicked ass, but then it turned crappy. Apparently the crew who made the Kick Ass-version of Top Gear went on and made Fifth Gear.

Re:Fifth Gear

[kylegordon]

Yup, which is why you'll find Tiff Needell and Jason Plato (_professional_ racing drivers) still presenting 5th Gear, and still having a ball :-)

Re:Fifth Gear

[Ford Prefect]

I don't get Fifth Gear on TV around here. I used to get Top Gear though. Top Gear kicked ass, but then it turned crappy. Apparently the crew who made the Kick Ass-version of Top Gear went on and made Fifth Gear.

What, the old Top Gear where they'd do highly informative, terribly boring month-long road-tests of sub-one-litre hatchbacks suitable for decomposing pensioners and the like?

Useful, maybe, but nothing beats the majesty of the new Top Gear crew attempting to destroy a Toyota Hilux by setting fire to it, drowning it in the sea and finally explosively demolishing a block of flats beneath it.

Oh, and video 'downloads' available from that page too, as they have been for a while. No sign of their wilful, spectacular destruction of caravans, though... ;-)

Re:Fifth Gear

[1u3hr]

the rumored Season 5 of the BlackAdder series via downloads.

blackadderhall.co.uk:

Will this story never die? The 60s band story was first mentioned some 16 years a go and always pops up whenever a cast member shows an interest in doing a fifth series. And that is exactly what I read from the story above. Tony has said both Rowan and himself would love to do another series and he has made no comment on the period in which the series would be set. The Sun "journalist" probably then found the earlier story while looking through the archives and latched on to it.

And "The BBC has said there are no plans in the pipeline for a new series of hit comedy Blackadder, which ended in 1989".

Re:Fifth Gear

[10Ghz]

What, the old Top Gear where they'd do highly informative, terribly boring month-long road-tests of sub-one-litre hatchbacks suitable for decomposing pensioners and the like?

The old Top Gear, where they had knowledgeable presenters, who did interesting reviews, had interesting comments and actually gave the viewer interesting information. As opposed to the current Jeremy Clarckson "my penis is bigger than yours"-show.

Useful, maybe, but nothing beats the majesty of the new Top Gear crew attempting to destroy a Toyota Hilux by setting fire to it, drowning it in the sea and finally explosively demolishing a block of flats beneath it.

Information-value of that experiment was close to zero.But hey, I guess Joe Sixpack find it interesting because "hey, it has trucks in it. Ooooh, explosions!".

Re:Fifth Gear

[Laconian]

Puh-leeze. They're not doing it for the machismo factor. They're doing it because it's HILL-ARIOUS! The guys at Top Gear enjoy everything about cars, even when it has nothing to do with driving them: * Bobsled v. Mitsu Evo VIII * Ferrari 612 v. Mass Transit * Hilux torture session * Caravan slingshot * 2000-quid Porsche Challenge * Celebrity in a Reasonably Priced Car Don't those all sound ten times better than watching Tiff spray cum all over the cabin of an RX-8 when he tries to describe its handling?

Re:Fifth Gear

[trendyhendy]

Yes, but the new Top Gear doesn't have Vicki Butler-Henderson :-)

Re:Fifth Gear

[iainl]

I'm with Laconian. New Top Gear = Rock. 5th Gear = Suck.

The "presenters" on 5th Gear know a hell of a lot more about driving cars quickly than Clarkson ever will. But they don't have Hammond's grasp of the humour value in destroying caravans. If I want to be informed about cars, I read the mag. What I want from Top Gear, and get, is an hours worth of quality Sunday evening entertainment.

And I just don't get the appeal of VBH, either. Last time I tuned in, they were still giving them Needell's cast-off 70's-era innuendos, and sounded as embarrassed saying them as I did hearing them.

Re:Fifth Gear

[Ford Prefect]

What I want from Top Gear, and get, is an hours worth of quality Sunday evening entertainment.

I'm a non-motorist. I've never owned a car and I have no intention of getting one unless I absolutely have to (I do have a driving licence). I'm a big user of public transport (often of the continental-trains-going-at-hundreds-of-kilometres -per-hour variety). I can't stand Jeremy Clarkson. He'd probably hate me.

But still, I think Top Gear is great. A bunch of Neanderthals messing about with cars in really funny ways on a Sunday evening? Excellent!

Re:Fifth Gear

[Dogtanian]

What, the old Top Gear where they'd do highly informative, terribly boring month-long road-tests of sub-one-litre hatchbacks suitable for decomposing pensioners and the like?

Wasn't that *before* the Clarkson era? I remember they had some guy called William Woollard presenting it then, though I didn't watch it at that time. Anyhow, that would be a long time ago now.

Re:Fifth Gear

[iainl]

Clarkson would probably hate me, too. The reason I kind of like him anyway is that even when I completely disagree with what he's saying, he at least argues his opinion and lets you know why he thinks that.

OK, sometimes the why is 'just because it looks cool', but sometimes it isn't, and it's more important to know that.

Re:Fifth Gear

[drsquare]

Come off it, the old Top Gear, like Fifth Gear, was completely dull. It was like a house-buying programme for cars. I don't watch TV for information I watch it for entertainment. If I wanted information on cars I'd get some car magazines which would have a hundred times more content than a TV programme.

Re:Fifth Gear

[RedWizzard]

I'm a non-motorist. I've never owned a car and I have no intention of getting one unless I absolutely have to (I do have a driving licence).

Amusing then that when picking you nickname you chose to use the name of a car model (though presumably you were thinking of the HHGG character that was named after that car).

Hey

[chiapetofborg]

Where is Star Trek Enterprise, I can't find it anywhere on their site

MOD PARENT DOWN

[a.koepke]

He has linked to his own page which markets a book through Amazon's affiliate program.

The post is spam, plain and simple. A quick look at his user page shows it's not the first time he's done it, either.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[nmg196]

You're an idiot... That doesn't affect the price of the book and isn't evil in any way. Why do you care if he makes a few cents? Hardly a reason to mod someone down. It's not like he put a banner advert up to advertise the book.

Good quality

[jg_elliott]

I downloaded one of the free clips (3 mins long) and it's a whopping 896K/sec up to 1539kbps/sec VBR at 768 x 432 with 96kbps WM audio. Even if the content isn't that great, the quality is damn good. Considering they could have passed us off with some crappy res, little real media file, this is a fantastic offering.
Provided this isn't a total flop, hopefully it will lead the way for other networks to do the same which hopefully will lead to downloading whole programmes.
I thought I read a while ago that the BBC (and possibly Channel 4) were going to open up their archives for watching clips/programmes online. Anyone know what happened to that?

Re:Good quality

[jg_elliott]

Not exactly what I was talking about, but iMP (interactive media player) http://www.bbc.co.uk/webwise/askbruce/articles/bbc .co.uk/imp_1.shtml by the BBC will let viewers download tv shows up to seven days after they have been aired and watch them as many times as they like within those seven days.
Unfortunately "The BBC is still testing the application and a decision on whether to fully launch it is expected later in 2005." So we can only hope it will get launched.

Re:Good quality

[ayjay29]

>>I thought I read a while ago that the BBC (and possibly Channel 4) were going to open up their archives for watching clips/programmes online. Anyone know what happened to that?

Yes, Channel 4 has a boradband service:

http://www.channel4.com/broadband/

Problem is it's not available outside the UK, which is a shame as its mainly brits living outside the UK that would benifit from a broadband service.

It's been said before, but I'll say it again.

"They just don't get it."

Re:Good quality

[PhillC]

There's BBC Motion Gallery. Here you can view and download watermarked preview files of BBC archive content. This site is primarily aimed at commercial stock footage buyers.

There's also the BBC's Creative Archive, which is not yet launched.

iMP is just entering the second round of closed Beta testing I believe. It's not available for public Beta testing at this time.

I'd also recommend checking out some of the excellent historical footage on the British Pathe site. This archive is now represented by ITN.

Re:Good quality

[Ilgaz]

You would be very surprised if you had time to compare 512kbit Realvideo 10 or Quicktime 3ivx even DivX for same content.

Of course, there should be an uncompressed or 4:2:2 source to compare.

Selling wmedia video? (nods)

BTW, the formats I mention are all DRM enabled. If you use mpeg4 strict variations (divx,quicktime,3ivx) you will have mac customer base. Those guys/gals could pay $2000 for their computer. Also forget about half of bandwidth price you pay.

If you use Realvideo 10, you get native client with end user support. Those realplayer owners/users, 2 MILLION of them are active subscribers to premium content services.

My reference about quicktime/3ivx/mpeg4 quality? eh,Hollywood ;)

Hope that guy in charge read some books about video compression or browse some sites who are successful selling content to this piracy heaven and check what formats they use.

Re:Good quality

[maxwell demon]

Problem is it's not available outside the UK, which is a shame as its mainly brits living outside the UK that would benifit from a broadband service.

I guess it's a legal issue. Just as the ORF (the Austrian public TV) stopped broadcasting their first channel to Southern Germany because they were threatened they wouldn't get the movies any more (the point is, they were often showing the same movies as private German TV stations, at the same time, but without commercials in between). The argument was that the ORF doesn't have a license to send to Germany (the sending itself was of course done all in Austria, but with enough power that you could still see it without problems in Munich).

Top Gear

[Vollernurd]

"This car programme..."

Do you mean The Jeremy Clarkeson Show? [Sniff] I remember the good ol' BBC days.

Re:Top Gear

[DuncMan]

IMHO, Fifth Gear is better than Top Gear. Top Gear seems gimmicky and laddish, while Fifth Gear focuses on doing interesting things with cars (and is, admittedly, a bit laddetteish). Fifth Gear also features many Top Gear alumni, while Top Gear seems obsessed with Jeremy Clarkson.

As for other quality programmes from the UK, there are many. You may want to see Doctor Who from BBC Wales ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/ ).

Erm..

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Thiswould be nice if it was a decent channel, but it's just Channel 5, it's all Nazi documentries and soaps no other channel wants.. it might be a start but it's not going to do much good..

Re:Erm..

[nicklott]

Yes, a car program that didn't make it to air on Channel 5 is really going to be worth watching...

Re:Erm..

[jazman]

Ew, channel 5. BBC2 is probably the best channel. BBC1 is like BBC2 without the good bits. ITV is like BBC1 without the good bits. Channel 4 is like ITV without the good bits. Channel 5 is like Channel 4 without the good bits. (I've heard this has changed in recent years, but I don't pay the BBC Tax, so I can't watch any of it.)

Last time I tuned into Channel 5 I nearly threw up - it was a nude gameshow, and they weren't using models. The host was KEITH CHEGWIN! Ewwww.... That was not a pretty sight. The last time I saw him was probably on Cheggers Plays Pop.

Re:Erm..

[Anonymous Coward]

Channel 5 has improved quite a bit since the early days. They've probably figured out that the bottom of the market is pretty damn crowded, and with Freeview around now, the competition is that much worse.

Re:Erm..

[Anonymous Coward]

Channel 4 is more like a mix of BBC 2 and Sky. E.g. a lot of fringe shows mixed in with some imported American shows (ER, Housewives) Ch. 4 is pretty good.

Re:Erm..

[16K Ram Pack]

I don't entirely agree. Channel 5 has improved considerably. It's still quite populist, but there's more on it for me to watch than ITV now.

The early days of Channel 5 were rubbish, but to be honest, so was early Channel 4.

Re:Erm..

[Hogwash McFly]

While I agree that there is a fair amount of stuff on C4 worth watching, sometimes they try just that little bit too hard to be cutting edge and serious like the BBC with respect to shows like documentaries. What you end up with is a show that wants to be intelligent yet still relies on shock value to attract the 19 y.o. pseudo-intellectual college students who always point out the fact that they love C4. A newspaper column I read pointed out this fact:

"'The Boy Born Without A Face'. 'The Woman With No Skin'. What next, 'The Show With No Creativity'?"

That's not to say that any one channel is perfect, of course. Don't even get me started on ITV. Northern, lowest common denominator fodder.

Re:Erm..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nazi documentries and soaps no other channel wants

You forgot the porn. That's rather important...

Re:Erm..

[arwel]

it's all Nazi documentries and soaps no other channel wants.

Now, now, it's not all Nazi documentaries - tonight they've got a documentary on the Russian Revolution in Colour, and later this week it's World War I in Colour!! And fair do's - tonight they've got 2 hours of CSI...

Re:Erm..

[Jumpin' Jon]

Sorry, but I had to get in a great gag about Channel 5. I think it came from Angus Deaton on Have I Got News For You originally, and it went something like this:

"Channel 5's new late-night schedule looks a lot like the last US presidential election: All bush and gore"

/cymbal

Re:Erm..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, sometimes Ch. 4 sometimes swing too low. The Date my... season was just cringe worthy. They're resonsible for bringing us Big Brother. Anatomy for beginners was exactly as you describe; pseudo-intellectual hogwash which relied on shock value.

E4/C4 are the only place you can watch The West Wing though. The wife & I are oddly hooked on Desperate Housewives, too.

Oh and Bremner, Bird & Fortune. Shame Who's line is it anyway? isn't around any more.

Re:Erm..

[mlk]

C4 does do a lot of good shows.
C5 does buy some good/fun US shows (CSI, Law & Order, Angel, Charmed)
I'd go with

BBC2 BBC1 C4 five ITV

First?

[pshuke]

>>>TV channel Five has said it will be the first UK broadcaster to offer parts of its shows for sale as legal downloads.

A norwegian channel, http://www.nrk.no/ (click on NRK NETT-TV, between the ads) , already does what this article advertizes, I belive.
- It allows for downloads of already-aired shows to the public, and for no cost too.
It should be noted, however, that NRK is a government ``owned" channel, and that one could say that this service is already paid for by our tax-money.
Still - it can hardly belive that this is the only TV-channel to do such a thing.
Is this really such a new thing?

Re:First?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>TV channel Five has said it will be the first UK broadcaster to offer parts of its shows for sale as legal downloads.

A norwegian channel, http://www.nrk.no/ (click on NRK NETT-TV, between the ads) , already does what this article advertizes, I belive.

Oh, and are they a *UK broadcaster* like the summary says? Like you quoted? Hmm?

Re:First?

[Anonymous Coward]

last time i looked there was a charge for this service

Re:First?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damned Vikings! Didn't Good ol' Alfie teach you anything?

Re:First?

[KivlE]

NRK != TV2

NRK webtv is free. You only need to go through a free registration process.

Swedish public service TV does this too

[md8mart]

SVT open archive

They are still working on some IP-issues; hence no sound on most of the clips. SVT has some 200 000 hours in their archive, dating back to 1896, of which some 10 percent is digitized.

Re:Swedish public service TV does this too

[sp3tt]

Most of it can't be available for free on the web though, fucking copyright...
And it is only streamed, so you have to manually rip the stream if you want to download the clip.

Didn't make it to air....

[nother_nix_hacker]

Fifth Gear /did/ make it to air. It's rubbish, but it made it.

Re:Didn't make it to air....

[Anonymous Coward]

Fifth Gear /did/ make it to air. It's rubbish, but it made it.

Oh. I read the story as "these clips that they're selling didn't make it to air" rather than "the show didn't make it to air, here are some clips". But I see the ambiguity.

Danish TV station already doing it

[donely]

Danish television station, TV2, has been doing this for the past year or so. For rougly $80 a year, you can watch everything that TV2 has produced themselves. Works without a hitch. Requires a 2Mbit connection for full-screen watching. Tjek it out at http://sputnik.dk (in Danish, but you should be able to get the idea even though you don't speak Danish)

Re:Danish TV station already doing it

[Anonymous Coward]

Sticking a at the end of an URL will make it a clickylink!

http://sputnik.dk/

See!

uk TV

[PurPaBOO]

http://www.uknova.com/

Some of this stuff has actually aired

[James Youngman]

Except that they don't quite seem to get it yet. They are offering here some videos from this car programme which apparently didn't quite make it to air,

In fact, the race between the Porsche Boxster and the BMW Z4 aired in the UK last night at 20:30. Hence I think the segments available for download relate to things in the current series of Fifth Gear. I don't know if the downloadable video includes footage beyond the amount that aired though. I can't think of any other reason to pay £1.50 for it.

Mod this one down too

[Anonymous Coward]

for plagiarism. Actually I think that this blat.info stuff is a scam of the second level. The real goal is to get the one posting the "spam warning" modded up.

Re:Mod this one down too

[ziggy_zero]

No, I think it's just to get the "the real goal is to get the one posting the 'spam warning' modded up" post modded up!

Didn't air !?

[Chris Kamel]

Who said this programme never aired? It's my 2nd favorite car programme (After top gear) I've collected all seasons so far, and I know of many people (me included) who are willing to pay to download it legally. I don't think there will be any lack of demand... if only it were not DRMed wmv....

Re:Didn't air !?

[paithuk]

I'd definately agree... In the UK people are more than happy to pay £4 to download a ringtone or music video to their mobile. I don't think £1.50 would be on the minds of anybody who wants a short video of their favourite car, and to put my money where my mouth is, I'm off to download the Golf GTI + NOS demonstration! ;-) Well done fifth gear!

Re:Didn't air !?

[RyosukeFC]

Damn straight. For the longest time Tiff was the lead man on "Top Gear", but then it seems that Jeremy's personality got big enough that there wasn't room for the two of them, relegating the *brilliant* Tiff and Vicky Butler-Henderson to (what seems to be) their own show, Fifth Gear. I hope they open up BBC2's broadcasts of "Top Gear" to this sort of thing. I'd gladly pay $3 for that. Maybe not $3 for an episode of Fifth Gear (it's 30 mins to Top Gear's 60), but damn Tiff is a good driver. Just look at how easy and relaxed he is "testing" the then-new Noble M12 GTO-3R on a wet and oily race track! I'd like to see Jeremy and Tiff back together. Jeremy pretends to belittle Tiff, but...

This is all and good...

[EzInKy]

...but what I really want to know is whatever happened to the BBC open sourcing its archives?

Re:This is all and good...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but what I really want to know is whatever happened to the BBC open sourcing its archives?

Yes, because everything that gets announced happens instantly, right?

Have patience, grasshopper. They're cutting staff left-right-and-centre to save money. This sort of thing'll have to wait.

Re:This is all and good...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're cutting staff left-right-and-centre to save money. This sort of thing'll have to wait.

Actually the line is that they're cutting staff to save money, but the money they save will be re-invested. Projects like that one are due to recieve increased funding.

Another GB channel doing this already..

[jg_elliott]

Channel 4 has had their broadband offering for a while http://www.channel4.com/broadband/.
It costs a monthly flat fee and the selection isn't fantastic. Although I think they did let viewers watch 24/7 big brother with it last year.
Anyone used it?

Re:Another GB channel doing this already..

[Neophytus]

Anyone who had E4 on Telewest or Sky could get the
Big Brother stream for no extra charge anyway.

11kbs?

[Anonymous Coward]

someone post torrent

which apparently didn't quite make it to air

[martin]

Oh yes it did. I watched it last night (GMT) and alot of this stuff is to 'complement' the current series.

Anyway looks a little /.-ed 12.5kbps download ;-(

BBC cuts budget on web editors...

[tod_miller]

To keep the cost of sending video files down, iMP works peer-to-peer, a bit like programs like Kazaa or Livewire.

They have a great dhtml trick on the peer-to-peer strong text, pulls up 'jargon buster' div.

Nice site. Where is the imp, and can I test it?

Re:BBC cuts budget on web editors...

[jg_elliott]

Not released yet :(
I read somewhere they were trialing it, so maybe search on peer 2 peer programs for it?!

VBH!

[Smuttley]

What else needs to be said? :)

Re:VBH!

[Laconian]

Uh, she's hot? I just love her shrieks of pleasure as she kicks out her tail, grabs the shaft of the gearshift, and slides it al...

err,

hm.

Poorly written article

[deggy]

Slashdot editors - start reporting facts rather than opinions.

Fifth gear airs regularly on Channel 5 in the UK and the clips for download were all shown on British television last year.

Submission Bias

[Afty0r]

Except that they don't quite seem to get it yet. They are offering here some videos from this car programme which apparently didn't quite make it to air, for the princely sum of £1.50 (about $3), in DRM'd WMV 10 format (mplayer plays them fine).

Why does their choice of platform mean they "don't quite seem to get it"? This is fanatical raving - choosing a closed codec is a perfectly valid thing to do, and ensures at least casual copiers will not be able to pirate this material.

Hopefully they won't take the lack of response as 'proof' that there's no demand. There's more about this at the BBC's website."

What lack of response? Do we have any stats on how many people took up this offer versus their expectations, or is the submitters comment mired in biased speculation?

Re:Submission Bias

[UlfGabe]

" Hopefully they won't take the lack of response as 'proof' that there's no demand. There's more about this at the BBC's website.""

"What lack of response? Do we have any stats on how many people took up this offer versus their expectations, or is the submitters comment mired in biased speculation?"

i believe the "editor" is reffering to the fact that they are offering shows too bad for TV at the moment. Hence, there has been deemed little demand for these shows, and now you can get t hem on the web.

Re:Submission Bias

[91degrees]

Why does their choice of platform mean they "don't quite seem to get it"? This is fanatical raving - choosing a closed codec is a perfectly valid thing to do, and ensures at least casual copiers will not be able to pirate this material.

A lot of us aren't going to be interested because it's using a DRM format. People who want to pirate it can do so and will still be able to.

Casual copiers will stil be able to get hold of a pirated copy from bittorrent.

Re:Submission Bias

[Keamos]

This is Slashdot. What the fuck do you expect?

Didn't make it to air?

[prefect42]

I don't quite get what they're saying. Fifth Gear is a very real, very on air motor show, with the half of the Top Gear crew who left when it all changed. Looking at the list of clips I've even seen half of them on TV.

Re:Didn't make it to air?

[iainl]

Actual story - the site appears to be offering "extended versions" of some segments from the current series of Fifth Gear. It's only some bits of it that are unaired.

Frankly, though, Fifth Gear just took everything I hated about Old Top Gear (Tiff, Quentin, dull but "informative" car reviews) and forgot to pack the tomfoolery, so I'll pass.

Channel 5 History

[t_allardyce]

To people outside the UK, channel 5 is basically a terrestrial channel in the format of a tacky trash newspaper, they made their debut in the late 90's however they were plagued with problems, in order to get a frequency all VCRs in the country had to be retuned by a technician (no idea don't ask), their signal was much weaker than other stations and was known for crap reception and they were the only terrestrial channel to stick a logo in the corner of their screen, they've improved a little since then but they're still 'that' channel in most peoples minds. If they had waited for a couple of years for digital terrestrial tv they could probably have saved a whole load of money but they would be watched even less than that crappy shopping channel. Oh and the program in question - Fifth Gear is a blaitent rip-off of the BBC program Top Gear without Jeromy Clarkson.

Re:Channel 5 History

[CdBee]

Well said !

For the record, Top Gear without Jeremy Clarkson is like a sandwich without either bread or filling. just a slice of butter hanging in the air.

Hmm. I think this parallel is failing.

Re:Channel 5 History

[shippo]

Channel 5 also isn't carried by every transmitter, due to co-channel interference issues. Even some of the major transmitters only propogate it in certain directions.

Re:Channel 5 History

[t_allardyce]

I think they have it on satellite and cable though, waste of space if you ask me. Oh apart from Worlds Wildest Police Videos with John Burnel that shit is da bomb thank you America!

Re:Channel 5 History

[Anonymous Coward]

in order to get a frequency all VCRs in the country had to be retuned by a technician (no idea don't ask)

Er, no they didn't. Where on Earth did you hear that?

Re:Channel 5 History

[TobascoKid]

Oh and the program in question - Fifth Gear is a blaitent rip-off of the BBC program Top Gear without Jeromy Clarkson.

It's not a blatent rip off, it is Top Gear. When the BBC cancelled Top Gear five got most of the cast and crew of Top Gear involved in Fifth Gear. When the BBC realized thier mistake they they got Jeremy Clarkson back for a completely new show but with the Top Gear title.

Re:Channel 5 History

[Anonymous Coward]

Fifth Gear is a blaitent rip-off of the BBC program Top Gear without Jeromy Clarkson.
And thank the gods for that. The sooner the BBC sack this Led Zeppelin roadie masquerading as a journalist, the better. Think of Fifth Gear as Top Gear with the useless crap removed.
The rest of Channel 5 is, to be fair, utter rubbish. It's a shame C5 didn't buy Clarkson instead where his ego might wither and die from lack of exposure.

Re:Channel 5 History

[91degrees]

Some did. Video recorders and satelite decoders use UHF channels 35 and 37. Because of the lack of space, these channels were allocated to channel 5 on some transmitters. This meant that the video recorders in areas covered by these transmitters had to be retuned in order to receive the channel.

Re:Channel 5 History

[TobascoKid]

But the OP was implying that all VCRs in the UK needed to be retuned, which was not the case.

Re:Channel 5 History

[g_attrill]

In areas of the country covering approx 12 million homes Channel 5 uses the frequency reserved for VCR aerial modulation. Channel 5 made test transmissions and placed press adverts with details about how to book a retuning technician, and when they ran behind schedule they had to send out thousands band-block filters instead.

This page explains it in detail.

Gareth

Re:Channel 5 History

[FidelCatsro]

too true , Channel 5 is one of the worst terrestrial channels ,They are offering shows too bad for even them , in a DRM crippled MS proprietry format and for a fee that is three times that to which i would be willing to pay for a good show.
All this seems like such a rush job , just so they can say "we were here first", Honestly i would not mind waiting a while longer for someone to do this properly

Re: Channel 5 History

[gidds]

...and they still aren't available in some areas (as some transmitters don't broadcast them).

Re:Channel 5 History

[91degrees]

Just a clarification. The response to the OP was a little misleading.

Re:Channel 5 History

[t_allardyce]

Ok some, but still allot and it really begs the question why? not why technically, but why would you even bother doing something on that scale just to fit your channel in terrestrial when it was clearly more suited to cheap cable/satellite..

Re:Channel 5 History

[evilandi]

Just to add to the background info, Channel 5 is owned by Radio Luxembourg (RTL) who have been broadcasting to the UK since 1933; they were the first company to provide English-language commercial radio listenable in the UK, the famous "Radio Luxembourg 208" which ran on mediumwave from 1933 until 1992, including a stint in WWII when the station was taken over against their will by Nazis. RTL also own several German, Dutch and French TV and radio stations.

Re:Channel 5 History

[Dogtanian]

Oh apart from Worlds Wildest Police Videos with John Burnel that shit is da bomb

That the one with the suntanned, Tipp-Ex-white toothed guy that struts around and talks in a silly 'tough-guy' voice?

He strikes me as the kind of guy who, as a kid, would've hung around with the bullies and acted 'hard', then ran off screaming like a girl when his protectors disappeared. Now he's doing the same thing as an adult....

BTW, that show is freaky, like the kind of thing they'd show in a right-wing totalitarian state to placate the masses. :-/

Re:Channel 5 History

[Phillip P Barnett]

However, to Americans, Channel 5 is basically a terrestrial channel of superbly high quality, such as dreams are made of....

Re:Channel 5 History

[Anonymous Coward]

Channel 5 was specially created as a fifth terrestrial broadcast channel. The frequencies were allocated to Channel 5 by the Government.

I have no idea why they chose to use Ch 35-37 in some areas. To avoid interference with existing channels probably, but a bit stupid on the face of it.

Re:Channel 5 History

[91degrees]

Aerial compatibility. Aerials are designed for certain ranges. One range is 21-37, Another is 35-53. Channel 5 was put at the end of these channels.

Re:Channel 5 History

[Hieronymus Howard]

Wrong. Top Gear without Jeremy Clarkson is like a sandwich without a piece of shit inside it.

Moderator hint: No this comment is not a troll, or insightful or informative. Yes it is flamebait. It may be funny depending on your view of Jeremy Clarkson (obnoxious British TV presenter).

Re:Channel 5 History

[Scorchio]

that show is freaky, like the kind of thing they'd show in a right-wing totalitarian state to placate the masses

How dare you? I live in Texas and I, um, I, err... oh, never mind.

That guy is my hero. I look forward to him showing me what happens when "hopped-up punks" get behind the wheel of a stolen SUV. Maybe this time they'll get away!

Re:Channel 5 History

[Anonymous Coward]

The definitive worst terrestrial TV channel is ITV. Channel 5 has improved markedly recently... with pretty good films and occasional decent documentaries. ITV is simply excrable TV aimed squarely at women for most of the day, and at the stupid in the evening. It is unwatchable if you are male or have an IQ in double figures. If you are male *and* have an IQ in double figures it is positively toxic.

Re:Channel 5 History

[Anonymous Coward]

don't talk shite. all VCRs in the country did not need to be retuned at all. VCRs in some areas may have had to be, but it is a long way from being all.

Re:Channel 5 History

[Nex]

Especially as they're running "CSI, plus CSI New York and CSI Miami"

Can't have it both ways. Nex

Re:Channel 5 History

[t_allardyce]

Very true, its perhaps one of the most right-wing things on TV, the whole hour is basically police propaganda - ie the cops absolutely always win, the suspect never even manages to kill themselves and no matter how petty the crime its always blown out of proportions eg the guy takes of and smashes his car at 90mph will 5 cops chase him down over a tiny bag of weed, break out the fire arms and kick him down to the ground, awful police work and mind-sets but GREAT TV!

Re:Channel 5 History

[Chexiepie]

Hey, come on now, don't insult American television like that!

I mean, after all, we've got ... uh ... BBC America! So take that!

Say What?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

in DRM'd WMV 10 format (mplayer plays them fine)

Could anyone elaborate on this?
Last I heard, mplayer could not do DRM'd WM9 files.
Will it play high-def WM9 files with DRM too?
How about the ones with "phone-home" DRM?
How about the ones on a DVD-ROM like this WMV-HD Italian Job?

Re:Say What?

[nogginthenog]

DRM? Bink and Smacker's RAD Video Tools converted one of the sample WMVs into an AVI with no problems for me.

Maybe the samples are not DRM - or am I not understanding somthing here?

Re:Say What?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Maybe the samples are not DRM - or am I not understanding somthing here?

Some of the samples are DRM'ed, some are not. Generally the previews of "real" (non-IMAX) movies have been DRM'ed about half the time, usually with the phone-home type. As if the studios want to track who's looking at the previews or something.

Re:Say What?

[Comsn]

mplayer has no support for wmv DRM systems (or any drm for that matter).

if someone says 'mplayer plays them fine' they are referring to the free, non-drm samples.

non-drm hdtv wmv works fine on mplayer.

mplayer on 64bit, in the future, or currently (dont recall) will be able to play wmv9, with a 32bit wine and 32bit mplayer (and 32bit on your 64bit chip)

Re:Say What?

[evilviper]

in DRM'd WMV 10 format (mplayer plays them fine)

Could anyone elaborate on this?
Last I heard, mplayer could not do DRM'd WM9 files.

MPlayer still doesn't handle any kind of DRM (except pechaps for CSS on DVDs).

The poster most likely is confused.

No! Bad channel 5!

[91degrees]

We want Mpeg, so we can burn it to a DVD and watch it on TV.

Yes, we may decide to copy it over the internet. Since its sent out as a raw MPEG2 stream once a week anyway, (normal definition Digital TV has been available in the UK since 1998 or so) I fail to see why this would be a problem.

Dutch public service TV does this too

[SpzToid]

The Dutch public broadcaster has had most all of the shows streaming online for at least a year(even the racy ones like you'll find on bnn.nl. They have RSS feeds for their programs, and have even been said to actively promote redistribution.

TOP GEAR FIFTH GEAR = #t

[Laconian]

Puh-leeze. They're not doing it for the machismo factor. They're doing it because it's HILL-ARIOUS! The guys at Top Gear enjoy everything about cars, even when it has nothing to do with driving them:

* Bobsled v. Mitsu Evo VIII
* Ferrari 612 v. Mass Transit
* Hilux torture session
* Caravan slingshot
* 2000-quid Porsche Challenge
* Celebrity in a Reasonably Priced Car

Don't those all sound ten times better than watching Tiff spray cum all over the cabin of an RX-8 when he tries to describe its handling?

BBC should make this available for free

[superskippy]

...at least to UK citizens. Remebember the BBC is already paid for by the license fee (a tax by any other name), so all of the programs made by the BBC _already belong to us_. It makes me a bit sad that the shops are full of DVDs of BBC shows retailing for £20 a go, when license payers have already paid for this show's creation.

Re:BBC should make this available for free

[TobascoKid]

But it's a Channel 5 programme - five (and the rest of the commercial broadcasters) don't get a penny of the licence fee. The BBC (and the licence fee) has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Re:BBC should make this available for free

[superskippy]

I meant "a service like this for all of their programs". Sorry.

Re:BBC should make this available for free

[Anonymous Coward]

well, they don't just chuck the profits in the bin. BBC enterprises are meant to make a profit and put the cash back into the BBC. if they didn't (which the regulators certainly could force them to do, as you want) then they'd have less money. also, they'd have trouble with pricing, a lot of BBC merchandise is to profit from overseas sales. one price for the UK another for Europe might not even be legal, let alone difficult.

I think it's ok. it's free to watch, no problem with taping etc. if you like it so much you want the DVD they charge you commercially. Once they move to internet distribution it depends whether you see that as a new form of broadcast or a new form of retail. of course, it's both and problematic to find a compromise fee.

Re:BBC should make this available for free

[JonnyCalcutta]

Not to mention that a lot of 'BBC' DVDs and vidoes are actually put out for sale by the independant production companies that made them, and not the BBC itself.

Re:BBC should make this available for free

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC are already working on making their archives available. They announced the scheme last year and have been working hard ever since. You need to pay more attention.

Re:BBC should make this available for free

[rhuntley12]

Wish our US stations could make some of the quality work the BBC does. Seen a lot of good stuff from them, although probably don't get all the crap over here.

Re:BBC should make this available for free

[salmacis2]

Which part of "terrestrial TV channel Five" did you not understand? The BBC appear to agree with you though. They are investigating the feasability of making programmes available after transmission. They already do this for radio programmes. I imagine there are a whole load of licensing issues to be overcome, which is why Five are only offering 3 minute clips, and the BBC has still not offered any programmes. In the future, I expect all contracts and licensing to automatically cover official downloads as well.

Re:BBC should make this available for free

[Anonymous Coward]

BBC should make this available for free... at least to UK citizens. Remebember the BBC is already paid for by the license fee (a tax by any other name), so all of the programs made by the BBC _already belong to us_.

No thank you.

Why not? Answer: I'm a UK citizen who doesn't pay the license fee, because I don't own a television. So I certainly don't have any moral right to access BBC programmes. But it would be hard for them to make them available to other people without me getting them, so it seems likely that a free archive like you propose would simply be used as an argument to extend the licence fee to cover internet connections as well...

Re:BBC should make this available for free

[evilandi]

Actually, Channel 4, a commercial channel, does get additional funds from UK taxpayers. It's a pretty small amount and (in theory) it doesn't come from the licence fee (IIRC).

I don't think Channel 5 does, though.

Re:BBC should make this available for free

[Anonymous Coward]

A small correction is in order; it should say UK residents, not UK citizens, i.e. you don't have to be a citizen to pay the TV license.

Furthermore, I would happily pay the BBC a subscription fee to stream TV over the internet.

Re:BBC should make this available for free

[Larry Lightbulb]

If you go to the cinema do expect to get a copy of the film? You pay the license fee for the right to have equipment capable of receiving TV signals, what the BBC then does with the money has nothing to do with you.

Re:BBC should make this available for free

[mlk]

The BBC does offer catch up clips &| highlights of some shows, plus all the radio channels are streamed, and most/all (don't know, only really use BBC7) have a Listen Again service.

CH 5

[cheezemonkhai]

Bearing in mind that any person who can't get channel 5 for some reson in the UK is fully aware they are not missing anything I think it sums it up.

5th Gear is a show where the Top Gear Rejects go and race some cars in a way that proves nothing except the fact that the presenters obviously have very small items which must be compensated for.

Re:CH 5

[iainl]

That's not fair. What actually happens is that some Top Gear Rejects who got the sack because they refused to cut down on their sexist-innunedo-rate drive cars quickly, before going on to demonstrate why driving a car quickly and presenting a car programme are two completely seperate skills, and they've got bugger all of the latter one.

Meanwhile, Clarkson, May and Hammond are frankly average drivers at best, and leave that stuff to The Stig before doing their real jobs of entertaining me for 60 minutes.

Re:CH 5

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmm, I'd say Top Gear is second rate. If I have to buy a new car, and am not filthy rich, Top Gear is an irrelevance. Their reports are pointless for the average person (as well as being _very_ cliched and boring).

Re:Ten years later...

[Alan Partridge]

I've got Seinfeld seasons 1-3 on DVD.

Don't get it?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the most annoying phrases of the last century (keep up guys).

But you know, all content providers are using DRM. Maybe it's the /.ers that "don't get it". Napster was a one-off. Those days are over.

To use another annoying 20th-century phrase, "get over it".

Re:TOP GEAR FIFTH GEAR = #t

[10Ghz]

Don't those all sound ten times better than watching Tiff spray cum all over the cabin of an RX-8 when he tries to describe its handling?

No. The old Top Gear was about the cars. They tested cars, and gave viewers information about cars. The new show is about Jeremy Clarkson. I didn't watch Top Gear because it was "hilarious". I watched it because it was insighful and informative. The new show is just cheap entertainment for the Joe Sixpack. But hey, if you enjoy that type of shows, good for you!

We've got this in Iceland

[hugsa]

We've actually been able to download shows and news for a few years here in Iceland, both from RUV (state owned), Stod 2 and Skjar 1, both not owned by the goverment.

And here are the proofs:
RUV online:
RUV

Stod 2 online:
Stod 2 (their web is really really bad..brace yourself)

Skjar 1 online:
Skjar 1

Re:We've got this in Iceland

[HalliS]

Unfortunately, it's mostly news and cheap icelandic tv-shows, (such as the Icelandic Idol).

I want to be able to download good quality icelandic shows and some of the foreign material that these stations air (like Office and *cough*StarTrek*couch*), but that's not possible unfortunately

And of course there are shows that are not aired in Iceland, such as LOST ... the only way for me to get them currently is through bittorrent or overpriced dvd's.

I would be more than willing to pay a reasonable for this kind of material.
Meanwhile, here's a clip of a volcano erupting: http://media.gagna.net/uskefnistod2/clips/2004_11/ 1286/frett18.wmv

Re:We've got this in Iceland

[hugsa]

Well, actually I do understand why those icelandic channels are not streaming Office and Star Trek since they do not own the copyright to those shows and have no right to distribute them over the net.

BBC archive background music problem

[evilandi]

jg_elliott: I read a while ago that the BBC... were going to open up their archives

I was in the audience for this parliamentary seminar in February where Paula Le Dieu of the BBC Creative Archives Project spoke.

Apparently the biggest problem for the BBC is figuring out how to deal with the copyright problems of background music. Almost all BBC TV programmes have background music, and almost all of that music has been licenced for TV use only, not for download over the Internet.

Until that problem is resolved, there are very few programmes that can be released via the BBC Creative Archive.

Re:BBC archive background music problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently the biggest problem for the BBC is figuring out how to deal with the copyright problems of background music. Almost all BBC TV programmes have background music, and almost all of that music has been licenced for TV use only, not for download over the Internet.

That's going to be a problem with EastEnders then... what about all those pub scenes?

Does this mean the 'Complete EastEnders' DVD box-set will be delayed?

My guess is that at (very) roughly 2860 episodes and at least 358 DVDs, they're going to have their work cut out.. yikes!

I want to order the thing just to see the expression on the postie's face when he has to deliver it.

No, actually, I don't; I fscking hate EastEnders.

Re:BBC archive background music problem

[squaretorus]

That the BBC has a will to do this amazes me. That some petty bickery music industry legal issue stops it happenning does not.

Surely a blanket agreement can be found. And use the best BBC funding idea I've heard to pay for it. Start a new 'overseas licence fee' to enable overseas individuals to watch the archive under a legal framework. I'd imagine they could raise BILLIONS that way. $100 a year for everything the BBC has ever produced! Deal!

Re:BBC archive background music problem

[tobybuk]

I'm sure lots of people would go for this. From my experience a lot of yanks love our TV. But the problem comes in regions. The BBC would have bought the rights to air the programs a number of times in a specific region only. The have no rights to sell other peoples work outside the areas they bought. However, their own programs are less likely (though not immune) to fall into this so there may be hope yet!! However, as a result of selling a worlwide subscription the price they get from other broadcasters for their own programs would be less. I guess they would have to weigh up the pros and cons.

There also may be a problem in the BBC is not a company subject to the normal laws of the market. If they started to pull income from foreign media companies all hell would break loose.

Re:BBC archive background music problem

[PhillC]

There also may be a problem in the BBC is not a company subject to the normal laws of the market. If they started to pull income from foreign media companies all hell would break loose.

Well not quite..........

A commercial arm of the public BBC, BBC Worldwide, runs BBC America.

The entire remit of BBC Worldwide is to secure licensing revenue from the commercial market, investing it directly back into the BBC. Last financial year BBC Worldwide directed £141 million back to the BBC. Of this BBC America, through 30 million subscriptions, advertising and licensing contributed a large proportion.

I think this sounds like a form of "international licence fee". BBC Worldwide and the BBC just need to start talking a bit more to each other and extend this model to something like the Creative Archive.

Re:BBC archive background music problem

[evilandi]

squaretorus: petty bickery music industry legal issue

Well, yes, quite so.

However, in the case of the BBC TV it is not only large music industry labels that have got to re-licence their background music, but also a huge squadron of independent one-man-band music composer contractors.

Much of BBC TV background music, particularly for documentaries and historical drama, is specifically composed and performed for the task by private contractors.

So getting a blanket agreement may be rather difficult, since the independent contractors don't speak with one voice. The BBC can't force a private composer contractor to join a union or an industry body.

Actually, on second thoughts, what with the BBC being a government-run institution, maybe the BBC should back some kind of government-enforced copyright agreement for all of these composers. It is, after all, a bloody stupid law, so why not change it? I can't imagine that'd be popular with any future composers they might wish to hire, mind you.

Re:BBC archive background music problem

[Look KG486]

I don't watch much BBC outside of BBC Nightly News on occasion on PBS here in the States, so I don't really know much about the music used, but... ...why not create your own? A couple Acid Pro loops and you've got a 20-30 second clip of worthless but copyright-free music you can drop in.

Re:"They don't get it" [winhat]

[winhat]

May i say what a great pleasure it is to waste what you can't sell something to someone who can get it for themselves for free.

The nose is an organism's mode of pronunciation in speech. You are the ones producing it. Because the world are the ones producing it. I'll happily pay for such a service.

If you want to be free. He simply wants to be free. He simply wants to be free. He simply wants to be killed. I see so much sickness. The enemy surrounds. I see so much sickness. The enemy surrounds. I see so much of an indigenous people.

Completely Missing the Point

[Anonymous Coward]

It wont catch on, the whole point people in britain are downloading TV shows (Especially from the US) is because they have to wait months if not a year before the shows appear over here in the UK, and then it might only be aied on sky or a straight to DVD release leaving everyone with "basic" TV another year to wait before it airs, the point of downloading TV shows already over here is pointless

Re:Completely Missing the Point

[mpe]

It wont catch on, the whole point people in britain are downloading TV shows (Especially from the US) is because they have to wait months if not a year before the shows appear over here in the UK, and then it might only be aied on sky or a straight to DVD release leaving everyone with "basic" TV another year to wait before it airs, the point of downloading TV shows already over here is pointless.

This has been changing because the US is now not always the first to get programmes. e.g. "Battlestar Galactica" shown in it's entirity on Sky 1 before any US broadcasts. Together with "Dr Who" which might well be available on DVD (possibly even R1 DVD depending how things work in Canada) before any US broadcast.

subtitles

[Anonymous Coward]

cool and they can make subtitles in different languages... that would be an idea!

Umm... hang on.

[The Fanta Menace]

If they've got DRM and mplayer plays them fine, doesn't that mean their DRM isn't working?

What stops me then transferring the files to a friend's computer with mplayer so that he can play them?

Rai italian TV already do it

[Anonymous Coward]

since some years from the website below you can see a lot of programs from the italian tv.
http://www.raiclicktv.it/raiclick/pc/website/ 0,438 8,1-1-1-CTY1-CID1-0-0-0---1-1-ABB0,00.html

Abelson & Sussman

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget reality makeover crap...I downloaded 'Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs' lectures from MIT from a link someone posted here yesterday. That's my viewing sorted for the next 7 nights. Highly recommended. So LISP is dead, so what, this is fundamental cool shit. Watch it.

"Except that they don't quite seem to get it yet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Except that they don't quite seem to get it yet" ? What, you think they should give them away for free? or for maybe 1p?

People whine that they'd pay a reasonable price to download stuff. The suppliers agree (iTunes, now this), and you still find stuff to complain about.

Even if the content isn't that great...

[SpaghettiPattern]

Even if the content isn't that great...

A bit off-topic but in car programs nothing beats TopGear. I've seen Fifth Gear and I don't like it.

The BBC is probably the only broadcaster I would pay money to (say EUR200 / year ) to watch their programs (note to USA readers: I deliberately didn't use the word shows.) Unfortunately they broadcast free-to-air which means I get the programs for free.

Re:Even if the content isn't that great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Top Gear is just a vehicle for Clarkson.

It ends up being rubbish as his one aim in life is to be contentious - the programme is not about cars, but about elevating the ego of someone who already needs wide doors to get his head through.

Re:Even if the content isn't that great...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing you got right that post was that Top Gear isn't about cars. Absolutely 100% correct -- it is about DRIVERS.

Re:Even if the content isn't that great...

[maxwell demon]

The BBC is probably the only broadcaster I would pay money to (say EUR200 / year ) to watch their programs (note to USA readers: I deliberately didn't use the word shows.) Unfortunately they broadcast free-to-air which means I get the programs for free.

Well, that one's easy: Just pay your TV licensing fee.

Re:Even if the content isn't that great...

[SpaghettiPattern]

>I would pay money to (say EUR200 / year )
Well, that one's easy: Just pay your TV licensing fee.

Yes, that's easy and I have given it serious thought. The thing is I already pay a (compulsory) Swiss TV licensing fee of CHF450.35 (EUR300) per year for programs my family and I don't watch. (CH has an impressive amount of crap TV.)

I think you agree with me that a total of (say) EUR500 per year for TV licenses is a lot. Probably (very likely) I'd be a single puristic fool to do so, with no significant effect.

Besides that, of the CHF450.35 I currently pay, a certain amount already goes to the BBC for programs CH TV buys from them. (In the end the BBC is still the best TV content provider on the globe.) Not as much as I'd like but still a bit. So I'm not completely looting the UK and it inhabitants and I don't feel too guilty about not paying the beeb TV licensing fee.

IMO we currently have the tools to measure exactly how many people watch a certain program. These tools can be used to reward public program makers in a fair way. There should remain mechanisms to prevent minority groups from being killed completely by low viewing statistics.

my 2c

[flatcat]

It should be offered as a download, not streaming. No one wants buffering issues when too many are trying to watch the video, I guess it could be used as a break to get something to eat/drink. And who wants to watch on a computer monitor when you have an AV room?

"Come on family, lets crowd around dad's desk to watch some telly on the 19" flat screen, we'll give the 60" HDTV and 7.1 a rest for the night."

Heck offer it as a commercial free download to Tivo or Replay, but don't time restrict it. Most already skip commercials anyway.

And lower the price, ~$3 for a 43 min show ( thats about all that is left after commercials are removed from an hr show ) is a little steep.

Re:my 2c

[KhalidBoussouara]

It's worse than you think. It's actually about $3 for 4 minutes of content.

Re:my 2c

[evilviper]

And who wants to watch on a computer monitor when you have an AV room?

Why the hell does everyone say this?

It's TRIVIAL to hook a computer up to a TV, even an HDTV.

It makes the best (progressive-scan, volume normalizing, postprocessing) DVD player you've ever seen. Plus it can play all your Divx files, etc.

And if you don't like that, just convert everything to MPEG-2, and burn it to a DVD, it's really rather easy.

Re:my 2c

[flatcat]

In my case, a couple of reasons.

1st my video card does not have a TV out, nor do I have a video card capable of recording TV.

2nd the computer room is 2 floors above the AV room, this would make a hookup pretty tough.

Sooner or later I will get around to getting something that I can connect up to the network to play digital content from the computer on the stereo, but I doub't it would handle streamed DRM content.

Re:my 2c

[evilviper]

1st my video card does not have a TV out,

Most do. If you don't, they are very inexpensive, so I fail to see the problem.

nor do I have a video card capable of recording TV.

How is that relevant in any way? You are talking about WATCHING something on your PC monitor.

2nd the computer room is 2 floors above the AV room, this would make a hookup pretty tough.

Yes, computers are bolted to the floor in the computer room, and can't possibly work from anywhere else.

You're using your own poinlessly crippled setup as an excuse as to why companies shouldn't release videos online.

Re:5th gear/Top Gear

[MartinB]

Except Top Gear is back, and has been for some time, on BBC2

Except that the new Top Gear is a very, very different beast from the old one. 5th Gear is how TG used to be.

Tv Polonia did it for the last couple of years

[Anonymous Coward]

Just they were streaming...

oh wow.. channel 5...

[bridgey655]

For non-UK folk, channel 5 is the anus of british television, the ONLY programs of any interest on there are the gadget show and the occasional Charmed repeat.

The BBC should get their heads behind this so the entire red dwarf collection shall be mine :)

Give them some credit

[CBDSteve]

They were pretty bad to begin with, but they grabbed a share of the market primarily by showing films at 9.00PM every night. Mostly pretty crap films, but with the odd 80's gem in there (eg. Terminator), and their film budget has slowly crept up and up.

And they're running CSI, plus CSI New York and CSI Miami (blarg).

It's unfair to talk about the endless Nazi documentaries and crap soaps, when it's the same for EVERY channel...

This is not really news

[houghi]

The novelty is perhaps that they sell stuff that was never aired. Why not just put all things online that were already broadcast. Look at uitzendinggemist.nl Oh and in the right you will see a show called "neuken doe je zo" roughly translated like: "Fucking is done like this"

There's a reason Top Gear of old was canned

[SpooForBrains]

No. The old Top Gear was about the cars. They tested cars, and gave viewers information about cars.

That's exactly right. The thing you forget to mention is that what you just described is INTENSELY BORING, which is why the viewing figures for the old Top Gear slumped and it was taken off the air. The current Top Gear is good entertainment in and of itself, and is accessible to people who actually aren't all that interested in cars - my wife and I watch it together.

If you want facts and figures about cars, get the magazine or use the internet. This is an entertainment programme, not a factual programme.

Oh, yes, lest I forget, Clarkson and Hammond as well as being knowledgable about cars, are also good TV presenters, which is why they are all over the BBC and Sky. Tiff is a lousy presenter with no star quality whatsoever and isn't pleasant to watch, which is why he is relegated to "five" and doing TV advertisements.

Re:There's a reason Top Gear of old was canned

[10Ghz]

That's exactly right. The thing you forget to mention is that what you just described is INTENSELY BORING

To you perhaps, but not to me. maybe to you the current show kicks ass, but I find it to be all smoke and mirrors, with very little actual content. But hey, some guys also like to watch WWF-wrestling on TV, so what do I know? You like the show, I dislike the show. You are entitled to your opinion, as I'm to mine.

which is why the viewing figures for the old Top Gear slumped

And we all know that viewing-figures are excellent way to determine quality of a TV-show. "Survivor" has high viewing-figures, it must be good, right? If you target your show for the lowest common nominator, you will get the ratings, not matter how crappy the show is.

If you want facts and figures about cars

Funny, as I recall, the old show wasn't about some guy reading out tech-specs of the car (like you make it sound like).

This is an entertainment programme, not a factual programme.

The old show was both, IMO. The new show is nothing but entertainment, and it's not even very good entertainment.

Re:There's a reason Top Gear of old was canned

[iainl]

Viewing figures may not be a perfect way to judge quality, but they are a fair-to-good indicator of whether or not anyone is interested in watching it.

I don't think the BBC ever particularly regarded Top Gear as "quality" television in the first place, so when it stopped being watched they had little worry about killing it.

Re:There's a reason Top Gear of old was canned

[drsquare]

This is an entertainment programme, not a factual programme.
The old show was both, IMO.

It tried to be both but was neither. It was too brief to be of any factual value, and too dry and predictable to be of any entertainment value. The new programme realised that you're not going to fit much information into an hour-long TV programme, and even if you did it would only be a millionth of what you could find out on the Internet or in magazines, therefore it wisely concentrated on the entertainment factor, and it that it has succeeded.

Re:There's a reason Top Gear of old was canned

[sudog]

Tiff is a great presenter: he holds a bunch of world records for fastest laps in the McLaren F1, and he's an extremely capable stunt driver.

The more you watch him, the more you realise the guy's a driving god. The guys on Top Gear are chumps by comparison.

Re:There's a reason Top Gear of old was canned

[RedWizzard]

Tiff is a great presenter: he holds a bunch of world records for fastest laps in the McLaren F1, and he's an extremely capable stunt driver.

The more you watch him, the more you realise the guy's a driving god. The guys on Top Gear are chumps by comparison.

How does his driving prowess qualify him as a good presenter? Those things are not even remotely related.

Re:There's a reason Top Gear of old was canned

[10Ghz]

It tried to be both but was neither.

Again: that's just your opinion. Your opinion is different from my opinion. I liked the old Top Gear. And what are you going to do about it? Punch me in the face?

It's taking off, slowly.

[Fr33z0r]

Since Fox binned My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss, they've been putting the unaired episodes up on their site every Friday.

The quality isn't the best, but it's a hilarious show, and it's always nice to see companies embracing technology.

...but Channel 5 is rubbish !

[Anonymous Coward]

For all the non-Brits out there, you ought to be aware that Channel 5 is without doubt the worse TV channel in the UK.

The content is dreadful rubbish at best and utterly unwatchable the rest (most) of the time.

Basicaly, they are probably just desperate to try and get more viewers. That's why they are doing this.

A Brit that doesn't have a TV any more because there's nothing worth watching 99% of the time.

Re:...but Channel 5 is rubbish !

[Anita Coney]

And the sad part is that Channel 5 is probably better than 99% of the shows on prime time in the US.

Mod me flamebait or troll, but let's face it, broadcast TV in the US sucks.

Re:...but Channel 5 is rubbish !

[bombadillo]

I agree. I lived in the UK from 2001-2002. After coming back to the U.S. I have noticed a ton of shows which are spin-offs of BBC TV on Broadcast and Cable. The more Socialist BBC programing is setting the pace for our Capitalist programming. Maybe it's because they have less sensorship and comercials over there. Granted I did see one of my favortite American show's which they attempted to cross over to the UK. The show was an exact spinoff of "That 70's Show" and was named something like "Those Days". They even picked people that resembled the American cast. Didn't translate very well to UK TV. I only saw it once at 12:00 at night. It was a very sureal moment for me to see UK versions Fezz, Donna and Kelso.

Re:way to go

[NickFitz]

Channel five's site is always that slow. Don't know if it's anything to do with them using ASP.NET, but it's not uncommon for a page to take over a minute to load - and that's on the "accessibility" text-only version (which for some reason has loads of graphics on it).

Rant ahead...

[MoonBuggy]

The Gadget Show? Ugh. I watched a few episodes with interest since there was nothing similar on terrestrial TV, but it is the most non-technical, biased piece of crap I've ever seen. Half the time they spend the show emphasising one insignificant point of a product as the only reason to buy or avoid it.

Their 'review' of the PSP vs. DS was laughable; it basically said that the PSP is better (which I agree with), however their reasoning was based mainly on 'it looks nicer and costs more' and not much else. The Mac Mini review was, if anything, worse. The explained that it wasn't cheap because in their opinion it's useless if it isn't bundled with a £100 pair of speakers, a £350 copy of MS Office and a brand new LCD monitor and therefore you may as well go and buy an £800 Windows Laptop.

Is the cost right?

[joely]

Bear in mind that it costs a similar amount of money to enter the competition at the end of the program:

http://www.five.tv/home/frameset/?content=2278491

Personally I think that's too expensive for what is less than 25mins (bear in mind the ads). Top Gear however is easily worth £1.50.

Re:Is the cost right?

[dacap]

I'd have to agree - Five's charge is too expensive for the content they offer. However, I'd gladly pay 3 US bucks / one pound fifty for a quality show that does not contain advertising.

TANSTAAFL, you know - if we want content, a company needs an income stream to produce it. Free to downloader / viewers means charging someone else, such as advertisers or the government, to cover both creation and distribution. How might one charge for advertising when the total audience is distributed over time and there are associated periodic charges for infrastructure such as servers and ISP connections? Might the audience be found by summing the number of downloads, say, on a monthly basis? What happens when an advertiser decides to cancel his advertisements? For embedded advertising, must the show be withdrawn and new advertising embedded? Could advertising be merged into the download on the fly? These are easy questions for a businessman to answer while putting together a new business model (and the processes and procedures that implement it).

Sigh. I only wish a large media company would see downloading as the new business opportunity it is rather than treating it as a scourge.

DaCAP

Re:5th gear/Top Gear

[dknight]

yea, and the new top gear is BETTER.
I watch 5th gear and top gear (I'm in the states, so it requires some downloading on my part). Top gear is informative, funny, and generally just cool. Fifth gear is trying REALLY hard to be like Top Gear, but fails miserably.

PBS Has FREE DRMless shows

[webzombie]

PBS has had shows for FREE DRMless (Quicktime) viewing for some time.

They are intended for online viewing but I'm sure you could RIP them to a DVD or VCD for TV viewing.

I support PBS (Family Membership) and have always thought they were years ahead of any other media outlet.

Re:"Except that they don't quite seem to get it ye

[Anita Coney]

It's more than just the price, moron. There are other factors too. E.g., the fact that there is DRM. The fact that they are streamed and not downloaded.

To "get it" broadcasters have to make it as easy as possible, not necessarily as cheap as possible. Look at iTunes. I think a dollar (US) is way too much for lossy formatted music. But the rest of the world doesn't appear to mind because Apple made it very easy.

Re:TOP GEAR FIFTH GEAR = #t

[cowlum]

I disagree. I am very much into cars, have been since an early age. I own various hayne manuals have enough knowledge to do most repairs and modifications to my own car. I have been working on my own project cars for almost a decade now and have a fairly good indepth knowledge for all things automotive. Ive milled heads, soon to start converting a carbed engine to efi. upgraded braking systems etc. I know im not going to find a tv show that would be able to discuss cars to such detail and fit into a one hour slot. What makes Top Gear so good at the moment is they dont bother with these details (tiff on 5th gear is not going to teach me anything new), yet Clarkson (top gear) will straight out say what he thinks. ie this car is technically a marvell yet it lacks character and is therefore a bore. thats the kind of information i need. the audi is ffaster but feels like a dinner party while the m3 is like an ibiza beach party. Also my mum quite happily watches the show with me because she enjoys the comedy value. I think they hit a winning formula. Tiff tended to like every car, Jeremy will point out its ruined by its tupa-ware cheap dash.

Top Gear

[jrwillis]

Meh, the only thing on TV from that side of the pond that I'd REALLY like to see is Top Gear. Best damned auto show ever. Long live The Stig!

Make that $230/yr.

[reality-bytes]

If it was $230 a year it would be in line with what the UK TV Licence payer is already paying. There is some ill-feeling about the licence fee right now so any cheaper international licence would be forced down by the public / government.

Re:Make that $230/yr.

[mgkimsal2]

However, the overseas license money is essentially just gravy, so perhaps it could be used to lower the current television license for UKers. ??? If the overseas license was only for downloading content, and that content was delayed by a few days or a week, then a lower cost for us outsiders might be even more palatable. ???

Fifth Gear Torrents

[Matt Clare]

This used to be the place to get Fifth and Top Gear Torrents: http://www.finalgear.com/ His ISP got a nasty eMail a few weeks ago. Are these events linked?

Staged fake raid in Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the same group that got an insider to plant evidence of piracy on a set of servers so that a fake raid could be staged?
So then what's the buzz on background on the fake raid staged by the "piratbyrån" ?

Re:Staged fake raid in Sweden

[sp3tt]

The appearantly fake raid on Bahnhof was done by Antipiratbyrån, the Swedish anti-piracy organisation.
The group I was referring to is Piratbyrån, Sweden's largest pro-piracy organisation.

Can it transcode?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can the 32bit mplayer remove the DRM and store the video in another format? Or perhaps an DRM-free version without recoding?

Five not nearly as bad as some people claim

[DuncMan]

Five (it rebranded from "Channel 5" years ago) carries the various CSI series and various Law And Order series. They also show half decent movies (quality, not quantity) and have some awareness of their programmes (good advertising, clever use of programme or movie footage). I like the way they manage news programming, with unobtrusive bulletins at regular intervals.

They seem to make good, inventive use of a limited budget.

Re:Five not nearly as bad as some people claim

[mlk]

alas I don't think we'll be getting CSI & other US shows, just the made-for-Five stuff. Alas that is normally fairly poor.

Nice try, but wouldn't it be better....

[Exp315]

... to can the DRM and offer downloads including the advertising, just like it aired? They could probably sell advertising in downloads as a separate product, just like they sell broadcast rights in a different market. If it's an old, unpopular show, or one that never aired, they could offer really cheap advertising rates. If it were convenient and legal, I wouldn't mind downloading and watching a show with the ads included. After all, I'm used to watching it that way on broadcast TV, and it might be interesting to see what ads I'd get from other countries. Even more advanced: how about including country-specific ads on-the-fly during download? That would let them charge more to advertisers.

Silly question

[Scrameustache]

Who the hell is gonna buy a car review?
Seriously? Who's got that money just beurning in their pocket and an unrellenting need to see a guy talk about a car on his computer screen?

Dr Harry Hill:

[wild_berry]

"Ah, the wonders of Channel Five. Or Channel Fünf as we've taken to calling it."

Re:TOP GEAR FIFTH GEAR = #t

[j-turkey]

No. The old Top Gear was about the cars. They tested cars, and gave viewers information about cars. The new show is about Jeremy Clarkson. I didn't watch Top Gear because it was "hilarious". I watched it because it was insighful and informative. The new show is just cheap entertainment for the Joe Sixpack.

No, from what I've seen the old Top Gear was similar goofy crap, although Tiff did seem more interested in talking about the car, he was totally opinionated the same way Clarkson is...it was funny then, and is still funny now. (Another bonus for the old show, Vicky Henderson was pretty hot). I think that Tiff was a bit funnier than the Clarkson hour. The thing is, squeezing a series of car reviews into a TV show can't touch the depth of any written article I've seen. I watch it to see cars like the Lotus Elise in a full drift.

The thing that's so compelling for me is that they do stuff that would be unheard of on American television. Senselessy smoking a car's tires in wild powerdrifts doesn't fall into the realm of American TV (although they'll do drag race burnouts and the like...but I don't care about that stuff). A minivan sprint race? No freaking way. I think that's too cool for us. An illegal, unsanctioned race across public roads matching a car up against a train/airplane? Absolutely forbidden in 21st century America -- too many liability issues.

Since I can't see Top Gear on TV here, I have to download the torrents, but I prefer it that way. I could care less about the cool board, and (being an Ameri-can) have never heard of 90% of the stars in reasonably priced cars (although it's funny to see some of them try to find the line on the test track while beating the snot out of that econo-box). If I download the unencumbered torrents, I can skip past whatever section I deem to be lame.

As far as your "cheap entertainment for Joe Sixpack" comment goes -- that's kind of a cheapshot, dont you think? Maybe it's just indicitave of classism in UK culture. We've got our fair share of shows that are strictly car reviews here in the US. Watch Car and Driver TV and Maryland Public Television's MotorWeek. IMO, those shows suck. Car and Driver TV just has truncated versions of their print articles, and Motorweek is horribly boring (no supercool track time, and no "challenges"). I want to see cars get hammered on the track, and arrogant reviewers get it all wrong and spin off the course. I want to see cool stunts, and shit blowing up. I want to see minivans go at it wheel-to-wheel with more contact than you can shake a stick at. I want to see a rally car try to best a bobsledder (or a kid on a skateboard)...and I definitely want to see a Toyota pickup get the torture test until it finally breaks.

No American show would dare air most of this stuff. Furthermore, there are plenty of other shows that are simply car reviews. I welcome the new Top Gear approach with open arms (and dig the hour long format, too).

C5 is crap though!

[BestNicksRTaken]

The problem is, Channel 5 is awful, and 5th Gear is basically a poor TopGear rip-off.

It's like all the rubbish shows that couldn't even make it to ITV.

I can't think of a comparable US station, but it would basically consist of Spanish soap operas, re-runs of 20 year old comedy, awful gameshows and soft-core porn.

Basically, don't expect BBC quality shows....

Re:C5 is crap though!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree C5 goes for the tabloid reader far too often, however, I'd say the output is now actually better than ITV. There have been a couple of recent series about engineering which were quite interesting and would never, ever, have aired on ITV1. The worst mainstream channel, and audience figures seem to confirm this, would have to be ITV1.

car program that "didn't quite make it to air"

[Polo]

But that show is great!

It is on the air in the USA on the speed channel, and I watch it pretty religously.

It's pretty darned funny sometimes as the Brits don't pull any punches when describing cars.

American car programs and magazines seem a little bland when reviewing ... you get all the facts and figures, but have to read between the lines to figure out the real story.

Wonderful...

[Cloud K]

I'm sure all... five or so of their viewers will be delighted.

Seriously does anyone care about that mickey mouse channel? Even if you have digital or a remarkably good analogue signal and can actually get it, it's just nothing exciting at all but really rather cheesy.

I'm just quietly waiting for BBC to do the same thing as they've been threatening to do so :)

Eastenders/corrie in the US

[mgkimsal2]

You can watch EastEnders for free on interactive cable already.

Not if you live in the US. :(

I would certainly pay something to d/l and watch old EastEnders (and Corrie!) espisodes. Granada and BBC are sitting on huge goldmines there and not doing anything with them. I'd pay $1/episode for EastEnders (30 minute episode) and same for Corrie. Given there are *thousands* of each of these which a few generations haven't had the chance to see, making these available to purchase would be fantastic, both for the fans and for the coffers.

Re:Eastenders/corrie in the US

[glesga_kiss]

Fair point. The interactive cable thingy has paid-for things as well, e.g. 50c for a music video. I think $1 an episode of a soap would be a bit steep to be honest. These soaps are on four times a week, thats $4 per week, almost $20 per month! For one program that you currently get for free? I'd say about 10-20c is fair, you'd need to do the maths though to compare to regular cable subscriptions, an average person should work out about even otherwise we will be getting ripped off. Plus, the BBC is a special case altogether, while Corrie is on a commercial station.

Re:Eastenders/corrie in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd pay for corrie?

You poor sad bastard.

Re:Eastenders/corrie in the US

[mgkimsal2]

I know, I know... :) I just saw the christmas 2004 episodes last week - still have a lot of catching up to do!

I'll say it again...

[slashzero]

If tv networks set up bittorrents with commercials, it'd download those instead. Tv is the only thing I use bittorrent for aside from legal software (eclipse, firefox, fedora, etc.) I've been dealing with commercials all my life, It won't bug me now.

Re:5th gear/Top Gear

[RedWizzard]

The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's whisky

What are you on about with that sig? "Scotch whisky" is a perfectly accurate description.

Right Content

[cjb110]

It's the right type of content to expect people to pay for, considering it was watchable for free at one point.

If you were buying car you would probly buy related magazines, and here in the UK that will probly cost you near enough £3...so instead you can buy a review of just the car you want.

What's stopping them? Radio already does it.

[CarpetShark]

You know, I was just wondering today... what's stopping TV stations from distributing over the net? After all, radio stations across the world seem to have jumped on the 'net early on as simply another method of broadcasting that they already do on a daily basis.

Even with traditional broadcasting, some people in neighbouring countries can pick up the signals, and some within the country can't. What if the TV stations "broadcast" over the net, but limit to the average number of hops to get across the country? Would that really be much different from throwing a TV program out onto the air waves for people to pick up and record?

I can only assume it's the relatively high bandwidth requirements stopping them, and that 'net broadcasting will happen sooner or later, as long as DRM doesn't worm its way in first. Maybe that's the whole point of DRM though, and why no one has really rushed to implement it until now.

Big mouth there clown.

[jotaeleemeese]

If DVDs were not overpriced there would not be black market, you er, Bozo.

When was the last time you heard about a black market of tomatoes, chicken breasts or ham? Nope, me neither.

What about cigarrettes? Ah, in places where they are overpriced (like the UK due to high taxation) there is a thriving black market industry that the goverment in the UK hopelessly is trying to stop.

You claim to know about economics, but you sound more like a .. er .. clown.

If goverments are not sucking corps's cock...

[jotaeleemeese]

... then you better find a good explanation aobut how the corps have managed to extend copyright from 50 to 100 years and how evene when it lapses (like the first Mickey Mouse movie) it is short of impossible for people to start copying freely such works.

It may sound like junior HS paranoiabullshit, but that does not mean it is not an accurate description of the state of affairs: the general public is losing access to a social resource due to the bargaining power of unelected entities (the corps) in the political process.