BBC Opens TV Archive to Remixers

megla writes "The BBC has opened its Creative Archive to the public, allowing users to be VJs and remix BBC content. The BBC's "current music" radio station, Radio 1, is running a competition in conjunction with the release. Unfortunately, the license the content is released under requires that you are a UK resident to use it." For British residents, however, this is well worth the television license.

Comments

that is soooo cool

[muzik4machines]

it will make such great footage for parties

The Beeb

[FyRE666]

You know, I never used to be a big fan of the BBC and its licence for UK viewers. However, the great content it's made available via its website, complete lack of advertisements and new shows (recently) have really changed my view. The news service is largely unbiased, far less biased than any US channel/website I've visited. Also, since it's non-commercial it allows them to experiment more, and include news articles and pieces that aren't totally focussed on bringing in page hits.

I did subscribe to Sky a while back, but dropped it after finding the 5 minute ad breaks every 15 minutes extremely annoying (the channels all seem to display adverts at the same time too, to stop channel hopping I guess), and constant repeats. Sky make a huge deal out of any show they're airing for the first time, instead of the 5001st - and pepper them with even more adverts.

So basically, the short version of this comment is: "Fuck Sky, Go Beeb".

Re:The Beeb

[sparks]

Having moved from the UK to Canada a few years back, let me just say that I yearn with nostalgic longing for the time when I could watch TV with five-minute ad breaks only every fifteen minutes.

Re:The Beeb

[stevey]

I don't think many people could convincingly argue that the BBC doesn't produce an enormous range of programs, and services.

But I do personally object to the license fee. As things stand I currently own a TV which I use for watching DVDs almost exclusively.

Despite this I have to pay the mandatory BBC-tax every year, just because I own a television.

I would love to see the TV license changed to a BBC license, and would happily have my set neutered if it meant that I didn't have to pay.

At the moment I watch a lot of BBC produced content on DVD, which I've paid for (Red Dwarf, Faulty Towers, Monty Python, etc, etc), and it irks me that I must give them more money every year for little obvious benefit.

Sure I'm listening to their radio station, and watching their website - but so are thousands of other people in foreign countries (with things like the BBC World Service) who don't have to pay this tax.

Re:The Beeb

[planetoid]

Is it true they have government guys in vans who roll around neighborhood streets scanning for faint electronic signals that televisions yield and pester suspected houseowners who aren't listed as registered and licensed TV owners? Or was that just a cynical work of sature I saw on an episode of Trigger Happy TV?

If true how do they distinguish between a television and some other CRT device on the scanner? Or do computer users who don't own TVs also get harassed?

Re:The Beeb

[pdhenry]

As I understand the UK licensing (licencing) law, you would not have to pay a licence fee if you do not have a device capable of receiving or recording TV programming. If you have a DVD player with no recording capability and a monitor without a tuner you may be exempt from licencing requirements.
See http://www.kevinboone.com/tv_licence.html for a but more information.
Also see http://www.tvlicensing.biz/info_on_tvlicensing/
IANAL.

Re:The Beeb

[jo42]

Yeppers, having 2 minutes of commercials for every minute of content turns yer brain into ICBS mush. And do we really need to see the same ad for the same product 8-10 times during a one hour period?

Now that I aquire my TV shows through other means, where all the brain sludge has been removed, advertisers can go fork themselves sideways with a stiff wire brush.

Re:The Beeb

[Space cowboy]

They have a list of people who own a licence, and therefore by default a list of those who don't. They park the van outside the house, aim the aerial at the windows and pick up the e-m radiation from the CRT screen. I very much doubt it works with LCD/Plasma screens or projectors.

As for the GP post, it is indeed possible to get your tuning circuit removed or remove the aerial connection internally (get an electrician to do it) and then use the TV as a monitor. It's one of the few things the court will accept. To not pay the licence, you have to prove an inability to watch TV, either by not having a TV, or by having one that cannot pick up signals.

Simon.

Re:The Beeb

[ozric99]

If the license fee didn't exist in its current form you wouldn't have the chance to enjoy the shows the BBC release on DVD (arguably having had to pay for them twice, granted), or the countless pages on quite frankly one of the best websites on the internet, or the numerous radio stations, free of adverts and neither would millions of other people around the world.

As a British expat living in the USA I would give my left nut to be able to pay the pittance that is the license fee if it meant I could get back that which I took for granted while I lived in the UK. Hell, if XM or Sirius carried BBC Radio 2 and 4 I'd sign up for all manner of receivers for house and home in a shot!

I guess my point is that it's all very well begrudging them their "TV tax", and I know I've in the past complained about it as much as the next guy, but we rarely know what we've got 'till it's gone....

(Great debian website btw, I made great use of a number of articles recently.)

Re:The Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

Options:

a) remove/dsiable the tuner in the TV.

b) remove the aerial from the TV and replace it with a 75ohm termination. This will keep the local oscillator emissions inside the TV (possibly enough to avoid the detector vans from classifying your "DVD monitor" as a TV)

c) Use a monitor in place of a TV.

d) build yourself a TV with non-standard IF frequencies!

Re:The Beeb

[Seumas]

Wow. You can choose which news station you want in the UK?!

In the states, you just order whatever tier of cable you want (which can easily run over $100/mo) and you get whatever comes with that package. It may mean you get 10 public access stations with naked people smoking pot and talking about jesus, 12 religious nut stations, 10 shopping stations, 12 foreign language stations, 20 sports stations, 20 streaming music stations and 10 news stations, but you can't pick and choose.

Of course, I've found that BBC America is largely crap. It's nothing but thirty different shows about cleaning the clutter from your house and selling it at a yardsale, Trading Spaces and Garden Force. Like, 24x7. I think there is like a half hour of international news at some point during the day, but that's it. otherwise, it's completely indistinguishable from TLC (The Ladies Channel).

I don't think they even do Dr. Who anymore.

Re:The Beeb

[FyRE666]

Sure I'm listening to their radio station, and watching their website - but so are thousands of other people in foreign countries (with things like the BBC World Service) who don't have to pay this tax.

So you're doing your own small part to make something valuable available to people all over the Earth - including third World countries who couldn't hope to run a news service of that standard. What's wrong with that?

Re:The Beeb

[stevey]

Sure if the license fee hadn't previously existed then the shows wouldn't have been made in the same way.

But I can rationalise that away becasue I've been paying the license fee for the past 10+ years, and only recently stopped watching actual new content of theirs.

I think you're probably right overall, I'm probably whining a little bit too much.

(Glad you like the site, I've been pleased with the way its been growing. It even managed to stand up to two slashdottings :)

Re:The Beeb

[joebutton]

> Having moved from the UK to Canada a few years
> back, let me just say that I yearn with nostalgic
> longing for the time when I could watch TV with
> five-minute ad breaks only every fifteen minutes.

The BBC doesn't have advert breaks (although other UK commercial stations do).

Re:The Beeb

[FyRE666]

You know, I wonder why the BBC do some of the things they do in the US. For instance, the UK version of "The Office" was real cult viewing, any office working in the UK could relate the some of the scenes. The US version recently aired over here. Although the plots were vaguely the same, it was horrendously bad. I can't imagine anyone finding it funny, to be honest! I saw an interview where Ricky Gervais basically stated he didn't have much control over it, and didn't want anything to do with the predictable result...

Re:The Beeb

[nickheart]

Haha, some people don't have TiVo......

Re:The Beeb

[Tony Hoyle]

The EM comes from the tuner not the screen, so it works with plasmas and even VCRs.

OTOH as you say they have a list... no need for the technology just find everyone without a license and visit them every now and then to make sure they haven't got a TV.

Re:The Beeb

[Nossie]

or... pay the tv by cash and give them a fake address... thats their list screwed already :D hehe

Re:The Beeb

[dJCL]

How much is this license?

I'd be willing to pay money to the BBC for access to this and othe r content.

Heck, I'd be willing to pay a TV tax of some reasonable pittance just to replace our CBC up here with a much expanded and comercial reduced BBC Canada.

It's not like that's where CBC is getting it's news from anyway due to the strike...

JC

Re:The Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure I'm listening to their radio station, and watching their website - but so are thousands of other people in foreign countries (with things like the BBC World Service) who don't have to pay this tax.

Services like the World Service and the BBC World TV channel are not funded from the license fee but by the Foreign Office. The Government considers that it's worthwhile use of their money for the amount of work it does to improve Britain's image abroad.

Re:The Beeb

[wizzdude]

All you need to do is leave the TV/recording device untuned and unplugged from the arial.

Re:The Beeb

[Gordonjcp]

Despite this I have to pay the mandatory BBC-tax every year, just because I own a television.

No, you don't. I've never had a TV licence, and I've pretty much always had a TV. I don't watch broadcast TV on it though, and I don't have an aerial, or cable TV. You will get lots of threatening letters from the TV Licensing department, but just phone them up and threaten legal action until they stop. Simple.

Re:The Beeb

[drchrisharris]

You also have to pay to cover the marketing budgets for *every other product you ever buy*. These budgets fund the adverts on all commercial TV stations, which you don't watch either.

You have even less choice about paying for commercial TV than you do for the BBC. And you get less benefit.

Re:The Beeb

[SimilarityEngine]

Here you go... it's 126.50 GBP per year, or you can pay monthly by direct debit (which works out a little cheaper).

Re:The Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

including third World countries who couldn't hope to run a news service of that standard.

Like the US, for example?

Re:The Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure I'm listening to their radio station, and watching their website - but so are thousands of other people in foreign countries (with things like the BBC World Service) who don't have to pay this tax.

World Service is funded directly by the UK Government, not out of the licence fee: http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/

Re:The Beeb

[Komarosu]

Dont worry, the list is never up to date. My friend has been getting threat letters from the tv licensing but he has a tv license.

The system they have there is terrible and never works, hell i cancelled my direct debit by accident and they never complained, the next year it was set back up again and no questions asked. I missed about 7 payments on last years license.

Re:The Beeb

[gowen]

You've forgotten the fundamental axiom of 21st Century society : "Fuck Everyone Else"

Re:The Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC They don't actually use the detector vans often/at all these days due to cost.....

They don't have any right to enter your house without a warrant anyway, so if you get someone come, don't let them in and hide your TV at a friends house.

They sent me a threatening letter once (I don't have a TV!) but I never replied and they never followed up.

Re:The Beeb

[TractorBarry]

Well said that man !

I simply cannot understand the mentality of people who pay Sky good money to be advertised at. If they're taking a fee they should show the program without adverts. If they're taking advertising revenue then I'm not coughing up a single penny to watch the content. The price of me putting up with all those retarded advertisments is that the surrounding content is free. People who pay to be advertised at are complete morons. Absolute brain dead morons.

But the real shame about Sky is that the idiots at the ECB (England and Wales Cricket Board) have sold them exclusive rights for cricket starting next year. So just when the great unwashed have started to take an interest in the "greatest game in the world" (tm) it's going to be on poxy advert riddled Sky only. Meh...

But kudos to the BBC for doing another good thing (now if only they'd open up their Peel Sessions archive...)

Re:The Beeb

[scabb]

This is a little redundant, since obtaining a license is useless if you live in Canada. In fact, you're very much capable of watching BBC shows or TV in general without a license in the UK - although you face a lovely fine should you get caught.

Re:The Beeb

[scabb]

I've found that the main tactic is actually sending out a "Get a damn TV license" letter every other week to anyone not listed and registered. In fact, even to those who ARE listed and registered. EVERY single student in our halls would receive a letter, regardless, which must have been a few thousand letters being dispatched quite frequently.

Re:The Beeb

[Deaths Hand]

Sure I'm listening to their radio station, and watching their website - but so are thousands of other people in foreign countries (with things like the BBC World Service) who don't have to pay this tax.

Actually, the BBC World Service isn't paid for by the license fee. It is paid for by a seperate grant from the Foreign Office, so that comes out of general taxation.

Re:The Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

A colour TV Licence costs £126.50 and a black and white licence costs £42.00.
You will need to renew your TV Licence every year.

  You can pay over the phone, at a Post Office branch or a Paypoint outlet. To find out more, just choose from the options on the left.

If you would like to pay for your TV Licence by cheque ( hint English spelling ), please make your cheque payable to TV Licensing and write your name, address and postcode on the back. Then send your payment to:

Customer Services
TV Licensing
Bristol
BS98 1TL

It is, however, only valid and available in the UK

Re:The Beeb

[Sinus0idal]

How? They can just visit all the houses without a TV license.

Re:The Beeb

[Nossie]

so you dont allow them in... when they go run out and buy one -- when they come back with the police you have a license and I dont think they can do anything about it... although IANAL..

do you honestly think they have the resources to do that? I think it works better if the residence has never had a license ...

but they dont check everyone..

Re:The Beeb

[SimilarityEngine]

Admittedly, yes, but hey at least now he knows how much it costs ;^)

Re:The Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, if XM or Sirius carried BBC Radio 2 and 4 I'd sign up for all manner of receivers for house and home in a shot!

Why not set up a box to play the Real Audio streams the BBC happilly provide for all it's radio stations?

Hell, with mplayer -dumpstream you can even arrange an appropriate time-delay so you get the days programs at the "correct" time of day!

Re:The Beeb

[blane.bramble]

do you honestly think they have the resources to do that? I think it works better if the residence has never had a license ... but they dont check everyone..

Yes they do. My parents have a holiday home in Scotland. It has no TV. It has never had a TV. There is no TV signal receivable (hillsides in the way). They still get "you are watching TV without a license" letters on occasion to the address. The database that is used is of ALL addresses that do not have a license against them - so not giving your address when buying a TV is pointless, your address is already in the database unless you have bought a TV license.

Re:The Beeb

[TheoGB]

Yes the post realises this: They lived in the UK. Their point was in reference to the ad breaks on UK commercial television (as raised by the parent poster's comments on Sky).

Hope that made sense as I can't remember people's names!

Re:The Beeb

[David Horn]

You can even own a colour television without paying the licence fee, remember reading a little while ago about a squabble between a consumer and the BBC's licencing people. Consumer won.

I intensely dislike the TV licencing people. They send me constant red letters (looking exactly like an unpaid bill), threating fines / imprisonment / dismemberment because I haven't got a TV license.

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact I haven't got a fucking TV? Wankers. Even more annoying are the claims that their "detector" vans can sniff out a television. Err, right. My arse. Maybe you could detect a television in the 1950s, but not now. And a plasma television?

Re:The Beeb

[TheoGB]

when they go run out and buy one -- when they come back with the police you have a license

But...then you've just bought a licence. Err. Doesn't that make you officially a failure in the criminal world? Clearly you didn't spend seven years at Evil Medical School to come up with that, did you?

Re:The Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

I love those documentries on arctic snowstorms too.

Re:The Beeb

[Nossie]

yes.... but if they only knock your door once every 5 years than thats a £480 saving

*shrugs*

Re:The Beeb

[Angostura]

Apropos your final paragraph.

1. The World Service isn't funded from the license fee, it is funded directly from the Foreign Office.

2. Are you saying you would be happy to pay a radio tax? or are you saying that the BBC should cut off all its streaming services from overseas viewers?

Re:The Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen the US version of Red Dwarf? They only made a pilot but it is absolutely dreadful. They also managed to destroy Men Behaving Badly, although that wasn't particularly funny in the first place. Probably the worst case of Americanising a British TV series has to be Fawlty Towers, it's so bad it'll make you cry.

Re:The Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

Right.... and a tuner card inside a PC has its tuning circuitry inside a shielded metal box to screen out all the electrical noise associated with square wave pulses racing around a motherboard at multiple frequencies up into the gigahertz. So how much leaks out of that tuner circuitry? And how much leaks out of the faraday cage of a case that most pcs are in?

Hell, even my VCR, which can double as a handy tuner, comes in an earthed metal box.

Electrical circuitry has come a long way since the days of a three foot wooden box filled with coils and glowing valves. Modern equipment is plastered with badges from electrical standards organisations: and I doubt that maximising stray EM emissions from TV circuitry is a standards requirement.

Detector vans are just designed to be driven around to frighten the punters. www.tvlicensing.biz has not yet found anyone who has been prosecuted on the evidence of detection equipment: which is odd given how much publicity emphasises how effective it's supposed to be.

Re:The Beeb

[TheoGB]

Regrettably they don't just do these things in a random manner: The first houses to be checked are those that had a licence last year and failed to get one this year, hence next year they would almost-certainly knock at your door, especially as you'd been unhelpful the last time...Unless you moved to a new place!

Re:The Beeb

[LordSnooty]

Sure I'm listening to their radio station, and watching their website - but so are thousands of other people in foreign countries (with things like the BBC World Service) who don't have to pay this tax.

The World Service is actually paid for by a grant from the UK Foreign & Commomwealth Office, and is therefore not paid for by licence-fee payers. There are lots of people in continental Europe who are able to enjoy MW & LW broadcasts eminating from the UK, but there is little that can be done about this broadcast overspill. I'd certainly agree that these people should pay something towards the fee. If the BBC have any sense, they will be trying to set up an international payment system now. A fee to allow people use of the TV Player, for example. I wonder if international access is something being discussed during the current charter review?

Re:The Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

But I do personally object to the license fee. As things stand I currently own a TV which I use for watching DVDs almost exclusively.

Despite this I have to pay the mandatory BBC-tax every year, just because I own a television.

Take a look at this site. It has letters from TV Licensing explaining that you don't need a licence if you only watch pre-recorded material.

Sure I'm listening to their radio station, and watching their website - but so are thousands of other people in foreign countries (with things like the BBC World Service) who don't have to pay this tax.

The BBC World Service is not paid for by the licence fee. It is paid for by the Foreign & Commonwealth office out of general taxation.

Re:The Beeb

[smallfries]

No you don't actually. This is a common misconception. If you use your tv for watching DVDs *exclusively* then you don't need to pay a licence. There is somebody in our office in the same situation who made the TV Licencing people agree. However, if you do watch tv, even just occasionally - then you *should* have to pay a license fee.

Re:The Beeb

[speculatrix]

The TV tax (for that's what it is in the UK - you have to pay it whether you watch BBC or not) is UK£120, or US$200.

Interestingly, the European Union have been looking into the way various countries grant special rights to the national broadcaster, and the way they are funded, as it looks as if most (incl. the BBC) break EU rules on gov't subsidy/support and taxation rules. There's also a "television without frontiers" project, but like most EU initiatives it dodges the issues of the commercial TV companies operating a cartel to control pricing of high-value channels such as sports.

The bang the /. drum, yet again, globalisation seems to actually translate to screw the workers with outsource jobs or reduced salaries, combined with screwing the consumer by locking down regional sales (Sony's PSP springs to mind).

I note that slashdot editor didn't read the license page, it doesn't say anything about having a TV license to access this BBC archive.

Re:The Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, I've found that BBC America is largely crap. It's nothing but thirty different shows about cleaning the clutter from your house and selling it at a yardsale, Trading Spaces and Garden Force. Like, 24x7. I think there is like a half hour of international news at some point during the day, but that's it. otherwise, it's completely indistinguishable from TLC (The Ladies Channel).

So it's a pretty accurate reflection of BBC output. Your description (a channel full of mindless shite aimed squarely at female bubbleheads) certainly sounds a lot like BBC 1 in the UK -- and ITV for that matter.

Re:The Beeb

[2sheds]

Err, yes they can. The detector vans work by picking up the signal generated by the local osciallator in your tv's tuning circuit (well, maybe not yours :). Doesn't matter if it's a crt, flat screen, whatever.

They can even work out which channel you're watching, because the frequency output by the local oscillator is always 39.5MHz above the frequency of the broadcast channel.

Of course it's a bit different now digital telly has arrived, but the principle remains the same, and if you've got satellite/cable etc. you should be in their database anyway. In fact, whatever method you use to receive TV short of streaming over the 'net, there's going to be some giveaway signal at some point. This site is pretty informative:

http://www.tvlicensing.biz/detection/

Re:The Beeb

[isorox]

Despite this I have to pay the mandatory BBC-tax every year, just because I own a television.

No you dont. Detune your TV, unplug your aeriel, and you dont need to pay. You do need to pay if your watch Corronation Street.

Sure I'm listening to their radio station, and watching their website

You don't need a TV license for either of those things.

with things like the BBC World Service) who don't have to pay this tax.

The World Service (radio) is funded by the foreign office, not the TV license. World TV is funded by advertisers and is not available in the UK (theoretically).

Re:The Beeb

[Shano]

Having simultaneously worked and lived in student halls (actually doing network support), I got quite a bit of information on this.

The wardens are required to allow inspectors into the building, but not individual rooms. There is no law that requires you to allow TV inspectors into your room, house, or whatever (indeed, this applies to anyone without a court order or warrant). I don't know whether you can do this as an individual.

Supposedly the law doesn't distinguish between owning and using a TV, but this has in fact been successfully challenged. There are forms for organisations that basically say "this TV is used as a monitor for VCR / DVD recordings, and never receives broadcast signals".

If you deny having a television, and refuse entry to inspectors, I very much doubt they'll go to the trouble of pursuing things further. As I understand it, even detector vans are a myth, and the technology doesn't actually exist (or if it does, it isn't used).

Re:The Beeb

[tolan-b]

Detector vans exist but aren't really used, they're just a boogie man to scare the punters. Most enforcement is done via databases. TV retailers have to pass on your address details for example.

To go back to the great great [...] grandparent's comment about requiring a licencse when not viewing tv, that's incorrect.

If you call the license people and tell them that you won't be using it to watch TV then they'll ask you to detune all the channels, and in theory shouldn't hassle you again (they left me alone at least). They said an inspector may come round, but that as long as the channels are detuned from TV then all will be well.

Re:The Beeb

[matthew.coulson]

Wrong.

I've had huge arguments about this :)

If you are not receiving or recording TV programming then you don't need a license. Regardless of whether a tuner is incorporated into the device.

A console + TV doesn't require one, for example.

Of course, getting them to believe you is another matter...

Re:The Beeb

[brainburger]

The license isn't to own a TV. It is to receive TV broadcasts (whether BBC or not).

If you use your TV only for DVD watching, and you don't have it installed and set up to receive broadcasts, then you don't need a license.

Re:The Beeb

[tolan-b]

You can have a normal TV detuned from the channels and not pay the fee if you inform the license authority. I've done it and they were fine about it

More : http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161643&cid=135 17554

Re:The Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worth noting that not all the fee goes to the BBC (although the vast majority does)

Re:The Beeb

[Gordonjcp]

Sorry, that's nonsense. Go and read the TV Licensing site. You *do not* need a TV licence if you do not use your TV to pick up broadcast signals. It doesn't matter if it's got a tuner or not.

Re:The Beeb

[JohnFluxx]

We don't have a TV, and one day got a letter saying that they checked for a tv signal on 5 different occasions, and did not find a signal. The letter went on to say that they will not check again for another year (under harrassment laws, it said.)

Also if you have a tv, but don't watch tv, the best option is to get it modded so that it can't recieve tv signals. It's easy and cheap to do.

Re:The Beeb

[stridebird]

And how much leaks out of the faraday cage of a case that most pcs are in?

It leaks out the same way the broadcast signal came in, my anonymous friend.

Of course, you can box your antenna in a faraday cage too, that'll work...but your reception may not be so crisp. Read some more of the www.tvlicensing.biz site you quoted to learn about that.

Re:The Beeb

[Taladar]

Haha, some people still watch TV...

Re:The Beeb

[tolan-b]

You don't need to get it modded though, just detune the channels.. That way if you decide at some point you do want TV then you don't have to get the mod undone, or worse get a new TV.

Re:The Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, so-called "enlightened" self-interest. The curious idea of Ayn Rand that the world would be a better place if everyone who was fortunate enough to be born into a rich American family took care of #1 and left the less fortunate to live in squalor, starve, and ultimately die of preventable disease.

(Yes, I know she was a Russian Jew. So she got lucky and got into America, and then turned round and started saying "fuck everyone else". That just makes her opinions even viler, you know?)

Re:The Beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

The license was originally a radio license and covers funding for BBC Radio, so if you're listening to it you are enjoying part of what your license pays for. If you logon to bbc.com - ditto.

Red Dwarf and Monty Python DVDs only exist because the programs were originally created under licence fee funding (in fact, at a point before the idea of making profits from later DVD sales started driving film and TV production - now it's factored into the budgeting and influences the type of programs and films that get made).

I'm not saying that's the only method of funding -I prefer Father Ted and Black Books and both of those were made by Channel 4. But it is one that allows good programs to be made without commercial pressure.

Equally, you live in the culture that public sector broadcasting has created - it's John Peel day next month and think about the influence that the BBC's ability to do non-commercial broadcasting has had on popular music.

Contrast BBC News with ITV News - even if you use watch it, I think the BBC has a positive effect on the country as a whole - much like the argument for universal free education (you might not take advantage of it yourself, but it's better to live in an educated society)

And yes those abroad can access much of this for free while we have to pay for it - but isn't that getting a bit petty? Move abroad then. It's only 'free' to access BBC material on the web because nearly everyone in the UK pays a TV license. If people substantially move to viewing content without a tuner then the tax will move to 'owning software that allows the display of broadband content from BBC'.

Or why not actually take advantage of what's on offer rather than watching re-runs on DVD. You could watch the excellent re-run documentaries on BBC 4.

Hell, it might even be a good model for O/S funding :-)

Re:The Beeb

[Midnight Thunder]

Hey, I don't mind if they stay on strike at the moment since at least we are getting BBC news instead. Much more international content, and not just that which is rating oriented.

We really need the CBC/Radio Canada to be sorted out - this needs to be a channel for the citizens, not for the advertisers.

Re:The Beeb

[zootm]

Remove the part with your name, tear up the letter, and put it in the return envelope.

I'm aware it's immature and costs other people (including me) in their licences, but damn it feels good.

Re:The Beeb

[drsquare]

I used to be a big fan of the BBC and its licence for UK viewers. However now I've realised how bad it really is. Nothing but braindead soaps, decorating programmes, buying/selling programmes (usually houses or antiques), reality TV, cooking, gardening and hospital programmes. Everything decent seems to come from America these days.

The news is dumbed-down beyond belief. In a half hour news programme you'd think they'd be able to get a lot of information in, but they only manage about a dozen items at most. It's padded out with waffle and irrelevence, rather than hard facts. This insults the viewer by assuming we watch the news for entertainment rather than information.

Programmes are dumbed-down and drowned out by background music and attention-seeking idiot presenters. Just have a look at Horizon to see how shallow these shows really are. When's the last time we had a decent comedy, like Blackadder? Between programmes they show some stupid thing with people dressed in red. How much did this cost to make? I don't know why they can't just show which programmes are coming up instead. But then that would be informative, which goes against the BBC's charter.

They employ Natasha Kaplinsky.

They talk over end credits (which should be banned, it's irritating and patronising, as if we only have a 5-second attention span), they show endless repeats, they shamelessly promote themselves, they threaten you over TV licences (even if you've already bought one), they're complacent, they're run by the London middle-class, things are decided on politics rather than what's actually the best decision.

They don't even have sport anymore, it's all on Sky. The lottery programme insults everyone's intelligence, especially the people who made it, its presenter should never be on TV again.

In the end, the BBC is just ITV without the adverts. Better than a lot of American channels, but then that's not an achievement.

Re:The Beeb

[MarcheurDuCiel]

You should have moved to the Netherlands. An over-enthusiastic broadcast beam means we get 1 & 2 for free over here. Mind you, it's slightly more crowded than Canada...

Re:The Beeb

[M1FCJ]

Once in a while I get a letter from the licensing office. The last one was somewhat threatening in its nature. They can come and I will refuse them entry. That is within my rights. I don't own a TV and I don't have to prove a negative (which is impossible to do so, that's why we have so much problem with God, you can't prove it doesn't exist).

Most people I know just gives in and pays for the tax regardless. On the other hand, I can live without Big Brother, thanks. :)

Re:The Beeb

[tepples]

If you have a DVD player with no recording capability and a monitor without a tuner you may be exempt from licencing requirements.

But are PAL monitors without tuners actually sold to British consumers, so that they can prove to the license enforcers that they are not receiving television programming?

From the agreement.

[Nuclear Elephant]

Unfortunately, the license the content is released under requires that you are a UK resident to use it.

From the license agreement:

Furthermore, and hence all licensees must have no greater than three complete teeth in the mouth of the primary licensor and shall use the term "get your knickers in a twist" no less than thrice a day. Finally, all licensees shall hereinforth have a full understanding of the term cockup.

Re:From the agreement.

[endy64]

Well for a start it's "Cock-up" and secondly being a UK resident I don't think it's Unfortunate (rather the opposite for me) but then as a T.V. license payer I wouldn't object to other countries using the content under the same terms either so lets hope it gets extended :)

Re:From the agreement.

[Anonymous Coward]

all licensees shall hereinforth have a full understanding of the term cockup.

we Brits understand what a cockup is, of course our American cousins are better at putting it in action.

Re:From the agreement.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just looking at the photo on your web site. Is that your real forehead, or did you have some sort of extension fitted?

I can tell that you're an American, because you've A) "found Jesus" and can't shut the fuck up about it, B) you're hideously foul, fat, stupid and ugly and yet can't stop drawing attention to yourself and C) you've only got one joke (British teeth) and you can't even make it sound funny.

You're from the bible belt - statistically you're far more likely to have dental issues than any British citizen. Is there a reason why you don't open your mouth in that foul photograph of yourself you so foolishly make available to the general public?

Re:From the agreement.

[montyzooooma]

I'm with you. Go the whole hog and let whoever wants to use it, use it. I think the problem is the Beeb have sold off the international rights to a lot of the shows, or they were outright co-productions so they can't legally be seen to let everyone have access. Note I said be seen to.

Re:From the agreement.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, yes, and all Americans play the banjo and marry their cousin. The stereotype of British teeth is 50 years out of date.

Re:From the agreement.

[rsynnott]

This is coming from an immense, hyper-Christian butter-troll. Thanks for demonstrating that some people do, at least, fit the US stereotype, if not the UK one :)

Re:From the agreement.

[brainburger]

Eh? - All the Americans I know play the banjo!

Re:From the agreement.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Yes, yes, and all Americans play the banjo and marry their cousin. The stereotype of British teeth is 50 years out of date.

Eh? - All the Americans I know play the banjo!

So there you go then; the stereotype is half out of date.... unless you're related to "all those Americans you know that play the banjo" that is!! :D

Re:From the agreement.

[Anonymous Coward]

Man I feel sorry for you, I mean, you're 29 and yet you go to church every Sunday mornin', praise the Lord like a freaky raghead from the afgan highlands, have this terribly unreadable website (XHTML compliant? Woo-hoo you're l33t, now learn to use larger typefaces dumbass!) where you rant out all your frustration for your pitiful failure of a life.

Hey, you're american, you have a big friggin' rifle under your pillow so use it! Shoot your head off please. But wait, before that take out your coach too! Yeah the asshole that made you write that shite piece of resume.

Jeebuz, you're a snobby prick boasting superior hacker skillz with the verizon site snafu. Dumbass, go research your spam filtering AI on your ULTRA-AVANT, Laminated, Simulated, Replica-mahogany desk, With the strategically-placed, Imported, very hip water pipe, while your lady goes down on the butcher

Hah, blow me I'm mr. anon!

Remix!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't every rap artist jump on this one at the same time...

UK residents only? Who cares.

[planetoid]

Yeah, like they can stop me from remixing the Dr. Who theme song with dogs barking.

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[ScootyPuffJr]

People in the UK definitely care. I believe they simply would not be allowed to let anyone outside of the UK access the content as it would be in breach of their licensing terms -- in the interests of fairness, money paid by British TV license holders should not be spent on giving content to those in other countries who don't pay.

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[ScrewMaster]

Bark-bark bark, bark-bark bark, bark-bark bark, BARK BARK BARK
Bark-bark bark, bark-bark bark, bark-bark bark, BARK BARK BARK

Damn, boy. I think you got a winner here.

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[planetoid]

But are they really going to experience a monetary, or some other kind of, loss if someone outside the UK uses BBC samples in a completely non-profit production? After all it strictly requires "No commercial use" anyway.

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[planetoid]

I'd have a basset hound woof the bass portion of the song, and then get a chihuahua to do that high-squelchy synth lead that kicks in.

Screw the license restriction

[nurb432]

If its been broadcast, its in public domain as far as I'm concerned.

I could care less about any 'restrictions', once I've seen/heard it i can/will do what i want.

Dont like that? Then dont broadcast it.

Re:Screw the license restriction

[jleq]

You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of copyright law, or law in general. Just because you believe that you have a right to do something doesn't mean you have said right, especially if the law explicitly states that you do NOT. There is a certain amount of fair-use that applies to broadcasted content, but it is by no means public domain.

Dont like that? Then dont broadcast it.

I believe that all of the media corporations (and their lawyers) would strongly disagree with that statement. The laws at the moment also contradict you.

Re:Screw the license restriction

[DDiabolical]

You're the reason companies stop doing nice things.

Re:Screw the license restriction

[GrahamCox]

I could care less about any 'restrictions

How much less could you care? We need to know!

Re:Screw the license restriction

[Cyno]

Have you heard of Negativeland?

Here in the US copyright law has a hard time preventing fair use of content. It does prevent verbatim copying, but the use of content for the purpose of parody, education, reference, etc. is still allowed. Its hard for them to argue that you violated copyright by using a sound clip.

And if the BBC is releasing this content for this purpose I doubt they would seek legal action to stop you, even if you technically may be in violation of some form of copyright law.

In any case if you just wanted to play around and release your mp3s on a p2p somewhere I doubt anyone would notice. The only place you might run into problems is trying to commercially license and sell your remixes. Should consider moving to the UK if you want to do that.

Re:Screw the license restriction

[szaz]

Surely you mean you COULDN'T care less?

Re:Screw the license restriction

[nurb432]

The industry doing nice things? You are nuts.

Re:Screw the license restriction

[Sheridan]

Small correction to the above: I assume you mean Negativland (noe "e").
--
I'm not politically incorrect, I'm just differently articulate

Re:Screw the license restriction

[Cyno]

yeah them, thanks :)

Re:Screw the license restriction

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he meant that, no matter what laws they have on their side, they will not be able to stop him.

Now, it may very well not be legal, but I don't think you're going to stop it any more than you can stop, say, speeding.

The only way to make bits uncopyable is exactly like what you do to dehydrate water (you don't distribute them at all, in any form).

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can hardly call it open then.

i read through the website, and nowhere did it ever say it was "open". it says it's available under their licensing terms, which excludes you. so what's your bitch about?

I would even *pay* for access to BBC content if I could, but thats not even allowed either.

you don't have to pay to have a /. account but apparently you are incapable of signing up for one of those.

This is just as bad as normal copyrighted content in terms of lack of freedom.

boo-hoo! waaaahhhh! the content doesn't belong to you. you don't pay to support the BBC. and the BBC can do whatever the fuck they want. stop thinking you have this automatic right to everything. life's a bitch sometimes, i know, but get over it.

(and fyi, i'm not a UK citizen.)

Kosh would say...

[PlasticMetal]

irrelevant.
And Sinclair would add as far as 0.009376 of every human being vill care.

Proxies with UK servers?

[antdude]

Hmmph, I would love to download the ant video clip but I am not from U.K. I wonder if you can use an UK server as a proxy. Has anyone tried it? :)

Re:Proxies with UK servers?

[planetoid]

Hmm, maybe NASA and the Smithsonian should do the same with .uk visitors on their websites. All fair game isn't it?

Re:Proxies with UK servers?

[JuzzFunky]

They also have a video of a penguin and any fool knows that penguins are licenced under the GPL!

Re:Proxies with UK servers?

[ultrafunkula]

I'm in the UK, I'll email you a copy if you like. Just don't tell the BBC.

Re:Proxies with UK servers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, UK proxy servers will work, try 80.229.250.119 on port 80

Re:Proxies with UK servers?

[antdude]

ultrafunkula: Sure, but I prefer Web/FTP host. You know where to look.

AC: That proxy server was too slow. :(

Re:Proxies with UK servers?

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK pays towards NASA. It isn't actually yours.

Also, you're an idiot.

Re:Proxies with UK servers?

[Anonymous Coward]

As if we really need your help, bunch of ugly limey chav rotten-toothed wankers.

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[Anonymous Coward]

i read through the website, and nowhere did it ever say it was "open". it says it's available under their licensing terms, which excludes you. so what's your bitch about?

"The BBC has opened its Creative Archive"

you don't have to pay to have a /. account but apparently you are incapable of signing up for one of those.

Okay, tell me where to find all these archived Dr. Who episodes and other brit stuff I like to watch. For free.

I'm waiting...

boo-hoo! waaaahhhh! the content doesn't belong to you. you don't pay to support the BBC. and the BBC can do whatever the fuck they want. stop thinking you have this automatic right to everything. life's a bitch sometimes, i know, but get over it.

I never said I had a right to anything. The BBC is trying to present this effort as making their content "open" when its not. I never said the content belongs to me either (although I generally do not view something intangible as having an "owner").

Maybe you should keep your emotions out of a debate when someone disagrees with you.

definitely not a free-as-in-speech license either

[planetoid]

4. No Endorsement and No derogatory use The Creative Archive content is provided to allow you to get creative with content, not for campaigning, soapboxing or to defame others! So don't use it to promote political, charitable, or other campaigning purposes and remember to treat others and their work in the way that you'd expect them to treat you and your work...with respect!

licence - it's not a joke

[weighn]

For British residents, however, this is well worth the television license.

I thought that caper ended in the 70's, but a quick googling reveals that "Each household's colour TV licence cost £10.08 every month in 2004/2005".

Do they still have black vans driving around with tv-detector dishes sticking out the roof?

Re:licence - it's not a joke

[GrahamCox]

Do they still have black vans driving around with tv-detector dishes sticking out the roof?

Yes and no. There are still detector vans but the equipment has got a lot smaller, more sensitive and even portable. So the fact that a van is in the area is not as much of a giveaway as it once was. The vans are not run by the BBC, but a completely separate government agency.

Personally while I think the license fee approach is a good one - it really does seem to raise quality well above what the "free market" delivers, the enforcing of the payment by the licensing authority leaves a lot to be desired. They are possibly the most "big brother" like of all of the govt, with quite unpleasant tactics and attitude. It borders on the facistic.... they assume that everyone has a TV set, so you have to prove you DON'T have one in order for them to leave you alone. Ever tried to prove a negative? Also, they have automatic right of entry to your home without a warrant, though only to search for a TV set. They send you very strongly worded authoritarian and intimidating letters to make you pay, especially if you have no record of payment because you don't have a TV set.. the list goes on. A really pretty unpleasant bunch of people.

Re:licence - it's not a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

10 quid a month is a bargain compared to Sky TV or Cable where you pay them (£35+) and still have to watch advertising every 15min as well as billboards round the sports arena

taking the "profit" out of media is the best thing ever

Re:licence - it's not a joke

[joebutton]

> So the fact that a van is in the area is not as
> much of a giveaway as it once was

Giveaway? Surely the primary point of the vans is to convey the impression that you're likely to get caught watching TV without a licence.

> they assume that everyone has a TV set, so you
> have to prove you DON'T have one in order for
> them to leave you alone.

They have to prove that you DO have one in order for them to prosecute you. They will tend to send intimidating letters though.

> Also, they have automatic right of entry to your
> home without a warrant

No they don't.

> They send you very strongly worded authoritarian
> and intimidating letters to make you pay,
> especially if you have no record of payment
> because you don't have a TV set

True, and quite irritating.

Re:licence - it's not a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

You just described the IRS here in the Peoples Republik of Amerika......

Re:licence - it's not a joke

[rillian]

We found it varied quite a bit depending on where you lived. East London? quite hard to get rid of them. Richmond? No problem. In both cases we had a big-ass CRT, but no telly (if I may mix dialects).

Re:licence - it's not a joke

[rjw57]

Also, they have automatic right of entry to your home without a warrant, though only to search for a TV set.

Quoting from the back of my TV license:

Our officers may ask to inspect your license and television equipment at any time, but you do not have to let them into your home without a search warrant.

Re:licence - it's not a joke

[91degrees]

But TV licencing is a private company, contracted by the BBC. While I don't like being intimidated by the government, I dislike being intimidated by a private company that pretends it's part of the government even more.

Re:licence - it's not a joke

[speculatrix]

As someone who gave up watching TV in february, allowing the license to expire, I agree with the above, and can state the following:

the gov't outsourced the collection of licenses to TV Licensing Ltd, so it's no longer the TV licensing authority, but they use the very similar logos and imply they have the full force of the gov't

the letters they send get progressively nastier and more intimidating. every advice I've read says to totally ignore them. they are agressive and accuse the householder of being a criminal and watching without a license.

they have sent one person round, a neighbour was house-sitting at the time, and he sent them away and refused entry - they will invite themselves in, but can't enter without a warrant

no detector vans have been seen

----

from what I've read, the law courts see watching TV without a license as a civil, not criminal act, and fines for a first offense are typically only UK£200, not the UK£2000 that TVL threaten.

Re:licence - it's not a joke

[ScuxxletButt]

You could always eat the TV before Mr. Right Bleeding Bastard gets there...

Re:licence - it's not a joke

[logpoacher]

A work colleague rented a flat in London, and he had no TV set. After a little while, he received a standard "you have not paid for your TV licence" notification, which had a number of tick-boxes on the reply slip to allow you to say why you felt you were exempt....

And I do not have a TV set wasn't an option!

So he wrote in huge letters, in a big black marker pen:

HAVE NO TELLY!

and sent it back. He didn't hear from them again.

Re:licence - it's not a joke

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Surely the primary point of the vans is to convey the impression that you're likely to get caught watching TV without a licence.

No, they put posters up saying "two households in this street don't have TV licenses". They also have a a picture printed in lemon juice depicting simply an enormous face, more than a metre wide: the face of a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black moustache and ruggedly handsome features. One of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it runs.

Re:licence - it's not a joke

[joebutton]

>> Surely the primary point of the vans is to
>> convey the impression that you're likely to get
>> caught watching TV without a licence.
>>
> No, they put posters up saying "two households
> in this street don't have TV licenses".

In order to convey the same impression. I don't understand what the word 'no' is doing in that sentence - 'yes' would make more sense.

Re:licence - it's not a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

posters are cheaper than vans and have much the same effect

Fan Fiction fun :)

[davidwr]

Maybe Ford Prefect can fight off the Daleks and The Doctor can visit Milliways.

Bean there done that...

[viva_fourier]

Finally, now those British Beaniacs can release their 8-year-in-the-making Mr. Bean tributes remixed to include *words*.

Re:Bean there done that...

[rjw57]

Goodness - you mean that the BBC creative archive will contain clips from ITV programmes? How clever of them :).

Re:Bean there done that...

[Sirch]

Sorry to spoil the fun, but Mr. Bean is produced for ITV, and not the BBC.

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[Seumas]

Silly Brits. Who do you think you are -- Americans?!

You can't just go around telling citizens in other nations what licenses and laws they must obey!

and why is that an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well in most countries apart from the US there is no absolute right of free speech. In most civilised countries there is free speech as long as it is not being used to abuse people. For instance, as far as i'm aware, the European human rights act does not allow you to say abusive thing if they are purely for hatred reasons, or likely to incite a criminal act (like violence).

Most Europeans feel that some of the stuff that people say in the US is abjectly abhorrent and that by hiding behind a free speech clause they are then propagating hate. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that there is so much racial tension over there.

I think it's fair that they have this statement in explicitly to prevent abuses of the material. For instance taking 3 violent seconds from a drama with a non-white character and then using this in a racist propaganda film. Or allowing a political party to create high budget films by clipping together bits of others works.

A further leap of imagination could also be that under its charter the BBC has to be politically neutral (at least in UK politics, don't know about the rest of the world). Without this clause it could open up to future abuses to create politically biased works after "re-mixing" to be used for campaigning.

I personally don't have any issue with this clause.

Re:and why is that an issue?

[planetoid]

For instance, as far as i'm aware, the European human rights act does not allow you to say abusive thing if they are purely for hatred reasons

Yeah, and such laws have in the past been used against people who merely disagree with certain policies such as open immigration, or even asking for true equality! Who was that British author who said rural property owners should enjoy the same rights that gays and Muslims enjoy, and the next day he was being charged under some hate speech law? Not to mention speech codes on American universities that have been used to silence opinions that dissent from college-leftist mob mentality.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons that there is so much racial tension over there.

That's more or less akin to blaming Grand Theft Auto for violence or pornography for causing rape; blaming certain freedoms instead of the actual cause of a problem isn't going to solve any problems.

Be as happy as you want; as long as I don't have to live under such draconic laws, I couldn't care less. Just don't pretend this license follows the spirit of the free-as-in-speech doctrine in the media/entertainment world that the GPL and BSD licenses have allowed in the software world.

Re:and why is that an issue?

[wheelbarrow]

And who defines hatred? Do you care to try? Please reply and define hatred.

Re:and why is that an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Racial hatred means that hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins". http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/toolkits/rh020506 .htm

Also the act only covers incitement to racial hatred. It doesn't penalise you gor being a racist (thats your view) but it does peanalise you if you try to indice others to hatred.

Re:and why is that an issue?

[wheelbarrow]

I asked you to define 'hatred' in general, not the subset of racial hatred. The original post talked about banning expressions of hatred. Do you want to change that to limit the ban to 'racial hatred'?

Re:and why is that an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's more or less akin to blaming Grand Theft Auto for violence or pornography for causing rape; blaming certain freedoms instead of the actual cause of a problem isn't going to solve any problems.

Well, no not really. I was saying that it is probably one of the many and complex issues that has caused your country to have such an issue. And there is a substantial differance here.

With speach it's an issue of as a society saying that we belive that it is not acceptable and you should be punsihed for making a stement along the lines of "X should be killed because of their skin colour/religion, why don't we all gang together to do this etc".

GTA is not encoraging you to go out into the streets and commit a crime, nor is porn. These do not infringe, or encorage the infringement, of otherpeople rights. Okay so there are some feminist arguments that all porn infringes on the rights of all women but i think that is a seperate argument to this one.

If there was a LARP game that encoraged people to break into houses or steal cars i would have thought that the organiser would face prosecution anywhare in the world. But by your reasoning because they are encoraging violence against others on because of the colour of their skin they should not be prosected?

This is also still a distraction from the main point. I'm paying for this service and i don't particularly want it then to get used as a way to promote anything. If people want to make adverts they can bloody well pay for the material themselves.

PS the case against Robin Page was dropped http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2676859.stm being charged with a crime is not the same as being prosecuted or even convicted of it.

Re:and why is that an issue?

[planetoid]

Well it probably already is illegal to outright incite and encourage violence against anyone in the UK (as it indeed is illegal in the US) -- why should new laws exist that make distinctions of such a crime based instead on a victim's skin color rather than the abhorrent nature of the perpetrator's actions? It's the crime itself, not the motive, that any free country should prosecute for. There's also the fact that not all racially-driven hate speech is of a violent or violence-inciting nature; why should a bigot be put in jail for saying "I hate negroes" or some other such stupidities in public? I would even argue that hate speech legislation only encourages racists to be sneakier and craftier at spreading racism through innocent-sounding innuendo and doublespeak, even worse when such crafty racists make it into government positions such as the BNP members (although I know they're a tiny minority of actual politicians... at least I hope so).

To jail or even merely prosecute anyone on racism and racism of a speech alone, with no distinction about whether or not it actually incited violence, would be a bit of a waste of resources and a definite abuse of authority.

Re:and why is that an issue?

[mike2R]

Most Europeans feel that some of the stuff that people say in the US is abjectly abhorrent and that by hiding behind a free speech clause they are then propagating hate. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that there is so much racial tension over there.

The major advantage however, is that all these things are out in the open. In Britain we seem to think that by silencing abhorrent speach we are dealing with the root cause of the problem, instead of just brushing it under the carpet. I'd much rather have it out in the open where people can argue against it, instead of having people who think like that just talking to other who agree with them.

Re:and why is that an issue?

[rsynnott]

There's rather less racial tension here than in the US :) And at least here in Ireland, hate-speech laws are quite weak.

Re:and why is that an issue?

[rsynnott]

The ban (such as it is) also affects advocating hatred against gay people, religions and a few other groups.

Re:and why is that an issue?

[rsynnott]

Anyway, the US has recently attempted to dramatically curtail the freedom of speech of its citizens with that ridiculous flag-burning thing. The right to political protest is rather more important than the right to advocate hatred, IMO.

Re:and why is that an issue?

[zotz]

"Also the act only covers incitement to racial hatred. It doesn't penalise you gor being a racist (thats your view) but it does peanalise you if you try to indice others to hatred."

For they are all honourable men.

all the best,

drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/53984

Re:and why is that an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

"why should a bigot be put in jail for saying "I hate negroes" or some other such stupidities in public?"

It's legal to do so in the UK and the EU Human Rights Convention does not prevent you from saying it. What you are prevented from is inciting violence on the basis of someone's skin colour, or using racist language in a situation which would cause a breach of the peace. In other words the same sort of restrictions in the USA that famously do not defend the right to shout "Fire!" in a theatre. However the likes of the Daily Mail and Telegraph seem to like to suggest that the laws proscribe things other than what is actually the case.

As happy as I am...

[frank_adrian314159]

As happy as I am with all of the interesting stuff the BBC is doing via the web, I really wish they hadn't had to kill their shortwave bradcasts to North America to do it. And though I can listen online when I'm around a computer and can even catch their broadcasts to other regions, I miss being able to hear them clearly almost any evening hour without shelling out for a satellite radio. I'd even trade all of the whizzy web crap for that.

Re:As happy as I am...

[cyborg_zx]

I for one would not object if the BBC had a licensing scheme for users outside of the UK to take advantage of the content (although technically it is the UK government, not the BBC, that controls TV licensing). Clearly the BBC is a well respected media organasation and there's no reason I cannot see that opening up subscription based content to users across the world couldn't generate extra revenue and shutup some of the nay-sayers who have it in for the BBC and public broadcasting.

Shame

[Namronorman]

It's really a shame you have to be a UK resident, I know the BBC has a lot of good material. I'm especially a fan of BBC America, it's quite nice to watch some of the classics on TV sometimes and get news that is sourced outside of the US.

It's kind of like getting a 2nd opinion when watching the World News on BBC

Re:Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

At the very least, the BBC should open this up to registered Democrat voters, surely?

Re:Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

2nd opinion?

Re:definitely not a free-as-in-speech license eith

[Hatta]

Yeah this whole thing is so restricted it's essentially useless. How can you make anything of cultural importance if you can't promote an ideal, or share it with people from other countries?

Realplayer?

[PromANJ]

It's a pity most of the video clips and audio clips on BBC (atleast the Doctor Who stuff) are in rm/ram format. Is there a VLC codec/plugin/gizmo for those formats yet? I installed realplayer a while ago (unfortunately), but now it 'expired' and I can't play/view anything with it.

Re:Realplayer?

[Namronorman]

They have a free realplayer: http://www.real.com/realplayer.html?country=US&lan guage=EN&opage=rpchoice&type=dlrhap_bb&pp=player&s rc=realplayer,090105rpchoice_1_2_2_1_1_1

Re:Realplayer?

[Tony Hoyle]

Try RealAlternative... all the rm goodness with none of to adware.

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternati ve.htm

Re:Realplayer?

[fiddlesticks]

wait. you're on /. and you can't get realplay to work?

jesus

Re:Realplayer?

[cliveholloway]

Even better, download the Real player from the BBC. They have a deal with Real so that the version you get via their web site is stripped of pretty much all the crap. Note - I haven't tested this download recently, but it was true 6 months ago when I downloaded from there.

cLive ;-)

Re:Realplayer?

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

Even with this version, you still have to keep an eye on it. Having a software firewall that stops it connecting to sites that you don't want it to is still a good idea...

And there's always mplayer if that's an option for you. Listening to the Peel tribute prog from BBC 7 that way right now.

Re:Realplayer?

[fm6]

A worthy project. My only qualm is this: every time in the past third parties have tried to clone Real software, they've been sued out of existence. How long will it be before the Real lawyers get around to this project?

UK's IP law in other nations?

[Money for Nothin']

Unfortunately, the license the content is released under requires that you are a UK resident to use it."

Uh, so what? If a remixer in the U.S. takes BBC content and uses it, WTF can the U.K. do? Their laws don't apply here any more than our laws apply to them, so I guess the proper phrasing would go something like "those BBC wankers can bloody well bugger off!"

That isn't to say the U.S. wouldn't extradite somebody to the U.K. for prosecution, but assuming it's some other country from which the offender won't be extradited, I don't see how the BBC thinks it can seriously enforce this license. But then, IANAL, and I'm not familiar with WIPO's powers (if they have any worth speaking of to begin with)...

Re:UK's IP law in other nations?

[Tony Hoyle]

Interesting idea.

If a remixer in the UK takes a britney spears album and uses it, WTF can the US do? Their laws don't apply here any more than our laws apply to them.

See the logical fallacy?

International law (and *especially* copyright law) simply doesn't work like that.

Re:UK's IP law in other nations?

[mollymoo]

What a naive view of the world you have. There are of course international treaties which govern copyright and have been since the 19th century.

Wikipedia has a list

Re:UK's IP law in other nations?

[Money for Nothin']

See the logical fallacy?

No, I don't...

The situation is bound by international sovereignty. The laws of Ethiopia, Niger, Australia, Brazil, etc. do not apply to us, do they? No they do not. Nor do the laws of the UK, Germany, Canada, Japan, or anywhere else. Thankfully, the laws of North Korea and China do not apply here (otherwise, our freedom of speech would be destroyed, among many other freedoms!).

In the U.S., if somebody took a Britney Spears album and remixed some songs without permission, they might be liable for infringing copyright law.

But if the same person lived in Sweden and did the same thing -- or heck, if they outright *pirate* the music -- the U.S. government can't do a damn thing about it even if it *is* a crime, because our laws do not apply to Sweden. The RIAA's lawyers could certainly send the Swedish person a nastygram, but as long as the Swede does not enter the U.S., they have no reason to be concerned.

A real-life example: people who flee to live in Switzerland on a variety of charges (murder, torture, etc.) are not extradited, because Swiss law doesn't do that. People have fled the U.S. on murder charges to live with relatives in Switzerland and there isn't a damn thing the murderer's victims in the U.S. can do about the murderer, criminally or civilly.

So again, I ask the question: WTF can the Brits do if a non-U.K. person remixes their music?

Ultimately, it is a matter of contract law. But in order for the contract to be enforceable, the laws of the nation in which the contract is agreed-to must support its enforcement...

Re:UK's IP law in other nations?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a remixer in the U.S. takes BBC content and uses it, WTF can the U.K. do?
They will politely ask you not to. It's the British way.

Re:UK's IP law in other nations?

[Anonymous Coward]

So again, I ask the question: WTF can the Brits do if a non-U.K. person remixes their music?

You're really missing something critical about copyright law. Because of international copyright, the material is protected in every country that signed the Berne Convention (AFAIK, that's pretty much everywhere). In other words, the thing that prohibits you from distributing BBC content in the US is not British law but American law.

So, when you release your remixed Dr Who theme, a crime has been committed in your own country and the BBC can bring a case against you through the American legal system.

Re:UK's IP law in other nations?

[Burning Plastic]

AFAIK, the BBC have copyrights in the US as well as the UK, so even if the UK copyright wasn't an issue, the US one would be...

Re:UK's IP law in other nations?

[bastardsquadmuzz]

They could possibly block by IP address, which I believe they did until recently for access to the Radio broadcasts, but I don't know if they will or not. Personally I support the BBC keeping it for British residents, as we have paid for the content to be produced. It's a shame that America seems to believe it has an unwavering right to every other country's content sometimes.

Re:UK's IP law in other nations?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just had a British friend send me all the blocked BBC videos.
And how conveniently unoriginal and cliche that you blindly tag this as some kind of imaginary American arrogance. I think most Internet nerds like myself, regardless of national origin, can and will get copyrighted material if they want it, whether the holder likes it or not.
Don't release it on the Internet if you don't want it to end up International.

Re:UK's IP law in other nations?

[Lurks]

Uh, so what? If a remixer in the U.S. takes BBC content and uses it, WTF can the U.K. do?

This remarkably naive view point ignores the fact that the rights for BBC IP are assigned to BBC Worldwide incorporated in the US.

There wouldn't be any need to extradite you. Instead you could be sued in the good 'ol US of A. And the great thing about that? In the US they can afford better lawyers than you can.

Re:UK's IP law in other nations?

[nagora]

Ultimately, it is a matter of contract law.

No, it's a matter of copyright law and since the US and the UK have very close ties in that field, and the BBC has a legal entity in the US which owns the copyright, that means they can drag you into a US court any time they want.

China can't so easily, I agree, but the US's relationship to other countries varies; the UK is one of the closer ones (much to the UK population's disadvantage).

TWW

Re:UK's IP law in other nations?

[LazySlacker]

I can't understand why these 'Insightful' postings continue. The BBC's license agreement is there to protect the BBC.

The BBC don't really care if you use the content - the company that brought the rights to the material in your country, i.e. the owner of the IP will. The BBC is trying to stop getting itself sued!

Re:UK's IP law in other nations?

[vidarh]

Bzzzt. Wrong. I hope for your sake that nobody takes you seriously. Local law governs what is legally copyrighted, however to my knowledge no country has copyright laws where the origin of the product mattered.

Most countries you're ever likely to visit are additionally signatories to the Bern convention on copyright, which specifically requires these countries to mutually recognise and enforce eachothers copyrights.

As a result any work copyrighted in the US is equally protected in Europe and most other parts of the world and vice versa.

As a result, if someone in Sweden did the same thing, while the US government can't do a thing - which is about the only thing you got right -, the Swedish government could. And depending on what you'd do with the content you'd be liable for anything from damages to massive fines and possibly imprisonment.

And no, this is certainly not a contract issue, but a copyright issue. Depending on what you'd do with the copyrighted work, you might be lucky ad only be risk a civil trial or you may have a full fledged criminal case on your hands.

(IANAL, but it doesn't stop me from knowing more about law than the poster I just replied to...)

Re:UK's IP law in other nations?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If a remixer in the UK takes a britney spears album and uses it, WTF can the US do?"

The USA doesn't do anything, but the copyright holders (Ms. Spears, writers, musicians, and not least one of the large music conglomerates) will sue in the UK.

Stallman is not the example you want

[wheelbarrow]

Referring to GPL as a standard for ultimate freedom does not work any more. As we speak, Stallman is working on a new version of the GPL that is quite draconian. It seems that the little revolution that Stallman wants is not going fast enough so, like most impatient Utopianists, he is turning into a tyrant.

Re:Stallman is not the example you want

[planetoid]

I cited the GPL more as a familiar face rather than anything about its quality. I've actually been quite wary of the GPL ever since I realized that it doesn't take scope of code derivation into consideration -- if you use just, say, TWO lines of GPL'd source code in your program, even if the other 50,000 lines of code is original and yours, you're still required by the license to GPL your entire program unless you find something else non-GPL to replace those two lines of code you borrowed.

I think it was also rms who, a few months ago, suggested to authors of code libraries to dump the LGPL for the GPL, so as to require all other programs who use those libraries to also fall under the GPL. He needs to shut up and just keep to his own business about licenses and leave the important decision-making up to the public. He comes across as a wee bit pushy as it is now.

Re:Stallman is not the example you want

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to shut up and keep to your own business.

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[LurkerXXX]

I just want to know when they'll let me download the old Blake's 7 series.

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[AJWM]

Dr. Who theme song?

Can you post the lyrics to that? ;-)

(FWIW, as a kid of about 10, back in the 1960s, I had a 45 RPM vinyl record of the Dr. Who theme music, and I watched (the original, B&W) Dr. Who faithfully on CBC (Canada) after school.)

Re:I've known about this for a while now.

[chartreuse]

But which genes are involved when you post a comment to an unrelated story?

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[wizzdude]

You know if people abuse this, the BBC will consider it experiment failed and cancel the project.

Greed is going to destroy the world.

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[martinX]

I wonder if William Shatner does a version of it?

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that it isn't fairness towards the licence fee payers that's behind this. It's fairness towards commercial competitors who aren't particularly keen on unfair competition from an institution which is funded by taxation.

Outside of the UK, the BBC has to operate on a commercial basis. Its overseas operations can't receive subsidies (e.g. from the licence fee) and have to pay commercial rates for licencing BBC content.

Anything else would be in breach of most countries' fair-competition rules.

Re:definitely not a free-as-in-speech license eith

[LazySlacker]

So don't use it to promote political, charitable, or other campaigning purposes

That is there because the BBC's charter has the same restrictions. The BBC is not allowed to promote any of the above - so it has to publish it's material under the same restrictions.

Is it enforcable - only in the 'big' cases. Does anyone care. I doubt it.

My bet is that someone had a good idea "let's publish the programs for people to use" and then the lawyers got hold of it and I'm glad they have - I don't want my license few paying legal fees.

What about paying BBC PRIME Subscribers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always said paying the BBC PRIME satellite subscription is almost useless.

They don't give you anything extra apart from the broadcast. There's no magazine, no extras at all.
Give this to subscribers if you want to attract them.
It's not super cheap after all and you increased the rates recently.

One size fits all... AGAIN!

[Octatonic]

Typical. We have a house in London, pay a TV license (because we have a TV there, although it is never watched), but we spend an awful lot of time living in Switzerland. Because right now I am in Switzerland I cannot download content. Oh well, at least I am getting better weather. oct.

Re:One size fits all... AGAIN!

[Anonymous Coward]

:-( You live in a country which thrives on helping the rich avoid justice and taxation, then you whine because you don't get its benefits :-(. If you want I can start up a legal fund to help you overcome this cruel oppression :-(.

Re:One size fits all... AGAIN!

[Filecore]

Well, if you really want to...

Assuming you have a computer and ADSL in London, why not leave your computer in London on, and Rdesktop/SSH/whatever in from Switzerland. Download material to your London PC then transfer across to your Swiss PC.

Yes of course its not ideal, but at least this way you get to see the stuff.

Re:One size fits all... AGAIN!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my, you split your time between London and Switzerland. Well I think my advice to you is... um... hmm...

fuck off? :(

Re:One size fits all... AGAIN!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can keep your weather. This rain might win us the Ashes ;)

Re:As happy as I am... SOLUTION!

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen to any station from around the world: look for Digital Radio Mondiale (Texas Instruments manufacture the chips) http://wwww.drm.org/ (And no, not the dreaded DRM...). You can get digital broadcasts from around the world (depending on what you pay for the kit). Simple systems can be found with USB ports etc.etc.

Another *%&% license

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't the BBC just use the preexisting licenses? Their own versions are essentially carbon copies of the Creative Commons ones, and even have logos with "by" (for attribution) on them.

I'm glad the CC idea can't have (c) applied, or the beeb would be screwed.

(this message released under the Common Archive License-by-nd)

This is only part of wider digi media strategy

[pglee]

Disclaimer: I don't work for beeb, but I know some people who do including one of the architect's for this initiative

The idea is that everyone will be able to access any BBC programming (TV and radio) for 7 days after broadcast, you watch what you want, when you want.
Its a great concept, perhaps a bit restrictive. It's a BBC branded player incorporating DRM (to keep the 7 day limit) and distributed via P2P
There is also an interesting piece in today's Times, p68 (UK)

"BBC New Media announced in May the next phase in the development of the BBC's integrated Media Player (iMP): an extensive three month content trial that will begin in September 2005.

iMP offers UK viewers the chance to catch up on TV and radio programmes they may have missed for up to seven days after they have been broadcast, using the internet to legally download programmes to their home computers." taken from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/sto ries/2005/05_may/16/imp.shtml

Re:This is only part of wider digi media strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. iMP and Creative Archive are different projects within the BBC and within the hosting infrastructure. And don't make me laugh about the technical design for iMP.. I understand it changes on a day to day basis :-/

iMP is serving media as per your description. Creative Archive is not. They _might_ meet further down the road sometime, but I'd be _really_ surprised.

Re:This is only part of wider digi media strategy

[pglee]

I wasn't saying that. Simply they are both part of the overall strategy of the BBC's New Media group to make more of the BBC's content available to the public in a variety of forms. I appreciate that they are very different beasts, in fact I'm not sure they need to meet.

I am unaware of the design basis, you are probably right!

Propaganda

[www.bnp.org.uk]

The BBC is not worth the license fee. It is Tony Bliar's multi-cultural propaganda division.

Re:Propaganda

[cyborg_zx]

Yes. Being in favour of the BNP you probably wouldn't say that. Be sure however Tony Blair probably loves the BBC as much as you you love blacks. -5 Idiot Racist.

Re:Propaganda

[www.bnp.org.uk]

The fact that you resort to using the 'racist' word says much about you. -5 Bad English.

Re:Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid racist - please drown yourself in chinchilla urine, and do the world a favour in the process.

Re:Propaganda

[youngerpants]

BNP...

Nice... for our American bretherin, the BNP (British National Party) is the equivalent of the pre-war Nazi party.

Anti-immigration, deny the holocaust, fascists and bigots. Their chairman is currently undergoing legal scrutiny for hate-crimes.

And you expect people to take your comments seriously when you let everyone know what strange bed-fellows you have.

Why dont you post comments on a more supportive site; i dont know, some neo-nazi propoganda site where you can trade copies of Mein Kampf with like-minded idiots

Its depressing to think that you still have a voice

Idiot

Re:Propaganda

[cyborg_zx]

Eh?

Re:Propaganda

[cyborg_zx]

Eh? You what? Is that 'Bad English' in the grammatical sense (in which case perhaps you should buy a dictionary) or in the narrowly defined BNP concept of what being English is?

Re:Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said my friend. You anger gives you focus and strength.

The BBC is part of the machinery of evil and likes to paint a pretend picture of harmonious multiculturalism and gay marriage tolerance for the agenda it serves. It should have been wound down about a decade ago, it is a source of great regret that it is still pumping out it's vegetative poison.

And interesting, those who responded to you attack the BNP, and they automatically repeat the BBC-type line on the BNP without even thinking. Some even say you should not have a voice.

The BBC has trained them well, so you are quite correct to point out the dangers of the BBC. The joke is these suckers stupidly pay for it, thinking it is unbiased, when the bias is just a bit too clever for them to easily point the finger at. These people are building their own prisons and will continue to build them. Pity them, their time will come.

Re:Propaganda

[DDiabolical]

Look, I understand someone such as yourself may be too stupid to understand the issues deeper at the heart of 99% of the British population, but don't spread misinformation.

Anti-immigration, deny the holocaust, fascists and bigots.

You do realize, the BNP, has multiple black members, right?

You do realize that would be the equivalent of Jewish Nazis, right? You do realize you're a dumbass, right?

Re:Propaganda

[www.bnp.org.uk]

The BNP have an ethnic liason committee that has Asian members, but the party itself only accepts Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Celts. The BNP also has/had a Jewish candidate.

The problems immigration cause are as plain as the nose on your face but people still spout the "anti-immigration is evil" nonsense; they are known as Lemmings. They don't have the mental capacity to think for themselves so instead utter tripe fed to them via the biased media.

And what is "The Holocaust"? There have been so many. Maybe it refers to the Communist holocaust against the peasants and Christians of Russia and Eastern Europe during the Bolshevik era i.e. the holocaust nobody ever mentions.

addictive tv ?

[Anonymous Coward]

i wonder if the addictive tv guys will use the archive to produce a "BBC special" dvd... http://www.addictive.com/

BBC

[csrster]

As of this precise moment I'd be happy to pay the BBC licence fee just for the right to watch British Channel 4. British people will surely know why. Others probably won't care. Except for a few die-hard Douglas Adams fans.

Do i care?

[nurb432]

Oh, i know and understand what the laws say, but I dont happen to accept those laws as being valid.

So i really dont care.

Re:definitely not a free-as-in-speech license eith

[zotz]

When I see Non-Commercial, I tend to move on. I make my stuff available for commercial use and I try not to waste my time working with anything less.

Where would we be if the Free Software licenses had a non-commercial clause?

http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
http://zbcw.sourceforge.net/

all the best,

drew

TV licensing: no warrant = no entry

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

TV licensing people in the UK do not have a right of entry to your home without a search warrant.

They are often accused of being overly aggressive in their approach, because they will make unannounced visits and then ask for entry anyway, which has been viewed as intimidatory by many residents. See here for an entertaining grilling by the House Select Committee on Public Accounts of some senior BBC staff about their approach to checking on people who don't pay the licence fee. (Note that these proceedings were back in 2002.)

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[mrRay720]

"The BBC has opened its Creative Archive"

I guess you don't understand the meaning of the word "opened". It doesn't mean "give aaway for free to any loser that wants it". It means giving those who have paid for it access to it.

Okay, tell me where to find all these archived Dr. Who episodes and other brit stuff I like to watch. For free.

You can't - and why the hell should you be able to? If you want to see it - pay like everyone else.

I never said I had a right to anything. The BBC is trying to present this effort as making their content "open" when its not. I never said the content belongs to me either (although I generally do not view something intangible as having an "owner").

So you want free access to something that isn't yours because of what? Your incessant whining? The BBC haven't presented this as making their stuff "open" in your twisted "give it to me for free OMG why won't you give it to me? Why do you hate freedom?" meaning of the word open. It means open to those who have paid for it, which is 100% reasonable. Well, reasonable to everyone who isn't a selfish moron who wants everyone else to pay in order to bring them free stuff on a silver platter.

Don't like it? Fuck off and make your own damn content.

Re:definitely not a free-as-in-speech license eith

[mrRay720]

Where would we be if the Free Software licenses had a non-commercial clause?

Making your own stuff, or paying for it, instead of leeching from the efforts of others?

Anyway, how come you want the BBC to release their stuff as free for any use, but you won't do the same with yours? Why should they give you their stuff for free for you to make money from, but you won't give me your stuff for free?

Oxymoron

[hypervinetest45]

Ha ha ha! You said rap "artist".

Re:definitely not a free-as-in-speech license eith

[zotz]

"Making your own stuff, or paying for it, instead of leeching from the efforts of others?"

Please, you may be a leech, I can't say. I try to contribute, why would you make such an unfounded accusation?

"Why should they give you their stuff for free for you to make money from, but you won't give me your stuff for free?"

Did you look at the links I gave?

Also check this link:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A %22drew%20Roberts%22

I do make my stuff available for people to make money from. That is a hugh part of my point.

I started makeing my stuff available in this way after getting involverd with the whole Free Software thing and wanting to say thanks or contribute in some way.

Also, I think non-commercial is dangerous as courts and lawyers have a strange way of considering things commercial that regular people might not. And these days, copyright violations can carry large fines and jail time.

all the best,

drew

OT but..

[hplasm]

The word "peanalise" gives rise to unsavory images.

Perhaps it should be circumscribed?

oo- now I am at it..

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[Nosher]

Sure, here you go...

Diddle-e-dee, diddle-e-dee (repeat x3)
Wooo-ooo-ooooooooo. Oooo, ooooooo.
Wooooo-ooo-oooooo-oo-ooooo-oo-ooooo.
Diddle-e-dee, diddle-e-dee (repeat x3).
etc.

Go directly to jail

[tepples]

I dont happen to accept [copyright] laws as being valid.

What happens when you meet up with a law enforcement officer who does accept copyright laws as being valid?

Re:Go directly to jail

[nurb432]

Last i heard, the 'law enforcement officer' does nothing other then serve you papers.

Its the 'owner' that sues you.

Re:Go directly to jail

[tepples]

Its the 'owner' that sues you.

So if you don't believe in copyright but the judge does, what happens when you refuse to pay damages to the copyright owner after you're found liable? Then the "law enforcement officer" enters the picture again.

Re:Go directly to jail

[nurb432]

Remember Ruby Ridge?

Re:Short version

[dtungsten]

So basically, the short version of this comment is: "Fuck Sky, Go Beeb".

You couldn't have put that at the beginning to save us some reading time?

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[JaxWeb]

"Okay, tell me where to find all these archived Dr. Who episodes and other brit stuff I like to watch. For free."

You, sir, are an idiot.

APD sufferer so take pity

[Anonymous Coward]

Antisocial Personality Disorder

look it up

American Description
Diagnostic Criteria

      1. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
                  1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
                  2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
                  3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
                  4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
                  5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
                  6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
                  7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
      2. The individual is at least age 18 years.
      3. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years.
      4. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic Episode.

get help young man, you might have a better life

Re:UK residents only? Who cares.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't like it? Fuck off and make your own damn content.

actually, I just had a British friend hook me up with all the content I couldn't download, and all you can do about it still is bitch I bet. Dontcha just love this international brotherhood? Or are you one of those BNP wankers?