Slashdot Mirror
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.
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".
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
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.
Yeah, like they can stop me from remixing the Dr. Who theme song with dogs barking.
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
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.
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
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.
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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
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.)
irrelevant.
And Sinclair would add as far as 0.009376 of every human being vill care.
Plastic & Metal. Is this sh*t worth livin' 4?
Is diz sh*t worth dyin' 4?
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? :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
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!
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
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?
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
Maybe Ford Prefect can fight off the Daleks and The Doctor can visit Milliways.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Finally, now those British Beaniacs can release their 8-year-in-the-making Mr. Bean tributes remixed to include *words*.
and now back to the fallout shelter...
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!
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.
That is all.
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.
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
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
$fortune
Tomorrow has been canceled due to lack of interest.
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?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
The Chair Corp. comic(*00-12)
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.
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.
And who defines hatred? Do you care to try? Please reply and define hatred.
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'?
I just want to know when they'll let me download the old Blake's 7 series.
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.)
-- Alastair
Wikipedia has a list
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
But which genes are involved when you post a comment to an unrelated story?
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...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
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.
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
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...
[All Your Fish Are Belong To Us]
You know if people abuse this, the BBC will consider it experiment failed and cancel the project.
Greed is going to destroy the world.
Mod me down now and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
I wonder if William Shatner does a version of it?
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
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.
--Muzz
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.
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.
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
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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!
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.
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.
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.
This sig all sigs devours
Disclaimer: I don't work for beeb, but I know some people who do including one of the architect's for this initiative
o ries/2005/05_may/16/imp.shtml
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/st
The BBC is not worth the license fee. It is Tony Bliar's multi-cultural propaganda division.
Join the British National Party
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...)
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.
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
There's rather less racial tension here than in the US :)
And at least here in Ireland, hate-speech laws are quite weak.
Me (Blog)
The ban (such as it is) also affects advocating hatred against gay people, religions and a few other groups.
Me (Blog)
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.
Me (Blog)
"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
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
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.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"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.
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?
Ha ha ha! You said rap "artist".
"Making your own stuff, or paying for it, instead of leeching from the efforts of others?"
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
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%3
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
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Sure, here you go...
It's too late for me to die young
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?
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?
"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.
- Jax