BBC and YouTube Deal in the Works?

Algis writes to tell us the BBC is in the process of striking a deal with YouTube to allow BBC content to be posted on YouTube. Previously the BBC has demanded quite a few video be removed from the Google-owned video sharing site. "The deal between YouTube and the BBC however, is more interesting still, since YouTube is a global service that is completely free to all users. Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube. Instead, they're watched online on the YouTube website, or the YouTube player is embedded in other websites for no cost to the user. This is the nature of content sharing that has seen YouTube grow from a company making no money, to a company worth almost $2billion to Google, in less than two years. Quite what the BBC-YouTube deal will entail is anyone's guess. It is highly, highly unlikely to include full-length current BBC shows. What could be possible is the addition to YouTube of much older shows, such as classics like 'The Young Ones' or 'Faulty Towers', in an effort to boost the shows' exposure and increase DVD sales of these shows."

Comments

Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, yes they can...

http://www.arrakis.es/~rggi3/youtube-dl/

Re:Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

SHH! You'll ruin it for the rest of us!

I mean, uh, mod parent down. That troll doesn't know what he is talking about.

Re:Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube?

[antoinjapan]

The first rule of YouTube-dl is that you do not talk about youtube-dl, G*ddamnit.

Re:Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube?

[Yvanhoe]

Mod it funny but consider it insightful. A lot of non-technical people believe that one can actually prevent a user from dowloading a file while allowing him to view it. We all know this is a shallow dream but this issue is fairly important for IP holders, they think they have a real control about how and when you can view the content.

Re:Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube?

[microbee]

You must have not heard the latest invention from Vista. Everything will finally be fixed.

Re:Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube?

[networkBoy]

Kind of like how I discovered how noscript happens to fix information gathering pages for downloads. Case in point VMWare's player download page required you to enter all sorts of details about yourself. Your clicking on submit triggers a javascript to validate the fields prior to allowing the submit function to go through. With noscript active you can submit a blank page. No doubt this was to reduce server load for validation of the fields.
Ironically though I had to enable JS to actually initiate the download of the app.
-nB

Re:Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube?

[maxume]

Or with a bookmarklet(no typing!):

http://1024k.de/bookmarklets/video-bookmarklets.ht ml

Re:Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube?

[timeOday]

I wouldn't assume for one moment that YouTube's commercial content channel will be just like today's "funniest home videos" ad-sponsored channel.

Which is a shame, since youtube is about the only video source that consistently works for me on Linux. But we all know Hollywood will never distribute movies that way.

Re:Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube?

[fallenangel150974]

I would guess the thinking of some naive fool was 'If we force em to have Javascript on for the download they must have it on when they complete the form, after all nobody would intentionally turn off their Javascript just to avoid entering personal data would they?'.

I completely hope this means that

[zappepcs]

soon we will see ABC, NBC, CBS, and the rest waiting in the back of the line, looking at the door to YouTube and trying to bribe their way in like someone who doesn't know the bouncer at a good night club.

I think I did the analogies just right on that one...

Re:I completely hope this means that

[Anonymous Coward]

soon we will see ABC, NBC, CBS, and the rest waiting in the back of the line, looking at the door to YouTube and trying to bribe their way in like someone who doesn't know the bouncer at a good night club.

I think I did the analogies just right on that one...

soon we will see ABC, NBC, CBS, and the rest timing out in the bottom of the search results, looking at the popular links page to YouTube and trying to Page Rank their way in like someone who doesn't know the tech. at a good SEO club.

Re:I completely hope this means that

[superpulpsicle]

Expen$ive talkshow host
      views=1,050

Random girl licking jello
      views=1,003,420,535,232

Re:I completely hope this means that

[zappepcs]

No matter how funny I find what you said, if people are watching YouTube on their pc's and not 'must see tv' then the only ads that will be worth paying for are the ones that manufacturers pay YouTube for. If the networks are not knocking on YouTube's door soon, they will lose out worse than the *AA's are losing out now.

Re:I completely hope this means that

[zecg]

Link to the jello licking girl, plz?

Re:I completely hope this means that

[Rakshasa Taisab]

I don't know about jello licking girl, but i highly recommend searching for "funny girl". Although she speaks japanese, it's still obvious what she's talking about for those of you who don't.

Re:I completely hope this means that

[freakmn]

soon we will see ABC, NBC, CBS, and the rest waiting in the back of the line, looking at the door to YouTube and trying to bribe their way in like someone who doesn't know the bouncer at a good night club. I can't say much for the rest, but it appears that CBS is already in.

Can't download?

[RyanFenton]

http://keepvid.com/

That, plus a set of video converters/transcoders will give you a poor-mans (well, with a computer) Tivo for BBC content with this new agreement.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Can't download?

[blueZhift]

It's certainly true that there are a number of tools that allow YouTube content to be downloaded, but I suspect that most "ordinary" users aren't likely to be using these any time soon. Why? Because in most cases, what would be the point of doing the extra work required. Most computer users just want to keep it simple.

Re:Can't download?

[Air-conditioned cowh]

Why spend money on something to do that?

I found the FLV file in my /tmp directory under a cryptic name. Just renamed it to .flv and it plays on VLC no problem.

Re:Can't download?

[h2g2bob]

UnPlug, KeepVid, Ook Video Ook and Debian's youtube-dl are all free.

Fawlty towers....

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Faulty Towers, Basil will not be happy!!

Re:Fawlty towers....

[Rob T Firefly]

Read the hotel sign. The corect spelling is "Farty Towels."

Re:Fawlty towers....

[ashitaka]

I prefer "Flay Otters"

Re:Fawlty towers....

[zaxus]

My personal fav: Flowery Twats

Re:Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

More like DHIMMItube! 'struth, folks!

Shows can be downloaded

[Anonymous Coward]

See KeepVid and the dozen or so other sites offering the same service. You can probably do it yourself from the command line as well, by giving mplayer the right URL to hold on to.

"Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube"

[shawnmchorse]

I use the VideoDownloader plugin for Firefox to download them, and then any of the various free FLV players to view them locally.

Danger Mouse?

[192939495969798999]

Hey Beeb-tube, Give us back Danger Mouse, that show was awesome!

Re:Danger Mouse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Danger Mouse wasn't shown on the BBC in Britain. It was on the ITV network (15-or-so geographically-based stations from Anglia to Yorkshire).

Re:Danger Mouse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Beeb-tube, Give us back Danger Mouse, that show was awesome!

Danger Mouse was on ITV!

Re:Danger Mouse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong broadcaster, "Danger Mouse" was ITV ...

Re:Danger Mouse?

[morgdx]

And on ITV.

Re:Danger Mouse?

[paranand]

I recently came across a number of danger mouse episodes online at all you see (not going to actually link to it here). The BBC also put it out on dvd, so yeah, having it officially sanctioned on the youtube could bolster the dvd sales, as the article summary postulated, or we could just get our fixes online. Either way works for me, really. However, I'm holding out for Black Books, Spaced, and the IT Crowd, 3 phenomenal comedies from the BBC that they have YET to release on dvd outside of region 2 (my aunt in California wants the IT Crowd). Having them available online could help tide me over until I can get them on other media.
Also, I was born in 1980, grew up with the DM on Nickelodeon, back when they used to play cartoons. Now THERE'S a partnership I'd be happy to see (wink wink nudge nudge).

Re:Danger Mouse?

[BluhDeBluh]

Black Books, Spaced and The IT Crowd were all shows made for Channel 4 in the UK. They may have been shown by BBC America (not sure about that), but they most certainly /weren't/ made by the BBC. Neither was Dangermouse. For some reason, Americans believe that the BBC create everything in the UK - they quite simply don't.

Also, why don't you get a multiregion player? Importing DVDs in the UK is very common.

Re:Danger Mouse?

[mikael]

The BBC should bring back "Screen-Test", a show aired back in the mid-70's/early 80's. It was a school quiz-show based on the film and animation industries. It also had segments where people could send in their own home-made movies, how the video sequences of a movie were linked together to convey a plot line, and how anyone could build model spaceships out of odd bits of household plastic plastic and airfix kits that would be normally be thrown out - the airfix frames for all the parts became spaceship piping, and bottle/toothpaste tube caps became rocket engines. Observation/memory games were based on the viewing of a short segment of video, and the participants had to look for the deliberate mistakes (objects and actors jumping out of place between shots and clothing that changed colour/pattern), or remember what each actor said or did after a particular event.

If they brought it up to date, they could have students from the animation colleges, and viewers sending it their own animation work.

Re:Danger Mouse?

[MrCopilot]

Cooor Chief! ,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-367154178 4982515877&q=danger+mouse+-youtube

As pointed out elsewhere not a BBC Show. DM was one of my favorite shows as a kid, thanks for bringing it up again so I can show my daughter.

Re:Danger Mouse?

[ATMD]

Bring back DangerMouse? Never! Any enemy of a giant toad is an enemy of mine!

(guess the quote :)

Re:Danger Mouse?

[Dogtanian]

If they brought it up to date, they could have students from the animation colleges, and viewers sending it their own animation work. Or they could just post it on YouTube.

Let's not get too nostalgic here. The early 80s was before digital, before cheap PCs, let alone those with multimedia capability. Doing stuff with film and the like would have been *expensive*, and then you were relying on getting your short film shown briefly on TV.

Re:Danger Mouse?

[Larry Lightbulb]

Black Books is available in the US, possibly only the first series though.

Re:Danger Mouse?

[mikael]

Let's not get too nostalgic here. The early 80s was before digital, before cheap PCs, let alone those with multimedia capability. Doing stuff with film and the like would have been *expensive*, and then you were relying on getting your short film shown briefly on TV.

True, but it helped Jan Pinkava get a job at Pixar.

Re:Danger Mouse?

[ajs318]

Why don't you just get an all-regions DVD player? But note that you'll need a TV that can handle 625x50, and it must have RGB inputs.

Re:Danger Mouse?

[flickwipe]

Dead Ringers - Phil Cornwell as Michael Caine.

New series tonight BBC2 9:30PM - I'll be down the pub obviously, but I'll be setting the video.

Greetings my fellow albatrosses.

Re:Danger Mouse?

[Dogtanian]

True, but it helped Jan Pinkava get a job at Pixar. Of course, I wasn't criticising the programme itself; on the contrary, in the context of its time it would have been an excellent window for talent in a society with far fewer multimedia outlets than exist today. Getting on TV was a big deal at that time. (Yes, I'm old enough- just- to consciously remember what it was like with only three TV channels and no breakfast television. Let alone the Internet...).

But even traditional stop-frame animation on a budget can be done *far* more cheaply than would have been possible then. And the outlets for displaying such animation are far greater than would have been the case back then. My point is that whilst there is nothing particularly wrong with your idea to revive Screen Test, the main reason you gave (a window for students to display their talent) seems somewhat reminiscent of a pre-digital, pre-Internet era.

Re:Danger Mouse?

[flickwipe]

*sigh*
Phil Cornwell as Michael Grade as Michael Caine. I think.

Ungrateful gits of Britain. It is I, Tony Blair, your President.

Says who?

[Larry Lightbulb]

It's a comment on a blog, with nothing about the source of the story.

Re:Says who?

[Larry Lightbulb]

Damn, sorry about the dupe, it was fingers working faster than brain.

The article's keyboard-fu is weak

[Anonymous Coward]

"Faulty Towers"? Ahem.

You know what I'm sick of?

[Skadet]

You know what I'm sick of? Media companies that think they know what I'm going to like, or what's going to encourage me to buy stuff from them. Videos on YouTube, huh? Wow, way to stay on the edge there, BBC. I think the draw to YouTube is mostly from user-generated content. That's what makes it special. Granted, a good deal of that content is "clip from $SHOW that I thought was hilarious" -- good! Don't saturate me with all your comittee-selected video clips and ads at the beginning and end. Let the users decide.

[YouTube went from] a company making no money, to a company worth almost $2billion to Google

My first car -- which I still own and drove for more than 250k miles, is worth a lot to me. That doesn't mean it's making me money.

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[daeg]

Dear Skadet:

You will like what we tell you that you will like. You will watch videos where we tell you to watch videos. You will do so and you will like it.

Signed,

Mass-Market Media Companies

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[Aladrin]

You assume that the article writer has ANY clue what they are talking about. It says 'allow content' and they suddenly assume that means the BBS will be uploading the content. Uh, no. It'll be merely an arrangement where the BBC gets money to not say 'take down our copyrighted works.' Mark my words.

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Ads on the BBC? What world do you live in?

BBC show trailers (usually 1-2 for upcomming programs) after each program and then go right onto the next, no breaks in programs or anything. BBC IS advertisement free or as close as you can get.

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[jamiethehutt]

Don't saturate me with all your comittee-selected video clips and ads at the beginning and end. Let the users decide.

The BBC don't do ads. They've never done ads. They never will do ads. The BBC is the best media company on the face of the planet, the fact that it's almost impossible to paint them evil (if you live in the UK) really says something. You really could do with reading up on them.

The reason they pull videos from YouTube is they can't tell if you've paid for your TV license, and thats required to pay for everything the BBC does. It's not spent on making some media baron rich. It's spent on making new shows. It's spent on providing independent and accountable news. It's spent on new methods of content distribution like Kamaelia (which plans to let the users decide just like you said), not to mention their other opensource projects. It's spent on producing some of the best radio stations on the planet, which are advert free and available to everyone.

Without the BBC UK TV would have so many adverts it would suck like American TV. The BBC aren't just another media company.

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[the_womble]

it's almost impossible to paint them evil

Unless you think the MS DRM they are going to implement on their website is evil.

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[Jaknet]

The BBC is the best media company on the face of the planet, the fact that it's almost impossible to paint them evil (if you live in the UK) really says something. I find it very easy to paint them evil (and yes I live in the UK) as I find the BBC is a bunch of money grabbing shites. For example it is illegal in the UK to watch any form of tv that is transmitted Quote "You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV."
From the TV licence site http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp

What a lot of people fail to understand is that with this it means that even if I never watch ANY BBC programs I still have to pay the BBC £131.50 approx $257 per year. Thus if I watch even one program from say ITV, Channel 4 all of which are paid by adverts. The BBC still can arrest me for failing to pay them their money. In fact I don't even need to watch anything, just having the ability to watch something means that I have to pay them or be arrested. Is this not draconian or what. This is almost like giving speeding tickets because I have a car and the ability to speed without any proof that I have actually committed any crime

End rant I'll get off my soap box now

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[Dogtanian]

The BBC don't do ads. They've never done ads. They never will do ads. The BBC *do* show ads on their stations outside the UK (which is fair enough, as they're not funded by the license fee), and at one stage they had an advertising-funded website, beeb.com (not to be confused with the bbc.co.uk website which it was later folded back into).

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[recharged95]

"Let the users decide."

And the users decided they like clips from copyrighted content. Even most user generated content has copyrighted music. The media companies mind because of the situation that only Google profits!

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[TobascoKid]

They never will do ads

Never say never - there's no good reason why they can't eventually become advertiser supported, just like Channel 4.

impossible to paint them evil (if you live in the UK)

Well, having a paramiltary wing (in the form of the TV Licencing people) with a database of every house in the country and a fleet of TV Detector vans snooping around people's home looking for unlicenced TVs is fairly evil in my opinion.

The reason they pull videos from YouTube is they can't tell if you've paid for your TV license

They could check your IP address against a geo database - if it looks like you're in the UK, they could let you watch (just like how Google's pay for video only works for people in the US). It's fairly safe to assume that you have a TV Licence (as most households do), plus it would give them weight to their bright idea to change the TV Tax into a Computer Tax.

Without the BBC UK TV would have so many adverts it would suck like American TV.

Nonsense. The amount of commercial time on commercial broadcasters is heavily regulated by Ofcom. If the BBC disappeared it would not make the slightest bit of difference - commercial broadcasters would still only be allowed to show a limted amount of advertising and the cost of advertising would not go up, as advertising costs are already calculated as though the BBC doesn't exist.

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[rmerry72]

You know what I'm sick of? Media companies that think they know what I'm going to like, or what's going to encourage me to buy stuff from them.

That's a fundamental assumption of capitalism. Guess what consumers want and offer it to them. If the product/service, price and conditions are in balance then a large enough percentage of the market will buy and you'll earn money.

If you don't like what they offer don't buy from them. But you can't whinge that they try.

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[pross]

even if I never watch ANY BBC programs I still have to pay the BBC £131.50

If you have a car but never drive on motorways, do you think you should get a rebate on your road tax? After all, you're paying for something you don't use.

There are probably more drivers who don't use motorways than TV viewers who never watch the BBC.

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[throup]

...and, as you live in the UK, you contribute to cancer treatment through taxes even if you yourself do not have cancer. Oh, and you fund police murder investigations even though you yourself have not been murdered.

Welcome to society.

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably saves you from having to watch those obnoxious phone pledge drives every so many months that we get on our public stations. I'm not sure if that would be worth the tradeoff though, especially since the invention of cable TV and broadband internet.

Ah well... At least the folks on this side can say hanks for the shows.

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[TobascoKid]

Both of which are payed for out of non-regressive taxation. Also, the police don't have commercial competition offering the exact same set of services, nor is it really practical for the police to wear sponsorship advertising.

We don't have a special "book tax" to pay for public libraries, why do we need a separate TV tax to pay for public broadcasting? Channel 4 is public broadcaster, but that survives by commercial advertising, why can't the BBC? Why do we even need public broadcasting? And if we really do need public broadcasting, is it something that is worth invading people's privacy on a massive scale and threating the population with large fines and jail time for?

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[TobascoKid]

If you have a car but never drive on motorways, do you think you should get a rebate on your road tax?

Other than the M6Toll, how many private motorways are there?

That's the biggest problem with the fee - commercial broadcasters do as good a job as the BBC - they've even been known to do a better job and they don't require a special tax. If the BBC were the only broadcasters then maybe you could justify it (though I think even then, the regressiveness of everyone paying the same amount, no matter how much they can afford would be difficult to justify). But the BBC aren't the only broadcasters, and they don't do anything that you can't find on the commercial broadcasters.

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[Jaknet]

even if I never watch ANY BBC programs I still have to pay the BBC £131.50

If you have a car but never drive on motorways, do you think you should get a rebate on your road tax? After all, you're paying for something you don't use.

There are probably more drivers who don't use motorways than TV viewers who never watch the BBC.

Hardly very accurate as if I drive a car then I am using the roads somewhere, which is what the road tax is for. What would be more accurate would be if I have a car and did not drive it on the roads then yes I would expect not to pay road tax

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[drsquare]

The BBC don't do ads. They've never done ads. They never will do ads.

They advertise themselves all the time. They spend around ten minutes an hour showing vomit-enducing ads telling us how great and brilliant they are, and threatening to lock us up if we don't pay their tax.

The BBC is the best media company on the face of the planet

If you like derivative soaps, disastrously bad sitcoms, mind-numbing 'reality' TV, and all the crap sport that none of the commercial channels wanted. Horse-jumping anyone?

It's spent on providing independent and accountable news.

Well, the BBC's latest comedy output doesn't make me laugh, but that sure did. The BBC are accountable only to themselves. They do not have to follow the normal laws of economics, they flush money away then come back begging for more.

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[delinear]

I'm not sure that's really how this will pan out, but you might be on the money there. I believe the BBC have already expressed a great deal of interest in uploading their content and making it freely available online, but the issue is that the BBC is funded by UK taxes and they're worried about non-UK users getting all this goodness for free. If Google were to pay the BBC for allowing the content to be shown, they could avoid that problem and still have the content available free of charge to the world.

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[delinear]

The BBC don't do advertising, but it's likely that Google will, since ads are their entire business model. They may keep certain content ad-free to entice users in and only advertise where the content owners agree, or they may just put ads on everything regardless (or they may go a totally different way, who knows?) I think this is what the GP is referring to. He's still a troll but I don't think he's suggesting the BBC use advertising per se.

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[NoMaster]

From an Australian (the land of 5 intra-program ad breaks per hour + inter-program ads + watermarks + on-screen popup advertising + running programs 20 minutes over time + pseudo-random program pre-emption + no EPG, not to mention our government's digital inaction plan) POV, the one thing the BBC does do well is act as a brake on the excesses of the commercial channels.

That's right - all Australian commercial networks do all the things listed above every single day on every single prime-time program. I wonder how long the before UK's commercial channels would start doing the same if the BBC wasn't offering a viable alternative?

It's just a pity that our national broadcaster (not "public broadcaster"; a difference overlooked by many) the ABC is crippled by government interference and a lack of funding, and is unable to provide a worthwhile alternative to all those commercial excesses.

Let me tell you, BitTorrent is a blessing - even if only to highlight how well off UK and even US FTA television viewers are compared to us...

Re:You know what I'm sick of?

[NoMaster]

The amount of commercial time on commercial broadcasters is heavily regulated by Ofcom

Just to compare this to the Australian experience. Here, the government regulates commercial broadcasters fairly loosely - much of the detail is left to "codes of practice" devised by a commercial entity comprised of a coalition of the commercial broadcasters.

With regards to commercial time, Government regulation limits advertising to a maximum of 16 minutes per hour. However, under the codes of practice, program sponsorship, sponsorship announcements at the beginning and end of programs, on-screen popup advertising during programs (provided it doesn't cover the whole screen), program & station promotions, voice-overs, government propaganda, etc, don't count as advertising!

That is, we get all of that - as well as 16 minutes of "counted" advertising per hour - for a total of 19~20 minutes per hour, plus whatever advertising popups we're subjected to during the running time of a program. And it's all spread through 5 advertising breaks per hour - meaning that even US programs, with their 3 or 4 ad breaks designed into the program, have an extra break or two cut in to them.

As a result, we get all of that in every prime-time program on every commercial channel . As well as that, we have no EPG on our digital channels (a 3rd-party company supplying a downloadable EPG for computers and a couple of PVR models is currently being sued into oblivion in the Federal Court by one of the networks - who, coincidentally, happen to own another company which "owns" all the program guide data in Australia), and a "digital action plan" which seems to consist of not upsetting the commercial FTA or PayTV broadcasters by changing the status quo too much, whilst allowing them to buy up all the major newspapers and media websites for a total stranglehold on wide media delivery in this country.

And never underestimate the annoyance factor of programs starting up to 20 minutes late - a common occurrence here - to the point where, later on in the evening, any particular program you're waiting to watch will likely just get randomly dropped to pull the schedule back into line before 6am.

How long do you think your status quo would last without (a) the buffer the BBC provides and (b) if the commercial broadcasters made a concerted long-term effort to loosen government regulation?

Quite frankly, I'd gladly give the government another AU$350-odd per year (and the right for jack-booted TV Licensing inspectors to knock politely on my door) to fund the ABC (and even the once-great but now fully commercial SBS), if it meant the end of even just half the crap we have to put up with here...

Says who?

[Larry Lightbulb]

It's only a comment on a blog, there's no quotes or anything about the source of the story, so it's speculation rather than a news story.

download from youtube?

[scharkalvin]

On Linux use youtube-dl (python script)

But the BBC shouldn't worry. What gets posted to youtube is in a crappy
highly compressed format that looks like garbage compared to a DVD. After
seeing something I like on youtube, I'd rather buy the DVD than keep the
piss-poor a/v file from youtube.

Re:download from youtube?

[Emetophobe]

On Linux use youtube-dl (python script)

You know there is a python intepreter for Windows too. Hense, this script also works in Windows if you have python installed.

Full shows are already there

[pnattress]

And what's more, the BBC don't seem to mind too much. I know that BBC presenter Charlie Brooker is well aware that his show is available on YouTube, and even has it embedded in his MySpace page and featured it in a segment on the show. YouTube contains lots of BBC shows which are never likely to get on DVDs and therefore never make them a profit, so why not let people watch them? They don't even have to pay for the bandwidth.

I like the BBC. They seem to be one of the few big media organisations who actually 'get' the internet. Their whole online service is second to none, and their new iPlayer looks set to to revolutionise the way TV is watched. See what happens when you don't have advertisers and shareholders to answer to?

Re:Full shows are already there

[fotbr]

They don't mind too much.

Except for Top Gear, which gets yanked quite often due to copyright issues.

Re:Full shows are already there

[Oxygen99]

I think the reason the BBC 'gets it' is mostly due to the fact it's a government (Well, licence fee paying) funded organisation. The bottom line for the BBC is that everyone in the world could download their shows and they'd *still* have enough funding to make the same programs year after year after year.

And if you like Charlie Brooker, make sure to check out what he has to say about Macs!

Re:Full shows are already there

[pnattress]

Presumably because there's a lot of Top Gear DVDs out there, the sale of which may be impeded by the clips being available on YouTube (though not too much I'd imagine; Top Gear is one of those shows which really can't be enjoyed properly by watching a fuzzy Flash video of it).

Re:Full shows are already there

[TobascoKid]

The bottom line for the BBC is that everyone in the world could download their shows and they'd *still* have enough funding to make the same programs year after year after year.

They'd still have to proove that it's mostly UK Licence fee payers who are getting the benefit. That was one of the major points of the podcast/iPlayer consultation documents, and all the work coming out of BBC Backstage - the Licence Fee payer has to come first.

Re:Full shows are already there

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

Charlie Brooker's show is made by Zeppotron (part of Endemol), though, so the BBC probably aren't losing any "DVD Sales" (not that it's likely to be an issue in this case) as a result.

Re:Full shows are already there

[jb.hl.com]

Endemol don't handle DVD sales directly, IIRC, and in Brooker's case the DVDs would be sold by the BBC's commercial arm, BBC Worldwide.

Although it's moot in this instance; Brooker's show (Screenwipe...excellent show btw) has so many clips of things that just getting the rights for any putative DVD of the show would be completely impossible. UKNova is your friend :)

Re:Full shows are already there

[isorox]

their new iPlayer looks set to to revolutionise the way TV is watched.

Yes, the old way was:
"Anyone with a standard TV that receives PAL signals can watch our broadcasts, anyone without can make their own pal decoder, it's not hard"

The new way is:
"Anyone that has a Sony TV can watch our broadcasts, if you have a Phillips, tough. Don't even think about making your own TV, but then with the state of engineering in the UK who would want to?"

The new way also involves large a amount of incentive passing between microsoft and Ashly Highfield (either swish sales talk or something mroe insideous)

WRONG!

[discord5]

Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube

Hahahaha... Something is streamed to your computer (an flv file, which vlc supports these days), you can easily grab the location of the flv, and therefor you can easily download low quality crappy youtube uploads if you really want to. Google "download youtube" before making such bold and incorrect statements.

I mean... wow... That's the first thing I did when I discovered youtube: find out how to download the content.

Re:WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you tell him. You're some kind of computer genius to catch that. I mean--wow.

TV Licencing

[celardore]

Nice how the BBC gives its content freely to those that cannot be charged the TV licence, while they persecute those that HAVE to pay it by UK law. That said, I had my first good experience with them the other day when I got a visit from the TV licence inspector, I answered the door and it went something like this:

Inspector: I'm here to discuss your TV licence.
Me: I don't have one.
I: I know.
M: Come in and look, there's my TV, there's the aerial point with nothing plugged in to it. I can't get a signal at all in here.
I: What do you use the TV for?
M: Computer and DVDs.
I: Plan to watch any television in the future?
M: Like I said the signal is poor, so the answer is no.

He then put a mark on his clipboard and I haven't heard from the TV licencing dogs since. Goes to show how much they want that £140 a year though, if he did believe I was watching TV then I could go to court and face prison.

Re:TV Licencing

[discord5]

He then put a mark on his clipboard and I haven't heard from the TV licencing dogs since.

We used to have those here. The tax was abolished because of all the people scamming their way through a loophole. Now the tax has been replaced by two related taxes that don't require an inspector.

Re:TV Licencing

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all very vague.

Re:TV Licencing

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of the time I had an argument in Sainsburys when I bought a freeview box
Shop: you will need to fill in this tv license form.
Me: It's not a TV
Shop: Huh
Me: Technically, it is not a TV!
Shop: Huh

Re:TV Licencing

[FooAtWFU]

The idea of TV licensing has always troubled me, and radio licenses doubly so. There's a saying here in the US that derives from an early Supreme Court case, and it says "the power to tax is the power to destroy". Now, think about that for a moment. Are you comfortable giving the government power to destroy television and/or radio communications? After seeing a few Holocaust-type films where people secretly listen to the BBC broadcasts on shortwave while their nation is occupied by the Axis during World War II, you might begin to get the notion that this freedom sort of freedom is a good thing. Why should it ever be a crime to listen to someone else's over-the-air broadcasts?

(Especially if they're intended for general public distribution and not, say, intercepting cell phone conversations and such... and, of course, actually broadcasting, of course, is a whole 'nother kettle o' fish...)

Re:TV Licencing

[Anonymous Coward]

In Portugal, they banned the TV tax for a while, and then they added it to your electricity bill...

Try dodging that one...

Re:TV Licencing

[mlush]

The idea of TV licensing has always troubled me, and radio licenses doubly so. There's a saying here in the US that derives from an early Supreme Court case, and it says "the power to tax is the power to destroy". Now, think about that for a moment. Are you comfortable giving the government power to destroy television and/or radio communications?

Well its just as well that the goverment does not get the UK licence fee it goes direct to the BBC I suppose the BBC could destroy itself but then thats not really in its best interest. There is no such thing as a Radio Licence (unless you count a Ham Radio Licence)

Personally I'm rather happy with the Licence Fee For 11 pounds ($21) a month I get 5 TV channels 11 radio channels (all of which are actually worth watching/listening to) plus Audio (and soon video) on demand and one of the best websites in the world. and on top of that we get an organization that considers it its job to ask the goverment (and opposition) awkward questions

What do you get for $21/month?

After seeing a few Holocaust-type films where people secretly listen to the BBC broadcasts on shortwave while their nation is occupied by the Axis during World War II, you might begin to get the notion that this freedom sort of freedom is a good thing. Why should it ever be a crime to listen to someone else's over-the-air broadcasts?

Ah they would be listening to the BBC World Service Founded in 1932 its not funded by the Licence fee, its funded from UK taxes by the UK goverment (specifically the Foreign Office)

(Especially if they're intended for general public distribution and not, say, intercepting cell phone conversations and such... and, of course, actually broadcasting, of course, is a whole 'nother kettle o' fish...)

I wonder if subscription channels will take this view.

Re:TV Licencing

[zakezuke]

The idea of TV licensing has always troubled me, and radio licenses doubly so. There's a saying here in the US that derives from an early Supreme Court case, and it says "the power to tax is the power to destroy". Now, think about that for a moment. Are you comfortable giving the government power to destroy television and/or radio communications? After seeing a few Holocaust-type films [imdb.com] where people secretly listen to the BBC broadcasts on shortwave while their nation is occupied by the Axis during World War II, you might begin to get the notion that this freedom sort of freedom is a good thing. Why should it ever be a crime to listen to someone else's over-the-air broadcasts?

That's not really the issue is it? The issue is citizens in the UK must a license fee to enjoy TV. There seems to be No radio license. Their world service according to this website is funded by the goverment, not by the TV license.

I don't pretend to know everything about the system in the UK, but the way I see it from cross the pond, they pay money for their programing rather than media being paid for by commercials. Both systems have their merits, but the point becomes moot as cable TV has become popular. It has become even more moot as the net has replaced the need for short wave for planatary broadcasts.

But it looks like you can still listen to the radio including shortwave in your basement without fear of being taxed or arrested. You don't have to do it in secret... but if you enjoy being secret... great.

Re:TV Licencing

[zakezuke]

Personally I'm rather happy with the Licence Fee For 11 pounds ($21) a month I get 5 TV channels 11 radio channels .... What do you get for $21/month?

For $7.50 I could get basic cable. That would be ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, UPN, PBS, a couple of independents, c-span, local cable news and some other crap. Most of this I could get off the air, but i'm lazy. Radio, well... I lost track of how many stations there are. There are 25 stations in the basic lineup. Many people who subscribe to basic via other services (typicaly under $15/month) often get standard cable as they are too lazy to install the filter.

For $26.75/month is standard cable, another 53 channels above and beyond the basic 25 channels. There are a couple of shows I watch in this range, including Monk and Stargate.

Most of these are commercial stations.

PBS, off the air, is funded by donations and is somewhat commercial free. In the past they carried much in the way of BBC material.

I'm not trying to be critical of the UK tv license, only trying to put things into perspective.

Re:TV Licencing

[TobascoKid]

Personally I'm rather happy with the Licence Fee For 11 pounds ($21) a month I get 5 TV channels 11 radio channels (all of which are actually worth watching/listening to)

I'm not happy about it, and no, those 5 TV channels and 11 radio stations aren't worth it. More importantly I'm not happy that I have to pay it, even though I don't watch or listen those stations and that if I don't pay it (but still want to watch channels that I do want to watch) I get a 1000 pound fine or go to jail. I'm not happy about what is essentially a regressive tax, that sends poor people to jail (11 pounds a month actually means something to some people in this country - after all we have the worst rate of child poverty in western europe so there are plenty of poor families out there).

I know some people feel they get great value out of the BBC (I'm not one of them), but I will never understand why they feel they have the right to force everyone else with a TV to pay for it - especially as BBC TV doesn't really do anything that commercial televisions doesn't do (it did so in the past, but it hasn't in at least 15 years).

Re:TV Licencing

[TobascoKid]

the way I see it from cross the pond, they pay money for their programing rather than media being paid for by commercials.

It's PBS with a police force, who have a database of every home in the country and everybody who has a TV has to "donate" and everybody has to donate the same amount. They use the database of every home in the country to make sure that pretty much every home has a TV license - if you don't have a licence (and even if you do have one but something went wrong in the bureaucracy) they send you threating letters and/or "send the boys 'round". They also have detector vans patroling the country, looking for stray radiation from unlicensed sets.

Re:TV Licencing

[mlush]

Personally I'm rather happy with the Licence Fee For 11 pounds ($21) a month I get 5 TV channels 11 radio channels .... What do you get for $21/month?

Most of these are commercial stations.

PBS, off the air, is funded by donations and is somewhat commercial free. In the past they carried much in the way of BBC material.

I'm not trying to be critical of the UK tv license, only trying to put things into perspective. If you will pardon my snippage

OK you get about 80 stations for $26 How many are actually worth watching? and would your like them better if they had no ads :-) and better still could be critical about any company without worrying about loss of Ad revenue.

There is also Freeview which is getting increaingly good 40 odd free channels with about 5-10 digital only commercial channels with anything worth watching (Freeview would have died without Aunty comming in an giving the kiss of life, she's rather keen on going digital)

I'm not saying the system is prefect but for the most part I like what there doing with my money

Re:TV Licencing

[blubadger]

"PBS with a police force"? There would be an uprising if Brits had to pay 11 pounds a month and all they got was PBS. (And that's the point: you get what you pay for.)

Re:TV Licencing

[TobascoKid]

There is also Freeview which is getting increaingly good 40 odd free channels with about 5-10 digital only commercial channels with anything worth watching (Freeview would have died without Aunty comming in an giving the kiss of life, she's rather keen on going digital)

But most of Freeview is commercial channels, who don't get any of the licence fee money (and it seems like a large percentage of Freeview is shopping channels and "phone in and win" channels). The only reason why the BBC and the other Freeview broadcasters are so in to Freeview is that isn't controlled by Sky (or NTL/Virgin - but they're mostly afraid of Sky). They had to rush in and give DTV a kiss of life because ITV so massively screwed up with ON Digital (it's somewhat unsurprising that On Digital failed - who in their right mind would have paid almost as much as a basic Sky/Cable subscription for what was such a paltry line up.)

Re:TV Licencing

[TobascoKid]

The only reason why there isn't an uprising is that the Licence fee has been around for so long. If they tried to create the BBC from scratch, including a mandatory license fee, there would be such an uproar that it would make the recent road petition look as small as the recent no to id cards petition. Nor could they possibly justify it, as the BBC doesn't do anything that the commercial broadcasters don't do.

Re:TV Licencing

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never watched BBC? Just pay your money you tight cunt!

Re:TV Licencing

[makomk]

The only reason why the BBC and the other Freeview broadcasters are so in to Freeview is that isn't controlled by Sky (or NTL/Virgin - but they're mostly afraid of Sky).

Actually, I think Freeview is essentially part-owned by Sky - not sure how much control they have, though, especially since Ofcom probably wouldn't be too happy if they tried anything.

Re:TV Licencing

[zakezuke]

OK you get about 80 stations for $26 How many are actually worth watching? and would your like them better if they had no ads :-) and better still could be critical about any company without worrying about loss of Ad revenue.

There is also Freeview which is getting increaingly good 40 odd free channels with about 5-10 digital only commercial channels with anything worth watching (Freeview would have died without Aunty comming in an giving the kiss of life, she's rather keen on going digital)

I'm not saying the system is prefect but for the most part I like what there doing with my money

You are talking to a person who does donate PBS... esp for programs from the BBC. It's different now that doctor who is on commercial television, CBC and Sci-Fi. IIRC during the days local stations bought Doctor Who (pre-1988), a recent episode cost $1000 for the local station. I guess 12 to 13 episodes was the norm at the time, so a given city which carried this particular program shelled out $12k or so/year, of which a joe like my self would toss $10/month their way, a very small donation but I never asked for the newsletter.

My only complaint is the fact that someone like my self can't just subscribe to the UK feed. BBC-america is somewhat of a joke, though there are programs which I can watch. There is "some" new programing on it, but most of the time it seems like old shows... with the same 12 episodes repeated over and over again. But needless to say i'm not offended by paying for programing.

But how much is worth watching at $26/month. This is what I actually use

-news-
Northwest Cable News - Traffic reports / local news
  The Weather Channel
  CNN
CBUT-Canadian (CBC) (olympic coverage is excelent)
-Educational-
Discovery
Food Network
History Channel
National Geographic
-Entertainment-
USA - monk
TNT - Movies sometimes
Comedy Central
A&E / Independent Film Channel
Sci-Fi - Stargate Eureka
Cartoon Network - Anime
BBC America
CBUT-Canadian (CBC)

I'd say 14 out of out of 55 stations have at least one program I enjoy.
The other 25 stations are mostly off the air stuff.

[broadcast]
PBS - Nova, some BBC material
PBS - two pbs affiliates in my area, somewhat commercial free. For example the yankie workshop starts off with an advert for power tools, but then continues commercial free.
ABC
NBC - Heroes
NBC old movies
CBS
UPN
FOX - Simpsons, House M.D.

There are some other stations off the air, some religious, some to be honest i've never heard of or seen. But out of 8 mainstream broadcast stations, i'd say 4 of them I watch on a regular basis. My tv watching has been limited as the big three networks have been hip on reality shows, game shows, and desprite housewives.

Currently worth watching on HBO is ROME, a joint HBO/BBC production.
Showtime had "Dead like Me" Showtime / Hbo is another $15 each there and abouts, or $56.50 for digital and two premium stations. Both are commercial free.

Re:TV Licencing

[zakezuke]

...as the BBC doesn't do anything that the commercial broadcasters don't do.

Except they do it commercial free, and produce much of their own material without commercial pressure.

Re:TV Licencing

[jrumney]

They own one of the 5 MUXes, and have a large shareholding in ITV, who own another.

Re:TV Licencing

[TobascoKid]

It's not the ownership of the channels or even the multiplexes - it's the ownership if the Electronic Programme Guide. Sky own the EPG on DSAT, so if you want your channel to be seen by DSAT viewers, you have to pay Sky a lot of money, and you're at the their mercy for what channel number you get assigned. For example, a number in the high 200s is almost like not having a number at all - something Channel 5 has found with it's two new channels - some people have not even realized that they're on DSAT because the Sky put the channels in the "junk channel" range. Most of the Freeview lot (and especially the BBC) were at one point even considering launching their services on another satellite, so that they could own the EPG (but it was decided that Freeview was a saner idea).

Re:TV Licencing

[TobascoKid]

produce much of their own material without commercial pressure

They don't produce as much as they used to (and a lot of what they commission, they don't own, unlike years past), and a lot of it is still made with ratings pressure (as that's the main way they can show "value for the fee payer") Look at all the main BBC programmes - they all have equivalents on commercial TV. Even the arts and documentary programmes have commercial equivalents. There is very, very little that the BBC does that isn't being done by the commercial broadcasters and what little there is does not justify the fee.

Re:TV Licencing

[zakezuke]

They don't produce as much as they used to (and a lot of what they commission, they don't own, unlike years past), and a lot of it is still made with ratings pressure (as that's the main way they can show "value for the fee payer") Look at all the main BBC programmes - they all have equivalents on commercial TV. Even the arts and documentary programmes have commercial equivalents. There is very, very little that the BBC does that isn't being done by the commercial broadcasters and what little there is does not justify the fee.

rome a joint HBO/BBC production AFAIK would seem to be a program that is worth the fee. Doctor Who always worth the fee, though Torchwood was rather soso. "The Office" funny as hell.

I give PBS 10 a month, or an extra 10 if the other station carries something I like. I do pay to watch rome presently on hbo.

Re:TV Licencing

[TobascoKid]

the same 12 episodes repeated over and over again

12 episodes could easily be 2 years worth of episodes. I'm not sure why a series has so few episodes compared to American ones, but that's the way it is.

i'm not offended by paying for programing

I'm not offended by paying for programming (I happily pay for Homechoice/Tiscali TV) - I'm offended by having to pay for channels that I don't want and I'm even more offended that I face the risk of a 1000 pound fine or jail if I want to watch a competitors free to view channel while not paying for those channels that I don't want to watch. At least you get a choice - I have to pay for the BBC if I want to watch any TV.

Re:TV Licencing

[TobascoKid]

Worth the fee to you. I could happily live without any of those programmes and I resent being forced by law to pay for them. If I don't like what's on Sky or cable, then I get the option to not subscribe. With the BBC I don't get that option - either I "subscribe" or I can't legally watch any TV. Arguably, I couldn't even watch YouTube - it's not something thats been tested yet, but I bet it will one day. The BBC has already stated that you need a TV Licence to watch BBC video on the internet (they made a small deal about this during the World Cup that they showed online as well as on TV), it's not that much of a leap for them to say that you need a license to watch non BBC video online as well (afterall, I need a TV Licence to watch non BBC TV).

Re:TV Licencing

[zakezuke]

12 episodes could easily be 2 years worth of episodes. I'm not sure why a series has so few episodes compared to American ones, but that's the way it is.

One reason I got BBC america in the first place was for classic doctor who. I rather thought that they would be running the whole thing like the local PBS station did, in order, from begining to end. Instead they showed the first year or two of Tom Baker... over and over again. This trend also seemed to be consistent with other classic programs. I can't remember how many years they were stuck in the same sequence of tom baker, but they did for quite a while.

I don't have a problem with the series length, I did have a problem with the fact other than new programing they repeated episodes into the ground.

I did switch cable companies so I don't have to pay extra to get BBC-America.

I'm not offended by paying for programming (I happily pay for Homechoice/Tiscali TV) - I'm offended by having to pay for channels that I don't want and I'm even more offended that I face the risk of a 1000 pound fine or jail if I want to watch a competitors free to view channel while not paying for those channels that I don't want to watch. At least you get a choice - I have to pay for the BBC if I want to watch any TV.

That must be annoying, but the way I see it, so long as they have one program I enjoy, it's worth $10/month out of my pocket. That's what I give freely specifly for BBC media. I have no issue funding arts and entertainment directly and should BBC ever be available directly via a sat feed I would happily subscribe... and hell even get a tivo to timeshift to my hours, and even spend more than $10/month for the privilage.

Re:TV Licencing

[TobascoKid]

That must be annoying, but the way I see it, so long as they have one program I enjoy, it's worth $10/month out of my pocket

But for me, one programme doesn't justify $22 a month, nor does any of it justify the heavy fines/jail time. Would you really want every one in America to have to pay $22 a month to PBS, whether they want to or not, no matter if they can afford it or not, or face a $2000 fine, jail time and a criminal record for the crime of watching a non PBS channel without paying for PBS? Does that seem in any way right? Because that's exactly what the Licence Fee is.

Don't forget, there's another non-commercial (in the sense of not being a private company with shareholders) public broadcaster in the UK, that's known for high quality content. However, unlike the BBC, it's payed for out of commercial advertising - Channel 4. So it's not like the BBC's "business model" is the only functioning model for a public broadcaster. However, the BBC's business model is the only one that requires the mass invasions of privacy and the long arm of the law.

Re:TV Licencing

[Tony Hoyle]

Channel 4? High quality content? lol.

Together with ITV they're reaching crisis point (ITV is ripe for takeover now) - you can't fund a channel on advertising alone, when you're competing with Sky who have a huge subscription charge (~$1200 a year) *and* wall to wall advertising. Not to mention an effective monopoly that means you have to pay that if you want more than the basic channels.

Re:TV Licencing

[Tony Hoyle]

So you happily pay at least 10-15 times the cost of the BBC to Sky for about half a dozen real channels and about 300 shopping and religious channels - and sky produce virtually *no* content of their own, plus they have wall to wall adverts.

All of this to maintain a monopoly that's retarted the UK satellite market by 10 years or more (Sky boxes are *really* shitty compared to anything available in Europe and don't even try to compare to the US).

Re:TV Licencing

[drsquare]

So you happily pay at least 10-15 times the cost of the BBC to Sky for about half a dozen real channels and about 300 shopping and religious channels - and sky produce virtually *no* content of their own, plus they have wall to wall adverts.

I'll happily pay 10 times the cost of the BBC (it's actually around 3.5 times), considering that Sky has infinity times more content. All the best things are on Sky, the films are all on there first, all the top American programmes, Premiership football, Super league, Rugby union Premiership, England away games, Carling cup, Champions League, Heineken cup, PDC darts (the best one), Spanish football, even NFL! The BBC has none of this. What they do cover, they cover badly, with the cheapest cameramen, directors and commentators.

If it wasn't for government legislation stopping Sky showing certain events, the BBC would have nothing worth watching. Except teletext, which isn't worth the licence fee alone.

Re:TV Licencing

[isorox]

There's a saying here in the US that derives from an early Supreme Court case, and it says "the power to tax is the power to destroy". Now, think about that for a moment. Are you comfortable giving the government power to destroy television and/or radio communications?

They do have the power in the UK, and I'm fairly sure they do in the U.S. To broadcast you need a government aprooved license.

BBC broadcasts on shortwave while their nation is occupied by the Axis during World War II,

You don't need a license to recevie transmissions that originated abroad (i.e. shortwave propaganda from a country you're at war with), however you're probably breaking one of many other laws.

Re:TV Licencing

[isorox]

Arguably, I couldn't even watch YouTube - it's not something thats been tested yet, but I bet it will one day.

It's not a broadcast, so you don't need a license. Same as if your neighbour tapes TV and give you a copy.

You need one if it's live, or almost live (i.e. you feed it though a delay line, like a PAL decoder, or an MPEG decoder). You may be breaching some form of copyright law though.

Re:TV Licencing

[isorox]

Reminds me of the time I had an argument in Sainsburys when I bought a freeview box

I bought a TV from Currys, having been over this before. It went like this
Shop: you will need to fill in this tv license form.
Me: OK, postcode is SW1A2AA
Shop (reading from screen): Prime Minister and first lor....
Me: Yup

I do have a license, but I'm blowed if I'm going to be bullied into giving away personal details and marketing information.

Re:TV Licencing

[isorox]

I'll happily pay 10 times the cost of the BBC (it's actually around 3.5 times), considering that Sky has infinity times

Infinity times? Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?

All the best things are on Sky, the films are all on there first

They're on DVD before Sky, and the DVD's are cheaper to rent, and more convienient -- as Sky is proprietry, and Sky Plus is crap (can you program it and view from the web yet?), you need to rely on things like IR blasters for recordings.

all the top American programmes

On the internet way before sky :) I will conceed that terrestial treatment of scifi is crap, probably based arround the fact that BBC/ITV/C4 are general channels, sport often gets in the way, and our TV seasons are numerous and short, unlike US seasons.

Sport

This is slashdot.

Re:TV Licencing

[mgblst]

Not quite sure what your point was? Yes, it sucks having to pay a TV license, but the other option is to do what they do in Australia for the ABC, where everyone pays for the Government sponsored National Broadcaster. You have just shown why TV license is the better option, since those who don't watch TV, don't have to pay.

Would it make you feel better if they just added £140 onto your taxes? Because then you wouldn't notice it so much?

Re:TV Licencing

[Zoxed]

> if he did believe I was watching TV then I could go to court and face prison.

IANAL, but: looks like you got lucky, but, as often clarified here on /. the UK TV license is *not* a license to watch TV: it is a license to own the TV *equipment*. In law it does not matter whether you watch broadcast signals on it, or just hook it up to you computer.

(I guess the original reason was to make prosecution easier: they do not have to catch/prove you actaully watching the TV)

Could this be....

[lanceleader]

YouTubes first step in actually making money?

Additional content...

[rfernand79]

Such as Doctor Who Confidential or Tardisodes, which are not the shows per se, may be distributed this way -- thus freeing up time slots on the beeb for more shows!

Awesome BBC

[Duncan3]

I think It's awesome that the BBC is going to have YouTube foot the bill for their bandwidth instead of making the UK citizens do it.

Rock on BBC!

Re:Awesome BBC

[rmerry72]

I think It's awesome that the BBC is going to have YouTube foot the bill for their bandwidth instead of making the UK citizens do it.

A torrent download has the same advantage :-) BBC has lower bandwidth costs. Besides how much bandwidth does it take to suck down a 20MB 320x240 10 min FLV file?

Re:Awesome BBC

[zobier]

A torrent download has the same advantage :-) BBC has lower bandwidth costs. Besides how much bandwidth does it take to suck down a 20MB 320x240 10 min FLV file? Um, 20MB?

Spelling....

[cbiltcliffe]

such as classics like 'The Young Ones' or 'Faulty Towers',

That's Fawlty Towers, you insensitive clod from Soviet Russia!

Yeah, I know...it's a quote from the story....
What's journalism coming to?

Re:Spelling....

[Aqua_boy17]

That's Manuel Towers you hideous orangutang. Who is man with beard?

God, I loved that show.

Re:Spelling....

[Ophion]

What's journalism coming to? It has devolved to the level of a Slashdot post, I fear.

What a disaster

[pyite69]

Why does "progress" in media seem to always involve taking high quality video or music, and making it a lot worse?

YouTube videos are a nightmare - the BBC should be embracing bit torrent and as little compression as possible.

Re:What a disaster

[pip1]

its not always a case that its low quality encoding though.

you are aware that the BBC is as far as i know the only broadcasters that do multicasting test AVC/H.264
broadcasting ,assuming your ISP (alas Virgin Media dont ) allows and activates multicasting on their network.

http://support.bbc.co.uk/multicast/streams.html

true now you do have to ask to be included in the trials by email but their there if your able to use multicasting over the net,shame theres no simple tunneling app....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/multicast/

If I can see it, I can save it

[davidwr]

In general, if I can see it on my computer monitor, I can save it for playback later.

Even with DRM I can plant a movie camera in front of my monitor and send the film out to be developed and digitized.

Long Live The Analog Hole.

Young Ones video on YouTube?

[YoungOnesTroll]

Vyvyan: It's a video nasty!

Rick: It's a carpet, farty!

I want to go for a ride on the big dipper

[Anonymous Coward]

I will not tell you that it is a trap

Re:I want to go for a ride on the big dipper

[sprintstar]

Hahaha I saw that episode the other day..

Says youtube

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/index?&session=gAJ9cQEoVQxl cnJvcl9maWVsZHNxAmNfX2J1aWx0aW5fXwpzZXQKcQNdhVJxBF UGZXJyb3JzcQVdcQZVRVRoaXMgdmlkZW8gaXMgbm8gbG9uZ2Vy IGF2YWlsYWJsZSBkdWUgdG8gYSBjb3B5cmlnaHQgY2xhaW0gYn kgVGhlIEJCQ3EHYVUIbWVzc2FnZXNxCF1xCXUu

Obligatory Young Ones quote...

[jason8]

Oh, have you got a video?!

This coming on the heels of this piece of news:

[steelfood]

YouTube deals fall apart, the center cannot hold

Big content producers are going to want to retain control over their own content, obviously. And it's so easy to do so with the internet. You don't need youtube if you can develop your own video site with flash player and all in six months.

What youtube should do is offer to license its software or host the content, and charge for licensing and/or hosting. It can slap ads on those videos that aren't paying for either service, but not for their paying customers. Licensing their software should also include the stipulation that youtube can link to their content or content page via search results.

Otherwise, youtube would only be good for homemade videos. Which is a large enough market in and of itself. But don't expect big content producers with their own means of putting their videos on the web to sign on.

Adam Buxton

[Don_dumb]

And here is a sometime beeb personality with his own Youtube presence, some of his clips are taken from BBC shows he was in (like Time Trumpet) http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=AdamBuxton

See what happens when you don't have advertisers and shareholders to answer to?

The BBC do have 'shareholders' kind of, the BBC Trust http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/ and to a certain extent the government, who are in charge of the charter renewal (and how much money the beeb gets). Also don't forget that the Daily Mail think they should be shareholders. In my view we should do the opposite of whatever they want.

Just a comment about an error in this post

[sudden.zero]

It says "Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube. Instead, they're watched online on the YouTube website, or the YouTube player is embedded in other websites for no cost to the user."

However, the first sentence is untrue at least for firefox users. There is a firefox plugin that can be downloaded from the link below:

http://javimoya.com/blog/youtube_en.php

This video downloader plugin will allow one to download almost any video from youtube, yahoo video and windows live video!

wedigtv

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the BBC will also consider making their video interactive like you get at www.wedigtv.com ? If they can already make an interactive version of Countdown then it would be great to be able to play The Weakest Link with moody Anne Robinson. I would have thought licensing would be a mess but maybe Auntie's getting receptive towards the internet.

Goodbye.

It's because BBC America shows many C4/ITV shows

[blorg]

...as you rightly suspect.

won't download/won't know how to play

[norminator]

It's certainly true that there are a number of tools that allow YouTube content to be downloaded, but I suspect that most "ordinary" users aren't likely to be using these any time soon. Why? Because in most cases, what would be the point of doing the extra work required. Most computer users just want to keep it simple.

Not to mention, videos from YouTube are always .flv's... I either use VLC to play them or convert them with a quick and easy drag-n-drop batch file using ffmpeg (usually to an iPod-friendly mp4), then I can do whatever I want. But most users won't know about VLC, or any of the .flv compatible players/converters, so to them, YouTube really does seem "secure" enough to not bother with.

On the other hand, Viacom just decided that it is to easy to get videos from YouTube, so I guess it just depends on how the content provider feels.

Re:won't download/won't know how to play

[NRO826]

But most users won't know about VLC, or any of the .flv compatible players/converters, so to them, YouTube really does seem "secure" enough to not bother with. Is that really true, though? It seems like so many of the comments I read on slashdot underestimate the intelligence of the general public. I dont consider myself extremely technologically inclined. I don't run linux, I don't know programming languages, and I don't rebel against microsoft every chance i get. But still, I know what a vlc player is and more recently learned what a .flv file extension meant, and if i didn't know, it wouldn't take me that long to find out. It seems like some members of slashdot have the same problems as other groups who are out of touch with the majority in that they seem to consistently underestimate the American public's willingness to learn

iPlayer alternative

[TobascoKid]

Maybe it's to placate the criticism over the Microsoft only iPlayer. If they made the content on iPlayer also available on YouTube (probably with geo locking so that only people in the UK* can watch it) then Mac and Linux people could watch the content as well.

*yeah, I know, proxy servers make such things pointless, but I would still expect them to try.

Finally, some real BBC content for Democracy

[LinuxHam]

I've been using Democracy to download and watch video podcasts, and the BBC's EULA has always been really weird. The closest thing we get to the news is a weekly update from Newsnight, and even then the EULA says we're authorized to subscribe for 7 days.

On another note, Democracy says that you can view Google/YouTube and Yahoo! videos, but while the searches work great, clicking the download link results in "Not Found" 100% of the time. Has anyone else experienced this and found a fix? I'd really like to have daily news updates from the Beeb in Democracy, no matter how it gets there.

Thanks..

youtube

[camila17pl]

awesome, i cant wait

-----
camila17
visit my site...http://radio.gsm-ok.pl/

They are

[LordSnooty]

YouTube videos are a nightmare - the BBC should be embracing bit torrent and as little compression as possible.

They are embracing BitTorrent.

Also : Downloadable = ISP Cacheable

[cyclomedia]

The sheer quantity of video served by google/youtube could benefit greatly from ISP cacheing. Back when i started out it was a relatively simple task because most things on the web were static (.htm,.html,.gif,.jpeg : life was simple!) but with the advent of CGI/Perl it all became a whole lot messier and cacheing became a minefield to be avoided, at least that's what it was like back in my ISP days (in the previous century, god damn i'm old)

Streaming media on the other hand is in a position to be very cache friendly: a 30 year old episode of a sitcom is not going to change content from one minute to the next. So instead of having to get it from california to wales with every click it could come from manchester probably.

Sales?

[Chiwo]

This probably isn't an "effort to boost ... sales". The BBC exists for public service, and has been experimenting with various ways of making its current and archive material available for free to the public. The main thing which prevents this is concerns about the impact on commercial producers of similar content, and whether that would be damaging. Just recently the BBC Trust http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/ have approved plans to make more stuff available. (I'd search for a link to the news story but it's hard to search for "BBC" on the BBC!)

The BBC's public purposes are http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/purpose_re mits.html

• sustaining citizenship and civil society
• promoting education and learning
• stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
• representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities
• bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK
• in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.

DVD sales exist to support these goals.

Re:It's because BBC America shows many C4/ITV show

[gdr]

Not just BBC America.

Full episodes

[cjdkoh]

It is highly, highly unlikely to include full-length current BBC shows. Why is it unlikely? UK TV Licence payers are paying for the programs to be made, so the BBC will not be losing any revenue if many of its veiwers started watching programs on YouTube instead. However, there is the problem of international viewers, who have not paid to watch the programs. If YouTube can set something up so only UK residents can watch BBC stuff, then full episodes will be allowed for definite. I'd put money on that. Even if this is not possible, I still don't think full length shows are unlikely.