Slashdot Mirror
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."
The first rule of YouTube-dl is that you do not talk about youtube-dl, G*ddamnit.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Expen$ive talkshow host
views=1,050
Random girl licking jello
views=1,003,420,535,232