BBC Strikes Deal With YouTube

twofish writes "Google's YouTube video site will soon be showing content from the BBC in a deal announced today. Auntie Beeb's content will be spread across three different channels, one for news and two for entertainment programmes. Content will include adverts, and clips from shows such as "Top Gear," "The Mighty Boosh," and nature shows narrated by David Attenborough. The deal is likely to be controversial, particularly since the BBC is paid for by a compulsory tax system (the license fee) rather than through advertising or subscription. The article goes on to say that they won't be 'hunting down' people that upload their content to YouTube. Just the same, they reserve the right to take down or remove programmes that have run on their channels which might damage relationships; examples might be football offerings or 'edited' shows."

Comments

A compulsory Tax system

[Mateo_LeFou]

..is the perfect way to fund public goods, like information.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Mateo_LeFou]

And national defense

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Odiumjunkie]

>..is the perfect way to fund public goods, like information.

It's not really a "compulsory" tax. You're obliged to pay the license fee if you own a television tuner set to recieve broadcast television stations.

This is, as you might imagine, ludicrously difficult to enforce. I'm a student, I use a tv tuner card, and I sure as hell don't pay £130 or whatever it is per year. How exactly am I going to be forced to pay the license fee? I get threatening letters often (which is the primary tactic the license fee collection agency use to get people to pay up) but if a license inspector ever comes to my property and asks to come in to verify I don't own an operational tv tuner, I'll politely tell him to fsck off.

From there, the only way he can get access to my property is to get a warrant from a judge, based on zero evidence that I'm doing anything wrong. Good luck there.

The license fee collection agencry is an RIAA type agency that uses scare tactics and ignorance to collect its money. The only people who get fined tend to be relatively poor people who don't pay for a license but also don't realise that they have the legal right to refuse entry to a license inspector. An inspector calls round, demands to be let in, the person lets them in, shows them the tv, and they get a fine to the order of several thousand pounds.

The whole system is ludicrous, outdated and monstrously inefficient. We would be much better served if an independent body determined an appropriate level of funding for the BBC year-on-year, and the money came from general taxation.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Anonymous Coward]

I use a tv tuner card

Yep, that's a good way to do it. If you buy a new TV from a major store the bastards pass your details on to the licensing agents.

Something you don't mention however is that they have detector vans and handheld detectors that can pick up the secondary RF from an active receiver. Again their effectiveness (and in the case of the handheld detectors, how many agents actually have one) is exaggerated a tad by their propaganda, but this can and does provide probable cause for them to come back with legal force. When they sweep an area it's advertised months in advance though, so you could probably not buy a license until such time as you see the warning billboards and be fine. (Disclaimer : I haven't tried this.)

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[fymidos]

What if you have a tv tuner in your computer?
What if you never watch tv, but your laptop came with a tv tuner. are you supposed to pay as well?

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[jrumney]

They don't "sweep an area", they park their vans outside houses which are in their database as not having a license around the time the residents are coming home from work. I'm not sure how technically effective the vans are, probably just more scare tactics to prompt you into getting a license.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[sheriff_p]

Yes, unless you get the receiver disabled. Same as if you buy a TV, and only use it for video/playstation/whatever

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Teresita]

They don't "sweep an area", they park their vans outside houses which are in their database as not having a license around the time the residents are coming home from work. I'm not sure how technically effective the vans are, probably just more scare tactics to prompt you into getting a license.

In Old Blighty, TV watches YOU.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Gibsnag]

Or if you don't have an aerial (unless thats what you meant). My friend's family owns a TV for DVDs, but doesn't own an aerial (they live in a secluded hamlet in a valley, I'm not sure if they even get reception). They had an inspector call around because of their lack of a television license but once they showed him that they didn't have an aerial he buggered off.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Tony Hoyle]

They don't use the vans as a scare tactic any more because they don't work.. they've admitted they have a big database and use that instead.

They might have worked in 1950 when maybe one in 10 houses had a TV, no computers, etc. but there's so much electrical noise now that I doubt you could pinpoint a single TV set in an average street with any accuracy.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[cryfreedomlove]

Then how do you explain that there are several examples of flourishing television content production without any compulsory tax funding? Like, for example, HBO. HBO continues to create great shows that lots of people will voluntarily pay for. HBO does not need the tax man, armed cops, and prisons to make it work.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[digitig]

It's not really a "compulsory" tax. You're obliged to pay the license fee if you own a television tuner set to recieve broadcast television stations.

It's more general than that. To quote their website, "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." And if you look at the small print on the license you find that you don't only need a license to watch or record the TV, you need a license to be in posession of equipment /capable/ of watching or recording TV. So if any TV company anywhere puts any of their broadcast simultaneously online, then you need a licence for a computer and an internet connection. It's so very nearly compulsory that I doubt they have much difficulty getting getting magistrates to sign off a warrant. I know people who genuinely don't need a license who have had a licence inspector turn up at the door accompanied by a police officer with a warrant, so the evidence level needed doesn't seem to be set very high

I agree with others on this thread who think a taxation model is the best way to go for public service broadcasting (although when the government simultaneously forces the BBC to chase ratings there is perhaps an insufficiently clear idea of what constitutes public service), but I agree with you that the enforcement hassle of the license (and the RIAA-like tactics of some of the agencies subcontracted to do the enforcement, probably stemming from frustration that nothing else works) mean that it's a bad way to administer the tax.

The whole system is ludicrous, outdated and monstrously inefficient. We would be much better served if an independent body determined an appropriate level of funding for the BBC year-on-year, and the money came from general taxation. Yes, that would probably be better; rough on those who genuinely don't need a license though.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[say]

But you can't watch their content (legally) on YouTube, dummy. That was the point of the GP.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[tomknight]

No.

You only need pay if your TV (box, laptop, PCI card) is attached to the aerial. Damn difficult to prove without a warrant. Asfter all, you can always detact the coaxial and coil it up to the wall if you ever decide to let them in. Takes a couple of minutes while your other half delays them at the door. Then say you just use the TV for DVDs and games consoles.

As it happens I truly believe that people who avoid paying this are dishonest scum and deserve a right royal twatting. There you go.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Ash Vince]

Not to worry, when the Conservative government get in at the next election they will end the current system. They have promised Rupert Murdock they will do this some time ago.

On your point of them being a RIAA type organisation I think you are taking this a bit far. They are actually pretty fair. The reason they let you off being a student for instance is that they know that in all probability your parents have a TV licence and you can claim that is your primary residence. They have access to the register of voters (electoral role) and can use this see if anyone at that address is registered to vote.

The poster below makes a valid point regarding new TV purchases though, but this also extends to your TV card. Now all retailers who sell any equiptment capable of picking up a TV signal are required to get your details and hand them on to the TV licence people. If you refuse to provide them they are legally obliged to refuse to sell you what you want. If you buy on any sort of card they dont ask, they just get the details via your bank.

They also do have the ability to pick up the RF signal that cathode ray tubes generate, and then decode an image (Van Eck Phreaking - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking). Thus if a TV license inspector arrives at your door and you are watching TV they usually know what channel you are watching.

They do not however have any rights of entry to your property, so can be told to sod off and come back with the police and a search warrant. I am not aware of any incidences where they have come back with the police, but I expect in the worst cases where they can proove that the person does have the money for a TV licence but simply chooses not to buy one they probably do.

You point about them only fining poor people is a bit harsh. You imply that people who are poor do not know they have the right to refuse entry to their home. This is complete rubbish, I have lived on a council estate for years and believe me, most residents knew exactly what the score was in this regard.

It is also worth noting that under british law they are unable to fine you more money than you can afford to pay, so the several thousand pounds bit is crap too. When you arrive in court you have to fill out a form detailing your assets. The only way you can be fined more than you can afford is if you refuse to disclose your assets or if you fail to turn up in court, neither of which are a particularly good idea as the british legal system takes a very dim view of this.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[jaweekes]

They do more then just sit there. (from http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/tvdetecto rvans.jsp)

How do the detector vans work?
We have a range of detection tools at our disposal in our vans. Some aspects of the equipment have been developed in such secrecy that engineers working on specific detection methods work in isolation - so not even they know how the other detection methods work. This gives us the best chance of catching licence evaders.

What if you can't get close enough to detect my TV in your van?
We can use a hand-held scanning device. These measure both the direction and strength of a signal, making it easy for us to locate TVs - even in the hardest to reach places.

From what I remember they can also use a technology (I cannot remember what it is called) to remotely view what is on your screen (I watched "Tomorrow's World" demo it once), on top of picking up the signal from your antenna. I also recall that when home computers first started to appear, they actually took some people to court to pay the fee for their computer monitor.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[wellard1981]

Funny you should mention that. I saw one of these TV licensing vans not so long ago down my street, and somebody was walking 'round with a funny looking device with a built in antenna.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[qbzzt]

This makes for two parallel systems:

1. Information the government wants to be available, which is produced by tax money and consumers can get for free.
2. Information the government would rather you didn't have, which costs consumers money.

Do you really want the government deciding what information should be easily accessible? Do you want people to be bribed to consume government propaganda?

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[g_attrill]

No, you need a licence to own equipment which is capable of receiving a television broadcast and which is used for doing so. A detuned television or video recorder does not require a licence, nor does a TV card used for capturing non-broadcast video. TV Licensing used to have a more comprehensive and clear FAQ on their website, but they removed it in favour of more confusing text to avoid people realising they don't actually require a licence.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[FireFury03]

It's not really a "compulsory" tax. You're obliged to pay the license fee if you own a television tuner set to recieve broadcast television stations.

The TVLA keeps insisting that you need a licence to watch streaming video on your computer and on your cellphone too.

They seem to want to have their cake and eat it - either the TV licence covers the internet and thus the BBC can't derive advertising revenue from it, or the TV licence doesn't cover the internet and therefore you don't need one to receive content over the net. At the moment they are claiming the licence covers the internet but the BBC can still derive advertising revenue from it.

Also, denying UK access to the news content because of the advertising restrictions seems wrong - they should just present the content to the british public without advertising (or <shock> have YouTube redirect the british viewers to the same content hosted from the BBC website, sans adverts).

Note, in general I'm in favour of funding the BBC publicly rather than through commercial means. However, I think it's wrong for them to use my licence fee to produce content and then subject me to adverts if I want to watch it.

I'm rather of the opinion that there should be a clear line between licence-funded stuff and commercially funded stuff - if they want to use the licence fee to fund content then put it on a designated "non-commercial" channel and if they want to do something commercial then put it on a designated commercial channel and don't use the licence fee to fund it at all.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[mjjw]

Two Points
1.

It is also worth noting that under british law they are unable to fine you more money than you can afford to pay, so the several thousand pounds bit is crap too Under british law only a court may impose a fine, not a TV license inspector, not a police officer, not Tony Blair, no-one except a court may impose a fine. That dates back to 1689 and is still part of the law today (see the bit about "freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial").
 
2. During the last football world cup the TV licensing announced that anyone watching broadcast TV over the internet needed a license to do so as they were picking up a broadcast TV signal (albeit through a computer connected to the internet rather than through an aerial).

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[SenseiLeNoir]

Well IF you have a TV tuner, and you have not paid the License, you are breaking the law. FACT.

You may not AGREE to the Licensing laws, but they are law, and if you break them, you will expect to be prosecuted.

The fact that you can "politely tell the inspector to 'fuck off'" is a method use for GENUINE people who DON'T have a tuner, to not be bugged insistently by the inspector. For example, an inspector can't just continuously bug a person, just because he or she THINKS you have a TV, there is a due process involving getting a warrant, before searching private property. Sure it does make it a little harder to enforce, but it does help prevent abuse by the Agency, or a particular Inspector trying to make his name.

The whole system is ludicrous, outdated and monstrously inefficient. We would be much better served if an independent body determined an appropriate level of funding for the BBC year-on-year, and the money came from general taxation. Highly Hypocritical, here you are, boasting away that you didn't pay for your license, you took advantage of certain "rights" (need for a warrant before a search), in order to not get caught, then talk about the "poor" who cannot get away with it, like you do.

And you wonder why its all inefficient, and pointless, and then later you probably complain when we loose essential freedoms, such as the right to request a warrant, and then before we know it, there will be further privacy implications as the Government tries new invasive stuff, to catch people like you, and make the system efficient.

No, the system would work, if people like YOU don't try to scam it, and instead be honest.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[SonnyJimATC]

As the old fable goes they use some kind of mobile TEMPEST setup to work out if you have a (CRT, LCD they can't pick up) TV and even what you happen to be watching (so you can't pretend it's only for video's or something). I'm not so sure on the last part, but you can detect a CRT using nothing but a reel of cable as an aerial, a PC soundcard and a couple of 100MHz of CPU. Plug it all in and look for the 15kHz scan in some waterfall spectrum analysis software. I highly doubt they actually do this, as it probably not be very reliable and as mentioned it doesn't pick up LCD TV's. In my experience they generally just go round to houses without a TV license and knock on the door.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[digitig]

No, you need a licence to own equipment which is capable of receiving a television broadcast and which is used for doing so. Where does the burden of proof lie on "used for doing so"?

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[digitig]

Where does the burden of proof lie on "used for doing so"? Sorry, s/burden/onus/

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Anonymous Coward]

They have to prove it, they mostly rely on people letting the inspectors in to search for receiving equipment even though you don't have to unless they have a warrant. It is probably best to let them search if you don't have anything to hide just to stop them hassling you.

They claim to have scanners that can detect if you are using a television, but from what I've read they have never used it as evidence in a court case.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Anonymous Coward]

The TV license covers internet content the is streamed at the same time as it is broadcast. Stuff downloaded after the broadcast does not count.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Jane_Dozey]

I'm not convinced about point 1 there. In some cities around the UK you can now get an on-the0spot fine for littering (£50). Apparently no judge is needed.

Are they actually breaking the law or can the police now administer fines?

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[mjjw]

You don't get an on the spot fine. You get a Penalty Charge Notice. If you don't want to pay it you can go to court - but the magistrate's can then give you a much larger fine.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[jrumney]

They never knocked on mine (not when I was home, at least), but they did park one of their vans outside around 6pm two nights in a row. That was after I got sick of having to inform them I didn't have a TV every month when they sent out their accusatory letters asking me to sign a declaration if I don't own a TV and send it back to them.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[petermgreen]

i suspect this works in the same way as speeding fines. you can either pay on the spot or go to court but if you go to court and lose you will get fined FAR FAR more than you would pay on the fixed penalty notice.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[cyber-vandal]

And which of those activities is compulsory?

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Anonymous Coward]

The moderation of your post is a striking example of the validity of your signature.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Ash Vince]

Under british law only a court may impose a fine, not a TV license inspector, not a police officer, not Tony Blair, no-one except a court may impose a fine. That dates back to 1689 and is still part of the law today (see the bit about "freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial").

I know this. That is why the sentence after the one you quoted talked about when you arrive in court you had to fill out an asset disclosure form.
If you had quoted both sentences together (ie - in context) point 1 or your post would seem a little strange.

Not sure why you mention the second point but an interesting piece of info none the less. Now I am off to watch several episodes of Stargate Atlantis I just downloaded.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Anonymous Coward]

We prefer the term "Merry Old England".

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Anonymous Coward]

We already know how to fix bugs like this in our governments, you create an independent body which is given authority from (and sometimes funded directly by) the government but doesn't take day-to-day orders from it. In many countries the most ancient example is the judiciary. The government pays judges, and it can change the law of the land but it does not own the justice system. Another more modern example is the independent central bank, economists paid by the government to meet long term goals without being distracted by short term political opportunity.

Britain today has many such entities, doing everything from keeping records on company directors to rating movies, from preventing phone spam to making television shows. And that gets us back to the original topic. The BBC is independent of the government, only a tiny fraction of its output is directly government funded (the World Service is paid for out of the Foreign Ministry budget, for obvious reasons) and more importantly today, it is independent of commercial sponsors. The government can say, from time to time, "You should make more educational shows" or "Make less of your radio shows in Scotland and more in Wales", but it can't cancel a specific TV show, or fire a DJ, or get them to pretend Iraq is going well.

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about broadcasting information with the goal of striving to have as little bias as possible.
The theory is that the best way to get highly independent television is if:
A) It isn't driven by advertising revenue or other private interests. (As an example of why this is bad, see the WTVT-TV (fox-13) recombinant bovine growth hormone scandal. Where Fox ordered Steve Wilson and Jane Akre to lie to the public about the alleged problems of doping cows with Monsantos Posilac.)
B) The government is strictly regulated to not have an input in editorial content.
C) The fee is not a general tax (this will prevent undue government influence of threatening different allocation of funding.)
D) The fee is compulsory for every one with a television set (this removes the incentive of self censorship. If the station is afraid of losing funding in subscribers because of broadcasting controversial or uncomfortable subjects then it will self censor.)

Swedish Television (SVT) used to run a set of trailers that caused a bit of commotion. The point of the spots where to illustrate the importance of free television (not as in beer.) One of them was about allegedly non-free media in Silvio Berlusconi's Italy. They kind of proved SVT's point when the Swedish ambassador in Rome was called in for a meeting with Italian government officials and asked to put a stop to the trailer. The Swedish ambassador answered that there was nothing he could do because it is illegal for the Swedish government to try and dictate what SVT broadcasts.

Rome angered by Swedish TV spot

Re:A compulsory Tax system

[Anonymous Coward]

Well WE prefer the term "perfidious Albion".

A nice surprise!

[MMC Monster]

This actually seems somewhat reasonable. While I would love for BBC for post these shows advertisement-free, at least they're going to post them in a format that can be viewed in any major browser on varying OSs.

Is there software to download and store videos from youtube for Linux?

Re:A nice surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there software to download and store videos from youtube for Linux?

Yes, I've only used it once but it worked.

Re:A nice surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

DownloadHelper's the best: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/3006/

Re:A nice surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if you don't want a Firefox extension (or don't use Firefox) then there is a nice python program specifically for downloading youtube videos: http://www.arrakis.es/~rggi3/youtube-dl/

Adverts...

[sheriff_p]

Worth noting that in the UK, the BBC's "iPlayer" project which is currently being rolled out, will provide ad-free TV-over-IP on-demand for anyone with a UK IP address. Thus, just like BBC America, the BBC's adverts are the BBC's way of maximising the value they offer to the UK public, by getting foreigners to watch 'em.

-sheriff

Re:Adverts...

[inexplicable_fool]

It's also worth noting that the IMP is very likely to be streaming DRMed WMV. The BBC Trust have yet to rule on the matter but the BBC have long made it known that they wish to switch to Windows Media. So this is quite good news really.

Re:Adverts...

[sheriff_p]

I think you mean:

BBC's iPlayer product /is/ using DRM'd WMV, as it's the only technical solution that satisfies the people who own the non-BBC-produced content.

Re:Adverts...

[inexplicable_fool]

Nope I don't. The IMP (http://www.bbc.co.uk/imp/) is a web-based app for streaming the BBC's own content for up to seven days after it has been broadcast. It currently uses DRM'ed WMV and is very unlikely to change for public launch. They own the content (well technically the license payers do) so they can choose what to do with it. Furthermore controversial plans are at foot to move all streaming content to WMV (http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2174256/bbc-sla mmed-microsoft-lock. Thanks for your reply.

Re:Adverts...

[sheriff_p]

IMP is dead and not coming back. The replacement project is called iPlayer, which uses DRM'd WMV, and is intended to be the central stream through which all BBC multimedia content comes through.

The idea is to push through all content on the BBC channels, at some point. I can assure you that:

- The BBC in the UK does not show only BBC content
- There are a great many cases of 'complicated ownership'
- The fact that the license payers own the content strongly restricts what they can do with it

Re:Adverts...

[inexplicable_fool]

I was not aware of the IMP morphing into the iPlayer. But my main contention is with the implication that DRMed WMV's are a good idea. I think that, regardless of your views on DRM, any DRM format which effectively locks out millions of legitimate computer users is a bad idea. When you're a public body like the BBC this becomes inexcusable. The U.K. public should not be punished for choosing Operating Systems other than Windows. It's a nonsense - if the content providers really can't get over themselves then the BBC should ust provide their own programming - it's not like there's a shortage of it, is there?

Finally

[jackharrer]

Finally somebody got into their heads that quality of YouTube is crap and broadcasting programs there will work only as an advertisement. What's the point of suing them if you can work with them and have advertisement for free. If somebody likes their programmes they will watch them on telly anyway. Think about watching Attenborough's programs and thinking: "Are those 20 pixels a lion trying to catch an antilope (other 20 pixels)?"

And for commercial stations that would be even better - they would be able to add some of advertising, or such.

Re:Finally

[putch]

you realize of course that youtube's video quality capabilities will only increase over time. probably rapidly.

Re:Finally

[jackharrer]

Not necessarily. If it can save YouTube's arse from all lawsuits, it will stay as it is. Not to mention that YouTube's servers are even now sometimes quite hard to access. Better quality means more bandwidth - not the whole world can afford it.
Or maybe only some part of content will be available in HiRes, like for example definitely legal stuff? Who knows.

Re:Finally

[bogjobber]

I don't know, this Top Gear video looks pretty good. The quality's as good as what I would expect to get in an over the air broadcast.

oh my god! the ignorance! it burns!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not compulsory taxation. It's a subscription, it's just that you take out the subscription by owning a TV (or other device capable of receiving TV signals).

Re:oh my god! the ignorance! it burns!

[mdwh2]

It's a compulsory tax on anyone with a TV - I think it's reasonable to say that.

"Subscription" on the other hand is misleading, as you are not choosing to subscribe to the BBC's services, it's something that has to be paid for a TV whether you watch the BBC or not. At the least it would be a compulsory subscription for when you buy a TV.

I'm not against the TV licence, but the summary is quite accurate and I see no reason to use misleading words to try to pretend it's just like any other TV service you can choose to have.

Re:oh my god! the ignorance! it burns!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a tax:
1) The level is set by the UK government as part of the BBC charter settlement.
2) The amount is different according to the type of TV you have (it is cheaper if you own a black and white TV for example).
3) You have to pay it to have a TV in the UK whether or not you watch any of the BBC's output.
4) Theoretically the government can also give portions of the license fee to other broadcasters though I don't believe it ever has done.
So it a tax on TV ownership. Calling it something else is disingenuous .

Re:oh my god! the ignorance! it burns!

[TK2216UKG]

This isn't completely true. You're only obliged to pay the TV license if your equipment is capable of receiving and displaying TV, not for merely owning a TV.

I have a plasma TV and use that solely for playing games and watching DVDs. I have agreement from TV licensing that I'm not obliged to pay the TV license since the screen - even though it contains a functioning TV receiver - isn't connected to an antenna and so unable to display TV signals.

More info here.

Re:oh my god! the ignorance! it burns!

[kbox]

So even if i never watch (or want to watch) BBC shows i have to pay for the "subscription" simply because i own a device capable of receiving it. Sounds fair. I can't wait until Microsoft use the same logic and force me to buy a windows licence for using my PC running Linux, Simply because my PC is capable of running windows. The licence fee is the reason i threw my TV away. I still get the Capita Nazis (people who enforce the licence fee) knocking at my door asking of i have a TV licence, Then when i tell them i don't have one because i don't have a TV they ask if they can come in and check if i have a TV. At which point i simultaneously close the door while saying "no you can't, Now fuck off".

Re:oh my god! the ignorance! it burns!

[throup]

If your TV sits in the corner, unplugged and gathering dust through lack of use then you don't have to pay for the license.

Maybe it should be a "tax on anyone who chooses to use a television"?

Re:oh my god! the ignorance! it burns!

[DCBoland]

The BBC is a national service, like the NHS...
Its programming is used every day in schools, its website is great for children's revision and they have a remit to work toward the public good e.g. innovating with TVoIP. The fact that the tax only applies when a signal-recieving TV is owned is something of a 'gift', Id fully support the BBC being run purely on public taxes simply because the benefits of it are immensurate.
The 'free market' ideology where you pay for the TV subscriptions you want has led to the base, dumbed-down programming seen in the US and on most UK channels; the BBC is sadly following suit, but it is far superior in quality - it can afford to be by not chasing profit margins and demographics.

Re:oh my god! the ignorance! it burns!

[ThomsonsPier]

"This isn't completely true. You're only obliged to pay the TV license if your equipment is capable of receiving and displaying TV, not for merely owning a TV."

That's still a mite off; you must pay for a TV licence if you use said equipment to receive television signals. This covers display and recording. Of course, you're unlikely to have the rig if you don't plan to use it.

On a ranting note, I'd like to say that I don't mind the licensing. What I mind is the enforcement methods used which deliberately spread misinformation about the powers of the licensing inspectors to scare people into handing over money. Similar to the parent, I don't have a TV connected to an aerial and have informed the licensing scum of this several times. They still keep sending threatening letters. These letters look like final demands, to fool people into thinking that they owe money and are facing a court summons.

Oi! Licensing blokies! You have no legal powers. Get over it.

Rant complete. Your normal programming will now resume.

Re:oh my god! the ignorance! it burns!

[Anonymous Coward]

The goggles do nothing!

Re:oh my god! the ignorance! it burns!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Licence fee is also used to built the network that you use to watch TV. So even if you don't watch BBC but you still watch other terrestrial channels then you are using the transmission network. Just like if you subscribe to hundreds of satellite channels but you only end up watching a dozen or so.

Also is there any other kind of tax system than a compulsory one. I don't think many people would pay tax if it was optional

Re:oh my god! the ignorance! it burns!

[smallfries]

Well actually you don't. I used to know a Dutch friend who took the time to look into it and when the licensing folk sent him threatening letters he wrote back and explained that he only watched DVDs. He owned a tv, freely admitted it, refused to pay the fee and got no trouble from them. Of course there are people with very different experiences of these kind-hearted sould so YMMV.

heads up

[tomstdenis]

BBC resells the programming to other countries. Like I get BBC World here in Canada (and BBC-K on one of them digital channels). I'm sure my they make money off that. While BBC is paid for by the tax, it's supplemented by the resell royalties.

I should add that I hate BBC World taunts of Top Gear "Not Available In North America" bullshit. hehehehe. Though it is nice to get sports/news from a diff part of the world.

Tom

Re:heads up

[Enzo the Baker]

Yeah, I don't see why anyone would create a controversy over this. If the BBC is going to distribute their programs to foreign markets, which is more fair? For them to raise more money through advertising in YouTube clips and fees to cable networks (thus giving them more budget for new programs)? Or to give away to foreigners what people in the UK are paying for?

Re:heads up

[Ed Avis]

As a British licence fee payer I'm glad the BBC is getting a bit of extra cash by selling programmes abroad, but I'd much prefer an arrangement where (say) German viewers can watch BBC television free of charge and we get the German state-owned channels in return. Indeed, since the proportion of BBC funding from overseas television sales is under five percent (see BBC annual report and accounts 2005/06, page 105 - link via Wikipedia) I would prefer to pay a few pounds extra on the licence fee and just let television shows be available free of charge worldwide for whoever wants to show them.

Re:heads up

[tomstdenis]

The problem with that is most shows on CBC (equiv idea of BBC in Canada) sucks bad. Aside from a few comedies that is. So it wouldn't be a fair trade :-)

Though yeah I agree, some sort of "cultural" exchange could benefit all. Try spinning that idea in the US or Canada though... State run TV? sounds like a communist!!! ACK EVIL! :-(

Tom

Re:heads up

[Moofie]

I dunno, despite the continuing assault of the wingnuts, public television and radio in the US seems to do pretty well. That reminds me...I need to renew my membership.

Re:heads up

[tomstdenis]

public access != state run.

State run means you pay more tax to have them produce comedies, drama, docus, and news.

We have that [partially] in Canada through the CBC and various "arts" grants. But that said, CBC still largely fails to really hit it home with most Canadians [outside of the comedies and the news]. To add insult to injury, they run ads on the CBC. So we pay for it through taxes, and through ads. At least the BBC runs no ads.

Re:heads up

[Moofie]

By that definition, the BBC isn't state-run either. What is your argument?

Top Gear

[GoatMonkey2112]

I'm hoping they put full Top Gear episodes on there, there have been some good ones. My favorites are the Ariel Atom ("so fast it will destroy your face!"), Evo vs. Gallardo, F1 vs. street cars, and there are a few others I can't think of. That guy who does the reviews just cracks me up.

Re:Top Gear

[Paulrothrock]

I particularly like the one where they do a road trip from Miami to New Orleans and conclude that nobody should ever travel to America.

And I completely agree, and I'm an American.

Re:Top Gear

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, the quality of YouTube stinks. Better to go over to finalgear.com and download the full, high quality versions. It's unlikely that finalgear.com will be shut down, as many of the production staff for Top Gear comment on the forums often. They once received a cease and desist letter from the BBC, but that was because they were actually hosting the files themselves. Once they just hosted the links, the BBC laid off of them.

Re:Top Gear

[Ollierose]

Given the (baited) reception they recieved, it was a fair conclusion - they were asking for trouble, and nearly got it delivered in the form of easily ingestible lead capsules.

When I did a similar trip in the other direction, I didn't get anything in the way of trouble - but I was driving a bog-standard SUV unadorned by interesting slogans (I won't spoil it for those that haven't seen the episode yet)

The sub-£1000 car challenges in previous episodes were equally as good, but for different reasons - Clarksons Maserati blowing up on the way to a lap-dancing club, with the top tip that followed (yes, you can buy an italian 2 seater for less than £1000, but you don't want to).

Re:Top Gear

[Anonymous Coward]

I particularly like the one where they do a road trip from Miami to New Orleans and conclude that nobody should ever travel to America.

And I completely agree, and I'm an American.

I think I've seen an excerpt of this. Is this the episode where they try to drive through Alabama with things like "Hillary for President" and "NASCAR Sucks" painted on their cars?

I loved the line (after seeing a "Welcome to Alabama" sign that had been shot): "My God.. they shoot their own signs.. what are they going to do to us?."

Is this available on BBC America?

Re:Top Gear

[Moofie]

Right, because if you spray-painted "Beckham is a Poofter!" on your car and drove it through rough neighborhoods in Great Britain, they'd offer you tea.

Re:Top Gear

[Skrynesaver]

To wander totally off topic for a moment, (as I am wont to do), Top Gear started out pretending to be public service broadcasting, you know the sort of thing, consumer advocacy. But Clarkson et. al. have turned it into a juvenile pissing contest. Yes it's fun to see articles on ridiculous cars such as the Evo and the Veyron but it needs more coverage of the real world. More on keeping a 15 year-old Toyota going (not difficult) and less on the relative styling merits of the latest unaffordable McLaren Mercedes V's the BMW Mid-Life Crisis.

they do still do the motoring satisfaction survey, but one quiz a year on new cars is hardly investigative jounalism

Re:Top Gear

[Paulrothrock]

Beckham is a poofter.

Besides, it wasn't just the slogans. They were threatened with a lawsuit for GIVING SOMEONE A CAR.

Re:Top Gear

[Moofie]

Yep. That was, indeed, a dick move by a very sleazy lawyer.

What does that have to do with the rest of the population of the United States?

In my travels, when I treat people with courtesy and respect, that's what I get back. Clarkson is constitutionally incapable of same (I'm pretty sure his enormous head would assplode), so people treat him like a dick. Which works, because he IS a dick. A sometimes-fairly-entertaining dick, but the man is a still a dick. May and Hammond hang around with him, so they get the same treatment.

(that may be the most times I've ever said dick at the same time. dick.)

Re:Top Gear

[LordSnooty]

Don't believe that everything Jeremy Clarkson says is true, this is television. Don't even believe that the whole 'hicksville up in arms' thing wasn't a set-up. That piece wouldn't've been much cop if they'd just driven across the Gulf coast.

Re:Top Gear

[purple_cobra]

While Clarkson[1] is a tosspot and Hammond[1] should stick to Brainiac (Mythbusters with less science, for anyone who hasn't seen it), May[3] could possibly turn the show into one more in-tune with the average British motorist. The problem is that such a change means the show wouldn't be pandering to the vroom-tits-explosion market (heh, the VTE market. I've invented a new marketing phrase) that has become the BBC's main audience in recent years.

[1] A 1970s roadie who dropped-out of public school and bought a second-hand thesaurus
[2] A manchild who seems to have been experiencing a mid-life crisis for his entire adult life
[3] A somewhat tedious pipe-and-slippers man, but watchable enough

It's not a tax. It's not compulsory

[91degrees]

It's a licence fee. The money goes to the BBC. Not the government. And you don't have to own a TV, so you don't have to have a licence.

Censored

[naich]

"they reserve the right to take down or remove programmes that have run on their channels which might damage relationships"

And ones that show how they were involved in the 9/11 conspiracy!

That's a joke, BTW :)

Re:Censored

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? Did you even bother to read the link?

Here in Germany we also have compulsory taxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

...for the so called "Öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk" Radio and TV. An organization called GEZ ("Gebühreneinzugszentrale") makes sure everyone pays this tax. They go to houses and ask people to let them in (some people think they have to).

The problem is that the german Radio and TV stations like to expand their offers to new media like Satellite and Internet without asking the citizens. So now we have to pay these compulsory taxes also for owning a satellite dish or owning a computer(!). Even companies that work with computers have to pay this tax.

That's outsourcing IT businesses german-style ;-)

Top Gear-

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

I love that show, but the quality over youtube is fine for a few minutes, not for an hour long show.

BT still wins in that case.
www.finalgear.com in case anyone cares

Re:Top Gear-

[Anonymous Coward]

you should try the video.google.com links instead, much better.

Jeremy Clarkson

[herrison]

Entertaining journalist too

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnist s/jeremy_clarkson/

Re:Jeremy Clarkson

[VJ42]

Calling Clarkson a journalist is stretching it, he presents a light entertament programme (and a great one at that: Top Gear) for the BBC, and writes a column for the Times as your link shows, however, and your link shows this as well, he writes opinion pieces; he's a columnist, not a journalist. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a funny writer, but calling him a journalist is plain wrong.

Re:Jeremy Clarkson

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's be honest. The man's a cunt.

Not all content because..

[JackMeyhoff]

License payers fund it. What resolution will these offerings be and what codec?

Re:Not all content because..

[Anonymous Coward]

HasciiCam at 80x25

This is clips only

[Molt]

People seem to be thinking this is entire episodes- so far all that's been announced are clips. I'd be very surprised if the BBC moved to allowing regular episodic content to go to YouTube, especially given they're going to be putting a lot of their efforts behind their own iPlayer project now.

Re:This is clips only

[Tony Hoyle]

It's also not available to UK residents at all.. which I find quite bizarre, given that I helped pay for that programme.

I heard rumours they were going to do the same with itunes - allow BBC programmes on it but not to UK residents (less of an issue I guess because itunes only has video support in the US).

Re:This is clips only

[SteveDob]

Exactly. People could always read the BBC's own announcment of the deal, which goes into more detail about the what, when, and who of it all
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6411017.stm

There is even part of the deal that those of us in the UK that paid for it will be denied access to, although I don't actually have an issue with that, as I already get to see the full version of what the rest of the world will only get clips of.

Re:This is clips only

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also not available to UK residents at all.. which I find quite bizarre, given that I helped pay for that programme. IIRC, the BBC legally aren't allowed to show ad-supported programmes in the UK.

Missing Footage

[MagickalMyst]

Hopefully the find the missing footage from 9/11 that they claim to have lost and post it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part _of_the_conspiracy.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EuK3tCihJ0

Re:It's not a tax. It's not compulsory

[mdwh2]

That it's a "licence" doesn't mean it also isn't a tax. A tax doesn't have to be paid by everyone - there are many taxes which only have to be paid by some people. That's like saying income tax isn't compulsory because you don't have to have a job, or council tax isn't compulsory because you don't have to own a property...

It's a tax AND a licence. And, like most taxes, it's compulsory for people who fulfil a certain criterion (in this case, owning a TV).

The only real difference is that the money doesn't go to the Government as you say, although this isn't that different to any other taxation money which the Government hands to private companies for services. The BBC still have the Government backing to be able to enforce it (clearly, no other TV company has the right to "licence" its services this way).

B.S.

[styryx]

I don't even want to get remotely used to watching the BBC with advertisements!

They don't have any now and this is one of the main things I like about the BBC. And what would be there to prevent people from skipping the adverts on Youtube anyway?

The BBC needs to remain neutral, non-partisan and informal; a public service! It seems to be forgetting that more and more recently since the Iraq War fiasco. When Greg Dyke resigned after:

He said his sole aim had been to defend the BBC's independence and "act in the public interest".
I don't understand why he had to resign for that.

Re:B.S.

[AThinerCoin]

I'm looking forward to new seasons of IT Crowd and Dr. Who! I don't have cable because Comcast and I had a falling out, so I've been watching the old episodes on youTube to get my TV fix.

Re:B.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

IT Crowd is not produced by the BBC.

Re:It's not a tax. It's not compulsory

[wjsteele]

Question. If you own a TV in the UK but don't use it for viewing television programs (like hooking it up to an Atari 2600 full time,) do you still have to pay the license fee?

Bill

Re:Here in Germany we also have compulsory taxes..

[Anonymous Coward]

German is a truly terrifying language. The names of those departments scares the crap out of me just from reading them.

Even "Squirrel Hugging Department" translates to something like Eichhörnchenumarmendienst, which is enough to cause immediate French surrender by merely thinking it loudly.

Interesting timing though

[Attaturk]

"they reserve the right to take down or remove programmes that have run on their channels which might damage relationships"
And ones that show how they were involved in the 9/11 conspiracy! That's a joke, BTW :)

Or is it...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part _of_the_conspiracy.html

8)

Re:It's not a tax. It's not compulsory

[mystik]

Techincally no ... But it seems they put you on a "list" if you do it this way.

Re:It's not a tax. It's not compulsory

[91degrees]

I strive for accuracy. The licence may appear to be a tax, and have many things in common with it, but from a legal point of view, it is different in much the same way as the BBC is a public body, not a governmental body. Don't pay it and you won't be charged with tax evasion. You will be charged with not paying your TV licence. It's remarkably similar, but calling it a tax is technically incorrect.

As for compulsory, that's just hyperbole. There's a compulsory fee for buying groceries. It's called the price.

Re:It's not a tax. It's not compulsory

[BasilBrush]

No. You only have to pay the license fee if you have equipment set up to receive TV signals. So if you've got an Atari plugged in instead of an aerial, no license needed. On the other hand if you have a computer with a TV card, or even just a standalone VCR connected to an aerial (and power), then you do have to pay.

Re:It's not a tax. It's not compulsory

[Any Web Loco]

No, you don't have to pay it if you just plug a game console into it. You would need to show that you don't have the aerial plugged in. I have a friend who has a TV but only uses it for watching videos/DVDs. She doesn't have to pay the license either.

MOre info here.

Re:Here in Germany we also have compulsory taxes..

[Anonymous Coward]

If I recall correctly, the problem with German TV/Radio taxation being extended to computers stems from the fact that they have recently made it mandatory that you file taxes via computer. Thus... in order to pay taxes, you are (practically) required to own a device which in and of itself requires an additional tax. (Of course this is /., and I have little evidence to back up this claim, so correct me if I'm talking out my ass!)

It actually offers me a small amount of comfort that NHK in Japan isn't shafting us quite as badly as they could. (Although they did ask me if I had a computer with a TV tuner, when I told them I own no TV and will pay no tax.)

Thanks, I explain it quite easily

[Mateo_LeFou]

Public funding is, in my opinion, the best way to get zero-marginal-cost goods paid for, but not the only way. God bless anyone who can make another system work.

To correct your misperception, though: HBO *does need armed cops and prisons to sustain their business. Test the theory by subscribing to HBO, recording everything they broadcast, and setting up your own competitive station charging less for the same programming.

You will quickly learn that HBO *can charge for their service only because of a government-granted monopoly called copyright.

Re:Thanks, I explain it quite easily

[cryfreedomlove]

There is a big difference. Public funding is a nice way of saying 'force taxation for everyone'. No indvidual discretion is allow.

With HBO, however, there is a choice. Consumers who dislike HBO for any reason, including their copyright enforcement policy, can voluntarily decide not to participate.

Re:It's not a tax. It's not compulsory

[91degrees]

They put you (or rather your address) on a list if you don't have a television at all.

Advertising tax

[oliverthered]

Just like the Advertising tax I pay (indirectly) to Rupert Murdoch every time I buy something from the shops. I I don't even own a satellite dish or read the sun.

I think I'll stick with paying the BBC upfront.

Re:Advertising tax

[jez9999]

There was me thinking that there was this miraculous thing called 'subscription', whereby people who actually wanted to use a service were the ones who paid for it. Must've dreamt it.

Re:Advertising tax

[fm6]

Subscriptions and purchases don't even begin to cover the cost of publishing a mass-circulation newspaper or magazine. Their role as a revenue stream is actually less important the audit trail they create, which helps convince advertisers that their ads are being seen by the right people.

Re:It's not a tax. It's not compulsory

[Psiren]

You don't have to as long as the TV is not tunable to terrestrial broadcasts. In practice, you'd probably get hounded for years, especially if you used to have a license and then stopped having one. Frankly I'd happily pay twice as much for the license as I think the BBC do a damn good job of producing quality programs (Eastenders excepted of course).

TV Licencing

[celardore]

I've posted about my troubles with the TV licence people. I did just a couple of days ago, get it in writing that I do not have to pay for a TV licence - even though I have a TV. I wrote a story on it here.

The Submitter should RTFA

[PhillC]

Really, it's up to the submitter of this article to read the thing first!

From the article you will note that one of the entertainment channels will be a "public service" channel with no advertising. It will only show clips and short features.

The other entertainment channel will be run by BBC Worldwide, a wholly owned COMMERCIAL SUBSIDIARY of the public service BBC. This channel will be funder by advertising. It is worth noting that all BBC Worldwide profits are put directly back into the BBC, thus reducing the need to heavily increase the license fee. BBC Americas, for example, is part of BBC Worldwide. Do you watch any BBC programmes in a country other than the UK? Then these programmes have been licensed for broadcast by BBC Worldwide, and the money goes back into the BBC. If I recall, BBC Worldwide put £89million back into the BBC last financial year.

The news channel will have advertising on the page, which is fine, as it means non-UK residents are in fact "paying" to view BBC content. If UK residents want advert free BBC news content, just go to the BBC news website - http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Frankly, I don't see what is controversial about this deal at all - despite what the submitter or other media companies might say.

No. No antenna, no licence fee.

[fantomas]

No. I've got a few friends who use monitors for their film and video work and one's even been visited by the licence people to check. Bottom line seems to be that if you've got it plugged into an antenna, you're probably watching tv so you need a licence. But the emphasis in law is on them proving that you were watching tv, rather than you proving you were not. They can't fine you (for not having a licence) until they can prove you were watching tv (detector van outside your house). It's a known dodge in squats just to unplug the antenna and if they do get permission to check you out (court order) then to sit there and say "prove it, look you can see the games console/VCR is plugged into it, that all I do with it".

One of the arguments people make is that it's unfair for people who never watch the BBC (only commercial channels) to have to pay a licence fee but I've never met anybody who never watches the beeb. Being able to watch a film all the way through or an hour long documentary without commercial breaks every 20 or 30 minutes is worth it I reckon....

Re:No. No antenna, no licence fee.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah the government hounding you is totally worth it for advert-free television. Silly limeys always afraid to stand up for themselves.

Re:I'll Bite...

[russ1337]

Hear Hear! The Moss is the man.

Roy: [singing] We don't need no education.
Moss: Yes you do; you've just used a double negative

A compulsory tax

[aristolochene]

A compulsory tax. As opposed to an optional one?

Can they use this on their news site?

[theurge14]

Perhaps we will get more choices of BBC news video to watch than in RealPlayer format.

I only ask this because I believe RealPlayer is Satan's media player.

Re:Can they use this on their news site?

[Mex]

Hey, Satan uses VLC! No need to badmouth the guy, he already has enough bad PR as it is!

Re:It's not a tax. It's not compulsory

[fuyu-no-neko]

I strive for accuracy. The licence may appear to be a tax, and have many things in common with it, but from a legal point of view, it is different in much the same way as the BBC is a public body, not a governmental body. Don't pay it and you won't be charged with tax evasion. You will be charged with not paying your TV licence. It's remarkably similar, but calling it a tax is technically incorrect.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is genetically identical to a duck, it's not a duck if you decide to call it something else?

edited or unedited?

[mpe]

Just the same, they reserve the right to take down or remove programmes that have run on their channels which might damage relationships; examples might be football offerings or 'edited' shows."

They might also want to supress things which are embarassing. Like live footage of someone claiming a building has fallen down when it's still there in the background. Especially if that building does fall down some time later.

BBC: "1. We're not part of a conspiracy."

[Eternal Vigilance]

And we all know anyone part of a cabal evil beyond imagination would when asked be honor-bound to answer "Well...we are part of a conspiracy to overthrow the last vestiges of western democracy and enslave you and your descendants forever, yes."

I guess that's the logical equivalent of those big, flashing "SELF-DESTRUCT" buttons evil villains always seem to have in their command centers.

As far as the constant response of "move along, nothing to see here" (in this case quite literally!), a metaphor from Ted Geisel describes it best:

And the Grinch grabbed the tree, and he started to shove
When he heard a small sound like the coo of a dove.
He turned around fast, and he saw a small Who!
Little Cindy-Lou Who, who was not more than two.

The Grinch had been caught by this little Who daughter
Who'd got out of bed for a cup of cold water.
She stared at the Grinch and said, "Santy Claus, why,
"Why are you taking our Christmas tree? WHY?"

But, you know, that old Grinch was so smart and so slick
He thought up a lie, and he thought it up quick!
"Why, my sweet little tot," the fake Santy Claus lied,
"There's a light on this tree that won't light on one side.
"So I'm taking it home to my workshop, my dear.
"I'll fix it up there. Then I'll bring it back here."

And his fib fooled the child. Then he patted her head
And he got her a drink and he sent he to bed.
And when Cindy-Lou Who went to bed with her cup,
HE went to the chimney and stuffed the tree up!

"And what happened then...? Well...in Who-ville they say that the Grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day."

Its not Your Tube anymore...

[adnausium]

Personally i think makinging deals with all these stations/companies is kinda spoiling the whole idea. Pretty soon they are gonna have to change the name of the site to "TheirTube"...

Re:It's not a tax. It's not compulsory

[91degrees]

Nope. Paint stripes on a horse and it still isn't a zebra, even if you can't tell the difference.

There's Dirac.

[Grendel Drago]

The BBC's R&D department created a wavelet-based video codec called Dirac, and released it as open source. There are some commits to the CVS in the last few days, so the project's not dead. I don't know what they're planning to do with the codec, though.

Not on youtube

[codeboost]

I would prefer watching BBC programmes on apps like LiberTV.
You can't really enjoy good documentaries/programmes unless they are in HD or at a very good fullscreen resolution.

YouTube + BBC = Nothing New

[Kichigai Mentat]

Beeb content has been showing up on Google Video for a while now, mostly because Google Video doesn't impose a 10 minute limit. And I personally like it because Google lets me download things for my iPod and PSP, which is especially nice when my laptop is doing some heavy lifting stuff. Hopefully Google will at least drag those features into YouTube.

Re:CBC sucks

[just fiddling around]

I couldn't agree more! What I don't understand is that meanwhile the french branch of CBC, Radio-Canada, has a lot of top audience-gathering shows of many types. And Radio-Canada has smaller budgets, being mostly targeted to 25% of the population of Canada!

Not soon...

[Arrawa]

Now: http://www.youtube.com/bbc

Re:Not soon...

[Arrawa]

And even: http://www.youtube.com/bbcworldwide

Re:Here in Germany we also have compulsory taxes..

[caluml]

It's similar in Russian. You could write "I love fluffy bunnies", but in Cyrillic it would look like "SUPER DEADLY POLONIUM". Russian lettering just looks like it has something to do with nuclear something.

Net Doublecharge

[Doc Ruby]

Britons will pay once in taxes, then again in their time wasted on these ads and other crap. Meanwhile, everyone watching the extra crap will be thereby paying for content Britons have already paid to produce.

Maybe if the UK lowered the taxes by the amount it receives from Google for the ads, that might resemble fairness. But even then, the UK has not gone through a process OK'ing the switch from taxes to advertising (or something else). Until it actually switches, it should just broadcast the content, and wave the British flag around the world in a new medium, the way the Queen has her subjects do since "weaving" was new media.

Re:It's not a tax. It's not compulsory

[fuyu-no-neko]

Paint stripes on a horse and it still isn't a zebra, even if you can't tell the difference.

And yet you do exactly that by taking what is basically a tax, and painting on the words "It's not a tax, it's a license fee!"

Re:I'll Bite...

[barefoothannibal]

I don't understand how this has a -1 score. Just look for "The IT Crowd" on youtube to see how funny of a show it is. It is sad that Americans cannot see this legally except with a pricey BBC cable package.

Re:It's not a tax. It's not compulsory

[dave420]

Yeah! It's so stupid! I even have to pay an internet tax to my ISP just to use the internet! And a phone tax to my mobile phone provider just to use the phone I bought! What the fuck is up with all these taxes everywhere?!?

Just on a technicality

[sparkz]

The license fee is not a "compulsory tax system". If you own a TV (or TV tuner card for your PC, etc), then you must have a BBC License. It's cheaper than most of the "commercial" alternatives, and offers what is widely regarded as the best programming on the planet.

Yes, I'm British.

Yes, I pay the license fee. (It's about 1 month's worth of Council Tax, and I get a far greater benefit from it).

Do I mind that they're "giving it away" on YouTube? Only (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/re view-report-research/pvt_iplayer/bbctrust_pwcrepor t_pva_annexe.pdf seems to be the best link I can find; they'd like to "give away" TV downloads, so long as it's WinXP and WMP 10, to support DRM restrictions so that you can watch within 30 days of download, given that it will self-destruct within 7 days of first viewing). Well, it's good that it's available. It's not good if it's on limited terms to license-fee payers, but available for anyone who can rip from YouTube under whatever terms you choose.

Re:Just on a technicality

[in5ane]

"It's cheaper than most of the "commercial" alternatives, and offers what is widely regarded as the best programming on the planet."

It might be cheaper (BBC 130 vs 180 for Sky base package) but considering if you like TV you need to get Sky or cable really means you are forced to pay twice for your channels.

Channel 4 and five are evidence you can have an excellent channel without needing the license fee. Their homegrown stuff is excellent, and they show *a lot* of decent US shows between them. For free, no bullying tactics to tax me, just the odd advert or two.

BBC just make a lot of copycat shows, awful soaps and reality tv, waste a lot of money on niche services, and their saving grace- the occasional decent documentary. They are useless at importing US shows as well, losing the simpsons and 24 for example, yet still find the money to pay Jonathan Ross over £17m... They do show some decent stuff, but American Dad or Seinfeld at midnight on a Sunday isn't exactly useful scheduling.

If you can't tell, I'm not a fan and I don't agree with the parent. I don't have anything against people who like the BBC, but they should pay for it, not me. The sooner the license fee goes, the better.

But having said all that, I pay my tax. I should be able to put their content online, make my own channel with their shows- their stuff is publicly funded so it should be in the public domain, and I won't begrudge a few foreigners who have the perverse desire to watch the BBC either.

Scramble Signal look at Germany.. get cremated

[gd23ka]

Ignorance burns? I suppose life is pretty tough with such a disability like yours.
As ignorant as you are I suppose you can only feel save while immersed in the bath tub.

Groan. Television sets weren't made just for the reception of BBC broadcasts and just
because it potentially receives state television programming because the state does
not bother to protect the signal should not make you owe them extra money for their
propaganda, certainly not if you don't watch it.

The obvious thing to do would be to scramble their signal, but then subscriptions
wouldn't come anywhere near the forced collection scheme as most people wouldn't bother
with the BBC and get a subscription to Sky paytv instead. This is a problem in most
European countries who more or less all have government owned and operated TV networks
and private competition, notably among those Germany, that operates its opinion outlets
on exactly the same forced collection scheme.

Oh and btw.. BBC "subscribers" get free clairvoyant reporting with their "subscriptions"

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=224774&cid=182 02254

Obviously the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 26 minutes before it happened. Slashdot's
political moderation posse didn't find it worthwhile and modded it down within two minutes
of me posting it but you might still want to see the BBC's latest "cock up" (their words)
on youtube and video.google.com:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc+7+bbc

Re:I'll Bite...

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, the IT Crowd isn't BBC content. It was a show produced for C4.

Dr. Who Goldmine

[mrshowtime]

Those who worked for any PBS station in America remembers how exorbitant the licensing fees were for BBC programs such as Dr. Who and Blakes 7. The BBC made a fortune off Dr. Who in the 70's and 80's and from what I have been told, Blakes 7 was more costly than NOVA. The BBC now outsources Dr. Who to the Sci-Fi network and makes money off of that, as well as making money off of BBC America, both from ads and fees charged to the cable/satellite companies. I don't see why the BBC needs to collect fees anymore, it should be self-sufficient by now. The fees were originally created to fund programming to entice people to purchase tv sets. Besides, the line of "tv" set and computer is almost totally blurred.

Re:I'll Bite...

[adrianmonk]

I don't understand how this has a -1 score. Just look for "The IT Crowd" on youtube to see how funny of a show it is. It is sad that Americans cannot see this legally except with a pricey BBC cable package.

I have a pricey BBC cable package, and I've never seen it on there. Do I just not know where to look? I've only ever seen the first two episodes, the ones which the BBC directly made available for download themselves.

on related note .. flash/vmix/streaming suckyness

[freaker_TuC]

I have just posted a comment on the Foxsearchlight featured movie, it is not viewable because it skips like freak.

The previous format works a lot better...

Sorry to announce this, but the previous method of offering as quicktime files were a lot easier than this flash-only format which -S . K . i . . P s- continuesly; ruining the entire movie experience.

I'm already looking for years at these movies and found most movies very intruiging and well done. References are Farm Sluts, Kid Bang, Hangtime and even Paco's suitcase bomb for it's total stupidity ;)

This is no longer possible in this way,

Please atleast offer the latter method too? I'm not on a dial-up but I am overseas. The previous format did not skip because it was downloaded, it was also in *much* better quality to view without all blobs inbetween.

Thanks in advance,
a very interested foxsearchlight viewer.

Gunther.

Re:It's not a tax. It's not compulsory

[91degrees]

The point is simply that if you're being 100% accurate, from a legal point of view, it isn't a tax.

If you want to argue that it's basically/effectively/morally/ecuminically a tax, then fine. I'm with you. And I'll also submit that Microsoft's per CPU OEM licence was effectively a tax, but if you want to be pedantically accurate rather than emotive, then it's not.

Re:Here in Germany we also have compulsory taxes..

[Anonymous Coward]

If I recall correctly, the problem with German TV/Radio taxation being extended to computers stems from the fact that they have recently made it mandatory that you file taxes via computer.

That's right. If you own a business in Germany you have to file taxes electronically. There is a possible way to prevent paying this tax by asking the ISP to block the offers from TV and Radio stations in the internet.

Re:I'll Bite...

[soliptic]

The IT Crowd was from Channel 4, not the BBC.

Journalist?

[jotaeleemeese]

Idiots like him give journalism a bad name. In this era of climate change, all the pro-car ranting sems more and more anticuated and idiotic.

It is also horribly ironic that one of the presenters almost died due to the unnecessary idiotic stunts they push themselves to do and the rampant disregard for security measures for drivers.