Thrifty, Anonymous Benefactor Backs Up BBC Websites Before They Go Dark

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Thrifty, Anonymous Benefactor Backs Up BBC Websites Before They Go Dark

Posted by timothy on Thursday February 10, 2011 @10:13PM from the slurp-and-emit dept.

revealingheart writes "The BBC is set to close down 200 of its websites in the near future as part of cost-cutting measures. Hearing that 172 of these sites would be deleted from the Web entirely, an anonymous individual has taken matters into his or her own hands. The result is a BitTorrent file that anyone can download to store a backup of these 'lost' websites forever. The cost of the project? Apparently no more than $3.99 for a VPS server to crawl and retrieve all the sites."

159 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What I want to know.... by MrQuacker · 2011-02-10 22:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

Is how many millions of pounds were spent developing all those sites.
1. Re:What I want to know.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-10 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  aws.amazon.com. Hourly rates, and a big pipe. Only takes a couple of lines of script and some hours to crawl everything, then shut the server down...
2. Re:What I want to know.... by SimonTheSoundMan · 2011-02-10 22:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  What, you want them in Altarian Dollars? Can't do, as they no longer exist. I wouldn't bother with Triganic Pu, that has too many problems. Or how about one Ningis, you can get eight of those for one Pu, but nobody has ever rich enough to own one Pu so it isn't worth thinking about.
3. Re:What I want to know.... by MichaelSmith · 2011-02-10 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  But why use a new server? Any client machine could crawl the sites. I have a home server which could do it.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
4. Re:What I want to know.... by DeanLearner · 2011-02-10 22:37 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks to the unique way the BBC is funded, this doesn't matter. Money, money, money!
  
  (In the UK, if you own a device that can receive TV signals, you HAVE to have a TV license which the BBC gets funds from)
5. Re:What I want to know.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-10 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  Big pipe...
6. Re:What I want to know.... by pyrosine · 2011-02-10 22:40 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, Its that if you actively receive TV signals that you have to pay the licence fee, and even then you only need one. Better than the alternative, advertisement flooded, channels that dont rely on public funding.
7. Re:What I want to know.... by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-10 22:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  (In the UK, if you own a device that can receive TV signals, you HAVE to have a TV license which the BBC gets funds from)
  No. In the UK, iff you use a device to watch television as it is broadcast then your residence has to have a TV licence. A TV used for CCTV, amateur television or watching DVDs does not create a requirement for a licence. A computer used for iPlayer's "Watch live" service does create a requirement for a licence.
  A license is some American invention which you probably need to jaywalk from the sidewalks to the theater.
8. Re:What I want to know.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-10 22:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Actually, It is only required if you watch or record TV as it's being shown over the air (live).
  You can in fact have a Freeview TV set up, plugged in, receiving signals, but so long as you only use it to read text services or listen to radio - you don't need a licence.
  I have previously written to the BBC for clarification on these points, and they have confirmed that this is truth.
9. Re:What I want to know.... by pyrosine · 2011-02-10 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  You should check the comments on the article on torrentfreak, I was linked to thrustvps who offer servers at £4 incl tax (although cant be 100% this is who the uploader bought from)
10. Re:What I want to know.... by newcastlejon · 2011-02-10 23:01 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, the wording is that one has to "receive broadcasts as they are transmitted". If you want to argue that iPlayer programmes are TV signals then this distinction is important. I watch perhaps 2 hours of TV programming per week using iPlayer and sometimes 4OD so I don't pay a license fee. If I want to watch something else I'll just go to a streaming site or my DVD collection.
  FWIW I believe Channel 4 does receive some small amount of the fee.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
11. Re:What I want to know.... by MichaelSmith · 2011-02-10 23:03 · Score: 2
  
  I preferred it when is was Somebody Else's Problem to preserve these abandoned BBC sites.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
12. Re:What I want to know.... by lennier1 · 2011-02-10 23:15 · Score: 2
  
  Could be worse. The German equivalent is similar but a tad crazier.
  There you're also required to have a license if the device is just capable of receiving publicly funded TV or radio (allowing them to grab money from more people and extend the whole thing to online-capable devices which could theoretically be used to access their online streaming content).
13. Re:What I want to know.... by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-10 23:29 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, that's where I'd draw the line and consider the licence unacceptable.
  A well regulated TV licence funds a broadcast service separate from and balancing against dominant commercial interests. If Murdoch, say, is given a licence to broadcast on some frequency (parts of the e-m spectrum not being in any reasonable way ownable) then in return for exclusive access to broadcast on this frequency he and his customers must accept that the people get to have something to challenge a service acting in his interests.
  IOW, if you're paying money for a Sky subscription, you're benefitting from Murdoch's exclusive control of various radio frequencies. In return for the people allocating those frequencies for your benefit, you gotta pay for the counterbalance that is the BBC.
  "What about when TV goes all Internet and is no longer broadcast over the air?" I hear you hypothesise based on your own experience and that of half a dozen geeks who use iPlayer and torrents. Well, land communications networks suffer precisely the same problem of "natural" monopoly requiring regulation to ensure competition and balance. It's a variation of a net neutrality argument.
  This all applies before you even consider the content value of the BBC.
14. Re:What I want to know.... by benjamindees · 2011-02-10 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure how to convert Libraries of Congress to pounds.
  
  --
  "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
15. Re:What I want to know.... by MadKeithV · 2011-02-10 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  The figure of $3.99 was arrived at through bistromath.
16. Re:What I want to know.... by commodore64_love · 2011-02-11 00:20 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  BBC has a real problem understanding the concept of "archiving". For some reason they think just because they are done with the sites, nobody else wants them either, so just erase them.
  It's somewhat similar to how they destroyed 1950s and 60s television tapes.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
17. Re:What I want to know.... by PenguinJames · 2011-02-11 00:28 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Well, if you read the article, you find a link: "You can read the full background to the story here [http://178.63.252.42/]." Look up 178.63.252.42 at ripe.org and you find it's owned by spacerich.com. Visit spacerich.com and you see in large, friendly letters: "Virtual Private Servers from $3.99/month"
  
  So there you go, spacerich.com offers VPS for $3.99/month.
  
  --
  The box said, "Requires Windows XP or Better"...
  So I installed Linux.
18. Re:What I want to know.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 00:35 · Score: 0
  
  Since the Murdoch signals are delivered by satellite, the frequencies can be reused by other broadcasters. Indeed this is exactly what happens; if you point your dish in a different direction you can receive broadcasts from different satellites on other frequencies. Therefore you cannot (correctly) say that he has exclusive control of them. Murdoch is only occupying a small area of geostationary orbit, which is hardly property of the UK anyway. (I don't think it's even above the UK; more likely central Europe.) So I don't think this argument works.
  Also, how is the BBC a "counterbalance"? I thought it was supposed to be "impartial"? :)
19. Re:What I want to know.... by Enigma23 · 2011-02-11 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure how to convert Libraries of Congress to pounds.
  How much does the Library of Congress weigh in pounds..?
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas une .sig
20. Re:What I want to know.... by PenguinJames · 2011-02-11 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  And by ripe.org, I obviously meant ripe.net.
  
  --
  The box said, "Requires Windows XP or Better"...
  So I installed Linux.
21. Re:What I want to know.... by Enigma23 · 2011-02-11 00:38 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Shutup Troll.
  Pot. Kettle. Black.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas une .sig
22. Re:What I want to know.... by etwills · 2011-02-11 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Its' not the cost to date, but this morning's Metro stated:
  
  The BBC announced last month it would remove the sites from the web as part of cuts to its £34million online budget. It is also axing 360 staff.
  and
  
  While the torrent was created anonymously, some sources have suggested that the person behind it is Ben Metcalfe, also known as dotBen, who posted a link to the archive on Twitter with the message: ‘So here it is... if you want to download the torrent backup of all the sites the BBC are closing.’
  Metcalfe is a former BBC software engineer, who helped launch the BBC blog network, now living in the US.
23. Re:What I want to know.... by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-11 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Since the Murdoch signals are delivered by satellite,
  Regulation (of another sort) has intervened to specifically prevent Murdoch's ownership of certain terrestrial broadcasters. Sky 3 sure is doing a good job of reaching the DVB-T-connected TV I'm sitting in front of, and most terrestrial broadcasters remain under private ownership.
  
  the frequencies can be reused by other broadcasters. Indeed this is exactly what happens; if you point your dish in a different direction you can receive broadcasts from different satellites on other frequencies.
  The fact that a signal is directional doesn't mean Murdoch gets any more natural right to ownership of the spectrum. There's no cone extending from his satellite a few centimetres down into the ground through everyone's property which he has an inherent right to use in any way.
  
  Therefore you cannot (correctly) say that he has exclusive control of them.
  I couldn't in any case, technically, because digital terrestrial channels are delivered on multiplexes managed by the cunts at Arqiva. But he has an exclusive right to content delivery on some part of the spectrum in the sense that you have the privilege of enjoying it uninterrupted. Put another way, I don't get to fly an aircraft over your village and interrupt his signal to rescue you from his dross. You pay for that privilege.
  
  Murdoch is only occupying a small area of geostationary orbit, which is hardly property of the UK anyway.
  The privilege of launching a satellite and controlling an area of space is yet another thing for which he owes the system which has given him the freedom and stability to do that - but that's another matter entirely.
24. Re:What I want to know.... by S.O.B. · 2011-02-11 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  How much does the Library of Congress weigh in pounds..?
  Not sure about pounds but it's about 6.5 Oprahs.
  
  --
  Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
25. Re:What I want to know.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  They switched to the metric system you idiot, it's not pounds, it's like kilo... millimeters or something.
26. Re:What I want to know.... by Nineteen-Delta · 2011-02-11 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the tapes of old programmes were erased to be recycled. At the time there was a considerable cost to buy and archive. These days though, storage for digital media are mere fractions of the cost. - One would imagine a reasonable sized hard drive could archive thousands of webpages, and with a bit of tech know-how take no more than a few hours to set up and copy everything. - Job done.
27. Re:What I want to know.... by Neil+Boekend · 2011-02-11 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  (I don't think it's even above the UK; more likely central Europe.)
  [mode="pedantic"] The geostationary orbit is by definition not above Europe, since Europe is not on the equator.[/mode]
  If, for example, the channels are on the Astra 2 satellite, they are at 19.2 degrees longtitude east. This means they are above Congo, and due south from central europe.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
28. Re:What I want to know.... by elrous0 · 2011-02-11 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Don't knock it. It got you the best version of The Office, didn't it?
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
29. Re:What I want to know.... by Illicon · 2011-02-11 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  In Soviet Russia, device owns you!
30. Re:What I want to know.... by nedlohs · 2011-02-11 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure the poster was trying to make a stupid joke, and failing miserably because almost nobody gives a shit about "PIN number", "FTP protocol", and all the other such things that get some people worked up into a frenzy.
  See i says "VPS server", which would be "Virtual Private Server server", Which like an "FTP server" is a server that provides FTP must be a server that provides VPSs in other words a reasonably capable real server. Ha-ha-ha-ha.
  And yes, it isn't funny in any way at all. But as I should have said at he beginning the poster is clearly retarded.
31. Re:What I want to know.... by elrous0 · 2011-02-11 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Hogsheads and bushels were good enough for my grandpa, they're good enough for me! If you can't tell me the weight in stone, I got no use for you.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
32. Re:What I want to know.... by Mister+Whirly · 2011-02-11 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  You will have to get a lot of cash from the ATM machine, so be sure you know your PIN number.
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
33. Re:What I want to know.... by dziban303 · 2011-02-11 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Sunk costs should never influence your current decision.
34. Re:What I want to know.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, but your post was fuckin hilarious. Pinhead. Just because you don't find something funny doesn't mean it isn't. I am positive you are not the yardstick for measuring comedy.
35. Re:What I want to know.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  The point is, your argument that Murdoch's broadcasts somehow justify the licence fee is more than a bit crazy.
  If you want to talk about debts to society, then look no further than the BBC. What does the BBC owe us, the public, for the priviledge of owning all those buildings, huge amounts of the broadcasting spectrum, and of course the monopoly right to levy a tax on ownership of a television that receives anything over the air?
  I suppose you could say it owes us some television programmes.. but what do we do if we don't like them? Where is the accountability? What do we do when we don't feel the debt is being repaid properly? At least with Murdoch we can decide not to subscribe to Sky.
  In any sane world we'd compare the BBC and News Corp and see they are pretty similar - both massive media corporations with huge influence. And yet one of them also has the legal right to extract payment from us and provide nothing worthwhile in return. I'm sure you can justify this in your head, but it is still wrong.
36. Re:What I want to know.... by camperdave · 2011-02-11 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  No. In the UK, iff you use a device to watch television as it is broadcast then your residence has to have a TV licence.
  As it is broadcast? What does that mean? What if I use a PVR to play back half an hour later? What about delaying ten minutes? Two minutes? Four seconds?
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
37. Re:What I want to know.... by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-11 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  The point is, your argument that Murdoch's broadcasts somehow justify the licence fee is more than a bit crazy.
  
  You've omitted the reasoning between "your argument" and "more than a bit crazy" - would you mind providing it? Perhaps it'll give me a better warning of the kind of bullshit Cameron will come up with to further diminish the BBC.
  
  If you want to talk about debts to society, then look no further than the BBC. What does the BBC owe us, the public, for the priviledge of owning all those buildings,
  Sorry, did they steal your house or something? Also, priviledge (n): the precipice your envious detractor perceives you on and wants to push you off so he can take your place.
  
  huge amounts of the broadcasting spectrum,
  It doesn't "own" - it has an exclusive right to do certain things with it. This ability was earnt through a process more democratic than "have the money to pay a broadcast fee" and much more democratic than "sale to the highest bidder". Which do you prefer? A system of government which commits suicide by just selling control and assets off to the highest bidder, perhaps?
  
  and of course the monopoly right to levy a tax on ownership of a television that receives anything over the air?
  
  No. It must specifically receive broadcast television. For example, my free amateur radio licence allows me to send amateur television, and you are able to receive it, without creating any requirement for a TV licence.
  
  I suppose you could say it owes us some television programmes.. but what do we do if we don't like them? Where is the accountability? What do we do when we don't feel the debt is being repaid properly?
  Write to the BBC about specific programmes; give feedback via the BBC Trust consultations and complaints service; fill the ballot box.
  
  At least with Murdoch we can decide not to subscribe to Sky.
  
  Nope. He still gets to beam his shit at me.
  
  In any sane world we'd compare the BBC and News Corp and see they are pretty similar - both massive media corporations with huge influence.
  Lots of entities are massive with huge influence. This doesn't mean that they're all equally useful, benevolent, moral, value-for-money, acceptable, etc.
  
  And yet one of them also has the legal right to extract payment from us and provide nothing worthwhile in return. I'm sure you can justify this in your head, but it is still wrong.
  The BBC doesn't have the legal right to "extract payment from us and provide nothing worthwhile in return". It has a host of obligations in return for the licence fee payment.
38. Re:What I want to know.... by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-11 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's time-shifting, which is effectively watching as it is broadcast.
  (And not to be confused with use of an online catch-up service, which is not time-shifting and does not require you to pay any licence fee.)
39. Re:What I want to know.... by cyn1c77 · 2011-02-11 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Sunk costs should never influence your current decision.
  Your economic-based logic would apply to a company whose only goal was profit, but the BBC is a public service media company.
40. Re:What I want to know.... by davester666 · 2011-02-11 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  The conversion does fluctuate daily, but it is moving towards parity.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
41. Re:What I want to know.... by the_hellspawn · 2011-02-11 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  So your implying that it IS the size of the pipe and not the 'motion in the ocean'. Good to know.
  
  --
  "The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
42. Re:What I want to know.... by DaveGod · 2011-02-11 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sunk costs should never influence your current investment decision.
  FTFY. Sunk costs are still relevant when retrospectively evaluating performance, which I think is what MrQuacker is getting at.
  Not that the criticism is necessarily aimed at the BBC. A major source of waste and inefficiency where government is involved (and to a lesser degree at any large organisation), is the uncertainty introduced by politicians continually changing the landscape. The websites may have offered good value for money at the time of purchase and everything may have gone to plan at the BBC end, but they are now infeasible simply due to a change in government.
  The root of the issue manifests itself in everything. Government-influenced organisations rarely buy equipment but instead take leasing options, even if they are much more expensive, because they can't amortise the cost of a purchase over several year's budgets. Staff at organisations that have funding guaranteed only for short periods need to be paid more to compensate for the short-term contract (and they spend a lot of their time completing funding applications for next year). Want to guess why the Scottish Parliament building went 10x over budget? Politicians continually quibbled and changed the spec of their offices even while all the builders were on site. It got so bad that I even had a contractor bemoaning his disgust at getting paid full rate to be sitting drinking tea with the boys day-in, day-out, despite the personal windfall, particularly since they couldn't be released to go do something useful because they were contractually obliged to be on site.
  For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not advocating small government, but rather that if politicians really wish to "cut waste" the first thing they need to do is stop themselves from continually meddling in everything and the second thing is to set reasonably long term funding that people can actually plan with.
43. Re:What I want to know.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  Oh dear. Looks like I'm getting the full-on self-righteous Fisking here.
  Let me try one final time to explain what I'm getting at. A thought experiment: suppose things are somehow reversed, and Murdoch's television stations become the BBC. How do you feel about having to pay Mr Rupert Murdoch just in order to watch broadcast over-the-air TV?
  Now, you're a defender of the licence fee, so of course you still approve of this on principle, right? Even if you only watch channels that he doesn't control, old Rupert still gets your money. Which is fine, because he's providing a "counterbalance" to the other TV networks (the ones that don't get the licence fee money), and also if you don't like his programmes, you can write to him, and "give feedback via the Murdoch Trust consultations and complaints service". And it's "democracy" because the elected government granted him this exclusive franchise. So nobody has any right to complain about it anyway.
  Hmm.. but that doesn't sound nearly as good, does it?
  Nevertheless this is exactly why I object to the licence fee and why I don't pay it*. Even in the minds of its apologists it is only justified because the beneficiary is "the BBC" and not any other media empire. They accord the BBC special treatment because it's the BBC.
  They shouldn't do that. They should forget about names and ideals and judge it by the same standards they judge anything else. They should not allow themselves to be blinded by the BBC's own propaganda about how much better it is "because of the unique way it's funded". They should be objective. If Murdoch is a bad influence, if Murdoch beams "shit" at you, then isn't it at least possible that the BBC might be doing the same thing? But that unlike Murdoch, there's nothing you can do about it?
  Obligations mean nothing if you have no way to enforce them. The BBC Trust is a way of appearing accountable without actually being accountable, just like any other quango. What are we going to do if we're unhappy with the BBC? Write to them? Oooh, scary. Only watch ITV1? Yeah, that'll show 'em! Whatever happens they still get paid. This. Is. The. Problem.
  Incidentally, you mention Cameron. You suggest he's against the BBC. Well, you might like to think about exactly how he "won" the election. Seems to me that if the BBC had really not wanted him in Number 10, they could easily have prevented it, given their vast power to influence thinking (and through that, voting). Maybe he's not exactly who you think he is. Maybe his relationship with the BBC is somewhat friendlier than you've been led to believe.
  * Of course I am aware of the rules about when you have to have a licence and when you don't. I wouldn't be much of a licence fee objector if I didn't already opt out of paying it. Naturally I am fully aware of the legal issues and am in full compliance with the law. But then, you wouldn't be much of a licence fee apologist if you didn't pick me up on this point, despite my attempt to deflect that particular derailment. Happens every time.
44. Re:What I want to know.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  Video tape was very expensive in the day; we're missing stuff because the tape was reused not destroyed. Bad news for Doctor Who fans of course, -but-!
45. Re:What I want to know.... by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-11 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  Let me try one final time to explain what I'm getting at. A thought experiment: suppose things are somehow reversed, and Murdoch's television stations become the BBC. How do you feel about having to pay Mr Rupert Murdoch just in order to watch broadcast over-the-air TV?
  Now, you're a defender of the licence fee, so of course you still approve of this on principle, right?
  No. There's no private individual which gets to own and control the licence payer money. Approving of a corporation managed by a trust is not the same as approving a franchise for the personal benefit of a private individual (or public-private partnerships in general).
  
  And it's "democracy" because the elected government granted him this exclusive franchise.
  No. Giving high level control of some aspect of public service to private business is not democratic. Public ownership of public services is a necessary component of democratic government. (No, a decision isn't democratic just because some majority vote for the government which chooses it: consider any elected government suddenly deciding to remove the right to vote.)
  
  They should forget about names and ideals and judge it by the same standards they judge anything else.
  As for content provision, sure. But the quality of programming will certainly be affected by the organisation's reasons for creating/selecting those programmes, so the outcome is fairly predictable.
  
  if Murdoch beams "shit" at you, then isn't it at least possible that the BBC might be doing the same thing?
  It's possible that the BBC will fuck up, and then we have the mentioned methods to help correct it.
  
  But that unlike Murdoch, there's nothing you can do about it?
  To change Murdoch, I have to persuade enough people with the money and desire to watch Murdoch to stop paying Murdoch. To change the BBC, I merely have to encourage people - any people - to put forward their views on how the BBC can be improved. As for stopping the BBC, I can do that by campaigning for a BBC-hating government - but it is absurd to campaign against a strong broadcast voice representing the people, and (unless I'm really not in favour of democracy) I'd surely be spending the time trying to ensure that the public service broadcaster fairly represents the public?
  
  Obligations mean nothing if you have no way to enforce them. The BBC Trust is a way of appearing accountable without actually being accountable, just like any other quango.
  Except that the BBC listens to and acts on the reports of the BBC Trust, and the BBC Trust listens to the people, directly and via the government. Or do you have some alternative reality in your head in which the BBC's programming policies are set by some other method? If so, what is the method?
  
  What are we going to do if we're unhappy with the BBC? Write to them? Oooh, scary.
  Born after 1980, huh? Yes, the whole point in democracy is that you precisely state your grievances by writing/speaking/debating, rather than by having enough money to get your own way.
  
  Only watch ITV1?
  That may have an effect, and the BBC has had periods of getting pathologically obsessed with ratings. But the BBC does not need to aim for the greatest viewership. Its aim is to represent the people, not to sell eyeballs to advertisers.
  
  Yeah, that'll show 'em! Whatever happens they still get paid. This. Is. The. Problem.
  No. If the BBC becomes chronically unpopular because it stops responding to the needs of the people then a government with undemocratic tendencies will have no trouble eliminating the BBC.
  
  Incidentally, you mention Cameron. You suggest he's against the BBC. Well, you might like to think about exactly how he "won" the election.
  Because people
46. Re:What I want to know.... by Grumbleduke · 2011-02-11 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's somewhat similar to how they destroyed 1950s and 60s television tapes.
  That wasn't due to archiving, or even expensive tape, though. That was due to copyright. In the 70s and 80s there was a big scare that home taping would kill the TV industry (MPAA sponsored, of course) and that as Networks could store shows on tape, they might just replay them over and over again, driving down the need for new material. So the TV producers' and actors' unions (or whatever they were) made strict rules about how long material could be stored for and how many times it could be shown. The result of which was that after a few years it became far too expensive to store the material. Most of the tapes weren't actually reused, but destroyed (by fire, iirc).
  Incidentally, Doctor Who survived quite well; full audio exists for all episodes, and most at least have stills of every few seconds (ironically, due to copyright infringement and home taping..). Some other shows (such as Z-Cars and Steptoe and Son) were hit a lot worse.
47. Re:What I want to know.... by robsku · 2011-02-15 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Oh dear god, how stupid is man I can never understand? ...and by "man" I do not speak of individual(s) but of mankind... Pardon me, I is not very familiar with american TV history, but do you actually mean that these series were completely lost!? Sounds just so amazingly incredibly stoopid...
  
  --
  In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
48. Re:What I want to know.... by Grumbleduke · 2011-02-15 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure any entire series were lost as in some cases episodes survived due to people making unlawful copies at home (or in some cases, the actual tapes being "stolen" by producers etc. to save them), but yes; there are dozens, possibly hundreds of episodes of UK television from the 60s and 70s that no longer exist in any format.
author makes no reasonable point by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-10 22:27 · Score: 1, Interesting

So, what you're saying is that to reprint a book costs wildly less than to produce a book? That an electronic copy with no attempts to guarantee availability is much cheaper than a resilient set of servers which deliver instantly and accessibly to goodness-knows-how-many-people per minute? And that the cheapest thing of all is to do so without asking anyone's permission?
Look, we can all observe an assault undique to neuter and privatise the BBC. But OP is attention whoring with a cheap technical demonstration which alienates him from the very people he might think he is supporting.
1. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Darkon · 2011-02-10 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  Look, we can all observe an assault undique to neuter and privatise the BBC.
  We can? In case you hadn't noticed there's a recession on. Why should the BBC be exempt from making the same cost savings that all public bodies are having to make?
2. Re:author makes no reasonable point by newcastlejon · 2011-02-10 22:55 · Score: 2
  
  So, what you're saying is that to reprint a book costs wildly less than to produce a book?
  Websites aren't books.
  
  That an electronic copy with no attempts to guarantee availability is much cheaper than a resilient set of servers which deliver instantly and accessibly to goodness-knows-how-many-people per minute?
  Yes, electronic copies don't cost Auntie anything, which is sort of the point.
  
  And that the cheapest thing of all is to do so without asking anyone's permission?
  If he's british then the matter of permission is a grey one: having paid his license fee it could be argued that he has a right to this material and making it available to other Britons is merely an extension. Of course, sticking it on BT for all to grab would complicate matters but I don't see Auntie getting her knickers in too much of a twist.
  
  Look, we can all observe an assault undique to neuter and privatise the BBC. But OP is attention whoring with a cheap technical demonstration which alienates him from the very people he might think he is supporting.
  If there is an assault on the BBC it's coming from the government and not even the shower we have now would privatise the Beeb (hell, not even Thatcher tried that). OP may be attention-seeking - he's a Twitterer, go figure - and what he did may have been simple but it's hardly alienating. It never hurts to have another alternative archive of lost material, especially when one has been stung in the past by all those lost tapes of Dr. Who.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
3. Re:author makes no reasonable point by AmiMoJo · 2011-02-10 22:59 · Score: 2
  
  He is not alone, archive.org and I expect many others have done the same thing. It is trivial to do with free software from your own PC at no cost.
  I'm sure the BBC will keep copies too. The pages will be removed from the web but we are talking about data that can easily fit on a USB flash drive. The BBC probably has some kind of long term archival system too, e.g. tape. No-one wants a repeat of the video tape wiping debacle of the 70s.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:author makes no reasonable point by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-10 23:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Firstly, the privatisation began years ago under New Tories - the worst hit from a geeky PoV being selling of infrastructure to Siemens.
  Secondly, the BBC isn't a public body in the sense that is, say, the British Army. The Army is funded by a general, compulsory taxes on income and other trade. The BBC is funded by a licence which you only need to pay if you choose to watch (possibly time-shifted) live broadcast television.
  Thirdly, anyone who thinks that this round of government cost cutting is even slightly relevant to getting out of recession is an idiot. Money is wasted because government acts as an agent for private benefactors, in particular (i) units are sold off and services contracted back to well-back-scratched government officials at profit; (ii) money invested in private wars, trade and military, under the guise of "free trade" or defence of the realm. Much of our debt represents investment in banks from which (if we do things right) we stand to make huge profit once we've sold off again.
  Finally, government debt per se is not bad - it acts as a mirror private wealth of creditors. What matters is whether debt is sustainable. The approach after WW2 to a record level of debt was to invest more to grow local technology, industry and services. The approach today is to burn all society's bridges for firewood. Thatcher executed round one, and Cameron prepares kindling for remaining edifices. Then there's nothing left, and Britain will have got exactly what she asked for.
5. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-10 23:10 · Score: 0
  
  There's always a politically convenient lie going on. Why should anyone believe this one?
6. Re:author makes no reasonable point by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-10 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  Websites aren't books.
  True. Maintaining a web site may be more difficult, as it may involve interactive services. But I get the impression that what was being mirrored could essentially be put into book form.
  
  Yes, electronic copies don't cost Auntie anything, which is sort of the point.
  The electronic copy just made doesn't. So what you're saying is that this is a campaign for the BBC to link to the .torrent file for an archive of its decommissioned web sites?
  
  If he's british then the matter of permission is a grey one: having paid his license fee it could be argued that he has a right to this material
  Nothing of the sort can be argued. Firstly, the BBC isn't funded by general taxation. Secondly, even if it were, there is no English concept mirroring the US idea that Federal works are in the public domain. Actually, not even the US has that in practice, because so much work produced by private entities under contract to government remains the intellectual property of the private entity. Then you have all the software and documents that, for reasons from laziness to national security, are never released.
  
  Of course, sticking it on BT for all to grab would complicate matters but I don't see Auntie getting her knickers in too much of a twist.
  Perhaps not. Does everything on all these web sites have BBC copyright? What do the authors who perhaps have an affinity for the BBC but not for promoting random attention-whoring private individuals have to say? Is Bittorrent availability likely to elicit a BBC response, "We don't need to host this stuff - just download it from that Ben Metcalfe guy if you really care"?
7. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Darkon · 2011-02-10 23:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  the BBC isn't a public body in the sense that is, say, the British Army. The Army is funded by a general, compulsory taxes on income and other trade. The BBC is funded by a licence which you only need to pay if you choose to watch (possibly time-shifted) live broadcast television
  A tax doesn't have to be universal, unless you're also going to argue that the tax on cigarettes and alcohol aren't really taxes because only smokers and drinkers pay them. The licence fee is a compulsory tax on anyone who watches broadcast TV, whether or not they consume or even care about BBC services. Now I'm not saying that I don't enjoy BBC output, or even that I necessarily resent paying the licence fee, but please don't try to use weasel words and pretend it's something it isn't. It might be a special purpose tax and the money it generates might be ring fenced, but it's a tax and the BBC is a public body.
8. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-10 23:43 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't call this attention whoring. Attention whoring involves being a whore. Neither the person who made the copy of the sites, nor the author of this post, are attempting to receive anything for what they have done.
  Also, production of a book costs little more than what it costs to pay the author to write it, and the editor to review it. The cost of reprinting, or the cost of printing the first time, would be roughly similar, allowing for market differences.
  Finally, if you download the file, you have availability of the data even without access to the internet. And moreover, unlike a server, a p2p network sharing this torrent will be nearly impossible to shut down, especially for what it would be worth.
  In short, reprinting does not cost wildly less than publication unless you have an all-star author and editor, and a freely shared torrent is pretty steeped in availability. Your argument is invalid.
9. Re:author makes no reasonable point by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-10 23:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A tax doesn't have to be universal, unless you're also going to argue that the tax on cigarettes and alcohol aren't really taxes because only smokers and drinkers pay them.
  
  You seem to be overly worried about whether something can be called a "tax" or not based on whether it's compulsory (I'd like to propose, then, that food purchases are taxes because they are compulsory for survival). Consider instead the allocation of funds.
  Scrapping Trident is a valid cost-cutting measure when the government has decided that it's overspending on unnecessary shit during a recession: if you scrap Trident, you suddenly have a few 10s of billions more GBP to allocate other than against an imaginary enemy who is already being sufficiently resisted.
  Even tax on fags and booze goes to central government. The extra taxation isn't allocated for health or policiing services for cancer patients and drunks.
  But, as you say, BBC money is separately funded. If you shut down a few small BBC web sites, you achieve precisely nothing to help anyone. The money won't go to firing one civil service PPP management bureaucrat or tearing up one agency contract in favour of well-trained full time employees.
  What is more, I regard the licence fee as the cost the viewer pays for (i) the content produced by the BBC; (ii) even if he chooses not to watch the BBC, the permission given by the people to private broadcasters to use parts of the e-m spectrum (and other artificial/natural monopolies) to broadcast stuff in their interests. The "cost" in this case is the right for the people to provide a counterpoint - something sorely lacking, in, say, the bastion of free press that is the USA.
  The BBC is (ideally) the people's counterbalance to the freedom of the press belonging to the owners of the presses.
10. Re:author makes no reasonable point by MadJo · 2011-02-10 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  It was either this or those sites would move to /dev/null.
  In this case a lot of cultural references (like h2g2.co.uk) will be kept.
  Whether it's legal or not, it is our duty to preserve our culture.
  
  --
  80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
11. Re:author makes no reasonable point by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-10 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't call this attention whoring. Attention whoring involves being a whore. Neither the person who made the copy of the sites, nor the author of this post, are attempting to receive anything for what they have done.
  Nonsense. Ben Metcalfe is a somewhat bitter ex-BBC employee and his reward is reputation (as it often is on the Interwebs). TFA, his web site and about 20 seconds' worth of mouse clicks between them make this clear.
12. Re:author makes no reasonable point by dave420 · 2011-02-11 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  Go back to reading the Daily Mail, asshole.
13. Re:author makes no reasonable point by drinkypoo · 2011-02-11 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to be overly worried about whether something can be called a "tax" or not based on whether it's compulsory (I'd like to propose, then, that food purchases are taxes because they are compulsory for survival). Consider instead the allocation of funds.
  Uh, the definition of a tax is that it is compulsory, and nobody is going to force you to eat. AFAICT, starving yourself is the only legal way to commit suicide in most jurisdictions.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
14. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 00:30 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, the old "anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot" strategy. Wins you many arguments, does it?
  You might want to look at the whole "making profit from investment in banks" thing from a slightly more macro-economic standpoint.
15. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 00:34 · Score: 0
  
  Go back to reading the Guardian, commie.
16. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Enigma23 · 2011-02-11 00:40 · Score: 2
  
  Then there's nothing left, and Britain will have got exactly what she asked for.
  I didn't ask for it, nor did the vast majority of people in the UK. Governments presume to think they know best when they clearly don't most of the time.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas une .sig
17. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Enigma23 · 2011-02-11 00:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The BBC is (ideally) the people's counterbalance to the freedom of the press belonging to the owners of the presses.
  The BBC speaks for nobody except the Guardian-reading leftists who work for it. They consistently monster any Conservative (or lately LibDem) who appears on their programmes while giving Labour an easy ride and packing the audiences of shows like Question Time with baying Trotskyites. "people's counterbalance"... don't make me laugh!
  Question Time audiences are designed to give a fair representation of the local population - they're not "packed" at all. The BBC balances the private media (well, News International, since they control 90% of the UK's print and TV media that's not the BBC). When Labour was in power, The Sun newspaper fell over themselves worshipping New Labour and the BBC counterbalanced that. Now that we have a Lib Dem/Conservative coalition, BBC balances the now blatantly, staunchly Tory-loving media output. Thus the balance of the Universe is maintained...
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas une .sig
18. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2011-02-11 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Surely they know what "penny wise, pound foolish" means? If that's not a phrase with British origins, they must have one like it. I wonder what it really costs to host the sites in question.
19. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Richard_at_work · 2011-02-11 01:09 · Score: 2
  
  But, as you say, BBC money is separately funded. If you shut down a few small BBC web sites, you achieve precisely nothing to help anyone. The money won't go to firing one civil service PPP management bureaucrat or tearing up one agency contract in favour of well-trained full time employees.
  In the last license fee review, the BBC was given responsibility for funding the World Service, S4C and BBC Monitoring, as well as providing funding for setting up local TV services and various other schemes - all while the license fee was held at its current rate. In other words, the Government offloaded a load of its own expenditure onto the BBC without increasing the BBCs funding, meaning that not only do the Government save its own money, it forces the BBC to reduce costs.
  So yes, while the BBC is separately funded, that doesn't mean that it doesn't get screwed by the government and forced to carry out its own cost savings measures...
20. Re:author makes no reasonable point by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-11 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  The radio counterpart Any Questions? was hosted by one of my old schools and was "packed" with, well, mostly parents and students of the school. I live in a constituency which hasn't seen a Labour MP since before I was born, and the audience represented an even more well-off Tory-leaning set than was regular for the area.
  I shan't ask you for proof of your assertion because it's obvious you're trolling in the guise of a well-known British stereotype.
21. Re:author makes no reasonable point by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-11 01:11 · Score: 2
  
  Uh, the definition of a tax is that it is compulsory,
  It is not compulsory to watch TV as it is broadcast, so you'll need to give a better definition than that.
  
  AFAICT, starving yourself is the only legal way to commit suicide in most jurisdictions.
  The '60s called.
22. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Richard_at_work · 2011-02-11 01:14 · Score: 2
  
  Your definition of a tax is outdated - a tax is defined as whatever the government say it is.
  
  The BBC License Fee was reclassified as a tax in 2006 by the Office of National Statistics, and has been treated as one by the Government and the BBC ever since.
23. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  Bittorrented websights hosted for pennies... there could be a market for that.
24. Re:author makes no reasonable point by drinkypoo · 2011-02-11 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  The '60s called.
  Did they explain to you that attempted suicide is illegal all over the place?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
25. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  Now that's how to write a letter.
  http://www.privateline.com/Orwell/orwell.html
  You had me at undique.
26. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Viol8 · 2011-02-11 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  I think you'll find its spelt "arsehole". HTH.
27. Re:author makes no reasonable point by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-11 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Did they explain to you that attempted suicide is illegal all over the place?
  In the '60s, yes.
28. Re:author makes no reasonable point by cold+fjord · 2011-02-11 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  Although the GP post was a bit harsh, there is no denying that the BBC, one of the great institutions of British society, is biased as an institution. It has been admitted repeatedly by the BBC over the years on various matters (and you don't have to read it in the Daily Mail). Perhaps the first one I quote from 1994 helps explain the others.
  
  Birts admits BBC has London bias - Friday, 25 March 1994
  The BBC is too London- based and 'must make a huge leap forward in reflecting life, activity, culture and events in the whole of the UK,' John Birt, the corporation's director-general said yesterday.
  In a speech in Glasgow, Mr Birt conceded that the BBC had 'developed far too much' in London, where more than 80 per cent of network television and radio programmes were made.
  
  Yes, we are biased on religion and politics, admit BBC executives - 22.10.06
  BBC executives have been forced to admit what critics have known for years - that the corporation is institutionally biased.
  The revelation came after details of an 'impartiality' summit called by its chairman, Michael Grade, were leaked.
  Senior figures admitted that the BBC is guilty of promoting Left-wing views and an anti-Christian sentiment.
  They also said that as an organisation it was disproportionately over-represented by gays and ethnic minorities.
  It was also suggested that the Beeb is guilty of political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism and of being anti-American and against the countryside.
  During the meeting, hosted by Sue Lawley, executives admitted they would happily broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away - but would not do the same for the Koran.
  
  BBC was biased against Thatcher, admits Mark Thompson - 02 Sep 2010
  The BBC was "massively" biased against Margaret Thatcher and journalists allowed their left-wing politics to set the corporation's agenda, director-general Mark Thompson has admitted.
  Critics of the BBC have long accused it of left-wing bias and a hatred of the former Tory leader.
  Confirming their fears, Mr Thompson said: "In the BBC I joined 30 years ago there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left.
  "The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher."
  
  Why the BBC ignored the Holocaust: Anti-Semitism in the top ranks of broadcasting and Foreign Office staff led to the news being suppressed, says Stephen Ward - 22 August 1993
  ANTI-SEMITISM in the higher ranks of the Foreign Office and the BBC during the Second World War led to a policy which suppressed news about Germany's attempt to exterminate European Jews, new research will show this week.
  The attitude was reinforced by a belief that the British population was anti-Semitic and that anti-German propaganda about atrocities in the First World War, which was often fiction, had made the public sceptical of such stories. Early in the war the Government and the BBC agreed that this time, British propaganda would contrast Nazi 'lies' with British truthfulness and a 'good clean fight'.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
29. Re:author makes no reasonable point by nedlohs · 2011-02-11 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Given the existence of the debacle you mention assuming the very same organization would keep archives seems a risky one.
30. Re:author makes no reasonable point by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-11 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  No institution is unbiased and representative all the time on everything - it's an impossible ideal. The best it can do is continuously to try to discover bias and disproportionate representation, publish its findings and take corrective action. You've given examples of how the BBC does that (and Murdoch never will).
  There's a difference between showing bias and being unrepresentative, of course. It is one thing to be disproportionately represented by gays and ethnic minorities - the latter ties in with a history of London over-representation, since London's ethnic minority population exists in far greater proportion than almost everywhere else in the country. But when the people are protesting passionately against Thatcher en masse, is it your job to make the government's argument sound more reasonable than it really is?
31. Re:author makes no reasonable point by el3mentary · 2011-02-11 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  The funny thing about the BBC is that when the Tories are in power they are accused of being to the left whereas when labour were in power they were accused of being to the right. You just like to feel victimised.
  Looking at it from a neutral standpoint the BBC are by far the most balanced provider of news in the UK and quite possibly Worldwide.
  
  --
  I reject your reality and substitute my own.
32. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  And what do the people know? Do they know best? Do you?
  Well, maybe you do. But most people just go by what they see on the TV.
  So, who actually elected this government? Why, the BBC, of course. Cameron wouldn't have got in without their support. Think about that, next time you hear someone bashing the "evil Tories" and their "cuts" (which won't affect the BBC in any serious way, of course).
33. Re:author makes no reasonable point by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  The funny thing about the BBC is that when the Tories are in power they are accused of being to the left whereas when labour were in power they were accused of being to the right.
  Citation needed! When has anyone anywhere ever accused the BBC of being right wing?
34. Re:author makes no reasonable point by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-11 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  OK, assuming you regard the Palestinian cause as "left wing" and the Israeli as "right wing"... how about the report by the BBFC (sic) president remarking that the BBC did not adequately convey the Palestinians' unequal relationship with Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict? The report was quite clear that Palestinians in certain territories are living under Israeli occupation, a fact recognised by the UN including Britain (at least officially), but the BBC - in giving context - was considered slow to assert this whenever giving context to some event.
  Using the term "left wing" more ideologically, can you think of a single example in the last decade where the BBC was considered to show bias for worker control of the means of production? Clause IV seems all but forgotten in the mainstream media.
Umm , won't the internet archive do this for free? by Viol8 · 2011-02-10 22:43 · Score: 1

Or have I missed something?
http://web.archive.org/
Re:Umm , won't the internet archive do this for fr by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-10 22:48 · Score: 0

This is a full archive with all the dependencies. Archive.org tends to miss them.
Re:Umm , won't the internet archive do this for fr by next_ghost · 2011-02-10 22:51 · Score: 1

Yes, you've probably missed most images on those sites.
Re:Umm , won't the internet archive do this for fr by Meneth · 2011-02-10 22:54 · Score: 3, Informative

The wayback machine is unreliable and slow. It also goes out of its way to make it difficult to make local copies of anything found there. Torrents are much better.
Real reason the BBC is cutting back online by doperative · 2011-02-10 22:55 · Score: 5, Informative

The real reason the BBC is cutting back on its online presence is hidden pressure from the commercial sector who have always seen it as a threat to their revenue. "News Corporation's James Murdoch has said that a "dominant" BBC threatens independent journalism in the UK". Of course we all know what kind of 'independent' journalism he really means. One where some Australian pornographer decides who gets to be president or Primeminister.
"James Murdoch, son of Rupert and the man in charge of BSkyB has criticised the BBC iPlayer, insisting that the popular online VOD service is squashing competition" link
1. Re:Real reason the BBC is cutting back online by Sockatume · 2011-02-10 23:48 · Score: 2
  
  I assumed it was because they're going to be scaling back their new online output to save money, and want to reduce how bad that looks. Either they have a sparse site where there's a bare minimum of content, or they have the same sparse site alongside a huge sprawling matrix of brilliant ideas to constantly remind people of the kind of incredible projects the BBC used to spearhead online.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
2. Re:Real reason the BBC is cutting back online by moonbender · 2011-02-11 00:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The same thing is going on in Germany. Our public broadcasting system was modeled after the BBC. The same huge media lobby groups comically defending independent journalism (yeah, right).
  As a result, the public broadcasters now have a list of criteria that everything they publish online has to conform with; the list is narrow enough that they're required to remove a huge amount of stuff from the archives -- aparently as much as 80%. They're also constantly under fire for everything they introduce, eg. smartphone apps. There was an effort to mirror data before it was deleted (@depub), but all the domains are dead, nobody seems to really know what happened to it. Couldn't find a torrent on the Pirate Bay, either.
  
  --
  Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
The guy who made this is AWESOME by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-10 23:03 · Score: 0

I love you man!!
Maybe it's different in the UK by CODiNE · 2011-02-10 23:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

But in the USA you do something like that you end up in court.
"But your honor, I was only trying to help them."
"Your honor, he has no RIGHT to help us!"
But seriously it would be a great clause in the copyright scheme that if a copyrighted work is taken out of distribution it should automatically go public domain. Otherwise publishers can simply delete history like those old racist Warner Brothers videos they keep taking down from Youtube.

--
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
1. Re:Maybe it's different in the UK by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  The BBC is publicy funded.
  If the person who did is is a UK citizen who pays their taxes and TV license fee, then they can argue they are a legitimate owner of the BBC, and therefore are protecting their assets. As one of the other 26 million or so other owners, I support the intent, however misguided it may have been in terms of strict interpretation of the copyright laws.
2. Re:Maybe it's different in the UK by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 00:27 · Score: 0
  
  That's plain stupid! "Copyrighted", What does it mean? It means that the copyright holder owns the rights to the material to do with what ever the owner wishes to do. If they don't wish to share the information, it is the owners right. Only Communists would think that the ownership is wrong.
3. Re:Maybe it's different in the UK by sorak · 2011-02-11 02:16 · Score: 2
  
  But in the USA you do something like that you end up in court.
  "But your honor, I was only trying to help them."
  "Your honor, he has no RIGHT to help us!"
  But seriously it would be a great clause in the copyright scheme that if a copyrighted work is taken out of distribution it should automatically go public domain. Otherwise publishers can simply delete history like those old racist Warner Brothers videos they keep taking down from Youtube.
  Disney would never let it happen. A big part of their revenue is based on burying beloved moves so that they do not end up in Walmart's $5 bin, and they can demand full price for the anniversary edition of a thirty year old movie. Apparently, creating artificial shortages is good for business.
4. Re:Maybe it's different in the UK by lonecrow · 2011-02-11 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  I think you have that backwards. As far as I know the UK is like Canada everything produced by the government is covered by Crown Copy write. However, in the USA, everything produced by the government is considered public domain (your asked to cite source when using their material).
  
  So the guy was probably at more risk of being sued/charged in the UK then in US.
5. Re:Maybe it's different in the UK by CODiNE · 2011-02-12 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  For govt produced media I'd agree with you, in the OP I was really speaking about corporate owned media which is what most of our television broadcasts are made up of. Generally corporations use copyrights to assert control over their creations which would be fine if they were trying to sell them, but at times they seek to destroy them or hide their mistakes using copyright as a shield. If you do some searching for racist cartoons you'll find a lot of examples of a constant back and forth with people posting offensive cartoons from Disney, Warner, etc... and then the producer of the video forcing a removal of it. Really copyrights give corporations the power to delete culture and history. Which is why I state if they take it away it should be ours not locked in a vault somewhere forever.
  
  --
  Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Fire up the lawyers! by cbope · 2011-02-10 23:36 · Score: 1

Cue the BBC legal department in 3... 2... 1...
I wonder how long before they try to track down the person behind this.
1. Re:Fire up the lawyers! by coolmadsi · 2011-02-11 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know how fast, if at all, the BBC will resort to legal action over this. I have heard there is an unofficial not-spoken-about semi-agreement that people who share old Doctor Who episodes (that they destroyed and fans have reconstructed) are allowed to carry on their business, so long as they don't try to make any money out of it. If they're not going to do anything about these websites anymore apart from delete them, this seems like it could be a similar situation.
2. Re:Fire up the lawyers! by RichM · 2011-02-11 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  This is not America.
Only content? by synackpshfin · 2011-02-10 23:38 · Score: 1

If intention was to keep those web sites alive they'd better also obtain applications and databases. The way as I understand this is being done it will be just another archive.
1. Re:Only content? by Another,+completely · 2011-02-11 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  I was wondering the same thing. Given the vintage of most of it, there are probably a few CGI scripts that will need to be picked up if the idea is that someone could bring the sites back to life at some future date. Once a cure has been found.
The BBC is hardly unbiased by Viol8 · 2011-02-11 00:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Theres a very noticable left wing bias at the BBC, especially on Radio 4. We need right wingers like murdoch to provide balance.
1. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by mister_dave · 2011-02-11 00:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Two BBC journos have written books denouncing left wing bias throughout the BBC. Most recently Peter Sissons, but before that Robin Aitken.
2. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by IainMH · 2011-02-11 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  That is very much your opinion.
3. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Theres a very noticable left wing bias at the BBC, especially on Radio 4. We need right wingers like murdoch to provide balance.
  Balance in journalism is important. The problem with the thought process that a Right Wing ideologue somehow "balances" out a Left Wing ideologue, or vice versa, is that you have two ideologues and no balance.
4. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  And there's nothing keeping the Murdoch's from setting up shop in the UK. They know this quite well, as their rags are a country-wide laughing stock, everyone who's anyone knows to keep away from them. They're free to try feeding their POV and opinion-pieces-peddled-as-news to the British public, but unfortunately for them the Britons have become accustomed to real journalism.
  
  News Corp's only actual contribution to the journalistic landscape has been Page 3. (I read it for the articles, you see...)
5. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by gadders · 2011-02-11 01:54 · Score: 2
  
  Agreed. The BBC is very left wing, and basically takes it's news agenda from the Guardian.
6. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by gadders · 2011-02-11 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, that's why the right-wing party won the recent election.
  And to conflate Murdoch or recognition of the BBC bias with the EDL is just assinine.
7. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  BBC has some great investigative journalism. Just look at what they did to the Soccer world cup board!
8. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  Apart from some of the late night reports from John Simpson, the BBC is pretty rubbish and uses some really odd language - I think Newswipe explains all (see Charlie Brookers Newswipe on yourtube).
  EXAMPLE OF BBC BIAS
  The bias really showed when Georgia were attacking Russia, and the BBC kept saying how bad the Russians were... but they were protecting their people after Georgia attacked! The BBC never really put any emphasis on the fact Georia fired the first missiles.
9. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by coolmadsi · 2011-02-11 02:42 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Theres a very noticable left wing bias at the BBC, especially on Radio 4. We need right wingers like murdoch to provide balance.
  You mean like the "balance" you can get from Fox "news" in the USA? Wasn't there reports on this site that Fox news viewers are the most misinformed, and the company won a court battle that meant they were an enternainment channel and didn't have to worry about facts. I'd rather news be accurate, not half made up. It's not what I'd call balance; lies would be a more descriptive term.
10. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by slim · 2011-02-11 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  That depends on your own position.
  The BBC has a right wing bias. It's just that the rest of the media has an even more right wing bias.
11. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by gadders · 2011-02-11 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  But as Margaret Thatcher said, "The facts of life are Conservative."
12. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  You've got to be kidding me. The BBC is establishment, through and through. They're centre-right if anything.
13. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  Right, that must be why liberals are constantly screaming at us about how we should be giving lots of our stuff to help less fortunate people in countries whose tinpot dictators keep their people in poverty and skim off most of what we send in aid anyway.
  If "reality" was the only thing in control, I'd keep my fucking money and they could just starve. Reality's a bitch.
14. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  Then you're just so far to the left that nobody else should give half a shit what you and your handful of buddies think.
15. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  "We all know that reality has a strong liberal bias" --- Steven Corbert
16. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  You mean the report that was completely debunked since it amounted to "people that watch Fox News don't share the opinions of the left wing organizations that sponsored the study?"
  
  Reality has a well known liberal bias because liberals hear a made up "fact" and then stick their heads in the sand, only resurfacing to repeat their memes. Ironically, you've shown just how misinformed YOU are with your post.
17. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  Of course, accusations of right wing bias at the BBC can also be made. Cameron's new press secretary was controller of English news output for BBC Global News, and Nick Robinson, the BBC news political editor was the president of Cambridge University Conservative Society and has always faced claims of having a prop Tory bias.
18. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by SleazyRidr · 2011-02-11 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  Reminds me of something I read about the ABC (in Australia.) They received close to 1,000 letters of complaint about their coverage of the Afghanistan war (complaining of bias.) I don't remember the exact number but there were about 480 complaining of right wing bias, and 490 complaining of left wing bias.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
19. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  More like adding a forest fire to "provide balance" against a couple of popsicles...
20. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Solandri · 2011-02-11 06:16 · Score: 2
  
  Wasn't there reports on this site that Fox news viewers are the most misinformed
  After watching different news stations, I suspect Fox News viewers are more misinformed. However, the "study" which was bandied out in the press "proving" it several years back was hardly proof. It based its conclusions on asking viewers biased questions like "Did the U.S. find WMDs in Iraq?" Of course conservative viewers are going to be more "misinformed" about that. Just like more liberal viewers would be more "misinformed" if the question had been "Has global warming been proven to be man-made?" You're not measuring how misinformed these people were. You're simply measuring the lower threshold of proof they have for theories they tend to favor.
  
  To come up with a bulletproof study on how misinformed news viewers are, you need to be asking them questions which are free from any confirmation bias. Stuff like "the Prime Minister of the U.K. is...?" or "The African nation which recently voted to split is...?" Questions which favor or disfavor one political or social group's viewpoint won't work, and is more indicative of the researchers' bias rather than the viewers'. (Ideally you'd also control for socio-economic factors like education level, available time to watch the news, etc.)
21. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by GameboyRMH · 2011-02-11 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  And then conservatives invented Conservapedia to enshrine those facts in a place that would be safe from reality's liberal bias.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
22. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by coolmadsi · 2011-02-11 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  To come up with a bulletproof study on how misinformed news viewers are, you need to be asking them questions which are free from any confirmation bias. Stuff like "the Prime Minister of the U.K. is...?" or "The African nation which recently voted to split is...?" Questions which favor or disfavor one political or social group's viewpoint won't work, and is more indicative of the researchers' bias rather than the viewers'. (Ideally you'd also control for socio-economic factors like education level, available time to watch the news, etc.)
  That sounds like a pretty awesome study, I must say! Whether anyone would actually run it is another question. I mean, you could try an online questionnaire, but people could just Google the questions to find the answers, and any news agency that might have the resources to get it out to many people, would suffer from being mostly limited to whatever their main audience is.
  There's a Census coming around the UK soon this year, which would be a good way to get a lot of coverage, however I suspect its already been printed, or the questions have been finalised so adding more wouldn't work. The next one is in a decade which doesn't help now. And I don't know how people would react to being part of a huge psychology experiment like that.
23. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  Viewers of Fox News are less informed than viewers of the Colbert Report, that's what the study said.
24. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  "We need right wingers like murdoch to provide balance."
  hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
  yeah, like the chinese needed ghengis khan for 'balance.'
25. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by roddymclachlan · 2011-02-11 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, I think we can measure this more objectively.
  At the last UK election, the readership of Sunday papers that advised their readers to vote Tory was 19M. The readership of the Daily papers that advised their readers to vote Tory was about the same. Now some people buy two newspapers on the same day, but to counter that, some people don't buy both Daily and Sunday papers. Overall, we can say that the media advised approx 19M different to vote Tory, compared to about 3M for Labour and 1M for the Lib Dems.
  However, this media advice ratio of 19 : 3 : 1 compares to a UK Election voting ratio of 10.7 : 8.6 : 6.8. So we can safely say that the UK media is far to the right of the electorate, and that a viewpoint that which is neutral with respect to the electorate will look left-wing compared to most media.
  What we can't say from this data is how more left wing the electorate would be if the media didn't attempt to pull the electorate to the right.
  Now, being less objective, this bias really ought to have been obvious, since most of the UK media is owned by extreme far-right tax-dodging billionaires who are not representative of the ordinary electorate.
  I got readership figures from: http://www.nrs.co.uk/toplinereadership.html
26. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Maritz · 2011-02-11 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  Theres a very noticable left wing bias at the BBC, especially on Radio 4. We need right wingers like murdoch to provide balance.
  Translation: "The BBC doesn't pander enough to my own right-wing proclivities."
  Murdoch gets plenty of say. He sets the agenda for Sky and for all those newspapers he owns. A publicly funded broadcaster just isn't in his interests, which is why he whines about it so much. It's not in the public interest to accommodate him.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
27. Re:The BBC is hardly unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 15:44 · Score: 0
  
  "Wasn't there reports on this site"
  You mean /., the bastion of balanced news and fair moderation? No way! /. isn't known to be smart or fair anymore when it makes to stories. There is a decidedly liberal bent the editors gun for, and citing that as as a report in and of itself to back your view is going to self-fulfill what you want to see and find.
  Murdoch sucks. Not sure why the right wing nut put that in there as if it was going to help. I'm a conservative that hates Fox.
  This isn't directed at you, but I've often seen on /. people who correlate "I hate Fox" to "conservatives are stupid." While they overlook MSNBC, their lies, their bent, their misinformation. Or Huffington making the television rounds clearly being a nutjob with THE objective to take down the right. Hell, Maddow, the MSNBC host, during an interview with Duke Energy clearly didn't freaking understand base load, yet she was criticizing the guy while admitting a difference in opinion. Really better.
  And when she goes trolling for anti-conservative extremism to whip her audience into a frenzy, she gets bitten, and barely spends any significant time correcting herself after blasting the right. Is that the standard, accurate, information you seek? Where was the significant coverage of that on /.? There wasn't. Instead, there was a story about video games and crappy Fox reporting, not Maddow getting trolled by an online site. I guess humor only plays on /. if it comes from Colbert.
  You rarely see these criticisms on /., amongst the nerds, the educated, the informed, those who *want* to be informed. Because, in reality, most of the self-proclaimed nerds, aren't anymore. I believe people really don't want to improve, they want something to blame. W's gone. So now it's Fox.
Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 00:17 · Score: 0

Anonymous is that guy who attacked paypal and mastercard!
What's a terrorist doing nice things for? It's surely deception of the most devious kind!
How is this different? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 00:51 · Score: 0

So, how is this different from the archive that the wayback machine already has of the sites?
left wing bias at the BBC by doperative · 2011-02-11 00:52 · Score: 0

"Theres a very noticable left wing bias at the BBC, especially on Radio 4. We need right wingers like murdoch to provide balance"
Snort .... !!!!!!
1. Re:left wing bias at the BBC by hyades1 · 2011-02-11 01:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  BBC features have a bit of a bias, but the hard news is straight-up, objective journalism. Your claim that Murdoch, whose media have been proven to slant and misrepresent hard news, will provide "balance" us complete, utter bullshit.
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
BBC by Cyko_01 · 2011-02-11 00:57 · Score: 1

that's ok, there is plenty of other Big Black Cock porn out there.
Re:duty by TaoPhoenix · 2011-02-11 01:00 · Score: 1

(Satire)
"It is never your duty to violate copyright! You must dispose of the materials immediately! Who cares if the originator feels like letting them sink into oblivion! That is their glorious prerogative as copyright holder while you, the consumer get to moan in anguish at what might have been saved!"
(/Satire)

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
More than 3.99 to keep running by gadders · 2011-02-11 01:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

I have a couple of points to make:
1. People shouldn't assume that this means that shutting the websites would have only saved £3.99 from the BBC budget. Given large orgs and the cost mulitpliers for internally supported servers, it could well be tens of thousands of pounds per year.
2. Instead of people like Ben Goldacre boo-hooing and expecting the government (which the BBC is effectively an arm of) to save the sites, he could have shelled out the £4 and done it himself. Could it be that - GASP - sometimes governments aren't the best way to get things done? :-O
1. Re:More than 3.99 to keep running by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  What cost 4 pounds was the service to back up the data once. What does not cost 4 pounds is hosting, maintaining, paying for traffic, updating sites, etc. Do you really think right clicking "save as" on a site and copying it to your hard drive once is anything like hosting it for potentially millions of users for a year?
2. Re:More than 3.99 to keep running by gadders · 2011-02-11 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are violently agreeing with me.
Thats not what I meant by balance by Viol8 · 2011-02-11 01:36 · Score: 1, Interesting

I don't mean balance in the sense of providing the truth, but if you are fed left wing bias and right wing bias then somewhere in the middle lies the truth which hopefully someone could figure out.
eg: If what you hear from the BBC is poor palestinians , look at those nasty israelis and from News Corp you hear poor israelis look at those nasty palestinians then its a fair bet that neither side is acting properly and there has been injustice done to both.
1. Re:Thats not what I meant by balance by hyades1 · 2011-02-11 04:05 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  That way, unfortunately, lies the error of false equivalence, if not worse. For example, the death toll of innocent civilians on either side of that dispute is so incredibly lopsided that to imply any correlation is grossly inaccurate.
  And then there's the US practice of getting a scientist and a fundamentalist preacher to argue the merits of the Theory of Evolution. There is no "truth somewhere in the middle". There is a valid scientific theory, and there is primitive superstition.
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
2. Re:Thats not what I meant by balance by Captain+Spam · 2011-02-11 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  I don't mean balance in the sense of providing the truth, but if you are fed left wing bias and right wing bias then somewhere in the middle lies the truth which hopefully someone could figure out.
  No, that's like saying the color balance on a photograph you've taken is off, so to compensate you just oversaturate the other colors wildly and crank up the contrast. You don't wind up with a balanced middle road that produces a good picture. What you wind up with is, at best, a hideous parody of your original picture, consisting of recognizable forms, per se, but with no gradients of color and frequently the wrong colors to begin with, each of which are separated by huge gulfs of empty voids where the contrast made the borders between colors into vast divisions where they should have blended to make a better picture. You ruin the picture and nobody who actually cares about photography or art wants to look at it.
  
  --
  Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
3. Re:Thats not what I meant by balance by Viol8 · 2011-02-11 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Thats a straw man argument. We're not talking scientific absolutes here, we're talking political points of view.
4. Re:Thats not what I meant by balance by hyades1 · 2011-02-11 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  You're completely wrong. That's anything BUT a straw man argument. Every news channel discusses such issues in exactly the way I described, when they are topical. An American example concerns the effort of certain states to force the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in science classrooms. Inevitably, that argument centres precisely on why Evolution is a legitimate scientific theory, while Intelligent Design is simply religion traveling under false colours. I saw that example on a hard news show, by the way.
  And my point about the lopsided death toll, I note, stands unargued.
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
So what was wrong with what he said? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 02:10 · Score: 0

So what was wrong with what he said? Or is the problem that he asked a pertinent question which you don't like so it became impertinence?
What is the public's right in copyright? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-11 02:27 · Score: 0

What is the public's right in copyright? Oh, that's right, in exchange for ALLOWING a monopoly, we get more works in the public domain.
Now, what is the penalty for breaching copyright? Reinstatement of losses. Which, if you are deleting your work, is negative. So in essence we could ask the copyright owner to pay us for the work we did in keeping his product available.
Not the first time by boristdog · 2011-02-11 03:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

See: Devillier Donegan Enterprises.
An American company that saved the original Monty Python tapes from being wiped, IIRC.
Re:Umm , won't the internet archive do this for fr by advocate_one · 2011-02-11 03:36 · Score: 1

torrents can die... there still needs to be a master seed kept active... and that costs money

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Re:Umm , won't the internet archive do this for fr by GameboyRMH · 2011-02-11 03:55 · Score: 1

I'm downloading it, so it'll always be there. If anyone in the far future needs a copy, send me an email, I'll leave my old gmail account forwarding to my new VPS-hosted one.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Umm , won't the internet archive do this for fr by GameboyRMH · 2011-02-11 03:57 · Score: 1

I mean "far future" in Internet terms of course, so like a few decades. Otherwise I'll be dead and there will either be a new "library of Alexandria" containing all human knowledge and data, or more likely, you'll have bigger, sci-fi-novelish problems to worry about.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The list ... by antdude · 2011-02-12 07:50 · Score: 1

... can be found in this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/24/bbc-online-website-closures

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).