BBC Creative Archive Based On Creative Commons 263
powcom writes "The BBC appears to be delivering on its promise of releasing its material to the public - they're modelling their licensing on Creative Commons. Lawrence Lessig is very excited and so I imagine, will a lot of other people be - rightly." This brief article also mentions yesterday's release of
Creative Commons' 2.0 licenses -- well worth reading about.
I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
this has to be... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:3, Interesting)
I know they've been involved in trials of ogg vorbis, but it seems unlikely that anything which has commercial value will be released drm-less.
The BBC bring in a lot of money by licensing shows to foreign broadcasters; however most of this probably comes from current shows, so their back catalogue may not be so valuable.
The Beeb (Score:4, Interesting)
How long will this last? (Score:3, Interesting)
How long will this last. The BBC supplying to the world with only the Brits paying for it. I would guess they would give it to the Brits at no cost but charge everyone else.
NPR Public Content (Score:2, Interesting)
I continue to be very excited about this type of content release and especially in the case of the BBC so that all the Monty Python will be available.
I know here in the states we have NPR's content [npr.org] available for listening and download so how are these two institutions licensing different?
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:2, Interesting)
Alternative Business (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this mean independant people can take these sources, remaster them, and release them on dvd for a fee?
Let me take a step back for a second.
Sometimes I picture what it would be like if the current copyright laws were re-written so that ownership only existed for, oh, 15 years. Would a new set of industries pop up that release shows on various media formats?
For example, one company could be comitted to getting the content to you in the most inexpensive way possible. Another could be obsessed with video quality and extras (read: fanboys and their tv shows) and other such developments; they would charge a larger fee. Not to mention "fan sequals" and indy spinoffs.
I see a great potential for a new market emerging from releasing open content like this.
Re:Alternative Business (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:this has to be... (Score:1, Interesting)
The Mirror was a whole new level of just downright cynical bullshit designed to play off of peoples emotions. The entire paper should be shut down and Piers Morgan should appear on national T.V to personally apologise. In front of an entire audiance of service men and women who have served in Iraq.
Re:BBC is official government media (Score:4, Interesting)
While in theory that could be true, just try comparing the news you get from the BBC with that you get from the networks in the USA.
Those USA networks are much more biased than the BBC.
Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Funding is done by licence fee - links (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Almost comical tight-fisted meanness
2. Scrupulous fairness
3. Because sound is 50% of the broadcast
(do registered deaf get 50% off though? No, IIRC).
*cough* (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't see you mentioned there I'm afraid. We accept cash, VISA and Mastercard though.
But seriously, my feeling is that this isn't over by a long chalk yet. Wait until the tabloids (esp. the Daily Mail) find out about this. If as you say it ends up with programmes we pay for being made freely available around the world (heh, not that the BBC World Service doesn't already do this on the radio) there will be uproar. Now we may joke about these fuddy-duddies in the shires, but "Middle England" is very good at turning out to vote, so their views carry disproporitonate weight for this reason (hunting with hounds anyone?). Theres a section of British society that doesn't like the license fee in the first place and will be out to cause a stink the next time the charter is up for renewal anyway.
Believe when you see it is what I'm saying.
Financial Considerations (Score:5, Interesting)
Nevertheless, there are important financial considerations which we should not overlook.
It seems to me that concerns about bandwidth and lucrative overseas syndication deals will probably mean that "direct" access is limited to UK addresses (at least initially). Despite this, licensing revenue will inevitably decline. Combined with the decrease in income from DVD sales, and the phenomenal cost of digitizing, hosting and maintaining the archive, this probably adds up to a significant licence fee increase. This is on top of the additional fee already imposed for digital viewers.
Politically, many in the government want to punish the BBC for its relentless Iraq questioning. However, Tessa Jowell, the minister in charge, has made encouraging noises. I have a great deal of respect for the BBC, but I sincerely hope (and unfortunately doubt) they can justify their "techno-edge" spending in a potentially politically hostile climate when their Charter comes under review in 2006.
Re:How long will this last? (Score:2, Interesting)
It works both ways. I'm a Brit, living in Britain (or Britland as Dubya would say). Some years ago I wrote to NASA's public relations people asking for some information. By return of post, at no cost to me and sent by airmail, came a large envelope full of stuff.
AFAICT, both NASA and the BBC take the view that the material has already been paid for by tax payers and so, by and large, they are willing to send out copies to non-commercial entities.
Paul
Re:UK Only? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:NPR Public Content (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:NPR Public Content (Score:2, Interesting)
That is my point exactly and I agree with you.
Perhaps it is this: If NPR releases content (i.e. it airs on the Radio) to the public anyways where if you had any recording device you could copy it for free, why on Earth if I am to download and copy it or record it "legally" do I have to Pay for it?
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not what DRM is for, and DRM is not usable for this purpose. You are thinking about the privilege mechanism, which has been in Linux from the earliest days.
consider a DRM where it allowed everything but logged a history of the file.
It's not possible to both allow everything and enforce logging.
Bruce
Re:BBC is official government media (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it is then also just a coincidence that halliburton pays cheney more money in "deferred payments" than the United States of America pays him for being vice president (as shown by his most recent tax statement).
This after he had publicly said that he had cut all ties to halliburton. And because of the way halliburton is structured, they don't have to give a reason for that money. It could very well be based on profit, meaning that the contracts cheney handed to halliburton came straight back to him in personal profit.
Ofcourse, we could never know the truth, because both cheney and halliburton won't tell it to you. All you can find out is that he gets more money for having ties to halliburton than for being vice president.
And that doesn't even get into his secret energy cabinet, which was staffed with energy industry executives and not a single person representing the environmental movement, and of which we know nothing at all, since cheney has consistently refused to release anything, no transcripts, no recordings, not even exactly who attended those meetings.
By the way, halliburton has gone through corporate inversion. Meaning they have off-shored a number of subsidiaries to dodge paying taxes in the US. Also, halliburton subsidiaries did illegal trade with Saddam until the late 90's, at the time Cheney was running it. Making him not just an energy-industry lapdog, but a big hypocrit.
Halliburton was chosen for providing services in iraq it had zero experience with, like food preparation. They hired someone else to do that, and then didn't pay them what they had promised to pay. So halliburton makes more profit, and the soldiers in Iraq don't get warm meals. That's true patriotism for you.
Re:[Grammar-Nazi] "Creative Commons'" (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't pretend to be an expert grammarian but here's a grammar 101 on the apostrophe:
to show that a noun has, belongs or possesses something else an '-s' is usually added: 'a dog's collar': likewise for a plural noun not ending in '-s': 'rat's tails'
for a common noun, singular or plural, ending with an '-s', add an apostrophe after the '-s': 'all the jeans' have holes'
for proper nouns one can either add " -'s " or an apostrophe without the '-s', depending on tradition or taste: Charles's and Charles' is fine; 'girls' dresses' is fine; 'girls's dresses is not.'
The Creative Commons is, as you correctly say, in the singular. More properly it is a proper noun: therefore, as per the above rules, either " Creative Commons' " licence or " Creative Commons's " licence is correct.
Thank you for your time.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
The FDL is a PITA (Score:3, Interesting)
It is my belief that if the Wikipedia was restarted from scratch, it would probably use the Creative Commons By-attribution share-alike license [creativecommons.org], at least for the text, which accomplishes essentially the same thing but is much, much clearer.