![The Media The Media](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/themedia_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
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.
BBC viewpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
For those that don't know, and are therefore probably thinking "How the hell can they give it all away for free", the BBC is funded by everyone in the UK who has a TV paying a yearly fee (104 I think - I pay 8/month by direct-debit until it's paid). From the last figures I can find (on the admittedly licence-fee-hostile CAL site [spiderbomb.com]) the BBC has 2.8 billion pounds per year running costs ($5,000,000,000, give or take...)
There are lots of people in the UK who object to paying for the licence fee (I'm not one of them), most of whom (in my opinion) want the same quality of service (or better
And then of course without the constant need to please the paymasters, you can get this sort of benevolence (although I'd be willing to bet when the details come out that re-broadcasting is limited
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.
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets also not forget that the BBC is funding development of a wavelet CODEC, which it has released as OSS via. Sourceforge. I don't think they could aim to be more open, frankly.
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:2, Informative)
Creative Commons licences have rights associated with them, and so DRM could be used. Now, DRM doesn't (and maybe can never) understand when a user should be permitted by law, but consider a DRM where it allowed everything but logged a history of the file.
DRM is mostly stupid, but it's not always.
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 viewpoint (Score:3, Informative)
No, it's not self defeating. Creative Commons is *not* OSS, not free as in beer, nor free as in air. Creative Commons licenses frequently require attribution, and may or may not allow derivative or commercial usage. DRM is not incompatible with this.
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:4, Insightful)
Broadcasters who want to use BBC content are going to be wanting broadcast quality media, which effectively means mpeg2 (mpeg4 isn't quite there yet), as will anyone who wants a decent copy for home.
Or they use a dual-licensing apporach, a la MySQL,
one license if you want broadcast rights, or a higher quality, and a Open type license for personal use?
Is the text of the license they are proposing available anywhere?
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
In that vein they'll probably want to restrict it to british citizens or even just british license payers, otherwise they'll be paying for bandwidth to reduce the value of their international resale rights.
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:5, Informative)
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:2, Insightful)
--
Alby <alby@bleary-id.co.uk>
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:3)
That's the blessing and curse of the BBC. As an organisation with external funding unconnected to its viewing figures, it can produce objective reporting, challenging programmes, and
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:2)
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:4, Insightful)
This used to be true, but it seems to be getting more and more commercial now. the "Walking With..." set of series, for example, seemed to be geared for DVD sales right from the beginning. The programming is now plastered with adverts....for the BBC. And the children's programming in particular is just smothered with markerting tie-ins.
No, I'm afraid I believe the BBC is becoming more commercial all the time, and I resent and object to that. I don't begrudge them the license fee, but I do begrudge them using that to push their tie-in products.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:2, Informative)
The cost is a little higher than the parent poster stated, at 121 pounds per year, which corresponds to $218 at the current exchange rate.
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:2)
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:2)
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:2)
Oh, well. They should just up and go Unicode all the way, baby.
Funding is done by licence fee - links (Score:5, Informative)
According to the second document licence fee revenue is 2,659million pounds.
License fee information on the bbc website [bbc.co.uk]
TV Licensing Website [tv-l.co.uk]
To summarise:
Standard license fee is 121 pounds(colour television)
Black and White Television is 40.50 pounds
Registered blind people can apply for a discount of up to 50%
People over the age of 75 do not need a license
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).
Re:Funding is done by licence fee - links (Score:2)
I'd guess that the registered blind with TVs can generally see well enough to watch them. You're considered blind if your vision is insufficient to be able to function in everyday life; you may be able to see well enough to watch TV even if you couldn't see well enough to cross the street safely. People whose vision is too bad to enjoy TV probably listen to the radio instead of having a TV.
BBC also has a big radio network (Score:3, Informative)
As an Aussie, however, my favourite is the Ashes on Test Match Special [bbc.co.uk], where you can learn about all the lovely English ladies who bake the commentators delightful sponge cake for afternoon tea and, incidentally, follow the cricket.
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:4, Insightful)
And by free market, I mean a tiny group of collusionary, racketeering, megalomaniacal jerks who bribe Congress to stifle any form of competition so they won't get their comeuppance for the miserable job they do.
UK Only? (Score:2)
Odd line from TFA:
By applying a CC-type license to the content, the BBC will enable individuals in the UK to download released content to their computers, share it, edit it and create new content.
"In the UK"? Will there be different restrictions for the rest of us?
Re:UK Only? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:BBC viewpoint (Score:2)
Didn't you know they have 13 months per year in England? Lousy Smarch weather...
I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
this has to be... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:this has to be... (Score:2)
Then there was this 'analysis' [bbc.co.uk] by the infamous Stephen Evans, the BBC's North American business correspondent and friend of the BSA, RIAA etc. There is also the fact that they have reneged on their promise [bbc.co.uk] to provide ogg streams two years ago and the curious absence, despite complaints, of any reporting of the software patent furore, even on the BBCi Technology site (not one mention, even of the demonstrations - ever!).
The dumbing down of much of their output and the Horizon series in particular also cau
Thanks to the brits for this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
I just wish I could get the BBC america channel at home.
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.
Re:How long will this last? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How long will this last? (Score:2)
I like your thinking but I was just trying to make my comment like a businees in the business of making money would think.
The Beeb isn't only making money from license fees (Score:5, Informative)
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.
The Beeb is making a fair amount of income from other sources. Take a look at TLC in the US - all of their top-ranked shows are under license from the BBC, from Clean Sweep to Trading Places. Then there are DVD and other media sales. PBS channels purchase shows like "Life Of Mammals" and comedies. The Beeb gets advertising revenue from the channels with commericials. The BBC is far from a licensing-fee-only company.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Re:The Beeb isn't only making money from license f (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Beeb isn't only making money from license f (Score:3, Funny)
I mean, let's say that one of those companies produces a show where Cathy Rogers throws Alan Titchmarsh and Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen out of an airplane and they have to assemble a decorative parachute from scrap materials before they hit the ground. If TLC picks it up and has Jesse James toss Hildi Santo-Tomas and Mikey Teu
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 al
Re:How long will this last? (Score:2)
Re:Thanks to you for this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
And we over here get to read your post on the DARPA-created Internet because you pay your taxes. Everybody in the world eventually contributes something to everybody else.
Anyway, thanks.
Not DARPA any more (Score:2)
Thankyou DARPA for the funding and early development, very essential.
But now DARPA contribute no more to the internet than Marconi or Farnsworth do to programme broadcasting.
Unlike the BBC which develops programmes using UK license-payers money to then market abroad.
Sam
*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.
Re:*cough* (Score:3, Informative)
Funded from the foreign office, not the license fee. World TV (as well as the BBC branded foreign channels, BBC America etc.) is funded by advertisers. BBC Prime is funded by subscription.
Re:Thanks to the brits for this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Beeb (Score:4, Interesting)
Patriotism (Score:3, Funny)
Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.
~George Bernard Shaw
PATRIOTISM, n.
Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.
In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dicti
In Related News... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In Related News... (Score:2)
Re:In Related News... (Score:2)
You should take that with a grain of salt though, as IANAL.
Re:In Related News... (Score:2)
Re:In Related News... (Score:2)
great something else to click through
Good news (Score:4, Insightful)
Good News for UK Residents ONLY (Score:3, Informative)
Don't get too excited...
Just in case the announcement is unclear. This proposed CC-style license is for UK residents only.
Historically, in the UK, if you owned a television you were legally obliged to have a Television License - the current cost is approximately 80 pounds sterling per year. Even if you didn't watch any BBC channels you were still legally obliged to purchase a license, so since the work of the BBC has technically always been owned by UK Citizens it will soon be made available to those
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:NPR Public Content (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Though I would love to see that happen, I don't think we'll ever see Monty Python released this way, as the BBC doesn't own the series. The Pythons themselves do.
See here [bbc.co.uk] for more.
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?
Creative Commons! (Score:5, Insightful)
To anyone who has not explored the CC licences, I highly encourage them to check it out [creativecommons.org] and learn about this really cool license.
Also, I didn't notice any really significant changes in the 2.0 licenses. Did anyone catch something blaringly obvious that I missed?
Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?" (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?" (Score:2)
Don't forget that it was the same BBC who introduced the 'Dirac' [slashdot.org] compression algorithm as an Open Source project.
Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?" (Score:3, Insightful)
The BBC tech guys at Kingswood Warren "got it" (I remember their webcam with a huge inflatable Tux in the background..)
They were "right-sized" as part of the preparation for the sell-off of BBC Technology (which is a national shame), and their new marketdroid paymasters took one look at their (underappreciated here) efforts to ogg etc stuff and said "get back to work".
This is Certainly Great News (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Alternative Business (Score:4, Informative)
RTFA:
So it sounds like the for a fee bit wouldn't be permissible.
Re:Alternative Business (Score:2)
Yaaaaaawn (Score:3, Funny)
on a rainy day.
Re:Yaaaaaawn (Score:2)
hoping others will follow (Score:5, Informative)
BBC is not the only state owned, fee financed media company
Italian RAI [www.rai.it] is in the same situation and has an impressive archive as well
looking forward to re-installing my video editing software
Re:hoping others will follow (Score:2)
Re:hoping others will follow (Score:4, Funny)
Don't forget the dislike of the previous government. And the one before that. And the one before that as well. One of the best features of the BBC is that it contrives to be disliked by *every* government, *and* by whichever party is in opposition. They must be doing something right.
What is being released exactly? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What is being released exactly? (Score:2, Funny)
Because you want to, because you want to!
Billie Piper? GOD NO!! Anything but!!!
Does this mean (Score:2, Funny)
GNU FDL (Score:4, Informative)
However, the GNU FDL has had some controversy within Debian, who have considered moving works licensed under it to the non-free section. Of course, this has undergone Much debate [google.com], with Richard Stallman under heavy fire.
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 Crea
Excellent (Score:4, Informative)
[Grammar-Nazi] "Creative Commons'" (Score:3)
Re:[Grammar-Nazi] "Creative Commons'" (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
CBC ... follow suit (Score:5, Insightful)
This was found at: http://archives.cbc.ca/info/281g_en23.shtml
It's sad that only insiders at CBC have access to electronic copies of content. The have locked down their listening formats using commercial streaming products (RealAudio, QuickTime & Windows Media). This makes it difficult to record or re-use content streaming from CBC.
It's sad because this content is tax-payer funded. It also makes personal recording impossible or at best illegal.
I really think CBC should follow the BBC.
And in the US? (Score:3, Funny)
What about us over here in the USA? We like Monty Python as much as the next bloke! When do we get our hands on the free BBC archives?
Don't make us come over there and liberate your asses!
Re:And in the US? (Score:3, Funny)
*Has a mental image of a yank wandering around London randomly pulling down people's trousers*
*shudder*
No news on the BEEB (Score:2)
What an irony that the bbc doesnt carry up to date news about itself.
BBC archives (Score:3, Informative)
The BBC has 85km of shelves, which translates very roughy (digitised at 25 Mb/s) to 200 TB/km => 17 PB. This is an overestimate for us, because not all our shelves hold video, and we have spare copies and VHS 'browse' copies. But it gives a round number: 10 PB for the BBC archive, and similar sizes for other major European broadcast archives.
(from: http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id= 15550)
[can someone calculate how many "cisco-minutes" or "internet2-minutes" that is?]
Royal Charter and Agreement (Score:3, Informative)
They could have chosen to charge for access to the archive, regardless of whether you`re a license payer or not. They didn`t of course because they have always been one of the few truly altruistic corporations out there. Hats off to the Beeb and to prof. Lessig for being such forward thinkers I say!!
Availability and intent (Score:3, Informative)
The BBC are not government (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The BBC are not government (Score:2)
Yes, thats right aside for one little point.
YOU@RE COMPLETELY WRONG
The BBC is controlled by an executive committie of ~ 20 people, headed by the Director General (Mark Thompson). He is appointed by the board of governers (headed by Micheal Grade). He was appointed by the government, however once appointed is not controlled by them, nor does he control the DG.
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: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.
Ignorance ensued (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, you're too ignorant to know what you're talking about.
Re:BBC is official government media (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only one Fox (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Only one Fox (Score:5, Insightful)
Fox news is a business. As a business, they do not exist to serve the public, they exist to turn a profit. The truth isn't profitable, because it's rarely a "sexy" story. Fox news has a spin portraying fox viewers as true patriots who know the real truth because they watch fox news, and who know that fox news portrays the real america, who are strongly behind George W. Bush, and who think the iraq war is a great effort in the war on terror. It creates a very loyal viewerbase who will not look for other news sources, because in their mind it would make them less patriotic. Fox profits handsomely from this spin by having a loyal audience to show ads to.
Ratings and truth are unrelated. Lies can be sweet poison, the truth bitter medicine. If a station gave you bitter medicine, you would stop watching it, which is why fox news gets such nice ratings from spreading blatant, but seductive, lies consistently.
Re:BBC is official government media (Score:5, Insightful)
I suggest you direct your browser to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/ Where you can peruse the BBC's royal charter.
You may also wish to read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/pdf/ag
Specifically, read section "4. OBJECTIVES FOR THE HOME SERVICES".
The BBC is not a mouth piece for the government and indeed the government has no control over what can or cannot be broadcast. If you lived in the UK you would have read in the papers and seen on TV the huge debate that took place recently over finding a replacement director general after Greg Dyke (the former DG) resigned in response to the Dr. David Kelly affair. The debate was centred around finding a person suitable for the level of impartiality required. The government also felt obliged to jump through hoops just to let everyone know that they fully respected the impartiality of the BBC and had no intention of meddling with the selection process. The BBC's impartiality is so highly regarded in this country that if the government even hinted at trying to sway the selection process it would lose the next general election. This is why they went to such lengths to show they had no involvement in the process.
Re:BBC is official government media (Score:5, Informative)