Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

263 comments

f1rst pr0st (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9261752)

w00ty

Re:f1rst pr0st (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9261766)

I hope I'll be 2nd!

BBC viewpoint (5, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261765)


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 ;-) without having to cough up the cash. Given the advantages (the BBC documentaries and wildlife programs to name but two would probably not get made in a more commercial environment) I'm fairly happy paying 8/month. Given that I'll happily blow 50 on a night out (pub & meal), it seems like good value to me...

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 :-). You also get more (IMHO) objectivity. I trust the BBC far more than I trust most news organisations, foreign or domestic - there's a tradition of honest portrayal of news that places it up amongst the best, a tradition it lives up to, at least more often than most.

Re:BBC viewpoint (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9261788)

YOU SUCK

Re:BBC viewpoint (3, Interesting)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261803)

I do wonder what sort of DRM they'll use.

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 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9261847)

I think it's unlikely the BBC archives will use DRM at all. How could they? What would be the point of releasing under a Creative Commons licence but then slapping Digital Restrictions Management all over it? Sort of self defeating.

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 (4, Insightful)

Kegster (685608) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261858)

If they are making the archive available in a lossy format then this shouldn't be too much of a problem really.

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 (4, Insightful)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261942)

My point is that there'll be less incentive for a US network to purchase Red Dwarf and fill it full of commercials, if it's possible to download it off the net.

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 (4, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262076)

Well if the beeb is interested in reselling the work all they need to do is distribute it with a Non-Commercial Creative Commons license and no one will be able to make money off of distributing it. Sure the audience might be somewhat lessened by those people who download the episodes and refuse to watch the ad filled version but I don't think it would have a huge affect. Btw there is no Creative Commons license that would allow restriction to a particular class of recipients, in fact such a license would be very much against the spirit of creative commons.

Re:BBC viewpoint (1)

sjb2016 (514986) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262129)

If they wanted to restrict their offerings to just UK license payers why don't they do it now? I abuse their servers for streaming video of news and all kinds of radio programming, yet I'm a dyed-in-the-wool American, who lives in America. The best part is, while here, there are all kinds of restrictions on competitions (i.e. you must be a U.S. citizen to win) I won a Daft Punk DVD after e-mailing Annie Nightengale one Saturday night. They even sent it to me express shipping.

I realize that the things they'll be offering will likely be more bandwidth intensive just streaming audio, but I don't think (and certainly don't hope) that they'll be restricting this service too much.

Re:BBC viewpoint (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262141)

MPEG4 is quite a lot better than MPEG2... data rate wise. Kbps vs. Kbps, MPEG2 will never win, unless the MPEG4 encoder is plain fucking stupid.

The only reason that they don't use it in broadcast is that they've already got 1) MPEG2 equipment (encoders, decoders and anything inbetween) 2) MPEG2 media to play, and possibly 3) the end user's equipment dosen't know anything but but MPEG2.

If you give an MPEG4 encoder the same bandwidth to work with (as MPEG2), It'll flat out whoop it's ass. (going to need a helluva CPU to do MPEG4 decoding in HDTV resolutions tho).

Re:BBC viewpoint (5, Insightful)

Ithika (703697) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261804)

Excellent points, but to further what you said about trustworthiness... When they have been under suspicion (Andrew Gilligan, "sexed up" dossiers, etc.) they were remarkably objective about their own (mis)deeds. I think any other organisation would have a) attempted to ignore their own part in the proceedings, or b) editorialised when they should have just been reporting.

Re:BBC viewpoint (2, Interesting)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261854)

Someone on NPR used that same argument for how democracy should more reasonably be promoted in places like Iraq - not so much that America and other democracies are perfect, but that when mistakes are made (i.e. the recent prison scandal), they are dealt with in an open and public way.

Re:BBC viewpoint (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262205)

I think they had to be objective with their self analysis. They risk losing the renewal of their charter if they upset enough people and I think they already feel like the ice is a bit thin in places.

Re:BBC viewpoint (3, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261836)

Given the advantages (the BBC documentaries and wildlife programs to name but two would probably not get made in a more commercial environment)...

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 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9261864)

For those that don't know, and are therefore probably thinking "why didn't he put currency symbols in front of the amounts", Slashdot takes upon itself to delete several useful symbols, including the sign for UK Pounds (and Euros too). One pound is about $1.80.

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 (1)

isorox (205688) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261936)

Slashdot blocks € signs?

Re:BBC viewpoint (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262055)

yes that's cos the /. devs are retarded cunts.

I'm surprised that since they implemented the "lameness" filter /. hasn't collapsed in on itself under its own shiteness.

Re:BBC viewpoint (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262161)

>Slashdot blocks € signs?
yes that's cos...

Oh sorry, I must be hallucinating then... Could have sworn that I've seen one of those on Slashdot...

Re:BBC viewpoint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262183)

Oh sorry, I must be hallucinating then...

If you thought that the second post you quoted was responding to the first post you quoted then yes, you were hallucinating.

Re:BBC viewpoint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262304)

éléphant et âne!

Super, Slash is Iso-latin-1 clean!

Testing Spanish question mark:

==> nope, didn't make it. Is there any reason why Slashdot hates the Spanish characters?

The ultimate question of Life, Universe, ... (-1, Offtopic)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261949)

Everybody knows the answer [bbc.co.uk] , but nobody knows the question.

Let me take a guess; try this one for size:

"How many presidents did the US have until it turned into a dictatorship"?

No tinfoil, it's right here on CNN [cnn.com] !

Ashcroft said that after the March 11 train bombings in Madrid, Spain, "an al Qaeda spokesman announced 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack on the United States were complete."

That's an euphemism for "we can't let happen to the US presidential elections what happened to the Spanish, so we better cancel it".

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, however, said Wednesday that he did not plan to raise the color-coded terror alert level for the nation.

Not just yet! It's still too early. But rest assured that by mid-October, it will be a very dark shade of red (no, Godwyn, I did not say "brown")

Re:The ultimate question of Life, Universe, ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262189)

"How many presidents did the US have until it turned into a dictatorship"?

Wrong. And no, I'm not a republican who mistakes a usurping dictator for an elected president. I just happen to know about Cleveland Grover [msn.com] . So although Clinton was the 42nd president, there are only 41 presidents (because #22 and #24 were identical).

Get over it. He won the vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262232)

Get over it. Bush won the same way the other ones did: he got enough of the popular vote in enough states to win the electoral college. If you know anything about government, you will know that this is how Clinton won also.

Funding is done by licence fee - links (5, Informative)

RidiculousPie (774439) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261995)

Further information on running costs is available in this document [adobe.com] (Starting at about Table 14) and this document [adobe.com]
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 (3, Interesting)

BlightThePower (663950) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262036)

I can never decide if the discount for the registered blind is:
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:BBC viewpoint (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262009)

It's 104/year and you're paying 8/mo.? I guess that you don't like your kids. :)

Or maybe you Brits have Smarch?

Re:BBC viewpoint (1)

Theatetus (521747) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262151)

Didn't you know they have 13 months per year in England? Lousy Smarch weather...

Re:BBC viewpoint (1)

linuxhansl (764171) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262024)

I could not agree more. I am from Germany but live in the states.

While the fee-funded public TV stations in Germany lost some quality over the years, there's no comparison with the crap that is being broadcasted on German private channels.

The same crap is being broadcasted on all US station (KQED being the notable exception).

Everybody whines over fees payed for some public stations, but I think they are necessary.

Re:BBC viewpoint (3, Insightful)

laigle (614390) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262027)

I just wish I could get the same quality programming in the US for the much higher price we pay. Ah, the joys of the free market.

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? (1)

OECD (639690) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262177)

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:BBC viewpoint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262305)

Don't forget that many languish in British gaols who cannot pay the license fee.

Of course many in the cities like this gentleman are rich and can pay these huge taxes, but much of Britain is populated by peasant farmers living at subsistence levels of the equivalent of $200 a year.

Taxes like the license fee are used as leverage to silence this underclass where political opposition arises.

I wonder (4, Interesting)

Tebriel (192168) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261782)

Will being a permanent member of the "external consultative panel" for the BBC change Lessig's views on anything? Will this be a paid position?

What's the difference between March14th and Nov2nd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262059)

There were actually elections on March 14th...

this has to be... (4, Interesting)

zeruch (547271) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261787)

...one of the better pieces of news in a while. I have generelly held the Beeb in high regard, not just for it's programming, but it's business practices. This seems to hold true.

Re:this has to be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9261835)

I held them in high regard too ... until they falsified a news report to make a political arguement (See the Hutton report).

Of course, the Daily Mirror falsifing UK soldier abuse photos if a whole different level of dishonesty.

And, yes, I hold politicians and journalists to different standards. I expect politicians to lie. I expect journalists to tell the truth, but I'll accept them spining the truth.

Re:this has to be... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9261932)

Absolutly, it was downright dishonest of them. However those responsible took the fall; several members of the news team who were directly involved, some board members and Greg Dyke no longer work for the BBC. Lets also not forget the sword cut both ways; the whitewash by Hutton not wishstanding it was Whitehall who revealed the Dr's name. Throughout the entire sorry afair at least the BBC held itself to higher standards and refused to reveal it's sources.

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:this has to be... (0, Troll)

ibpooks (127372) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261872)

...but they aren't a real business; they're a government sponsored charity.

Nobody cares. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9261794)

They're British. The less we see of their teeth the better.

Re:Nobody cares. (0, Offtopic)

shibbie (619359) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261952)

Groovy baby!

Thanks to the brits for this one... (2, Insightful)

mobiux (118006) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261798)

We get it for free because they pay thier yearly tax.

I just wish I could get the BBC america channel at home.

How long will this last? (2, Interesting)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261812)

We get it for free because they pay thier yearly tax.

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? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9261883)

As a licence payer, I really don't mind. Hey, we've already paid it, it's there, why not just let everyone else enjoy it as well? What benefit is there in locking it away? I don't gain anything!

Re:How long will this last? (1)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261909)

As a licence payer, I really don't mind. Hey, we've already paid it, it's there, why not just let everyone else enjoy it as well? What benefit is there in locking it away? I don't gain anything!

I like your thinking but I was just trying to make my comment like a businees in the business of making money would think.

Re:How long will this last? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9261885)

Obviously providing free media content to the public will offend neo-con capitalist sensibilities to the point they will assume the UK has been usurped by communist terrorists and immediately liberate the UK.

The Beeb isn't only making money from license fees (4, Informative)

tjwhaynes (114792) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261999)

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 (3, Insightful)

jacoplane (78110) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262033)

And licensing their materials under a creative commons license does not mean that revenue has to end. They can give it away to the public for free while forbidding commercial use (without paying for that right).

Re:How long will this last? (2, Interesting)

Xilman (191715) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262236)

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.

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:How long will this last? (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262295)

We don't get it for free. We either have to pony up for their region 1 DVDs, or pay extra to subscribe to BBC Canada/America. For me I would have to pay CAD$15/month on top of my cable bill to get digital cable, buy or rent a digital cable box, and then pay more to get the channel. I objected to paying CAD$75/month when all I was watching was TVO (also available over the air), CBC (also available over the air), BBC Canada and BBC World. Now I don't pay for any of it... it's only TV after all ;)

Re:Thanks to you for this one... (4, Insightful)

Roland Piquepaille (780675) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261905)

We get it for free because they pay thier yearly tax.

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.

*cough* (4, Interesting)

BlightThePower (663950) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262113)

Paul Gerhardt, Joint Director, BBC Creative Archive explains: "We want to work in partnership with other broadcasters and public sector organisations to create a public and legal domain of audio visual material for the benefit of everyone in the UK."

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:Thanks to the brits for this one... (2, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262137)

Get what for free? The archive will only be available to UK ADSL/Cable subscribers, the BBC can do this because almost all of the ADSL and cable providers do private peering with the BBC (they have one hell of a network). Other than the limited world services, people outside of the UK get little.

The Beeb (3, Interesting)

Cally (10873) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261805)

For all it's miriad faults (Sue McGregor springs to mind, Libby Purves, John Waite, Noel Edmonds, most of BBC1 these days,... uh, that's a longer list than I was thinking of ;) the BBC is still one of the few things that give me any feeling of pride in the institutions of this country. I won't go so far as to say "proud to be British" - patriotism just isn't sportsmanlike IMHO.

In Related News... (4, Funny)

k4_pacific (736911) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261808)

Cable news channel MSNBC announced today that they will be releasing their archives under the Windows XP EULA.

Re:In Related News... (1)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261926)

Which one, the original or SP1 or SP2's EULA, they seem to have changed quite a bit, but i suppose the original EULA has something along the lines of "By agreeing to this EULA, you also agree to any future modifications to this EULA, which may be performed with notifying you , at any time in the future."

Re:In Related News... (1)

John Starks (763249) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262119)

Such an EULA is not legally binding. Contract law is based around the idea of two parties mutually agreeing on specific terms. Neither party can change those terms without the other's agreement. Clauses such as the one you mentioned are simply invalid, since they violate the idea on which contract law is based.

You should take that with a grain of salt though, as IANAL.

Re:In Related News... (1)

Aneurysm9 (723000) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262164)

There is a question whether a EULA relates to a sale of goods. If it does and the Uniform Commercial Code applies, then, perhaps, EULAs are considered as proposals for addition to the contract formed at the time of sale of the goods (i.e., the software) and become part of the contract unless rejected. See UCC 2-204 [cornell.edu] and UCC 2-207. [cornell.edu]

Re:In Related News... (1)

sckeener (137243) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261967)

Cable news channel MSNBC announced today that they will be releasing their archives under the Windows XP EULA.

great something else to click through

Good news (5, Insightful)

N3koFever (777608) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261814)

It's good news if they do this. Their shows (especially comedy) are probably the best in the world and making them available to anyone who wants them is great, especially for people who live in places where they can't see them usually. One of the advantages of having a publicly funded non-commercial TV network I guess.

Good News for UK Residents ONLY (3, Informative)

ear1grey (697747) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262155)


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 who funded it.

The license for the rest of the world may be something completely different.

NPR Public Content (2, Interesting)

beatleadam (102396) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261816)

The BBC appears to be delivering on its promise of releasing its material to the public - they're modelling their licensing on Creative Commons.

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 (1)

m_dob (639585) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261924)

As I understand it they are only releasing content as long as it is not making money for them through their commercial arm (BBC Worldwide).

Don't expect to see any Python any time soon. I think the plan is to do with television as they do with radio - i.e. make the last 7 day's programs available online, though this could have changed.

Re:NPR Public Content (3, Informative)

Gorath99 (746654) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262106)

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 (1)

Bjimba (31636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262294)

Never mind the Pythons (for the moment, anyway). The BBC have held hostage for far too long the only live performances of Harry Nilsson ever filmed.

Oh, how I long for the day these two BBC specials are released. And I wouldn't balk at paying for them, either. But couldn't there be some clause in all this that says if the commercial arm determines some content is not worth releasing, the Creative Commons-esque release automatically kicks in?

Free Harry now!

Creative Commons! (5, Insightful)

Lorenzo de Medici (774505) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261823)

The Creative Commons license brings licensing to the masses. As an independent filmmaker, I am so overjoyed to be able to have websites such as Magnatune [magnatune.com] where I can find decent artists who want exposure for their music, something some of my films can provide. At the same time, I get good quality audio for my films. They win. I win. It's a wonderful thing.

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?

BBC is official government media (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9261838)

The BBC is the news and media branch of the government of the United Kingdom. It is not a "good thing" to have the state control things like this.

The BBC are not government (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9261862)

The BBC are not government. They are controlled by state officials and the Crown.

Re:The BBC are not government (1)

isorox (205688) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262163)

The BBC are not government. They are controlled by state officials and the Crown.

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.

You are completely wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262185)

What you describe is common with branches of government. In the United States, judges (like your BBC state officials) are appointed by other government officials, but are not "controlled" by them afterwards. Like with the BBC, the people are taxed to pay for the judges' job.

Re:BBC is official government media (4, Interesting)

gibodean (224873) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261944)

The BBC is the news and media branch of the government of the United Kingdom. It is not a "good thing" to have the state control things like this.

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262090)

The USD media is controlled by the state - the corporate state. Read up on Mussolini and the ideals of fascism (not the hitler nazi anomaly, ordinary fascism). Fascism is the merging of government and corporate power.

Re:BBC is official government media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262136)

"The USD media is controlled by the state - the corporate state."

The only media in the US controlled by the state is NPR and PBS. There is no "corporate state".

Re:BBC is official government media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262259)

Oh? there isn't?

So, the fact that the current Vice President was CEO of Haliburton, and the fact that Haliburton was awarded all sorts of "no-bid" contracts to do things in Iraq, and the fact that Haliburton now has a private army of 5000 "contractors" (ie: people with guns... aka mercenaries)... .. these are all just coincidences?

Ignorance ensued (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262064)

BBC's taxes are authorised by a Crown Charter, which is done through government. However, the Government and the BBC both have to abide by it (which they both do willingly). This isn't a Government controls the BBC situation, it's a contract between seperate entities.

Unfortunately, you're too ignorant to know what you're talking about.

Re:Ignorance ensued (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262146)

"Unfortunately, you're too ignorant to know what you're talking about."

You are too ignorant to realize that something that is government-created, funded, and controlled is a part of government.

Re:BBC is official government media (5, Insightful)

dylman (781218) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262159)

Yes, it's far better to have your news media controlled by vast corporations pursuing their own, unknown agendas. Fox News are renowned worldwide for their balanced, fair journalism, after all...

Only one Fox (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262168)

"Fox News are renowned worldwide for their balanced, fair journalism, after all..."

"Fox News" is a singular entity. You are correct, however, that it is known for being more accurate and less ideological, especially in the US media landscape where TV news is dominated by the left-wing and radio is dominated by the right-wing.

Fox News's only agenda is to serve the public. If they don't, their ratings fall. No "unknown agendas".

Re:BBC is official government media (5, Insightful)

gpuk (712102) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262197)

That is the most misguided comment I have ever read.

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/agr eement_text.shtml
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.

Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?" (2, Informative)

Bart (12323) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261845)

So, would this be the same BBC who force us to load proprietary and intrusive software (RealPlayer) in order to listen to their audio streams? The same BBC who "tried" Ogg Vorbis streaming for three weeks before quietly shelving it? The BBC who have never offered MP3 streams?

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?" (5, Informative)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261893)

This is the same BBC that forced Real to provide a free, no-nag, no-spyware, less-evil version of the player.

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?" (1)

Bart (12323) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261911)

Whereas WFMU.org offer Realaudio streams, MP3 streams and, as of last week Ogg Vorbis streams.

Re:Left Hand: "What you up to Right Hand?" (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9261958)

The Ogg Streams were up for months, not three weeks. I know the guy who was responsible for it, and the sad reason it stopped is simply because the department running it was moved to another office and "right sized", leaving no resource to pursue the streams. You could always write to the BBC and ask them to restart the trials though; no harm in asking.

This is Certainly Great News (5, Insightful)

List of FAILURES (769395) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261861)

Precedent like this by such a well respected and very tasteful organization is sure to bolster support for the Creative Commons style of licensing. One of the best, but most downtrodden traits of humanity is the capacity for sharing. Certain, mentally ill segments of our civilization are striving to keep what last tight grips they have on anything of value. They think only of themselves and their immediate needs rather than thinking of us as a collective and the legacy that we may leave behind with a more open approach. I applaud the BBC and it's efforts to show the world that it is possible to embrace sharing as a good thing for creativity. I berate everyone else who believes that keeping something completely to themselves is good in any way. Go ahead and become Gollum, if that is what you wish. The rest of us will leave you behind.

Alternative Business (5, Interesting)

bludstone (103539) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261863)

Im curious.

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 (2, Interesting)

leakingmemory (750252) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261903)

Creative Commons != BSD License Not sure about the exact line between becoming sued and not, but it seems pretty clear to me that the original author still owns the work. But maybe you can get paid for the cd and possibly for creating it/buring too.

Re:Alternative Business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9261916)

>Does this mean independant people can take these sources, remaster them, and release them on dvd for a fee?

no.

Re:Alternative Business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262091)

Depends on what license you choose.

Re:Alternative Business (4, Informative)

P-Nuts (592605) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262103)

Does this mean independant people can take these sources, remaster them, and release them on dvd for a fee?

RTFA:

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.
Commercial reuse of the content will not be allowed.

So it sounds like the for a fee bit wouldn't be permissible.

Yaaaaaawn (2, Funny)

Roland Piquepaille (780675) | more than 10 years ago | (#9261866)

yesterday's release of Creative Commons' 2.0 licenses -- well worth reading about.

on a rainy day.

/me goes back to blog...

hoping others will follow (4, Informative)

xlyz (695304) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262011)


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 (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262152)

The BBC isnt actually state owned, its owned by a private Trust and given a Government Mandate to allow it to collect a license fee for TVs. The government actaully has minimal say in the running of the BBC, much to the current governments dislike.

What is being released exactly? (4, Funny)

SsShane (754647) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262044)

I want mah Doctor Who!

Does this mean (1, Funny)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262052)

That I can finally rewatch "Are You Being Served?" which played on my local PBS station until the video tapes fell apart?

GNU FDL (3, Informative)

Henrik S. Hansen (775975) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262089)

The GNU Free Documentation License [gnu.org] should also be considered for any kind of free document. Although it is modelled for documentation for programs, it could really be applied for most things.

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.

Excellent (3, Informative)

locarecords.com (601843) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262094)

This is really good news and I am very pleased that a public sector company like the BBC should seek to do this. That they have used Creative Commons licenses is very interesting considering they are based on US law (and the UK ones are still under development) but still I am sure they have enough copyright lawyers should they need to sort something out.

[Grammar-Nazi] "Creative Commons'" (2)

JessLeah (625838) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262097)

I just wanted to point out that "Creative Commons" is a singular entity, despite the fact that it ends in the letter "s". Therefore, it is "Creative Commons's" license (or whatever), not "Creative Commons'" license (or whatever),

Financial Considerations (5, Interesting)

otisaardvark (587437) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262125)

This is exactly fulfilling the remit of the BBC, and demonstrates perfectly why most Brits are happy paying the TV licence fee. The Creative Commons style copylefting is a wonderful touch, and shows how "in tune" the BBC is to the mood of the public.

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:Financial Considerations (1)

N3koFever (777608) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262260)

Good point, even if they make it so that only material over ten years old falls under this that's still over 80 years of material. My guess is that only a selection will be available directly from the BBC either streamed or downloaded, but it will give people the right to freely distribute their own recordings of material that this applies to.

CBC ... follow suit (5, Insightful)

subVorkian (138658) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262195)

The CBC should follow the lead of it's older, wiser brother.


This was found at: http://archives.cbc.ca/info/281g_en23.shtml

CBC staff from coast to coast to coast have online access to RADIOLA material through CBC's Intranet. This makes it much easier to incorporate old programming into new coverage -- when reporting on the history of a conflict, say, or the death of a national figure.

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? (3, Funny)

FirstTimeCaller (521493) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262202)

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!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...