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!

British Groups Launch Creative Archive License

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the creative-commons-sans-serial-numbers dept.

The Internet 128

icerunner wrote in to mention that several British institutions have banded together to create the Creative Archive License. From the announcement: "BBC, Channel 4, British Film Institute and OU (Open University) issue call to action for Creative Archive Licence. Media and arts organisations, universities and libraries have today been urged to join an innovative new scheme designed to give the public access to footage and sound from some of the largest film, television and radio archives in the UK, as well as specially commissioned material." We've previously covered this as The BBC Creative Archive.

cancel ×

128 comments

fp, niggaz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234219)

fp, niggaz

Re:fp, niggaz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234249)

hahahah, that took about 5 seconds to be modded down. i reload, i'm at 0. reload again, at -1. good work, guys. at least i got real fp on your azz.

Re:fp, niggaz (-1, Offtopic)

Alibloke (838866) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234250)

*sighs*

Wow! (-1, Redundant)

Sanity (1431) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234243)

Creative Arhive Licence
Ths is great, I ant ait to se it in ation!

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234296)

It's not Your-hive, silly. It's Arhive!

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234392)

What a low user ID.

Open University (OU) (-1, Offtopic)

big-giant-head (148077) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234261)

Hey did they get slaughted in the orange bowl last year by USC (University Souce Closed) ????

Open source U definately needs to work on thier tackling..

Copyrights... (2, Insightful)

timtwobuck (833954) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234267)

Isn't this how copyrights in the US are supposed to work? Won't the same thing happen in the UK that happens over here, some large corportation (read Disney) keeps on spending and spending on lawyers to have the laws changed so their mascot can't be used in explicit material

Two questions? (5, Funny)

Flywheels of Fire (836557) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234268)

From WS on TFA [http] :

The Creative Archive is a product of this exciting era of digital media and the internet. It's possible because of innovations in technology and content licensing, along with editorial vision. However, it remains a challenging and complex project with many unknowns. To help us understand the best way to deliver the Creative Archive, we have decided to start with a pilot project.

And that in English means?

I wonder how long before the IFPI [google.com] gets into the show.

Europeans, listen up (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234269)

When will you ever learn that copyrights and patents are the way forward?

Re:Europeans, listen up (2, Funny)

rovingeyes (575063) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234341)

When will you ever learn that copyrights and patents are the way forward?

When American's start suing their ass off

Europeans ahead in Sonny Bono race to bottom (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235103)

The European Union had a copyright term extension years before the United States had the Bono Act [wikipedia.org] . In fact, the EU term extension directive [wikipedia.org] re-copyrighted works that had already entered the public domain, unlike the Bono Act.

Only for UK (5, Informative)

m_dob (639585) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234275)

This service is only intended for people who have IPs in the UK. Finally, a reason to be proud to be a British geek...

Re:Only for UK (1)

JoaoPinheiro (749991) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234458)

Does using a bouncer count? xD

Re:Only for UK (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234521)

No, the British geek can also be proud of the folowing: Tea, Stilton, Stephen Hawking, Fish & Chips, bangers and mash, Clauda Black & Farscape, and the list gose on and on

Re:Only for UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234583)

Clauda Black & Farscape

Farscape was produced in Austrailia, the British are only responsible for it by proxy (just like the USA). I'm not sure about Claudia Black's citizenship or heritage though. Not that it makes much difference to the ability to enjoy her work though.

Re:Only for UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234725)

Tea Tea is something you brought to Europe from India, you hardly invented it. Tea is also vastly inferior to coffee which is IMPOSSIBLE to get at acceptable quality in your country.

Stilton A rip-off of rockford, a french cheese and, of course, vastly superior to blue stilton.

Stephen Hawking The only thing worth being proud of so far.

Fish and Chips and Bangers and Mash This is the reason other countries laugh at your culinary skills. You are the only empire that has ever existed on the face of the earth that didn't create a culinary style. An aberration!

Claudia Black and Farscape You missed it there. But BBC2 was pretty cool in the nineties and your TV is second to none. Of course you have to bitch about paying for it. Fucking yobs...

Re:Only for UK (2, Informative)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234867)

A rip-off of rockford, a french cheese and, of course, vastly superior to blue stilton.
Right... I'm gonna take cheese advice from a man who can't spell Roquefort.

And whoo seems unaware that Stilton and Roquefort are made from cow's milk and sheep's milk, respectively. And because of that, do not actually taste terribly similar (roquefort is considerably sharper, and crumblier). Me, I prefer Shropshire Blue and Saint Agur.

Re:Only for UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234907)

Tea is vastly superior to coffee, its just American tastes are too inferior to tell.

Fish and Chips is the finest takeaway on the planet.

Mod -1 Offtopic, -1 Flamebait, -10 anti-american

Re:Only for UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12235301)

Because Americans are the only ones who prefer coffee to tea? Because you can't get tea in America??? Dude you make no sense. So far today I've had a good coffee (not from Starbucks, but they'll do in a pinch, like when I'm in London) and a good mug of Oolong Tea.

Re:Only for UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12235719)

I don't understand where this Coffee=American Tea=English thing came from. Both Coffee and Tea were being served in the "coffee/tea houses" of London for hundreds of years; before America even existed as a known landmass.

Re:Only for UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234624)

Actually it's only for people with IPs in the UK.... ...and geeks ANYWHERE who browse through anonymous proxies in the UK... *wink*

-AC

Re:Only for UK (2, Interesting)

r4bb1t (663244) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234625)

Super. Another way to prevent me from getting (at least, in my opinion) less biased news from outside the US. I try to read/watch/listen to the BBC as much as I can here in the States, given that the US media doesn't so much cover the rest of the world. I would have looked forward to being able to sift through the archives to see what I've been missing.

Re:Only for UK (1)

Dot.Com.CEO (624226) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234774)

Or you could go to news.bbc.co.uk and read/ listen/ watch BBC news live.

Re:Only for UK (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235841)

In America you'll only get 2 BBC "channels". The first is the world service, which is as it says global and well the "world service".

The other is BBC America which is a spin off which would also have the American spin on it..

No endorsement? Not so fast. (1)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235675)

Prior to learning about the no endorsement section, I would have agreed with you. Now, I'm not so fast to conclude as you do. A good deal of the speech I make is political. I'd be disappointed to learn I had been paying BBC license fees ultimately to be told that I couldn't build on these works "to promote political, charitable, or other campaigning purposes".

On the other hand, I've gained a newfound respect for the public domain and the importance of the preservation and growth of the public domain.

How about Creative Commons (5, Insightful)

JoaoPinheiro (749991) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234277)

Creative Archive = (Creative Commons) - (Derivate Works) + (UK Only) + (No Endorsement)

Re:How about Creative Commons (3, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234536)

Creative commons lets you pick and choose which elements you want to use, this license is an all or nothing thing, but it was obviously inspired by creative commons.

Re:How about Creative Commons (1)

BandoMcHando (85123) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235439)

Not quite. More like: Creative Archive = (Creative Commons) + (Derivate Works) + (UK Only) + (No Endorsement) As the article does say that derivative works must be also be licensed with the Creative Archive License (sound familiar?)

Another step (3, Insightful)

sellin'papes (875203) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234305)

The next step is to license the archives under the Creative Commons license so that the footage in the archive could be altered by anyone and then recirculated.

Re:Another step (0, Flamebait)

Fucky the troll (528068) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234403)

Here's an idea... Read the fucking article, cocksmoke! As the guy above you put it so well - Creative Archive = (Creative Commons) - (Derivate Works) + (UK Only) + (No Endorsement). It's not the same as creative commons, and doesn't need to be put under the commons license.

Re:Another step (1)

John Bokma (834313) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234595)

Then you should read a bit up about the Creative Commons: by-nc-nd [creativecommons.org]

And UK only to boot (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235246)

This BBC licence would be equivalent to a hypothetical Creative Commons "by-nc-nd-ukonly" license, which currently doesn't exist to my knowledge. (Ironically, the GNU GPL allows the author of a covered program to add geographic restrictions.)

Re:Another step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234970)

that's pretty much exactly what the creative archive license does say already. read it.

The license doesn't allow commercial exploitation of derivative works without permission, that's all. If you make something and want to sell it rather than give it away then you have to contact the original rights holders and get permission. That's not unusual. One major aim of the archive is to provide an education resource for kids or students who want the footage for making video essays for instance.

The Creative Archive license differs from the Creative Commons license only because the situation that broadcasters find themselves in when trying to basically open source their material is that there already incredibly complicated licensing restrictions in place on almost all their material. An example given to me by a BBC producer that may illustrate the point is that a Horizon program he produced featured an interview with a Japanese woman who's sone had died of AIDS. She agreed to the interview only on the reassurance that the program would never be broadcast in Japan. This is effectively means it's impossible to license the program. This kind of agreement is not at all unusal, and means that when they're trying to open up their material they have to have people going over every part of a program with a fine tooth comb to make sure that they're not infringing someone elses rights while doing it. It can get expensive. For instance, it's almost certain that they wouldn't have the right to re-distribute any part of a program that they has licensed music over it, when the program was made the producers will only have bought rights to the music for showing on television, often with terriorial clauses, or with reciprocals attached. This music would have to be removed from the program before it could be released with an open license. That kind of thing costs a lot of money and time.

Another complexity is that the BBC is not allowed to "unfairly compete" with the private sector. This is rather irritating, because it means that they have to be very careful not to do anything that would be undermining the commercial marketplace - if they give away all their science and natural history programs (which are arguable the best in the world) for free then the Discovery Channel can complain that they're unfair competition. This is a rather irritating legal situation with the BBCs charter which greatly limits what they can do with their web presence - in my opinion the greater public good should come first, rather than the rights of some companies to make money, and the BBC should be free to compete, but I don't expect this situation will change for a while.

The BBC are trying to make sure that their production contracts from here on are more friendly to open licensing, but it's a LOT more complicated than simple putting their old tapes on the net. If they could there are many people at the BBC who would like to open up everything they make - after all the BBC as an institution is set up for the public good - but the legal complexities mean it's going to be quite a long time before that dream is possible. However the importance of this launch is that it is a very public signal that the BBC (and the other partners) are fundamentally committed to trying to open up as much as they can, and they should be applauded for that.

Confused (1)

pete19 (874979) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234310)

Does this mean that I can get access to TV shows without paying a TV license? How does this actually work?

Re:Confused (1)

CapeMonkey (795733) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234365)

No. You can only access it from Britain. The BBC is publicly funded so British citizens have already paid their license fee.

There will probably be ways around the Britain Barrier, as I believe it is going to be based on your IP.

Re:Confused (2, Insightful)

Neeex (768224) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234561)

Of course, it's perfectly possible to live in Britain and not have a TV licence - as long as you don't watch TV.

And limiting access by IP is dangerous. As a result of my ISP buying its broadband wholesale from a large European business ISP, I'm living in England, but my IP addresses always seem to come from the German address space.

Papers please (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235176)

it's perfectly possible to live in Britain and not have a TV licence - as long as you don't watch TV.

Not once most large computer monitors start coming with a DTV tuner built in.

I'm living in England, but my IP addresses always seem to come from the German address space.

You'd probably be able to sign up for a name and password based on some other sort of UK government-issued identification. (Do TV licences have numbers?) Using ID is rawther common among services with geographical limitations.

Re:Confused (1)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234585)

No, it just gives them another reason to charge you a TV license if you have a computer in your house.

Playing to the Long Tail (4, Interesting)

jessmeister (225593) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234316)

This really plays into The Long Tail [thelongtail.com] scenario that is so often spoken of these days. I wonder how long before the major portals starts making deals with these owners of massive amounts of content. When a revenue model is established around this release of content we will see things really pick up. I am betting on instream advertising [dynadco.com] as the way they do it.

Very ex-Catherdra (5, Insightful)

ites (600337) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234323)

It's fine for licensing an archive that is unlikely to change.

But if the intention is to create a living culture, restrictions on use are counter-productive.

What the license says is "you can use our stuff". What a really far-sighted license says is "here are a set of rules for creating stuff. Oh, and our stuff falls under these rules too."

For instance, why ban commercial use? To prevent competition? Sure... but competition is what makes the living culture.

It'd be far more valuable to allow commercial use of - e.g. old BBC broadcasts - so long as the vendors also made their derived products freely available under the same conditions.

Re:Very ex-Catherdra (5, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234402)

It'd be far more valuable to allow commercial use of - e.g. old BBC broadcasts
The BBC makes an enormous amount of money repackaging and reselling its old programs. There's simply no way they'd allow others to undercut them on stuff they've spent a lot of money on producing (and since we Brits are paying for the BBC, I support them thoroughly on this.)

I think their ideas are pretty well thought out (and not massively dissimilar from how Lucas allows his universe to be used for non-commercial fan films).

Re:Very ex-Catherdra (2, Insightful)

ites (600337) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234679)

If the archive is open for free access, no-one is actually going to pay a premium for commercial versions of it.

People will pay for additional services provided over and on top of the existing material. This is what I call a "living culture". But many people won't provide such services gratis. There has to be at least the possibility of reward.

So banning commercial reuse is actually pointless - because the free archive is already a flat competitor to the Beeb's existing commercial sale of those programmes - and counter-productive - because it turns many potential contributors away.

Re:Very ex-Catherdra (1)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234722)

If the archive is open for free access, no-one is actually going to pay a premium for commercial versions of it
Well, thats not true because the archive is *not* freely available to anyone outside the UK. We get it for free because (in the case of the BBC, at least) we've already paid for it. Everyone else has to pay.

Re:Very ex-Catherdra (1)

ites (600337) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234787)

Hold on... so individuals and non-profit organisations can take content, use it, and share it, but only within the UK?

LMAO - this is like putting your cat outside and telling it to stay away from the birdie.

Seriously... the content, being freely available, will without the slightest hesitation be spread across the four corners of the internets.

This being self-evident, I start to doubt the sanity of the architects of this license.

Re:Very ex-Catherdra (2, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234909)

will without the slightest hesitation be spread across the four corners of the internets.
Well, yeah. But anything they release on DVD -- even with the most restrictive licenses you can imagine -- will get spread to the four corners of the internets. Ask the MPAA.

There's no way they can control illegitimate copying and distribution, but that's not actually the issue here.

Re:Very ex-Catherdra (1)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235830)

Hold on... so individuals and non-profit organisations can take content, use it, and share it, but only within the UK?

from looking at the site, that's not exactly what is meant by UK only - it is meant to be primarily for UK, so you need to be based in the UK to access the archive. It doesn't go so far as to say that people who release works based on content in the archive have to limit those works to the UK.

Who's interest? (1)

Morosoph (693565) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234700)

Ah, but if they were promoting the licence-payers' interests rather than their own as an institution, they would probably do better by removing some restrictions.

True, they would the get less in the way of funds for other projects, but then the entity that would have otherwise have bought the material then has more in the way of funds to do the same themselves. A greater plurality of creators makes for greater creativity: just look at channel four!

Re:Who's interest? (1)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234988)

they would probably do better by removing some restrictions.
Don't tell me, tell them. This is the start of a consultation period.

Re:Very ex-Catherdra (2, Interesting)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234407)

For instance, why ban commercial use? To prevent competition? Sure... but competition is what makes the living culture.

Because the majority, if not all, the content has been payed for by the British taxpayer. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for somebody's commercial use of the material?

However, the BBC and C4 already have extensive commercial operations - the idea being that commercial users would pay for what they use and then that money gets sent back into the public services.

Re:Very ex-Catherdra (2, Interesting)

Morosoph (693565) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234619)

Because the majority, if not all, the content has been payed for by the British taxpayer. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for somebody's commercial use of the material?
Because the taxpayer gets extra utility for no extra funds, which means, of course, that they don't foot the bill, for the bill's already been paid!

Re:Very ex-Catherdra (1)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234938)

Because the taxpayer gets extra utility for no extra funds
But if the use is commercial would that not imply that the taxpayer is going to have to find extra funds for the utility? Is that not what "commercial use" means?

Re:Very ex-Catherdra (1)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235748)

Because the taxpayer gets extra utility for no extra funds, which means, of course, that they don't foot the bill, for the bill's already been paid!

Ok, let's explain how this works:

1) I (and most of the rest of the population of the UK) give the BBC around 110 pounds a year (we have little choice in this, you either pay it or you can't watch tv/watch tv but end up in jail). The BBC uses this money to make content.

2) The BBC turn around and release some of this content back to UK taxpayer, so that the UK taxpayer can do creative things with the content that they have paid for.

Now with commercial use of this material, with absolutly no pay back to the BBC (and hence the taxpayer) as the OP wanted, would mean that when the commercial user sells me the content, then I end up paying again for something I have already paid for and yet the commercial user hasn't paid anything.

Also note, while the Creative Archive License doesn't allow commercial use, it doesn't mean that commercial use licenses don't exist - the BBC has a commercial arm that specializes in licenseing content. So if somebody did want to release a commercial product they can, they just have to pay to do so. And that payment would go back to the BBC and help in the BBC's funding.

Boy...talk about soundcards (1, Offtopic)

LegendOfLink (574790) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234333)

Gee, Creative has their hands full lately...first Creative Commons, now Creative Archive. It used to be tradition to stick with a brand name for a while, like Live! or Audigy...

I still remember waiting in line to buy a SoundBlaster 16! Boy, those were the days!

;)

LETS talk about soundcards (1)

Werrismys (764601) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234541)

Soundblasters were pieces of manure.

Really. They were really weak. Bad sound, bad manufacture quality, and in Windows era, really bad drivers.

If you waited in line for SB16 you were a mindless sheep. Gravis Ultrasound was about a hundred times better card, and less prone to pick up humm from mobo/power supply/hard drives.

Re:LETS talk about soundcards (1)

LegendOfLink (574790) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235167)

Baaa baaa baaa...I never had a problem with picking up hum, but good point on drivers -- always had problems with IRQ settings in DOS games...baaa baaa baaa

Re:LETS talk about soundcards (1)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235375)

Didn't the GUS also have an onboard MOD decoder?

Of course, I just had an old ATI StereoFX (SB clone) until I got my AWE64 (which wasn't as impressive as I'd hoped, and was hell to set up in OS/2 or Linux.)

Led Zeppelin! (1)

maxphunk (222449) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234336)

My hope is that this will free up some Led Zeppelin footage, but I don't think the ghost of Peter Grant [slashdot.org] would let that happen.

The influence of Open Source (1)

ISoldMyLowIdOnEbay (802697) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234339)

This can only be good, although I await the actual content - it will be interesting to see what is released.

This is clearly down to the philosophy of Open Source (or however you like to phrase it, depends if you are RMS or not) - people outside of IT are starting to see everyone being able to contribute to improving things as a good idea, using the power of the internet to form communities.

Maybe it will spread to real Engineering too - not just the software variety? Or is there a point at which commercial methods are always going to be the way? It will be interesting to see....

Re:The influence of Open Source (1)

n0dnarb (872225) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234470)

I think it's a bit of a conceit to say that "people outside of IT" are just realizing that open source has a lot of positive aspects to it. It's not that they don't see the benefits, it's that they would like to take advantage of it while still making money (and I'm not knocking them for making money), hence the "Creative Archive License"

Re:The influence of Open Source (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234472)

This is clearly down to the philosophy of Open Source (or however you like to phrase it, depends if you are RMS or not)

Have you ever actually LISTENED to what RMS is saying? The difference between open source and free software isn't in which words you use, there are actual, significant differences between the two philosophies.

Open source is about improving the quality of service through an open development model. Free software is about providing the user with freedom to do what they like with their software. There are overlaps, but they have different goals.

All you do when you refer to RMS' points as mere differences in phrasing is prove that you've heard the argument, but it went in one ear and out the other without you understanding it.

Re:The influence of Open Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234544)

Maybe you should listen to RMS? "Do what they like with their software" I don't think the GPL says that...

Re:The influence of Open Source (2, Interesting)

JoaoPinheiro (749991) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234498)

Yeah, it certainly is. It seems like things are getting back to the way they were before crazy patent and copyright laws started coming around.

This is what leads to development and evolution.
Current patent and copyright laws only lead to the development of monopolies (which in turn lead to stagnation - no competition, no need to evolve).

How many do we need...? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234356)

[put your name here] Creative License

But what about satire (4, Interesting)

j()nty (741565) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234359)

From the summary [bbc.co.uk]

The Creative Archive content is provided to allow you to get creative with content, not for campaigning, soapboxing or to defame others! So don't use it to promote political, charitable, or other campaigning purposes and remember to treat others and their work in the way that you'd expect them to treat you and your work...with respect!

But if I want to satirise a piece covered by this license the original author could get all huffy and claim that I am defaming them.

Let the lawyers arguments begin...

Makes Me Proud (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234381)

Yeah, I'm so proud to be British at seeing this news.

Also proud to be paying my fee to the BBC. The quality and integrity of our media is improved and upheld over and over again because of their unique position and charter.

I wonder what formats will be used to distribute it though - will it be Mpeg or perhaps the new system the BBC have been devloping? So long as it's not WMV or RealMedia like the BBC currently seem to offer then I'll be happy!

Re:Makes Me Proud (1)

nogginthenog (582552) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235117)

The BBC are only offering WMV/RealMedia because they are currently the only widely available low-bitrate streaming formats. They don't want to use these formats as they have to pay Real/MS license fees - which is exactly why they are developing their own video compression system.

Re:Makes Me Proud (1)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235300)

The BBC are only offering WMV/RealMedia because they are currently the only widely available low-bitrate streaming formats
And it's not as if the vast majority of WMV/AVI can't be converted into MPEGs. transcode and mencoder are your friends.

Re:Makes Me Proud (1)

Ciaran_H (579351) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235783)

Whatever it is, I'm glad that they won't be using DRM.

Does this mean... (1)

iridium_ionizer (790600) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234394)

I won't have to shell out 150USD to get the Monty Python's Flying Circus DVD set? Or does Creative Archive License mean that someone can't use the footage for commercial purposes (at least legally), but can make plenty of student films with the footage?

Re:Does this mean... (1)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234453)

I won't have to shell out 150USD to get the Monty Python's Flying Circus DVD set? Or does Creative Archive License mean that someone can't use the footage for commercial purposes (at least legally), but can make plenty of student films with the footage?

Seeing as it explicity disallows commercial use, plus the fact that the material is primarily intended for use in the UK, I'd say you're out of luck.

downloads will be limited to UK only (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234413)

Note that all the files will be restricted by IP. Meaning that outside the UK, we won't be able to download anything (without a UK based proxy)

from the faq: [bbc.co.uk] The Creative Archive will not be using DRM around the content. The BBC's pilot site will be using a technology called GEOIP filtering to ensure that content sourced directly from the BBC will only be available to UK citizens.

Re:downloads will be limited to UK only (0, Troll)

CrosbieFitch (694308) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234505)

So brain dead! So petty.

Ooh, we can't let anyone outside the UK see it...

Well, the US was first:

UK and other non-US people can't look at this site:
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/

Boo hoo!

Unless of course you go via a proxy, e.g.:
http://www.the-cloak.com/Cloaked/+cfg=32/ht tp%3A// www.sho.com/site/ptbs/home.do

Won't these people ever learn???

The Internet is a bloody network, not a geographically located exhibition hall!

Re:downloads will be limited to UK only (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234556)

Because the Brits already paid for it in license fees. What's it like having a peanut for a brain?

Re:downloads will be limited to UK only (0, Flamebait)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234607)

Then maybe the Brits need their own private distribution methods (ie; their TV sets), rather than trying to carve up the Internet a la the Great Firewall of China?

Re:downloads will be limited to UK only (0, Flamebait)

CrosbieFitch (694308) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234705)

Since when did commissioned art automatically become forbidden to those who did not participate in its commissioning?

That is the thinking that comes from having a sesame seed as a brain (similar to a peanut brain, but when squashed has a nicer tasting oil extract).

Re:downloads will be limited to UK only (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235312)

Since when did commissioned art automatically become forbidden to those who did not participate in its commissioning?

Since the copyright law was changed to make copyright something that automatically comes into being upon fixation of a work in a tangible medium rather than something you have to file for.

Sucks to be me (1)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235086)

Paid my licence fee for years and then moved to the US.

Fortunately i've got no less than 3 shell accounts in the UK :)

Re:downloads will be limited to UK only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234656)

> Won't these people ever learn???

They know it won't work, just like the govt knows that ID cards won't improve security. That's not the point - the point is to make those that don't know it won't work (i.e. most people)...happy!

Re:downloads will be limited to UK only (1)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234743)

The Internet is a bloody network, not a geographically located exhibition hall!

Didya pay for the creation of any of the content?
No? Then tough shit.

Of course, they could setup a scheme whereby Americans could pay to download the content.

Unfortunately, the drawback is that your currency is so completely fucked that all you would be able to afford is the first 3 frames of a 25 year old Dr Who episode.

Rip It Mix It TV (shudder) (3, Insightful)

DumbSwede (521261) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234463)

I like the idea of free access to media. I'm not sure about the idea of Cuisinarting this stuff into derivative materials. Don't get me wrong I'm not opposed to creativity, early sound sampling in music was used to great advantage, but it seems like we've entered an age of endless recycling when it comes to media. Even when not reusing the original material directly (as is so common in music) we are re-shooting it. I just watched Dennis Quaid in "Flight of the Phoenix" last night. Wow, here is a remake that didn't need to be. The original was much better. There was nothing even approaching the famous maniacal laughing scene when it is discovered the engineer designs model airplanes. But I digress.

Perhaps the idea is to encourage independent documentary style work, but I still shudder at the idea of hundreds of avant-garde like film stuttering remixes of old stuff. Call me old fashioned but I just want to see good stories told in film and video. I hate "Reality TV" and now I may have to suffer through the advent of "Rip It Mix It TV"

Hopefully people will limit them selves to intermittent flashes of things like train-wrecks and other visual punctuation marks with this stuff, but it is unclear to me where this is all going.

One thing does seem certain -- production costs for creating quality content should continue to drop for independents. At some point big budget TV and Hollywood will have a problem keeping up, and this I am for.

Re:Rip It Mix It TV (shudder) (1)

n0dnarb (872225) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234568)

...and now I may have to suffer through the advent of "Rip It Mix It TV" Well I'm sure the probability of some unknown filmmaker's work taking over the timeslot of whatever derivative sitcom is relatively low. From what I've seen so far we need to worry about overuse and recycling of the same tired old ideas from the major studios rather than the independent studios (and the true independents, the guys working for free in basements). Hopefully this sort access, as well as true Creative Commons access, can become more and more widespread. And not everyone is as erudite as you in the cinema..... There was nothing even approaching the famous maniacal laughing scene when it is A SPOILER

Geek based FAQ (1)

briqui (256917) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234468)

Re:Geek based FAQ (1)

nogginthenog (582552) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235170)

Yes, from Usenet, or bittorrent, or ...

BBC Creative Archive reference articles (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234476)

Since Slashdot is visited mostly by Americans, I shall supply some reference articles discussing the BBC Creative Archive (which was basically an idea presented by BBC's ex-director general Greg Dike suggesting to regroup and distribute all of BBC's past, present and future media under the Creative Commons licence).

A whole bunch of other articles [google.fr] are available.

#4: No Endorsement and No derogatory use? (3, Insightful)

adamfranco (600246) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234495)

4. No Endorsement and No derogatory use
The Creative Archive content is provided to allow you to get creative with content, not for campaigning, soapboxing or to defame others! So don't use it to promote political, charitable, or other campaigning purposes and remember to treat others and their work in the way that you'd expect them to treat you and your work...with respect!


This license seems pretty decent except for this part. Who gets to decide what is derogatory or an endorsement?

For instance, lets say I am trying to raise money for a nonprofit program to get health care workers to poor women in rural Africa. As part of my fund-raising campaigning I do a screening of some BBC documentary from the archive on health care in rural Africa and ask people for donations. This seems like a pretty legitimate use of the material, but may prohibited by section #4.

Now, what if I had a link to this supposed documentary from my example organizations website. Would that be endorsement? I view it as public education of the plight of a certain people that I wish to help. It would aid my position for getting donations though.

Re:#4: No Endorsement and No derogatory use? (4, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234755)

As part of my fund-raising campaigning I do a screening of some BBC documentary from the archive on health care in rural Africa and ask people for donations
versus
Don't use it to promote political,
***charitable*** or other campaigning purposes
Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

Don't ask for money. Don't ask for votes.

Fantastic! (2, Interesting)

The Dodger (10689) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234518)

This is cool for two reasons. First, this is extending the concept of open source to content which, even if it has been done before, has never been done on this large a scale.

Secondly, it's a step towards the BBC making their programming available for download. The BBC produce a huge amount of programming and, while they make a fair amount of money out of selling DVDs, videos (stuff like Blackadder and Doctor Who) and tapes/CDs (e.g. the HHGTTG radio series), there's a heck of a lot of other stuff that it doesn't make commercial sense to publish in that manner - e.g. programmes like Horizon [bbc.co.uk] and Top Gear [bbc.co.uk] ).

I bet the biggest problem with putting programmes like those on the Archive will be the licencing terms for stuff like incidental music and events rights (like for sports and so on), which are presumably all currently based on the concept of broadcast, with extra payments for repeats. I wonder if they'll have to strip out anything that's not the original, complete creation of the contributing organisations.


D.

Proxy, anybody? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12234577)

Since this will only available to us Brits how long will it be before a whole host of proxies spring up to supply this content to the rest of the world?

Imagine using Squid to download The Blue Planet. [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Proxy, anybody? (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234789)

Proxy?

It'll just get thrown on kazaa, et al, like everything else.

Once something is "free", it loses it's appeal to warez d00ds, though.

P2P + UK only ? (0, Troll)

sla291 (757668) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234602)

One thing doesn't make sense at all :

Why can't I use material from the Creative Archive overseas?

The Creative Archive is currently funded only for use within the UK. The BBC's pilot site will be using a technology called GEOIP filtering to ensure that content sourced directly from the BBC will only be available to UK citizens.

Still, they plan to use P2P. Come on where's the GEOIP feature in BitTorrent ?

Re:P2P + UK only ? (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234647)

What about the rest of the commonwealth? What about Brits abroad?

What if I, a Canadian living in the US, was willing to voluntarily pay the UK "TV Tax" for access to "Two Fat Ladies" reruns?

Meh.. The internet's not supposed to work like this. Why don't the BBC and China, for that matter, set up their own private networks if they don't want outlanders hitting their servers?

Re:P2P + UK only ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12235797)

"Brits abroad" are abroad, and therefore don't pay for a license fee, and therefore have no right to have access to BBC programming.

I don't see why everyone thinks this is so bad; if you don't pay the license fee, you SHOULDN'T receive BBC broadcasting, the BBC only exists because it's being paid for by UK citizens; "by the people, for the people" if you will ;-)

Re:P2P + UK only ? (1)

ozric99 (162412) | more than 9 years ago | (#12235829)

Meh.. The internet's not supposed to work like this. Why don't the BBC and China, for that matter, set up their own private networks if they don't want outlanders hitting their servers?

Yeah, and while we're at it, how dare people use VPNs across the internet to stop unwanted people hitting their servers. How dare anyone encrypt anything - information wants to be free, right?

Maybe, just maybe, this UK-only clause has something to do with letting those who've paid for the content test the system. You did read the bit that said that "the pilot site will be using a technology called GEOIP filtering to ensure that content sourced directly from the BBC will only be available to UK citizens", didn't you?

They've started an open source video codec so viewers aren't going to be locked into QT, WMV, REAL etc, and they're not even using DRM! The things people find to moan about.. honestly!

Re:P2P + UK only ? (1)

pommiekiwifruit (570416) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234683)

Citizens? Residents shurely.

UK citizens who live outside the UK (e.g. in Spain) don't pay a tv license fee.

Foreign citizens who live inside the UK do pay a licence fee.

Re:P2P + UK only ? (1)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234896)

Still, they plan to use P2P. Come on where's the GEOIP feature in BitTorrent ?

I didn't see P2P or BitTorrent mentioned anywhere.

Besides, if you wanted to restrict BitTorrent by geographical location you could just setup the tracker behind a firewall that only allows connections from approved IP ranges.

Seems pretty obvious. And you call yourself a geek?

Penalties (1)

SlothB77 (873673) | more than 9 years ago | (#12234777)

If a user violates the rules of this license, what are the penalties for violation?

Is it revocation of the license and denial of future media or more or less; and who would be enforcing these rules and penalties? Does this have teeth?

Uh-Oh, Licence! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12235040)

Archive licence? Is that like crotch licence?

OU sucks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12235268)

title says it all
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...