Beta
×

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!

BBC Presents An Open News Archive

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the news-remixed dept.

The Internet 129

Cus writes "The BBC have opened a section of their news archive under a Creative Archive license. Nearly 80 items covering the last 50 years are available, with the full list available on their site. Paul Gerhardt the project director of the Creative Archive License Group, from the official announcement: 'The BBC's telling of those stories is part of our heritage, and now that the UK public have the chance to share and keep them we're keen to know how they will be used.'"

cancel ×

129 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

1966 (0)

aedan (196243) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387605)

The first thing on the list is the 1966 World cup because 1966 sorts first. And they wonder why Scots get fed up with it!

aedan

Eat Meat (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14387609)

My meat is the one to beat

What about the rest of us (4, Interesting)

JonN (895435) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387619)

"and now that the UK public have the chance to share and keep them"

And the rest of us don't?

However on to more important ideas, I believe this is another great step forward in opening knowledge to everyone, such as when Princeton's collection of more than 10,000 works will be categorized, posted for world to study. [detnews.com] These are pieces of work and acadamia that everyone should have access to, as it expands minds and ideas, and pushes us forward, intellectually.

Beta test is for UK only (4, Informative)

Vainglorious Coward (267452) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387658)

"and now that the UK public have the chance to share and keep them"
And the rest of us don't?

The archive is only available to IP addresses originating from the UK.

Re:Beta test is for UK only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14387946)

It's not open to anybody at the moment. It collects your email
(funny how *that* part works) and then says they've got a
technical problem and you can't download.

Re:Beta test is for UK only (1)

M1FCJ (586251) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388173)

I wonder if this means that I go and visit the web page I will have to cough up the licensing fee... I avoid BBC News videos on the BBC web site just to be able to claim that I haven't accessed their TV content.

Re:Beta test is for UK only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14388803)

List of open proxy servers in the UK anyone?

Re:What about the rest of us (2, Informative)

jmcmunn (307798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387669)

FTFA...sounds like we all need to find a proxy in the UK. :-) Really though, I suppose that breaks all kinds of "international laws".

The archive content released here under the Creative Archive Licence will use limited DRM (Digital Rights Management), but not at the cost of user creativity. For instance, to help us identify our source material we will be using a patented Video Watermarking technology where a virtual barcode will be embedded into the video clips. This invisible stamp can be read through video editing and format changes so that any video sequence can be traced back to its source. This will not interfere with legitimate users, but it will assist the BBC if there is an attempt to commercially exploit our material.

The BBC is using a technology called GEO-IP filtering to ensure that archive content sourced directly from these BBC sites will only be available to UK citizens

Re:What about the rest of us (1)

Sarisar (842030) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388046)

But I'm FROM the UK, just in the US at the moment... why can't I check? If you go with the 'you don't have a TV license' argument, not everyone in the UK has one (last time I heard a few years back there are about 20 million licenses for around 60 million people, but of course most of that will live together. I did hear there were around 22 million addresses in the UK (including businesses) so it's probably pretty much saturation point anyway.

On an unrelated note does anyone have a proxy server or do I have to hassle my parents to set up privoxy on their machine so I can connect through (and no YOU can't!)

Re:What about the rest of us (2, Interesting)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387688)

UK The Creative Archive content is made available to internet users for use within the UK.

Looks that way doesn't it? Given the BBC has a definite worldwide presence, would it not make sense for them to open it up to other countries as well? It's a bizarre choice, just like they used DRM on the iMP service to lock it into the UK. I can see they don't want to waste bandwidth on non licence paying countries, but either stop broadcasting BBC World and pull out of the world altogether or just do the sensible thing and let other countries share the archive.

Re:What about the rest of us (2, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387729)

Given the BBC has a definite worldwide presence, would it not make sense for them to open it up to other countries as well? It's a bizarre choice
I imagine that, at least partially, it's a rights issue. For example, the BBC have the rights to the 1966 World Cup for broadcast within the UK, but not worldwide.

Re:What about the rest of us (1)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387788)

Under a good few laws, they'd be fine rebroadcasting since rebroadcasting does not entail such restrictions (and in fact the usage of DRM on rebroadcasts is illegal, but more on that once i've sent in my complaint to OFCOM.

Re:What about the rest of us (4, Informative)

Angostura (703910) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387910)

I imagine also that this is also, at least partly, a political/public-opinion issue.

The BBC is fairly regularly attacked in the UK for spending so much on a Web presence that is heavily used by an international audience but which is paid for by a tax on TVs. It would get a right old kicking from the UK press and in particular the Murdoch press if it made content that "we have paid for" freely available overseas. For those who don't realise - the BBC's World Service is paid for directly by the foreign and commonwealth office, not from the TV licence fee.

The License fee is supposed to be spent entirely on the provision of services to the UK population. The BBC is watching its back here.

Re:What about the rest of us (1)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387959)

That's a very good point; or, rather, it's several very good points.

Re:What about the rest of us (2, Interesting)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388036)

It's a very, very good point. Also note that stations like BBC World, America, Prime etc etc are all advertiser-funded, not paid for by the licence fee.

Re:What about the rest of us (1)

ishepherd (709545) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388503)

...also, it's never shy about launching commercial ventures [bbcworldwide.com] , and using that money to cross-subsidise the UK services.

So here's hoping that once this really gets going, they will launch a subscription offer targetted at non-Brits.

We do pay the BBC..... (1)

adsl (595429) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388875)

Those of us residing overseas probably pay more money, per hour of BBC TV watched, than those in the UK paying for it with their license fees! How come? Well we PAY for several Cable channels, including, but not limited to PBS, A&E etc. etc. for the skant BBC TV offerings which appear and many are not the newer stuff. In turn these Cable Channels BUY the product from the BBC. Hence, we overseas (America for me) actually arrange for the BBC to be paid by program. On top of that many donate to the PBS which in turn uses the money to also BUY BBC programming. All of this provides the BBC with decent overseas income and that's not even including cxhannels which the BBBC partcipates in directly, such as BBCAmerica. Hence overseas people are helping to fund the BBC over and above the UK TV license fee. So we should have some use of the websites. I see that in the proposed BBC programme streaming, we people overseas will be excluded. Smacks of indirect taxation w/o representation IMHO. The BBC seems to often ask "too much" for newer programing. The new Dr. Who (in it's second year) is not shown in America, presumably because the price being asked for each episode is TOO HIGH. Strangely, in America one can receive, over Cable (or satellite), French, Italian, German, Korean, Japanese, mainland China (you get the message) current TV for a monthly small fee. But the BBC does not have such a current offering. Probably because of (dare I say it?) BBC greed because they want us ONLY to watch 30 year old programming (mostly) on BBCAmerica (not picked up by my cable company) and/or whatever other programming turns up on other channels. i.e. the BBC thinks they make MORE money from us the way it is. So to summarize: The Press in the UK is WRONG about us overseas freeloading. We do PAY, just indirectly and as I say, more per hour of programming watched than UK citizens at home. BBCAmerica isn't freely available and anyway is 80% really old stuff. The BBC such look at the premium channel "Starz" and their today's PR about www.wonago.com For $10.00 p.m. one will get the current Starz programming and be able to download from a library of 1,000 Films. ome On BBC we who live outside the UK can become your direct customers...it's up to YOU.

Re:What about the rest of us (1)

BenBenBen (249969) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388896)

For those who don't realise - the BBC's World Service is paid for directly by the foreign and commonwealth office, not from the TV licence fee.
Heh, and who pays for the FCO? Peter or Paul?

BBC1 and BBC2 (1)

[ella] (122929) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390477)

As a cable viewer in Belgium, part of my cable fee goes to BBC (not BBC World Service). OK, it's not direct, the cable company pays a set amount. But I'm sure that the cable company has calculated how much we owe them for BBC (only 1 and 2) ;-)

Re:What about the rest of us (4, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387753)

Given the BBC has a definite worldwide presence, would it not make sense for them to open it up to other countries as well?

The rest of the world don't pay a TV license that funds the BBC. The UK public do.

If I remember correctly, they are forced to do it this way because of the way that their charter is written. It's really not that bizarre when you think about it - the BBC acts in the UK public's interests - by selling their content to foreign countries instead of giving it away, they are reducing the cost of the license fee for the UK public.

Re:What about the rest of us (3, Insightful)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387774)

I disagree. They could allow the public in other countries access and demand certain uses be licenced, that would be a much fairer system. In any case, how many people are going to go find a UK proxy after reading this article?

Re:What about the rest of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14387917)

A negligible amount? Only those seriously interested in the archive, enough to endure the hassle if not the cost, would bother, and I'd wager that those who would be most interest on the news as reported by the BBC (and all the biases associated with that) would be the UK public.

Re:What about the rest of us (2, Insightful)

swab79 (842256) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387919)

The problem is that there are many people in the UK who would love to end the TV license system of funding the BBC. Giving away content to non-paying foreigners would only give those people more ammunition.

Re:What about the rest of us (1)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388136)

Would it really? I disagree. The BBC provides the content at the convenience of your TV, it's not even close to that with the iMP, that's downloading the individual programs, putting them in a playlist and watching them. Which is easier? How many more people would rather watch it in front of a TV?

They do for a lot of stuff (1)

cyberformer (257332) | more than 8 years ago | (#14389434)

I agree, as a former UK license-payer now living elsewhere. (I already paid for some of this content, yet I can't access it.) But most of the stuff on the BBC's Web site is accessible worldwide, with UK residents (and in some cases, paying subscribers) only getting higher bit-rates, better resolution, etc.

Most of this stuff doesn't look so great, anwyay. It all seems to be 2- or 3- minute clips, not full programmes from the archives. And I'm sure that any sites that redistribute/remix the content will be accessible from outside the UK, whether or not that's technically legal. (The license terms definitely don't say anything about restricting access in the same way that the BBC does, so it looks like they're mostly concerned about bandwidth as far as the public is concerned.)

Re:They do for a lot of stuff (1)

gronofer (838299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390607)

The license terms say that the material is only provided for use within the UK. So as far as I can see, they aren't giving you permission to put the original/remixed material on a globally accessible website.

This certainly kills any enthusiasm that I might have had for doing anything with it.

Re:What about the rest of us (1)

bfree (113420) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387840)

So let me pay for a UK tv license to get equal/equivalent access. Trebly so when they decide to let you watch/download directly. Even if it excluded all non-BBC produced content that would be fine with me. Do they not want lots of virtually free money as I can imagine they could sell millions of extra tv licenses in such a way?

Re:What about the rest of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14388311)

So let me pay for a UK tv license to get equal/equivalent access.

If you had RTFA, you would know that they plan to do so, but are not in the current pilot program.

Re:What about the rest of us (1)

bfree (113420) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388431)

Which FA are you reading oh Anonymous One? I have never found any mention of such a plan and guess you are refering to "The BBC said it will be releasing further material across other areas over the coming months." I suspect the areas in that sentence refers to things like Documentaries and maybe even Comédy, not geography.

Re:What about the rest of us (1)

Zusstin (518914) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390552)

I pay to watch BBC at home. Surely, BBC is/has made some money from me as well (outside UK). The feedback questions - when the BBC website detectes non-UK IP - suggest that they might start charging for this. I believe one can pay and download it (normal archives) even today as well.

Whats really the point in stopping non-UK IPs?

Re:What about the rest of us (2, Funny)

elyobelyob (844203) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387960)

Look, I'll have a word with Auntie for our American cousins if they all promise to watch the 1966 World Cup video, say "Ruddy good show old boys" and sing the National Anthem proudly (knowing every word .. including the sixth verse).

They then have to sit through the Queen's speech every Christmas Day, just after they've eaten a huge meal, cannot move and cannot find the remote.

Re:What about the rest of us (4, Insightful)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388014)

And the rest of us don't?

Pffft. Please send £126.50 to the BBC, Wood Lane, London and we might let you have access for a year.

Re:What about the rest of us (1)

Julia Cameron (616578) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388843)

And the rest of us don't?

Pffft. Please send £126.50 to the BBC, Wood Lane, London and we might let you have access for a year.

Marooned by circumstance in the US, I wish I could! I wish... Oh, please...

... and a source for Irn Bru.

Sharing derived works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14388153)

Surely I can share derived works with whoever I want (as long as non-profit etc).

I think the UK-only thing is stopping others modifying data, they can't stop them merely having it.

Re:What about the rest of us (1)

eagles-wings (650048) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390485)

That would probably be becasue it's most likely paid for by the licence fee.

Nice... (3, Insightful)

jmcmunn (307798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387631)


The BBC certainly has the right idea with the sharing of information and history. Here in the US we seem to be much more wrapped up in who owns the rights to something and how to make money from it. The BBC on the other hand seems to be putting as much as possible into the hands of the public, making it easier for people to get to the information we all deserve to be able to see. According to what I read on the site, all they ask is that you not commercialize it, and give credit for where it came from. Seems fair to me! Nice job BBC.

And yet their DRM... (1)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387723)

... on the iMP service shows the exact opposite attitude. Information is there to be shared and yet BBC owned programs werent exempt from the DRM they used to lock it into the UK among other things. I mean for Chrissakes, freely sharing information is what it's about, yet locking it to one country? So no, the BBC is no different.

Re:And yet their DRM... (1)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387804)

Well I believe the reason they do that is because BBC is a UK-taxpayer funded service, so they only want UK taxpayers reaping the rewards. I heard that somewhere. fwiw.

Re:And yet their DRM... (1, Interesting)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387884)

And when I travel on business? I'm buggered, non? This is going to affect british people who travel. And do I stop paying my licence when i travel? I don't think so....

Re:And yet their DRM... (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388067)

Come now, that's just stupid. I suppose you've spent the last 10 years lobbying for an international TV which will pick up the BBC wherever you are?

Re:And yet their DRM... (1)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388157)

Nowadays we've moved to the web, it's this wonderful thing where information is available very quickly at any place in the world. The web was meant for freely sharing information, this just buggers that concept up

Re:And yet their DRM... (2, Informative)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387836)

I'd wager there that the BBC is different, but in a slightly different way than you'd expect.

That difference is the £126.50 TV license [tvlicensing.co.uk] that any TV-owning UK household has to pay. Hence this is is the reason why content is locked in via country - it's not really free as such, we're paying for it. However, it's damn good money for 365 days a year of TV and full content from their online service (including iMP).

£126.50? It's a bargain. Do I mind that I pay for it? No, not at all...

Re:And yet their DRM... (1)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387905)

I mind. I mind they're illegally restricting me from using that iMP service by locking it into windows, i mind that i won't be able to use any of their DRMed services when i'm abroad. I mind they're wasting a hell of a lot of licencepayers' money on DRM when we could be having a cheaper licence.

Re:And yet their DRM... (1)

DJCF (805487) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388765)

The DRM is only present because the studios who produced the content demanded it -- so it's much like iTMS. And Linux and Apple clients are comming.

Re:Nice... (1)

g2devi (898503) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387999)

> The BBC certainly has the right idea with the sharing of information and history.
> Here in the US we seem to be much more wrapped up in who owns the rights to something
> and how to make money from it.

The end result of this is simple. 200 years from now, because of wide spread copying the BBC's version of history will still be around and because of licensing restrictions the US's version of history will not be.

As Orwell once said, "He who controls the past, controls the future.". In essense, by going for short term profit the US is letting the UK define it's future policy. Pretty short sighted if you ask me.

Wha...? (3, Informative)

lheal (86013) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388021)

Here in the US we seem to be much more wrapped up in who owns the rights to something and how to make money from it.

You're holding up the BBC as an paragon of social virtue by comparing them to whom? CNN, or PBS? The BBC was created for this kind of thing. Making content available to the public is straight out of the BBC Charter [bbc.co.uk] :

OBJECTS OF THE CORPORATION
3. The objects of the Corporation are as follows:-
(a) To provide, as public services, sound and television broadcasting services (whether by analogue or digital means) and to provide sound and television programmes of information, education and entertainment for general reception in Our United Kingdom [...]

Re:Wha...? (2, Funny)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388091)

Ah, I love being a Brit. Look at the first paragraph of the charter. "TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING!" That's actually part of an official government document! Ah, you USians would kill for a history which can begat such quaint traditions.

Re:Wha...? (1)

jmcmunn (307798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388105)


I think we did kill to get AWAY from that history...as I recall it was a bunch of brits.

(that was a joke, nothing against the UK just couldn't resist)

Re:Wha...? (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388574)

and where else would you find a name like "Our right trusty and well beloved Counsellor Virginia Bottomley Our Secretary of State for National Heritage"

Re:Wha...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14390793)

Your point being? The fact that the BBC "was created for this kind of thing" shows that the media in the UK is less "wrapped up in who owns the rights to something and how to make money from it".

The BBC and Microsoft (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14387633)

So much for the BBC committment to open standards... has anyone seen and tried the BBCs much vaunted trial for on demand content?

Microsoft Windows DRM infected crap that expires after seven days, combined with a BitTorrent client. It's almost like they threw some money at a Visual Basic firm and who scripted a BT ActiveX control (written by someone else natch) and Microsoft's Media Player.

The result is a totally closed system that demands you pay Microsoft for the right to watch programmes that you've already paid for with the license fee. What a sack of crap...

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1, Interesting)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387763)

I did launch a complaint against this a while ago as a concerned licencepayer, and i will be following it up with complaints to OFCOM and going to town with the press as well. Under the Freedom of Information act, the BBC is required to answer any questions I may have relevant to the spending of money, schedule selection etc. and so it will be interesting to see just how much has been spent on this tacky DRM system, why they feel the need to lock it into the UK, how they feel they can justify breaking numerous laws regarding rebroadcast (i've researched that quite heavily) and how this fits into their so called `platform neutrality policy`

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

sugarmotor (621907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387903)

Please post the results of your quest to slashdot. Or send me an email. :)

Stephan

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388065)

Ergh, I set up a subdomain a while ago, i'll keep everyone updated from there. http://drm.wefixtech.co.uk/ [wefixtech.co.uk]

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (2, Informative)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388110)

why they feel the need to lock it into the UK,

I can answer that one for you now - right for programmes on iMP will have already been agreed, and they will cover broadcast in the UK only. It would be even more expensive to secure rights for worldwide broadcast, and it would no doubt slash the number of shows they could offer for download. As the charter notes, they already have an obligation to deliver the content to licence-fee payers. This project merely extends the obligation to p2p. Still, you raise some valid points, be interesting to hear the response.

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

BenBenBen (249969) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388934)

And who owns the rights to the BBC-sourced BBC-made BBC archives? *Hmmm*

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (2, Informative)

RonnyJ (651856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387832)

From the iMP FAQ [bbc.co.uk] :

Expired programmes are automatically deleted from your hard drive after the 8-day window. Programmes expire due to rights agreements

You can complain about it, but the fact remains that the BBC are currently legally unable to offer many of their programmes in non-DRM formats. In the meantime, however, I'm sure that hundreds of thousands of UK broadband users will be satisfied with what the iMP offers them.

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387920)

The windows using ones who don't travel much...

Then there's me who uses linux and travels a lot. And has a moral objection to DRM too. Well i'm being raped on all 3 fronts...

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

RonnyJ (651856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388043)

Well i'm being raped on all 3 fronts...

So, the BBC can't legally provide a service that is suitable for a minority of UK TV license fee payers, I recognise this. However, would you really suggest that they shouldn't provide a service suitable for millions of other license fee payers because of this?

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388178)

They can do it legally because they're putting the DRM on illegally. The BBC is becoming another corporation where breaking the law is justifiable and legal fees are just part of the budget. The BBC also has a policy of platform neutrality you may wish to take a look at.

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388251)

I wonder then if the reason they went for WMP is because a) they had to have something DRM-like otherwise nothing gets shared, and b) there's no DRM equivalent in the non-windows world. I think you'll be told that they went for the WMP solution because this is merely a pilot, testing out the technology. Who knows what tricks they'll have ready if/when the system goes live. Not much in the Linux world, I expect. Sad but true. Me, I got my own BT client. You can get the stuff, just not directly from the BBC.

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388349)

What gets me is that anyone determined can crack it fairly easily, there are over 30 programs that remove the WMV DRM. And if you want a program it's undoubtably on a p2p network anyway

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388098)

You could so what I do and have a spare desktop at home running windows.
Yes it sucks, but I think it also sucks that I _have_ to drive a car to visit my parents. Yes it is possible to use public transport, but it takes twice as long.

So I try to use public transport/Linux where possible and the car/windows where other people's choices don't leave me another viable choice.

Life's full of these ideals vs functionality trade-offs; i try not to bitch about them too much anymore and live with them.

But you're not the only one writing to the BBC over their windows locked DRM either!

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388200)

I pay my licence, I expect my service. When I go to buy a steak pie, do i get home and read the packet and find it says it's incompatible with electric ovens and only gas will do? It's not the BBC's place to provide lock-in to a platform, especially with their published platform neutrality policy. And DRM is worth bitching about, it's a big deal. And it will come off. I still intend to contact OFCOM about it who will do something about it. And if nothing changes, i'll quit paying my licence fee because frankly i never watch TV anyway.

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388521)

Because of your repeated claims about "platform neutrality", I had to search the BBC to find what you were talking about. All I could find that mentioned the phrase was this [bbc.co.uk] , talking about interactive TV, not broadcast, and in any case it merely says the word "encourage" - not "require".

I also had a quick peek via Google, found this [66.102.9.104] - a report by the BBC's R&D unit from five years ago, which does refer to broadcast TV, but still only says "the BBC aims to...". I'm sure that if Linux offered a DRM solution, they would have offered it. Even the free-wheeling P2Per like me knows that DRMed content is better than no content at all, certainly at this early stage in the project.

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

Freexe (717562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388130)

Doesn't the BBC directive require them to broadcast as many of their shows and share as much information with as many people in the UK as possible.

If they can't show the shows because a contracted company will not allow them to unless they use DRM and restrict viewing to the UK, then i would say they were doing their job correctly in building a system to allow the MAJORITY of the UK audience to view the information. There is nothing to stop you going to your local library when in the UK and watch the programs there.

Plus I'm sure given time and after demonstrating the success of there windows version, they will beable to make a Mac and a Linux version of there program too.

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388224)

The BBC's directive comes second to the letter of the law, need I remind you, and if the law says the rebroadcast can't be DRMed, then the rebroadcast can't be DRMed. The BBCs directive also says nothing about people living in other countries should be stopped from accessing our content and frankly i'd rather they didn't spend money on DRM to try and lock these people out creating more costs. And since you're unfamiliar with the way linux works, i'll put it simply. Linux as a platform is not something you can hide things in, it's completely open and anything they try will be easily crackable. On top of that, modifying the (FLOSS) kernel to dump video to file would not be a particularly difficult task and this would bypass the DRM

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

Freexe (717562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388449)

I know it will always be possible to circumvent DRM, but wouldn;t it be possible to make it so you have to go out of your way to circumvent it?

Plus their directive is to make it availible to as many UK citizens as possible, and isn't paying money (in server and bandwidth costs) more expensive then a short term cost of setting up and running a IP blocker. It also makes it clear that you can download content and watch it anywhere you want.

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388470)

Maintenance costs. Not just for the IP blocker, for the DRM

Re:The BBC and Microsoft (1)

Freexe (717562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388517)

Surely the IP blocker and DRM are different issues?

I'm as against DRM as the next person, if not more so as I have taken steps to boycot companies/music labels that abuse it (I've not downloaded or bought any CDs that use or promote DRM). But the BBC seems to have taken resonable steps to allow fair use at a better level than most over companies.

I think it's important to remember that they have already provided to content via a broadcast over that airwaves that you are free to record and reuse, and this is an extra service to allow even more freedom.

I really don't know enough to be to comment on the DRM legal issue, but I presume that laws can be changed if required.

Early days ? (0)

bushboy (112290) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387647)

As a bit of a dabbler with video, I've been through the videos on offer and right now, am hard pressed to find an exact need for them in my projects/ideas right now.

They are certainly interesting on their own and some could be used in specific projects, however, as it stands, they are really little more than a "teaser"

I hope this project gains momentum to realise a stock video archive of thousands of clips.

A video version of stock.xchng would be an incredible resource.

Wikimedia (1)

karvind (833059) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387648)

Can this be added to wikimedia ? I am wondering if Creative Archive license puts some restrictions here. (Last point of license: The Creative Archive content is made available to internet users for use within the UK.)

Are there potentials of abuse as well ?

Re:Wikimedia (2, Informative)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387704)

Can this be added to wikimedia ? ... Last point of license: The Creative Archive content is made available to internet users for use within the UK.
So ... that would be "No", then. And you were so nearly there...

Re:Wikimedia (3, Insightful)

arron_donaldson (943027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387739)

Can this be added to wikimedia ?

No. It's not really an open license at all. For one thing it forbids commercial use. And it's limited to the UK! In my eyes this constitutes an abuse of the word "open".

Re:Wikimedia (0, Troll)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387940)

In my eyes this constitutes an abuse of the word "open".
Quick! Roll back the process. A blogger thinks you're abusing the English language. Woe! Tumult! etc.

Re:Wikimedia (1)

omeg (907329) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390759)

Wikimedia wouldn't even be a suitable choice. The Internet Archive [archive.org] would be, however.

YES! (2, Funny)

Caspian (99221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387670)

Now that the annals of history have been released as open source, I can edit the past to suit my whims!

I'm hereby releasing GNU/History, a fork of the past 50 years in which every computer runs Linux and Bill Gates is RMS's plumber. At long last! Now to set up a Wiki...

Re:YES! (2, Interesting)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387886)

He who controls the past, controls the future.
We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Eurasia had proven links to the 9/11 evildoers.

Re:YES! (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388103)

I'm reminded of the Churchill quote:
History will be kind to me for I intend to write it

Berlin Wall footage (4, Interesting)

Winlin (42941) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387673)

I was just thinking the other day about some of the most memorable events I have watched on the news, and the one I most wished I had taped more of was the Wall being swarmed by those happy crowds. And now the BBC has given me a late Xmas present:)
    Those were the days...when you turned on the news to see what new GOOD stuff had happened since you last watched.

Re:Berlin Wall footage (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14388107)

Yes, but the question is, does the footage include David Hasselhoff standing on a raised platform singing Looking For Freedom, while wearing a leather jacket adorned by Christmas tree lights?

Seriously. Not only did it happen, but the song was #1 in Germany for five weeks. I know this sounds like a joke, but it's really true. Use Google if you don't believe me.

Only in the UK!? (0, Redundant)

xeon4life (668430) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387783)

Only legal if you're in the UK. Not truly open, is it? :-(

Fantastic idea, I hope they expand on it... (4, Interesting)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387796)

I had a quick flick through what's there and it's currently mostly MS Encarta kind of material: those landmark events that put the last 50 years on the map. So in a way it's great as an additional resource for school projects and that kind of thing. However, I can't help but think that the clips are each like islands - there's so much more that the BBC could offer around each clip - a bit like their On This Day [bbc.co.uk] section which I absolutely love.

I can't but help think that if history began 50 years ago, the BBC would be the best record of it. Over time, the information the BBC collects and stores will become more relevant and more complete than most archives out there, and the fact that they're opening it up for use is great. My only fear is that they'll stop with the 'big' stuff - the Encarta style stuff we're seeing here.

The other interesting point is: if there are x new organisations in the world collecting, collating and storing y amount of information(*) each on a minute by minute basis, is there a possibility that Google(**) would cease to be able to deal with the capacity? Currently it indexes what it can see, but what about the millions and millions of pages, articles, scripts, reports, audio and video recordings that are not online? People I've met that work at the BBC assure me that they have access to tools that 'put Google to shame' when cross-referencing information (I'd love to know more about this if any Beeb employees would like to reply).

I digress, in any case this is a good thing. Free information is a good thing...

(*) Important to note that Google just indexes what's there, rather than it being an information supplier.
(**) Can we coin a Law describing the point in a thread when Google is first mentioned in a Slashdot thread? Goodot's Law?

Re:Fantastic idea, I hope they expand on it... (1)

uptoeleven (845032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388369)

free as in speech, not as in beer.

Although I'd have to say as a license-fee payer, it is by far the best thing the beeb have ever done with my license fee ;)

Re:Fantastic idea, I hope they expand on it... (1)

cyberformer (257332) | more than 8 years ago | (#14389512)

Technically, it's free as in beer too. They restrict it to the UK, not just to license-fee payers. So if you live in the UK and don't have a TV, you get it for nothing.
 

Old show (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14387808)

I'm still looking for Q. The beeb erased the tapes but someone had a copy. Where is it!???

summary.... (1)

hihihihi (940800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387879)

boy...
games:1
20th anniversary(wars and disaster):2
tsunami:4
Africa politics:10
ireland politics:3
terror:3
south asia:3
Space:3
Colonalism:2 (hongkong)
cold wars:8
n korea/china:4
katrina:2
royal weds:4
dubai:2
globe warming:3
brit scence and people:9
elvis:1
east asia politics:4
tax roit(i wish they had be here):3
piper alpha (dunno what):5
cloning:2
ship sink:2


... seems they take coldwar/communism quite seriously ... as much as they take royal weddings and africa politics.

No Endorsement and No derogatory use (0, Redundant)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387913)

While I do understand the reason for UK only use, can anyone explain to me why the need for a 'No Endorsement and No derogatory use' clause? And who's going to determine what is derogatory anyway?

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Question: (1)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 8 years ago | (#14387970)

If I live in the UK, but I don't have a TV (and thus don't pay the TV license fee) am I still allowed to use the clips?

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Re:Question: (1)

hug_the_penguin (933796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388248)

I would suspect you will have to log on with your licence number and password before long to use any of their services. Well if they don't clear up their act then it's fine by me because i'll stop paying the licence since i rarely watch TV as is.

Election Year? (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388062)

This content seems quite political...

Fighting communism etc.

Where are all the TV shows?

Basically who decided what would be made available? If they used something like bittorrent the amount of content wouldn't matter compared to the bandwith the BBC uses.

Re:Election Year? (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388177)

Rights issues. Very cheap or free to offer this type of content. Check out the roadmap at the site - "Science & Nature" is next. Yep, more stuff where you generally don't have to pay the paricipants. I don't expect we'll see regular TV shows of the type you imagine for a long time.

No derogatory use vs. Satire (1)

j()nty (741565) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388152)

One of the terms in the Creative Archive Licence [bbc.co.uk] is No derogatory use. But if I take one of these pieces, create a satirical version, and someone is offended enough to complain about my satire then is that derogatory use. Who decides? Head of Creative Archive Licensing at the BBC? The producer of the original item? The offended person? And what is the standard for derogatory?

Re:No derogatory use vs. Satire (1)

Mike Buddha (10734) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388744)

You know, it is possible to satirize something without being derogatory. FYI.

first item on the list (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14388193)

and by amazing coincidence the first item on the list is the 1966 World Cup Final. Description: England beat West Germany in the final.

but like gary lineker said, football is a game with 22 people and in the end the germans always win :)

this sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14388232)

To download content you must sign in or register.

who the hell wants to sign up?

Ubuntu playback (1)

Gerv (15179) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388260)

My default Ubuntu Totem can't play back any of the three formats (well, I tried MPEG and Quicktime; I assumed WMP wouldn't work). Anyone else had more luck? Is there any way someone on Linux who doesn't want to install non-free/illegal codecs can play back Creative Archive video?

Where's the Dirac version? ;-)

Gerv

Damn! Those Brits have beaten us again. (5, Funny)

craXORjack (726120) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388519)

While Uncle Sam schemes to wring the last few cents out of fifty year old news clips and commentaries, John Bull just starts giving it away thus ensuring that History will a british spin on it for the next thousand years. What's next? I suppose the French will start giving their music away so that the rhythmic ditties of our lovely Britney will be relegated to the forgotten dustheap of the late 20th century? I can't think of anything worse unless someone like the Swedes did away with copyright entirely. Then our grandchildren could grow up thinking Ingmar Bergman was the greatest filmmaker of our day instead of Quentin Tarentino. How could I live in a world where european artsy-fartsy movies become the basis of third millenia culture while Kill Bill 2 rots a slow celluloid death in a forgotten warehouse in post-apocalyptic Los Angeles? Oh woe. Woe is me.

"Nearly 80" isn't a /huge/ amount, is it? (1)

Lproven (6030) | more than 8 years ago | (#14388960)

I checked. I thought it might be a typo for "80,000" or something.

But no. It's correct. "Nearly 80". For fifty years. That's one and a half per year, roughly. Not exactly a huge amount, is it?

OK, so, good step, could have interesting results. Not my personal thing but I'm sure it will appeal to lots of film students and home editor/directors and all sorts.

But it's hardly an overwhelming archive of the millions of hours the Beeb must have stored up, is it?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?