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!

BBC and YouTube Deal in the Works?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the deciding-to-play-ball dept.

Media 152

Algis writes to tell us the BBC is in the process of striking a deal with YouTube to allow BBC content to be posted on YouTube. Previously the BBC has demanded quite a few video be removed from the Google-owned video sharing site. "The deal between YouTube and the BBC however, is more interesting still, since YouTube is a global service that is completely free to all users. Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube. Instead, they're watched online on the YouTube website, or the YouTube player is embedded in other websites for no cost to the user. This is the nature of content sharing that has seen YouTube grow from a company making no money, to a company worth almost $2billion to Google, in less than two years. Quite what the BBC-YouTube deal will entail is anyone's guess. It is highly, highly unlikely to include full-length current BBC shows. What could be possible is the addition to YouTube of much older shows, such as classics like 'The Young Ones' or 'Faulty Towers', in an effort to boost the shows' exposure and increase DVD sales of these shows."

cancel ×

152 comments

Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18098200)

Uhh, yes they can...

http://www.arrakis.es/~rggi3/youtube-dl/ [arrakis.es]

Re:Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18098264)

SHH! You'll ruin it for the rest of us!

I mean, uh, mod parent down. That troll doesn't know what he is talking about.

Re:Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube? (5, Funny)

antoinjapan (450229) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098324)

The first rule of YouTube-dl is that you do not talk about youtube-dl, G*ddamnit.

Re:Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube? (5, Informative)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098736)

Mod it funny but consider it insightful. A lot of non-technical people believe that one can actually prevent a user from dowloading a file while allowing him to view it. We all know this is a shallow dream but this issue is fairly important for IP holders, they think they have a real control about how and when you can view the content.

Re:Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube? (1)

microbee (682094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098930)

You must have not heard the latest invention from Vista. Everything will finally be fixed.

Re:Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube? (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099038)

Kind of like how I discovered how noscript happens to fix information gathering pages for downloads. Case in point VMWare's player download page required you to enter all sorts of details about yourself. Your clicking on submit triggers a javascript to validate the fields prior to allowing the submit function to go through. With noscript active you can submit a blank page. No doubt this was to reduce server load for validation of the fields.
Ironically though I had to enable JS to actually initiate the download of the app.
-nB

Re:Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099300)

I wouldn't assume for one moment that YouTube's commercial content channel will be just like today's "funniest home videos" ad-sponsored channel.

Which is a shame, since youtube is about the only video source that consistently works for me on Linux. But we all know Hollywood will never distribute movies that way.

Uh. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18098228)

Youtube? More like JEWTUBE! Amirite?

Re:Uh. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18098254)

More like DHIMMItube! 'struth, folks!

I completely hope this means that (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098246)

soon we will see ABC, NBC, CBS, and the rest waiting in the back of the line, looking at the door to YouTube and trying to bribe their way in like someone who doesn't know the bouncer at a good night club.

I think I did the analogies just right on that one...

Re:I completely hope this means that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18098454)

soon we will see ABC, NBC, CBS, and the rest waiting in the back of the line, looking at the door to YouTube and trying to bribe their way in like someone who doesn't know the bouncer at a good night club.

I think I did the analogies just right on that one...
soon we will see ABC, NBC, CBS, and the rest timing out in the bottom of the search results, looking at the popular links page to YouTube and trying to Page Rank their way in like someone who doesn't know the tech. at a good SEO club.

Re:I completely hope this means that (4, Funny)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098844)

Expen$ive talkshow host
      views=1,050

Random girl licking jello
      views=1,003,420,535,232

Re:I completely hope this means that (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099176)

No matter how funny I find what you said, if people are watching YouTube on their pc's and not 'must see tv' then the only ads that will be worth paying for are the ones that manufacturers pay YouTube for. If the networks are not knocking on YouTube's door soon, they will lose out worse than the *AA's are losing out now.

Re:I completely hope this means that (1)

zecg (521666) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099694)

Link to the jello licking girl, plz?

Re:I completely hope this means that (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 7 years ago | (#18100120)

I don't know about jello licking girl, but i highly recommend searching for "funny girl". Although she speaks japanese, it's still obvious what she's talking about for those of you who don't.

Can't download? (3, Informative)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098250)

http://keepvid.com/ [keepvid.com]

That, plus a set of video converters/transcoders will give you a poor-mans (well, with a computer) Tivo for BBC content with this new agreement.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Can't download? (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098550)

It's certainly true that there are a number of tools that allow YouTube content to be downloaded, but I suspect that most "ordinary" users aren't likely to be using these any time soon. Why? Because in most cases, what would be the point of doing the extra work required. Most computer users just want to keep it simple.

won't download/won't know how to play (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099866)

It's certainly true that there are a number of tools that allow YouTube content to be downloaded, but I suspect that most "ordinary" users aren't likely to be using these any time soon. Why? Because in most cases, what would be the point of doing the extra work required. Most computer users just want to keep it simple.

Not to mention, videos from YouTube are always .flv's... I either use VLC to play them or convert them with a quick and easy drag-n-drop batch file using ffmpeg (usually to an iPod-friendly mp4), then I can do whatever I want. But most users won't know about VLC, or any of the .flv compatible players/converters, so to them, YouTube really does seem "secure" enough to not bother with.

On the other hand, Viacom just decided [slashdot.org] that it is to easy to get videos from YouTube, so I guess it just depends on how the content provider feels.

Re:Can't download? (1)

Air-conditioned cowh (552882) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099132)

Why spend money on something to do that?

I found the FLV file in my /tmp directory under a cryptic name. Just renamed it to .flv and it plays on VLC no problem.

Re:Can't download? (1)

h2g2bob (948006) | more than 7 years ago | (#18101408)

UnPlug, KeepVid, Ook Video Ook and Debian's youtube-dl are all free.

Fawlty towers.... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18098252)

Not Faulty Towers, Basil will not be happy!!

Re:Fawlty towers.... (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099648)

Read the hotel sign. The corect spelling is "Farty Towels."

Re:Fawlty towers.... (1)

ashitaka (27544) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099990)

I prefer "Flay Otters"

Shows can be downloaded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18098260)

See KeepVid and the dozen or so other sites offering the same service. You can probably do it yourself from the command line as well, by giving mplayer the right URL to hold on to.

"Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube" (2, Informative)

shawnmchorse (442605) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098262)

I use the VideoDownloader [mozilla.org] plugin for Firefox to download them, and then any of the various free FLV players to view them locally.

Danger Mouse? (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098280)

Hey Beeb-tube, Give us back Danger Mouse, that show was awesome!

Re:Danger Mouse? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18098376)

Danger Mouse wasn't shown on the BBC in Britain. It was on the ITV network (15-or-so geographically-based stations from Anglia to Yorkshire).

Re:Danger Mouse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18098388)

Hey Beeb-tube, Give us back Danger Mouse, that show was awesome!

Danger Mouse was on ITV!

Re:Danger Mouse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18098402)

Wrong broadcaster, "Danger Mouse" was ITV ...

Re:Danger Mouse? (1)

morgdx (688154) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098410)

And on ITV.

Re:Danger Mouse? (1)

paranand (914456) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098428)

I recently came across a number of danger mouse episodes online at all you see (not going to actually link to it here). The BBC also put it out on dvd, so yeah, having it officially sanctioned on the youtube could bolster the dvd sales, as the article summary postulated, or we could just get our fixes online. Either way works for me, really. However, I'm holding out for Black Books, Spaced, and the IT Crowd, 3 phenomenal comedies from the BBC that they have YET to release on dvd outside of region 2 (my aunt in California wants the IT Crowd). Having them available online could help tide me over until I can get them on other media.
Also, I was born in 1980, grew up with the DM on Nickelodeon, back when they used to play cartoons. Now THERE'S a partnership I'd be happy to see (wink wink nudge nudge).

Re:Danger Mouse? (4, Insightful)

BluhDeBluh (805090) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098552)

Black Books, Spaced and The IT Crowd were all shows made for Channel 4 in the UK. They may have been shown by BBC America (not sure about that), but they most certainly /weren't/ made by the BBC. Neither was Dangermouse. For some reason, Americans believe that the BBC create everything in the UK - they quite simply don't.

Also, why don't you get a multiregion player? Importing DVDs in the UK is very common.

It's because BBC America shows many C4/ITV shows (1)

blorg (726186) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099750)

...as you rightly suspect.

Re:Danger Mouse? (1)

mikael (484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098696)

The BBC should bring back "Screen-Test", a show aired back in the mid-70's/early 80's. It was a school quiz-show based on the film and animation industries. It also had segments where people could send in their own home-made movies, how the video sequences of a movie were linked together to convey a plot line, and how anyone could build model spaceships out of odd bits of household plastic plastic and airfix kits that would be normally be thrown out - the airfix frames for all the parts became spaceship piping, and bottle/toothpaste tube caps became rocket engines. Observation/memory games were based on the viewing of a short segment of video, and the participants had to look for the deliberate mistakes (objects and actors jumping out of place between shots and clothing that changed colour/pattern), or remember what each actor said or did after a particular event.

If they brought it up to date, they could have students from the animation colleges, and viewers sending it their own animation work.

Re:Danger Mouse? (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#18100108)

If they brought it up to date, they could have students from the animation colleges, and viewers sending it their own animation work.
Or they could just post it on YouTube.

Let's not get too nostalgic here. The early 80s was before digital, before cheap PCs, let alone those with multimedia capability. Doing stuff with film and the like would have been *expensive*, and then you were relying on getting your short film shown briefly on TV.

I want to go for a ride on the big dipper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18098828)

I will not tell you that it is a trap

Re:Danger Mouse? (1)

ATMD (986401) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099558)

Bring back DangerMouse? Never! Any enemy of a giant toad is an enemy of mine!

(guess the quote :)

Says who? (3, Informative)

Larry Lightbulb (781175) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098310)

It's a comment on a blog, with nothing about the source of the story.

The article's keyboard-fu is weak (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18098314)

"Faulty Towers"? Ahem.

You know what I'm sick of? (1, Troll)

Skadet (528657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098336)

You know what I'm sick of? Media companies that think they know what I'm going to like, or what's going to encourage me to buy stuff from them. Videos on YouTube, huh? Wow, way to stay on the edge there, BBC. I think the draw to YouTube is mostly from user-generated content. That's what makes it special. Granted, a good deal of that content is "clip from $SHOW that I thought was hilarious" -- good! Don't saturate me with all your comittee-selected video clips and ads at the beginning and end. Let the users decide.

[YouTube went from] a company making no money, to a company worth almost $2billion to Google
My first car -- which I still own and drove for more than 250k miles, is worth a lot to me. That doesn't mean it's making me money.

Re:You know what I'm sick of? (2, Insightful)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098610)

Dear Skadet:

You will like what we tell you that you will like. You will watch videos where we tell you to watch videos. You will do so and you will like it.

Signed,

Mass-Market Media Companies

Re:You know what I'm sick of? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098826)

You assume that the article writer has ANY clue what they are talking about. It says 'allow content' and they suddenly assume that means the BBS will be uploading the content. Uh, no. It'll be merely an arrangement where the BBC gets money to not say 'take down our copyrighted works.' Mark my words.

Re:You know what I'm sick of? (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098946)

Ads on the BBC? What world do you live in?

BBC show trailers (usually 1-2 for upcomming programs) after each program and then go right onto the next, no breaks in programs or anything. BBC IS advertisement free or as close as you can get.

Re:You know what I'm sick of? (2, Interesting)

jamiethehutt (572315) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099114)

Don't saturate me with all your comittee-selected video clips and ads at the beginning and end. Let the users decide.

The BBC don't do ads. They've never done ads. They never will do ads. The BBC is the best media company on the face of the planet, the fact that it's almost impossible to paint them evil (if you live in the UK) really says something. You really could do with reading up on them.

The reason they pull videos from YouTube is they can't tell if you've paid for your TV license, and thats required to pay for everything the BBC does. It's not spent on making some media baron rich. It's spent on making new shows. It's spent on providing independent and accountable news. It's spent on new methods of content distribution like Kamaelia (which plans to let the users decide just like you said), not to mention their other opensource projects. It's spent on producing some of the best radio stations on the planet, which are advert free and available to everyone.

Without the BBC UK TV would have so many adverts it would suck like American TV. The BBC aren't just another media company.

Re:You know what I'm sick of? (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099200)

it's almost impossible to paint them evil

Unless you think the MS DRM they are going to implement on their website is evil.

Re:You know what I'm sick of? (1)

Jaknet (944488) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099638)

The BBC is the best media company on the face of the planet, the fact that it's almost impossible to paint them evil (if you live in the UK) really says something.
I find it very easy to paint them evil (and yes I live in the UK) as I find the BBC is a bunch of money grabbing shites. For example it is illegal in the UK to watch any form of tv that is transmitted Quote "You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV."
From the TV licence site http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp [tvlicensing.co.uk]

What a lot of people fail to understand is that with this it means that even if I never watch ANY BBC programs I still have to pay the BBC £131.50 approx $257 per year. Thus if I watch even one program from say ITV, Channel 4 all of which are paid by adverts. The BBC still can arrest me for failing to pay them their money. In fact I don't even need to watch anything, just having the ability to watch something means that I have to pay them or be arrested. Is this not draconian or what. This is almost like giving speeding tickets because I have a car and the ability to speed without any proof that I have actually committed any crime

End rant I'll get off my soap box now

Re:You know what I'm sick of? (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#18100150)

The BBC don't do ads. They've never done ads. They never will do ads.
The BBC *do* show ads on their stations outside the UK (which is fair enough, as they're not funded by the license fee), and at one stage they had an advertising-funded website, beeb.com (not to be confused with the bbc.co.uk website which it was later folded back into).

Re:You know what I'm sick of? (1)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 7 years ago | (#18101120)

They never will do ads

Never say never - there's no good reason why they can't eventually become advertiser supported, just like Channel 4.

impossible to paint them evil (if you live in the UK)

Well, having a paramiltary wing (in the form of the TV Licencing people) with a database of every house in the country and a fleet of TV Detector vans snooping around people's home looking for unlicenced TVs is fairly evil in my opinion.

The reason they pull videos from YouTube is they can't tell if you've paid for your TV license

They could check your IP address against a geo database - if it looks like you're in the UK, they could let you watch (just like how Google's pay for video only works for people in the US). It's fairly safe to assume that you have a TV Licence (as most households do), plus it would give them weight to their bright idea to change the TV Tax into a Computer Tax.

Without the BBC UK TV would have so many adverts it would suck like American TV.

Nonsense. The amount of commercial time on commercial broadcasters is heavily regulated by Ofcom. If the BBC disappeared it would not make the slightest bit of difference - commercial broadcasters would still only be allowed to show a limted amount of advertising and the cost of advertising would not go up, as advertising costs are already calculated as though the BBC doesn't exist.

Re:You know what I'm sick of? (1)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 7 years ago | (#18100764)

"Let the users decide."

And the users decided they like clips from copyrighted content. Even most user generated content has copyrighted music. The media companies mind because of the situation that only Google profits!

Re:You know what I'm sick of? (1)

rmerry72 (934528) | more than 7 years ago | (#18102000)

You know what I'm sick of? Media companies that think they know what I'm going to like, or what's going to encourage me to buy stuff from them.

That's a fundamental assumption of capitalism. Guess what consumers want and offer it to them. If the product/service, price and conditions are in balance then a large enough percentage of the market will buy and you'll earn money.

If you don't like what they offer don't buy from them. But you can't whinge that they try.

Says who? (5, Insightful)

Larry Lightbulb (781175) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098350)

It's only a comment on a blog, there's no quotes or anything about the source of the story, so it's speculation rather than a news story.

Re:Says who? (1)

Larry Lightbulb (781175) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098408)

Damn, sorry about the dupe, it was fingers working faster than brain.

download from youtube? (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098360)

On Linux use youtube-dl (python script)

But the BBC shouldn't worry. What gets posted to youtube is in a crappy
highly compressed format that looks like garbage compared to a DVD. After
seeing something I like on youtube, I'd rather buy the DVD than keep the
piss-poor a/v file from youtube.

Re:download from youtube? (1)

Emetophobe (878584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098752)

On Linux use youtube-dl (python script)

You know there is a python intepreter for Windows too. Hense, this script also works in Windows if you have python installed.

Full shows are already there (5, Insightful)

pnattress (1002576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098372)

And what's more, the BBC don't seem to mind too much. I know that BBC presenter Charlie Brooker [wikipedia.org] is well aware that his show is available on YouTube, and even has it embedded in his MySpace page and featured it in a segment on the show. YouTube contains lots of BBC shows which are never likely to get on DVDs and therefore never make them a profit, so why not let people watch them? They don't even have to pay for the bandwidth.

I like the BBC. They seem to be one of the few big media organisations who actually 'get' the internet. Their whole online service is second to none, and their new iPlayer looks set to to revolutionise the way TV is watched. See what happens when you don't have advertisers and shareholders to answer to?

Adam Buxton (2, Informative)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099262)

And here is a sometime beeb personality with his own Youtube presence, some of his clips are taken from BBC shows he was in (like Time Trumpet) http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=AdamBuxton [youtube.com]

See what happens when you don't have advertisers and shareholders to answer to?
The BBC do have 'shareholders' kind of, the BBC Trust http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/ [bbc.co.uk] and to a certain extent the government, who are in charge of the charter renewal (and how much money the beeb gets). Also don't forget that the Daily Mail think they should be shareholders. In my view we should do the opposite of whatever they want.

Re:Full shows are already there (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099296)

They don't mind too much.

Except for Top Gear, which gets yanked quite often due to copyright issues.

Re:Full shows are already there (1)

pnattress (1002576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18100506)

Presumably because there's a lot of Top Gear DVDs [amazon.co.uk] out there, the sale of which may be impeded by the clips being available on YouTube (though not too much I'd imagine; Top Gear is one of those shows which really can't be enjoyed properly by watching a fuzzy Flash video of it).

Re:Full shows are already there (2, Insightful)

Oxygen99 (634999) | more than 7 years ago | (#18100264)

I think the reason the BBC 'gets it' is mostly due to the fact it's a government (Well, licence fee paying) funded organisation. The bottom line for the BBC is that everyone in the world could download their shows and they'd *still* have enough funding to make the same programs year after year after year.

And if you like Charlie Brooker, make sure to check out what he has to say about Macs [guardian.co.uk] !

Re:Full shows are already there (2, Interesting)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 7 years ago | (#18100818)

The bottom line for the BBC is that everyone in the world could download their shows and they'd *still* have enough funding to make the same programs year after year after year.

They'd still have to proove that it's mostly UK Licence fee payers who are getting the benefit. That was one of the major points of the podcast/iPlayer consultation documents, and all the work coming out of BBC Backstage - the Licence Fee payer has to come first.

WRONG! (1)

discord5 (798235) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098380)

Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube

Hahahaha... Something is streamed to your computer (an flv file, which vlc supports these days), you can easily grab the location of the flv, and therefor you can easily download low quality crappy youtube uploads if you really want to. Google "download youtube" before making such bold and incorrect statements.

I mean... wow... That's the first thing I did when I discovered youtube: find out how to download the content.

Re:WRONG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18099252)

Wow, you tell him. You're some kind of computer genius to catch that. I mean--wow.

TV Licencing (4, Insightful)

celardore (844933) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098400)

Nice how the BBC gives its content freely to those that cannot be charged the TV licence, while they persecute those that HAVE to pay it by UK law. That said, I had my first good experience with them the other day when I got a visit from the TV licence inspector, I answered the door and it went something like this:

Inspector: I'm here to discuss your TV licence.
Me: I don't have one.
I: I know.
M: Come in and look, there's my TV, there's the aerial point with nothing plugged in to it. I can't get a signal at all in here.
I: What do you use the TV for?
M: Computer and DVDs.
I: Plan to watch any television in the future?
M: Like I said the signal is poor, so the answer is no.

He then put a mark on his clipboard and I haven't heard from the TV licencing dogs since. Goes to show how much they want that £140 a year though, if he did believe I was watching TV then I could go to court and face prison.

Re:TV Licencing (1)

discord5 (798235) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098538)

He then put a mark on his clipboard and I haven't heard from the TV licencing dogs since.

We used to have those here. The tax was abolished because of all the people scamming their way through a loophole. Now the tax has been replaced by two related taxes that don't require an inspector.

Re:TV Licencing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18098790)

That's all very vague.

Re:TV Licencing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18099094)

Reminds me of the time I had an argument in Sainsburys when I bought a freeview box
Shop: you will need to fill in this tv license form.
Me: It's not a TV
Shop: Huh
Me: Technically, it is not a TV!
Shop: Huh

Re:TV Licencing (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099194)

The idea of TV licensing has always troubled me, and radio licenses doubly so. There's a saying here in the US that derives from an early Supreme Court case, and it says "the power to tax is the power to destroy". Now, think about that for a moment. Are you comfortable giving the government power to destroy television and/or radio communications? After seeing a few Holocaust-type films [imdb.com] where people secretly listen to the BBC broadcasts on shortwave while their nation is occupied by the Axis during World War II, you might begin to get the notion that this freedom sort of freedom is a good thing. Why should it ever be a crime to listen to someone else's over-the-air broadcasts?

(Especially if they're intended for general public distribution and not, say, intercepting cell phone conversations and such... and, of course, actually broadcasting, of course, is a whole 'nother kettle o' fish...)

Re:TV Licencing (1)

mlush (620447) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099910)

The idea of TV licensing has always troubled me, and radio licenses doubly so. There's a saying here in the US that derives from an early Supreme Court case, and it says "the power to tax is the power to destroy". Now, think about that for a moment. Are you comfortable giving the government power to destroy television and/or radio communications?

Well its just as well that the goverment does not get the UK licence fee [bbc.co.uk] it goes direct to the BBC I suppose the BBC could destroy itself but then thats not really in its best interest. There is no such thing as a Radio Licence (unless you count a Ham Radio Licence)

Personally I'm rather happy with the Licence Fee For 11 pounds ($21) a month I get 5 TV channels 11 radio channels (all of which are actually worth watching/listening to) plus Audio (and soon video) on demand and one of the best websites [bbc.co.uk] in the world. and on top of that we get an organization that considers it its job to ask the goverment (and opposition) awkward questions

What do you get for $21/month?

After seeing a few Holocaust-type films [imdb.com] where people secretly listen to the BBC broadcasts on shortwave while their nation is occupied by the Axis during World War II, you might begin to get the notion that this freedom sort of freedom is a good thing. Why should it ever be a crime to listen to someone else's over-the-air broadcasts?

Ah they would be listening to the BBC World Service [wikipedia.org] Founded in 1932 its not funded by the Licence fee, its funded from UK taxes by the UK goverment (specifically the Foreign Office)

(Especially if they're intended for general public distribution and not, say, intercepting cell phone conversations and such... and, of course, actually broadcasting, of course, is a whole 'nother kettle o' fish...)

I wonder if subscription channels will take this view.

Re:TV Licencing (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 7 years ago | (#18100380)

Personally I'm rather happy with the Licence Fee For 11 pounds ($21) a month I get 5 TV channels 11 radio channels .... What do you get for $21/month?

For $7.50 I could get basic cable. That would be ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, UPN, PBS, a couple of independents, c-span, local cable news and some other crap. Most of this I could get off the air, but i'm lazy. Radio, well... I lost track of how many stations there are. There are 25 stations in the basic lineup. Many people who subscribe to basic via other services (typicaly under $15/month) often get standard cable as they are too lazy to install the filter.

For $26.75/month is standard cable, another 53 channels above and beyond the basic 25 channels. There are a couple of shows I watch in this range, including Monk and Stargate.

Most of these are commercial stations.

PBS, off the air, is funded by donations and is somewhat commercial free. In the past they carried much in the way of BBC material.

I'm not trying to be critical of the UK tv license, only trying to put things into perspective.

Re:TV Licencing (1)

mlush (620447) | more than 7 years ago | (#18100920)

Personally I'm rather happy with the Licence Fee For 11 pounds ($21) a month I get 5 TV channels 11 radio channels .... What do you get for $21/month?

Most of these are commercial stations.

PBS, off the air, is funded by donations and is somewhat commercial free. In the past they carried much in the way of BBC material.

I'm not trying to be critical of the UK tv license, only trying to put things into perspective.
If you will pardon my snippage

OK you get about 80 stations for $26 How many are actually worth watching? and would your like them better if they had no ads :-) and better still could be critical about any company without worrying about loss of Ad revenue.

There is also Freeview [freeview.co.uk] which is getting increaingly good 40 odd free channels with about 5-10 digital only commercial channels with anything worth watching (Freeview would have died without Aunty comming in an giving the kiss of life, she's rather keen on going digital)

I'm not saying the system is prefect but for the most part I like what there doing with my money

Re:TV Licencing (1)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 7 years ago | (#18101406)

There is also Freeview which is getting increaingly good 40 odd free channels with about 5-10 digital only commercial channels with anything worth watching (Freeview would have died without Aunty comming in an giving the kiss of life, she's rather keen on going digital)

But most of Freeview is commercial channels, who don't get any of the licence fee money (and it seems like a large percentage of Freeview is shopping channels and "phone in and win" channels). The only reason why the BBC and the other Freeview broadcasters are so in to Freeview is that isn't controlled by Sky (or NTL/Virgin - but they're mostly afraid of Sky). They had to rush in and give DTV a kiss of life because ITV so massively screwed up with ON Digital (it's somewhat unsurprising that On Digital failed - who in their right mind would have paid almost as much as a basic Sky/Cable subscription for what was such a paltry line up.)

Re:TV Licencing (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 7 years ago | (#18101940)

The only reason why the BBC and the other Freeview broadcasters are so in to Freeview is that isn't controlled by Sky (or NTL/Virgin - but they're mostly afraid of Sky).

Actually, I think Freeview is essentially part-owned by Sky - not sure how much control they have, though, especially since Ofcom probably wouldn't be too happy if they tried anything.

Re:TV Licencing (1)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 7 years ago | (#18100602)

Personally I'm rather happy with the Licence Fee For 11 pounds ($21) a month I get 5 TV channels 11 radio channels (all of which are actually worth watching/listening to)

I'm not happy about it, and no, those 5 TV channels and 11 radio stations aren't worth it. More importantly I'm not happy that I have to pay it, even though I don't watch or listen those stations and that if I don't pay it (but still want to watch channels that I do want to watch) I get a 1000 pound fine or go to jail. I'm not happy about what is essentially a regressive tax, that sends poor people to jail (11 pounds a month actually means something to some people in this country - after all we have the worst rate of child poverty in western europe so there are plenty of poor families out there).

I know some people feel they get great value out of the BBC (I'm not one of them), but I will never understand why they feel they have the right to force everyone else with a TV to pay for it - especially as BBC TV doesn't really do anything that commercial televisions doesn't do (it did so in the past, but it hasn't in at least 15 years).

Re:TV Licencing (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099996)

The idea of TV licensing has always troubled me, and radio licenses doubly so. There's a saying here in the US that derives from an early Supreme Court case, and it says "the power to tax is the power to destroy". Now, think about that for a moment. Are you comfortable giving the government power to destroy television and/or radio communications? After seeing a few Holocaust-type films [imdb.com] where people secretly listen to the BBC broadcasts on shortwave while their nation is occupied by the Axis during World War II, you might begin to get the notion that this freedom sort of freedom is a good thing. Why should it ever be a crime to listen to someone else's over-the-air broadcasts?

That's not really the issue is it? The issue is citizens in the UK must a license fee to enjoy TV. There seems to be No radio license [bbc.co.uk] . Their world service according to this website is funded by the goverment, not by the TV license.

I don't pretend to know everything about the system in the UK, but the way I see it from cross the pond, they pay money for their programing rather than media being paid for by commercials. Both systems have their merits, but the point becomes moot as cable TV has become popular. It has become even more moot as the net has replaced the need for short wave for planatary broadcasts.

But it looks like you can still listen to the radio including shortwave in your basement without fear of being taxed or arrested. You don't have to do it in secret... but if you enjoy being secret... great.

Re:TV Licencing (1)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 7 years ago | (#18100748)

the way I see it from cross the pond, they pay money for their programing rather than media being paid for by commercials.

It's PBS with a police force, who have a database of every home in the country and everybody who has a TV has to "donate" and everybody has to donate the same amount. They use the database of every home in the country to make sure that pretty much every home has a TV license - if you don't have a licence (and even if you do have one but something went wrong in the bureaucracy) they send you threating letters and/or "send the boys 'round". They also have detector vans patroling the country, looking for stray radiation from unlicensed sets.

Re:TV Licencing (1)

blubadger (988507) | more than 7 years ago | (#18101404)

"PBS with a police force"? There would be an uprising if Brits had to pay 11 pounds a month and all they got was PBS. (And that's the point: you get what you pay for.)

Re:TV Licencing (1)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 7 years ago | (#18101498)

The only reason why there isn't an uprising is that the Licence fee has been around for so long. If they tried to create the BBC from scratch, including a mandatory license fee, there would be such an uproar that it would make the recent road petition look as small as the recent no to id cards petition. Nor could they possibly justify it, as the BBC doesn't do anything that the commercial broadcasters don't do.

Re:TV Licencing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18099356)

In Portugal, they banned the TV tax for a while, and then they added it to your electricity bill...

Try dodging that one...

Re:TV Licencing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18101804)

You've never watched BBC? Just pay your money you tight cunt!

Could this be.... (1)

lanceleader (1050398) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098422)

YouTubes first step in actually making money?

Additional content... (1)

rfernand79 (643913) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098476)

Such as Doctor Who Confidential or Tardisodes, which are not the shows per se, may be distributed this way -- thus freeing up time slots on the beeb for more shows!

Awesome BBC (3, Interesting)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098590)

I think It's awesome that the BBC is going to have YouTube foot the bill for their bandwidth instead of making the UK citizens do it.

Rock on BBC!

Re:Awesome BBC (1)

rmerry72 (934528) | more than 7 years ago | (#18102046)

I think It's awesome that the BBC is going to have YouTube foot the bill for their bandwidth instead of making the UK citizens do it.
A torrent download has the same advantage :-) BBC has lower bandwidth costs. Besides how much bandwidth does it take to suck down a 20MB 320x240 10 min FLV file?

Spelling.... (2, Informative)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098658)

such as classics like 'The Young Ones' or 'Faulty Towers',
That's Fawlty Towers, you insensitive clod from Soviet Russia!

Yeah, I know...it's a quote from the story....
What's journalism coming to?

Re:Spelling.... (1)

Aqua_boy17 (962670) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099440)

That's Manuel Towers you hideous orangutang. Who is man with beard?

God, I loved that show.

What a disaster (1)

pyite69 (463042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098700)

Why does "progress" in media seem to always involve taking high quality video or music, and making it a lot worse?

YouTube videos are a nightmare - the BBC should be embracing bit torrent and as little compression as possible.

If I can see it, I can save it (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098750)

In general, if I can see it on my computer monitor, I can save it for playback later.

Even with DRM I can plant a movie camera in front of my monitor and send the film out to be developed and digitized.

Long Live The Analog Hole.

Young Ones video on YouTube? (1)

YoungOnesTroll (960290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18098816)

Vyvyan: It's a video nasty!

Rick: It's a carpet, farty!

Obligatory Young Ones quote... (1)

jason8 (917879) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099100)

Oh, have you got a video?!

This coming on the heels of this piece of news: (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099216)

YouTube deals fall apart, the center cannot hold [arstechnica.com]

Big content producers are going to want to retain control over their own content, obviously. And it's so easy to do so with the internet. You don't need youtube if you can develop your own video site with flash player and all in six months.

What youtube should do is offer to license its software or host the content, and charge for licensing and/or hosting. It can slap ads on those videos that aren't paying for either service, but not for their paying customers. Licensing their software should also include the stipulation that youtube can link to their content or content page via search results.

Otherwise, youtube would only be good for homemade videos. Which is a large enough market in and of itself. But don't expect big content producers with their own means of putting their videos on the web to sign on.

Just a comment about an error in this post (1)

sudden.zero (981475) | more than 7 years ago | (#18099498)

It says "Shows cannot be downloaded from YouTube. Instead, they're watched online on the YouTube website, or the YouTube player is embedded in other websites for no cost to the user."

However, the first sentence is untrue at least for firefox users. There is a firefox plugin that can be downloaded from the link below:

http://javimoya.com/blog/youtube_en.php [javimoya.com]

This video downloader plugin will allow one to download almost any video from youtube, yahoo video and windows live video!

wedigtv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18099614)

I wonder if the BBC will also consider making their video interactive like you get at www.wedigtv.com [wedigtv.com] ? If they can already make an interactive version of Countdown then it would be great to be able to play The Weakest Link with moody Anne Robinson. I would have thought licensing would be a mess but maybe Auntie's getting receptive towards the internet.

Goodbye.

Fir5t (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18100404)

A BSD BOX THAT Lay down paper paranoid conspiracy BSD has always Sanctions, and

iPlayer alternative (1)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 7 years ago | (#18100904)

Maybe it's to placate the criticism over the Microsoft only iPlayer. If they made the content on iPlayer also available on YouTube (probably with geo locking so that only people in the UK* can watch it) then Mac and Linux people could watch the content as well.

*yeah, I know, proxy servers make such things pointless, but I would still expect them to try.

Finally, some real BBC content for Democracy (1)

LinuxHam (52232) | more than 7 years ago | (#18101332)

I've been using Democracy to download and watch video podcasts, and the BBC's EULA has always been really weird. The closest thing we get to the news is a weekly update from Newsnight, and even then the EULA says we're authorized to subscribe for 7 days.

On another note, Democracy says that you can view Google/YouTube and Yahoo! videos, but while the searches work great, clicking the download link results in "Not Found" 100% of the time. Has anyone else experienced this and found a fix? I'd really like to have daily news updates from the Beeb in Democracy, no matter how it gets there.

Thanks..

youtube (1)

camila17pl (1066800) | more than 7 years ago | (#18101548)

awesome, i cant wait

-----
camila17
visit my site...http://radio.gsm-ok.pl/ [gsm-ok.pl]
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...