Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

BBC Strikes Deal With YouTube

Posted by Zonk on Fri Mar 02, 2007 08:42 AM
from the you-got-your-british-stuck-in-my-tube dept.
Businesses Google The Internet Television Media
twofish writes "Google's YouTube video site will soon be showing content from the BBC in a deal announced today. Auntie Beeb's content will be spread across three different channels, one for news and two for entertainment programmes. Content will include adverts, and clips from shows such as "Top Gear," "The Mighty Boosh," and nature shows narrated by David Attenborough. The deal is likely to be controversial, particularly since the BBC is paid for by a compulsory tax system (the license fee) rather than through advertising or subscription. The article goes on to say that they won't be 'hunting down' people that upload their content to YouTube. Just the same, they reserve the right to take down or remove programmes that have run on their channels which might damage relationships; examples might be football offerings or 'edited' shows."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

BBC Strikes Deal With YouTube 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • This actually seems somewhat reasonable. While I would love for BBC for post these shows advertisement-free, at least they're going to post them in a format that can be viewed in any major browser on varying OSs.

    Is there software to download and store videos from youtube for Linux?

  • Adverts... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sheriff_p (138609) on Friday March 02 2007, @08:50AM (#18206034)
    Worth noting that in the UK, the BBC's "iPlayer" project which is currently being rolled out, will provide ad-free TV-over-IP on-demand for anyone with a UK IP address. Thus, just like BBC America, the BBC's adverts are the BBC's way of maximising the value they offer to the UK public, by getting foreigners to watch 'em.

    -sheriff

  • Finally (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jackharrer (972403) on Friday March 02 2007, @08:50AM (#18206036)
    Finally somebody got into their heads that quality of YouTube is crap and broadcasting programs there will work only as an advertisement. What's the point of suing them if you can work with them and have advertisement for free. If somebody likes their programmes they will watch them on telly anyway. Think about watching Attenborough's programs and thinking: "Are those 20 pixels a lion trying to catch an antilope (other 20 pixels)?"

    And for commercial stations that would be even better - they would be able to add some of advertising, or such.
      • Not necessarily. If it can save YouTube's arse from all lawsuits, it will stay as it is. Not to mention that YouTube's servers are even now sometimes quite hard to access. Better quality means more bandwidth - not the whole world can afford it.
        Or maybe only some part of content will be available in HiRes, like for example definitely legal stuff? Who knows.

  • heads up (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenisNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday March 02 2007, @08:51AM (#18206050) Homepage
    BBC resells the programming to other countries. Like I get BBC World here in Canada (and BBC-K on one of them digital channels). I'm sure my they make money off that. While BBC is paid for by the tax, it's supplemented by the resell royalties.

    I should add that I hate BBC World taunts of Top Gear "Not Available In North America" bullshit. hehehehe. Though it is nice to get sports/news from a diff part of the world.

    Tom
    • As a British licence fee payer I'm glad the BBC is getting a bit of extra cash by selling programmes abroad, but I'd much prefer an arrangement where (say) German viewers can watch BBC television free of charge and we get the German state-owned channels in return. Indeed, since the proportion of BBC funding from overseas television sales is under five percent (see BBC annual report and accounts 2005/06, page 105 - link via Wikipedia) I would prefer to pay a few pounds extra on the licence fee and just let
      • The problem with that is most shows on CBC (equiv idea of BBC in Canada) sucks bad. Aside from a few comedies that is. So it wouldn't be a fair trade :-)

        Though yeah I agree, some sort of "cultural" exchange could benefit all. Try spinning that idea in the US or Canada though... State run TV? sounds like a communist!!! ACK EVIL! :-(

        Tom
  • I'm hoping they put full Top Gear episodes on there, there have been some good ones. My favorites are the Ariel Atom ("so fast it will destroy your face!"), Evo vs. Gallardo, F1 vs. street cars, and there are a few others I can't think of. That guy who does the reviews just cracks me up.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Paulrothrock (685079)

      I particularly like the one where they do a road trip from Miami to New Orleans and conclude that nobody should ever travel to America.

      And I completely agree, and I'm an American.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Paulrothrock (685079)

          Beckham is a poofter.

          Besides, it wasn't just the slogans. They were threatened with a lawsuit for GIVING SOMEONE A CAR.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Skrynesaver (994435)
      To wander totally off topic for a moment, (as I am wont to do), Top Gear started out pretending to be public service broadcasting, you know the sort of thing, consumer advocacy. But Clarkson et. al. have turned it into a juvenile pissing contest. Yes it's fun to see articles on ridiculous cars such as the Evo and the Veyron but it needs more coverage of the real world. More on keeping a 15 year-old Toyota going (not difficult) and less on the relative styling merits of the latest unaffordable McLaren Me
      • Calling Clarkson a journalist is stretching it, he presents a light entertament programme (and a great one at that: Top Gear) for the BBC, and writes a column for the Times as your link shows, however, and your link shows this as well, he writes opinion pieces; he's a columnist, not a journalist. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a funny writer, but calling him a journalist is plain wrong.

  • It's not a tax. It's not compulsory (Score:5, Informative)

    by 91degrees (207121) on Friday March 02 2007, @08:54AM (#18206060) Journal
    It's a licence fee. The money goes to the BBC. Not the government. And you don't have to own a TV, so you don't have to have a licence.

    • Re:It's not a tax. It's not compulsory (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mdwh2 (535323) on Friday March 02 2007, @09:27AM (#18206288) Journal
      That it's a "licence" doesn't mean it also isn't a tax. A tax doesn't have to be paid by everyone - there are many taxes which only have to be paid by some people. That's like saying income tax isn't compulsory because you don't have to have a job, or council tax isn't compulsory because you don't have to own a property...

      It's a tax AND a licence. And, like most taxes, it's compulsory for people who fulfil a certain criterion (in this case, owning a TV).

      The only real difference is that the money doesn't go to the Government as you say, although this isn't that different to any other taxation money which the Government hands to private companies for services. The BBC still have the Government backing to be able to enforce it (clearly, no other TV company has the right to "licence" its services this way).
      • Question. If you own a TV in the UK but don't use it for viewing television programs (like hooking it up to an Atari 2600 full time,) do you still have to pay the license fee?

        Bill

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by mystik (38627)
          Techincally no ... [tvlicensing.co.uk] But it seems they put you on a "list" if you do it this way.
        • No. You only have to pay the license fee if you have equipment set up to receive TV signals. So if you've got an Atari plugged in instead of an aerial, no license needed. On the other hand if you have a computer with a TV card, or even just a standalone VCR connected to an aerial (and power), then you do have to pay.
        • No, you don't have to pay it if you just plug a game console into it. You would need to show that you don't have the aerial plugged in. I have a friend who has a TV but only uses it for watching videos/DVDs. She doesn't have to pay the license either.

          MOre info here [tvlicensing.co.uk].
        • You don't have to as long as the TV is not tunable to terrestrial broadcasts. In practice, you'd probably get hounded for years, especially if you used to have a license and then stopped having one. Frankly I'd happily pay twice as much for the license as I think the BBC do a damn good job of producing quality programs (Eastenders excepted of course).
        • No. I've got a few friends who use monitors for their film and video work and one's even been visited by the licence people to check. Bottom line seems to be that if you've got it plugged into an antenna, you're probably watching tv so you need a licence. But the emphasis in law is on them proving that you were watching tv, rather than you proving you were not. They can't fine you (for not having a licence) until they can prove you were watching tv (detector van outside your house). It's a known dodge in sq

      • Advertising tax (Score:4, Insightful)

        by oliverthered (187439) <`moc.liamtoh' `ta' `derehtrevilo'> on Friday March 02 2007, @09:53AM (#18206564)
        Just like the Advertising tax I pay (indirectly) to Rupert Murdoch every time I buy something from the shops. I I don't even own a satellite dish or read the sun.

        I think I'll stick with paying the BBC upfront.

  • Censored (Score:4, Informative)

    by naich (781425) on Friday March 02 2007, @08:56AM (#18206070) Homepage
    "they reserve the right to take down or remove programmes that have run on their channels which might damage relationships"

    And ones that show how they were involved in the 9/11 conspiracy!

    That's a joke, BTW :)
  • I love that show, but the quality over youtube is fine for a few minutes, not for an hour long show.

    BT still wins in that case.
    www.finalgear.com in case anyone cares
  • People seem to be thinking this is entire episodes- so far all that's been announced are clips. I'd be very surprised if the BBC moved to allowing regular episodic content to go to YouTube, especially given they're going to be putting a lot of their efforts behind their own iPlayer project now.
    • It's also not available to UK residents at all.. which I find quite bizarre, given that I helped pay for that programme.

      I heard rumours they were going to do the same with itunes - allow BBC programmes on it but not to UK residents (less of an issue I guess because itunes only has video support in the US).
  • I don't even want to get remotely used to watching the BBC with advertisements!

    They don't have any now and this is one of the main things I like about the BBC. And what would be there to prevent people from skipping the adverts on Youtube anyway?

    The BBC needs to remain neutral, non-partisan and informal; a public service! It seems to be forgetting that more and more recently since the Iraq War fiasco [bbc.co.uk]. When Greg Dyke resigned after:

    He said his sole aim had been to defend the BBC's independence and "act in the public interest".

    I don't understand why he had to resign for that.

  • Really, it's up to the submitter of this article to read the thing first!

    From the article you will note that one of the entertainment channels will be a "public service" channel with no advertising. It will only show clips and short features.

    The other entertainment channel will be run by BBC Worldwide, a wholly owned COMMERCIAL SUBSIDIARY of the public service BBC. This channel will be funder by advertising. It is worth noting that all BBC Worldwide profits are put directly back into the BBC, thus reducing

  • Can they use this on their news site? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by theurge14 (820596) on Friday March 02 2007, @10:26AM (#18206914)
    Perhaps we will get more choices of BBC news video to watch than in RealPlayer format.

    I only ask this because I believe RealPlayer is Satan's media player.
  • Beeb content has been showing up on Google Video for a while now, mostly because Google Video doesn't impose a 10 minute limit. And I personally like it because Google lets me download things for my iPod and PSP, which is especially nice when my laptop is doing some heavy lifting stuff. Hopefully Google will at least drag those features into YouTube.

  • Just on a technicality (Score:3, Informative)

    by sparkz (146432) on Friday March 02 2007, @07:41PM (#18213938) Homepage
    The license fee is not a "compulsory tax system". If you own a TV (or TV tuner card for your PC, etc), then you must have a BBC License. It's cheaper than most of the "commercial" alternatives, and offers what is widely regarded as the best programming on the planet.

    Yes, I'm British.

    Yes, I pay the license fee. (It's about 1 month's worth of Council Tax, and I get a far greater benefit from it).

    Do I mind that they're "giving it away" on YouTube? Only (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/re view-report-research/pvt_iplayer/bbctrust_pwcrepor t_pva_annexe.pdf seems to be the best link I can find; they'd like to "give away" TV downloads, so long as it's WinXP and WMP 10, to support DRM restrictions so that you can watch within 30 days of download, given that it will self-destruct within 7 days of first viewing). Well, it's good that it's available. It's not good if it's on limited terms to license-fee payers, but available for anyone who can rip from YouTube under whatever terms you choose.
    • And national defense

    • Re:A compulsory Tax system (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Odiumjunkie (926074) on Friday March 02 2007, @08:58AM (#18206082)
      >..is the perfect way to fund public goods, like information.

      It's not really a "compulsory" tax. You're obliged to pay the license fee if you own a television tuner set to recieve broadcast television stations.

      This is, as you might imagine, ludicrously difficult to enforce. I'm a student, I use a tv tuner card, and I sure as hell don't pay £130 or whatever it is per year. How exactly am I going to be forced to pay the license fee? I get threatening letters often (which is the primary tactic the license fee collection agency use to get people to pay up) but if a license inspector ever comes to my property and asks to come in to verify I don't own an operational tv tuner, I'll politely tell him to fsck off.

      From there, the only way he can get access to my property is to get a warrant from a judge, based on zero evidence that I'm doing anything wrong. Good luck there.

      The license fee collection agencry is an RIAA type agency that uses scare tactics and ignorance to collect its money. The only people who get fined tend to be relatively poor people who don't pay for a license but also don't realise that they have the legal right to refuse entry to a license inspector. An inspector calls round, demands to be let in, the person lets them in, shows them the tv, and they get a fine to the order of several thousand pounds.

      The whole system is ludicrous, outdated and monstrously inefficient. We would be much better served if an independent body determined an appropriate level of funding for the BBC year-on-year, and the money came from general taxation.
      • What if you have a tv tuner in your computer?
        What if you never watch tv, but your laptop came with a tv tuner. are you supposed to pay as well?
        • Yes, unless you get the receiver disabled. Same as if you buy a TV, and only use it for video/playstation/whatever

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Gibsnag (885901)
            Or if you don't have an aerial (unless thats what you meant). My friend's family owns a TV for DVDs, but doesn't own an aerial (they live in a secluded hamlet in a valley, I'm not sure if they even get reception). They had an inspector call around because of their lack of a television license but once they showed him that they didn't have an aerial he buggered off.
        • No.

          You only need pay if your TV (box, laptop, PCI card) is attached to the aerial. Damn difficult to prove without a warrant. Asfter all, you can always detact the coaxial and coil it up to the wall if you ever decide to let them in. Takes a couple of minutes while your other half delays them at the door. Then say you just use the TV for DVDs and games consoles.

          As it happens I truly believe that people who avoid paying this are dishonest scum and deserve a right royal twatting. There you go.

      • Re:A compulsory Tax system (Score:4, Informative)

        by Ash Vince (602485) on Friday March 02 2007, @09:58AM (#18206600) Journal
        Not to worry, when the Conservative government get in at the next election they will end the current system. They have promised Rupert Murdock they will do this some time ago.

        On your point of them being a RIAA type organisation I think you are taking this a bit far. They are actually pretty fair. The reason they let you off being a student for instance is that they know that in all probability your parents have a TV licence and you can claim that is your primary residence. They have access to the register of voters (electoral role) and can use this see if anyone at that address is registered to vote.

        The poster below makes a valid point regarding new TV purchases though, but this also extends to your TV card. Now all retailers who sell any equiptment capable of picking up a TV signal are required to get your details and hand them on to the TV licence people. If you refuse to provide them they are legally obliged to refuse to sell you what you want. If you buy on any sort of card they dont ask, they just get the details via your bank.

        They also do have the ability to pick up the RF signal that cathode ray tubes generate, and then decode an image (Van Eck Phreaking - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking [wikipedia.org]). Thus if a TV license inspector arrives at your door and you are watching TV they usually know what channel you are watching.

        They do not however have any rights of entry to your property, so can be told to sod off and come back with the police and a search warrant. I am not aware of any incidences where they have come back with the police, but I expect in the worst cases where they can proove that the person does have the money for a TV licence but simply chooses not to buy one they probably do.

        You point about them only fining poor people is a bit harsh. You imply that people who are poor do not know they have the right to refuse entry to their home. This is complete rubbish, I have lived on a council estate for years and believe me, most residents knew exactly what the score was in this regard.

        It is also worth noting that under british law they are unable to fine you more money than you can afford to pay, so the several thousand pounds bit is crap too. When you arrive in court you have to fill out a form detailing your assets. The only way you can be fined more than you can afford is if you refuse to disclose your assets or if you fail to turn up in court, neither of which are a particularly good idea as the british legal system takes a very dim view of this.

      • Re:A compulsory Tax system (Score:4, Interesting)

        by SenseiLeNoir (699164) on Friday March 02 2007, @11:16AM (#18207582)
        Well IF you have a TV tuner, and you have not paid the License, you are breaking the law. FACT.

        You may not AGREE to the Licensing laws, but they are law, and if you break them, you will expect to be prosecuted.

        The fact that you can "politely tell the inspector to 'fuck off'" is a method use for GENUINE people who DON'T have a tuner, to not be bugged insistently by the inspector. For example, an inspector can't just continuously bug a person, just because he or she THINKS you have a TV, there is a due process involving getting a warrant, before searching private property. Sure it does make it a little harder to enforce, but it does help prevent abuse by the Agency, or a particular Inspector trying to make his name.

        The whole system is ludicrous, outdated and monstrously inefficient. We would be much better served if an independent body determined an appropriate level of funding for the BBC year-on-year, and the money came from general taxation.
        Highly Hypocritical, here you are, boasting away that you didn't pay for your license, you took advantage of certain "rights" (need for a warrant before a search), in order to not get caught, then talk about the "poor" who cannot get away with it, like you do.

        And you wonder why its all inefficient, and pointless, and then later you probably complain when we loose essential freedoms, such as the right to request a warrant, and then before we know it, there will be further privacy implications as the Government tries new invasive stuff, to catch people like you, and make the system efficient.

        No, the system would work, if people like YOU don't try to scam it, and instead be honest.
        • They don't "sweep an area", they park their vans outside houses which are in their database as not having a license around the time the residents are coming home from work. I'm not sure how technically effective the vans are, probably just more scare tactics to prompt you into getting a license.
          • They don't "sweep an area", they park their vans outside houses which are in their database as not having a license around the time the residents are coming home from work. I'm not sure how technically effective the vans are, probably just more scare tactics to prompt you into getting a license.

            In Old Blighty, TV watches YOU.
          • They don't use the vans as a scare tactic any more because they don't work.. they've admitted they have a big database and use that instead.

            They might have worked in 1950 when maybe one in 10 houses had a TV, no computers, etc. but there's so much electrical noise now that I doubt you could pinpoint a single TV set in an average street with any accuracy.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by jaweekes (938376)
            They do more then just sit there. (from http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/tvdetecto rvans.jsp [tvlicensing.co.uk])

            How do the detector vans work?
            We have a range of detection tools at our disposal in our vans. Some aspects of the equipment have been developed in such secrecy that engineers working on specific detection methods work in isolation - so not even they know how the other detection methods work. This gives us the best chance of catching licence evaders.

            What if you can't get close enough to detect my TV
    • Then how do you explain that there are several examples of flourishing television content production without any compulsory tax funding? Like, for example, HBO. HBO continues to create great shows that lots of people will voluntarily pay for. HBO does not need the tax man, armed cops, and prisons to make it work.
      • Public funding is, in my opinion, the best way to get zero-marginal-cost goods paid for, but not the only way. God bless anyone who can make another system work.

        To correct your misperception, though: HBO *does need armed cops and prisons to sustain their business. Test the theory by subscribing to HBO, recording everything they broadcast, and setting up your own competitive station charging less for the same programming.

        You will quickly learn that HBO *can charge for their service only because of a governme
      • But you can't watch their content (legally) on YouTube, dummy. That was the point of the GP.
    • I've posted about my troubles with the TV licence people. I did just a couple of days ago, get it in writing that I do not have to pay for a TV licence - even though I have a TV. I wrote a story on it here. [celardore.net]
    • This makes for two parallel systems:

      1. Information the government wants to be available, which is produced by tax money and consumers can get for free.
      2. Information the government would rather you didn't have, which costs consumers money.

      Do you really want the government deciding what information should be easily accessible? Do you want people to be bribed to consume government propaganda?

    • Re:Here in Germany we also have compulsory taxes.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 02 2007, @09:45AM (#18206456)
      German is a truly terrifying language. The names of those departments scares the crap out of me just from reading them.


      Even "Squirrel Hugging Department" translates to something like Eichhörnchenumarmendienst, which is enough to cause immediate French surrender by merely thinking it loudly.

      • If your TV sits in the corner, unplugged and gathering dust through lack of use then you don't have to pay for the license.

        Maybe it should be a "tax on anyone who chooses to use a television"?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.