Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses The Internet Television Media

BBC Strikes Deal With YouTube 156

Posted by Zonk
from the you-got-your-british-stuck-in-my-tube dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BBC Strikes Deal With YouTube

Comments Filter:
  • ..is the perfect way to fund public goods, like information.
    • And national defense
    • by Odiumjunkie (926074) on Friday March 02, 2007 @09:58AM (#18206082) Journal
      >..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.
      • by fymidos (512362)
        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?
        • by sheriff_p (138609)
          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.
        • by tomknight (190939)
          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.
      • by digitig (1056110)

        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.

        It's more general than that. To quote their website [tvlicensing.co.uk], "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." And if you look at the small print on the license you find that you don't only need a license to watch or record the TV, you need a license to be in posession of equipment /capable/ of watching or recording TV. So if any TV company anywhere pu

        • by g_attrill (203506)
          No, you need a licence to own equipment which is capable of receiving a television broadcast and which is used for doing so. A detuned television or video recorder does not require a licence, nor does a TV card used for capturing non-broadcast video. TV Licensing used to have a more comprehensive and clear FAQ on their website, but they removed it in favour of more confusing text to avoid people realising they don't actually require a licence.
      • by Ash Vince (602485) on Friday March 02, 2007 @10:58AM (#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.
      • 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.

        The TVLA keeps insisting that you need a licence to watch streaming video on your computer and on your cellphone too.

        They seem to want to have their cake and eat it - either the TV licence covers the internet and thus the BBC can't derive advertising revenue from it, or the TV licence doesn't cover the internet and therefore you don't need one to receive conten
      • by SenseiLeNoir (699164) on Friday March 02, 2007 @12:16PM (#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.
    • 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
        • There is a big difference. Public funding is a nice way of saying 'force taxation for everyone'. No indvidual discretion is allow.

          With HBO, however, there is a choice. Consumers who dislike HBO for any reason, including their copyright enforcement policy, can voluntarily decide not to participate.
      • by say (191220)
        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]
    • by qbzzt (11136)
      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?
  • 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 @09:50AM (#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 @09:50AM (#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.
    • by putch (469506)
      you realize of course that youtube's video quality capabilities will only increase over time. probably rapidly.
      • 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.
    • by bogjobber (880402)
      I don't know, this Top Gear [youtube.com] video looks pretty good. The quality's as good as what I would expect to get in an over the air broadcast.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Not compulsory taxation. It's a subscription, it's just that you take out the subscription by owning a TV (or other device capable of receiving TV signals).
    • by mdwh2 (535323)
      It's a compulsory tax on anyone with a TV - I think it's reasonable to say that.

      "Subscription" on the other hand is misleading, as you are not choosing to subscribe to the BBC's services, it's something that has to be paid for a TV whether you watch the BBC or not. At the least it would be a compulsory subscription for when you buy a TV.

      I'm not against the TV licence, but the summary is quite accurate and I see no reason to use misleading words to try to pretend it's just like any other TV service you can c
      • by throup (325558)
        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"?
    • by kbox (980541)
      So even if i never watch (or want to watch) BBC shows i have to pay for the "subscription" simply because i own a device capable of receiving it. Sounds fair. I can't wait until Microsoft use the same logic and force me to buy a windows licence for using my PC running Linux, Simply because my PC is capable of running windows. The licence fee is the reason i threw my TV away. I still get the Capita Nazis (people who enforce the licence fee) knocking at my door asking of i have a TV licence, Then when i tel
      • by DCBoland (700327)
        The BBC is a national service, like the NHS...
        Its programming is used every day in schools, its website is great for children's revision and they have a remit to work toward the public good e.g. innovating with TVoIP. The fact that the tax only applies when a signal-recieving TV is owned is something of a 'gift', Id fully support the BBC being run purely on public taxes simply because the benefits of it are immensurate.
        The 'free market' ideology where you pay for the TV subscriptions you want has led to the
      • Well actually you don't. I used to know a Dutch friend who took the time to look into it and when the licensing folk sent him threatening letters he wrote back and explained that he only watched DVDs. He owned a tv, freely admitted it, refused to pay the fee and got no trouble from them. Of course there are people with very different experiences of these kind-hearted sould so YMMV.
  • heads up (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenisNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday March 02, 2007 @09:51AM (#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
    • Yeah, I don't see why anyone would create a controversy over this. If the BBC is going to distribute their programs to foreign markets, which is more fair? For them to raise more money through advertising in YouTube clips and fees to cable networks (thus giving them more budget for new programs)? Or to give away to foreigners what people in the UK are paying for?
    • by Ed Avis (5917)
      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:2, Insightful)

        by Moofie (22272)
        Right, because if you spray-painted "Beckham is a Poofter!" on your car and drove it through rough neighborhoods in Great Britain, they'd offer you tea.
        • 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:2, Insightful)

            by Moofie (22272)
            Yep. That was, indeed, a dick move by a very sleazy lawyer.

            What does that have to do with the rest of the population of the United States?

            In my travels, when I treat people with courtesy and respect, that's what I get back. Clarkson is constitutionally incapable of same (I'm pretty sure his enormous head would assplode), so people treat him like a dick. Which works, because he IS a dick. A sometimes-fairly-entertaining dick, but the man is a still a dick. May and Hammond hang around with him, so they g
          • Don't believe that everything Jeremy Clarkson says is true, this is television. Don't even believe that the whole 'hicksville up in arms' thing wasn't a set-up. That piece wouldn't've been much cop if they'd just driven across the Gulf coast.
      • by VJ42 (860241) *
        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.
      • Idiots like him give journalism a bad name. In this era of climate change, all the pro-car ranting sems more and more anticuated and idiotic.

        It is also horribly ironic that one of the presenters almost died due to the unnecessary idiotic stunts they push themselves to do and the rampant disregard for security measures for drivers.
    • 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
  • by 91degrees (207121) on Friday March 02, 2007 @09:54AM (#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.
    • by mdwh2 (535323) on Friday March 02, 2007 @10:27AM (#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).
      • by wjsteele (255130)
        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].
        • by Psiren (6145)
          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
      • by 91degrees (207121)
        I strive for accuracy. The licence may appear to be a tax, and have many things in common with it, but from a legal point of view, it is different in much the same way as the BBC is a public body, not a governmental body. Don't pay it and you won't be charged with tax evasion. You will be charged with not paying your TV licence. It's remarkably similar, but calling it a tax is technically incorrect.

        As for compulsory, that's just hyperbole. There's a compulsory fee for buying groceries. It's called t
        • I strive for accuracy. The licence may appear to be a tax, and have many things in common with it, but from a legal point of view, it is different in much the same way as the BBC is a public body, not a governmental body. Don't pay it and you won't be charged with tax evasion. You will be charged with not paying your TV licence. It's remarkably similar, but calling it a tax is technically incorrect.

          If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is genetically identical to a duck, it's not a duck if yo
      • Advertising tax (Score:4, Insightful)

        by oliverthered (187439) <olivertheredNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Friday March 02, 2007 @10:53AM (#18206564) Journal
        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.
        • by jez9999 (618189)
          There was me thinking that there was this miraculous thing called 'subscription', whereby people who actually wanted to use a service were the ones who paid for it. Must've dreamt it.
          • by fm6 (162816)
            Subscriptions and purchases don't even begin to cover the cost of publishing a mass-circulation newspaper or magazine. Their role as a revenue stream is actually less important the audit trail they create, which helps convince advertisers that their ads are being seen by the right people.
      • by dave420 (699308)
        Yeah! It's so stupid! I even have to pay an internet tax to my ISP just to use the internet! And a phone tax to my mobile phone provider just to use the phone I bought! What the fuck is up with all these taxes everywhere?!?
  • Censored (Score:4, Informative)

    by naich (781425) on Friday March 02, 2007 @09:56AM (#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 :)
  • by Anonymous Coward
    ...for the so called "Öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk" Radio and TV. An organization called GEZ ("Gebühreneinzugszentrale") makes sure everyone pays this tax. They go to houses and ask people to let them in (some people think they have to).

    The problem is that the german Radio and TV stations like to expand their offers to new media like Satellite and Internet without asking the citizens. So now we have to pay these compulsory taxes also for owning a satellite dish or owning a computer(!). Even com
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 02, 2007 @10:45AM (#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.

      • by caluml (551744)
        It's similar in Russian. You could write "I love fluffy bunnies", but in Cyrillic it would look like "SUPER DEADLY POLONIUM". Russian lettering just looks like it has something to do with nuclear something.
  • 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
  • License payers fund it. What resolution will these offerings be and what codec?
  • 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.
    • by Tony Hoyle (11698)
      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).
    • by SteveDob (449830)
      Exactly. People could always read the BBC's own announcment of the deal, which goes into more detail about the what, when, and who of it all
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6411017.stm [bbc.co.uk]

      There is even part of the deal that those of us in the UK that paid for it will be denied access to, although I don't actually have an issue with that, as I already get to see the full version of what the rest of the world will only get clips of.
  • Hopefully the find the missing footage from 9/11 that they claim to have lost and post it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part _of_the_conspiracy.html [bbc.co.uk] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EuK3tCihJ0 [youtube.com]
    • And we all know anyone part of a cabal evil beyond imagination would when asked be honor-bound to answer "Well...we are part of a conspiracy to overthrow the last vestiges of western democracy and enslave you and your descendants forever, yes."

      I guess that's the logical equivalent of those big, flashing "SELF-DESTRUCT" buttons evil villains always seem to have in their command centers.

      As far as the constant response of "move along, nothing to see here" (in this case quite literally!), a metaphor from
  • by styryx (952942)
    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
  • A compulsory tax. As opposed to an optional one?
  • by theurge14 (820596) on Friday March 02, 2007 @11:26AM (#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.
    • The BBC's R&D department created a wavelet-based video codec called Dirac [wikipedia.org], and released it as open source. There are some commits to the CVS in the last few days, so the project's not dead. I don't know what they're planning to do with the codec, though.
  • 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.
  • Not soon... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Arrawa (681474)
    Now: http://www.youtube.com/bbc [youtube.com]
  • Britons will pay once in taxes, then again in their time wasted on these ads and other crap. Meanwhile, everyone watching the extra crap will be thereby paying for content Britons have already paid to produce.

    Maybe if the UK lowered the taxes by the amount it receives from Google for the ads, that might resemble fairness. But even then, the UK has not gone through a process OK'ing the switch from taxes to advertising (or something else). Until it actually switches, it should just broadcast the content, and
  • by sparkz (146432) on Friday March 02, 2007 @08:41PM (#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.
  • Those who worked for any PBS station in America remembers how exorbitant the licensing fees were for BBC programs such as Dr. Who and Blakes 7. The BBC made a fortune off Dr. Who in the 70's and 80's and from what I have been told, Blakes 7 was more costly than NOVA. The BBC now outsources Dr. Who to the Sci-Fi network and makes money off of that, as well as making money off of BBC America, both from ads and fees charged to the cable/satellite companies. I don't see why the BBC needs to collect fees anym
  • I have just posted a comment on the Foxsearchlight featured movie, it is not viewable because it skips like freak.

    The previous format works a lot better...

    Sorry to announce this, but the previous method of offering as quicktime files were a lot easier than this flash-only format which -S . K . i . . P s- continuesly; ruining the entire movie experience.

    I'm already looking for years at these movies and found most movies very intruiging and well done. References are Farm Sluts, Kid Bang, Hangtime and even Paco's suitcase bomb for it's total stupidity ;)

    This is no longer possible in this way,

    Please atleast offer the latter method too? I'm not on a dial-up but I am overseas. The previous format did not skip because it was downloaded, it was also in *much* better quality to view without all blobs inbetween.

    Thanks in advance,
    a very interested foxsearchlight viewer.

    Gunther.

It seems that more and more mathematicians are using a new, high level language named "research student".

Working...